HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-18 City Council Summary Minutes
02/18/97 −1
Regular Meeting
February 18, 1997
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..........................................82-3
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..........................................82-3
1. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council
re Proposed Change in the Composition of the Human Relations
Commission’s Membership to Include One Nonresident Member to
approve a policy to allow the selection of one nonresident to
the Human Relations Commission as long as that nonresident
worked in Palo Alto.....................................82-4
2. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council consider an application for a preliminary parcel
map to subdivide a vacant 21,000 square-foot parcel into two
10,500 square-foot single-family parcels for the property
located 679 Maybell Avenue (continued from 1/13/97).....82-4
3. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an
appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision of a conditional
use permit for the operation of a private outdoor recreation
service (tennis facility) for property located at 3009
Middlefield Road on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim
and Tennis Center including the reorientation of two of the
four existing tennis courts, resurfacing of the two remaining
courts and construction of one additional court and a park area,
including restroom facilities, in a PF Zone District...82-14
4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an
application for a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide a
1.5-acre parcel into five single-family parcels with exceptions
to lot size and width. The lots would be accessed by an
approximately 240-foot long cul-de-sac street, with exceptions
for width and design of the cul-de-sac, that the applicant is
offering for public dedication for property located at 4277
Miranda Avenue.........................................82-14
02/18/97 −2
5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider
Application to rezone property from PC (Planned Community)
District to CD-C(P) (Commercial Downtown Pedestrian Shopping
Combining) District in order to allow the existing 2,594
square-foot third floor of the building to be converted from
residential use to financial service use for property located
at 400 Emerson Street..................................82-31
6. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling
the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 1997.......82-32
7. Report of Mayor’s Committee On Escalating Rents........82-32
8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........82-44
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.............82-45
02/18/97 −3
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m.
PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Wheeler
ABSENT: Fazzino, McCown, Schneider
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Dr. Nancy Jewell Cross, representing Clean Air Transport Systems,
36866 Gum Court, Newark, spoke regarding congestion in Downtown Palo
Alto.
T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding subsidizing mass transit.
Donna Sheridan, 1732 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding speed limit
survey.
Jim Sheridan, 1732 Middlefield Road, spoke regarding speed limit
survey(letter on file in the City Clerk’s Office).
Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding accountability
(letter on file in the City Clerk’s Office).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve
the Minutes of November 25, 1996, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 4-0-2, Andersen, Eakins “abstaining,” Fazzino, McCown,
Schneider absent.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to
approve the Minutes of February 4, 1997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 4-0-1, Kniss “abstaining,” Eakins “not participating,”
Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to
approve the Minutes of February 6, 1997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 5-0, Eakins “not participating,” Fazzino, McCown,
Schneider absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve
Consent Calendar Item No. 1.
02/18/97 −4
1. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council
re Proposed Change in the Composition of the Human Relations
Commission’s Membership to Include One Nonresident Member to
approve a policy to allow the selection of one nonresident to
the Human Relations Commission as long as that nonresident
worked in Palo Alto.
MOTION PASSED 5-1, Huber “no,” Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council consider an application for a preliminary parcel
map to subdivide a vacant 21,000 square-foot parcel into two
10,500 square-foot single-family parcels for the property
located 679 Maybell Avenue (continued from 1/13/97).
Senior Planner Joseph Colonna said the applicant proposed to
subdivide an existing vacant single-family parcel into two 10,400-
square-foot single-family parcels. Each resulting parcel would
comply with the overall size, width, and depth requirements of the
R-1 zone district. The proposed side lot line which would bisect
the existing lot as angled, would not comply with the intent of the
design section of the City’s subdivision ordinance. The Planning
Commission and staff recommended denial of the parcel map based upon
the findings for denial listed in the staff report (CMR:109:97).
Alternative findings and conditions for approval were also listed
in the staff report in the event the Council decided to approve the
preliminary parcel map.
Planning Commission Chairperson Phyllis Cassel said there had been
much discussion on the item before deciding to agree with the staff
findings. There was a number of considerations in terms of what
would be an ideal lot line, but there was no agreement with the
adjoining owner that would make that possible.
Council Member Rosenbaum recollected that on January 13, 1997, the
item was continued at the request of the applicant who was attempting
to work with the neighbor to come up with a plan that would make
everybody happy. He asked what the status of that was.
Mr. Colonna said he had heard from both the applicant and the
neighbor, and no agreement had been reached.
Council Member Kniss said it appeared that there had been a
substantial struggle between the applicant and what seemed to be
four property owners in the Driscoll Court area. Ms. Cassel had
addressed, in particular, what appeared to have been an accepted
understanding with the neighbors when the area was first made into
02/18/97 −5
a court. She clarified it was not anything the Council needed to
pay heed to at the present time.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said that was correct.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open.
Peter A. Kline, 550 Marion Avenue, representing Cheryl Goodwin,
applicant, said the application before the Council was to subdivide
a vacant 21,000-square-foot parcel into two 10,500-square-foot
single parcel lots. The subject property was adjacent to the
Driscoll Court cul-de-sac. He believed that both the applicant and
the Planning staff agreed that the optimal development of the parcel
would be to incorporate the development of the parcel into the
cul-de-sac design so the side lot lines of the divided parcels would
radiate from the center of the Driscoll Court turnaround. Because
of the limited frontage of the subject property on Driscoll Court,
the applicant needed to acquire additional frontage from the owner
at 687 Driscoll Court. It could be done by way of a lot line
adjustment which was more or less the two triangles with a 10-foot
line above and below the 65-foot designations as shown on the overhead
projection. To date, the applicant had been unable to obtain the
neighbor’s agreement. A contract had been submitted in response
to a request for an option to purchase the adjacent lot, and language
was submitted which he hoped would accommodate the property owner’s
needs. To date, he had heard no substantive replies. Those
documents had been outstanding since early January. The current
application had one lot with 60 feet of frontage on Maybell Avenue
and one lot with 40 feet of frontage on Driscoll Court. The
application requested no exceptions. Under the application, all
existing trees would remain on the property. The staff recommended
denial based on Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) section 21.20.130
which stated, “The side lot lines of all lots, as far as practicable,
shall be at right angles to straight streets or radial to curved
streets.” Staff referred to 50-foot lots with a right angle dividing
line. The plan proposed by staff required an exception because it
did not meet the 60-foot frontage requirements required by the
ordinance. He believed the proposed plan was superior to the staff’s
recommendation. As the Planning Commission noted, the neighborhood
was one of a wide variety of sizes and shapes of lots. As such,
the plan proposed by the applicant was consistent with the
neighborhood. At the Planning Commission hearing, Planning
Commission Chairperson Cassel stated, “I do not find this line to
be that irregular. The corner’s going to be crazy anyway, and it
will allow a wider space on each lot to build a house. We would
not be dealing with two very narrow lots; we will indeed be able
to save the trees which was a condition in that circumstance.” As
further noted by Planning Commissioner Beecham, “The diagonal line
will permit more flexibility in house design than a 50-foot frontage
02/18/97 −6
in a straight line going to the back of the property.” The angle
of the proposed lot dividing line varied less than 5 degrees from
the 90 degrees which staff had requested. It was not a drastic
variation. He believed the slight variance was actually a benefit
as it offered a buffer for the transition from the cul-de-sac on
the one side to the property on the other side which was a flag lot.
He accordingly requested the Council determine in that circumstance
that the 90-degree line was not practicable. After that
determination, the application would fall directly within the City’s
subdivision ordinance and should, therefore, be approved without
condition.
Joan Oakley, 4178 King Arthur Court, referred to her letter dated
September 5, 1996, to the Planning Commission, which was part of
the staff report (CMR:109:97). She expressed her concern that her
property line abutted the whole width of the back of the parcel.
She reiterated that it was very important to have at least a 20-foot
setback between the back of the property line and the houses, no
matter how the houses fit onto the lots. Large houses were okay,
but she did not want them closer than 20 feet and peering down into
her backyard. She believed it defeated the purpose of how Palo Alto
was designed over the years which was to acknowledge other people’s
use of their own backyards.
Warren Kirsch, 4161 Donald Drive, represented the neighbors located
on Driscoll Court, in particular, Rich Merrill, owner of the property
adjacent to the 681 Driscoll Court property. He said Mr. Merrill
had expressed a strong desire to cooperate with the applicant to
develop the property in such a way that two lots could be developed
facing Driscoll Court. They had talked to a number of realtors and
had been told that the proposed configuration provided more buildable
lots, more desirable lots, and lots that would enhance the value
of the neighborhood. They did not know how to arrive at a conclusion.
The neighbors were frustrated with the process of trying to create
a neighborhood that continued to represent value. The concern was
for two narrow lots on the property. Two shotgun-shaped houses would
be overbuilt and overdeveloped and would devalue the neighborhood.
There was also concern that suddenly there would be a very long
fence along the corner of Driscoll Court which would turn the court
into a half court or hook.
Vice Mayor Andersen said it was one of those few lots in Palo Alto
that he felt would be a good flag lot. He asked whether the neighbors
would feel comfortable if there were an exception which would allow
for flag lot construction. He was hearing that it could not be done
and asked City Attorney Ariel Calonne to respond.
Mr. Kirsch said he could not speak for the entire neighborhood, but
he recalled having discussions that the flag lot, whether a wide
02/18/97 −7
or narrow mouth flag lot, was clearly more desirable than having
two narrow lots with two long shotgun-shaped houses. His particular
preference was that a flag lot would be a more desirable configuration
and would add value from a marketing standpoint.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the subdivision ordinance forbade
it, and he did not believe there was any flexibility.
Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that Mr. Merrill was unable to
attend the meeting that evening.
Mr. Kirsch said that was correct.
Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether he could offer some insight
as to why a settlement that everybody had agreed was desirable had
not been reached.
Mr. Kirsh said two attorneys were involved which constituted that
situation. He did not mean any disrespect, but he felt there should
be a way to work the problem out.
Mr. Kline said the applicant wanted to accommodate the neighbors
and develop the property in a manner which, in essence, completed
the cul-de-sac. Everything had been tried, documents had been
submitted, phone calls made, and comments on the documents solicited.
To date he had received nothing in return. The last communications
were two phone calls he made to the attorney on the prior Monday
in order to follow up on the document. On Wednesday, his call was
returned by the attorney to advise him that the document was in his
client’s hands and that his client was very meticulous in his review.
He had received no response at present. The application had been
pending since the previous spring and had been fashioned in a manner
which was the most consistent with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
He trusted the Council would recognize that and approve the
application.
Council Member Kniss referred to the map and asked where he
anticipated the driveways on Parcel Nos. 1 and 2.
James Rhodeos, 415 N. California Avenue, representing the applicant,
said for the first parcel, the driveway could enter from Driscoll
Court, and the driveway for the second parcel could enter from Maybell
Avenue. There was a grouping of trees that needed to be avoided.
Council Member Kniss asked, since there were no houses sited at the
moment, where the houses might go.
02/18/97 −8
Mr. Rhodeos pointed out an area on the first parcel where a house
of 3,000 square feet could be located, which left quite a bit of
rear yard and would comply with the 20-foot setback easily. On the
second parcel, it would be 3,000 square feet but more elongated and
to the rear of the lot. Both could have second stories.
Council Member Kniss asked whether it would also have a 20-foot
setback.
Mr. Rhodeos said yes.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve
the preliminary parcel map to subdivide a 21,000-square-foot vacant
parcel into two 10,500-square foot single-family parcels in the R-1
Zone District with the following findings:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL, 96-PM-2
PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable
Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, in that the project
complies with Housing Element, Policies 1 and 3 because the
lots would provide ample building area and as conditioned, the
Architectural Review Board would review the design and
orientation of the future homes, whether developed singly or
in common, to assure that the homes will comply with the adjacent
development pattern and be consistent with the low-density
character of the neighborhood, which makes Palo Alto
neighborhoods especially desirable. In addition, the proposed
lots are consistent with the lot width, depth and size
requirements and to the greatest extent practicable, without
requiring exceptions to the minimum width requirement, the
proposed side lot line complies with Subdivision Ordinance
design requirement (PAMC Section 21.20.130) which states “side
lot lines, as far as practicable, shall be at right angles to
straight streets or radial to curved streets”;
2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed in that the proposed single-family lots would be 10,500
square feet each, which would exceed the 6,000-square-foot
minimum lot size in the R-1 zone district by 4,500;
3. The design of the new lot pattern and new single-family homes
will not cause significant environmental impacts, in that the
proposed lots have ample street frontage for vehicular access
and utilities from a public street;
02/18/97 −9
4. The design of the new lot pattern and the proposed development
will not result in serious public health problems, in that the
resulting single-family homes, through design review, would
conform to the existing development pattern in the surrounding
single-family neighborhood; and
5. The design of the new lot pattern will not conflict with public
easements for access through the use of the property in that
the resulting lots would have frontage on a public street for
vehicular access and utility service.
ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, 96-PM-2
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF A PARCEL MAP
1. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works
Engineering, Utilities Engineering, and Planning Departments
after approval of this map and prior to submitting the
improvement plans. The purpose of the meeting is to review
all conditions of approval and to discuss the standards for
design of all off-site improvements, including the street
improvements and all required utilities. Improvement plans
reflecting the required off-site improvements and utilities
shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to submittal
of a final map.
2. The improvement plans shall include detailed drawings for all
public improvements. Improvement plans shall include the
location of street trees and automatic irrigation system,
location of all required utilities, and extension of curb,
gutter and sidewalk for the full length of the parcel’s Maybell
Avenue frontage. The improvement plans shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Public Works Department.
3. The subdivider shall install all electric utilities in accordance
with Palo Alto Standards, including underground utilities, to
the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. Each residence
shall have individual electrical service. All electrical
plans shall be approved by the Light and Power Division before
the parcel map is approved.
4. Each parcel has separate water, gas and sewer services. The cost
of installation shall be paid by the subdivider.
5. All work done within the City right-of-way will require a Street
Work Permit from the Public Works Department.
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE PARCEL MAP
02/18/97 −10
6. The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the
City of Palo Alto. The agreement shall be recorded with the
approved parcel map at the office of the Santa Clara County
Recorder and shall include the following provisions:
a) The improvement plans must show the size and location of all
underground utilities within the development and the public
right-of-way including meters, sewer cleanouts and any other
required utilities. These improvements shall be installed
by the subdivider, at the subdivider's expense and shall
be guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable
to the City Attorney.
b) Two street trees, one per lot, shall be installed by the
applicant. The location and species shall be determined
by the City Arborist. Newly planted street trees shall be
irrigated and maintained by the property owner. These
improvements shall be installed by the subdivider, at the
subdivider's expense and shall be guaranteed by bond or other
form of guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney.
c) The subdivider shall submit improvement plans for the design
of the frontage improvements, including extension of curb,
gutter and sidewalk for the full length of the parcel’s
Maybell Avenue frontage. These improvements shall be
installed by the subdivider, at the subdivider's expense
and shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee
acceptable to the City Attorney. All public improvements
shall be constructed by a licensed contractor and shall
conform to the City's standard specifications.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF PARCEL MAP
7. The final map shall be filed with the Planning Division within
four years of the approval of the tentative subdivision map.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
8. Building Permits for the new residences to be constructed in this
subdivision, whether developed singly or in common, shall be
subject to review by the Architectural Review Board in
compliance with Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.48, including but
not limited to the standards for review set forth in Section
16.48.120.
ONGOING
02/18/97 −11
9. All existing mature trees on both lots, as identified on the
tentative map dated July 3, 1996, shall be retained.
Council Member Kniss said she had spent a lot of time struggling
with the item. She understood very well why the Planning Commission
and Planning staff turned the proposal down. If the lot were split
in half, there would be two very awkward lots at approximately 250
by 210 square feet. Those were the types of lots the Council
frequently said were difficult to deal with. Given there would be
one driveway from Maybell Avenue and one from of Driscoll Court and
that there did not seem to be any comfortable way to deal with it,
she did not currently see any other way to resolve the issue. She
would not support that such issues going before the Council on a
frequent basis or would not make it a precedent, but given that the
property was awkward and could not be a flag lot, the Council should
approve the item with added stipulations regarding setbacks and
placement of the houses being acceptable to those neighbors whose
property clearly abutted the property.
Vice Mayor Andersen said he had also struggled with the item and
wondered whether it would not be easier to negotiate the triangle
if the item were approved by the Council. He felt there should be
a better answer and expressed his frustration at having a situation
in which all parties, including the neighborhood, would like to have
a flag lot. The way the ordinance was written, there was no possible
way to make an exception. He hoped the item would be approved with
the understanding that the triangle be negotiated and that the
applicant would then be able to comply with the neighbors’ desires
to have it in conformity with the shape of the lot. Regardless,
it would have to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
and comply with the findings.
Council Member Wheeler would not support the motion. There did not
appear to be a good answer to the dilemma. She believed if the
Council sent the item away, the logical thing that would return to
the Council would be a subdivision that looked like the one staff
had recommended. While that was not the most desirable thing that
could be done with the lots, it was clearly better than what had
been presented that evening and very much in keeping with a large
number of lots in Palo Alto. There were many of neighborhoods that
had basic rectangular lots with 50-foot frontages. She felt the
houses that were located on those lots would be more normal looking
in their placement and kinder to the neighbors than what would result
from the proposed strange configuration. She preferred to concur
with the Planning Commission and staff recommendation.
Council Member Eakins supported the Planning Commission and staff
recommendation. She agreed with Council Member Wheeler to stick
with the basic approach. Planning Commissioner Schmidt’s house was
02/18/97 −12
situated on a 50-foot by 200-foot lot. It was a nice two-story house
with a narrow driveway that went down the side all the way at the
back. That was what she wanted to see with the proposed property.
MOTION FAILED 2-4, Andersen, Kniss “yes,” Fazzino, McCown, Schneider
absent.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler, moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to
approve the Planning Commission and staff recommendation to deny
the preliminary parcel map based on the following findings for
denial:
PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP
1. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable
Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and the design
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, in that the project
would not be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance design
requirement (PAMC Section 21.20.130) which states “side lot
lines, as far as practicable, shall be at right angles to
straight streets or radial to curved streets.” The proposed
map would not be consistent with the regular lotting pattern
on Maybell Avenue, where side lot lines are at 90-degree angles
to the street. A consistent pattern of development, especially
adjacent properties, is an important element in the creation
of a desirable neighborhood. The resulting front yard setback
would not be reflective of the existing houses on Driscoll Court
and would disrupt the cul-de-sac pattern. In addition the
proposed parcel map does not comply with Housing Element, Policy
3 because the proposed lot configuration would result in the
house on Lot 2 being set back farther from Maybell Avenue than
other houses and angled toward Driscoll Court which is not
consistent with R-1 neighborhood development patterns;
2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed in that the proposed single-family lots would be 10,500
square feet each, which would exceed the 6,000-square-foot
minimum lot size in the R-1 zone district by 4,500;
3. The design of the new lot pattern and two new single-family homes
will not cause significant environmental impacts; however,
proposed Lot 2 would not be consistent with the development
pattern in that the proposed lots will result in a narrow house
with a garage at the front and a new driveway with access to
Driscoll Court, which would appear awkward and out of character
with Driscoll Court houses, inconsistent with Comprehensive
Plan Housing Element Policy 3;
02/18/97 −13
4. The design of the new lot pattern and the proposed development
will not result in serious public health problems, although
it would be detrimental to the existing pattern of the
neighborhood and would result in development of single-family
homes that would detract from the adjacent cul-de-sac
development and from the pattern along Maybell; and
5. The design of the new lot pattern will not conflict with public
easements for access through the use of the property in that
the resulting lots would have frontage on a public street for
vehicular access and utility service.
