HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-26 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting May 26, 1998 1. Interviews for Historic Resources Board...............86-307 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.............86-307 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................86-308
1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and O=Grady Paving Inc. For the 1998 Street Resurfacing Program...............86-308 2. Second Amendment to Agency Agreement for a Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee....................................86-308 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Casto Roofing, Inc. For the Mitchell Park Recreation Center and Mitchell Park Library Re-Roof Project - CIP 19514...................86-308 4. Amendment No. 1 to Lease between City of Palo Alto and Friends
of the Children=s Theatre for Phase 2 of the Project to Improve the Theatre...................................86-308 5. Evaluation of Proposal to Establish an Advisory Body for the Libraries.............................................86-308 6. 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 Community (PC) Zone...................................86-313 7. 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 $650,000 for Capital Improvement Project 19406, Rinconada Pool Site Improvements...............86-327 8. Mayor Rosenbaum and Council Members Eakins and Wheeler re Proposed Delay of Historic Ordinance and Related Directions to Staff.................................................86-331
05/26/98 86-305
9. Mayor Huber re Cancellation of the Monday, June 1, 1998, City Council Meeting.......................................86-341 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m............86-341
05/26/98 86-306
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:12 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler (arrived at 6:15 p.m.) SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Historic Resources Board No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
05/26/98 86-307
Regular Meeting May 26, 1998 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding Midtown - large house. Paula Richman, 2579 Emerson Street, spoke regarding Midtown construction. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding good government (submitted correspondence). Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, spoke regarding the historic preservation ordinance. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 4.
1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and O=Grady Paving Inc. For the 1998 Street Resurfacing Program 2. Second Amendment to Agency Agreement for a Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Casto Roofing, Inc. For the Mitchell Park Recreation Center and Mitchell Park Library Re-Roof Project - CIP 19514 4. Amendment No. 1 to Lease between City of Palo Alto and Friends
of the Children=s Theatre for Phase 2 of the Project to Improve the Theatre MOTION PASSED 8-0, for Item No. 1, Eakins Αnot participating.≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 2 - 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. Evaluation of Proposal to Establish an Advisory Body for the Libraries (Continued from April 13, 1998)
05/26/98 86-308
City Manager June Fleming had been in consultation with Council Member Huber on the issue of establishing an advisory body for the libraries. The recommendation contained in the staff report (CMR:133:98) was the result of a decision process which the Council had approved in response to staff's recommendation regarding a process used when requests for new boards and/or commissions were presented. The procedure and process had been approved by the Council and had been impartially applied to the recommendation before the Council. The recommendation was the first application of the new system and faced its fiercest and harshest tests. The request had been brought to the Council in response to many supporters of the City library system, an institution which staff readily admitted was embedded in the history of the community. The proposal was a draft proposal and not a staff recommended plan. The proposal had been viewed by many as staff's final recommendation, but that was not the case. The Master Plan was the result of staff's analysis of what had been heard from participants as to what was wanted in each library. The Master Plan was the starting point leading to discussions for a final recommendation to be brought to the Council via the existing committee structure. Staff had no final recommendation at the current time. The final recommendation would be developed only after extensive community input. The formation of an advisory body. It was about how the advice was relayed to the Council, i.e., whether the advice should come directly to the Council after a process or plan was complete or through an advisory group to the City Manager and then included with whatever item was brought to the Council. She brought the recommendation for a procedure to the Council and had, since the last meeting, given the matter serious thought and consideration. She had listened intently to representatives from the Friends of the Palo Alto City Library (the Friends). The final conclusion was the process for deciding the status of boards and/or commissions was endorsed by the Council, which was as a valid one. However, in the current instance, the majority of the community had spoken very clearly with a single voice. She had spoken with the community and respectfully listened to requests. She further had spoken with various members of the Council about the proposal, particularly Council Member Huber. It was essential that the recommendation before the Council resulted in providing staff with direct recommendations on how to proceed. The Council was asked to lay aside the initial recommendation and direct staff to return to the Council in the fall with a recommendation for the formation of an advisory library commission, appointed by and reporting to the City Council. Staff requested clear direction in order to return with a proposal on the body's charter, makeup, role, and relationship to the Council. Staff would ensure the recommendation returned to the Council with the advisory body functioning as an advisory body to the Council. She would stop any further work on the Library Master Plan until the body had been established and held its initial meetings. No serious delay would be seen, since it was essential that the body take as one of its first tasks participation in the development of the final recommendation and review the staff
05/26/98 86-309
recommendation for the Council. Thanks were given to the Friends and its representatives, particularly Mary Jean Place, who worked with great patience, understanding, advice, and wisdom. Thanks were also given to the Council for patiently remaining in their policy role on such a sensitive issue. Special thanks was given to Council Member Huber who, in his own quiet and effective way, had been a sounding board and yet preserved the sanctity of his role as a policy maker. Her strong belief in government allowed her to say with conviction and force that the process worked. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to approve
the City Manager=s recommendation that the Library Advisory Commission be a Council-appointed committee. Council Member Fazzino thanked the City Manager for her efforts over the past five years to listen to members of the community and the Council. Council Member Huber was thanked for his efforts in helping to make the recommendation a reality. A library commission had been in place in the City from 1909 to 1950 which had been tremendously important in guiding and developing the outstanding library system the City had in place. One of the biggest mistakes of the 1950 City Charter change, in the establishment of the City Manager's form of government, was the elimination of many City commissions, particularly the Library Commission. Given the many critical issues facing the library system, such as future of the branches, possible consolidation, technology, staffing, a library commission could be helpful in assisting the City Manager and the Council. Over the prior few months, a tremendous amount of interest had been expressed by the community regarding library issues. In order to achieve community consensus regarding the future of the libraries, it was very important to have a direct sounding board for the public to address the Council. He supported the recommendation and thanked the City Manager for her efforts to listen to the community, understand the concerns, and recognize how important libraries were to Palo Altans. During a recent study, it was revealed the Bay Area had the second most highly educated concentration of people in the country next to the Ann Arbor area. Council Member Huber thanked Ms. Fleming. With the changes in the community, technology, and what libraries did, it was particularly important that the Council dealt directly with the commission. AMENDMENT: Council Member Huber moved to amend the motion as follows: 1) to provide a review of the Library Advisory Commission at the end of a year of its initiation; 2) that the Commission have a sunset clause; and 3) that the City Manager establish a reasonable number of meetings of the Library Advisory Commission each year. Council Member Fazzino said a two-year review was more realistic. Concern was expressed for including a sunset clause for only the Library Commission. Evaluating commissions on a regular basis made
05/26/98 86-310
sense to determine whether value was added to the City, but a special sunset clause for the Library Commission should not be established. AMENDMENT REVISED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE SECONDER: 1) to provide for a review of the Library Advisory Commission after two years of its initiation. Council Member Huber was interested in seeing a sunset clause for all of the boards and commissions. Council Member Kniss appreciated Ms. Fleming's comments. One of her commitments during her bid for Council Member in 1989 had been not to close libraries early, and she would not want to see any libraries closed. In addition to the incredible number of letters and support for the libraries, the fact libraries offered more than just reading materials and books had to be acknowledged. Libraries were gathering places for much of the community. Whether or not some aspects of the libraries could be streamlined was something to be considered. The City's libraries had not stayed as up to date as other cities, particularly cities with only one or two libraries. The Library Commission would show the City see how libraries interacted with the community and how the community could be better served. The Council should be informed about what actually went on in the libraries in addition to just picking up books or tapes. In a recent visit to the main library, she found it too noisy to remain because of the many study sessions being held. The review was a good idea. Council Member Wheeler believed that Mary Jean Place had tried to change her mind about libraries four or five years ago. During the intervening years, she had often asked what a Library Commission would do for the City, since there had not been a focus for what the tasks of a commission would be. By the time the City Manager received communication from the Friends, the Friends tried to place better focus on what the duties of a potential commission. Weighing the duties listed in the Friends' letter dated July 17, 1997, against the criteria that had been established, the City Manager came to a very logical conclusion in terms of separating the duties of a commission and an advisory body. Since that time, what the Friends had articulated was more in keeping with the duties of a commission. In terms of community involvement in the libraries, it was important to have policy input, policy direction, long-range planning efforts exerted on the library system, timing was also appropriate, with the draft Library Master Plan having just been submitted to the Council. She asked whether sufficient reason would exist for the continuation of a library commission, if a good long-range plan was established. She was willing to talk about the concept of a date certain by which the Council would need to reevaluate the work of the commission and the purpose of the commission to determine whether the body was still necessary in the future. She supported the main motion and would be willing to
05/26/98 86-311
