The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1976-05-03 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNOL M1NUTEs CITY PALO ALTO Regular Meeting May 3, 1976 ITEM PAGE Minutes of March 22, 1976 1 0 1 6 Minutes of April 5, 1976 1 0 1 6 Oral Communications 1 0 1 6 Consent Calendar - Action Items Adoption of Park Improvement for Lands Occupied and Operated by the Palo Alto Yacht Club Ordinance 1 0 1 ; Park Improvement Ordinance for Timothy Hopkins Parkeide Park 1 0 1 8 Proposed F p3ided Palo Alto Bus Mutes (516) l 0 1 8 Gast Sharing Agreement with City of Menlo Park: Second Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Over San Francisquito Creek 1 0 1 8 Resolution Re ,ardiug Enforcement of Mobileho a Parks Act 1 0 1 8 Foothills Park Security Fencing 1 0 1 8 Santa Clara County Transit/Land U'ee and Related Policy (Referral to Planning Commission) 1 0 1 9 Energy Conservation Program for City of Palo Alto (Referral to Finance and Public Works Committee) 1 0 1 9 Recoiw eudatiun of Policy and Procedures Committee re Squire House Approval 1 0 1 9 Appeal from Decision of Architectural Review Board set Stanford Shopping Center 1 0 5 0 1 1 May 3, 1976 Tha City Council of the City of Palo Alto net on this date at 7;40 p.m, in a regular Meting with Mayor Morton presiding. PRESENT: Bsahre, Berwald, Carey, Clay, Comstock, Fysrly, Norton, Sher (7:41 p.m.), Witherspoon ABSENT: None 22 1976 LION; Councilwoman Witherspoon moved, seconded by Norton, that the minutes of the meeting of March 22, 1976 be approved as submitted. The :notion was approved on unanimous vote. MOTION: M yor Norton moved, seconded by Be ahrs, that the minutes of the meeting of April 5, 1976 be approved as submitted. The motion was approved on unanimous vote. OtAL I. : IONS l,. Crystal Gage, 1568 Charming Avenue, was present, representing Do ntewn Palo Alto, Inc. On behalf of the Board of Directors and, particularly, tL1 merchants, Downtown Palo Alto, Inc, publicly wanted to tank those members - of City staff who want out of their way to make downtown look so nice during the parade on Nay I. She cited Mickey Haug sad Rick Uoffaaan of Paha & L creation Department and the careful planting of red, white, end blue petunias, timed to burst into full bloom the day before the parade. Fred Loopez end .lack Taylor and the crews from Light & Power were very helpful in putting up the flags on Vivaria', Bryant, end Ramona Streets, It was hoped the flag would stay in place until after the 4th of July. She spoke of the helpfulness of the Police Department and Sgt. Taiaja in notifying merchants of streets being blockaded because of the parade so thet merchants and customers alike would have advance notice. List but not least, the Finn Department pitched in end helped Omen aft the wisdom trots and hosed down the sidewalks, after ell resid nts had had opportunity to view the paintings by Palo Alto school children. 1 0 1 6 5/3/76 Among those helping were Battallion Chief Ted Pearson Engine Crew 101, with Bob Makjavich, Dennis Wright, tend Mike Calhoun, Capt. Dick Granucci was there with Jack Goode, Gene Castillo and Patty Zimmerman. Downtown Merchants, Inc. are very appreciative and wanted the Council to know how efficiently staff performed for the City in connection with this festive occasion. Mayor Norton concurred with Mrs. Gamage's remarks, to the extent he was familiar with, but wes not aware of the fact that staff had individually dose as many things Hrs. Gamage had enumerated hers. He expressed the City's and all Councilmembers' thanks to staff, the Jayccese to the city, for supporting and turning out for the parade. He thought it a very successful large parade and that consideration should be given to making this an annual affair. Certainly, it was a good parade which Mayor Norton enjoyed as a spectator and participant. Agr;in, he thanked ell of those involved in helping put this eveatt together, recognizing the tremendous effort involved. CON S E! T CALENDAR ON IT PTIOi OF PARIS LtiPROVEMENT ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS FOR THE 1HROVEMENT OF LANDS OCCUPIED AND OPERATED BY HE PALO ALTO YACHT CLUB (first reading) Councilman Berwald called public attention to City Attorney's report of April 23, 1976, which answers a nueaber of questions asked regarding City's authority with respect to the lease between the City and the County and between the County and the Yacht Club. In Substance, these answers resolve the issue in terms of saying that whale the City has no direct control over the lease the County might maks with the Yacht Club, in view of City's approval powers of any development, it is likely substantial influence can be exerted. Councilman Sher stated he did not wish to remove this item and tbou ht, under the Consent Calendar, that Councilmssbsrs should refrain from making remarks. However, on the same point discussed by Councilman Berwald, Councilmen Sher reads in the City Attorney's letter the suggestion that there are certain matters, in connection with the Deese by County to the Yacht Club, that rid to be dealt with. Than, under Now Swaney, tonight, Councilman Sher would be saving that this memorandum and the gueetione that were raised, be referred to the Policy and Procedures Committee for consideration and comes nieatio i with the City. 1 0 t 7 5/3/76 PARK IKPROVEMNT ORDINANCE ' • ,eim seteeela-0.1_ e4e4 1 11 4 ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS FOR THE IKPROVEMIDIT OF CERTAIN LANDS IN TIMOTHY HOPKINS CREEKS/DE PAR (first reading) Councilwoman Witherspoon asked that the record shoe her vote as being "no" on this natter. Staff recommends that Council 1) support the immediate rerouting of existing route 50 from Lincoln Avenue to University Avenue, except during weekday periods when service is coaled to St. Albert theGreat School, and 2) refer the "Proposed Expanded Palo Alto Bus Routes under the 516 Bus System" to the Planning Counissian for discussion and recommendations. Because the Ttan eporiatiion Agency stiff is anxious to receive Palo Alto's recommendations to coordinate its route planning with other cities, and because the Planning Commission will be concentrating (and holding hearings) on the Comprehensive Plan in June, it world be appropriate for the Council to request the Planning Commission to cousiider this matter in May and report back to the Council et a June meting. COST SHARING AGREEMENT WITH =,,I, ' E►.s:iisl4 ii44.' say/ 0hY«e:l.l',k is* Staff reds that Council Authorise the Mayor to execute the attached agreement with the City of Menlo Park, This specific action by Council'is not considered a "project" for purposes of Tittle 11, and, therefore, no environmental sssssemsnt is needed at this teas. RESOLUTION. REGARDING ENFORCEMENT RESOLUTION MO. 5210 entitled "RESOLUTION. OF THE COUNCIL OF TO CITY OF PALO ALTO ASSUMING R PONS B LITY FOR IRE INFORMS= OF THE 160BILZECOSS PARXS ACT AND RELATED REGULATION OF THE CAL:IIOUTA ADMINISTIIATWE CODE AND DESIGNATING TEE INFORCEMENT AG CT" Staff recommends that Council authorise the Mayor to execute r contract with Silva Peace Company to the amount of $7,021 for the installation et fencing in Foothills Park. 1016 5/3/F6 MOTION: Councilman Beahrs moved, seconded by Carey, that Council approve the Consent Calendar recommendations, end adopt the ordinances (for first reading) and the resolution. The motion was approved on unanimous vote, with the exception noted above (Councilwoman Witherspoon voting "no" on the item re Timothy Hopkins Creekaide Park) . CONSENT CALENDAR - REAL ITS SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSIT LAND USE Staff recommends that Council approve that since both subjects should be reviewed in conjunction with present and proposed land use and zoning policies in Palo Alto, this matter be referred to the Planning Commission for review and reaponse to the Council. ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CITY :245:6) Staff recommends that Council refer this report to the Flrance and Public Works Committee for review. POTION: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Carey, that the Staff recommen iaeion be approved, The motion was approved on unanimous vote. ST TO MOVE ITEM MOTION; Mayor Norton moved, seconded by Comstock, that Item 9 be coved forward on the *sonde for consideration at this time, The motion was approved an unanimous vote. Vice Mayor Clay, Chairman of the Policy and Procedures Committee, stated that the smatter of the grant dead with the reservation of a facade easement on Squire House was taken up by the Committee at its last secreting. 'T'he Committee had for review e copy of the proposed facade easement, and tba action of the Committee was, primarily, to make deletions or insertions on the document. The Committee felt it was their charge solely to look at the facade easement and not to address themeelvss to the matter of ssaNrle of wire House, since it was felt that Council bad already taken action on that matter. 1 0;1 9 5/3/76 MOTION: Vice Mayor Clay, Chairman, moved on behalf of the Policy and Procedures Committee, their recommendation that Council approve the facade easement to Squire Rouse with the following amendment: a) deletions in Section I, subsection (4), Insurance: 1) reference to earthquake insurance in :he first paragraph; 2) the third paragraph, in its entirety, on fire insurance on the trees; 3) the fourth paragraph, in its entirety, on liability insurance; b) deletion in Section I, following subsection (5) (d), of the provision, in its entirety, requiring the grantee to pay the City 15X of ,any money collected because of damage or destruction; c) deletion, in its entirety, of subsection (7), Opening to Public; d) deletion in subsection (8) of the last seven vorde "without the prior approval of the City."; e) deletion of Section 1Z, Right of First Refusal; f) insertion in Section I (11), Additional Structures, after the word "constructed," the words "or any planting which signifii- oant1y obstructs the view of the house from adjacent streets or sidewalks." Councilman Beahrs was not sure, on reading the Committee's minutes, of their intention with respect to insurance on the Squire house property. There was much argument to the effect that insurance would not be required, largely argued by Councilman Carey: He also noted, in that connection, that under 1 (5) -- Restoration - in the event of substantial damage, there is no obligation to restore this structure. If the insurance is still in force -- and he would certainly think the property should be insured --he believed the grant deed should require: restoration of the structure; otherwise, the City would be creating a ready-made, moral risk, in his view. A good case of arsou or gross negligence might be very useful to the buyer of the property, and the sooner, the better. He had considerable concern about this natter, asking what happens if the City sells the property, and in six weeks, very conveniently a fire in the ancient wiring takes hold, and the house is 30-40X damaged, despite the City's good Fire Department. Who, he asked, would take care of the damage. The house could be demolished, and the buyer could have quite a windfall in development of the pxopstty. There are four good lots that can be developed out of this property, and as the situation steads, there would be acbuilt-in, moral risk which he dial not lik.. Vices Mayor Clay said be could begin to respond to Councilman Realms' concern, following which Councilman Carey could defend his caws position. Other members of the Policy and Procedures Committee might., in addition, wish to speak to this scatter. Re continued, the thrust of the Committee s action, under I, subsections (4) Insurance and (5) Restoration, of the document, was 1) to maintain the architectural integrity of the exterior of the facility; 2) in doing son the Committee was concerned about the extent to which the valuate of the property sdght a+e depreciated by having undue restriction, Pert of the discussion, with respect to insurance, was that the owner would himself/herself have insurance; tie landing agent, if there were such, veld demand it. Also, if^he building were to by daewoliehsd, then the historical value of the house is lit forever; end to restore the structure is not to restore what wee originally the Squire House. IYas, es he recalled, wean Committee's thinking, Councilmen Seabee referred to the: fact that there ars many 1 020 5/3/76 so-called historical structures that have been partially destroyed, with perhaps only 25% all that has remained and which have been rebuilt by fire insurance. If the objective of the Council and the community is to preserve the structure, then the insurance proceed. should go to that purpose. He knew of leases of such character, where if the grantee or lessee do not restore the structure in accordance with the lease or deed, the grantor/lessor is even granted the proceeds under the fire insurance. This can be stipulated in the fire insurance policy. Councilman Beahre was not concerned that the structure would be totally destroyed. He repeated the City has s good Fire Department, but the house could be 50% destroyed. If there is adequate insurance, he saw no reason why people should get a compromise settlement on the structure and, in addition, have the right to a windfall on four lots on the property, which is certainly possible legally under this document, as it stands. Mayor Norton brought out another matter which logically precedes the matter mentioned by Councilman Beahrs, having to do with the position of the City as a lieu holder, and then the flow of insurance as to the City, as a lien holder. Without working this matter to death, he urged it be discussed. Councilman Carey, addressing Councilmen Beahrs' questions with respect to his comments at Policy and Procedures Committee meeting about omitting insurance requirements, referred to page 20 of the minutes of that meeting, on April 20, 1976, in which it will be found that Councilman Carey was persuaded by Council=woman Witherapoon that he was wrong. Therefore, he gave up his .'rgument, with respect to fire and other hazards insurance, but not with respect to liability. The problem, essentially, is that the more restrictions that are imposed upon a potential buyer of Squire House that would u,ot otherwise exist for the buyer of an ordinary house, the more effect those restrictions have on the purchase price. Thus, it is weighing the preservation of the facade easement and ueeceasary protections thereto against the fair market value of the house; and this is what he was after in Committees deliberations. With respect to the specific remarks, it seemed to his that under subsection (4) Insurance, there is an obligation by the purchaser/owner to insure the house for no less than its replacement or con- struction cotta, which would equal 1002 of replacement. Then, reading that provision in conjunction with (5) (c) Restoration# on page 3, it uses an obligation upon the grantee to use any money derived from insurance proceeds to restore the damaged or destroyed part of the property. Councilman Care;y concluded from the provision that if there is 100% coverage, then 100% of that money .dust be used 1:o restore. The only seemingly inconsistent provision is the one Councilman Beshrs pointed out, which etasentiaily says that if the house ids damaged or destroyed to the extent it is not inhabitable or usable, then with the prior written permission or approval of_the City, said structure may be rased. So the owner cannot unilaterally raze the property or refuse to replace or restore. He gust first obtain permission from the City. Again, that damage is limited to substantial -- not partial -- dsoage, but does not provide for uniletersi, actioan by the owner. Mayor Dorton remarked that he thought Council ought to ask these various questions, noting there were three sembere of the pubxie interested in speaking to this item. Hs did not 1021 5/3/76 know in which order their concerns would be expressed but would continue calling upon Councilmembers desiring to discuss the matter. Councilwoman Witherspoon was not surprised that Councilman Seahrs expressed confusion about the Policy and Procedures Committee's actions because of their order of appearance, somewhat fragmented. She believed his concerns were spoken to except for his point on Committee'. discussion .se.to whether or not they would retain the closing paragraph following subsection (5)(d) Restoration. The Committee discussed the matter, end, in the way this issue was left in Committee, that .pacific - provision came out, It had been her thought that perhaps the City would not ask 15% of any money collected twenty years from now, with inflated values, but at least 15% of the money at the selling price. She recalled her motion did not get a second. The Committee was vary much concerned about the sane problene expressed by Couucil.ian Beaahre. She concluded that as far as burnieg down the house to get four lots out of the property, that waet taken care of in section (7), which now reads "The property shall not be subdivided." Councilman Beahrs said these comments were coming closer to satisfying him. On the other hand, it appeared to him that there was a tremendous ;area open to negotiation and, inevitably, an impasse it the structure is substantially damaged. What is the definition of substantial damage; it is difficult, he pointed out, to define. There is nothing easily established. He appreciated the correctness of Councilman Carey's remark that the oore restrictions placed upon the use of the property, :ert,ltiy, the less money one can anticipate will be developed out of the property's sale. Councilman Beahrs, for example, would have little interest if, as a prospective buyer, he had same cf these restrictions imposed upon him. Before hearing other comments, he asked for a reply as to whether there is any substance on the offer from Wright & Co., realtors, on their proposal to rent the property for the City. He asked if that organization was just dreaming,, adding he could not ;see himself paying $1,000 a month for the property. Mt. Sipei said that the Wright & Co, proposal is not consistent with what the Council has already decided. There is as much substance to their offer as what is on that piece of paper. Staff has not taken the opportunity to discuss the natter with Wright 4 Co., because staff believed it was Council's desire to cell the property. If the City 5e eteable to sell the property, or if Council wishes to change its policy, staff would then talk to this particular company. Neyor Morton fluted there is not a decision before Council, as he understands the situation, to sell the property tonight. The proposal is to approve a facade easement, and if as yane wanted to explore this natter between now and time tissue it codas back to the Council, with a proposal to sell, that might be appropriate. The standing prat policy before the Coon it and the community is that the mass be sold. Councilmen Sher' was cwofused by >isyor Morton's last remark. He thought that tonight's action wee the last step in the prods, and that the Council bed already taken the position that the 1 0 2 2 5/3/76 Squire House should be sold and that the facade eaeement question was referred to Policy and Procedures Committee to deal with the niceties of that procedure; if Council adopts the facade easement recommendation tonight, staff would then be in a position to advertise the property for male. As far as the lease point goes, he observed that the fact should not be overlooked that before Squire House could be leased, substantial sums of money would have to be spent to put the house in habitable condition; so these are not simply two alternatives the Council could immediately take -- lease or sell -- there would be a substantial amount of money that would have to be invested before any leasing. La sum, his understanding was that approval of the facade easement was the last step and, if the easement is approved, staff will go forverd with advertising the property for sale. Mayer Norton stated that any sale, in turn, would come back to Council for a decision. That was all intended in his suggestion that if the thought of leasing was to be under serious consideration, the matter ought to be discussed tonight and be plugged into the ongoing process. Councilman Carey called attention to (10) Additional Structures and Planting, on page 3 of the document, and the last sentence reading "No planting which significantly obstructs the view of the Squire House (tots adjacent streets and sidewalks snail be planted without the prier written approval of City." This wording was discussed in Committee, and he pointed out, at that time, that a tree, or similar item, at the time of planting, may not obstruct but coui.d -- in five or ten years grow to an extent that will obstruct. So it is not planting that concerns him. AMENDMENT: Councilman Carey moved, eecoasted by Comstock, that the closing sentence in subsection (10) be changed to read "No planting shall significantly obstruct the view of the Squire House from adjacent streets and sidewalks." Mayor Norton said that Councilman Carey's motion would effectively say that planting which sight, at the outset, not significantly obstruct the view but later might grov to do so, still shall not be persitted. Councilman Eyerly questioned whether the vote on Councilman Corey's motion should precede hearing from hers of the public. Mayor Norton said he had intended the Council first hear from those in the audience who indicated desire to speak. Dr. Paul P. Xarr, 360 Forest Avenue, eoticsd a news account in the April 21, 1976 issue of the Palo Alto Tines which is caption "Palo Alto Council works out protection for the Squire House." Ths word "protection" is in quotes, and be wonders if those quotes sere not put in advisedly. It seemed to his that the point has been reached in discussion* on Squire House where it might be well to look back over some of the dollar fisurta/appropriations. An appropriation, he ontia d, of $116,000 was made for the major structural renovation of Squire House, and