Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-10-05 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting PALO ALTO CITY COUNCI LMEETIac49. TL 1 ZSU-FAF_OUENCY9O.i ON FM DIAL PAGE ITEM Oral Communications Consent Calendar 58-328 58-329 1. Contract with Cognos Corporation for Fourth Generation Language Software for 58-329 HP3000 Computer 2. Contract with Ambo Engineering, Inc., for 58-329 Public Facilities Site Access for the Dis- abled 3, Ordinance 3771 Amending Title 21 (The Subdivision Ordinance) Regarding Lot Line Removals Between Four or Fewer: Lots in the R-1 and R72 Zones 58-329 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 58-330 10'. European Auto Repair Shop, 1001 Emerson 58-330 Street 4. Planning Commission and Architedtural 58-330 Review.}ioard Recommendation re Application of S. ti. gocook, Architect, Inc., for a Zone Change from RMw-2 ari_d F CN to PC for a Proposed 122 -Unit Residential Care Facil7 ity for the Elderly, for Property Located at 4047, 4075, and 4Q85 El Camino Way (Continued from 9/21/87) Recess from 9:30 p.m. to 9:44 p.m - 58 -326 10/05/87 ITEM PAGE 5. Planning Commission Recommendation re Application of Thomas J. Rees for a Non - Conforming Use Exception, to Allow Con- tinued Commercial Use Beyond September 11, 1998, for Property Located at 470 Olive Avenue (Continued from 9/21/87) 6.- Resources Board, Planning Commission, and Visual Arts Jury Recommendation re the Urban Design Work Program and Budget Amendment Ordinance (Continued from 9/21/87) 7. Ordinance for 1st Reading Amending Chapter 6.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Strengthen.and Clarify Procedures Concern- ing Dangerous Animals (Continued from 9/21/87) 8. League of California Cities Annual Confer- ence Resolution - Further Information on Resolutions 19 and 28 58-347 58-349 58-349 58-350 9. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the 58-350 Fiscal Year 1987-88 -to Provide an Addi- tional Appropriation for the Gamble Property Capital Improvement Project 11. Request of Mayor Woolley re Cancellation of October 13, 1987,. City Council Meeting Adjournment at 9:50 p.m. 58-351 58-351 Regular Meeting Monday, October 5, 1987 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:34 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein (arrived at 7:37 p.,m. ), Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley -- ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Irene Giovaccnini, 5-00 San Mateo Drive, Menlo Park, was the honorary beautification commissioner at large for Menlo Park and was interested in the -leaf blower issue. She hoped Palo Alto's leaf blower initiative would pass because Menlo Park always followed Palo Alto's lead. While some people depended on gardeners, she referred to the situation where there were three working at the same time on the same block and the resultant decibel readings. She believed it took less time to use a rake. She suggested gardeners be allowed ten minutes of blowig time. 2. Greg Van Wassenhove; Santa Clara County Agriculture Commissioner, 3838 La Donna, referred to an infestation of Oriental fruit flies in the College Terrace area. Eradication would begin on October 6, 1987. The treat- ment was different from that of the traditional Med-fly or gypsy moth. Treatment occurred from the street side, dollar -size baits were applied to telephone poles and street trees at a rate of about 600 bait stations per square mile. The bait contained a male attractant and was laced with a finite amount of pesticide which killed the male fly as it was attracted to the bait. It was called a "Male Annihilation Technique" because the bait was so powerful it overrode the male's instinct to ,ate and left all the females in the area unmated. It was previously successful in Sunnyvale in 1985, and it was pre-sently being used in Los Angeles County. The situa- tion was serious to the point where representatives of Japan met in Los Angeles that day with the Agricultural Commissioner and they were considering a blanket quaran- tine on the agriculture products in California because of the six infested areas in Southern California, They wanted to avoid .a quarantine program_ -in the Palo Alto area. -One square mile would be treated on October 4, 1987, and the remaining 7.5 square -mile treatment area on October 7,- 197 It was expected that the crews_ 58-328 10/05/87 would take three to four days every two weeks for four applications. Then they would wait until three genera- tions of the fly passed without finding a fly. 3. Hal Hudson, 535 Everett Street, referred to participants in Hpublic hearings and suggested as the cards were handed to the City Clerk, they be put face down, then they would be in the general order of requests. Regarding the five-minute Jimit, people who spoke to the Council mostly had their material generally well pre- pared. Finished public speakers knew exactly what they wanted to say concisely and succinctly; others had a list of things and hoped to get through as many as pos- sible; others organized their material and built it in such a way that their final half minute would, hope- fully, clinch what they were proposing. There:was no way a speaker in that position could know how time was passing. He suggested there be a five-minute„ timer which would be triggered by the City Clerk at tte time each speaker started to talk, and it would have what the manufacturers of kitchen -timers called a "single ding," which meant one ring or, perhaps, a soft ren inder _ tone at the end of tour minutes. Then, the speakers would have the opportunity to complete their presentations. He believed that people who participated in public hearings did so with some trepidation, and they needed all the help they could get. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Consent Calendar. 1. CONTRACT WITH COGNOS CORPORATION FOR FOURTH GENERATION LANGUAGE SOFTWARE AND MAINTENANCE SUPPORT FOR HP3000 COMPUTER (270-02) (CMR;467 ) 2. CONTRACT WITH AMBO ENGINEERING/ INC. FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES SITE ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED (801-07) (CMR:484:7) 3. ORDINANCE 3771 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CIT` C. PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE_:: 21 (THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE) _ REGARDING LOT LINE REMOVALS BETWEEN FOUR OR FEWER LOTS IN THE R-1 AND R-2 ZONES (1st Reading 9/21/87, PASSED 8-0, Fletcher absent) (701-03/NPG) MOTION PASSED unanimously. 58-329 10/05/87 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Sutoriva, to bring forward Item 10, European 'auto Repair Shop. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 10. EUROPEAN AUTO REPAIR SHOP, 1001 EMERSON STREET (300) Council Member Bechtel noted that some of the neighbors of the European Auto Repair Shop requested a continuance. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, to continue Item 10, European Auto Repair Shop, to a date to be determined by staff. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF B. H. BOCOOK FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM RM-2 (LOW DENSITY.. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDEN- TIAL) AND CN (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) TO PC (PLANNED) COMMUNITY) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4047, 4075 AND 4085 EL CAMINO WAY (300) (CMR:483;7) Mayor Woolley said the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Bechtel, to adopt the recommendationsof the Planning Commission to rezone the subject property to Plr r ed Community (PC) based on the environmental, land use, and Comprehensive Plan policy considerations and adopt the Ordinance for first reading, as amended below, with the findings and conditions; and direct the City Attorney to prepare and the City Manager to execute an agreement with the developer to implement the condition in Section 3(b)2 of the Ordinance taking into con- sideration the parameters outlined in (CMR:459:7). Add Item 9 to Section 3(a): 9. The developer shall establish and administer a program which shall give preference for occupancy to Palo Alto residents and their families. MOTION CONTINUED Add Item 17 to Section 3(b) : 17:. The developer shall be responsible for the costs , of undergrounding and service conversions for electric, telephone and street lighting for all such services now provided by . utility Poles 401 and 402 on El. Camino Way, such undergrounding to extend to but not to include removal of Utility Pole 403. Add Item 18 to Section 3(b): 18. Notwithstanding any of the provisions of AMCQ 9.10, construction hours will be limited to Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; Saturdays, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and Sundays and Holidays, no construction. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 4047 EL CAMINO WA3t... FROM RM-2 AND CN TO PC" Vice Mayor Sutorius said in regard to the undergrounding, a multi -utility pole line extending from Meadow and El Camino Way actually terminated one property beyond the subject pro- perty of the application. There was no practical way in which undergrounding could occur for all of El Camino Way because of the feeder and distribution cables associated with the electric utility that ruled out a undergrounding district at the time for that area. He believed an impor- tant beautification step of benefit to the neighborhood and the subject properties was to have -the poles,removed and all utility services undergrounded. To look for additional pub- lic benefits was part of the responsibility of reviewing a project under a PC. The condition with respect to construc- tion hours narrowed considerably the hours otherwise avail - .able for construction activity in the CN zone, also from residential construction and, most particularly, it relieved the neighbors from any imposition`on Sundays and holidays. He considered long and hard:the nature of the project, the concerns. expressed, and the evolution of the project.-- The neighbors and applicant could be commended for the process they followed in informing one another, of adjusting, and accommodating. Staff; the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and the Planning Commission did a remarkable job. 58-331 10/05/87 The Planning Commission and the ARB had, among its members, some of the most sensitive citizens in the .community who were aware of residential concerns and their actions. He believed the motion represented a reasonable balance on the contentious issues. There were residual concerns and under- standable disappointments, some on the part of the developer/applicant and some on the part of the neighbors. He had many personal experiences relevant to the nature of the proposed facility. His oldest son was a nurse practi- tioner, nurse clinician, and a member of the faculty at Case -Western Medical School. His daughter initiated and conducted a library on wheels for the City and County of San Francisco for an outreach program for seniors and the dis- abled to provide a sense of independence and support when peopis. were not really independent. Through the -Inter- governmental Council of Santa Clara County, he was a director of the County Council on Aging. Likewise, he was appointed by Supervisor McKenna to the Senior Care Task Force -which produced recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors to establish an ongoing Senior Care Commission. In those processes, he talked with with state, federal, and county officials, experts and professionals in the fields of licensing, medical services, medical care, and social ser- vices. The theme throughout was best expressed at the Council's last meeting in the words and experiences of Ellen Wyman and Dr. Bortz. His own mother-in-law was an indepen- dent woman, wanted to be in and around the environment of her 19 great grandchildren, but could no longer exclusively care for herself. That proposed facility was the type she sought. Dr. Bortz was the doctor Who cared for his mother and who helped find her final home, and he was impressed with the knowledge, attitude., and concern he brought to the subject. He` believed the project would be a success. It was desperately needed and would serve the community well. He looked forward to a prompt construction completion and occupancy. He hoped and believed the facility would be well used by Palo Alto residents. He would support the project. MAKER AND SECOND OF MAIN MOTION INCORPORATED THE FOLLOWING ADDITION: *SECTION 6. In the event that Section 3, subparagraph (a)9 of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be unconstitu- tional or .unlawful, such decision shall no.t affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or any part thereof." 58-332 10/05/87 Council Member Bechtel agreed with dice Mayor Sutorius in terms of the need. The developer also worked with the sur- rounding neighbors and reduced the project by six units; met the guidelines of the R-2 zone in all respects; and was willing to move ahead to provide extensive landscaping. She asked the applicant to describe some of the landscaping plans in an effort to protect the residents. Bob Peterson, Landscape Architect, said the planting along the rear property line was the major concern of the neigh- bors. The plans showed a predominance of evergreen, moder- ately fast-growing trees. The purpose .of the landscaping was not to completely screen out the buildings but rather to soften them. The planting addressed mainly the open space in each garden and the purpose in the selection of plants was, as the trees matured, to not cast long shadows across the rear property lines in the backyards of neighbors. They believed they worked with the neighbors in developing the landscaping plans but would be receptive to meeting with representatives of the neighborhoods to work out on an indi- vidual basis for each of the lots the exact soil location and selection of