HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-13 City Council Summary Minutes1
CITY
COUNCI L
Minutes
ITEM
Regular Meeting
January 13, 1986
Oral Communications
Approval of Minutes of November 4, 1985 and
November 12, 1985
Item #1., Resolution of Appreciation to Ray Remmel
Consent Calendar
Referral
Item i2, interior Remodeling at Municipal Services
Center - Consultant Contract - Referral to Finance
and Public Works Committee
CITY
Csf
ALTO
PAGE
6 7 1 8
5 7 2 1
6 7 2 1
6 7 2 2
6 7 2 2
6 7 2 2
Action 6 7 2 2
Item #3, Resolution of Apprectiation to Richard J.
Wilkerson
Item #4, Resolution Extending Residential Non -Park
Use of a Portion of Arastradero Preserve
item #a, Planning Commission and Architectural
Review Board Recommendation re Application of
Beacon Oil Company for Remodeling of Facilities at
78.0 San Antonio Road
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Item #6, Public Nearing: Weed Abatement
Item 00 PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission
Recommendation Re Environmental Impact Report for
San Antonio/West Bayshore Area CS/GM Zone and
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Changes
Recess
Item • 7-A, Request of Counci lmeinber Fletcher re
Council Legit sl ativeM: I mmittee Request for
Resolution of Appreciation to Assemblyman Byron D.
Sher and Senator Rebecca Morgan y>
Item 17-8, Request of Councilmember Levy re 6 7 4 2
County's Pending Action on Op ,. Space
Item ;8, Request of Council ember Fletcher re 6 7 4 3
Political Signs
Adjournment 10:37 p.m. 6 7 4 5
6 7 2 2
6 7 2 2
6 7 2 2
6 7 2 3
6 7 2 3
6 7 2 3
6 7 3 4
6 7 4 2
6 7 1 7
1/13/86
Regular Meeting
January 13, 1986
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Cobb, Fletcher,
Klein, Levy (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Patitucci
(arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Frank Raymond, 1030. Fife Avenue, was a member of the Palo Alto
Baha'i community and presented the City Council The Promise of Promise of
Peace, a statement by the Universal House of Justice,
the international governing body of the Baha'i faith. On
December 10, the White House commemoration of "Human Rights
Day" featured the presentation of that document to President
Ronald Reagan. In addition, more than 45 other heads of state
received the statement since October. The message focused on
the necessity and inevitability of achieving world peace
through the promotion of the oneness of mankind. Peace was
the next . stage in the evolution of the planet, The Baha' i s
hoped the document would inspire -its readers with ideas for
action toward that end.
2. 'Sarah Skurnick, 15;6 Louisa Court, Alas a Senior at Palo Alto
High School. Luring the past five days, a group of students
at Pally actively pursued support for the establishment of a
student hony-out in Palo Alto. In less than three days they
collected- 300 signatures supporting the proposal from stu-
dents, parents, and teachers. Even before formally addressing
the Student Council, they had the support of many Student
Council members and the Student Body President at Paly. Move-
ment for support was also starting at Gunn High School, and
she was confident Gunn students Would also support the idea.
Their foal was to have a casual student -run community center
for the youth of Palo Alto. Because of the cost and complica-
tions involved in the scheme, they needed a substantial amount
of support from the City Council to achieve what they wanted.
They -urged the Council to investigate the possibilities for
location and setup for such a youth center, and to place the
issue of a student hang-out on the agenda for a future
meeting. Students, parents, teachers, and many other members
of the community agreed Palo Alto needed a place fore high
school kids to get together in a casual, fun, and safe atmos-
phere. She asked that Council help make it possible,
3. James Johnson, 1621 Castilleja Avenues said when he first
heard about the center he did not really put much into it.
Because of lack of money, students were somewhat restricted.in
what they could do nn weekends. There were some alternatives,
such as. movies, or: dinner with dates, etc., but basically
students did not have en:09h money for it and- it got old. One
of the things they ended up doing was going out on the streets
looking for :parties,- and there was drinking_ at the parties
which led to students driving drunk, and as such, there were
problems with 'accidents and fatalities in Palo Alto. He
believed the Youth Center_ was a great idea ;because it offered
people a chance to get together end have fun without dt'°i-nking,
a place to take a date for dancing. There were centers in San
Francisco and .San Jose for denting, but they cost money and
were for 18 years and. older. The proposed center would be
bass cal iy+ a school donce. with 'better foci' .ties, better run,
and every- weekend. Ht hoped the City Council would support
the idea so the students could have. a better time at Poly now
and in the future.
6 7 1 8
1/13/86
4= Kimberly Irvin, 630 Seale Avenue, spnkc on behalf of Palo Alto
High School students who were looking fur a place to yet away
from the stresses they faced. School pressures, family
stresses, and even going to a party where everybody was
drinking when you did not want to could be stressful. Not
that everybody was pressured into drinking, but people were
uncomfortable if a whole room was drinking and they did not
have a drink. The place would be somewhere to gather with
friends for talking, a movie, or game of pool, or dancing with
friends. With all the articles published on teenage stress,
it seemed ideal for -Palo Alto to have a center where kids
could take'a break and get away. With that in mind, the stu-
dents requested Council take the idea of a Youth Center to
heart and discuss its possibilities.
