Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-04-07 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES r CITY of PAL O ALTO Regular Meeting April 7, 1986 ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 7 0 2 7 Approval of Minutes of February 24, 1986 and Marcn 3, 1986 Item 01, Resolution of Appreciation to Ronald 0. Lee Consent Calendar Referral item 02, Yacht Harbor Study Plan - Refer to Finance and Public Works Committee Item #3, Human Services Resource Allocation Process Recommendation - Refer to Finance and Public Works Committee Item 04, City of Palo Alto Annual Financial`Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1985 - Refer to Finance and Public Works Committee Action Item 05, Approval of the Appointment of Dianah Neff as Director of Information Resources and Approval of Finder's Fee for Director of Information Resources Item 06, Renewal of Joint Powers Agreement for Intergovernmental Employee Relations Services Item 07, Executive Search Services Item #8, Ordinance re Repealing CATV Lobbyists and Code of Ethics Regulations Item 09, Ordinance re 1431 waverley Street (The. Gamble House) (2nd Reading) . Item #10, PUBLIC HEARING: Downtown Palo Alto Underground Project Item 011, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Coaceission recommendation re Expansion of Holiday Inn Hotel, 625 El Canino Real 7 0 3 0 7 .0 3 0 7 0 3 0 7 0 3 1 7 0 3 1 7 0 3 1 7 0 3 1 7 0 3 1 7 0 3 1 7 0 3 1 7 0 3 1 7 0 3 1 7.0 3 1 7.0 3 2 7 0 3-2 Item 012, Policy and Procedures Committee. 7 0 4 0 recommendation re Sidewalk Pushcarts 7 0 2 5 4/07/86 ITEM P A C E Item 113, Extensions of Development Moratorium with 7 0 4 1 Downtown Palo Alto and University Avenue Parking Assessment District Parking Ordinance Item 114, Request of Mayor Cobb and Councilmembers 7 0 4 6 Klein and Patitucci re Proposal for Future Trends Community Discussion.. Item 115, Request of Mayor Cobb re Proposal for a 7 0 4 9 City Council One -Day Retreat Adjournment: Adjourned at 10:25 p.m. 7 0 5 0 7 0 2 6 4/07/86, Regular Meeting April 7, 1986 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m., PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Pati tucc i , Renzel, Sutori us , Woolley. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Cobb stated Council could not take any action or respond to persons speaking. under Ural Communications. If a response was necessary, it would be done separately and after the fact. 1. Dr. Harvey K. Roth, 3422 Kenneth Drive, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Recovery Center and alcohol package labeling memo- rialization, and said to date he received no response from Council. He urged Council to respond to his requests. He would be at the County Drug Advisory Board meeting on April 8, the Human Relations Commission meeting on April 10, and the County Alcoholism. Advisory Board on, April 16. 2. Tim Hesterberg, 151 Lowell, said Council recently postponed a decision on• sidewalk repair financing pending the results of an election to determine whether the costs could be financed by a General Obligation Bond issue. He believed a bond issue was inappropriate to finance sidewalk repair because it was a maintenance expense not a capital expense. He urged Council to reserve bonds for capital costs. Palo Alto had not kept up with sidewalk repairs, ._and taxpayers had not paid what they should. It.was too late to make past residents pay, but he suggested present residents be required to pay. 3. Arlene Shaupp, 2621 Greer Road, a member of the First Presbyterian Church, queried whether "Sanctuary was a local issue." Refugees from El Salvador lived in the community and were picked up by police when they rode down the street on a bicycle because they looked as though they did not belong in the community. She relayed stories of Immigration and Natur- alization Service (INS) abuses in Palo Alto where the INS picked someone up because they looked Latin American and were sitting at a bus stop waiting for the bus. Such action was in direct violation of the law. _In other parts of the country, the INS was reported to .follow the law; but in the Palo Alto area, the INS acted overzealously and picked people up just because they looked Latino or out -of -place, She spoke of expperences with the Palo Alto police when both she and Salvadoran refugees were stopped by the police to see if the bicycles being put in her car were stolen. She hoped to en- .. courage humane treatment if Palo Alto becamea Sanctuary City. The issue was local because there were many refugees in Palo Alto. She disagreed with the speaker of two weeks ago from the INS who urged Council not Ao break the law. The United States Refugee Act -of 1980, which the government ignored, said the -United States would let people in on a short-term basis, while danger to the lives .of civilians existed in their coun- try; that they were permitted to be in the ;;United States until the situation became safe in their cou.ntr'y; that the United States woil d not return them to 4 plane where civilians had a great likelihood of tort ure.and a great possibility of death 7 0 2 7. 4/07/86 People said the issue was not a local one but the government heard from individuals and cities. Voices were raised in Palo Alto individually and in churches. Everyone cared about abuses of human rights. She urged Council go on record because the matter was so terrible the City must not 'remain silent. She hoped Council would find the issue touching, relevent, and Palo Alto would become a sanctuary city. 3. Richard Symes, 869 Embarcadero Road, lived in Palo Alto for eight years and was Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, a sanctuary congregation which for 25 years conducted a ministry to refugees who .fled from dictatorships both on the left and on the right. The Church's ministry on behalf of Central American refugees was no different than its ministry over the last 25 years, except the Administration believed the church took up smuggling. The jury was still out on that very issue. Two weeks previously, Council received 2,000 signatures from its constituents; some 300 people filled the Council Chambers urging Council to adopt a resolution of welcome and protection for endangered Central American political refugees. He under- stood Council's reluctance to act on the resolution was based on its belief it was an illegal act of civil disobedience, and was not appropriate business for a local body. Regarding a resolution being an illegal act of civil disobedience, while he and thousands of others who studied the Refugee Act of 1980 believed their actions were in concert with the laws of the country, the issue could be argued endlessly. He suggested Council do the same as the City of Los Angeles and the Governor of New Mexico recently did and declare Palo Alto a place of refuge and draft a compromise resolution which was legal in every sense. Such action would accomplish what the sponsors wanted, i.e., going on record opposing the deporta- tion of political refugees from Central America and would get the message across to Central American refugees who were already filled with terror of being deported. Regarding the issue being a local one, if local governments adopted the policy "of not addressing national and international issues, the United States would still be part of the British Empire. The cradle of American democracy was those town councils and meeting houses in New England and along the Atlantic coast where the light of liberty was first kindled. The Palo Alto City Council previously enacted resolutions with international import. Last summer he heard . the Mayor welcome, applaud, and honor young people from Palo Alto's Sister Cities in Oaxaca and Enschede. He agreed all their papers were 'n order, but he urged Councilmesnbers think about what they would do if they suddenly received confirmed reports those children, who were their guests, were murdered, raped, imprisoned. muti 1 i ated, add tortured. He believed Council would find some way to phrase a resolution expressing its outrage at such treatment and calling for some kind . of protection. Perhaps they might even consider meking El Salvador one of Palo Alto's Sister Cities. He submitted the resolution requested two weeks pre- viously was a local issue because thousands of Council's voting constituents asked them to make such a resolution, and because those refugees lived in their midst. He requested Councilmembers listen carefully to their constituents and con- sciences, use their .imagination and intelligence, and approve the kind of resolution that would meet even Council's objec- tives. 1 1 7 0 2 8 4/07/86 Brian Boorce, 644 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, graduated from Palo Alto schools where he was opposed to the function of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He was a member of the Palo Alto First Presbyterian Church, and his interest in the Palo Alto sanctuary resolution stemmed from his contact with several refugees who fled the destructive mayhem in El Salvador and Guatemala. Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees experienced basic inequities under the present administration of their system. The people were denied their fundamental hums) rights in violation of United States and interteati onal law. The Times Tribune recently printed two stories about the tragedies of a 22 -year old Salvadoran who went en an errand involving a to -hour bus trip from her parents' home into the country to see her uncle who was a farmer and chairman of the local farm cooperative. Two men raped the girl and a 14 -year old cousin, and finally cut them loose saying they had two minutes to leave or they would be killed too. After coming out of the hospital where she was treated for shock, the girl recognized one of the two rapist/ !murderers who threatened to kill her and her parents if she said anything. In August, 1984, she fled El Salvador. Under United States law, a refugee seeking asylum must show persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The girl applied for asylum as a surviving witness to politi- cal persecution who remained a target of persecution in her own right: An immigration judge and appeals' hoards rejected her plea for asylum and opined she was not persecuted because,. of any political opinion she possessed. The girl was given 12 days to leave the country voluntarily before she would be deported. The American Civil Liberties Union (AMCLU) was presently taking her case to court. -The Reagan Administration policy denounced the cruelty of communism but with its own military action based on idealogy, could be harsh to individ- ual human victims. The resolution attempted to develop a positive alternative to the human destructiveness in Guatemala and El Salvador based on the fact major social changes came about for the good only when people made fundamental decisions from deep in their hearts and minds to address the humanitar- ian concerns of the times. There was considerable national dishonesty, fraud, and manipulation of the public in the basic illegality of deporting political refugees to war zones. The INS representative who addressed Council at its last meeting said Los Angeles passed a sanctuary resolution but rescinded it on grounds the resolution was a violation of federal law. It was not true declaring a City as a sanctuary for refugees was a violation of federal law. It was true the City of Los Angeles modified the resolution before passing it again, City Councils of Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Sacramento, Davis, Berkeley, San Francisco, Seattle, and many others throughout the country who passed sanctuary resolutions would welcome the Palo Alto City Council joining them at the yrass roots level in their call to stick with the present sys- tem of constitutional and international law While continuing to struggle for peace, individual dignity, and basic human rights. The solution to Central American problems involved working toward a new awareness of human rights which sustained and expressed a spirit of humanitarian concern. It seemed appropriate for the Palo Alto City Council to declare Palo Alto as a sanctuary for those refugees. 7 0 2 9 407/86 6, Teresa, spoke through a translator, and was afraid to give har last name. She was a mother of three children and one of the thousands of refugees who fled the war in El Salvador. She fled her country because of the disappearance of many children from the school grounds and their homes. The reasons were well known by Central Americans in the United States. In June, 1985, seven young children were kidnapped from her children's school. She witnessed the death of some beloved friends and she was forced to leave her house after being beaten and was taken to the mountains to be killed. She begged for mercy. She was let go. She thanked the Sanctuary group for helping her because upon arrival in the United States, a refugee had no one and felt lost in an unknown world. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 1986 AND MARCH 3, 1..986. Minutes of March 3, 1986 Councilmenber Fletcher submitted the following correction: Page 6935, second paragraph, second line, the word "Metropolitan" should be changed to "County." MOTION: Cosncilmeeber Fletcher moved, seconded by Srtories, approval of Minutes of February 24 1986, as submitted, and March 3, 1986, as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Reazel "abstaining" on the Minutes of March 3, 1986.9 ITEM #1, RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO RONALD D. LEE (COU 5-3) Mayor Cobb said Ronald D. Lee served a three-year term frorn April, 1983, to March 31, 1986 on the Human Relations Commission, and gave unselfishly of his time, talent, and leadership abilities to help guide the growth and development of the City in the best interests of the total community and made a significant personal contribution to the community through his diligent and conscien- tious efforts while serving as a member of the Human Relations Commission. The City of Palo Alto recognized the service of Mr. Lee, and the Council of the City of Palo Alto gratefully recorded its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of the community, for the outstanding public service rendered by Ronald 0. Lee. NOTION: Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Setorius, approval of the resolution. RESOLUTION 6606 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF TAE CITY OF DLO ALTO EXPRESSING ITS APPRECIATION TO RONALD 9. LEE FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MENDER OF THE HUNAN RELATIONS COMMISSION" MOTION PASSED onanimiusly. Mayor Cobb presented Mr. Lee with a framed copy of the resolu- tion. Mr. Lee thanked the Council. He Appreciated the opportunity to serve on the Human Relations Commission and regretted constraints on his time did not allow hire to continue. The City could count on his support in the future whenever needed. i CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Csvdcilmesber &stories moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Consent Calendar. 7 0"30 4/07/86 Referral ITEM #2 YACHT HARBOR STUDY PLAN - REFER TO FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE (PWK 7-6) (CMR:236:6r ITEM #3, HUMAN SERVICES RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS RECOMMENDATION - REFER TO FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMTT1'EE (SOS 8-1) TCMR:2 8:6) ITEM #4L CITY OF PALO ALTO ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1985 - REFER TO FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE (Ffl( k-2) Act on ITEM #5,_ APPROVAL OF THE APPOINTMENT OF DIANAH NEFF AS DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION RESOURCES AND APPROVAL OF THE FINDER'S FEE FOR THE DIRECTOR OF IMFORMATION RE.a0URCES (FIN 9/PER 3- ) (CMR:227:6) Staff recommends Council approve the appointment of Dianah Neff as Director of Information Resources. Staff further recommends. Council authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Source Edp and authorize payment of the contingency fee. Funding for this fee has been provided in the 1985.86 budget. ITEM f.6 RENEWAL OF THE JOINT .POWERS AGREEMENT FOR INTER- GOVERNME` 1TAL E-MPL(YEE RELATIONS SERVICES (PE -R 1) [CMR :233:6 ) Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute the Joint Powers Agreement for Intergovernmental Employee Relations Services. AGREEMENT County of Santa Clara ITEM #7, EXECUTIVE SEARCH SERVICES (PER 3.7) (CMR:234:6) Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Hughes, Heiss & Associates for recruitment services for the position of Water Quality Control Manager. AGREEMENT Hughes, Reiss A Associates ITEM #8 ORDINANCE RE REPEALING CATV LOBBYISTS AND CODE OF ETHICS REGULATIOS (2nd Readinj) 1PRE 7-3) ORDINANCE 3677 entitled *ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO REPEALING CHAPTER 2,11 OF THE PALO ALTO .HONICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CABLE TELEVISION - LOiiT'IN6 (Ist Reading 3/24/$69 PASSED 9-0) ITEM #9 ORDINANCE RE 1431 WAVtRLEY`STREET'tTHE GAMBLE HOUSE) (2nd ea ng ORDINANCE 3670 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF TOE CITY IF PALO ALTO ARMING SECTION 18.08,040 Of TILE PALO ALTO NMNI C IPAL CORE (T$E ZONING NAP) TO CNANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY RIONN AS 1431 MAVERLE T STREET FROM R-1(!2!) TO PC"'_(1st Readiag 3/24/86, MASSED NOTION PASSED unanimously. 7 0 3 1 4/07/86 ITEM iF1U, PUBLIC HEARING: DOWNTOWN PALO ALIO UNDERGROUND PROOECT (UT! 8-11) (CMR:229:6) Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. MOTION; Cooaci1.ember Bechtel moved, seconded by Woolley, approval of the ordinance. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 12.16.020 OF CHAPTER 12.16 OF TITLE 12 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE OT ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 29" Councilmember Patitucci understood the electric utility assumed the cost of developing the whole system up to the property line, and from that point, the property owner assumed the cost of getting the system to their power box. The property owner could either pay in one lump sum or spread it over ten years. He asked what interest rate applied to the amortization of the payment over ten years. Director of Utilities Richard Young said the interest rate was based` on a step increment over the bond buyers' index in the week in which the ordinance passed. Councilmember Sutorius supported undergrounding and was pleased to support the ordinance. He observed connections frrm undergrounded facilities to private developments where the actual connection was standpipe -type connection against the outside of the wall, which defeated the prime aesthetic purposes of undergrounding. There were other important purposes to, underground but the focus was on efforts to make the Downtown area_more handsome and less polluted. Progress was slow but it was a shame to see it hampered when the connections to private property were not in keeping with one of the main concepts of undergrounding. He encouraged staff to assure the City got true underground connections. MOTION PASSED mnanimossly. ITEM i11, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE EXPAWS1-01 OF HOLIDAY INN HOTEL, 6-21 EL CAMINO REAL OLA .3-1) (CMi?:22$:6) Councilmemoer Patitucci believed, given the time and effort of the Downtown Study, Council should defer consideration of the Holiday Inn Hotel expansion until the Downtown Study was completed. Mayer Cobb said Council announced a Public Hearing and had at least s tyro cards from the public. He believed Council should pro- ceed with the Public Hearing before a motion to continue was in order. Councilmember Patitucci asked whether there was any adverse effect which. might occur if the Holiday Inn item was postponed until June at the completion of the Downtown Study. '. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said legally the Council ° had until August..3, 1986 to take final action on the project. Vice Mayor Woolley asked what actions were available' to Council besides denial or approval of the application. City Attorney Diane Lee said Council could either deny, approve, or continue the application. Vice Mayor Woolley asked whether it was possible to do a denial with prejudice. M a. Lee said because of the nature of the particular application, she did not believe there was a problem with refiling. As she recalled, there was no penalty once the application was denied. In some other situations when an application was denied, an appli- cant could not refile for approximately a year. Vice Mayor Woolley asked staff to review amendments to the Planned Community (PC) zone which occurred since it was adopted. Mr. Brown said there were many relatively minor amendments to the PC zone since it was originally adopted in 1972, which were sum- marized in the staff report (CMR:228:6). In July, 1973, a sign program was approved for the hotel; in 1977, minor modifications including planter boxes, a kitchen shed, canvas awning, new fencing and gates were approved by the City Council; in 1980, there was a minor change for fencing at the rear of the site; in 1983, there was a more major amendment which included an expanded lobby, a cocktail lounge addition, administrative offices, conver- sion of a storage building to a wedding reception hall, additional laundry facilities, and enclosure of an outdoor garbage area. The total square footage involved in that change was 2,120. In 1984, there was a minor door modification to an exterior facade. Councilmember Fletcher asked what difference the addition of the restaurant made in terms of traffic generation. Mr. Brown said the traffic generation figures established spe- cifically for the use were based on traffic counts froet existing facilities including a restaurant, coffee shop, bar, the wedding reception hall, and meeting facilities. Staff believed the blended traffic rate for the project anticipated the addition of both rooms and a new 4,000 square toot restaurant. Councilmember Renzel recalled an additional PC amendment which involved the use of 5,000 square feet of the basement area for conference rooms which did not\appear on staff's synopsis and which was part of the Use Permit. Mr. Brown confirmed there was an interpretation regarding the use of certain maximum square footage of meeting room area in the basement of 5,000 square feet. Councilmember Renzel referred to the traffic projections, and clarified when staff spoke of northbound off -ramp from the El Camino intersection with University Avenue, it included the level of service for University Avenue at El Camino. Mr. Brown was not sure but believed the level of service referred to the northbound off -ramp only. Me was informed by the Transportation Division the level of service on, University Avenue atthe intersection of University Avenue and El Camino was level of service C and was currently acceptable. The level of service was based on a ratio of vol.ume•to capacity. Councilmember Renzel said the ratio did not consider the face that delays on •University Avenue left motorists stopped halfway • up or down on a small hill. Mr. Brown said that special factors such as an underpass were not part of the level o.f service measurement which was a volume to capacity ratio. 7 0 3 3 4/07/86 As corrected 5/05/86 Councilmember Renzel asked if there was apt to be any difference in Lhe qualify of LE -attic if staff picked a day of higher occupan- cy to measure the base rate from Holiday Inn. Staff picked a day when there was a 64 percent occupancy, which was below break-even and probably did not reflect the nature of the traffic when a con- ference was held, or some other higher activity level. Mr. Brown said that was correct. Occupancy in the low 70s was more typical so the traffic figures could vary by as much as 10, 12, or 15 percent. Councilmember Klein asked for clarification of level of service C. Mr. Brown said level of service C was an acceptable level of ser- vice. While he did not have an actual definition of what it meant in terms of volume to capacity ratio, it did not relate to signif- icant delays in intersection capacity. Councilmember Levy asked how the below market rate (BMR) figure was determined. Mr. Brown said the BMR amount was based on an ordinance which was $2.53 per added square foot. Councilmember Levy clarified the amount was the same for the hotel as for office buildings. Mr. Brown clarified the ordinance applied to all commercial and industrial developments. Councilmember Sutorius sympathized with Councilmember Patitucci in terms of the Downtown Study but believed it appropriate to pursue certain subjects. Page 8 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) gave a clear description of the BMR mitigation process which provided the exact formula including the final dollar amount. Regarding traffic, he understood staff's response to Council - members Fletcher's and Renzel's questions but was curious about the 8.1 figure, described on pages 14, 15, and 16 of the report. He asked whether 8.1 was multiplied by 64 to arrive at the 484, or whether some adjustment occurred because his figures did not agreed Mr. Brown understood the trip generation rate was multiplied by the additional rooms. If the mathematics did not work out, he deferred to the applicant. Councilmember Sutorius said 64 times 8.1 came to 518. He tried to correlate the average daily trip and peak hour trip generation as contained in the June, 1985 staff memorandum eo the Planning. Corr mission and subsequently to Council, and reference the fact ex- clusive hotel/motel use generated 3.2 trips per thousand square feet and assumed 325 square feet per room. The consultant's study made the same types of assumptions relative to hotels, 325 square feet, etc.. If he took 3.2 per thousand and multiplied it by a 50,000 square foot development, he came up with approximately 160 trips as opposed to 31 in the peak hour. Also, in the June, 1985 report .there was the. valid distinction between exclusive hotel/ motel versus .e hotel/motel with other types of .commercial activ- ity, e, a., a restaurant, eating establishment., drinking establish- ment, etc. He had difficulty correla+wing the earlier staff information on hotel/motel traffic generation. with what seemed to be the consultant's experience. /87381 1 Mr. Brown deferred to the applicant for response. He understood the rooms were significantly larger than the typical small hotel room and the majority were suites. The Holiday Inn was closer to the Transit which might play a factor in reducing trip generation. Staff looked at the International Traffic Engineers' standardized fi guree for hotels and found on a per room basis, the trip gener- ation was in the range of approximately ten trips per day per room. The Holiday Inn was somewhat below that; therefore, staff accepted the figures as being reasonable. Mayor Cobb referred to deliberations at the Planning Commission level. Even though the vote was a 6-1 denial, he sensed from the commentary negative voting was the result of the application going through the process the same time as the Downtown Study, and there might have been a different view if there was some feeling as to where the City would end up when the Downtown Study-. was finished and the moratorium was lifted, final zonings in place, etc. Planning Commissi-ner Ellen Christensen believed the concern related more to the City-wide transportation study and the interim zoning on the surrounding area. Several Commissioners did not want to prejudice the application if it returned to the Commission with a policy direction from Council or after deliberations in conjunction with the City-wide land use and transportation study which ended up with a policy exempting hotels or allowed higher floor area ratio for hotels, warehouses, etc. Several Commis- sioners believed they might look at the matter differently if it went back before the Planning Commission with a different policy framework in place. She did not believe Commissioners expressed a view one way or another. Mayor Cobb sensed the Planning Commi_sion was waiting for feedback from Council, and there was some ambivalence relative to the lack of feedback. Commissioner Christensen said two Commissioners-expresse4 concern about the imposing architectural nature of the' addition to the building and objected to the idea of a. four-story building at that point along El Camino. The concern was primarily one of equity and fairness vis-a-vis the other land owners in the area, acid the fact the City Council could exempt hotels from the interim reoela- tions but had not done 'so.. It was a policy issue which should os decided in the context of the City-wide transportation study and not on a single -application basis. Commissioner Marsh, the lone vote in favor of the application,. saw public benefit from the financial aspects of the project and believed it was generally a reasonable modification request. Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, spoke as President of the Palo Alto Civic League, and said the League urged Council to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation and deny the application. A letter in the packet, dated December .31, 1985, from Mr. Newman stated the area was zoned for a 500 -unit hotel. It was a PC zone and if Council looked at the actual ordinance and referendum from II7r and 1972, the PC zone was explicitly for a 280 -room hotel according to the ordinance. It was what the people of Palo Alto voted on and was approved by a narrow majority. The people: of Palo Alto were never asked to, nor did they, approve 500 rooms on the site If a 500 -room hotel was proposed, the outcome would have been different in 1972 when the election was held. The City Council had an. opportunity to review: the floor area ratios (FARs) for hotels and motels specifically in the CS zone - and last summer decided not to allow 0.75 for motels. He spoke to the report referred to by Councilme, ber Sutorius, and on page 6 was a list of 7 0 3 5 4/07 /86 existing development densities and various motels in the CS zone. If the application was approved and a 0.67 FAR allowed, it would be the third .highest density of the 14 motels listed. Only two would have a higher FAR; one 0.7 and the other 0.84. It was the wrong application at the wrong time for the wrong expansion of the wrong facility, and he strongly urged Council teL uphold the Planning Commission and deny the application. John Newman, spoke on behalf of the Managing General Partner, Clement Chen, Jr., and Lincoln National Development Corporation of Atlanta, Georgia, in connection witn the proposed 64 -room and Japanese restaurant addition. The application represented about two years of intensive study and evaluation of the project with the City's Departments of Transportation and Planning concerning evaluation of environmental, architectural, and design elements. Minutes of the Panning Commission meeting focused on the issue of public benefit as defined in the zoning code, and the issue of FAR. There were significant public benefits above and beyond the actual revenue -sharing basis with the City. The project was, in effect, a partnership. If the hotel did well, the people of Palo Alto did well. The project needed to satisfy the scrutiny of environmental concerns first because the economic elements of the project were so compelling everyone would support a project which supported other public programs. The project was committed to low-income housing, limited employment growth with no significant adverse impacts on traffic, and attempted to address bicycle path. access adjacent to the property. If it was necessary to make a full and comprehensive review of the FAR issue with respect to hotel use, they were prepared to do so. The application demon- strated any inquiry with respect to the environmental elements associated with the project were fully and in good faith responded to in an attempt to fully evaluate the project. The issue of equity recently arose, and they were prepared to go back and work with the City on the review of the Downtown core and provide spe- cific data as to traffic generation rates of their hotel, the immense public revenues associated with the specific type of use, and to document to Council's satisfaction the actual operating experience of their hotel with respect to traffic and parking. The issues, together with intelligent growth in the community, were the fundamental bases of Council's most recent land use and City-wide studies, and the applicant welcomed the opportunity to participate with the Council. If Council continued the matter, the applicant would comply and document the file more completely to Council's satisfaction. Regarding trip generation rates and other specific concerns, there were no significant adverse traffic impacts associated with the proposal. Before filing the applica- tion during the long-term review with the City staff, they believed it WAS appropriate to generate a traffic impact report addressing any potential intersection areas and other study con- cerns demonstrated as potential sites for impact. The applicant met extensively with the Department of Transportation to outline the study scope and statistical oases, requested input as to appropriate consultants for the study, and had the study prepared for the benefit of the City of Palo Alto. The results of the study were detailed in the summary and independently confirmed by City staff, The summary stated no significant impacts. With regard to the traffic study, the issue of the 64 percent occupancy factor did not mean a different trip generation rate would result proportionately from a significantly higher occupancy. The opposite was true: the greater the occupancy was not necessarily the greater the trip generation rate or the congestion in the intersection study. areas. The material could be documented. Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing closed. 7 0 3 6 4/07/86 1 1 e MOTIONx CQunciinea+ber Patitucci moved; senonde_i by Cobh; to continue the item until Council's action regarding the Downtown Study has been completed. Councilmember Patitucci said since he had been on the Council, he had not seen another issue with such diametric opposition from staff and the Planning Commission. Council did not want to be Planning Commissioners and attempt to renegotiate the issue but the Planning Commission voted strongly one way and staff had a strong recommendation the other., He suspected Council would speed much time on the issue. Going through the Downtown Study, looking at the zones, traffic generation, and some of the related issues would give Council a context for making a decision, which he did not presently have. Councilmember Renzel believed she heard Planning Commissioner Christensen and staff state the issue related more to the City- wide traffic study than the Downtown Study, and she asked when completion of the City-wide traffic study was expected. Mr.. Brown said completion was expected in approximately one yee r to possibly as long as 18 months. He agreed staff did not believe the site had much relationship to the Downtown, in terms of loca- tion, traffic generation, or zoning. Staff believed few answers would come from the Downtown Study with much relevance to that side of El Camino. Councilmember Renzel clarified the Downtown Study had the special problem of an Assessment District which the Holiday Inn did not. Mr. Brown said the site was more similar to a large CS zone site along El. Camino some of which were currently developed with hotels or motels. The site bore little relationship to Downtown prop- erties. Councilmember Renzel said the applicant agreed to a continuance to find the relationship of the project to the City plans. She asked whether Council could continue until the City-wide traffic study was completed, or whether Council was bound by the August date. Ms. Lee said Council was bound by the August date plus 90 addi- tional days if the applicant agreed. Under State law, if Council continued the matter, the applicant did not have the power to. allow Council to continue the project more than that time. If Council continued the project beyond the time specified, it was automaticaily deemed approved. Councilmember Renzel did not see how the project specifically related to the Downtown Study other than traffic from Downtown on University Avenue and how it might be delayed by additional traf- fic on the El Canino off -ramps. The traffic study did not address the fact there were about ten signalized turning movements at the University Avenue/El Camino off -ramp situation. She queried whether CalTrans dictated what percentage cf the light time went to those off -ramps in order to prevent them from backing up onto El Camino. Mr. Brown did not believe so. Councilmember Renzel clarified the traffic projections were not presently affected by mandated signal time. She opposed the Motion to continue on the basis of it being related to the Downtown Study. The only effect might be the need for parking along the SP right-of-way, but she did not know if that was 7 0 3 7 4/07/86 included in the Downtown Study. Council had ample information to take action then. It was clear from the Planning Commis ion minutes the applicant could return without prejudice at any time. There were many completed and uncompleted projects Downtown which would impact the University corridor, and Council could not rely can traffic projections for the intersection until it saw what choices people made when the Embarcadero intersection at El Camino became untenable. There would be increased usage of the University Avenue intersection. Council needed to know the usage before allowing .any additional traffic to be funneled onto one portion of the interchange. 