second an amendment by Council Member Huber in terms of the review after a period of approximately eight years. Council Member Ojakian thanked Ms. Fleming for suggesting a Library Commission, which he determined was right. Seeing the magnitude of the Library Master Plan, a great deal of policy issues would face the Council which required a commission. When the Finance Committee discussed infrastructure repairs, it recognized existing infrastructure repairs could be handled within current money-making capabilities, but new infrastructure required new sources of revenue which would be sought through fundraisers. Given the enthusiasm expressed by so many in support of libraries, much help could be gleaned from a Library Commission. Council Member Fazzino's two-year review period was acceptable since it would take some time to review the Library Master Plan, which he hoped the commission would examine in its entirety. The City had had a library commission for 41 years and many cities currently had library commissions. With regard to the Friends' proposal, he suggested consideration be given to residency requirements for the majority of the members, professional experience be a requisite, if possible, and members be allowed to serve several terms. The Friends were thanked for forcing the issue and making the views of the community clear. Tom Wyman was thanked for providing a history of Palo Alto's libraries from its inception. Council Member Mossar came to the meeting ready to fight for a Library Commission and was pleased with Ms. Fleming's recommendation. She suggested a sunset clause be natural rather than specific. The Library Master Plan process would involve the Library Commission, suggesting that part of the process be a recommendation regarding the future status of the Library Commission. Vice Mayor Schneider said it was the first time she had seen the City Manager take a major change from a position she had felt strongly about in the past. It was a wonderful example of what persistence and a well-organized group in the community could accomplish. One of the arguments given by the Friends for a commission as opposed to an advisory group was the ability of a commission, with credibility, to raise funds. She looked forward to much success from the proposed commission. Ms. Fleming envisioned the Library Commission's involvement as not being limited to the Library Master Plan, which should be considered a foundation for the Library Commission. In her years of experience with government and libraries, she knew issues would remain and evolve over time and become more complex as the world became more complex. When the Library Master Plan was at a point of maturity, it would be a good time to consider the continuation of the commission, but she believed other issues would be on the horizon for which such a body would be of great benefit to subsequent Councils and staff in providing advice. The natural
05/26/98 86-312
energy and need for such a body would dictate the longevity of its existence. Council Member Eakins said it would be appropriate for a library commission to focus on policy and long-range planning, it would be appropriate, but she questioned having the Library Commission responsible for raising funds since none of the other commissions were given the same charge. A "reaccreditation condition," rather than a sunset clause, much like universities and colleges had, was a better precedent established for boards and commissions but not required by law. There had to be a starting place. The Library Commission was not being singled out but was a beginning point. Council Member Wheeler asked whether a mandatory review would be acceptable rather than a sunset clause. Council Member Huber agreed. The City Manager in her report back to the Council could consider some appropriate method of reevaluating the Library Commission. Policy makers should conduct some type of review. AMENDMENT RESTATED: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct staff to prepare a proposal for a Library Advisory Commission as follows: 1) to provide a review of the Library Advisory Commission after two years of its initiation; 2) that the Commission have a sunset clause be reviewed at a time to be determined; and 3) that the City Manager establish a reasonable number of meetings of the Commission each year. Council Member Fazzino suggested the same review be applied to other boards and commissions. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 9-0. 6. 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 Community (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. (Continued from May 4, 1998) Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said, in addition to the project description contained in the staff report (CMR:209:98), the applicant proposed to combine the three existing parcels on the site into one parcel. The floor area ratio (FAR) for the project would be approximately 2:1 and two levels of subterranean parking would be provided in addition to 30 parking spaces at grade on the
05/26/98 86-313
site. The public benefit for the proposal currently included the potential relocation of the high tension wires running along the alley behind the site, monetary contributions to improvements including the public park area and the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) area, a Downtown traffic manager, a potential art piece in the plaza, and pedestrian tunnel contributions linking the new PAMF site with Alma Street. The applicant proposed a reduction in the parking rate allocating 68 parking spaces for public use. Staff had encouraged the applicant to apply for the pre-screening because of the proposed concentration of square footage in one location, since the urban design element of the Comprehensive Plan called for greater distribution and discouraged single uses from being located in just one area. In addition, a number of proposed housing units failed to meet minimum allowances under the existing Zoning Ordinance. Only 16 housing units were proposed, but 24 could be provided under the existing zoning, a proposal which would not encourage affordable housing called for in the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Chairperson Bern Beecham said the Planning Commission had recommended passing the application on to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for review but not approval. Half of the Planning Commissioners at the meeting did not approve the application as presented. Regarding the issues raised by staff, the Planning Commission thought the proposal might fit into the neighborhood. Staff had expressed concern the project would use up to 16 percent of the remaining Downtown FAR limit, but the Planning Commission had not seen any specific prohibition against doing so. The Planning Commission was satisfied with the amount of housing proposed for the project, although a few Commissioners indicated the desire for more housing. The Planning Commission agreed with staff on the issue of public benefit, particularly making parking available for the public. The applicant had discussed making valet parking available for Downtown restaurants, but the Planning Commission considered the plan unrealistic and unworkable. The Planning Commission thought moving high voltage lines to Alma Street might not be a benefit to the general public, although desirable for the project. The remaining benefits, primarily financial, were considered inadequate for the project as presented. Council Member Mossar disclosed having followed the project for over a year, had met with Roxy Rapp on several occasions, and more recently had a conversation with Ken Alsman and Steve Player about the project. She lived reasonably close to the project and had an intimate knowledge of the current use at the site. She asked whether staff had evaluated existing conditions, such as the lack of parking and the fact the current use encouraged large vehicles in an area the infrastructure could not support. She also asked whether staff had considered an alternate use because of the problems with the current use.
05/26/98 86-314
Ms. Grote said the primary analysis had been compared to what could be built on the site, recognizing that whatever currently existed on the site would eventually disappear and be redeveloped in some manner. The comparison had been to what existing zoning would allow rather than the existing use. Council Member Mossar said she asked whether any broad-brush economic analysis had been done about the feasibility of building 38 units and what the present zoning would actually yield. Ms. Grote said the reference to 38 units had been if the entire site was residential without an office or retail component. The 24 units related to a mixed-use project. No economic analysis had been conducted of the project. Council Member Mossar asked whether it was possible to built a specific number of housing units, although no guarantee existed for that to occur, given the right set of economics and the right zoning on the .96 acre lot. Ms. Grote replied yes. Council Member Mossar said one of the proposed benefits was partial funding for a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program Downtown. She asked whether it was legally possible for the Council to condition all new development projects from that point forward to pay into a fund to support such a service and whether it could be extended to include the other train station on California Avenue. City Attorney Ariel Calonne replied yes, but a number of steps would be necessary to develop and support such an impact fee, beginning with good Comprehensive Plan policies, a study to demonstrate how such a development contributed, i.e., traffic demand. A coordinating position would be a rationally connected mitigation for the impact being created. It was not a condition easily incorporated but would take a substantial amount of thinking and work to put the prerequisites in place to support legally. Council Member Mossar asked whether it was logical to say that one project would contribute when others in a similar area might not. Mr. Calonne had, for many years, advised caution in terms of how public benefits were used and considered in connection with specific applications and the extent of Council's authority with respect to conditioning a planned community (PC) zoning district. PC zones were not set up in the ordinance as a mitigation or as an offset. No formula could be used to balance the amount of square footage being sought with the amount of public benefit. The ordinance was designed to ensure public benefit initially through the qualities of the site design that the relaxation or change of development standards was necessary in order to provide unusual
05/26/98 86-315
intrinsic benefit on the site. Having established some intrinsic benefit existed in the difference in development standards proposed by a PC as opposed to standard zoning; nothing could stop an applicant from proposing additional benefits. He became concerned when the applicant's proposal turned into what was perceived as a negotiation or tradeoff. A case currently pending in the California Supreme Court in some respects bore out his worst fears about PC zoning potential. The case involved a somewhat similar situation in San Francisco where, unfortunately, a very clear record had been made. If not for the applicant's reluctance to "contribute" $600,000 for replacement housing, the application would have been approved. No real guidance could be given on the logic, but the ad hoc conditioning process was not what the PC zoning process was about. PC zoning was about achieving an intrinsically better project than could be achieved under the development standards. After that was achieved, nothing could stop an applicant from proposing additional benefits. However, it was not a negotiation or quid pro quo, as the ordinance was written. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether the current application was only the second time the prescreening process had been used. Ms. Grote replied yes. Vice Mayor Schneider said even though the PAMF/SOFA CAP was currently under review, the City was still able to use prescreening. Ms. Grote replied yes. The Council was not making a decision but providing comment and general direction to the applicant. Council Member Kniss asked whether the FAR was consistent with something the City had already discussed doing, as referenced in the staff report (CMR:250:98) which mentioned preliminary "CAP develop scenario," but which she thought was not where the City actually was at the current time. Ms. Grote said the staff report (CMR:250:98) summarized the preliminary information from the PAMF/SOFA study. Council Member Kniss asked about the process at the current time. Senior Planner Brian Dolan said staff had recently presented the Council with a mid-point report on the PAMF/SOFA study. Since that time, staff had attempted to come up with one plan incorporating the best elements of the three scenarios presented by the working group as well as the Council's comments voiced that evening. Staff would take the compilation back to the working group on June 4, 1998. Staff had hesitated making the comparison but thought the prescreening should not go by without at least providing a preliminary view of the direction towards which the plan was evolving.
