Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-10-15 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUMCIL varies. ITEM Reg ul ar Meeting October 15, 1984 Oral Communications Minutes of July 23.1 1984 Minutes of August 20, 1984 Item #1, Appointment of Two Architectural Review Board Members to Fill Two Terms Expiring September ?0, 1987 CITY OF PALO ALTO PAGE 5 1 5 3 5 1 5 3 5 1 5 3 5 1 5 4 Item #2, Prese.3tation by President Donald Kennedy 5 1 5 5 and Other Stanford University Official s Consent Cal ender Referral Action Item #3, Foothills Park Dare Testing/Design/Con- struction Item #4, Residential Conservati uo:n Program Item #5, Compensation Plan Amendment - Management and Council Appointees Item #6, Ordinance re Title 18 (2nd Reading) Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #7, Public Nearing: Planning Commission Recommendation re Change of Zone District. for Certain Multiple Family Arias Wear Downtown From RM-5 .to 164=4 to 1441)00Y -(talghborhood Preservation) Combining District end RM-3 Recess Item #8, Finance aged Publ is Works Committee Recommendation to Di sestahl i sh . the Downtown Susiness Area and Terminate the Contract for Administration Item #2, Finance and Public. Works . Committee Recommendation Re Cl o#i ng 1 83-84 Budgets: Establishing Reserves, and R appropriating. $1,666,463 into _ the .:1984-8u Budget Item 110, .Appeal of Pan Satath Et Al From the Decision of tee Architectural Review Board and the Director of Planning and ,Community "Environment to Approve A 3'000 Square Pet Office Building at 319 Lytton Avenue 5 1 5 8 5 1 5 8 5 1 5 8 5 1 5 8 5 1 5 8 5 1 5 9 5 1 5 9 5 1 5 9 5 1 5 9 5 1 6 6 5 1 6 6 6 1 6 9 ITEM PAGE Item #12, Civic Center Canopy Den of ition 5 1 8 4 Item #13, Request of Counciimeaiber Fletcher Re County's Good Neighbors Committee Palo Alto Airport Meeting 5 1 8 5 AdJ ournment: 12: 35 a.ra. 5 1 8 6 5 1 5.2 1.0/1,5/134 Regu1 ar Meeting Monday, October 15, 1984 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California at 7;35 p.m. PRESENT: Cobb, Bechtel (arrived 7;,50 p.m.), Fletcher, Klein. Levy. Renzel, Sutori us , Woolley ABSENT: . tai therspoor Mayor Klein announced that a special meeting re Visual Arts Jury interviews was held at 6:10 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, and that a Closed Session re Litigation was held at 7:00 p.m. in the Personnel Conference Room, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Marilyn Kratt, 4149 Wilkie Way, said there were many changes in the City over the past couple of ,years. It was difficult to get around with the heavy traffic, and there was a danger of being run down by trucks and business vehicles. Many buildings were being constructed, and she believed the main criteria for allowing construction was design and appearance. Many of the buildings were not attractive, and criteria such as environmental impacts, traffic conditions, pollution, not se, etc . were not addressed. She suggested that a board of nonarc hi tec is be established to make impartial impact reports on neighborhoods and further afield. Arc hi ;ecture was not the only consideration -- the impact and service provided al so counted. 2. Or. Nancy Jewell Cross for Safe and Sensible San Franc _isquito Creek Routing spoke regarding the Architectural Review Board (ARB) . At one meeting she asked about the proposed traffic generation from a building, but received a report instead of an answer. The Board had an occupational interest-- repre- senting devel opers. It ignored env ironnental matters and deprived the City of expertise and viewpoints from a wider range. A 1977 l *gel case ruled against a board where four of the nine members might be expected to be antagonistic to a new franchise. The same conclusion applied to the ARB, which was compri sed of four architects and one builder, and none spoke for -environmental and general citizen concerns. A new setup was needed to give the benefit of expertise and al so allow due process. MINUTES OF JULY 23, 1984 Councilmember Woolley submitted the following correction: Page 4833, second from last paragraph , change "Welchers" to "w icnNfsr in the first, fifth and fourth from last sentences. i8ef10*: Cooncilmianshor Wenzel MaMrd, seconded lay keep, approval a9 the •lee*es of del, 13, 1984, as corrected. NOTION PASSE au ..eply,..kcfatei , Witherspoon absent. MINUTES OF AUGUST 20 1984 Councilhember Renzel submitted the following corrections': Page 4966. paragraph six, lion twg tbiftithion would consider." insert "among" after °Planning Pa de 4967,. paragraph three, :line . fins, del ete to ,"_ repl acs with Inc' ei5ht• delete to," replace with "in.* M1 TT111s Ma r C1.1a earod; tsr_nw4ai `i I_wv� .. amarAwa1 minutes of A;gust ZO, 1934, as corrected. NOTION PASSER onanisoesly, Bechtel, Witherspoon absent. ITEI4 #3., APPOINTMENT OF TWO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD }iLL iiiU !UM , Mayor K1 ein announced the names of the appl scants: Cheryl A. Davis Harry M. Newman Bod ref l J. Smith Der k Vyn this MEMBERS TO Jonathan Sc hi n k Linn B. Win terbotham Councilmember Fletcher expressed her appreciation for the profes- sional and beneficial services that Jon Schink and Derk Vyn gave in the past, but believed some of the new candidates offered advantages that would tenefi t the Makeup of the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Her first choice was Cheryl Davis, a design e -Apart special izing in access for the handicapped, a feature lack- ing on the ARB over the years. Her second choice was landscape architect Linn Winterbotham, whose experts se would also be useful. She was concerned that the present makeup of the •ARB caused many voting abstentions because o.f conflicts of interest. Many deci- sions were made by an ARB minority, with sometimes only two votes deciding a significant issue. Her choices of candidates would rarely have confl is is of interest. The candidates .al so expressed a willingness for some ARB meetings held in the evening, making them more accessibl e to the public. It was a significant issue, but both incumbents expressed opposition to the concept. She urged her colleagues to consider voting for the candidates of her choice. Councilmember Renzei a1 so expressed gratitude to the incumbent members of the ARB, but concurred with Councilmember Fletcher's concerns regarding the numerous occasions when the ARB made deci- sions with a bare quorum. Important issues were sometimes decided by less than the majority of the ARB. It was important that the full complement of the ARB participate in the bulk of the cases. She supported Councilmember Fletcher: s choices. Mayor Klein said he intended to vote for Jon Schink on the first ballot and for Linn Winterbotham on the second. Derk Vyn rendered excel ent sery ice to the community, but he was concerned that people not serve for too long a period of time. After careful thought, he believed it better . to allow another person to have a chance. He was :concerned that four of the five members were arc hi tec is , with no landscape architect . Mr . Wi n terbotham' s s1 ightly different per spec tires would be useful. Jon Schink served well and not for a long period, so he would vote for him on the first round. Councilre bar Cobb said both Mr. Schink and Mr. Vyn served with distinction over a considerable period. He supported the two incumbents voting for Hr. Schink on the first ballot. Outstanding appl is an is had appl cad e FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR SCH1NK Sutorius , -Cobb , K1 elm, Levy, Woolley VOTING FOR _DAVIS, !teazel , fl etcher Assistant Ci ty Clerk Gloria Young announced that ,Jonathan Schink was elected to the Architectural. Review Board with -five -votes. SECOND ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR VYN: Woolley , Levy, Cobb, S4tor#us VOTING FOR IiI$TERBOTHAM: Renzel , Kl eia_ VOTING FOR DAVIS: Fl etcher e Mayor Kl ein said there wn_ uld bp a new round of voting , with Councilntgmber Bechtel, who had just arrived, participating. THIRD Rouen OF VOTING VOTING FOR YYN: Woolley, Levy, Cobb VOTING FOR WINTERBOTHAM: Fl etcher , Renzel Klein , Bechtel , Sutori us Ms. Young announced that Mr. Wlnterbothar received •t'ive votes and was appointed. Mayor Klein congratulated Mr. Winterbotham on his appointment, and thanked 14r. Vyn for his long years of dedicated service to the City. The Council looked forward to Mr . Winterbotham' s work. ITEM #2 PRESENTATION BY PRESIDENT DONALD KENNEDY AND OTHER Mayor Kl ein said one of the more pl easant meetings of the year was when the President and other officials from Stanford University spoke to the Council on the state of the Un v er sl ty and its rel a- tionshi p with the City of Palo Al to. The custom had grown over the years, with the Mayor being invited to appear before the Board of Trustees of the University. He spoke before the Board in February, • when an enjoyable give-and-take discussion ensued. They did not necessarily agree on all points, but there was a fair, frank and friendly exchange of views. Palo Alto was proud to be adjacent to the University, which made the City what it was. The City wished the University well . He introduced the president of Stanford University, Donald Kennedy. Dr. Kennedy said it was a privilege to appear before the Council . He was glad to see the Council in action, offering proof of Kennedy's law: *No matter how careful one is, one always forgets a by-law.* As the Council had a heavy schedule, he and his col- league Dr. Larry Crawley. Vice President for Medical Affairs, would wake brief presentations. He expressed hi s and his col -- leagues' appreciation for the approval of the Hospital Moderniza- tion Plan and the Willow Road project. Both were worthwhile and of conspicuous benefit to Palo Alto and surrounding communities.. He.. was also satisfied with the progress wade on the project at 1100 Welch Road, which would eventually incl ude a 42 -unit facil ity 1 ong sought by vol untary agencies, in particular by the Assistance League of Santa Clara county, to . hel p persons in_. regul ar need of close access to out -patient care for disabling diseases and the parents end families of patients receiving in -patient care at Stanford University hospital.. There would al so be 108 apartment units of housing long.. sought for Stanford hoarse staff, young faculty and other Medical Center affiliated staff requiring much more propinquity to the Center than et present, which would also substantially lessen the burden on City. streets and facilities. They were del igtted with the progress in those areas. Dr. Crowley, Vice President for Medical, Aft,$rs, . Stanford Medical Center, said it was a pleasure to appear before the Council. The University was in the process of receiving ._ `reviewing, and anely- zing construction :bids for the ilos 1tel filederniration Plan, and the Ho spite] Board wouldmeet in early Iioovabler to'cons'der float- ing a six-month, tax-exempt tender bond issue for sale in Dec sober through the State of California Heal th Faci):1ties authority. Some prel Joinery site.. preparation was done, but no firm stating date for construction Or the award of Contracts was set. An architect for the new Chi 1dr!en` s lldspi tal s i.i ected in spring 1984. Programming was expected to' be colilleted = % Nov ember , when sche- matic design woad begin. onstruetie* : would start: in summer 1984, but no firm" date was set. ;_me° `prof c t at 1100 'Welch Road was, thoroughly; covered. The University c1 *soli fe]lowed Iegisla-- tiv,e changes .,in heal th care financing programs , such . as the S 1 5 5 10/15/84 prospective payment for Medicare which applied to stanforei Hos- pital on October 1, 1984; Medicaid; the 'Prudent Ruyer' program and other competitive free market forces, which were being met by increased operational efficiency, improved services and con- trol] ing costs. If passed, Proposition 41 would reduce Stanford Hospital revenues by several million dollars and cause serious deter ;oration in the quality and quantity of medical care for the heal th of the least fortunate members of society. Not much sup- port of the proposition was heard, but quiet proposals sometimes passed. Dr. Kennedy said on October 10, the Planning Commission approved a new access road to serve the proposed Environmental Safety Fac1l- ity (ESF) lying in the 86 acre area between the Medical Center and the Stanford Golf course. Considerable attention and money was being spent on the facility, which would be one of the finest in the country and would allow the University to safely handle waste products from clinical work and investigation. It would have a self-contained capacity for storing and packing the small propor- tion of chemical waste that could not be handled on- site. The plans located the ESF on the campus as near as possible to the concentration of sources, which was the wisest. environmental pot icy. The worst thing to do -with such material was to put it on the streets, which was the routine way most parts of the country handled the probl em. Stanford would set a good exampl e. Al though apparently peripheral to Stanford' s main line of interest, the ESF was essential if Stanford was to continue its types of Investiga- tion and treatment at the hospital . Some fairly prominent proj- ects were on. the horizon, the most important of which was Stanford blest. It was hoped to bring the project back in a more acceptable fashion soon after start up of the 1100 Welch Road project, which tied up much of the human resources. A successful negotiation was hoped for as both the University ',and the City recognized the need for additional housing. It was agreed to not have a Public Affairs Center in the proposed Reagan Library, which would have an incorporated but limited exhibit space. A Committee planned four possible sites that would be described and discussed, then re- viewed by the University Committee on Lands and Buildings. The Presidential Library Foundation would then approve the site, Other jurisdictional approvals tiould be required. The University would remain 1n touch with the City as the proj ect developed. It was well known that Palo Alto was careful in its planning and. responsibilities, and would pay close attention to the project. Institutions such as universities wanted to grow at a pace that outstripped the number of students ,and faculty. There were two grain ,reasons for Stanford's current need for growth, one long- term,. the\other short. The latter was a chronic capitalization proble. affecting American universities and to a degree all American science. The government had not supported capital facil- ities for fundamental scienti fic research for some 16 years. Pre- viously, significant Federal attention was paid ti the needs of scientists but a shortfall developed which would not get better. Stanford therefore sought other resources, and el evated buil ding needs in its priority structure. Also, a natural characteristic was that each thing learned made the next harder to know. New and often expensive technologies were developed that permitted- pre- viously unthinkable questions. New coieputers attacked previously intractable problems, raising a new generation of questions and excitement. The largest source of incremental expenditure in the academic budget over the past 18 months was acedeaaic computing, including training students and making faculty research more possible and productive. Those tendencies together . made the University more conscious of the need to replace, renovate and consolidate fecal atlas. The major capital expenditure ''often resulted in new buildings en old footprints and