'She urged her colleagues to oppose the continuance and make a decision based on the Planning Commis- sion recommendation. Vice Mayor Woolley agreed with Councilmember Menzel, the issue was not connected with the Downtown Study, but was' not sure it was as closely connected to the overall study of traffic in the City. The framework Council should use was the importance of .the exemption for hotels as staff recommended from the 0.5 FAR to the 0.75 FAR. According to the July 15, 1985 minutes, as a part of a motion made by Councilmember Fletcher, Council exempted hotels and gave them the 0.75 FAR. About a page further on, Councilmember: Bechtel moved the hotel exemption only, and_ it died for lack of a second. She remembered regretting not having seconded Councilmember Bechtel's motion later on, and believed Council was not thinking at its clearest when it went through the matter. last July. She welcomed the applicant giving Council more - data as to the appropriateness of the 0.75 FAR for hotels in the CS zone and therefore would support the motion. Councilmember Sutorius said the 0.75 issue was referred to in the Planning Commission minutes. He asked if it was correct that regardless of whether the Council found for a 0.75 for hotels or a 0.10or a 0.30, it had no relevance to the Holiday Inn. Mr. Brown said yes, the project still required a PC amendment. Councilmember Sutorius said if without any prejudice or serious handicap, the applicant found it feasible to withdraw or have the application reconsidered at a later time when it might be in con- junction with Council having concluded the land use.study, it would give a warm feeling as to the data available and how Council would use it. He shared the feeling enunciated by Vice 'ayor Woolsey. With the kind of focus and attention Coun=cil would apply to the Downtown rezoning subject, the Planning Commission, the Council, and the many members of the public who participated would emerge with the kind of attitudinal foundation and understanding to apply to the issue. Without initiative on the part of the applicant to totally withdraw, he supported the motion. Councilmember Bechtel referred to the difference in recommenda- tions from staff and the Planning Commission. She respected the Planning Commission and its rationale, and if Council delayed the matter pending more feedback on the Downtown Study, the Planning Commission went through an extensive study on the Downtown Study and said it was inappropriate to approve the amendment to the PC. Staff was influenced by the financial decision not necessarily good planning. The voters approved a certain number of hotel rooms on the parcel. The parcelwas constrained by the intersec- tions. Parking was difficult for a meeting at the hotel, and to replace open area with housing and residences would be .a : mistake. Council -should not .continue -because it was not going to arrive at anything different. She opposed a continuance. 7 0 3 8 4/07/86 As corrected 5/05/86 Q 1 i Councilmember Levy sympathized with the motion before Council: He differed with Councilmember Renze1. The issue wale the relation- ship of the traffic in the area to what was coming qut of the Downtown area on University. E1 Camino traffic was not yet con- gested but University traffic demanded clear analysis. He sympa- thized with the concept of dealing with the Downtown Study and then evaluating the PC in that context. Councilmember PaLitucci's proposal was appropriate, and he supported the -motion. Councilmember Fletcher was concerned about the timing of the application and the density and bulk. She was also uneasy about the traffic figures because they were not taken when the hotel was in more intensive use. She opposed the motion and might recon- sider the project after the total land use and traffic study returned to Council. Mayor Cobb supported the motion. The results of the City-wide study would be helpful but Council would get a lot, out of the Downtown Study because the project was immediately adjacent to Downtown, was affected by and connected to Downtown, and impacts went in both directions. The continuance would:give the applicant the opportunity to develop comprehensive traffic data and respond directly to the kinds of issues raised, e.g., by Councilmember Renzel. The continuance would. give Council an opportunity to evaluate the importance of the potential public benefit of the projected additional income to the City. He was concerned about preserving Boronda Lake., and the project might pay for it. Some- times one had to give a little to get a little, and Palo Alto was beginning to enter the era Jarvis and Gann created where its financial situation would .not. be as rich as it was in the past. Council could not out -of -hand reject the potential public benefit from the economic .gain, It was real and Council might need it. During the continuance Council would have completed work on the budget for the coming fiscal year. which might give a better feel for how important the public benefit was., During the discussion of the Downtown issues, Council would have\:the opportunity to pro- vide feedback to the Planning Commission with respect to,FARs1for hotel applications and whether it should be different from other commercial establishments. If so, how .much.: He agreed Council should not make a bad land use decision to gain some economic benefit for the City. On the other hand,. Council had to be sure it was a bad decision, and the data Council received would tell. If it was a bad decision, Council should deny it, but if it was a decision Council could live with and the -economic benefits were considerable, 'it was something Council needed to consider approving. He still had an open mind on the question and wanted to,see what the additional input provided. Councilmember Renzel referenced the FAR for hotels and said Coun- cilmember Sutorius earlier pointed out:. its relevance as a PC. It was also irrelevant because it was not an exclusively motel or hotel use. The staff recommendation was for 11 out of the 13 hotels in CS and CW zones which were exclusively rooms and did not have restaurants and convention facilities associated. Council did not need any further reference to the particular unapproved FAR. As a matter of future concern, when the City-wide study was completed and Council .knew exactly what might occur ° in the area between the Holiday Inn and Town and Country Village, at some point Council might need to exercise its rights with respect to the Urban Lane easement which was currently under_a significant portion of .the parking for the Holiday Inn. Council should not intensify any development on the site which might make it impose amble to go back and take Urban Lane if the City ever needed it as an alternative '; access to those deep sites along El Camino. Regarding public benefit, it would be was outrageous for Council to allow something like the Holiday Iron income to drive . its decisions about lend use. It was not a place where the zoning permitted development as a matter of right " but was a Planned Community zone built out to its design under the approved planned community approved. Council . had no obligation to approve. the project or intensify. 7 0 3 9 4/07/86 As corrected 5/05/86 Council knew there were many sites, despite the low PAR which existed in the community under the moratoria, where expansion could occur as a matter of right, and Councie had no control. Council had control over the Holiday Inn, and it was premature either presently or subsequent to the Downtown Study and before the City-wide study was underway, to intensify anything Council did not have to intensify, dollars or no dollars. If Palo Alto was a poverty stricken community, it would be different, but it was not, and it was irregular for staff to suggest favorable attention be given to hotels because they generated dollars. MO? OM PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Bechtel, Rensel, Fletcher voting 'no.' ITEM #12, POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE SIDEWALK PUSHCARTS. (PWK 2-4) (CMR2 I S : 6 ) MOTION' Councilmember Klein for the Policy and Procedures Com- mittee moved approval of the Miscellaneous Criteria recommended by the Architectural Review Board as follows; 1. The design criteria and the prohibition of open flames; 2. A grandfather clause for existing pushcarts exceeding the propor*d criteria on size dimensions; 3. Fine. and open flame heating equipment should be prohibited; and 4. Canopies and uabrellas open on four sides are allowed above the five-foot limit provided they do not extend above the eight -foot limit, measured from ground level, and provided that th-s . ell not carry any signage on the canopy or umbrella. Councilmember Klein said the motion reflected the recommendations which originally went to the P&P Committee from the Architectural Review Board, which were worked on by the P&P Committee and modi- fied to some degree. There was a proposal that the grandfathering clause terminate o ly upon change to another location or ownership of the subject pushcart. ,. AREMDMENT: Councilmember Klein moved to reflect the grandfather clause be indefiniteand terminate one y upon change in the loca- tion or change in ownership. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Councilmember Renzel referred to the minimum distance of pushcarts and asked if the distance was measured from the sidewalk edge or from the main part of the building. Acting .Chief Planning Official George Zimmerman said the distance was seasured from the main part of the building. When staff returned with ordinances regarding planters, they wanted to clari- fy clearance would be between fixed objects and the beginning of the planter area rather than the trunk of a tree so they, were talking about eight feet clearance on pavement. Sheila Pierce, 43 Duane Street, Redwood City, said her business was up for scale. Because of the grandfather clause and the size regulations, if she did not sell her business until the ordinance passed, the new person :would have is try and make a change in her cart. Her cart was expensive to build because there was no cri- teria at the tine. To take the roof and wheels off was expensive. 7 0 4 0 4/07/86 Councilmember Levy understood the speaker's cart would be grand - fathered for five years even on sale. Acting City Manager June Fleming said it would be five years from the time the ordinance passed. Councilmember Levy clarified selling her business would not affect the grandfathering of the specific cart. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct as long as all other criteria when implemented to ordinance form were met. Councilmember Levy supported the motion. NOTION PASSED unaei ■eusly. ITEM_ 113 EXTENSIONS OF DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM\'WITHIN DOWNTOWN PALO ALTO AND UNIVERSITY AVENUE PARKING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARKING ORDINANCE (PLA Y8 CMR: Mayor Cobb said depending on how. Council scheduled its work, it might or might not impact the moratorium extension. If Council took longer than the schedule laid out, the extension of the mora- torium would likewise have to be longer to allow' the full process to take place. He hoped Council did its work within the schedule outlined. Councilmember Klein was unable to participate on the Downtown Study issue due to a conflict of interest. Acting City Manager June Fleming said in accordance with -Council direction, staff intended the Monday night meetings to be regular Council meetings. David Gaskill, 318 University Avenue, recently applied for a per- mit to remodel the front of his store, which permit was on indefi- nite hold for the Architectural Review Board (ARB). He was told the ARB could not process the permit because his = application vio- lated the conditions of the moratorium, i .e. , the entry -well would be a little smaller than the, present one. There would be about 48 square feet more behind his glass windows than he currently had. He did not see how the renov-ation would be detrimental to retail vitality in the Downtown area or how it would adversely affect the peace, health, safety, and welfare of his fellow citizens. If the moratorium needed to be continued, he asked it be amended so ground floor renovations of store fronts which were not converted uses and did not ask to expand,.heyond the existing outer wall to the building might be affected. James Hawley, -630 Cowper Street, said under 'the existing mora- torium ordinance, the definition of the gross floor area did not allow existing tenants to increase space within the existing building. Among other things, the current ordinance .was to pro- tect and enhance the retail segment of Downtown Palo Alto. To prevent upgrading of retail space within an existing building had nothing to-. do with the intent of the ordinance. Currently three of his tenants were attempting to upgrade their spaces, but because of not more than 80 to _150 square :feet in each case they were faced with delays and refusal by the City to create a better image and more efficient use of their spice. He urgitd Council consider the situation and make reasonable change so —these people faced with trying to improve and enhance their image and the down- town retail image could do so. Counti.l tae ber.. Levy asked if , there was any exception policy in the current moratorium. 7 0 4 1 4/07/86 City Attorney Diane Lee said yes. The exception policy required an application and hearing before the Planning Commission and the Council and a determination of public benefit which outweighed the disbenefits to granting the permit for an exception. She deferred to Mr. Zimmerman for further response. Mr.. Zimmerman said there was also an exception up to an addition of 5,000 square feet of floor area for Category 1 buildings in the seismic inventory. Counc i l member Levy asked if there was any cost to the applicant to apply for small scale kind of changes. Mr. Zimmerman was unaware of the fee schedule for such an applica- tion. Councilmember Levy asked how long it would take an applicant to gain approval assuming his application merited quick approval. Mr. Zimmerman said two to three months at a minimum to go through the Planning Commission and City Council, NOTION: Coo nci lmesrber Fletcher moved, seconded by Rem], to adopt the staff recommendation to: 1. Find that the ordinance will not have a significant adverse environmental impact; 2. Adopt the ordinances: a. Extending the effective period of the Downtown moratorium on new construction, subdivisions, and parcel mergers within the Primary Study Area; :'d y; ieund floor conver- slons to office and financial services uses within the (P) Pedestrian Shopping Combining District, until September 30, 1956; and b. Extending the effective period •f the University Avenue Perking Assessment District parking regulations until September 30, 1956. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE PALO ALTO EXTENDING THE ORDINANCES IMPOSING DEVELOPMENT MORATORIA IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA`' ONNIMAiECE FOR FIRST READING entitled `ORNINANCE OF THE C UII F PA ALTO EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO 3542 REGARDING OFF-STREET PARKINS AND LOADING REGULATIONS IN A SPECIFIED- AREA SF DOWNTOWN PALO ALTO' Ms. Lee suggested any changes to the ordinances be addressed as a separate staff assignment. Mayor Cobb tried to work out a schedule which would get Council through the Downtown Study in three Mondays. The first Monday the item was before .the Council the key was for Council to have its questions asked of staff before the meeting. He hoped Council could , ask questions on the report from the Planning Commission and from the Downtown Study Committee - of staff which needed to be resolved in public, and have the' public comment on the first Monday evening. For the second meeting, he proposed _ a "shi rt.- sl eeve" session away from Council Chambers where they would sit: in a more _ relaxed forum with the Planning Commission, staff, and; representatives of the Downtown Study Committee available to interact with Council for a general broad reaching discussion on T 0 4.2 4/07/86 1 1 1 the major issues and how they related, On the third Monday, Coun- cil would begin its formal deliberations and motions towards rinal ordinances. The Tuesday following the third Monday was reserved in the event Council could not complete its business. If Council took the second Monday meeting as a general "shirt -sleeve" meeting with no motions but lots of discussion and understanding, he believed the issue could be completed with three meetings. Councilmember Renzel generally concurred with the schedule but was concerned it was sometimes difficult to absorb a lot of the ques- tions and answers. It' would be helpful for Council to have minutes of some sort in advance of the meetings. She realized it was a tight schedule but believed it was`hard to absorb a lot of information which might come out in the course of the meetings. She asked if there was any way to authorize extra help for the City Clerk's office to ensure those minutes were available. City Clerk Gloria Young was concerned about contracting the minutes because of the problems which occurred with the cable television issue. Her staff was aware of the process and were geared up. An increase of overtime would be required to get the minutes out, but she would do her best. Courcilmember Renzel suggested other minutes be contracted out so Ms. Young's staff was free to generate the Downtown Study minutes more quickly. Mayor Cobb said he would work with the City Clerk to see what could be worked out. Councilmember Patitucci said the meeting of May 5, 1985 would be announced as a regular Council meeting with a regular agenda. Mayor Cobb said the meetings would be worked such that the agenda was cleared for only the Downtown Study issue. Councilmember Patitucci clarified there would be sufficient notice of the change of location. Mayor Cobb envisioned an auditorium type setting. The idea of getting away from the Council Chambers was to make the meeting a little less formal to discuss the issues.- Councilmember Sutori us believed the "shirt -sleeve" session was an outstanding idea and he looked forward to it. He hoped Council could do everything it intended to do and avoid the May 13 meeting because there might be Fi name and . Public Works Committee con- flicts. He would be away on June 16 at. an American Public Power Agency (APPA) meeting. Mayor Cobb asked staff to pull together summary material to help focus the discussion. NOTION PASSE! swanimsesiy, Klein 'wet participating." NOTION: Cseaci lmembsr : Fletcher moved, seconded by Patiitneci , that staff prepare and rater*, to Council for considsratioa an amendment is tre *srcte- i em era# na.ce to permit minor remodeling and very miner •xpias ew;s of retail establishments which were in the spirit of the moratorium. Councilmember Fletcher clarified Council wanted to encourage retai l'_.ac*lvity Downtown and so long as a minor remodel enhanced retail activity it would be in the spirit of the moratorium. Councilmember Renzel generally was concerned Council would see entryways in Downtown stores,. character of the City. She was in that regard. furred with the amendment but ash of gassing in all of the h. she believed added to the pcerned about what might occur 7 0 4 3 4/07/86 Louncilmember Levy concurred with .the spirit of the motion and believed Councilmember Renzei's concerns were appropriate. He suggested the applicants move ahead within the appeals processes of the existing moratorium because in terms of a small but legiti- mate desire to expand current retail space the consensus of the Council was to not stand in the way of things which would enhance the ability of the Downtown to be an attractive retailing area. Ms. Fleming asked for clarification about the type of assignment and investigation staff was to do. The Planning staff was minus at least one person and having to return with a detailed assign- ment in time for Council to act might. present a timing problem. She wanted to ensure Council's expectations were not higher than staff was able to meet at that point. Councilmember Patitucci clarified the amendment would allow for remodeling of .basically retail space within the existing building envelope during the interim until a Downtown Plan was completed. Mayor Cobb asked if the motion represented a minor wording change to the exception procedure or some other aspect of the morator- ium. Ms. Lee said with respect to her part of the moratorium, it was a minor wording change. Thoughts and interchange between