Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-18 City Council Summary Minutes.12,121 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL MEETI NGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU- F REOUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting September 18, 1989 PAGE 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to the City 62.125 of Linkoping, Sweden for Gift of a Sculpture to the City of Palo Alto 2. Year End Report from Neighbors Abroad 62-125 3. Appointments.. to the Historic Resources Board 62-127 Ora) Communications 62-128 Consent Calendar 62-128 4. Contract with Shelton Roofing Company, Inc, for 62•x128 Reroofing Fire Station Ho. 2; Change Orders Not to Exceed $10,00© 5. Contract with Santa Clara County for Social 62-125 Worker Services 6. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal 62-128 Year 1989-90 to Provide Additional Funds for the Library and to Receive Grant Funds 7. PUBLIC ;TEARING: Historic Resources Board 62-128 Recommendation of Eight Additions and One Upgrade to the Historic Building Inventory 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommenda- 62--131 tion Regarding the Appeal of E. Patricia Buchanan for Property. Located at 3873 El Centro Street 62-123 9/18/89 ITEM t 9. PUBLIC REARING: Planning Commission and Archi- 62-134 tectural Review Board Recommendation Regarding the Application of Clement Chen & Associates for a Planned Community Zone Change for Property Located at 625 El Camino Real (Holiday Inn) 10. Amendment No. 1 to Sublease -- Pacific Hotel 62-134 Development Venture - Holiday Inn Expansion 11. Three -Month Review of Temporary Use Permit for 62-138 Urban Ministry Homeless rhelters and Proposal for an Additional Four Churches to Participate 12. Council Member Ellen Fletcher Regarding Support 62-141 for Rail Bond Act Initiative 13. Request of Mayor Klein and Council Members 62-144 Renzel and Woo/.ley to Present and Consider an Ordinance Imposing a Moratorium on Acceptance of Applications for Tr.creased Square Footage in R-1 and RE Zones Adjournment at 1:15 a.m. ,62-158 62-124 9/18/89 Regular Meeting September 18, 1989 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:35 p.m. Mayor Klein announce that at some point during or after the metting there would be a Closed Session to discuss threatened litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) (1) in the Personnel Conference Room. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:36 p.m.), Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 8:00 p.m.) , Renzel, Sutorius (arrived at 7:37 p.m.), Woolley ORDERS OF =a_DY 1. Resolution of Appreciation to the City of Linkoping, Sweden (1540-06-04) (NPG) MOYION: Council Member Renzel i eyed, seconded by Cobb, to adopt the Resolution. usourucm 6824 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING ITS APPRECIATION TO THE CITY OF LINKOPING, SWEDEN FOR ITS GIFT OF A SCULPTURE TO PALO ALTO" NOTION PA8@ND 8.0, Patitucci absent. 2. Year End Report from Neighbors Abroad (1540-06) Tonia MacNeil, 1615 Waverley Street, Chairman of the Public Art Commission, said the project was a cooperative effort with Neighbors Abroad. They were very pleased by the effort and the concepts that the craft students and their teachers from Linkoping brought to the sculpture. She thanked Council Member Leland Levy, Jim Baer, Georgia Longatren, Ken Schletin, Red Wilbur, Hal Roach, and the staff from the Division of Arts and Culture for their donations and efforts. She invited the public to the dedication of the sculpture on Sunday, September 24, 1989, at 3:00 p.m. in the park at Embarcadsro and Waverley. Ralph White, the Vice President of Neighbors Abroad for the Linkoping Sister City Relationship, was privileged to work with the talented, young artists from Linkoping to create the special work of art for the City of Palo Alto. He introduced students Urban Anderson, Lars Brag, Tore Edvinaon, Marc Platten, and their instructors Claes Kemp, and Ove Nabo from Linkoping University. 62--x.25 9/18/89 Instructor Ove Nabo said the project correlated with the students' studios at Linkoping University and was funded by the City of Linkoping and the University. He presented the sculpture to the City of Palo Alto, to strengthen ties between the two Sister Cities and help people, especially children, build curiosity and promote the creative process. He thanked the City of Palo Alto for helping the students complete the project. Mayor Klein and Council Member Levy, Council Liaison to Neighbors Abroad, presented the students and their instructors with T-shirts from the City of Palo Alto Recreation Department. Sally nester, Past President of Neighbors Abroad, gave the Neighbors Abroad Yearly Report and presented the Sister City's Award to the City Council. Palo, Leyte had a continuing scholar- ship program for college students, a vocational resource center which had graduated 400 students and the children's section of a library stocked mostly by books donated by the children of Palo Alto. Neighbors Abroad had 40 members in Oaxaca to help celebrate the twenty-fifth year of the relationship with cartons of soccer uniforms donated by young Palo Alto soccer players. Exhibits of Oaxacan artists were displayed in the foyer of the Palo`Alto City Hall. Visibility studies for a reforestation program and a child care program in Oaxaca were planned. In Enschede and in Palo Alto, successful edecational and cultural exchanges had been held. A counterpart organization to Neighbors Abroad called PAL, which stands for Palo Alto in Linkoping, was established. Children's art exhibits from Palo Alto and some from the sister cities of Palo Alto hang in the Concert Hall in Linkoping. She announced that on Thursday, September 28, the first Palo Alto Day will be held in Linkoping highlighted by a visit from the U.S. Embaasador to Sweden, Charles Redmond. She would be present representing Neighbors Abroad. Neighbors Abroad had established the Tnterna-- tional Visitors Committee, which welcomed visitors to the City and allowed the to meet Palo Alto residents in their own homes. An International Open House would be held on Wednesday, at 6:00 p.m. at Bryant House. The guest book at the Bryant House numbers more than 2,000 signatures of visitors from 43 countries. The activities were conducted by volunteers and the goal of Neighbors Abroad was to nurture one of Palo Alto's greatest resources, volunteer time. The membership of Neighbors Abroad was up to one percent of the Palo Alto population. Its goals were to carry the Sister City mission of world understanding and peace, to meet the needs of the temporary volunteer organization, and to make Palo Alto a truly International City. She thanked the City Council for its support. 62-126 9/18/89 0 3. Appointments to the Historic Resources Board (702-04) Mayor Klein announced there were four applicants for the Historic Resources Board. Council Member Sutorius would support Linda Scott on the first ballot because of her participation on various City committees and task force operations associated with design end character of Palo Alto. She was also a homeowner -resident of Professorville with hands-on appreciation of the historic character of the City. He would support Neil Heyden on the second ballot for his activity with college/university work in Washington, D.C.; his thesis on preservation; hie employment with the National Archives; and his experience as a consultant in exploring preservation work that needed to be done during construction in the Metropolitan area of Washington, D.C. He was also an active member of Palo Alto's Historical Society. Council Member Cobb would support Linda Scott on the first ballot and Neil Heyden on the second ballot. Council Member Renzel would support Linda Scott on the first ballot for the design professional seat on the Historic Resources Board. On the seconie ballot, she would support Paula McFarland because she had a long-standing interest in Palo Alto's historical structures and had done a great deal of historical research coauthoring the book, Gone To*grroo, which documented a number of Palo Alto's historic homes. Vice Mayor Bechtel would support Linda Scott on the first ballot ane Neil Hoyden. on the second ballot. nSUL4S or THE FIRRT R9t ND O! VOTING VOTING FOR SCOTT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Bonze', Sutorius, Woolley City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Linda Scott received nine votes and vas appointed. RESULTS OF THE SECQjD ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR HEYDEN: Bechtel, Cobb, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Sutorius VOTING FOR l4cFhRL D: Fletcher, Renrel, Woolley Rs. Young announced that Neil Hayden received six votes and was appointed. 61-427 9118/89 ORAL COMMUNICAT Dan Epstein, 735 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding moving the moratorium item concerning R-1 forward on the agenda. Marti:: Bernat about second sin, member of the public, spoke regarding his concern story setbacks. MOTION: Vi Consent Cal ce Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to approve endar Items 4 - 6. 4. Contract with Shelton Roofing Company, Station No. 21 Change Orders Not to (CMR:433:9) 5. Contract with Santa Clara County for (1036) (CMR:431:9) 6. XOTIO Inc. for Reroofing Fire Exceed $10,000 (810) Social Worker Services ORDINANCE 3898 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE LIBRARY AND TO RECEIVE GRANT FUNDS,' (412-03) (CMR:425:9) O TO N PASSED 9-0. "PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. P BL C HEARING: Historic Resources Board Recommendation of Eight Additions and One Upgrade to the Historic Building Inventory (263) (CMR:438:9) Chairman of the Historic Resources Board John Gifford recommended eight additions and one upgrade to the inventory. All were. Category 3 or 4, contrib%.ting structures. No significant atruc-- urss were being proposed. Council, Member Sutorius queried why 321 Kipling Street was recommended for the inventory since it was not considered an architecturally significant structure. Mr. Gifford said being archivecturally significant was not the only criteria for the historic inventcry. The fact that it was the first public building in Palo. Alto aade it deserving. It should be praaerved because it was part of Palo Altos past. Vice Mayor Bechtel asked if all of the property owners concurred with being placed on the historic inventory. 