MOTION PASSED 4-2, Andersen, Kniss “no,” Fazzino, McCown, Schneider
absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal
of the Zoning Administrator’s decision of a conditional use
permit for the operation of a private outdoor recreation service
(tennis facility) for property located at 3009 Middlefield Road
on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center
including the reorientation of two of the four existing tennis
courts, resurfacing of the two remaining courts and
construction of one additional court and a park area, including
restroom facilities, in a PF Zone District.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open.
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by
Rosenbaum, to continue the Public Hearing to the Regular City Council
Meeting on Monday, May 19, 1997.
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an
application for a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide a
1.5-acre parcel into five single-family parcels with exceptions
to lot size and width. The lots would be accessed by an
approximately 240-foot long cul-de-sac street, with exceptions
for width and design of the cul-de-sac, that the applicant is
offering for public dedication for property located at 4277
Miranda Avenue.
Senior Planner Joe Colonna added to the description that the
applicant was requesting exceptions to the tentative map for net
lot sizes between 9,200 and 9,800 square feet where 10,000 square
feet was otherwise required. Lot width exceptions were required
for proposed lots 2, 3, and 4 which ranged from 40 to 43 feet wide
02/18/97 −14
at the front setback where 60 feet was normally required. There
were additional exceptions in the width of the proposed cul-de-sac
right-of-way for the required design, proposing 40 feet where 50
feet was normally required in a smaller than normal turnaround in
a use of a rural street design without sidewalks. Two pieces of
correspondence were submitted after Council distribution that were
at Council’s places that evening. The first letter from Mark Migdal,
the applicant, explained that he could not attend the Council meeting
that evening and named Jim Baer as his representative. The second
letter was from Lincoln Brooks, the adjacent neighbor of the project,
which was a letter in response to proposed condition No. 3 which
required the applicant to consult the adjacent neighbor on the design
of the landscape plan for the cul-de-sac, specifically the area
outside and adjacent to Mr. Brooks’ property. Mr. Brooks and the
applicant reached an agreement on a landscape design which was
attached to his letter and would be included with the final
improvement plans. Approval of the landscape plan would require
modification of condition No.4 which required use of five 60-inch
box trees to be planted outside his property. The proposed landscape
plan did not include those five trees but instead included eleven
loquat trees and a magnolia tree in addition to other plantings.
Planning Commission Chairperson Phyllis Cassel said the Planning
Commission agreed with the proposal but was concerned with keeping
the building areas as far away from the creek as possible. The
proposal did a better job of that than the four-plot subdivision.
Planning Commissioner Schink had a concern about the landscaping
on the area as the court met the street which had been adjusted from
the Planning Commission’s recommendation but would be mutually
agreeable.
Council Member Rosenbaum said he thought of the blueprint as a quarter
of a pie divided into five pieces and without any trouble could be
divided into four pieces. He referred to finding No. 2, “The
exception for minimum lot size and width is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
petitioner ...” and asked why five subdivisions were necessary when
four subdivisions would work as well or better and perhaps would
not require an application.
Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said staff was making a
recommendation that the five-lot subdivision would improve the
product in terms of neighborhood character and creek protection.
In that way, staff felt it was the applicant’s right to design a
subdivision that complied with those Palo Alto Planning objectives,
better than the four-lot design would achieve.
Council Member Rosenbaum asked if that responded to the question
as to why it was necessary to preserve a substantial property right.
02/18/97 −15
Ms. Lytle replied it did not respond to it in economic terms. A
four-lot subdivision was economically viable and a five-lot
subdivision would probably be more economically viable. The
Planning staff was arguing that a project that better complied with
the City’s policies was also a property right of the applicant.
In that way, the exception finding could be granted.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said another way to strengthen the
argument was to look at the impact of the creek and the creek setback
on the building areas on the lots. From that conclusion the impact
of the creek would affect the property interest. The additional
lot and resulting good setbacks somewhat compensated for that.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open.
Jim Baer, 532 Channing Street #203, representing Mark Migdal,
applicant, said there were 10 to 15 neighbors attending the meeting
that evening in order to show their support. There was a tentative
map in existence for four parcels, and beginning in July 1996, the
applicant began an outreach with neighbors. It was an open inquiry
as to what type of issues the neighbors were concerned about. In
addition to looking at those concerns, which were primarily that
the homes be of a size and scale consistent with the neighborhood,
the homes would be smaller than would have been allowed with four
lots and would be inconsistent with the neighborhood. The second
concern was that the creek be protected. Under the four-lot
subdivision, three of the homes backed onto the creek. In the
five-lot subdivision, two of the homes backed onto the creek, which
offered a greater respect and protection of the creek. Another
concern was to keep the rural Barron Park character. More
importantly, a concern the applicant introduced at the Planning
Commission meeting was that each home be submitted to the ARB for
review rather than the standard policy that if a developer built
three or more adjacent properties, those properties would be subject
to ARB review. With the five-lot subdivision, the single most
important issue to the neighborhood was that each home be submitted
to assure that scale and profile fit in with the neighborhood.
The applicant’s suggestion was adopted by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission pointed out that a portion of the leg outside
the parcel when the road was improved, there were some small street
trees that were currently in the City right-of-way which would no
longer be there to create a problem for the neighbor adjacent to
that property. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Migdal
had worked to develop a landscape plan, as shown in Mr. Brooks’ letter
which stated, “It was a landscape plan that we think is better than
the 60-inch box trees.” That plan was probably not sufficiently
detailed for adoption as a condition. He suggested that the
condition could be modified to state that if a landscaping plan for
02/18/97 −16
the opposite side of the street were approved by staff, the applicant
would ask if a similar condition rather than the specified five
60-inch trees be subject to staff approval. Mr. Brooks and Mr.
Migdal would fulfill their commitment, and Mr. Migdal would fulfill
his commitment to Mr. Brooks by making sure the landscape plan
reflected interests of that neighbor and the neighborhood. He hoped
the Council would see, by the presence of the neighbors, that the
project was viewed as a preferable circumstance, particularly given
the ability to have architectural review for each home.
Roger Kohler, 721 Colorado Avenue, referred to a quick study which
was presented to the Planning Commission to indicate possible house
massing and relationships to the property. There were five
properties, two being outside properties which would probably have
attached garages because of their narrowness. There were two proposed
properties, Nos. 2 and 4, that would have detached garages which
he would try to incorporate some of the comparability design
standards into. The middle lot would also have an attached garage,
but he would try to recess it back under the existing house to somewhat
camouflage it. Because of the shape of the subdivision, the distance
to the creek was such that the majority of the homes were quite a
distance from the creek edge. Even with lot No. 3, which currently
could have a house far back because of preserving the rear yard,
there would be no structures within any close distance of the creek.
He was talking in concept only and would move forward through the
ARB for comments and review as well as neighbors’ review.
Don Nielsen, 850 Miranda Green, representing the neighbors, wanted
the Council to note that the issue was a 20-year-old problem. Twice
during a 15-year period of amortization, the rest home that had been
on the property petitioned to have the property rezoned. Twice the
current Council supported the neighborhood in rejecting the
proposal. At present the lot was cleared and ready to have homes
built on it which were consistent with the neighborhood. The eminent
termination of it might be punctuated by how many neighbors were
there that evening to support the proposal. Beginning the previous
July, the developer opened his intentions to the neighborhood in
a way that made him accessible. He changed his mind in some areas
in response to the neighbors’ petitions which all went very well.
The neighbors applauded the decision Mr. Baer had commented on
regarding having each of the homes brought before the ARB for review
which would give the neighbors another chance to review the proposal
in detail. The neighbors were particularly concerned about the
profile it represented to the neighbors and at present felt the
proposal would be fairly consistent with those neighbors who
immediately surrounded the property. He encouraged the Council to
support the neighbors and the developer in the petition. The
neighbors were adequately informed and had adequately responded.
02/18/97 −17
Council Member Rosenbaum said that earlier Mr. Kohler had shown the
Council a map with houses and stated that he was the project
architect. He asked whether there was some implication that the
developer was going to personally build five houses or was free to
sell the houses to individuals, etc.
Mr. Baer said there was not a legal mechanism that would allow the
Council to impose that the holder of the tentative or final map not
be free to dispose of all or any one of the lots. Without the ARB
condition to the map, there would be no ARB obligation. The intention,
which had been written to neighbors and addressed at the Planning
Commission hearing, was to develop the five homes and not sell the
lots.
Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that there was no requirement
in the action Council would take that evening. Individuals could
apply and propose housing shapes and plans that had no relation to
the map which had been shown to the Council.
Mr. Baer said that was correct. The protection that would exist
was the condition set forth in the map would be for every home, and
each home would individually appear before the ARB.
Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that the ARB would not be bound
by what Mr. Kohler had shown the Council.
Mr. Baer said that was correct.