insubstantial incremental gains of sew office --far less than were normally ass. ciated with: new buildings and, centers. At ,a recent League of Walsers Voters' panel pe- Town/GOTown/GOwe relations, the Mayor Said the City had a deep desire for certainty in planning and needed an assurance of what the future might hold for the development of 1 1 Stanford lands. whereas Stanford repreGentatiyes pointed out Stanford's need for flexibility. Stanford wanted to preserve for the future the capacity to respond to altered conditions. Both the dissemination of existing knowledge and the discovery of new were opportunlstic ventures that had to change and, present them- selves in new ways as technology and human interests changed. For that reason the publ is trusts of universities did not want to bind their successors in any way. .Stanford wanted to give all the. reassurances it could and was prepared to make commitments where necessary. He hoped the university could preserve its needs for flexlbil ity without being unreasonable. However, the two dif- ferent driving forces --the City's for the need for C. pi c l t plan- ning, the Uniu ersi ty' s for consery ing options--coul d be accommo- dated gracefully when talking about the joint future. Vice Mayor Levy referred to the size and growth of Stanford. He asked if Dr. Kennedy could project employment at the Reagan Library, Stanford' s plans concerning overall enrollment, and the overall projections for Stanford earploywent. Or. Kennedy said the program for the Library was not sufficiently advanced to project employment. There was a technical uncertainty about whether Reagan would hold a two- term presidency, which would - impact the si ze of the archives. The site selection group visited the best model s of presidential libraries-- the Johnson Library in Texas and the Ford Library in Michigan. Employee figures for those were avail able, al though those for the Johnson Library would be out of scale. Enrol lment.was expected to remain stable. Grad- uate enrollment was fixed as a matter of policy, although under- graduate enrollment fluctuated because of variations in the length of degree programs and departments. Enrollment was expected to remain stable at 12,50C. to 13,000,. Over the past 10 not econom- acally favorable years, faculty growth was a little less than one percent per year per constant student enrollment at Stanford and other leading research universities, due to the effort in some fields to improve the ratio Land° because the research obligation was enlarging somewhat in relation to the teaching obligation. The trends in science noted earlier required increased productiv- ity from the faculty members, causing staff to grow at approxi- mately one percent. It fright be possibl e to control that and improve productivity, but there would be a constant pressure on staff size. The Universitywas anxious to control growth, but if the facul ty was to improve its contributions to knowledge, modest expansion was necessary. Vice Mayor Levy asked if there were any plans for new sites for industrial purposes. Dr. Kennedy said he knew of none at that time. Several areas on the Stanford Land Use P1 an wereregularly reviewed with City staff and were slated for_ possible; commercial devel opment. He knew of no projects in the immediate offing, but assumed that 1f he was neglecting something, it would have been brought up at the meet- ings between the two staffs Councilm ber Cobb was pleased to hear of the positive spirit in ° own/Gown" relations which he .hoped would continue, and continue to _improve. He asked if: Dr. Kennedy could be more specific about when the Stanford West project wool d return. Dr. Kennedy said it was hard to say when the human resources cur- rently engaged in the 1100 Welch Road prof (Kt would be freed up. He or°ig1nal 1 y hoped it would be before the ead of the year, but now hoped it mould be in early 1985. Cowie il+ee ber Ron ze1 referred to the figures given per constant student enrol latent* and '•constant facet Vern, and asked how they di fadred from f1gores per student or yr ..__facai ty` 5,1 -5 7._ 10/15/84 r. Kennedy said they were exactly the same. If the student hndy was held constants el urinating the sl fight unsysterrmatic variation over the past 10 years, relative to the number of students, the faculty tended to it ; rease by a little less than one percent per year. Councilmember Renzel pointed out that the faculty increase was calculated on a constant student figure, whereas staff increases were cal cul ated on a constant facul ty figure. - Dr. Kennedy said even if faculty held constant, staff increased. The faculty to student ratio tended slowly to expand as . did the staff to faculty ratio. Councilmember Renzel said the one percent increase for staff would then be a somewhat higher absol ute percentage. Dr. Kennedy agreed. He said the increase was expressed in rela- tion to faculty because if the faculty growth stabilized , the staff figure would al so go down. The growth rate or staff related to the nr: rbers of facul ty. 1 Mayor Klein thanked Dr. Kennedy and Dr. Crowley for their presen- tations. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Cevncilreohr Cobb wed, seconded by t v!y. to approve Consent Calendar Items 3 -- E. Referral None Action ITEM #3 , FOOTHILLS PARK DAM TESTING/DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION (PAR 2-15) Staff recommends that Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to ex ec ute the ag Teem ent with Earth Science; Associates in the amount of $72,580 to perform soil s testing and design services for the improvement of Folthil1 s Park Dave. 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the agreement for contingency services of up to $11,000, AGREEMENT : ENGINEERING CUUSILTANT SERHHCES . . Earn Sciences AM$Atlates ITEM #4, RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION. PROGRAM (ENV 9-5) (C$R:520:4) It is recommended that Council .authorize the Mayor to execute :the following instil ati o n contracts: A. Current Technology Construction for attic en d floor insulation on a square foot basis cost, B. Qual ity Energy Products for basic weatherization measures, on a per itembasis; and Phi I I ips Insul atian for basic wmatheri zation measures on item a:asi s. ALM SF CINITIACTS C!wren t Tic Mei oty estric ti si . dal ity Energy Prod is Phillips Las iatioi CONSENT CALENDAR - Cont' d. ITEM #5, COMPENSATION PLAN AMENDMENT - MANAGEMENT AND COUNCIL AvvvnilEee (AN e -e i u€MK:6i7:4T RESOLUTION 6317 entitled '' RESOLMT ION OF THE Celina OF I1RE CILT er PALO ALTO AMENDING THE COMPENSATION . PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL AND COUNCIL -APPOINTED OFFICERS ADOPTED IT RESOLUTION Ns. 63OS` ITEM #6, ORDINANCE RE TITLE 1'i (2ed Reading) (PLA 7-9) ORDINANCE 3677 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF iila czz3 er PALO ALT© AMENDING TITLE 111 (ZONING CODE) AND TITLE 21 (SDRIIIISION CODE) REGARDING PLUMBING FIXTURES IN ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, BICYCLE PARKING DEFERRAL AN! LOT LINE REMOVALS" (1st Readisg 10/1/114, PASSED O -g►, Ki tkerneeen absent), MOt ION PASSED snanimeAsir, ititl erspe4 n absent. AGENDA CHANGES ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Comic iimember Fletcher added Item 13, re County' s Good Neighbors Committee —Palo Al to Airport Meeting. ITEM #7, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE i U1t*1Uw FRi FT - Executive Assistant Lynnie Mel ena referred to the three ordinances before the Council. The proposal for reloning 'started three years earlier when a study was undertaken in areas Of the City where there was -a 'desire to preserve rental housing. - The first phase was the adoption of the residential redevel opment pol icies. Before the Council was the tail end of the study, a recommendation to rezone areas to match what at present existed there. Vice Mayor Levy referred to the letter before the Council from Tom Martin of Everett Associates dated October 15, 1984, (which is on file in- the- City Clerk' s office) indicating he was -not notified of the relevant Planning Cbmmission meeting. HE asked for a review of the noti fication procedures. ' Ms. Helena said she spoke with Mr. Martin earlier that day, and al though• she did not check,' she recalled that his name was on the mailing list. Two notifications were sent- to people in the area to be' rezoned, nee announcing the neighborhood meeting, the other the publ is hearing. To her knowledge, Mr. Martin was notified. Mayor KI ei n decl ared the publ lc' hearing open. Patricia Ward, 412 Everett, $sld her property was in area 4, Sub- group -C Of the area considered 'for dewnzoning, - Generally, she agreed with downzoning,and was .glad the City was addressing the question. However, her :toms; was thee Only one in her subgroup that had any development potential . 'e owned --a single.- family house, and, under current :.onlag , 'could go to two units, but was a little shy of the 5,000` square feetneeded- under iN1-D. *Swayer,- the project at 41.8-420 Everett was. in -the'r-evIOW and approval process. The prel isinary subdleision appl ice io%-for the .-protect ant filed on August 29, 1984, after the April recommendation for downzoning The Planning Commission a proved the. 110.4i4 _zoning two weeks after the prel Winery appl icati�on f red The fin#1 subdivision appl.icatida for. the Nroperty 1'04C -filed,- September_ 21_, and the cur- rent `subdivision sli►lrs • did not. re fire e - property to be reviewed under Rol -a. It was "not consi steret.'_ If'the project was put in as 5 1 5 9 5/84 planned, there was a minihnal value for putting RM-D zoning in the subgroup. One was allowed through; another was developed to its potential , and hers could have an additional unit. All were in excellent shape, and there was little chance of them being torn down and replaced. The Council should weigh the advantages of downzoning and either apply 101-D to all three properties or retain the zonling for the subgroup, which would require an appeal from the neighborhood or an emergency ordinance.: A' mixture was not possible —it was spot zoning,' and inconsistent with -the whole process. James Morley, 160 waverl ey, supported the downzoning, but asked Council to not spot zone, The zoning should be kept as consistent as possible. Bern Beechala, 421 Cowper, said hit property was the only one in hi.s group that would give tip the right to `expand. During the past five year's he saw changes. Seveea1 ,homeS, including .-his, were purchased as investments. There 'were new -anti geowin —faail ies in the area. Because of those trends 'he strongly SuPpOrted the downzoning that recognized and supported the current character of the downtown north'. He thanked` staff for their time and effort to include the neighborhood in their deliberations. The meetings they held were important to the neighborhood. David Lawrence, 326 :avert e.y Street, respected the Council' s e fforts to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. His house was 5O feet from a proposed development and the other properties on the block were two rental units, a rental property he owned, a large empty lot, and a six -unit condominium on the corner, He objected to the proposed downzoning even though his neighbors did not agree. It denied him the opportunity -to develop hi s property e ffectively in the future if he so to hose . Any plans he eight have would be in keeping with what would soon go up. Diarmud McGuire, 327 Waverl ey, said he lived in his house since 1975, firs: renting, then owning it. When they moved in, there were the remnants of a pornographic movie studio in the basetaent. It was the scene of several drug busts, and a heroin supplier had lived there. The neighborhood was dying for 10 to 15 ,years. They decided to turn it around and raise their family there. The scav- engers moved in, and bought land for speculation. He was glad the City recognized the changes, that the neighborhood was turned around, and the residents intended to stay. Most residents sup- ported the downzoning. The home of the previous speaker burned down seven years earlier, and he was respected for having rebuilt the hose instead of waiting to buy other property and build a big condominium He supported the dowszoning, but the Council was responsible ' far protecting_, them from development. 3 -D was appro- priate, but not if it meant living in the shadow of Wall Street West. Pam harsh, 327 iiaverley, said -her home was under considerat#on, for rezoning She was amazed there were any original homes el -eft, but they were prime candidates for rezoning. They were lived in by long -terra renters who sometimes bought them. Big physical and emotional investments were made to renovate" the Wines. The iii -D designation was appropriate-- it encouraged the preservation of homes_ and the addition of saea11 units in g.ararges or backyards. It would help City-wide goal s., to increase the housing supply. The RM-D designation should be appl Jed _broadly and consistently, It was' different from R-3 or —R-4.' The goal for rezoning. was a consistent deeel opeent potential Kenneth Fitzhugh, 1545 Cscdbita Avenue, -said 310 Wareriey differed frail the other-i properties proposed for i1i..D zoning because it was. a v*cant let. —,The 101-D zeroing pretery ld single faia�ily homes. The current R -e it 11 owed fottr *its to 0e put en a of ` if' 'and _ when the tit* cause to build. fly downzddisgs- two. units, would be lost, which would looke the other two •ore expeneite. On one side of the lot there were single-family homes, and on the other a large, mul ti- family structure RM-4 would he an appropriate buffer between them. He asked the Council to not change- the zoning on 310 Waverl ey. Tom Martin , 2204 Greer Road, referred to his letter, which was on file in the City Clerk's office) . He and his associates owned property at 324, and 334 Everett for eight years. The property owner in the _middle recently became more open to the idea of developing the three lots together. They were all conservative people and wanted to build as many modest, affordable apartments as the City .allowed. He only heard of the possible downzoning that day, and neither, he nor his .partners were notified of the meeting that evening 'through the mail, but heard about it from a neighbor. He believed the policy in Palo Alto was for more affordable housing. They did not want to build risky condomin- iums, but as many convenient, affordable rental units as possible. He urged the Council not to downzone that and other properties. Councilaember Fletcher said many devel opera indicated that mod- erate rental housing was impossible without some kind of subsidy, and she asked- where he planned to get the subsidy. Mr. Martin did not agree that a subsidy was necessary. Developers _intended to build condominiums. No one built apartments during the past five to ten years because condominiums brought in more money. The market now was not good for condominiums, and there might be a return to building apartment housing. Mayor Klein dec aired the public hearing closed. KOTIONz Csanci1Mosbsr Lemuel moved, srcondsd by Levy, to adept the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the application eat the City of Palo Alta forchange of zone district for certain multiple family areas near t vatoau from RII--5 to Ei*-4 and MID (IP) (Neighborhood Preservation) combining district and 114-3. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF TIE i )tt OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.01.040 OF TIE PALO ALTO MANIC IPAL CODE (TME ZONING N AP) TO CRANK THE CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES S EMEN MMTIORNE Min AND LITTON *UM FROM 114-4 TO RN -3° ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled. ''OROIIANCE OF TIE AL0 ALTO AMENDING LECTIOI 11.81.040 OF TOE PALO ALTO IIINNICIPAL COLE (TIE ZONING NAP) TO CMMOE -TNE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF TR; .-P OPENTIES KNOW, AS 324-3110 EVERETT ' STREET FROM 111-4 TO RIiN(11P ) ORDINANCE FOR FIRST RENDING entitled `"OR$IMA8CE OF TIE ZO1$L sL or - AL0 ALTO AMENDING SECTION 1$.0$.040 OF TIE PALO ALTO MON IC IPAL CODE (TIF ZONING MAP) TO CIANOE TIE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF VIE i•08PE.RTIES 1101111 AS .704, 312, AU 120 MAVEILET STREET FM 11!-4 TO Rh4'11 ►uncilmesneer . *enzs sa.fd.: de$0te .several .s large buildings* the peeighberhOed bad a al'c, ae:.eaintiin d -a,neighborhOed character for famine's,' More' Were cases where. existing or 'pre-existing. high toning resul ted in inappropriate development 'in `'both 'kV* and impact on the neighborhood, and the Planning Commission recom- mendation acknowledged that fact, and' attempted to preserve the scale. With respect to the vacant 310 Wavers ey, although -D was. typically designed to protect existing-. structures, she believed it was ier rten-t _to_ encourege a new'deYelop*ent to blend in with -the. ree*ining houses an4_the character of the neighborhood. The corner apartment building was erected under 'pre-existing zoning, and clearly was as example o1 what should -not be built, Councilletaber- Sec heel asked staff about the question raised oy the first speaker concerning 418-420 Everett, and about the pros and cons of going ahead e l th the zoning -in terms of the lack of pro- tection alluded to . Ms. Mel ena said by rezoning the block to RM-D, only 412 Everett would lose its development potential of one additional unit. Basically, the RM-D preserved the status quo, al though there was only the one parcel that could redevelop under RM -4. She excl uded the 418-420 parcel , as i.t was in process, and probably or, its way to being approved because the Subdivision Map Act required action on that appl ication before new zoning went into effect. Councilmernber Bechtel understood that because the application was in process, no change in the zoning would affect that property. Ms. Mel ena agreed. Because of the timing required for the subdi- vision action and for any new zoning togo into effect, the Sub- div ision Map Act would take precedence. Councilmember Woolley supported the motion. The history of the rezoning went back to the College Terrace debate because of a basic concern to preserve the neighborhood feeling while allowing some additional units to be placed unobtrusively at the rear of the lots. Approximately 18 months earl ler, the zoning on College Terrace was put in pl ace. She knew of only one project that rave in during that period, and which made them move on the present changes --the project at 610 California Avenue.. The house was No. 2 on the inventory, and it and the next house were combined and advertised as able to take six condominiums. Because of the KM -D zoning, the parcel was split back to the original two lots, and the house in question was being remodeled and would remain. Although a building permit :was not yet issued, she understood an additional unit would be added at the back, which was what Council had hoped for. Some people were concerned -about the effect' on the housing stock. It appeared a contradictioh, `when' housing was so badly needed, to downzone a residential area. The chart in the report of April 13€, 1984 cor* pared : the 'number .of units' %eider vary- ing conditions, and there was a small difference between R1-D/RM-3 zone :and the RM-4 zone. A big, difference was with lot' combining under kM-4 zone. It was a trade -'off between an 'absol ute increase in the nas•b r` er sas reining the Tower priced units and rentals down the road. The trade-off, in those terms, was worth supporting. Regarding 310 Wav erl ey, to which she had given more thought then all the others put together, the understood the argu- ments on both sides. , Staff recommended -3, and the: Planning Commission: 'recommended Y'Rli-0-.on a 4-3 : Vote-. 'The [0+&-D=` zone was drawn to preserve existing:` housing, mid since no lousing existed, she did net consider it an appropriate zone `designation for an empty lot. It was important, as both sides of the block were to be rezoned ox -D,' that the design -b• consistent with the rest of the block, but the design of the housing laid ..l ittl'e to do with zoning because it did not . require.any. different setbacks from the R,M-3 zone. . She prere e ed to. ' Me. three 'smaller , less .:expensive units than two large units. ANERINIENTt Co.ize! i roman:r V.sf i e$ tined, 4ecoeded » Sa .er i rs , I' amend the or4 Aaeca as rtsommondod. by staff to non the r•p nasty at 319 ]pearl ay► litr-eet 4, erd , also to extend . the S com- bining zoos. Co unc i l e em ber Woolley understood . the property would a to the ARB under -3, and she wanted it "red -flagged* so the of doubly aware it was a part of a neighborhood combining district:shich was trying; to preservse neighborhood character. Coumciisrerber $ttoriis_ Seconded the notion` because he cagturred with the; minority decision and ratiebaie at the Planning Con - mission meeting, He walked the College Terrace ,,area Vith. Council - ember Hoolley *on she was on the #i storic Resources Bard (HRB) 5 1 6 2 10/15/84- and he on the ARB.- Out of those processes, they arrived at recom- mendation) leading to zoning to RM-D, aided by neighbors, staff and the Planning Commission. The application of RM-0 to vacant lots was not contempt aced. Councilmember Fletcher opposed the amendment. She wal ked through the neighborhood that afternoon and was impressed by the number of families with children --a rarity in Palo Alto. To build smaller units would discourage fa ell ies. The condceniniums being erected caused a proliferation of small units, and she 'preferred to keep the character of the neighborhood from becoming vea11.er with more units on a lot. The Council must do everything possible to en- courage famil ies. Vice Mayor Lc:y tee; ;eyed the amendment was a good sol ution for 31.0 Waverl ey. He was not worried about density because zoning the parcel RM-3 would add only one more unit. One of the desires of the Council was to add to the housing in Palo Alto were appro- priate. It was proper to make added units more affordable if possible, and the concern was that the property in the middle of an RSA) zone would be inappropriately designed and stand out and be disruptive. He believed the red flag was a good idea as the ARB would then be aware of hi s concern that the design of the property should be careful, so that there would be three units only if it was compatible and non -disruptive. Cnuncilmember Renzel agreed with Councilmewber Fletcher. By per - sitting three units, the expectation was that three units could be built to preserve the neighborhood. Each unit required 1.5 parking spaces, and with such a small parcel , to accommodate five or six parking spaces was difficult and probably meant underground parking, with a garage emptying onto the street where there were small children. A developer would probably try to maximize the zoning envelope to accommodate three units as large as possible rather Mart seek a sensitive design more apt to be generated when only two units were permitted. She encouraged her colleagues to reconsider and support the RM-D for the site. It vas a sensitive area and there were examples of iiiproper development for small parcels. The ability to design sensitively to the neighborhood would be much rel ated to both the developer's expectations and the nember of units he would try to cram on the lot in the zoning envelope. Counc it member Bechtel concurred , and would not support the amend- ment. Council needed to be consistent and it was inappropriate to have one 1 of in a block where the remainder of both sides of the street are the A!1-©. Even if_ the 'kit was vacant, they were tai k- ing about neighborhood preservation and consistency. Ms. Mel ena cl ar i fled that any change to 310 iiaverl ey, affected two of the ordinances before the Council. It would 'need to be removed from the ordinance referring to rezoning from: RM-4 to Ra-3, and removed from the ordinance that rezoned from rot -4 to RM-a (IMP) Mayor Klein el arified that the amendment would change the classi- fication of 310 Waverl ey to Mil (MP) rather thin the recommended RM-D(dP). MillitiSENT FAILED by a vets sf 34, Veen •r,1 Lowy, cta #�s yeti's ° aye.f Councilsaaber Fletcher asked' about ,the status of 416-420 Everett and whether it r*ceieeel ARB final _,design approvo:`l: Ms.'Selena ..responded Wit it would not go to 'the ARB `because it was two units. Co sine a')ssober' `letchar asked if the. parcel would..` be incl uded in the rezoniefi if Council passed the ordinances on an eiergincy basis that ev-ening. 51 6-3 10/15/34 Mr. Freeland said it would include the property. An application was received for a two, -unit condominium subdiuiSien of the parcel , and as it presently stood, it was a complete application and totally in conformance with present zoning. Staff would approve the application as it had no basis for denial under present zon- ing. If Council passed' the ordinance on an emergency basis, it would affect the appl ication because it was not yet approved. Counc ilmember Fl etcher asked for a legal rul ing . Senior, Assi scant City Attorney Anthony Bennetti 'did• not understand the bee' s' o f the urgency. • Councilmefaber Fletcher believed the situation was similar to the moratorium for the downtown which was voted in on an emergency basis a few weeks ago to consl stently apply the zoning without new projects coming along which would not then be in conformance with any future zoning. In the particui ar case, the surrounding prop- erties would be zoned RM-D i f the main notion passed, and the purpose of the urgency ordinance was to have consistent zoning on the bl oc k . Councllmember Woolley asked if the lot in question would be able to have two units nn it if it. were zoned W1 -R. Ms. Mel ena said yes. Councilmember Woolley said the basic differences were that under p.M-D, the present unit would Most likely stay: and one would be built on the back; otherwise there would -be tWo brand new units. IBS. Mel ena said' there were two units on the lot. The intent was to repl ace _.them with two new cendoeinium units. • There' would be two resul is from zoning R14 -9 --one unit would have to be a rental , and the project would have to go to the ARAB. Counc ilmember Cobb supported the notion and bel levee_ the ac pion to get the properties in the area down zoned was 'long overdue. There was a probl em in the area from all kinds of development being too intense for too long, and he believed it was an enportant step. Ile was ispressed that families were moving back in and Council should encourage it. There was a question about the possibility of getting some sort of apartment development which required still a different zoning. He was nervous about zoning in anticipation of something that might never occur and getting a result different from that which was hoped. If there was a serious interest by the property owners to make application for A rental project' he encouraged it, and asked if it could be handled oh a PC basi s after the, proposed zoning was done so that a zoning would not have to be'wada in the hopes .that something would happen. Mr. Freeland said it could' ' be done , but it should be remembered that those properties were presently rental housi'ngf. He believed there were presently 12 units on those properties, and the ues- tion was whether Council wanted zoning that was more dense than 12 units on . those properties. Mr. Bennetti said he originally believed the City had an appl ice- tion for a boil*ding permit consistent with the tonieg, and' in that instance,- since it was an act that could be mandated, the fact that the application was pending and staff had not actually per- formed the ministerial- function of granting the application mould not stand in its way, M believed the rationale would be appli- cable to a subdivision absent the negative findings which Mr. Freeland sold were not present in that- instance. 'If that '+ass a ministerial act and it could be mandated, than the' fact that staff had not dons it with an application pending would not be a basis for the _Co cit to =-stop : in and do it without prejudicing the rights of the applicant, .Councilme*ber Fletcher s not sore: she understood the wording. 6 I 6<a ,. 10/1.6/84 Mayor. Klein said there were not sufficient 9round e to do anything on an emergency basi s to effec t. the procesting of the subd iv i sion. Councilmember Renzel was confused. A member of the public said a tentative map was al ready approved and that it was a final map to yet go before staff. She asked for clarification'. Ms . Mel ena said it was tentative map which was not : yet approved Councilmember Renzel understood from the City Attorney and staff that even if Council rezoned the property to RM-D on an emergency basis it would not prohibit a subdivision, and it would not be a negative condition with respect to the proposed tentative map.. Mr . Freel and said the state Subdivision Map Act and the City° s ordinance set out findings for the approval of a subdivision. Staff generally believed that i f a project made all of the findings in the affirmative, thjrn there was not' a basis for denial It was not an inherent right to always be granted a sub- divisiorn, but staff bel ievtd it should be on the basis of the findings required. In the subject instance, the issue was consis- tency with the zoning and it was one of those awkward situations where zoning appeared to be in transition from one status to another. There was every likelihood that the project would be acted upon before the zoning changed. Counc ilmember Renzel clarified that under 1.1-D zoning, both newly created parcel s would be capabl e of supporting the new zone, and therefore staff would be obl iged to make the findings. She asked if there would be a change in the square footage of the parcel s. Mr. Freel and said there would be a major difference in that the RM-D zone would not allow a condominium subdivision of two units in the first place. It required that one of the units be a rental., therefore, the City weuid not allow a. two -unit condom initun under the COI -D 4Vit'rict. Staff understood it had tb ac in accordance. with the zoning in effect at the' ' dame --no in antic ipatidn of changes.