the plants. The plant material would aver- age 18 to 20 feet after five years. Council Member Bechtel believed the project would be benefi- cial for the community in the long term. The project had the unanimous support of to Planning Commission and ARB. She encouraged support Council Member Cobb queried whether the City could mandate that screening be provided to give protection to the adja- cent neighbors and how it could be done without being overly precise. He asked whether the City could mandate that the landscaping plan was the baseline to be expected by the people who lived next door to the project, and whether it needed to be done by motion. Chie f '°Planning Official Carol Jansen said Council could man- date that the landscaping pi:an was the baseline to' be expected. The final landscaping plan would be approved by the ARB so there was flexibility in the choice of plant materials and their location. Council's comments, the -fact that the landscaping plan .would go to the ARB for final approval, and the fact that the. landscape plan was now shown on the plans were sufficient. Council Member Cobb asked whether the .drawing which illus- trated daylight plane situations accurately represented that the project was well within the daylight plane compared to what could be built under existing zoning. 58-333 10/05/87 Ms. Jansen said the plan complied to the letter of the day- light plane requirements within the RM-2 district. PC zones were required to comply with the general development regula- tions of the district it was closest to. Coune:il Member Cobb said one of the major concerns had to do with the problem of reversion. As it was presently, Council would expect the parking situation relative to the type of occupancy was more than adequate. In the event the project failed and there was some effort by the present or future owners to revert the site back to _ apartment use, there would be a serious parking problem.'.He queried whether there were any protections the City could build -in beyond those already existing in the PC zone. Senior Assistant City Attorney Tony Bennetti said essen- tially the zone required that the property be used as a residential care facility so that any change in use would return to a future Council who would then be free to amend the zone. He believed Council Member Cobb queried there being some indication of the present Council's intent to show where the additional parking would be added if the use changed. A map could be laid out for a future Council to follow in requiring increased parking of any changed use. Council Member Cobb clarified Council cool) require a plan which would indicate what would happen and how. the City would accomplish bringing the site into conformance with the zoning if the .site went.., to some other use. While the plan could .be built into the record, some future Council could change it, but at least it would be a tangible and strong indication by the present Council that the protection be required. Mr. Bennetti said that was correct. The plan could be built into the conditions such that it would take an amendment to delete it.: AMENDMENT; Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Eenzei, that the project be reduced by 5,000 square feet in the second and third .stories., and that the OMR requirement be waived. Council Member Patitucci said nothing had happened to change his point of view on the project... He believed there was a need for such a facility, but he, was concerned about what trade-offs Council should make for the public benefit in a PC zone. His limits on the trade -'offs were constrained by the existing zoning. Overall, with a reduction of 5,000 square feet,. it brought the project mass into: a limitation 58-334 10/05/87 equivalent to what Council approved for downtown develop- ment:, i.e., a 1:1 floor area ratio (FAR) . The project was currently over a 1:1 FAR for the entire site. He believed the trade-off being made for the PC zone was the opportunity for additional family housing or some neighborhood commer- cial in the area in favor of the residential care facility, In addition, the proposed PC zone permitted a more excessive use of the site ---a trade-off which went further than he would go. In terms of what it did to the project's finances, if the City of Palo Alto was accountable for the project's success or failure or it regulated the profit of the developer, he would be concerned about the impact. Having been on all sides of such issues as a developer, lender, and as a Council Member, Council needed to decide what it wanted. If the developer filled the project and raised prices 20 pe"cent to increase profits, it would be his right. The opposite question was whether it was legiti- mate to propose that because the City reduced the square footage that it somehow spread the cost of the land and increased the cost per unit. It was not Council's concern. Council needed to be concerned about how the project _met the City's overall impressions and judgments about how the PC zone should be used. He favored the project but believed it was a little too dense both for the use of the site and for its impact on the neighborhood. Council Member Renzel concurred with Council Member Patitucci. An additional trade-off was that the traditional uses provided on such zones would require significantly more parking which in itself acted as a development constraint. She found the parking issue to be the most difficult one related to the project.. She had a residential care home next door to her and saw the nature of people .who visited, how long they stayed, the vacancy rates, and how long they took to fill. While there was a great need for the type of care proposed, it was at such an income and price level below what was being offered. While economics were not Council's concern, when Council changed zoning and allowed the density proposed, it needed to recognize the possibility that it would .change in time. Evidence' was presented that there -were many such units, both in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, with fairly significant vacancy.rates. A new major project, if successful, would probably close down some of the others. She did not believe the project would result in an overall net increase in the availability of .such care. She was concerned about the neighborhood. The.. first priority of the Comprehensive Plan was to protect R-1 neighborhoods, and a high priority for the whole community was to protect the quality -of life. The project was located on the south side of the Wilkie Way neighbors which meant in 58-335 10/05/87 winter the sun was low in the sky and would be behind the building. In the summer even when the sun was high in the sky, it would be in the south and the building would have a significant effect on sunlight. The proposal to screen the building actually put tall trees between the neighbors and the building thereby increasing the shadow on the south side neighbors. While