of that amount, according to best information, $Stmt, approximately, was expended, leaving about $35,000. Looking at this in another way, the people of Palo Alto, under the 1 1023 5/3/76 direction of two separate committees, raised $90,000, which was turned over to the City aid lay idle, apparently, for about two years. The interest on the $90,000 would add about another $15,000, and he wondered why, if times are hard and there is difficulty in making appropriations, it should not be possible to dig into the expenditures already on the books and do the necessary work to place the house in a habitable condition. Other sources have provided estimates, indicating the house could be put in habitable shape for the amount he mentioned. By that, he did not mean public use, which would cost considerably more, but certainly not $300,000 which has been estimated. A careful review of the figures, he continued, would reveal that the $300,000 was probably estimated without much consideration. He suggested the possibility of leasing the house for period of five years, fixing the hours up with funds which are essentially presently available --such as looking after furnace, plumbing, kitchen renovation, and installing a door at the rear of the house, where It was boarded up. all of which would make the Squire House habitable. Public use could come later, and he suggested the possibility of using the house as a public demonstra- tion facility. There are other possible uses which could be canvassed, such as flower shows, etc. Staff, he added, did a study ou uses and made fair progress. He called for the working out of .worthwhile objectives for the use of this facility, citing it as a highly desirable structure, nicely located of University Avenue, the main street of Palo Alto, which should at least be retained in the ownership of the City. The donors of the $90,000 did not donate the sum for a real estate deal, and that is just what the facade easement is, ft Dr. Kerr's view Gerry Wolff, 472 Selby Lone, Atherton, a member of the Palo Alto Historical Association, and a city and enviroulcuental planner, spoke of her long-time interest in preaarvation of historic landmarks and architecturally significant structure,. Ms. Wolff has reviewed all minutes of past meetings concerning Squire House and said she was most impressed with Council's efforts and enthusiasm in preservation of the house. She encouraged the continuance of that spirit. Hs. Wolff read lengthy statements she has made to Policy and Procedures Committee meting. of January 26 and April 20, 1976; and to Finance and Public Works Committee on March 16, 1976, and and an aatdditioaial statement concerning Squire House, set forth in her letter of May 3, 1976 to members of the Palo Alto City Council. She ,reiterated her concern that the cost estimate for faking, the house habitable was too high and recommended a new cost estimate be obtained. Joann Freeland, 532 Forest Avenue, had just observed the arrival of a spokeswoman for the point of view she represented, and ibe deferred to Pis Clare Davis' speaking to the matter in the group's behalf at the appropriate time. Mrs. Fern Hunt, 522 Campus Drive, Stanford, stated that Mae: Gail Woolley told the Policy end Procedures Committee at a recent meeting that the landmark does not read that the grounds of Squire House are included. Mrs. Bunt read a letter to bar four secretary from William *zrtsgh, Keeper of the Rational Register for the U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and dated March 20, 1972, in which the fact vas acknowledged that the how was entered on the Rational Register of Historic Plazas on March 7, 1972. Also referred to in the latter sea a phi conversation 'versation bets Mrs. Hunt and a seember 1024 5/3/76 of Mr. Murtegh's staff in which the staff member was impressed with her mention of future plans for uoing the house and grounds as a park for nearby senior citizens. Information was seat, with the letter, concerning matching grants-in-aid provided by the National Register, with directions to obtain further information from Mr. William Penn Mott, Jr., Director, Department of Parks and Recreation at the State Resources Agency in Sacramento. Mrs. Hunt reported that a gentleman from the department visited the Squire House, accompanied by a person from City Hall. Subsequently, the gentiemai observed there was tie apparent interest on the part of.citizens in the project, and no matching funds were granted. Mrs. Hart stated that neither site, nor anyone else she knew of, were contacted by City Hall to meet with this man to talk about the house. Initially, those who set about raising funds for Squire House did not do so inadvisedly. She received a letter from Scott Carey who was not then a member of the Palo Alto City Council but who wrote on behalf of the Board of Directors of Downtown Palo Alto, Inc. Mrs. Bunt read the letter to Ccuncilmembers. The campaign to raise funds was, she continued, successful, and her part of the campaign was highly successful. She expressed gratitude to all who have given so iu';h time and thought to Squire House and hoped this would be continued. She disliked very much to see the land and house go down when it is a beautiful structure. She mentioned Squire House's similarity to a plantation in North Carolina, as to exterior appearance, and the house there is a mecca for tours. Mrs. Hunt believed Squire House could be made such a place, and she asked that people be given the chance to make it so. Vice Mayor Clay asked Mrs. Hunt the basis of the matching funds concept mentioned in the letter she had read from Mr. Murtrtgh. Why would fends be made available. Mee. Hunt responded that at that time., there were matching funds, which poeaibly Mr. Sipel could tell Council about. Vice Mayor Clay thought that Mrs. Hunt's group had requested assistance through matching funds at the time. Mks. Punt replied that when the matter was turned over to the City, she was sorry to report that she was no longer in any driver's seat. Vice Mayor Clay brought up the 'outer of the use of the building, specifically, with regard to use for seniors. The letter from Mt. tiurtegh is eoctewhat confuaing, indicating a steer of his staff "was impressed with future plans for using the house and grounds as a park for nearby senior citizen." He asked if grounds would serve ,as a park to be used for senior citizens, or was it the groom' and the building. Mrs. Hunt said the thought was to include and use both grounds end building. Vice Mayor Clay commuted that when the suggsetion was made at, be believed, a Policy and Procedures Committee emoting, that Squire House be used as a senior center, at a time when the Old Police/Fire Station Building wee under discussion, the seniors' use of Squire House got very little visible support. 1025 3!3/75 He asked Mrs. Hunt if she could tell him why that might have been the case. Mrs. Hunt responded by reading a letter she wrote on March 10, 1972 to then Mayor Comstock and Councilmembers, referring to the Council's agreement, at their meeting of December 13, 1971, to accept Squire House as a gift to the City of Palo Alto, with clear title. Her letter, on behalf of The Committee To Save Squire House of the Palo Alto Historical Association, naked for time to continue their efforts to save the house, indicating they had not had time to conduct a large public campaign, concentrating instead on special gifts. At that point, $26,112 had been raised in cash and pledjgea, $20,000 of which was conditioned on assurance, by March 15, 1972, that the project could be carried out. That, she added, was from Walter Haas, The letter pointed to the success of their efforts in listing the Squire House on the National Register of Hiataric Places. The letter want on to say that notice of intent to apply for a grant of $170,000 had been filed with William Pena Mott, Jr., California officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, from federal appropriations of 1972-73. Senators Cranston and Tunney and Congressman Gubser had expressed approval of the project and were pledged to support appropriations, et the federal level, for the Historic Preservation Program. Mrs Hunt's letter urged, in view of that critical situation, that Council work with her organization ie buying the Squire House for the total price of $90,000, thereby securing current pledges. The letter indicated a turnout, on the part of members of the Palo Alto Historical Association, ar the City Council meeting of at the March 13, 1972 meeting to speak further of their efforts and to answer Councilrnembers' questions. Mire. Hunt served, at that time, as Vice President of the Palo Alto Historical Association, She is still a member but preferred not to talk about that fact, She said she has been asked to stay out of the house and has been treated like one who does not have good sense, Mayor Norton asked Vice Mayor Clay if Mrs. Hunt had answered his question. Vice Mayor Clay indicated that she had, but there web another question from staff on the basis or matching funds, which be was curious to pursiue; obviously, Mrs. Hunt did not have the answer on such basin, and what mould happen beyond that point. Mrs. Hunt stated that the City took this matter over and did not do anything on it. The Palo Alto Historical Association proceeded with raising funds, than the City was to take the matter over. She suggested Councilman Co stock could answer that specific question. 1 among Councilman beathrs asked if there was any written understanding the doors as to the purchase of the Squire House property, or was it surly a verbal understanding sarong rhos, who solicited the funds and the doors. Its. Hunt responded that the money was given specifically for thus Squire Mouse. 10x6 3/3/7* Councilman Beahrs asked Mrs. Hunt if there was any correspondence or discussion among the donors in this respect. Mrs. Hunt thought there could have been. She said that much of the money came from out of town for the Squire House. She cited gifts from the Hackards, Mrs. Louise Davies, Walter Haas, Dr. Russel B. Lee, who was instrumental in getting funds from Mae. Haas. There was an anonymous donor who contributed $15,000. Dr. Beaver, in tonight's audience, contributed $10,000; and the Squire family came through with about $25,000. Councilman L•eahrs asked if there were any conditions attached to any of these gifts. Mrs. Hunt said there were conditions morally. Councilman Beahrs said he was referring to legal conditions. Firs. Hunt explained that some of this was done by telephone, but the people were solicited for the purpose of giving funds for Squire House. The donors gave funds gladly and generously, she added. It was her feeling that if the City sells Squire House, the donors should have their money back. A debt is owed to the people who gave the sums. It was her recollection that Mrs. Packard's letter specifically apcke to the fact that her mother would so have enjoyed the Squire House. Councilman Beehrs thought it interesting to comment tonight chat one of the Councilmembers at a committee meeting recently made the a ggestion, which Councilman Beahrs thought to be a good one that if, by chance, the house were sold --- and it would be difficult to make full repayment in the absence of any explicit agreement, this money should be applied tc protection of another historic building in town. Mrs. Hunt disagreed strongly and said she would fight this to her dying day. That, she stated, was Hs. Wooliey's idea from the beginning. Mrs. Hunt claimed that Hs. Woolley told her that she fisted the Squire House but had other houses in mind that she liked. Councilman Beaht a *aid he was not referring to a house but to a rather historic structure in town which he could identify but did not know it to be appropriate to do so. Councilman Carey believed that at the time so y was being raised to presets the Squire House, the primary goal, with these who donated money, vas to preserve the exterior. This facade easement that rune to perpetuity will do just that; therefore, it seed to him that substantially all of the goals that were desired by the donors could be achieved through passing of the facade easement. Councilman Carey *leo know that there wail pone discussion about making the house available to the public, sad for public functions. As people went around raisins the money, he vented to knov where the emphasis was put. Obviously, people were told that the City was loiUS to try and preserve the facade of the exterior. Councilman Carey hoped to hear somebody comment on the extant to which people ware told this would remain a public fncilityj 1017 5/3%76 Ma. Wolff asked to respond to a question that was asked of Mrs. Hunt regarding there being anything in writing or any other form of agreement on where the funds were to go. M. Wolff referred to Resolution #4689, which was the giving of the gift by Dr. and Mrs. Harold Beaver of a piece of property that was estimated to be worth $15,000 before it was sold. She did not knew what the selling price was. She read from the third paragraph of the resolution: "Whereas, Dr. end its. Beaver request that the City of Palo Alto sell the property and use limy net proceeds from said sale for the preservation of Squire House..." Ms. Wolff said the minutes reflected a statement by the City Attorney indicating the donor may determine where the gift may be put, and in this case of restricting the funds to Squire House, it was all right to do so. Councilman Berwald wanted to ascertain the answer to Councilmen Carey's question as to presentations and proposals made to those people who were solicited for funds and whether, in effect, the solicitation for funds was made with the understanding that the money and proceeds would be used for the preservation of the house and property, rather than for a specific interior use. He hoped the next speakers would address the question, if they had knowledge of the matter. Hrs. Hunt stated that she had done the early raising of the funds, and every potential donor was told of how the Palo Alto Historical Association envisioned the house. Gail Woolley, 1683 Mariposa, is President of the Palo Alto Historical Association but was speaking tonight as an individual. The Association hes no official policy on this issue. In anever to Councilman Ser.ald' a question, when money was being solicited, people usually did ask about what use was hoped for with respect to Squire House, The Association's usual answer was that they hoped it would be made into some kind of public facility, with rental space on the first floor and meeting rooms on the second floor, but that the City had given the Association a very hard time about committing itself as to a use and thus there was no promise that the house would be used for public facility, In the contract between the Sietorical Aaseciation and the City of Palo Alto et the time the money vas turned over, there is a great absence of any stat ent that the house would be used for any specific purpose. The contract simply says that the City will endeavor to preserve the Squire House. Commenting on the facade easement, which she thought to be a very good preservation tool, Ns. Woolley felt the easement eight be a bit stronger and easier to enforce if it did not include the provision about the trees. The house is the landmark, not the trims. On the bronze plaequa in front, information is provided about the house. Moreover, looki.s at pictures of the house over the years, it is evident that the tree* do chancre. Some of the seedlings around the muse years ago are now of gigantic proportion. Thus, tiffs idea of preserving something that is alms- end growing was, in her view, • rather difficult concept; it is impossible to preserve something that is changing and growing. Further, Ifs. 'Tolley took the titre to go over to thc site today ens mass a cwt e- there are tv ty-fiva, and not twenty-three trees as indicated in the facade immanent. She also found three, eatber than two large redwood trees, so there its soma confusion. There is also a Lovely oak tree, which she thought just as important to the landscape as the 1 02$ 3/3/76 redwoods, if the matter of mentioning trees is gone into in detail. Mre. Hunt asked to read from a letter she wrote to Scott Catlett, staff coordinator, Department of Community Services. On December 11, 1973, she wrote of her committee's wishes as to possible uses for Squire House, including a us* similar to Menlo Park's Little House for senior citizen., to provide a meeting place in a garden setting for the recreation, inspiration, and comfort for those very often lonesome people. She also made mention of a letter from Dr, Russel Les,- speaking of the number of many lonesome people from that neighborhood who visited his offices. She apoke of Squire House as being a place where area owners of email homes and these renting pint-sized apartments can come together. The extensive grounds were mentioned as being attractive to neighbors and those using University Avenue, as well, and the house was cited as being especially convenient and within easy walking distance of the new retirement hoe, then under construction, on the Lytton School's former site where, she understood, quarters would not consist of large rooms. She spoke of her conversation with Mr. Murtagh in Interior Secretary Morton's office regarding Squire House's being placed on the National Register. She felt Hr. Murtagh was pleeaed with her ideas on possible uses for the house. The house was placed on the rational Re inter, making it eligible for designation as a landmark and also for etching funds. She asked, in her letter to Mr. Catlett, that the generous donors be informed of a suitable use for the worthy landmark. She spoke of many culls which had come to her regarding uses of the house, including for weddings, meetings, and a Christmas Deeovators' Show. She hoped, at that time, that the City would shortly eke as public report that her organization's work and donations were not in vain. David Baum 909 Hamilton Avenue, is a neighbor of Squire House and is not a member of the Palo Alto Historical Association; but many in the neighborhood worked with the Association because they were terribly anxious to preserve the Squire House and the trees, as long as they would remain. The neighbors are in disagreement with ice. Woolley with respect to the trees, one of his major reasons for standing on this occasion. If there are twenty-six rather than twenty -fie trees, then the neighbors waxat the correct number of tress preserved. The neighbors are also very strongly opposed to subdivision of the land, and they commend the report to council that the facade easement end the house remain ae-is. Although the neighbors would have liked this to be a public facility, if it is impossible, they would prefer to support the facade easement. The neighbors have worked vainly to preserve the Squire Rouse; he thought that many people understand they house might become a senior citizens' center; but obviously, this was not a commitment and they all realized this fact at the time everyone was working for the house. The neighbors do want to preserve the outside of the house end property, including the trees. That is what the facade teeeeeent supports, and the neighbors would go along with that, - Clara Davis, 334 Byron Street, is a member of the Unity Service of Palo Alto, a small group, meeting now in an apartment on Forest Avenge. The Unity Service bas been hearing the discussion 1-©29 3/3/76 about Squire House. They think it is a beautiful house and are interested in buying a larger facility for their organization. If able to purchase Squire House, the Unity Service would be interested in having it kept the way it is, trees and all of the grounds. Any purchase would of course depend on the group's obtaining a use permit for that location. Councilman Beahrs stated he has listened attentively to ell of the discussions, particularly bare in Council, and he believed there to be a high degree of confusion on section (5)(d) of the restoration provisions. In his thinking, that section is, in many respects, in conflict with the preceding sections of that entire paragraph (5). He also believed that section (7) on subdivision is a rather weak section. AMENDMENT: Councilman Beehre roved that Section (5)(d) be deleted in its entirety, and that Section (7) be amended by additional language to read "The property shall not be subdivided without the express approval of the City, for a good and sufficient legal consideration, to be negotiated with and paid to the City." Mayor Horton told Councilman Beahrs that action on this notion would be deferred until Council has voted on the Carey amendment made earlier this evening, before public discussion, and that he would recognize Councilman Beahrs shortly. Going back to Councilman Carey's amendment, this was a change in subsection (10) relating to additional structures and planting which would, in effect, cover planting not only at the stage it wag in when planted, but also to keep the planting from growing up to the obstruction in question. Councilman lerwald saw conflict in this provision, as amended, with subsection (2) on page 2 concerning trees. In othervorda no major pruning would be allowed, but there would be the necessity of major pruning if a tree grew and was to be kept from obstructing the view. Mayor Norton said subsection (2) refers to palm trees and redwood trees in the pruning restriction, sad, he added, ones _cannot prune a palm tree — at least not the ones he had in mind. He did not think one would normally be wanting to prem. a redwood tree, but asked staff's opinion. Mr. Booth thought Mayor Norton's interpretation of the issue was correct and pointed out that in addition, subsection (2) allows such pruning to go on with the conse t of the City. The intent of Councilman Carry's motion is to prevent subsection (10) from being somewhat embige sue. As that provision presently reads in the draft before Council, it could be construed to allow pleating that does not obatzuet today, but which, through growth over the years, would .end to 4o so; Councilman Carey' e amendment would prevent that from occurring. Mayor Norton asked Mr. Booth if he saw any conflict with subsection (2). Mr. Booth responded negatively. Councilmen Ierwsld was in agreement but added he thought subsection (2) 1030 3/3/16 was too strict and might be amended. Councilman Sher commented that subsection (10) states no structures in addition to the existing ones shall be constructed. He would also anticipate Councilman Beahrs' point concerning sub- section (7) on subdivision, which says the property shall not be subdivided. The property, as he understood it, is the property as defined in the first paragraph of the agreement: 900 University Avenue, which is the whole of the property on which the iquira House is now located. NY. Booth confirmed Councilman Sher's understanding. Councilman Sher raised this matter at this point, commenting it was not directly related to the substance of Councilman Carey's amendment. In Committee, there was some discussion regarding real estate people talking of the possibility of the City's selling portions of the rear of the whole parcel for a separate building lot. Councilman Sher did not want to take a position on that possibility at the present time but thought it sc ething Clay Brown might want to speak to. if the Council adopts the facade easement relating to the property, which prohibits subdivision of the property end also prohibits additional structures on the property, the property being defined as this entire City block, or whatever constitutes it, then that other possibility is obviated and there would be no opportunity to address the matter. Thus, he raised this question before Council actually gets into the adoption of any amendments and the facade easement itself, since, once that happens, the possibility mentioned is foreclosed. Mayor Norton assumed that the property, as used in the facade agreement, will mean the property the City lets to bid and to which the easement is attached -- it may not be the entire property. Perhaps Mr. Brown would wish to clarify this understanding. Clayton Brown, Director, Budget and Staff Services, stated that with regard to the potential sale, staff would like the option of offering the property for sale with one lot separated from the other three, and that would be the rear lot. Staff will not know the feasibility of doing so until they get out into the market. Point (I) on subdivision, saying the property shall not be subdivided, could be amended, if, in fact, a lot was split off, prior to closing the sale. Mayor Morton called for Councilaabere to vote on the Carey *amendment, adding that he would like it understood that votes for avendments, oat way or the other, do not necessarily indicate how a Councilmembsr night vote on the find motion. The aunt was approved on unanimous vote. Councilman Beahrs pointed out that in subsection (4) on i.naurance, it is required that the greatest at all times uaintsi.n insurance on the property or the structuree to cover nothing leas than the replacement or reconstruction value. If the property le totally destroyed and is not rebuilt, obviously the greatest ie, a great wiener. As he stated *artier this aliening,- this is a good moral risk, in his view. He saw obvious coufusion it clause (5) oe r toratioa. 