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed.
Council Member Wheeler said for those people who had a 20-year history
with the property, it was a pleasure to see a proposal come to the
Council that had a great deal of neighborhood support.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve
the following: 1) the Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2) the
tentative map with exceptions, based on the following findings; 3)
an exception to allow a 40-foot-wide right-of-way where 50 feet is
normally required, and a 37.5-foot radius for the turnaround, where
40 feet is normally required, based on the exception finding; and
4) the new street name of "Arroyo Court." These approvals would
be subject to the following modified conditions:
FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE MAP
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable
Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, in that it will
maintain the low-density character of an existing single-family
area, and it enhances the qualities which make Palo Alto's
02/18/97 −18
neighborhoods desirable by replacing a vacant parcel formerly
containing a commercial facility with five single-family
parcels (Housing Element, Policy 1). The proposed density
of approximately 5 units per acre complies with the
Single-Family Land Use Designation, which established a range
of one to seven units per acre. Each lot has been designed
to provide ample area to construct a single-family home in
compliance with the R-1(929) site development regulations.
Additionally, the subdivision complies with the policies and
programs in the Urban Design Element, with regard to the
proposed design of the cul-de-sac street and utilities, in that
all new utilities lines serving the proposed single-family
parcels will be placed underground (Urban Design Element,
Program 12) and the streetscape will be further enhanced by
the planting of street trees along both sides of the proposed
cul-de-sac (Urban Design Element, Program 14).
2. The site is physically suitable for the type of density of
development proposed in that the five-lot subdivision complies
with the maximum density requirement in the Single-Family
Residential land use designation, which allows up to 7 units
per acre. The density of this subdivision is approximately
5 units per acre. Additionally, each of the resulting lots
is large enough and configured in such a way that each could
be developed in conformance with the site development
regulations set forth in the R-1(929) single-family zone
district, without variances.
3. The design of the five-lot subdivision will not cause significant
environmental impacts or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat in that it provides a flood
control easement along Adobe Creek which provides access to
the Santa Clara Valley Water District to maintain and repair
the creek bank, and the project will result in reduced
impervious surface coverage form the former use, albeit
increased impervious surface from the current vacant status
of the site, increased setbacks from the creek bank, and a
decrease in the number of daily vehicle trips from the previous
commercial use, as documented in the attached Mitigated
Negative Declaration. Additionally, the design of the
proposed five-lot subdivision does not increase the number of
lots having direct frontage on the creek bank nor the length
of the frontage, as compared to a four-lot subdivision scenario.
4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will
not result in serious public health problems in that all
necessary public services, including public utilities and
access to a public street, are available and will be provided
02/18/97 −19
at the subdivider’s expense. Additionally, the project has
been conditioned to supply a public utility easement for a storm
sewer connection from an adjacent parcel to an existing outfall
within Adobe Creek.
5. The design of subdivision will not conflict with public easements
for access through the use of the property within the
subdivision, in that the dedicated cul-de-sac street will
provide direct access from Miranda Avenue to the proposed
subdivision and two existing single-family flag lots.
FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION TO MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property, because the site is adjacent to Adobe Creek and the
creek requires that 11 percent of the gross lot area be dedicated
from the subdividable property. Approximately 7,150 square
feet, or 11 percent, of the existing site extends beyond the
top of the creek bank, as determined by the Santa Clara Valley
Water District’s calculation for top of bank.
2. The exception for minimum lot size and width is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
of the petitioner, in that the applicant has applied for the
exception in order to create lots which are consistent with
the neighborhood pattern and yield single-family homes that
are consistent with the size and scale of existing single-family
homes in the neighborhood. A conforming, four-lot subdivision
would result in net lot sizes of approximately 11,700 square
feet each, with allowable floor area of 4,260 square feet per
lot, which is 570 square feet more than the largest house, and
750 square feet more than the smallest homes allowed in the
proposed five-lot subdivision. Such homes would be out of scale
with existing homes in the neighborhood.
3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which
the property is situated, in that the design of the five-lot
subdivision affords equal creek protection to a conforming
four-lot subdivision, because only two lots front on the creek.
Through condition 7, no buildings will be permitted within
20 feet of the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement, as
shown on the tentative map. This condition will further
protect the Adobe Creek riparian habitat and structures from
possible bank instability. Additionally, the proposed lots
would be similar in size, shape and development potential to
existing single-family, cul-de-sac lots in the neighborhood
which are adjacent to Adobe Creek and which have net lot sizes
of less than 10,000 square feet. Additionally, the proposed
street frontage for each lot would supply adequate access for
02/18/97 −20
vehicles and utilities to the future single-family homes.
4. The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements,
goals, policies, or spirit of the law, in that the proposed
subdivision would comply with the density requirement set forth
in the Single-Family land use designation, and would provide
lots of ample size and shape to construct five homes consistent
with the existing neighborhood development pattern.
Additionally, with the addition of a condition prohibiting
construction of accessory buildings within the rear yard
setback of lots 4 and 5, the project will provide better creek
protection than a previously approved four-lot subdivision.
FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION TO RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH AND DESIGN
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property, in that the property is located in a lower-density
rural residential area of Palo Alto, which is bordered on the
east by Adobe Creek, and on the north and west by the remnant
of an orchard field currently maintained on the property of
Alta Mesa Cemetery. The project site is currently accessed
from Miranda Avenue via a narrow private driveway. Miranda
Avenue, which serves the project site and surrounding
single-family neighborhood, at its widest point has a
right-of-way width of 40 feet, where a 60-foot-wide
right-of-way is required for a local street. Additionally,
Miranda Avenue does not have sidewalks to provide a formal
pedestrian path to the proposed cul-de-sac street.
2. The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the petitioner, in that the
wider street right-of-way and sidewalks would not be consistent
with the rural residential character of the area and would
exceed the width of the local street providing the only
vehicular access to the cul-de-sac. Thus, a wider right-of-way
on the site would unnecessarily diminish the open space and
buildable area of the site, while not providing any improvements
for vehicular transportation.
3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which
the property is situated, in that the proposed cul-de-sac will
provide adequate access to the seven single-family parcels for
residents, guests and emergency vehicles and provide landscape
strips in which to plant required street trees. Additionally,
the proposed turnaround at the end of the cul-de-sac would
supply the standard 30-foot radius paved roadway, which is
02/18/97 −21
adequate to accommodate turning maneuvers of emergency
vehicles.
4. The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements,
goals, policies, or spirit of the law, in that the right-of-way
will provide adequate vehicular access, landscape strips,
on-street parking and drainage in compliance with the
established "Barron Park" standard for street improvements.
MODIFIED CONDITIONS, File Nos. 96-SUB-3, 96-EIA-26 (Modifications
in Italic):
CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE MAP
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF A FINAL MAP
1. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works
Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Planning
Arborist, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval
of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. The
purpose of the meeting is to review all conditions of approval
and to discuss the standards for design of all off-site
improvements including the street and all required utilities.
Improvement plans reflecting the required off-site improvements
and utilities shall be submitted and approved by the City prior
to submittal of a parcel map.
2. The applicant shall submit an addendum to the project soils report
to address the stability of the Adobe Creek bank and make specific
recommendations for proper setbacks and construction methods
for future buildings. The addendum shall include a creek bank
stabilization and riparian zone planting plan prepared by a
habitat restoration specialist and professional experienced with
biotechnical bank stabilization techniques. Such plan shall
be submitted to the Planning Division and Public Works Department
for review and approval. The plan shall identify the measures
to be taken to stabilize and repair the creek bank and riparian
zone setback area after demolition activities. Biotechnical
measures and riparian species shall be used. The approved
measures shall be implemented prior to final of the building
permit to construct the required off-site improvements. This
plan and implementation shall meet the satisfaction of the Public
Works Department, Planning Division and the Santa Clara Valley
Water District.
3. The improvement plans shall include detailed drawings for all
public improvements to conform to the "Barron Park" standard
for street design. Improvement plans shall include a
02/18/97 −22
24-foot-wide street, the location of street trees and automatic
irrigation system, street signs, fire hydrants, street lights,
36-inch-wide valley gutter, and "No Parking" signs on the east
side of the street from the intersection with Miranda Avenue
to the north property line of lot 1. The improvement plan shall
also identify the locations of the proposed driveways, which
shall not exceed 10 feet in width at the front property line.
The improvement plans shall include landscaping for the areas
on either side of the intersection of the new cul-de-sac with
Miranda Avenue. The applicant shall consult the adjacent
property owner on the design of the landscape areas, prior to
submittal of the improvement plans to the City. The
landscaping shall be low-maintenance and consistent with the
rural nature of the neighborhood. Installation shall be
guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the
City Attorney. The improvement plans shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Public Works Department and the
Planning Division.
4. The subdivider shall install 18 street trees within the planting
strips on either side of the proposed public right-of-way and
include the tree locations and irrigation in the subdivision
improvement plans. Five of the trees shall be 60-inch box or
larger and shall be planted within the cul-de-sac planting strip
adjacent to the street side property line of 4285 Miranda Avenue.
The size, species and location of the street trees and the design
of the required automatic irrigation system shall be approved
by the City Arborist, Planning Arborist and the Planning
Division.
5. The subdivider shall submit a detailed grading and drainage plan
to the Public Works Department. Prior to approval of the parcel
map, the grading and drainage plans must be approved by the Public
Works Department. A 10-foot-wide public utility easement shall
be dedicated near the rear of lot 5 for the purpose of providing
an adequate storm drain connection from an adjacent parcel to
the proposed outfall to Adobe Creek. The exact location of the
easement will be determined upon approval of the project’s
drainage plan, and shall be shown on the face of the final map.
