HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-18 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting October 18, 1999 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................89-100 1. Proposed Electric and Natural Gas Commodity Pricing Policy and Methodology...........................................89-100 2. Request for City Council to Consider Three Applications to Designate Heritage Trees: Two Publicly-Owned Trees and One Private Tree at 1032 Forest Avenue....................89-100 3. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Construction of a New Underground Sanitary Sewer Pipe Across John Lucas Greer Park..........................89-100
4. Ordinance 4594 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.94.070 [Nonconforming Use -
Required Termination] Date For The Use At 2011 El Camino Real≅ ......................................................89-100 5. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation............................................89-100 6. The City Council will consider applications by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department regarding Downtown Parking Structures............................................89-101 6A. (Old Item No. 8) 301 University Avenue: Review of an Appeal of
the Director of Planning and Community Environment=s Denial, After Review and Recommendation by the Architectural Review Board, of an Application for the Installation of a New Automatic Teller Machine and Increased Letter Height and Additional Lighting for Existing Signs Advertising Wells Fargo Private Client Services...............................89-116 7. Council Members Ojakian and Mossar re El Camino Real Improvements..........................................89-117 9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........89-123 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m............89-123
10/18/99 89-99
10/18/99 89-100
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:08 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino (via teleconference at 7:08 p.m.), Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:20), Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edward Roger Holland, 1111 Parkinson Avenue, spoke regarding transportation demand management. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the polluted pros. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding Bol Park bike path. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2 and 4, with Item No. 3 removed at the request of staff. 1. Proposed Electric and Natural Gas Commodity Pricing Policy and Methodology - Refer to Finance Committee 2. Request for City Council to Consider Three Applications to Designate Heritage Trees: Two Publicly-Owned Trees and One Private Tree at 1032 Forest Avenue 3. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Construction of a New Underground Sanitary Sewer Pipe Across John Lucas Greer Park
4. Ordinance 4594 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.94.070 [Nonconforming Use -
Required Termination] Date For The Use At 2011 El Camino Real≅ (1st Reading 10/04/99, PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent) MOTION PASSED 8-0, for Item Nos. 1-2, Kniss absent. MOTION PASSED 7-0-1, for Item No. 4, Fazzino Αabstaining,≅ Kniss absent. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting.
5. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Written liability claim against the City of Palo Alto by Palo Alto Condominium Owners Association
10/18/99 89-101
Government Code Sections 54956.9(b)(1) and 54956.9(b)(3)(C) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. The City Council will consider applications by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department regarding Downtown Parking Structures for the following: (Public Testimony Closed) (Continued from 9/27/99) 445 Bryant Street (Lots S/L: 1) Zone Change from Public Facilities (PF) and Commercial District with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District (CD-D (P)) to a Planned Community (PC) Zone and to allow the Construction of a Multi-Level Parking Garage on Existing City of Palo Alto Parking Lots S/L; 2) Tentative Subdivision Map Approval to Remove 19 Underlying Lot Lines and Combine the Lots Into One Lot for the Purpose of the Above Project; and 3) Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). [File Nos. 98-ZC-11, 98-ARB-159, 98-EIA-23, and 98-SUB-5] Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Lots S/L and R Parking Garage Projects, and Making Certain Findings Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 445 Bryant Street (Parking Lots S/L) from PF and CD-C(P)to PC 528 High Street (Lot R): 1) Zone Change from Public Facilities (PF) to Planned Community (PC) Zone to Allow the Construction of a Multi-Level Parking Garage on an Existing City of Palo Alto Parking Lot R; 2) Tentative Subdivision Map Approval to Remove 8 Underlying Lot Lines and Combine the Lots Into One Lot for the Purpose of the Above Project; and 3) Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). [File Nos. 98-ZC-12, 98-ARB-180, 98-EIA-25 and 98-SUB-6] Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 528 High Street (Parking Lot R) from PF to PC Council Member Schneider said that she would not participate due to a conflict of interest. Unfortunately she was not able to participate in matters that affected the business community because of rulings that prohibited her from participating. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the public testimony period on Item No. 6 was closed. Chief Planning Official Eric Riel said the first part of the staff
10/18/99 89-102
report (CMR:391:99) was a consolidation of the staff=s recommendation. There was a public hearing and a staff presentation at the prior meeting regarding various issues. Attachment B of the staff report provided a detailed analysis that outlined various options in terms of reduction of floors on each of the structures on Lot S/L. Staff prepared a photo montage which was an overview in terms of the contacts in the surrounding architectural styles for both Lots S/L and R. Staff outlined
redesign options for the Council=s consideration. Option 1 dealt with reconvening a small group of the previous parking study group consisting of an Architectural Review Board (ARB) representative, a Planning Commission Representative, City staff, and the Watry Design Group. Staff was recommending no board or commission review. Recommendations would be brought back to the Council within 45-60 days. Staff was asking for the ability to acquire an outside urban design architect to assist staff in further redesign. Options 2, 3, and 4 were essentially the same and would involve an ARB and Planning Commission review with an informational review by the Historic Resources Board (HRB). The final product of Option 2 would be exterior building elevations in perspectives. Staff
expected Option 2 to take approximately 52 months because it required review from the ARB, Planning Commission, and HRB. Staff recommended having the ability to acquire an outside urban design architect. If Option 2 was selected, staff predicted the project would be completed some time in April 2000. Option 3 was built upon Option 2 but staff was suggesting that a whiteboard scale model be completed to provide further identification in terms of the bulk and mass of the structures. Option 4 involved completing a three-dimensional computer model. If the Council decided to proceed with Option 1, staff provided a First Alternative Staff Recommendation (Option 1) on page 10 of the staff report (CMR:391:99). Staff recommended Option 4 should the Council believe that more review was required. The recommendation for Option 4 was located on page 12 of the staff report. Option 1 would cost approximately $75,000; Option 2, $85,000; Option 3, $100,000; and Option 4, $135,000. Council Member Mossar asked whether staff was recommending Option 4 of the redesign. Mr. Riel said staff was recommending Option 4 if the Council chose to redesign the parking structures and wanted a more comprehensive review. Council Member Mossar asked whether staff was recommending a more comprehensive review. Mr. Riel said no. The staff recommendation was for Option 1. Council Member Mossar clarified that if the Council wanted to redesign the parking structures, the recommendation from staff was Option 1.
