HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-21 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting September 21, 1999 1. Gift to the City from the Friends of the Library.......89-14 2. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Historic Resources Board........................................89-14 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................89-15 APPROVAL OF MINUTES.........................................89-15
3. Ordinance 4584 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Accept a $10,000 Grant from the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation and to Provide an Additional $10,000 Appropriation
for the Community Services Department≅ .................89-15
4. Ordinance 4585 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Accept a $5,407 Grant from the Arts Council of Santa Clara County and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $5,407"...............89-15
5. Ordinance 4586 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Accept a $58,000 Grant from the Friends of the Palo Alto Public Library and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $58,000 in Support of New
Additions to Library Collections≅ ......................89-15 6. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Byxbee Park and the City-owned Baylands....................................89-15 8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Shelton Roofing Company in the Amount of $77,798 for Terman Library and Terman Wing 30 Reroofing and Repair of Water-Damaged Plaster Project - Capital Improvement Project Number 19514.............89-15 9. 1st Reading - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 2.30.076 and Amending Section 2.30.140 of
09/21/99 89-12
Chapter 2.30 (Contracts and Purchasing) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Authorize the City Manager to Offer Rewards up to $25,000 .........................................89-16 10. 1st Reading - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1.12.030 of Chapter 1.12 of Title 1 [General Provisions] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Providing for Administrative Citations and Penalties ............89-16 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ...................89-16 10A.(Old Item No. 13) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Architectural Review Board to deny an application for a sign exception by AMCOE Sign Company to allow a new halo illuminated sign facing the existing parking lot for Manpower Staffing Services at 3825 El Camino Real....................................89-16 11. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation.............................................89-17 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application for a Zone Change from Downtown Commercial Service Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S)(P) District to the Planned Community (PC) Zone, to allow demolition of an existing 17,632-square-foot manufacturing building and construction of a new 48-foot-high, three-story mixed use building, including 26 residential units, 48,030 square feet of office space, 2,379 square feet of retail space, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements; a variance for a portion of the third floor
residential area that exceeds the City=s height requirement; and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report for the project for property located at 800 High Street....89-17 13A.(Old Item No. 7) Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Submit to the California Coastal Conservancy a Grant Application for Funds Which the City Intends to Expend on Trail Improvements Located Within the Palo Alto Arastradero Preserve.....................89-22 14. Consideration of Short-Term Development Moratorium for Paul Avenue Single-Story Overlay Application................89-23 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........89-31 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10 p.m........................................................89-31 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.......89-31
09/21/99 89-13
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY Mayor Fazzino introduced Larry Klein, former Mayor of Palo Alto and President of the Board of Avenidas. Mr. Klein introduced Lisa Hendrickson, Avenidas new Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Lisa Hendrickson, Avenidas CEO, talked about the reputation of Avenidas with its remarkable, professional staff and compassionate, dedicated volunteers. She was privileged to be part of the group and appreciated the partnership with the City of Palo Alto. Mayor Fazzino agreed the partnership was special. The City was grateful for the work Avenidas did on behalf of the seniors in the community. Mayor Fazzino presented a proclamation to Cathy Durham proclaiming
October 6, 1999, as ΑWalk Your Child To School Day.≅ Cathy Durham, on behalf of the Traffic Safety of the Palo Alto Council of PTAs, thanked the Council for its support. 1. Gift to the City from the Friends of the Library Mary Jean Place, President of Friends of the Library (the Friends), presented the City of Palo a check in the amount of $58,000 for the year 1999/2000. The money included $32,000 from membership fees and profits earned by sales of used books. The second part of the income, $26,000, was contributed by the public to the Friends
special group called ΑBook Lovers Fund.≅ Since 1993, the Friends gave $313,076 to the libraries. Mayor Fazzino thanked Mary Jean Place and the Friends of the Library for the work they did on behalf of the libraries. Mayor Fazzino acknowledged receipt of a bouquet of flowers in the Council Chambers from the Urban Ministry Garden Project. Mayor Fazzino announced that Vicki Annings, Palo Alto Weekly reporter, was leaving Palo Alto and returning to England. 2. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Historic Resources Board City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Michael Makinen and Ruth Sloan received four or more votes and would be interviewed on Monday, October 4, 1999.
09/21/99 89-14
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding political ethics. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of July 26, 1999, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Schneider Αabstaining.≅ MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of August 2, 1999, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 5, and 8 - 10.