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP
6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 40-foot-way public right-of-way,
as shown on the approved tentative parcel map, and all necessary
public utility and storm drain easements to the City of Palo
Alto. This dedication shall be shown on the face of the final
map.
02/18/97 −23
7. Construction of buildings of any kind, including accessory
buildings, is prohibited within the 20-foot rear yard setback
of lots 4 and 5. The required setback shall be shown on the
face of the map along with a notation stating that construction
of buildings within the required rear yard setback is prohibited.
8. The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with
the City of Palo Alto. The agreement shall be recorded with
the approved final map at the office of the Santa Clara County
Recorder and shall include the following agreements:
a. The subdivider shall agree to pay an in-lieu fee in
fulfillment of Program 13 of the Housing Element of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan based on the following
alternatives:
(i) For any lot sold as vacant land for development by
others, the in-lieu fee for the subdivision will be 3.75
percent of the cost of both the vacant lot and an estimated
value for future residence to be constructed thereon.
The value or the vacant land is to be based on an estimated
minimum value of a vacant lot of $350,000 or the actual
sales price of a vacant lot, whichever is greater, times
the required 3.75% factor for a subdivision of five lots.
The in-lieu fee would be due at the first sale of each
of the vacant lots. The in-lieu fee for the future
structure is to be based on the latest International
Conference of Building Officials Building Standards
“Building Valuation Data” (August 1996) for the
single-family home built on the site times the required
3.75% factor for a subdivision of five lots. The in-lieu
fee on the value of the structure is due and payable prior
to occupancy of the structure; or
(ii) For any lot initially sold as a developed parcel with
single-family house in place, the fee will be due and
payable at the time of first sale of the house and lot
and would be based on 3.75% times the actual sales price.
For any house constructed but placed as rental, the fee
would be based on the highest priced house sold, and would
be due and payable in full, three years from the date of
City Council approval of the subdivision map.
b. The subdivider shall submit improvement plans for the
design of the cul-de-sac, gutter and planter strip, street
trees and all other public improvements required by this
approval. These improvements shall be installed by the
subdivider, at the subdivider's expense and shall be
02/18/97 −24
guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable
to the City Attorney. All public improvements shall be
constructed by a licensed contractor and shall conform
to the City's standard specifications for cul-de-sac
streets, with the exception of right-of-way width and
provision of sidewalks (see City Standard Drawing 201).
c. If, at the time of filing the final map, subdivider has
not acquired sufficient title or interest in the required
public right-of-way in order to allow construction of the
improvements and conveyance of same to the City for use
by the public, the subdivider shall agree to the following:
(i) Subdivider shall complete the improvements at such
time as the City acquires an interest in the land which
will permit the improvements to be made, and
(ii) Subdivider shall pay all costs and expenses of the
City related to acquisition of the off-site real property
interests required in connection with this subdivision.
Such costs and expenses shall include, but not be limited
to, court costs, appraisal expenses, payment to parties
having interests which must be acquired, and legal fees
(whether rendered by City employees or outside counsel).
City may require, as part of the agreement, a deposit
and/or posting of other security to guarantee payment by
subdivider of all costs and expenses.
d. The subdivider shall plant four new trees outside of the
building envelopes of the proposed parcels. The location
and species of the trees shall be shown on the improvement
plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Arborist. Installation of the trees shall be guaranteed
by bond or other form of security approved by the City
Attorney.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP
9. The final parcel map shall be filed with the Planning Division
within four years of the approval of the preliminary parcel
map.
10. The subdivider shall submit to the Public Works Department a
copy of an approved Santa Clara Valley Water District permit
for construction of the cul-de-sac and storm drainage system.
11. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and
location of all utilities, both public and private, within the
work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the
02/18/97 −25
Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert at (800)
642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS
12. For this subdivision, a certified arborist shall be retained
by the applicant to prepare and submit tree protection plans
for all private and public trees to be retained. The plans
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Arborist and
shall identify the trees to be protected and include measures
for their protection during demolition and construction. The
certified arborist shall inspect the tree protection measures
and shall certify that the PAMC Sec. 8.04.015 have been
installed prior to grading or building permit issuance.
12a. Building Permits for the new residences to be constructed in
this subdivision, whether developed singly or in common, shall
be subject to review by the Architectural Review Board in
compliance with Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.48, including but
not limited to the standards for review set forth in Section
16.48.120.
13. Prior to issuance of building permits for lots 4 or 5, temporary
barrier fencing shall be erected along the "building setback
line established by SCVWD,” as shown on the tentative map.
No vehicles, equipment or materials shall be stored within the
fenced area. All work within the riparian corridor, such as
installation of a new outfall, shall be approved by the Planning
Division and SCVWD prior to commencement of construction. The
design of the barrier fence shall be approved by the Planning
Division, prior to installation. The fencing shall be removed
after construction is complete.
14. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Division a demolition
and construction logistics plan that identifies measures that
will be taken to maintain acceptable vehicular access to the
private driveway serving the existing flag lots to the east
of the subject site. Access for private vehicles and emergency
vehicles shall be maintained at all times. Residents of the
flag lots will be given prior notice of any period when direct
access would be blocked. In the case where direct access is
blocked and cannot be restored within a reasonable amount of
time, the applicant shall make arrangements for alternate
access to the private driveway.
15. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, a limited
auger test for determining the presence of cultural resources
on the site must be conducted on the entire site. The auger
testing should be conducted with a compact, trailer-mounted
motorized auger (General 550 or similar) capable of being
02/18/97 −26
operated in low-overhead settings. Appropriate borehole logs
and associated documentation shall be prepared so that any
artifacts recovered will be recorded and replaced in their
respective auger hole. A report of findings shall be prepared
and submitted to the City of Palo Alto within 30 days of
completion of the work. The testing program shall be
implemented by an individual meeting the Secretary of Interior
Professional Qualifications Standards in Archaeology (36 CFR
61). The work shall be overseen by an independent
archaeologist hired by the City at the applicant’s expense.
The auger testing should be conducted with a compact,
trailer-mounted motorized auger (General 550 or similar)
capable of being operated in low-overhead settings.
Appropriate borehole logs and associated documentation shall
be prepared so that any artifacts recovered will be recorded
and replaced in their respective auger hole.
If, based upon the auger testing, additional data recovery
(manual excavation) is warranted, an Archaeological Monitoring
and Data Recovery Plan (AMDRP) shall be prepared prior to
construction. The AMDRP shall define how data recovery and
construction monitoring will be conducted and protocol to be
followed in the event significant resources are discovered
during construction. In addition, the Plan shall include the
following: 1) a Research Design, describing the types of
questions to be addressed and methodology to be used during
data recovery; 2) provisions for artifact cataloging, analysis
and curation; and 3) Native American coordination and
involvement in the event prehistoric skeletal remains are
encountered. The AMDRP shall be implemented by an individual
meeting the Secretary of Interior Professional Qualification
Standards in Archaeology (36 CFR 61). Construction monitoring
shall be conducted any time ground-disturbing activities
(greater than 12" in depth) are taking place anywhere on the
subject site. This includes building foundation demolition
and construction. The archeological monitoring program shall
be implemented by an individual meeting the Secretary of
Interior Professional Qualification Standards in Archeology
(36 CFR 61); individual construction monitors shall be
qualified in the recognition of cultural resources of both the
historic and prehistoric periods. In accordance with the
applicable State and federal historic preservation
regulations, should previously unidentified significant
cultural resources be discovered during construction, the
project sponsor is required to cease work in the immediate area
until such time that a qualified archaeologist can access the
find and make mitigation recommendations, if warranted. In
the event of discovery of human remains, the Planning Division,
02/18/97 −27
County Coroner’s Office and Native American Heritage Commission
shall be notified of any discovery within 24 hours.
The Coroner, upon recognizing the remains as being of Native
American origin, is responsible to contact the Native American
Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Commission has
various powers and duties to provide for the ultimate
disposition of any Native American remains, in addition to
identification of a Native American Most Likely Descendant,
who may be responsible to make recommendations as to the
handling and reburial or disposition of any human remains.
To achieve this goal, it is recommended the construction
personnel on the project be instructed as to the potential for
discovery of cultural or human remains, and both the need for
proper and timely reporting of such finds, and the consequences
of failure thereof.
PRIOR TO FINAL OF THE BUILDING PERMIT
16. The approved bank stabilization plan, as identified in condition
2, shall be implemented prior to final of a building permit
to construct the off-site improvements. The subdivider shall
contact the Planning Division to inspect and verify that the
stabilization measures have been implemented in accordance with
the approved plan.
17. The subdivider shall install all electric utilities in accordance
with Palo Alto Standards, including underground utilities and
street lights, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department.
Each residence shall have individual electrical service. A
new padmount transformer is required to serve the subdivision.
All electrical plans shall be approved by the Light and Power
Division before the final map is approved.
18. All work done within the City right-of-way will require a Street
Work Permit from the Public Works Department.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
19. To reduce dust levels exposed earth surfaces shall be watered
as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations
along or across any public or private property shall be removed
immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances
originating from the contractor's operations, either inside
or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the
contractor's expense.
20. All non-residential construction activities shall be subject
to the requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10
02/18/97 −28
PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted
and that construction times be limited as follows:
8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday
9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday
10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday
For construction on residential property, the ending time shall
be 6:00 p.m. Monday - Saturday.
21. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best
management practices (BMP's) for stormwater pollution
prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with
the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP's
with respect to the developer's construction activities on
private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor
BMP's with respect to the developer's construction activities
on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any
construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint,
chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm
drains. (Federal Clean Water Act)
ONGOING
22. Driveways serving each parcel shall be limited in width to 10
feet at the front property line to provide adequate area for
the planting and maintenance of required street trees.
Council Member Wheeler said the parcel had a long, varied, and mostly
unhappy history for both the City and the neighbors. It was a very
special and small neighborhood, removed from other Palo Alto
neighborhoods which had a very distinct character. It was cohesive
in the character that it had. It was an important issue that a new
subdivision be very sensitive to and maintained the character of
the neighborhood.
Council Member Kniss recalled the issue being before the Council
in the past and that the neighbors had been far less cheerful than
the neighbors attending the meeting that evening. She said it was
very clear that the applicant and the neighborhood had worked
together closely and had a real concurrence. It was an area of town
that had real beauty and was in somewhat of a rural section of Palo
Alto. She appreciated the neighbors showing up that evening in
support of the applicant and working with the ARB toward what she
felt would be a group of five lovely new homes to enhance the
neighborhood. She supported the motion.
02/18/97 −29
Council Member Rosenbaum recalled when Mr. Migdal had last been
before the Council, when he had suggested to Mr. Migdal that he
involve the neighbors. He could not make the necessary finding for
the variance, and he did not believe the exception for the minimum
lot size and width was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of a petitioner. While he did not
disagree with his colleagues with regard to the desirability of the
proposal and although Mr. Migdal had involved the neighbors, he could
still not support the motion.
Council Member Eakins referred to the last two sentences on page
3, section 2, of Attachment 7 of the Subdivider’s Statement, in the
staff report (CMR:144:97), “The necessity for five lots is to absorb
the impacts of parcel size reductions due to the required City street
and Adobe Creek setbacks. The costs of the City street and Adobe
Creek mitigations are not economically feasible with the development
of four rather than five parcels.” That assumed there was a price
paid that was too much for four parcels, and prices could drive land
use decisions. While she intended to support the motion because
she saw other reasons to do so, she felt strong discomfort with saying
“Now that I bought the ground, I need to chop it up smaller.” She
believed that prices were pushed too high, and the market was allowing
that with the assumption that somehow the excessive cost of the ground
would be recouped.
INCORPORATED INTO MOTION BY MAKER AND SECONDER that the Architectural
Review Board (ARB) be directed to make certain that the materials
used in the houses be quality materials and that no carports be
allowed.
MOTION PASSED 5-1, Rosenbaum “no.”
5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider
Application to rezone property from PC (Planned Community)
District to CD-C(P) (Commercial Downtown Pedestrian Shopping
Combining) District in order to allow the existing 2,594
square-foot third floor of the building to be converted from
residential use to financial service use for property located
at 400 Emerson Street.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section
18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to
Change the Classification of the Property Known as 400 Emerson
Street from PC (4238) to CD-C(P)
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open.
02/18/97 −30
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Huber,
to continue the Public Hearing at the request of the applicant to
Monday, March 17, 1997.
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent.
RESOLUTIONS
6. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling
the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 1997
MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Andersen, to
adopt the Resolution scheduling the City Council's annual vacation
for Calendar Year 1997 from August 12, 1997, through September 7,
1997, with City Council to reconvene on September 8, 1997.
Resolution 7649 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Scheduling the City Council Vacation for Calendar
Year 1997"
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent.
COUNCIL MATTERS
7. Report of Mayor’s Committee On Escalating Rents
Council Member Wheeler said the item was unfinished business from
her term as Mayor. The last Council discussion on the subject was
at the roundtable forum held a year before at Mitchell Park, and
Council was exposed to important and ongoing issues and heartfelt
concerns. She continued to receive telephone calls from people
feeling the effects of rapidly escalating rents. She thanked the
Mayor’s Committee members and City staff who had participated in
the discussions. A year before in a memo, the Human Relations
Commission (HRC) had asked the City Council to take action on behalf
of the tenants. Discussions with members of the community convinced
the HRC that both landlords and tenants shared a concern for
maintaining diversity and keeping long-term valued tenants in the
community. At the roundtable forum approximately 140 people came;
both tenants and landlords were willing to share ideas on how to
address the issue. There were suggestions for changes to the
ordinance or state legislation, but the Mayor’s Committee report
focused on education, voluntary mediation, and other voluntary means
of reasonable control. There were many ideas to choose from, and
the Mayor’s Committee first removed those ideas that were not practi-
cable in the community. Then, ideas that were good but did not
directly address the issue of escalating rents were removed.
Finally, the ideas of increasing the supply of rental housing in
the community were removed because those ideas had been discussed
02/18/97 −31
in the draft stages of the Comprehensive Plan and would be returning
to the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the community for
full discussion and debate. She asked for support on three items.
The first was about the Tenants Rights and Responsibilities Handbook
which had been published previously by the State Department of
Consumer Affairs. Consumer Affairs had no intention of updating,
reprinting, and distributing the handbook, which could be a valuable
educational tool. If Palo Alto material were added to the handbook,
it would be useful both to tenants and landlords. The second item
was about development of additional educational programs for both
rental owners and tenants. Many landlords, particularly those of
smaller multiple family units, were not aware of the existing City
ordinance related to a one-year lease offer and wanted information
and guidance from the City. The third item was the proposal to
advocate state legislative change relative to a 60-day notice for
increases on rental properties. In the period between the meetings
of the Mayor’s Committee and the issuance of the report, State Senator
Byron Sher’s Office had called and was prepared to offer legislation
that was similar to what Council had attempted in 1990. In addition
to those three items, some items in the report were complex issues
that the Mayor’s Committee thought deserved broader community
discussion. She proposed that those items be referred to the Policy
and Services (P&S) Committee for further discussion with the
community and other stakeholders.
Joe Webb, 248 Huckleberry Trail, Woodside, said his 24-year residency
in Palo Alto had been a quiet and private one until a year before
when he witnessed a sequence of negative events unfold between a
neighbor and that neighbor’s landlord regarding safety and building
code violations. Unable to afford the fees of a housing attorney,
the neighbor researched community and legal resources and went
through the proper legal channels. The judge ruled in favor of the
landlord. Shortly thereafter, another single woman moved in, and
he witnessed the same landlord’s misuse of power. Black widow
spiders infested the area and caused his neighbor’s hospitalization.
He called David Martin of Human Services when none of the existing
agencies contacted would take action. In his own housing crisis,
he received notification from the property manager in February 1996
of a first and only rent increase in seven years. Then in September
1996 he received a termination of tenancy notification. The
notification came one week after he had reported a rat infestation;
therefore, he believed that his eviction was retaliatory. He
applauded the City’s attempt to deal with the skyrocketing rents,
but the focus was misplaced. The City of Palo Alto had an opportunity
to make a profound change in the climate of the rental market.
Presently, the renter was at the mercy of the landlord.
Sonya Bavvai, 965 Cowper Street, said when the property manager did
not respond to her request for additional time to find suitable
02/18/97 −32
housing, she consulted an attorney. While the attorney cited Civil
Code 1942.5, which defined retaliatory eviction, in a letter the
attorney wrote to the property manager, the attorney did not press
the issue of unlawful eviction. She had hoped to find an advocate
in the lawyer; however, she was met instead with the unspoken, yet
pervasive, attitude that suggested a good tenant should be seen but
not heard. She was currently unable to afford legal support of a
housing attorney, and she did not qualify for modest means
representation. Without true safeguards in place, such as tangible
and legal rights for renters, the City gave the message that the
quality of human life was not a priority value. With the renters
comprising 46 percent of the households, they had financial
contribution to the City. Without the renters, mortgages would not
get paid; businesses would fold. Renters’ rights should not be taken
lightly. Renters were afraid of losing their homes. A home,
whether rented or owned, was a necessary respite, not a luxury.
Somehow the prevailing attitude of some landlords was that rentals
were business. Many lived without routine and lawful building
maintenance because just asking for the services paid for made
renters fearful. Owning income property was not a passive
investment; buildings needed maintenance and repairs. She
encouraged the City Council to revisit the rental crisis with the
intention to develop a code of clear and detailed tenant rights and
landlord responsibilities. She suggested an ombudsman program that
backed up explicit law that could not be misinterpreted. She said
that she was a victim of retaliatory eviction and had done nothing
but insist on her rights and her neighbor’s rights under the law.
She wanted the City of Palo Alto to fund enforcement of existing
codes and appropriate the necessary funds and resources for the City
Attorney to develop, implement, and administer a broader rental
protection program. She urged the Council to ensure fair housing
for renters in Palo Alto.
Kalia Klein, 3351 Alma Street #110, said she wanted to present rent
abuse practices. The first rent abuse practice concerned people
like her family who came to Palo Alto to be part of the community
for a short time. When those short-timers returned to Germany,
Japan, Israel, etc., in many cases their deposit was not returned,
and it was difficult for them to return to the complex and sue for
the deposit. She believed it was something that Council should
address by adopting an ordinance that required the return of a deposit
when the key was returned. Those short-timers were not Council’s
constituents, but as a public policy, it should be something the
Council should address. The second rent abuse practice was safety.
Many complexes were old. A year before, after complaining several
times of inadequate lighting in the parking lot, she called the City
and was told there was nothing the City could do because it was private
property. There was no reason why people who lived there should
be subjected to the danger of no lighting in the parking lot. Council
02/18/97 −33
should have the right to inspect if tenants complained about safety
problems. Tenants should not be told that it was a mediation
problem; mediation problems could take months. The renters had no
bargaining power because of the market.