10/18/99 89-103
Mr. Riel said that was correct. Staff wanted the flexibility to keep the fifth level of the parking structure, if the Council determined that a redesign was required. Staff believed that two things needed to be achieved, a creative design that provided the maximum number of spaces and an aesthetically pleasing design. He referred to an overhead projection of the perspective of Lot S/L. Some suggestions were made at a prior meeting regarding redesign options. One option had three separate facades. Other suggestions were relocating the elevator farther back into the interior of the structure, removing one floor on Lot L, and retaining five levels of parking on Lot R and removing one row of parking so the fourth story would not be immediately seen from street level. There were constraints to the redesign. Staff did not want to make any changes that required the re-engineering of the structural portions of the building; an example of which was the relocation of the elevator tower. The relocation of the elevator tower would have an
impact on the circulation pattern. It was not staff=s intention that any redesign would require recirculation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR as presented had five levels and provided the maximum amount of parking. Staff was requesting Council direction on four items: 1) the desired exterior building design; 2) the desired height of the structures; 3) types of land use on the corner of Lot S/L; and 4) whether public restrooms were desired and what type of restrooms. Council Member Mossar said in Option 1, staff suggested a 45-60 day turnaround. She asked whether the turnaround time could be reduced to 30 days. Mr. Riel did not think staff could manage a 30-day turnaround. He said that a 45-60-day turnaround was fairly intensive, and staff intended to return to the Council at the December 13, 1999, City Council Meeting. Council Member Mossar asked whether staff would be able to guarantee that the item would be returned to the Council at the December 13, 1999, City Council Meeting. City Manager June Fleming said that staff would make every effort to return to the Council by December 13. Staff was aware there were only two meetings in December but was optimistic that the item could be returned to the Council at the December 13 meeting. Council Member Eakins asked whether the Council would be meeting on December 20, 1999, as well. Mayor Fazzino said typically, the Council did not meet that close to the Christmas holiday; however, the day was available to meet. Council Member Eakins said the Council should be able to complete the work in December. She asked whether Option 1 was not a possibility if the elevator tower was relocated to the back of the
10/18/99 89-104
structure. Mr. Riel said wherever the elevator was located, it should not impact the internal circulation of the structure. Council Member Eakins asked whether it was inevitable that recessing the elevator would affect the circulation. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the circulation pattern of the structure would be a problem if the tower was moved laterally along the face of the street closer to the entrance and the driveway. Staff recommended against moving the elevator tower. There was some potential to move the elevator tower back, away from Bryant Street, deeper into the parking structure. Moving the elevator tower back was possible structurally and circulation-wise; however, relocating the elevator tower would cause some inefficiencies in the lack of useable spaces. Council Member Eakins said the conceptual drawings the Council viewed at a prior meeting showed the elevator tower moved back from Bryant Street closer to the juncture of Lot S/L. Mr. Roberts said the drawings showed the elevator tower moved, but staff did not recommend it. Council Member Eakins asked whether staff had investigated the circulation and efficiencies. Mr. Roberts said staff spent time looking at the floor plans, circulation patterns, and pedestrian patterns and concluded that relocating the elevator tower would not be advisable. Mayor Fazzino asked whether staff could accomplish Option 1 in six or seven weeks if the Council was interested in reducing the size of the Bryant Street structure. Mr. Riel said yes. Staff indicated that a recommendation could be returned to the Council in 45-60 days. Mayor Fazzino asked whether direction was needed from the Council on each of the four or five issues Mr. Riel raised. Mr. Riel said direction from the Council would provide staff with a good framework to start discussions. Mayor Fazzino asked whether including Council Members in the design process made sense. Mr. Riel said that making Council Members a part of the design process was discussed. Staff was confident that a recommendation would be returned to the Council within the 45-60-day period.
