HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-01-19 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
ALTO CJTYCOUNCILMEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU- FREQUENCY 90.1 ON FM DIAL
Regular Meeting
January 19, 1987
PAGE
ITEM
Oral Communications 7 9 9 1
Minutes of December 22, 1986 7 9 9 1
1. Appointment of Four Visual Arts Jury Members to 7 9 9 1
Fill Terms Expiring January 31, 1987
2. Resolution 6588 Honoring Michael W. Cobb 7 9 9 2
Consent Calendar 7 9
3. Professional Administrative Consulting
Services -Extension of Leave: Captain Robert M.
Elliott
5. Appeal of David and Tamara Hooper from the
Decision of the Architectural Review Board and
the Director of Planning and Community
Environment to Deny a Design Submittal for a
Three -Unit. Residential Development at 627
Webster Street (Continued from '.12/15 R6)
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommen-
dation , e Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
1986
7. PUBLIC HARING; Planning Commission Recommen-
dation re Application of Ram Kathuria for a
Zone Change and ` a Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map Change at 2370 Watson Court
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommen-
dation re Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordi-
nance Amendments to Exempt Parking Requi'rements
for Some Historic Structures in the Downtown
Area Undergoing Restoration and Conversion from
Residential to Commercial Use
7 9 9 4
7 9 9 4
7 9 9 7
8 a 0 U
8 U 0 2
7 9 8 9
1/19/97
ITEM PAGE
9. Planning Commission Recommendation re Request 8 0 0 4
of Gamble Garden Center for Design Review of
Proposed Garden Center at 1431 Waverley Street,
and Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance
Authorizing construction of a Parking Lot on
the Palo Alto Lawn Bowling Green
Adjournment to a Study Session re City/ School 8 0 0 6
Financing at 9:17 p.m.
Final Adjournment at 10:45 p.m. 8 0 0 7
7 9 9 0
1/19/87
0
Regular Meeting
Monday, January 19, 1987
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein (arrived at
7:32 p.m.), Levy, Patitucci (arrived
7:34 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley (left
at 8:10 p.m.)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Van Aarem, 2155 Harvard Street, spoke regarding financial dis-
parity in the August, 1986, Recreation Department's staff
report concerning Adult and Master's Swim Program.
2. Ben Bailey, 455 Forest Avenue, was concerned about his friend,
Rudy's, civil rights and "routine" personal search tactics of
the Palo Alto Police Department. He suggested an independent
agency was needed to handle complaints of abuse in good
faith.
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 221 1986
MOTIONS Coenciiaeaber Fletcher moved, seconded by Patitucci,
approval of the Minutes of December 22, 1986, as submitted.
MOTION P&SSBD 7-9-2, Sutorius, Bechtel abstaining,
1. APPOINTMENT OF FOUR VISUAL ARTS JURY MEMBERS TO FILL TERMS
4XPIRINC JANUARY 31 1987 (70 -05 )
Counciimember Levy had been impressed over the years with the job
done by the Visual Arts Jury (VAJ) . All whose terms were expiring
were reapplying, and he intended to vote for each of them in
recognition of their outstanding jobs and would do so in alphabet-
ical order„ James Nelson was a new member, and the reasons for
his recent selection were worthy of keeping him on the VAJ.
Mayor Woolley believed it was appropriate to retain Orlando Ma Tone
who had been a hard-working member of the VAJ for several terms.
He was eager to remain for another ter because he had a project
he wanted to see through. She concurred alphabetical order was an
excellent way to proceed.
7 9 9 1
1/19/87
RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING
City Clerk Gloria Young announced the results of the first
ballot:
VOTING FOR COOPER: Renzel, Levy, Bechtel, Sutorius, Woolley,
Klein, Cobb, Fletcher, Patitucci
Ms. Young said Mr. Cooper received nine votes and was appointed.
RESULTS OF THE SECOND ROUND OF VOTING
Ms. Young announced the results of the second ballot:
VOTING FOR MAIONE: Renzel, Bechtel,
Sutorius,� Woolley, Cobb, Klein, Fletcher,
- -- Levy, LatitMC Ii
Ms. Young said Mr. Maione received nine votes and was appointed.