05/26/98 86-316
Council Member Kniss asked about the proposed FAR which, given the current FAR of .4, was five times greater. Mr. Dolan said the current commercial FAR was .4, but additional residential FAR would be allowed as an additive, i.e., in addition to the .4 commercial FAR, either .6 or 1.0 additional residential would be provided, if it could work. No applications for such development had been presented. The only applications for the area were PC applications. Staff was under the impression that the current usage was not necessarily working. Council Member Kniss thought examining the financial aspects of a project was not under the City's purview or charge. Ms. Grote said Council Member Kniss was correct. Staff typically would not conduct a financial analysis. Council Member Kniss said frequently developers would claim a project would not "pencil out" unless the City had done so, however, it was not a Council issue. Council Member Eakins had received a telephone call late that afternoon from someone comparing the size of the proposal to City Hall, claiming City Hall was the same size as the proposal. She asked about the square footage of City Hall. Mayor Rosenbaum said City Hall was eight stories times 8,000 square feet per floor, not including the Police building. Council Member Fazzino said Mr. Beecham had alluded to a discussion of the Planning Commission regarding the fact the proposal, if approved, would constitute a large percentage of the total square footage allowed under the Downtown cap. He asked for the pros and cons of doing so. The building would have significant impacts, but since the Planning Commission was concerned about incrementalism, he asked about allowing growth to be concentrated in a few projects as opposed to a more wide-spread disbursement. The issue had been important in the Stanford Research Park over the past few years because of the resultant significant traffic problems in the area. Mr. Beecham thought the answer could be found in Council Member Fazzino's example of the Stanford Research Park. Allowing 5,000 square feet on one parcel would cause large problems for the surrounding facilities such as inadequate parking and not fitting in. A large project could be built where other larger buildings were located. Whether the percentage was 16 or any other number might be less important than whether or not the project matched with the proposed site. Council Member Wheeler asked about the parking element of the public benefit package. The applicant had suggested a public benefit of daytime use of 68 parking spaces as a public use, i.e.,
05/26/98 86-317
set aside for people employed in other businesses off the site but in the vicinity by under-parking the facility itself. She asked what staff saw as the potential problems in doing so or how the City could enforce such parking as promised. Ms. Grote said other PC zone projects had made a case for a reduced parking rate based on the unique configuration of uses within the building. A good deal of study would be necessary to verify such would occur as well as an analysis of other communities with similar characteristics as to how it might work. A parking deficit already existed in the Downtown area. To under-park a site would take a great deal of justification in order to confidently say it would work. Some of the benefits stated by the applicant included close proximity to public transit, bus lines, CalTrain station, other uses Downtown for more walking between sites, etc., but the issue would have to be studied and verified to ensure it transpired. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the City would be involved in operating the 68 spaces for public use. Ms. Grote said staff had not discussed such a process, and she anticipated staff would not be interested in doing so. Council Member Huber asked about the current FAR zoning of .4. Ms. Grote said current zoning was .4 for the commercial portion and an additional .6 was possible with residential. A mixed-use project could use a 1:1 FAR. Vice Mayor Schneider asked how many square feet remained in the Downtown cap. Ms. Grote thought approximately 250,000 square feet remained in the Downtown cap. Vice Mayor Schneider asked how many square feet the proposed project would use of the Downtown cap. Ms. Grote said the project would use 64,000 square feet. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether staff wanted each Council Member to disclose contact with the applicant and whether the time allowed for the applicant, public, and rebuttal were the same as a formal application. Mr. Calonne said the time rules applied only when a public hearing was required by law. Prescreenings were treated as though the applicant was the underlying application so there was no question about whether everyone had an opportunity to speak. The Council should disclose any contacts. The formality or detail of the current application was notably, different from other prescreenings
05/26/98 86-318
the Council had seen, and the Council was not required to respond in kind to the detail presented, under ordinance. Mayor Rosenbaum disclosed a meeting with the applicant on the day of the flood. Council Member Ojakian disclosed a recent conversation with Ken Alsman about the project. While he was a Planning Commissioner, the application had first come through the City, at which time he had conversations with Mr. Peterson and Mr. Rapp. Council Member Kniss disclosed meetings with the applicant, Steve Player, and Bob Peterson. Council Member Huber disclosed meetings with a number of individuals including Mr. Rapp at Mr. Peterson's office. Over time he had discussions or had been contacted by any number of people. Vice Mayor Schneider could not recall a specific discussion with the applicant about the project but had probably met with him. Council Member Wheeler disclosed meetings with the applicant, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Player, and phone conversations with Mr. Player and Mr. Alsman. Council Member Fazzino disclosed a meeting with the applicant, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Player, and discussions with several neighbors about the project over the prior few months. Council Member Eakins disclosed one meeting with Mr. Peterson and the applicant, a phone conversation with Mr. Alsman, and discussions with a number of neighbors. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. Bob Peterson, Peterson Architects, 57 El Camino Real, Menlo Park, spoke about proposed changes made to the project since Council's review pursuant to neighbors' input: 1) the overall height of the building had been reduced to 48 feet; 2) the setback had been changed along Channing to about 48 feet resulting in a low-scale pedestrian view; and 3) a change was considered in the materials on the upper level from a vertical zinc panel to a horizontal copper panel. The premise of the project was to establish a residential street, therefore, residential units had been proposed for the street level. Because of the limited amount of rental housing in Palo Alto, rental housing was proposed as a good transition builder to the surrounding neighborhood. The maximum number of residential units was proposed with a high quality level. Rental housing primarily failed in the past because of the inability to "pay its way." Without subsidized help from the Federal government or public agency, the element of office space had been included in the project as a subsidy to pay for the housing.