• Councilmember Renzel clarified Councilmesaber' Pletcher' S question that if Council passed the ordinance on an .emergency basis that evening,'. it would then be a condition on -which staff dou1 -deny the subdivision.. Mr . Freel and said in that case, staff would have to deny the map because .it would not be consi steht wl th the zoning. Councilmesber Fletcher bel ieved the property could be rezoned lit{ -0 and sti 1 l deny the final map ANElii►l4ENT: Coraclleweber Fletcher moved, seconded by ezel ,, that the entire ordinance WO applied to the property at 4t$ -4t Everett, be passed es u eaereeacy basis. Mayor Kl min did not support the amendment. He believed the amend- ment was highly unfair. The people *oved in accordance with the City's procedures, and he believed it was an abuse of the ewer- gency process. Vice Mayor Levy said there was currently • propo sal before the. City on the Everett Street property for a subdivision and construction of -two units so there would be a total • of two terits on the property. If that Ono per ty were an 161-- toned two units would still be allowed so the only dlfferenc'e .was that the 114-D zone would sake one of the ;nits rental, &Md' It would have to go through the ARB. Currently* both units would be ,wner-occupied and would pot go through the ARB Kr. Freeland said that wes`eOrrect. : far mftu r ri * aye , • FAILED Air 0 a.. • A ft t ;wipe W i i-i, i" 1 Wb{ Wr, Rea&ei , votiee Vice Mayor Levy asked whether unwarranted . discrimination was occurring on the three parcels on Everett. One was a new con- structio,t with two units; a second was a single family house which, if rezoned from RM-3 to RM-0, could not add a second unit. Ms. Mel ena said it would not be possible to add an additional unit if zoned Rii-3, which had the same density formula as RM-D. Vice Mayor Levyclarifled that for a single family house to add a second unit to the lot, it required RM-a zoning, and he was not prepared to go so far. MOTION PASSED nuaaiwsesly, Mitberspeoa absent. 9:30 p.r. ITEM #8 , FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO • Mayor Klein said the Finance and Public Works I F&PW) Committee unanfit ous1y recommended and concurred wi th the Downtown Ta sk Force that staff prepare a resolution to disestabl ish the Downtown Business Improvement Area and that the Ci ty Manager terminate the contract with Downtown Palo Alto, Inc. (UPAI), for administration of the Downtoon Business Impro1e ent Area. Councilmember Cobb said on behal f of the F&PW Committee that the Counc 11 established the Downtown Improvement Di strict the previous year, and he regretted the Committee now recommended it be dis- establ idled. Many reports and a record of the F&PW Committee's del iberations were before the Council . MDTISh;; Cesecilaeab*r Cobb for the Finance and rsblic Yorks Committee moved: 1. That staff prepare a reset sti en to disestablish the Desi noss iuppove.a t Area; and 2. That the City ilanagor tsrmiaato the contract 'with Palo, Alta, lac. fsr aderioi strat_ ea •f the Downtown Improvement Area. Councilmember Cobb said when the issue was before the F&PW Committee earl ler in the 'year, there was a major concern about the process , amount, and nature of the assessment to make the Di stric t go forward The F&PW Committee was faced with making a decision that would exacerbate those differences, or set up a process of citizen involvement to work out the differences. ,The latter course was' th+ sen, and. 'D'PAI°-and' many cititette Made efforts over ten 'months to' ev al date ci.ti ten' feel tag s 'and ` find ar` solution-..- The results of that survey `'were arrived' at on a' two to on# vote . Al l members of the F&PW Committee stated that some day such‘aDi strict should be created Councilmember gentel asked the 'rkecord to reflect the financial impl isations, to the ,City for dissolving the Di strict. Executive Assistant 'Vicc Aladin s„.ld - the City disbursed to the contret.tor, _ OPAI„ all fund cod tatted in revenues from the Di s- trict. As the contract stated that no_ moneys beyond those' - col - lectod woold be disbur sod , the skate was: even. The contractor requested that Council consider disbursing additional money to them becarise the co-,: direc ors Continued -to pe'r fora some services from -January 1 through the and' .of Juno-, 1984, during *Stith' _time there was no adopted budget for -the District because the F&PW Committee decided it would -be more:_ pproprlate to- try to answer the questions raised about the format of the District. - Ds tower Downtoss Deli oess 5 1 5 6: 10/15/84 1 Council eMber Renzel asked for clarification because Ms. Rudin's response was inconsistent with her earlier understanding. She asked how all the pieces fit together. Mr. Bennetti said the law provided for the Council to pass a motion of intention to dissolve the District, hold a public hear- ing and then dissolve it without any immediate financial impact whatsoever on the City. There were ongoing discussions about settlement. of a lawsuit, but there was no final proposal that was. satisfactory to all parties, although at various times they dis- cussed the options of setts ing the lawsuit. There might be some financial impact, but those discussions would be' held when staff could present a final proposal to wrap up the litigation. Councilmember Renzel asked if action taken that evening would create any legal obligations orn the City's part with respect to any other Tegal actions regarding the District.' Mr. Bennetti said not with respect to the recommendations of the F4PW Committee. The request from DPAI, in addition to what was recommended, might have some financial impact. Councilsember Cobb said Ms. Rudin referred to the contractor work- ins without an established budget. He believed a budget was e stabl fshed through the end 'of 1983. Ms. Rudin said a budget was- established for 1983. When the Dis- trict was organized, the original plan was for the District end City staff to return prior to January 1, 1984 and -for an 18 -month budget to be adopted, after which it would be in sync with the City fiscal year. The questions that arose at the end of 1983 caused the City to defer presenting a budget 'to the Council . The contractor was fully aware of being at risk in the situation, but it seemed more important to try to iron out the wrinkl es about the way the District was organized and to get full support before a new budget was presented and adopted. Chuck Kinney, President of DPAI, said his organization concurred with the recommendation of the F&PW Committee, which- was largely based on the work of a task force. There was much turmoil in 1983 to cl ear the matter up, and they hoped to strengthen the Di strict by obtaining more participation. The process was democracy at its best. Many good people served and would continue to work in the Downtown for its benefit. The results of the task force were not what he intended, but fa hindsight, it was not the right time to proceed with the District and its implementation.. He represented the contractor,_ and referred to his letter which was -on file in the City Clerk's office giving the extenuating circumstances under which additional costs -`-were incurred beyond the assessments lev- ied. He asked for fair consideration of his request John Wallace, 261 Hamilton Avenue, said he presented a petition during the August Council meeting 'With over 70* '6us1nesses opposing the creatiae: of 'the' Di;rtric t . nl est aaod I fled .1 They ;�-conti owed to bel ieve the • District : nos .111 eg,a11 y.` cirea 'd, ,_unfairly Structured, and -undemocratically °Prated; He; supported'.toe staff report- to disestablish the present .8i strict. In the interest of fairness, he urged . the return of all moneys collected. He wo ul d not oppose any fairly structured and legally -implemented District. Jeff Cunningham, 371 Lytton`' Avenue, said he supported the F&PW Committee ,recommendation. He was a member of the taskforce, and had recetved iaral uabl a essi stance _fro* Yicct 'pudin- _ acid _ Gorge Zimmerman.. ,About 65 people continually pet to address' such con- cerns as assessment formulas, objectives, and goals,- etc. Addi- tionally, 18 more people offered to meet weekly to come.* with a consensus. At the May meeting, all concerns- were addressed by the tail( force,- and an advisory vote returned a two to one against the formation of a District: 5 1 6 7 10/15/84 Everett. stoichAn; 261 4amilton Potien iq,, 5414 in A►!ju`tt, 1982 he opposed the formation of the Downtown Business Di strict because the proposed assessments were inequitable; there were no clearly defined objectives, and as proposed, the District could not be administered. The latter was disastrously demonstrated by the inability to invoice all businesses in the Di strict or to collect the moneys due. That resulted in the greatest inequity of all -- some businesses paid, others did not. He recommended disestab- 1 i sha en t of the Di strict, and that all moneys coll ected from the 388 busi flosses that paid in 1983 be refunded. He never opposed the foundation : of a Business Improvement Di stric t—on1 y the inequities of the proposed program. Mayor Kl ein cl ar l fled that the motion would . only start the pro- cess, and that a public hearing would later be held. M$T1il PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent. Co uoc it m ember Cobb referred to the letter from DPA I with regard to the salaries for Mr. & Mrs. Gallagher for work done. At least some of the work was done under the presumption that a contract existed to cover it, He did not know what the right amount should be, but bel ieved at least a portion should be recowpensated. MOTION: Cosscll.emb•r Cobb moved, seconded by Sntoriss, that staff report back to City Ceuncil on appropriate portion •f salary compensation for the Di rsctsr •f Downtown Palo Alta Inc. MDAI). Councilmember Cobb emphasized that the compensation to Mr e and Mrs. Gallagher was only for their work as directors to ibplevent the District itsel f, and had nothing to do with legal fees. He asked about the budget for 1983. A portion of the request for compensation, approximately $2,500, dealt with 1983. He suggested the line might be drawn there, or ,at the time the F&PW Committee stopped progress in the District and moved into the citizens' action. He did not know where the cut-off point should be, but believed some of the work was undertaken in good faith and should be compensated. Councilmember Renzel said that at the time the Downtown Business improvement Area was formed, the Council was told there would be no impact on general funds, and its action would simply provide a mechanism to form an. Assessment District. A budget should have included salaries from September through December. At the end of December, the contractor was notified that no more funds s might be forthcoming, and the Council . should. not be obliged to pick up the tab.' The downtown ultimately bene fi tied from. .the $38,000 col- lected The ramifications of paying additional funds to DPAI were unclear, but she preferred to continue the matter until the finan- cial ramifications to dissolving the Di strict were known. Sf STITITE MOTION: Eeesc l l memeebor Mews mewed, seconded b Levy, to tentless* to a .aloe certela, solos ee. the.:: 'Patios earth the fell rssiflcet#des of the dissel etiwee of boostOPs $esleeess loprevemest Area (R$IA) are deteraleed with respect to the General Feed.. Mayor Klein said that under the City ru1 es, a motion to continue indefinitely was interpreted as a motion to kill. He did. not interpret the motion .as one to continue indefinitely. SVi$TITOTE . WbiIis PASSES : by a vote of C-2, Cobb $ut.rles vetlae *no,` Witherspoon absent 5 1.6 8' 10/15/84 ITEM e9 FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE CLOSING 1981. 84 BUDGET tsTABLI5 7'U RESt YES ANu A FNURRIA I �It G -1 ( :5- :4) Councilmember Cobb said the F&PW Committee unanimously recommended adoption of the ordinances to close the 1983-84 budget. The clos- ing amount was adjusted in CMR:531:4 of October 11, 1984, The F&PW discussions were on record. KQTION: Counci Isember Cobb for the Finance and . Public Works Committee moved to adopt the ordinance authorizing;:. the closing of the 1983-84 budget, establishing reserves, and,-reappropriating B1,60,463 into the 1984-85 budget. �RD NAN�CE 3578 entitled °ORDINAMCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE �A[aALTO CLOSING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1,83-84" NOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent. ITEM 110 APPEAL OF PAM MARSH ET AL. FROM THE DECISION OF TH 'i�1 REVIEW B'oAgI"1 AO DI t!CTOI OF bPLANNING AIU `eOMMUNITY ENVIRO IItKT TO AP ROV 0O SO(ARE FOOT OFFICE Counci lmember Cobb said the City Council could deny the appeal; uphold i t and find appropriate grounds for doing so; or act in its capacity .as a super Architectural Review Board (ARB) to refer the matter back to the ARB with instructions.. to the developer and the ARB concerning the kind of project the Council would find accept- able. He asked how the latter approach related to the moratorium, and whether the project would remain grandfathered if referred back to the ARB with a set of guidelines that would alter it in some respects. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said that when the ARB dealt with an item and encountered design problems it believed needed attention, the normal procedure was to ask the applicant if he was willing to take a continuance for the purpose of redesign. It then remained the same project and the same application. If the Council finally took that direction, it could contl nee the project for -redesign and refer it to the ARB simultaneously. It would remdi n the same project, but if the project was denied and a new project came in, the new project would be subject to the mora- torium. Similarly, if ` the applicants changed their minds and initiated a whole new design, staff would consider it a new proj- ect. Mr. Bennetti said ``although the situation arose with past mora- toria, the Council adopted a slightly different standard for the Downtown moratorium. He understood that after considerable dis- cussion by the Council, it was decided that the Downtown mora- torium would not apply to new construction receiving final recom- mendation for design approval from the ARB before September 17, 1984. If the Council denied the appeal and allowed the final recommendation of the ARB to stand, the project would have received final ARB recommendation prior to September 17, 1984, and would be grandfathered under the Downtown moratorium. If the Council acted as an ARB and changed the recommendation, referred it back to the ARB for a new recommendation. or to the Planning Commission for its recommendation, and that recommendation sub- stantially differed from: the final.. approval rendered by the ARB prior to. September- 1/, he believed theprojectwould not be grand - fathered under the Downtown moratorium. Councilsember Cobb clarified that the question 'was whether the -project differed "substantially.' He wanted to understandr• what the Council cou1 d, or .,could not do. The operative word *substan- tially' opened up. an .:1 nteresti ng place for lawyers,to talk and rperate on what was meant by it. He asked for clarification. 