RESULTS OF THE THIRD ROUND OF VOTING
Ms. Young announced the results of the third ballot:
VOTING FOR MACNEIL: Renzel, Bechtel, Sutorius, Woolley, Cobb,
Klein, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci
Ms. Young said Ms. Macneil received nine votes and was appointed.
RESULTS OF THE FOURTH ROUND OF VOTING
Ms, Young announced the results of the fourth ballot:
VOTING FOR 'WREN: Renzel
VOTING FOR NELSON: Levy, Bechtel, Sutorius, Woolley, Kleine
Cobb, Fletcher, Patitucci
Ms. . Young said Mr. Nelson received eight votes and was appointed.
Mayor Woolley congratulated the four incumbents and thanked them
for the job they were doing for the City. She appreciated the
other two applicants giving Council a choice and hoped they would
serve in another capacity.
2. RESOLUTION 6588 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO HONORING MICHAEL W. COBB (701.0 )
NOTIVis Coonvilmoabar Patitucci wow, s caadsd by K1ain,
approval of I.goiution 65418.
MOTION PASSED by a vet. of 0-o--1, Cobb •abstaiai.ag.. H
7 9 9 2
1/19/87
e
Mayor Woolley read the resolution which said that Michael W. Cobb
had served as Mayor of Palo Alto from January 6, 1986 to January
5, 1987 and had thoroughly enjoyed representing the Council as the
master of ceremonies at many events, attending Chamber of Commerce
meetings, addressing the Board of Realtors, tossing the first ball
at a Giants' game, attending the Japanese Cultural Festival, and
cutting the ribbon at the opening of the Garden Court Hotel.
Mike showed tremendous initiative in meeting with the various
chairpersons of the boards, commissions, and committees to estab-
lish agendas for joint meetings with the Council, urged the
Council to "posture succinctly" during their deliberations at
meetings, and encouraged input and cooperation of the City
Council, staff, and the community. Mike's strong commitment to
preserving the quality of the City of Palo Alto was reflected in
his thoughtful appointment of members to the Child Care Task Force
and the Downtown Design and Amenities Committee, and in his devel-
oping an efficient and effective process for the Council's review
of the Downtown Study Committee's Report. Mike persuaded the
Council to hold their first retreat and formed a Palo Alto
Futurecast 2001 Committee to review the complex issues and oppor-
tunities facing the City between now and the year 2001, and during
his term, the City Council, staff, and the community enjoyed his
sense of humor, accessibility, and charismatic personality. Mike
represented the City of Palo Alto as the delegate to the City/
School Liaison Committee and the League of California Cities
Peninsula Division, and as alternate to the Northern California
Power Agency. It was resolved that his colleagues on the City
Council honor Michael W. Cobb and convey to him their appreciation
for his many services to the City during his term as Mayor.
Mayor Woolley presented the resolution to Councilmember Cobb
together with his framed nameplate. She added a "thank -you" for
the good spirits he generated toward the City by the way he worked
with the various members of the community. During the last few
weeks she heard mat y very nice compliments about Mike Cobb as
Mayor. She predicted that his attention to process would reap
benefits far beyond his term as Mayor.
Vice Mayor Sutorius said Councilmember Cobb might have detected a
slightly irreverent tone to some of the items in the resolution,
but that was symbolic of the comments about his sense of humor•,
the grace with which he managed Council affairs over the past
year, and his ability to keep things .ia proportion. The City was
proud of Councilmember Cobs as the hone -town boy who made good and
knew what an important accomplishment it was for somebody to rise
to the office, and he conducted it in a fashion: others would have
difficulty emulating. Because Councilmember Cobb was certainly an
athlete, he was presented with a cup inscribed "World's Greatest
Mayor 1986.''
7 9 9 3
1/19/87
Councilmember Cobb Loved Palo Alto very much and said it was a
special privilege to serve in the City where he grew up and to
serve with his colleagues on the Council. He did' not believe a
finer group of people sat on a City Council anywhere in the coun-
try, and recognition from such an outstand.ng group of people was
very special. He thanked his colleagues for the privilege of
serving as Mayor with them.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor Sutorius removed Item 4, Contract with Davey Tree
Surgery for Tree and Stump Removal.
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, approval
of the Consent Calendar.
3. PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE CONSULTING SERVICES --EXTENSION OP
LEAVE; CAPTAIN ROBER M. ELLIO R t :
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
5. APPEAL OF DAVID AND TAMARA HOOPER FROM THE DECISION Oe' THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT TO DENY A DESIGN SUBMITTAL FOR A THREE
UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 627 WEBSTER STREET (Continued
from 12/15/86 (CMR:579:6) (300)
Architectural Review Board (ARB). member Jonathan Schink was
Chairman at the time the ARB denied the subject application. The
staff report (CMR:579:6.) contained an excellent summary of the
findings made by the ARB. When reviewing projects "mass" meant a
large area of a building which looked massive because it was not
designed well and should not be confused with the size of a
building. Mass was discussed frequently with the project in ques-
tion because the design of the building was so poor, and often-
times the ARB suggested the design be articulated to break up the
mass to make the large building appear smaller but that never
occurred. Somme efforts were made to try to break up the mass, but
those efforts were sadly flawed because of a lack of under-
standing, and none of the changed features had any continuity.
Each change did not improve the design became the applicants did
not understand the basic root of the problem.
Tamara S. Hooper, 211 Stockbridge Avenue, Atherton, said their
application was submitted in March 1985, and the process should
not have taken more than two or three months. They were denied
the elementary public service of checking plans for zoning errors,
and their refusal to provide an architect set in motion a long
process of obstruction. If the ARE did not like'the design, what
was expected should have been communicated in specific terms.
They were always willing to make changes provided they did not
diminish the building nor materially change the floor . plan. The
7 9 9 4
1/19/87
1
e
1
absence of cooperation could not be imputed to them, and the
denial of their application was not justifiable. She believed the
real issues were as follows:` 1) Could Mr. Brown and Ms.
Szmorlinski make up rules of their own and impose them directly or
through coersion; 2) Could a public employee trespass on their
property, Could he perform ar investigation, without warrant or
Consent, to collect information, and then use that information
against them; 3) Was the ARB an impartial body; and 4) Could a
public employee simply choose to ignore a letter addressed to him
or her. (For more detail, see letter on file in the City Clerk's
office). They had done their share, and the issues were in the
hands of the Council.
David Hooper, 211 Stockbridge Avenue, Atherton, was an applicant,
and spoke about how procedure was handled in Palo Alto. The rea-
sons he asked for • a continuance at the December 15, 1986, meeting
were because the Council packet was passed to Council and the let-
ter for the application was so badly mineographed it was hard to
read. At the City, he was told the copy was at the ARB. It
seemed when there was a dispute with a government agency and the
rules and regulations state another agency, i.e., the Council, was
to arbitrate the matter, the application should be handled by the
City Clerk and not sent to the plaintiff. He was told that sets
of plans were needed for the packets sent to the libraries, but
there were no plans in the library packets. If City employees
were allowed to make up administrative rules, he suggested a form
be handed to the applicant. He was astounded on December 15,
1986, when "Councilmember Patitucci wanted the appeal turned down
before hearing from the appellants. That was not democracy. The
property was zoned multiple-family, and he did not appreciate
hearing that laws made by the planning Commission were "only
guidelines' to a member of the ARB. It was not democratic that
staff members could speak with the ARB during a meeting.
Councilmember Bechtel said she had reviewed the extensive set of
letters and communication between City staff and the Hoopers and
had reviewed the plans and staff report.