05/26/98 86-319
Charlie Shreck, of Roxy Rapp's staff, spoke regarding the development process, the evaluation which was based on knowledge of Palo Alto, the existing conditions, surroundings, economic environment, meetings with the University South Neighborhood Group, and long discussions with the architect to establish a framework for the architectural vision. The first objective was the creation of rental housing and the second was to create a pedestrian-friendly environment by: 1) minimizing the negative impacts, using the building to shield the new street scape from the electrical substation, put the housing on the ground floor to create vitality at the street level, and build housing that had succeeded in similar environments; and 2) using high-quality construction, adding width to the sidewalk, using interesting paving stone, planting trees along the street, adding a plaza as a gathering place for neighbors, and anchoring the project to the Homer Street shopping area. High quality materials would be used and underground parking provided, creating a rich, new environment, with the use of greatly needed office space in the project. Some contended offices would exacerbate traffic and parking problems already existing Downtown, however, the negative impacts associated with office were mitigated with the underground parking. Since the site was located close to a major traffic artery and away from the congested Downtown core, the traffic impacts were minimal. The project was located within walking distance to CalTrans. The office component allowed the project to supply surplus parking to neighbors and businesses currently lacking sufficient employee parking. Katherine Pering, 388 Everett Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposal. The project was too large and would breach density and size zoning limits in the Downtown area. The developer was urged to revise the project to conform with existing zoning or the zoning developed by the SOFA CAP process. Mike Midolo, Channing Avenue, referenced and supported the letter from Tina Peak of May 24, 1998, in opposition to the proposed project as not fitting in with the neighborhood and would result in increased noise, pollution, and traffic. Housing densities should not be allowed to increase in the area. The Council was urged to represent the neighbors in protecting the neighborhood from the excessive development. Meyer Scher, 939 University Avenue, spoke in support of Roxy Rapp's projects which were a credit to Palo Alto. The neighbors should be thankful for Mr. Rapp's willingness to improve a "blighted" area. The Council was urged to allow Mr. Rapp to make the City more beautiful with the proposed project. Ken Alsman, 1057 Ramona Street, spoke in support of the project as being the right thing to do with the area which supported the philosophy of the Comprehensive Plan. Appropriately located for a mixed-use, the project was near transit, less traffic than other
05/26/98 86-320
areas, would create a fun environment, and most importantly would provide more parking. Peter Lockhart, 405 Olive Avenue, spoke about how the spirit of the builder made the difference in a project. As a personal friend, Roxy Rapp had proven himself to be a quality person who would provide a quality project. Kris Biorn, [no address given], spoke about the need for the site to be rejuvenated. The proposed project blended well in a difficult area and would be engaging for pedestrians. The project would also provide a great benefit to the neighborhood with the additional parking. Steve W. Player, 1874 Guinda Street, representative of the Peninsula Creamery, current owner of the property under question, spoke of the Creamery's responsible citizenship in the community since 1923 in its operations. The Creamery had made the serious decision to cease operations at the site, taking into consideration the impact on surrounding property owners. Support was given to the proposed project as being of a very high quality. Property owners immediately adjacent to the property were 100 percent in favor of the project. The City was urged to encourage debate at an early stage and carefully read the most recent project summary. Areas best suited for higher intensity usage were areas in closer proximity to public transportation, which the project represented. Council Member Ojakian asked about the current use on the site. Mr. Player said currently a refrigeration plant and distribution center was located on the site. Marcus Wood, 196 Colorado Avenue, spoke in support of the project which was of an appropriate scale and location. The building would act as a sound barrier against the trains, cutting noise at a cost less than freeway walls. Cleaning up the site and the addition of other public amenities made the project a good one for Palo Alto. Susan Stulz, 480 Palo Alto Avenue, spoke in support of the project because: 1) the mixed use was appropriate for the site; 2) parking access, especially at night; 3) the plaza would be a good addition to the neighborhood; and 4) the architecture was different and attractive. Chris Schiebold, 480 Palo Alto Avenue, spoke about the need to ensure that the development over the next five years preserved the character of the area, i.e., distinct districts instead of one big Downtown area. The project was consistent with that philosophy, therefore, he supported the project. Yinka Bogdan-Salimone, Whole Foods Market, 774 Emerson Street, spoke in support of the project primarily because of the lack of
05/26/98 86-321
parking for Whole Foods employees in the area. The project would also provide beauty and walking and seating to the area. Cheri Ellison, 2447 High Street, spoke on behalf of her father, Buzz Ellison, and herself in support of the development. Although her father disliked change, if he could hand-pick one person to set the stage and tone of the development, it would be someone with the taste of Roxy Rapp. Palo Alto was fortunate that someone with his caliber had an interest and the wherewithal to place a project on the site to launch the area. The combination of residential and parking was favorable. Irvin David, 753 Alma Street, #126, spoke in favor of keeping the alley parallel to High and Alma Streets, behind Olsens and Palo Alto Hardware, for bicyclists. As Sierra Club Chairperson, he spoke regarding the parking problem and long-term solutions. An increase in the parking supply would solve the problem on a short-term basis. The City was encouraged to utilize a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) approach to the parking problem, taking the subsidy out of driving and making people pay for parking. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, spoke in support of the design and construction of the proposed project and Mr. Rapp's open communication with neighborhood groups. The nature of the SOFA area and the decision about a 2.0 FAR in the area was the Council's burden. The idea of vitality and density without cars was positive. Although the project would provide parking, no permit parking in the neighborhood had been proposed and might result in more parking in the neighborhood. Additional employment would result in more demand for residential housing, schooling impacts, parking, etc. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. RECESS: 9:25 P.M. - 9:43 P.M. Council Member Eakins said much discussion had centered around the public benefit and PC zones, but a project should stand on its own. Public benefit should not sell or defeat a project. The quandary with the proposed project was what density made sense on the site. The numbers could be argued but the important aspect was what made sense. The dilemma was the amount of parking, which made the City think the project was safe. To get into each parking space, however, a trip had to be made, i.e., trips were being attracted. The applicant had said two levels of parking was expensive, forcing the balance toward office rather than residential. She questioned whether so much parking was good idea. The project was complicated and contained contradictions.
Council Member Mossar acknowledged the general problems impacting residents living closest to the area. The project attempted to
05/26/98 86-322
address some of the problems. Parking was an issue. She was a strong advocate of alternative transportation. Barring the City purchasing land and building parking structures, no one had come up with a plan or pathway to begin to solve the parking problems in the commercial area. Currently, the only vehicle available for solving parking problems was on a project-by-project basis. It was important to note that the way the regulations were written, if the City relied on the existing zoning, any new structures could have the parking deficit legally grandfathered into projects. Project after project had been developed in the area with inadequate parking. Transition was a big issue. On one side was an R-1 neighborhood. The area was very noisy, there was a great deal of traffic and parking, and was visually incompatible. The connection from the residential areas to the Downtown area from the residents' point of view was pedestrian and bicycle friendly. People presence because residents traveled to and from Downtown on foot and bicycle. Going through the commercial area as a pedestrian or on a bicycle was currently unpleasant. The existing commercial use on the site was legal, as any number of commercial uses would be legal. Diesel trucks parked and ran engines for hours at a time during the night. Air pollution, particularly during the summer, could be unpleasant. The street infrastructure was unable to deal with the size of the trucks coming in and out of the existing business. She had been forced to back her vehicle to avoid being hit by one of the large trucks trying to turn a corner. The City had no leverage to disapprove a project because of the size of trucks serving it, but in the current case, it might have been appropriate. The project provided housing. Many people had expressed concern that although live/work units were included, there were no guarantees the units would be used as residences. There was concern about having more housing. She encouraged the developer to be clear with the community about the fact of whether or not more housing could be proposed. And if there could be, maybe there should be. She supported housing densities near transit, which the proposed site represented. The flip side was that if people could work near transit, they could also get to work by train and bus. The neighborhood was not described as low-density, but had a great deal of housing tucked away in little places. No public gathering spaces were in that area, which the project recognized. the fact that PCs came with public benefits was highly contested and controversial. She shared the public's concern about the PC and understood why it was being used more and more. In some areas, PCs were not working. Applications for projects were not being received using existing zoning, for which she hoped solutions would be forthcoming. The community had been approving projects where portions of funding for a package were approved for a PC, but there was no guarantee the result would ever be reached. Approval of funding for a TDM was no guarantee it would work. She was also concerned about issues of enforcement. Because a project was approved and a public benefit was declared, she was uncertain the City had a mechanism to track the project from beginning to end to ensure the benefit was built. The
05/26/98 86-323