10/18/99 89-105
Council Member Ojakian asked whether Option 1 was required to review designs or was Option 1 where staff would review potential design ideas. Mr. Riel said Option 1 was where staff would review design ideas. Council Member Ojakian clarified that staff was recommending the Council look at Option 1. Mr. Riel said that was correct. Council Member Ojakian asked where the elevator could be located other than in a large tower structure on a corner. Mr. Riel said staff indicated relocating the elevator would be difficult; however, staff could take that into consideration during the redesign. Council Member Ojakian asked what triggered reopening the EIR. Mr. Riel said moving one driveway from one side of the street to another would trigger reopening the EIR; however, staff was confident that it could do the redesign within the parameters of the EIR. Council Member Kniss believed she heard two different answers from staff regarding the relocation of the elevator. She asked whether
the elevator could be relocated to the area near a Αpark≅ sign on the facade. Mr. Riel said staff could consider the relocation. Council Member Kniss believed the relocation of the elevator was significant because it altered how the structure would look and balance itself, especially in relation to the opening between the structure and the bank. Ms. Michelle Windler, Watry Design Group, posted a plan of the building. She pointed out an area where the elevator was currently located at the corner of Bryant Street. She asked whether the
Council wanted to relocate the elevator near the Αpark≅ sign or
near the area where there was a Αnotch.≅ Council Member Kniss asked whether there was a reason for the elevator area to be built higher than the rest of the structure. Ms. Windler said yes, because the elevator served the top level which was why the elevator tower was taller than the rest of the building. Council Member Kniss asked precisely where the elevator could be moved.
10/18/99 89-106
Ms. Windler pointed out where the driveway entry was located. The
elevator could be located in the Αnotch;≅ however, there would be some impact to the interior circulation pattern. Council Member Kniss wanted to be sure that there would be no structural problems. Ms. Windler said she did not believe there would be any structural problems. Mr. Roberts said the issue was that the elevator should not be placed along the street frontage on either side of the driveway;
however, placing the elevator back into the Αnotch≅ did work. Council Member Kniss asked whether she was correct in presuming that the external area of the structure could be altered to fit whatever architectural style that fit into the area. Mr. Riel said yes. The term used in the staff report (CMR:391:99) was blending into the existing fabric of the surrounding structures. There were suggestions on page 7 of the staff report in terms of opportunity that were available to redesign the facade. Mayor Fazzino clarified that the Watry Design Group could deal with issues of design as well as size. Council Member Kniss said once the massing and positioning were correct, the external portion could be adapted to best fit into the particular area. Mr. Riel said some of the things staff suggested included additional architectural facade elements, planter boxes, plantings up each garage level, additional pedestrian amenities, additional landscaping on street levels so the view was mitigated, and public art. Vice Mayor Wheeler said staff proposed as some of the lengthier timeframe options giving the Council representations that would demonstrate a better three-dimensional feel for both projects. She asked if either one of the visual aids could be done and incorporated in Option 1 to assist the Council in making a decision. Mr. Riel said staff could add to the photo montage that was before
the Council at that evening=s meeting by adding the actual selected design and a whiteboard model could be done. The model would not be detailed as far as architectural elements but would give the Council a good idea in terms of the bulk and massing of the structure. Council Member Rosenbaum said at the corner of Bryant Street and
10/18/99 89-107
Lytton Avenue, there was a space called Αnon-parking≅ space and was proposed for a Teen Center and commercial space. He asked whether the area was not parking and could be considered as additional parking space. Senior Engineer Karen Bengard said staff looked at the area as a potential parking area in the feasibility study; however, it was determined that more stalls could not be acquired in the area and would be more valuable as an aesthetic feature to help step down the bulk of the garages behind it. The land was an unused sliver of land that served no other purpose. Council Member Mossar asked whether the corner space on Lot S would revert to parking if the elevator was moved from the corner of Lot S and put into the interior space. She asked what the change was to the open space area by moving the elevator tower to that particular location. Mr. Riel assumed that stairs would need to be included in the corner so there would be access. One of the designs included a stairwell in the area. Council Member Mossar asked whether relocating the elevator would change the sense of having an open area. Mr. Roberts said relocating the elevator would diminish the area. He did not know if staff could give her a specific answer to the question. The working group would look at the issues closely and would try to preserve the sense of an open space; however, there would be a change. Ms. Fleming noted that page 13 of the staff report (CMR:391:99), gave cost estimates but did not include the whiteboard models; therefore, the amount would have to be adjusted. Council Member Eakins asked a requirement to have an artist on the
architect=s team.
Mr. Riel said including an artist on the architect=s team depended upon which architect was selected. Staff could obtain some input on art and possible options as a part of the process. Council Member Eakins clarified whether as part of the architectural team, a requirement of the RFP could be that an artist participate. Mr. Riel said it was possible. Mayor Fazzino asked whether the artist would be part of the six-week option. Council Member Eakins said yes. An artist was part of the
10/18/99 89-108
Comprehensive Plan. She believed it was logical to discuss what the requirements were for the urban architectural firm who would be part of the process.
