Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08191974August 19, 1974 The City Council of the City or Palo Alto met on this date at 7:30 p.m, in an adjourned meeting of August 12, 1974, with Mayor Sher presiding. Present: Berwald, Clay, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher Absent: Beahrs reeu eat__fo_ r 1intenance of State Hi hwa s in the City of Palo -Alto (CMR:456.4) MOTION: Councilman Comstock introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Berwald, its adoption: RESolur`IoN NO. 4958 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RELAID G TO THE AGREE TENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF STATE HIGHWAYS IN 1}U .;Iii OF PALO ALTO" The resolution was adopted on a unanimous vote. F,,, r Lid Urban FA1 Prograa Lmelementation - Street System (CMR:404:4) Mayor Sher noted that Council had received the staff report dated August 8, 1974, concerning this subject. Vice Mayor Henderson found it hard to believe that Palo Alto would get just $88,000 a year out of a county allocation of $5,200,000.00. He stated that the County gets 50%, the City of San Jose gets 22X, and the remaining cities get 28%, except that the cities have to give 30% of their porti: nn back to the County for administrative purposes, which amounts to $486,000. Mr. Ben Pawloeki, Director of Public Works, explained that of the total of 5.2 million dollars, twenty percent would go to the Santa Clara County Transit District, thirty percent would go to CALTRANS, the State Division of Highwxys for regional projects in the County, and Twenty-two percent would go to San Jose. The County unincorporated areas would get six percent, and the cities would get twenty-two percent. Vice Mayor Henderson reiterated that he was simply pointing out that the cities have to give back thirty percent of what they receive for administrative purposes, and he thought that was a very high percentage, Mr. Pavloaki commented that the thirty percent included an offset because seventeen petcent of the funds must be matching funds. Eighty- three percent of the funds can be PAU funds; and in any given project, there must be seventeen4ercent matching funds. The money is somewhat =Cumbered, and than county must come up with catching funds from other sources. Mr. "Pawloski said staff was influenced by its prior experience with the TOPIC'S programs, which indicated that administrative overhead was tremendously high. They did not want that experience repeated on the PAIi funds. 163 Vice Mayor Henderson felt the county was taking back some of the city's money in order to have funds to match it; in other words, they were replacing their own funds. He did not feel this situation was too much different from the TOPICS program, which had bothered some of the Council members. Councilwoman Pearson asked if there would be more flexibility with the FATS Program than there had been with TOPICS. She wished to know if the funds could be used for transportation and for traffic satiety measures. Mr. Pawloski responded that since the funds the city will receive could be used for any purpose that gas tax fund; could be used for, they could also be used for any safety projects. The money could not be used, however, as supplementary funds to the Transit District to purchase additional bus service. Councilwoman Pearson asked if some of the funds could be used for supplementing a transportation system for the elderly. Mr.. Pawloski replied negatively. Councilman Comstock asked if it were necessary for the city to contribute $08,000.00, or some other amount, in order to get the $88,000.00 from the county. Mr. Pawloski responded negatively; and he said this was, so to speak, "clean money". Councilman Comstock asked if the funds could be used in a joint transit program with Stanford. Mt. Pawloski replied negatively. At the present, gas tax funds could not be used for that purpose. However, he pointed out that there has been an amendment in the law saying that in 1974-75, there could be a ten percent diversion of gas tax funds for transit used. It is possible that these funds would come under that ruling. Mx. Pawloski said that one way to look at it was that city funds that might otherwise have been used in some street oriented project are replaced by the $88,000. Councilman Comstock asked if -Council had assumed in the budget that this money would be forthcoming. Mt. Pawloski responded negatively. Councilman Clay referred to the formula used to distribute, the funds which determines the amount of money received by each city on a pro rata system based on population. He asked what consideration had been given to the employment population of n city. Mr. Pswloski stated chat the allocation was made strictly on a population basis. MOTION: Councilman Rosenbaum introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Comstock, its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 4989 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RELATING TO THE FEDFRAi. AID URBAN PROGRAM!" The resolution was adopted on a unanimous vote. 164 8/19/74 ytsion to Sign Ordinaace (GNR:420.4) Mayor Sher noted that the sign ordinance revision had been before Council some time .ago and had been delayed so there could be expressions of opinion from interested perFons. Council members had a copy of the staff report dated July 17, 1974 with a supplemental memo of July 18. Tha proposal originally came from the Policy and Procedures, Committee. Councilwoman Pearson stated that she was ready to move the ordinance with some exceptions and new provisions. It was imperative that the sign ordinance mode ahead, and she recalled that the subject had been diacussed periodically since 1963. Councilwoman Pearson felt the Architectural Review Board had recently been approving good- looking signs, and the recommendation to reduce the size of the signs by one-third had come from that body. She asked staff to explain the difference between the sign ordinance which was recommended by the Policr and Procedures Committee and the one that was presently before Council, Mr. Knox, Director of Planning, stated that the only significant difference was that the discussion in Committee led to an amortization period clause which provided for non -conforming signs. Section IV of the ordinance before Council specifically states that. no amortization period is required for signs rendered non -conforming by the reduction in sign size. Mr. Knox pointed cut that in that same section, and also in the next paragraph, a date is given of September 26, 1974. Because the ordinance was before Council at this date, those two dates should be changed to Octobec 11, 1974. He suggested thi..t an amendment to change the date be considered in conjunction with other possible amen dmen t a . Councilwoman Pearson felt strongly that an amortization period should be stated in the ordinance. She recalled that the ARB recommended a five year amortization period, and the Policy and Procedures Committee had recommended a compromise of ten years. Since that time, Councilwoman Pearson changed her mind and she now agreed with the ARB recommendation of a five year period. It had become clear to her that without an amor- tization period, a sign such as the Kentucky Fried Chicken sign could remain forever. The numbers that had come to Council showed that most of the signs had been in existence for at least five years, and the most expensive sign was no more than '$3,000.00. Councilwoman Pearson felt it would be a great asset to f1 Camino to have the signs reduced in size and the gross ones phased out. She wanted staff to direct itself to other points on this subject and comeback to Council with proposed ordinances. One of these would be to incorporate in the Code the city of La?ayette's requirement that there be a reg- ulation of paper or painted signs which are inside windows; another would be the regulation of awnings as allowable signs. Councilwoman Pearson felt window signs in the downtown area were unattractive and vetch too large. She would be willing to agree to awning signs, providing there would be maintenance and upgrading of signs of that type. Further, she thought it would be a good idea for staff to report on Lafayette's Ccede requirement that the maximum permissible wall sign area be reduced by the sign area of each free --standing sign and shingle sign on the property. This would mean that if a business had two signs, a wall sign and a free --standing one, that one of them would have to be reduced by the size of one of those signs. MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson introduced the following ordinance and moved its approval for first reading, with the addition that the ordinance include a five-year amortization period: ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMMING VARIOUS PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 16.20 (SIGNS) OF THE PALO ALTO )W ICIPAL COPE TO RACE YBE SIZE OF MATADI SIGNS BY ONE-THIRD 1 5 5 8/19174 Councilman Berwald raised a point of order. He noted that the item before Council was the ordinance; therefore, the ordinance should be placed before Council, seconded, and then amendments could be in- troduced. It seemed to him this was a late date to come up with an amendment and incorporate it into the original ordinance. Mayor Sher stated that Councilwoman Pearson would make the notion in the form suggested by Councilman Berwald. He did not think Council- man 3erwald's comments were correct, though, since the ordinance recommended by the Policy and Procedures Committee included the amortiza- tion period. The ordinance before Council tonight was prepared by staff after consultation with certain parties, MOTION RESTATED: Councilwoman Pearson introduced the following ordinance axed moved its approval for first reading: ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING VARIOUS PORTIONS OP CHAPTER 16.20 (SIGNS) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF CERTAIN SIGNS BY ONE-THIRD Philip W, Vogt, speaking for the Architectural Review Board, said that the ARB initiated the whole project by proposing that the permissible area of signs be reduced by one-third; The object of the proposal was to prevent many of the city's commercial streets from becoming tunnels of signs which competed with each other and tended to obliterate the structures on which they weie mounted. Mr, Vox.. stated there were my fine buildings that were somewhat disguised by signs. Also, the sign ap:e2ications that were being presented to the ARB seemed always to ask for the maximum allowable, when such a sign would be more than adequate for the business person who needed it. After consideration, the ARB suggested chat the sign limitation be reduced by one-third. Since that time, joint meetings had been held with representatives of the business co nx_ty; and some points were thrashed out. It developed that the biggest concern of the business community was what could be done with a sign that is presently larger than would be permitted by the new ordinance. An ensuing questionnaire survey was made of the business community, and it was found that the percentage of signs that would be illegal under the tee of the new ordinance was relatively small. Therefore, the ARB felt the amortization program could be deleted as a matter of compromise. Mr, Vogt thought this gave due respect to the interests of the business community, and over the long haul, would achieve the objective sought by the ARB, which was to reduce the maximum allowable size of signs. Councilman Norton said he understood that the basic difference in the recommendation is not whether to reduce signs erected in the future by one-third, which seemed to be somewhat acceptable; but whether to amortize signs which would be rendered moat --conforming by the new ordinance in five or ten years. He asked if this were a fair statement of the issue. Mr. Knox replied that his uruieratanding was that the amortization question was now being addressed,. Ha pointed out the general rule in the Building Code which states that non -conforming signs shall be abated within two years if they are painted and within five years for any other type of sign. Basically, the general rule is that there is a five year amortization period. Mr. Knox said in order e pg. 226 to accommodate the wishes of the business community and provide the amortization period, Section IV was inserted in the ordinance which provides an exemption. If t are is a desire to eliminate that exemption, it could he dote by removing thatsection ken from the ordinance. Then, the general rule of a five year amortization period would "still stand.. 