5 1 6 9 10/15/84 Mr. Bennetti said if the Council decided to change the size of allowable building on the site, it would be talking of a "substan- tial'' change. If they telked of minor aspects or language to clarify the intent or carry out an intent, they would not be speaking of substantial change. Councilmember Sutorius saw a dilemma. He agreed in the main with the status as described by staff and Mr. Freeland, but Council - member Cobb indicated that Council was superseding the ARB. He saw no reason to be pursuaded against what Mr. Freeland described, but on the other hand, an attorney gave a different interpreta- tion. He asked - i f Council had information that would permit the Council to continue=discussion of the item when there was a strong difference- of opinion on the status of the role and authority of the Council and what its outcome would be on the case. He did not mean to disagree with the attorney and his interpretation without justification, but he was told by the attorney -that the Council would be acting as the ARB and that the matter would have the outcomes .Councilmember Cobb had described —approval, deni el , or the potential to establish a criterion upon which the applicant could acceed to a rereferral to the ARB or a resubmission. Mayor Klein suggested that because the item was asterisked, it had to be dealt with that evening due to the time limit on appeals from the public unless both the appellant and applicant agreed to a continuance. Mr. Freeland agreed. Mayor Klein said that since Council could continue the item only with the appellant's and applicant's acquiescence, in any motion passed, Council could specify it wanted to make substantial changes or refer the item back to the ARB. If the referral back included a statement that the Council either did, or did not, intend to have the item grandfathered, it could be incorporated in any action the Council ultimately took. He asked Mr. Bennetti for comment. Mr. Bennetti asked if he wanted comment on the statement that the Council intended to include it. Mayor Klein said "either way." A part of that evening's action could be a statement that the Council intended, or did not intend, for the particular item to be grandfathered. Mr. Bennetti said it could include that statement. In order to implement the Council's desires, it aright be neces-sary to amend the;Downtown moratorium. -^ Mayer Klein said he understood that, but the Council would be making a specific policy judgment rather than relying on the attorney's opinion or the difference between he and Mr. Freeland. Mr. Bennetti said that was correct. Mayor Klein said if the Council created the problem, it ought to resolve it. Councilmember Sutorius agreed. He- did not intend to presume- what the Council's action would be, but wanted to be clear about the Council's authority and responsibility,. and .the latitudes in- volved. Counc1letesber Renzel seed when the moratorium was adopted, Council took great phi vas to clarify that it wanted the exception to begin at the point of final ARB approval as opposed to an ARB recommen- dation for approval, which would incorporate : the appeal. The Council had, through its- past action, aide a clear distinction. As a result, the Council was, while under the appeal acting as the ARS. The _ Council made a distinction about the ARB recommendation. 5 1-7 0 10/15/84 As Corrected Mayor Klein believed Counc llmember Renzel ens out of order as there was no motion on the floor. Policy arguments would be weighed at a different time. Councilmember Fletcher supposed that if the Council referred the item back to the ARB, it would be necessary to change the ordi- nance passed regarding cutoff times for moratoria. It would entail changing two ordinances. Mr. Bennetti said that might be one outcome depending on what the Council referred back to the ARB and what the Council's intent was. He understood the Mayor wanted to clarify at the time the motion was made. He suggested the Council hold the public hearing and get a sense of the Council's desires, so they could figure out procedurally where the Council wanted to go. Mayor Klein said it was not a public hearing. Mr. Bennetti cl ari fled Council should first hear the comments of the appel 1 an to and those members of the publ is who wanted to speak on tho item. Y10E MAYOR LEVY RE ITEMS TO BE COMMENCED AFTER 11:00 p.m. 9 .101 a11�1�.�� err+. r n.�s �ra.rrrr-��ir-u.a—��Ifr�.rr.ay �rmrb.OY - Vice Mayor Levy said although it was not 10:30 p.m., the rule called for a determination of whether any new items would be com- menced after 11:00 p.m. . Agenda item 11 was the Cable Television Report on payments to the Arnold & Porter contract. The item they were beginning would presumably last until after 11:30 p.m. He did not want to take up item 11 so late. NOTION: Vice. Player Levy moved, seconded by Klein, to coatin•e item 11 to October 22, 1984 City Council meeting. Mayor Klein ascertained that, as the Council had no questions of staff on it 12, the Civic Center Canopy Demolition, the staff involved in that project could leave. MOTION PASSED •aaaimemsiy, Witherspoon absent. RETURN TO ITEM 10 , APPEAL RE 379 LYTTON AVENUE Pam Mesh, 327 Waverl ey, was one of the appellants. Six weeks earlier she attended a Council; meeting to consider the goals of the Downtown Study Committee, one of which was to "preserve the character and quality of the adjoining\residential neighborhoods." Several Coencilmembers made comments 'that Council believed the neighborhood was important to Palo Alto and should continue as: a stable residential •• neighborhood for years. The : pressure on the neighborhood was now greater than ever before. The goal demanded action. .The Conic it could demonstrate its commitment to the goal after hearing much from her, Hare, Brewer & Kelley, and other appellants during the last few days. It was time to take a step back. The appeal was broad based. The Council would later receive a petition from many Palo Alto residents in support of the appeal. There was a community -wide concern about the .intrusion of offices into residential neighborhoods and preservation of neigh- borhoods. Concerning fairness," Hart,. Brower a Kelley .often said the appeal attempted to "usurp ,the: right" they had in their prop- erty, which was aone-sided stateaeenta - Development rights- ,were granted by the City and were not inherent in ownership of the land. The Council could : grant, modify, or `-'revoke the rules governing development, 'holm when the Council imposed a mora- torium on all construction in the -commercial ar..e4=�1.n Downtown Palo Al to . Earlier that evening her house had been rezoned so she could. . no- longer =build :condomini:eme.. The: Council did not usurp her rights, but simply :exercised its responsibility to guide develop- menu in Palo, Al to. The appellants esked. -:i.hess to do the same As a reseal t of the appeal of the A 's decision, the Council, now .sat a s the ARB. The Co c 1l might feel awkward doing 'so, but $ f it failed to exercise its power _of review, it, abdicated to the ARB, 5 1 7. 1 10/15/84 and made it the final arbiter of new development in Palo Alto. That was clearly not intended when an appeal _ process was built into the original A$B ordinance. Acting as the ARB, the Council had, clear grounds to act on the appeal. One clause in the ARB ordinance read: "Whether the design promotes harmonious transi- tions of scale and character in areas between different designated land uses." That evening, the Council rezoned the remainder of the block to RM-D. A 40,000 square foot office building was not a harmonious transition to an Rei-D neighborhood. The appellants went to the trouble and expense of an appeal because they cared about the downtown. They liked living there, and wanted their successors to as well The Council had the grounds, the power, and the public ,eupport. She urged the Council to act decisively. David Jury, 305 Lytton, represented Hare, Brewer & Kelley, devel- opers of the project, which was in the planning process for almost 11 months. They met on four separate occasions with nearby resi- dents and the ARB and made numerous expensive and time consuming revisions. In addition to architectural changes and size reduc- tion, the entrance was moved from Waverley to Lytton, resul ting in 26 percent less floor area and 30 percent less height than per- mitted under the zoning. The building did not exceed 35 feet in height, al though 50 feet were permitted on Lytton. As a condition to obtaining the parcel map approval .to remove the lot line between the parcel s, the Planning Director restricted the building size to 44,350 square . feet as opposed to 52,950 square feet per- mitted by zoning. After meeting with neighbors and the ARB, the building was reduced by an additional 5,000 square feet. The ARB mandated material s of the highest quality, and at some point it became no longer economical i feasible to use such qual ity i f the size was too restricted . The traffic study showed no appreciable increase at the major intersections in the proximity of the- proj- ect and the evening traffic was lower than the traffic generated when the college was 1 ocated on the parcel . The ARB worked close- ly with the developers and the neighbors to create the design of the current building and was satisfied with the resul ts, and bel ieved the developers bent over backwards to address their con- cerns. The Council shoal d remember, the need to rely on the express provisions of the.. zoning .ordinances :wi.thout: concern.. that there might be a change midstream in the approval process. They worked hard to create an attractive and responsive building on the site, and he asked the Council to approve the project and the Environmental Assessment Report (EIR) and uphold the ARB recom- mendation and the Director of Pl anning's approval . Bill Bocook , an architects, 4041 El Camino Way, nuked with Richard Elmore, the design consultant. . A booklet was on file in the City Clerk's office showing the site drawing with three elevations approved. by the ARB and the original design. An early decision was to build in - the ver racular style of old tel o; Alto which, although costly, related to. the -residential area and was more in character in a transition area. The original entrance to the parking structure was moved from Waverley to Lytton at the resi- dents' : request. _ The entrance teas now at a diagonal as ,the ARB believed the original monumental entrance unsuitable. Detail s were in keeping with the. pedestrian zone and residential scale. In May, the ARB found the building too ..Massive with • too .much square footage and lacking a good .rei ationshl p to . the residential neighborhood In July, the MB continue, the project until August, when it was reduced to 39,000 square feet; the parking garage entrance moved to iytton, the- monumentality and Tack of cohesiveness refined; and the height reduced to 35 feet. On the north side of Waverley, the structure was reduced from three, floors to two. The MB , required more, setback and ;opportunity for landscaping on. the •levetion from the parking lot, with more win- dows and recessed courtyards. The MB decision _and staff report were justified. After fowr meetings with the MB; and residents, the building met the zoning. lio variances were asked foe.. The height and square foetsge . were lower then the, envelope, _and the charat te�a.-of the: building rrolated to the scale` -and the area. 5 1 7 2 10/15/84 Counciliiisiibee WAvrley sdid that some of the windows appeared to be blocked out on the parking lot elevation. Mr. Bocook said they were recessed courtyards. Windows were not permitted within four feet of the property line. The edifice and facade repeated the module of the windows, contrasting to the original blank wall. Vice Mayor Levy asked whit changes were made in response to the four meetings with the neighborhood. Mr. Bocook said the square footage was reduced; the entrance to the parking was moved from Waverley to Lytton; and the building was reduced to two floors on the parking lot elevation, which was set back four feet, and more where there were courtyards. The changes were in response to the meetings with the residents and al so in response to individual s, groups, and the ARB. Jul ie Beigent, attorney, 525 University Avenue, spoke on behalf of Hare, Brewer & Kelley, and asked that her letter be entered into the record. Because of the current activity in the area on zoning issues and those raised in the appeal on zoning, the Council should determine the appropriateness of the design of the project and the adequacy of the EIR. The ARB should review the design and environmental impacts of a project, not make zoning and planning decisions. The building should be considered in light of the zoning in effect. Development rights were given by the Council , but could not be revoked without proper notice and zoning proce- dures. The parcel could not be down zoned either directly or indirectly through such procedures. The standards for determining the appropriateness of the design of the project were given in the Palo Al to code. Many revisions were made to the project to ensure it was satisfactory and hard no significant environmental impacts. It was claimed that the building was incompatible with the neigh- borhood, but the ARS found it a proper solution. The appellants said the zoning was incompatible, bast it could not be changed at that stage.. The Council responded in the past month to pressure to rezone the area, and there was a one-year moratorium. The building was not in contradiction of the Comprehensive P'l an which stated noisy features of commercial buildings had to be buffered. ARB approval was conditioned on meeting such criteria:. The Com- prehensive Plan did not suggest scaling down a project far below zoning. It was aimed at preventing the replacement of housing with office buildings, but the proposed project was in a. commer- cial zone and did not encroach into the residential zone, nor did it displ ace housing. Traffic studies showed no significant increase in traffic or noise. It would not diminish the existing qual ity of the residential neighborhood. The Public Works Depart- ment and the ARB were .satisfied it would not cause environmental hazards to the neighborhood as .was borne out by the EIR. She asked the Council to restrict Consideration of the- appeal to mat- ters under the Palo Al to ordinances. The MB recommended approval of the project, and the appellants had no reasonable grounds to demand the overthrow of decisions by the ARB and the Director of Planning. She' asked the Council to uphold 'the project. Should the Council want modifications to the project, she asked that the Hare, Brewer & Kelley group be given the opportunity to respond. Nancy Jewell Cross representing the Committee for ` Safe end Sensible - Sasn Francs s ui to Creek Area Routing spoke of her concern about the impacts of traffic on air quality and health in the area. Palo Alto was the most serious generator of air pollution from traffic of 25 cities for which she had d{ tai . The area already- jeopardized health. The effort to downzone was a shortcut to the ultimate necessary come usion of the inadequacy Of the ' EIR. The :traffic report was generated by the developer's agent and should not be accepted without evel uation. Mr. 1' shisaato of the Planking Department did not understand the charts, but said the project °would not edversel y' affect the air quality. the charts did not consider the legal --requirement that the cumulative impact 5 .1 7 3 10/15/84 of traffic be considered. There was no supporting evidence of no significant environmental impact. The neighbors knew there would be an environmental impact they did not want. The current Foothi 11 College campus with, a courtyard was preferable to a further growth -inducing impact. She cited the case of San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth vs. City of San Francisco rigg41, page 61. Bern Beecham, 321 Cowper, spoke on the size of the proposal with respect to its position in the transition area. The project was larger than any other building en Lytton Avenue except for Lytton Gardens and in the 90th percentile in size in the downtown. It would be appropriate on University Avenue, but not abutting resi- dential areas. The Comprehensive Plan discussed keeping intensi- fication of non-residential sites within reasonable limits and discouraging massive single uses through limitations on height and density, and restoring and maintaining the residential character in older sections of Palo Al to:. The present design did not sat- isfy the transitional requirements, given its location. Mark Enayati , 401 Lytton Avenue, objected to Hare, Brewer & Kell ey taking over 10 feet of Waverley Street --part of the publ is domain --and affecting his business and property, and interfering with his bel fiefs, life and the fiber' of society, forcing a commun- ity