HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-07-02 City Council Summary MinutesA
CITY
COUNCIL
MINUTEs
Regular Meeting
Monday, July 2, 1984
ITEM
Ural Communications
Approval of Minutes of May 21., 1984
Consent Calendar
Referral
Action
Item #1, Cultural Center Repairs
Item #2, Public Works Inspection Services
Item #3, Miscellaneous Facilities Maintenance
Projects
Item .#4, Legal Services Contract
•
4.eiti #5, Amending
•Television Process
Resolution 6146 - Cable
Item #6, 8ayl and Bicycle Trail
Agenda Changes, Additions ana. Deletions
Item #h, P 8L IC HEARING: Planning Commission
Recommendation re Appl i.dation of Sorensen. Real
Estate Development Corporation for Variances to
Daylight Plane Requirements and '=: Subdivision of.
Eight Condominium Units at 496 Charleston Avenue
Item #9, Finance and Public Works Committee
Recommendat1 oli Re Downtown Park North
item #16 Request of Mayor Y- Klein Re Review of City
Pol icy Re Downtown Park North
Recess
Item #10, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Cosmis'sian
Recommendations -Re Application of Stanford
University for AppreVal of Hospital Mod*' ni zati on
Project
Item, # ;1•, Housing Mitigation
It** #12, Children's
Improvements
Item #13, Santa Clara iiai'Ley . . . Water
Ip*porttion Tax Rebate
tem #13A0 Los `,Altos
City of Los as
CITY
Or.
MK)
TO
PAGE
4 7 r 0
4 7 4 0
4 7 4 0
4 7 4 0
4 7 4 0
4 7 4 0
4 7 1 0
4 7 4 1
4 7 4 1
4 7 4 1
4 7 4 1
4 7 4 2
4 7 4 2
4 7 4 6
4 7 4 6
4 7 S 2
4 7 5 9
4 7.38
7102/84
I[tM PAGE
Item #14, Request of Mayor Klein Re Request of
Visual Arts Jury Re Architectural Review Board's
Reserved Position on Visual Arts Jury
Item #15, Request of Cauncilmember Fletcher re "4 7 6 8
Water Contamination
Adjournment to Closed Session: 11:55 p.m.
Adjournment: 12:25 p.m.
4: 7 6 8
4 7 6 9
4 7 6 9
r
Regular Meeting
Monday, July 2, 1984
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, .at
7:35 p.m.
1
i
PRESENT: Uechtel, Cobb, Klein, Levy, Renzel,
Sutorius, Witherspoon, Woolley
ABSENT: Fletcher
Mayor Klein announced that a Closed Session re Employer/Employee
Relations was held in the Personnel Conference Room ,at 6:00 p.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 21 , 1.984
Councilmember Cobb submitted the following corrections:
Page 4580, line 3, "Unger" should be spelled "Unruh";
Pale 4580, line 32, Strike first four words and insert: "This item
wou i d establish NCPA..."
Pale 458Q, line 36, change "it" to "this."
MOTION: Councilmeeber Cobb moved, seconded by Witherspoon,
approval of the minutes of May 21, 1984, as corrected.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Renzel removed Item #7, Los Altos Treatment Plant
Acquisition, at the request of a citizen,
Mayor Klein said he would "abstain" from voting on Item #6,
bayl ands bicycle Trail, Award of Contract.
MOTION Councilmember° Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb,
approval of Consent Calendar items one through six.
IlM #1, CULTURAL CENTER STRUCTURAL REPAIRS (CKR:375:4) (MCA_ 5)
Staff recommends that Council
1. Authorize the. Mayor to execute the contract with Hodgson
Construction, Inc. for $420,000; and
2. Authorize staff .to execute change orders to the contract of up
to $100,000 to cover unanticipated construction costs.
AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Hodgson Construction, Inc,
1TEt V?, PUBLIC WORKS INSPECT IoN SERVICES (PWK 5) (04R:378:4)
Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the
agreementwith.;. Aerial lnderground Communications Association, Inc..
for inspection servi ces` I n the amount of $20,000.
AGREEMENT - PUBLIC WORKS INSPECT/1N SERVICES
Aerial Undorground Communications : Association, Inc.
ITEM #3, MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PROJECTS (PWK 7)
Staff recommends that the Mayor be authorized to execute the three
blanket order contracts, each for a period of one year, or an
aygreyate total of $20,000 each for various projects as assigned,
whichever occurs first.
1. Plumbing contract with Roto-Rooter Service
2. Painting contract with Garaway Contracting Company
3. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning contract with
Western Allied Service Company_
AWARD OF BLANKET ORDER CONTRACTS.
Plumbing Recto -Rooter Service
Painting - Garaway Contracting Company
Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning -
Western Allied Service Company
ITEM`a4, LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACT (LEG 11)
The City Attorney recommends that the Ci tu. Council approve and
authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Whitmore, Kay &
Stevens.
CONTRACT FOR LABOR RELATIONS LEGAL SERVICES
Richard S. Whitmore
ITEM t5 AMENDING RESOLUTION 6146 - CABLE TELEVISION PROCESS
Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution which amends
resolution 6146 to include the Deputy City Manager as a designee
to whore cable television contacts should be directed.
RESOLUTION 6274 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
O ALTO AMENDING RESOLUTION 6146 RELATING
TO THE CONDUCT OF CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES DURING
THE CABLE TELEVISION PROCESS"
ITEM #6, BAYLANUS BICYCLE. TRAIL• (PWK 2-2-2) (CMR:373:4)
Staff recomm:°nds that Council:
1. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance to increase the appropria-
tion for CIF, 82-31 by 424,500, and increase .the estimated
revenues for receipt of additional grant funds of $24,500 from
the State Coastal Conservancy.
Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with O'Grady
Paving, Inc. 1r the amount of. 4201,818.60 for base bid work.
3. Authorize staff to execute change Orders to ;the construction
contract of up to $41,000.
4. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the agreement with
ueorge 5. Nolte a Associates of up tom 45,000.
5. Authorize staff to execute change `orders to the agreement with
Earth Systems Consultants of up to 47,000.
ORDINANCE -3546 +enti tI ed "ORDINANCE. OF THE COUNCIL- OF
i -.:.t;i)i 0 PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL.
YEAR 1984-85 TO P'*OY IBC' AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION, .FOR
CAPITAL IOPPBOYEHENT PROJECT ; NO. 824.31 i8NYLANOS BICYCLE
TRAIL' AND TO PROVIDE FOR RECEIPT OF REVENUE FROM THE
STATE COASTAL CONSERYANCY'
MOTION .PASSED unanimously, Fletcher absent, Klein •abstainine"
on Item 6, Baylands Bicycle Trail.
AGENDA CHANGES, AUDITIONS AND DELETIONS
City Manager Bill Zaner said that the item removed from the
Consent Calendar, Los Altos Treatment Piant Acquisition, would
become Item 13A.
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Sutori us, to consolidate
Item #9, Downtown Park North and Item 116, review of City Policy
on Downto rn. Park North as Item #g.
MOTION PASSED unanimously,. Fletcher absent..
ITEM #8, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
A
CY�7ni .,V I IU'ilildUI1 1iIgl i J ?%i �I 'U lIi
v
r.� auii ur
nuue m
Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said the Planning Commission acid
staff recommendations for the project, including a subdivision map
and two variances to the daylight plane, were based upon the
applicant's obtaining an easement from the adjoining property,
"Center for the Recording for the Blind." The applicant indicated
at the time of the staff report publication that the easement
would not be available, and staff recommended denial of one vari-
ance. The Council packet contained letters from the applicants
and their lawyer, Stephen Player.
Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open.
Stephen Player, 1874 Gulnda, represented the developers. The
Planning Commission, in approving the two variances and tentative
approval of the map, required that they enter into negotiations
with the neighbors on the eastern side of the property, the Center
for the Recording for the Blind, to obtain a negative, 10 -foot
nonbuildabla easement. Negotiations with Mr. Richard King, presi-
dent of the Peninsula endowment running the Center for the Record-
ing for the blind, and the legal counsel were not completed. The
Center was cooperative, but indicated that prior to granting an
easement, they would require the parcel to be studied for the
impact on present and future use of the property. His clients
requested the variance be granted. As the staff report indicated,
the project met all Comprehensive Plan objectives, blended into
the neighborhood, and would have no adverse impact. Eight reason-
ably priced condominiu•: units were proposed in an area adjacent to.
CS and RM-5 with a PC on one side. The property was unique and
the project would provide.a logical transitional housing group for
the area, and would add needed housing. A denial of the variance
would compel the applicants to return through the Architectural
Review 3oard (ARB) process, and because of new forward setback
'regulations, redesign would reduce the number of units from eight
to six at considerable expense. They would have to start at
ground zeros The development would not be detrimental _ either to
the immediate neighbors or the surroundings. The property on
which the Center, was located was zoned PC, and it had no intention
of developing the heavily landscaped area. The panel was excep-
tional, the design of the condomiums well suited, and denying the
variance would require significant_ redesign to six units.
Mayor Klein asked what exceptl oral or extraordi fart' ci rcumstances
were cl wiped for granting the daylight plane- variance ..on the
eastern side of the site.
4.7 4.3
7/02/84
Norman Sorensen, Sorensen Real Estate and Development Corporation,
the applicant and owner of the property at 496 Charleston Avenue,
said the eastern side of the site was a PC zone with existing
landscaping including.a large pine and an oak tree, and the Center
for the Blind stated its present intention was to continue as a
particular usage. The Council's stated policy was to encourage
transition zones, s.o a change in the use would be less intense
than an RM-5 use. It would continue to be a transitional zone,
moving towards a less intensive use. He did not believe granting
the variance would have a harmful or detrimental effect to future
development with such goals. He and his wife would suffer hard-
ships if redesign of the project was necessary. None of the cur-
rent plans could be salvaged, and they would lase two units due to
the more restrictive setback requirements. The property was cur-
rently zoned for nine units, and they voluntarily reduced their
plans to eight units. A further reduction to six units would mean
a 25 percent loss of the use of the property, and in addition to
losing the cost of the present plans, redesign would cost approx-
imately $50,000. Additional holding costs and delay would cost a
further s5U,O00, which together would represent a severe hardship,
and the City would lose two affordable housing units. They under-
stood that after the variance was granted, they only had to use it
to preserve it, so they spent $1:130,000 removing the earlier house
which was on the property, plans and soil tests, and survey and
structural engineering costs, which represented 10 percent of the
total building costs. They requested the variance already granted
be recognized because they made a substantial start, or that a new
variance be :granted and the subdivision approved. Referring to
the oak tree on the Center's property, it was 48 inches in dia-
meter and he doubted anyone would be allowed to cut it down.
Therefore, the daylight plane would not be a factor. He asked
that the variance and subdivision be granted so they could start
building.