Mr. Riel said it was staff=s intent to have the Watry Group select an architect. Staff could obtain an artist if it was what the City Council desired. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, second by Huber, to: 1) Approve the parking garage on Lot S/L. The garage on Lot L will have four levels aboveground and one or two levels underground. The garage on Lot S will have five levels aboveground and two levels underground; 2) Approve the parking garage on Lot R. The garage will have five aboveground levels with the top level set back on the High Street and Alma Street frontages; 3) Approve the Teen Center of 3,500 square feet and other retail or office space up to a total of 9,000 square feet at the corner of Lytton Avenue and Bryant Street on Lot S/L; 4) Provide space for a built-in restroom in each garage with staff to reassess the need for the additional downtown toilets prior to completion of final construction plans; 5) Form a small working group consisting of the Downtown Parking Project Study Group, Architectural Review Board, and Planning Commission representatives, an urban design architect, the Watry Design Group and City staff. The working group would create and recommend a final exterior architectural design to City Council in mid-December. The working group would utilize the following policy direction: a. Complete further examination of the exterior architectural characteristic with the emphasis of reducing the potential impacts of bulk, height and scale and examination of existing surrounding architecture to ensure the new design is in context with its surroundings; and b. Redesign the exteriors of the structures to emphasize architectural characteristics that
Αblend≅ with the existing offices or retail buildings in downtown Palo Alto. 6) Direct staff to retain the services of a local design/architectural firm to assist City staff, the Watry
10/18/99 89-109
Design Group, and the Study Group in the redesign process and formulation of the exterior design of the structure; 7) Approve proceeding with the design of two floors for the Teen Center and commercial space in the non-parking area adjoining the garage at the corner of Bryant Street and Lytton Avenue; 8) Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $70,000 for additional design-related services; 9) Approve and authorize the Mayor or his representative to increase the contract change order authority with Watry Design Group for contract CG076145 from $34,100 to $119,100; and 10) follow design guidelines with one of the deliverables a whiteboard presentation for additional $15,000 to the cost. Council Member Rosenbaum intended to give direction to staff but, at the same time, indicate that the Council was not going to significantly reduce the number of parking spaces. The Council was not directing staff to consider the possibility of reducing the number of floors of the structures, but to consider the architectural and design features to minimize the bulk and make the structures as attractive as possible. The process was started in 1986 when the Council specified that it was going to limit further growth in the Downtown to 350,000 square feet and require that any new space was going to be self-parking unless the increase was so small as to make the increase impractical whereupon an in-lieu fee would be paid in place of providing the parking. The intent was to recognize that the City had a parking shortage that was getting worse. Part of the solution to the parking problem anticipated at that time was the construction of parking garages. The structures were large; however, the structures were part of the solution to a problem. With the garages, the City could consider the residential parking permit system to provide relief to the residential areas. The garages would not be the total solution; the City was going to have demand management and would start a shuttle system. He did not foresee the City building anymore garages in the Downtown; therefore, getting as many parking spaces as possible out of the structures was important. Council Member Huber believed the City should have a Teen Center. With regard to the public restrooms, he did not have preference for building them or providing ATPs. He requested the matter be returned to the Council at the December 13, 1999, for final action. The Council had a history of dealing with the parking structures starting in 1994 when it looked at an overall solution to the parking problem in the Downtown. In 1997, staff was directed to proceed with a couple of structures; and in January 1998, the
10/18/99 89-110
Council authorized design. He believed the Council needed to cut into the deficiency. The Council would not solve the parking problem with a viable Downtown area. He believed the parking structures were a reasonable way to deal with the parking problem and would particularly alleviate the parking problems at night. The garages were part of an overall plan that included a residential parking permit system, a commute coordinator, and a shuttle. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER to return to the Council meeting of December 13, 1999, for final action. Mayor Fazzino supported several proposals. The Council committed to the parking structures a number of years ago. He believed the parking structures would make a difference as long as they were part of a comprehensive transportation management program. The Council had made progress with respect to the shuttle systems. He was pleased to see the neighborhood permit system was finally being presented to the Council. The City did little in the area of parking disincentives, creating an effective commute transportation management program for small businesses. He believed each of the programs had to be in place in order to make the parking structures a success. He supported eliminating retail space for additional parking spaces. He accepted the proposed size of the structure on Alma Street; however, the project on Bryant Street was too big. He requested that the motion be separated to give the design group the opportunity to eliminate one level on Bryant Street and look at alternative ways of adding parking spaces. Vice Mayor Wheeler said staff suggested that it be allowed the flexibility to redesign with one less level. Mayor Fazzino proposed as a compromise that staff be allowed flexibility. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether Mayor Fazzino wanted to propose an amendment to allow staff flexibility on Lot S/L to remove one level. AMENDMENT: Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to allow staff the flexibility on Lots S/L to remove one story.
Council Member Kniss supported Mayor Fazzino=s motion. She did not want an additional story on both structures. A decision was being
made at that evening=s meeting to look at the design, massing, and fit that was important. If others supported a motion to eliminate one level, she would support that motion as well. Council Member Mossar requested that the Council discuss Lot S/L and decide on what kind of action was required, then discuss Lot R
10/18/99 89-111
to decide action, and then agree upon Options 1 - 4 assuming redesign was what Council wanted. She recommended separating the motion so that the Council would clearly understand what was being discussed. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether there was any way the motion could be projected for the Council to review. Ms. Fleming said yes. She said the Council had an item to discuss at the break. At that time, staff could prepare the motion to display on the overhead projector. Council Member Mossar suggested separating the motion into three pieces; 1) Lot S/L; 2) Lot R; and 3) design options. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to request
that Council Member Rosenbaum=s motion be separated for the purpose of discussion. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider Αnot participating.≅
Mayor Fazzino said not every aspect of Council Member Rosenbaum=s motion was controversial. If the motion was gone through point by point and read publicly, the Council would notice that approximately five or six of the points had Council consensus. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the amendment on the floor spoke directly
to Lot S/L and Council Member Rosenbaum=s first point which was that the Council state its support for a parking garage on Lot S/L. The garage on Lot L would have four levels aboveground and one or two levels underground. The Garage on Lot S would have five levels aboveground and two levels underground. Council Member Mossar requested clarity regarding the process the Council was following to go through the motion. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the Council could also go through the motion point by point. She said the amendment was to allow staff flexibility in regard to the top floor of the structure on Lot S/L. Council Member Mossar asked whether the amendment would allow both Lot S and Lot L flexibility. Mayor Fazzino said yes. Council Member Mossar clarified that the amendment did not deal with the corner building on Lot L. Mayor Fazzino said not specifically, although that could be a factor.