166 8119/74 Mayor Sher asked Mr. Knox to comment on the point that it would be a burden on staff to locate all of the non -conforming signs. He also asked if a sign would have to become immediately conforming if there were a change in the message on the sign. Mr. Knox responded that staff felt there would be a burden imposed on the Building Inspection Department in terms of finding all the signs that are oversized. That was not, however, the only element that was involved in the staff recommendation. Mr. Knox noted that it was Council, in response to members of the business community which asked staff to take a 120 day study period and talk to representatives of business about their problems as they perceived them. Staff discussed with them what they thought the issues were, and they were most concerned about what would happen to existing signs in which they had invested a great deal of money. The main objective which the ARB had brought forth some time ago was to reduce the size of new signs, and the APB could take care of the design aspects within that smaller parameter. The survey showed that the number of non -conforming signs was not great. Because of the matter requiring conformity at the time of see the change in a sign face, staff felt it would not be a very long pg. 226 period of time before most of the signs would become non --conforming because of changes In business. Mr. Carl Hey::Lann, California Sign User Council, asked Council if it had seen a copy of tile letter written by his organization's attorney to the City Attorney, dated ':arch 2?, 1974. Mayor Sher responded affirmatively. iix. Heymann stated that the sign ordinance was a very arbitrary and capeicious !dove on the part oj Palo Alto. There was no objective reason for cutting the size of signs by me --third in his opinion. Mr. Heymann said this: arbitrary decision was a shock and puzzling because Palo Alto watt the only eity taking this kind of a step. He thought there were several paragraphs in the staff report to Council which needed clarification, and one of these had to do with the meetings with the business community. In that particular paragraph there are statements made which hers of the community who had attended the meetings would disagree with. :Mr, Heymann referred to the average cost of signs based on the Bureau of Labor and Statistics price. He stated these statements were not true, and he did not think the Bureau of Labor and Statistics could give anyone an average coat of a sign. Ht., Heymann sake." Council if the City of Palo Alto was prepared to compensate the business community for the loss it was about to take dues to the reduction in the size of its signs. If the city was not prepared to do that, then he would like Council to refer to the last paragraph of his attorney's letter which states that "interference with lawful business being conducted in a .lawful manner cannot be condoned ran matter what guise the interference may take". In other words, the proposed ordinance was a violation of constitutional rights. Councilman Comstock stated that the basic ordinance shown on the agenda is the staff recommendation which calls for the change in _the area of the signs, but there is an exemption with regard to an abatement period for non -conforming signs. If this were passed as proposed, non -conforming signs would be allowed to continue without any specified abatement period. Councilman Comstock asked 11 Heymann if he saw any loss occurring in that case. Mr, Heymann replied that if there is no reduction in the size, and if the present signs are declared legally conforming, there would be no just compensation issue involved. 1 b 7 8/19/74 Mr. Jerry Verssen, 550 Hamilton Avenue, requested that if Council wished changes to be made, he would appreciate it if the proposed changes would be referred back to the committee that had been discussing the sign ordinance. Mr. Zcett Carey, 180 University Avenue, speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, referred to Councilwoman Pearscn`s comment that the most expensive sign involved cost approximately $3,000.00. He pointed out that the wooden signs that Cornish and Carey had at the corner of University and Emerson were not garish, not lit, and were hung by the cheapest contractor they could find, The signs cost $2,500.00. Rickey's signs coat in excess of $20,000.00, and there were many signs in the city that cost greatly in excess of $3,000.00. Mr. Carey felt that an amortization period of tive years s,ould, work a hardship. The Chamber of Commerce supports the staff recommendation which reduces sign size by one-third, but there would be no amortization period excepr in the event of sale or sign change, Further, the Chamber supported the idea that a special district be get up for El Camino Real where there are peculiar problems. Mr. Carey asked that an amortization period not be asked for those few cases where it would work a h rdaihip, and he commented that the Impact on the city would not be that great. Vice Mayor Henderson asked if fable t, which c.;::.'. with the report of Febtiary 28, i974, was still valid, Exat:ples were given in the table of signs which tn.,w exists, of both signs which would and would not conform under the proposed ordinance. That is where Council found the figures which showed the highest as being $3,000:00 for those at Colonel Sander's Kentucky Fried Chicken and the Shirt Tail Restaurant. Vice Mayor Henderson asked if there were any more expen- sive signs that will be non -conforming. Lois Atchison responded that the figures in that repor`. were based o°a costs that the applicant listed on hie sign permit. She said she understood that the applicant did not always list the total cost, so that staff had in mind that the figures were somewhat low. The costs listed in the report that Council had just received were gotten from the questionnaire. Me. Atchison said that averaging could be reasonably done over a few years. For example, for the period 1970- 74, staff care up with the cost of $20.00 per square foot for a wall sign and $50.00 per square foot for a free standing sign. Some of the very large free standing signs on El Camino would be quite a bit more expensive. Mr. Richard Kluzek, Manager of the Chamber of Commerce, said he was astounded when he heard the proposed amendment by Councilwoman Pearson It had been his understanding after having met with staff and members of the ARB, that the business community would go along with a one- third reduction on any signs that are changed in sign face because of a sale of the business, change of name, etc., in the future. The business community also agreed that El Camino Real should be considered a apecial district because of the faster movement of traffic and because many of the businesses attract regional business. The third agreement arrived ar its the meetings was that the statistics were derived from the Planning Department. Whet looking at their survey, it was generally understood that the number of signs affected had to be qualified as well as quantified by the fact there was substara- tial reduction in the size and height of signs along El Camino Real, in particular, as brought about by a revision in the sign ordinance in about 1969. Many of those signs bave been changed in the last ten years. Mx. Kluzek pointed out that many of the persons responding in the survey were new owners of motels, restauxantsv and. the like, and they really had no idea how math their sign mtgthave cost As 1 6 8 8/19/74 Mr, Verssen said, if there is going to be a substantial amendment to what the business community thought the sign ordinance would be, then they should have another opportunity to discuss it. Mayor Sher commented that there had been indications made that under- standings and agreements had been reached at the meetings with the business community members. It was clear that the recommendation of the ARB and the staff did not coincide with the special treatment for El Camino that had been mentioned. Mayor Sher felt disturbed that there was some feeling that agreements had been reached on the points that had been discussed. Nr. Knox responded that it would be incorrect to say there was ever a consensus at these meetings. The various issues were raised and discussed. At the conclusion of those meetings, the staff put together its report. Staff stated iu its report that the business community wanted to have a special sign district for El Camino, but staff recom- mended against that. Mr. Knox said staff felt there were three viable alternatives, and they were listed in the report. The first alternative was to accept the original proposal of the ARB to reduce all sign areas by oae-third and to establish a ten yeer amortization period, The second alternative seas to enact the one-third reduction but to have no amortization period for signs and, in effect, grandfather them in. The third alternative :could take into account the special :signing needs on El Ca ino, establishing a special district where the present sign areas would apply, and there would be no reduction. The conclusion of staff w:as that the second alternative would produce the most positive visual impact, acid they made that as their recommenda- tion. In the letter of -July 18, the ARB milted the El Camino matter and stated that it believed that effective signing was not directly dependent upon size. Further, the Board believed that the special signing needs of El Camino were part of a much larger issue concerning the whole visual environment of El Camino, which should be taken up separately. The ARB is talking about some sort of a special effort on the part of some of the Board members and others who would participate in looking at the design aspects of El Camino. As part of the Comprehen- sive Plan, specific elements of the comity will be looked at, including El Camino Real, :r. Knox felt it would be premature to discuss the subject at this time. Mayor Sher stated that with regard to the El Camino situation, the ARB and the staff recommendation were stated in reports dated July 17 and 18 so there was no element of surprise there. Councilman Clay referred to Mx. Knox's reasons for not creating a special El. Camino district, and asked if he could infer that some different kinds of things may happen on El Camino because of the Comprehensive Playa. Me. Knox explained that at the moment there was no reason to treat El Camino differently in respect to signs from the rest of the city. The whole visual aspect of the street, including signs, would be looked at in the future. Councilman Clay asked if it might be premature to have a sign ordinance that covered El Camino. Mr. Knox replied that staff's analysis was a city-wide one. Twenty- four signs on El Camino were analyzed, and fourteen of them would become non -conforming. 