3. Ordinance 4584 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Accept a $10,000 Grant from the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation and to Provide an Additional $10,000 Appropriation
for the Community Services Department≅
4. Ordinance 4585 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Accept a $5,407 Grant from the Arts Council of Santa Clara County and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $5,407"
5. Ordinance 4586 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Accept a $58,000 Grant from the Friends of the Palo Alto Public Library and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $58,000 in Support of New
Additions to Library Collections≅ 6. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Byxbee Park and the City-owned Baylands Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Foothills Park 8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Shelton Roofing Company in the Amount of $77,798 for Terman Library and Terman Wing 30 Reroofing and Repair of Water-Damaged Plaster Project - Capital Improvement Project Number 19514
09/21/99 89-15
9. 1st Reading - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 2.30.076 and Amending Section 2.30.140 of Chapter 2.30 (Contracts and Purchasing) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Authorize the City Manager to Offer Rewards up to $25,000 10. 1st Reading - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1.12.030 of Chapter 1.12 of Title 1 [General Provisions] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Providing for Administrative Citations and Penalties MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to move Agenda Item No. 7 before Item No. 14. MOTION PASSED 9-0. City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 7 would become Item No. 13A. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue Item No. 6 to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Schneider, to move Item No. 13 before Item No. 11. MOTION PASSED 9-0. City Manager Fleming announced that Item No. 13 would become Item No. 10A. 10A.(Old Item No. 13) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Architectural Review Board to deny an application for a sign exception by AMCOE Sign Company to allow a new halo illuminated sign facing the existing parking lot for Manpower Staffing Services at 3825 El Camino Real MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to continue Item No. 10A to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 09/21/99 89-16
CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 11. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1) and (b)(3)(a) PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application for a Zone Change from Downtown Commercial Service Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S)(P) District to the Planned Community (PC) Zone, to allow demolition of an existing 17,632-square-foot manufacturing building and construction of a new 48-foot-high, three-story mixed use building, including 26 residential units, 48,030 square feet of office space, 2,379 square feet of retail space, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements; a variance for a portion of the third floor
residential area that exceeds the City=s height requirement; and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report for the project for property located at 800 High 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 Property Known as 800 High Street from CD-S(P) to PC Planned Community Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the 800 High Street Peninsula Creamery Final EIR and Making Findings Thereon Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the applicant requested continuation of the item. Mr. Gawf recommended the application be continued to a date uncertain and said staff would republish the Public Hearing notice. The applicant asked for continuation after the Council considered the east of Ramona Street portion of the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan. It was appropriate to consider continuation until after the entire SOFA plan was completed. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether the SOFA Area Phase I, the area east of Ramona Street, would include sufficient contextual information for the Council to set expectations for further work in the area. Mr. Gawf said the Council would receive information that would provide a sense of the overall policy of the entire area. The key
09/21/99 89-17
parts of the area west of Ramona Street were pulled out. Some of the fundamental policy questions were in the initial draft of the SOFA plan, but the Working Group only adopted a recommendation that the specifics he mentioned be deleted. The area west of Ramona Street study would give the Council the better contextual relationship. Council Member Kniss asked for an estimate of timing of the schedule. Mr. Gawf said his goal was for April 2000. Council Member Kniss was concerned that the continuation of the item would not give much feedback to the applicant. Mr. Gawf said the applicant should understand the implication. The applicant was asking for a shorter delay. Council Member Kniss clarified the postponement would be short, and the application would return prior to considering the first phase of the SOFA study. Mr. Gawf said that was what was requested by the applicant. Council Member Mossar asked, with regard to the Peninsula Creamery site, when in the course of the SOFA study, Phase I or Phase II, would the Council know about traffic circulation, traffic calming measures, the definition of a transition zone in the area south of the project site, other opportunities for housing in the SOFA area, the relationship of the provision of parking proposed in the project to neighborhood parking permits, the removal of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) facility from the neighborhood, and the completion of pedestrian access under or over the railroad tracks from the new PAMF site into the SOFA area. Mr. Gawf said the Phase I would include traffic circulation and traffic calming. Transition zone and appropriateness of housing would be included in Phase II. Provision of parking and how that would relate to a parking permit system would be Phase II in the sense of whether there as a relationship between other uses and any benefits they may derive from a common parking area. The primary emphasis of Phase I was the PAMF property. Staff would look at type of housing, affordable housing, and the park issue. Provision of an underpass was Phase I. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Huber, that the item be continued until after the completion of the SOFA Plan Phase I and Phase II. Council Member Rosenbaum stated the building was too large, the extra entitlement asked for by means of the PC zone was unprecedented and too big, the timing relative to an ongoing