the landscaping was prettier to look at than the building, the solution was actually a significant intrusion on the neighbors and their quality of life. There were extensive discussions about what' might happen on El Camino Way and how the neighborhood would be buffered and how there would be small neighborhood shops to serve them. All those things were being cast to the wind with the pro- posal and she believed the City had to get something back to the neighbors. The Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study might have produced changes to some of the issues being discussed. She did not believe it was fair to the neighborhood, which already had one. major project put.over its back fence, to have another without getting some sig- nificant trade-offs. She supported the neighborhood. Council Member Levy opposed the amendment. The' -project con- formed to existing zoning in terms of bulk on the residen- tial portion of the property. He believed reducing the project by 5,000 square feet was arbitrary and would not accomplish anything in terms of the existing zoning and what the alternatives would be for the neighbors if the project was not approved. The proposed PC zone did not fill the daylight plane to the maximum the zoning allowed.. The proj- ect provided benefits over and above the fundamental bene- fits. There was a need for care of the frail and elderly in the community. The project would be less noisy than alter- native projects and would provide less traffic than if it was developed based on current zoning. Although economics was not the City's concern, he shared the concerns that if the project failed, it would revert to the original zoning, which meant a lot of changes. In terms of what would go on the site if the` proposed project was not approved, it was a tough transitional area which had not been successful for many kinds of neighborhood commercial activities. The proj- ect filled a need and would be a better neighbor to an R-1 zone thane having the mix- of multi -family residential use and the nebulous kind of neighborhood commercial use which would likely result. . Council Member Cobb queried whether the people who had t� live with the project would be betteroff with it or with what could and would be built under the existing zoning. He referred`to delivery trucks, and it seemed to him a neigh- borhood commercial eone .on El Camino Way would generate a 58-336 10/05/87 lot more commercial traffic than deliveries associated with the proposed project, If the site remained as an elderly care facility, the traffic impacts overall should be small. The concern was what happened. if the project reverted to something else, and Council needed to toughen that plan. The project was less of an impact _in every. wayexcept square footage. The reason for the larger square footage was because of the nature of the use but the bulk of the project in terms of setbacks and daylight planes were less than existing zoning. If there could be assurances that the. use of the site would remain the same, the project might well be the most benign use. If the amendment passed, the practical effect would be to kill the project. e If that happened and they reverted back to existing zoning, regardless of whether it was sold or developed under the present. zoning, - he assumed the property would be -developed to the maximum pos- sible for the existing zoning, which might well be a more intrusive neighbor than what was planned. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Renzel, Fletcher, Patitucci voting "aye." AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to add at the end of SECTION 3, 15a, after the word "facilities,* the following: *and continuous offer and supply of free transit passes for employees be required." Council Member _Fletchersaid the precedent was the develop- ment Council approved with the requirement that the appli- cant supply parking permits to the employees. She con- sidered the, transit passes to be compaeable. She would leave the exact wording to the City Attorney's office. Council Member Bechtel was not certain the amendment was appropriate for the ordinance. She supported encouraging transit and making it available and it seemed the other, parts of the ordinance did that. The word "continuous" could mean in perpetuity and might not be appropriate. Council r Member Levy asked whether "free transit passes" meant Santa Clara and San Mateo counties or whether it went beyond to Caltrans or whatever other kinds of transit systems there might be. . Council Member Fletcher intended for it to mean any system. For instance, if someone took the train and then took the bus, or took SamTrans as far as it went and then changed to Santa Clara County Transit, she did not see a big distinc- tion because the employerswhoprovided transit passes did not distinguish among the various transit agencies. 58-337 10/05/87 Council Member Levy asked about the associated costs. Council Member Fletcher had not worked it out but knew it cost a: lot more for the train than for the bus. The City was concerned about reducing the need for. parking. She expected a few of the employees might make use of the transit passes. There was continuous ten-minute headway service on E1 Camino so transit was available. In terms of not' writing the amendment into the ordinance, she suggested the word "continuous" be changed. She did not want the tran t passes to be offered just when the project opened and then forgotten about. If the requirement was not written into the ordinance, it would not happen. Council Member Levy endorsed the basic concept and he agreed only_ a few individuals would take advantage of the offer. He tended to think the costs would be a lot less than pro- viding --a parking space underground. He was concerned that the transit passes were likely to be transferrable and simply become another case of remuneration tor every employee, which was not the intent. If the amendment could be changed to read a "nontransferrable transit pass," he would prefer that language. Vice Mayor Sutori us concurred. with Council Members Bechtel and Levy and was concerned about the broadness of the amend- ment. If Council Member Fletcher reviewed the action Council previously took with the. Arabian Horse World facility in the California Avenue area when between first and second reading phrasing was reviewed with the developer, he queried whether it would be considered a substantive change when► it returned for second reading. He believed it was only a refinement of the whole thrust of the section which dealt with ridesharing and ways and means of con -- trolling traffic. Mr. Bennetti'would be hard put to say Council could adopt language which was not yet drafted. If the proposal was to make the condition substantively the same as the condition imposed on Arabian Horse World, -and it could be done. If it was to change the present language to the Arabian Horse World language, that could also be