169 8/19/74 Councilman Clay said the figures showed that 84 out of 118 signs were oriented toward pedestrians and persons in automobiles, and 24 signs were exclusively auto oriented. He asked if those signs were along El Camino. He wanted a comparison of auto oriented signs on El Camino and University Avenue. Ma. Atchison responded that was not picked out of the survey. Councilman Clay concluded, then, that twenty out of the twanty-four signs could actually be along University Avenue. His understanding was that because of the Comprehensive Plan, staff ielt that special considerations should not be made for El Camino. Mr. Knox stated that he understood the point being made was that if El Camino were going to be studied, then why make any changes. The other side of the argument was that if changes were going to be made to the sign ordinance, then why not make them uniformly over the city. Councilman Clay said he did not want to spend several hours three months from no:Y-discussing the sign ordinance again. Mayor Sher noted that one of the important questions was the amortization period. In order to deal with that question, he recognized Councilwoman Pearson regarding her amendment. Councilwoman Pearson wanted to be certain that her understanding was correct in that if she moved to delete Section IV, there would be an amortization period of five years. Ms. Marilyn Norek, Senior Assistant City Attorney, responded that the amortization period would be two and five years. AMENDMENT: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, deletion of Section IV of the ordinance that was on the floor. Councilman Rosenbaum asked staff how the ordinance could be adjusted if Council wanted to have a ten year amortization period. Ea, Norek responded that Section IV could be changed to put in a ten year amortization period for the -types of signs in question. See pg. 226 Vice ',ayor Henderson thought the failure to establish an abatement period gave the businesses the advantage of going on forever with their large signs. This would leave untouched s=e of the worst signs now in existence. He noted that the point had been made that the number of signs affected would be small, but most of those are on El Camino. The Vice Mayor stated that when he was running for office, he heard many comments about garish, gaudy El Gino; and the persons complaining felt most strongly about the signs. He went along with the costs as shown in the February memorandum, and the highest cost of the non -conforming signs was drown to be $3,©00.44. The two signs that cost that much were already over five years old, so they would be ten years old by the time they had to be replaced. Vice Mayor Henderson did not think the $300.00 per year would be too much of a hardship for Kentucky Fried Chicken and The Shirt Tail Restaurant. He pointed out that if all the signs were held to certain limits, the competition would be equal; and huge signs were just not needed to attract customers. Vice Mayor Henderson stated he would support the five year abatement as well as the reduction in size. 1 7 0 8/19/74 Councilman Berwald stated support of the ordinance as presented by staff, and he spoke against changing it to add the amortization period. Councilman Berwald agreed with Mr. Carey and Mr. Verssen that if any changes were going to be wade after the staff meeting with the business community, then the matter should go back to the for discussion. He felt that the assumption was that business communities did not improve signs or any aspects of their operations until some ordinance is passed. This was a case where the business community was willing to cooperate, and Councilman Berwald felt they had been cooperating for a long time. He thought that the fact that only eighteen out of every one hundred signs in the city had been built to the maximum was good performance on the part of the business sector.. Staff recognized their cooperation, and it was willing to try to compromise with this particular ordinance, which Mr. Knox had already stated would produce the most positive visual impact in the city regarding signs. Councilman Berwald pointed out that this was not a total revision of the sign ordinance. He had passed out the Lafayette Ordinance months ago, and he had suggested a complete revision of the sign ordinance. He had also suggested that the city take a totally new look at El Camino. In his opinion, El Camino should be a special architectural and design district that would reflect the historical origins and cultural signifi- cance of the Old Mission 'Frail. It was C unci3man £erwald's understanding that staff said this would happen on El Camino and at that time, he would favor an amortization period of reasonable length; He felt that the ordinance as recommended by staff would reasonably accomplish the reduction of the problem without the element of amortization. Councilman Berwald summed up his comments by saying he would oppose the amendment, support the original ordinance, and even more strongly support a complete look at the sign actuation some time in the future. He recommended as a model Seattle's re --appraisal of its sign ordinance. Councilman Comstock said that w=hether the amortization period turced out to be five years or ten years, there were a few questions which he would like to deal with. One of these was comments made by various people as to what their understanding was as to the results of the meeting with staff. He hoped chat at the close of the meetings staff had indicated that any recemmendations it might carry forward to Council were always subject to being changed by Council. Councilman Comstock stated that the 120 day study period was inspired by an original item in the Council agenda, which had been included in his letter making some recommendations for a fixed amortization period. 'therefore, that could not have been a total surprise; and he suggested that the issue was, in fact, on the table back in March. Whether an amortization period be of five or ten years, there was a problem of equity if there were no amortization period. This meant that a set of restraints would be put on people who are inside the limits of the existing ordnance or the revised ordinance; and so there would be a question of equity relative to those who are not inside the limits. While you can say Wit this involved only one- third of the total nurttber, according to the staff report., there is still a real problem for the other two-thirds or those who are not going to at some time have their signs phased out and made more consis- tent with their neighbors. This would create an issue of equity that needed to be faced unless there was a systematic method of phasing out the signs that are non -conforming. if there is no amortization period, the phase -out would be appreciably slower because it would only occur when there is a desire on the owner of a property to change his sign. This reflected the problem that the ARB found itself in. They had been having a very steady diet of signs, and they had gained expertise and had become knowledgeable in this area. Councilman Comstock urged his colleagues to think about the equity issue,.; 1 7 1 8/19/74 Councilman Norton stated that the motion as it stands would delete "d" and have the effect to go back to the standing amortization period which exists in the ordinance and has, for ten or more years. _While a five year period was being spoken of as being contained in the present ordinance, his recollection was that any sign that lad been built within the two previous years of the effective date of the ordinance or a; amendment would be guaranteed a total of seven years. Councilman Norton asked if that were still the case. Ms. Norek responded that the provision is still in the ordinance, but it relates only to the signs made non -conforming in 1969. Therefore, that part of the ordinance reads "with respect'to the two years immediately preceding April 3, 1969." Councilman Norton said the intent of that provision was to guarantee signs a full seven years if they had been built within two years of the adoption of the new provision of the ordinance. -It seemed to him that the same kind of thing could be incorporated tonight so that any amendment that went into effect would guarantee some businesses at least seven years. Councilman Norton favored that since he felt seven years was a reasonable period for Most signs. Mayor Sher noted that hiss Norek had mentioned two and five years, and he asked he to explain what the effect ot the motion would be. e particularly wanted to know about the two years. Ms. Norek explained that :he general rule is that signs painted on bsuildinLs, walls, or fences, have a two year amortization period; and all other :signs have a five year amortization period. However, there is an exception for the 1969 changes which guart:rtteed Seven years for most signs, and three years for painted signs. :ayor Sher said then the amortization period under the proposed amendment would be two years for painted signs and five years for all others. MS. Norek responded affirmatively. She added that if Section IV of the ordinance before Council tonight were strikers in its entirety, then the general rule of two years and five years would apply. Councilman Clay said he understood that this ordinance came about because the ARB felt that present signs were gar1 h and unsightly, and something should be done about them. The An thought that a one-third reduction in the size of the signs would take care of the problem. Since that time, it has been found that not very many signs would be non -conforming; therefore the problem is not of the magnitude as was originally thought. The ordinance under consideration says that no signs shall be built larger than the onesthat presently exist, for the most part. Councilman Clay's opinion was that this ordinance would satisfy the problem that Council vas trying to solve, aid that was to have signs no larger than two --thirds of the ones presently in existence. Therefore, he felt the amortization clause need not be included. He also felt satisfied that when the El Camino problems were looked at, whatever changes that were necessary at that rime would be made. Councilman Clay stated support for the ordinance as presented with no amortization clause. Councilwoman Pearson said there was a booklet put out by the California Roadside Council, and this organization had tried to get a number of communities to upgrade their signs. They came into being es a result of the nation-wide propaganda opposing the clutter of signs and what it does to cities. This organization developed a movie; and in it, E1 Camino Real was shove as an eample-of one of the worst kinds of signing that could happen to any cowmnunity. She referred to the statement that Rickey'e sign cost $20,010.00, and she asked 1 1 2 8/19/74 '?7 how many years ago that sign coat $20,000,00. It was not just Rickey's, but it was Rickey's Hyatt House. Councilwoman Pearson felt that the Hyatt House could well afford to put up a good looking sign. She cited the Holiday Ian sign as a comparison to that used at Hyatt House. The Council forced Holiday Inn to put in a good looking sign, and now that business was using that sign on their brochures to point out what an attractive sign they had in Palo Alto. Councilwoman Pearson stated that she was not impressed by Mr. Heymar.n's threats of legal action. She had heard those kinds of threats for ten years, and they just did not mean that much to her. Her duty was to do - what was right for the community. Councilwoman Pearson read the following from the California Roadside Council booklet: "Sign Control Helps Busineos: Chaotic over -abundance of sighs invariably accompanies an area's deterioration". The aim was to upgrade El Camino; but the sore signs that go up, the worse it looks. She read further: "S1gn regulation is one of the first tools customarily used in a drive to upgrade a community. Sign regulation alone will not create an attractive community, but an attack on the sign blight may trigger a chain reaction that will. Sign control is good business, and business is willing to say so. Industrial consultants engagedby the City of Santa Clara to recommend means of attracting new industry put first things first in this way -• Upgrade the appearance of El Canino Real, Immediate steps: plantin,I, and forcing setback restrictions controlling the use of signs. Sign manufacturers and signing contractors are usually the chief opponents. i ey attract a number of allies. Often local businese think that sign control will mean loss of business; and on that basis, they ally themselves with the vendors of signs. Even a local Chamber of Commerce or a Merchant's Association may be persuaded that less flamboyant signs may result in their places of business being overlooked. The benefits that can be -cited are an individual business enjoys a more fair assurance of not being obscured by his nef.g'rsbor's sign, tee. total cost of each sign in the long run would be less, the business block will become !tore attractive to customers, and the community will be just that much more attractive as a whole. Does anyone stand to lose? Presumably the dealer in signs may find his business somewhat dimsinished. If so, he will not go out of business for signs will still be a needed co idity. Every bit of business growth will mean added business for him. Whatever adjustments in improved standards involved will cortainly'be well justified on the grounds of community benefit." Councilwoman Pearson said that if the signs on El Camino were smaller and neater, and the street numbers more prominent, the customers would be able to find the businesses easier. She urged Council to support the five year amortization, and she hoped her colleagues would not support the ten year idea. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Councilman Norton moved, seconded by Comstock, that Section IV of the proposed ordinance include a Subsection D, which reads parallel to the present Subsection B, with the effect that signs painted on walls, fences, etc. would have three 1=-aars from the date of construction guaranteed, and all other signs have seven years from the date of constructioa guaranteed, if a valid permit could be shown for the sign. Mayor Sher asked if this were intended for signs that had been constructed in the last two years. Councilman Norton responded that the intention wa.`3 for within two years of October 11, 1974. Mayor Sher said then that the amortization period would be three years for the wall si a and semen years for all other signs. 173 8/19/74 Vice Mayor Henderson clarified thin as being a five year amortization, but if a person has put his sign up within the last two years, then he would have seven years. Councilman Norton explained the effect was to guarantee that any new sign would have a total lifetime of seven years or three years, depending upon whether it was a painted or a constructed sign. Vice Msyor Henderson asked for clarification for a sign that had been put up five years ago. Councilman Norton responded that the five year rule would apply. The substitute amendment passed on the following vote: AYES: Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Norton, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Berwald, Clay Mx. Knox reminded Council of the date that would be involved in Section V as well as in the new amendment in Section 1E,. siayor Sher ;.aid ie had been recognized that the correct date was October tt, 1974. The ordinance as amended was approved for first reading on the following vote: AYES: Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Norton, Rosenbaum, m, Sher NOES: Berwald, Clay. Councilwoman Pearson wished to direct staff to prepare ordinances is certain other areas to bring back to the Council. Councilman Comstock had been talking about the sign problem since 1963, and she had been talking about it since 1965. It was time to do something. MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, that staff be directed to prepare an ordinance which would regulate the use of paper or painted signs in windows of businesses, stating that only 20% of the window area could be covered, and to include awning signs as allowable subject' to maietenazace and upgrading. Councilman Rosenbaum stated it would be appropriate for the staff sport to go to a Committee so that the inevitable diszu$eiun could occur there rather then at the Council level. AtiEA13MENT: Cu-aucilman Rostenbaum moved, seconded by Comstock, that the staff report be referred to the Policy and Procedures Committee. Councilman Berwald stated he had voted against the ordinance reluctantly, and he would have voted for it had it not bean for the last amendment. This was a cure where the city had the concurrence of the business community in a step that would have materially increased the visual image of the city. Re felt that the city was now getting one more piecemeal ordinance. SUBSTITUTE NOTION: Councilman Berwald coved, seconded by Clay, that the staff prepare a report to be referred to the Policy and Procedures Committee that would provide the *silent features of a comprehensive amendment to the satire Palo Alto sign ordinance, and this would include a commentary regarding a Special Design District for El Camino Real with regard to signs. The report is to include the two concerns stated in Councilwoman Pearson's motion. 174 g/19/74 Councilman Berwald felt the city was moving in the direction of a comprehensive review anyway. Fe had earlier mentioned the Lafayette Ordinance, which was such a comprehensive review, In is opinion, comprehensive reviews of ordinances were much better than piecemeal ones. Councilwoman Pearson felt that getting into the whole sign ordinance again would be a disaster. The two items mentioned in her -motion, window signs and awning signs, would upgarde the downtown area very quickly. Councilman Clay said he was not in opposition to the ordicance, but he did take exception to the approach. He felt that as many things as possible should be taken care of at one time. Referring the subject to the Policy and Procedures Committee would involve a lot of repetition, and that should be avoided if possible. Councilman Rosenbaum said Council_ needed to remember that t1le basis cif Councilwoman Pearson's cation was a staff report, which indicates staff has already looked over a number of other sign ordinances. The reconanendatibhs -that they Made were done so on the basis of their study, and those recommendations were very specific and should be dealt with in a reasonably short rime< it was his opinion that Council should stick with the specific subject, The Berwald referral rttior: failed on the f;)iio•wing vote: AYES: Berwald, Clay, Comstocic NOES: Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher The amended motion to have staff prepare en ordinance passed on the jp;lowing vote: AYES: Berwald, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher DOES: Clay aiueat of Coutnc ilwo x Pearson, uest of Citizens €or Res onse a.iii4Airig Traffic Situations So that everyone would understand what was being discussed, Councilwoman Pearson read the following letter, dated August 8, 1414, which she had sent to her colleagues: "A number of citizens have contacted me in the last few weeks regarding traffic. These citizens have spoken to us before. They have been patiently awaiting solutions to their traffic problems,. It is not easy for the to accept the staff's position that months• of study are necessary to determine the solutions, but they did accept this position and have been patiently awaiting the results. The recent complaint from Gresneeadcw regarding traffic was of particular interest to them, and it is my understanding that several people from other problem areas attended the Greenaueadaw traffic meeting. Needless to say, the incredibly swift action on the part of the staff regarding traffic solutions for Greenmeadow and the staff's seeming ability to concoct these solutions without months of study left these persons feeling as if solutions to their problems had been shifted to the bottom of the priority list. Even though it is admirable to solve problems quickly, I too, cannot understand why Grsenmeadow's complaints were addressed prior to Louis Road or Newell Road. It was not the Council's direction to drop *1.1 other areas in deference to Greer nmeadow. 1 1 5 It would be helpful to these citizens to hear a staff status report regarding their problems and the questions I have raised. I am sure they will also wish to speak to the Council". Mayor Sher noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Tom Passell, dated August 13, 1974, in regard to Louis Road and Newell Road; a .letter from Mxs. Evans in regard to Newell Road; and a third letter also in regard to Newell Road. Elizabeth Boyle, 515 Newell Road; spoke of excessive speeding by automobiles on Louis Road, She talked with Mx. Ted Noguchi, Traffic Engineer, about the problem almost a year ago. When she spoke of the possibility of closing the Newell Road Bridge to automobiles, he explained what needed to be done to implement such a change. Mrs. Boyle enumerated the things that she and ethers in the'neighborhood had done, which included much paper work and effort on the part of a number of people. Many meetings were held, and tasks were assigned. A study had been ordered by Council, but the concerned citizens were still waiting for the results of the study. Ms. Boyle complained that there was no control' exercised over noise and speed levels. Vaughn Hopkins, 1040 Moffett Circle, assumed that Council and staff would be cooperative on the touis Road problem if they were able. He recognized that the Great eedow traffic problem was basically one of speeding on one caner, so that it was quite different from the difficulties on I,ouir Road. Ori the surface, it appeared,that Greera.meadow had been given a high priority, and that More tide and effort had been spent in solving that problem than in solving the one on Louis Road. Mte Hopkins stated that it was time to start :forking on the Louis Road traffic problem. Tom McColiough, 1499 Edgewood Drive, appeared before Council April 15, 1974 when it authorized the study of the closure of Newell Bridge. He asked what progress had been ,made towards that study, and when could the neighborhood expect some action. Mx. McCoilough expressed the concern that the Council keep faith with all of the people who worked so hard last spring to bring the traffic problem on Newell to the attention of the Council. D. E, Jones, 2599 Louis Road, submitted letters from some people who were concerned about the traffic on Louie Road, but could no: be present. Mx. Jones stated that surveys ahowed that the area of greatest concern to Palo Alto residents is volume, density, speed, and pollution of traffic, To demonstrate part of the problem, Mr. Jones played y tape of the traffic noise which he could hear from his bedroom window. me. Jones recalled the history of efforts made by the community to get the city to do something to alleviate the serious traffic problems on Louis Road. He complained that although a speed study was done, nothing was done to follow it up and reduce the level of speed. be. Jones said there had been numerous accidents in the vicinity of his home all due to careless driving and speeding. Although various studies had been promised, the Traffic Engineer had not conducted then. He explained that driver were tieing Louis Road as a speedway and continued to do so because citations were not issued. Mr. Jones expressed discontent with the response from the city to his serious concerns. The only exception to this was that when he called Stan Shelly, he always got action. He stated that when Greenmeadow had a traffic problem, it was taken care of with alacrity; whereas, the Louis Road problem had been going on for years. The sophistication of the presentation made by the Traffic Engines: at the meeting concerning Greenmeadow'a traffic problem indicated that quite a bit of time was spent on it. Mr. Jones could not sea why the same kind of time was not allocated to Louie and Newell long ago. He felt that what had happened was prejudicial, 1 7 