09/21/99 89-18
planning process was poor, and there was a question between the public benefit relative to the value of what was asked for. Council Member Huber said he reviewed the project when it was prescreened and, at that time, said the project needed to come in with or after the SOFA plan in its entirety. Council Member Kniss said the Council heard from the community regarding how the project would impact the area. Looking at the project as a whole made more sense than looking at it in part. Vice Mayor Wheeler regretted that the current Council, which had put much effort and thought into the SOFA plan, would not finish the work on the SOFA Plan. She agreed with Council Member
Rosenbaum=s comments on the shortfalls of the project as it came to the Council. It was premature and would continue to be premature after the Council saw Phase I. She supported the longer continuance because it would serve the community, the proponents of the project, and the neighborhood. Council Member Ojakian asked whether he could comment on the project although he was unable to participate in the SOFA Plan. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Council Member Ojakian could comment due to the fact that he did not have a financial interest in the project. Council Member Ojakian supported the motion and agreed with comments made by Council Member Rosenbaum. Council Member Mossar said the community raised legitimate concerns about the project and deserved answers. As a Council Member, she would feel irresponsible not making sure the answers were before the Council prior to making a decision. She agreed with Vice Mayor Wheeler that continuing the project to Phase I would not serve anyone well. Council Member Schneider expressed her appreciation to the applicant for listening to the concerns of the community. The
project was good and Roxie Rapp=s previous projects were done with high quality materials and served the community well. The current project was approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), Historic Resources Board (HRB), and the Planning Commission. The Council generally listened to those committees when making recommendations. The project would be a good project and act as a buffer. She did not support the motion and believed there was a way the project could go ahead at the same time as the SOFA project was reviewed. Council Member Eakins expressed the same concerns about the project from the first time she saw it. Some of the concerns would be better addressed in the context of the total SOFA Coordinated Area
09/21/99 89-19
Plan. She did not want the Council to interfere with the SOFA plan by allowing a major development before the plan was completed. She regretted that several of the Council Members would not be present for the completion of the project, but the continuance was the right thing to do to honor the Coordinated Area Plan process. She asked the City Manager if the Council could have preliminary additional visual aids when the project came back. City Manager Fleming said the Council would have to give staff clear direction as to what it wants brought back. Council Member Eakins asked whether there would be another prescreening process. Ms. Fleming did not believe there would be another prescreening. Mr. Roxie Rapp, 375 University Avenue, understood the Council wanted an opportunity to compare the proposed project to a project that he could build under the normal zoning. Design studies were not done. The continuance would allow time for drawings and volume studies to compare the two projects under normal zoning and PC zoning. At that time, in January or February, he would like to come back to the Council when the Council would say it preferred the existing zoning project or ask him to wait until the MU-2 and MU-1 was finished. He was aware of the amount of square footage he could put on the property, but design and parking studies were not done. Council Member Mossar said it was fair to the applicant to know when the application would be continued to in order to provide motivation for the Council to do the work that needed to be done to evaluate the application. Ms. Fleming estimated the completion of Phase II would be April or May 2000. She wanted the Council to be clear as to what it wants the staff to do in terms of responding to issues such as story poles. Mr. Gawf agreed with the estimated time of April or May 2000. There were fundamental issues that needed to be addressed. As an example, one of the issues was the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which was 2.5. The comment was that was too high. The appropriate FAR needed to be studied. Council Member Mossar hoped the schedule would be met. Council Member Kniss asked whether staff needed direction from the Council to do story poles. Ms. Fleming said she would feel more comfortable with direction
from the Council. Staff needed to hear the Council=s concerns that may be in judgement of the project. She recommended the Council
09/21/99 89-20
give staff written suggestions which would be included on the agenda in January 2000. Stephen Player, 1874 Guinda Street, attorney representing Peninsula Creamery, said to tie the motion to Phase II would be tying it to a
date uncertain. The study had gone on long beyond anyone=s contemplation. The Creamery and the applicant were very patient in working with the City. He was unsure if staff would have enough information available for the Council to make an informed decision at the completion of Phase II. There may be more information available during Phase I which would allow one to evaluate whether or not the project was one that worked. In fairness to the applicant, he asked that the Council continue the item to a date uncertain to allow staff and the future Council to have an opportunity to make an independent decision. Council Member Eakins admired the persistence she observed from all parties with respect to the project. She heard the public question the use of the Planned Community zone for other large projects. The property had existing zoning, and the applicant was not prevented from using the existing zoning. The delay was not unreasonable, but to ask the Council to push something faster than the Coordinated Area Plan process might produce was premature. She