1031 5/3/76 AMENDMENT: Coe:u t1i an Beehrsenoyed,tsecondecl by Berwald, that subsection (5)(d) be deleted in its entirety. Councilman Beahrs did not want to restore the property but wanted the insurance proceeds to cover the costs, if it is necessary to undertake restoration. He did not think the City would want to spend $400,000 rebuilding that property because the City does not have that kind of money anymore. He saw the concluding statement, following (5)(d)* as the most confusing language in the whole section and did not think it contribute* anything. ayor Norton turced to Mr. Booth to ascertain his understanding of what Councilman Be& re described and to help Councilwembers in determing the effect or this. Mi. Booth wanted to clarify exactly how much Councilmen Beahra is proposing to rave. He explains. that (5) (d) consists of the one sentence "Grantee shall permit City al its sole option to perform any or all of said restoration at the expense of City." Then, there is a paragraph which follows, which is really not a part of (5)(d). Mr. Booth's understanding from Councilman Baehr& last remarks was that he vented to delete (5)(d) and the closing paragraph in subsection (5), as well. Councilman Beahrs said Mr. Booth read his intent correctly. Mr. Booth said that as far as the concluding paragraph under (5), council had the option of deleting that material., as desired. Councilman Beahrs reiterated his point that if there is the stated amount of incurance in force, and the structure is damaged in part or totally, the insurance proceeds should go to restoration of the Squire House. He thought this was most important; otherwise, the grantee makes a nice $400,000 -- in all probability the amount of insurance grantee will be required to carry. Councilman Beahrs felt the City has no obligation or desire to restore this poperty at its own expense. With. the City's already kicking around a huge deficit, he did not think the City could take on an obligation of this character by implication or otherwise. Mayor Norton commented that subsection (4) seems to require that grantee keep in force, in offset, a fire insurance policy with extended coverage that weu1d rep?ace the building, in the event of loss by fire. Mr. Booth replied Mayor Morton was correct in his reading of the subsection. Mayor Norton said that Council man Baehr* was taking about the next subsection on reatorcatioa, which would give the City, without regard to subsection (4), discretion and the authority to replace the property in the event the City vents to do so, but it doge not obligate the City to do this nor does it diainieh from the requirement of the i euratinca company to undertake the replacement. Mr. booth responded that was true and that it was not unusual these days for the cost of replacement for such structures 1033 5/3/76 to outstrip the actual coverage: in effect, In the event the building was toeaI1y destroyed, it might be necessary for the City to contribute a sum of money in order to get the structure rebuilt to its pre-existing state. Also, of course, under normal practice, a privately owned builder is not cbligated to permit the City or, indeed, anyone else to rebuild hie building; and if the building is damaged, he would have a right to tear the building down. In fact, in most cases, the builder would have the right to tear a building down, whether it is damaged or not This clause, therefore, is in the facade easement to prevent that fro;a occurring.' Aa far as the portion of (5) thxt follows subsection (d), this was an attempt, again, to prevent the owner from taking advantage of an unfortunate occurrence on the property and tearing it down merely by applying to the City for a demolition permit. That section would require the City to approve demolition, or at leant to find that the building is not habitable, before this action might occur. Councilman Carey, addressing Councilman Beahrs' concerns about a windfall, remarked one has to remember that the buyer has paid Money for the house, and if the house burns down, he is out what he has paid for the house, absent the land value. Therefore, the insurance proceeds are not entirely a windfall, although he could understand Councilman Beahrs' problem with (5) as it relates (4). He agreed it seemed somewhat inconsistent. However, Councilman Carey said that he has assumed throughout that in the event of damage or destruction, the property must be rebuilt, as nearly as possible, to its original architectural form and integrity --. and that is talking about putting up another three -storied house, essentially duplicating the Squire House. in that regard, Councilman Carey felt another look at the insurance language in (4) was in order. Where the requirement ie simply for Insurance for replacement or reconstruction costs, he wanted to make clear that reconstruction means to the original character of the house. If that is thecase, it seemed possible to him that as the years go h+3, 90-1002 destruction of the house and the requirement that it be rebuilt in identical form, may boost those insurance premiums up to a point where nobody could afford the insurance, a theoretical possibility being that the house cannot be duplicated. He did not know the answer but threw this out as a consideration. His feeling, at the time this wee head in Policy and Procedures Committee, was that if the house burned down entirely, the City has, essentially, lost the facade easement, because the eesthetic value of the house has been destroyed and i3 goes. That, then, was the purpose of the paragraph in question. Councilmen geshrs understood the statement but thought, on the other hand, that the average insurance company, taking on a monumental structure of this character, would not insure it unless it were insured to value. Added to that, in Cou=ncilman Beabrs' experience, many insurance policies, to protect the insurance company against the moral risk he hes underscored this evening, will stipulate in the insurance policy itself that the proceeds will be applied to restoration or reconstruction of the insured structure. Therefore, what Councilman Baehr. was doing was supporting the insurance company as well as eliminating a moral risk. If the City dud the grantee decide they do not want to restore the structure . -- if it has burned to the ground -- and there are proceeds available, that can be a subject of negotiation, if this Language is deleted, That was another 1033 5/3/76 reason he wanted to make the modiiicatione he proposed in section (7) on subdivision, because in his view, it makes the grant deed and/or sale more attractive to a buyer; he has an opportunity to negotiate for subdivision of the property, if the City and he agree between themselves and with the insurance company that the structure will,mot be rebuilt. As it stands now, the possibility of subdivision is eliminated, which makes the entire proposition most unattractive to a prospective buyer. Councilmen Carey said that problems had also been debated in Policy and Procedures Committee deliberrationg. With repect to comments au (5) (d), Councilman Carey said that: he is persuaded by Councilman Baehrs' arguments that thie provision ought to comae out. By the same token, he felt that provision (4) should be made more specific:, so that in talking about reconstruction, this would refer directly to reconstruction to the previous architectural integrity and character, if that be the intent. Councilman beahre was in agreement, adding the provision (4) could be tightened up by suggesting that customary language be employed to make insurance available in an amount necessary to replace or reconstruct at the tip of loss, and he pointed out the fact that there are insurance clauses that can be bought to that effect. Mayor Norton asked Councilman geahrs if tine motion i.e understood to include that recommendation. He gathered that if Councilman Beahrs was accepting Councilman Carey! a suggestion, items (5) (d) and (4) would be changed to require that the .insurance be carried in an amount sufficient to, from time to time, recover the replacement cost of the building at the time of loss, and that the insurance proceeds indeed be applied to that purpose, Councilman E ahra replied that was exactly what he had in mind, which would be the effect of eli.ainating (5)(d). Mayor Norton said this would also have the effect of not leaving the discretion, under (5) (d) with the then owner to raze the building. Councilman ire stated that by eliminating (3)(d), there' would be no option to the owner. He would have to negotiate the situation with. the City, which Councilman Byre thought to be eminently fair to both City and grantee. Mayor Morton asked Councilman Eerwald, who seconded Council Meahrs' motion prior to the changes, if such wording was acceptable to him. Councilman l erw eld remarked he had seconded the motion as a courtesy and thought the way things were moving now, (5)(d) and the pareersph immediately following do not really have anything to do with the other provisions. He felt the insurance provision weld be ebbed and that previsions (4) and (5) should specify thatrestoration mhould be to the original architecture' appearance, character, etc., as rested by Councilman Carley. MeyerMorton asked the City Attorney if there was en, problems in understemding what the motion is, at this point. Mx. Booth expressed the desire to have the motion reread, having lost track of some subsequent changes to the amendment since initially stated. Councilman Caney indicated his support of the motion, if it is as follows: the elimination of (5) (d) and the modification of paragraph (4) with respect to the last sentence, which would read "The Squire House shall be insured for no lose than its replacement or reconstruction cost at the time of lose, said replacement or reconstruction cost shall be deemed to mean replacement or reconstruction to the original character and architectural integrity of the dwelling." Councilman Beahrs was agreeable to this wording. Mayor Norton said (5) (d) would be eliminated in its entirety, sae well as the five lines following (d) in their entirety. BHT RESTATED: Councilman Beahrs moved, seconded by Berwald, that subsection (5) (d) and the paraagraph immediately following it on page 3, be deleted in their entirety; and that the last sentence in the first paragraph of subsection (4), on page 2, be extended to include, following the wt rd "cot," that "at the time of loss, said replacement or reconstruction cost shall be deemed to mean replacement or reconstruction to the original character and architectural integrity of the dwelling." v The amendment was approved on the following vote: AYES: Beahra, Berweld, Carey, Comstock, Eyerly, Norton, Sher, W'itherapool NOES: Clay Councilman Beahre said his next amendment would make the entire offer more attractive to a prospective buyer and anticipated the possibility, for one reason or anther, the grantee and the City night in the future negotiate in the event of a near total destruction of the property, the insurance company also being agreeable. AMENDMENT: Councilman Beaters sawed, seconded by Eyerly, that section (7) on subdivision be extended so that the section will read "The property shall not be subdivided withoutthe express approval of the City, for a good and sufficient legal consideration, to be negotiated with and paid to the City." Councilman Sher understood and was synthetic to what Councilman Baehr* was driving at, in his t; but he pointed out that, as the previous amendment provides, if there is near total destruction, it is suggested there could be renegotiation so that grantee is not obligated to restore. He suggested tore could be a renegotiation of this clause, as well. A it now reads and as be understands tha Committee's deliberation on this point, if this qualification of (7) is included, which now reads simply "Tbe property shall not be subdivided, even without a newer total destruction, the possibility is left open that perhaps the City will reconsider subdividing, and, in a eras, invite the grantee, at some point, to cone in and ask to subdivide. This would involve future City Councils 0 3 5 5/3/76 in endless discussions -- perhaps similar to those Council has experienced in recent months on the Squire House, What the Policy and Procedures Committee was trying to accomplish, in his view, ants to make it clear that the grounds should not be subdivided, once the facade easement is put into place. He hastened to qualify this, noting there is a possibility that the City may wish to subdivide the property before it is sold in the sense of selling off the rear lot, Leaving that aside, however, Council*n Sher felt that qualifying that flat statement, as it reads in the draft of the easement document, includes an invitation, or certainly a possibility, of the grantee caning it at some future date --- which he predicted would be not too far iu the future --- to ask the City for a subdivision to split off some of these lots. Mayor Norton agreed with Councilman Sher's concerns. Councilman Carey stated councilman Sher, or perhaps he should say Professor Sher, has addressed the matter. What was debated in Committee was the possibility that if the Council qualified the language, and the original language was qualified to the extent it said "without the prior written approval of the City," among other matters of concern was whether or not there would be a legal implication of a condition of reasonableness on the part of the City, with respect to granting the subdivision. If, he continued, there was such an implied condition to the agreement, then in effect the City would be saying it was all right to subdivide in the future, if to do so is reasonable, the test of reasonableness simply applying only to the preservation of the facade easement. Therefore, if subdivision is going to be considered; it should be considered now so that the City gets the maximum amount of dollars from the sale of the property. There is a possibility that the back lot could be subdivided without jeopardizing the facade easement. If the City is not going to subdivide tha property now, Councilman Carey's feeling vas that the provision should simply and flatly rule out subdivision. Councilman Eyerly asked Mr. Booth if the facade easement was passed with the statement intact that the property shall not be subdivided, and if the City bad an offer insisting upon subdivision as part of the purchase offer, could the Council amend the facade east at that time to accomplish the silo. Mt. Booth responded the facade easement could be amended at any time, before the sale and could be emended, with appropriate consideration, after the sale. Councilman Eyerly did not know whether Cou cilnemBaehr* was thinking, when he made the motion, that he was trying tp help the sale of Squire House. Councilmen hra re$spoadeed he was usually thinking all of the time. Councilmen Eyerly felt, in view of the debate surrounding the fact that such qualification might be an enticement to subdivide the property in the future, be would withdraw its second to the mkt. If the City does have a request for subdivision, as a condition of sale to a buyer, the lit can address the matter at that time with an saosedment to the facade easement. 1036 3/3/7D Vice Mayor Clay commented there were not two seconds required, anyway. Mayor Norton stated there was a motion before Council to change (7) regarding subdivision, proposed by Councilman Beahrs, seconded by Councilman Eyerly. Councilman Beahrs noted the lateness of the hour and said he would make it easier for his fellow Councilmaabers by withdrawing the motion. Mayor Horton determined that Councilman Eyerly was in accord with withdrawal of the motion. Councilman Berwald referred to the cover page, and the fourth "Whereas" which he believed not to be entirely correct and suggested its elimination or the substitution of a more positive statement. AMENDMENT: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Comstock, that the fourth "WHEREAS," on the cover page, be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following language: "WHEREAS, the past tendency to destroy the old graceful and traditional architecture and build, in its place, often graceless, even if contemporarily popular architecture, is being replaced in this community by an increaaiag appreciation of the value of retaining the richness of our heritage; and". Co*.mcilmsan Beahrs said he would vote for the amendment as a co rteay. Ceencilmen Berwald responded that any old vote is a vote:. Amendment was approved on the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Berwald, Carey, Clay Comstock, Eyerly, Norton, Sher ABSTAIN: Witherspoon Councilwoman Witherspoon referred to III - RaneQdiee, on page 4. Although she assumes there is insurance, If there is a total disaster that is insurable, if the City has to go in and fix the house up for run -of -the -sill neglect and bills the owner for costs, if the City is unable to collect from owner, she wondered about the possibility of City's attaching a lien on the property to recover costs. Councilwomen Witherspoon talked to the Assistant City Attorney on this natter, and she indicated that sight prejudice any lenders, if the City had the right of first lien, since costs of fining the brae would not ix known. However, Cues: cilwom es-Vitherapoon is also adv eed that perhaps the City could reserve the right to have a second lien. Mayor Norton said Councilwomen Witherspoon suggested that while any lien iwposad by the City for fiz- up costs, for failure of the then owners to maintain the property, sight present an obstacle to a leader on a first mortgage basis, a provision could be written, instead of that shorn under *.dies, where, in effect, the City would subordinate to a first mortgagee up 11037 5/3/76 to perhaps 70X of the market value and still have a second mortgage position for pursuing the lane, rather than the owner personally, for fix -up costs. Mr. Booth responded that legally, this can be done. However, of course, creation of this kind of a lien on foreclosure would force whoever has the subordinate interests, whether it is the City of the lender, to pay off the first before the title could be cleared. Mayor Norton commented that would be better than having nothing. Mr. Booth was not sure that in the long run, this would not create either more substantial, financial obligations or problems that could not be solved by the existing wording. Mayor Norton asked if the City could create both a personal obligation, as the preesnt draft seems to do, or, in the alternative, in the City's option, a second -position lien on the property. Mr. Booth responded that could be done. Councilwoman Witherspoon had a concern in this matter. She cited the house burning down as being one problem; but she felt there was a greater likelihood of the house's going downhill through the type of neglect she mentioned. AX'r.NDMENT : Councilwoman Witherspoon moved, seconded by Norton, that section III on remedies be amended to give the City the right, in addition to going after the owner personally for any default in the maintenance agreement, also to have a lies.: in second mortegage position on the land. Mayor Norton suggested the City Attorney would find some rather standard clauses that can be modified to accomplish this purpose, the whole point. being that the City did not want to put the first lender in the position behind the City's lien; but better the City has a lien oft this land in second position than none at all. Councilmen Carey indicated he would vote against the motion because section III gives the City sufficient remedies. Should the City get a money judgement, for example, the property is there end a lien could be obtained et that time. Conversely, it appeared to him that what vas beia proposed was a future lien by the City Of e ' unknown amount, which will be subordinate to a future lien by the owner to s ortgage lender of an uakno n anoUnt, .. at an unknown interest rate, for an urakeown period of time and an ueknoen percentage value. The City does not know the value, say, ten yeeare from nom. There art so mazy unknowns, be continued, that he had to believe that the City would be raising some legal questions About subordination to future liens that simply may not work. Furthermore, be weer not even sure he could even draft Bch a provision.. Twenty or thirty years from now, at the current rate of inflation, the house may be worth $1 million. So, would the City that say it would enbordinete to of the then value for purposes of a fleet mortgage, he queet Oned. mould set the value? It seemed to Councilmen Casey that the drafting sad the legal problem* Council old - be raising with the modification this motion addresses itself to are not worth the candle, and he 1038 5/3/76 was satisfied with the present language of section III. Amendment was approved on the following vote: AYES: Berwald, Clay, Eyerly, Norton, Witherspoon NOES: Beahrs, Carey, Comstock, Sher Councilman Beahrs commented he had withdrawn his motion on (7) pertaining to subdivision and has had eecond thoughts. He wondered if, in fifty, sixty, or seventy years hence, there is any proposal that this property be subdivided when it might be worth $1 million or more; in the absence of any comment concerning a consideration to the City, he doubted very much that the City could require a consideration for granting a subdivision.