62-128 9/18/89 1 1 Mr. Gifford said no. Several owners were concerned that property values would be lessened by inclusion on the inventory. Some thought being placed on the inventory created another bureaucratic hurdle should they plan to develop or make changes to the property. Council Member Fletcher asked about the conditions imposed on properties designated Categories 3 and 4. Assistant Planning Official George Zimmerman said virtually no conditions were imposed for residential properties proposed for Categories 3 or 4. For properties located in the Downtown CD District, modifications to the facade required Historic Resources Board review in addition to Architectural Review Board review for commercial properties. If demolition was requested, referral would be made to the Historic Resources Board to comment to the City Council and make a recommendation on potential deferral of such demolition for a period of one year. Mayor Klein declered the Public Hearing open. Rosalind Chi, 425 Tasso Street, referred to her letter (on file in the City Clerk's office) in oposition to her property being classified a Category 3 structure. James Liu, 350 Bdlee Avenue, Attorney for Mr. & Mrs. Chi, urged Council to oppose the Historic Resources Board recommendation to designate their home at 425 Tasso Street as a Category 3, histori- cal building. The 400 block of Tasso, was zoned for commercial use. The neighborhood outside of the Chi's home was a small financial center of new, modern, and tall buildings. Three houses were originally considered for inclusion on the Historic Inventory and the historical value of each house was enhanced by the existence of the other two. When the Historic Resources Board voted down the other two houses but singled out Mr. & Mrs. Chi's home as an historical building, they violated the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.49.20(b) which specifically stated the Historic Resources Board consider both .the structure and the neighborhood before a building was designated as Category 3. Mr. & Mrs. Chi were in their late seventies and eighties and due to severe arthritis were not able to use the second floor of their home. They were in the procese of making final decisions for their retirement. The historical designation placed a limitation upon their alternatives. The Historic Resources Board action was unreasonable and violated the equal protection clause of the United States constitution. It was discriminatory and unreasonable to single out Mr. & Mrs. Chi's property against their will without considering the harm imposed upon them. 62-1.29 9/18/89 Tony Carrasco, 140 Forest Avenue, described the building at 425 Tasso Street as a two-story dwelling facing a twelve -story office building. If the structure was designated as a Category 3 historic building, it would have to remain a house because there was only one legal parking space on the property which meant only 250 square feet of the house could be used for an office building. Even as a home, there was also very limited sunlight due to adjacent buildings. He urged Council to exclude the property from the inventory. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Bechtel, to approve Historic Resources Board recommended additions to the Historic Building Inventory and category change for one building on the Historic Building Inventory with the exception that 425 Tasso Street be excluded. Recommended Additions: Recommended Property Address Historic Category 80, Emerson St. CD-S(P) 4 865 High St. CD-S(P) 4 321 Kipling St. RM-D(NP) 4 265 Lytton Ave. CD-C(P) 4 Recommended Additions (continued): Recommended Property Address Historic Category 367 University Ave. CD-C(GF) (P) 4 415 University Ave. CD-C(GF) (P) 3 526 Waverley St. CD-C(GF) (P) 3 Recommended Upgrade: Existing Historic Property Address Current Zone Category 1121 Bryant St. R-1 4 Recommended Historic Category 3 Council Mir Woolley said four public hearings were held where the Tasso property was discussed. Not all of the public structures in downtown Palo Alto were in residential neighborhoods, and some residential structures were valued because they were positioned between commercial buildings such as the Queen Anne structure on Waverley, just off University which was used for commercial purposes. There could be economically useful benefits of a 62-130 9/18/89 Category 2 designation, but she was unaware that Category 3 designation had ever hurt a building in supported the notion, and added not including property to on the inventory. MOTION PASSED 9-0. the prestigious Palo Alto. She the 425 Tasso 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Appeal of E. Patricia Buchanan for Property Located at 3873 El Centro Street (300) Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open. Patricia Buchanan, 3873 El Centro, needed a garage and safe storage. She had experienced a lot of thefts and had to have her vehicle repainted twice. She recently learned she was a flag lot owner and suddenly she could not get any storage space by going upward while surrounding homes could go upward. Her house was large enough that it warranted a two -car parking space. The Zoning Administrator stated at the last hearing that she lived in an area of single -car garages. Her home was in an area of double -car garages. The City also suggested a narrow two -car garage, but then she could not get out of the cars. Two very small cars could be parked in there, but not standard American cars. Her proposed garage had no impact on her neighbors and there were no objections. Her house had a low profile flat roof that did not impact the neighbors privacy, shade their houses, or violate the daylight plane and her proposed garage made alaost no change from the street. She urged Council to support her appeal. James Early, 740 Center Drive, attended two Planning Commission meetings and he and his wife were appalled that the variance was denied. The proposed building did not exceed the 35 percent permitted structure area, but did violate, as applied to flag lots, some of the setback ordinances. It would have been a simple problem a year ago, but now ran into pressures to hold down structure areas and to preserve trees. The garage location sewed consistent with buildings on adjacent properties. Removal of a large Cedrus Deader tree was required for safety and avoidance of major hazards and costs. He urged Council to reverse the Planning Commission recommendation and grant the variance. Mrs. Buchanan saw no reason to deny the variance request. The two - car parking space had been c ited for the last 30 years, but no garage had been built because she was a single -parent of four and was obviously unable to afford a garage. She urged Council to support her request for a variance. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed. 62-131 9/18/89 Council Member S::torius asked Mrs. Buchanan how the garage related to the existing home and if she had contemplated relocating her gas and electric entry and associated meters. He cautioned that if the variance was approved, she would need to provide some detailed materials. Mrs. Buchanan said the fence was constructed within three inches of the property line. Regarding the gas and electric entry, she realized it would have to be moved. Council Member Cobb asked if there were any objections from neighbors to the variance she was requesting. Mrs. Buchanan said no. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed. Vice Mayor Bechtel queried what the minimum size was for a two - car garage. Zoning Administrator Nancy Lytle said 17 feet by 18 feet. Vice Mayor Bechtel asked what the measurements were for the proposed garage. Ms. Lytle said the proposed measurements were 17 feet wide and 28 feat long, 10 feet conger than the minimum required. MOTION: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, to overrule the decision of the Planning Commission and the Zoning Ad- ministrator and grant the appeal of E. Patricia Buchanan on the condition that the garage would be a maximum of 17 feet X 20 feet, and 50 percent of the concrete area labeled "driveways be removed and replaced with landscaping, with the following findings: 1. There are unusual circumstances since the property had existed for 20 years and rules regarding flag lots have changed; and 2. Granting of the application would not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity because the granting of the variance will result in 50 percent of the concrete area labeled "driveway" being removed and replaced with landscaping. Council Member Patitucci asked if the main issue at the Planning Commission level was the required six-foot setback that applied to all properties in the City of Palo Alto. 62-132. 9/18/89 Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said yes. The standard six-foot setback requirement had nothing to do with the flag lot, and the setback applied to all properties within the R-1 district. Mr. Huber said the Planning Commission decision was unanimous because they could not cake the necessary finding that there was anything unique about the project. The applicant could comply with the required parking. Council Member Levy queried whether the motion before them eliminated a problem of the rear yard setback but that the side yard setback would be three feet where six feet *:could otherwise be required. Ms. Jansen said that was correct. Council Member Levy supported the Planning Commission's recommenda- tion because he also concluded there were no unusual, exceptional, or extraordinary circumstances regarding the property nor was the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substan- tial property right. Council Member Fletcher asked if it was possible to verify the location of the property line. Ms. Jansen said it was not possible to verify the location of the property line from the information submitted. Council Member Sutorius asked what additional drawings or confirma- tions of measurement s were required if the application proceeded toward a permit. Ms. Jansen said working drawings of the structure were required when applying for a building permit; and, when work began, they needed to stake the distance of the building wall in relation to the property line. Council Member Sutorius supported the motion and the requirement for additional landscaping to soften the front of the house. He was also prepared to accept the findings. The 24 -foot depth allowed for a careful look at the design and construction of the garage on a more favorable basis than a 28 -foot garage. Vice Mayor Bechtel clarified the condition to be added in the motion was that 50 percent of the concrete area labeled "driveway" be removed and landscaping be installed to replace it. Council Member Patitucci did not support the variance because he was concerned about consistency in the application of rules and regulations. 62-133 9/18/89 MOTION PASSED 6-3, Klein, Levy, Patitucci "no." MIoTIOW: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Sutoriue, to consider Items 9 and 10 at the sans time. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Recommendation Regarding the Application of Clement Chen & Associates for a Planned Community Zone Change to PC 2637 for Property Located at 625 El Camino Real (Holiday Inn) (300) (CMR:441:9) 10. Amendment No. 1 to Sublease - Pacific Hotel Development Venture - Holiday Inn Expansion (300) (CMR:432:9) Council Member Cobb queried what percentage of the ground rent the City received and what additional ground rent would be received if expansion were allowed. Real Property Manager Bill Fellman deferred his response. Vice Mayor Bechtel asked about the differences between what Council approved for the Holiday inn in 1987 and what was currently being requested. Architectural Review Board Staff Liaison Jim Gilliland said Council approved a Japanese Restaurant with some 4,000 square feet, a parking garage, and some additional rooms. The restaurant was deleted; some of the parking and the number of rooms were reduced. Council Member Fletcher asked if it was necessary to update the Environmental Assessment because the housing fee was increased since the assessment of 1986. Mr. Gilliland said the applicable fee would be the fee at the time of permit and the basic information in the Environmental Assessment was acceptable and appropriate. Council Member Fletcher asked if apace had been designated for the co'llection of recyclable materials. Mr. Gilliland did not recall any specific area being set aside, although the Holiday Inn did have a rather exceptional trash enclosure area over to the side. Council Member Fletcher requested that staff follow-up on whether an area was set aside for recyclable materials. 62-134 9/18/89 Council Member Rsnzel queried how the room occupancy was counted in the suits and whether the second room in the suite was a living/entertaining room. Mr. Gilliland maid as a part of the application for a Planned Community Zone, Council would approve a specific number of rooms for the hotel. If changes wars to occur, the hotel would need to return for a Planned Community Zone change. Council Member Renzel asked about the impact of additional rooms on the University Circle intersection, Menlo Park was concerned that people chose to go to the shopping center by way of Alma Street with a U-turn on Cambridge because the University Circle intersection did not allow easy access to El Camino. Mr. Gilliland said the additions to the hotel and the traffic report on hotels was associated traffic impacts was much less significant than for other purposes and additional, traffic information was not requested. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open. Mr. Clement Chen III, 540 Marine World Parkway, Redwood City, represented the Holiday Inn. The proposal was modified in accordance with Councils direction. The Japanese restaurant was deleted and 30 permit parking spaces were provided for the City in the northeast corner of the hotel closest to the train station. The Hotel agreed to provide $10,000 to fund the study on a bicycle path from the Southern Pacific train station to Palo Alto High School. Twenty guest rooms were deleted by converting 40 single rooms into 20 two -room suites, and in one of the rooms, the shower/bath was made into a powder room, so the second room was not usable as a sleeping rota. Underground parking was deleted, the visual mass of the building was reduced, and an amendment to the ground lease with the City Real Estate Department was finalized. The addition was necessary to provide larger, high -quality hotel rooms to compete with the Stanford Park Hotel and the future Westin Hotel oin Sand Hill Road, in order to keep business in Palo Alto instead of loosing it to Menlo Park. The addition also gave the hotel an attractive extension of the building that enclosed the water garden and would fit well with the existing environment. The addition would generate substantial revenues for the City in sales tax, occupancy tax, and property tax. The first set of numbers was provided when they anticipated the 64 room addition and the Japanese restaurant. With the reduction in the number of rooms and the elimination of the restaurant, revenues were affected, both in taxes as well es in lease payments. He projected sales tax and occupancy tax would be approximately $150,000 in the first year of operation. Approximately 10 percent of the $150,000 represented occupancy tax. Property tax, which the City and the County split 62-135 9/18/69 was approximately $44,000 in total. The City would also generate increased lease revenues because it received 5 percent of the room revenue, 1} percent of the food revenue, and 3 percent of the beverage revenue. The projected additional lease revenue from the new rooms was approximately $80,000 for the first full year of operation. Since usage generally occurred during off -,peak hours, the addition had virtually no traffic impact. Benefits to the City included the 30 permit parking spaces, $10,000 for the bicycle path and continued work with the City at the time the bicycle path was actually installed, the required contribution to the City's low- income housing fund, and the amendment to the ground lease to bring it up to the City's current requirement. Regarding recyclingli no specific areas were set aside for recycling, but a general garbage area was provided where garbage was segregated into glass. Nevertheless, the project was good for the hotel and for the City, and he urged Council support. Council Member Levy asked if the applicant was prepared to finance the ongoing construction of the path once the bicycle path study was completed. Staff had mentioned $37,000 as the ongoing funding, which was equivalent to the cost per linear foot of the path as it would pass the applicant's property. He asked the applicant to comment. Mr. Chen expected there would be additional work required for the bicycle path itself after the study was completed. It was difficult for him to respond precisely to the commitment of funds, because they did not know whether the bicycle path would be located within the hotel property or on the Southern Pacific right -of --way. If it was located on hotel property, he expected the hotel would be responsible for the work, whereas if the path was on the Southern Pacific right -of --way, he presumed the City would work something out with Southern Pacific. His major concern was safety and liability. The hotel had a limited parking area, and he did not want a situation where bicycle traffic crossed with car traffic, particularly, people backing in and parking in the morning and evening. If the bicycle path was located on the Southern Pacific right-of-way, and not on the hotel property, then they would be willing to contribute X37,000 to a fund for the construc- tion of the bicycle path. Council Meter Levy said any proposed bicycle path was subject to Council approval and the highest concern was safety. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed. =US 202 2PL ""9:45PAL. 62-136 9/18/89 1 MOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommendations for approval of the Planned Community Zone change based on the findings and conditions as listed in the draft ordinance. Q2rdi;lance 1st Reading entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING PC ORDINANCE NO. 2637, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 3463, APPLYING TO PROPERTY KNOWN AS 625 EL CAMINO REAL" Council Member Cobb said the City Council and staff struggled a long time to try and cut the operating budget by approximately $1.7 million. The approximate incremental revenue to the City of the proposed change in the Holiday Inn was roughly $200,000 a year in addition to what the City already received. Council Member Cobb believed the applicant's summary was reasonably fair, there might be a small increase in traffic, and a very minor amount of employment growth. There were substantial benefits to the City. As Council looked into the future, the economic health of the City was one of the most important concerns? Keeping the levels of service high and paying for those levels of service was so importAnt. The proposal was one of those opportunities where there was a substantial economic benefit to the City and really no significant downside. He was pleased to support the motion. Council Member Reneel said although she appreciated the positive changes that ware made since the last application, she was still concerned about the traffic at the University Circle. She could not approve of any increased development at the particular congested area, particularly with the proposed Sand Hill Road extensions and the major expansions at Stanford. She did not believe Council would be doing the transit center a service by adding even an increment of traffic at the University Circle location. She would oppose the motion. AMMO: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, to add to the ordinance Section 3.(a)(7) as follows: Applicant shall fund, in an amount not to exceed $37,00►, construction of the bicycle path along or adjacent to the rear of the property located at 625 El Camino Real. ANIMMONIOT PABUit 9-0. ) EDITS Council Weaber Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to add to the ordinance Section 3.(a)(8) as follows: To require that space be designated to provide for recyclable materials. The amount of space is to be determined by staff. 63-137 9/16/89 Council Member Patitucci did not support the proposal because all similar users should be treated equally and the City did not presently have a recycling program with extensive Citywide impact. Council Member Woolley said Council required the project at Ramona and University to have recycling facilities for the entire block. Stanford Shopping Center had a recycling program. Since the program took steps gradually, it was appropriate to start with larger facilities and require recycling facilities as the oppor- tunities arose. Vice Mayor Bechtel asked Mr. Chen if the hotel currently recycled miini bottles, cans, etc. and whether such recycling would place a burden on his staff. Mr. Chen did not know. AMENDMENT PASSED 8-1., Patitucci "no." Mayor Klein had also supported the project when it was previously before the Council. He would support it again because the Holiday Inn had been good citizens in the community. The addition was planned so that it would have minimal environmental impact which was also good for the community. The economic benefit was needed by the City, but was not the primary reason for hits support. MAIN NOTION PASSED AS AMENDED 8-1, Renzsl MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, :o approve staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor to execute Ameedmeht No. 1 to the Sublease with Pacific Hotel Development Venture in conjunction with the accompanying report. NOTION PASSED 9-0. REPQRTz or WFWIAL4 11. Three -Month Review of Temporary Use Permit for Urban Ministry Homeless Shelteril and Proposal for an Additional Four Churches to Participate in the Program (1030-01) C MR:440:9) Council Member Menzel understood the one police incident involving the shelters was at the request of a shelter staff member to handle a situation they were unable to handle rather than a request from a nearby neighbor. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. 62-138 9/18/89 Tomas Moran, 3375 Alma Street #341, represented the Unitarian Church on Charleston to the Board of the Urban Ministry. His church ran the shelter in September and was grateful the City Council had approved the permit and allowed them the opportunity to run the program. The program had been smooth and received great support from volunteers. &Tem Burklo screened the participants in the program to make sure people who needed the most help received it. The Urban Ministry was a good neighbor to the people living in Palo Alto. The City Council should work with the churches and with the Urban Ministry to find a permanent home for the homeless in the City of Palo Alto. He urged Council to reaffirm the permit and include the four extra churches. Litsie Indergand, 336 Ely Place, President of the Board of Trustees of the Palo Alto Unitarian Church, visited the shelters at Saint Andrews, First Methodist, Christian Reform, and the Wesley Methodist churches. She had spoken to ministers and members of the congregations and received the same response from all; there were no problems, staff members were responsible, and shelter guests were cooperative and lived by the rules. In September, her church hosted the shelter program. She had been there almost every night and several mornings and echoed the same insights she had heard from the other churches. Some guests told her if anyone got out of line, they would take care of it because they appreciated the opportunity too much to let anybody jeopardize it. A member of their congregation wondered why so few people were served and why more churches could not be used for longer periods of time so as to quadruple the number of people helped. She was proud to be associated with the shelter program and urged Council to continue and expand it. Nancy Shipley, 1720 Webster Street, a member of the Human Relations Commission, thanked the participants and the Council for having the shelters the past four months. She urged Council to continue the program in all parts of the Palo Alto community. Jim Burklo, 190 O'Keefe 112, Director of the Urban Ministry, said the shelter program had worked beautifully. They served about 15 people a night, starting out small and working up to that number. Although the permit specified 30 guests and the extension indicated the same, some of the facilities were shall, and also according to the use permit, needed to be kept to a certain square footage per person housed. They were able to provide personalized attention for people who really needed it, and they were pleased they had the size of the shelter and the amount of support the churches provided with volunteers and food. Hs invited the Council and the public to have breakfast at the Urban Ministry sometime. He thanked Council for its support. 62-139 9/18/89 Council Member Patitucci asked if the Urban Ministry had any success in expanding the program beyond the boundaries of the City. At the time the eight original sites were selected, Council discussed the possibility of expanding into churches of other communities so that it would not be a Palo Alto program only, since the homeless problem was not just a Palo Alto problem. Mr. Burklo said there was one other church in a nearby city that was considering the program, but it was concerned with having to go through the. lengthy process undertaken in Palo Alto. The church was deciding whether they were willing to go through the process. for one month of use in their city. Mountain View was considering a similar program and there was some discussion of inviting the Urban Ministry into Mountain View to do the same type of program. It would require a major undertaking for the Urban Ministry. The churches in Mountain View had not yet made that commitment, but there was strong interest in the City of Mountain View since a committee of Council Members and staff people, including the City Manager had been organized. Council Member Cobb asked Mr. Burklo if he had any problems in the screening process. Mr. Burklo said no serious screening problems arose. The Urban Ministry was a small operation with 15 people in it. The shelter required' a weekly interview so staff got to know folks very well and become familiar with their problems, their concerns. Staff created an atmosphere within the shelter and in the world of people waiting to got into the shelter of the need to be honest about their real situation, even if it was hard. They were not able to accept everyone in the shelter; there were about _°3 people per night on the streets in Palo Alto and only 15 people were able to stay in a shelter on any given night. They were selective and looked for people who could follow the rules and benefit the most. Council Member Sutoriue referred to the Joint City Council Meeting with the City of Menlo Park. A question was raised regarding the status of the shelter and Palo Alto reported on the success of the program so far and the recruitrecruitacet and participation of additional churches. Menlo Park was interested in the findings. Mr. Burklo hoped the City Council of Menlo Park would have a similar report to make to the City Council of Palo Alto next year after their approval of a use pert for the shelter in that city as well. 62-140 9/18/89 1 Council Member Levy said the program was functioning very well. He voted for it originally and the three-month review said it was operated in a very passionate, intelligent, and responsible way. He expressed appreciation to the private sector who worked so well in assisting with a thorny and difficult problem. Council Member. Cobb confirmed that staff would continue to monitor the program at some level. He voted for the program with some skepticism, but was delighted the program proved his skepticism unwarranted. No action taken. COUNCIL MARS 12. Council Member Ellen Fletcher Regarding Support for Rail Bond Act Initiative (1164) Council Member Fletcher said the Rail Bond Act was a proposal to put an initiative on the June ballot to raise $1.9 billion for rail projects throughout the state. Under the proposal, CALPRAIN would receive $173 million and Santa Clara County would receive $47 million for light rail projects. Council Member Patitucci asked for an explanation regarding the context of the Rail Bond issue relative to the proposed tax increase. He attended the Measure A Advisory Ccmmittee meeting and was confused about what was to be on the 1990 June ballot. He was concerned about having too many things before the voters at one time. Council Member Fletcher said the proposed gasoline tax increase was tied to a separate proposal to override the Gann Initiative. Part of the proposal was to have a billion dollars a year in bonds which had to be voted on each year for rail projects. The bonds would not be issued unless both the gas tax and the Gann Initiative passed. ?TIOMx Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Fenzel, to endorse the Clean Air and Rail Transportation Act of 1990. Don Smith, 3645 La Calle Court, noticed a sig;: ficant increase in the traffic congestion and an increase in smog across the bay during the past five years. More highway construction only encouraged people to drive longer commutes, discouraged carpooling, renewed traffic congestion, and compounded the smog problem. Railroad transportation was the most appealing, efficient, and pleasant way to commute. The bond measure of $2 billion dollars was well written by the Planning and Conservation League. The funds would be applicable to capital improvements only and would 62-141 9/18/89 be matched by funds from the local communities on a one-to-one basis. Only one and one-half percent of the state budget was allotted for paying off existing bonds. The measure added another $180 million to a $50 billion budget which amourted to $6 per year for Californians. Proposals to the Transportation Board would include such things as integration with the bus systems to feed rail lines, a provision for bicycle and wheelchair access, and $100 million to standardize rail equipment throughout the United States. The measure worked towards an integrated and high density public transit system as a way to get around the Bay Area and was a move in the right direction at an early stage. Alan A. Hirsch, 2539 Ross Road, a Santa Clara Representative to the CALTRAIN Citizens Advisory Committee, asked for support of the Clean Air and Rail Bond measure. Congestion was a regional problem and the regional solution for Palo Alto was CALTRAIN. There were plans to have a modern electrical rail system by 1996 which represented about $173 million. In addition to the $173 million in the bond measure for CALTRAIN,' there was $43 million proposed for light rail to connect Palo Alto and the East Bay with CALTRAIN. The $1.9 billion Initiative would not raise taxes, but the $18 billion gas tax proposal would cause nn increase in taxes. He urged Council support to endorse the Clean Air and Rail Bond Act Initiative because it was the most cost-effective way of addressing problexs Palo Altans faced. Mayor Klein queried if the CALTRAIN Citizens Advisory Committee was opposed to the gas tax measure that was to be on the 1990 June ballot. Mr. Hirsch eaid the committee had some reservations because the majority of the gas tax money would go toward building more roads. Mayor Klein queried whether the proposed bill contained a variety of very stringent congestion management programs. He was concerned about the small amount of money set aside for Santa. Clara County. He calculated the bond initiative allocated only about two percent of the money to Santa Clara County which had 1.5 million people, or five percent of the state's population. He believed the connec- tion with Sar Francisco and San Jose basically ignored where the bulk of the people lived in Santa Clara County. )Ir. Kirsch said the money was allocated across the state on a per capita basis because the problem was a regional one. Mayor Klein asked why the Citizens Advisory Committee opposed the gas tax bill and anticipated its defeat when the most recent polls indicated a 50-50 split in the state and that the package was supported by the Republicans, including the Governor, and the Democratic leadership in the Legislature. 