6 8/19/74 biased, and discriminatory+ against the citizens on Louis and Newell who had waited so long for action. Mr. Jones asked the City Council to direct the Traffic Engineer to immediately implement all postponed studies for Louis and Newell Roads; he wanted the Traffic Engineer to immediately implement his research to slow the speed of automobiles in Palo Alto; he wanted the Traffic Engineer to begin immediately weekly meetings with the residents of Newell and Louis untii a success- ful resoluticn of the traffic problems was realized; and he wanted council to ask the Planni+zg Commission to consider the Louis, California Avenue, Newell, and Newell Corridor, as the cross-town bicycle highway. Roger Santos, 2675 Louis Road, stated that he lived on Louis Road for twelve years and had watched the traffic situation grow steadily worse. He expressed concern over the difficulty of simply trying to turn into his own driveway. Mb. Santos was worried about the children who went to Van Auken school and said than his son, a member of the traffic patrol there, was afraid to let the children cross at Amarillo and Louis because of the heavy traffic moving above the speed limits. Celia Corchado, 926 Colonial Lane, said that an analysis had been done with regard to speeding on Louis Road. As a result, citations were given for one week. However, nothing further had been done. NS, Corchado thought it was obvious that a street with school crossings and bike lanes needed protection from speeding motorists. Yet, the problem persisted. Iiere would be added wrry for the residents in a few weeks when school would begin again. Charles Walker, Assistant City Manager, stated that anyone who had been following the Comprehensive Plan knew that the concerns about trafficare probably the priority concerns within the community. Staff had under study an active Newell Road Bridge study that began sometime in April, which Council was given a schedule about in June. Staff also had an assignment on Louis Road. Mao, there were ongoing neighborhood traffic studies for College Terrace; the downtown area involving Lytton, Palo Alto Avenue, Alma, and Middlefield; Charleston Gardens neighborhood; Park Boulevard neighborhood; Greenmeadow; and a rensher of other areas. Mr. Walker said that the Newell Road Bridge study does deserve a high priority; at the same time, it is a complex subject involving the impact on not only other streets in our community but other streets in neighboring communities. For that reason, it does require the amount of time staff had projected in the informational report. As far as the Louis Road situation was concerned, Mr. Walker did not know of any particular neighborhood that had received more staff attention over the peat two or three years. Two years ago, the Police Department began keeping track of the amount of time it was spending in responding just to the complaints of Hr. Jones. Something in excess of three hundred hours of staff time was spent la monitoring the situations Mr. Jones spoke about, and in meeting with hire and his neighbors in attesting to alleviate the concerns that exist. Hr. Walker explained that generally, staff's approach in respsnding to traffic concerns involved two phases. The first is an immediate assessment where an attempt is made to determine the scope of the problem and what action, if any, might be taken immediately to alleviate the problem. The second phase is a longer term one, and it involves the impact eny action in one particular area aright have on the broader community. Hz. Walker pointed out the steps staff had taken in the past relative to stop signs, such as the action taken on Byron Avenfie in the past year. There'vere others like that such as the Southhampton loop. There were other areas similar to the Greenmeadow one where concerns were brought to staff's attention, and where it was obvious that through enforcement efforts and a minimal response: something might be done to alleviate them en a shorter term. Staff halt tile. was being responsive and that it did not detract from than overall longer term efforts such i 1 7 7 8/19/74 as with the Newell Road Bridge area. Mr-. Walker expressed willingness to explain staff's approach and the things that were happening with the people in the community. In some cases, staff was not aware of what the concerns were. He stated that his letter to Mrs. Boyle had not been a response to any direct contact, but was a response to a circular that had faller into staff's hands and made it aware that a study was going on, If staff had known that the residents of Louis and Newell Roads were concerned that what had been done in the Greenmeadow area was detracting from their area, then staff could have given assurances that that was not the case, Mr. Walker said a staff report could be provided that would outline the various neighborhood studies that are being conducted, what they involve in terms of the areas to be surveyed, what staff saw as bating the impact, and what the time schedules were. Keith Boyle, 515 Newell Road, stated that precious little seemed to be done to respond to the serious traffic problems in Palo Alto. He feared that nothing would ever really be done to return neighborhoods to a people -oriented place to live. The Comprehensive Plan seemed to forecast a city paved with reads by 1990.: On April. 15, residents of Newell Road had asked for help in getting the Newell Road Bridge closed to automobile traffic. Nothing had been done. In the last :month, Greenmeadow residents asked for help with their specific traffic problem. Hr. Boyle thought that Newell Road should be re -named the Newell Road Drag Strip, because that was the way it was used, He gave examples of a-cidents that had oceurred in the Newell and Edgewood Road area. He suggested each Council member ask himself the question as to whether or not Palo Alto was expendable. 1 Councilwoman Pearson said she would like to direct staff to immediately come up with solutions for Louis Road and Newell Road; for instance, doing such things as putting in stop lightcl., guard and go, bumps and rumble strips - which were supposed to have been laid down on West Bayshore but had not been, put a divider down Louis Road, reduce the sire of the road, and put in wider bike lanes which would reduce the kiod of traffic there. However, Councilwoman Pearson did not feel she would get mush support for those ideas. She did think that some real physical barriers should be put in. It seemed to her that staff had already done enough studies on the Louis Road area. MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, that staff prepare a status report for the meting of September 10 in response to her memo regarding Louis and Newell Roads traffic problems and include reference to West Bayshore bumper strips (see Henderson memo of 11/7/73 "Speed Controls on City Steets"), and include status reports on all traffic studies underway. Councilman Norton said his appraisal of the problem on Louis Road is different from the one that had been presented. He would vote against Councilwoman Pearson's motion because he felt it was headed toward the formation of a Traffic Committee, which he would not approve. Further, he would not approve of closing the streets in question or of any other obit= uc.tion of traffic in Palo Alto. The problem is much broader, and It was not going to be soured quickly. Councilman Norton said Council one week would divert traffic to Emnbareadero, the next week the Embarcadero residents would be at the Council meeting, and Council would rhen divert the traffic to Louis Road. As a result of some of these diversions, ears begin using insufficient secondary and primary carriers. While it might be worth votes at the next election to support such moves, in honesty to himself and to what he thought was a proper engineering solution, he would not vote in favor of closing Newell Road Bridge, or closing Louis Road, or obstruc- ting traff c on Louis Road. Councilman Norton stated he would not vote in support of this agenda item. 1 7 8 8/19/74 Councilman Berwald said that if the facts were understood, perhaps there would not be the feeling that Greenmeadow had received favored treatment. He referred to the attack on staff that they had given special treatment to the problem at Greenmeadow. Councilman Berwald commen.ed that he had never asked for any favored treatment, and no one else from Greenmeadow had either. For instance, there had been about sixteen traffic studies in the city which had been immediate responses, Councilman Berwald was aware of the hard work that staff had put in on the Louis Road area. Since so many immediate responses had been made in so many areas, he did not understand why there had been such a fuss about the staff's response to the traffic problem at e;reenmeadow. He thought'that all areas of the city should'be treated the same in terms of concern about traffic, and he was convinced that staff was doing that. Councilman Berwald reported that a young girl had loot her life in a traffic accident in his neighborhood just a few months ago. This unfortunate event increased the concerr, of the people in Greenmeadow to the point that ever since then, they had put pressure on hiss, which he welcomed, and upon the city to solve a problem that had resulted in a death, two injuries, and in loss of property. Councilman Berwald said solutions needed to be looked for, but they were not easy to find. no one in asking for help in one neighborhood should make insidious comparisons about another area. Ihe citizen: of Greenmeadow asked him to meet with them, which he did. He put the iteu on the agenda, and Council voted to take :action i .:ediateiy. The staff did that, and he thought they should be highly coeplimented for their performance. Covneilmesn Rosenbaum said that to some degree the principle in action vas that the squeaky wheel gets oiled, After the people from Greenmeadow came in, the staff quite properly went out and met with them very quickly. if a difficult solution is envisioned for that problem, then it would take time to implement a change. Councilman Rosenbaum spoke in support of including in the motion a status report on all the traffic studies underway. Mayor Sher did not view the motion as a first step in any thought out plan. It was simply a request for a staff report on traffic surveys underway, and he thought that was appropriate considering the long term involved in solving some of the questions. Councilwoman Pearson stated that she was not at the moment advocating a City Wide Traffic Committee, although it sounds as though one were needed. In that way, each neighborhood would be able to see what a change in their area would do to some other neighborhood. If the plan- ning Commission came in with any recommendations regarding zoning to control commute traffic, she hoped Councilman Norton would support it. The motion passed on the following vote: AYES: terwald, Clay, Comstock, Sher, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum NOES: Norton Request of Councilman Comstock for Council referral to Piannins Commission to Xnitiat reaoni e PA &or rron ark MOTION: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Norton, that this subject be continued to the agenda for September 10, 1974. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. 