- It was a matter of concern to him. It was, originally, in his discussions. If Mr. Booth's answer was in the affirmative, Councilman Beahrs would move for reconsideration his amendment. Mr. Booth responded that no one knows today what the Subdivision tap Act of the future might require. As moat Counciliiembers knew, the map was completely re -done just two years ago, and amendments continue to cone in on a yearly basis. So it is difficult to predict, if it is a matter of concern, he thought Councilman Beaters ought to make his motion and have such a provision added, if there is Council majority support for such a clause. Councilman Beahrs requested reconsideration of the amendment he withdrew, regarding section (7) of the proposed grant deed. Mayor Norton said he would pewit the emotion to be made again. A2. Ni* : Councilman Beahrs moved, seconded by Berwiid, that section (7) on subdivision be extended so that the section will reed "The property shall not be subdivided without the express approval of the City, for a good and sufficient legal consideration, to be negotiated with and paid to the City." Councilman Beaters commented he would not be around fifty yeerc to worry about the utter, but someone would be paying a price. Maayor Norton stated the minutes would so reflect Councilman b ras' concern; Amendment failed on the following vote: AYES: Beaters, Berwi.d, Eyerly NHS: Carey, Clay, Comstock, Norton, Shpt, Witherspoon . Councilman Eyerly referred to (5) (c), page 3, lines three and four, indicating than wards "insofar qua poesibie" sesa ed ambiguous. AMENIIMENT s Councilman Eyerly moved, seconded by Norton, deletion of the words "insofar as possible" falling within the third and fourth lines of (5) (c) on page 3. 1039 5/3/76 Councilman Eerwald suggested Council might want to consider adding the same l,auguage in that provision which Councilman Carey added in the insurance provision with respect to restoring the house -- he thought the language ought to be consistent. Councilman Carey was not so concerned iu this instance, since the provision calls for restoration "to its pre-existing condition..." The other provision, to which he had addressed himself, had not said anything at all. He suggested, however, that perhaps this, should include the words "and architectural integrity" following the words "pre-existing condition." Those are words that are used in the body of the easement. Councilman bervald euggaatsd to Councilman Eyerly that he include this wording in his fit, if he was agreeable to this idea. Councilman Eyerly commented if his colleagues who were lawyers thought it was necessary to include Zhie wording, he was agreeable; to doing so, even though he did not see the need. Mayor Norton thought thie addition seemed harmless enough, and he would second the change. AMEN- ENT RESTATED: Councilman Eyerly moved, seconded by Norton, deletion of the words "insofar as possible" falling within the third and fourth lines of (5)(c) on page 3; and the addition of the words "acd architectural integrity," following the word ":condition" on line 4. Amendment was approved on the following vote: AYES: Eeehra+, Berweld, Carey, Clay, Eyerly, Norton, Sher, Witherspoon NOES: Comstock Mayor Norton stated that approval of the facade easement was before Council and asked if Council was prepared to vote. There being oo further comments, he said he would ,rota against the facade easement, because it vas his view that Council should not, at this time, sell the Squire House, not having adequately explored the opportunities that might exist for public ownership. He tit it premature to approve a facade easement that - coote pleta a sale end, for that reason, would vote against the motion. Vice Mayor , Clay reported that as this wetter was addressed in Policy end Procedures Com ettee, and ass he stated earlier, the subject vms the facede easement, purely and simply, and he was looking at Council's decision ms being jest that. He wee of the war that there are a number of things that must be considered before the sal, takes place and agreed with Mayor Morton that Council needed to exercise diligence in seeing that those natters are considered by Die.. But the facade easement stems to be fitting and proper if and when the opportunity for eels comes. He was looking at the facade easement in this Mayor. Mort teed *11 to understand ire he stands, where he bass stood, and where he ems going to stand. Councilmen Sher understood Mayor Norton's position sand beard 1 0 4 0 3/3/7' Vice Mayor Clay say "If and when." He asked when is "when," in view of the fact that he thought Council had already taken action on this matter. He asked Mr. Sipel if this matter was to be agendized for next week for the "when" of it. Mr. Sipel responded not if he could help it. Councilman Sher's understanding, in conversation with staff today, was that there would be some discussion tonight about the possibility of the rear lot being included in the solicitation for bids, either as part of the whole parcel or as a separate sale. Apparently, he assumed, there was no intention to get to that discussion tonight and maybe it was not a good idea to try to do so. However, Councilman Sher felt that staff has a direction; and if he were staff, he would understand after the facade easement is a4opted that the direction to staff is to go ahead and advertise the property for sale. He did not want that to happen until Council talked about the rear lot, which he thought was going to be taken up tonight. Although expressing confusion, in view of such understanding, he said he would vote for the facade easement. Councilman Carey agreed with Vice Mayor Clay. it seemed to him that there was previous Council action with respect to sale. The issue before Council is the facade easement, nothing more or nothing less; and he wan prepared to vote on the facade easement. Whether the question of sale has been previously addressed or not, the City Council minutes would tell the story. But the only issue at the moment is the facade easement. Council- man Carey said he would add that, if this motion passes, he would move to continue any question of sale or advertising for sale, until such time that Council can review the subdivision issue, an important issue, which he did not want to take up tonight. Finally, he asked a question tonight, to which he got only one answer, having to do with the understanding people had when they made their donations, and as to whether or not those donations would be to preserve the exterior, or, in addition to the preservation Of the exterior, that there was some condition as to the use of the residence itself. As of this moment, Councilmen Carey had heard nothing that would lean him to the conclusion that there was any representation made as to the use of the contribution. He noted that ha, along with many others, felt the Squire house would be a good place for senior citizens; and he, along with many others, spent a great deal of time fighting to get the Senior Coordinating Council to accept this as a location, and the ' C C would not do so. In his vier, that is ire Council is tonight. Councilman Eteah.rs' understanding was that Council was voting on the form of the facade easement, and certainly not on the eels. He would be interested in any offers that coma forward but expressed skepticism, Councilman Comstock expressed concern over comments that hove aurfeced within the lest couple of minutes. The Council, be pointed out, has spent the better part of au hour and s half chewing the Committee's recommendations to bits. He read from the minutes of tho Po1F y end Procedures Committee meeting of April 20, 1976 as f of loos : "Mr. Dougherty stated that the matter of the Squire douse care before the Council on November 25, 1976, 1041 5/3/76 when Council authorized the necessary work to be done on the Squire House to make it structurally sound to prevent further deterioration. This work was completed on October 21, 1975. At that time, the Council authorised the staff to proceed to sell the property when the facade easement was approved and also requested the facade easement be sent to the Policy and Procedures Committee for approval." That, Councilman Coestock continued, was done. The Policy sod Procedures Committee had its meeting and the results of that session are before Council this evening. At the tine Policy and Procedures Committee discussed this matter, members of the Committee made it quite clear to the people at that meetings many of whom are in the audience this sv ing, that that was indeed what had happened. New, Council has spent the better part of an hour and a half. discussing this facade easement; and suddenly comments ate being heard about people having a different feeling, wanting to change the Council's policy position 04 whether the property is for sale or not. Councilman Comstock told his colleagues that it was certainly Council's prerogative to change the policy position, but such a desire should have been brought Iv at the beginhing of this its: on the agenda. Council could just as well have continued the facade easement matter and spent this hour end a half at a later date, when the idea some Council - members have could be din:ceased about subdividing the property, and about whether further exploration of public use of the property should be considered or not. He could see that what ;could happen here is that Council would vote up or down on the facade easement and then put the matter right on table on whether or not the sale of the property is to be continued and discussed at another date; and if Council is lucky, that discussion will be kept to half an hour, or something else. Councilman Comstock felt Council has an obligation to the people in the audience who have come to one Committeemeeting; they have . cos to Council meting tonight and have sat through the matter for an hour and a half. Nov Council proposes that the matter come forward to another meeting vbsre there will be another lengthy amount of time spent. Council had an obligation, he pointed out, to coed to grips with such decisions, and he was personally disappointed that th .s Council has sat here, gene through ell of the materials before then on the facade easement, and now the whole biome of saute is, or appears to be, up for grabs. He hoped that if someone is hoping -to change the Council's policy on the sale of the Squire Mouse property, that be pit on the table immaedieteiy and be dealt with. Councilman held said ` he would vote for the facade easement. He understood that .sat Councilman Comstock has said is correct but thought theme wars a slumber of unammered questions. He would vote on tb* basis that Council would explore other alternatives and would get up-to-date figures that old air some of the qurestione of ors of the public who spoka tonight, particularly from those who participated in the contributions. hdsyor Norton stated the motion on the floor was to approve the form of the facade easement, ss amended, frost time to tine. 1 04 2 5/3/76 The motion, as amended, was approved on the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Berwald, Carey, Clay, Comstock, Eyerly, Sher, Witherspoon NOES: Norton MOTION: Councilmen Carey moved, seconded by Beahrs, thst staff be directed not to publish or notice eha sale of this property or notice bids until staff returns to Council with recommendation ss to the poesibie subdivision of the rear lot, prior to any sale, and whether or not such a subdivision would materially affect the facade easement. Councilman Carey wanted to make it clear this was all his motion intended to do, and anewering Councilman Comstock, that is why he suggested that the answer as to whether or not Council &gre*d to sell the Squire House lies in the minutes of previous City Council Meetings; because it does. He said it was not his intention to bring these people in the audience back time after time, while Council r'e»hashaa a the question. He would have been delighted to have seen this house used for a senior citizens center but could not sell it -= the seniors would not take it. Councilman Carey said he was now at the point where he would do what was necessary to preserve the facade for years to core, and that is all Council is left to do. Council has taken its action. Therefore, if the City Laa going to sell- the property and if there is an extra lot in the back which will not materially affect the facade easement, he wanted to know about it before the property is sold. Any contemplated subdivision ought to be done prior to any sale. As Councilman Beahrs pointed out, it will not do the City any good to subdivide after a sale, as it would simply be a windfall to the purchesars. This was the extent of his motion, he explained, and the motion does not mean, by implication or otherwise, that he wants to reehesh the issue of sale, Councilmen Comstock stated that if Councilman Carey's notion passes, staff would simply put on the back burner any efforts to sell the property. If this notion does not pass, staff would continue with staging Council direction, up to this point, to sell the property. He saw no other outcome on the action of the motion on the floor. Staff would, with passage of the motion, stop advertising the property and would not solicit inquiries for a couple of reasons: 1) Council would be toiling staff not to do so; and 2) Council would be saying that it is of a mind to itvsstigats the possibility of selling off sp portion of the lot. This, Councilman Comstock stated, is the firet time this subject has &risen. Lest October, there was no discussion about selling off the beck lot, nor wee their any direction to the staff nor istau tion given to staff to prepare a stele proposal with a portion of the lot removed. If this motion passes, Council l shculd understand that there vill be no sale activity until sone feature date when the staff reset comes back on the Cecil id*. Councilman Comstock cautioned Council -that if any of there thought, fora mat, that the poor tired people here taught would not return to a Council meeting end would not speak on the subject again end that Council old not seek on it, he •submitted his colleagues were berg natty* sod had betted be prepared for it. because mil 1 0 4 3 5/3/76 would be going through the whole procedure again. Addressing Councilman Carey, Councilman Comstock said he was not trying to put him on the spot but, rather, trying to have him be realistic about what would happen if the motion passes. He wanted to discuss the matter now, remarking he had been biting his tongue all evoning and had finally unleashed it. He thought it would be a alstake to consider subdividing the property and elaborate his reasons. At one time, he reminded Council, there was a proposal to subdivide the property into four lot.. The only way that was going to be accomplished was by tearing down the house, and the City got much closer to having the house rased than many Councilmembers may realise. That did not happen. People want out and raised money. The Council could probably argue from now until daybreak tomorrow on what people were told when they donated money to this project, and probably every idea that would come up would be right. Many people were raising money in many directions. They had 011A interest: that was to preserve the house and the property. Nobody from this Council ever; did say, when the property was accepted by the City, that the City was accepting anything less than what it had. Councilman Comstock thought if the Council wants to start that entire discussion again with neighbors and people who raised the money and really get them interested, concerned, and curious about what the Council is doing here, it will be necessary to let it ship that the City is going back and take a look at one of those four lots and decide possibly the idea of selling them off is being considered. The only logical one to sell, or to consider selling, is shove on the nap provided by the City Attorney, and it is one that lies between the house and the neighbors. He reminded Council it was the neighbors, in particular, who got quite concerned about what was going to happen, not only to this property, but the property across the street and who worked very hard to help preserve the property. Couacii.asn Coaetock concluded hie statement by warning his colleagues that if they granted to pees the motion, they should really understand that council is not th oueh with this natter by it lone shot. There will be anther staff report at come future agenda, a greet deal of public comment, and a lot of Council discussion. He did sot think Counci.lmembaere should deceive themeelvese that this will not happen, because it will, Maybe this is what Council wants to de and maybe it is right. He personally was opposed to dividing the property and is prepared to stet the faced* easement ZoUncil has palmed and to proceed with the sale of the property. He further stated he was prepared to discuss that with cabers of the audience and the Council either now or at a future date. Councilmen Eysrly felt it was time to make a decision and their Council had leen kicking the matter around for considerable time. Council has tried to find tees for the Squire House n* had the Policy dad Procedures Committee a working with the Senior Coordinating Council to ' sod if the seniors could use then house, but the SCC dial not comes up with a use for it, Councilmen Eyerly could not see delaying the policy which has already been set by the Council for the sale of the property. lowever, he felt the City has a morel commitment an money given for the preservation of Squire Souse and said he would axle 1044 5/3/76 a substitute motion addressing that subject which he thought might clear up the problem tonight, if the motion got support. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilman Eyerly moved, seconded by Berwald, that if sale is comsumated, money will be held without prior claim until attempt is made to cozatact the donors to ask their willingness to leave their donation for purpose of preserving historical City buildings. Mayor Norton did not regard this as a substitute motion. Councilman Carey raised a point of order saying he did not regard Councilmen Eyerly's} motion as a substitute notion and that his motion was still on the floor. Mayor Norton agreed with Councilman Carey. Councilman Carey had no objection to Councilman Eyerly's motion but felt that procedurally, it was not yet in order. Mayor Norton said he would accept from Councilman Eyerly a motion in that vein in due course, but in his opinion, it was not a substitute motion. Councilman Eyerly said he would make his motion, if Councilman C rey's motion fails. Mayor Norton asked if any Councilmember wanted to address Council- man Carey's motion. Councilmen Sher wanted to address the motion because Councilman Comstock had said this is the first time the question of subdivision was ever raised. Councilman Sher said that is not accurate. Ming from the Policy and Procedures Committee minutes, Mr. Dougherty dick talk about this in connection with the subdivision paragraph be pointed out the facade easement document now says the property shall not be subdivided without prior written approval of the City", and then rcaporting irhat he had learned from real estate brokers, he said "it is felt by brokers that possibly a buyer sight not want the lot in the rear. which could be sold separately. Consideration is n ested as to whether the City wenta to sell tbs property as one unit; or the brokers feel the property would return more reoaey if the separate lot were sold separately by the City." So the question vas rased in the Committee; Mr. Dougherty said it "abould be considered Earlier this wellfng. in discussions about statures not blocking the facadei Councilmen Sher raieerd the point try and said it mass a natter he knew to be under cens idisratioa and that he understood stuff was available end ready to report on the matter tonight. Be said be psreonaf.ly had not made up his mind but knew such consideration hes been given by staff and that Council ought at least to have the opportunity to hear staff's vim on the rsattsr. Councilmen Sher recognised the fact that there was another important matter on the, aged tonight; yet, be also preferred disposing of the Squire House natter tonight, because he did not think Council wanted to sputa a session similar to tonight's, reviewing the whole subject again. Councilman .Camay has said his motion is limited to review of thpa oeer point. Councilmen Sher would be even happier with the mots if Councilman Carey asked for the staff report 1043 5/3/76 1 for the next agenda, because staff is ready to go with it and has it already. He referred to the map which was circulated, preparatory to a discussion by A%. Biovn on this very point, and Councilman Sher did not want to hold up the prior determination of Council that the sale of Squire House should go forward. Councilman Comstock stated his point vas that Council did not raise this issue last October; Mr. Dougherty raised it at the Policy and Procedures Committees meeting, and the Committee's recommendation wee test the property shall not be subdivided. Councilman Sher's feeling was that the point was raised in Committee. The Committee discussed a number of matters regarding tbe facade easement and simply chose not to pick up on Mr. Dougherty's suggestion. Councilman Sher was interested in hearing staff's report on the matter. Re preferred hearing staff's report tonight, but knew there vts other important business on the agenda, thus be would support Councilean Carey's motion but suggested the motion include that this be taken on next week's agenda, Councilman Carey said he would include this in his motion if it was all right with his second. Ccuncilmen Beaters said he would accept the modification as a courtesy. He observed that if Council kept this matter going much longer, it would be a good issue in the next City Council campaign. !Mayor Norton concurred, expressing some exasperation, because it was 10:00 a'c1o;k and this was the first item on the agenda on which Council has had discuse¢ on and Council had a "biggie" coming up, as far as he was conversed. He indicated that the next order of business, in any event, would be a recess. MOTION RESTATED; Councilman Carey doused, seconded by Bsashrs, that stef f be directed not to publish or notice the safe of this property or notice bids until staff returns to Council with recoweeendation as to the possible subdivision of the rear lot, prior to any male, and whetter or not such a subdivision would materially affect the facade easement, this information to be aveilabis and ageendissd -for the City Council meeting of May 10, 1976. The motion vas approved on the following vote: ATBS: Beahrs, Berwald, Carey, Clay, Eyerly, Norton, Sher, Witherspoon NOES: Comstock Councilman Eyerly remarked that in view of this matter's coming back to Council nest week. Council could forest +drat he toms proving • Mayor Morton suggested, Councilmen Eyerly old mike s motion stow. Mayor Norton felt the motion was gem to the subject setter and that it night be appropriate to get it on the floor. Councilman Eyerly said be would request reinstatement of biz motion as previously vet forth= (peite 1045) 1046 5/3/76 Mayor Norton said that the effect of Councilman Eyerly's motion, as he recalled it, would be to hold up the disposal or use of any money that might represent the proceeds from the sale of the property until persons who had made contributions have been contacted to determine whether or not they wanted their money bank. Councilman Eyerly said that was the intent of hie motion. Councilman Mehra asked if this amount was net of the investment the City has made in refurbisahing and preserving the structure. Councilman Eyerly replied that this amount represented actual contributions evade. Mrs. Hunt stated, from her seat in the audience, that her organization did not raise money for other historical buildings and would fight this possible use. AMENDMENT: Mayor Norton moved for the exclusion of those instances of donors, where the donors have made it clear to staff that they would not be interested in a refud, Councilman Eyerly thought that staff could write a letter explaining the situation, so that people would have opportunity to take their money back if they wanted to do so; if they wanted the money retained for preservation of other historical stricture they likewise would have opportunity to express that wish. Councilman Eyerly did not feel the City should "take the money and run." It was his view the an explanation, in the staff letter, would probably preserve most of the contributions. Mayor Norton noted the absence of a eecond of his amendment. Councilman Beehre asked %4r. Sipel what City's investment in this property totals, and haw much does City's inves'teut exceed the amount contributed by the donarq,, His point was that the City has committed over $100,0UU r'ar the preservation of this property out of its own General i;,snde, in addition to the acquisition coats advanced by City and which wee repaid to the City. In othervorde, there is a net loss to the City on this entire deal, as proposed by Mr. Eyerly. Mr. Brown responded that: the initial investment was $90,000 that was repaid. The costs-to_the City es of March 30, ware $111,187.17 of an appropriationof $118,000. The City currently has au appreilor looking at the property, so that vill be an additional cost. Those are out-of-pocket construction costs and do not include substantial amounts of staff time. Councilman Sege again asked what is the net loss to the City in this :mole debacle. Mr. Brown stated the net loss was at +scat $21,000. Councilmen beams said that was hie points ire is the money coring from to repay the donore7 The City taxpayer is out of lutkby$21,000. Vice Mayor Clay believed Councilmen Eyeerly's notion addresses 1 O4 7 5/3/76 a very vital question. He had some concern as to the extent of City's contractual or moral obligation to those donors. The one possible reservation he had about the motion on the floor is that this question ought to be answered before the sale. The answer would determihe the net effect of the sale - on the City. He supported the notion and thought it important it be put before the fact. Mayor Norton indicated that as hs underetands the motion, it would not necessarily require this be dome before sale but it would be required before the assets or the proceeds of the sale were disposed of. Councilman Eyerly thought to do so would simply delay the sale of the property, and he would like to see the City go ahead with the sale of the property., and plan on contacting the donore to see if they want their money back or whether the donors want to leave the money with the City. Trying to contact these people ahead of the sale would delay the sale, which he did not want to do. The process regarding the donors' wishes may go on forever, Councilwoman Witherspoon asked Councilman Eyerly if he meant historic buildings, historic City buildings, or historic buildings in the City, pointing out that there is a distinction here. Councilman Eyerly indicated he had said historical City buildings. Couaciiworean Witherspoon said this would infer that these buildings are municipally owned and wondered if Councilman Eyerly want to restrict thew in this way. Councilean Eyerly believed this depended on the way one interpreted it. He was not thinking of City -owned buildings. Mayor Norton suggested that possibly this clarification could be incorporated in the motion. Councilman Comstock understood Councilman Eysrly's personal concern, but he had to say, is all candor, that the motion was a mistake and he would explain why he thought this to be the case. To begin with, the City intervened and purchased the property in order to provide time fore fund-raising program to go forward. That fund-raising program", after one modest extensie e, was ultimately successful. The funds were given to the -City without condition, except for the condition that they were to be used to offset the City's investment in the purchase of the property. Rut there wore no conditions that the Squire Rouse property would be a senior center, etc., aed fends were raised simply to reimburse the City for the money expended .o acquire the property. Councilman Comstock did not thick these is a donor out there who cannot he made to understand, if the donor doss not already, that there was no commitment on the part of the City when the City accepted the property and accepted those monies, or that there would ever be a refued. It is prat in the contract. This is a legal or technical issue. Another isms* -- the moral, personal, or wh.itevser ones wiehes to call it, is where and has might the City somehow be breaking faith with the people who raised the mammy. Comcilme n Comstock submitted that if the ultimate outcome of this is that the facade is indeed preserved, the 1048 5/3/76 City has met any moral or personal commitment of faith he could possibly conceive of. The house atands. The house is preserved. The trees are preserved. It is as. people visualized it would be -- a lovely residential building, and it stands. That is what people did when they raised the money. Had they not raised the money, the Council was completely prepared to liquidate its investment in the house. But people struggled and they did raise the money. So the City's investment, at that point, was neutralized, as it were. S;.tbsequently, the City went on and invested a good deal more money to repair and upgrade certain portions of the structure; Clay Brown says that is $111,000, more or less, If the City sells the property tomorrow for $13.1,000, the City will have again liquidated its investment; it's net cash flaw will be zero, the house and trees will be there, and it will be preserved, unless some ghastly mistake has been made in constructing the facade easement, and everyone's objectives will have been met. That was the way in which Councilman Comstock thought the Council should proceed. What the Council would be doing, Councilman Comstock continued, if the motion on the floor passes, would be opening the door to essentially .impounding and scattering the money the City would get which otherwise would have cci e somewhere close to neutralizing the City's investment. The City might not get $111,000 but might get $95,000 or $100,000. The City, in essence, will be inviting people to retrieve that money, for all practical purpose€, or to designate it to soma other use. So instead of bringing the General Fused and the City's investment somewhere back to zero, there will be some people who will be claiming their money, and others who will say they do not want their money back but do want it restricted to historical preservation. There will be others who will be satisfied with the City's returning the money to the General Fund. But, he repeated, the money is going to be scattered all over the place. He thought the City's obligation is discharged if the process is ended with as little cash out of hand as possible and the building is standing, its facade preserved, the zoning preserved, eta. Councilman Comstock would argue that the motion is co ridable but not neceseery. The City has tat the objectives the people were committed to end the City should retain the financial flexibility so cherishes and tries to preserve. Councit n Cow took urged Councilman Hyeriy to either reconsider his motion or, perhaps, gratefully accept hie no vote on it. Vic* Mayor Clay contended there was reason to at least cos sideer that there is some moral obligation, because the letter from the Department of Interior, dated March 20, 1972. commended the House's submission to and subsequent entry on the National .*ester. The letter said the Department of Interior wee impressed with future plans for wing the house and grounds as a park for nearby senior citizens. Vice Mayor Clay inferred that funds were raised, and those people who were tacked to donate did so, with the thought that the Squire Rouse was going to be used for that purpose, otherwise the letter uou1d not have addressed that subject, as it did. For that reason, the donors ought to et least have the opportunity to determine vbet they would like to have dons with the funds. The motion was approved on the following vote: AYES: Serwsld, Clay, Eyerly, Norton, Witherspoon NOES: Beahre, Carey, Comstock, Sher The meeting recessed from 10:20 p.m. to 10:40 p.m. re: tan or. gamp . • kur i si" : , r :6) Napbtaali Knox, Director of Planning and Community Environment, said three separate questions are raised in the appeal that has been filed by Mr. Debs with regard to the Architectural Review Board's decision on the Stanford Shopping Center. The first question was whether sufficient time was allowed for the public to review the EIR. Staff's answer is yes and the City Attorney has provided a five -page report which documents that. The second question vas must the City Council refer the Stanford Shotaing Center plans to the Planning Commission under Section 19.04. The staff's answer is no. Agin, he referred to the City Attorney's report which covers this. He continued by Baying that Council could refer this matter to the Planning Commission if it wishes, outside of Section 19.04, and if Council does refer this matter to the Commission, staff hopes that Council will be specific about the purpose of the referral and the time allowed for a reply or the date upon which the Come .scion is to report back to Council. The third question raised was did the EIR adequately cover the issues and address the impact. Items such as air quality, traffic noise and energy have beau mentioned. Staff believes that the EIR did adequately cover the issues and did adequately address the impact. The impact may be mdverse and someone might not like those impact*, but that is net the issue. The issue is has the EIR addressed the impact and is it, therefore, a sufficient do umaent. If the Council finds the EIR to be sufficient, it must first take that actioa. Then the Council can go on to address the design and if it finds it desirable to do so, theCouncil ci.l can revise the design of the Shopping Center or require revielons that will mitigate specific impact. In the sequence of its action, the Council must first address the sufficiency of the EIR. Once Council has done that, there ere several alternatives open to time Council, 2fr. Knox said that concluded what be bad to say for the bent. Mayor Morton thanked Mt. Knox for his comments and said he would like to hear next from the appellant, Re said be would like the record of this meeting to reflect that the minutes of the Architectural Review Board meetings of April 1 and April 8, 1976, have been distributed to the Council. He asked Mr. Deb,, the appellant, if be would like to addressee the Council -at this time. Robert J. Debs, 3145 Flowers Lane, said he woad like to give Cecil bis reasons for appealing the ARE approval, of the expansion of the Stamford S ing Center and its finding of the Environmental Impact Report as adequate. Hs said be would like to start by providing the near *embers of the Council. witirsome background infatuation. This Information 1050 5/3176 would provide the basis upon which he based one of the appeals. Around September 27, 1960, a group of citizens, including himself, filed a petition of initiative which offered an ordinance. This ordinance mandated that, one, the City must have a long-range matter plan and that that plan must be prepared by the Planning Commission for approval by the City Council. When the plan was found adequate by the City Council, the Council had to adopt it according to certain rules set by the State law for General Law cities. These rules included public hearings and so forth. Another point of the petition was that the Planning Commissiou was charged with preparing and updating this master plan. He said there was one very important point in the petition, and this is where he and the City Attorney disagree, that "all matters affecting the physical developmeht of the City shall be referred to the Planate& Ct aiesion for comparison to the master plan for a report to the City Council." That leaves the decision up to the Council, as it properly should be. Mr. Debs said that at the time the petition was filed, October 4, 1960, the City Attorney's office advised the then City Council to ignore it, that the petition itself was illegal in forty-eight ways, as he recalled. He said this violated both the State Constitution and the City Charter. After twenty-two months of court battle, during which the court threw out every one of those forty- eight points of objection by the City, the City was finally forced by Supreme Court refusal to hear the case to adopt this ordinance. A City Council facing an ordinance offered by a petition of initiative has two choices. It either has to put the matter on the ballot for all voters to decide what to do with it --yes or no ---or pass it intact, This ordinance, so adopted, cannot be modified nor negated except by another vote of the people. The City Council cannot do a thing with it. Mr. Debs said that concluded the background information. Mr. Debs said that he was appealing this ARB approval of the Shopping Center because the review and approval by the ARC violates this initiative -offered ordinance. It has by-pacsed the Planning Commission and by so doing, it has by-passed a comparison to the master plan. The full impact of the expansion needs a careful look by the one advisory body the Council has, which was created to do long-range punning, that being the Planning Commission. He said he also appealed for other reaeoas. The final LIR is inadequate. He said he could site two examples --air pollution and the impact on neighboring cities' central business districts. Another paint is that insufficient time was allowed for the public to respond. The California Bnvironrettal Quality Act guidelines say that there should be a minimum of 30 days from the issuance of the draft BIB to a maxim of -90 days and this period is for responding to the draft gl . Councilman Mehra said he had a fees questions of lfr. Debs. Hs said Mr. Debs has goose back to history beyond Councilman Be.abrs' active participation in politics in this town and asked if Mr. Debs was opposed to the project to the exclusion of all other consideratfoes or as he, at -this point, only concerned with proesdure. Mr. Deb, responded that the thing he objected to was, of course, the procedures —that is, the by --passing of the Planing Commission. He said he Is concereed about the project's growth --inducing potential. He is also soncerwned about the treff ie inducsment, which be thought vas about 22.5 percent. This would put a 22.3 percent increase of traffic on El Camino; Willow load will increase 10 percent. There is going to be au 800 -unit complex tars Vi11CV Road -Oak Creak Apartments 1051 5/3/76 Two --between Willow Road and the Creek. There is going to be an expansion of Stanford Hospital. He said he worries about the traffic problems created by all this growth. 