62-142 9/18/89 Mr. Hirsch said both the Gann override and the gas tax bill had to be passed, and his group was uncertain about the combineLion passing. Council Member Patitucci believed energies toward transportation solutions would dissipate if the measure was on the ballot along with a very difficult measure to pass which was a gas tax increase, a modification of the Gann limit, and a bond issue which was all part of the state's package. He was a rail supporter and believed rail transportation should be an alternative to the public, but he was concerned about the major effort necessary to pass all the bills. He was not prepared to vote on this item yet and believed Council should postpone the item until° <a] 1 of the Council Members had a chance to become more informed. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Patitucci, to continue the item for two months and request the staff to prepare a comparison to the other Acts on the ballot with respect to transportation issues. Council Member Fletcher urged Council to approve the original motion. A tax increase was a different type of measure from a bond measure and bond measures were Fiore frequently passed by the voters than tax increases. No tax increase was involved with the bond measure. The state would be discontinuing its contributions to CALTRAIN and the contract with Southern Pacific for the right-of-way was very expensive for the tax payers. She believed there was nothing to lose by supporting the bond measure. Council Member Sutorius said reuncil had been supportive and had used its initiative to preset, a and improve CALTRATN. He respected Council Member Fletcher's support for the roil measure but believed continuance was an appropriate action to take to allow staff to prepare the analysis. He requested staff contact the staffs of Senator Morgan and Assemblyman Sher, supporters of the rail measure. He would vote for the continuance. Mayor Klein concurred with Council Member Sutorius. He had supported every rail measure brought to Council and thought they were essential, but he also thought it was necessary that the package of bills loosely labelled as the "gas tax measures,o, designed to reduce congestion it, our state, be passed next June. He was concerned that the backers of the bond initiative opposed the bills package. He hoped they would reconsider and road through the package of bills because he thought the package was beneficial end offered the best opportunity to reduce the amount of air pollution and the amount of congestion caused by the automobile in the State of California. He supported continuing the item. 62--143 9/18/89 Council Member Renzel supported the Rail Bond Act Initiative and hoped Council would ultimately endorse it. She hoped the con- tinuance would be a short one. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to amend the notion to provide a one -month period instead of a two -month period to bring the item back to Council. Council Member Sutorius asked if the peninsula Division of the League of California Cities would be discussing the issue at the upcoming meeting. Co?:ncil Member Fletcher said proposed resolutions wc-11d go to the annual League of California Cities meeting in Octab• •, but there were no resolutions regarding the gas tax or the rai' pond issues. The gas tax act was discussed in committee, but not .ie rain= bond act. Signatures for the rail bond act were now being gathered and the League of Conservation Voters was eager to get the endorsements now so there would be more clout in gathering the signatures. They did not know if they would get enough signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot before the mid -October deadline. Council Member Patitucci would not support the amendment because he believed 60 days was an appropriate length of time for Council to study the initiative. AMENDMENT FAILED 4-5, Bechtel, Cobb, Levy, Patitucci, Sutorius "no." MOTION TO CoMTINUE PASSED 8-1, Fletcher "no." OR KLUX k CCMTI!! E SCRIPiatraSMANDAMIM Mayor Klein announced the scheduled Closed Session on litigation matters would be continued to a subsequent meeting. 13. Request of Mayor Klein and Council Members Renzel and Woolley to Present and Consider an Ordinance Imposing a Moratorium on Acceptance of Applications for Increased Square Footage in R-1 and RE Zones (242) Council Member Sutorius requested an explanation of the revised ordinance at his place which lookad vary much like the packet item but had a very different Section 3 than what was in the packet. Council Member Renzei said the last two pages .of the ordinance showed what changes& were made to the ordinance that was in the packet. It had two effete; one lessened the impact of the moratorium by applying it only tr%. econd-story additions, and the second allowed applications to take place but would cut off the 62-144 9/18/89 processing of permits for activities covered by the moratorium. She asked staff what the level of single-family application request activity was since the item appeared in the packet. Chief Building Official Famed Herman said ten new single-family homes and 17 new second -story addition requests had been received since last Wednesday. Currently, 309 projects were in the p" -n - check process. Vice Mayor Bechtel requested a motion to be on the floor before members of the public spoke. She wanted the public to be aware that what was listed in the packet was not the same as what Council Member Renzel was proposing. MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to introduce the ordinance re issuance and/or processing of all building permits for residences in R-1 and RE zones for first reading. ORDINANCE FQR1IRS2 REAQING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAIR ALTO IMPOSING A MORATORIUM UNTIL DECEMBER 18, 1989, ON THE ISSUANCE AND/OR PROCESSING OP ALL BUILDING PERMITS FOR RESIDENCES IN R-1 AND RE ZONES" Council Member Renzel said the ordinance did not include epplica- tione for building pewits which were excl\lsively for new and/or expanded single -story construction less than 17 feet in height. It did not include applications for alterations and repairs to existing square footage or for building permits involving construc- tion which complies with the variance or conditional use permit granted, or receiving final approval prior to September 18, 1989. The ordinance would be in effect until December 18, 1989 or u:itil the Council adopted and implemented new regulations for single --family homes and repealed the ordinance thereby, whichever was sooner. Council Member Woolley queried about the length Of time it would take to process the 309 applications. Mr. Herman said approximately 11 to 13 weeks. Michael and Terry Carlitz, 450 Calif arnia Avenue, said their home was built in 1936 and was designated as a Class 11 historic building. The hone was a modern style but it hard an unfortunate victorian addition. They had been working with their architect for over six months to replace the addition with a room in the original style of the house. The plan was presently before the Historic Resources Hoard (RRB). Since they were trying to make their home conform with its design and sins their plan did not require any variances, he requested the ordinance be amended to exclude plans 62-145 9/18/89 which were currently before the HRB. They supported the spirit of the proposed ordinance to maintain the qualities and characteris- tics which made Palo Alto's neighborhoods desirable. Roger Mansell, 550 Santa Rita, was concerned the proposed ordinance would be in existence until Council implemented new restrictions. Palo Alto's greatest strength was its diversity and freedom. The 600 block of Kellogg was a very diverse neighborhood, but it showed the freedom and diversity of the City. Palo Alto was changing and becoming more diverse and innovative, and it had terrified a small and vocal segment of the community. The fear was centered on the massive houses. To listen to the nay sayers would cause the death of Palo Alto because value wo ld no longer be added to existing homes or land because of the onerous restrictions. Council was elected to protect the freedom and rights of Palo Alto's citizens, and the people had a right to the value of their property. Restrictions such as no underground parking and setbacks on the second floor would cut the value of property from 10 to 15 percent, The proposed ordinance would essentially stop everybody from doing anything until the new regulations were imposed. He believed the citizen's life and liberty were endangered. Joel Bergquist, 2085 Emerson Street, believed the proposed moratorium on the application end issuance of any building permit which involved additions to square footage was so unfair they constituted a breach of good faith and a violation of: trust. He and his wife moved to Palo Alto about seven years ago. They have since had two children and their two bedroom, one bath home was no longer adequate. Since they did not have the financial resources to buv a bigger home in Palo Alto, their plan was to add e. second story. Council was obligated to process applications received prior to the December 18, 1989 deadline under the guidelines of the moratorium. The City saw so many applications because of the uncertainty in peoples minds about what Council would do in terms of the new regulations. He urged discretion. John Hanna, 1384 Pitman, said in order to justify adopting an urgency ordinance Council needed an urgency involving public health, safety or welfare. The only urgency seemed to be that staff was being asked to accept more applications than it could conveniently process. The situation did not affect the public welfare and was caused by whoever promoted the unfortunate and restrictive regulations The overwhelming public rejection of the proposed ordinance by the citizens who attended the last Planning Commission hearing should say something. They were not talking. about developers, but rather owner -occupants who wanted to enlarge their his or build larger homes on their lot. The public testimony showed the proposed rules were fundamentally and seriously flawed. Council should not vote to restrict people from filing permits when their action was taken as a direct result of 62-146 9/18/89 which were currently before the HRB. They supported the spirit of the proposed ordinance to maintain the qualities and characteris- tics which made Palo Alto's neighborhoods desirable. Roger Mansell, 550 Santa Rita, was concerned the proposed ordinance would be in existence until Council implemented new restrictions. Palo Alto's greatest strength was its diversity and freedom. The 600 block of Kellogg was a very diverse neighborhood, but it showed the freedom and diversity of the City. Palo Alto was changing and becoming more diverse -and innovative, and it had terrified a small and vocal segment of the community. The fear was centered on the massive houses. To listen to the nay sayers would cause the death of Palo Alto because value would no longer be added to existing homes or land because of the onerous restrictions. Council