1 1 4 8/19/74 Ma or Sher Refers back to Item 15 Nevis on to ign Ordinance Mayor Sher stated that it had been pointed out that Council had voted on Councilman Rosenbaum's amendment to refer the matter to the Policy and Procedures Committee. Councilwoman Pearson's motion was to have staff prepare an crdinance and bring it back to Council. The amendmene passed seven to one, but Council did not vote on the main motion. Mayor Sher requested that a vote be taken. The amended motion passed on the follovieg vote: AYES: Herwald, Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Clay (Norton out) Reconsideration of *lotion of August 12 re 1974-75 Tax Rate Vice Mayor Henderson stated that because of th? lateness of the last ;peek, he had not thought to move to reconsider a 724 tax rate after both that amendment and his 70c proposal had falkd. Since Council was still in that same meeting, he could move to reconsider the amended motion to set she tax rate at MOTION: Vice Mayor Henderson moved to reconsider the votes on the ordinance relating to the annual tax rate on the primary amendment to strike out 74c and insert 70c and the secondary amendment to strike out 70c and insert 72C. Vice Mayor Henderson commented that he voted against the secondary amendment and therefore was on the prevailing side. Councilman Comstock asked if this motion would bring the matter before Council again. Vice Mayor Henderson responded that it would bring it forward to be discussed at the 72e level. If the 72e level were to pass, that would be the tax rate. If it failed, Council would then vote again on. the 70c tax rate. If that failed, Council would vote again on the 74e tax rate. Mayor Sher noted that Vice Mayor Henderson was on the prevailing aide on the 72c amendment, but on the losing side of the 70c amendment. lie asked if it were proper to bring the matter back for discussion on both of them. Councilman Comstock mentioned as a point of order that the last moeion voted on was to set the tax rate at 72e. Vice Mayor Henderson explained that Mk. Norek had checked this over the weekend, and her research indicated that he could bring up the 72; motion that was defeated, and that would open up the entire question again. Mayor Sher asked Ma. Norek to assure Council that the motion was in order. 1 g O 8/19/74 Ms, Norek noted that according to Roberts Rules of Order, Fage 278, the motion as stated was proper. Vice Mayor Henderson could bring up the secondary amendment, and by bringing that up, bring up both the primary amendment and the main motion at the same time. Mayor Sher assumed that if that failed, that would open up the possibility of debating the 70e motion. Me. Norek responded affirmatively. Councilman Rosenbaum asked :Hiss Norek if she were saying that even after the motion hard been dealt with, one could refer back and reconsider an amendment to that motion. Ma, Norek responded affirmatively. The purpose of course, perhaps in this case, is that an action taken, night not have been taken had the Council member known what was coming on the main motion. Under the general rules of recousideration, a Council member could bring up the entire matter and start all over again. Mayor Sher ruled the motion in order, The motion to reconsider failed on the following vote: AYES: Henderson, Pearson, Berwald, Cof:stock NOES: Clay, Norton, Rosen au. , Sher puneilaaan B3erwald's Re +:est to eecansider Tax Rata Question MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Comstock, that the previous Council action on the tax rate of 74( be reconsidered at this time. Mayor Sher asked Me. Norek if Councilman Berwaid's motion were in order. Ms. Norek replied that if Councilman Berwald were on the prevailing side on that motion, it could be reconsidered. Mayor Sher asked if it were to be reconsidered generally or was it to be reconsidered in terms of the same motion that Councilman Henderson put fort• -lard. Councilman Bervald stated that the reason he was making the motion was that he would then re -introduce the motion to set the tax rate et 72; which represents the amount of money surplus to the budget needs. Mayor Sher commented that was the import of Vice Mayor Henderson's motion which failed, and he ruled Councilman Berwald's motion out of order. Councilman Berwald and Comstock challenged the Chair. The Chair waa overruled on the following vote: AYES: Clay, Norton, Rosenbam, Sher NOES: BerwaJd, Comstock, Henderson, Pearson 1 8 1 8/19/74 Councilman Berwald's motion failed on the following vote: AYES: Berwald, Comstock, Henderson, Pearson NOES: Clay, Norton, Rosenbaum, Sher Oral Cowmunicat ions None. Ad i ouraz�aent The adjourned meeting of August 12, 1974 adjourned at 10:20 p,m., August 19, 1974. Regular Mecti�of Aupyst 19, 1974 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met et 10:20 p.m. on August 19, 1974, in a regular meeting with Mayor Sher presiding. Present: Berwald, Clay, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher Absent: Beahrs Finance and Public Works Committee Recommends re Purchase_of Property at 220 Universitv Avenue and the Adjacent Plaza Property (C' 8:475:4) Mayor Sher noted that Council had the minutes of the Finance ani Public Works Committee of August 1, a Staff Report to the Committee dated July 30, and a Staff Report to Council dated August 15. There was also a letter from Mre. C. Bianchiui, dated August 5 in which she apposed the idea of having a Senior Citizens Center on the main street of Palo Alto. Vice Mayor Henderson stated that originally the Finance and Public Works Committee had before it the single question of whether the city should purchase Lytton Plaza and preserve it as open space. Before that question was resolved, Council approved for the 1974- 75 budget a new Senior Services Center Program. Coir'cidentally, the building adjacent r.o the plaza was on the market; and it became an obvious point of interest for consideration for the Senior Citizens Program. As a matter of fact, the property is now being offered only as a package. Based on the information then .available, the Finance end Public Works Committee recommended that Council direct staff to obtain an option for purchasing the combined properties the building and the plaza. Since that time, staff has completed a more comprehensive investigation of the building which resulted in the August 15 report that recommends against use of the building as a Senior Services Center. i"roe Committee based its decision on at least three positive conclusions: 1. The building is suitable for use as a Senior Services Center without too great a cost for remodeling; 2. The price for the two properties is a good one; 3. The plaza open space adjacent to the Center and the central downtown location make this site an ideal one for the senior citizens. it has now become clear that conclusion number one, is questionable. ' Three alternatives ars available to the Council. One is to buy the piaese for open space and time building for us*as a Senior Services Center, and this is the 182 8/19/74 original recommendation made by the Committee. The second alternative is to buy both properties conditional upon the city finding a buyer for the building. In other words, the city would purchase only the plaza. The third is the alternative of acquiring neither of the properties. MOTION: Vice Mayor Henderson moved, seconded -by Pearson, that Council direct staff to obtain an option for the purchase of the property at 220 University Avenue and the adjacent plaza property. Mss. Carleen Bedwell, Assistant to the City Manager, recognized the difficulties created by staff cooing in with additional information after the Finance and Public Works Committee had made ite recommendation. Ms. Bedwell reported that the space in the building was not as great as staff had anticipated; There Are severe structural limitations in the building; and in terms of space limitations, what could be done in the building would be limited. Father than one building, the structure is two buildings adjacent to each other ,joined by a bearing wall; and renovations would be severe with regard to modifying the bearing wall. At the time of the Coenci1/Co sittee session, staff indicated that in addition to the $26,000 for rent and renovation that is included in the Senior Center budget, there would be sixty to eighty thousand dollars on top of that. Ns. Bedwe1i said that it will now cost approximately $200,000 to renovate the building, according to an engineering analysis, This would include construction, architect's fee, engineer and inspection services, and the work on the bearing wall. Staff recognized that while the Center proposal that was included in the 1974-75 budget spoke of rental, the purchase of a building and renovations costs of this magnitude make the location, the use, and the city's involvement in the building much more serious. Staff assumed that Council could consider this a long time commitment to the Senior Program and to the building itself. Thus, the idea of moving into a building with a sense of permanency causes staff to look at the program there tnueh more seriously: and in some ways, this does not permit the flexibility that a rental facility would, at least for its first year or so. Ms. Bedwell commented that the Task Force on Aging was just being formed, and some of their recommendations nay relate to a Senior Center and the facility that would house it over the long tern,. A11 of this had been predicated on the assumption that it would be valuable to have La Comlda involved in the facility; on the other hand, there was still no commitment from La Cumida to be the nutritional element. If it were found that the assumptions of including La Comida and permanency of the building as a Senior Center were not valid, this would affect the renovation costs somewhat and staff's subsequent recommendation. Mayor Sher noted there was also a letter from the Senior Coordinating Council in which they talk about the need for in-depth planning for the Center_ Mrs. Fed Zwleriein, 1542 Charming Avenue, spoke as the daughter of a senior citizen. She was one of the volunteers at 425 Hamilton Avenue where she had a chance to talk to the people and hear about their needs, wants, and dreams. It was important for the senior citizens to have a place where they could get together with friends, thus avoiding loneliness. Mrs. Zwierlein said that if 220 University Avenue were going to be turned down, Council should indicate what alternatives it had in mind for them ao they could have something definite to look forward to. Paul Kerr, 360 Forest Avenue, reported that a number of the senior citizens were interested in the Squire Howe. Mr. Kerr felt that a great deal of work for senior citizen could be done more efficiently at Squire House, and yet a great deal could be done at the downtown 1 1 1 8 3 8/19/74 location; and a coordination of the two points of view was needed. Fern Hunt, 522 Mayfield, Stanford, reiterated that the senior citizens had put a lot of work into the Squire House, and it would be a good thing if they could have the use. of the garden there. Na. Hunt felt that it was time to put Squire House to a good use, and she hoped that the senior citizens ,.could be using it during her lifetime. Harold Kay, 576 Hale Street, Chairmaa of the Senior Citizens Committee of the Lion's Club, stated that the problem was one of lack of vision, and lack of belief that something must be: done for the senior citizens. He felt that staff was being very cautious about its recommendations, and his feeling was that a decision should be made to establish an excellent Senior Citizens Center. rir. Kay recommended rhat Council take steps to create a first-class center for the seniors, and pointed out that Palo Alto had enough money to do just that. Paul Zulch, 350 Manzanita, President of the Palo Alto Chapter of the American Association of Retired Persons, stated that his organization had adopted La Comida as its community service project. About thirty of the members of his organization served as volunteers in that program, and they were very interested in seeing that La Conida was properly housed. Mr, Zulch reported that the great majority of senior citizens lived in downtown Palo Alto, and that would be a logical place for their center, Scott Carey, 180 university Avenue, thought the city ought to buy the plaza. His understanding was that an offer had been made on the plaza, and acceptance of the offer had been recommended. If the city wanted to acquire the