HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-16 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
PALO ALTOCITYCOUNCEL MEETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE AA KZSU-FREQUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL
Regular Meeting
November 16, 1987
ITEM PAGE
Oral Communications 58-422
Approval of Minutes of October 19, 1987 58-422
1. Presentation of Reader's Digest Award to 58-422
Neighbors Abroad
2. Appointment of Emily Harrison as Director 58-422
of Finance
3. ,__Reolution 6654 Expressing Appreciation to-
Iris-Xoral for Outstanding Public Service
as a Member of the Human Relations Comis-
sion
4. Canvass of November, 3, 1987 Election.
Resolution 6655 Declaring the- Results of
the Consolidated Municipal Election and
Special Election Held on Tuesday, November
3, 1987.
5. Planning Commission Recommendation re
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the Public
Facilities District to Include a Teen -
Youth' Club as a Conditional Use (Continued
from 9/21/87)
64 Public Hearing: Planning Commission
Recommendation re Appeal by Lidia Reguerin
from the 'Decision of the Zoning Adminis-
trator that Council not Revoke the Use
Permit for a Day Care Center : for Property
Located at 450 W. Charleston Road
58-423
58-423
58-423
53--428
-58-420
11/16/87
ITEM PAGE
7. Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recom- 58-429
mendation re Appeal of Harold and Joan
Schneider from Decision of the Zoning
Administrator to Deny a Use Permit for
Construction of a Second Dwelling Unit
(Cottage) for Property Located at 855 Clara
Drive
8. Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recom-
mendation re Appeal of Harold Hohbach on
the Decision of the Zoning Administrator to
Deny a Variance for the Location and Con-
struction of a Four Floor Addition to an
Existing 56 Foot Tall, Four Story Office
Building, to a Total Height of 106 Feet
Where a Maximum Height of 50 Feet Would
Otherwise be Permitted, for Property
Located at 260 Sheridan Avenue
9. Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recom-
mendation re Appeal of Jane Miller, and to
Reverse the Zoning Administrator's Decision
to Deny a Variance for the Location and
Construction of a Pool for Property Located
at 300 Lowell
58-430
58-434
10. Appeal of Robert S. and Virginia S. Procter 58-436
from the Order of the Chief Building Offi-
cial to Demolish the Unfinished Structure
at 127 Coleridge Avenue
Adjournment to a Closed Session at 9:15 p.m. 58-442
Final Adjournment at 9 30 p.m. 58-442
58-421.
11/16/87
Regular Meeting
Monday, November 16, 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, Levy_,
Patitucci, Renze.l, Sutorius, Woolley
Mayor Woolley announced at some point during or after the
meeting a Closed Session would be held in the Council
Conference Room re Initiating or Deciding to Initiate
Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 191 1.987
MOTION: Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Levy,
approval of the Minutes of October 19, 1987, as sub-
mitted.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
1. PRESENTATION OF READER'S DIGEST AWARD TO NEIGHBORS
ABROAD (1540-06)
Mt. Art Anderson, President, Neighbors Abroad, presented the
1987 Reader's Digest Award to the City of Palo Alto for
Technic4.i ' Assistance in recognition of . its contribution to
international understanding through its community affilia-
tion with Palo. Philippines. He indicated Neighbors Abroad
was celebrating its 25th Anniversary.
Mayor Woolley congratulated Neighbors Abroad for a fine
project; one that could make a big difference. She also
appreciated the amount of work that went into raising the
funds to begin the vocational training. center in Palo.
2. APPOINTMENT OF EMILY HARRISON AS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
( MR:526:7) (502)
MOTION: Council. - Member Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, to
approve appointment of Emily Harrison as Director of
Finance
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
58-422
11/16/87
Mayor Woolley officially welcomed Ms. Harrison as the new
Director of Finance.
City Attorney•Diane Northway introduced Koreen Kelleher who
joined the City Attorney's staff on September 1, 1987.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Levy,
approval of the Consent Calendar.
3. RESOLUTION 6654 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO IRIS
KORAL FOR .OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION" (701-04/702-04)
4. CANVASS OF NOVEMBER 3, 1987 ELECTION (705-87-12/701-04)
RESOLUTION 6655 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE
CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND SPECIAL ELECTION
HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1987"
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES (PF.) DISTRICT TO
INCLUDE A TEEN -YOUTH CLUB AS A CONDITIONAL USE (Con-
tinued from 9/21/87) (CMR:524:7) (237:01)
Council, Member Cobb knew one of the concerns of the Green -
meadow community was how they could provide. protection to
themselves if there was a change in ownership of the opera-
tions proposed. He believed the City Attorney might have
suggestions as to how the Council might add protection to
the ordinance.
City Attorney Diane Northway said any kind of conditional
use permit or variance ran with the land, but one way to
address the operation as opposed to the operator was to set
up a review schedule within the conditional use permit based
on objective criteria, and to require that particular use
permit return for review after a specific period of time.
Council Member Cobb .asked i f the review should be on a spe-
cific period of time, on a change of ownership, or both,
Ms. Northway said the review could not be on a change of
ownership. Since it ran with the land, it had to be objec-
tive and not relate to the owner but the activity.