benefits as part of the approval process should actually be something the community could enjoy at the end of the project. The concept in the proposed project had favorable benefits for the area. The issues the community had raised about density, scale, parking, and traffic were legitimate, it was possible to find a project that ultimately worked. It was critically important that the end project be compatible with the findings of the SOFA study. Council Member Wheeler said most of what she would have said had been expressed by the two previous speakers. Ms. Ellison had mentioned her father's reluctance to change, but even Mr. Ellison saw that the neighborhood, particularly the site in question, could not remain status quo. No one thought the current use of the land was optimal. Clearly something would need to happen on the land. The question was whether the proposed project should occur. The project was attractively designed for the proposed uses and was well thought out from an architectural standpoint and from the standpoint of interfacing with the various surrounding uses. She expressed concern about the parking situation. Currently, the neighborhood was underparked. In some respects, the proposal attempted to address the underparking issue. She was concerned about the proposal because if the City was not careful about the way the reduction in the daytime parking requirement was implemented, the result could be as bad as the current situation. The proposal to have additional public or employee parking provided by a private development was intriguing and should be examined further. It was unlikely the area would ever have the kind of landlord/tenant mix and base to form and support a public parking assessment district. Therefore, it was worth considering a proposal by a private developer to address the need of employees and people visiting the district. She shared the concerns expressed by Council Member Eakins about the guarantee of the live/work space being used in that way. The City had not had in general much success in the area previously. One of the things that made the project attractive was the promise it held for providing some residential space which would weigh heavily in ultimate approval of the project. Housing would be seen as a true benefit to the community, particularly rental housing. A problem would result if there was no way was provided to ensure the space was used for rental housing. The one caution with the residential component was that the City then had to be very careful about the nighttime uses of the property. Other mixed-use projects constructed in the Downtown, sooner or later, experienced problems with the people living in the project having difficulties with the surrounding active night life. The developer would need to consider such a problem. One of her major concerns with the project was the fact the City was at a juncture with the CAP process which would be presented to the Council by the end of summer or early fall, and she would not want the two to be separated. Courtesy was due the planning process in attempting to meld the time line of the project in with the deliberations. The project would be a good study for the committee to examine, since
05/26/98 86-324
it concerned many of the same issues. An opportunity would be given to the committee to see how some of the initial policy discussions it had related to mixed use penciled out in the real world. A decision might have to be made about the tradeoffs. The team who brought the project was thanked. She hoped the project could be folded into the CAP process. Council Member Kniss commended Mr. Rapp on coming forward with the project which was clearly appealing. She agreed the façade was attractive. One of the areas in which she was particularly interested was the live/work issue, for which the City had not had a great track record to date. She asked how the units would actually be used, i.e., the kind of unit an artist would be interested in using, realistic for one to live and work, etc. Roxy Rapp said an actual legal document/lease would be presented requiring the renter to live on-site. If the renter failed to live on-site, the lease would be broken. Council Member Kniss asked how the lease would be enforced. Mr. Rapp said a property manager would be on-site, and neighbors would be able to indicate if a renter failed to live on-site. A legal document would indicate the requirement of living on the premises or the lease would be broken. Nothing would require working on the site. Council Member Kniss asked how the project actually worked. Mr. Rapp said the downstairs area had a rear entry where cars could be parked and the front area had a porch. A kitchen, bathroom, and downstairs could be used as an office. The upstairs could be used as a living space. The opposite could also be done, using the downstairs as the living space and the upstairs as the office. Council Member Kniss asked whether the upstairs had any natural light. Mr. Rapp said a window in the back opened. The ceiling was 18 feet with all glass in the front which allowed a great deal of light. Council Member Kniss asked whether anything in the Bay Area existed similar to the proposed project which had set a precedent. Steve Brown, co-worker on the project with Mr. Rapp, had lived in a live/work loft in San Francisco with his wife. Most residents were professionals with advertising businesses or services on the ground level, and they slept in the loft area. Many others just lived, not worked, in the units. Council Member Kniss asked the City Attorney whether such a legal document could be enforced.
05/26/98 86-325
Mr. Calonne replied yes. An ordinance could be written to require residential zoning uses; however, an application could not amend the PC, once approved. Council Member Kniss thought the mix was light on residential and heavy on office space. She would be far more favorable toward the project if the mix was altered somewhat, particularly because of the City's desire for more residential units in the area. Council Member Huber was not prepared to consider the project until the SOFA CAP process was completed. The cart was being put before the horse for any project coming through for the CAP. The CAP was the City's first attempt and it should not try to jump ahead of the process. Once started, the process should be taken to its final course. The group could consider the project, but he would not be in a position of approving a project until the plan was completed. Vice Mayor Schneider said with only 250,000 square feet left in the Downtown cap, she was not troubled by the size of the proposed amount of square feet in the proposed project. However, the project was too big for the site and was overwhelming in relation to other buildings in the area, even though the SRO was large and the office building with upstairs housing was nearby. She knew how successful such a mixed use had been in the City and any number of people had expressed the desire for a warehouse in which they could live with loft space. She was delighted with the type of housing but was overwhelmed by the size. Mr. Rapp clarified the Downtown cap had been established in 1984 at 350,000 square feet. Currently 54,576 square feet had been used, leaving 295,000 square feet. The proposed project would use 16 percent of the 295,000 square feet. He had been part of the committee involved in establishing the cap, and he had studied the area well. When considering where the 295,000 square feet could be placed in the Downtown area as a whole, University Avenue was already built out, Lytton Avenue was nearly built out, and Hamilton Avenue was close to being built out. The area in which the project was located was the area needing redevelopment. Council Member Fazzino liked the concept of housing, parking, economics, pedestrian oriented, and some of the public benefits of the project. He agreed with the concentration of additional square footage on one site as opposed to spreading it throughout Downtown. He was concerned about "creeping incrementalism" and the traffic, parking, and associated costs. He preferred concentrating greater growth on one site to control uses and impacts. The design was generally good. The site was the gateway to an area, and the design was critically important. One of the greatest mistakes in the City's history occurred with the building at the corner of California Avenue and El Camino Real in 1983 which was the gateway to California Avenue. He would not want to repeat the same mistake
05/26/98 86-326
with other gateway projects. Suggested improvements for the project included more housing, guarantees for housing, better appreciation for the design and more retail office space. He applauded the objective of additional parking, but the garage would not remove cars from the street unless the City found disincentives. People still found it difficult to park underground. He was a strong supporter of permit parking for neighborhoods surrounding Downtown. Only with such incentives would employees be encouraged to stay off neighborhood streets. It was very important to address the concomitant issue of traffic and parking incentives and disincentives in moving forward. Council Member Ojakian agreed with the staff comments. He was concerned with the size and massing of the project on the property and the concentration of the square footage at the location. His understanding of the Downtown cap was to allow building to continue so some of the smaller, older buildings would still have the opportunity to add on, leaving some flexibility without necessarily stimulating or encouraging development Downtown. The fact the square footage had not been used was not justification for saying it should be used. No timetable or clock had been placed on the cap. He would more seriously consider the project if additional housing was involved, not necessarily rental housing if it would not pencil out. The location was ideal for housing. He agreed with comments about the difficulties in the area with parking. Separate from finding disincentives, office spaces providing incentives for people to get out of cars tended to work. Employees subsidized with as little as $40 per month would not drive. Given the particular area of the project, incentives would probably work. The amount of public benefit would depend upon the amount of housing possible in the project. Mayor Rosenbaum expressed concerned about the size of a project only three or four blocks from University Avenue. His vision for the area did not include buildings of the sort proposed. The proposed density was off by a factor of at least two. If the City was interested in housing, the work/live concept was not an issue. Housing should simply be built, then there would not be an issue. He took little comfort in the staff report showing a preliminary cap development scenario of 80,000 to 100,000 square feet. He would not support an office project of such size at that location. No action taken. ORDINANCES 7. 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 $650,000 for Capital Improvement Project 19406, Rinconada Pool Site Improvements
05/26/98 86-327
Council Member Fazzino asked why the City was being forced to close the Rinconada Pool during the summer months and whether staff would be able to deal with all of the resultant angry telephone calls. Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen said staff would be able to respond to the telephone calls. The children's pool was clearly not usable, since it was cracked and unable to hold water. Use in 1997 had been reduced primarily because the children's pool could not be used. Alternative sites had been found for users during the summer. Council Member Fazzino asked about the main pool. Mr. Thiltgen said the main pool would be available for use until construction began, which was scheduled for the first of July. Service at other pools had been expanded. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the project had been delayed because of the rains. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the project had been delayed in part because of the rains. However, the summer was the best and only viable time for swimming pool construction. The City had experienced high ground water levels during the year and it was not viable to build swimming pools during the winter season. Council Member Huber had attempted to sort out how the project had gotten away from the City. He asked whether the increase in cost had been because of delays and, if so, whether the City should attempt to work more quickly so such delays would not occur in the future. Mr. Roberts admitted the cost had increased considerably. Two things had occurred. First, as staff got into the design, particularly upon learning the history of the children's pool, it had found that a number of subsurface conditions existed which were more expensive than had been contemplated in the original budget. The pool had been the old cooling pond for the electric generator from 50 years ago. No adequate base, foundation, or soil support existed beneath the pool on which to build a new one. The pool could not be repaired, as the original design had contemplated, but would have to be removed completely and replaced. The second reason for the increased price involved the contractors who had bid on the job being apprehensive about the high ground water and highly saturated soil conditions which had found when excavation had been conducted, thus the increase in cost. Council Member Huber had understood the first aspect of the cost increase, but the jump had been higher than he would have expected from a contractor just worried about water.