Councilmember Cobb asked Mr, Sorensen about the impact on the cost
of the units if the variance was not granted, and presumed that
redesign would drive the cost of the units up
Mr. Sorensen estimated the increase in costs would be between
$15,000 and $24,000 per unit.
Mayor Klein declared the public hearing closed.
Councilmember Witherspoon referred to the Planning Commission
minutes of May 30, 1984, page 35, which said that such old
Architectural Review Boaro (ARBI approvals were not subject to the\
two-year restriction, and if so, why the 1980 findings were no
longer valid since the circumstances, property, and property
owners had not changed.
Mr. Brown said the variance was granted by ..the previous ;Zoning
Administrator. It was difficult to follow the trail of logic in
the approval granted since f_i ndi ees were not made in writing. The
Sorensens' again brought the project forward in the fall of the
previous year, and when discussing the need to reapply for the
variance, he told the applicants and Planning Commission it would
De difficult to make the necessary findings.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked, if it was difficult to make the
necessary findings because it was a different person looking from
a different perspective, rather than because _ of new. City laws or
environmental requirements, redesign of . the plan, or the situation
of the property.
Mr. Brown said : it was a judgment of whether uniqueness could be
grade in the case.
4 7 4.3
7/02/84
MOTION: Councilw,ember Cobb moved, seconded by Woolley, to adopt
the Planning Commission recommendations fi ndi n; that the project,
including the design and improvements (e.g. the street align-
ments, drainage and sanitary facilities, locations and size of all
required rights -of -way, lot size and configurations, grading and
traffic access) is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan
and complies with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code; that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment nor be likely to result in serious pub-
lic health problems; that the site is physically suitable for the
type and density of the proposed development; and that there are
no conflicts with public easements, and approve the tentative sub-
division map subject to the following conditions:
1. The broken and patched areas of the existing sidewalk shall be
replaced at the time of construction with standard sidewalk
and curb; and
2. Abandoned driveways or portions thereof shall be replaced with
standard sidewalk and curb.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF BOTH DAYLIGHT PLANE VARIANCES
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or con-
ditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply
generally to property in the same district in that the exist-
ing alleyway to the west of the subject property which is a
separate parcel and encumbered easements to the east of the
subject property redefining the measurement of setbacks and
easements for the adjoining site. These nonbuildable areas
will mitigate the height and mass of the proposed building
which would otherwise be the intent of the daylight plane.
restriction;
2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preserva-
tion and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnec-
essary hardship in that the variance will allow the applicant
to pursue the previously approved architectural plans for the
project without the necessity of redesigning the project to
conform with the daylight plane restrictions;
3. The grating of the application will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that
the mass and height of the building will be mitigated by the
adjoining alleyway to the west.
Councilmember Cobb said some issues went beyond the findings.
The applicant clearly enunciated that the second finding was nec-
essary` for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial prop-
erty right. The third finding arcing the application would not
be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements, etc,., was
also easy to sake. More difficult, but still possible, was the
first finding that there were exceptional or extraordinary circum-
stances applicable to the property involved that did 'not apply
general 1y to property in the sane district, which was encapsulated ..
by the fact that the side di scussed':-.i n the variance adjoined a PC.
where development was extremely unlikely and where .conditions made
it extremely unlikely that the requested daylight plane variance
would have any detrimental effect. The Council talked about
affordable housing and transition zones, and the proposed applica-
tion was an opportunity in that regard. If the variance were not
granted it would result in fewer, more expensive units which
resembled other; projects in town, .which _.did not meet the needs of
affordable family housing. The neighborhood was family -oriented
erd close to his own,, and he considered it a benefit that would. be
more beneficial at a lower price He believed the Council could
stretch the first finding.
Councilmember Bechtel concurred. The project was approved and all
variances were granted two years earlier, and the conditions had
not changed. The only difference was a decrease in interest
rates allowing the developer to continue with the project.
Councilmember Woolley agreed that it represented the kind of hous-
ing needed in Palo Alto and of which not much was seen. The units
appeared to be moderate sized, which she hoped would sell at the
lower end of the market rate. She supported the motion because
she believed the situation was unique, The project was previously
approved, and new regulations would create a hardship, and proba-
bly increase the cost of the housing. It was an unusual applica-
tion in that the neighbors were supportive.
Councilmember Sutorius had mixed feelings. He was a member of the
hr{B in October, 19B0, and final apprcval was given that December
after significant changes requested by the ARB were worked out.
He supported his colleagues' remarks, but did not want the public,
Planning Commission, or staff to feel that Council, implicitly or
explicitly, criticized. the incumbent Zoning Administrator. He did
his job well, acted responsibly and fairly. An accommodation,
which originated with the applicant's attorney, was incorporated
as a condition, which showed fair and open. treatment. He asked
Commissioner McCown and Mr. Brown to inform their colleagues that
Council was not 'criticizing their actions. He suggested that the
findings include a negative, nonbuildable easement from the adja-
cent property to remove 1,105 square feet for development oppor-
tunity. Although existing landscaping with a major oak tree, a
Monterey pine, and a growing, healthy redwood, would influence a
decision on whether: buildings right encroach into the area, he
believed they were avoiding an extenuating circumstance if they
did not impose on the adjacent property a removal of some of the
flexibility that might occur at a future time, and which added to
the justification of the findings before the Council. He sup-
ported the motion.
Councilmember Renzel said she might be alone in agreeing with the
Planning ommi ssi on that the property did not have particularly
extraordinary circumstances with regard to the variance. The
Council had to look at circumstances as they related to the land
on the ground, not to what trees or zoning the neighbor had. The
neighbor had fine trees and a PC zone, bOt a zoning change might
be requested in the future. Although the Council had some control
over whether it was granted, she doubted a zoning change would be
denied. She believed Council should look at the property in rela-
tion to the overall zoning pattern. Because i t was residential
zoning:'.and the other side of the Center was also residential, the
Council would ultimately see a request for residential zoning in
the middle. By granting .the requested variance, Council was
creating a situation that would be tense should the Center request
a zoning change to residential at some.point in the future. she
did not believe Council should allow one property to encroach on
air rights or daylight planes that were designed to create harmon-
ious adjacent developments. Because one neighbor happened to be
low key currently, it did not mean Council should allow another
neighbor to be higher key. She suggested dividing the motion into
two parts.
Mayor Klein did not believe the motion could be divided.
Counci laaember` Fenzel said she was not opposed to the remainder of
the . Planning Commission proposal, but suggested Council vote on
the east side variance first, then the remainder.
MOTION DIVIDED FOR
PURPOSES OF . VOTING;
Vice Mayor: Levy believed each; time the Council granted a variance
they weakened the case ford holding to the overall City planning
standards; He preferred to only grant variances when there was a
4 7 4-.55
7/02/84
strong case, anc ayreea with Councilmember Renzel that there were
insutficient unique circumstances to grant the variance. He was
concerned about the negative impact on the adjacent property.
even though their tenor was low key currently, the fact they did
not want to grant an easement meant they recognized the project,
as laid out, mi eht have a negative impact on their property. As
Councilmember Renzel mentioned, the zoning could change, and
future property owners might want to develop the property differ-
ently. They and others might look at the present variance and ask
if, in similar circumstances, they would be granted a variance,
un that basis, he joined in opposition to the east side variance.
Councilmember Cobb joined in praise of Mr, Brown, who applied the
rules fairly and evenly. His arguments in favor of the variance
still stood. The Council had the power to grant variances and
even on occasion to overrule the staff because they also looked at
other aspects such as those he cited.
FIRST PART OF NOTION REGARDING THE EAST SIDE VARIANCE PASSED by
a vote of 6.2, Renzel, Levy, voting rnno,a Fletcher absent.
SECOND PART OF NOTION passed unanimously.
'TEtM #9, FINANCE & PUBLIC WORKS (F&PW) COMMITTEE.-RECOi MENDATION RE
fbwN J uwN 'ANk Nute r
I;t.V Itw ue L i i/ 1c
Real Property Administrator Jean Diaz said the staff report pro-
vided a history and chronology of events for the Downtown Park
North. Lehibit "Kp gave rough estimates of the condition and
rehabilitation costs for the houses on the block. There was no
detailed inspection of those houses since 197'9 when staff was
directed to have them demolished within five years. A detailed
inspection to give an accurate estimate would require three weeks
so staff took the 1979 inspection figures and increased them by 10
percent annually. Some of the earlier repairs might have been
undertaken by the tenants or the Housing Authority, which might
lower the cost estimate, but there were five more years of pos-
sidle major structural deterioration from damage by termites or
dry - rot, which would increase the costs. He urged caution in
relying on the figures given.
Councilmember Cobb\ said two houses were listed in "good" condi-
tion, and rehabilitation costs were higher, than others listed in
"fair" condition, but probably because of the size of the house.
He assumed the two houses would be habitable for some period of
time with basically minimal repair whereas a house in "poor" con-
dition was probably not worth repairing. He asked Mr. Diaz for a
subjective estimate of what was meant by the description of ".`fair"
to describe the -remaining houses
Mr. Diaz said the best description might be '"marginally worth-
while to fix." They might be suitable for rehabilitation work,
but until detailed estimates were made, it was difficult to tell.
Councilmember Cobb said since the data was five years old, houses
might well have slipped into the "poor" category. -
Mr. Diaz agreed.
William Corson, 2330 Bryant, lived in the Downtown North area for
about two years, and, Council had _conflicting input in terms of its
citizens' needs, and desires. A previous petition requested a
park, and the new position was to not build it.
The Council needed to find out what - the residents really wanted
and how to achieve it. . they wanted to preserve the common goals
of the -community and its: residents. When the previous -petition
was submitted, residents were concerned that high-rises would be
built on the site, and they preferred a park. The neighborhood
currently did not want a park because it might be possible to pre-
serve the houses and the character of the neighborhood, and those
desires were not conflicting. The other issue was .the land, a,rd
what should be done with it. A park was a possibility, and the
other wd ;- to retain the existing structures, mini -parks, and com-
munity gardens. The disadvantage to retaining the houses was the
cost, but the costs .of building a park and subsequent maintenance
costs should not be overlooked. The present structures should be
retained because they were in the heart of Downtown North, and a
park would wedge .the neighborhood, which was encroached by
University Avenue traffic. there was an incentive to build office
buildings, and such a wedge would exacerbate the situation. He
believed the present park was primarily used by people who worked
dowetown, which was important, but not in the best interests of the residents. A park would effectively reduce the density of the
neighborhood, and permit and encourage higher density around it,
which also did not favor the residents. He asked_ the Council . to
retain the present houses.