58-423
11/16/87
Council Member Cobb asked whether an annual review would be
an overly onerous burden.
Ms. Northway said an annual review might not be -overly Oner-
ous for the first few years an annual review but would be
over a lengthy period of time. That evening, the Council
was not dealing with the particular conditional use permit
but amending the zoning code to provide that youth clubs
might be a conditional use. The Council might want to give
some suggestions to the Zoning Administrator.
David Siegel, 260 California Avenue, from Vortex, said the
site at Cubberley High School was the unique economic oppor-
tunity for a _youth club. The current subtenants would
enable a group such as Vortex to put on youth dances twice a
week, Friday and Saturday nights. The Palo Alto Unified
School District (PAUSD) Board of Education would not discuss
the project until at least the zoning was changed and would
not co -apply for a conditional use permit until the Vortex
had a lease finalized except on the condition ow the condi-
tional use permit itself. They met with the Greenmeadow
Association, and he believed they had a good enough working
dialogue to be able to address matters that arose in the
future. He felt comfortable in being able to address each
and every concern brought up by the Greenmeadow Association,
and in making them conditions as part of the conditional use
permit. He asked the Council to approve the zoning change.
Council Member Patitucci recalled a number of significant
obstacles put forward by the Board of Education at a meeting
he attended several months ago, and he asked if Mr. Siegel
was confident the issues could be overcome.
Mr. Siegel believed the obstacles could- be overcome. The
Board of Education would not permit discussions before the
zoning change and, therefore, the five or six issues could
not be addressed ,;until then. He believed all the particu-
lars enumerated in that meeting could be addressed He did
not know about the issue of price.
John Berwald, 261 Creekside Drive, represented the Green-
meadow Community Association (GCA), said on October 13,
19.87, GCA Board of Directors received a report and recommen-
dations --of the Public Affairs Committee on the matter and
unanimously affirmed the GCA's support of the teen activity
at Cubbea ley. At the ;came time, the GCA approved the change
of zoning to make the proposal. possible, with some reserva-
tions and cautions. Subsequently, the GCA President
58-424
11/16/87
addressed a letter to the Mayor expressing generally its
position. They viewed favorably and enthusiastically the
opportunity for teens to have their own space and activity.
They wondered why such was not incorporated into the City's
recreation program together with the PAUSD, and sponsored
through a civic community coordinating group similar to the
senior coordinating group activity. Such a nonprofit activ-
ity in which the teens would play a significant leadership
role might be an effective approach Over the long term and
give greater participation to t_he teens in the allocation of
resources to benefit their group, their future needs, and
the City at large. In the absence of that sort of initia-
tive, the GCA endorsed the zone change with the following
stipulations: 1) that the use permit be solely for teen
dancing and other legitimate and healthy social activities;
2) that the use permit be nontransferable, assignable, or
subieasable, and a new application and public hearing be
required should the operator change; 3) that close super-
vision be exercised by the City to assure a sate, healthy,
decent environment for teens, and no alcoholic beverages or
drugs be provided or consumed in or on the premises or sur-
rounding areas, and it be understood the operator was not to
possess a license to serve alcoholic beverages at the loca-
tion nor to provide the same. whatever the source; 4) that
it be further understood that the clientele would not be
allowed to reenter the facility once they had exited for the
evening; 5) that present uses of the premises by other
groups should continue without further restrictions or
increases in costs; and 6) the City carefully monitor the
activity to insure against noise to surrounding neighbors,
and to control other possible nuisances in ear around the
activity. In supporting the zone change, the GCA Board took
no position either in support of or in opposition to any
particular applicant or operator. GCA, through its Public
Affairs Committee wished to continue to participate with the
City, and to be continually advised and afforded opportunity
to participate in hearings Which might be held, on the sub-
ject with reference to the site from time to time.
Council Member Cobb clarified the GCA was satisfied with the
operation, with the conditions, and with some kind of annual
review, or thereabouts.
Mr. Berwald said yes.
Megan Swezey, 212 Fulton Street, coordinator of the teen
recreation programs for the Recreation Department, said she
nad seen many proposals for teen clubs and was excited about
58.425
11/16/87
the subject proposal. The Vortex had expressed an interest
to do other programs also, such as comedy nights. She would
be working with the applicants as the proposal progressed.
Adam Brownstein, 415 Lowell Avenue, President of the Youth
Council, said the Youth Council was in favor of a youth club
in Palo Alto. They believed the proposal was for a good,
wholesome ac t i vi t.y they could all enjoy. The applicants
were industrious and capable people who wanted to do some-
thing beneficial for the City.,
Stephanie Beach, 854 Clara Drive, spoke as the parent of
three teenagers in support -of the owners of the Vortex to
developing.che club and, more specifically, to the idea of a
club in Palo Alto. With the facility at Cubberley High
School available, the zoning change was appropriate.
MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Sutorius,
approval of a zoning ordinance amendment to the Public
Facilities (PF) District to include a teen -youth club as a
conditional use
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING SECTION
18.04.030 (147) (DEFINITION - YOUTH CLUB) TO TITLE
18 (ZONING CODE) AND ADDING YOUTH CLUB AS A
CONDITIONAL USE IN PF DISTRICTS"
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
Council Member Cobb strongly suggested that the Live condi-
tions outlined by the GCA in their letter be followed in
establishing the rules for a use permit. The conditions
were reasonable and appropriate. He thanked the people of
Greenmeadow for being so open and understanding about some-
thing that would be good for the teens in the City. He
would like to see a sixth condition added to the use permit
which would be an annual review of the conditions based on
objective criteria as outlined by the City Attorney, for the
first five years of operation and biennually thereafter.
Council Member Renzel concurred with Council Member Cobb's
concerns. She added that the GCA might wish to lobby the
PAEJSD Board to make the lease _nonassignOle, because that
would be legal as opposed to the conditionel use permit
being - nonaasigna pie, and would probably be a much stronger
control than the 'annual review.
58-426
11/16/87
Ms. Northway believed the Council could not put a condition
in a conditional use permit that barred its assignability.
There was a recent case involving the City of Burlingame in
which there was such an attempt, and the Court found that to
u iuvaiid. Use permits had to run with the land and,
therefore, as the land was assignable, so was the use per-
mit.
Council Member Fenzel clarified it was not her intent to
deal with the matter with a conditional use permit, but her
suggestion was that GCA could deal -with the PAUSD Board with
respect to the assignability of the lease where there would
be much stronger control.
Mr. Zaner referenced the letter from GCA and realized the
Council was making suggestions to the Zoning Administrator
as he held the hearing for the use permit. He would not
want people to leave the room with the impression that there
was no flexibility at all for the Zoning Administrator.
Item 3, for example, which stated that teen clientele not be
allowed to reenter the facility once they had exited the
facility might be a very harsh condition to impose upon a
business that was trying to survive and, at least, break
even. There might be ways to deal with that issue short of
saying to teenagers that once they left the facility they
could not return that evening. He was concerned the Council
not make the conditions so tight that they could not oper-
ate.
Mayor Woolley believed the Vortex itself imposed that condi-
tion at present when they held teen dances. She believed
the operator would -not object to that condition, although it
sounded harsh.
Council Member Patitucci referenced the steps necessary
prior to the teen center becoming a reality. He believed
the City Council was on record with support of its own Youth
Council for encouraging that type of activity. They found
it difficult as a public body to stimulate what appeared to
be going on in the market place by the Vortex. He suggested
the Mayor send a letter conveying the Council's action to
the PAUSD Board and expressing the Council'=s strong support
of the activity.
Council Member Bechtel said while she understood the thrust
of Council Member Cobb's suggestions to the Zoning
Admministrator.. and the concerns of the residents of Green -
meadow, she was concerned that the annual review for five
years might be a bit much. The Council did not have a
58-427
11/16/87
motion related to Council Member Cobb's suggestions and,
therefore, they should be considered as suggestions that the
Zoning Administrator would be reviewing along with many
other items.
Mayor Woolley said it was her understanding that they were
suggestions and not a formal motion.
Council Member Bechtel conveyed the suggestion that she
believed every year for five years was too much time and
hassle. She preferred the first two years and longer
periods atter that.
Mayor Woolley believed Council Member Renzel's suggestion
would probably provide more protection.
Council Member Cobb said they were really trying to catch an
ownership change with the suggestion. He suggested five
rears because if the operation succeeded, it would do so in
the first five years. Five years was -enough to catch that
kind of ownership change, which was more of a concern to the
GCA than the particulars of the Vortex operation, with which
he believed they were fairly cemfortable. He agreed that
Council Member Renzel's suggestion was a far cleaner way to
deal with the matter, and he suggested that the letter sent
to the PAUSD Board per Council Member Patitucci's suggestion
could add Council Member Renzel's suggestion;.
Mayor Woolley was willing to add that as a suggestion.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
APPEAL BY LIDIA REGUERIN FROM THE DECISION OF THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR THAT COUNCIL. NOT REVOKE TF E USE PERMIT
CENTER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 450 W.
FOR A DAY CARE
CHARLESTON ROAD (CMR:523:7) (300)
Mayor Woolley said the address published in the newspaper
notice for the public hearing was incorrect and, thereforge,
staff suggested the public hearing be opened, testimony be
heard, and then the public hearing be continued to December
14, 1987.
Planning Commissioner Pam Marsh -,eferenced the staff report
(CMR:523:7), and .said the characterization of the applicant
as demoss,trating a "marked unwillingness to comply with City
and State requirement," was a stronger characterization tan
the situation as viewed by the Planning Commission. It was
true when the application came forward there were a number
of outstanding requirements the applicant:_ needed to address,
but over the past menthe the -Planning Commission saw demon-
strav1e- progress to _ address most of those.. Ite was .that.