Betsy Shotwell, representing State Senator Byron Sher, 260 Main
Street, Suite 201, Redwood City, thanked Council Member Wheeler for
taking the lead. The recommendation was in support of Senator Sher’s
efforts to introduce some legislation on the matter relative to a
60-day notification. She referred to page 3, section 3, of the
report from the Mayor’s Committee on Escalating Rents and said
Senator Sher was in the Assembly in 1990 and had introduced
legislation to change notification from 30 days to 60 days for rent
increases. Currently, there was another attempt to carry the
measure. She did not have a bill number, but the bill should return
in a matter of days. The legislative deadline for bill introduction
was Friday, February 28, 1997. She would return with the draft
legislation and the bill number. Senator Sher was in Sacramento
but spoke with her and reiterated his concerns over the tight rental
market, the low vacancy rates, and the tremendous problems that
individuals and families were faced with when forced to move from
one rental dwelling to another. It was an undaunting experience
for many, and Senator Sher hoped that the City of Palo Alto would
support and sponsor his efforts to try to widen the window an extra
month so renters would be given a few more weeks to pull together
what resources they had to make that move within the community.
Vice Mayor Andersen asked Ms. Shotwell whether she was aware of
recommendations other than the 60-day provision that state law con-
trolled. He asked whether Senator Sher could include any other items
in his proposed legislation after February 28, 1997, if something
transpired in Palo Alto’s efforts or hearings.
Ms. Shotwell said for the legal aspects, she deferred to City Attorney
Ariel Calonne. Her experience had been that if a bill were amended,
it had to be of some similar nature and content to those codes already
implied in the first bill.
Vice Mayor Andersen asked, if something related to security deposits
was looked at and there were some additional recommendations that
Palo Alto would make with regard to something about security laws,
whether that would be possible to include.
Ms. Shotwell said the issue of security deposits was often addressed.
She thought the best way might be to look at pieces of legislation
already introduced in that area, talk to the author of that
legislation, and see whether there might be some modifications or
amendments made.
02/18/97 −34
Wynn Hausser, Human Relations Commission, 451 W. Meadow Drive, said
the HRC saw it as a diversity issue and how to celebrate and keep
the diversity of the community. As a member of the Mayor's
Committee, he learned about a variety of viewpoints and unintended
consequences. As the P&S Committee moved forward, Council would
wrestle with some of those issues. Also, the HRC felt strongly about
single-family homes, which did not make the final set of recommen-
dations and were dealt with differently from apartments, etc., in
the ordinance. From the renter's point of view, an increase was
an increase, and whether a renter lived in a unit in a large complex
or in a single-family home, the effects were the same. One of the
things that was so powerful at HRC and roundtable discussions a year
before was the voice of the renters. With approximately 40 percent
of the community as renters, there was not an active tenants'
organization. Various people at the roundtable felt they were
trying to represent the viewpoint of renters, but there was a
different dynamic when that voice came from the community. The HRC
recommended that people should come together as much as possible
to form that sort of organization, and to the extent that Council
could facilitate that, perhaps resources could be called upon by
those who were interested in tenants' rights.
James Lake, 3351 Alma Street, said many tenants were increasingly
concerned over a recent trend in what was widely perceived as
exorbitant rent increases. At present the only means available for
resolving landlord/tenant disputes over rent increases or other
issues was voluntary nonbinding mediation, which appeared to many
to be a ridiculous last resort because in most cases landlords had
no motivation to participate and the outcome was nonbinding. The
dispute could not be discussed, according to the rules of mediation.
He was presently engaged in mediation and was pessimistic about
the outcome on the issue of a recently proposed rent increase that,
in his opinion, violated the contract of the original lease terms.
Many people in his apartment complex were afraid to request
mediation because of the possibility of retaliatory eviction or
worse. A copy of a letter he sent to his landlord inviting his
landlord to participate in mediation was also sent to the Mayor's
Committee on Escalating Rents and the Mayor's Office, and that was
the only reason the landlord chose to participate in mediation.
As a group, renters in Palo Alto were disenfranchised. Some of the
language and proposals that Council Member Wheeler recommended were
interesting notions but would not improve or change the situation.
Renters felt powerless and demoralized in the face of rent
increases. The City Council had an obligation to Palo Alto's
population of several thousands of renters to definitively, fairly,
satisfactorily, and promptly resolve the issue of escalating rents.
He observed that education and mediation had clearly failed to
address the issue of escalating rents and it was time for the emphasis
of the Mayor's Committee on Escalating Rents to shift over to a
02/18/97 −35
discussion of ordinances, not just distributing pamphlets and
encouraging people to engage in mediation that was nonbinding.
Laura MacDougall, no address, said she was a single parent and came
to Palo Alto for her son's education. She lived in a complex that
was poorly maintained. She felt there were problems with the
previous landlord. Her new landlord was a mega-corporation and
promptly gave her a $60 per month increase. Landlords did not know
about the one-year lease, and neither did the renters. Some renters
came from out of the state and were accustomed to leases. City codes
were clear, but the state codes were not. A newsletter and a
community organization were crucial and long past due. She was a
regular Palo Alto Weekly reader, but while she read about the issue
the previous year, she had no idea there was a community forum.
Soon, she found a $95 rent increase. There were many inspections,
but the windows did not work, the floor was cracked, and the door
did not work very well. Next door was a building owned by the same
landlord. She did not want to identify where she lived because she
did not want her landlord to realize that he could charge $300 more
per month. Fear, lack of communication, and busy schedules kept
renters from involvement. It was time to create a permanent
community organization for renters.
Pam Thomas, 345 Sheridan #101, Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing
(MCFH), said she participated on the Mayor's Committee and was a
renter who lived in fear, especially when she needed a repair.
Working at MCFH, she received calls everyday from people impacted
by significant rent increases. Thirty days' notice to move or accept
a rent increase of $200 to $400 per month was unrealistic and did
not take into account the economic and logistical pressures felt
by renters. Locating an affordable new residence in an area with
a vacancy rate of less than 1 percent was extremely difficult. Many
long-term tenants came to realize that they could no longer afford
to live in Palo Alto. MCFH strongly supported the majority of the
report from the Mayor's Committee on Escalating Rents. More
specifically, a 60-day notice for a rent increase and a 60-day notice
for a non-lease renewal were significant measures that would make
a real difference in renters' lives. MCFH also supported the
updating, localizing, printing, and distributing of the Tenants
Rights and Responsibilities Handbook and continued to support the
outreach and educational programs for rental owners and tenants.
MCFH recognized the value of mediation; it was essential mediation
requests were not met with retaliation. The publication of rents
and the prohibition of price differentials between month-to-month
and leasehold tenancies were not adequately addressed by the Mayor's
Committee and required further discussion. The skyrocketing rents
were pushing people out. MCFH suggested that more work needed to
be done and that the Mayor's Committee should discuss what the
community should do to keep diversity in Palo Alto. As a member
02/18/97 −36
of the Mayor's Committee, she intended to become educated on the
pros and cons and choose possible solutions for discussion. Without
discussion, there was no deterrent to a landlord's decision to
increase rent.
Marcel Hawiger, Director of Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing,
457 Kingsley Avenue, said MCFH was dedicated to preventing discrimi-
nation in housing and to promoting people's access and freedom of
choice to housing. MCFH was involved in the Mayor's Committee on
Escalating Rents because it had experience in Palo Alto in dealing
with many tenants who called regarding discrimination and because
MCFH had advocated affordable housing for a long time. The goal
of diversity was important. Sometimes, however, promoting
diversity in the community required difficult decisions. A
leadership role and more difficult choices needed to be taken to
promote diversity. The federal and state laws banning discrimi-
nation were hard choices to make and limited property owners' rights
to rent to whomever they chose because society decided that people
should not be discriminated against. MCFH worked daily to promote
education on fair housing and would assist in distributing
information on fair housing laws. MCFH also supported the
recommendation for the 60-day notice on rent increases and evictions.
He encouraged the Council to rethink the issue and to think about
achieving the goal of diversity in the community.
RECESS: 9:35 P.M. - 9:50 P.M.
Kathy Thibodeaux, Government Relations Director, Tri-County
Apartment Association (letter on file in the Clerk’s Office), said
the Tri-County Apartment Association (TCAA) was a nonprofit trade
association serving the rental housing industry in San Mateo County,
Santa Clara County, and Santa Cruz County. She thanked the members
of the Mayor's Committee on Escalating Rents for participating.
While the surge in employment in the Silicon Valley was welcome news,
it created greater competition for housing. Combined with the lack
of housing construction, that led to rising rents and home sales
prices in the past 12 to 18 months across the Silicon Valley. The
initial surge seemed to have subsided, and analysts predicted a more
modest growth for 1997. Nevertheless, it was important for all
cities to do what they could to meet the demand for rental housing
as the economy continued to grow. Palo Alto had a unique opportunity
through the Stanford Sand Hill Corridor Projects to add to the rental
housing stock. Palo Alto was a highly sought after community in
which to live and work. The forces of supply and demand were more
visible in Palo Alto than in other neighboring communities when it
came to rental housing. Only about 10 percent of housing providers
who were members of the TCAA listed professional real estate
activities as a primary occupation. A full 34 percent of them were
retired people trying to make a living and survive. They had chosen
02/18/97 −37
to invest their future and retirement by providing housing for their
neighbors. The 1986 Tax Act eliminated the ability of an owner to
write off real estate investment losses. It created substantial
financial burdens and personal losses for people who were carefully
planning a secure retirement. As a result of the savings and loan
debacle, the financial underpinnings of real estate investment were
pulled out, and many properties in Santa Clara County were forced
into foreclosure. Data showed that rents were flat for five years
before the recent upsurge. Adjusted for inflation, rents were
actually down, and owners dipped into their personal savings to pay
for necessary repairs and held off on major maintenance projects.