appreciated the applicant=s patience and admired his persistence. Mayor Fazzino was ready to vote on the motion. He believed everyone deserved predictability in fairness associated with the project. The issue was debated for quite a while, and he was concerned about continuing the project to a new council. The applicant deserved predictability, fairness and City adherence to a timetable regarding a decision. He was concerned about the size of
the project and was surprised by the Planning Commission=s unanimous vote in support of the project. Council Member Mossar proposed that staff return to the Council in three months with a status report revising the schedule for SOFA II. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the proposed amendment was to ask staff to return in three months with an anticipated schedule for completion of Phase II. Council Member Mossar said yes. She asked that information relevant to the project which was completed and available from Phase I be provided. Mayor Fazzino suggested the three months be extended to four months due to the holiday season. Council Member Kniss said the Council would have voted on the item at the current meeting, but was responding to the applicant who
09/21/99 89-21
asked for a continuance. Council Member=s Mossar=s suggestion that the Council come back at a time certain for a determinative look served the applicant well. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct staff to return to the Council in four months with a status report on both the PAMF/SOFA plan and the information requested regarding 800 High Street. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Fazzino, Schneider Αno.≅ 13A.(Old Item No. 7) Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Submit to the California Coastal Conservancy a Grant Application for Funds Which the City Intends to Expend on Trail Improvements Located Within the Palo Alto Arastradero Preserve Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Application for Grant Funds from the Recreational Trails Program Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the project description attached to the staff report (CMR:366:99) indicated that an objective was to designate a trail route that would connect trails in Foothills Park through the Arastradero Preserve. A similar proposal was before the Council eight years prior and concerns were expressed which led staff to abandon the grant request. The concerns included the
Council=s policy on residents-only entrance to Foothills Park and the adopted policy of a single entrance to the park. It was more appropriate for the project be reviewed by the new Park and Recreation Commission prior to making the grant application. The project application indicated that California Conservation Corps would use the trails, and there were concerns by the public about how that group handled the trails in the Foothills Park open space area. Council Member Mossar asked whether the Council was simply applying for grant funding and the project would come back to the Council for further discussion at a later date. She also asked what assurances the Council had to address the questions raised by Mr. Borock. The Finance Committee had several discussions about trail building, trail standards, and environmental protection for the natural preserve areas. City Manager June Fleming said Mr. Borock raised valid points which centered around the Master Plan. If the Council was comfortable with the Master Plan, the Council would be comfortable with staff submitting the grant application. The project was for an existing Capital Improvement Project (CIP). Staff considered it a way to implement with assistance a project that was in the Master Plan. She suggested 1) the grants came about annually and staff could withdraw the current request and work on the Master Plan, or 2) 09/21/99 89-22
submit the request and try to do the Master Plan prior to accepting the project. Funds would not be accepted until the Master Plan was approved. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the resolutions and to approve the grant request with the understanding that the trails master plan be approved by Council after it is prepared.
Resolution 7895 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Submit to the California Coastal Conservancy a Grant Application for Funds Which the City Intends to Expend on Trail Improvements Located Within the Palo
Alto Arastradero Preserve≅
Resolution 7896 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Application for Grant Funds from the
Recreational Trails Program≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 14. Consideration of Short-Term Development Moratorium for Paul Avenue Single-Story Overlay Application Director of Planning & Community Environment Ed Gawf spoke with James Witt and Larry Breed. His objective was to bring the builder together with the Paul Avenue residents to work on a plan that would fit the neighborhood. A letter from Mr. Witt was presented to the Council which indicated where he stood on the issue. The neighborhood and Mr. Witt were not in total agreement although there was progress and understanding because of the discussions. There was agreement with the core issue in that Mr. Witt would go through the voluntary design review program and would work with City staff and the architect who would be retained to work on the review. In addition, Mr. Breed agreed to work with the neighborhood to try to achieve concurrence with the design. It was his understanding that the final design may or may not be one story. The goal was to find a building design that protected the privacy of the adjacent properties and fit on Paul Avenue. There was concern about initiating the single-story overlay zone process as well as the moratorium issue. The single-story overlay zone was divided into two phases: 1) staff would determine whether there was a valid application to proceed; and 2) Council would endorse the initiation of the single-story overlay and staff would contact the applicants.