property, Mr. Carey thought this was the last night it would have the opportunity to take action. He suggested that trying for an option, would be futile, but the city could buy with stated conditions. Mr. Carey spoke strongly in favor of, having the plaza for open space in the downtown area, and he encouraged Council to acquire the property. In his opinion, the price was a fair one. Councilman berwald asked if the offer that had been made was for both the plaza and the building. Xr. Carey responded affirmatively. Mayor Sher assumed that if the sale went through, a building would be constructer: in the open space. Mr. Carey replied that he assumed the land was being purchased to be developed. Mayor Sher asked if there were any reason to believe that the seller would sell to the city with conditions when he had another offer with no conditions. Mr. Carey felt the seller would take into consideration that the offer with conditions was being made by the City of Palo Alto,and that the City would be acquiring the building and the laud for public use. Vice Mayor Henderson looked back to three years ago when there was virtually no program in Palo Alto for senior citizens. Since then a full time Senior Services Coo,cdivator has been hired, reduced bus fares have been put into effect, studies have been made of the senior citizens' problems, and the first steps have been taken toward setting up a senior services center. He felt the Council really was dedicated to programa for the senior citizens. With regard to Squire House, 1 8.4 8/19/74 La Comida could not be housed there. It would require a separate structure outside which would cost about $200,000.00. Then there was also the $250,000.00 renovating figure: which made the total amount $450,000.00 to make Squire House usable. The square footage is just slightly larger than the building next to the plaza. Vice Mayor Henderson felt the City should buy the 220 University Avenue property now, study further the costs of remodeling the building, and if remodel- ing were not feasible, then sell the property. MD ION Vice Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Pearson, that Council direct staff to acquire the plaza and the property at 220 University Ave- nue conditional upon the ability of the city to find a buyer including the city itself, for the building, or retain it for public use within a period of 120 days. Councilman Rosenbaum re --emphasized Vice Mayor Henderson's remarks in connection with the concerns of the people in the audience. Last year, Council did approve a Senior Services Center that was going to be for fairly specific uses. It was to be a place where agencies would have a central facility where they could provide advice and assistance to olden citizens; and in addition, there would also be a social room. It had been Council's intention at that time that this would be a rental _facility, and the possibility of buying a specific piece of property has held up somewhat the progress that might otherwise have been made. Councilman Rosenbau, read the following paragraph from a letter received by Council from the Senior Coordinating Council: "We feel strongly that in-depth planning for the Center is required. One of the principal charges to the forthcoming community Task Force on Aging will be to examine extensively the opportunities of and regeireucents for such a Center. In this regard, we hope that short term expediencies do not impede the iarportant and imminent planning for the Center that is to occur". Councilman Rosenbaum really questioned whether the city sho.:ld .lock itself into a particular building that has limitations, when a Committee on Aging was just being set up to look into the sorc of programs that were really needed. Councilman Rosenbaum asked the Attorney what the possibilities of condemnation would be if the city decided it really wanted to preserve the plaza as open space. Ms. Norek replied that she could not think of any reason offhand why the city could not condemn the land for open space. Councilman Roseabaum asked why it was thought the seller would be interested in a ccnditional sale to the city when there was an offer with no conditions from someone in Los Angeles. Vice Mayor Henderson replied that Pfr. Carey seemed to think there was this possibility simply because it was the City of Palo Alto making the offer. Councilman Henderson said he would have to change his motion since there would not be time to make an assessment of the property if Council would have to move this quickly. The price was discussed in the Finance and Public Works Committee, and it was felt the price was a fair one. MDTI l i RESTATED: Vice Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Pearson, that Council direct staff to make an offer to acquire the Plaza and the property at 220 Diversity at the asking price 0$250,000) conditional upon the ability of the City to find a buyer for the building, including the City itself, at a price acceptable to the City, within 120 days, or retain it for public use, 185 8/19/74 Councilman Rosenbaum said it appeared the matter would be up to Great Western. If they are a public spirited organization, perhaps they will take the city's conditional offer. In any event, the possibility of condemnation was open to the city if that did not turn out to be the case. Councilman Comstock wondered if the asking price might not be a little higher if conditions were added. He asked if Vice Mayor Henderson's motion precluded evaminiug that possibility -or was the staff locked into some fixed dollar amount. Mayor Sher stated that the motion directed staff to acquire the property; and since there was not enough time for appraisal, the limit of $250,000 needed to be put on the amount to be spent. Vice Mayor Henderson sa!d that the Committee felt. the $250,000 was a firm offer to the city. :tayor Sher felt that it the figure were not right, then the city would hear that from Great Western. Mr. Walker explained that the general purchase policy involves a one price approach. In the past, the price has been based on a formal appraisal of the property. IT) this case, it did not appear that the city had tice to go through that procedure; however, a cursory look at the asking price of $250,000 shows this that is at least reasonable. Mr. Walker said staff would not feel comfortable with a lot of negotiating room. Mayor Sher noted that the motion before Council stated the amount as being $250,000. Councilwo_tan Pearson co:z ented that at last Council was talking about acquiring an actual building for the senior citizens. She felt this fact was due in large meat;.ure to many of the persons in the audience who not only take care of themselves, but other people also; and she complimented then for that. In Councilwoman Pearson's opinion, downtown Palo Alto was the center of activity for senior citizens. It meant life, companionship, eagerness, and belonging; and senior citizens like the downtown area. She felt that the building and the plaza constituted one of the great buys in downtown Palo Alto. She would hate it if a Los Angeles purchaser succeeded in acquiring that property, eliminating the plaza, and putting tip a building. Councilwoman Pearson stated that would be a minus in what was being done in downtown Palo Alto, and open space was really needed there. It was known that the Stanford Shopping Center was going to be enlarged, and this would be in direct competition with what they were envisioning would happen as a result of Palo Alto's plans for the downtown area. Council- woman Pearson noted that a mistake was made once before as far as the Stanford Shopping Center was concerned, and she would not like to see that happen agar. Wl'ether or not the building had certain limitations could be determined. She could not imaging iplacing the senior citizens any place else in Palo Alto, and she could not imagine purchasing any other land in downtown Palo Alto. Councilwoman Pearson said she was relying on Itr. Carey's persuasive powers with Great Western. Councilman Comstock commented that in regard to the location of the senior center, there was same discussion of the Squire House and of this location on University Avenue. After taking many things into consideration, the Finance and Public Works Committee concluded unanimously that 220 University Avenue had more pluses. Staff clarified its uncertainties or misgivings about the site in its report, and 186 8/19/74 Councilman Comstock felt this was dealt with in the motion. The biggest question he had as a result of the staff report was whether or not the building as it stands could comfortably accommodate the La Comida program. At the Committee meeting, it was felt the building could handle the program, and the members proceeded somewhat on that basin. The location has many pluses besides being central. It provides an opportunity to gee a parcel which has some open space features as well as inside features, so that office type services could be developed inside. The open space would be a very desirable rest stop for persons on errands and conducting business in that part of the commtuaity. Councilman Comstock explained that his remarks were not meant to put down the beauty and charm of the Squire House and its own unique features. 'He had not abandoned his interest in that building and its ultimate value to the community, but he was convinced that a center in the downtown area mould be much more useful to the senior citizens. A Senior Citizens Center would add another facet of variety and strength to the development occurring in the downtown area, as well as being of benefit to the people in the community. Councilman Berwald thought some interesting things were developing &t this meeting with which he did not feel comfortable. The discussion started out with directing the staff to purchase the building and the adjacent open space, and it was talked about it being used as a park and open space. Later, there was discussion of using the property as a Senior Citizens Center. Councilman Berwald concluded after hearing from Fern Hunt, Paul Kerr, and others that Council was going about the matter backwards. He thought it was necessary to decide whether there would be one center, or perhaps two or three. A view that had been expressed to him was that the .weniors did not want a huge center where they would feel more institutionalized than they did when meeting in smaller quarters. The procedure should be to develop a firm policy as to what was wanted, and then to design specifications that would include light, ventilation, visual outlook, one floor, and so forth, Councilman Berwald felt from what he had heard at this neeti_ng that there were no assurances that the building would ever be used for a Senior Citizens Center, and he did not think the building was an appropriate one. This meant Council would be really buying the plaza for open space, and that open space money would compete with the needs for senior citizens. Lastly, he pointed out that Council was contemplating negotiating on a building and a park without having an appraisal, negot;sting in public, and negotia- ting for the staff by offering a firm price; all three of which were anathemas to him in regard to city procedures. Councilman Berwald ,felt Council was going about the whole thing too quickly, and he did not like to buy property under the threat that the sale was imminent. He pointed out that a decision had not been made as to what kind of facility was wanted for the senior citizens, and that decision needed to be taade first. If Ccur .cf7. really wanted the plaza, he thought there were other ways to get it. Perhaps Council could ask Staff to look into the pcssibilety of taking an option on just the plaza. Councilman Berwald cautioned that if the thought was to buy the building and the plaza and then sell the building, Council would find that the two together were worth much more than just the building