1 Corrected See Page 1203 Corresc t ed See Page 1203 Councilman Beahra said he has lived for thirty years within two blocks of Embarcadero and he has seer it grow from nothing to what it is today. In the last four or five years the traffic level has become somewhat more constant because people have had it and they aren't going to get on Paabarcadero if they can avoid it. He said that although he is more upset than most people by traffic, he has accepted the fact that once a road, particularly at commute hours, reaches its saturation point, people will find another route. Councilman Beaters said he understands the history of Nr. Debs' ordinance and he felt it had many points to record it. He noted that it is an ordinance mud not an amendment to the Charter. If the situation is carried to the ultimate in logic, it seemed to him that they have a situation where appointed officers, who are beyond the reach of the electorate, can e:eaberrass the City and make all kinds of problems, the Council becoming secondary to the Planning Commission. He said he has always been upset at this possibility and now they have an additional complicating factor in having instituted the Azchiteeturel Review Board. He said the Board members are appointed on the basis of their aesthetic and professional attributes and experience. He said, with no offense to the Planning Commission, that that group, as a professional group, is probably in a better position to make good judgments than the Planning Commission. He said the City Attorney has presented some arguments which are difficult to avoid and he also understands Mr. Debs' interest in going back to his ordinance. He said, however, the zoning matter has been decided and therefore he is concerned about the current situation because he feels that the City Attorney has the correct perspective on the whole general problem in the light of the new and additional ordinance creating the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Debs said the concern about the Planning Commission becoming as powerful, or more powerful, as the Council was an objection brought up in 1960 and the Appellate Court threw out that argument. There was no intent to advance the Planning Commission to anything more than an advisory body to the Council.. However, the Architectural Review Board is not the Planuing Cosrecission, Councilman Beahrs said there wee one final matter that he would like to make a point of end that is he thinks the taxpayers -should be very eeriouely concerned about the economic vitality of this community. Stanford Shopping Center, 25 years ago, was an outstanding new institution on the Peninsula. How it rates about fourth or fifth, whereas it was once number one. He said Palo Alto has derived tremendous tart benefits from the Center and profits on its utilities and Palo Alto needs thane money. He stated that Palo Alto has belie problems which have largely resulted fray psychologies introduced by environmentalists, not to mention rea.identiaalists. He said be cannot afford to pay twice as many taxes as be is paying now to bail out the philosophies of some people. He stated he ip eager to have the support of all the sconomic interests he can find. Mr. Dabs said he would not argue that point, but he old like to point out tiaat Palo Alto has probleew. If a network 1052 313/76 of roads had been established or rapid transit implemented, there might not be a problem today. There is a judgment between the way people live, the impact of growth on them and the need for economic return. Councilman Beahra stated he felt they were arguing about points which should have been settled years ago. Oregon Expressway has been a bone in the throat of a lot of people for years. If this tom had been enlightened, Palo Alto would have peripheral circulation of traffic. This has been denied to residents by the fact that people have refuted to face reality. Willow Road or Willow Expressway should have been instituted 35 years ago, then there wouldn't be the problems there are today. Unfortunately, the Council is now up against the problem of making the best compromise possible and hopefully to keep from doubling t laces . Councilwomen Witherspoon stated that the Debs ordinance, Number 2090, was passed September 24, 1962. Mr. Debs requested that the ordinance not be called the Debs Ordinance. Be aeked that it be called the Fletcher Ordinance in honor of Mr. Fletcher who died at the age of 92. Councilwoman Witherspoon continued that the Fletcher Ordinance mentions that on September 24, 1962, the Council adopted a statement of policy which defined the term "physical development," The Council confined it then to municipal improvements, which definition the Council agreed upon unanimously. She said she was confused as to how the Stanford Shopping Center would fit uader this interpretation of Ordinance 2090. W. Debs said he could explain the background. The ordinance offered by the petition stated clearly that there would be no new industrial or nanufacturine zoning or rezoning until there was a master plan. Mr. Debs said he thought the City Attorney at that time suggested something that he must have known was outrageous: he advised the Council to adopt an obsolete and inadequate plan, in order to satisfy the initiative ordinance. This came about chronologically as follows. The firs thing the Council did upon the Supreme. Court decision was to try to have a meting of the voting majority in secret. The five new Council ers, of which he was one, were .invited not to come, a to said that at the advice of his - attorney at the time, he went to the meeting and broke it up because they wouldn't meet with him there,. They were meeting illegally to decide what to do about a lawsuit they bad lost. He stated that as everyone is aware the Brown Act prohibits this sort of thing. The Council then wanted to adopt a seven- year old plan that had never been adopted. By that time Pala Alto was 22 square miles and the plan covered 11 square mile*, not including the Baylaande. At the same time the Council adopted paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, as he recalled, which had reference to the 1955 Gemmmi. Plan and they said that the phrase "physical development" shall maan and ieelude the municipal improvements on tables 19 through 22 of the interim plan of 1955. He said those tables included only the eeuicipsl end public improve nts . Councilwoman Witherspoon said ahe was confused because, according to the mireates vhiicb she cheeked that morning, Mk. Debe was present at that meeting and voted. Bha said that the question of the General Playa was, however, separated out. 1 0 5 3 .1/ 3/76 Mr. Debts responded that he could not remember everything that happened fourteen yearn ago. He agreed that the General Plan was separated out. He continued that two weeks later the League of Women Voters wrote a Lett indicating that they hadn't taken a stand on this becauae.they hadn't had time to study the plan. To adopt that plan, would have violeted the spirit of the entire petition of initiative procedure. The Council then turned around and on a 10 to 5 vote voted that hearing out, on adopting the old plan. They did not vote out the ao-called policy stat*ents which he recalls referred only to the interims General Plan of '55. He said he may have voted for it, but in those day there wars 15 people on the Council and someone cou14 zombie in his beard and no one could hear it. The minutes mare not as complete at that time as they are noir, and he said he frankly could not reseaber. He &aid he could not see the dichotomy. Councilman Be rwald said that when Ht. Deb. was talking about the Uplands he was reminded that he worked with him back in r:he sixties on the preservation of the 3aylands and later on the foothills'. He said he has read the appeal and he has read the status dated April 21, 1976, and he said he, too, has a question. He acknowledged that it has been fourtee►rs. pears- siuce Ordinance 2090 and the subsequent policy were passed.- Whan.he read the memorandum from the City Attorney'e.affice detsd April 27, he asked the Attorney's Office if the City could legally make a policy decision which interprets, and through such interpretation somewhat modifies, at ordinance adopted pursuant to an initiative process. He said he supposed the appropriate time to ask that question would have been in September, 1962. He said he could underetand why kr. Debe was making this appeal; however, during.thees fourteen years, even before the ARS was established; he supposed there were thousands of individual acts by the Planning Officer and later by the ARS which resulted tn. tee construction or improvements which could be transieted as affecting "physical development of the City." He asked :f, in Mr. Debs' opinion, the City strictly followed what he understands to bs Mr. Debe' policy, would the Council not be referring to the Planning Commission all of the applications for permits for an additional bed- room, change in a property lies, change in the frontage, etc. Wouldn't that be an slut impossible teak for both the Planning Commission and the Council? He asked for M4r. Dabs' reaction on that and wondered if he were just thinking about certain type* of development*. In this sus, they are talking About a development which is within the sons. Mr. Dabs said he would partially sidestep Councilman Bsrvald's question because be would like Dr. Schippsr to sake an interpretation. He did not belies in going to the extreme by slaying if someone vents to build an outside john, the natter has to go to the Planning Commission. He pointed out that meet of the things that haws happened in the last fourteen years have involved resorting —changiaj the use of the land. The Stanford Shopping Ouster ney be me of the first very large expansions which didn't involve s thaw of eons. As far as interpretation of wording, be said he would like to have Dr. $chipper apeak to that. Councilman an Serwe1d said, as he understood it, Kr. Dom' appeal was not based upon slat should be dons in all cases, but something which should be dons in this particular case. In other words, did Mr. Delis think just the vary large develop- ments should go to the Planning Commission? 1054 3/3/76 Mr. Debs said he would really like to refer that question to Dr. Schipper. Councilman Berwald asked if Mr. Deba thought the Stanford Chopping Center expansion is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan that is now under discussion —the existing one or the proposed one? Mr. Debs said that at this point, he felt the Planning Commission could beat answer that question. Councilman Berwald said what he was really trying to find out was Mr. Debs' purpose. He understood it to be that Mr, Debs wanted the Planning Commission to take a look at the expansion. Mr. Debs said he was sure Councilman Berwald could understand the whole purpose of the initiative ---they were both in e residential group. They were fighting for their lives out in the neighborhoods. Anyone who could get an option to buy a single --family home and had it re -zoned found that the land went up a factor of four overnight. Even the least dense type of zoning, made that land four ties as valuable, There was a need for a plan and the Council was asked time and time again if they didn't want more homes and industry, as a city should have. Finally, one of the Councilmembers said they never adopted that plan —they had agreed in principle but not in detail. Hr, Debs said that at the time he said a general plats is all principle; there is no specific zoning indicated, It became obvious with the proposed sale of the Baylands that there was a need for a general plan Councilman Berwald said he was trying to determine if the appeal was based on the fact that Mr. Debs felt the proposal was inconsistent, or if the propoeaa were referred to the Planning Commission, that would resolve that part of the issue in the appeal satisfactorily. Mr. Debs replied he didn't think it would resolve anything as long as the same procedure is followed, by that he meant the role of the ARE. Councilman Berwald restated his question and asked if the matter is referred to the Planning Commission, would that resolve the issue of Mr. Debs' appeal. Mr. Debs said he was primarily asking that the initiative ordinance not be violated. Councilman Berwald said that aapperently Mr. Debs felt that the initiative ordinance wee violated what/ the matter wes not referred to the Planning Commission. So if it were referred, that old resolve that part of the sppeal, Mr. Debs asked what sort of guarantee that gives that the same thing won't happen ag a in . Councilman Berwald said he now understood that the issue goes beyond Stanford Shopping Center. Mr. Dabs said that was correct. Councilman Berwald said that the 35 days that transpired between the time of the notice and the time of the takes up of the subject by tha AU meats to be f iva dabs more than the minimum um aussasted by the State. Se .skaait Flt , DOW if that was still ioauffici„set time? 1053 5/3/76 Mr. Debs said that what happened was the draft EIR was put out and seven days were given, whereas the ordinance says four days, according to the City Attorney. There was a miniaum of seven days for oral comaerts and he believed it was fourteen days for written comments. He said he knew of someone who tried to get a draft EIR on March 4 when it case out and hay was not able to get it until March 10. Regardless of what the City law says, enough time has not be allowed. Councilman Berweld said Mr. Dabs mentioned 22 percent traffic on El Camino and the EIR nays 5 percent. He said he believes there is * 22 percent total ---12 percent on Willow, 5 percent on El Camino, etc. Councilman Bsrwald said it would seem to hies that the establishment of the ARB and the meticulous way in which they have reviewed the development of the City, is a forward step that the City has taken since the 1962 era end in effect, the City has a very highly competent and profeasiona review body for acme of the individual develop- ments that normally, under Mr. Bebe' proposal, would go to the Planning Commission. 1e wondered if Mr. Debs gave any cognizance to the fact that thz ARB exists and they really do follow public hearing procedures. He didn't believe they were in as bad a position as they were back in the days when there was no ARB. There is more review now. Mr. Debs agreed that it was nice to have an ARB and it was set up because the Planning Commission was bedevilled by criticism when they had a site and design control issue, and he thought the people involved thought the members of the Planning CoCommission ware not architects. So the ARB was established with the requirement that at least three members of the Board were to be architects. He thought that was good, although he thought that setting up the ABB as an independent group from the Planning Com. ission was a mistake. He realized that the Planning Commission was burdened, but with regard to the 35 days, he wanted to make one pout clear. The ARB amt in the morning and finally got around to the 35 days. Because one member of the ARB, who wasn't at the morning meeting, fought to get a hearing, the Board met again at 7:00 in the evening. He feat that 8:00 in the morning wae an impossible time for anyone who works for a living to attend a meeting.' He didn't thick that was a proper procedure for hearings. The ARB itself is a great idea if it isn't used as a by --pass end if it doesn't directly report to the Council. Hs thought that WAS dangerous. He slid there is always the question of what is a minor issue and what is a major isaum, but caution should be taken in nearing that distinction. Councilman Carey said as he understood it there are essentially three issues raised in -the appeal,. the first one being the sufficient time for review of the RIR. Re asked if Mr. Debi personally hed some additional information that he would like to submit to the certifying body which he has not as yet dc . Mr. Deb& replied that he had soma aeterial he would submit to the City Clerk. Councilman Carey amid if Mr. Dohs had any other information to submit other than what he had with his tonight. W. Dew said he had d no other materiel and that he had had sufficient time to prepare for the meeting as he had received edminata noticefrom Mt. Kama 'prior to is fight' a meeting, s ho .v.z 1, he could have used mare time to solicit comments fro! other interested pimple. 1056 5/3/76 Councilman Carey said with reapract to the second issue raised, relating to the sufficiency of the EIR itself, and in particular the issue of traffic, he wondered if lit. Debe had had an opportunity to read the EIR on the Willow Road project. Mr. Debe said he had not dons that. Councilmen Carey said he would like to ask the City Attorney if the Willow Road EIR should or could be attached to the Shopping Center Elk as an exhibit because there is a great deal of information that overlaps or relates to the traffic impact of the Center expansion. Robert Booth, City Attorney, replied that would be possible, Councilman Carey said he hes had the benefit of reading both documents and he felt he had a fairly clear picture of the traffic impact. He said he was somewhat unsure of Mr. Dabs' argument with respect to the application of Section 119.04 to this matter. He stated he had read the minutes of the meeting of September 24, 1962, which clarify to his mind what was meant by major rueicipa1 improvements. The motion, which the minutes indicate W24 unanimous, states that what was meant by that phrase was essentially capital improvement items. It seemed clear to him that the motion limited it- self to City improvements area pot private ones. He noted that Mr. Debs said earlier that the initiative petition was to require the City to adopt a coaster plan, that wan the purpose of the petition, and that what the City did, in fact, was to adopt a seven-year old master plan --the 1955 General Plan. In any event, in 1963 the Planning Commission recommended the new General Plan to that Council, which approved the Planning Commission recommendation. So in 1963 there was in fact a General Plan. He asked Mr. Deba if that was a correct account of what took place. Mr. Debe replied that at the time the Council turned around sand repealed the date of the hearing for adopting the old and un- adopted General Plan, they did not repeal the qualifying paragraphs that interpreted the leaning of physical improve- ments for the City. They then ordered the Planning Cvaaiesiou to produce a new Genera►? Plan within six weeks —an incredibly short period of tine. -and the Plan eventually was breed on fourteen goals and objectives, which were arrived at at 7:00 in the morning at Rickey* Hyatt House. The first five Mange were held with the doors closed until the League of Women Voters protested and the meetings were then made public. The Planning Conninsion then produced in seven weeks, not six, a new General Plan; they had to because they couldn't proceed with things like selling the Basylende. Councilman Carey said the fact was, as he understands it, there was a new General Plan in 1963 which still exists as of today, 1976. Regardless of how rapidly it was passed some I3-15 years ago, they ars still living with it, despite obvious oppertunities to emend it. As of 1963, the Stanford Shopping Center end the lands, which are this subject of tonight's ee*etfng, were zoned C-3 end the General Plan in 1963 designated this area as commercial. $r. Bebe stated it Was his -understanding zoning took pia►cae in 1956; it was zoned blanket coning C-3. 1 0 5 7 13/76 Councilman Carey safe, in other words, as of 1963, the property which is the subject of tonight's meeting was zoned in conformance with the then existing General Plan. Mr. Debi replied that was correct, but he would like to call attention to the fact that one doesn't generally let a General Plan just alt there if it turns out that the Plan is producing total constipation of the City. The General Plan must be reviewed and revised. Councilman Carey responded that, in fact, they are reviewing and reviefng the General Playa. He asked if it were Mr. Debs' intent to have the Center expansion setter referred to the Plying Coaadrsion to determine wither or not the application conforms with a future general plan, which is not yet in existence. Mr. Debs said ha felt the Pl*nniag Commissioners ware sensible enough to look at the expansion and see what the impact on the City would be. Councilman Carey said he didn't really feel that was the question. The queatian and the purpose of the ordinance related to preventing speculation, as Mr. Debs mentioned was going on in the early 60'a where someone would buy an R-4 lot and have it rezoned industrial, or busy a residential lot and have it zoned commercial. He said as he reads the ordinance, all it says is Cult, setting aside the question of whether they are dealing with municipal physical improvements or private, if the ordinance is to comply, it is simply a question of whether or not the applications conforms to the then existing General Plan. It seemed to him that the application does conform to the zonings which in turn conforms to the General Plan. He asked if they weren't going through an exercise which has no meaning, because they already knew the answer, He noted that he vas assuming that Mr, Debe was correct that the ordinance was applicable in this case. He asked Mr. Dabs again what would be sent to the Planning Commission for review, if in face: the 1963 General nun, which ie now in existence, conforms with Ce3 zoning and the application obviously conform. He felt that Mt. Debs was proposing that if a building veil up on Welch Road in the &-4 District, it should be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to any issuance of tha building permit. He said he knew that wasn't the case now, because many buildings have been built there and because the scning existed, the matters did not go before the Planning Commission. If they were talking about a P -C Zone or . asylande sone, where there ere site and design and density variations, he could understand Mt. Debs' Point. Mr. Debs said be felt one thing weeded to be added and that related to the fact that planning and its impact on the City must be oagoing. Ma stressed that the question was still one of ire act on the City. He disagreed with the City Attorney on the inter- pretation of "public" versus "privets." Re felt both ware covered under the ordinance. Councilman Carey said it appeared to him they were talking about two different things. Mr. Debit is talking about the new Comprehensive Plea, which is the subject of review now and which does not exist $s a documents, and he is also talking about the Stamford Shopping Center proposal. He said he felt Mr. Debe is coocludiug that be doesn't want the expansioe, based upon what be thought wee going to be in the new Comprehensive Plus Councilmen Carey suggeated that the appeal is really limited to the leeetion of whether or not the ordinance is applicable to the applications sad if so, whether or fat the 1O5 5(3(76 wing and application conform to the 1961 General Plan. He felt that both the zoning and the application did conform; and it was so clear that they did, it waa beyond the point of debate. He asked if Mr. Debs knew of any other development, major or otherwise, in the past that occurred on existing zoning that was not P -C or with a "D" suffix:, but which was in toning with the rigidity of R-4, C-3, C-2, or C-1, where ell one had to do prior to the ARB was go in and get a building permit. that was sent to the Planning Commission for the sing/e queetion of whether or not that zoning conformed to the General Plan, Mr. Debi aaid he could tell that Councilman Carey had training in laws because he assumed what his basis vas and put that into the argument. Be said Councilman Carey was wrong about his baaie for appeal. Ede said he didn't know the answers or all the details. Councilman Carey summarized his statements by saying that he was not persuaded by any points of the appeal, with the possible exception of the time allocated for review. He said he would speak to that later. He did have some concerns about whether there had been sufficient time for public review of the Ent. Mayor Norton stated that it appeared there were no more questions from Council at this time and asked Mr. Debs to stand by for any questions which may arise from discussion by Council. He asked Mx. Booth if he had any comments on the referral to the Planning Commission under Section 13.04 beyond those which have been mentioned so far. Mr. Booth said he felt the Issue was covered