the City Attorney's office and the Planning Department would need to take place. If the assignment was expanded to looking at design in terms of how the moratorium affected store fronts, they were into a much larger undertaking. Mr. Zimmerman said if the intent was to have the information return within the next two weeks, it would be difficult. Expan- sion could also change the interim parking ordinance for those buildings with a FAR of 1:1. Mayor Cobb asked if the remodel ings referred to by the speakers were the kinds of things which would logically fit in the excep- tion procedure. Mr. Zimmerman said an element of the Comprehensive. Plan spoke to the need for maintaining Downtown retail vitality. The present moratorium allowed remodeling but did not allow expansion of floor area. In terms of process, if it took two to three months for an applicant to expand 100 feet, by then the Downtown Study would conceivably be completed and new ordinances in place. Councilmember Fletcher asked if putting in a number like 75 square feet would affect the parking section. Ms. Lee said the effects were unknown which was why staff tried to discourage Council from doing something until staff had the oppor- tunity to review the matter. All the ordinances and their inter- relationships were complex. If Council had a number in mind, it could be given as a guideline. Ms. Fleming said with Councilmember Patitucci's explanation, staff understood what Council expected. staff would do its best. Councilmember Fletcher imagined the ARS would have some level of control if things got o=t of hand in tees of making University Avenue look uniform. 1 1 Mr. Zimmerman said the ARB had no review power over the public benefit in the exception procedure of the moratorium ordinance. The ARS only had power to review facades being remodeled. Councilmember Fletcher was not referring to the exception proce- dure. She asked if it was correct all applicants had to yo to the ARS if the remodel was a store front. Mr. Zimmerman said any facade being remodeled, regardless of whether there was an expansion, had to be reviewed by the ARB. Councilmember Fletcher did not believe there was any danger. Councilmember Sutorius asked if staff would feel comfortable if their recommendation was to have no process. Ms. Fleming said yes. Councilmember Sutorius said .Scenario 8 was a procedure whereby the Planning Director had the authority to decide on minor remodelings in terms of whether they should be pursued. He asked if staff might return with that kind of recommendation. Ms. Fleming w!as unsure. Councilmember Sutorius believed it was dangerous for Council to design specific language which might fit the two cases when Coun- cil did not know the ramifications. He hoped staff took the greatest amount of latitude in their professional judgment and, if they found an alternative that made more sense, fine. If staff did not believe it should be done, he hoped they had confidence in Council to return with that recommendation. Whatever returned, if the process provided for some kind of small exemption during the moratorium, the action in no way prejudged whether there would be approval at the ARB, Building; and Planning staff levels. Councilmember Renrel concurred with Councilmember Sutorius. Councilmember Levy was uncomfortable with the discussion in terms of the cost benefit analysis. He asked staff about the difference between what it would mean to an applicant to have some kind of exception process versus the applicant requesting an exception under the procedure presently in place. Ms. Lee said in terms of setting up the comparative timing, an ordinance took 45 days from first reading, and assuming staff returned to Council in three weeks, it was 66 days. Councilmember Levy asked if Council could deal with the matter on an emergency basis. Ms. Lee said yes, if Council found there was a compelling emer- gency reason to do so. It had not been Counci l.` s custom to find an emergency for that kind of situation. Councilmember Levy clarified it would be €6 days before the ordi- nance was effective. The department was understaffed at present and the advantage ' to the public was minor. Council should encour- age the pubic to pursue a minor change. A minor change would be met with a positive response, at least as far as he was concerned. He opposed the motion. 7 0 4 5 4/07/86 .rayor Cobb concurred with Councilmember levy. The exception pro- cedure was probably faster than anything which might be done then. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 2-6, Menzel and P;titucci voting 'aye.' MAYOR COBB RE COMPLETION OF AG ;ADA Mayor Cobb suggested Council finish the agenda without a break. ITEM #14 REQUEST OF MAYOR COBB AND COUNCILMEMBERS KLEIN AND PAM -UM— RE PROPOSAL Eft FUTURE TRENDS COMMUNITY DISCUSSION ENY/PLA f) Mayor Cobb said when he was elected Mayor, he said he hoped Coun- cil would take advantage of the quiet times during the year, to take a long look at what it wanted to see in the City in the next century. He supported the idea in the hopes )t would help Council understand where the City would be in the year -2000. MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to direct the City Manager to prepare a report detailing a methodology and estimated expenses for iopleaenting a Future Trends Commosity Discussion. Councilmember Fletcher closely followed the process of developing the new Comprehensive Plan. There were numerous public hearings, and much discussion, revision, etc., at the Planning Commission. Although the item was not intended as an update of the Comprehen- sive Plan, she would feel more comfortable going through the same type of process rather than the more private approach. The input would not be as broad as what Cott -ell received with development of the Comprehensive Plan, and she ieved the public would not feel invited. Councilmember Renee] questioned what would come out of that kind of discussion. Council shared ideas from time to time on the future of Palo Alto, and she was concerned the discussion would be somewhat like the forum meetings leading up to the Stanford West project where the public felt compelled to go, but no public decisions were made and it was not a recoeded meeting. There was a lack of the normal governmental process, and they ended up with a non-functional project approval. Outside the context of the Comprehensive Plan where Council made its land use decisions, and the framework in which Council systematically went through the utility decisions--garbaye, power, water, etc. --three days of listening to presentations by vested interests somewhat to the exclusion of the public bothered her especially without a goal. If there were concerns about the adequacy of. any infrastructure plans or the Comprehensive Plan, Council had ample opportunity in the course of the City-wide land use planning, Comprehensive Plan annual updates, and various utility plans all related to the future of the community to address them. It was hard to believe something would come out of the subject, process which did not come up in the course of the other planningprocesses. Councilmember Levy said Councilmembers Renaei and Fletcher reflected some of his thinking. The memorandum discussed -a prelude to the next Comprehensive Plan revision, and it should be dealt with in that context. The Comprehensive Plan was a look at future trends and was Council's belief as to what the future of Palo Alto should be. His concern was Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan oftentimes did not carefully consider the similar projections made by other public and private' organizations. While Council developed what it believed the future was, i t was not consistent with what other entities planned. 7 0 4 6 4/07/86 SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, as a prelude to the next Comprehensive Plan revision, Council request the City Manager to review the long-term projections of major public and private organizations and analysis for consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Klein would vote against the substitute motion and urged those who spoke against the main motion to reconsider their positions and think in a broader sense about their community. He and his colleagues did not propose a Comprehensive Plan prelude, preface, or substitute, but rather a broader look. There was no desired' outcome. They wanted to establish a process wheeeby they could think about where the community was going on a' broader basis. Council only influenced a small portion of the community. Their intent was to provide a foram where people came together without any preconceived notions or political axes to grind, and discussed where the community was going. Many communities had similar processes. The City Council rarely sat . down with the School District; the School Board rarely interacted with the busi- ness community, and rarely did the University interact with any of the others. It was up to someone to take the initiative. Council could not tell the university to do something, and the University could not tell the School. District to improve the quality of the schools to make it easier for the University to attract faculty. The interactions were there but not often discussed. - Council talked about aspects of the future which they influenced from time to time, and the intent was to establish a mechanism by which _ to have a broader discussion. He hoped it attracted a lot of peep l e from the public. Council needed to sit back and take a global view of where the C tty was going, and as - elected public offi- cials, it was an appropriate role to .take. He did not ,want to see it as a prelude to the Comprehensive Plan; it would be a useless exercise to have