Philip Roggereen, 434 Ruthi en, agreed with the previous speaker,
and favored retaining the character of the neighborhood. He did
not want to see the park dedication removed, but favored keeping
currently occupied str•uetures and allowing the park to evolve
around specific functions. A park took on character according to
the needs of its users, and the park was developing from -two sides
at once, which was a blessing. He asked that no further occupancy
of vacant structures be allowed in order for the park to expand
gradually rather than as one planned segment of open space, which
might justify higher density around the perimeter. The structures
could be preserved for a few more years during which time dry rot
and termite damage would not be all issue.
Lasaha Taylor, 227 Waverley, opposed continuation of the Downtown
orth Park project. A possible Willow Road construction to El
Camino meal would make uowntown Park North a stopping point for-
travelers, and the residents would bea angered by its possible
overuse by outsidersi The neighbors were especially concerned
about veterans from tht Veterans Hospital especially at Lytton
Park by Starlight Market. There were incidents at the park where
he lived on the corner of Everett and Hawthorne, and the neighbors
were concerned that more would come in if the park were developed.
Palo Alto had an abundance of parks strategically located to
accommodate each neighborhood.
ood.
Barbara Hart, 244 Byron Street, helped with the earlier petition
to have a park dedicated. She was surprised that approximately 90
percent of the people on her ` street were now against the park, but
she agreed with the other speakers, and could not equate tearing
down affordable houses with building a park. She was a single
parent with a child who could afford to live in Palo Alto because
she bought her. house -many years ago, and many could not afford to
live in Palo Alto even though they ' worked in town. Palo Alto had
to dedicate itself to providing more affordable housing, and many
parks were close 4t hand and adequate.
Cathy Taylor, 227 Waverley, hoped Council would undedicate the
park or put the issue on the November ballot, wh' !MI was more cost-
effects Ve than a special election, which was the last alternative.
If the houses stayed, there WAS no : fear of high-` density, low-
income housing, but a park would be an incentive for investment
proper{tyowners to. sel l their properti es surrounding the park for
higher density devel opt.ent.:. The tenants did _much to bring tht
houses up to rehabs l itati oar 1 evels, and repair costs on her house
would not be out of hand. If `. the \people knew they could remain
for a length of times many would do reuch of the work :themselves.
She invited the Council to look at the Mouse;:, which were in bet-
ter condition than the reports. showed. She only lived-in the area
for a year, and did not know whether repairs were done by previous
tenants or the City, but believed the houses could be brought up
to standard with little effort.
1
John Fredrich, 421 Everett, was concerned about the effects of
bulldozing the structures on density and neighborhood preserva-
tion. If the housing -park use conflict was resolved in favor of a
park, it would ignore the human needs and neighborhood preserva-
tion issues, and would have a destabilizing effect. His letter to
Councilmember Fletcher, which was on file in the City Clerk's
office, summarized some of the issues that arose when the decision
was made five years ago, and the staff report was more complete.
He suggested selective retention as suggested by the Webster Task
Force in 1972 with phased housing elimination as they vacated or
deteriorated beyond repair to expand the park gradually to retain
the integrity of the.. neighborhood. He suggested early removal of
the house in the worst condition, and his house might be converted
to a child care center. Garages, etc. could be removed to sub-
stantially expand the park, but other duplexes should be retained
because they housed many people. As a temporary teac:he , he was
frequently laid off, and his current rent was reduced to the basic
rate of the Federal Housing Act. It was scandalous to destroy
housing at a time when homelessness was a major issue, and the
noises were a public investment that probably quadrupled in value
since purchase. The financial costs should be evaluated in addi-
tion to the social costs, and the plan needed to be modified hope-
fully without an election. The current park plan gave June 26 as
the final date for modification, but he believed something could
oe done with community resources to prevent a confrontation He
encouraged the Council to work with the community to find a plan
to prevent loss of a valuable resource.
Christine Rudi n, 235 Waverley, submitted an informal neighborhood
petition to unaedicate the Downtown Park North and retain the park
as is, which was on file in the City Clerk's office. An initia-
tive petition required 4,461 signatures in 13 days in order to get
on the November 6 ballot, and as a 24 -year registered resident of
Palo Alto, she could not justify the expense of a special elec-
tion. She walked door-to-door in downtown Palo Alto, and found
incredible confusion. Of the 90 signatures she collected, only
four preferred the park --the neighborhood was not, divided on the
issue, it was concerned about. the impacts. She asked that the
matter be placed on the November 6 ballot. The City had ample
parks, and. she could walk . from. Waverley with her child to
Ki nconade, where there was a Children's Library, Junior Museum, a
play area and a pool. . The block was unique in that it provided
three needs: housing, public gardens, and parks which were not
overcrowded. The staff report said her house required $7,000 in
repairs, but the only necessary repairs were two leaks in the roof
which she unsuccessfully tried to have repaired for four years.
Jonathon Greene, 5.16 Hawthorne, spoke for the renters. He lived
in the area for a year, and would benefit as much as anyone from a
park. He became aware of the proposed park through the petition
drive. Only 10,000 of 23,00U people in Palo Alto were renters,.
and because of their: transiency, they were not involved in local
politics. Seven office buildings ° and many high priced condominoms
were built in the past year, open space such as Arastra was con-
sidered for open space preserves but never for rental housing, and
the City Council and its Commissions impeded Stanford _ in building
Stanford West. There . was a crisis in the rental market, and
people walked the streets in Downtown North in early September in
search of a rental unit. The mini -parks met the community need
and were not overused, If it was considered uneconomic to repair
and improve rental housing on land purchased 20 years earlier at ;a
good pricey he asked where it might be economical to :build new
replacement rental housing.
uaruara cane, z44 Kipling, circulated the neighborhood petition,
and said there was still much confusion, misinformation and
emotionalism. Less than 10 percent of the neighborhood wanted a
park, but many believed they could not influence the outcome.
Others did not want a'park, _but believed it was the only way to
protect the neighborhood from a high-rise. Mothers of young
children slid they did not want the entire block used as a park,
but would like a nicer, more.accommodating, children's play area.
She asked that the park issue be put to the voters for resolution.
At the meeting. in January one-third- of the people spoke against
the park, but were t.eld it was not the time and place to voice an
opinion. The people should decide whether the City- shculd .spend
more than $500,000 for a park.
Patricia Ward, 412 Everett, lived opposite the proposed park, and
was involved with the park issue siece January. She believed it
was a transitional area encroached upon by the downtown; and, if
the park did not go in, developers might put in higher -density
dwellings. She supported the park, and if the matter was put on
the ballot, it would no longer be a neighborhood issue. She
believed it should be voted on by the neighborhood alone.
Sarah Freedman, 604 Everett, favored the park and the commitment
the Council made to the neighborhood earlier. The people who
spoke that evening were closely affected by the housing in ques-
tion and did not want to leave. Both the low-cost housing and the
park issues were important, and she did not want to lose the park.
There was insufficient parkland downtown, and parks did not neces-
sarily have toattract undesirables. She believed a park unified
end did not act as a wedge.
Bern Beecham, 321 Cowper, said he did not want to see the issue
become a park versus housing. The relocation laws were tight, and
wnen the original tenants were evicted, only one man built his own
house. An elderly couple, in their eighties, was evicted in 1968,
and were upset that their house still stood and the park was still
not built. The area did not meet the standards set by the Compre-
hensive Plan for parkland, was the most deserving neighborhood
with the most dense population, the highest proportion of which
were senior citizens, and relatively cheap housing. A park would
give focus to a neighborhood with many outside influences. During
the meetings, which had fine staff input, they reached good com-
promises, and he asked the Council to reaffirm the policies they
worked towards during the past years.
Tony Badger, 381 Hawthoree, said Council either had to fish or cut
bait. Sixteen years ago, the original homeowners were evicted,
which was more severe than eviction of the present renters. Of
tne ten units rented, five leases were signed after the Council
adopted the 1980 ordinance, and some as late as 1983. Only four
units qualified as low-income housing, and he was appalled at the
time which elapsed. Since the City first recognized the need for
a park in the area 16 years ago, the population almost doubled.
The City bol dly\ condemned an entire block, through eminent domain,
for the specific purpose of building a park, and put homeowners
out on the street. He understood how the present renters felt,
but the questions had to be fated logically, not emotionally. The
initiative petition of 1979 was well thought out, and it was hear-
say that people did not want a park. They made a legal documents
of the earlier petition, which was not like the current informal
canvassing of the neighborhood. The neighborhood wanted a park
and put a lot of work into trying to get it. He urged the Council
to start cutting bait,
Roger Craig, 101 Waverley Street, owned his home, which was not in
the park area. He did not like the noise or traffic, but was
frightened by the transients who bung out around where' he lived.
He lived next to the creek, and many transients slept there in the
weeds. The police said it was not . illegal, but he had horror
stories of the neighborhood deterioration into a haven for
4 7 4 9
= 7/02/84
transients and winos. His wife could no 1 un er walk the dog iii
the little park near Middlefield because of the transients. The
City should clean up the perk near Norm's Market from the winos,
which was awful, and should not provide sleeping quarters for
transients. The police claimed they were mainly from the Veterans
Administration hospitals in Menlo Park and Mountain View who ran
out of money towards the end of the month, but he was concerned
about the proximity of the proposed park and its incentive to camp
out. When he saw the plans, he noticed lots of dark corners with
places to hide, and if a park was built, strong measures should be
taken to prevent it t;rorn becoming a nuisance.
Sylvia Seman, 3.380 Middlefield Road, Executive Director of the
Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAFtC), said in 1979, staff proposed
that PAHC purchase, upgrade and continue the homes as modestly
affordable units. Inaccuracies circulated that eventually the
houses would be torn down to make room for a high-rise or high -
density development. If the houses were preserved, language. could
be incorporated to assure the neighborhood that the houses would
be maintained .and preserved as single-family. The PAHC tried to
build new housing and acquire existing apartment buildings . to add
to the affordable housing stock, but it was a difficult situation.
The federal government abandoned its family -housing subsidy pro-
grams, and construction costs and rents made it difficult to
acquire family housing. Housing would stabilize the single-family
aspect of the neighborhood, and the PAHC was still anxious to
help. She asked that the matter be put to the vote, and that
Council initiate a process to include --the City, neighbors, and the
PAHC, to develop a combination use -acceptable to the neighborhood.
A compromise was possl b e to preserve many of the houses with a
large area for a park.