Frank O=Mahony, 730 Paul Avenue, opposed the application. Paul Avenue was a normal street in an area treasured by its inhabitants but was undergoing a change that not everyone was in favor of.
09/21/99 89-23
Many people lived on Paul Avenue for decades, their families were grown or complete, and they gained significant equity in their homes. New families moved in, paid the premium that the neighborhood demanded, paid higher property taxes, and looked for ways to house expanding families and justify heavy mortgages. Not all the lots could support single-story expansion for the overlay to go into effect. Twelve lots, including his, were approximately 5,000 square feet which made the addition of a second story the only way to expand. Some of his neighbors wrote to the Council detailing why the petition did not have the support of the overwhelming majority of homeowners on the Street. Thirteen of the 28 owners on the street supported the petition. The Barron Park Association, for several years, asked the City Council to extend the current commercial multi-family residential design review process to single-family homes. He urged the Council to accelerate the mandatory incorporation of single-family homes into the process and work with developers such as Mr. Witt to develop homes that were in keeping with the neighborhood. The blunt overlay instrument in the long run would freeze or reduce the valuation of the homes in the area, act as a disincentive to younger families to move into the area, and set neighbor against neighbor in an unproductive way. He asked that the Council not vote on the
moratorium and accept Mr. Witt=s assurances in the spirit they were delivered.
Christophe O=Mahony, 730 Paul Avenue, said her home was currently undergoing a remodel so she had no personal vested interest in the petition except for the fact that she had an interest in the valuation of the properties. There was no option except to build up on her property and her neighbors were supportive of the process by offering feedback and making the remodel into a natural experience. The collaborative process was something that could be encouraged in all neighborhoods. A one-story overlay was an illogical and inappropriate response to what was a more complex situation. She asked the Council to deny the petition and help the
residents find better answers to Paul Avenue=s future development. Janet Wilson, 751 Paul Avenue, said the petition had support of 12 of the 28 owners on Paul Avenue, noting that some people withdrew their signatures. She asked the Council to create a new type of zone where all neighbors agreed that if one owner wanted to tear down a modest house to build a larger one the owner would be required to meet with the neighbors, reveal the proposed plans, and
listen to the neighbors= comments and complaints prior to proceeding. Since she first heard about the petition nine days prior, she watched the character of the neighborhood suffer serious damage. The neighborhood was cohesive the prior year, but the neighborhood was currently divided. Several people signed the petition thinking that the developer bought one home, when in fact he bought another. The petition began as a perceived threat by a rumor that the developer bought one home. The Council received
09/21/99 89-24
letters and a petition withdrawing the majority of the owners and had an agreement from the developer to work with the residents. Gene Simpson, 750 Paul Avenue, said three signers of the petition changed their minds and two others asked to sign on. If a majority of the people did not want the petition, the process would stop. He felt the ambiance of a neighborhood was a natural resource commonly created, shared, and owned by everyone in the
neighborhood. When a Αbig box≅ house invaded the neighborhood, the
Αbig box≅ increased its own value but lowered the value of other
properties in the neighborhood by a small amount. Each Αbig box≅
stole a little of the neighborhood=s ambiance and exploited the