5. Matthew Braun, 1848 Emerson, spoke regarding a Youth Center
for Palo Alto High School students. He believed students from
both Gunn and Palo Alto High Schools would benefit from the
opening of a Youth Center. Currently all the dance clubs were
located in San Jose, San Francisco, and Fremont. The clubs
cost. money and were quite a distance away. If a center was
set up, it would give an alternative from drinking at a party
or from the day-to-day stress located in Palo Alto. It would
give students a place to dance, socialize, and meet with
friends. He urged the City Council to ayendize the item and
to look into the prospects of opening such a club run by the
students of Palo Alto High School,
b. Chris Schaefer, 2140 Harvard Street, said his colleagues
talked about the need for students to have a place such as a
Student Center to go on weekend nights to socialize, dance,
play games, etc. The students wanted to see a pool table,
ping pony table, a stereo to provide music for dancing or just
listening, a VCR on which to show a movie on Friday and
Saturday nights, and a comfortable atmosphere with a sofa and
curtains, not just the harsh situation presented in a gym.
They would like some food provided possibly by a concession-
aire or private person. As far as location was concerned,
they would like to see it in a central location in Palo Alto
so that students on a bicycle or walking could get there
without the help of their parents and cars, or for those
Seniors and Juniors that could drive in a car. He suggested
within the Jordan School site was the K-4 through K-7 rooms,
which were at the end and away from the rest of the building,
and which might conceivably provide an ideal location. A
central location was a necessity. As Council could see, there
was a lot of support for the Center, with probably 20 students
present that evening, and 300 signatures collected over a
period of three school days. Within a week he was sure they
could have almost the entire student body of both Gunn and
Pale supporting the center. Another key thing 'as it would be
free, so a student with no money at any one particular time
could just walk down to the Student Center and have a good
time. As far as supervision, which he was sure they all
worried about, the students thought possibly of hiring some
graduate students from Stanford, or maybe just students from
there, who had some experience, possibly, in psychology or
counseling who could be paid to hang out at the center and
lister to the students problems and provide the necesssary
supervision. The students believed- a center .open on the
weekend nights would be a great help and was important to, have
in Palo Alto. He requested it be put on a future agenda so
more of the students` ideas could be presented.
6 7 1 g
1/13/86
6. Dr. Nancy Jewell Coss, 301 Vine Street, Menlo Park noticed
from the Palo Alto Weekly some members of the Council took a
position regarding apartheid in South Africa aid Investments.
She pointed to a situation of apartheid in their area.
Apartheid was complex, not only in, South Africa involving
government, but the whole social and economic structure. She
pointed out the situation of the newspapers in which the City
Government -of Palo Alto advertised. The Palo Alto Weekly was
a so-called "free" newspaper supported by advertisers. The
Palo Alto Weekly said it was mailed free to every home in Palo
Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, faculty and staff, households on
Stanford campus and to portions of Los Altos Hills. The ci r---
culati.on sounded good for a City such as Menlo Park because
one often wanted to give notice of things which might concern
people outside the City limits. However, if one inquired of
the Weekly's marketing mandyer, one found the line was cut at
Bayshore Freeway. Most of the Menlo Park Hispanics and
African heritage people lived on the east side of the freeway
in what was called Bellehaven. Seventeen percent of the City
was there. What. happened was the definition of Menlo Park was
the white Menlo Park not the whole of Menlo Park, and East
Palo Alto was cut out. They did Prot know what went on in East
Palo Alto in their municipal government; East Palo. Alto did
not know what went on in Palo Alto because there was no mutual
paper. The City Council could not tell a paper what to do,
but as an advertiser which made the paper possible, it could
say what it would like to have done; that it wouia like the
paper to proceed in a way which did not divide its readership
essentially by race. She believed the City Council's state-
ment could be influential on the Palo Alto Week. She showed
a transparency, and in the fine print it said the paper went
to every home in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, faculty and
stafd at Stanford, and portions of,los Altos Hills and then in
an advertisement it said, "Reach ,Pore qualified people," and
said it went to every -home in Palo Alto, Stanford, Atherton,
Menlo Park, and Los Aleo Hills; but the dividing line was
along Bayshore. Apartheid did not operate clearly to every-
body, and that was how it was effective. People did not know
the full story unless they trade a deliberate inquiry. She
made the inquiry and believed there were a lot of misstate-
ments. The marketing manager's voice and manner were such
that where the paper was circulated was ,subject to influence
--if-people cared.` She asked the City of Palo Alto to put the
item on the Agenda and write a letter as an advertiser to the
Palo Alto Weekly requesting they not divide the neighboring
communities or any community essentially by race, and to cir-
culate even in East Palo Alto. The successful solicitation in
East Palo Alto required the Weekly get news of the East Palo
Alto people; it would not be read there unless the area and
the Ravenswood City School District were covered and not just
the consequences of segreyation in the Tinsley suit.