05/26/98 86-328
Council Member Fazzino asked whether the work could be conducted in September after children were in school. Mr. Roberts said if the work began in September, the City ran the risk of being unable to complete the work until after the following rainy season, which was a much less desirable situation. Staff's best advice to the Council was to conduct work during the heart of one summer to ensure adequate construction time for completion. Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff had adequate pool capacity using other pools to meet the needs of the community. Mr. Thiltgen replied yes. Jane Lathrop, Jordan, and Gunn pools would be used. Swim times had been expanded as well as the free swim time. The lesson program had been transferred from Rinconada to the other three pools, fitting into the new schedule. Council Member Fazzino asked how staff would communicate with the public. Mr. Thiltgen said staff had already begun the communication process. Fliers were distributed at the pool and information would be included in the summer brochure. Some notice had already been included in the spring brochure. City Manager June Fleming said there was no way to make everyone happy. The City would handle complaints that were received. Staff had made arrangements to move sites as best as possible. It would be inconvenient, but the pool was to be closed for the least amount of time and the work scheduled at the best period. Mr. Thiltgen said the problem with the winter closing was the lack of alternatives for shifting programs. The pool was booked from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. every day of the week, and schools used their pools during the winter months. For the majority of the use, summer was the best time to find alternatives. Council Member Fazzino asked whether adequate pool space and time for free swimming was planned as opposed to exclusive use by organized programs. Mr. Thiltgen said staff made sure that free swim was accommodated care of first. Some organized use had been switched to pools other than the City's three pools because priority had been given to the general user rather than organized use. Council Member Fazzino said communication was extremely important before and during the summer. He hoped the City would not have a number of people showing up at Rinconada Pool without knowing where to go or what the alternatives were.
05/26/98 86-329
Mr. Thiltgen said the information would not only be sent out prior to the closure but posted at the pool as well. Council Member Ojakian thought people with children already knew about the pool construction and thought some of the PAC programs associated with swimming would not be doing so during the summer. Council Member Wheeler said the City had been working with the organized groups, and programs had been adjusted accordingly. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the reference to the four-month time frame and the vague reference in the report about the contractors' unwillingness to accept a bid based on the time frame indicated the time frame was too short or too long. Mr. Roberts said the contractors were concerned about the short time frame and the ability to complete the project, which might also be the reason for the increased bid prices to obtain adequate staff and resources. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the cost might be less if the time frame was longer. Mr. Roberts said although the price might be potentially less, the delay might affect winter programs as well. Council Member Ojakian asked whether staff could quantify the dollar amount. Mr. Roberts said staff had examined the issue conceptually, discussing with contractors somewhat, but staff had no exact number. Staff guessed the difference was approximately $100,000. Council Member Eakins asked whether the brochure would be mailed. Mr. Thiltgen said the brochure would be distributed primarily to the organized groups and handed out at the pool. The same information would be contained in the summer brochure. Council Member Eakins agreed with her colleagues about the importance of publicity. Most people would say the City had not warned them about the construction the day they arrived to swim. She asked whether the information could also be included in the Utility flier. Mr. Thiltgen said the information might already be slated for the Utility flier, but he was unsure. Council Member Eakins said the more the information was distributed, the less phone calls staff would receive.
05/26/98 86-330
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $650,000 from the Budget Stabilization Reserve to provide the necessary funding for the construction phase of the Rinconada Pool Site Improvements Project, CIP 19406. 2. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Nadar, Inc. in the amount of $1,347,000 for the Rinconada Pool Site Improvements Project CIP 19406. 3. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Nadar, Inc. for related additional but unforseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $203,000.
Ordinance 4504 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $650,000 for Capital
Improvement Project 19406, Rinconada Pool Site Improvements≅ Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Nadar, Inc. For Rinconada Pool Site Improvements Project CIP 19406 MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 8. Mayor Rosenbaum and Council Members Eakins and Wheeler re Proposed Delay of Historic Ordinance and Related Directions to Staff Council Member Huber would not participate due to a conflict of interest because of the location of his home. Council Member Eakins said she, Mayor Rosenbaum, and Council Member Wheeler were asking their colleagues for a delay in consideration of the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. In listening to members of the public and the number of telephone calls received, she realized many people were upset at what was perceived as problems with the new ordinance. Objections from people criticizing the ordinance and the heightened emotional climate convinced her that the climate had to cool before people could make reason which able decisions. During the additional time, confusions which resulted because of mistakes, worry, anxiety, distress, discomfort, etc., arising from concerns about changes in regulatory conditions could be clarified. The rhetoric through e-mail, etc., had achieved a high pitch and it was time to back away, from the heat and proceed in a more orderly fashion. Uncertainty was upsetting to people. Absence of total clarity, particularly
05/26/98 86-331
about someone's own home, was very troubling. As much certainty and clarity as possible should be found, having to do with timing, process, distinctions, extent, amount of regulation, strictness in interpretation, etc., which were all starting points for refining the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. Recommendations for additions to the historic inventory in 1998-99 should be as close to the final list as possible by the time the new ordinance was ready for adoption. Criteria for inclusion on the historic inventory should be as clear as possible. More education and information was necessary. Individuals wanted to know how the ordinance would affect their property. Many property owners wanted to do their own due diligence right away and she had directed people to Steve Steiger to get started. Much concern was focused on what many speakers had referred to as the problem of small homes on large lots, an issue which had to be resolved. Understandable incentives and benefits for properties on the historic inventory were necessary for current and future owners. Many of the incentives and benefits would most logically be placed or written in other sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Everyone should see and examine the incentives and benefits as part of the total process. Many speakers had discussed issues of fairness. Because someone owned an historic house, they had asked why they should be subjected to design standards when the rest of town was not. Others had blamed all the problems on speculative builders. She would add an item 4(a) to the memo as follows: "Have the City Attorney research both legislative and case law for regulating commercial builders in any way differently than homeowners." She urged her colleagues to support the direction of the memo to delay and enhance the process for adopting Palo Alto's newest Historic Preservation Ordinance. Final adoption should be delayed until all or most of the issues and details of the new ordinance were completely developed and the nomination for the historic inventory were complete. The last paragraph of an E-mail from Judith Wasserman stated, "A preservation ordinance is imperative, which is why it must be well-written or it will be rejected by the citizenry as unreasonable. If you have to, extend the interim ordinance and do the job right. Don't be pressured into rushing through it." MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Wheeler, to provide direction to staff as follows: 1. Delay adoption of the new Historic Ordinance until staff and consultants have developed a proposed Historic Inventory. This will cause a tremendous reduction in the number of properties affected by the process; 2. Provide information with respect to completion of studies for both lists one and two, including schedules and required resources for both; 3. Extend the Interim Historic Ordinance to complete (1) and (2), provide information about considerations including
05/26/98 86-332
but not necessarily limited to potential loss of additional historic resources, California Environmental Quality Act requirements, and need for additional resources; 4. Develop and publish the program of incentives as directed by the City Council earlier this year; 4a. Provide legislation which distinguishes between commercial developers and others; and 5. Cancel the currently scheduled June 1, 1998, public hearing on the proposed ordinance. Council Member Wheeler said several of the items, most notably items 2 and 3, asked for some responses from staff. Given the time frames under which the City would be operating, some of the requirements were for a fairly quick response, particularly if the interim regulations were extended, e.g., an extension of the contract for the historic preservation specialist would be necessary. She asked when the reports would return to the Council, what form, and how the Council would deal with them. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the interim ordinance was set to expire at the end of August 1998, so working backwards from that was necessary to determine the correct time frame. He wanted to return to the Council in June with a revision to the existing interim regulations. Given it was a regularly enacted ordinance, six weeks would be necessary for introduction prior to becoming effective. At the latest, it should return mid-July. He preferred one or two weeks for delays, if necessary. It would not represent a major work effort. Chief Planning Official Eric Riel thought staff could return within 30 to 45 days, when the ordinance came back, to complete studies for both historic inventory lists. Council Member Wheeler asked about the extension of the contract or negotiation of a new contract with an historic preservation specialist. Mr. Riel said the item could return on the Consent Calendar as soon as the contract was negotiated with the consultant. Council Member Wheeler said the Council had made three promises to the community in the transition from interim to permanent
regulations, referred to as the three "C's": 1) ClarityΧthe Council had promised the permanent regulations would contain clarity, the ordinance language would be easy to understand, it might read differently than other ordinances, one should be able to pick up the ordinance and understand how a particular property might be affected by the ordinance and, if the ordinance applied to the