was elected to protect the freedom and rights of Palo Alto's citizens, and the people had a right to the value of their property. Restrictions such as no underground parking and setbacks on the second floor would cut the value of property from 10 to 15 percent. The proposed ordinance would essentially stop everybody from doing anything until the new regulations were Imposed. He believed the citizen's life and liberty were endangered. Joel i3ergquist, 2085 Emerson Street, oe3: ieved the proposed moratorium on the application and issuance ti, any building permit which involved additions to square footage was so unfair they constituted a breach of good faith and a violation of trust. He and his wife moved to Palo Alto about seven years ago. They have since had two children and their two bedroom, one b +th home was no longer adequate. Since they did not have the financial resources to buy a bigger home in Palo Alto, their plan was to add a second story. Council vas obligated to process applications received prior to the December 18, 1989 deadline under the guidelines of the moratorium. The City saw so many applications because of the uncertainty in peoples minds about what Council would do in terms of the new regulations. He urged discretion. John Hanna, 1384 Pitman, said in order to iuptify .opting an urgency ordinance Council needed an urgency involving public health, safety or wel fare . The only urgency seamed to be that staff was being asked to accept more applications than it could conveniently process. The situation did not effect the public welfare and was caused by whoever promoted the unfortunate and restrictive regulations. The overwhelming public rejection of the proposed ordinance by the citizens vho attended the last Planning Commission hearing should say something. They were not talking about developers, but rather owner -occupants who wanted to enlarge their homes or build lamer homes on their lot. The public testimony showed the proposed rules were fundamentally and seriously flawed. Council should not vote to restrict people from filing permits when their action was taken as a direct result of 62--146 9/18/89 fear of the new ordinance and fear of the fairness of the Council. A vote in favor of cutting off building permits would be evidence that the public was perhaps justified in being afraid of the Council. First Council adopted a moratorium which lowered the amount of square footage a homeowner could build on their lots in Palo Alto by about 36 percent; then staff prepared another to further restrict the citizen's rights to build on their lots by more than an additional 20 percent; then having created an atmosphere of public fear which resulted in an increase in the amount of applications for permits by people hoping to avoid the draconian proposals, Council wanted to declare a public emergency and slam the door shut to City Hall. It had the appearance of being manipulative and not representative of the kind of government expected by Palo Altana. Everyone who sat through six hours of a Planning Commission meeting last week knew the proposed ordinance was a dagger pointed at the heart of thousands of Palo Alto property owners. He urged Council to oppose further restrictions, Robert D. Galbraith, 1430 Greenwood Avenue, said he and his wife purchased their home in November, 1986, with a specific plan to remodel the house to provide adequate room for their five children. The moratorium seemed to be an attempt to enforce the restrictions of the new ordinance three months before the ordinance was implemented. The effects of the moratorium were cruel to the citizens of Palo Alto. He urged rejection. Virginia Briggs, 55 Waverley Oaks, said she and her neighbors were particularly concerned about the proliferation of large oversized housing on small lots. They had followed the project to revise and update the regulations regarding private R-1 residences for the past four years. She urged Council to adopt the mmoratoriumn The City had many ways in which to consider applications where the people believed they were unfairly treated in the variance procedure. Joe Bedell, 352 Churchill, opposed the moratorium. The sponsors of the ordinance cited as one reason for its need the enormous present load on the Planning Department. Staff being busy was not justification for suddenly and arbitrarily passing a measure which would effectively revoke the applicability of zoning regulations which took years to study and pass. The second reason for the ordinance was to stop the current "end run around the new rules." The statement was an unfair characterization of the public and attempted to maks current applicants appear unethical. Some people had planned projects for many months and years and were submitting applications in full compliance of the rules passed by the Council and were trying to follow a schedule which was represented by staff 50 to 70 times a day by their own count. Applications were up bemuse of fear of the unknown, which was natural and should have been expected. The "end run ethics" reasoning should be rejected. 62-147 9/18/89 He was concerned the regulations passed 18 months ago to promote the peace, health, safety, privacy and quiet sn j oyment so threaten- ed the City that a moratorium was needed to rid the City of it. Tha sponsor's believed the currant rules allowed too many ugly houses and people were worried about seeing more. He was a builder and lived in old Palo Alto. He hoped to live in Palo Alto for the rest of his life and he was albo worried about seeing more of the same ugly houses. While Council needed to answer to a higher standard, its goals should be consistency, credibility, and fairness. The proposal was unfair and the last minute maneuver was abominable. The opportunity to properly change the rules was three weeks away. Richard Elmore, 820 Hamilton Avenue, was a design professional in Palo Alto. He worked with Palo Alto homeowners everyday. Council was seeing the "end -run" because the citizens did not trust the Council particularly on the matter of R-1 zoning. Rules could not protect ahome from ugliness. More stringe_.t rules to protect the design, facade or the visual amenities of a structure were nonsense. Council was creaking it much harder to design a good, traditional and attractive home. He urged fairness and opposition to the moratorium. Jerod Trailer, 3161 Emerson Street, was disappointed in the tactics employed to agendize the proposal to enact an emergency ordinance to suspend issuing building permits that would result in increased square footage. The Building Department's being deluged with applications was a comment on the appropriateness of the proposed draft ordinance. The ordinance should not be laid at the feet of those homeowners whose only desire was to improve their homes in accordance with Council's own interim building regulations. As representatives of the people of Palo Alto, Council hadno right to act in a manner which might well be contrary to the general good of the community without due notice and without having proper public input. If Council wanted to take the heat off of the Building Department, Council should oppose the overly re trictive provisions of the draft ordinance revisions in favor of those existing in the interim ordinance. DeAnne Appleton, 567 St. Clair* Drive, said she and her husband started planning to increase the size of their home in 1985. A moratorium was *posed last year which forced them to return to the "drawing board." At great expense, their new plan complied with tone interim regulations. The proposed regulations were untenably severe. They could be accused of doing an "end -run" around the City because they decided to submit their plan package including blue .prints, Title 4 reports and structural engineering calcula- tions with the Building Department within the last *oath. They had not yet received their build tng permit beeauss of the backlog, but to her knowledge the plans were not yet checked, and she queried 62-148 9/18/89 1 whether their application would be deemed complete. While she many fall within the exception process, the public was scared to deatUi. It was not fair. Director of planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said for purposes of a building permit, acceptance of the plan check application and fees, would be deemed complete. Elsie Begin, 1319 Bryant, was concerned about democracy and the way Council was railroading the moratorium through. She referred to the words, "We the People," and believed Council was trying to do the "end -run" around the people. Regarding due process, as long as she had watched the Council, there had been painstaking and exhausting public hearings on issues. All of a sudden the proposed moratorium on the back of an already existing moratorium was introduced and changed from an emergency to a regular ordinance. She queried the due process. The entire issue was very controver- sial and complicated, and should be thoroughly debated in the upcoming election. To have the pressure to decide without the exhaustive public input was a betrayal of democracy. There was widespread support, for doing away wI th the super big houses and the eeratorium resulted. It met with widespread support but the move to make it more severe became apparent. The public deserved to be hoard. The moratorium was a m istake . Peter Maresca, 450 Monroe Drive, spent two years and $10,000 designing and preparing plans for an attractive hone to maximize their outdoor areas, save the trees, and respect the neighbors. When they tried to submit their plans today, they did not have a Title 24 Energy Audit and were faced with the moratorium, unknown delays, unknown new design requirements, and high additional costs for resign and re -engineering. They opposed the haphazard fashion in which the rules were changed. They urged Council to defeat the moratorium. Joseph Lang, 1527 Lorisa Court, believed the R -1 draft regulations were so controversial it was appropriate to approve the moratorium. Council Member Patitucci asked the City Attorney to comment on the ordinances and action before the Council. City Attorney Diane Morthway said there were two ordinances in the past, one was an ordinary ordinance and one was an emergency ordinance. Some changes ware proposed in the regular ordinances on the agenda before any discussion occurred which was appropriate because it provided Council with flexibility in making changes to the proposed ordinances. If Council wanted to make further changes, they had the ability to do so 62-149 9/18/89 Council Member Patitucci asked how a regular ordinance had the same effect as a moratorium. Ms. Northway believed the people were talking about the practical effects as opposed to thr Legal ones. With a moratorium, every- thing stopped when the ordinance