58-428
11/16/87
progress that led the -Planning Commission to be comfortable
in extending the use permit. In regard to staff's sugges-
tion that the Council require the applicant to implement a
U-shaped parking configuration, the Planning Commission
heard from a number of parents who .were using the current
parking at the site successfully. .They found from staff's
on -site demonstration that, the current parking configuration
with minor adjustments was safe from all reasonable traffic
standards, The Planning Commission judged that the aes-
thetic improvement from a U -parking configuration would not
be worth the investment, estimated at several thousand dol-
lars.
Mayor Woolley declared the public hearing open.
Robert R. Jenks, 454 Forest Avenue, an architect and partner
with Boyd and Jenks, said when he first came into the proj-
ect in August several things had not been met, e.g., parking
and fence permits, but they `had corrected the situations
except for one. There was a lot of enthusiasm and testimony
at the two Planning Commission meetings for Lidia Reguerin;
the way she handled the, school, and care and warmth she crave
the children. There was no doubt about her qualifications.
She had her Master's degree in education and taught educa-
tion and child care. He asked for Council's assistance and
expression of faith in granting, further time.
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by
Klein, to continue the Public Hearing to the December 14,
1987 City Council meeting.
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED unanimously.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANWING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
APPEAL OF HAROLD AND JOAN SCHNEIDER FROM DECISION OF THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO ')ENY A USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUC-
TION OF A SECOND DWELLING UNIT (COTTAGE) FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 855 CLARA DRIVE (CMR:520:7) ' (300 )
Mayor Woolley said a letter at places (on file in the City
Clerk's office) requestedcontinuance of the item in order
to allow the architect time to complete a new plan which
would be more satisfactory to the neighbors.
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fletcher moved,
seconded by; Klein, to continue the Public Rearing to the
December 14, 1987, City Council meeting.
Council Member Patitucci asked for staff's opinion on the.
request for 'a continuance. -
58 -429
11/16/87
Planner Sarah Cheney said staff had no problem with the
request for a. continuance. Presently they had no revised
submittals.
Council. Member Bechtel queried whether the applicant would
be ready by December 14, .1987.
Mayor Woolley -said the applicant indicated she only needed a
few days.
Council Member Renzel asked how mach time staff needed once
they received the plans.
Ms. Cheney did not believe it would be a problem for staff
to analyze the plans for the December 14, 1987, Council
meeting.
Council Member Levy asked whether approval of the item would
require the majority of those present or the majority of the
Council.
City Attorney Diane Northway said the majority of those
present and voting.
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED unanimously.
8. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
APPEAL OF HAROLD HOHB ACH ON THE DECISION OF THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR TO DENY A VARIANCE FOR THE LOCATION ANU
CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 56
FOOT TALL, FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING TO A TOTAL HEIGHT
OF 106 FEET WHEiE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 50 FEET WOULD
0T1-IFr,AI_SE BE PERMITTED, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 260
SHERIDAN AVENUE (300)
Council Member Klein would not participate in the item due
to a conflict of interest.
Mayor Woolley declared the Public Hearing open.
Harold C. Hohbach, 29 Lowery Drive, Atherton, the applicant,
said his written submission ton file in the City Clerk's
office) set forth the facts at issue. The company was pur-
suing the matter to see what, if anything, the City Council
would permit .to be erected in place of the six stories lost
.in the previous proceedings. Presently, they were request-
ing a four --story addition, cutting it down by two stories,
with the associated parking next door. They had the land
available for parking. The land was zoned RM-5 and, if
economically feasible, they would consider putting housing
on top of the, parking, although the location was-. close to
the railroad tracks,
58-430
11/16/87
Council Member Patitucci asked whether Mr. Hohbach intended
to pursue litigation if the project was denied.
Mr. Hohbach said he had consulted an attorney.
Council Member Patitucci asked what the last lawsuit cost
the City.
City Attorney Diane Northway said there were actually three
lawsuits, and she estimated the costs were upwards of
$30,000 to $40,000.
Mayor Woolley declared the public haring -closed.
MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, to
adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to uphold the
decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny the variance
(87-V-31) to permit construction and location of a four--
story addition and maximum height of 108 feet in a zone
where a 50 -foot maximum height is permitted, and make the
following findings:
1. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property involved that
do not apply generally to property in the same district,
in that the property size and configuration are not
unique in a manner which would justify a variance to the
50 -foot height restriction, which is the maximum permit-
ted in any commercial, industrial, or residential zone
district within the City. Properties surrounding the
subject site are all limited to a 50 -foot height limit
for new construction or additions. The applicant's
statements of the uniqueness of his property relate only
to arguments of vested rights due to the design and con-
struction characteristics of the existing four-story
office building. These statements essentially apply to
the applicant and not the property. The issues of
vested rights have been unsuccessfully argued before
both state and federal courts of appeal.