10/18/99 89-112
Council Member Mossar asked at which pieces of Lot S/L was the motion directed. She presumed that the two parking areas were being considered and not the retail and Teen Center building. Mayor Fazzino said that was correct. Council Member Eakins supported the flexibility to either keep the maximum number of floors or to delete according to what the further design study showed. Design meant massing and orientation, not style. Flexibility could include half coverage of the top floors so as not to present a full-height facade. Flexibility, because of the range of options that are possible was what she wanted to keep. She did not want to mandate removing the top floors. Council Member Ojakian did not support the motion. He served on the Downtown Parking Structure Committee, which reviewed the other surface level lots in the Downtown and concluded that a structure could not be built on any of the other surface lots. What resulted from the conclusion were the proposed parking structures and a 1,500 car deficit that could potentially be greater given the fact
that the City had the concept called the Αblended rate≅ Downtown in the square footage that was allowed. Knowing the facts, it behooved the City to gain as many parking spaces as possible. To lose upwards of approximately 40 spaces was significant. Vice Mayor Wheeler supported the amendment to the motion. She understood the importance of maximizing parking. The amendment did not suggest that the City was going to lose parking spaces, at least not in significant numbers. Although she agreed that decreasing the parking structures by one floor could result in a loss of a significant number of parking spaces, she believed that in some of the schematic redesigns there were ways to have structures that accommodated the same number of parking spaces that did not have the same bulk and mass as the first drawings that were presented to the Council. The structures would be the legacy piece that the Council left to the community of Palo Alto. She wanted to ensure that while the Council satisfied the need for adequate parking in the Downtown area, that the Council was mindful of the permanency and sensitive locations of the structures. Council Member Kniss said flexibility always left a door open to
staff. Although the Council used the word Αflexibility,≅ she preferred to lessen the massing and remove one floor. She believed the structure would be less imposing if one story was removed. Council had a responsibility to make the structures as attractive as possible. Council Member Mossar asked whether the amendment built the alternative ideas that were presented at a prior Council meeting, or something different from those ideas. Mr. Riel said in his opinion, something different would be built.
10/18/99 89-113
Council Member Mossar asked which version of the parking structure
would be built according to Council Member Rosenbaum=s motion. Mr. Riel said the motion was a frame which staff would use to design what went around the frame. Staff had some good ideas as a result of the discussion. Council Member Mossar asked whether the structure would have the same structural configuration as the original staff proposal. Mr. Riel said yes. Council Member Mossar asked what would be built in reference to the amendment of four floors for Lot L, with one or two underground, and five floors for Lot S, with two levels underground. Mr. Riel said the building would be identical to the recommendation and would have four floors, but five levels with two levels underground. Council Member Mossar said Mr. Carrasco presented a design that
Council reviewed at a prior meeting. Council Member Rosenbaum=s
motion would build Mr. Carrasco=s design. She asked whether the purpose of the amendment was to try to get one floor less than what was proposed. Mayor Fazzino said yes. Council Member Mossar did not support the motion. She believed maximizing parking in the structures was important. Surface parking was a waste of land. Redesigning the parking structures was important. Many interesting ideas were presented to the Council, and she wanted to take advantage of the ideas; however, she did not support working to reduce floors from the parking structures. Mayor Fazzino was disappointed that several Council Members were not willing to support flexibility. Staff was willing to look at other alternatives and perhaps not have to eliminate a significant number of parking spaces as well as reduce the size of the building. What the amendment did was allow for the possibility of staff working with a design team to return to Council with a project that was less bulky and still achieved the objective of adding a significant number of parking spaces.
Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether Mayor Fazzino=s amendment included the notion that a significant number of parking spaces not be lost. Mayor Fazzino said the alternatives were: 1) the structures would be built with the maximum number of stories allowed; or 2)
10/18/99 89-114
eliminate one story completely which was not the amendment before the Council. The amendment before the Council was giving staff the opportunity to come up with some innovative suggestions within the
next six weeks on how the City might meet everyones= major objectives.
Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified that Mayor Fazzino=s motion implied that the number of parking spaces remain the same as was proposed. Mayor Fazzino said the amendment allowed for the possibility.
Council Member Eakins was worried that Mayor Fazzino=s intention was to eliminate one level; however, Mayor Fazzino clarified that the motion was to allow staff flexibility. She believed flexibility was important. She hoped that Mayor Fazzino would reiterate that flexibility be allowed to staff and consultants to do the best job possible to provide the City with the maximum feasible number of parking spaces. Mayor Fazzino said that was precisely what the amendment intended to do. AMENDMENT FAILED 4-4, Eakins, Fazzino, Kniss, Wheeler Αyes,≅
Schneider Αnot participating.≅
Mayor Fazzino said he would be leaving the meeting and voted Αno≅
on Council Member Rosenbaum=s motion. Council Member Kniss requested that Item No. 1 be separated for the purpose of voting. Council Member Ojakian said the initial idea behind including a Teen Center and retail area on the corner of Lytton Avenue and Bryant Street was that the lot was a corner lot, and the Teen Center and retail area would serve to break things up. The rest of the building was pushed back from the corner and the street. Council Member Huber favored having the Teen Center; however, he did not believe the City needed anymore retail space. He suggested using the commercial and retail space to add a few more parking spaces.