05/26/98 86-333
property, what process would be required to get plans approved. A good start had been made with the proposed regulations, but from the questions and concerns raised by members of the public, the
City could do better; 2) CertaintyΧMany people over the past months had indicated that what had bothered them about the interim regulations was the inability to understand whether the regulations applied to a particular property or not, which the Council had said would not occur for the permanent regulations. In order to make that true for the permanent regulations, the 3,300 properties had to be honed down to a size much closer to how the final inventory
would appear; and 3) CarrotsΧDuring the interim process, the public had asked, and the Council had promised, that the permanent regulations would contain incentives to make people glad to be on the inventory and help them overcome any of the additional constraints regulation might put upon them. As part of the preliminary discussions, the Council had talked about a number of incentives which were sent back to staff. Given the limited time staff had during the interim, incentives had not been fully developed. Until the incentives were published, it seemed an empty promise on the part of the Council to say there would be incentives. Good faith with the community was important, to ensure incentives would accompany the regulations. She urged her colleagues to endorse the motion as presented. Mr. Calonne said five of the directions were consistent with the Council's earlier policy direction and the change was a matter of synchronizing preparation of the inventory and incentives with the regulatory piece of the ordinance. The research assignment on regulating commercial builders differently from homeowners might require more direction, particularly the objectives sought to be served therefor. If the Council was unable to have the directive well-formulated, including direction to examine reasons why the City might want to do so, it was not immediately apparent what the reasons might be, and he would not want to substitute his judgment for the Council's. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. Ned Gallagher, 440 Melville Avenue, thanked Mayor Rosenbaum for participating in, and other Council Members for attending, the town hall meeting at Cubberley during which time the City's proposed ordinance was presented and Palo Alto homeowners were helped to understand the contents therein. He encouraged all homeowners to read the ordinance in its entirety. Craig Woods, thanked the sponsors and participants in the town hall
meeting. The Palo Alto Homeowners= Association had felt for some time that the proposed ordinance raised concerns for individual homeowners, neighborhoods, and the community. The success of the town meeting showed the broad concerns of the community across all neighborhoods. Video copies of the meeting were presented to the Council. Many issues around the ordinance deserved close
05/26/98 86-334
attention. Preservation handled fairly, completely, and predictably was supported, which was not seen in the interim ordinance. Any ordinance that failed to address the balance and alienated homeowners would ultimately fail to achieve its goal. Carroll Harrington, 830 Melville Avenue, spoke in support of the motion to delay the June 1, 1998, meeting. The Council was urged to send the ordinance back to the Planning Department for restudy and with a recommendation for more community involvement in the rewriting of the ordinance. The Council was asked to facilitate more participation in the development of what all hoped was an ordinance that was fair and effective and preserved the vitality of the community as well as its true historic resources. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, spoke about the highly publicized and very accurate and useful meetings which had been held about the regarding the proposed ordinance, but which very few members of the public had attended. Not much was heard about scraping and demolition, but the undercurrent was not about being able to add a room but whether historic houses could be scraped and sold. The motion made sense to have a better refinement of which houses were being considered historic and to address some of the concerns. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Fazzino supported the proposal but time should be devoted to improving the ordinance and making the process as streamline and predictable as possible. The ordinance should not be allowed to sit on the shelf for six months. The delay should not result in the City "punting" on the issue because of the political situation. Non-historic homes needed to be removed from the inventory list, which had created a huge problem. The mailing of an overly legalistic communication to homeowners was a big mistake. It was also very important to develop a set of incentives. Focus on the process came across as overly bureaucratic until the critically important issue of incentives was addressed. The City had failed to use the Mills Act or other incentives as it should have in order to preserve homes. Most important, the Council, staff, and the community had to work together to achieve historic preservation objectives, not to create a bureaucracy which undercut the ability to meet the initial goals of the program. Righteous anger had been expressed on both sides of the issue. Many people in the community were very angry about scraping homes, demolition, and the changing character of the community. The other half of the community, many of whom had paid large amounts of money for homes, were very concerned about not having the ability to install a new kitchen cabinet or window because of the bureaucracy. A way had to be found to address legitimate concerns on both ends of the spectrum or the community would be divided, creating a polarized situation which no one wanted to see. He had been in the midst of many polarized campaigns both formal and informal and did not want to repeat the
05/26/98 86-335
experience. It was very important to work together over the next few months to achieve the objectives. It was also important to communicate effectively with the public and itself about the actions. He had been disappointed no one from City staff had attended the town hall meeting. The City had to change the way in which it communicated with the public over the next few months if it was to be successful. Mayor Rosenbaum had done an outstanding job of representing the City at the town hall meeting. Council Member Ojakian said although some work was necessary in terms of sprucing up the ordinance, he hoped the Council would receive the "whole package." Many had talked about incentives, which he wanted to see along with the ordinance. Many people had been upset about the process. When the ordinance returned, the timing of the staff process should be addressed. He wanted to see something such as a single, one-stop shopping process, i.e., not making people go from an historic review to a zoning ordinance process, but melding the two together. The whole fee schedule should also be examined to determine how it could fit in and relate to fees for not just historic but zoning in one package. People would then know exactly what would happen. He felt a sense of responsibility in the area of communication. Staff had communicated in some of the normal procedures. In addition to Council Member Wheeler's three "C's," he would add "communication." Somewhere in the process, the Council's involvement should be addressed in communications, perhaps even setting up a subcommittee to discuss how such items could be handled. The Council should be the one to determine what was released. Staff was not blamed for anything that had been put out, but wanted the Council to take responsibility. Council Member Kniss said re-making decisions was always difficult. While the Council would not be re-making a decision, clearly a group had responded to the community which had not only been concerned but challenged by a sense of unfairness. The memo had identified the issues nicely. When something happened and had not turned out right, the Council was willing to take a time out and move in the right direction. The historic resources ordinance was the first new issue for the Council in many years, and it was a very unusual one. The community was probably less concerned about what came down as with what was going up around town. It had taken the City a long time to determine where it was going. She agreed with Council Member Ojakian about the need for more communication in addition to Council Member Wheeler's three "C's." Council Member Mossar supported the memorandum, but expressed some confusion. She endorsed Council Member Wheeler's comments about clarity and writing the ordinance more clearly. The communication element was also important. The Council needed to be involved. Much of the angst in the community was the result of poor communication, for which she took responsibility. She wanted to see something in the motion deal with an effort to make the
05/26/98 86-336
ordinance more clearly readable. Speakers had talked about making the ordinance more available to the public. If communication was to be better, a mechanism should be found to make the ordinance more clear, more readable, less legalese, etc. She was also concerned about the communication aspect, for which nothing had been included to direct anyone to pay attention. Vice Mayor Schneider said one of the best things about serving on the Council in Palo Alto was communication. The community had spoken loudly and clearly on the historic resources issue. Earlier in the evening, the Council had heard from some very bright preservationists interested in serving on the historic resources committee, all of whom had a variety of views on historic preservation, just as the Council had different views on historic preservation. While many considered the issue divisive, she thought it would bring the community closer together. All were headed in the same direction but were on different paths. While she had been the sole dissenting vote on many elements of the proposed historic ordinance, she was happy to join her colleagues in supporting a delay in the historic ordinance and looked forward to the next few months of putting together something of which the entire community could be happy. Mr. Calonne wanted to make sure all pieces of the Council's direction were included in the action. Many Council Members had discussed issues not included in the six points. Regarding the clarity component, it was certainly appropriate to redraft the ordinance in a simpler, more direct format. However, the problem was more than just a simple English problem. Some of the clarity issues the Council alluded to might be inherent in the kinds of standards which were necessary for determining whether one's home was a landmark resource or not. He sought specific direction in terms of drafting. If the Council wanted a simple English version, that would be appropriate, but it might identify clarity problems, not drafting issues and might result in another round of policy steering issues. When the Council discussed communication, he would need some means for that communication to translate into direction to modify the previous direction. AMENDMENT: Council Member Mossar moved to instruct the City Attorney to prepare a simpler revised draft of the historic preservation ordinance which would become the working document for
the Council=s deliberations. Council Member Eakins supported the spirit of the amendment but adding to the first set of directions could be overly complicating. She asked whether Council Member Mossar had suggested changing policy directions. Council Member Mossar replied no.