staff read what other people said. He wanted dialogue with the best minds in the community to see where they were all going and what could be done better. He believed the process in and of itself would be useful. He wanted to maintain, Palo Alto'sa standard of excellence into the 21st century. He urged a "no" vote on the substitute motion and a "yes" vote on the main motion. Councilmember Patitucci concurred with Councilmember Klein. Coun- cilmembers were stuck in fairly limited ways of thinking in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, .a staff recommendation, or a series of events and hearings leading to some outcome. City government was only one thing which directly affected an individual, or family. The Comprehensive Plan dealt with physical land use decisions within Council's legal jurisdiction as well as those services they choseto provide and how to provide them. Council was the logical body to create the context for a process which had other people begin to think cbout the citizens in Palo Alto. There were a lot of things Council did not affect at all, i.e., the School District, business •decisions to locate An Palo Alto, transporta- tion, traffic, increased air pollution, population trends, and ages of population. Those were beyond Council's jurisdiction and Comprehensive Plan. Council should put people into, a,: room, espectall.y citizens, and loole at some of those directions to hope- fully create a context for those different parties to look- at their individual areas. He hoped it might provide some basis for a Comprehensive planning process for . Council . and force some recog- nition of the interactions necessary :between the School District, City, University, business community, County, State, or whatever a€facted the quality of life of people in Palo Alto,. If Council talked ..in terms of a product or Comprehensive Plan, his tendency was to forget the matter. He urged opposition tothe substitute motion and support of the main motion. It was an experiment with some risk, but Council might see some value -for little cost. 7 0 4 7. 4/07/86 Councilmember Henze] had not heard one example of some benefit or new concept of cooperation. At least once a year Council received an lndepth presentation from Stanford about what it planned to do, and usually within the year received five or six proposals for thinys not in that discussion. Council had a liaison committee to the School District, who reported the City's role and responsibil- ities related to that liaison capacity; a liaison committee with Stanford composed of staff members from both organizations; and Council kept abreast of State legislative efforts and County gov- ernmental efforts. Council made its views known on issues outside its: jurisdiction and also had interaction, through land use, with both Stanford and the School District in terms of what Council permitted within those boundaries. Council had a lot of input on things. It would be nice if they all understood each other's politics better, but she had not heard that stated as the intent. Council was usually made aware of the School District politics when Palo Alto had a school site it wanted to be 0.4 FAR With two garages, etc. The same went for Stanford. She could not foresee a three-day discussion would improve understanding beyond the level at which they presently operated. It was a fuzzy proposal and she could not grasp a specific example of what would come from the proposed interaction which was now available through a variety of means. Councilmember Sutorius applauded the idea and believed the invest- ment of the City Manager's time to report back on a process was worthwhile. He hoped it would be a positive report Council coul act on. Mayor Cobb would vote against the substitute motion and in support of the main motion. As a Planning Commissioner, he served on one of the major Comprehensive Plan updates and had great respect for the process and document, but the process did not bring out the total community involvement sought in the subject proposal. The update process tended to be a collection of special interests. He did not know what the result would be, but the point was to find out what the Council and the community hoped for their future. Councilmember Renzel understood her colleagues as far as wanting to know what the community thought, but Council learned a lot about that during the election process. Looking at the Council Chambers, basically all of the people were present for specific issues. There were two people left who represented the Chamber. of Commerce, and nobody there from the public, apart from the press, just following what the City Council did. It was optimistic to expect such a forum would generate. many ordinary members of the public to attend for three days and express their views. Council would get organized representatives of established groups with fancy presentations that would get a lot of press but not much input from the citizenry,. Council would do far better to stick to business and as Councilmember Levy's motion suggested a review of plans of nearby and overlapping jurisdictions. Ind how those plans related to Palo Alto's. Councilmember Sutorius said Council might be finding out why people did not attend Council meetings and why the next.. item on the agenda was an important one. NOTION Coent1lmember Suter!** moved, seconded . by Bechtel, call for tNe pri foes gsest!ors. Councilmember Levy clarified the motion required a two-thirds vote. NOTION T8 4812 THE fUEVI OS OBESTION PASS€$ by a vets of 8.1, Levy vot$ -'ns." 7$. 48 4/07/8] SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Menzel, Fletcher, Levy voting "aye." MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Renzel, Fletcher voting 'no.' ITEM #15, RE QUEST OF MAYOR COBB RE PROPOSAL FOR A CITY COUNCIL ONT SAY RETREAT (MU 3) MOTION: Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Bechtel, to authorize the Mayor to organize a one -day Council retreat. Mayor Cobb said everyone he. knew who tried'a Council retreat bene- fited enormously. The City of Los Altos recently had.. a retreat and benefited enormously. The Northern California Power Agency recently had a retreat and gained tremendous insights into'how the agency should run and how to improve its operations. The differ- ence in the proposal he was making was Council would stay "on cam- pus." He proposed Foothills Park or somewhere close to home. Assuming Council passed the motion, he asked whether a profes- sional facilitator would assist in getting a better understanding. Regarding timing, Councilmember Klein would be on a sabbatical for several weeks and should participate. He was open to suggestion as to whether the day should be a Saturday, Sunday, or Friday afternoon. Councilmember Renzel supported the idea of a retreat and appre- ciated Mayor Cobb suggesting a location in Palo Alto. While not included in the report, she understood both by law and intention, the meeting would be a noticed Public meeting and, while the pub- lic would not participate in the discussions, they could attend. Mayor Cobb said the meeting would be publicly noticed, but discus- sion would be restricted to Council and the facilitator if there was one. Councilmember Renzel said in regard to the facilitator, she pre- ferred they work together as a Council rather than hire a facili- tator. Councilmember Bechtel watched groups who used a facilitator in that sort of retreat, and the facilitator would be cost-effective and beneficial. She had objected to giving up a Saturday summer weekend, but as she listened to the previoue discussion and how long . it took Council to get to the point, she believed there would be value in such a retreat. Councilmember Levy concurred a facilitator was useful and agreed with Councilmember Bechtel's comments. Council should have a carefully considered agenda so it did not ;sander. In regard to time, a weekend when there was no Council meeting would not be good because it was rare when Counci l members had a full weekend to do something else. On the other hand, a weekend with a Council meeting usually required a lot of time in preparation. He sug- gested Council consider a weekday where they could begin at 4!.00 p.m. or so in the afternoon and continue until approximately 9:00 p.m., which might be pleasant on a summer evening at Foothills Park. Mayor Cobb said the City Manager informed him he could work a Light Council agenda around the time of the meeting to make 4t easier. Councilmember Sutori us supported the use of a facilitator. He suggested they arrange for the facilitator sufficiently far to advance of the retreat so the facilitator could attend a minimum of two Council meetings as a private citizen observer. It might be too expensive but merited consideration, and there might be a worthwhile package deal. 7 0 4 9 4/07/86 councilmemhar Klein enthusiastically supported the idea of the retreat, but he agreed with Councilmember Renzel as to the efficacy of a facilitator. He did not see what role the facili- tator would have. Sometimes facilitators were useful, but he believed Council could handle the matter themselves, and the money would not be well spent, particularly if the facilitator attended several Council meetinys before the retreat. Mayor Cobb said he would pursue the matter of the facilitator with Councilmembers individually. At,the t1CPA meeting, the incoming General Manager facilitated himsei 'f and did an excellent job. He did not know whether he had the same skills, and would apprec•rate his colleagues' thoughts in terms of scheduling and the facili- tator. MOTION PASSED emam#'oesly, ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10:25 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 7 0 6 0 4/07/86