in the City Attorney's report. He felt Mr. Debs did a remarkable job of recalling events which teek place fourteen years ago; however, the minutes don't reflect his; entire understanding of the affair. The adopted policy statement in the ordinance passed by the Council made it fairly clear that it was intended to apply to municipal improvements only. While that is not necessarily an interpr.tation of the ordinance, it is going to be given some weight. He said he believed it was not required that this project be referred to the Planning Commission under Chapter 19.04 or Ordinance 2090, which are the ease thing. Councilman Bealare said he had the impression that Mt. Dohs had some legal authority available for comment and he old like to hear the arguments if there are any. He eaid he felt persuaded, ale°. that the City Attorney's position is correct, but he would like hear legal authority to the contrary if it exists. Mayor Morton suggested that it might be appropriate to call fin Dt. Schipper at this time. Vice Mayor Clay said he hard a question of Mir. Booth, With respect to the tie element, hs asked Mr. Booth to elaborate on how the clock rims. He said Mr. Booth had indicated that they are well within the boundaries of time required for public input on the BIB. Mr. Booth replied that his position is they are well within the parameters of either the State guidelines or the City's ordinance, which provide diffeteet time limits for Ell review. Mr. Crown, Assistant City Attorney, who has handled this setter with that *U and to title extent that it has bean in the Planning Commissions sill give *ma farther clstal3.s. 1059 5/3/75 Hr. Green said in answer to Vice Mayor Clay's question, the concern is the availability of the EIR for review. He said his understanding is that it was available as of March 4 and it was available from that time until the date of the final public input which was taken by the .,APB on April 8; tat covered a period of 35 days. Councilmen Beahrs said he would like to know a little bit about Dr. Schipper'a background. Councilman Carey said ba would like to mention before they proceed in this Mitten that he saw a member in the audience from the McCutcheon fine in San Francisco. He didn't know if anyone from. the firm planned to speak tonight and advocate Stanford's cause, but he vented to state that the McCuttheon firs does represent his fie and himself in a unrelated natter, which is not within the boundaries of Santa Clara County, and there is absolutely no connection whatsoever with the issues before Council tonight. He felt there was no conflict of any kind. Mr. Booth said he did not feel that Councilman Carey had any conflict of interost under the circumstances he disclose?.. Mayor Norton asked Mr. Schipper to proceed. John Schipper, 3133 Flowers, said he is an attorney and a physicist. He said he is here tonight to speak to two of the three questions raised by the appeal, both of which are procedural. Was enough time allowed to comment on the draft EIR and should this matter of the expansion be referred to the Planning Commission. He said he would like to address some of the points Mr. Green raised in his April 28 memo, because he felt that on at least one point, Mr. Green needed a small additional lesson on administrative law. With regard to the EIR review period, it is true that Title 14, Section 15160 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines dons use the word "should" in saying that the comment period for the draft EIR should be at least 30 to 90 days, This is not mandatory; it is advisory. At the end of Section 15060, the Guidelines state that review periods of this length, and they are talking about the 30-90 days, may be desirable for some large projects under CEQA, although shorter periods can be provided where adequate review time is still allowed. With regard to this statement, be noted that the Shopping Canter expansion is a rather large project. He thought it runs from $8 to $10 million and it is the third largest project proposed in the City since the initiative vas passed in 1962. Also, he noted that the Pals: Alto Mienicipal Cods Section 11.24.070 says that the EIR shall be available at least four days prior to the hearing, The actual review period allowed in this instance was ten working days, from the 4th of April to about the 18th. He said it is true that Palo Alto has complied, literally, with the l cipal Code; however, for a project of this siss he feat there is a certain bad faith compliance with whet CEQA smoke to do, having to do with both disclosure end with adequate tine for consent. He said he felt it would be a very interesting litigation issue as to whether Section+ 11, 24.070 is acceptable ie the light of CEO, its said be knaow that the 7irst Circuit Court of Appeals Little* in San Francisco has generally been torch as nails on. environmental. iassues, He continued by sepia* that he had a lot of m tetisl to add to the issue of sob-isaion of the tatter to the Pleee ng Cosaaiss iori a igs noted be yes again ;peaking to ')k. Green', memo. Palo Aldo 16inicipel Codas 1060 3/3/76 Section 19.040.050, which is a part of the initiative passed in July of 1962, says "All matters affecting the physical development of the City shall he submitted to the planning Commission for a report to the City Council as to conformity to the master p:ian..." There is an additional Section, 19.04.080, which adopts Government Code Sections 65460 through 65516. One of particvlae interest is Section 65510 which says, in effect, that in adapting all or any part or an amendment or an addition to a master or general plan, that the matter should be referred to she Plauning Commission. He thought that at least gave everyone an idea of what the initiative sought to do. He wondered, regardless of Hr. Green's numerous opinions to the contrary, if it were possible for an initiative to be amended any way other than by going back to a vote by the people. He said he, therefore, consulted the various cases. He found six cases and two Attorney General opinions on it. All of them were unanimous that there is no way to amend an initiative other than going back to a vote of the people, unless this is provided for in the original initiative. He said he searched in vain to find such a proviso. Therefore, he believes that the matter would have to go back to the people for a vote on any amendment. He said there was a September 24, 1962 amendment, approximately two months after the initiative was passed by the Council. He felt the amendment sought to define certain terns, including terms such as "project." He said it is interesting to note that the opinion of the First Circuit Court of. Appeals, two months earlier, addressed the question of definitions. It referred to Appellants', and in this case the City's, other arguments relating to an alleged failure to define the terms; words such as "Capital improvement Program," etc., may be interpreted as the need arises. Dr. Schipper felt this meant need arising in a context and not sor _thing which could be tacked on by, say, a City Council which was not too friendly to the initiative in the first place, Dr, Schipper said he would like to talk about what is physical development of the City. He believes they are talking about a very significant physical develop- ment. It has been estimated that there is a 22 percent increase in traffic. He said Mr, Noguchi, Director of Transportation for the City, has not come up with any satisfying allocation of how this 22 percent should go and be felt as a first approximation it be uniformly distributed over the roads which now exist. Fabarcedero traffic has now bean eatImated at about 20,000 cars a day and would therefore go to 24,400 cars a day. He asked that they go back and look at the capacity of each /am). He said he would draw upon some analogies for freeway lanes, because be knew what a well -developed freeway lane will boarP--around 1600 cars a day. He said he has thus assumed that about 800 cars a day would go on E barcadero per lane. It may be somewhat high because there are traffic control signals and lower speed limits. Using 800 cars per lane per hour, maximum capacity, it would require about 31 Ian* hours or approximately Sit hours with all four lanes functioning well. Assuming two hours of rush hour traffic in the morning and two hours in the evening, this still leaves hours worth of the capacity traffic which will be spread out for the remainder of the day. Going back to 20,000, which is traffic on the lanes right nova and subtracting, 4 hours of capacity, be said he comes up with only 214 hours of additional capacity traffic. He sa.td be didn't know if the 24,400 cars per day figure is reasonable or not; it is merely a first approximation spreading the traffic uniformly over all the roads; increasing them all by 22 percent. 0e said the vehicle miles trays/Ad increase may bee actually 1061 5/3/76 1 greater than 22 percent. A large shopping center, such as this regional center with approximately one million square feet will draw from a larger area, possibly as large as 500,000 people. This would actually require vehicle miles traveled because the people would be coming from further distances. He suggested that this also would have a physical impact on the development of the City. He referred to the original General Plan which was put out in February of 1963. There were certain objectives, about fourteen, which were stated on pages 2 through 4. Two of the ob j ec t ivee have to do with retaining open areas so far as being reasonable and and compatible with other developments and to preserve and continue developaent of Palo Alto's parks. He suggested that the increased traffic which will come from the increased shopping center activity will be such as to squeeze San Francisquito Creek Park out of existence. The pollution and noise levels will be too high. Item 12 of the 14 objectives has to do with emphasising and supporting local and regional planning for the efficient and expeditious movement of vehicular traffic. He believes this is best done by the. Planning Commission and not by the ARE. Because of these considerations and others that he indicated he would not go into, he urged that the Stanford Shopping Center expansion be referred to the Planning Commission for its advice en the project. By its actions, the City thus far almost invites litigation, which he felt was both unfortunate and foolish. The primary purpose of a well-defined City administrative procedure should be to avoid such confrontation. He, therefore, recommended that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission. Mayor Norton said his intention had been to refrain from any speeches and keep it to questions awl answers. He wanted the record to show that the comments made by both Mr. Debse and Mr. Schipper will be considered as part of the commentary that will be solicited in a moment relating to the sufficiency of the EIR. Councilman Beaters said he felt Councilman Carey did an exce;lent job of putting the whole problem in perspective. He felt Councilman Carey had clearly established, with Hr. Debs participating, that there is a valid Comprehensive Plan in effect. He felt most of the discussion contained merely matters of opinion. Going back to Councilman Carey' e argument, Councilman Beahrs thought they were on track se far as the ordinance goes. If this is such aaa monumental development that it requires epplicaetion of the Fletcher Ordinance, here again they are de*iing in a matter of opinion. Councilman Mehra said he didn't feel it was any gore monumental than any of the other development that has taken place in that area without any argument or controversy. Regarding traffic, with all the data that is developed, one still has to sake an educated guess end this, again,. involves judgment. He said they could get into a lot of discussions tonight, but in the final analysis it didn't matter if the matter west to the A,RB, to the Planning Commission or both, because the Council has ultimately got to sake the decision, If the Counell' a opinion is contrary to that of the Planning Commission, Council's opinion will prevail. Mr. Schipper acknowledged that the Planning Commission's nee teas eight diff ser _ f roast Co: a e s 00404n. s said be was just requ astisg that the setter be sub5tttsd - to the ?1a lag Comeissios for their advice The orctiaaaos 1062 5/3!76 says "all" and he believed there was no getting around that. If Council wishes to change the initiative and exclude certain small projects, he would be happy to help Council write up an initiative because he also feels small projects could be eliminated. However, the word is "all." Councilman Beahrs said that as Councilman Carey suggested, if that logic prevails, every miserable building permit issued in this town will have to go to the Planning Comaiiaaion for approval. Mr. Schipper said he was not defending that; that is simply what the ordinance says. Hr. Booth said he would like to correct the record. As his office seen it, the policy statement adopted by the Council was adopted by motion action and they do not believe that that qualifies as an amendment to the Municipael. Code since it doesn't meet the normal requirements. He also said that the research done by his office does not agree with that of 14r. Schipper regarding powers of the governmental body to amend an initiative that hsa been passed by "it" as distinguished from one passed by the voters. Councilman Berwald said he had some questions of Mr. Schipper. Ie said he assumed Hr. Schipper was appearing here as Mr. Debs' attorney. Mr. Schipper replied that he was here primarily un his oen. Councilman Berwald asked if it would be inappropriate to ask if Mr. Schipper were here voluntarily. Mr. Schipper 'plied he was present voluntarily. He became interested lc. this project and spent an hour and a half with John breedlove before the EIR came out because he was interested in what was going on. He said he made some suggestions to lr. Breedlove for changes to encourage transit, to encourage bike ride's, etc. He said he is purely interested in it on his own. Councilman Berwald said he felt everyone could see why he thought Hr. Schipper was Mx. Debs' attorney, because when he asked Mr. Debe q t ations, Mr. Debe kept referring to the attorney. He said he would be asking Mr. Schipper the same question* he asked fir. Dells and would assume Mr. Schipper was responding for himself. He asked Mr. Schipper what it would take on the part of the Council to satisfy his objections to the project or the procedure. Mr. Schipper said that procedurally he would like to see the project submitted to the planning Commission. As to the project itself, he has a few objections, but they aren't that substantial from a substantive point of view. He would like to see a few changes, but he has seen much worse projects. He said he is here primarily on procedural, grounds, not really because of the Stanford Shopping Center. In eases ways be felt it was unfortunate that it is the target; hover, be said he is very concerned about this sort of maneuver being used again in the future. He felt that if they can't get together, it light be wortb letting the court det.ide as quickly as possible, that is. the issue of where doss the initiative apply. Does it apply merely to prive a projects, to public projects, or to both? 1 0 6 3 5/3/76 Councilman Berweld said, responding to the mention of litigation, that he felt Mr. Schipper would find it difficult to pursue based on the information that has been provided. He wondered if Mr. Noguchi, would comment on the EIR's traffic effect, but before he asked that question, he asked Mar. Schipper if he was really more interested in the procedure than in pursuing litigation. Mt. Schipper replied that was correct. Councilman Beervald said, in other words, when Mr. Schipper mentioned litigation, he was not threatening litigation Mar. Schipper replied that was also correct. Councilman Berwald said it mould now like to have M r . Noguchi' e comments on Mr. Schipper's assessment of the traffic impact. 4 Mr. Knox .responded that there are several traffic: questions outstanding and he felt that staff should respond at one time with the page references in the EIR and with references in the ARB minutes. y Mays: Norton agreed they would get the responses later. Vice Mayor Clay asked Mr. Schipper where they are in violation? Is it because they are not following the right procedure or is it because the ordinance, as it now stands, is invalid; and is it invalid because of the definition that is incorporated for physical development? '.ir. Schipper replied that he did not believe the ordinance is invalid, but rather he believes th.sr: the definitions which were sought to be introduced in the policy statement of September 24 are of no effect. He said he would like to see the City Council refer it to the Planning Commission for its advice. Vice Mayor Clay stated that the ordinance and the definition of physical development are related. Mr. Schipper said he didn't believe the physical development has any affect as to the reach of the ordinance. Councilman Carey said he would like to speak to the reference to litigation. If that is what SFr. Schipper is talking about, Councilman Carr world like him to asay it. It won't affect his judgment regardless of what Mr. Schipper or anyone else might do. They may differ en interpretation of the law and it may well be that only a court can resolves that conflict. He said he would rather get does to the business at band. He stated he is really trying to fled out what Mt. Schipper and other people see in this ordinance that is in conflict with what ha knew to be the way developments have been handled in this town ever since be bad been here, which bes beean fifteen years. He asked if it were not true thatmbar* that ordinance says "all matters effecting the physical development of the City shall be submitted to the Planning Commission?" what they are talking about is the potential or proposed use of e *pacific piace of property, where the use is already known or Where in affect, the Planning Cr ,aeeion has designated then use by the seeing of C-3. There is really nothing for the Plssaei>a t wises to swiss. Ns asked if Owe is so d4stisetion aesds between a 0.3 place of 'maim r d a P -D 1064 5/3/76 /s' piece of property, where in the latter case he would agree that that kind of application should go to the Planning Commission because the zoning designation is not specific as to use. Mr. Schipper said he would make a further distinction. Be would make a distinction between something which is now being used in the C-3 zone and something which involves a substantial expansion, as this doss, generating substantially more traffic, etc. He said he believes this affects the physical development of the City. Councilman Carey said that, using Mr. Schipper's theory, then Saks Fifth Avenue was built in violation of the initiative petition, Bullocks was built in violation and ail the office buildings along Welch Road were also built in violations. All of those developments occurred after 1962 and to his knowledge were not reviewed by the Planning Commission, the reason being that the then existing zoning designated specific uses, specific densities, specific heights, specific setbacks, and therefore there was no debate to be made. The Council knew precisely what could be built on those properties and when the land was zoned that way, the debate as to impact or overall effect on the City had already occurred, He said he assumed Mr. Schipper was saying that all those developments violated the ordinance. Mr. Schipper said that as he reads the ordinance, that is correct. Councilman Carey noted that Mr. Schipper said earlier that he felt the Planning Commission should review the EIR even though the ordinance doesn't taik about the EIR. Mr. Schipper said he felt that was a part of the total picture. Councilman Carey asked if, assuming the Planning Commission reviews the EIR and concludes that the traffic impact is understated and the impact is in fact three times what is presently stated in the EIR, Mr. Schipper is then suggesting the development should not be allowed to proceed? Mr. Schipper said that decision would be ep to the nine Cou cLb,ibers. Councilman Carey asked under what authority does the Council say to the applicant that he cannot proceed? The applicant is here, the toning exists, the General Plan ezieta, the review by the Architectural Review Board is complete and the building plus conform to the building cods. He wondered under what theory, Mr. Schipper would recommend denying the application. Mr. Schipper responded that the BIR is a relatively recant thing and obviously much younger than the notion of sawing. A group having discretion, such as tha Council, has to look at all the issues in looking at art EIR. The final discretion, apart from any courtroom go-aroustd, re,3ts with the Council and they axe expected to owe up with an exceptable compromise or go one way or anther. _ An RIR, which givas unfavorable reports, nay certainly be relied upon to turn down a project. Councilman Carey asked on what basic? Where does it sey that? 1065 5/3/76 Mr. Schipper ssid the case of the City of Orange v. Valente was one of the cases decided under CEQA. He said he believed it was a State Unemployment Office which war slated to go in an area which wee in transition--t'eeidentiel going to other uses. Hebelieved the coning allowed it, but the EIR neglected substantially to eetimete the traffic congestion and certain things that would go along with the development. The court held that this would not do; the EIR showed too many deficiencies, and the project could not be allowed. Councilman Carey noted that Hr. Schipper maid the EtR was incomplete And that vas the basis of the decision. He said the conclusiou he makes is that once the EIR is complete, the applicant cannot be denied. The only question is the completeness of the report, if the land is Boned and if the applicant complies with all the other ordinances. Once the EIR is complete, then the applicant is free to proceed. The only issue in the courts, to his knowledge, has been the completeness of the report and he agreed that could be an issue, but the result of the report, detrimental or other- wise, has no effect on the property owner's ability to build on his land, assuming he hes the proper zoning. Mt. Schipper said it appeared that Councilman Carey was directing his comments to the sufficiency of the EIR and he said he is not addressing that issue. He said that the EIR would be properly considered as part of the record by the Planning Commission. The Commission would render its opinion and give the Council certain advice. The Council is then free to accept it or reject it based on a balancing of possibly other priorities, including the need for additional revenue. He said he is not saying that any review process hangs entirely on what appears in en Ett. Councilman Carey said he was merely asking if the complete- ness of the EIR is the only issue and whether or not Mr. Schipper agreed that once it is i°compiete" the m.pplicent is free to proceed. He ssid at this point they have had at least two hearings by the An of the SIR and in effect they ars having another one tonight. Se said he hears Ms. Schipper suggesting that they have several more -one at the Planning Commission level and then again et the Council level. Ibis adds up to quite a few hearings on the question of the completeness of the SIR. Caunci.