neighborhood=s value. He reminded everyone that preservation of the existing scale and character of single-family neighborhoods was a fundamental policy of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Out of scale and out of character was against the fundamental policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Paul Avenue was a 100 percent single-family neighborhood of predominantly one-story homes, and he wanted to keep it as it was. Monique Barbanson, 781 Paul Avenue, valued her privacy and could not support the one-story overlay petition proposed by some of the neighbors. She did not believe the overlay was the only option for preserving the quality of the street. The one-story overlay would become unsuitable for young families. The limited effect on home values would be a disincentive for homeowners to maintain and improve their homes and yards. Richard Becker, 1133 Robin Way, Sunnyvale, owned property at 784 Paul Avenue which he wanted to sell to James Witt. Much progress was made in the neighborhood during the prior few days. His house was not in a single-story neighborhood. Paul Avenue was outside the guidelines for a single-story combining zone and it was unbelievable that the Council would ever make it an R-1(S) zone. A moratorium was uncalled for and would cause serious harm. He provided the Council with maps. On an overhead map, he pointed out properties that were two story and one story. Of the 28 lots on Paul Avenue, five were two story and several were above the height limit. His lot was not in a one-story neighborhood. Paul Avenue was outside the guidelines for imposing an R-1(S) zone. The La Jennifer R-1(S) zone had one two-story house; the Charleston South zone had two two-story houses out of 94 lots. That was a different zone than what was on Paul Avenue. The guidelines referred to modest size lots of 7,000 to 8,000 square feet. The lots on Paul Avenue were 9,000 square feet or greater and easily supported two-story houses. Jan Becker, 1133 Robin Way, Sunnyvale, said Palo Alto had well developed procedures for changing zoning including applications for single-story combining zones. A moratorium would short circuit those procedures and due process. Short circuits created disruptions that caused harm to residents who followed the rules
09/21/99 89-25
and expected the rules to be followed. Selling one house and buying another was a stressful experience, and part of the stress came from the highly leveraged double financial exposure that existed when the first house is sold. Escrow on the sale of 784 Paul Avenue was supposed to close the following day, but a moratorium would cause the sale to be voided and require her to begin the selling process again. It would be difficult for people buying or selling homes in Palo Alto to be faced with the dilemma. She would like the moratorium not be enacted and due process be instituted. Laura Carroll, 776 Paul Avenue, helped organize the petition with her husband. During the prior week, she spoke with many neighbors and recognized how the moratorium could disrupt life. The one-story overlay was not the tool she would like it to be because it was limiting. She wanted to see a mandatory architectural review and the neighbors be part of the consensus agreement. She suggested a modification to the moratorium which would allow Mr. Witt to build his house with a consensus opinion of the neighborhood and going through architectural review. Mr. Witt agreed to that verbally and in writing. Larry Breed, 701 Paul Avenue, said the organizers of the petition wished to revise their moratorium request to cover two-story construction on Paul Avenue unless the project went through voluntary architectural reviewed, was discussed with the
neighborhood, and gained the neighborhood=s consent. The prior week was difficult for all the neighbors on Paul Avenue. The healing process began through the development of the moratorium proposal and discussions with neighbors, in particular, those who feared being hurt by what was proposed. He favored a collaborative approach. The prior Sunday, Jim Witt proposed almost exactly the same wording that the organizers of the petition put into the changed moratorium. He and Mr. Witt agreed with the terms over the phone. Under the terms, Mr. Witt would be able to buy the house at 784 Paul Avenue and build a good house. Since the prior Sunday, Mr. Witt changed his terms, conditioning his agreement on having no moratorium and no petition. The revised moratorium would not
affect his project nor would the City=s consideration of the overlay petition. He confirmed the change with Mr. Witt that afternoon but did not understand why Mr. Witt was suddenly opposed. The neighbors wanted the project to proceed and be successful to show how builders and neighbors could work together rather than rely on restrictive zoning. Leannah Hunt, 245 Lytton Avenue, Chairperson, Local Government Relations Committee of the Palo Alto District of the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors. The realtor community was concerned about the attempt on Paul Avenue to place a moratorium on a proposed project with an escrow in process. Her concern was with the drama that took place on Paul Avenue. The Council needed to look at the totality that went on in the community. She did not want to see
09/21/99 89-26
similar activity repeated on other streets in the ensuing months.