Mike Lee, 164 Hawthorne, opposed the park. He lived five blocks
away, and as an architect, he believed it could have been one of
Palo Alto's finest parks i f built in 1900. The block evolved for
80 years and was architecturally interesting, and he suggested the
area Lie an architectural park with parks at the ends and housing
in the middle as a .vignette. The L-shaped park on Hawthorne Was
handsome, and people were disappointed that the Spanish -type house
hear the park on Everett could not be used as a child care center
because even park advocates liked the idea of keeping.:,an old
.,house. The historical bungalow on Lytton and _ gaverl ey facing
demolition was a handsome Oosstbility for the day care center, and
the present houses could be moved into the vacant area. Possible
down zoning would provide an opportunity to look at the whole
picture, and he supported working with what they already had and
putting it on the ballot if necessary. -
Susan Chamberlain, 121 Byron Street, lived in 0owntown'North for
12 years-, w f -z::t :d and a homeowner. She's had two children and
wanted to see the park developed. There were five children in her
block less than seven years old, and it was --unfair to pit the
issues of a park versus housing because both Were important. She
wanted Palo Alto to be more diverse, but nine structures did not
'afford- a solution. She petitioned for the park in 1980 when -only
a handful of peopl e- were not ' i n favor, and she 010 not understand
the difference in the_ petltidns. She used to take her children to
the park, but was -tired of clearing beer bottles and broken glass -
out of the sand. A number-. Of the mothers .complained to. the
Recreation:: Department, and although a day, use`: fact l i ty m1 ght , ke
it better, she could nit imagine loitering: in the park bel n4worse
than i t was. The City bought the land to _ develop -4$.4 park 16.:
years 'ago to replace the, green :space previously at Lytton School
and green space and play areas were needed.
Rachel Freedman, 604 Everett Avenue;. wanted a .park.... She recently
learned that other Children lived in her nel ghborhood, and- a park
mi ght'be a unifier for children She wanted grass in a park to do
her homework. She was frightened to ride her bike past Norm's.
Market te,, Cogswell ° Park end believed a safe place was needed,
4 7_Sa
7/Q2/84
Uavi d Cneri ton, 131 Cowper Street, owned his home for two years
and supported building the park. The issue was contentious and
pitted a park benefiting many versus housing for a few. He had
three children under four years old who used the park and the
community garden plot. Many office workers and senior citizens
used the parks, and despite the conflict, it would not solve the
housing problem to not build the park. The housing was low-.
density and in poor condition, and low-cost housing should not go
into a developed neighborhood where there was a dramatic need for
a park. Mousing was a lottery system where a few people got to
live in a choice area for a low cost, and in order to solve the
problem fairly, the houses should be torn down and high -density
housing built. There was much misinformation by people who wanted
to preserve the housing, and his neighbor signed the petition
because he was convinced the park would bring in high-rises and
attract transients. After seeing a map, the neighbor changed his
position. The problem with transients was nonsense. He patrolled
Palo Alto Avenue, and the police only had to remove one transient
that summer. Not having a park would not remove transients. He
wanted the park, not only because he would use it, but because he
believed it was needed. If the Council allowed big developments
in the neighborhood, the need for park facilities must be recog-
nizeo.
Judith Schwartz, 2330 Bryant Street, said she previously lived on
Bryant Court. A'pe'.ition was being organized at the Gamble House
because the City wanted to put low-income housing there. It was
both logical and cost-effective to keep housing where it already
was. Someone said the area was inexpensive, but her landlord
offered to sell his one -bedroom tiny house for $150,000. Palo
Alto was attractive because of the diversity of the people and the
architecture. The neighborhood was great and she missed it. Some
did not use the park because of the glass in the sand, but a big-
ger park would not mean less glass. The people and houses gave
the area character.
•hack Oppenheimer, Sou Everett Avenue, said the political process
in Palo Alto was honest although lengthy. He reminded the Council
that almost a generation earlier the land was condemned for a
park. The evicted people were now in their eighties, and the
petition he circulated i n 1979, was followed by a City ordinance
reaffirming the City's plan for a park by 1985. Many Palo Al tans
were concerned about appropriate standards for parks throughout
the City and understood the uniqueness of the Downtown Park North,
in terms of being transitional, impacted by commercial enter-
prises, and used by commuters from out of town. They worked hard
for a park to accom:odate all age groups and be a stabilizing
factor. In five years, another group would want something differ-
ent, and the integrity of the political process was in question.
Political decisions were made on the best evidence available to
policy makers, and by definition, a situation was dynamic and
changing. At stake was the standards for parks and the City plan
together with the credibility of the City's political process.
The social contract° was at stakes
Walter diaoi sot}, 360 Fulton, was a homeowner and spoke against the
Uowntown Park North because he was concerned about who would pay
for the park. The downtown area parks had an undesirable tran-
sient population. He would not use the park and .would not allow
his daughter to use it. Practically every downtown park in a
major city was taken over by transients, but quality parks were
within fifteen minutes of any part of Palo Alto, and Burgess Park
in Menlo Park was also available to the neighborhood. The crime
rate would increase if a perk went in, and he preferred the money
to be spent on education.
Jim Lhamberlafn lived at 121 Byron Street for ten years. The need
for the park increased with .increased density of the neighborhood.
`The school Yard of Lytton _ School was available for children 16
years ago,,. but was lost to provide low income housing for senior
4 7 5 1
7/02/84
citizens. Many people in the neighborhood, including himself,
supported the housing on Lytton School because they were promised
the park, which might now be taken away. The proponents for
undedicating the park needed to provide the 4,000 signatures the
advocates produced in 1980. The City_ Council should fulfill its.
promise.
COUNCIL RECESS :D FROM 9:30 P.M. TO 9:45 P.M.
uavi d Ansel, 544 Hawthorne, resided in the area for four years,
and as a New Yorker, he considered Foothills Park a "park." The
proposed recreational area w.as not, and he did not use the current
park. - He weighed the park versus housing, and could not see
demolishing perfectly ._good inhabited housing to- provide a 1 i ttl e
luxury. He would not have voted for evicting the homeowners in
1968, it was not a good idea then and was not d good idea to carry
that decision through now. He did not think it was wise to bull-
doze houses for a park that would not improve the area much.
Katherine Abu-Romi a, 525 Hawthorne, lived in Palo Alto for six
years, and in addition to young children, there were young teens
in the area. The neighborhood yards were generally small and to
yet to open space they had to cross the railroad tracks or go down
Middlefield. She supported the park for what it would bring to
the neighborhood, the children, and the families. Downtown North
was not a transition zone, and she chose the area because of its
diversity, which included the veterans and the possible transient.
She hoped to stay there because she would not be able to afford
any other housing when she was 65. The park was dedicated and
should be put in.
Jan wiesenfeld, 359 Hawthorne, said everyone agreed the City need-
ed both the housing and the park. An either/or situation was
being set up, not an either and. She asked the Council to set up
a .situation where the neighborhood, was brought creatively together
to solve a neighborhood issue. Things changed, and the issue
should be reconsidered more creatively.
Robert Freedman, 604 Everett, said the Council did not want to pit
housing against open space , and the citizenry trusted it to abide
by the earlier decision. The Counci�I was obliged to honor the
commitments of its predecessors.
Pam Marsh, 327 Wavers ey, lived half a block from the proposed
park. She was ambivalent about earlier petitions for the park,
but-. changes in the neighborhood convinced her that a park was
ess ntial. The elderly could not get to a park, and the number of
young children and people living in the high -density units was
i nc,reasi ng. It was a goal of Palo Alto to provide housing with
appropriate amenities —downtown Palo Alto provided housing for
a;any kinds of people, and the amenities . were now appropriate. The
character of the downtown commercial area changed and the growth
was unpredictable. As the area encroached, increased urbanization
resulted, and a park was an appropriate _ and essential response to
deflect some of the tension. She was persuaded by the type of
park proposed and said Mr. Thi l teen worked with over SO neighbor-
hood people for a park plan to meet the needs of many, with walk-
ing paths and benches . for the elderly, a child care center that
was desperately needed, and ='public gardens. It would create . a
block to provide many services, ;and the question was whether to
place the issue on the ballot. The
answer was "rra.8 ` It would pit
low-income housing against open . space of which a conflict was
recoyni zed four years ago:. by then Mayor Byron Sher and- Fred
k:yerly. There was .much confusion and a ballot measure to decide
On two acres in North Pa1o.JOto would create aaoie4 She urged that
CounCi1 use whatever resources posSib1e to relocate the';people who
lived in the houses and moVe forward with the creation: of Downtown
Park North.
Walter
Cn iL_ 7•�c tir.,.. r...___s, lived
�i
Walter Scdr ks, 3 5 rimer a Street, i 1ved in Down+ wri North, the
area of Palo Alto with self-destrucii ny parkland. During the last
debates, the neighborhood was told by the Planning staff that it
was statistically rich in parkland which referred to the banks of
the San Erancisquito Creek. The neighborhood association received
presentations from the flood control people who advised that the
parkland would eventually fall to the bottom of the creek. There
was no park worthy of the name in the area, which was why Downtown
Park North was purchased by the City, and why it was continually
endorsed by every .Comprehensive Plan for the past 20 years after
extensive debates. It was recognized as a question of balance,
and proceeding with the park had a negligible impact on the over-
all housing situation, but had a major impact in providing a mini-
mum of open space for the neighborhood and the daytime downtown
population. Because of repeated proscrastination by the City,
opponents of the park were able to start the debates anew. It was
probably believed that if the debates were short, emotionalism
would win. He urged the Council to not miss the opportunity to
re -endorse a balanced approach and proceed with the park.
Steve Pierce, 209 Cowper Street, was a Palo Alto homeowner for
five years, but lived i n the City his entire life. He was the
father of three young sons and another child on the way. The City
was endowed with beautiful parks, but, in his area, people had to
put the children in the car to take them to any of those parks.
Regarding the transients and winos, five years ago the City took
action and cleaned up Cogswell Plaza, and the problem was not
nearly as bad now, but indigents were a policing problem. The
nei ghnorhood was dense and diverse, and given the young children
and teenagers, there were many who would actively use a park with
the right kinds of facilities. Tie downtown area had dangerous
streets and much traffic, and as a parent, he was concerned that
one of his children would be hurt. A park for the area was
needed.
Bekah 0u i3oi, 872 San Antonio, used to live in the Downtown North
area, and in 1980, she was given a petition to sign which stated
that if she did not sign, the area would be turned into high-rise
condominiums by the City of Palo Alto, She was offended to think
the City would purchase the property, supposedly to be parkland,
and turn it into a major development. She believed the original
petition was presented in an unclear, unfair, and confusing man-
ner, and the 4,000 who signed the petition were not given accurate
re tresentati on of the desires of the people presenting the peti-
tion. `;She did not believe 4,000 people lived adjacent to the pro-
posed par , and the issue should be voted on by the people of Palo
Alto who Woul d pay for the park.
Mayor Klein said the property was dedicated as parkland by the
Council " in 1980, and he asked about the procedure for property to
become "undedicated."
Senior Assi scent City Attorney Tony Bennetti said i n order to dis-
continue property as a park use, the Charter required that Council
adopt a resolution of intention ,o discontinue such use, hold a
public . hearing, and vote for an ordi rfa ice releasing the property
from dedication on the ballot at the next election.
Mayor .Klein eI ar.:i f i ed that the Council could not remove something
+f ren dedicated -parkland.
Mr. Bennetti ,.arid that was correct.
Mayor Klein asked what uses were _allowed by dedicated parkland..