passed and nothing would continue to be processed. With the regular ordinance, applications could continue to be processed until the ordinance became effective. Howard Kruymann, 1 Somerset Place, said the homeowners, taxpayers and voters were trying to preserve their rights. He urged Council to listen to its constituents. He appealed to their sense of fairness. If Council was compelled to further restrict its constituents rights, he urged that changes be done in phases. Tom Platner, 1830 Fulton Street, believed his rights would be taken away from him if the ordinance passed that evening. He urged Council to respond to the will of the public. Janee Unger, 1830 Fulton Street, said it appeared the primary reasons for the moratorium were the increases in building permit applications and the concern about the "end -run" submittals. They had a pending sale on their property by people who wanted to put a second -story addition on it but it fell through due to the moratorium. As far as they knew, they had no property value because people could not add on to the home. They lived in a neighborhood of large homes. She was saddened to see their dreams, as well as thole of others, changed. While it was just a "moratorium," it felt like the beginning of the end. Dan Epstein, 735 Homer Avenue, referred to a report by Mr. Schreiber which stated a substantial number of the plans in process would not meet many of the proposed regulations to be adopted as recommended by the Planning Commission. It was particularly true for the second -story additions. Therefore, if Council wished to consider an alternative tothe continued acceptance of building permit applications, a Council Meter should agendize the matter. He believed they were talking about the proposed ordinance. While Council spoke to passing a regular ordinance, in reality it was an Fend-ron." It was an emergency ordinance because it would be effective that day. He urged Council to listen to the people. Craig Taylor, 1415 Hamilton, requested Council reject the morator.tum as an unfair and arbitrary change !.n the law thereby allowing permits applied for prior to October '16, the *prior announced date, to be considered under the laws under which they were designed. He urged Council to carefully evaluate new rules to be passed on October 16. If Council could not reject the moratorium, he requested consideration be given to exempting owner 62.150 9/18/89 occupied homes and allowing for a special review process for plans submitted prior to October 16. Martin Bernstein, 617 High Street, referred to the massive attendance at the Planning Commission meeting and the City Council meeting, and queried how constituents felt when they were not heard by their Council. Gary Zweig, 3341 St. Michael Court, believed the issue was vital to the well-being of the community. Citizens sent a clear message to the Planning Commission and the City Council. While people recognized the effort put forth in an attempt to reach a comprom'_ ;e to satisfy opposing viewpoints, the newly proposed regulations were too severe, too restrictive, unfair and unacceptable. Their net affect would not bring balance and harmony to the community but would rather have the opposite effect. In any community, "balance" was the key word in achieving well-being. On an economic level, the balance influenced community revenue, businesses, property values, educational systems, and coiaunity appeal. He heard scores of young families as well as any established residents urge the Planning Commission to allow the relative newcomer to establish and to flourish in Palo Alto. They cautioned against stagnation. The relatively newer citizens of Palo Alto did not yet represent the backbone but they were essential to the balance that was good in Palo Alto. The proposed building restrictions would limit the newcomers the most and would surely drive such families out and discourage others from moving to Palo Alto. He urged Council to withdraw the proposed restrictions and the new ordinance moratorium. The interim restrictions already in effect represented a compromise. Any further cutbacks were unnecessary. Phoebe Bressack, 21 Osage Avenue, Los Altos, worked as an architect with local Bay Area municipalities for 15 years. She had spoken to several Council Members over the weekend regarding her dismay at the proposed moratorium, She had always represented her clients and monitored progress in the zoning regulation changes of various cities. She was prepared to submit applications at the beginning of October to the City of Palo Alto. She checked with the staff in the Building Department at intervals to assure there was no change, and did not know how to respori when she received phone calls from her clients who had been working with her for the past six or seven onths in anticipation of being able to submit under the current moratorium standards. She urged Council not to pass the ordinance in fairness to those sincere applicants who had worked and spent time and moneyfor a period of time, planning in an orderly process to get drawings in for permit application. She believed the new regulations as proposed did not respond to particular architectural quelitios that made the neighborhoods of Palo Alto so wonderful. She urged Council to consider whether the regulations Would really achieve desirable goals and whether 62.151 9/18/89 instead of getting vary big, ugly houses they might get slightly smaller ugly houses. Dick Lyon, 235 Walter Hays Drive, believed the only real urgency was that the pendulum sight swing too far in continuous reaction to abuses prior to the interim regulations. The current emergency regulations protected the community and a moratorium was unneces- sary, premature, and unfortunate for Palo Alto's young families. He was adding a second story to his home of about 850 square feet, in character with the neighborhood. The architect did not want to take 100 square feet off the stairs because it would not look nice, would not be effective, and cost too much. Extra money was spent correcting mistakes made because the process was rushed. Three families on his street would have to leave the neighborhood if more space could not be added. He was upset and cared about what happened to young families. He urged the Council to stop the pendulum which was still swinging and allow vital growth to continue. John Griffiths, 1266 Hamilton Avenue, had practiced law for the last 30 years in downtown Palo Alto. He concurred with the remarks of several of the previous speakers. He be1iev d families should be able to expand their residences, and that the value of every single-family, single -story residence in Palo Alto was being destroyed. He was upset b► the proposed ordinance and believed it was an absolute violation of due process of law. He had given legal opinions for 30 years and could not understand how Council thought it could take an emergency ordinance and convert it into an emergency notice without notice, publication, or a hearing. He did not believe that was due process. He urged Council to listen, vote down the moratorium, and let due process take its course. Jonathan Rattner, 1482 Kings Lane, opposed the moratorium. He concurred with several of the previous speakers. He had received a notice in June stating new regulations would be adopted on a meeting October 16, 1989. but five days ago, he received notice that the time period could be cut immediately if a moratorium were approved as an emergency measure. Now, without any notice, he was informed the time period would end immediately. He believed the effect of the recent activity in building permits and applications was not an end -run but a natural reaction to a change in the rules. Developers had plans on hand which could quickly be readied for permits, but he and others spent months and years considering plans that were aesthetically pleasing, acceptable to their neighborsand to themselves. He was against the proposed regulations discussed at the Planning Commission matting and understood that the effect of adopting the moratorium made the proposed regulations retroac- tive to today's date. He believed Council had tread upon the good will and the trust of the people of Palo Alto. 62-152 9/18/89 e Council Heather Rsnzel said it was common to place ordinances on the Council agenda both in the emergency and the non-eMergency form. When she agendized the ordinance, she included both forms. When she made the revision which did not cover first -story additions, for example, she believed there was no point in including an emergency form. She apologized if that caused an inconvenience or confusion. Ronald Howard, 646 Tennyson Avenue, lived on a flag lot in Palo Alto for 24 years and raised four children through Pala Alto schools and college. Recently, he and his wife had serious illnesses, but throughout the years they planned on making additions to their house as soon as they could afford it. They now were in a position to make additions, but found out the rules had changed. From his point of view, his property had been confis- cated. He went to the Planning Department, found out what the rules were, went through the variance process, explained to the neighbors what the plans were, had an architect draw up plans that made an attractive addition to their house, and, within those rules, came up with a set of plans that the Planning Department complimented them on in terms of fixtures and getting neighborhood agreement; however, at the variance hearing, they were told a variance could not be granted yet but to continue because the rules would change in a much Wore restrictive way. He insisted on a variance judgexaent which would be favorable, except for a cloud which hung over the variance process; not for any content reason or in terms of the design, not in terms of the neighbors objections since most were in favor and any objections they had were dealt with by means of design changes, but because of the uncertainty with respect to building plans in Palo Alto. He requested any good faith variance application made under the interim rules be accepted under those rules. He questioned how many of the so-called ugly houses came during the interim regulations as opposed to holdovers from the earlier regulations. He believed people were reacting to a problem that had already been solved by creating another problem which caused unhappiness for families of Palo Alto who wanted to do reasonable and aesthetically pleasing things to their property but were being prohibited from doing so, and he deeply resented it. Stephen Branca, 402 El verano Avenue, queried whether there was a mechanism by which Fx ank Patitucci night be allowed a vote on the Very important issue. He referred to the memo dated June 23 and was operating under the assumption that October 16 was the