and just the plaza. Councilmen Norton felt that Council was talking about at least two separate issues. The conversation began with a general statement of the need for a Senior Citizens Center. Some of the members of the audience obviously hoped that this center, or a portion of its activities, would be in the Squire House. Councilman Norton supported that idea in the past, and he would continue to support it. Other speakers had supported the idea of ,a search for a site being conducted _within a reasonable time, consistent with the moat recent staff recommen- dation for a downtown site. He pointed out that he had heard no support i;• 187 8/19/74 from anyone in the audience for locating a Senior Citizens Center at 220 University :venue; on the other hand, the general feeling seems to be that would be an insufficient building. It is too snail, not properly designed for the purpose, can not accommodate La Comida, ceilings may be too low, and perhaps the Center should not be located on the main street of the town. Councilman Berwald said no one who had addressed Council supported the motion that was before it; therefore, he felt the motion failed to consider the stated concerns of the audience. He stated he would not support buying the Savings and Loan Building for a Senior Citizens Center. In his opinion, it was not attractive, and it was not well located for that purpose. Hamilton Avenue offered a much nicer feeling for this kind of a purpose. Further, Councilman Norton thought the ability to expand the building for future needs was patently limited. He said he would support a motion to go out and look for an appropriate site. Staff was looking at least three places, and Council needed to know about those before it went ahead and purchased an old Savings and Loan Building that had bean vacant for two or three years. Speaking with Yegard to La Comic's, Councilman Norton felt that one of its charms and one of its reasons for success was that it was a volunteer organization and was not governmentally sponsored. Another reason was that it was located in an attractive building. Those characteristics should not be quickly abandoned in favor of moving into an old Savings and Loan Building, even though there would be city honey to help. Vice Mayor Henderson clarified that with regard to the purchase of the building, part of the motion was the condition on the ability to either find a buyer or use it for this purpose, He did not think, therefore, that Council was locking itself into using it for a Senior Citizens Center; but there certainly was no other way, for example, to obtein the plaza, Councilman Norton responded that the discussion then should center on acquiring the plaza. Be had been talking about the proposal to acquire the building for senior citizel usage. The comment had been made that there would be four months to sell the building, but he submitted that realtote had been trying to peddle that building for several years. Councilman Rosenbaum noted that the offer being made was conditional, and he assumed the city would have to put up the money. He wanted to know what happened to that money during the four , nth period. NM. Norek responded that she was not quite sure how the mechanics would work, but she understood that the condition was that the city would not buy unities; (1) it was determined the city wanted the building for its own use, or (2) it could immediately sell to someone else. She thought the city did not have to worry &bout escrow until the condition was removed. Councilman Rosenbaum un.deratood that no money need change lands for four months. Me. Norek replied that it would be a minimum of four months, because the city would have four months in order to remove the conditions. At that point, the obligation to put up the money would come into play. Councilman Rosenbaum stated that based on the information he had, he did not think the building was suitable for s Senior Citizens Center. On the other hexed, perhaps it would be found there was no sultsble property to rent. Nev information may be produced on the costs of renovation. peuncilman Rosenbaum said be would support the motion, but it voUid not be his intention that anyone think that 188 8/19/74 the city was planning to use that particular building for the center. He trusted that the staff would not sit around for four months and not look for rental space. Councilman Rosenbaum asked Vice Mayor 'ienderson if he thought staff would be given direction to pursue a rental property for a facility which was approved in the budget last year, or was it leis intention that this proposal be given further study instead of seeking rental property. Vice Mayor Henderson said he contemplated a motion regarding the location of a Senior Citizens Center, and he hoped that possible locations would be brought to the Committee within a month. The meeting would involve various alternatives including rental situations, and the building under discussion. Mfrs. Bedwell commented that there vas the possibility of using the building as a Senior Services Center for a year or so, treating it more or less as rental property. She felt staff had offered as much as it could regarding the permanent location of the Center there, If staff were to consider it as a temporary location, that would be an additional perspective. Councilman Rosenbaum felt that the trouble with this would be the city would have to give up its condition that a buyer be found for the building. If the city used the building for a year r and then changed its mind, then the city would be stuck with a building that may or may not be salable in a year. } . Eedwell explained she made her suggestion in the event that the city decided to keep the building for some public use. She reported that Mrs. Steeples had looked, and will continue to look at many build- ings. Locating a Senior Center and establishing an operating facility were very high on staff's list of things that had to be done. Councilman Clay asked if the option itself would cost something. ix. Walker responded that the mechanics of the offer were not clear, and he did not know if money had to be transmitted with the offer. Even though money may not change hands at all for four months, he understood from a discussion with the City Controller that an offer to purchase does include a binding of the city. In order to make the directive effective tonight, Council would have to provide staff with the authorization to spend the money. Co oilman Clay stated that for a contract to be binding, there must be a fee. Secondly, he had never seen any option of this type that did not cost something. Mayor Sher commented that Council moved away from the option idea, and they were going to make a firm commitment to buy subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions is if the city des not want the building for public use and is unable to find a buyer, then it was not committed to buying, Councilman Clay asked what the difference was between that and an option. ee pg. 226 Mayor Sher explained that the option is that if a buyer who offered a reasonable price could not be found for the property in the four month period then the city would --be stuck with buying the property whether it wanted it or not. The city could go ahead and sell at that price, Possibly the city would think the amount was too little for the building, but a court migbc think it 1a au adaq ate price, in that case, the city would be left with the plaza. 189 8/19/74 Councilman Clay felt that within the 120 days, the city would either sell or evaluate the property for public use. He asked which of those two alternatives rook higher priority. Councilman Rosenbaum said that Mayor Sher raised the point that the city would have to take the property if a buyer could be found at a reasonable price. He wondered if it would be prudent to put in that price, Ms. Norek thought that if the price were specified, the offer would be more attractive to the seller. Or, wording could be made such as "a buyer acceptable to City Council." Mr. Walker suggested that language be put into the motion such as "at a price acceptable to the city." Vice Mayor Henderson agreed that such wording be included in his motion. The motibn passed on the following vote: AYES: Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Clay, Be wald, Norton MOTION: Vice Mayor Henderson roved, seconded by Comstock, that Council authorize an adjustment to the 1974-75 Capital Improvements Program budget increasing appropriations $250,000 for the purchase of property at 220 Ckniveraity Avenue and the adjacent plaza, and reducing the unexpended fund balance by a similar amount. The motion failed on the following vote: AYES: Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Hosenblaum, Sher NOES: Perwald, Clay, Norton MOTION: Vice iaayor Henderson moved, seconded by Comstock, that Council direct staff to approach the owner of the plaza and notify them of the interest of the Council in purchasing the plaza property. Councilman Rosenbaum suggested that the possibility of condemnation sight be added to the motion. MS. Norek thought the idea of condemnation ought to be disposed of as quickly as possible rather than have that possibility hang over t1 a property and the seller. Hr. Walker expressed the opinion that if the city wanted the plaza, it would probably have to condemn it. He suspected that 'would not be an easy route to take. 1 Vice Mayor Henderson pointed out that the owner knows the city has the power to condemn, and he did not feel it was necessary to say more than the city was interested in the property. Councilman Norton asked if the same dilemma would arise if there were no money in the budget to either condemn or negotiate a purchase of the plaza alone. In other words, did staff recommend thet Council authorize a purchase without any money in the budget, or more importantly to go to condemnation without money in the budget. _ Igo 8/14/74 Walker responded that staff could not buy anything without the money being in the budget. * yor Sher stated that at this point the city was simply making an overture tb save if there would be any interest at all on the part of the owner in selling the plaza by itself to the city. Coutcilwtoman Pearson thought that the senior citizens lost because of the failure of the motion to amend the budget, and the whole subject would, therefore, be stalled for anothet year She could not see renting apace anywhere in downtown Palo Alto for a Senior Citizens Center. The city could look around for land, but it would not find any land to condemn and build aoMething on. In Councilwoman Pearson's opinion, that was a ridicaOus idea. There was a building there, and Council should have taken it. Now those who voted against the motion wanted to go back and put the. burden on the property owner' with the threat of condemnation. She thought that was a terrible way to operate. Councilwoman Pearson said she wanted the plaza badly. She would vote for this and hips there would be six votes to put it in the budget, and she hoped the matter would not be solved by condemnation. Councilwoman Pearson stated that the city had lost something in not buying the whole property and leaving its options open so it could decide what it wanted to do. She did not like the kind Of operating indicated by those three Councilmen who voted against the funding motion. The motion passd on the following vote: AYES: Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Clay, Berwald, Norton »3110N: Vice Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Sher., that the subject of a location of facilities for a Senior Services Center be referred back to the Finance and Public Works Committee. The referral motion passed on a unanimous vote. Adjournment The sleeting of August 19, 1974 adjourned at 11:48 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., August 26, 1974. City Clerk ;'' Mayor 1 9 1 8/19/74