tlOTlOil a Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to
uphold the decision of the Architectural Review Board and the
Director of Planning and Community Environment, and dopy the
project design, bared on the following tindingst
1) The design of the project is not compatible with the City's
Coaprebsn'{ve Flan policy of maintaining high quality neigh-
borhoods in that the proposed project . does not provide maximum
privacy, natural light, and outdoor space for residents and
adjacent developments
NOTION CONTINUED
2) The planning and location of the various functions on the site
do not create an internal sense of order or provide a desir-
able environment for occupants, due to poor design such as
windows opening to the garage, outdoor . spaci being accessible
principally to only on* unit, and an exceedingly long and com-
plicated entry/exit for the third floor;
3) The proposed design of the structure is not acceptable, due to
such aesthetic elements as the lackof a uniform architectural
style, no continuity of materials and textures, no order to
the location and shape of facade openings, the use and utili-
tarian character of exterior metal stairs, etc..; and
4) The proposed landscaping is not. acceptable, in that i t does
not provide adequate usable areas, screening, privacy for
residents of the proposed project and adjacent sites or reduc-
tion in visual scale of the proposed buildings,
Councilmember Levy read all the materials before Council, the let-
ters, minutes of the ARB meetings, had examined the plans
carefully, and visited the property site. The real issue was the
mass of the building and appearance of the property as planned,
and not the process. As far as he was aware, the process followed
in the subject case was the same followed by all other applicants
that went before Council. Two elements were involved: 1) the pre-
cise law and ordinances passed by Council that applied, and 2)
policies that Council followed and asked staff to follow and com-
municate to various applicants. The policies did not have the
precision of law but were followed, and from time to time staff
tried to communicate the policies to applicants. Misunder-
standings could occur when an applicant believed what they were
hearing was a precise law or rule when, in fact, they were hearing
suggestions from staff because staff knew that Council would not
look at certain types of developments with favor. There might be
precise, specific compliance with the rules, but he might find a
design difficult to approve. In the subject case, the design was
simply too massive for the site. He concurred with ARB that there
was a lack of articulation and scale. The zoning allowances were
not absolutely permissive. If a site was developed to the maximum
of a zoning range, he judged there needed to be mitigation. The
site needed to be unusually fitting in order to be developed up to
the maximum. As a representative of the public from Palo Alto,
and as an elected representativet he supported and upheld the
finding of the ARB, and specifically the findings on pages 4 and 5
of CMR:579:6.
7 9 9 6.
1/19/87
vice Mayor Sutorius addressed the issues from the vantage of his
experience on the ARB to understand how it was to go before that
body as an applicant, and gauged the content of the staff and ARB
representative comments, their attempts to communicate the types
of reservations expressed, and the manner in which those reserva-
tions were expressed. He concurred with the general comments made
by Councilmembers Bechtel and Levy and would be prepared to uphold
the decision to deny the application.
MOTION PASSED- unanimously, Woolley absent.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
(CMR:113:7) (237-01)
AMENDMENTS TO
THE ZONING ORDINANCE 1986
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING. CODE) REGARDING
FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES- DEFINITIONS OF MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL
OFFICES/ AND COMPACT PARKINGt AND CHAPTER 16.20 (SIGNS) REGARDING
PROJECTING SIGNS" �--�-
Planning Commissioner Pam Marsh said the change in regard to
family day care homes passed the Planning Commission on a 4-3
vote. Recently -passed State law mandated Palo Alto change the
traditional Use Permit process used to approve large day care
homes for children, i.e., those serving between 7 and 12 children
under the . age of 18. The recommendation before Council was tor
those large day care homes to be allowed use in all residential
zones. The provision of day care in Palo Alto was acutely needed,
and allowing it to exist in all residential zones was appropriate
both as a response to State laws and as an incentive for the crea-
tion of the homes. The recommendation, however, retained the
current conditional use process for large day care homes that
served adults. The. Planning Commission recognized adult day care
homes could encompass a wide variety of uses and the City might,
at some point, want to have some control over the issuance of per-
mits for those homes. The Planning Commission minority believed
that large day care homes both for children and adults should be
subject to a nondiscretionary Use Permit process.
Councilmember Renzel asked whether the change in definition of
medical and professional offices applied in all. multi -family
zones, RM-1 through RM-5, in addition to commercial areas.
Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said yes.
Councilmember Klein asked for clarification of the required, ages
of children He referenced staff's October 2e, 1986, letter to the
Planning Commission, page 2, which defined Small Day Care,Homes as
age 16, and Large Day Care Homes pickedup that definition. One
draft ordinance said 16 and the other 18.
7 9 9 7
109/87
City Attorney Diane Northway understood the age was through 18.
If that was not correct, staff would return at second reading with
the appropriate correction if Council desired.
Coancilmember Renzel asked if the City had any authority
require ongoing repair and renovation of canopies.
Mr. Brown said not through the architectural review procedure.
Vice Mayor Sutorius declared the public hearing open.
Jack O'Reilly, 736 Southampton Drive, was concerned about the
potential change in the zoning and how it might affect profes-
sional and medical offices. Some areas of R&D easily fitted into
the concept of professional and medical offices and had little
risk of impact on the environment. Ali should be concerned about
the possibility of moving biotechnology and biochemical research
into those kinds of offices, many of which were in residential
areas. Those who worked in the field knew the precautions neces-
sary to protect the environment. Products manufactured in small
laboratories were extremely active at the microgram level.