done. If Council did not like the language, it could be amended on second reading. Council -Member Fletcher said the entire section of the' ordi- nance was for a developer to work out a plan to subri t to the Planning:.Director; it was not meant to be exact because it was included in the ordinance. As long as the intent was 58-338 10/05/87 there, the details were intended to be worked out between the developer and the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Council Member Bechtel agreed. Based on Section 15, the amendment might not be necessary as it could be a part of the plan to be submitted by the developer. She clarified Council could approve the ordinance for first reading and when it returned on -second reading, if Council wanted to make a minor change, the motion could be` made and the ordinance could return for an additional second -reading on the minor part rather than delaying the entire ordinance tor a minor change. It would give Council Member Fletcher more of an opportunity to review what was previously done. Mr. Bennetti said as long as the ultimate wording was sub- stantively the same as that being 'discussed and what was currently in Section 15, there was no problem. The addi- tional provision of free County Transit passes or some Other provision other than the information already specified was a substantive change. The Director of Planning and Community Environment would be looking for the standards provided by the Council when -he reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant. He would not be looking for new and unusual conditions to impose. Council Member Fletcher pointed out that if the requirement was not included in the ordinance at that time, when it returned, fog- second reading, if it was not already included and Council wanted to include something, it would be con- sidered a substantive change. If the amendment passed and `the wording was changed at second reading, it would not be a substantive change. Mr. Zaner said paragraph (a) required that the information should include "all relevant transit system timetables, information..." If a small phrase was added at the end of the sentence after the word "facilities," "and a means to provide or reimburse employees for transit passes," it world require the developer to provide a means to be ruled on by the Director of Planning and Community Environment when he ruled on the rest of the plan without specifying what it was. AMENDMENT RESTATED: AT THE END OF PARAGRAPH 15a, AND A MEANS TO .PROVIDE OR REIMBURSE EMPLOYEES WITH TRANSIT PASSES.". A$ENDNENT PASSED unanimously. 58-339 10/05/87 AMENDMENT: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Patitmci, to require a preliminary plan regarding how the project would revert to existing zoning should the even- tuality occur. Mr. Rennetti, said as long as the amendment meant the City would provide a plan for providing parking in the event a proposal was made to amend the PC zone to Rid -2, it could be done. There would be no existing zoning and no reversion if the PC was approved. Council Member Cobb was not interested in Mr. Relier's coming up with an elaborate plan ---just a brief outline and one drawing to show how the reversion could be accomplished. Everyone, understood that if such a use change ever occurred, it would be up to the present or some subsequent Council to agree to any changes which were acceptable to the neighbor- hood. The underlying fear was that a future Council might not be as hardheaded about accepting such a change as the present Council. He believed it was fair to say that every member of the present Council woui,d take a dim view of any changewhich imposed any impacts orb • the neighborhood beyond those presently existing. He preferred the impacts be less than the existing zone. There could not be a parking situa- tion which would spill parking into the neighborhood. A simple plan on the record would serve as an additional piece of guidance that the present Council was serious that benign and relatively lesser impacts of the project as proposed would be preserved in case of any use change in the future. He recogni7ed any Council -could change anything in ethe future whir was the one concern he had about the situation. Since the issue was raised, he wanted to show how it could be accomplished. Since it was on the record and very clear, it would make the Council's intent more focused for a future Council. Council Member Renzel concurred with Council Member Cobb's intent. She would support the amendment. She Suggested that once a. building was up, it was highly unlikely that any Council would allow it to sit vacant because another use was not permitted. A Council would probably get sued for doing so if it did. Further, she believed it was highly unlikely a future Council would require facilities of the type being proposed, which were expensive to construct, to be torn down in order to provide parking.. While Some plan might be on file along with the PC zone, it might give neighbors some hope of brining some political pressure to bear, but she questioned its overall effectiveness when Council had the opportunity to deal With the problem presently. 58-340 10/05/87 Council Member Klein would not support the amendment because he did not believe it was appropriate to ask the applicant to perform a useless act. It was an unfair use of resources no matter how simple the plan was.- As pointed out, it would be up to a future Council to determine what should be done if the project failed. He noted Council never before made such a request and it approved many PCs. If the project returned to some future Council, it would be up to them to make a determination. Mt. Relier_ was unlikely to be the applicant at that time. He believed any future Council would believe the present Council was serious on any item, but arty Council would do as it wished. If he were a member of sae future Council and the developer returned to convert the building to apartments but did not want to provide any new parking spaces, he would say no. Any new use would have to provide parking even if it meant tearing down the building. He believed the City and neighborhood had all the protection needed _and the developer should not be asked to spend money on a useless act. Council Member Levy agreed with council Member Klein. One unintended consequence of a plan for the future might be that the present Council by implication approved a follow-on plan and he did not want to convey that message. Vice Mayor Sutorius placed a great deal of reliance on the provision already contained in the ordinance that if the stated uses changed, the project would require an amendment to the PC zone,- approved by the City Council, and would be required to comply with parking requirements associated with the new -ase. Council Member Cobb's concern was a residual one in the minds of some. The developer recognized the con- cern, evaluated the "what if" Scenario, and determined how they would handle the situation In response to the amend- ment, he queried whether a report from. the applicant which encompassed a line drawing and a statement about how addi- tional parking could be provided for a use such as multi- family, i.e., at "x'' number of units, "y" number of parking spaces were required, and how they would be accommodated would satisfy the sense of the amendment. If it would, he would support the amendment. He agreed With Council Members Klein and Levy on the cautions. Council Member Cobb could accept such a report. He did not necessarily disagree with ,..Council Members Klein and Levy. He just wanted the record to be clear_' to help guide people in the future.. 