2. The granting of the application is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant; or to prevent unreasonable prop-
erty loss or unnecessary hardihip in that the existing
four --story development has been profitable and has sub-
stantially increased in value since its construction in
1967. The applicant argues that he has lost opportunity
costs by not being allowed to construct an additional
four floors of office space; however, this loss of
potential additional income is a co in hardship imposed
on all property owners through zoning limitations. Any
hardship thatthe applicant may have suffered has been
58-431
11/16/87
MOTION CONTINUED
found to be essentially self-created. The existing
four --story building provides a reasonable use of the
property. Once again, the applicant's argument focuses
on the question of vested rights which has been unsuc-
cessfully argued before state and federal courts of
appeal; and
3. The granting of the application would be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity
and would be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare, and convenience because of the facts
relied on in Findings 1 and 2 and because of the fol-
lowing facts:
a. Fifty-one thousand square feet of additional office
space is projected to generate 900 ,additional. vehi-
cle trips per day, 144 of which would occur during
the evening peak commute hour. Significant impacts
(defined as increases of .01 or greater in the
volume/capacity ratio at an LOS E or F intersection)
would occur during the evening peak hour at the
intersections of Page Mill Road/E1 Camino Real,
Oregon Expressway/Middlefield Road and the Page Mill
Road/Park Boulevard on -ramp to Oregon Expressway.
Each of these intersections if presently operating
at an unacceptable level of service, which would
deteriorate further due to the proposed project.
b. Traffic from the proposed project would also have a
detrimental impact at the intersection of Birch and
Sheridan, which has been recognized by the
Transportation Division as a problem intersection
due to its proximity to the on- and off -ramps to
Oregon Expressway. The proposal would increase
traffic .through this intersection by 8.5 percent (69.
trips) during the morning peakcommute hour, and by
6 percent during the evening' peak hour. These
increases are considered to be significant impacts
on the intersection functions.
c. The scale and mass proposed for the project would
differ substantially with that of surrounding devel-
opment and would be in conflict with Comprehensive
Plan Urban Design Policy 1, which states: "Maintain
the present scale of the City but modify those ele-
ments which, by their massiveness, are overwhelming
and unacceptable;" and Program 1, which states:
58-432
11/16/87
MOTION CONTINUED
Discourage massive single uses through limitations
on height and density to protect surrounding uses
and community values.'
d. The proposed office development would result in an
estimated increase of 250 new employees. An employ-
ment increase of this magnitude would have a detri-
mental impact on traffic, would generate a demand
for new housing, and would be in conflict with
Comprehensive Plan Employment Policy 1, which
states: "Continue efforts to reduce employment
potential implemented with the 1976 Comprehensive
Plan and 1978 Zoning Ordinance."
e., The proposed office expansion would necessitate con-
struction of a parking garage on property presently
zoned for high --density multiple -family residential
use. This would eliminate the potential for con-
structing up to 31 housing units. This loss of
housing potential, in conjunction with an increase
in employment -generating floor area, would be in
conflict with Comprehensive Plan Housing Policy 6,
which states: "Support the mixing of residential
uses in commercial and industrial areas."
f. The office expansion and associated parking garage
on residentially -zoned property would violate three
of the five major proposals of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan: I) "slow down employment
growth;" 2) 'maintain existing housing and
9 provide
some new housing for low-, moderate-, and middle -
income households': and 3) "reduce the growth of
auto traffic.'
Vice Mayor Sutorius did not agree there was a compromise
available.
Council Member Renxe1 said the City's height limit was
established and should be maintained.
Council Member Levy said the building already exceeded the
50 foot haight limit. The only. basis for considering any
change was whether the applicant established rested rights
by actions which took place many` years ago. Vested rights
had been litigated through the courts, and it was.c?ear._that
vested rights were riot established. He believed the only
course of action was- to deny the -application.
58-433
11/16/87
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein "not participating."
9. PUBLIC HEARING:
APPEAL OF JANE MILLER, AND TO REVERSE THE ZONING ADMIN-
ISTRATOR'S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE _FOR THE LOCATION
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300
LOWELL (CMR:519:7) (300)
Council Member Fletcher asked for clarification about the
height of the fence and where it would-be located.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
Associate Planner Joanne Auerbach said the portion -of the
variance request for the fence about one -foot from the front
property line which would run to. a point approximately 16
feet from the street side property line on Lowell and back
to the front of the house. The fence as proposed would be
six feet. In front of the fence was an existing five-foot
hedge.
Council Member Fletcher clarified the five feet exceeded a
four --foot limit at the corner. -
Ms. Auerbach said that was correct. In the first 20 feet of
the front yard 20 -foot setback, the maximum fence height
allowed was four feet.
Council Member Fletcher clarified the request was for a
variance to five feet all the way around the property.
Ms. Auerbach said the variance actually requested a six-foot
high fence. Any portion of the fence within the first 20
feet of the front yard setbacks would need a variance. A
variance would not be required for any portion of a six-
foot fence along a side.or rear property line. The variance
requested a six-foot high fence in an area of the required
20 -foot front yard where four feet would otherwise be the
maximum. The request stops 16 feet from the street property
-line along Lowell. The fence proposed in the corner area
complied.
Mayor Woolley declared the public hearing open.
Jane Miller, 1651 Waverley Street, the applicant, stated she
was not ,.a developer and planned to live in the house. She
would not do anything detrimental to the neighborhood.