05/26/98 86-337
Council Member Eakins said a plain English version would be fine but questioned the necessity of adding it to the motion. Mayor Rosenbaum said if the Council wanted staff to provide such a document, staff required direction from the Council to do so. Mr. Calonne said the public reaction required some dialogue. No member of the public had commented on the draft ordinance or possible changes. If the Council wanted something clearer, which was a good product of public debate, dialogue should be invited. He sought some means to invite such communication. The existing ordinance was on the web site, Virginia Warheit had provided him with a set of three changes to address mistakes made in drafting, but how it was moved to the next step in public dialogue was of concern. The way it had been planned, a public hearing would occur on June 1 on the draft ordinance where comments could be made. The Council had indicated such a hearing was not adequate in communicating and involving the community. Staff required some direction for the next step. AMENDMENT INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER as (6) Instruct the City Attorney to prepare a simpler revised draft of the historic preservation ordinance and
which would become the working document for the Council=s deliberations. Vice Mayor Schneider said the issue was for further public involvement and not cutting off debate. The draft ordinance was obviously not satisfactory to a large number of people in the community. In the process of making the draft ordinance in clear English, she wanted to make sure further debate was not being eliminated. In order to take the next step, the communication had to continue. Council Member Kniss was concerned about the plain English piece of the ordinance simply because lawyers would have a difficult time making anything sound plain and would require some interpretation. She asked what the maker and seconder of the motion saw as the next steps, e.g., proposed inventory, looking back at lists one and two, incentives, etc. The public needed to know what was in it for them which was not presently clear enough. Possibly the plain English would explain how the ordinance would work. City Manager June Fleming said plain English was fine. The concern she had tried to share with Mr. Calonne was that if it was put in plain English, it would see the light of day in a way it had not seen it before. After the draft plain English ordinance was completed, the Council then wanted public response. She was concerned how the response would be handled. She supported having the ordinance in plain English. Staff would work with Mr. Calonne, but she needed some direction about the public response. Once the ordinance was written in a way which the public could understand,
05/26/98 86-338
it would probably raise new issues. Staff needed direction about what to do with the new issues. Council Member Kniss agreed with Ms. Fleming. Keeping the dialogue open was good but the end product required some definition. If the dialogue was continued, would that mean changes would be made along the way and, if so, what the benchmarks would be. Council Member Mossar said the expectation was for a revised draft ordinance. Council Member Kniss asked about the time schedule. Council Member Mossar thought it best to leave the time schedule to staff. Council Member Kniss understood the opportunity would be given for dialogue with the public with a version somewhat plainer but incorporated some critical pieces having to do with inventory and incentives, which was the critical piece. Council Member Wheeler thought the Council visualized staff returning to the Council with a report including a time line. The Council had asked some questions, asking for additional professional help in speeding the inventory process, how much it would cost, and how long it would take to finally have a better view of inventory. The Council was dependent upon some answers returning after which further discussion could occur when the time line answers were received. At some point, the Council could discuss the communications aspect. Not much was available to communicate which was different. The City would be better served if things were handled in a more positive fashion than had previously occurred. The Finance Committee had discussed a proposed change in the City's public information component and organizational change. It was conceivable the new organization would be used to good effect. Council Member Fazzino had supported the proposal because he was convinced his three colleagues were genuinely committed to continued dialogue over the subject, which was the purpose of putting the proposed ordinance in whatever form of English the City Attorney was capable of producing. He was convinced Mr. Calonne could produce a document a lay person was able to understand. It could be a very helpful tool through the process in addressing real policy alternatives. His view of the entire issue was open. The City needed to engage in dialogue and communication with the community and improve the ordinance. Council Member Mossar said the ordinance needed to be written in plain English. The ordinance needed to be as readable as possible. She was most interested in the revised draft, including all of the improvements called out in the memo, in plain English. However,
05/26/98 86-339
having the current draft in plain English would not be a problem either. If only the revised draft was in plain English, that would be fine. Mayor Rosenbaum said nothing in the memo in and of itself revised the ordinance. Council Member Mossar said Council Member Wheeler's comments assumed the process included a revised draft. Some assumptions had been made that the Council would receive a time table from staff. The next public product should be readable and understandable with the hope of improved communications. Council Member Eakins said Mr. Calonne wanted to know the purpose of item 4(a). Mr. Calonne replied yes. Such discussion was not always clean and neat but was essential to communicate. It was the way the City would end up with a better product. He appreciated the Council's efforts to provide staff with some direction. He was unsure it was immediately intuitive that commercial builders were somehow different from homeowners in their ability or motivations or the results of their products. If the idea was that somehow bad commercial builders were blighting the town, and that good old homeowners did good things, he needed some help with that. That seemed to be the concept presented. Council Member Eakins said that was not her intent in her request, which was not based on that kind of prejudice. She had heard repeatedly about ways to do it, along with some inventive suggestions. It had become part of the dialogue with the community which was why the information was needed. Mr. Calonne clarified the assignment was more open-ended to determine ways it could be done and what would be lawful purposes for doing so. Council Member Eakins replied yes. MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Wheeler, to provide direction to staff as follows: 1. Delay adoption of the new Historic Ordinance until staff and consultants have developed a proposed Historic Inventory. This will cause a tremendous reduction in the number of properties affected by the process; 2. Provide information with respect to completion of studies for both lists one and two, including schedules and required resources for both;
05/26/98 86-340
3. Extend the Interim Historic Ordinance to complete (1) and (2), provide information about considerations including but not necessarily limited to potential loss of additional historic resources, California Environmental Quality Act requirements, and need for additional resources; 4. Develop and publish the program of incentives as directed by the City Council earlier this year; 4a. Provide ways in which to distinguish between commercial
developers and homeowners;
5. Cancel the currently scheduled June 1, 1998, public hearing on the proposed ordinance; and 6. Instruct the City Attorney to prepare a simpler revised
draft of the historic preservation ordinance which will
become the working document for the Council=s
deliberations. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber not participating. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to add item 9A, Possible Cancellation of June 1, 1998, City Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. 9. Mayor Huber re Cancellation of the Monday, June 1, 1998, City Council Meeting MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to cancel the Council meeting of June 1, 1998. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(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
05/26/98 86-341
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.
05/26/98 86-342