The issue was the need for neighbors= understanding of current building regulations. Palo Alto had a good set of building regulations that were instituted ten years prior that were followed, and the Building Department had competent professionals who administered and passed judgement on plans according to the regulations. The buying public was looking for upgraded homes with double-paned windows and upgraded foundations. Barron Park had an interesting history and was able to reserve the rural nature. The aging housing stock throughout the community was in need of upgrades. Some people were content to live in older homes, but the majority of the buyers were not. If a person entered into an escrow in good faith with an understanding of the current building regulations, that person should not be penalized during the escrow. If neighbors wished to pursue a single-story overlay project, that was a separate issue. The neighborhoods were evolving and homeowners, given the current guidelines, should be able to improve the properties as they see fit. An owner/builder should not be chastised or penalized. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said 25 years prior he urged the Council to adopt design review for single-family homes. At that time, the objection was it would take too much time and effort. The only handle the residents had was the single-story overlay zone which was not universally accepted. At the current time, there were design guidelines that were voluntary. Mr. Witt indicated he preferred to abide by those design guidelines. He suggested within the following months that the Council make the design guidelines mandatory for all developers. A developer was defined as anyone who obtained two building permits within an 18 month period, and he was told by developers that they would not find that requirement too obtrusive or objectionable. He suggested when an individual wanted to add on to a house, that individual would be required to meet with the neighbors within 500 feet to get general consensus of the project. Two-story additions were not necessarily bad. Two years prior, one of his neighbors shared his desire with neighbors at a block party to expand his house. The neighbors made suggestions, and the homeowner built an attractive, unobtrusive second story that no one objected to. James Witt, 925 Roble Ridge Road, said at the prior Council meeting, it was mentioned that someone snuck in a two-story house
on LaJennifer Way. It was not true that he was the Αsomeone.≅ He could have built a two-story on LaJennifer Way but he voluntarily chose to build a one-story house. He was proud of the house he built on LaJennifer Way. When the Planning Commission recommended against the one-story overlay on LaJennifer Way, it was concerned that bad applications would appear. His concern was what had happened based on rumor. The neighbors did not have knowledge he would buy the property on Paul Avenue. The discussion of the moratorium and one-story overlay was in the absence of any factual basis the he would buy the property. There was a lack of
09/21/99 89-27
communication. When the neighbors finally began to communicate, they found common ground. The City was at a turning point. There were other ways to resolve the issue other than lawsuits, moratoriums, zoning changes, and pitting half the community against the other half. Mayor Fazzino said several speakers mentioned what Mr. Witt was willing to do with respect to voluntary design review. Mr. Witt said the design was complete and ready to go. He held off submitting his application because he did not want to build where he was not welcome. On prior projects, he tried to treat the neighborhoods with respect by planting trees, building fences and moving windows. He was not willing to totally redesign the house. He was currently working on three projects where the sellers contacted him directly because they wanted a developer who showed sensitivity to the neighborhood. He visualized a two-story house fitting on the Paul Avenue property. The house was designed as substantially one story across the front with the second story set back. The house was specifically designed for Paul Avenue. Council Member Mossar said the application was on the agenda because a petition was presented during Oral Communications at the prior Council meeting. Since the Council was forbidden by the Palo Alto Charter to discuss nonagendized items, staff was asked to place the matter on the agenda for discussion. The staff report
(CMR:368:99) indicated ΑStaff intends, unless Council directs otherwise, to complete its review of the possible creation of an S Overlay Zone for Paul Avenue and to report back to the Council on
the application within 5 to 6 months.≅ She understood from another part of the report that the standard procedure was to spend a month doing a basic review to determine whether or not there was reason to proceed. Mr. Gawf said the correct meaning was that the Council reviewed the application after determining who signed the petition and who the owners were. Preliminary analysis was done, and the information would be brought to the Council for the Council to make a decision as to whether or not to direct staff to initiate the process. Council Member Mossar clarified staff could resolve the issue about how many residents supported the project and whether or not the neighborhood met the basic criteria outlined in the ordinance. Mr. Gawf said that was correct. Given the short turn around, staff was unable to do anything with the information. Council Member Mossar asked for clarification if another property owner submitted a proposal to redevelop a lot within the area being studied for possible application.
09/21/99 89-28
Mr. Gawf said the building permit would be processed. There were no restrictions. Given the turnaround on building permit processing, it would exceed one month. Council Member Mossar asked for a brief status report and timeline expectation of the assignment that the Planning Department had to further investigate ways to deal with the neighborhood compatibility issues. Mr. Gawf could not provide a timeframe at the current meeting. Staff would come back to the Council with a more detailed schedule. In some ways, the solutions were easy because there were only so many alternatives available from a technical standpoint. The fundamental issue was not the technique of how things were done, but the fundamental issue was how to find the right balance for the community. He heard comments at the current meeting and other comments from the community, but he did not hear a consensus of what to do. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the City Attorney had an opportunity to review the letter from Jim Witt. He asked whether the letter was a legally binding agreement. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said it was not binding in its current form. The letter said Mr. Witt agreed to enter into the design review process, but at the current meeting Mr. Witt said he had a plan in place and did not want to reengineer it. He did not hear any agreement to comply with any design suggestions. If there was an understanding that there would be voluntary review and that did not work out, the Council could justify an urgency moratorium. The Council could try to let the consensual process work and still keep the urgency zoning tool open. He suggested if the Council felt a need to take action at the current meeting, the Council could ask the City Manager and City Attorney to return promptly if there was a reason to believe there was a problem that did not work out in the voluntary process. Council Member Huber asked the City Attorney at what point in the process did vesting occur for purposes of not being able to impose a moratorium. Mr. Calonne said vesting occurred with approval of plans and
substantial construction. The Council=s motivation in imposing a moratorium would be related to the one piece of property. Council Member Huber said if the Council did nothing, the Planning staff would determine the depth of support and report back to the Council who would then decide whether action should be initiated. Mr. Gawf said that was correct.