Vice Mayor Sutorius referred to a conversation he had with
GeorgeandGail Wilson and said although they were concerned
with the actual subdivision of the property, they did not
object to the variance being requested for. Ms. Miller's
property. The pool equipment was intended to be enclosed by
58-434
11/16/87
fencing and a gate but not covered. He was concerned about
noise impacts recognizing it was a corner location and there
were no immediately adjacent neighbors. He queried whether
the applicant had any problems with a condition to cover the
pool equipment.
Ms. Miller said she: would like to see the equipment covered
and also sound -proofed in some way, but she was not sure
whether an area that close to the street could be covered.
Mayor Woolley declared the public hearing closed.
Vice Mayor Sutorius recognized a covered structure six or
eight feet high was inappropriate, but he believed it was
appropriate to have a condition that said the enclosure
would have sound deadening materials including a cover,
which could be flat. He asked if zoning precluded a struc-
ture having a cover on it when the structure was not over
four or five feet high.
Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen knew of nothing in the
Zoning Ordinance that would preclude such a structure and,
if the Council desired, staff would work with the applicant
to arrive at a solution to mitigate any sound from the
mechanical equipment. She suggested the Council add the
structure as a condition and the applicant work with staff
to -achieve that. She assumed the structure would not be
visible from -the street.
Ms. Northway suggested the condition be worded that there be
sound proofing, the implementation of which would have to be
satisfactory to staff.
MOTION: Vic, Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to
adopt the Planning Commission recommendation that a variance
be granted to permit the location and construction of a
swimming pool in the required front setback area, five feet
from the front property line, where a swimming pool would
otherwise not be allowed, and a six-foot high fence in the
required front yard where a four -foot high fence would be
the maximum allowed, as shown on the plans, subject to the
following findings:
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved that do
not apply generally to the property in the same district
due to the presence of heritage oak trees on the subject
property and adjoining property, and the location of a
private driveway easement along the interior side prop-
erty .l line;
58-435
11/16/87
MOTION CONTINUED
2. The granting of the application is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable prop-
erty loss or unnecessary hardship, in that development
of a new residence and swimming pool is restricted by
the location of significant trees on the subject prop-
erty and adjacent properties, which shade large portions
of the required rear yard and restrict excavation.
Location of a pool in the interior side yard is
restricted by the existing private driveway easement. A
fence of at least five feet in height must enclose the
yard containing a pool, as required by Section 16.12.020
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
3. The granting of the application would not be detri-
mental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, in that the pool would be screened by location
of a six-foot tall fence at the front property line,
which would also be screened from view by an existing
six-foot tall hedge.
4. That a means of sound proofing the swimming pool equip-
ment be implemented through a process of coordination
with staff such that the result is satisfactory to
staff..
Council. Member Renzel asked if the structure for the pool
equipment was in such a location that it would require a
variance itself.
Ms. Jansen responded it would not be classified as a struc-
ture but an enclosure of mechanical equipment.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
10. APPEAL OF ROBERT S. AND VIRGINIA S. PROCTER FROM THE
ORDER OF THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL TO DEMOLISH THE
UNFINISHED STRUCTURE AT 2 Coleridge Avenue
(CMR:521:7) (300)
Mayor Woolley asked who wished to speak on behalf of the
appellant.
City Clerk Gloria Young administered the oath to --Mr. Robert
Procter.
Robert Procter, 2 Linden Avenue, Atherton, passed out a
statement (on file in the City Clerk's office) and said in
1975 he submitted plans to th.e Building Department for a
58-436
11/16/87
duplex addition. No variances were, required for approval of
the plans. February 1976 he submitted plans to the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) and revised plans in March
and April, 1976. The ARB indicated the building must have a
flat roof and a stucco exterior. On appealing for hardship
under the moratorium in January 1977, he realized the
Building Department had no right under the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) to require a review by the 'ARB. He
quoted from the PAMC, Ordinance [1o. 2703, Section 16.48.020,
which said that singly developed single-family dwellings and
duplexes and additions thereto were exempt from the chapter.
The staff report (CMR:521:7) stated they received the
hardship exception. He submitted a. copy of the March 10,
1977, letter from the City of Palo Alto documenting the
appeal as being denied. He was building the house in his
spare time and did work each month on it. In 1982, Mr.
Richard Cabrera placed a stop work order on the property.
When he was shown the building permit and job copy plans, he
said to continue working on the project. In the summer of
1984 his daughter Carol Procter, Lee Patterson, and he each
worked a minimum of 32 hours per week on the project until
September 15, 1984 when a stop work order was put on the
property. No work had been done on the building since that
time The main problem was Wtat rights they had to complete
the building under the original building permit, The
Uniform Building Code (UBC) said they must not abandon the
project for a period of six months and that was never done
until 1984 when the stop work order was placed under
conditions not in conformity with the UBC Section 303(d).