Council Member Eakins asked why Council Member Rosenbaum=s preference was for built-in restrooms. Council Member Rosenbaum believed built-in restrooms were appropriate. Council Member Kniss recalled that when she was on the County Transportation Commission there were long discussions about the restrooms and felt there should be a restroom at every station.
10/18/99 89-115
The restrooms were finally eliminated because of the difficulty of maintenance, frequently people ended up living in the restrooms, and hours would have to be established when the restrooms would be closed or not closed. She believed the restrooms were a more complicated issue that the Council thought it was. Other types of uses for the restroom were made because there was no one to oversee the restrooms on a regular basis. Staff needed to be aware that public toilets were not monitored and could become an eyesore for those who use the garage. Council Member Mossar said her wish was that there would be a homeless opportunity center in Palo Alto so the restrooms would not be needed for personal hygiene and laundering. Her model for restrooms in parking garages was the City of Monterey. She supported built-in restrooms. Council Member Eakins asked whether Council Member Rosenbaum would accept an amendment to Item No. 5 that an urban design architect be involved as part of the architecture design team. Council Member Mossar asked staff for guidance whether locating an urban design architect given the short time schedule was possible. Mr. Riel said staff would do its best to find a firm and locate an urban design architect to be included as part of the design team. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to have an urban design architect involved in the process. Council Member Mossar asked whether the $70,000 BAO was related to the additional engineering services that were required for Lot R. Mr. Roberts said yes. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add an additional Item No. 10 to follow design guidelines with one of the deliverables a whiteboard presentation for an additional $15,000 to the cost.
Ms. Fleming asked whether staff had the Council=s permission to return the BAO on the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Wheeler said yes. Council Member Kniss did not support the motion. She supported the parking structures but did not support not allowing flexibility to omit one floor from the structures. Council Member Mossar said flexibility was important and felt strongly that the Council should give the redesign committee flexibility. The Council gave the committee the parameters which included reducing the bulk, height, and scale, examining the
10/18/99 89-116
existing architecture considering the context in redesigning the exterior to blend with the Downtown. Unfortunately, by mixing in the notion of reducing floors, the Council built in a political oxymoron and would be faced with the same problem in December when the matter would be returned to the Council. She could not imagine that the design team could remove a floor and maintain the same number of parking spaces. She had every confidence that the design team, using the criteria specified in the motion, would return to Council with the most attractive and compatible structure that was possible. She supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-2, for Item No. 1, Kniss, Wheeler Αno,≅
Schneider Αnot participating,≅ Fazzino absent. MOTION PASSED 7-0, for Item Nos. 2-10, Schneider Αnot
participating,≅ Fazzino absent. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: 9:10 P.M. - 9:30 P.M. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Potential/Anticipated Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 5. Vice Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 5. Council Member Mossar announced that she did not participate in the Closed Session due to a conflict of interest. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Ojakian, to bring Item No. 8 forward before Agenda Item No. 7 for purposes of continuance. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6A. (Old Item No. 8) 301 University Avenue: Review of an Appeal of
the Director of Planning and Community Environment=s Denial, After Review and Recommendation by the Architectural Review Board, of an Application for the Installation of a New Automatic Teller Machine and Increased Letter Height and Additional Lighting for Existing Signs Advertising Wells Fargo Private Client Services Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said staff had a conversation with the applicant who understood the matter would not be continued to October 25, 1999, but to a date uncertain. The matter would be renotified and reagendized to a date in the future. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, second by Rosenbaum, to continue Item No. 8 to a date uncertain.
10/18/99 89-117
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent. 7. Council Members Ojakian and Mossar re El Camino Real Improvements (Continued from 9/27/99) Council Member Ojakian said El Camino Real was an eyesore and was
an area that lacked cohesion. Through the City=s Comprehensive Plan, the City wanted to make improvements on El Camino Real. Staff should produce a plan that addressed design and conceptual development issues. The plan included a BAO for funds to include development and ongoing maintenance and repair costs. Some things that motivated him about the project were: 1) a citizens group took an interest in the matter and did a lot of leg work; 2) there were adjacent cities looking at different ways to make improvements on El Camino Real; and 3) the City had potential development projects along El Camino Real in the near future, and he felt the time had come to begin the process of setting expectations. Council Member Mossar said there was great interest in planting trees along El Camino Real. The trees had environmental and pollution reduction capabilities that were significant and worthwhile of consideration. Her intention was not to interrupt any agreed upon budgetary or work-planning process; and in general, she viewed the memo as an opportunity for the Council to receive information from staff to determine how much money was involved. She supported deferring the conversation while the Council considered/reconsidered how best to bring new ideas and new projects into the decision-making stream. She did not support a direction to staff to initiate the project. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, was disappointed at Council Member
Mossar=s comments. He believed something needed to be done to clean up El Camino Real. The concern was not new and it was appropriate to move the item forward. He urged the Council to direct staff to return recommendations to improve El Camino Real within the next 30 days. Shirley Wilson, 509 Hale Street, participated in the citizens group that worked on the El Camino project since January 1999. The
project was being called a Αcommunity project for the new
millennium.≅ She wanted to emphasize the word community. The group knew there were funding opportunities within the City budget for trees and would like to use that stepping stone to gather more support within the community. Most people the group spoke with were enthusiastic about the project. The group was looking for public/private partnerships that would be ongoing for several years. Chuck Kinney, Council Member, City of Menlo Park, urged the Council to approve the staff recommendations regarding the El Camino Real
10/18/99 89-118
Improvement Project. The City of Menlo Park (Menlo Park) took the first step and hired consultants to perform first phase planning. There would be a City of Menlo Park Council review in December
1999, with budget discussions in early spring 2000. The citizen=s group formed a nonprofit foundation. The group was legitimized by the state and waiting for a tax exempt status with the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS). The group=s hope was to make a statement about the public and private entities working together. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether Mr. Kinney visualized the public
part of funding would come from Menlo Park=s General Fund or was there access to Redevelopment Agency funds. Mr. Kinney said the money would come out of the General Fund. The Redevelopment Agency was in a different part of town and not in the El Camino Real area. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether Menlo Park had any idea what the ultimate cost would be. Mr. Kinney said Menlo Park discussed contracting with growers to grow the trees in advance. Each tree would cost approximately $100 for a 24-inch box; however, that was just the cost for the tree. In some areas, sidewalks, curbs, or gutters would have to be removed and irrigation lines installed which would bring the total to approximately $500 per tree. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified that the project would encompass the
whole length of El Camino Real within Menlo Park=s city limits. Mr. Kinney said yes. Menlo Park would start at the bridge at San Francisquito Creek through Menlo Park to Encinal Avenue.