Mr." 8ennettl said the lures allowed, by . the- ordinance dedicating
Downtown :' Park Worth pai`rk, pl ayg'ro"bnd, :,,retreatfon , or c)0-
.servatl one--housl ng would be an i`ncons l scent use.
Mr. Bennetti said yes.
Councilmember Bechtel said some members of the public were con-
cerned that if the park process continued, the houses would be
torn down, but it would take a long time to actually construct the
park. She asked for clarification.
Mr. Thiltgen said the present plan proposed the final design pro-
cess 1n the fall, which would be completed by the end of next
spring. If Council approved the capital improvement budget next
year with funds to develop the park, construction could start in
July or August, 1985.
Councilmember Bechtel asked if the park was listed in the 1985-86
capital improvement budget.
Mr. Zaner said there was no dollar amount- listed
beyond 1984-85,
the years
Councilmember Bechtel asked for a ball park dollar amount.
Mr. Zaner said the dollar amounts were unknown until the ultimate
master plan was adopted by the Council.
Councilmember Cobb said with regard to the proposed day care
center, two of the houses were currently listed as being in good -
condition, and he asked if either was a candidate.•
Mr. Diaz said there was a problem with retrofitting old houses
designed for residences for a nonresidential use such as a day
care center. The Department of Public Works believed a building
should be specifically designed for that purpose, and the City
should not look to any existing structures for a day care center.
Be said the problem would be reviewed as the'plan evolved.
Councilmember Cobb clarified that the door was being left open for
the possibility.
Mr. Diaz said it might be possible, but it required careful con-
sideration.
Councilmember Cobb said away from the particular block, there were
a few houses that were in tired condition, one of which was aban-
doned. He asked if any thought was given to the possibility, if
the park dedication continued, that the other houses be moved to
the nearby location to replace some of the houses that were fall-
ing down.
Mr. Diaz said staff would first offer the houses for moving, and
would only demolish if no interest : was expressed in moving the
houses off the site.
Mr. Zaner said with regard to the day care center, the plan circu-
lated showed a community day care center that was included because
some members of the public raised the issue. He clarified that
staff did not evaluate the situation and had no idea what the
facility might cost to build or operate. No one should assume
staff made any recommendation with regard to a day care center.
NOTION: Ceunci l member Woolley peed, seconded by Witherspoon.
that staff coati/iv' `etit'3 cerrei t Council policy which requires
removal of, houses by NAY, 19,115 and development of a park to the
wooer of 1986.
Councilmember Woolley said the issue continued for at least 16
years, and it _was significant to note that the property was Pro-
cured by eminent domain, that people were, evicted, and the prop-
erty was dedicated parkland. In 1980, after dedication. ' she
believed Council looked upon the immediate solution : as a comer o-
raise, There was no money then to, develop the park because of
7/02/04:
other capital improvements but the tenants were given five years
to relocate. That was the compromise, and the speakers who naked
for a compromise that evening were askioy for d second extension,
which she believed was ina pprupriate. Regarding the lost housing,
she considered herself to be a strong advocate of affordable
housing and two years ago she was a founding member of Cooperative
Housing of Palo Alto. She believed the need for the park was
greater in terms of a balance --Lytton School was closed before
Council could buy open space on school sites, and it was an
unusually dense area without a school or a park, which was unusual
in Palo Alto. The lease for the tenants who occupied the houses
clearly stated the housing solution was temporary, and Walter
Sedrik said it well, "the question was one of balance, Proceeding
with the park has an almost negligible impact on the overall hors-
ing situation, but had a major impact in providing a long awaited
and badly needed breathing space in a crowded area." Several
speakers expressed .concern about potential problems within the
park and she believed that was considered in the design. The park
was visible and there was no dense shrubbery. Additionally, it
was ringed on all four sides by residences, which would provide
excellent monitors of what was going on in the park. Being close
to downtown was a plus, she lived rrext door to Piers Park, which
was about the same distance from the California Avenue area as the
proposed park was from downtown, and there were always people who
had lunch in the park. In her experience, Piers Park served as a
focus, particularly for the children. It was where the children
got to know each other and spent many happy hours. The issue was
around longer than cable, and she hoped Council could cut bait
that evening.
Councilmember Witherspoon agreed with Councilmember Woolley. She
believed it was the third time in eight years the issue was before
the Council, and her position was that the City had housing for 15
years that was really on a park. For those in the neighborhood
and those who were evicted 16 years ago, it was time to proceed in
good faith. She wanted the neighborhood to have the park it
wanted, and those concerned about the park shoul d become part of
the planning process. She liked the plan, and hoped it would pro-
ceed with -a neighborhood or day care center on the property.
Scott Street Park was always used by the neighbors and people who
worked close to the downtown area, and she hoped the same was true
for Downtown Park North. The safest park was the one constantly
used and she supported the motion.
Councilmember Bechtel said if she was on the Council when the
decision was made, she would have voted for a combination of hous-
ing and park. She was `frustrated to see housing demolished when
she knew how difficult and expensive it was to build new housing.
At the same time, she believed her hands were tied because the
decision was made to dedicate the park, and as previously men-
tioned, the decision was made 16 years ago to purchase the land.
Council owed it to the residents of the houses already demolished,
and a "social contract" was made with the Otizens. There was no
choice but to go ahead and ensure it was the best possible park
for the neighborhood. She agreed with Councilmember :'itherspoon
that Council could make an attractive park, and the park used most.
was the ore with the least problems. She jogged in the neighbor-
hood and along Pale- Alto Avenue each morning, and never saw a
transient crawling out of the bushes at 6:00 a.m.
AMENDMENT: Coonciloerber Bechtel moved, : seconded by Bonze).
that stiff be directed to. continue to work with the four residents
under the assistance programs to help them relocate and find other
housing
Mr. Diaz said there were four tenants under the. City's subsidy
program equivalent to Section 8, and with regard to those tenants,
staff was .working with the PAHC and the. Housing Authority to try.
and get those tenants a priority for other -affordable housing
projects in the area.,.
4 7 5 5
7/02/84
As Corrected
8/13/84
Mayor Klein said he could only support the amendment if it clearly
did not involve any expenditure of City finds. The City made it
clear that the leases were temporary and there would be no housing
relocation assistance. It was part of the. lease and the agree-
ment, and to confer any money on people signed leases like that
would be giving away the public's money.
Councilmember Renzel clarified that Mayor Klein did not count the
salaries of City staff memLers.
Councilmember Bechtel said her motion did hot include any finan-
cial payment or.any relocation assistance in that regard, but
rather helped to get through the bureacracy to find additional'
housing.
Vice Mayor Levy understood staff was now providing assistance, and
he endorsed the level of assistance being provided. He saw noth-
ing inconsistent between that and the amendment, and would support
the amendment with that understanding.
Councilmember Renzel said whoever left the housing units would
face a tough housing market, and those who were in the lower
incomes would face an impossible situation. She believed it
behooved the Council to put to bear whatever it could in terms of
staff resources tc assist those people.
Mr. Zaner said finding alternate housing in Palo Alto would be
difficult. Staff could continue the level of assistance bring
afforded those residents in an attempt to steer them in the right
direction, but he hoped Council understood that staff would not
get into the business of taking on the responsibility to find per-
manent housing. He was concerned about the amount of time and
effort to be put forth in the pursuit of the Council's direction.
AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Fletcher absent.
Vice Mayor Levy said he appreciated the comments of the speakers
who positively contributed to the discussion of a difficult issue.
In a way it was an issue of parks versus housing because Council
had to choose between two elements, both of which were positive in
the community. he was on the Council five years ago, and it was
his third vote on the issue. _ His past votes favored continuation
of the policies established by previous Councils to have a park on
the site, and if anything, the reasons for a park in the area
intensified over the years. There was more population growth in
the area and there were more children, although Council was laying
to rest the idea that parts were exclusively for children. There
was more density in the downtown area, and the proposed park would
benefit those who worked in the downtown area. The area was short
of parks, and although the Creeksi de had certain park benefits, i t
was not a good site for many activities. Lytton School no longer
existed, and El Camino Park was on the other side of the railroad
tracks and not available to most people. There were criticisms
that a park would drive a wedge in the neighborhood, and his
experience was the opposite, that many neighborhoods defined them-
selves by the surrounding park. Regarding undesirables and an
increased crime rate, he commended staff for the design so far,
and agreed with his colleagues that the park should not neces-
sarily have those problems. Scott Street Park was analagous on
the other side of the downtown area, and did not attract undesir-
ables. He believed the area would be an efficient -site for a park
and would provide more benefits to the neighborhood and community
at large per square foot :then man,} larger parks did. He continued
tosupport a park in the area, Rot that housing was not a benefit,
but there needed to be balance in the ` community,,, The north side
of the downtown area had e lot of housing of all sortsand pr -ice
ranges, but It needed the kind of :park being proposed, by Downtown
Park North.
Councilmember Renzel said during the 1976 c ►mprehensiv Plan, con-
sideration was given to forgetting Downtown Park North, and she
was one of several Planning Commissioners who fought to keep the
park designation. By the same token, there was a shortage of ren-
tal housing in the area, and in her early days on the Council, she
entertained the idea of moving or clustering houses to retain the
housing with a significant park as a focus for the area. An
initiative petition was circulated for park dedication, and in
response, Council adopted the park dedication ordinance with a
five-year amortization for the homes rather than put the matter on
the ballot. At the time, it seemed fair to the tenants and pro-
vided adequate warning to face the market, and she believed Mr.
Oppenheimer put his finger on it when he said there was a "social
contract." Council responded to an initiative, and while it could
undue its action in response to an- initiative, she believed such
an action lacked good faith and set a dangerous precedent for
future initiatives in the City. She believed Council's response
to the initiative _five years ago should be upheld and she sup-
ported the: motion.
Councilmember Sutorius said he raised four children in Palo Alto
and enjoyed many of its parks and recreation facilities. The most
significant was Bowden. Park, slightly smaller than the proposed
park, located on Alma at California, and he requested that staff
look at the Hawthorne parking strip because it was unsightly,
unsafe, and embarrassing, and the City's responsibility. He also
asked about the irrigation system at Everett and Waverl ey._. In
order to get started on park improvements, those things should be
checked promptly. He supported the main motion.