58-341 10/0 5/87 Vice Mayor Sutorius would vete "yes" on the amendment, with that understanding. Council _Member. Patitucci did not interpret Council Member Cobb's request as being onerous. He believed it was a political process and an additional data point would assist people in resolving that issue in the future. The informa- tion being public at the time and in the future would be useful. Council Member Bechtel believed Council Member Klein's and Vice Mayor Sutorius's points were well taken. The ordinance was very clear that there were protections. The 'PC zone the Council would approve would be only for the subject project and use and would have to return for any changes in uses or parking requirements to the present or future Council. A future Council could not be tied. She was certainly sympa- thetic to Council Member Cobb's efforts and desire to pro- tect, but she believed it was as much protection as the Council could do at present. Council Member Renzel reminded her colleagues of the Holiday Inn, of the harbor development, of the Supreme Court Racquetball, all of which were PCs and all of which came in with proposals which supposedly had adequate parking for their uses, and all had returned for amendments to their PC:, and all the amendments had been granted. None of the protections of the original PCs followed along with the amendments and some of the amendments had been made while she was on the Council. Political memories were short and political expediency was strong, and it was important to remember that the more details nailed down at the outset, the betterchance they would get a good project should an amendment be necessary. None of them could say that some of the changes that occurred had changed racquetball courts into office buildings and basements into meeting rooms, etc.,' that required additional parking. when no additional parking had been provided benefitted the quality of 1,,ife in the community, and they had to look at that in regard to a project adjacent to an R--1 neighborhood. Council Member Bechtel reminded her colleagues the Council had denied amendments to a few other. PCs, e.g., the. operators of a Shell station at the end of Embarcadero Road who wanted to operate 24 hours a day. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Lev, Bechtel, Klein .. voting "no,. AMENDMENT: Council !Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, that the third -story unit on the pod closest to the R-1 zone be deleted,; and two of the two-story units closest to Wilkie Way on the East Meadow end be deleted. 58-342 10/05/87 Ms. Jansen said those units presently proposed for two stories which could be reduced to one story were along the Wilkie Way frontages. Council Member Cobb asked whether the intent of the motion was to delete the units Or to have them deleted and/or moved. Council Member Renzel intended for there to be a deletion of about 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. A unit was about 400 square feet. She suspected the number of units was more critical in terms of economics than the square footaae. Mayor Woolley was concerned about Council redesigning the project. She asked the architect about the reasonableness of deleting the units as proposed in terms of design. Bill Bocook, Architect, 4041 El Camino Way, said with regard tothe function of the building, it was difficult to see the logic behind deleting units 1, 2 and 5. Unit 1 wasa two- story unit and units 2 and 5 were three-story units. With the :daylight plane, they attempted to make the unit closest to the R-1 nei•ghborhood one story and then they stepped up to two stories and to three stories. Units 1 and 4 were two story units and were the most logical to be eliminated because the result would be that all of the units would be ten feet away from the R-1 neighborhood one story. The second story in each case would be the logical ones to eliminate if any units had to be deleted because it would be consistent with the other three points and it would be a graduation of a one story up to two stories and then to three stories. Ms. Jansen said units 1, 2, 3 and 4 were all shown as two stories on the City's plans. Unit 5 was indicated as the only three story along the Wilkie Way single-family. Council Member Levy clarified the intent of the Motion was to delete three units, i.e.., 1, 2 and 5. He asked how far each unit was from the R -1 fence line. Planning Administrator Toby Kramer said unit 1 was ten feet from the fence line; unit 2 was 16 feet? and unit 3 was approximately 30 feet. Council Member Levy agrees with the deletion of the second story on unit 1 since it eras ten feet from an R-1 lot line and there was no auxiliary building over the fence on Wilkie Way to shield it. He did not agree on the deletion of unit 2 since it was 16 feet away from the R-1 zone or unit 5 since it was 30 feet away from the R-1 property. 58-343 10/05/87 SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Klein, to delete the one, second story unit within ten feet of the R-1 zoning line, represented as unit 1. Vice Mayor Sutoriva asked if the substitute amendment might include that the removal of unit 1 could be offset by provi- sion of an additional like -size unit within the CN portion of the site and in an interior fashion which did not alter any daylight planes or be closer in any fashion to the resi- dential area along Wilkie Way. He believed that would be in keeping with the unanimous Planning Commission recommenda- tion which stated its concerns to the ARB in terms of the RM-2 area but was not concerned about the CN area. He believed his suggestion was a fair and proper recognition of the neighborhood concerns but which did not require the removal of a unit from the total project. Council Member Levy clarified that the project would have to return to the ARB. Vice Mayor Sutorius said any change would require -approval by the ARB. In having the matter return to the ARB, it could be reviewed with the removal of the unit and the relo- cation of an equivalent sized unit into the CN area. The unit would have to be out toward El Camino Way or an interior rearrangement within the CN area. Council Member Levy was reluctant to include the suggestion in the substitute amendment. He saw the one second story unit at the point as being similar to what the developer did on the other points adjacent to the R-1 zone. When Council started talking about relocating units, it went beyond his ability to work it out. Council Member Fletcher supported the original amendment because she believed the problem presented by the project was bulk. If it could be reduced by being a few feet further away from the fence line, the overall visual impact would be less. Council Member Renzel said they were dealing with a block long building. She tried to envision the huge project over her back fence,. She agreed with Council Member Fletcher that they needed to reduce the bulk of the building and it needed to be done more significantly than just one unit. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Renzel, Fletcher, Patitucci voting *nO. u 58-344 10/05/87 Council Member Renzel reluctantly opposed the motion. The intent of providing housing to people in stages of their lives where they needed someone to t4e care of them was noble and fairly innocuous, but in large scale the project presented different problems. Where the potential existed for a future neighborhood problem, more scrutiny on the part of the Council was required than was given. A lot of the Planning Commission discussion dealt with the BMR moneys and there was little discussion on the realities of what the project would do to the neighborhood. She believed the numbers for employees were grossly underestimated. Based on her experience with the project next door to her and based on figures from Lytton Gardens, which had 35 dietary people serving 410 meals per day, she figured between 20 and 30 people rather than Mr. Rel.ler's suggestion of 13 people for 366 meals per day. Likewise, for the community care facili- ties, they had 13 housekeeper/personal care people for 50 units and Mr. Reller proposed 11 people for 122 units. She believed it was more likely between 26 and 30 people. The project would more likely have about 60 employees --many more than projected in any event. There was no problem with people driving if the units were in fact for the type of care proposed, but a change in use could result in a serious problem for the neighborhood which was not addressed. The building was too large. The property was not zoned well and a `bad judgolent was made in subdividing off the Goodwill property and changing the 20 foot setback which previously existed. There used to be a 150 daylight plane which was extremely stringent all along the boundary prior 'to the zoning change when Council thought they were making the area a nice little community. Now, through inadvertency of changing some zoning stipulations, the neighborhood was being saddled with a major project because it was being com- pared with something that never should have been. It was time to say no. Mayer Woolley had no problem finding a clear public benefit for the project. It was a unique facility. In the San Jose Mercury article which talked about the number of facilities, the reasons the numbers were much higher than what Mr. Reller stated was that Channing House, Webster House, and - all of Lytton Gardens were being included. Most life care facilities .requited a person to be under a certain age to get in and at the time of entrance one was probably fairly active. _ `ripe proposed facility allowed a person to' stay home as long as possible and then it provided care at the stage when a person was unable to be home but did not necessarily 58-345 10/05/87 require a 24 -hour skilled nursing facility. There were not many facilities of that type proposed. One either had to enter much earlier and commit a sizable resource in many cases or else go all the way to a skilled nursing facility. in terms of costs, she believed those people with experience in hiringhelp around -the -clock for someone staying at home knew the project was relatively inexpensive. As pointed out by Council Member Levy, the proposed project was a far bet- ter one than, could be built. The design and landscaping were sensitive to the neighbors and the developer was willing to go further if a particular owner did not want tall trees because of the shadows. The problem was a sin- cere fear of change. She lived near a great -source of noise and imagined the noise people lived with on Wilkie Way would be considerably reduced because there would be a buffer between the noise source of El Camino. The end result might be afar quieter neighborhood. She believed there would be somewhat less traffic than at present and certainly less than if the project was developed commercially into multi- family condominiums. She supported the project. Council Member Levy said a few weeks .ago a developer appeared before the Council with another kind of project for the elderly. The developer asked for a gift of City air rights, an additional gift of -closing off the street adja- cent to the property, and over a $1 million City subsidy. It was a substantial price even though there was a benefit of a general senior housing project and Council turned the project down. Council was then subject to some vilification by the developers .themselves, the newspaper, and by other members of the community who wondered why the Council was so callous towards senior citizens. The developer of the pro- posed project did not request any gifts of City land or sub- sidy and proposed to provide;a more intense senior housing project for the frail elderly who desperately needed care. Whether the people could afford higher or lower rents the need was severe. Council had an opportunity to provide a significant community benefit with a small change in the zoning to allow the PC zone to take. place. He was satisfied the project would result in less noisy;, traffic, and inten- sity of use in the'neighborhood and in a better overall development of the El Camino Way area with a satisfactory sensitivity to the neighbors in a transitional zone. He supported the project. Council -Member, Cobb said his mother was at such an age where the proposed project would appeal to her, but he doubted whether she could afford .it which tempered his enthusiasm; 58-346 10/G5/87 He would not want such a project built in his backyard but liked less the alternative of what could be built under existing zoning. He would like to revert to the less inten- sive zoning it was several years ago but with existing con- straints and the most recent Supreme Court ruling, he doubted it could be done without exposing the City to a sig- nificant liability. In terms of impacts on the neighbor- hood, he concluded it was safest to vote for the project as presently constructed with all the constraints. He was not enthused about the vote because he understood the neighbors' concerns but believed the proposed project with the speci- fied use and all its constraints would be less of an impact on the neighbor=hood than what could be built under existing zoning. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Renzel voting "no. RECESS FROM 9:30 p.m. TO 9:44 p.m. S. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF THOMAS J. REES FOR A NONCONFORMING USE EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 470 OLIVE AVENUE (Continued from 9/21/87) ( 300) MOTIONt Council Member Patitucci coved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation that the application for exception from nonconforming use termination provisions be granted to allow continued opera- tion of an extensive retail service at 470 Olive; subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings: The extensive retail service use of 470 Olive Avenue is com- patible with and not detrimental to land uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan for surrounding areas or properties in that: 1. The extensive retail service use does.. not generate sub- stantial noise, deliveries, glare, or involve chemical storage. 26 The use, as conditioned, will have limited nighttime. use, and deliveries will. be limited to daytime hours. 3. . Additional site landscaping and lighting modifications will improve compatibility with adjacent residential use. 56 10/0 MOTION CONTINUED 4. The extensive retail service use will ,not impede development of surrounding properties consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that existing development on surrounding properties is now consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Conditions: 1. A landscape plan, parking plan, and lighting modifica- tion plan shall be submitted for staff approval. The parking plan shall provide for a 20 -foot wide landscaped setback from Olive Avenue, and shall include new trees. The parking plan shall provide for 21 parking spaces. The lighting modifications shall include a shield for any exterior wall mounted lights. The parking plan, landscape plan,, and lighting modification plan shall be submitted within one month of City Council approval of this application and shall be implemented within one month of staff approval. 2. The exception from termination shall be indefinite but shall apply only to extensive retail service uses or warehouse uses operated within the existing structure, in conjunction with extensive retail sales use or ware- house use on the contiguous parcel at 2951 El Camino Real. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel or improve site improvements on the same site provided that there are no increases in floor area, height, or size of the buildings. 3. The property owner shall record a grant of easement between the parcels at 470 Olive Avenue and 2951 El Camino Real for purposes of vehicular access, circula- tion, and provision of parking for mutual use by both parcels, should: they become separately owned. Such easement shall be recorded within one month of the. City Council approval of this application. A copy of the easement shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office for review prior to recordation. 4. The hours of operation shall not extend beyond 9:00 a.m. t.o 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. All deliveries shall occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 10 8 ill 6. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD ANNING C MMSSION AND V SUAL ARTS JURY RECOMMENDATION RE URBAN DESIGN WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE (Continued from 9/21/87) (CMR:460!7) (1430-01/1041-06/701-01) Council Member Bechtel clarified the makeup of the committee as proposed was modified to reflect the concerns of the reviewing bodies and would be more of a balance between pub- lic members and professionals.. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Patitucci, to adopt the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Endorse the Urban Design Plan Work Program; 2. Direct the Mayor to appoint an Urban Design Committee; 3. Approve the budget amendment ordinance appropriatJ.ng $20,000 for work identified on page 5 of the work program; and 4. Direct staff to initiate consultant selection as defined in the work program and indicate whether this matter should be reviewed by the Finance and Public Works Committee ORDINANCE 3772 AS AMENDED entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE .►';OUNCIL OF THE CITY Off' PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987- 88 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR A DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN PLAN" Council Member Cobb asked whether staff was comfortable with the budget as outlined. City Manager Bill Zaner said yes. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Woolley, to amend budget ordinance to include a contingency amount of $2,500. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. MOTION AS MENDED PASSED unanimously. 7. ORDINANCE RE DANGEROUS ANNALS (Conti inued from 9/21/87) (- MR:441 :7) (1050) NOTION: , Council Meter Cobb moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the ordinance for first reading: 108 x)41 MOTION CONTINUED ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF .PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 6.28 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO STRENGTHEN AND CLARIFY PROCEDURES CONCERNING D 1 -EROUS ANIMALS" Council Member Levy believed the definition of a "wild" animal was vague and queried whether the vagueness made hearings difficult and acrimonious. Superintendent of Animal Services Greg Betts did not believe the definition was vague because an animal's behavior was the determining factor. One thing they looked at was whether an attack was provoked and what actions the animal took against another person or -against another animal. Usually a bite or some other actual evidence was apparent. Council Member Levy said if it was the intent to deal with pit bulls which had an inbred propensity to "attack," the ordina.ce dealt with an attack after the fact. NOTION PASSED unanimously. 8. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTION �- FURTHER INFORMATION ON RESOLUTIONS 19 and 28 (CMR:485:7) (1540-07) MOTION: Council Membi+r Klein moved, seconded by Sutorius, to disapprove Resolutions 19 and 28. Council Member Fletcher said neither resolution would reach the floor of the Assembly because "the Resolutions Committee referred Resolution 19 back to the Committee, and Resolution 28 was disapproved. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND 9. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE GAMBLE PROPERTy-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (801) Mayor Woolley said staff had requested Item 9 be removed. The item would be reagendized at a later date. 58.350 10/05/87 11. REQUEST OF MAYOR WOOLLEY RE CANCELLATION OF OCTOBER 13, 1987, CITY COUNCIL MEETING (701) NOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Fletcher, to cancel the October 13, 1987, City Council meeting. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 9:50 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: qt1t46-911--- \14LIASIIL..NK Mayor