In the Building Department hearing held September 29, 1987,
the Department supported its case of no valid permit with
documents C5 -which said that, "Uniform Building Code Section
303(d) states that after a period of one year of no recorded
activity the permit becomes null and void." Neither that
statement nor anything mentioning recorded activity was in
the section on revoking building permits. For the present,
staff dropped that statement from their discussion and was
stating that historically they did that. Since the Council
adopted the UBC, their Building Department must use that
unless it superceded it with a Municipal Code as had been
done in a few other sections. Most of the UBC violations
applied to a finished wood -frame building and not to the
existing incomplete. structure. The structure did not
violate. the daylight plane regulations presently in effect
in R-2. The City went into his carport and removed two
:cars, 49 sheets of new plywood, 70 drawers, 45 sheets of
one -inch foam insulation, 12 sheets of half-- inch sheetrock,
21 sheets of -one--inch foam on half -inch sheetrock, 400 feet
of gutter, angle strip and valley, 70 feet of steel and
aluminum pipes, and about 400 feet of molding and wood trip
without a warrant to enter the property and while the action
was knowingly under -appeal to the City Council. .
58-437
11/16/87
City Clerk Gloria Young administered the oath to Chief
Building Official Fred Herman.
Mr. Herman showed slides of the site showing the unfinished
building; the view from the neighbors' property; the carport
and how the building was open to the weather allowing the
water to deteriorate the framing, the subfloor, the second
story and the carport roof; the opening through the roof
which was one of the reasons the Palo Alto Fire Department
declared the structure a fire hazard; -and the front porch.
He said. the lot was zoned R-2 and would be permitted two
units under present zoning. There were three reasons why
the building was declared a dangerous structure under_ PAMC
16.40, and it took only one for the building to be declared
dangerous. First, the building was 'an attractive nuisance.
The building had been in that condition for almost ten
years, the construction had not moved fast, it was open and
accessible. Secondly, there were items that were not in
compliance with the Code. It was the City's position the
permit shad expired. The building was not properly weather-
proofed nor seismically braced. e Thirdly, the Fire
Department declared the building a tire hazard. A fire
would rapidly spread throughout the building and possibly
endanger neighboring structures. The building originally
went to the ARB because there would have been three units on
the site under the original application. The Building
Department did not revoke the building permit but it did
expire. The permit forms stated that a permit became null
and void it work was not pursued for a period of 180 days.
The normal criteria for determining expiration were cab's
for inspections and movement of work. The last City
requests for inspections of the building were 1978, and all.
three inspections related to the foundation. It was stan-
dard practice to cancel or expire a permit if there was no
activity without 180 days. There was no record in the
City's files of, any stop work order in 1982. There were
letters from Richard Cabrera to Mr. Procter stating the
project had not progressed and he needed to apply for per -
'mite, which he did not do. A -stop work order was issued in
1984 because there was a complaint Mr. Procter was working
on the project and it was the City's position there was no
permit. -Mx. Procter's request in the appeal that he (a) be
allowed to complete the rear building on the original
building perm -it,, it was the city's position that the permit
was not in eftect and there was no way the City could allow
the project to continue under the original permit. Under
(b) and (c), there were no vested rights in the project. If
a new permit was issued, the' work would have to conform to
the J985 edition of the UBC, comply. to the current -zoning
standards, the California Energy Regulations, and any other
law now in effect in the City of Palo -Alto for construction.
.The reason tor demolition was Section 16.40 of the PAMC
58-438
11/16/87
stated that if a building was less than 50 Percent of
replacement value in effect, in must be demolished and. not
repaired. If the City was to end up performing the work, it
was the City's position to demolish the structure, not com-
plete it.
Ms. Young administered the oath to Mary Pauly.
Mary Pauly, 144 Coleridge Avenue, addressed the problem of
127 Coleridge Avenue from a neighbor's perspective, and said
the incompleted structure at the rear of 127 Coleridge was
the single, glaring exception to a block of neat, well -kept
houses and was visible from a number of homes. Some of the
neighboring properties were rentals and more than one ,prop-
erty Owner underwent repeated difficulties iri renting
because of the unsightly view. Because of the long neglect
of the property, untold numbers of rats made the rear of 127
Coleridge their home. Obviously, it was a serious aesthetic
and public health problem, and the intolerable situation had
persisted since 1979 when the building permit expired.
Letters sent by the City to Mr. Procter were often ignored,
or he made minor improvements without a permit. From 1982
to 1986, no action was taken by the City to alleviate the
situation, which raised the question whether the City took
action only at the persistent behest of the citizens and
then only in a haphazard fashion. It was clear the City had
been exceeding generous allowing Mr3 Procter sufficient time
in which to abate the nuisance. Since his lack of action
spoke more eloquently than words, it was clear he should be
given no further time in which to clean up his act. She
urged the City Council to approve the City's recommendation
to demolish without delay.
As. Young administered the oath to Jocelyn P. Baum.
Jocelyn P. Baum, 909 Hamilton Avenue, spoke as a concerned
citizen and pediatrician. She reiterated the building
qualified as an attractive` nuisance to any curious child.
The street had a number of young children, and the building
was in `such a state of disrepair with many dangerous things
left lying around, and from her experience she believed the
building materials would not be of adequate quality to use
for a sound structure. The Council should move to have the
structure demolished.
Ms. Young administered the oath to Richard J. Herndon.