college out of easy access to homes and citizens. The project was too large, would create congestion at intersections and pre- vent pedestrians and c.ycl fists from free movement. The project was passed at the ARB on a vote of 3-2. He wanted to know who gave 10 feet of publ is domain to Hare, Brewer & Kell e,y. Pat Sharp, 333 Waverley, "said that Olen she bought her house in 1973, the parcel was zoned commercial . The house had three apart- ments. In August 1974, they obtained a building permit for exten- sive remodel ing to convert to a single family dwelling. It was then zoned RM-4, and tonight it was zoned lily! -D. -She thanked the Council. The down zoning showed the direction the citizens wanted the City to take . The Downtown Study group was g iv en room by the raoratoriu , and she expected a fine plan to come from the group. The appeal of the decision was in lire with citizens' wishes and what the ARB tacitly appeared to want. The building was approved by a minority of two members —one absent, one abstained, and one voted "ro.11 Construction of the building would narrow Waverley by eight to ten feet and generate an additional 175 car trips per day. Some of the cars would go north on Waverley where the well - indicated bike bridge to Menlo Park was. Increased traffic with heavy bicyci a use on a narrowed street would be hazardous to all. She submitted 635 signatures on a petition finding the building an intrusion into the downtown residential neighborhood 'and a viol a- tion of a city-wide e:omaiitment to preserve and -protect residential neighborhoods. It al so failed the ARB ''s - tandards for review, as stated in the Manicipal Code. The building would pose unmitigated environmental impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Nereid(' McGuire, 327 Waverley, corrected a misstatement made by Hare, Brewer & Kelley. There were not .:four meetings with the neighborhood. On three occatlons, :representatives from the neigh- borhood went to the offices of Hare, Brewer & Kelley to find out what was going on and to look at the plans. Once Mr. Elmore graciously brought the plans to a house . No substan tar ti re "discus;- slops ever took place on the nature of the development, nor did Hare, Orewer ;& Kelley display any sensitivity towards the neigh- borhood' s concerns and no changes were wade to' the development except under dpress. To put the development' In context, he showed a displ ay of recent devel.opsents in downtown- Palo Al to . None of the first group exceeded` 35,000 square feet, and were all located either on the north side of 'University or on, the South side of Lytton. The. 1 argest building ` the second group en. Lytton' did not exceed 20,000 square' feet. The third ;group was housing with 1,800 square feet. From University onwards, the trend for build- ings was Ownward in scale. The current pion for 370 Lytton was 5 1 7- 4 10/15/84 wee roe 39,000 squar=e feet, three stories high and with a roof tine that added seven feet-- the equivalent of a half story. The Council should not be deceived by arches --it was a massive build- ing and out of character with the neighborhood. Hamilton Avenue had up to six story buildings. The next road to 1t converted to condos- and apartments, which would not be possible on his side of University Avenue, because of the rezoning. They needed a build- ing on the site that was in scale and in proportion with the neighborhood. If approved according to the current plans it would be a beachhead on their side of Lytton Avenue for the massive downtown size buildings. It would mean either that Lytton Avenue east would go the same way and become another canyon, or el se the building would remain the only one of that size, which was equally inappropriate. He asked for a building of no more than two stories with a maximum of 20,000 square feet, which was appro- priate and an appropriate transition. Wal ter Sedriks , 325 Waverley, lived across from the project. Mr. Kelley said it was most desirable, but the ARB said it was too big and the neighbors agreed. Then the ARB approved it, as Hare, Brewer a Kelley had been somewhat responsive. He called it a Mad Hatter` s Tea Party. ecy Crewdson, 373` Everett, moved 'to the area five years ag-o• from 'the East' Coast . Sine- then- she ;bec arse a wife 'and a mother, 'and liked where she lived`. The present building was small and com- fortable, but if a big betiding was put in, it would be like mov- ing back to the East Ce ast . She preferred to see the downtown area kept within scale to maintain the nice feel ing of the- family- eriented, neighborhood. Jill Ramacciotti , 959 Waver! ey, was 'a senior 'at Palo Alto High School. She was opposed to the increased traffic flow into the downtown', and the extra parking required for the' building.. In spite .of fee, Brewer & Kelley' s. many studies on the effect the traffic flow and parking would have oh the community, she was sure it would have an impact, because it meant more traffic. When she returned from school cars were parked outside .her horse even though. she 1 iv ed more then five blocks frogs the proposed building. She preferred to travel a mile out ' of her ' way to avoid the con- gested downtown, especially in the rush hour. An office building so near a residential zone eeealel diminish, the ,quality of the hous- ing. She requested the' `Council to Serio-u0'y cbnsider- the effect on the environment of the project. Patricia Ward,_ 412 Everett, said many residents found the proposed building inconsistent with the 'existing commercial Properties on Lytton because of its scale, and'. with' "the houetngi because there was no transition zone from -the commercial area to an WO neigh- b;orhood . There wed no roost:, to provide the tr an si ti b f ` called for 'in the CoM reheniiv"e Plan. The d'evel open`s representative said the .prroj'ec .vrogld° have noa'ahvelesit Aiepact 'on • traffic, which would even imp gvte .in `the- evenings', but 'there was no traffic problem in the evening:'-`- the probl ed 'Wit,;between 4`:` 0 and `6 Qtl pee!. She com- pared it with 'Star wars-- piectaeal patchworks p amine' `versus con- si stent corrimonsense considerations. Sire -the -the Council to con- sider some of those considerations. James Morley, ey, 160 Weverl ey Street, hoped the developer did not get into the garden before the citizens could close the gate. He often pasad the corner which was now a pleasant transition zone between his hose and the action an University. Both` the original applicant and the ,ARB put a lot of work into the project. The plans looked pretty, but the building wais=t too massive, especially given its proniaity to the newly downzoaed residential area. He suggested two stories in the front and one in the back to salvage the neighborhood. scale: Council t rber Cobb repeated the three choices before the Council . It could approve the project and denythe appeal support the 5 1 7 5 10/15/84 appeal and kill the project outright, which would require some carefully defined findings and have potential consequences which concerned him. They might get a 50 -foot condominium development on the corner and be worse off than with an appropriately adjusted project. The third alternative` was to give the property owr+er a chance to return with something to meet the standards and tests the Council would put, to it. •He was willing to give the developer that chance as long as it was clear that it was only an oppor- tunity to return with something.,. that met the tests and guidelines Council would apply. It would. put the burdon on the developer to decide whether he was willing to risk going back into the process for that. purpose The ARB Taboret hard on the project, and the generation of designs showed the improvements they made in the design. ,He believed the 'applicant's statement that the project met with strong ARB approval was an overstatement. Mr. Carter gave everyone a good lesson in 'architecture in his comments, but not all the issues raised by _hire came close to being. addressed. With that in mind, and recognizing he was only opening : up a possi- bility for the Council to get where° they might like, he made the following motion. MOTION: Cornc f l member Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, to con- tinue the item for tine pirates, of allowing .tho Architectural Review Board (ARS) to address the fsl 1 oars ag requi reaeets under Section 1i.4$.1ZO(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Cale: 1. ProMotiee of greater internal integrity of desige of the project; 2. Assrring greater compatibility •f the project's design with the site and surrstnd ing s; aad 3. Minimizing the •swironmertal impacts •f the project. In making this referral , the Council provides the following golde- lines; 1. iledece the mass and tale of the project, particularly facing at, $aaer°l ey Streets, lowering the keiglet .to two storiet t• the V roatest ezteat pessibl • throughout; 2. Provide as arc kI tec trral desi en that let a. Moro sei f -coast stet, aad b. More c•.patible with \the" neighboring, strictures, kith men. Nigeria/ and Lyttea; aad c. I. esige the strutters to be a more gradual tr'a*sltl•a to aad to be sere 1* k*epi ag with the surreuod #mg realdential properties. Further, this referral Is made mitt the sti p•: slartter that the .project will maim lraaifathereld wider the existing 1►oar tear Moratorium, ;teatieaal ea final Council •► rsfa1 of a ispOified project satisfyint tiro sub,, Jett gslae"iaes Mr_ Freeland referred to the .EUR before the Council , which either. called for a full EIR or approved the negative de -c arati o n that was- presented to the Council,. When Dr. Cross phoned that day on the oubj aft of air quality., staff heard for the first time that them. *itht be reason ----to believe extra scrutiny was required. Mr. Hashimoto`' :then called the Regional Air Quill Ity: Management Board, and would report briefly on soie' analysis made -that afternoon in response- to Or. Crosse call Planning and Development Analyst Ray' )Iaskiimoto •Said that consider- ing the existing uses and the net gain of trips from the project, the State- and Federgl standard of carbon monoxide, would not be _exceeded at the intersection of Lytton end Yaverl.ey. Its would be at 8.14 which was ..within the' standard. Mr, Freel and said that figure was based on a new screening formula developed for the purpose of determining whether there was an adv er se environmental effect in an area on air quality and for carbon monoxide in partic ul ar . Councilseember Fletcher said the staff report reflected that even- ing peak hour traffic 'between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. would generate fewer trips than during the occupancy of Foothill Coll eye. Foothill College told her that no classes let out at 5:00 p.m., none started at 5:00 or 5:30 p ,m., and few cl asses started at 6:00 p.m. The bulk of the students attended class from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m The eval uation of the impacts of the traffic seemed based on faulty information. Any added trips would be in the opposite direction from the peak hour flow. The employment from the proj- ect, if approved as is, was 175, bringing new employees into the City, with no housing mitigation proposed and, no residential units included in the project. She counted an over fl ow parking of 41 spaces •by dividing 39,000 square feet in `o the 310 square feet staff used as the basis for one parking space, giving 125.8 park- ing spaces. The project supplied 85 spaces, leaving a deficit of 41 spaces to cause a severe impact. She was al so concerned be- cause a minority! of ARB members voted for the project. She was not tin favor of the motion because she save a pattern developing similar to the Page 14111 Road project they dealt with at the last meeting where the project was specifically sent .back to be down - scaled, and the developer said it was not feasible. Mr. Jury warned the Council that evening that a significant downscal ing would not be economical l y feasible. Rather than 1 ead the developer into more financial investment by redesigning the project, the Council should uphold the appeal at that point to let the prof ec t in with inconsi stent zoning patterns wi th the ul timate zoning for the area. Councileiember Renzel followed up on the = staff comment regarding the 8.14 parts per aril lion of carbon monoxide at the Waverl ey/ Lytton intersection and asked if it was the curaulative figure and took into account any traffic induced by the Will ow extension. Mr. Free] anti said it was independent of the Will ow extension. Counciiiember Renzel said it was expected that some traffic would come from the shopping center, around Alma and through the down- town area as a result of the Willow triad extension.. Mr. Freel and said. thatneither he nor Mr, Schreiber recalled any indication of that happening. in . the :Will ow Road CIR.. Councilmember Reazel said there was certainty the expectation that those who currently used that route would continue to do so. If there were. more cars on the goad, she ,would, expect a proportionate increase.. She. said it would bring the intersection .area close to goy ernment standards. 14r . Freeland ` stressed that the : number was :dew eloped from a model identified as a worse case screening .model , and not the result of any in-depth studies. It was a formal a dowel oped to spot t, on a worst case series of potential problems. If it failed that test, It would be considered to deserve an additional in-depth study. It did pass the screening test administered in the fashion ex p1 ai n ed to staff.: ; Councilmember Renzel concurred with Counciimaeaber.:Fletc her . They saw pictures of transitions, *bowing how bad it started rout and how *itch better it: became. Homelier,. as a -_matter_ of first. tmpres- sions, they were ' seeing what they had. She asserted that if the ARS was to., have the projectcome in as it as was pre€entad to the Councils significant farther modifications would undoubtedly be made. Thei early. remark .about the Mad !Utter' s Tea Party was quite opt —the ARB did what It could _itith something that was bad and finally referred it c.a. Clearly, the project was far out of scale 5 1 7 7 10/15/84 with the neighborhood. It was a massive project, and was demon- strated to be a much greater building than any of the other build- ings in the vicinity: The Council's objective, standing in the ARB us shoes, was to ensure a proper transition to the neighborhood and ensure the project would not have serious environmental im- pacts. One could not say that such a massive project pl opped down in a basically • residential area, even. though not in a residential zone, would not have a massive environmental impact. It was a massive building. She had difficulty in understanding why the Co unc i l should not uphold the appeal . It would put the project on the same footing as all the other projects put on hold during the pl anning for the Downtown. It was not the end of the world . It. was ri sky to. send it forward. She recall ed what happened to 218 Page Mill. Road. Great speeches were made when the public was present, but when the publ is was not there, the substance ,of those speeches went down the drain. The result was a lot of green marble, a lot of building, and probably a lot of traffic problems. She did not want to see that happen again as it was a sensitive area. She urged her col 1 eae ue s to uphold the appeal . Vice Mayor Levy agreed the building in question was too massive and large, but it was within the constraints of the zone, and it was not the Council's job to reject it