09/21/99 89-29
Council Member Huber asked if the Council did not impose a moratorium and encouraged Mr. Witt to work with the neighbors, would staff follow the process and advise the Council if the process did not work. Mr. Gawf said yes. He would advise the City Council. Council Member Huber said he wanted to be advised with the hope that Mr. Witt and the neighbors would come to an agreement that would enable them to work out the process. He was concerned about the relatively small areas where neighbors were requesting overlay which suggested there was a larger problem. He hoped Mr. Gawf would move ahead with the overall City-wide look at compatibility which would solve more problems than the overlay zones. Council Member Eakins sensed a growing public will to take on the monster of single family design considerations. There were many concerned parties. Council Member Rosenbaum said it was obvious that there would not be support for a single-story overlay in the neighborhood and therefore no reason for a moratorium. He did not want the Council to be in the position of acting as an intermediary should there be a dispute between Mr. Witt and the neighbors. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, to request staff to report back to the City Council on the outcome,
after the house was built, of Mr. Witt=s voluntary offer to work with the neighbors. Council Member Mossar said the real issue was determining whether or not there was a legitimate application to pursue the single-story overlay. She had not heard nor seen anything that led her to believe the moratorium was worth discussing. The Council had an obligation to proceed in the normal process because the neighborhood presented the Council with a petition. She was interested in staff taking the time necessary to return to the Council in one month and let the Council know there were enough or not enough neighbors in support, and that the neighborhood met the guidelines of the ordinance. If the answer was no, there was no where else to go. Council Member Ojakian supported the motion. His look through the neighborhood and comments from the initial applicant saying they were no longer interested in the petition led him to believe that the neighborhood was a single-family overlay zone. He was not interested in pursuing the petition nor was he interested in a
moratorium. He appreciated Mr. Witt=s efforts in going through a
design process and incorporating neighbor=s ideas. He supported prior single-family overlays but felt the subject neighborhood was more difficult because it was eclectic. His concern about the moratorium had to do with the fact that the owner of the property
09/21/99 89-30
was into the escrow process. The Council should not interfere with the process. Council Member Kniss did not support the motion. She was concerned that the Council would see the situation constantly. The Council needed to tell staff that a process should be in place. She did not know whether that meant design review. Issues included design and what happened in neighborhoods. Unprecedented prosperity brought about a number of issues in the community during the prior three years which were difficult and daunting to deal with. The Council needed to look at why the issue was coming up on a regular basis and needed another process. The precedent of reporting back to the Council each time did not work for her. Mayor Fazzino supported the motion. A status report was reasonable. There were legitimate arguments on all sides of the questions of preserving neighborhood character, protecting property rights, preserving affordability, and addressing the needs of buyers with growing families. The issue was difficult for
everyone. The Council was dealing with economic forces beyond its= control and was not in a position to resolve the issue for the community. It was essential that the issue was not addressed on a case-by-case basis. The Council agonized over single-story overlays because that was one of the few tools available to the Council. The Council needed to work towards a process which could be used Citywide. He spoke with Mr. Gawf about putting in place a committee of residents, builders, realtors and others to work together to develop a citywide process, a flexible design standard process that might allow 90 percent of applications to get through the process. He recalled in 1989 when the Council made decisions regarding floor area ratio, there was grumbling about monster homes, but the issue did not become an overriding concern until 1996 or 1997. Most builders constructed homes consistent with the community. Mr. Witt needed to come up with a solution for the particular situation. The long term issue of design standards needed to be addressed. MOTION FAILED 4-5, Eakins, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Wheeler Αno.≅ Mayor Fazzino encouraged the neighbors and Mr. Witt to work together and resolve the issue without City involvement. No action taken. 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Potential/Anticipated Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 11.
09/21/99 89-31
Mayor Fazzino announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 11. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(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.
09/21/99 89-32