Council Member Mossar asked whether it was Menlo Park=s or the non-
profit entity=s responsibility to scope the project. Mr. Kinney said Menlo Park funded the $25,000 for the first phase. Council Member Mossar asked whether Menlo Park was taking the responsibility in scoping the project. Mr. Kinney said yes. The nonprofit group formed a group to educate, raise money through donations, and promote tree planting along El Camino Real. Council Member Mossar asked whether Menlo Park made any commitments to the nonprofit entity. Mr. Kinney said no. Council Member Mossar asked whether Menlo Park was expecting the
10/18/99 89-119
nonprofit entity to raise enough funds to pay for the project or to
supplement Menlo Park=s contribution. Mr. Kinney said a decision had not been made. He hoped the foundation could raise sufficient funds to demonstrate citizen interest and support for the project. Council Member Mossar clarified that Menlo Park would contribute and the nonprofit entity would also contribute. Mr. Kinney said yes. Council Member Kniss asked whether the Menlo Park City Council used special funds or General Fund money from fiscal year 1999 to obtain a consultant. Mr. Kinney said the money was obtained from the General Fund for fiscal year 1999. Council Member Kniss asked how the Menlo Park City Council would incorporate the project into its budget process.
Mr. Kinney said Menlo Park=s budget process was slated to begin in spring 2000 for the 2000-2001 Budget. The $25,000 for the consultant was included in the Budget for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. Council Member Kniss clarified that the $25,000 allocated for a
consultant was incorporated into Menlo Park=s 1999-2000 budget and the project would be incorporated into the next budget cycle that would begin in spring 2000. Mr. Kinney said that was correct.
Council Member Kniss did not recall whether El Camino Real=s medians through Menlo Park were any different in size to that of El Camino Real through the City of Palo Alto. She asked whether the medians were the same size. Mr. Kinney said some medians were the same; however, there were some medians that were narrow. In the center of Menlo Park, some lanes on El Camino Real were reduced and a wider median was used; however, the plants were being destroyed by passing traffic. Council Member Kniss asked whether Menlo Park would have to redo some of the medians. Mr. Kinney said that some of the medians would have to be opened up.
Council Member Kniss clarified part of Menlo Park=s discovery was to see what type of tree would be able to survive in the median at its current size.
10/18/99 89-120
Council Member Ojakian clarified in Phase One of the project $25,000 was allocated for a review of the landscape in order to get an idea of what the City should do next. Mr. Kinney said yes, in addition, Menlo Park would have a planting plan based upon what Menlo Park understood the constraints were and a budget cost estimate to tie into the 2000-2001 budget process. There were approximately 20 different combinations of federal and nonprofit grants available for street tree planting for urban areas. The nonprofit group was beginning to file applications for grant considerations.
Council Member Ojakian asked what Menlo Park=s timeframe was for the tree planting.
Mr. Kinney said Menlo Park referred to it as the ΑMillennium
Project.≅ He hoped to get a significant part of the project funded in the year 2000 to be implemented in the fall 2000. Stephanie Sussman, 739 Josina Avenue, was excited about the possibility of trees being planted along El Camino Real. The area
of El Camino Real in Palo Alto=s city limits were bleak in that there were few trees in the median. There was no question that when one was in the part of town with big, beautiful trees, the feeling was one of beauty and calm. She walked along El Camino Real and there was a tremendous amount of debris along El Camino Real. Most of the debris was from fast food restaurants and consisted of cups, straws, napkins, plates, and wrappers. Bus stops were magnets for newspapers. Refuse cans were not being utilized. She hoped the City would be able to come up with a project in which there was an effort made starting on a small level to improve the quality of the streets. Susan Rosenberg, 1425 Stanford Avenue, referred to an overhead projection of the College Terrace area which was near the El Camino Real. El Camino Real was hot with almost no shade. She referred to a photograph which was a computer rendering of what the same street would look like with trees that were approximately 15 years old. In a short period of time, the El Camino Real could become a shaded, tree-lined boulevard. Council Member Kniss asked whether the Council could consider including the project into the budget cycle in the form of a multi-year Capital Improvement Project (CIP).