Councilmember Cobb agreed with much of what was said. There were
nine physical structures, and two were supposedly in poor condi-
tion and not likely to survive for long. The City originally paid
$SOO, Uoo for the property in 1968, and the present value, divided
into ten dwelling units, assuming all remained fnr_.some period of
time, was an enormous subsidy in today's dollars for those few
housing
units compared to the hundreds of people who would enjoy a
park over many generations. That was important in terms of
balance, and although he commended the PAHC for its comments, he
wondered what some future Council might do .i f the situation were
left as is. Looking at what amounted to free land - and an ever
increasing demand for affordable housing, there was an opportunity
as more of the structures went past the - point of repair to look
again at the question. Hz was concerned because the area was
already badle overbuilt. Comments were made that if the park went
forward, there would quid pro quo be more density elsewhere, and
he believed the contrary was true. Everyone wasgetting the mes-
sage that :.a stop had to be -put to the ra: paging oensi ty i n Palo
Alto, aria a park would begin to reverse the, trend and put a little
island of tranquility i n an area with far . too much density. He
walked through the area, saw an area with virtually no usuable
open space, and believed a park would benefit many people. He did
see a transient poking around the garbage cans as he walked around
yesterday evening, and he understood the concerns. It was an
enforcement problem he hoped would be Carefully reviewed to ensure
that appropriate laws were enforced, that the transients were
watched carefully, and the neighborhood was given a full measure
of protection. The kinds of nooks and c,ra,nnies that existed with
small miniparks surrounded by older houses and some vacant lots
with all its dark corners was more inviting to transients than an
open park that could b°e seen from all sides by hoaxes. He believed
a park would improve the transient situation, and that Mr.
Oppenheimer stated ,the case well. He was sensitive to the housing
issue concern, but a contract was made, and he 'did not know how
the Cot'ncil could face those 'people who were effectively evicted
by the laws of eminent domain '.so marry years .ago if _ It _ reversed its
,,nurse so late -,i n the game. The social contract was as important
as the integrity of the Council and its processes. He supported
the motion. :
1
1
Mayor Klein agreed with vir=tually everything said. He was not on
the Council in 1958 or 1980, but if he was, he would have tried to
obtain a different solution. He would have preferred to see some
housing maintained and believed there could have been more crea-
tive solutions with both housing and a bigger and better park.
The key was that the decision was made then, and the present
Council must follow it. The decision made in 1980 was not written
in concrete, and it was not necessarily true that Council should
never change its mind as conditions in the community changed, but
when a legal petition was presented to the Council with 4,000 plus
signatures which were validated as registered voters in the com-
munity, and Council adopted an ordinance in response to that -peti-
tion, it put things in a different category. .A subsequent Council
should have a right to make different decisions as conditions
changed for. the community. but when a decision was in response to
a petition, Council should not, absent some extraordinary situa-
tion, change that decision. In effect, the 1980 Council bound its
successors by making a contract with those ' people who ._ signed the
V � � V
petition. Some believed the people who signed the peititon in
1980 did not understand the situation, but regardless, some citi-
zens exercised their rights of citizenship and signed a petition,
which could not be lightly disregarded. If people disagreed with
the process, there could be a counter legally binding petition to
put the matter on the ballot. He did not know what to do about
the people who just found out about the issue because Council met
many times on the issue and there were many stories in the news-
p'aper. The five-year timeline was well known and he believed
there was adequate time for people opposed to the Council's design
to circulate their own petitions. He did not believe Council
should short circuit its system, and it was not appropriate for
the Council to unilaterally put the matter on the ballot. He
regretted the decision was between housing and parks, both of
which were good for the community. He believed a park was needed
in the area, would not be a wedge, and would be uni fyi ng, as other
parks were in other neighborhoods. He noted that Barron Park
celebrated the tenth anniversary of the park those citizens
created yesterday_ , and it was clear that the park was a unifying
force in that neighborhood. He hoped Downtown Park North would
also be unifying. The City police would be dedicated to ensuring
it was not used as a place to sleep, and he believed excellent
strides were made in making Cogswell Park a good place to be. He
did not believe Council would use a park there as an excuse to
raise the density in the surrounding neighborhoods, and its
actions the past few years moved the other direction to try and
reduce the density in the'DowntownNorth area. While he regretted
the loss of some houses, the City would get something good from
the park, and the credibility of the system would be maintained.
He hoped they moved forward in the spirit of cooperation and good
citizenship to see that the final design of the park was one with
which everyone could be happy. He looked forward to the day the
park was there, and believedeveryone would be proud.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Fletcher absent.
Vice Mayor Levy said the name Downtown Park North and Scott Street
Park did 'not bear a name carefully considered by staff and the
Palo Alto Historical Association as was the normal policy in the
naming of public streets;_ parks, etc.
MOT IOM: Y l co Mayor Levy moved* seconded by Kl e o that staff
develop, is consultation with the Palo Alto Historical Associa-
tion* . and recommend °appropri ete ` names for both the Dewotowo Park
North .aod the Scott Street Park.
Counci lmember ,Bechtel asked that the motion be divided for pur-
poses of voting because she o4=d not want to change the name of
Scott Street Park.
MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING
Councilmember Re.nzel believed Council already aiade the referral,
but if not, several parcels in the foothills were dedicated as
parklands, and she wanted to include those properties in the
motion.
Mr. Zaner believed the referral was made. Council had a standard
policy for naming .parks, which included the Historic Resources
Board (HRB).
Councilmember Witherspoon said Scott Street Park had a pleasant
connotation and she wanted to retain the name.
Councilmember Renzel said she would support reviewing the Scott
Street name, but might favor keeping the Scott Street name.
FIRST PART OF MOTION REGARDING SCOTT STREET PARK FAILED by a
vote 4-4, Renzel, Woolley, Levy and Klein voting 'aye,° Fletcher
absent.
SECOND PART OF MOTION REGARDING DOWNTOWN PARK WORTH PASSED unani-
mously, Fletcher absent.
Councilmember Cobb said during the F&PW Committee budget hearings,
there was talk about not leaving the park in a situation where the
houses were removed and there was just bare dirt until the City
got the actual development going. There was talk about turfing
the land, and he asked where that stood given that the issue was
deferred.
Assistant City Manager June Fleming said Council amended the
Capital Improvement Program (C 1I') to add $40,000 in order to com-
plete tie desiNn work, which Meant Council would probably see a
proposal in the next capital improvement budget and would allow
construction to begin on Downtown Park North early in the summer
of 1985. There would not be an interim period.
MAYOR KLEIN RE ITEMS TO BE COMMENCED AFTER 11:00 p.m.
Mayor Klein believed Council could finish the agenda.
ITEM #1U, PIJ LIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS RE
AYIRsi1T 41!3111iAn—FOR— AFFROTAL ui
Director of Planning • and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
Linda Pearce, Environmental . Impact Planning Corporation, was pre-
sent at the staff table
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, 'seconded by Bechtel, that Council
rescind its previous actions on -the redesignatlon, the rezoning,
and the subdivision with regard to the Hospital Modernization Pre -
gram OW. .
Mayor Klein said Robert's Rules of Order, Section 34, required a
majority vote to rescind.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher absent.
Mayor Klein declared the pub! is hearing open.
1 r, Nancy Jewell ,..Cross.. 301 Wine. Street, spoke--.on=-.behal f of the
Committee for Safe. and .Sensible San Frapcisquito .Creek Area Rout-
ing, and appreciated the Council's rescission _..vote and staff's
prompt. response to cons.i"der, on. the " basis of her letter that
pointed out the lack of effective notice and whether 1t copplied
wi-th _certain technicalities,, sp _:tha Counc l 1 01 ght obtain or e
1 nput from the pobl ic. The : i tea was 'processed on - envi r en�aental
assessment as iii stingui shed froei Environmental Impact Report (E IR)-
and did not receive the same ,amount of _-notice to -__ the community.
The actual participation Were the Counci l :did not reflect the
kind cif reaction it would get #.f it went through the. processes for
a full EIR. She spoke for- over 1,000 people in the arca impacted
by the traffic and air quality situation increasingly dense in the
north end of Santa Clara County and the southern end of San Mateo
County. She responded to the HMP first with a letter to the
Council, which was on file in the City Clerk's office, in relation
to the prei1oes action now rescinded, and she submitted a letter,
which was on file in the City Clerk's office. She believed
staff's conclusion to have an environmental assessment instead of
an. LlR occurred because it was conceived there would be no sub-
stantial generation of traffic, which was based upon representa-
tions by Stanford University that it intended to increase the
space per bed but not a significant amount of hospital employees.
She believed Mr. Schreiber said he used a conservative approach
and assumed somewhat of a traffic generation, but she believed the.
premises on which he made his conservative predictions were not
adequate. They considered only the number of hospital employees
predicted by Stanford, and in relation to the beds, and the space
per bed at Stanford and at other places. The data at other
places, materials of which she had copies thanks to staff, had no
dates and was based upon some directory. Directories could have
data quite out of time, and did not tell of particular circum-
stances. A teaching hospital at some other place might not be at
all like Stanford, and there were a lot of people .that would be
involved in hospitals comings and goings that were not necessarily
hospital staff. At Stanford University the data for 1957-58 to
1980 indicated a 25 percent increase in students, and that was a
25 percent increase in the people who would be coming and going.
If one went further, it was found that staff increases were dif-
ferent from the number of students. Staff increases were 231 per-
cent increase or a 331 percent increase of what it was in 1957-58,
which was a significant increase while students did not increase
much She made the analogy because people that would be involved
at the hospital were not necessarily hospital .employees, and could
be faculty and staff of the university, community doctors, and
other kinds of health care provides who went to the hospital to
treat people. The concept of more space per bed suggested a
higher equipment capitalization that people would go to Stanford
for a shorter stay, so it was not how many beds, but how many
tires that bed was occupied i n a day. A hospital could be like a
house of prostitution or a hotel --the bed could be occupied many
times, and she believed a reliable estimate of traffic and air
quciity needed to be based on a consideration of comings and going
that did not depend just on the number of beds or hospital
}employees. She asked that staff prepare an EIR and look into
those matters and incorporate them into a whole Willow/Sand Hill
Corridor Study addressing the air quality and transport matters
together for the various developments in that corridor.
Mayor Klein d fared the public hearing closed.
hr. Schreiber thanked Ur. Cross for sharing the essence of some of
her comments and for providing staff' with a copy Of . the corres-
pondence to the Council.. As noted in the staff reports and the
environmental assessment,., the environmental document contained
traffic generation and projections that staff regarded as reason-
able worst case projections. The City staff, developed traffic
generation increase by the main hospital as about 35 percent
higher per new hospital bed than the typical hospital traffic gen-
eration statistics recommended by the Institute of Transportation
engineers. In addition, staff assumed - traffic from Hoover
Pavilion would not decrease even though 90 of the 190 hospital
buds would be shifted to the main -center and a corresponding shift
in employment would also occur., Even with those assumptions,' the
additional traffic generated through the project was small and the
env i r.onmental document contained -information.' on; its distribution
throughout :the network -noting smal l., i ncreases at intersections and
various links. - peeard1ng the proposition that "health care:, facil
id ties were likely to become like sur*gi-centers," the potential
activities taking place wi.thi n the hospital needed to be evaluated
4 7 6 0
7/02/84
within 1ne context of the institution's n t2
- - _. physical and operational
relationship to the medical school. The types of activity changes
referred to by Or. Cress would constitute a fundamental change in
the nature of a teaching hospital. There was no factual basis for
forecasting those types of changes, and to pursue them further
would require considerable speculation. The procedures for imple-
mentation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
recognized that type of speculative situation in Section 15145,
and further review was not reasonable, necessary, or recommended.