Present-day biochemical research produced drugs where one kilo
could treat a million people, but one kilo released by accident
through a ventilation system in a residential or commercial area
without adequate precautions would be a disaster. He suggested a
full environmental report on the change.
Vice Mayor Sutorius declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Brown said there was discussion at the Planning Commission
regarding biological research involving the use of animals, and
keeping animals on properties that were primarily office develop-
ments, but he did not believe there was a great deal of discussion
involving biochemical research and the products thereof. The pro-
posal before Council restricted the use of any hazardous chemicals
as a means of restricting to a certain extent the types of chem-
ical research that could be done He did not realize biochemical
research involved significant quantities of such hazardous chem-
icals. Regarding having such research near residential areas, he
did not believe the downtown area was much better shielded from
residential areas than most of the industrial park which also
bordered single-family areas. Restrictions on the entire use of
biochemical procedures might be more appropriate on a Citywide or
regional basis.
MOTIONs Counci 1.s t Bente' moved, seconded by Bechtel, to
adopt staff recommendation finding that the ordinance changes
reed by the Planning Cos►aissioa will not have a significant
envtro*assn'a1 iaspact: end adopt a negative declaration with an
aaeaadme t requesting staff draft a modification to the ordinance
that the grandfather clams** in the multi -family zones that relate
to the medical and professional offices be maintained sa state s
q o, and to epprova the ordinance for first roadie . -,
7 9 9 8
1/19/87
Ms. Northway said it would not be difficult to draft the language
requested by Councilmember Renzel, but it was not appropriate to
include such language at second reading. The Attorney's office
would give Council a new ordinance at the time of second reading
which accomplished that, if Council so desired.
Councilmember Renzel asked if there would be a gap where Council
would be permitting such actions in residential zones.
Ms. Northway said yes,
Councilmember Renzel presumed there would not be time to affect
that kind of a use change.
Mr. Brown said it was highly unlikely that the required use per-
mit, inspections, use and occupancy permit, etc., could go through
in that short period of time.
Councilmember Renzel believed Council should not broaden the uses
grandfathered in multi --family residential zones, and she was con-
cerned about introducing new uses without knowing the implica-
tions, i.e., noises, etc. She asked her colleagues to support
that aspect of the motion.
AMENDMENTs Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, that
the ordinance be 16 years of age, unless the lam required 18
years of age.
Ms. Northway suggested it might be better to include the age of 18
in the motion unless State law provided otherwise. A change could
be made at second reading so long as it conformed with Council's
original ;intention and Council had specific language before it the
first tii4e.
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN . BY MAKER AND SECOND
Councilmember Klein understood Council could authorize the prepa-
ration of an additional ordinance which might specify the spacing
of thehomes, and which required a 'nonhearine hearing.
Mr. Brown said that was correct.
Councilmember Klein asked if the City was tprotected against the
proliferation of such day-care homes on a particular block.
Mr. Brown said no, but it was possible to protect against prolif-
eration through the`, conditional use permit process under the cur-
=rent ordinance.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley absent.
7 9 9 9
1/19/87
7. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLI-
CATION OF RAM KATHURIA FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM PC (PLANNED
COMMUNITY) TO LM(Dj 3) AND A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE A
CHANGE FROM SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO RESEARCH OFFICE PARK AT 2370
WATSON COURT (300)
Zoning Administrator Bob Brown referred to the applicant's changes
to the parking plan and noted the design changes would have to be
part of an applioa►tion to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for
building modifications.
Vice Mayor Sutorius declared the public hearing open. Receiving
no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hear-
ing closed.
MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt
the staff recommendation approving the proposed . zone change from
Planned Community to LM(D) (3) and Comprehensive Plan Land •Us* Nap
change fro:a Service Commercial to Research/Off ice Park, subject to
the following findings and conditions:
Findings
1. The proposed rezoning to Ut(D) (3 f is consistent . with the
Comprehensive Plan in thatthe proposed office reuse will not
result in deleterious impacts on congested traffic . corridors.
and, as conditioned, will mitigate an increase in employment
by payment of $30,139.89 in City housing program; and
2. The proposed rezoning will not result is significant environ-
mental impacts, in that local intersection level.. of service
will not decrease, employment impacts of the use change . will be
mitigated by payment towards local housing programs, and no new
construction will result.
Conditions
1. A total payment of $30,139.89 shell be providsd.by the appli-
cant for city housing programs. This sun shall be paid_to the
City .as follows: $15,139.89 within ten days of receipt of the
building permit and the balance _ of $15,000 to be paid prior to
receipt of a certificate of occupancy;
2. Common recreational facilities shall be available only to ton -
ants of the bsildiug, and shall not be_ mad* available to
members of the #user al public as a commercial venture; and
MOTION CONTINUED
3. Sits and Design reiriew shall be required of any, exterior
building or site isprovements, including provision of addi-
tional parking spaces. If site aodi€icatians.axe limited to
facade changes, parking and landscape chaages.and new signage,
without expansion of useable office area, then a Minor Site
and Design review process may be utilized.
RESOLUTION 6589 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO COMPREHEN-
SIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR. THE
PROPERTY KNOWN AS 2370 WATSON COURT FROM SERVICE COMMER-
CIAL TO RESEARCH/OFFICE PARK"
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO: AMENDING SECTION
18.00.040 OF . TUB PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING
NAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY
KNOWN AS 2370 WATSON COURT FROM PC TO LM (D) (3) "
Councilmember Patitucci referred to the property and project on
Geng Road which was a traffic generator. He understood there was
a proposal which recommended improvements to the _same intersection
addressed by the traffic report in the subject instance. He
understood there was no significant impact in the traffic genera-
tion and as a result, no mitigations were recommended for the
intersection for approval of the building.
Mr. Brown said that was correct. The project was a replacement of
a prior use and the comparison of traffic between the two essen-
tially provided a wash.
Councilmember Patitucci queried whether the building, when origi-
n -70.1y developed, had a traffic mitigation requirement which was
met,
Mr. Brown said no because there was no difficulty with the inter-
section of Embarcadero. and East 8ayshore Frontage Road. A new
project at the location might increase trips at the intersection
to a level where mitigation would be necessary. The proposed
building was about half the size of the building proposed for the
Geng Road site.
Councilmember Cobb was concerned about the conclusion that the
project was not a ' net traffic problem generator. The previous
athletic club showed 25 trips in and 17 trips out for a total 42.
The proposed office use was 57 trips in and 10 trips out for a
total of 67 trips so morning traffic was increased roughly
one-third. More importantly, traffic going in, which was the
8 0 0 1
1/19/87
traffic problem, was almost double. Peak p.m. traff.ic_..for the
athletic club was 56 in and 38 out, for a total a5; and for the
office use, 11 in and 66 out for a total of 77. To not require or
at lerst raise the issue of the building providing traffic
mitigations and then to require another building ---albeit larger --
to provide traffic mitigations seemed to be an inconsistent appli-
cation of the City's requirements, which troubled him. While the
numbers were not significant, he wanted to remember the point when
the other buiding was before the Council.
Mr. Brown had the same reaction to the report as Councilmember
Cobb. The Transportation Division advised there was no particular
problem leg of the intersection per se; that essentially any , of
the legs of the intersection with traffic going through at a par-
ticular time impacted the overall level of service of the inter-
section. When traffic went through from one direction, it
precluded traffic from making left -turns in the other direction
such that the phases of the intersection were not allowed to turn
over as rapidly as possible. He was convinced the traffic at the
intersection did not change its level of service despite the
change in direction.
Councilmember Renzel said the applicant indicated the building was
vacant for about a year. She asked how it could have been counted
in the baseline information.
Mr. Brown said the subject building and all of the other vacant
space in the vicinity on East Bayshore Frontage Road were con-
sidered to be occupied and those numbers were factored into the
traffic study.
NOTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley absent.
8. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO EXEMPT
PARKING
DOWNTOWN
REfUIREMENTS FOR SOME HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN THE
AREA UNDERGOING RE FROM
STORATION
AND CONVERSIO
RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL USE (211'U 1) (CMR t 112:
Councilmember Levy asked about the difference between "exterior
rehabilitation" and "rehabilitation.*
Manager, Planning Projects George Zimmerman said the . difference
was not clearly defined within the Historic Preservation
Ordinance; and, therefore, the attorney believed the wording of
"exterior" should remain in the ordinance language to assure the
Historic Resources Board (CURB) and the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) had review authority concerning any rehabilitation where use
of . the exemption would be applied.
8 a 0 2
1/19/87
Councilmember Levy clarified the Planning Commission recommenda-
tion was to use the term "rehabilitation." It appeared the term
"exterior rehabilitation" was a stronger term than just "rehabili-
tation."
Ms. Northway believed "exterior" really defined the jurisdiction
of the Planning Commission and the ARB because if the rehabilita-
tion were some form of interior remodeling, the jurisdiction would
not be there. Inserting the word "exterior" made the jurisdiction
of the two bodies apparent and real.
Councilmember Renzel clarified in terms of Categories 1 and 2,
only the one building, 621-625 Emerson, resulted in the parking
exemption. The December 5, 1936 report to the Planning Commission
was somewhat ambiguous in that the bottom of page 1 said the only
significant building in Category 1 was 621-625 Emerson, but the
top of the page said the total number of residential units in the
five structures amounted to 20, which she presumed referred to all
five structures in the part below. She clarified only one buiding
was receiving the parking exemption.
Mr. Zimmerman said Councilmember Renzel was correct.
Vice Mayor Sutorius declared the public hearing open. Receiving
no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hear-
ing closed.
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel, moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt
the staff reco*.endati*n making the following changes to the
Planning Commission rscaaeandatiohu
1. That a new Urban Design Program I0c in the Comprehensive Plan
be approved .as recommended by the Planning Commission, which
re.dst 'In order to further encourage historic preservation
in the Do vnt*au Area, allow parking exceptions for small resi-
dential ALatarie buildingsin the University Avenue Parking
£gsesssurst District Which , are undergoing rehabilitation in
conjunction with conversicn from . residential to _ coam.rcial
use. Require findings during the design review process that
the bi*to r c aad erchit*ctural integrity of the exteriors of
such buildings be maintained after r.babilit.tian.' # and
2. That * zoning ordi n a aae dReAt be approved peeve tting resi-
dential histeric streettirea in C*te9Ories l as _2 ;thou . are
located within the University, Avenue .Ping ..Assessment
District to gmalify for packing exceptions when tb.y are
undergoing exterior rehabilitation and converting Eton resi-
dential . to commercial use. The ordinance language would
read:
8 0 0 3
1/19/87
NOTION CONTINUED
SECTION 1. Section 18, 48.100 (b) (1),(i i i) is hereby amended to
reads
(iii) Historic structures in Categories 1 and 2. Each his-
toric structure in Categories 1 and 2 may Wk..advantage of
the following exceptions during, the life_ of . the buildings
(A) An increase in square footage of a historic building in
Categories 1 and 2, pursuant to Section 18.43.G60(b)(3)t
and
(5) A conversion to commercial use of a historic building in
Categories 1 and .2 that is 50. feet or less .in height and
that has most recently been in residentialuse, if such
conversion is done I= conjunction .with exterior historic
rehabilitation approved by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment upon tae recommendation of the
Architectural Review Board in consultation with the
Historic Resources Board. Such a conversion must not
eliminating any existing on -site parking.
RESOLUTION 8590 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO , ALTO ADDING 11N URBAN DESIGN PROGRAM
REGARDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OP THE
MUNETE-UrTia CITY 51, PALO ALTO AMENDINGCHAPTER. 18.4$
(CD DISTRICT) OF TITLE 1$ (ZONING CODE) TO ADD' A PARKING
EXCEPTION FOR HISTORIC STRUCTURES"
Councilmember Patitucci supported the motion because he believed
the eg incentives might help to offset some - of the economic
constraints.
NOTION PASSED enaniaosalys Woollerebsent.
9. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE REQUEST OF GAMBLE GARDEN
CENTER FOR DESIGN REVIEW OF PROPOSED GARDEN. ENTER
AT 1431
WAVERLEY STREET, AND ADOPTION OF A PARK IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING LOT ON THE PI LO ALTO
LAWN LING GREEN 00 . ,CMR: s
Eric Stoehr, 4800 El Camino Real, Los Altos, represented the
architects assisting the Gamble Garden Center on the project. At
each phase of the review process, they carefully addressed all
concerns and modified their drawings accordingly.
8 0`J 4
1/19/87
0
1
Karen Olson, 566 Washington Avenue, represented the Board of
Directors of the Gamble Garden Center. Approximately $440,000 was
raised to date. After Architectural Review Board (ARB) review in
March, building permits would be the next step. The Garden Center
hoped to take over the property in June of 1987.
Vice Mayor Sutorius clarixied Council action that evening incor-
porated a final landscape plan which would return through the ARB
process. The final landscape plan was not intended to provide all
of the seasonal and annual plantings and ornamentals but rather
the primary architectural features for the site and primary land-
scape features including trees being preserved and how the park
area to be used as parking would be treated.
MOTIORs Councilmaaber Bechtel moved, seconded by Rensel, to
adopt the staff recommendation to approve the proposed site
improvements, subject to the following conditions,:
Bowl Site
1. Final landscape, irrigation, land lighting plans *hall return
to the ARB for approval. The plans shallinclude a landscape
proposal for the planting area located within the street
right-of-way, details on paving materiels, site lighting,
garbage and bicycle enclosures, fencing, signage, and other
details customarily required for .:final _ ARB approval;
2. Construction in the vicinity of the ..major existing oak tree
located towards the western corner _oL the site shall be sub-
ject to the following restrictions;
a. Any construction shall be limited to a minimum distance of
ten feet from the trunk of the oak tree;
b. ilny paving Or roadway work, including landscaped parking
reserve area, shall be limited to . no more than 50 percent
of t *PlOcesimato drip line area of the tree;
c. Any excavation for the road work in the drip line area of
the try, or in the area twice the diameter of the drip
line, shall be limited to no more than the top four to sin
inches;
3. The lo.p driommOY, . eR Waver1ay the drivewayconnecting the
loop: to the Churchill Avenee,, entry shall be maintained as a
osevay driwoway0 appropriate sigma,* shall be submitted for
approv l by the Transportation Division; and
4. Prior to apprOVel of the final landscape Paris, the applicant
shall work With the Transportation Division .an resolving sign -
age for the gaba►rcader o Road exit. The location and site of
8 8 0 5
1/19/87
MOTION CONTINUED
the signs shall be subject to the approval of the
Architectural Review Board and. tba Chief Transportation
Official.
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE
COOK L Oa THIS CITT OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND OPTING
A PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A. PING LOT ON THE PALO
ALTO LAWN BOWLING GREEN'
Councilmember Levy asked for reassurance on the safety on the
exit onto Embarcadero Road.
Mr. Brown said there would be a right -turn only. Although the
intersection with Embarcadero was at an angle to the site, t -he
driveway was perpendicular. There would be signage and an addi-
tional requirement of landscaping to be maintained below three
feet in height to preserve adequate site distance for motorists to
see past the current landscaping, down Embarcadero for a reason-
ably safe distance. The Transportation Division was confident
adequate site distance . would be provided.
NOTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley absent.
ADJOURNMENT TO A STUDY SESSION RE
CITY SCHOOL FINANCING AT 9:17 .m.
STUDY SESSION RE CITY/SCHOOL FINANCING
City Manager Sill Zaner suggested Council begin to establish a
consensus of what kind of financial relationship the City might
enter into with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)
based on- certain principles to be formulated by the
Councilmembers.
Councilmember Klein . suggested the City lease all vacant school
property from the school district for a specified period -perhaps
ten years —subject to the City's ability to pay for the lease by
additional revenue approved by the 'voters. The proposal would
enable the PAUSD, to get out of the land use business and concen-
trate on educa t i On.
Several ` questions were raised about the types of taxes which mig;lt
be put before the voters, the relationship to the Gann limitation,
and the staff and maintenance costs to the City if it leased and
sublet the school. properties.
Councilmember Cobb cautioned whatever ballot measure that went to
the voters needed to be strongly supported.
8 0 0 6
1/19/87
1
1
Vice Mayor Sutorius questioned whether it was appropriate for Palo
Alto, which owned its utilities and set the utility rates, to
impose a utility users tax. He asked for information on how other
communities applied the utility users tax.
The Council requested staff to prepare information responding to
their questions prior to the joint Study Session which Council and
the school board members would hold on February 9, 1987.
ATTEST:
lc/
FINAL ADJOURNMENT AT 10:45 p.m.
APPROVED:
%City Clerk ' �' / 7/ Mayor
8 U U 7
1/19/87