earliest the deadline could be imposed for submission of plans which they had worked on for almost two years and had sunk a lot of time and money into. He said it the moratorium passed, it would be a case of bad faith. He believed his case was representative of many young families in Palo Alto. In 1982, they purchased a two - bedroom, one -bathroom home of Stern & Price design, built about 1950, with under 1000 square feet of floor space. They had three 62-153 9/18/89 children in a 9x11 foot bedroom. They were not going for a "monster house". With their addition, the home would be ap- proximately 1800 square feet. Under the current rules, the addition they had planned was allowable, so he saw the proposed charge as an unfair attempt to pull the rug out from underneath them. He was a member of the chemistry faculty at San Jose State University since 1981, and he drew an analogy from his profession as to what he believed the Council was doing. He urged Council to reject the proposed moratorium and to stick to an established schedule. Karen Bradshaw, 255 Caapesino, did not approve of halting applica- tions for building permits and questioned the emergency and the non -emergency ordinance procedure. She believed the real emergency was housing; people needed housing, mainly bigger houses because they were all built pretty small. She could move out-of-state and get a bigger house, but she would like to stay in Palo Alto and add on to their home. She believed it was unfair to say if a plan was in today by 5:00 p.m. it was acceptable, but not acceptable tomorrow. They were not building "monsters" and she did not believe they should pay the price of something they had nothing to do with. Ortega School was bulldozed down; sowebody divided it up at DeAnza and Ross Road and built big houses on small lots. Those houses would not appear ugly on a larger lot, but somebody in the City allowed the lots to be small and the houses big. She told the Mister Plum Bean story where he dared to have a home that was different from everyone else. Now. individual families were paying the price, and she believed that was unfair. George Bradshaw, 255 Campesino, was strongly opposed to the emergency moratorium. Present rules were already overly restric- tive and did not allow a decent addition on a substandard lot. The concept of ordinances was a prime example of a set of rules forced on the less fortunate by those who had big lots and big houses with proper setbacks and proper lot coverages. He queried where the large houses cams from, if they had a 35 percent lot coverage with proper setbacks, and where the process of law was at that time. He urged Council to consider the impact on young families in this community who had limited funds but needed more space, and to allow for creativity of small houses on small lots to accommodate families. He objected to developers buying a small house, putting it in the dumpster, and turning it into a $700,000 house, legally; however, homeowners who were trying to create their dream home should not be penalized. Maria Cristina Lopez -Page, 360 Iris Way, believed Palo Alto could no longer afford a ono -story, single-family home. The present life-style was different and must be accommodated in appropriate housing. The majority of houses in Palo Alto with two or three 62-154 9/18/89 O bedrooms and one bath were not sufficient for raising families anymore. Palo Alto should be preserved as a community oriented toward the family. That was what made Palo Alto special. Children brought joy to the community and families should be accepted here. She believed the physical character of Palo Alto must change, and she urged Council to make that change with quality design, not with unrealistic limitations under emergency moratoriums. Glen Dodds, 588 Bryson Avenue, said there should not be an emergency moratorium. He believed the moratorium that was passed on an emergency basis had loopholes. Architects and homeowners had planned for the past several months under an agenda published in the newspapers and in a letter from the Planning Commission dated June 23, 1989. It was unfair that the timetable should be ac- celerated and the law basically changed and placed into effect. The costs of homeownership and moving was expensive, so if families and people were to stay in Palo Alto, they should be allowed to remodel their homes. NOTION TO col4TiMult Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, to continue the public testimony and Council discussion and action on the question to the September 25, 1989, City Council meeting. Council Member Cobb believed the continuance until the Council meeting on September 25, 1989, would produce a better decision - making process. ANIENDKENT: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Woolley, to continue the hearing to September 19, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. instead of September 25, 1989. Council Member Patitucci said he would not be available for a sting on September 19, 1989. He believed Council should not be considering the moratorium because of the type of notice given and the process set in motion a year ago. The past two and one-half hours should have been spent on what the Planning Commission was dealing with rather than on a moratorium. He believed that those whe were under the impression that somehow the proposals of the Planning Commission would be adopted without discussion or change by the Council were wrong. He also believed passing this noratori.um would be preempting the decision -caking process. His vote would be not to support the ordinance, but a four -to --four vote would have the effect of not allowing the ordinance to pass. He hoped his fellow Coy ncil Members would try to lower the level of public concern and lend credence to the process of the Planning Commission by following a reasonable procedure to get work done by the endof the interim guidelines. Council Member Levy said the complex item under discussion would involve many questions of staff as well as hearing from members of 62-155 9/18/89 the public and he believed Council should hear from them, fully. To act late in the evening would be an injustice to the community, so he favored continuing the action part of the item until September 19, 1989. Council Member Sutorius would vote agar.3st the amendment because he wars concerned about the adequacy of public awareness and Council effectiveness, an3 he would support a motion for a continuation to the regular Council meeting on Monday, September 25, 1989. Council Member Renzel preferred to allow each speaker three minutes to speak to the item rather than require the public to come back a second time. She queried whether a quorum of the Council was available for a continued meeting on September 19, 1989. City Manager William Zaner clarified that the motion included there be no further public testimony at the subsequent meeting. Council Member Patitucci did not believe Council should hold an extra meeting as a result of thr►is item that was placed on the agenda just last week. He believed Council sh :uld deal with it now or postpone it to a regular meeting. Council Member Cobb had another commitment for September 19, 1989,. so he preferred continuing the item to the regular meeting on September 25, 1989. AMENDMENT PASSIM 6-3, Cobb, Patitucci, Sutorius "no." AMENDMENT: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Fletcher, to allow members of the public, who have either volunteered to speak on September 18 or who left the Councilmeeting prior to being able to speak, to speak at the meeting on September 19, 1989, and to limit public testimony to those speakers. AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0. MOTION AS AMID= PASSED 5-4, Cobb, Fletcher, Patitucci, Sutorius "no." Council Member Levy requested a transparency of a chart which compared present regulations with those proposed by the Planning Commission, for the continued meeting. Council Member Patitucci could not attend on September 19i 1989, and wanted an opportunity to make his views known. Mayor Klein requested staff provide a written summary of the project requests for the meeting on September 19, 1989. 62-156 9/18/89 1 Council Member Cobb queried if one of the Council Members who voted to hold the continuation meeting on Tuesday night, September 19,. 1989, would reconsider, so Council could vote with a full Council on Monday night, September 25, 1989. He could not propose the motion because it needed to be made by a member of the prevailing side. Council Member Sutorius requested tine for comments by Council Member Patitucci and the opportunity for Council Members, who were in -the -majority for setting tomorrow night as the continuation, to consider whether to move for a reconsideration so full Council would be available. MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Sutorius, to reconsider continuance of the meeting from Tuesday, September 19, to the regular Council Meeting on Monday, September 25, 1989. Mayor Klein said Council Members were abs nt from time to time and items should not be delayed because one person would be absent. He believed that with the uncertainty people felt about having to get their applications in or not, it was really in the public interest to meet on September 19, 1939. Council Member Patitucci believed there was a difference between not attending a regularly -scheduled, duly -noticed meeting and not being able to attend a meeting set less than 24 hours prior to the meeting time. MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSED 6-3, Klein, Renzel, Woolley "no." MOTION TO COWINU t Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconder - by Woolley, to continue the meeting to September 19, 1989, at 7:30 p.m., instead of September 25, 1989. MOTION TO CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER 19, 1989, P2 ILEO 4-5, Cobb, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci, Sutorius "no." MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Sutorius, to continue the item to September 25, 1989, and to allow the aembers of the public, who either volunteered to speak at the subsequent meeting or who left the Council meeting prior to being able to speak, an opportunity at the regular meeting of the Council on September 25, 1989. MOTION TO CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER 25, 1989, PASSED 9-0. 62-157 9/18/89 AD4OURNX : The meeting adjourned at 1:15 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.200(b) . Zxte City Council meeting tapes are retained in the City Clerk's Office for two years from the date of the meeting, and the Finance and Public Works Committee and Policy and Procedures Committee meeting tapes are retained for six months. Members of the public may listen to the tapes during regular office hours. 62-158 9/18/89