Richard J. Herndon, 1.5.54 Walnut Drive, --a real estate
broker, stated a number of builders liked to do things by
themselves ,and were: unable to quit after theye retired
because, they liked to exercise their craft and solve
58-439
11/16/87
problems. . In 1959, Mr. Procter was building houses by him-
self - in Atherton and built a house on Partridge in Menlo
Park similar to the subject structure, which had consider-
able charm. He believed it was of dubious value to the City
to erase the rear unit and allow it to be bought by a
developer who would erase the front unit and erect an enor-
mous single-family house. The worst punishment for. Mr.
Procter would be to require him to finish the structure and
keep it as a rental. He would not want that if the property
were his. The house was not easy to see and not easy to get
into. It was his impression that the house had not had
worked stopped on it since 1979, largely because of the
assembly of materials, and he had not found soil pipe to be
an unusual home for rats. The structures should be kept as
part of the rental supply . because it would be difficult to
sell the two on one lot. Mr. Procter liked to do the work
himself and was not only a contractor but an electrical and
plumbing contractor and was not likely to create a permanent
hazard for anyone inhabiting the house, and the inspections
throughout the building process ensured that.
Ms. Young administered the oath to Don Spicer
Don Spicer, 970 University Avenue, said with the City of
Palo Alto being on record_, as being in dire need of rentals
and low --income housing, he favored a solution other than
demolition. •
Mr. Procter, said a member of the Hewlett family lived in
the front house for three years, and the present tenant
offered $250,000 for the property which would cost her at
least three -times as much as the $800 rent.
Mr. Herman believed the City went out of its way to get Mr.
Procter to complete his building and did not know what else
they could have done. Mr. Procter finally applied for a
building permit in 1987 under threat of the subject proce-
dure. The City expedited his plan check sb he could resume
work, and that application expired .after 180 days.
Council Member Cobb asked what happened to the two cars and
the building materials that were removed.
Mr. Herman.. said the cars were a Jensen Healey and Mercury
Capri, both unusable, unlicensed, and one was severely
damaged. Mr. Procter said he wanted them, and the . City had
the cars towed to Mr. Procter€s property in Atherton. The
building materials were from floor to ceiling in the carport
area were disposed of at th,s City dump with the exception of
five ;pallets of bricks which were put into a secure area,
and Mr. Procter was given time to pick them up.
58-440
11/16/87
MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, to
adopt staff recomendation, including the following findings
to uphold the decis`ion.of the Chief Building Official,
approving the following findings and require that the
unfinished structure located at 127 Coleridge Avenue be
demolished according to the procedures provided in PAMC
Chapter 16.40. If the responsible party does not commence
demolition within 17 days of the Council's decision, the
Building Official will order the City Engineer to perform
the work; and the expenses incurred for the demolition will
be assessed against the responsible party.
Findings
1. The unfinished structure on the rear of the property
located at 127 Coleridge Avenue, in Palo Alto,
California, is a dangerous building and a public nui-
sance, under Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.40,
based on the following:
a) The structure has become an attractive nuisance to.
children and a harbor for vagrants, criminals, or
other persons who could use the structure for com-
mitting nuisance or unlawful acts, in that the
structure has an open roof which makes it accessible
from the adjacent carport roof;
b) The structure has been constructed, and now exists,
in violation of specific requirements of the City
Building Code and Fire Code, in that 1) bent over
reinforcing steel was used to hold the bottom plates
in place, 2) the structure's bracing is inadequate
for Seismic Zcxa 4, 3) the structure's exterior
walls are improperly braced to withstand wind and/or
seismic loads, 4) the uncompleted structure consti-
tutes a fire hazard, as defined in Title 15 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code, and 5) pertions of the
structure are improperly weatherproofed, including
lack of weatherproofing for the wood frame walls;
The structure is a fire hazard and is so situated so
as to endanger life or other buildings or property
in the vicinity, in that the structure is situated
near theresidences at the front of the premises and
on the neighboring properties and the condition of
the structure's open roof and wood construction
provides a ready fuel supply that would augment and
intensify a fire arising in the area.
58-441
11/16/87
MOTION CONT' D
2. Repair or completion of the structure is impracticable
because the structure is less than 50 percent completed
and has been declared a fire hazard by the Palo Alto
Fire Department. Therefore, according to Chapter 16.40,
the structure must be demolished.
Council Member. _Renzel visited the property prior to the
removal of the building materials and saw the deplorable
conditions that existed. The findings and chronology of the
problems were ample reason to indicate that the Council
could not expect the progress suggested, and it behooved the
Council to support the motion.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy,
to reconsider the dates for Items 6 and 7.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
MOTION: Council Member Moved, seconded by Levy, that the
dates fot Items 6 and 7 be changed from December 14, 1987,
to a date agrzecmi opon b staff and properly noticed.
MOTION PASSED unanimous: y .
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned to a Closed Session at 9:15 p.m.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT
Final adjournment at 9:30 p.m. in memory of Winifred Kidd,
past City Clerk, 1937 to 1903.
ATTEST
APPROVED:
Mayor
58-442
11/16/87