During those times, no ordinances were created to protect the
hard-working people who placed their personal capital at risk to
provide rental housing. Meanwhile, renters became accustomed to
very small rent increases or none at all. Before looking toward
regulation, every elected official should aim to ease the supply
and demand imbalance by promoting the creation of all manner of
housing opportunities for working people and to join in the outreach
and education programs for property owners and their tenants. TCAA
strongly supported recommendations regarding the outreach and
education elements. It was very important that the mediation agency
had the resources to meet the increased demand for the services.
Liza Julian, staff member at Palo Alto Area Information and Referral
Service (PAAIRS), 3990 Ventura Court #9, said she participated in
the Mayor's Committee on Escalating Rents. Continued dialogue on
the issue was essential both in public and through the mediation
program. Concerns of safety and fear of retaliation kept many
renters from using resources available. Currently, two of the four
requests that the PAAIRS mediation program had for intervention in
rent increases had been conciliated to the satisfaction of both
parties. One was currently being mediated, and one was withdrawn
because the requestor managed to resolve the issue and did not need
help from the mediation program. She spoke with many landlords who
also were concerned and wanted guidance in what was responsible
behavior, what was a reasonable increase, etc. As a resident of
Palo Alto, she was impressed with the community's degree of
compassion and balance. Palo Alto was always a desirable place to
live in for a variety of people. She said people did not feel valued
because it seemed that money was the only thing that counted. She
hoped that the issue could be addressed, and people with concerns
could be listened to.
Sharon D. Lovell-Jones, 3375 Alma Street #356, said she had lived
in her apartment for 21 years and in her complex for 27 years. The
City was losing a middle class, and she was one of them. The rent
increases were really high for a place where she had been for a long
time. She talked with other long-term residents, and they also would
be moving. The rent increases had impacted many who had had to cut
02/18/97 −38
back in many other areas to maintain their homes. There was an
emotional impact. She was a social worker who had served on several
boards in the community and had been involved in the past. She felt
it was a community that listened, but the community was almost too
late in hearing the issue. Greed ran society and other things in
the community. People asked her why she lived in Palo Alto, and
she answered that it was her home and she identified with it.
Mark Sabin, 4274 Wilkie Way #C, said it was interesting that
46 percent of the community were renters and that there was no active
tenants' organization. He had the experience of having to find a
new place in the past year. His landlord gave a 60-day window which
he appreciated, but it was still very difficult. He felt extremely
fortunate to have found a place in Palo Alto. It was critical to
increase the mix of available rental housing in the community. There
would be daunting decisions made, and there were many organizations
and groups that were not receptive to that, but it was important
for the 46 percent who had to live with the situation. There were
many rental properties but not real information on what was available
and where. The City of Berkeley had an active tenants' association,
but that community seemed more run down, and he did not want to see
that happen in Palo Alto. He would rather deal with a landlord who
was a retiree, not a corporation, in addressing needs and would not
want to see something happen in which those retirees would want to
leave the market. It was unfortunate that there were landlords who
were unscrupulous. The other landlords would be burdened by
Council's actions. He applauded Council's efforts.
Bruce Placko, 2850 Middlefield Road #133D, said he had lived in Palo
Alto for three years, and in the last two years, there had been
enormous rent increases. The moderate one-bedroom apartment that
he lived in went from $1,120 to $1,160 to $1,260 to $1,430. In one
of his rent increases, the landlord was tagging on an additional
$50 service charge if the renter did not sign another lease. He
discovered that the charge was completely legal. The next rent
increase was $1,430 to sign a year lease or $1,550 on a month-to-month
basis. He could afford it, but he felt insulted. He loved Palo
Alto, which continued to have much to offer, but he thought that
it would dramatically change if something did not happen beyond
giving a 60-day notice. He was surprised of the few or nonexistent
tenants' rights. There was voluntary mediation, but overall there
should be a much stronger approach and renters should not have to
fear being evicted. It would be impossible to have diversity in
the community if people did not have the money to live in Palo Alto.
The initial steps were good, but they were just the tip of the
iceberg.
Council Member Wheeler said there were many issues and viewpoints
expressed at the Mayor's Committee meetings and much was left that
02/18/97 −39
needed to evolve and be discussed by the community. She agreed that
it was time to begin to take some actions to address the situation.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to
approve the recommendation as follows:
COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF
1. Update, localize, print and distribute the Tenants Rights
and Responsibilities Handbook based upon the
now-out-of-print Department of Consumer Affairs handbook.
2. Develop and conduct additional educational programs for
rental owners and tenants, including:
A. Prepare sample forms and explanatory handouts for
implementation of the City’s Rental Stabilization
ordinance (which generally requires rental owners
to offer one year leases).
3. Advocate legislation permitting 60 Day Notice Ordinances
on Leases. Sponsor proposed Sher legislation.
COUNCIL REFERRAL TO POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
2.B. Consider increased support to agencies such as the
Peninsula Area Information and Referral Service (PAAIRS)
and the Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing (MCFH)
to enhance their abilities to gather data and develop
outreach programs such as facilitated meetings at
apartment complexes and educational programs for both
rental owners and tenants.
2.C. Assist rental owners and tenants by promoting the use of
conciliation and mediation services for rent and other
disputes.
2.D. Enhance opportunities for agencies such as PAAIRS to
provide expanded mediation services.
4. Amend PAMC to Require 60 Day Notice for Rental Increases
on Leased Apartments.
5. Amend PAMC to Prohibit Price Differentials Between
Month-to-Month and Leasehold Tenancies.
6. Amend PAMC to eliminate the exemption for single-owner,
rented condominium projects.
02/18/97 −40
7. Amend PAMC to require “publication” of rents.
8. Develop a Rental Owner-Tenant Mediation Ordinance.
Vice Mayor Andersen referred to the second part of the motion with
regard to the Mayor's Committee recommendations and asked whether
the P&S Committee was limited to those recommendations if something
else had come from the P&S Committee's public testimony.
Council Member Wheeler said no. The recommendations were intended
as a starting point, and they were the issues which the Mayor's
Committee had the most discussion on, gathered background
information on, and developed pro and con analyses on. There were
other issues raised that evening that were vital.
Vice Mayor Andersen said he was a landlord and had a unit available
about a year before. His rents were lower than others, and he had
over a hundred calls. One person had offered an under-the-table
bonus to get on the top of the list. He was appalled by it, but
he suspected that was how desperate some tenants were. At the same
time, he suspected landlords who had taken advantage of those kinds
of opportunities. He wanted to add that to the list of possible
issues to discuss.
MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING
FIRST PART OF MOTION regarding direction to staff.
FIRST PART OF MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent.
Council Member Kniss said there were two sides to the issue. She
was surprised that Council had not heard from landlords. There could
be very different viewpoints. One of the areas she was concerned
about was the cost of the increased support to the agencies. There
would be a substantial cost to staff as well. She asked what those
costs would be.
City Manager June Fleming said it would depend on the course of
discussion that followed at the P&S Committee meeting. There was
a flat amount included in the budget each year for distribution into
the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP), and that
was inflated each year. With the budgeting system currently in
place, funds could be shifted to other agencies. Council could take
action to increase the amount in terms of the issue, but discussion
should take place first; then staff could determine what the amount
was and a way to accommodate it. She understood the intent, not
the specific agency, needed to be focused on. Staff was open to
finding ways to fund that service if it were deemed that it was a
service Council wanted to increase. Given the schedule, the items
02/18/97 −41
would not appear in the upcoming budget recommendations but could
be handled through a budget amendment ordinance.
Council Member Kniss said many times when one group had to compete
with another for money and when there was an issue such as escalating
rents, she could predict there would be others indicating that
through the HSRAP they should receive additional funding as well.
She supported the referral to the P&S Committee, but she also hoped
that the P&S Committee members would consider it as something that
would transfer funds from one particular agency to another.
Ms. Fleming said at the previous year's budget process, staff had
committed that for the next two-year budget cycle, the HSRAP would
be reviewed and changes might be made. The issue might fold well
into a revised HSRAP.
Mayor Huber said there was reference to security deposits, failure
to pay back, etc. It would be helpful to the P&S Committee to receive
advice as to what was or was not preempted by state law. The Council
received many such questions, and he suspected that some of those
things were preempted, and some probably had existing legislation
that dealt with it.
Council Member Eakins understood that sometimes landlords took ap-
plication fees for doing credit checks. Verification of use of those
fees might be included in the list of discussions at the P&S
Committee.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said it would come down to what presence
the City wanted and what level of effort the City was willing to
pay for. From there, the Council could make decisions about whether
it should become a City function or whether it was contracted out.
In his experience in the last eight months, there was a crying need
out there, and all the legal changes that had been mentioned did
not mean much without some continuing presence to make sense of them.
SECOND PART OF MOTION regarding referral to Policy and Services
Committee.
SECOND PART OF MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent.
8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
Mayor Huber referred to the memo dated February 13, 1997, regarding
Stanford’s Sand Hill Corridor Projects--Suggested Additional
Meeting Dates and indicated there was concern regarding the fifth
Monday City Council Meeting on March 31, 1997.
02/18/97 −42
City Manager June Fleming recommended that the remainder of the
suggested dates be adhered to with the exception of the March 31,
1997, date.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo
Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council
and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose
of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings.
City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90
days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for
members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.