out of hand. He could not find a basis for doing so in terms of •desige or environmental impact, but he agreed that the project should be reduced in mass and scale and the frontage on Waverl ey where it interfaced with the neighborhood should be reduced to 25 feet to the greatest degree possible, or have some other design elements of setback in the wall front to give it a more compatible rel ationshi p with the neighborhood. It was unreasonable to expect the commercial zone to be reduced to the si ze of the neghborhood. It should be realized that in protecting the single family homes there, the Council , to a major degree, reduced the dell elopmental potential of the area, which was previously designated as Rh! -4 It would not be possible to use Lytton to have a downscale to the si xe of the single family homes, but many of the homes there and that were 1 ikely to be built under the kM-D zoning went to 20 or 25 feet, with one being 30 or 35 feet to the peak. If a buil ding could be built there with the gaverl ey frontage reduced as much as possible to the 25 foot level , it would be a satisfactory transition. He would vote in favor of the motion as it stood, but _ as he di i not understand one element, he could not vote on 2(a) , which ,required an architectural design that was more "se1 f -consistent;" Councilat ber Cobb said he had struggled with the wording. He consul ted with Mr. Carter = of the ARB„ who at the ARB review said , .. "if you are going to do Spanish style, get it down in size." That was not. done. Mr. Carter said that if it had to be so , big, it should be contemporary. Many arguments were heard why con- temporary would not work in the area, .so it tended ;o suggest the former sdl Aloft . The project started out Kith the arc hi tec t pi c k- ing, up bits and pieces from the northern part .of town and trying to sake them work on the site. Thanks to the good work of the ARS, it was now sore coherent, but he was not convinced it was a truly coherent architectural design at present. It was not internally coherent and not consistent with its immediate sur- roundings, but rather with those four bl ocks away on the other lido of University Avenue. He asked Mr. Carter_. for wording to bring them to the point where they had site architecture that made sense with the buildings it had to deal with as one: looked at it. His was an engineer''s atteatpt to speak in architectural parlance. Mr. Carter said he understood that greater compatibility with the adjacent and neighboring structures was required. By the same token, he understood that within the appearance of the building itself, there should be sees: consistent, = therbat1c: quality", which, whether historical Or contemparer;y, .. was _op tek the applicant. He understood Couac ilmerber Cobb to require 'some overall consistency or waity, al so with respect to the neighboring structures. 5 1 7 8 10/15/84 Councllmember Cobb said those were separate parts of the motion, but the kind of thing he was groping for. He believed the project had not attained those goals. Vice Mayor Levy asked if it was the opinion of the ARB members that the project did not have those elements of design. Mr. Carter said the design, as submitted and finally recommended for approval by the Board, was substantially improved in those areas over the initial application. The ARB believed a substan- tial step in that direction was taken. Vice Mayor Levy asked if he preferred to see more change. Mr. Carter said he personally believed it could use more. Vice Mayor Levy asked if that was the consensus of the ARB. Mr. Carter said he was the absent member at the last meeting. He read the nutes. of that meeting and talked with the other review Board members, and believed there was a general concern about the overall character and massiveness. It was fair to say the Board believed the applicant, in good faith, made substantial efforts to respond to t;e concerns voiced at the previous four meetings. There was a change in the ground rules to some extent as a result of the Council's actions that evening in changing the adjacent neighborhood zoning. The Board dealt with the issue of a CC com- mercial project adjacent to RM-4 zoned residential property and what might be developed on that type of residential property at some future time. For the mass and the scale of the building, the ARB had to follow the ground rules laid down by the existing zon- ing on the books governing the development of property. Although sympathetic to the neighborhood's concerns about single- family homes, they recognized that zoning was what zoning was. That evening, the Council responded to the neighborhood's concerns by changing the zoning, which presented the project in a new light. Vice Mayor Levy believed the mass should be reduced by a minimum of 15 percent. He agreed with Councilmember Cobb that the height should be reduced as much as possible to 25 feet on Waverl ey where it fronted on residences. Regarding the architectural design and style, he did not want to comment. He could not set himself up as an architectural expert. The designwas acceptable, and would be more acceptable when the mass and scat ee were reduced. He would not use "more self -consistent," but preferred to say that "the ARB should assure there was self -consistency" ,in the design. One question not addressed in the motion was parking. The design at present called for 85 parking spaces. That number should be main- tained, even though the mass of the building would be reduced somewhat. AMENDMENT; dice darer Levy mewed, . seconded by. Rensel s that the final design skald maintain SS parking spaces on the site. AMENOMENT PASSED aaaalaessllt, Vi tterspees absent. Councilmember Woolley asked staff if when the project was con- sidered by the ARB in terms of whether the design was compatible with the site and the surroundings, i t considered the present use of the surrounding property or the potential built -out zoning of the surrounding property. lire. Freeland believed it was ,fair to say the B considered both. There_ were many buildings in the downtown with a .vacant lot rio t to a building' and discussion of} the possibilitl it might change and the extent to which change might occur. It was neveran easy thing to both anticipate the changes and reflect the present cir- cumstances.. The ARB tried to look at both situations. eee 5 1 7 9 10/15/84 rounciimember Woolley said that it the i3ouncil was sitting as the ARB, itwasallowed to consider the present use of the surrounding property. She had difficulty in finding the pr ect, as pre- sented, compatible with its surroundings, because' ,of the size and the 'feeling of ponderousness. She spoke with Birg-e Clark over that style of architecture, who did not like his buildings referred to as "Spanish Colonial Revival," and insisted on "early California .N She had not thought it. made too much difference, but after, seeing: the projects, she tegan to understand. Mr. Clark said .-that true Spanish Col ooial= Revival was found in Mexico, and was an elaborate baroque 'architecture. The description fit the project especially in its first stages. The kind of buildings Mr. Clark erected in town were in a simpler and plainer style which, although in some ways heavy, was not as heavy as the proposed project. -She had difficul ty in supporting- the motion, although it went in the right direction and indicated the degree to which the Council wanted to go. She did not want to give the ARB or the architect specific numbers and thereby try to design the project for the architect, but wanted to clarify that she wanted a sub stantial reduction in the mass of the building. She was .thinking of a 25 percent reduction, bringing the building down to 30,000 square feet with a 2:1 floor area _retio, using the square. footage assigned to the entire parcel after the parcel tap approval. It would mean a substantial reduction-, which she did not think the motion made sufficiently clear. Mayor Klein did not want the Council to get into a numbers game. It would be an. unfortunate step al though he agreed the reduction should be somewhere in that range. He wanted to see the ARB have discretion to work, and not be bound by -specific numbers. The ARB received the message. He bel ieved the motion was good and was surprised there was oppositions .The motions in the raain, upheld the appeal and referred the matter back to the ARB with the fol- lowing guidelines: reduce the mass and scale of the project, particularly facing on to Waverley Street; lower the height to two stories to the greatest extent possible throughout; and provide an architectural design more internally consi stent and more compat- ible with the neighboring structures, both on Waverley and Lytton. He believed the design on Lytton remarkably inconsistent with the buildings there, particularly with the fine little. gift store and even with the : University. National Bank building. The .structure should be redesigned to a more- gradual transition, to be more ire keeping with. the surrounding residential properties. The. Council should not get into the detail s of. the ARB. There were fine experts on the ARB, and= more of those detail s should be. left. to them, even though he was glad to exercise the Council's responsi- bility to find the building a poor transition and a poor .design. It was way out of scale to its surroundings. and should be sub- stantially reduced. The comparisons between it and consideration of the project on Page Mill Road by Mr. Hoback and his company missed the •ark, because everyone found the Page Mill design excellent, :whereas he. .had-- sit heard anyone.. say that of i thee desi.gn under. consideration. . It made- a huge, difference..= The.: .suggest#on that the ARB enthusiastically endorsed it was a gross misreading of the minutes.. He read that the ARB; .approved= the ,b u1 l d i ng -:out. 'o f fatigue. --They went through four or five hearings on the project e- ad saw some improvement from. an F- to a C- or 0+. The building ?tad a l ong way to go, as C- •or 0+ buildings were not approved in Palo Alto.. He supported.. the last part of the motion which gave the project -a chance to remain grandfathered because of the amount of work that went into it and his sense of what was. fair to the applicant in that situation. He believed that with the reduction in- the- sass and size o,f ;.he building all Councilme*bers considered necessary, .the result would be: a building of- a size near where they would be when the rorate rI - ended. and parcels._ downtown were reigned. - Counciliumber .Wool.Iey's.:aaathematicai .akercise indicated' it would be soa i/whore close. . The project. htedat sub state ti el reworking by the ..ARB., and the . motion wc:ul.d _ do that. , Thy Council should throw the= ball back to the ARB, not try to .do that `-otoe,it. 5 1 8 0 10/15/84° Councilmember Bechtel asked about the square footage of the exi st- ing buildings" on the property. One was a former house where a stereo cojpeny was, and she guessed they were in the 5,000 to 10,000 square foot range. Mr. Freeland said one structure was 1,800 square feet, the other 8,000 square feet. Councilmember Bechtel said thee total was slightly less than 10,000 square feet. She asked the miters ;,of the motion if they intended that approval by the ARB would be final, or should it return to the Council when approved. She reminded them it was an appeal. Councilmember Cobb said the last sentence of the motion indicated that it would remain grandfathered, which meant it would return to the Council. Mayor Klein read from the motion: "Further, this referral is made with the stipulation that the project will remain grandfathered under the existing Downtown Moratorium, conditional on final Council approval of a modified project satisfying the subject guidel ines." Count i 1 sdaber Cobb said the project would go through the ARB and back to the Council . CounciIme;aber Bechtel was concerned that Vice Mayor Levy believed a 15 percent reduction would suffice. She perceived, after the one year moratorium, something that would be more of a transition from the commercial areas along Lytton to the residential areas behind. She bel ieved a reduction of a 39,000 square foot building by 5,000 or 6,000 square feet was not a sufficient transition. She could .only support the .motion if it required "substantial" reductions The motion was a beginning, but she did not think the discussion was sufficient. ANEMBRENT: •Caeact1aenhe.r ' Bechtel moved, seceaaded by Itenzel , to 'mead the werdieg •f guideline 1) to read: S bsta*tially reduce the mass end scale sf the project,...* Councilmember Sutorius said the word "substantial" .left it up to an interpretation as to the end result. The initial motion was also open to some interpretation. The important thing was the end resul t --would the applicant .return with a building design that, in mass, site,. and design s harmonious..:- The word substantial" did not add to _the motion. It was a question of how the applicant, the, ARB, and ultimately the Council reactedeto what -cane back.. Vice Mayor Levy supported Concilaerrber Sutorius. They were con- cerned with the end result in terms of design and. compatibility. The amount of square footage was more important as a consideration of traffic and parking problems. Ha was satisfied .those would not be exacerbated by the. project. Me was concerned about design, and wanted to ensure the end result was -desi _coapatibil ity. - Reduc- tlorYs needed to take place to whatever .degree we's :necessary to achieve compatibil ity with the neighborhoods -Councilmember Bechtel said a. key part of Abe design was related to. s reduction in the .size and seed e. -She did not believe the prob- lem was simply one of design and. architecture, but simply of - ,the: ,massiveness =of the building, which was totally related. to square footage. Couecileeber. Woolley .agreed -the e word. ".aubstan:tial"` could be interpreted .widely,. but balleved ethe ARP= members would read-: the Covncil'.s minutes asel,{ after seeing the figures, .given :by some- .speskers, would get an oversell idea :'of where the Council `stood and how ouch reduction might be necessary. -within some sort of flexible limits. There was some vetoe an including the word. 511 8 1 10/15/84 Councilmewber Cobb would vote against the amendment because he tried to set up the motion so that Council would not do the 'ARB's design work. As a statement for the record, his concept of what- ever the modifying adjective should be was closest to Council -- member Woolley` s understanding. He was looking for a real cutback in the size and mass of the building, but wanted to. see what could be done. It might be possible that they would fail to del aver a building he could be happy with. He did not want to doctor the motion more than necessary. He .tried to. deal with the. legal points that had to: be dealt with so :.they could be addressed directly • and correctly, and give the ARB some •guidelines to see what_ could, be done as long .as the ARB . understood -what the Council was 'Joking for. He was close to Co unc i l m ember Woolley' s position and wanted to see the project cut back ,in .an important way. He did not know the correct adjective to describe that. Councilmember Bechtel feared the amendment would fail 4-4, and the message to the ARB members as only Mr. Carter was present, would be that the Council did not want to reduce the scale substan- tially, but only by a little. She was not sure- that was the message those voting against . the amendment really wanted to convey. She asked them' to reconsider. AMENDMENT FAILED .try 'a vet* _ef 4-4 , Fletcher, Rearel , Woolley, tecktel voting "'aye.' Councilaember Sutorius said .the other . speakers mentioned some of his concerns. He sensed a :°eduction was requiree that by reason- abl e terms, could be' ciassn!led as a substantial ." He .would only want to express it as a range, because he did not want to predict what the capabilities were of meeting the contents of the motion and. arriving at an end result with harmonious relationships of the mass, scale, and design. That could be achieved in many ways. He agreed the building was ponderous. At another site with a plaza, open space, and creature tall landscaping it might cause a different reaction. The original proposal was whimsical , and when whimsical was. small ,-,it was .sub tleeand could ;work,... and wh.ims.1cal : cool al so work etheni eiteteats :huge and on its . own.j However , • in the current setting, it did not work. e .They had .to be concerned .about its rel'atlonship to buildings on Lytton and Waverley. There were many answers, but with what the Council said, and because the ARB was capable of working with the applicant, there was no danger of misinterpretation. For the record, he bellaved the reduction would harm to be within the range of 10 to 20 percent. in order to accomplish, with appropriate design .treatment and the condition required by Vice Mayor Levy's. amendment to sustain the current proposed parking,. the range the applicant would have to deal with to make it worth his while to come back through the ARB to the Council for approval. .He was happy with the motion _as ..amended.. Counc ilnesber Fletcher wanted to record her concept, of what would be acceptable 4s being between 30 and 50 percent reduction. Her previous comments on comparing the project with that of the Page Mill Road peeject when it .was sent back to the ARB for .substantial reduction of scale, tees that the devel open said he .could not `do a good job and scale it -down because economically it would not fly. The developer that evening also said that a substantial reduction would not be ec"oraomical ly feasible. She was. neither a developer nor involved in .financing, but knew that with the parking requlee- cent they were asking the developer to keep in -the. project end el so asking for a significant sc-a1 ing . down of the- project, she predicted he would use ..the argument that, economically, he could not make the project _go. She asked those Councilmeabers in favor of. referring the prgject..back to the AP. to consider what they would do - 1n that event. She -feared the .devel *per would have Invested more-. the 1, effort, and; money -into -:=the project, and the Council would 'be .lest reictent to go along with; the :developer's plans as they were as had .happened at page 141-11 Road . .That_ was her concern_ es she did - not :feel it was, eceno*ical l'y ,feasible. They had al ready been told that evening It would not be., 5 1 8 2 1©/15/84 1 Councilmefber Renzel bel ieved the motion on the floor was apt to pass. She Concurred with Councilmember Fletcher that there should be a minimum of a 30 percent reduction in the size of the build- ing, which would cure a lot of the problems in theattempt to make a big building look smaller.. . She did not .agree with the ARB's approach of adding articulations, geegaws, fal se, windows and other troaape d ' oeil s to try to attempt to make a big building look small. The architecture should reflect a certain amount of func- tion. She did not object to artistic embellishments but there was a trend in Pei o Alto to add a lot of false features that had no function -other than to attempt to make a big building look small. What was no.t attractive about the building was all the false windows, arches and white lines criss-crossing. If a . Spanish style wan needed ,• they should get it and execute it properly and simply, reflecting : the necessary function. She objected. to the narrowing of War erl ey Street and allowing it to be offered i a perception that the building had a bigger setback. The building should be set back and waverley Street left as is. A prism con- sideration .:for the neighborhood, particularly .with the large frontage on two sides that would impact Waveriey Street there, should be some consideration of the problem of night lighting. Many windows with fluorescent lighting shining out into the neigh- borhood was not pleasant. She did not object to windows, but some consideration should be given on how that should be handled and the possibility of minimizing its iatpact on the neighborhood. She wanted to get those concerns out into the open and offer them 'up. Vice Mayor Levy said Co.uncilmember _Sutorius forgot tomention that the project apparently did not call for undergrounding the utili- ties. It was probably a ;minor .point, but he wondered what the reason was for not calling for undergrounding of the. project. He suggested to the members of the ARS that they not overl ook it. undergrounding. of util sties should occur wherever possible. Councilmeraber Fletcher urged the.. Council - to ,ho1,d . any meetings deal ing with the project .in--theeevenings, since there, was consid- erable publ is interest and it was only fair to the public to make it fee sible for them .to ..attend Count ilmember -Cobb- .referred :to the. ;first , part of the ,motion He associated himsei f . wi the Mayo.r_. Kl.ei.n'_s comments, earl ier.- , .It was worded to conform to the legal requirements under . the ARB. code, because in.: his: view, the:: idesign-. -of .the project;..did not have "internal, integrity",. andtho, project was not ."compatible with the site each- sur:roundings"= in its present form; : and that . there were env ironraental probl ens ; that were. not proper],; :ad:dressed. Those were the reasons .i t . was being sent back. He hoped that the developer, after listening to the comments wade that evening, would realize that he went: back into the process with . some risk. He did not view it es being in any way parallel to the project on 216 ,Page; _141 11 Bead . tHi a. comments were cl ear:. He agreed - wi tea Councilarember Wool l.ey's: comments. A: clear .message .cafe, across, whic h the, developer would ignore . at some consid_er+:abl e- risk. He was concerned% theyweight- get: something substantit) 1;y :worse,, if :they did ,not ,at ;feast al I ow a:_:wan is m;fora '; the ° ipr:ojlec-t r;to return ' in an acceptable form. He envisioned 50 -foot condominiums that people would not like. Hopefully, they could arrive at a point that was good for the. neighborhood, the developer could live with, and was good for the City. Couaci1*eber Bechtel agreed with Councilseeeber Renzel's comments on the tendency : to add various embellishments to good, clean architecture as a 'leyto disguise_ at massive.:building , which was inappropriate. Rereading the long and complicated motion, she preferred to see the word ,"Substantial" incl uded, and bel ieved a ten percent .reduction. was nit substantial The notion called for a lowering: in the height' - to. two stories along Waverley Street, reducing the sass and -scale ofthe project and redesigning the structure, to be a more gradual: transition, and be .more .in keeping 5183 10/15/84 As Corrected 1/7/85 with tiv surrvuriu my residential properties. Because she bel ieved those items were absolutely essential and were in the motion, she would support it. If those items were not in fact done when it. returned to the Council after going through the ARB, there was no guarantee she would not oppose it, unless it were in keeping with the thrust of the motion. Vice Mayor Levy said he did not have much architectural taste, did not know what was good or bad, and trusted the ARB. Form follows function was a wonderful concept, but Frank Lloyd Wright designed the County Center- for Marin County, :which was a weird looking building he happened to like. Form did not follow :function there. Referring to the Capitol in Washington, D.C., he did not believe a dome over the middle of a portico was form following function, but it was a nice building. - The upshot of his remarks was to hope the ARB would forget what the Council said about design and use its own good judgment. Mr. Bennetti clarified what he understood procedurally the motion to be. Since the Council's options were somewhat limited under the ARS ordinance, the Council wanted -•to continue the item pending a recommendation from the ARB = as to what a• modified project would look like, .so. the •Council could consider it at that time. The Council's options under the ordinance were to disapprove the projecit, approve it, or approve it as modified. He understood the Council wanted a modified approval tolook at, and was requesting an opinion from the ARB as to what the project would look like, in conjunction with, or in consultation with, the applicant. MOTION PASSES by a vote of i. 2., Fletcher, Wenzel, voting 'n•," Witherspoon absent. ITEM #12, CIVIC CENTER CANOPY DEMOLITION (PWK 7-2) (CMR:530:4) MOTION: Conac i i mea►er Fletcher moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt staff roceaueadati ens as fotI ones: 1 Approve a clung* is pl a.ss to eliminate eke plaza canopy; 2. Antherize staff t• negotiate change orders and seek bids for accomplishing all aspects of this change, and 3. Direst staff to rotors tai► Coeacil with a CIP sad appropriate !gadget Amendment Ordinance ,% *etherize hiring an architect to dev.l ep plaza redesign ceaaacepts and -appropriate interim plaza 'edification' to mitigate the lossof she .canopies. Vice Mayor Levy agreed the canopy should bey taken down. It would beE the start of -a such more usabl el Civic Center, plaza. AliEiii*CIT: ' Vice 14agor Levy moved, **visited by Ovate, to adopt the Actin; tet,teral Review !hoard recommeadat1 saa that .fending in an amens* et least -11441 to the savings generated bb atlas canopy demo- 1It4•a be eigstated for tse =dcvegopaaaest of a pregram and a . dosegn scheme -for 1 Dag -tams mpr•v eats oaf the Civic Coates p1 aza o Vice Mayor'Le, sxrl aine that he did not -want to -see the funds go into the contingency for- .the. -ui l dung ,' b'ut - rather into the begin- ning of the long -needed. impru.fements to the plaza. Mr. Zeiler 'urged the Council_ to ,not adopt the amendment. The sav- ings were, In effect, only on paper.. The Civic -Center project was well under 'way and the• amount of contingencies needed were un- known Every time they gut into the project' they found .anoteer problem. The Outcome of Proposition 14. was as yet unknown,- and staff recommended-- they return with the i ecoUeadatl on 'given. in: the staff ::report which ._woal:d give sufficient mosey -for the design work. It would be 4 aaae immediately so the,: 'Council could see what might -he done.' - The_ Council -could, ; then put what money it wanted 1sto the CIP to construct the project. 5 1 i.4 10/16/84 Councilmember Woolley asked how the need for continggnc;; funds would have been handled had the change not occurred. Mr. Zaner said they would either end up selling more Certificates of Participation or the Council would have to appropriate more funds from the General Fund. Councilmember Woolley said that meant it would return to Council in any case. She agreed with Vice Mayor Levy that the $200,000 earmarked for the redesign project go into contingency for the project and then, i f more funds for the Civic remodeling were necessary, to have it come back to Council. Mr. Zaner said they were not talking about the $200,000, but about ae equivalent amount of money. The $200,000 would come from sale of the Certificates of Participation. They were discussing a brand new project to design a new plaza. The funds eight not be el igibl e to . cone out of the certi ficates but might have to come out of the General Funds. For that reason staff asked to be allowed to go out, get an RFP, and find out what a designer or architect would charge, appropriate the funds and build a CIP in the normal fashion for the amount the project would cost. At present that was unknown. Councilmember Sutorius understood the City Manager, but believed that what was proposed was exactly contrary to what Vice Mayor Levy had in mind and what the ARB had in mind in part of its recommendation. He did not want to see the Council take action that meant going out to look for an architect to have the Council authorize him to develop plans or redesign concepts. There was another approach. An architect would probably be ultimately hired, but a more appropriate approach would be to utilize a committee process with ARB and Visual Arts Jury (VAJ) representa- tion, affected downtown citizens, and a landscape architect to discuss the human uses and the architectural concepts that should go into a design criterion. An architect coed then be sought. It weultt save the fee from an architect to develop plaza redesign concepts. They could be effectively developed promptly through a 1 oc al process. Mr. Zaner said he had found that someone was needed to centralize such a process. An architect did that during the design phase. Almost all architects he worked with tried 'to a phasi ze the fact that they wanted to be present during such discussions before they began any design. Someone was needed on board to do precisely that. Mayor Klein said he would vote against the amendment because it was premature and a *ieleading promise to the Council. It could not be anything more than a promise, and he had iii ready promised himsel f that something would be done about . the plaza The money in question was nowhere near adequate. They were going blindly into an amendment that would not accomplish anything. Before talking about what was to be dote, a careful process was neces- sary.. ANSI NIEIT FAii,Ut by a vote of E-5, Levy and %stories voting *aye," $ecbtoi and 1Q1 therspeaa absent. NOTMMA PASSER a-i , Woolley voting Wbte1 , Witherspoon absent. SKIM Vice Mayor Levy moved,_ seceeded by Waterless that tine Mayer; So authorised to appoint a six - sr Cessittee. , define -ud use cr1 terie . for a reiesl paeid Civic Ceater Plana. 'The C 'shoed lactate We mere _ of _the 1 ese Visual AritO Jairy 1 tag apeMeps .freit the serreeedies basi sass tottf1 111-4 else iudscaps &rd ct. touncilaerber Fletcher was concerned that the committee wound con- tain a ■caber of the downtown business community, but would not include a member of the downtown residential area. 5 1 8 6 10/15/84 1/ t! Pt CECetie F MfTIOR AGREED T ■ TU. 1TT NOO O u vw ,�v+� ;sir �r.r �: s-zr�.i aVst e9�as i�ir (�i iiiaa� iN� �I ii�si iti ii s. i. if if tf/r� nu: SEVEN NENSEAS NUN ONE ii NSEit SEM A DOWNTOWN RESIDENT Councilsember Sutorius asked why it had to be downtown residents or merchants in either case, It was City Hall and the citizens seat of government, and he did not see why the Mayor needed to be restricted. Vice Mayor Levy believed people in the area spent more time in relation to the Plaza, thought about it a little more and what its uses might be at different hours during the day. He believed they were more directly affected, and the committee should .be focused with people physically close to the Plaza. NOTION PASSED saa sia+srsl 7. $t tkersasos absent. ITEM #13 RE.I.UEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE COUNTY'S GOOD IS Councilmemlier Fletcher_ said there was some controversy regarding the flights at Palo Alto Airport. The County was setting up a Good Neighbor ►Lalo Alto Airport Committee, and the first aieeting would be at Mitchell Park Community Center on Wednesday, October 24 1984 at 7:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12:35 a.mG ATTEST: APPROVED: ayo 5 1 8 6 10/15/84