The last major comment in Ur. Cross' letter regarded t'ne need to
look at an integrated picture; in the Willow/Sand Hill corridor.
The applicant applied for approval under CEQA for a project
involving a number of discretionary approvals. The environmental
assessment took into consideration cumulative development in the
area including information developed for the Willow Road Draft EIR
presently under review by the Planning Commission. Staff believed
the information in the environmental asses invent, staff reports,
and related documents submitted to the Council was adequate to
rake decisions on the elements of the project.
Counci 1 i emher Bechtel said she had not received any information
during the past months to make her change her position.
MOTION: Councllmeaber Bechtel moved_ seconded by Cobb, to adopt
the staff recommendations as follows:
la. That the Hospital Modernization Project, including mitiga-
tions incorporated by the applicant, will not have a signifi-
cant impact on the environment;
lb. That the plan changes, zoning changes, and preliminary parcel
map, including mitigations incorporated by the applicant,
will not have a significant impact on the environment;
2. Adopt resolutions amending the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Plan Map;
3. Adopt ordinances amending the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance;
.' The preliminary parcel reap is consistent with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, complies with the Subdivision Map Act and
Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and that there are
no conflicts with public easements, approval subject to the
following conditions:
A. A standby electric service agreement with the City sati s-
factor, to the Director of Utilities;
8. Submissions, to and approval by the City Engineer of a
detailed drainage plan and all related calculations;
C. A street opening permit and, if necessary, an encroachment
permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department
prior to doing any work in the Welch Road right-of-way;
D. Plans for relocation of all City utility services shall be
submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Utilities;
and
E. Acceptance of an agreement satisfactory to the :City
Attorney guaranteeing implementation of the mitigation
measures is the M1.1gat1oa Agreement;
5, •Recommend regarding ` tht use permit conditions that the use
permit contain a condition that the, Medi shl Ceeter parking
supply should be at a level where no more .Vito 95 percent of
the available paces are occupied dprins VI* prek- h'errioda . and
a City park1 g: monitoring procedure be established, and when
Children's hospital \end Slake .Wilbur Drive cores before the
City it be referred to ';the City Council and the Planning Coop.
mission* and
MOTOR CONTINUES
6. Approve the relocation of the Heliport to the roof of the
hospital addition.
RESOLUTION 6275 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
. O ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO COMPREHEN-
SIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE
PARCEL ON WELCH ROAD PRESENTLY USED FOR HOSPITAL
PARKING'
RESOLUTION 6276 entitled: 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
O ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO COMPREHEN-
SIVE PLAU a4 AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE
VACANT PARCEL ON WELCH ROAD PRESENTLY USED AS A HOSPITAL
HELIPORT'
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE
4.i I f Ut PPALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION
18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING
MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PARCEL ON
WELCH ROAD PRESENTLY USED FOR HOSPITAL PARKING FROM OR
TOPF'
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE
rtMlitir—Tr—ITE--"r1TrIlr—PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION
18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING
MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE VACANT
PARCEL ON WELCH ROAD PRESENTLY USED AS A HOSPITAL
HELIPORT FROM OR TO PF'
Councilmember kernel requested the motion be divided for purposes
of voting because she wanted to vote "no" on the change in land
use .for the Welch Road Heliport parcel, and the change in zoning
for the parcel on Welch Road used for parking.
Mayor Kl ei n proposed to use the same procedure followed previously
when the item was heard. He would divide the motion and vote
paragraph by paragraph.
Vice Mayor Levy referred. to the City Council minutes of May 21,
1984, and reiterated his comments" made at that time. After again
reviewing the situation, he had no changes in his comments.
Councilmember Sutorius said likewise.
Councilmember Renzel said likewise.
PARAGRAPH 1-A THAT THE HOSPITAL MODERNIZATION PROJECT, INCLUDING
MITIGATIONS INCORPORATE° BY THE APPLICANT, WOULD NOT HAVE A SIG-
NIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT PASSED, unanimously, Fletcher
absent.
PARAGRAPH 1-8 THATTHE PLAN CHANGES, ZONE CHANGES AND PRELIMINARY
PARCEL MAP INCLUDING MITIGATIONS INCORPORATED BY THE APPLICANT
WOULD NOT NAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON. THE ENVIRONMENT PASSED by a
vote of 7-1, Refuel voting 'no,' Fletcher absent.
PARAGRAPH 2 ADOPTING RESOLUTIONS AMENDING THi ' PALO ALTO COMPREHEN-
SIVE PLAN BY AMENDING ,LAM° USE OE'SIGMATION OF THE PARCEL ON WELCH
ROAD PRESENTLY USED FOR HOSPITAL PARKING; AND THE VACANT PARCEL ON
WELCH ROAD PRESENTLY USED AS A HOSPITAL HELIPORT PASSED by a vote
of 7.1 (teazel votlsg 'no,' F1'tcber absent.
PARAGRAPH 3 ADOPTING ORDINANCES AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE FOR A)
THE WELCM ROAD PARKING LOT PARCEL s : CHANGE 1M THE ZONING FROM OR TO
?F; AND B) FOR THE WELCH ROAD HELIPORT PARCEL, A CHANGE IN ZONIaG
FROM _ OR TO PF. PASSED by a vets of 7-I, ReNze1 Noting no,
Fletcher *Intent.,
PAKAbRAPH 4 APPROV INa PRELIMINARY PRKC1 L MAP WITH CONDITIONS
PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Renzel voting "no," Fletcher absent.
PARAGRAPH S APPROVING USE PERMIT CONDITIONS PASSED unanimously,
Fletcher absent.
PARAGRAPH 6 APPROVING RELOCATION OF HELIPORT TO ROOF OF HOSPITAL
ADDITION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher absent.
'TIM #11, HUUSINu MIT1i.iATION ORUINAIICE (PIA 2-14)
Mayor Klein said Council received at its places that evening a
letter from the Chamber of Commerce. and an earlier letter from the
Chamber of Commerce dated June 27, 1984 requesting thatthe matter
be continued .to July 23. He bel i erred it would be appropriate for
Council to continue the item.
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Levy, to
continue Item 011, Housing Mitigation Ordinance, to July 23,
1984.
d i M Haliburtoo, Palo Alto Chatober of Commerce, said its recom-
mendations were to not delay the effective date of an ordinance,
but it had certain substantive recommendations for Council con-
sideration and staff direction prior to July 23, in order that the
hearing could be with regard to a draft ordinance which might be
more acceptable based upon the recommendations of the Chamber of
Commerce and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation.
uirector of .Planning and Community Environment oen Schreiber said
the problem referred to by Mr. Haliburton was that the first read-
ing of the ordinance was scheduled for July 23, and there were
substantive changes that required a second first reading. Th.e
City would then be in a situation where the effective date of the
ordi nance was such that the City missed at least one more Archi-
tectural •Review Board (ARB) meeting and perhaps two. It was hoped
that the first reading on July 23 could be proceeded by enough
direction from the Council that staff would not have to go back
and repeat the first reading. If that was the case, the ordinance
would be effective for the September 6 ARB meeting.
mayor Klein did not know how Council could proceed with a major
substantive difference being presented for the first time.
Mr. Caner said Mr. Haliburton was requesting an opportunity to
have the ordinance redrafted. Staff was prepared to meet with him
between then and July 23 and return with a redrafted ordinance
staff believed would he in the Council's best interests.
Mr. Haliburton said the Chamber's interests was to totally serve
the needs of the City with regard to no lapse in the period of the
effective ordinance.
Councitmember Witherspoon asked what would happen if a Council -
member wanted to make substantive changes before July 23. She
asked about the time pressure to do it in July.
Mayor Klein said the only time pressure was that the City might
not have a policy in place for some of the A1kB meetings.
Counci lmember Witherspoon was concerned that it was a major_ sub-
stantive change in the Council's policies, and she wanted assur-
ances that it was effective, had community support, and was feas-
ible. She did not feel 11 a running it through in three weeks on
the chance that the ,City 'might miss . some project coming down the,
PiPelIne•
Mr, Schreiber said staff was nOt' .aiming for any palrticOar proj-
ect, but was concerned that whit it continued to endeavor to
enforce and implement the current policy as set out by the Council
1
10 tiie Comprehensive Plan, the eoforcernent mechanism was open to
challenge. Staff was concerned about being in a state of transi-
tion for a long period and what might happen if someone challenged
the interpretation and implementation of the Council's policy.
The slippage alluded to by Mr. Ha l i burton was that if the first
reading occurred in the near future, something would be effective
by early September. If the first reading went on into August, 'a
number of ARb meetings would be lost. Staff did not know what
applications were coming through, but could not enforce an ordi-
nance until its effective date. He wanted the situation to be
clear in terns of the ambiguous nature of the staff's effort to
mitigate projects that c.,ntained .housing fees.
Counci l member Witherspoon was persuaded it should be done right
the first time even if it took another month. It was Council's
first opportunity in a number of years. to examine the policy in
depth, and she wanted to be sure it was done in an effective and
meaningful way.
Mayor Klein agreed, and when the matter appeared before the
Council on July 23, it was free to adopt .such changes or amend-
ments as it desired.
Councilmember Bechtel asked about the process. There were sep-
arate recommendations from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, and
there was a new recommendation from the Palo Alto Chamber of
Commerce. She presumed the PAHC would meet in another two weeks,
and she asked if staff would work with both of the recommendations
to bring something with which everyone agreed.
Mr. Schreiber said staff concurred with the substance of the
changes proposed by the PAHC. Staff net with the. PAHC , and with
representatives of the Chamber, and concurred with most of what
the PANG suggested and absent any other direction from the
Council, those would be incorporated in the draft ordinance. Most
of the changes suggested by the Chamber were substantive and with
which staff would not immediately concur. It would significantly
reduce the level of .payment, and absent any other direction, staff
did not intend to bring those back as part of the main ordinance.
There might be a second ordinance incorporating the Chamber's
wording which would allow the Council to pick from the various
elements.
Councilmeirber Renael believed that during the interim period of
the c.ontinuahce to July. 23, those people mho desired to propose
substantive changes should request staff to draft tne ;;," ;:<< lang-
uage so that Council would have language with which to make a
decision. She believed that was fair and would move the process
along. She also requested the PAHC be apprised of .any changes
which might come out of the Chamber's recommendations i n order to
obtain their input as a body who would meet the week before
Council
Frank Riddle, President, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, assumed by
the Council's discussions that the Chamber would have its substan-
tive input to Mr. Schreiber for consideration on July 23.,:,
Chuck Keenan, 3001) Sand Hill\ _Road, believed it was wishful think-
ing to address such a\huge increase in the fees en such a highly
complex issue in one meeting.