Council Member Ojakian suggested the Council follow Menlo Park=s example and go through a Phase One to evaluate the landscape, see what the possibilities were, determine the costs, and potential funding sources. Council Member Kniss asked whether the project could be included
10/18/99 89-121
into the budget process that started in January 2000. Council Member Ojakian believed that Phase One should be performed before determining whether the project could be included into the budget process. Council Member Kniss said if the project was going to be long-term, she wanted it to be in the budget cycle so the City could proceed. Council Member Mossar asked staff what an initial study entailed in order to understand the project. Sending someone out to inventory the possible places a tree might be planted was a small part of the picture to scope out the project. She was trying to determine what the first step would be in order to incorporate the project in the budget process and where the money should come from. City Manager June Fleming said the first things staff would do would be to look at the infrastructure program which already had projected funds to review medians citywide. Staff would have to go back and use the information it already had and develop a project plan. The plan would take the project out of the Budget sequence that the Council had already approved. There were already many issues related to improving the median and the sidewalk area on El Camino Real. She agreed that it was a task that needed to be done. Staff talked to the City of Mountain View and had its plan. Infrastructure such as irrigation, median widening, landscape plan, and a tree planting plan were required because there were many places where trees could not be placed that could not be left bare. The first step would be to come up with a plan which meant that staff would have to drop other projects. A plan could not be done within three months or thirty days. Council Member Mossar agreed that there was much work to do. She asked hypothetically if the Council were to allocate $25,000 to hire the same consultant that Menlo Park to perform the same task and in three months received a document that was the work product, what benefit would the Council gain from the document. She asked whether the Council would be in a position to place parameters around the project. Ms. Fleming said the Council would have more information than it currently had; however, she doubted that staff would be ready to return to Council with a project. Council Member Mossar was concerned that the initial phase was larger than just the survey. She appreciated that it was important not to make the project so big that it could not be done, but she did not think that a $25,000 preliminary survey would get much result. She was comfortable with having the project in the budget process so the Council could weigh the priorities. Council Member Eakins said there were two sections to budgeting, the first section was the possibility of having a volunteer group
10/18/99 89-122
to do fundraising and planting, and the second section was the development fees or requirements. She asked whether the Council could require more of projects if there was a plan. Ms. Fleming said staff did not believe a detailed plan was required in order to consider the fees. Staff discussed looking at the possibility of imposing a fee and putting the funds away until it
was ready to proceed with the project. Staff=s information was that the project took over a year of careful planning. Obtaining information from Caltrans as to where trees could be planted and the species acceptable for planting would take time. The City would have to take over total maintenance of El Camino Real throughout the City of Palo Alto if it did not want to abide by the Caltrans rules and regulations for what could be planted. Council Member Eakins spoke with Betty Meltzer regarding a grant that would be supportive of the El Camino Real project. Ms. Meltzer mentioned there had to be a City plan in effect for even a voluntary group to solicit funds. She asked what the basic mechanisms were to begin the project. Ms. Fleming recommended the Council indicate an interest in pursuing the project and instruct the City Manager to consider including the project in the next budget brought before the Council. She said that the City had begun its budget process. Council Member Eakins clarified that the timing was right to include the project into the budget. Ms. Fleming agreed. Staff could review the project and consider recommending a way in which to proceed. Staff would return to Council as a part of the budget process where the Council would make its decisions and priorities. Including the project into the first year of the infrastructure plan might be possible. Council Member Eakins asked whether the budget work would also include fees. Ms. Fleming said the Council could ask staff to consider fees. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Mossar, to direct the City Manager to consider the project as part of the 2000-2001 Budget process with a CIP directed at planting plans for El Camino Real and to also consider funding mechanisms to make this possible
not solely at City=s expense. Council Member Huber supported the motion. The Council had dealt with volunteer organizations who were in a position to raise money, but ultimately the responsibility of funding fell to the City. From a Budgetary process, the Council needed to view the project as being totally funded by the City. Council Member Kniss supported the motion. She underscored the
10/18/99 89-123
importance of working with the neighboring cities. Now that Canopy was in place, it might have more information as to what Caltrans would allow by way of trees. The idea of beautification appealed to everyone. She hoped the City could consider the project and weave it into its long-term process. Ms. Fleming said staff would work with other cities and had already spoken with the City of Mountain View. Council Member Ojakian asked staff to explain the timing of the project. Ms. Fleming said she would work with staff to incorporate the project into the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. The Budget would be completed and packaged by March 2000. Council Member Ojakian clarified that once the project was incorporated into the budget, the first possible funds for the project would be seen in July 2000. Ms. Fleming said staff would not have authorization to expend any funds until July 2000 because that was when the budget was implemented. She did not want to guess when the project would begin. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the first step of the project would be to perform an evaluation. Ms. Fleming understood the motion was for staff to put together a plan. Vice Mayor Wheeler supported the motion. She noted Bob Moss mentioned that the plans for El Camino Real that were conceived approximately 20 years prior were finally coming to fruition. The fact that a large part of El Camino Real was transformed from a solely commercial thoroughfare to multifamily residential created a sense of urgency to create a much more attractive vista along El Camino Real. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
10/18/99 89-124
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
10/18/99 89-125