*en Swims said he couldn't quite agree with the ultimate logic bore. lze asked Nic. Schipper ii he would be happy if the Council agreed to refer the getter to the Planning Commission with the diraction that the matter be returned within seven days. Mt. Scbipp.r felt the Planning Commission must be given more than seven days, according to the ordinance. It wild have to be thirty days. Councilman Sambre ssid even if they allowed the Planning Commission thirty days, what would be gained if the Cocci didn't agree with the Plemeng * ion a e recommendations. Mr. Schipper **id even if mil decided to lest the easeeelos so mad, they eisht fled a fees Wass they mated to 1066 3/3/76 Vice Mayor Clay called upon Robert Augsburger of Stanford. University. Robert Augsburger, Vice President for Business and Finance at Stanford University, said that among the people with hiss tonight are Jim Nelson, Director of Facilities and Properties for Stanford; John Field, the architect for the project; David Halperin, who ie a partner from the general, counsel for the University. He said he bad several observations. First, the appeal has little or no merit. The University has complied with and has gone far beyond the established City procedures. Any delay in this project will be detrimental to both the City and the University. He said he suspects that this project has had more public exposure than any other project which has been proposed within an existing tone and which is in conformity with the General Plan of the City. He said he would like to take the time to briefly recap the public explosure that has taken place: In 1962 the University engaged the Rouse Company to develop a plan for the Stanford Shopping Center, In December of that year a public meeting was held and community leaders and public officials from the surrounding communities were invited to attend. He said about 50-60 people attended. The Rouse Company presented its plan at the meeting. The proposal contemplated about a 400,000- 500,000 square foot addition of retail space to the shopping center for multi -level structured parking and for the possible ultimate expansion over the center or adlacent to it for office space and perhaps even housing. During the subsequent year, they met with a variety of groups --architectural classes at Stanford, church groups, a group calling themselves People Planniug for Stanford. They received a variety of reactions to the proposal and a variety of new ideas. Early in 1974, the University abandoned the Rouse plan and discontinued the University's relationship with the company. They had come to the conclusion that the size and the scope of their proposal was incompatible with Stanford and the surrounding communities. They then went to work themselves and engaged market research consultants and planning consultants to develop their own plan attempting to reflect what they thought would be acceptable and desirable for the community, and else. financially feasible for Stanford. In the spring of 1975 they were at the point vbere they had preliminary plans. They were advised by the City that they were operating within a C-3 zone ;and what they were think(eg of doing was appropriate to that zone and vas also is conformity with the General Plan. He said they were told that the appropriate governmental body for them to deal with eras the Architectural 1 sview Board, which had the authority to review the ELK and to a addressee the issue of ds.ign and conformity with the building cods: As a consegeence, they initiated s meeting with the ARA, which vas held in early July 1975, and which was advertised as a public meeting. The Ming was bald in the evening and meibsrs of the Plamaine Commission were invited a5 well es representatives of major civic organizations end bustness orgsniaattona from Palo Alto and l to Park. They preastated heir preliminary thinking to get the ideas and views of the ARA beware they began vorkine on the tentative plane The purivette of that vas to try to develop a more efficient, *soother process and also not to unnecessarily waste design dollars. He felt it was 1067 S/3/76 ean important to point out the size and scope of the project that was then presented and is now before Council. It is in the aggregate, in four phases, 225,000 square feet. That is slightly less than the size of the present Emporium store. It is about 50 percent greater than the size of the'present Bullocks store. It is about twice the size of the present I. Magnin'e store. He said they are not talking about a voluminous amount of building activity. At that meeting with the ABB, they felt they received fairly strong encouragemept end support for the preliminary plans. They reoeived some velu+bie input a't that time and they worked cut sit araggeaaaeent whereby Stanford would continue to deal with the ABB as things progressed. Since that meeting, Stanford has spent same $600,000 on architectural conetructiou management, leasing and other fees. They have been before the ABB on four different occasions --two of which were extensive working meetings at which plans were reviewed and discussed and ideas put forth. The ARE has made a number of very constructive suggestions; they turned out to be fairly costly suggestions, but they will clearly improve the ability for the Center to handle public transit and will contribute to the overall well-being of the Center. They are now in a tight time schedule. Anyone who has been to the Center will realize that as of this weekend, there will be 60,000 square feet of vacant space as a result of tenant terminations. That is 25 percent of the apace owned by the University. It can have an internal impact not only on Stanford revenue, but City revenue as well. He said that Stanford's exclusive leasing agent is actively at work developing new tenants Construction managers axe refining their cost estimates and prepariee bid packages. The architects are hard at work finalizing the working drawings so that they can go to bid in short order. He said Stanford believes that the appeal before Council tonight has absolutely no merit. From what they know about the psoeesses and the. ways they have been applied, a referral to the Planning C sission would be highly unusual end would deviate from normal procedure. He felt that has been brought forth earlier in the evening several tissues. Stanford would view the referral of this matter as an unusual practice aid, in effect, a dis- crimination against this project. He continued by saying that, secondly, there has been ample public notice and opportunity to participate in the development end the planning for this project. Traffic and congestion have been addressed not only in the Ell for this project, but also in the Willow (toad EIR, which contemplated the proposed expansion of the Center. In summary, he believes the University has acted openly, honestly and in good faith in reliance upon established, existing City procedures and policies. The failure to approve the AEB action could result in significant financial loss, both to the City as well as the University. Failure to approve could also result in Stafford's inability to proceed with the major mall renovations ea presently planned, because of the difficulty of getting them completed is time. He asked that the Council deny this appeal and uphold the actions of the ARB. Mayor Norton thanked Mt. Augsbur'ger for his presentation and he suggested he nay be asked some questions later. 1060 5/3/76 Councilman Comstock said he hws passed the hour at which he can function rationally. He would like to pursue this matter further, but did not feel he could deal with it .effectively tonight. MOTION: Councilman Comstock moved that the meeting be adjourned until 7:30 p.m. on Monday, May 10, and that the City Council schedule a special City Council meeting tomorrow evening at 7:30 p.m. for the sole purpose of an Executive Session to discuss litigation. Mayor Norton said there was one person in the audience who has not as yet spoken. Conci1maxt Comstock said he understood that, and his alternative would be to simply leave, which was what he would probably do; however, he wanted to at ?east rake the motion. He noted that he did not have a second for his motion. Mayor Morton told Councilman Comstock they would try to deal with the matter shortly. Councilman Carey said he would second the second part of the motion, if it were divided into two parts. He said he is prepared to make a notion which should relate to the first part of Councilman Comstock's motion, and which might work more efficiently. Councilman Comstock said he preferred not to wait and would leave. Joseph Carletor, 2350 Ross Road, said there have been a number of responses to some of the comments he had to mare and he is not satisfied with some of the responeeu. He said he has made the comment before that the ARB is not really competent to evaluate such things ao traffic and growth inducement. Their primary purpose is ►.o evaluate aesthetics. He said Mr. Augaburger erode a good case for having a Planning Commission review when he said the ARB review brought out some very constructive improvements. He felt the Planning Commission could provide more ideas because they are competent to evaluate such things as traffic and growth inducing impacts. Mayor Norton said he would like to reiterate, for the record, some items he intended to bring up earlier in the evanins. He would like to re nd the Council that the first order of business will be to decide whether the final EIL, which is composed of the bound booklet Council has received, plus the public testimony and responses made at the March 11 and April 8 AEb stings, plus written comments to the Planning Department, is a sufficient informational document. He said that "sufficient*" for those purposes, means doss the RIR adequately identify potential impact of the project. This should not be confused with the question of will the project have adverse impacts. The comments heard tonight will become rest of the record and will be taken into consideration by the Council in making a decision on the EIR, and possibly on the project iteaalf. In Sight of the lateness of the hour and the indication on the part of Council to continue this matter, he would like to call upon Councilmen Carey. Councilmen Carey said he hod or question of the City Attorney before he proposed his motion. Re said es he understands it, 10169 S/3/76 failure to certify the EIR tonight means that they cannot either uphold, modify or do anything with the ARB decision. He wondered if that is correct? Mr. Booth replied that is correct. MOTION: Councilman Carey moved, seconded by Berwald, that the entire matter be continued for two weeks and ,,hat that meeting be noticed as a public hearing for the review of the EIR. He said he is making this motion for.txo reason. He is concerned abut the adequacy of the time:for the public to review and respond to the EIR. lie felt that tine time has been ftagmented. By this motion, it would be his euderstanding that there would be en additional two weeks for further public review and input and that such input, whether it be in writing or oral, be a pert of the final EIR, should it be certified in two weeks. He noted that he has not been persuaded that the action of the ARB should go anywhere. He has not been persuaded by the arguments of Mr. Schipper. If he is right, there is a lot of development in Palo Alto that is illegal. He said he just didn't believe that. In his opinion, the initiative petition, when it said "matters," was making a distinction at least between that type of zoning which clearly delineates what can be built on a piece of property and other types of zoning which do not make a clear delineation, such as the "D" suffix, P -D, P -F, P -C, as distinguished from C-3 in the present case. That is even assuming that the ordinance is not limited to public projects. He said he he s no intention of referring this matter to the Planning Commission. He felt it would be inappropriate, but he said he does think it would be appropriate to give the public an additional two weeks to respond to the EIR. He noted that they had a letter before them tonight from the City of Menlo Park raising concern over the sufficiency of the traffic anal sie. He referred back to his other remark about much of this information being available with respect to the Willow Road EIR. He felt staff should respond to the letter and can do so very effectively with the information staff already has. Mayor Norton said the motion to continue may procedurally have to be changed for reasons he would explain later, but the effect would be that the matter be taken up again in two weeks and give the public that additional time to provide input on the EIR and other expects of the project. AMENDMENT: Mayor Norton moved, seconded by Clay, that the matter be continued one week. Mayor Horton said he wondered if by continuing this only one week, staff would have sufficient tine to rsepord to what has been said tonight. Mr. Knox asked if it was clear that the communications would be written? If not, he would ask that the aotiou be amended to make that distinction. Staff would be able to respond in better fashion to written communications. Mayor Norton said that suppose at the next westing, whether it be ons or two weeks from now, there are people who speak and decide to add lose new ideas that no one has heard before. He asked if that would to a problem, 1070 5/3/76 Mr. Knox said it wasn't really a problem. It is just more desirable to have comments in written form. He said he could respond in five minutes tonight to all the comments made, with precise reference to the page in the EIR, and indicate chapter and verse as to where all the items are covered. Mayor Norton said, in other words, Mr. Knox would like to request that comments be in writing and that they are received by Thursday prior to the meeting. If anything further cornea in orally the night of the meeting, staff can respond at that time. Mayor Norton reiterated that the amendment to the motion is that the matter be continued for one week, rather than two weeks, and incorporated in the agreement is that the public, as quickly as possible, be advised by an appropriate notice that the Council will welcome written communicaticna on. the aubject up to and through Thursday of next week, and also that any oral -comments will be heard on the following Monday. He said he was not changing Councilman Carey's emotion other than with regard to the length of continuance. Councilman Carey said he had an argument against continuing the matter for only one week. If it is important that the communications be in writing, then one week's continuance only allows about 48 hours for correspondence to reach the City and get into the packed:. He felt that didn't allow enough time. Vice Mayor Clay said he supported the amendment. The action that is being proposed to continue for either one or two weeks is extraordinary. He said he is satisfied with the City Attorney's report and he didn't want to imply by any kind of continuance that the public has not been provided with adequate notice for response to the EIR. He said that with the inputs received tonight the likelihood of getting too much more is rate, so that asking that the -inputs be ;submitted in writing is not asking for too much because so arch has already been said. Mayor Norton asked Mr, Booth that if the item is treated as a continuance to s week from tonight, if the matters contained in the note ?!r, Booth handed him would still be a problem. Mk. Booth said if this item is continued it will come up first as a public hearing, if he understand the motion. Councilman Carey asked, in light of the probability of adjourning the meeting in two minutest, if the Norton mat carves prior to adjournment, wouldn't that place the matter first on the agenda next Monday, under the Adjourned Meeting of May 3? )1r. Booth replied no. It would appear as the first item on the agenda of May 10. Councilmen Carey mated if the Norton amendment fails and his passes, which again is a continuance, ',here would that appear on May 17. Mr. Booth said it would be first on the May 17th agenda. Mr. £ugsburger said he really didn't know what the impact of any delay will ba on the project. If Council is attempts to afford the public the opportunity to respond to tbs EtR, ace, serious efforts to address the issues 4oes require some reseerth. IO7 3/3/76 Mayor Norton said he would then withdraw his amendment to the motion. Be asked Councilman Carey if he would like to incorporate the wording about advertisement seeking written and thews later oral comments? Councilman Carey said that was his intent. There would be a public hearing. He *aid he would expect staff to respond to any cats, such as that received from Menlo Park tonight. Mayor Norton asked if Cot ilma grey wanted to encourage the public to put their c aste i ;wait .' - Councilman Carey said he felt that was part of his motion, realizing that that was not a require eut. Councilman Berweld Amid he would like to know if the staff will prepare a report on what bas been said this evening. Also, assuming an official public hearing is called, he asked what the notice requirement is for an official public hearing. Mr. Booth said four days are required as a minimum for an BIB, but he felt the notice would $o out as soon as possible: It will probably be in Wednesday or Thursday night's Times this week. Councils -an perwald asked if this will be considered a "public heating?" Mr. Booth replies that the Council has the power to call a public hearing on an EIR. Councilman ierwaid said he understood that staff will comply will ell aspects of the law in preparing for the public hearing. Mr. Booth replied that is correct. Councilman Berwald said he was going to vote. for the motion, but he would like to any three things. First of all, having read the appeal and the ordinance, he felt the City has acted completely in accordance with what it should be doing legally. Secondly, he said it bothered him that invitations to the public were made so long ago on this project —invitations to the people most interested ---inviting input and now at the last possible minute, two days before the appeal deadline, the Appeal is filed. He said be didn't find too much fault with that, but the fact ruins that an institution in Palo Alto that adds to the culture of the City, the State, the Nation and the World, is trying to desperately maintain a first- class shopping center, the proceeds of which go to pay the toes in the City, in the County and in the School. District and to pay for the support of the Univsr'eity and its educational aiesion. He said he found it deplorable that Stanford is being used as a whipping boy. He said he did not intend to embarrass Mk. Angsburger or the University, but he found the whole thing awing. If the City is legal in vbat it is doing, Stanford be. gone out of its way to be grracious And open. - He felt they deserve a public apology for any increased costs to their proposal. Councilman ire said the ultimate whipping boy would be the Palo Alto taxpayer. 1072 5/3/76 Councilwoman Witherspoon said she agrees with a great deal of what has been said tonight. She said she couldn't vote for the motion, although she said it probably was the prudent thing to do. She felt that Palo Alto was in the right, on both acccunts--referral to the Planning Commission or not and the public notice. She said ehe doubts that very such can be added to the vary complete review that the ABB gave. If there had been time to hear staff response tonight, perhaps Council would feel less inclined to continue for another two weeks. She said it is slmost one o'clock, however, and there ien't time to get responses now. She said she would vote "no" on the motion. The motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Beahra, Berwald, Clay, Carey, Eyerly, Norton NOES: Witherspoon ABSENT: Comstock Mayor Norton noted that Councilman Sher was not participating in the vote. MOTION: Councilman Carey moved that this meeting be continued until Tuesday, May 4, at 7:30 p.m., with the Intent of having an Executive Session, Councilman Berwald said he could meet at 7:30, however, that would be pushing the Finance and Public Works Committee up to probably another midnight meeting. He aeked if they could meet en hour earlier. Mayor Norton suggested startling at 7:00 p.m. MOTION RESTATED: Councilman Carey moved, duly seconded, that the meeting be continued to Tuesday, May 4, at 7:00 p.m., for purposes of an Executive Session. The motion passed unanimously. At 12:50 a.m. the meeting was continued to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 4. ATTEST: 1073 5/3/76