Frank Koch, Syntex Corporation, said based on the potential devel-
opment of the Syntex site on the Hi l l vi ear tri ange, the increase in
costs due to the increase in the proposed in -lieu housing fees
would cost the company between $400,000 and $600,000, He did not
believe that was the sort of dollars that should be determined
without'' serf ous deliberations, and he hoped the process permitted
it.
4 7.6 4
7/02/84
Counci imember kenzei asked if it was necessary to make a motion
regarding apprising the PAHC of proposed changes in order for them
to comment as a group.
Mr. Zaner said staff would take care of it.
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED unanimously, Fletcher absent.
ITEM #1[', CHILDREN'S ANU COMMUNITY THEATRES IMPROVEMENTS (HCA
MOTION: Councilweber Renzel -oved, seconded by Cobb, to adopt
the staff recommendations as follow:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contracts with Hodgson
Construction, Inc., Engelhart Electric, Inc. and Pro -Audio
Electronics; and
2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to all project con-
tracts during the construction stage.
AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Hodgson Construction, Inc.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Engelhart Electric, Inc.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Pro -Audio Electronics
ORDINANCE 3550 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
t. i z ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1984-85 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 82-11 'CHILDREN'S AND
COMMUNITY THEATRES IMPROVEMENTS"
Vice Mayor Levy asked from where the extra $50,000 came.
Mr. Zaner said it came from unappropriated reserves.
Vice Mayor Levy understood there was a report four -months ago from
OSHA, and he asked why i t was not included in the Council's budget
deliberations.
Ms. Fleming said staff believed it was more appropriate to take it
out of Project 82-11 since it was a project that involved the
theatres.
Vice Mayor Levy was uncomfortable when something . came along at
11:30 p.m. out of the Council's normal process of handling things
through the F&PW Committee. His question was why the ordinary
established procedures were not followed.
Mr. Laner believed the ordinary _procedure was followed.. Staff had
a bid which came in off the engineer's estimate, and the recommen-
dati of «as that staff be authorized to execute change orders, and
additional funds would ,fie needed to handle those change orders.,
Those funds were available in the unappropriated reserve if
Council chose to transfer them into the account.
Vice Mayor Levy asked if the curtain item was new.
Mr. Zaner said yes.
Vice Mayor Levy asked w y the io5Q,000 curtain item was not . brought
tnrougn the normal CAP process.
Mr. Zaner said the curtain was a minor item compared to they major:
coatract. -It was . an $893,000 budget, and the curtain was dis-
covered fairly recently. It Mwas included in the project in order.
to take care of the eApenses necessary for its replacement. He
could not directly respond as to why the issue was not raised
sooner.
Councilmember Bechtel understood Vice Mayor Levy's concern, but
could see that when staff prepared a budget the size and com-
plexity of Palo •Alto's, the item was raised in only March or
April, and although the CIP was .presumably drafted prior to that,
the item could slip beteeen the cracks. However, people involved
with the TheaterWorks expected the contract considerably earlier
and scheduled performance dates around the presumed electrical and
lighting equipment installation dates. Those were now behind
schedule, and she asked staff to report back, possibly in the form
of a memo in the Council packet.
Ms. Fleming said she checked with the engineer for the project and
was informed they were on the schedule they projected to the
TheaterWorks.
Counci 1 member Witherspoon obtained Mr. Zaner' s confirmation that
of the $1,000,000 involved, . $900,000 was accumulated over the past
three years, and they were ready to proceed with the project.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher absent.
ITEM #1.31 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT IMPORTATION TAX REBATE
VTT ;-1f tCMR: b5:4
Vice Mayor Levy ascertained from Chief Engineer Ray Reminel that
eight cities in Santa Clara County used Hetch Eetchy water. He
asked if there was a reason why none of the other cities thought
it to be in their best interests to obtain the rebate in ques-
tion.
Mr. Remmel suspected the overriding reason was that the other
cities all hoped to become customers of the Santa Clara Palley
Water District, and not of San Franci sce.
MOTION: •Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by *'Witherspoon,
to adopt staff recommendation as follows:
1. Council seek support fo the tax relief from the County Coard
of Supervisors which overruled the District in the past on
the issue and had the authority to review and modify the
District's proposed budget;
2. Council request the Board i00 adopt a' reasonable tax rebate
policy for cities importing Retch hetchy Kater, which would
recogei ze a 'continued financial investments by the cities in
Sire-- Francisco Water Department facilities If an appeal to
the Board .of Supervi so"ra failed, the City Attclrney be request-
ed to investigate all possible remedies of the City; and
3. Copies of the Council's action be forwarded to affected juris-,
diction; (Los Altos Hills, Mountain:: View Sunnyvale, Strata'
Clara, San Jose-, Milpitas-, and Stanford university),
NOTION PASSED . unaniwors1y., ,.Fletcher absent.
'ITEM #13A, 10S ALTOS.: TREATMENT PLANT AC CITY OF LOS
Libby Lucas, 17,4 Yerba Santa AV*enue, Los Al tds, was not entranced
with the Worth County Solid Waste District design. which should not
be placed in a seas 1=ti ve area ' wi tn.. two Bayl ands :park*, four_
.baylanos trail -s', and they .bike path_ frog Palo Alto _passing iaeedi-
ately b,y , lh€ size- of the::-p.rojected structure was important, and
she wanted assurances that Counci_leesbers . saw it* present" lovely
aspect. ,Adobe Creek ori_gi nai ly passed thrvoph the area, ` and the
freshwater marsh had been an area of strong. controversy. It was a
delicate environmental spot, and when Council considered the many
things that could be done with the site, she asked that they look
at all possibilities including a Shakespeare theater. San Mateo
built their refuse transferral site downwards, but that would be
impossible on a marsh. A three-story erection would have a strong
visual impact on both parks that toed into the area. The
Charleston slough was a lovely section frequented by bird wat-
chers, joggers entered the trails at that point, people ate lunch
there, and it was visited all times of the day. There was still
an aesthetic problem from the old sewage plant, which was set-
tling. She submitted a letter, which was on file in the City
Clerk's offices and begged that Council continue the marsh area,
with an extra 50 -foot area retained for added protection to the
outer promontory where what was left of the old Adobe Creek still
flowed and which was a lovely wildlife section. The remainder of
the Baylands was impacted with Marine. World, a stadium, a softball
field, and high tech buildings. Many changes were rapidly made in
the area, and she hoped the one little section would receive the
careful treatment the Council gave to all Baylands plans.
MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Levy, that
Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Lease/Purchase agreement
for the lease/purchase of the former Los Altos Sewage Treatment
Plant site.
LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher absent.
MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, -seconded by Levy, that
staff return to -discussion on marshlands and evaluate whether
there would be any impact from treatment plant. plans.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked how the motion related to the
staff recommendation that any proposed development of the site
would require an environmental impact report (EIR).
Councilmember Renzel believed before Council. got too far along
with project planning they should have a good sense of which part
of the site was appropriate to build upon so that the project
would take into account the nature of the site. Usually the EIR
wes made on a fixed project well advanced, and in order to ensure
tPe site was sensitively treated for the important function of
dealing ..with garbage, they should recognize early on the inherent
values and incorporate them into the planning. Her motion was
meant to obtain an informal, but upfront view of the site before
the planning got too far underway for any facilities there.
Ar. Loner said staff would have no problem with the assignment,
and suggested it be folded into the Request for Proposal (RFP) for
the feasibility of the site.
Mayor Klein said that would„ be._acceptable.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher absent.
Councilmember Renzel referred to the pesticide plant now on the
site, and asked if the plant had a long-term lease that would be
affected, or if Council had some authority to change the nature, of
the interim uses.
Mr. uiaz said in accordance with the lease purchase agreement, the
City of Los Altos had the obligation , to remove the existing
tenants on the site by September 1984, unless otherwise _agreed tO
' =by the City of Palo Alto, , after which Palo Alto would assume
interim -management of the properties.
ITEM #I4, RLQuEST OF MAYOR KLEIN RE REQUEST OF VISUAL ARTS JURY RE
Ttuu 5-1)
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, to direct the
City Attorney to prepare an amendment to Palo Alto Municipal Code
2.18.030 to delete the reserved position for the Architectural
Review Board and to add a non -reserved position.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher absent.
ITEM VIE, REQUEST OF COUNC IEMEMBER FLETCHER RE WATER CONTAMINATION
Trimr-
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to direct the
staff to prepare a report in answer to the conternx re Wafter Con-
tamination.
Councilmember Bechtel was pleased that Councilmember Fletcher
requested the information because the Council wanted to assure the
citizens of Palo Alto that their water was pure. As Chairperson
of the Santa Clara County Intergovernmental Council that helped
pass the model ordinance on hazardous materials storage, and as
the Association for Bay Area Go+vernments, (ABAG) representative to
a study of underground water and the effects of possible leaks,
she found that although the problem existed, they were in better
shape than a few years .earlier when they fooled themselves that
the problem did not exist. They were now working to take care of
it, and the effort must continue, but the Governor vetoed close to
$5,000,000 in the budget earmarked for clean-up and identification
of toxic problems in the water supply State-wide. The legislature
needed a two-thirds vote to overrule the Governor's veto, or to
reintroduce legislation to add the positions back to the budget in
August when the legislature reconvened. Vice Mayor Levy asked if the list attached to Councilmember
Fl etcher` s memo of Bay Area firms implied there was contamination
on each of th 3 sites or only some of the sites.
Mr. Zaner said the list was somewhat misleading. It included some
sites with problems in the recent past which were cleaned up, and
some where there were suspected problems.
Vice Mayor Levy asked if staff could comment on the Palo Alto
sites on the list, and if contamination was found.
Councilmember Bechtel said she understood contamination was found
at all of the sites, but the list dated back over the past two or
three years, and the vast majority of the firms listed worked to
prevent further movement of the toxic materials. There was no
indication that the materials entered the ground water, but all
were r=eported to the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Councilmember Renzel _..e:trongly supported the motion, and believed
t was important teat Council clearly identify the situation in
Palo Alto and communicate it to the residents.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
Councilmember Bechtel proposed that -staff prepare a. letter for the
Mayor's signature to- be sent to area -legislators, urging them to
introduce legislation to pots money back into the current year's
budget for clean-up efforts for hazardous materials, She said she
would bring additional information the following week.
Councilmember Renzel sig9ested, that matter be referred to ` the
Legislative Gommitt\`e..,
Councilmember Bechtel agreed to do so if there was ,time..
hUJUURNI LNI IU GLOW.) SLSSLUN
The Council adjourned to a closed session re Personnel at 11:55
p . m .
FINAL AJJUURUMLNT
Final adjournment at 12:25 a.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED: