HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-05-04 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
PALO ALTOCITYCOUNCIL MEETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU-FREQUENCY90.i ON FM DIAL
Regular Meeting
May 4, 1987
ITEM
Oral Communications
Minutes of April 6, 1987
PAGE
57-131
57-131
1. Presentation of Government Finance 57-132
Officers Association Award for City's
Budget Format
Consent Calendar 57-132
2. Ordinance 3748 Adding a New Section to
Chapter 2.40 of the Municipal Code, which
would Require the Printing in the Sample
Ballot of the Full Text of Ordinances or
Measures to be Voted on by the Electors
3. Contract with Kinetic Engineering and
Construction, Inc., for Installation and
Testing of Equipment for the Park
Boulevard 12KV Addition Project in the
Amount of $62,938
4. Contract with Garaway Contracting for
Modifications to �t.he Turnstile at the
Junior Museum in the Amount of $17,382
6. Planning Commission Recommendation re
Application of Camargo and Associates,
Architects, for Site and Design Approval
to Build a Single -Family Residence and
Swimming Pool for Property Located at 810
Los Trancos Woods Road
57-132
57-132
57-132
57-133
Agenda Changes` Additions, and Deletions 57.133
57-129
5/04/87
ITEM PAGE
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission 57-133
Recommendation re Appeal of Gerald and
Melinda Cook from the Decision of the
Zoning Administrator to Deny a Use Permit
for Construction of a Second Dwelling Unit
at 3827 Grove Avenue
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission 57-139
Recommendation re the Application of S. r,
Creasey for a Preliminary Parcel Map for
Property Located at 4179 Old Adobe Road
9. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commissi,o 57-141
Recommendation re the Application of
Charlie Burns for a Preliminary Parcel Map
for Property Located at 365 Guinda/820
Palo Alto Avenue
Recess from 8:50 p.m. to 9:05 p.m. 57-149
Continuation of Items 11, 12 and 12A 57-149
10. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission 57-150
Recommendation re the Application of Palo
A1.to Unified School District for Rezoning
of the Jordan Middle School Site (750
North California Avenue)
11. Planning Commission Recommendation re
Application of Reimer Associates for Site
and Design Approval for a Tennis Court for
Property Located at the 700 Block Los
Trancos Woods Road
57-169
12. Ordinance Amending Section 4.10.050(d) of 57-171
the Palo Alto Municipal Code Extending the
Hours of Operation for Solicitors and
Peddlers
12A. (Old Item 5) Contract for 1986-87 with 57-172
Council for the Arts Palo Alto and Mid -
peninsula Area, (CAPA) CAPA Community Box
Office
Adjournment at 10:40. p.m. 57-173
57130
5/04/87
Regular Meeting
Monday, May 4, 1987
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date
in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein,
Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley
ABSENT: Levy
Mayor. Woolley announced a Special Closed Session re
Personnel Matters was held at 6:30 p.m. in the Council
Conference Room.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 1987
Council Member Klein had the following corrections:
Page 57-44, fourth paragraph, line 19, change "Less Grand
Less" to "Less Grand Lease."
Page 57--44, fourth paragraph, last line, change "expediency"
to "efficiency."
Page_ 57.48, second paragraph, line 2, change "4.09
residential," to "4.00 nonresidential."
Council Member Cobb had the following correction:
Page 57-50, fourth paragraph, second sentence, should read,
"If a specified stream of revenue to the PAUSD was created,
plus a stream of revenue to possibly improve the City's
infrastructure, it . would set what the tax level would have
to be. Other issues to be considered would be whether to
have some kind of split rate, .lifeline, etc."
MOTIONS Vice Mayor Sutorius roved, seconded by Bechtel,
approval of. the Minutes of April 6, 1987, as corrected.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent.
57-1.31
5/04/87
1. PRESENTATION OF GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
AWARD FOR CITY'S BUDGET FORMAT Z
Ronald Beach, California Chairman of the Governmental
Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of the United States and
Canada, presented an award for budgeting to the City. The
award, created in 1984, .was for excellence in budgeting,
recognizing outstanding public budgeting documents. The
program allowed governments to receive an independent review
of their budget. Only 2 percent of the members of GFOA and
16 cities in California had received the award. The award
was a very careful review of the budget document to make
sure it was a good presentation, had a minimum of ambigui-
ties, included all the funds, and demonstrated an effort to
clearly communicate the full story. Palo Alto could be very
proud. He congratulated Mayor Woolley, City Manager Bill
Zaner, Assistant City Manager June Fleming, and Director of
Finance Mark Hai i ie.
Mr. Harris accepted the award on behalf of the City.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Klein removed Item 5, Contract for 1986-87
with Council for the Arts Palo Alto .and Midpeninsula Area
(CAPA) CAPA Community Box Office.
MOTION; Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Fletcher,
approval at the Consent Calendar.
2. ORDINANCE 3748 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING A NEW SECTION TO CHAPTER 2.40
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE PRINTING
IN THE SAMPLE BALLOT OF THE; FULL TEXT OF ORDINANCES OR
MEASURES, TO BE VOTED ON BY THE ELECTORS" (1st Reading
4/20/87, PASSED 9-0) (705-87-07)
3. CONTRACT WITH KINETIC ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION,
INC., FOR INSTALLATION AND TESTING OF EQUIPMENT FOR THE
PARK BOULEVARD 12KV ADDITION PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$62,938 (CMR:239:7) (1101)
Staff is authorized to execute change orders for extra
work items in the amount of $7,500.
4. CONTRACT WITH GARAWAY CONTRACTING FOR MODIFICATIONS TO
THE TURNSTILE AT THE JUNIOR. MUSEUM IN THE AMOUNT OF
$17,382 (CMR:187:7) (1330-03)
In the event Garaway Contracting does not accept the
contract, the Mayor is authorized to execute the
57-132
5/04/87
CONSENT CALENDAR (cont)
contract with McEntee Construction in the amount of
$31,500
Staff is authorized to execute change orders to the
contract of up to $4,000.
6. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF
CMA RGO AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS, FOR SITE AND DESIGN.
APPROVAL TO BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND SWIMMING
POOL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 810 LOS TRANCOS WOODS ROAD
(300)
NOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS/_. AND DELETIONS
City Manager Biii Zaner said Item 5, Contact for 1986.87
with Council for the Arts Palo Alto and Midpeninsula Area
(CAPA) CAPA Community Box Office, would become Item 12-A.`
7. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
APPEAL OF GERALD AND MELINDA COOK FROM THE DECISION OF
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO DENY A USE PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND DWELLING UNIT AT 3827 GROVE
AVENUE (300)
Mayor Woolley declared the Public Hearing open.
Marc Pasturel, 3853 Grove Court, had a 125 -foot common fence
with the subject property. In view of the abundance of
already documented concerns by the neighborhood, only three
would speak that evening. He acknowledged the presence of
the nonspeakers, asked .:-them to stand, and read the names of
those unable to attend who actively opposed the current
plans. The neighbors approved the intent of the cottage
ordinance as a means to provide a modest -sized, secondary
residence, i.e., a structure significant:l.y less in size and
appearance than the primary residence built on the same lot.
As the "mother-in-law" terminology indicated, it was
intended for single people or, at the most, couples; not
families. The present situation could be inverted whereby
the in-laws occupied the primary residence, and a young
family would build what looked like a primary residence, a
third deep from the street. They agreed the Motooka lot was
conducive to a cottage and believed one could be defined to
the agreement of all neighbors. They opposed the Cook's
plan because the corresponding structure would intrude'en
:their privacy and significantly alter the highly -valued,
57-133
5/04/87
nature -like aspect of their surroundings. Specifically,
they opposed the 20 -foot roofline which contributed
significantly to the looks of a primary residence and to the
visual obstruction to the neighborhood; the multi -car garage
and corresponding traffic; the location of the structure
next to their pool; and noted a ten -foot shift toward the
primary residence would allow the existing vegetation to
provide more privacy, despite the recent cutting down of one
of the two oak trees. The Cooks were stretching the ordi-
nance beyond its intent. They would support a one -car
garage and a 14 -foot high structure.
Marlo Prehn, 776 Mayview. Avenue, was concerned about the
three -car garage and the 20 -foot height. Both might be
legal, but he questioned the spirit of the cottage law. He
was concerned about the location of the structure on the
property. The side yard would back up to his rear yard,
there was an eight -foot setback, and quite a lot of glass
was exposed to their property. He ' respected the rights to
build a cottage on the property and limited his objections
to those items.
Joan Brown, 770 Mayview Avenue, was an art j artist and exhibiting
photographer working most of the time in her home. - A pri-
vate, quiet environment with good light was essential to her
work She understood the ordinance was intended to allow a
small, 900 square feet maximum, simple home, perhaps with a
single -car garage, to be built on a lot large enough to
accommodate it without infringing on the existing privacy of
the neighborhood. The proposed structure covered about 800
square feet, straddled the entire lot, infringed on the
privacy of. at least seven families, and affected others on
Grove Avenue by creating more traffic and parking conges-
tion. The proposed structure was a Tudor building with
numerous bay windows, modified gables, and a 20 -foot ridge
roof height,. plus a three -car garage containing a bathroom.
The size led one to ponder its future ,use as a. possible
rental. She strongly objected to the proposed 20 -foot roof
height. She a.Iso objected to the large size of the
garage -e.880 square feet- -and understood a garage of such
proportions had never been built -with a mother-in-law
cottage. She would support a maximum dwelling size of 900
square feet, a roof height of no more than' 12 feet from
existing ground level, and a single -car garage. The ,most
important thing to consider was the intent of the mother-
in-law ordinance in relation toe the proposal. She
understood 5 to 10 percent of the older lots in Palo Alto
were large enough to accommodate -a second dwelling unit,
which would probably affect 25 to 50 percent of the resi.
dents. She suggested the ordinance itself be reviewed and
changed.
57-134
5/04/87
Gerald Cook, 586 Oregon Avenue, applicant tor the Use
Permit, showed an overlay of the property 'to demonstrate the
--cottage did not overly affect the density of the houses in
the are:. At the Planning Commission hearing; they agreed
to reduce the three -car garage to a two -car garage and lower
the roof height of that part of the structure to 14 fe'e,t.
On behalf of his wife, their parents, and himself, he read a
statement asking Council to allow the cottage to be built as
planned. He and his wife desired to remain in the City and
jumped at the idea when their parents offered the land
behind their home. They were 3,000 square feet short of a
subdivision but found it was possible to construct a
mother-in-law cottage under the Code. They went through the
process of producing plans utilizing the criteria estab-
lished in the Code and were in constant -contact with the
Zoning Administrator, making sure their interpretation of
the Code was proper. They complied with needed changes to
the preliminary plans-, and at no time did the Zoning
Administrator warn them that the roof height or garage size
could be reason for denial. He suggested they speak to the
neighbors, but they felt the neighbors should not care as
the neighbors had done as they chose with their land without
consulting their parents, e.g., an obtrusive second -story
addition overlooking their parents' backyard, including a
picture window and balcony; a pool pump with the noise
directed onto their parents` patio and bedroom; and a two-
story home with an open view to their parents' backyard.
Neighbors visited their present home to take pictures and
ask questions about vehicies. They withdrew the first
application, forfeiting the fee, took a careful look at the
plans and concluded they were within all the Comprehensive
Plan guidelines, all Codes and intentions, and felt there
was no conceivable, logical reason why they could not build
the cottage. They conformed to all necessary parameters and
applied again. He asked if the situation was another
"majority ,rules"; should the Comprehensive Plan, Municipal
Codes, and Code intention be thrown out the window because
the concerned citizen won out over the landowner, in spite
cif what was just and right by the landowner. History showed
the majority rule was not always right. The Codes governing
the Use Permit process allowed, permitted, -and encouraged
them to build; it was the neighbors who did not. He asked
Council to consider the source of the objections and allow
them to build the cottage .as planned.
Mayor Woolley declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member. .Pletcher moved, seconded by
Renzel, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation
upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny
the .application, based on the following findings:
57-135
5/04/87
MOTION CONTINUED
1. The proposed use, as depicted in attached plans, at the
proposed location, will be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will be
detrimental to the public health, safety, general wel-
fare, or convenience in that the design of the proposed
second dwelling unit (cottage), particularly its roof
mass and its size, which includes a three -car garage, is
visually imposing on adjoining e7ear and side yards of
six properties and limits solar access of two adjoining
properties. The roof design incorporates a 1:1 pitch
which is not compatible with ranch -style dimensions of
surrounding residences, yields an 11 -foot tall attic
which provides storage space beyond that typical in
other cottage units, and establishes a ridgeline at 20
feet, which is the maximum height allowed for cottages.
Average approved cottage height since 1983 has been 14
feet. Other than for aesthetic purposes, the cottage
ridge height is not justified, given the extent of
visibility and impact on adjoining properties. The size
of the garage contributes to a structural length of 68
feet, which is unique among cottage structures, and con-
tributes to the apparent size of the dwelling and impact
on neighboring properties. Three -car garages ,are
commonly associated with large principal residences and
exceed the size and needs typically associated with a
cottage.
2. The proposed use will not be located and conducted in a
manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
and the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code in that the size and visibility of the proposed
cottage design does not cc ;aply with Policy 1 of the
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, "Maintain the
general low -density character of existing single-family
areas' and Program 3, 'Continue the cottage provision in
R-1 zones insuring that new development fits in with
existing single family properties.' The proposal does
not comply with the purpose of the R-1 District, stated
in Section 18.12.010 of the Zoning Ordinance which
states that R-1 areas are intended for 'detached
dwellings with a strong presence of nature and with open
space affording maximum privacy and opportunities for
outdoor living.' The proposal for a dwelling with
design features similar to principal dwelling also does
not meet the intent of the cottage ordinance to provide
modest -sized second units for low-- to moderate -cost
rental opportunities.
57-136
5/0,487
Council Member Patitucci asked if the applicant still had
the opportunity to meet the conditions outlined by the
'oning Administrator without having to start to start at the
beginning of the process, if Council upheld the denial.
Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said no, a new application
with a new fee would have to be filed.
Vice Mayor Sutorius said whether the applicant would be able
to pursue the application in its status without a new
filing process and fees if the applicant requested a con-
tinuance and resubmitted in conformance with the condi-
tions.
Mr. Brown said yes, in that case the proposal would return
to City Council with revised plans for final determination.
Vice Mayor Sutorius asked for clarification of the condi-
tions under which staff could recommend approval.
Mr. Brown said he recommended the roof height and slope be
revised to approximately a 4:12 or 5:12 pitch; the three -car
garage be reduced to a two -car garage maximum of 22 feet in
width with increased setback on either side of the resi-
dence • and i f a ha I hrnom wa$ to he included ��.,..�, in the yaraae;
it be limited to one plumbing fixture or the square footage
be included in the 9O0 square feet allowable.
Vice Mayor Sutorius asked the approximate height at ridge
that would result from staff's calculation of the roof
slope.
Mr. Brown said the height would be a maximum Of 17 feet to
the peak. It would not be an extended ridge line.
Vice Mayor Sutorius sensed that the conditions outlined by
the Zoning Administrator and the decision of the Planning
Commission were ones for which Council could find support.
If the applicant chose to continue, there should be such an
indication at the present time. He opined the hearing
process; and the content, tone, and completeness of the
Zoning Administrator's handling of the case were ,up to a
very high standard. The matter was handled with great
sensitivity and fairness. He wanted it recognized that,
should the case ret urn to Council in a form along the line
of the Zoning_ Administrator, he would be prepared to
support.
Mayor Woolley said the applicant indicated by shaking his
head that he did not wish to continue the application.
57-137
5/04/87
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent.
Mayor Woolley asked if further modifications were needed in
the cottage zone.
Mr. Brown did not believe it was necessary to --further
restrict cottages. He did not believe the City would be
able to regulate any potential, detrimental cottage design
in all situations. The subject design was somewhat of an
abberation compared to others. The applicants were_
apprised, in preliminary conversation, of potential diffi-
culties with approval based �n height and garage size. He
believed Council's decision on the appeal would be an addi-
tional indication to future applicants upon preliminary
conversations with staff that such applications would not be
favorably viewed. He did not believe the 20 -foot height to
a possible peak of the roof was a problem in many cases. In
the subject case, the extended ridge line was a great diffi-
culty. In some cases where the principal residence was
lacking on covered parking, a three -car garage might be
appropriate.
Mayor Woolley clarified that since the City now had a prece-
dent with the particular decision, staff believed it should
continue review of such special use permits on an
individual -case basis.
Mr. Brown said yes; the Use Permit had worked adequately.
Council Member Renzel asked the reason for not counting a
bathroom with one fixture as usable space, and the reasoning
behind not counting attic space as actual space of a
cottage.
Mr. Brown said it was correct an attic ways not defined as
usable living area- by the Building Code if it did not have
permanent access and did not have required ventilation. In
terms of the bathroom, the City had allowed one plumbing
fixture to allow such things as sinks or a washing machine
in the garage. Beyond that, it was counted as a separate
room and living area.
Council Member Renzel clarified the plumbing fixtures were
allowed to be separately enclosed.
Mr. Brown said yes.
57-138
5/04/87
d. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
THE APPLICATION OF S. C. CREASEY FOR A PRELIMINARY
PARCEL MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4179 OLD ADOBE ROAD
(300)
Planning Administrator Lynnie Melena suggested an additional
condition of approval be granted for an easement for the
access road from Parcel A to Parcel B for the portion of the
driveway which crossed over onto Parcel A.
Mayor Woolley declared the Public Hearing open.
S. C. Creasey, 4179 Old Adobe Road, said staff recommended a
denial of their application for a preliminary parcel map
based on four reasons: 1) The statement chat the circum-
stances or conditions affecting the property were not spe-
cial in that the other parcels in the vicinity which were
greater than one acre could not accommodate was probably
true but did not apply to the application because they had a
2+ acre parcel. There were no parcels in the Assessor's
Parcel Map over two acres that had been denied the right to
subdivide for a single-family residence. There were 40
parcels on the map, but only three were larger than two
acres: Clark, Wolfe, and Creasey. Neither Clark nor Wolfe
requested a subdivision and neither wanted to subdivide at
that. time. If the request was denied, they would be the
only two -acre parcel denied a subdivision. 2) Staff was
concerned with "hill area which constrain'd development by
virtue of potential instability of the hillside and by
potentially -required grading for construction of a
dwelling." In #3, a related reservation, "potential for
landslides or other environmental damage to the area."
Staff points could be summarized by, "The area is hilly, and
there is a real. danger of landslides and related phenome-
non." Among the 37 developed parcels, no known landslides
had occurred as a result of building site preparations.
Furthermore, there were-noe known landslides for whatever
cause. Many of the dwellings in the area were on hillside
cuts, and the near -vertical banks behind the cuts were
remarkably stable. Their house was on such a bulldozed
terrace, and the bank behind the house had been standing
without any sliding for 40 years. Similarly, the bank
behind the Burke house had been standing without any sliding
for 43 years. The reason for the stability of the area lay
in the character of the underlying rock formation, which was
a tertiary Santa Clara formation, a well -1 i thi f led, -
undeformed, s coy positian1ly-homogeneous conglomerate -so
compact that not even tree roots penetrated two feet beneath
the Soil horizon. The landslide -prone lands lay to the west
in the hills where the bedrock was the older Franciscan
57-139
5/04/87;
formation, and other units which were much deformed, and
faulted and contained interlaid rocks which weathered to a
slippery mass which promoted landslides. The contiguous
neighbors to the north, the Burkes, were in the process of
adding a two-story addition to their house. Building plans
approved extending excavation into the hillside. The exca-
vation produced an eight -foot vertical bank above which -were
terraces which added additional height. It was difficult to
reconcile why it was acceptable for the Burkes to grade to
the extent shown on the photographs (passed to Council),
while only 250 feet away on a slope less deep, any grading
would produce unacceptable risk of landslides. 3) Staff was
concerned the proposed subdivision, "may be detrimental to
the public welfare." About the only are where the proposed
dwelling would come under public scrutiny might be Clark
Park, but. the dwelling would be essentially invisible from
the parklands owing to their lower elevation and intervening
trees. The fact that none of the adjacent neighbors
objected to the subdivison indicated the project was not
aesthetically offensive. Lastly, their application for sub-
divison recognized both Parcels A and B did not meet the
width requirement of their rezoning. At the time of annexa-
tion to Palo Alto, their property had about 300 feet 'of
frontage on the then -existing access road. The dedicated
road put in by the City did not follow the old road and cut
out much of their frontage„ They presently had 100 feet on
dedicated road and close to 200 feet of frontage on the old
access road. The City probably should have extended the
present road up through the property beyond where the cul-
de-sac ended, in which they would all have had plenty of
frontage on the road.
Mayor Woolley declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member. Cobb moved, seconded by Kleine to
adopt the Planning Commission recommendation approving the
application for a preliminary parcel map to divide the prop-
erty at 4179 Old Adobe Road into two parcels based on the
following findings and conditions of approval and include
Condition t3;
Findings
1. The application will not have an adverse environmental
impact.
2. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting
the property in that the property is located at the bulb
end of a cul-de-sac, which makes it -impossible for the
two proposed parcels to meet the requirements for a
100 -foot width, although each parcel has adequate
acreage.
57-140
5/04/87
MOTION CONTINUED
3. The exception is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
petitioner in that other parcels of a similar size have
been permitted to subdivide.
4. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other property in the
territory,. in that there are sufficient setbacks from
nearby houses; and both a soils report and a design
review will be required as conditions of approval of
the preliminary parcel map.
5. The granting of the exception will not violate the.
requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law in
that both parcels are within the density standards
established by the zoning ordinance for this area; and
the parcels lack standard width only because of their
location on a cul-de-sac.
Conditions of Approval
1. The applicant shall prepare a soils report for review
and approval by the Chief Building Official prior to
filing the final map;
2. Any development on Parcel A, including any major
addition (defined as 500 square feet or more), and the
preliminary grading plan shall be subject to approval of
design by the Director of Planning and Commnnity
Environment, prior to building permit issuance; and
3. Require an easement for an access road from Parcel A to
Parcel B for the small portion of the driveway which
crosses over into Parcel A.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Renzel voting "no,' Levy
absent.
9. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION
THE APPLICATION
RECOMMENDATION RE
OF CHARLIE BORNS FOR A PRELIMINARY
PARCEL MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 365 GUINDA/820 PALO
ALTO AVENUE (CMR:24407) (300)
Planning Commission Vice Chairman Helene Wheeler said the
P1a_n_ning Commission recommended Council approve the prelimi-
nary parcel map to divide the property into two lots. She
pointed out they were dealing with one lot large enough to
57-141
5/04/87
be divided irito two. The lot had current development which
would dictate the odd configuration of the two parcels. The
two existing houses currently fronted on two different
streets, and the lot had been used essentially as two separ-
ate lots for many years. Although it required an exception,
they would be creating a parcel which was really no differ-
ent from many existing parceis in the general neighborhood.
Council Member Bechtel said there was discussion about the
addition on the side fronting 820 Palo Alto Avenue. She
asked whether the portion the Planning Commission recom-
mended be removed was the one-story, shed -like structure
without any windows along one side but with a door, because
the absentee owner from Texas referred .to looking out of
windows.
Commissioner Wheeler said the shed -like structure was the
one Commissioner Cullen in particular addressed, but she was
not sure whether that correlated to the letter received from
the owner of the property.
Council Member Bechtel clarified it was definitely not the
setback, adjacent two-story portion.
Ms. Melena clarified the portion in question was marked on
the map as "later addition.
Council Member Klein asked whether Commissioner Wheeler had
any reaction to the two letters with regard to the addition,
one from the absentee owners dated April 20, 1987, and the
Charlie Burns' letter dated April 29, 1987 (on file in the
City Clerk's office).
Commissioner Wheeler opined that in general the worthiness.
of the application would override whatever Council dis-
covered in the hearing process and determined would be the
outcome for that particular addition, and she speculated a
majority of her fellow Planning Commissioner would agree.
Mayor Woolley declared the Public Hearing open.
Charlie Burns, 820 Palo Alto Avenue, asked his father to
read a statementon his behalf which emphasized the proposal
involved no new construction; he only wished to divide a
single, large lot with two existing houses into two lots in
order to purchase the smaller. of the two lots from the
out-of-state owners. Local ownership would result in more
responsible and better -maintained property. The subdivision
had no opposition from neighbors; the Planning Commission,
57=142
5/04/87
nor the City staff, and the Planning Commission found no
adverse environmental impact. The lot was smaller than the
size suggested by the Comprehensive Plan, and the location
of the houses on the existing lot precluded dividing it into
two standard -size lots. Even so, the -sizes of the houses
were proportional to the lot. sizes. There were mai.y
smaller -sized lotS -in the neighborhood, so the proposal
would not set a precedent. The house had existed for 40
years, and they were not trying to divide the lot to build a
new house. The Planning Commission also noted that since
the smaller lot was larger than what the Comprehensive Plan
called a "cottage," 820 Palo Alto never was a cottage of 365
Guinda- but rather a separate residence. Other factors were
that the houses faced on completely different streets, and
820 Palo Alto faced San Francisquito Creek and had no neigh-
bors across the street. The Planning Commission added a
contingency to the subdivision that a small room in the rear
of 365 Guinda should be removed. There were windows in the
addition. Originally, he believed the section of 365 Guinda
was built without a permit and was not up to Code, but now
understood the owners enclosed an existing porch. From
inside, it was one of the nicer rooms. He believed the con-
tingency was attached after the Commission saw the unkept
;5 appearance of 36 Guinda to let the occupants know of their
disapproval with the conditons- of '.the house and yard. That
disapproval was understandable, but the contingency had a
negative effect by adding a hardship to the owners by
requiring them to tear down part of their house. The con-
tingency, if retained, might also .block the subdivision if
the owners did not agree to tear down the room. If that
happened, the property would continue to deteriorate and he
would not be able to bring 820 Palo Alto up to the standards
of the rest of the neighborhood. He asked Council to
approve :the proposed subdivision without the attached con-
tingency.
Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant Street, was a real estate agent for
Charlie Burns, and thanked the Planning Commission and staff
for recommending the lot split. Regarding the contingency
that the shed be torn down, the owners assured her the addi-
tion was an existing porch which was merely closed in.
There were no permits but many complaints from the neighbors
about. -the terrible condition of the house. They feared the
owners might back away from allowing the lot split if the
^ondition Was held. If the lot was split,_ a new buyer could
conceivably improve the house. If Council removed the con-
tingency, it was probable that when the property was trans-
ferred, the requirement for sellers' disclosures and for
lenders that things be .brought up to Code would soon bring
the owners in line with the neighborhood. The neighbors
earnestly hoped Council would approve the subdivision.
57-143
5/04/8,7
Mayor Woolley declared the Public Hearing closed. She asked
staff if the City would have more leverage concerning the
general condition of the property if it was sold than at
present,
Ms. Melena said staff sent a letter to the property owners
after the Planning Commission meeting stating they were in
violation of several City ordinances, including the mainte-
nance of the property and a non-functioning vehicle. Staff
could be more aggressive, but there would be no additional
leverage by selling the property.
MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Patitucci,
to adopt Planning Commission recommendations approving the
application for a preliminary parcel map to divide the prop-
erty at 365 Guinda and 820 Palo Alto Avenue into two parcels
based on the following findings and conditions of approval,
with the deletion of Condition f1 that the addition to the
house at 365 Guinda, which projects into the side yard set-
back, shall be removed:
Findings
1. The application will not have an adverse environmental
impact;
2. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting
the property in that it is large enough to accommodate
two parcels of at least 6000 square feet each but is
developed in such a way that one house requires a large
lot and the other house can be accommodated on a small
lot which is substandard in width, dept:: and area;
3. The exception is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
petitioner, in that there are other parcels of land on
this oddly -configured block which are substandard in
size;
4. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to'
the public welfare or injurious to other property,
because the primary reason for the exception is the lack
of an adequate front . yard at 820 Palo Alto Avenue, but
that parcel faces a creek which provides an openness in
the front yard which substitutes for the normal front
yard; and
5. The granting of the exception will not violate the
requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law in
that the proposal is consistent with the density for
development in the R-1 zone (two lots on 12,000 square
feet).
57-144
5/04/87
MOTION CONTINUED
Conditions of Approval
1. Separate water and gas service shall be provided to each
house,► at the owner's or applicant's expense.
Council Member Fletcher asked whether the porch would have
been in nonconformance to the regulations prior to ,its
enclosure.
Mr. Brown said yes, the porch would have been noncomplying
under current zoning.
Council Member. Fletcher said it was being assumed the prop-
erty would be sold if divided, but she queried whether there
was any guarantee that change in ownership would upgrade the
property or that it be sold to a local owner.
Ms. Melena said there were no assurances.
Council Member Fletcher opposed the subdivison because
Council had no assurances the Guinda property would be
improved as a result. She would be willing to vote for the
motion if there was some assurance. If the new,_ owner made
improvements, the removal of the addition would be a small
additional expense to the major expense of renovation.
Council Member Renzel asked if approval of the motion set up
a framework for having approved cottages ask for subdivisons
as well.
Mr. Brown said there was the potential for a precedent being
created. Staff received numerous requests from the public
regarding the feasibility of dividing off previously -created
cottages. The situation in question was somewhat better
than others since the lot had frontage on two different
streets.
Council Member Renzel asked if each application had to be
considered on its own merits as with variances or whether
the facts were more c1g,arcut in a subdivision.
Mr. Brown said each had to -be considered on its own merits,
and the policy ramifications also had to be , considered in
terms of removing the rental unit for a for sale" unit,
etc.
57-145
5/04/87
Council Member Renzel knew in the past when Council created
a substandard condition that might become the basis for a
variance, they had recorded with the deed of the non-
complying property that n� variances would be permitted in
the future. She asked whether that could still be done.
Mr. Brown recollected advice from the City Attorney's office
had been that it was not feasible for the City to limit
further applications as a condition.
Council Member Renzel clarified a very small lot would be a
basis for a variance of necessity finding.
Mr. Brown said yes; it certainly would meet some of the
criteria for a variance.
Council Member Renzel asked if the property was more
valuable as one parcel or two in staff's opinion.
Ms. Melena opined the parcel was more valuable as two than
as one.
Council Member Renzel said because the properties faced
separate streets, she could deal with the cottage problem,
but she believed it proper to remove the addition which was
somewhat of an eyesore. She was concerned about the vari-
ance issue. Council was creating a situation that would
invite ` many more applications for substandard subdivisions
and a situation where a future owner, might want to add a
seco.id-story addition. If Council as a whole was inclined
to grant the application, the inconvenience of removing the
porch was relatively minor compared to the substantial
increase in value of having two parcels to sell instead of
one. She was also concerned the larger house was perhaps
being used as a boarding house and not as a single-family
dwelling.
Council Member Bechtel shared some of - Council Member
Renzel's concerns, particularly about the creation of a sub-
standard lot and that it would be difficult to put a deed
restriction on it to prohibit future variances, which made
it even more important that ._something be done about the
addition. The Planning Commission discussed whether it was
possible to condition the removal of the addition as part of
the split, or as a condition of- a future sale of the Guinda
property, and she asked whetherH it. would be possible as a
condition of a sale, which Might make it easier for
Council.
57-146
5/04/87
Ms. Meiena said 'the problem with making the removal a condi-
tion of the sale was staff did not have any means of holding
them to the condition. Once the two parcels were recorded
separately, they gained all the needed City approvals. The
only comparable thing that had been done, but not recently,
was some kind of a bond. A bond was rather unusual for the
situation, and she was not certain how it would be imple-
mented.
Council Member Bechtel believed Ms. Begle referred to when
somebody was getting financing, they needed to be sure the
property had received all necessary permits; therefore, the
portion in question might notbeup to Code. She suspected
whether that would delay a sale would depend on the person's
financial situation.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by
Woolley, to add Condition #1, that the addition to the house
at 365 Guinda which projects into the side yard setback,
shall be removed..
Mayor Woolley seconded the amendment because she felt that
problems could be caused in the future, that Council was
making a slight allowance to subdivide the property, and
that a compromise would be to eliminate the addition which
violated the setbacks.
Council Member Patitucci asked whether the property, i
subdivided, would be rerecorded as two separate deeds.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Anthony Bennetti said yes.
Council Member Patitucci asked about the recording
procedure.
Ms. Melena said the map would be' turned over to a title
company who had responsibility for taking it down to the
County to be recorded.
Council Member Patitucci asked if it was possible to put a
deed restriction in at that time that would run with the
current ownership and restrict the, transfer of the deed
unless that problem was taken care of at the time of
resale.
Mr. Bennetti said. staff could record the condition c the
subdivision.
Council Member Patitucci clarified Council could put on the
next purchaser the obligation to remove the addition after.
subdivision.
57-147
5/04/87
Mr. Bennetti said the difficulty was enforcement with a sub-
sequent sale.
Council Member Patitucci clarified the enforcement was at
the time somebody bought the property, the lender would want
a clean title. If the title was clouded by the obligation,
they would require the purchaser clear it. It seemed a
reasonable method without endangering the current situation
and allowing the subdivision to go ahead.
rir. Bennetti said that could occur if there was institu-
tional financing and the financing institution was willing
to enforce the condition, but staff had no assurance that
would occur.
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT: Council Member Patitucci
moved, seconded by Sutorius, to require a deed restriction
on the property that would be implemented with the purchase
and be filed with the deed on the Guinda property after sub-
divison occurs.
Council Member Bechtel did not want to hinder the subdivison
of the property. Council Member Patitucci' �. point was well
taken. The risk Council took was whether somebody pur-
chasing the property en Guinda would get financing and would
depend on the financial institution. It was correct that
most financial institutions would require a clean recording.
An all -cash purchase was a risk.
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND
AMENDMENT RESTATED; Council Member Patitucci moved,
seconded by Sutorius, to require a deed, restriction on the
property that would be implemented with the purchase and be
filed with the deed to the Guinda property after subdivision
occurs.
Council Member Renzel said other concerns besides complete
private financing were that the seller might choose not to
sell the second parcel and continue to do nothing for a lone_
period of time. She asked what recourse the City had if the
deed restriction was recorded, the property changed handed,
and the structure was not removed.
Mr. Bennetti said the City could institute a lawsuit for
enforcement of the condition. Be imagined the cost would be
approximately $5,000 to $10,000 worth of time, but it was
difficult to estimate depending on the level of opposition
to the lawsuit.
57-148
5/04/87
Council Member Renzel said the City could end up spending
several thousand dollars in order 10 save the property owner
several thousand dollars of demolition costs when they were,
in fact, having the property values of the parcel enhanced
significantly, by the subdivision. She opposed the amend-
ment.
Vice Mayor Sutorius seconded the amendment because it was
the most feasible of all probable solutions, and he believed
it was unlikely the City would end up enforcing the condi-
tion in court. There was knowledge of another potential
buyer for the Guinda property, and if Council approved the
subdivision, he believed several: potential buyers would wish
they had acted faster. After viewing the property, becoming
aware of the history of complaints, and the fact that the
City had been unable to enforce a clean-up situation, if the
City ended up enforcing the condition in court, the City
might have to find better means of handling disastrous
maintenance situations where the conditions were such that
health code violations in the County were at risk. He urged
the amendment be passed.
Council Member Renzel appreciated Vice Mayor Sutorius's
point of view but suggested if Council was going to respond
to- unmaintained properties by permitting the owners to
subdivide them in order to clean them up, Council might
encourage more lack of maintenance.
AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Renzel "norm Levy
absent.
MOTION AS MENDED PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Renzel,
Fletcher voting 'no,' Levy absent.
COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 8:50 p.m. to 9:05 p.m.
CONTINUATION OF ITEMS 11, 12 and 12A
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Bechtel moved,
seconded by Cobb, to continue Item 11, Planning Commission
recommendation re application of Reimer Associates for Site
and Design approval for a tennis court for property located
at the 700 block Los Trancos Woods Road; Item 12, Ordinance
amending Section 4.10.050(d) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
extending the hours of operation for solicitors and
peddlers; and Item 12-A, Contract with for 1986-87 with
Council for the Arts Palo Alto and Midpeninsula Area (CAPA)
CAPA Community Box Office.
57-149
5/04/87
City Manager Bill Zaner said the items could be continued,
but he called Council's attention to the fact that next
week's agenda was heavy.
Council Member Klein opposed the motion.
Council Member Renzel concurred with Council Member Klein.
MOTION FAILED by a vote of 2-5, Bechtel, Sutorius voting
"aye," Woolley "not participating," Levy absent.
10,. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
THE APPLICATION OF PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
FOR REZONING OF THE JORDAN MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE (750
NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE) (300) (CMR:229:7)
Mayor Woolley was unable to participate due to a conflict of
interest.
Vice Mayor Sutorius said the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended_ the City Council find adequate and certify the
Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and amend
the Zoning Ordinance to establish a PF(1) Combining
District; and rezone the Jordan M•,iddle School site to the
FF(1) Combining Zone district. Council received_ many
letters from citizens on the matter, numerous telephone
calls, and opportunities for small group discussions with
interested parties.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber
introduced John Roberto, the lead EIR consul Lant; and Steven
Jepson, tTraffic Consultant, who worked with staff in
developing the. EIR.
Commissioner Christensen said the Planning Commission agreed
the EIR adequately addressed the impacts of the proposed
rezoning; that the Master Use Permit process rather than the
performance standard zone was the appropriate vehicle for
allowing the greater flexibility to the Palo .Alto Unified
School District (PAUSD) while protecting the neighbors
through a familiar process that was open to their scrutiny;
that the open.turf area and at least two tennis courts
should be preserved tor public use; and that there should
net be: driveway access.across the back of the site to
provide parking_ lot circulation. The Planning Couunission
also agreed the intersection improvements it Oregon _ and
Middlefield should not be imposed as a condition -of app,roval
because of the doubtful benefit of those improvements and
their large impact on the homes affected at that inter-
section. Thu mix of uses was the most problematical.
57-150
5/04/87
decision faced by the Planning Commission, and there was not
agreement on the conditional uses proposed to Council. Each
Commissioner tried to balance the need of the PAUSD for
greater flexibility and the need to protect the neighbor-
hood, and came to different assessments of the impacts of
the various uses. The recommendations before Council repre-
sented a range of opinions on the Planning Commission. One
view was the PAUSD should be allowed maximum flexibility
within reasonable limits. The second view was they should
not be afraid of commercial uses because some commercial
uses might be more benign in their impact on the neighbor-
hood than the proposed community uses. The third view was
allowing uses that had traditionally been allowed in resi-
dential neighborhood was not appropriate, and it was not
appropriate to introduce new commercial uses into a resi-
dential area.
Commissioner Wheeler said Commissioner Hirsch asked that his
feelings be conveyed to Council. He felt there were com-
munity services which had a commercial component. To the
.extent a strictly commercially -defined use would have a
community -serving use as well, Council- should_ consider that
as allowable; but purely commercial uses which did not have
benefit to the immediate neighborhood or to the residents of
Palo Alto should not be -allowed. Commissioner Hirsch also
'cautioned council that in granting a wide range of income -
producing uses to the PAUSD, or to any developer, the
developer would be tempted to reach for those lessees which
would produce the maximum amount of income, perhaps at the
expense of uses that: would be of greater benefit to. the
residents of Palo Alto. He felt strongly that parking
should be restricted ',.to the existing- lots on the site and,
-that restriping of those lots should provide sufficient
parking for the intensity of use the Planning Commission
._would like to have on the site.
Council. Member Renzel recognized the final recommendation
was to move the signal from the current California Avenue
intersection to the more northerly California Avenue, but
she asked what problems might be experienced if there was
no signal on Middlefield at that location.
Steve Jepsen, Traffic Consultant, said at some point along
Middlefield between Embarcadero and Oregon Expressway it was
advisable for another traffic signal to provide for safe
gaps in traffic for all the side streets. A number of the
side streets had the same conditions as California Avenue.
North California was as good a location as any if it _ could
be coordinated with the Oregon location.
57-151
5/04/87
Council Member Fenzel clarified the flow of traffic evened
out so much between Embarcadero and Oregon that there would
not be natural gaps created by the workings of the signals
at those pointy.
Mr. Jepsen said that was right.
Council Member Fletcher was unclear on the sequence of when
the Master Parking Plan had to be submitted. For instance,
if a major portion of the site was leased for storage, less
parking would be needed than if it was leased for offices.
She asked at what point the Master Plan would be required.
Mr. Schreiber said the expectation was the Master Parking
Plan would be introduced for City review in rather short
order. One of the critical issues in the leasing prowess
was the determination of how much parking was available, and
that would be the way for the district to identify specific
parking areas. The parking plan could be phased with cer-
tain areas only committed to parking if absolutely essential
to the leasing process.
Council Member Fletcher clarified the Municipal Code section
which provided that up to a 50 percent deferral of the
parking could be built in. Condition 12, page 8, of staff
report CMRt229:7 spoke, to a transportation `-mana-gement plan
but did .not seem to put as definitive -requirements as were
put on other developers or on the .zoning provision where a
certain percentage reduction in trips had to be met. She
asked why the condition was not stronger.
Mr. Schreiber said the staff recommendation for the condi-
tion reflected that the specific plan, if developed, had -to
go through City review, including City Council action,.
therefore, staff did not feel the need to spell out details
at that point. Further, if staff was dealing with a multi -
tenant site, especially one consisting of many .users of
smaller amounts of space, those users tended to be the -most
difficult to -gain widespread compliance with a transporta-
tion management plan. The scope. of the plan would in part -
reflect the tenant mix finally developed on the site, and
there would have to be some flexibility in recognition of
that.
Council Member Fletcher felt the landlord could take the
initiative, if there was one landlord.
Mr. Schreiber said staff expected in any . multi -tenant
situation that the property owner or . manager - would have to
take the lead in implementation of a transportation
management Plan.
Council Member Cobb said initially the concept of a perfor-
mance zone was that any use acceptable to\the neighborhood
could be passed, and one that was not acceptable would not
be passed. Rather than a specific list of defined kinds of
commercial uses, it was really an acceptability tes-t, whic .
as a practical matter, translated to a Use Permit kind of
process. He asked why the original concept was lost.
Mr. Schreiber said the original concept was not clearly
defined. A variety of participants had somewhat different
ideas at to what the mechanism might be. As the process
developed, the effort to translate concept to specific ordi-
nance wording ended up taking a variety of drafts, extensive
review between PAUSD staff, consultants, and .City staff.
Staff tried to maximize the objectives he discussed when the
item was first taken up by the Planning Commission 'on March
25, 1987, which gave the PAUSD flexibility for use of the
site to facilitate retention of the site, and protected the
neighborhood to much as possible. Council had before it an
effort to balance those objectives.
Council -Member Cobb said the city was working -hard with the
PAUSD to possibly briny before the voters a Utilities Users
Tax which would put the City in charge of the site and
enable the City to tie it up from various kinds of uses.
With that in mind, he asked if there was any• constraint on
Council continuing the decision with respect to the zoning
change until after the PAUSD decided whether it wanted to go
ahead with the users tax, whi h -decision he imagined would
be made within the next month.
Mr. Bennetti said no; the zoning matte: and Comprehensive
Plan change could be continued until the time indicated.
Vice Mayor Sut orius declared the Public Hearing open,
G. H. Parker, 891 Northampton Drive, was constitutionally
opposed to anything that threatened to upset the
neighborhood. He was concerned about traffic, parking,
°'Lake. Jordan," the problem of drainage, who would pay the
cost of the necessary changes, the demographics and the
situation -in terms of the need for Jordan as a junior
school-. There were sufficient questions to indicate further
consideration and of *making haste slowly."
Judith Teitler, 824 Southampton Drive, urged denial of the
request initiated by the PAUSD Board for changes . in the
zoning ordinance tor the use of the Jordan School site, For
two, years she attended meetings_ regarding the site and had
ben participating, listening, and reading. It was clear
57-153
5/04/87
the PAUSD demonstrated a single-mindedness in its approach:
Maximize income from the use of the site regardless of the
impact. When one looked at the EIR, it was clear change had
already occurred to their neighborhood. Change was a func-
tion of growth and growth was happening throughout Palo
Alto. The issue could not be ignored.- It was also apparent
the effects of the expanded uses suggested would bring about
serious negative changes. Some of the effects could not be
mitigated;. other mitigations would be complex and/or expen-
sive, and the PAUSD stated it either could not afford,- or
did not feel responsible to implement the proposed_mitiga-
tions. The issues were broad community issues, such as,
traffic related to main thoroughfares, the funding of the
education of Palo Alto's children, the constellation of
schools available, and the retention of valuable,
centrally -located public land for use by and for the people
of the community. She recommended retention of the condi-
tional use permit process which provided the opportunity to
review each proposal and a ,safeguard to the community. She
encouraged strong consideration of some of the proposed
plans for increasing revenues to the PAUSD. The- plans pro-
vided for all to share in the responsibility for supporting
the schools rather than unfairly burdening one small neigh-
borhood..
Mrs. John D. Morton, 2343 Webster Street, said she sacri-
ficed to live in Palo Alto primarily be':azise of the school
system only now to find herself completely at odds with the
school system. Not only did she feel the public system in
Palo Alto was beginning to deteriorate, but now the PAUSD
also threatened her neighborhood and its residential. char-
acter. : The PAUSD said it needed money; however, some
members of the School. Board questioned how much money they.
needed, or how they would get the money Economists from
Stanford wrote letters to editors saying the school did not
need as much money as they stated; there were alternative
proposals for how to get the money, and rumors were rifo.
that the closing of Jordan in the first place and the
refitting of Wilbur as JLS saved little, if any, money to
the PAUSD. She wondered if the PAUSD was the best entity t�
be in the real estate business and financing the school
system as it stood, or whether they would want to close more.
schools, and sell and rent more real ,estate as they ran into
problems. She _suggested there were better alternatives to
finance the school system and_ that Jordan .should probably
not be refitted as offices.-
Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, said it was ironic Palo
Altans were requesting Council not make a residential area
into a business area. Having restricted business in a
natural business area and converted some of that busines':>
into a residential area, he queried what sense it made tv
convert a residential into even a white-collar business
district. Even if Council voted to continue the matter,
they should deny the zoning change because it was completely
inconsistent with the neighborhood. It was the pronounced
policy of most members __of Council and of the Planning_
Commission that the neighborhood character should survive,
and the application would produce unrnitigat;able detriment.
Maureen Thomas, 836 E. Greenwich Place, said she and her
husband were recent additions to the neighborhood having
se'ected their house as a haven away from traffic, conges-
tiatn, exhaust fumes, etc. They were concerned co see the
EIR raise some of those issues and that there did not appear
to be solutions itemized in direct relationship to the prob-
lems. She supported the earlier comments in regard to
living in Palo Alto for the school, system and general life-
style. The proposed, use of the property would be a serious
detriment_ to the lit -style of her neighbors, and to those
who had recently moved in and paid inflated prices to live
in a desirable neighborhood.
Uzi Bar-Gadda, 836 Southampton Drive, had been involved with
the Jordan -Garland Neighborhood Association for about two
years. The City and PAUSD were in discussi ..9,s, they had a
decision to make about who would actually take over the
vacant schools, and they had a City in which the populus
desired to retain the schools because of strong disagree-
ments on the exact funding situation and utilization of the
schools for their children. A commercial zone was totally
inappropriate. They lived in an organic environment, and it
was tots: -y inconsistent and would inject a violation of
what the Constitution of the United States based itself on:
the happiness of the people. He saw many unhappy people
present that: evening. He was glad some people in the City
came up with an inventive solution to the problem, but it
was inconsistent to live in a City where tennis courts were
regarded as surplus and parking spaces were paramount; where
maXinizing the dollar per square foot was the goal of the
school district. and packing the kids into the smallest
numberof classrooms was a function for the PAUSD board. He
recommended delay of any rezoning on cane site until the
other issues were cleared up, and that the EIR not be
accepted because several of the points with regard to
traffic counts, and CO2 emissions clearly stated there
was little chance of mitigation; by widening roads they
were causing other environmental effects.
57e155
5/04/87
Dr. Fred Kahn, 782 Southampton Drive, had been a neighbor of
Jordan for over 13 years, a founder of the Jordan -Garland
Neighborhood Association, and sampled the opinions of some
of the 5,000 residents directly affected by the proposed
zoning. _The proposed rezoning would significantly increase
the intensity of use, the amount of noise and traffic in the
neighborhood. When the Site Disposition Committee appointed
by the PAUSD first discussed potential uses for the site,
one of the measures of intensity of use was the number of
parking spaces, The Committee had three :levels of inten-
sity: 350 spaces, 200 spaces, and 125 spaces, '\Today they
had a proposal for 325 spaces, close to the highest inten-
sity proposed in that entire hearing, and some of the
numbers went to 367 which was in the PAUSD original PF
proposal. A number of mitigations in the EIR said "manda-
tory," and it was a untenable to rationalize why "mandatory"
mitigations were not possible. Turning tennis courts into
parking spaces needed no further statement. There was no
assurance that the PAUSD would achieve its desired revenue
from the site; that 350 parking spaces would be needed; or
that the PAUSD would put its financial house in order.
Furthermore, they were asking for major, irreversible
changes in a neighborhood with no assurance the PAUSD needed
the funds. There had been no public audit of the finances
of the PAUSD. Major corporations were all downsizing While
the PAUSD was still running with full staff. He did not see
them cutting salaries, but cutting programs; reducing
schools, but not the administrative services. There were
other places for support, and the potential for other funds
such as the Utility Tax Which would be a good alternative.
_The Jordan/Garland community strongly opposed the proposed
Zoning changes and recommended that 1) either the Council
significantly reduce the level of the proposal to some
reasonable amount of parking, on. the order of 200 spaces
using the existing blacktop, and restrict the hours to some
reasonable time --8:00 a. rn. to 5:00 p.m., five days a week
would be more appropriate for a residential district; or 2)
turn down the proposals entirely. Dr. Crocker said before
the Planning Commission that he had only one objective: To
maximize revenue for the PAUSD, and he pointed out it was.
the responsibility of the City Council to represent all the
other needs of the City of Palo Alto and the community.
Council Member Cobb paid absent a zoning change that would
generate more income for the PAUSD and a Utility Users Tax
which would generate assured income from the site anti put it
in tie City's hand,` it -vat clear the site would probably be.
sold and houses developed on it. He asked if that wap the
preferred alternativet to the kinds of proposals before
Council.
57-156
5/04/87
Dr. Kahn believed a variety of answers would be found among
themembers of the Jordan/Garland community. While he pre-
ferred to preserve the Jordan site for the future, he did
not prefer Lo do so in sacrifice of his of his neighbors'
life-style. There was nothing more compatible with an R-1
residential district of single-family houses than single-
family housing itself.
Dr. Julian Crocker, Superintendent to the PAUSD, spoke on
behalf of the applicants and urged Council's approval of the
action' taken by the Planning Commission. It was hopefully
the concluding chapter of a long story that started two
years ago and grew out of a joint effort by the PAUSD and
City Council through the City/School Liaison Committee
attempting to provide more flexibility and options for the
PAUSD. He recollected one of the major issues at the ini-
tial meetings was the continual use of the Use Permit
process, and the difficulty the PAUSD had in finding proper
tenants under that process. One of the major efforts was to
find an alternative to that; therefore, they searched for
What was called a performance standard zone, looking at
generic issues in terms of the impact on the neighborhood as
opposed to specific uses. Over a long cooperative period,
they evolved the recommendation before Council which was a
general Use Permit. The PAUSD did not like everything in
the proposal, but in general was supportive. They asked
that Council adhere to its original interest in attempting
to find a solution for the site and approve that recommenda-
tion. They were particularly concerned that Council take
appropriate action quickly-- on the certification of the EIR.
In reviewing the discussions, particularly before the
Planning Commission, it occurred to him many tikes the PAUSD
had been painted in the position of maximizing the income.
It was more appropriate to talk about a "reasonable return."
If the PAUSD was interested in maximizing the income, they
would be looking more in terms of a million dollars plus for
that site- based on the "maximum commercial use in terms of
other areas of :he City. That was not the PAJSD's inten-
tion. They realized there had to be some accommodation to
the location, which was why they consistently spoke more in
terms of a $650,000 figure. The PAUSD budgeting process was
a very public process. The budget was -passed in public
every year, and members of the public had anopportunity to
review the documenttt The PAUSD was required, by law to have
an annual report, which was also a public documents People
who were concerned about .the PAUSD finances had ample oppor-
tunity for public review. He was encouraged by the obvious
show of support that evening for some .kind of revenue
measure from the district.
57--157
5/04/87
Council Member Fletcher understood the PAUSD hoped to lease
by the fall if the rezoning was approved. She asked how
that would affect a proposal to put the Utility tax on the
ballot.
Dr. Crocker said, from a policy issue, the most desirable
position for the PAUSD Board was to have as many options as
possible. The Board had not made a decision relative to any
kind of taxing measure, whether a lease arrangement with the
City or a parcel tax solely conducted by the PAUSD. Their
reason for wishing Council would continue on its action as
soon as possible was to have that kind of certainty, then
the Board could make its decision with more certainty as to
which alternative to pursue.
C. R. McEwen, 753 Garland Drive, said his neighbor, Mr.
Kunkel, sent a letter to the Council Members entitled,
"Retain existing PF regulations without modification for
Jordan and other school sites.' He concurred. They lived
contiguous to Jordan and had a personal interest, but they
were mindful of larger issues than personal comfort. The
PAUSD said their survival would be helped if the Jordan
property v=as turned over to businesses for a period of ten
years. They were the beneficiaries of good decisions made
by their. predecessors. In 1997, he asked if they would be
able to dislodge businesses or whether it would be more
appealing to the decision -makers to allow the region of 129
homes sandwiched between the Oregon Expressway and the
Jordan site to go commercial. He asked Council not to allow
Jordan to ao commercial now.
Paul Vado .alas, 829 Northampton Drive, wanted to maintain
the school site at Jordan for ten years to see whether it
would be useful as a school . at that time. He wanted to keep
the green area indefinitely as a recreational area for the
public. He had no objection to leasing the site for a
reasonable income to the PAUSD. The objection was to the
conversion of the tennis courts into a parking lot at the
end of Newell Road due to an environmental impact both
visually and on traffic. Traffic going down Newell would be
tremendous, and the reason to live in that residential area
would be removed.
Alison Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, Chairman of the Standing
Committee on the Arts and Sciences, brought a different
perspective but one sympathetic to the positions put forth
by the Jordan neighbors. Several years ago, they were
concerned about the need for facilities for art'; groups and
nonprofit, community -based groups and saw Jordan was
available. They never dreamed they would get as far as they
57-158
5/04/87
had with the Utility Tax as a possibility. They were
excited about that and felt there was strong community sup-
port for a solution which would benefit the community and
also enable the City as a whole to help finance further
needs for the schools. She assured the neighbors that "a
mini Fort Mason," was merely a shorthand term in connection
with the Utility Tax. From the beginning, their thought was
for low -density art and community use: rehearsals, storage,
etc., such as the ballet school and Peninsula Conservation
Center. She supported the general view in opposition to
rezoning except for a modification that would include such
groups. She believed it was an interest with which many of
the neighbors would agree on second thought. The Jordan
neighbors were not being self-serving but the spokesmen for
a strong community statement, i.e., they wanted the schools,
the community, and the City Council to work together to
solve the problem. They did not want self-serving, narrow,
short-sighted policies, such as in the tragedy of
Spangenberg Auditorium where a valuable resource was lost to
the community because of unrealistic high rentals and an
effort on the PAUSD to continue with a shortsighted manage-
ment plan for the facility. The site must not simply be
returned to single-family housing, and they had faith the
City Council could find a good solution.
Robert K, Otnes, 2160 Middlefield Road, realized the PAUSD
had a problem and hoped some form of taxation would be found
to solve it_, He was totally against any changes in zoning.
The only appropriate things were for the property to be used
as a school, park, or R--1. If he went before Council with a
hard -luck tale and the idea for asphalting his yard and
turning his home into dental offices, he would be laughed
out of the chamber s. There was nothing commercial on.
Middlefield between Embarcadero and Oregon and no reason why
there should be. Once started, it would be very difficult
to change. He would like to see. the PAUSD get more money,
but the proposal should be considered as a taxation on the
value of the surrounding property. The loss of the tennis
courts was a serious_ one to the neighborhood and community.
Traffic had become worse on Middlefield and the proposal
would r make it substantially worse. He would like to see
Council alleviate the serious traffic problem on
Middlefield. He asked if the rezoning was passed whether an
initiatiave would reverse it.
Leon Przyby1a, 2.101 Middlefield Road, was present at the
behest of his neighbors. They had livedin their house for
40 years and wanted to provide a safe place for their
grandchildren to visit. They were, greatly indebted to the
Palo Alto school system but believed Council was exacting
57-159
5/04/87
too high a price. He was a registered\control system
engineer and said a two-way signal could not be coordinated
with a four-way signal as was suggested between Oregon and
Embarcadero. They were violently opposed to the rezoning
issue before Council, particularly to the moving of the
traffic light:
Essie Bahrampour., 1430 Middlefield Road, was an architect
and urban designer. When he heard about the Jordan proposal
and the suggestions from the traffic engineers, he was sur-
prised to see ideas and concepts which were rejected in the
1960s come up in a forward City around Stanford University
which the world looked up to as a place of high- quality
living. The traffic problem on Middlefield Road was a prob-
lem for the whole City of e Palo Alto. Widening of
Middlefield Road would invite traffic on Middlefield Road
from as far _away as Mountain View and Sunnyvale and
traveling to Redwood City, creating another Alma Street or a
smaller version of 101. He equated the situation = to his
robbing a bank if he ran out of money. •
Betty McCroskey, 4158 Oak Hill, said it was important to be
aware that the EIR requirements mandated the basis for com-
parison of the alternatives with the current use of the
Jordan site, which was no use. Reasonably; they should be
comparing the use of Jordan as a middle school with other
proposed alternatives. She wanted to see one of the middle
schools, either Jordan or JLS, used as a nonprofit center
for community organizations, and the logical choice was the
Jordan site because -it was at the heart of the community and
had been used for community purposes for many years. Under
present zoning, the Palo Alto Ballet could become a tenant
at the Jordan site., but the Peninsula Conservation Center
could not. '°;he Palo Alto Chamber Orchestra had for years
been giving twilight concerts on Sundays at Jordan and wouul.d
like to continue. By accepting no change in the zoning,
they were elict4,nating Jordan as a viable nonprofit center.
Two recommendations by staff for modifications were good.
One was administrative offices of nonprofit organizations,
and she suggested the words "community based) might be
"which benefit the community." The second good reconimenda-
tion was storage, excluding warehousing, because performing
arts groups needed storage space for their sets. It was
alsd• in the community interest to provide additional time
for consideration before voting on- either the EIR. or
Glenn J. Warniof, 740 Northampton Drive, said in 1952 they
had the Crescent Park Woods Association which was . a similar
situation when the issue was raised of putting a shopping
57-160
5/04/87
center and Safeway on the Cultural Center location and a
police holding -station at Rinconada Park. Dr. Crocker first
told him the location would never be used as a school site
again, now he was not sure. Dr. Crocker also said there
were no complaints on the Cubberley site, which was
remarkable. He was comparing a two -street site with
commercial zoning ,with practically four active traffic
lanes, a parking lane, and a wide bicycle lane; a
substantial street to mitigate the traffic, but the traffic
could not be mitigated where they lived.
Susan Levenberg, 825 Garland Drive, presented petitions and
letters (on file in the City Clerk's office). She sympa-
thized with the PAUSD's financial problems and commended the
City Council for the utility users tax. She believed it was
an excellent idea because it raised needed funds `for the
PAUSD and removed them from the land use business. The
PAUSD was in the land use business mainly because of
declining enrollment send financial problems. While her
children would benefit from the PAUSD's- profits, the land
use at Jordan should not be changed just ,for that,.henefit.
Parking was a critical -issue ands must be addressed. The
utilities users tax should be given a chance. The PAO SD
should be removed from its cumbersome land use process which
did not afford as much public process as the City did. The
uses being proposed were general commercial categories which
would vary in intensity in any residential neighborhood.
If commercial uses were added, the neighborhood must be
afforded reasonable protection through individual use per-
mits. If the Comprehensive Plan was modified, the following
language should be added at the end of the italics which
appeared on page 5, "and preserve existing character of the
surrounding neighborhood."
Barbara Bowden, 2001 Middlefield Road, was concerned about
the City's abrogation of responsibility in enforcing traffic
regulations along Middlefield Road. None of the paperwork
reflected any constructive remedy to the existing overload
on Middlefield Road. She requested that Council take steps
to maintain the existing conditional use permit process and
support enforcement oU the 25 mile per hour speed limit.
She further requested people be cited for passing over the
double yellow line and for passing on the right of a
resident trying tel turn into .his or her driveway. Such
incidents occurred frequently.
Michele1 Gagliasso, 2064 Middlefield, associated himself with
the -comments of Ms. I3oWdenii Any decision to rezone -the
Jordan•property .was premature .given the possibility of the
utilities users .tax. The staff ,recommendation requested
57-161
5/04/87
Council find that the public benefits allowing retention and
reuse of the vacant school site with related recreational
facilities outweighed the potential unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts of the project on traffic and air
quality. He was disturbed flay the comment because the
rationale seemed to be that since traffic on Middlefield
Road was already excessive that another 2,000 to 3,000 car
trips per day would not be noticed. He suggested the public
benefit of retention.could be achieved without such a degree
of environmental impact if the PAUSD .lowered its
expectations -of the revenue to be derived from the site and
if sufficient restrictions were imposed upon the use of the
property by the Council. `ale requested Council deny the
application for rezoning and that the system of individual
use permits be retained. -
Diane Caton, 740 La Para Avenue, supported the rezoning
application. The PAUSD spent thousands of dollars on the
,EIR process and complied with all city requests. The appli-
cation should be decided independently of tax alternatives
currently being proposed. A lease arrangement was the last
recourse the PAUSD wanted to pursue short of sale of the
site. The rezoning application was fair to the PAUSD and
neighbors. She urged that Council adopt the unanimous
recommendation of the Planning Commission. The PAUSD was
audited every year, and in response to the allegation of
short -sited planning, Proposition 13 decimated the school
system's financial base. If it were not for the creative
use of the school's property, the financial problems would
be much worse. The sale of the Jordan site would be a
tragedy. The PAUSD was fundamental to property values and
the lifestyle of the community. It was threatened by the
Governor, legislator and ballot initiatives. The City must
support its schools which made Palo Alto so unique.
Odile de la Beaujardiere, 867 Garland Drive, believed it was
a mistake to close Jordan and would like to see it reopened
in the near future. The quality of education would improve
if the middle school was small. If the PAUSD believed they
had to keep the site closed, there was strong opposition in
Palo Alto for selling the site for houses, as evidenced by a
petition run two years Ago when 99 percent of the people
signing were opposed to selling the property. She perceived
the majority of the people approved the proposed zoning
change. The approval of the people was not manifested that
evening because most -did. not find the time to talk in favor
of the change. She would be in favor of the change -provided
it would Allow:. more flexibility of use, in particular a
lower impact _ in terms of parking, traffic, and noise. -The
rezoning was a good idea if it was necessary_ in order for
57-162
5/04/87
the site to be rented and if the overall impact was that of
a junior high school. She suggested the rezoning be in
phases so the parking lots would not be done unless thy
were necessary. She would like to avoid replacing the
tennis courts with parking lots and suggested waiting, espe-
cially in light of the new tax revenue possibilities.
Juanda Benson, 2301 Ross Road, said her opinions on the
changes in use were underpinned by her neighborhood observa-
tions about the way people lived in Palo Alto.. She had
misgivings about any use of the Jordan property that could
generate parking overflow into Garland Drive in particular,
but probably into all the neighborhoods, and the anxiety
drivers would have getting to the location in reasonable
time given the existing traffic problems. There was a
mini -growth spurt in Garland Drive because new families
moving in were generally two -career families with more cars
for gardeners, cleaners, and teenage drivers with no more
added parking spaces, andit had nothing to do with commer-
cial development. The residents felt they could use all the
parking they could get their hands on because none of the
houses had a wide frontage. Also, as people used the
streets for parking, they impeded street cleaning. The many
magnolia leaves did not get picked up by the sweeper and
were dangerous to cyclists, pedestrians, runners, etc.
Garland Drive, which ''was used as a shortcut to Louis or
Middlefield Roads, already had a traffic problem without any
development at the Jordan site. She asked Council to con-
sider carefully the EIR and the baseline from which they
started considering additions to traffic and parking prob-
lems.
Robert J. Debs, 3145 Flowers Lane, was also concerned with
the spread of commercialists along Middlefield Road. He
asked whether the proposed ordinances included the recom-
mendation of the consultant to widen Middlefield Road.
Vice Mayor Sutorius said the recommendation acted on by the
Planning Commission did not create the widening; there was a
declaration of overriding. benefits. All the material was
before Council, and technically Council could approve the
widening. .
Mr. Debs asked if the City could be faced annually with
another widening report.
Vice Mayor Sutorius said no.
57-163
5/04/87
Mme'. Debs said the traditional and knee-jerk solution by
traffic engineers was to widen intersections which fre-
quently ignored human quality of living. A perfect example
was the first bicycle path put in from East Meadow to
Charleston for Cubberley High School on Middlefield, and
that was not widened at all. Widening would solve nothing
except to create a tremendous expressway. He urged Council
to not approve the widening which would start an erosion of
housing quality all the way down Middlefield Road.
Trina Lovercheck, 107U McGregor Way, said school property
was an asset and a resource that belonged to the entire
PAUSD,e not just the neighborhood in which it was located.
She realized the Jordan/Garland Neighborhood had concerns
and wanted to retain a certain quality of life, but she
believed the PAUSD went through the process laid out by the
City and tried to work with the neighbors and incorporate
their concerns. She did not believe a particular neighbor-
hood should be allowed to keep the PAUSD from utilizing
their assets in a way that would provide the most benefit to
the entire school districts Other neighborhoods had to
accommodate to changes and also had concerns about the
changes. Many people in those areas said their fears were
not realized. It was not up to Council to decide the nature
or amount of the PAUSD financial situation. She asked
Council to certify the EIR and urged them to grant the
zoning modifications to the Jordan site so the PAUSD would
have the opportunity to generate a reasonable, if not maxi-
mum, amount of revenue to help solve their problems and pro-
vide the best possible education for all the children in the
community, now and in the future. She urged _those concerned
about the quality of the schools to join her in_eommuni--
cating with the Governor and other State legislators in
seeking funds from the State to properly and adequately
finance the schools. That would make the biggest difference
in the existing situation and possibly eliminate cutbacks.
Dexter B. Dawes, 350 Santa Rita Avenue, supported the
rezoning proposal -,and approval of the EIR. It was excellent
to have a private park, but the City as a whole and particu-
larly the PAUSD needed Jordan to subsidize their current
financial problems. The rezoning proposals went along with
the ideas studied in the Futurecast Committee for Quality of
Life. That Committee felt that most important for the City
was, the- PAUSD which brought in dynamic, and interesting
people and was one of the main underpinnings of the value of
houses. The Committee also pointed Cut the importance of
diversity, not only of people but .. also of business and
recreational amenities in Palo Alto. He urged strict uae
requirements for the facility, and a sensitive plan 'that
allowed nonprofits as well a►s --same. light -use business.
Paul Papathakis, 882 Southampton Drive, said the EIR spoke
levels of carbon monoxide in the area, but he did not under-
stand why the staff recommendation did not speak further to
the significant level of carbon monoxide. He pointed out
the significance of 325 locations to the parking problem.
The EIR stated there could be 367 parking spaces based on
the square footage and, also spoke of 225, but the Planning
Commission used 325 which would be the second-largest
parking facility in Palo Alto, exceeded only by Town and
Country, and should not be in the middle of a residential
area.
Monica Engel, 951 Bryant Street, said Council had her letter
(on file in the City Clerk's office). She asked the record
to reflect her support of the zoning changes. It was very
important for Council to consider the benefits of the whole
of Palo Alto rather than a vociferous few in the neighbor-
hood. The Planning Commission protected the Jordan neigh-
bors in the EIR. The neighbors said they objected to any-
thing that threatened to upset -the neighborhood, and she
wondered if they would approve any changes. Regarding traf-
fic concerns, they all. had traffic to contend with and
should remember they lived in a City not the country. They
moved to Palo Alto 15 years ago because of the school
system, and she was afraid if the zoning changes were not
approved, the PAUSD could be in jeopardy which would ulti-
mately.,result in the reduction of property values, including
those in the Jordan neighborhood. She urged Council to
consider rezoning the Jordan School site.
Naphtalie Knox, 1025 Forest Avenue, had off ices at 677 High
Street. He had endeavored over the last 13 months to be the
planning advisor to the PAUSD and its advocate in these- mat-
ters. As Council Member Cobb noted, they moved some dis-
tance from the concept of a . performance standard zone.
Howevere the PAUSD was not taking the position that it did
not like the idea presented, the idea was strange and dif-
ferent from what it was used to.' City staff and the
Planning Cormission took their efforts of the past 13 months
and molded them into a. different, but positive and useful.
package. The-PAUSD took the position that the zoning amend-
ment should go forward. The proposed PF(1) method was
reasonable. Changes made by staff and the Planning
Commission restricted and narrowed the 'potential uses.
Those changes automatically lowered the impacts from -what
the EIR assessed. -The PAUSD was willing to work with the
PF(1) zone and to make it work. Although EIR comment No. 25
refponded regarding the traffic signal on Middlefield and
California, the PAUSD reminded the Council that the reloca-
Lion of -that signal was not a_ required environmental
57-165
5/04/87
mitigation but was placed on as a condition by staff. In
the view of the PAUSD, the SIR should be certified. The
PAUSD and participating community members spent a lot of
time and money on the matter. The statements of overriding
consideration obviously were important. In the staff
report, page., 5C, use category No. 1 was recommended for
modification to eliminate the words "community based," and
the PAUSD concurred with and supported that but hoped
Council would go further and request elimination of the
words "nonprofit." The impacts and effects were the same
regardless of whether the organization was smaller than non-
profits. Perhaps the major objective was to open up the
window to let the PAUSD tap more potential lessees than it
otherwise could and saying. "nonprofit" closed down the
window. On pages 5 and 6, the PAUSD supported the findings
on Item D with some modifications. Conditions 1 and 2
relating to the traffic signal should be eliminated. The
PAUSD believed the City should, if it wished to move the
signal/ move it and pay tor -it. At the very least, the City
and the PAUSD should be talking about splitting the costs.
In Condition 2, the PAUSD should not be required to put up a
bond, but perhaps put up a bong for half the amount if a
split could be negotiated. In Condition 5h, the PAUSD
wanted clarification that phasing would be allowed, and that
implementing Condition 9 would also acknowledge and accom-
modate phasing. Finally, page 7, Condition 10, provision
should. be made for phased occupancy and, in turn, allowing
the PAUSD to comply with phased occupancy on a phased.
basis.
Avril Wiisher, 1085 Emerson Street, endorsed. Dr. Crocker's
support for the proposals in the Master Plan. She believed
the neighborhood opposing the changes in zoning was holding
the PAUSD and the City ransom. They should be realistic.
The community could not afford another $650,000 loss of
income from the site/ plus a possible $100,000 maintenance
cost. The whole of Palo Alto was a neighborhood. If the
PAUSD wept bankrupt so did the citizens because part of
their housing value relied on the PAUSD. She favored a
scaled -down version of the Fort Mason Center which would
culturally enhance the whole Palo Alto community. A On -
trolled use of the property, - excluding a Safeway, would in
the near` €uture be preferable to a partial leasing or, in
the long term, no leasing at all.
Vice Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by
Renzel, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation as
amended:
57-166 5/04/87
MOTION CONTINUED
Environmental
1. Find that it has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final EIR prepared for the Jordan
Middle School site;
2. Certify the Final EIR as complete; and
3. Continue the action on the zoning and use of the Jordan
site until immediately after the Palo <o Unified
School District Board has made a definitive decision on
the type of school financing program it decides to
pursue.
Council Member Renzei clarified by certifying the EIR
Council was not saying they approved or disapproved any par-
ticular mitigations or findings of overriding benefit. It
was clear from the many citizens present that the EIR
identified all the potential impacts of a variety of
scenarios for the Jordan site, and that was the easy part of
the decision. Further actions were more complex as wit-
nessed by the variety of concerns raised. With respect to
the continuance, it made sense to wait until Council saw
what course of action would be taken to finance the PAUSD in
terms of an election to. raise money. If the City envied up
as lessee, it might dictate a different course of action.
She supported the motion.
Mr,. Schreiber clarified the motion included Page 4 of the
staff report (CMRr229:7), recommendations No. 1 and 2.
Staff maintained a list of comments made during ,the public
hearing that evening and did not believe any of the comments
raised issues not covered in the EIR or that needed addi-
tional supplemental information.
Council Member Cobb -emphasized that certifying the EIR as
complete was a long step from agreeing mitigations could be
overlooked or should be undertaken. It was siai%ply a set of
data that said it certain things were done., certain things
would happen. Council had to decide at some : la ter date that
if the zoning changes were made, Council would either over-
-look or require certain mitigations. The EIR was a body of
information that told how serious an impact would be on the
environment from the proposed uses. The City/School Liaison
Committee was working on the utilities users -tax to see if
the concept could be brought forward for voter considera-
tion, and that was one way to "preserve" the. Jordan site.
57-167
5/04/87
The issue needed to he resolved and decided. The parcel tax
and utilities users tax were both reasonable choices. If
the• PAUSD chose the parcel tax, obviously Council should
vote on the zoning question. If the PAUSD chose the
utilities users.tax, it was inconsistent for the PAUSD to
try to lease the site while Council was trying to.cunvince
the voters to pass a tax which would keep the site in.public
hands. It would be the City's .problem as the ultimate
lessor to decide how the site would be used with input from
the public. He supported the motion.
Council Member Klein agreed with the positions advanced by
Council Members Renzel, Cobb, and Patitucci. Some members
of the public indicated the zoning issue before Council was
either the Planning Commission recommendation or nothing
which was not .the case. Existing zoning on the property
allowed various uses by the PAUSD and any tenants it_ might
find. The PAUSD's position was the existing zoning was not
flexible'enough. The EIR process was complex and created
confusion and uncertainty. The process tried to identify
all the environmental ,problems and suggested various solu-
tions to those problems. The lead agency, i.e., the City
Council,_ when it considered an EIR G�nd moved forward to the
action item, could make findings of overriding concern.
Just because an EIR proposed something, e.g., the widening
of Middlefield, the Council was not beholden to do that and
could find reasons for the public good not to do so,. He
could not imagine the Council voting to widen Middlefield
Road. He urged his colleagues to vote in favor of the
motion.
Vice Mayor Sutorius endorsed some of the amplifying comments
regarding the nature of the EIR process. --Council was not
required to dot every 'i" and cross every "t," and a panel
of professionals unanimously agreed the document had every-
thina nailed down. Council was responsible for finding the
document adequate even if there was disagreement on some
elements. One of the review documents commented that the
courts had not- looked for perfection but for adequacy,
completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure.
The documentation and public processes would support that.
Council Member Bechtel was concerned about scheduling.
MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO INCORPORATE, "THE NEXT
REASONABLY -SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING'
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley "not participating,"
Levy absent.
57-168
5/04/87
11. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF
REIMER ASSOCIATES FOR SITE AND DESIGN APPROVAL FOR A
TENNIS COURT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE 700 BLOCK LOS
TRANCOS WOODS ROAD (300) _..
Planning Commission Vice Chairman Helene Wheeler said the
majority of the Planning Commission agreed with the staff
findings and recommendations about the appropriateness of
the site and suitability of the proposed tennis court and
its general conformance with previously -approved plans for
the common area. The two members of the Planning Commission
who voted in opposition to the application raised issues of
the visibility of the court from the Foothills Park area and
questioned whether the intensive recreational use was truly
in conformance with previously -approved plans.
Council Member Renzel recollected the whole area was
underlaid with greenstone formation which did not permit
trees and shrubs to grow easily or to great heights. The
siting of homes within the subdivision was looked at closely
because it had to utilize existing landscaping as a screen
for Foothills Park. She questioned whether any research was
done as to whether the greenstone formation also underlay
the area proposed for the tennis court, because that might
affect the visual screen suggested by the report.
Zoning Administrator . Bob Brown assumed greenstone underlay
the site and said it was possible . to grow substantial plant
sizes, as demonstrated on the next-door property, with the
import of a substantial amount of new topsoil. If trees
were planted in large holes with a lot of good material,
they would grow adequately.
Council . Member Renzel asked if part of the requirement for
-the screening of the tennis court was that particular kind
of planting be done.
Sarah Cheney, Environmental Assessment, expected the issue
to be addressed in the final landscape plan required as a
condition of approval for the project.
Council Member Renzel asked if the area had been graded with
a permit.
Mr. Brown said yes; when the plans originally - came through
for the roadway and detention pond, the area was shown as
being leveled.
57-169
5/04/87
MOTION: Vice Mayor Su for us moved, seconded by Cobb,
moved to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation
finding that:
1. The proposed design will ensure the construction and
operation of the site in a manner that will be orderly,
harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential
uses of adjoining or nearby sites in that development of
the common area of the subdivision with a tennis court
will provide a recreational benefit for property owners
and will be screened from view off -site;
2. The project will ensure the desirability of investment
in adjacent areas by providing a subdivision amenity;
3. The proposed design will ensure that sound principles of
environmental design and ecological balance be
preserved by the placement of the court to blend with
existing site topography and placement of landscaping to
help screen the court from view;
4. The proposed recreational facility is in compliance with
intended uses for the are in compliance with the
provisions of tie Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; and
Recommend approval of the site and design application with
the following conditions:
1. Submit a. final landscape plan and irrigation plan to the
Planning Department for review and approval prior to
application for a building permit. Said plan shall
identify all species to be plant+d by both common and
botan;cal name and shall identify all size of specimens
to be installed. Said landscaping shall be installed
prior to final inspection of the tennis court.
2. Submit a final grading and drainage plan to the Public
Works Department for review and approval, 30 days prior
to filing for building permit application.
Mayor Woolley supported the motion. She believed the allow-
ance for the additional impervious cover was made long ago
when the lots were planned, grading was primarily accom-
plished, and visibility had been carefully considered.
Council Member Renzel opposed the application partially
because of concerns about the ability to screen, and
because the area was environmentally sensitive. It did not
seem essential to place a tennis court in the Foothills and
would be more appropriate for people in the Hewlett
subdivision to use existing tennis courts elsewhere and
utilize for exercise the tremendous assets of the Foothills
ar�:a trail systems available.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Renzel voting *no," Levy
absent.
12. ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.10.050(d) OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE EXTENDING THE HC:JRS OF OPERATION FOR
SOLICITORS AND PEDDLERS (CMR:233:7) (409)
Lis Van Dusen, 1022 Forest Avenue, Director of Marketing,
Cable Co -Op, spoke in support of the ordinance and thanked
staff for the work put into the matter.
Council Member Patitucci asked for clarification of the
ordinance that limited solicitation to 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Zaner said the ordinances were typical ist cities
-throughout California. In the late 1950s and 1960s • model
ordinances -went out all over the State with fairly uniform
hours, and 6:00 p.m. was selected as a reasonable• hour
beyond which people should not be bothered- in their homes.
The hour could have as easily been 7:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m.
Mayor Woolley said the City had no way of cutting off
-solicitations from a religious organization, political, or
charitable organization, because of a Supreme Court decision
on interference with free speech. The City had -limits for
commercial purposes.
Council Member Bechtel believed 6:00 p.m, was chosen because
of safety and darkness and was a compromise, but people were
not at home before 6:00 p.m.
MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by
Fletcher. to approve the ordinanoe.
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING
SECTION 4.10.050(d) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL
COD2 EXTENDING THE HOURS OF OPERATION ?OR
SOLICITORS AND PEDDLERS"
Council Member Rehzel supported the ordinance but inquired
whether the iiYensing procedure was routine. -
57 -171
5/04/87,
Mr. Bennetti said a detailed application was required of
solicitors and peddlers to get a permit and a check was done
by the Police Department. They did not discriminate as to
the merchandise sold but checked on the background of the
individual solicitors. Permits had been denied.
Council Member Patitucci opposed the ordinance. Six o'clock
p.m. signified the beginning of the evening and dinner hour,
and he did not like the phone ringing or people knocking at
his door after he made the decision to end his business day.
He preferred to see the ordinance modified to the 6:00 p.m.,
time. There was nothing to stop telephone solicitations any.
time, and he suspected that was probably the more appropri-
ate way to market services.
Mayor Woolley agreed with Council Member Patitucci. While
she supported the efforts of the Cable Co -Op, she was
hesitant to open up solicitation to all commercial vendors
until 8:00 p.m., which was a real invasion of privacy. She
would not support the motion.
Council Member Fletcher had mixed feelings because she did
not welcome straight commercial ventures at the door, but
when the previous ordinance was passed, there was usually
someone home during the day which was not the case anymore;
therefore, it was practically. impossible to reach someone
before 6:00 p.m. Under the circumstances, the modification
to the ordinance was necessary.- Council could reconsider in
the future if there was a problem:
MOTION FILED by a vote of 3-5, Renzel, Bechtel, Fletcher
voting waye,' Levy absent.
MOTION: Council Meer Patitucci moved, seconded by
Sutoiius, to direct staff to draft an ordinance to allow no
I persons to solicit or peddle for commercial information
II 6:00after p.m
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Bechtel, Fletcher voting
no,° Levy absent.
12-A (OLD ITEM 5) ' CONTRACT FOR 1986-87 WITH COUNCIL FOR THE
ARTS PALO ALTO AND MIDP.ENINSULA AREA (CA►PA) CAP?,
COMMUNITY BOX OFFICE (CMR:237:7) (1303-01)
Council Member Klein said the staff report (CMR:237:7)
seemed inconsistent with the contract. He asked fore.
clarification of the per . ticket price, whether the $10,400
was a ceiling, and what the City paid.
57-17.2
5/04/87
Director of the Division of Arts and Sciences, Leon Kaplan,
said the 50 cents in the staff report was an average. The
actual fees for the 'ale of tickets were 40 cents for a
subscription and 60 cents for individual tickets, The
$10,400 was not a ceiling. The more A ttendance and tickets
sold, the greater the ticket fee; however, there was an
offsetting revenue for those fees.
Mayor Woolley asked where the revenue came from if the
Childron1s Theatre should sell more tickets than that amount
covered.
Mr. Kaplan clarified for every person who attended a
Children's Theatre production and bought a ticket, there was
a 40 -cent or 60 -cent charge. If 20,800 people came, which
was the projection when the report was written, the expected
charge for the sale of those tickets was $10,400. The
$10,400 was an estimate.
Mr. 2aner - said there was no •urgency► on the item and
requested it be continued until a clearer staff report was
available. -
MOTION* Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Woolley,
to continue the item to a date to be determined by staff.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
57-173
5/04/87