7. Linda Elkind, 2040 lasso, spoke individually and on behalf of
the Committee for Green Foothills. She referred to the
County's interpretation of its General Plan with resrect to.
their definition of allowable uses in the hillsides. The next
day at the Supervisor's meeting, the County would decide
whether to go: forward and amend the hiu l si de ordinance. which
determined allowable uses. At issue was the definition of low
intensity recreational use in the hillsides. The question was
whether a shooting range was an allowable use and whether it
should be defined as- a low intensity use in_ the hillsides.
She submitted a short staff report late that afteri;oon, which
Council probably received too late to read, but it outlined
the position staff took and the choices before the Board the
next day. She requested Council take some action and cornruni..
cote with the Board of . Supervisors whether Council believed
shootiny ranges in the hillsides should be an allowable use as
a condition of permit along with other conditions.
6 7 2 0
1/13/86
Mayor Cobb said it was Council's general policy to not respond
directly to items brought under Oral Communications. If some
Councilmember chose to agendize a matter on an emergency basis,
they Gould attempt to do so, but it was a violation of Council
rules to respond or yet into questions and answers at that time.
Vice Mayor Woolley said she intended to add the matter to the
agenda under Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4, 1985 AND NOVEMBER 12, 1985.
Minutes of November 4,0 1985
Councilmember Klein submitted the following corrections:
Pale 6518, paragraph 5' third sentence, the word "map" should be
"math."
Page 6522, paragraph 11, the word "preparatory" should be
''`precatory. " \\,
Vice Mayor Woolley submitted the following corrections:
Page 6521, paragraph 3, line 11, the word "daughter-" should be
"owner."
Page 6521, paragrah 3, line 18, word "tears" should be "types."
Page 6521, paragraph 4, line 3, word "advise" should be changed to
"advice."
Minutes of November 12, 1985
Councilmember Renzei ..submitted the following correction:
Page 6531, last full paragraph, should read, "Councilmember Menzel
commented, as she »ad when the matter was before Council previ-
ously, that she believed it was very shortsighted and limited of
Council to deal only with the multi -lot st.odivisions. They only
showed what could happen in all of our neighborhoods and Council
ought to be taking a more comprehensive action; but, if that was
all Council was grainy to do, the method suggested by staff was
clearly preferable to relying on private covenants to do the
job."
MOTION: CouncilLe‘ber Sutorios moved, seconded by Woolley,
approval of the Minutes of November 4, 1985 and Novembee 12, 1985,
as corrected.
Councilmember Patitucci said he would not participate since he was
not on the Council at the time.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucct not participating."
ITEM f1,. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO RAI REMMEL (PER 4-2)
flayOr Cobb said Ray Remmel, , a long-time City employee, was present
that evening along Ott his wife. Ray Remmel served the city of
Palo Alto for 25 years primarily as the Chief Engineer for the
Water, Gas and Wastewater Division, and pursued his duties for the
City with enthusiasm, competence, and an outstanding sense of
willingness to respond to public need„ He was Involved in major
projects such as development of the cathadic protection system for
steel gas mains,` for construction and operation cf the Water
Quality. Control Plant... and major water system extensions in the
foothills. He was active as the City's representative to the Bay
Area Users Asso iation and the Suburban Advisory Group of that
organization, and as a member o.f the South Bay Dischargers
Association. Through the outstanding efforts of Ray Remmel, the
City was always well informed of the operations of the Santa Clara
6 7 2 1•
1/13/86
Vdliey Water Di3tr ict operations ioils and the San Francisco Water
District. He would retire on January 17, 1986 and the Council of
the City of Palo Alto gratefully recorded its appreciation and the
appreciation of its citizens for the commendable services rendered
to the City and extended to Ray Remmel its sincere appreciation
and best wishes for a healthy and fulfilling future.
MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Levy,
approval of the resolution of appreciation to Ray Remmel,
RESOLUTION 6476 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THt CITY of PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO RAY
REMMEL UPON HIS RETIREMENT"
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
Mayor Cobb presented a framed copy
Remmel,
the resolution to Mr.
Chief Engineer for the Water, Gas and Wastewater Division Ray
Remmel said it was fun and a wonderful experience. He made many
friends in the City, across the counter on the third floor in
Utilities. It had also been a pleasure to go out and solve some
of the problems in the community.
Mayor Cobb said Mr. Remmel did a wonderful job for the City, and
it was a well deserved resolution.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, approval
of Consent Calendar.
Referral
ITEM #2� INTERIOR REMODELING AT MUNICIPAL SERVICES CENTER
CUN ANT CONTRACT - REFERRAL TO FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE (FIN 9.3) (CMR:123:6)
Action
ITEM 13 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO RICHARD J. WILKERSON
'PER 4-25
RESOLUTION 6477 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
H 11LO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO RICHARD
J. WI,AERSON UPON HIS RETIREMENT"
ITEM #4, RESOLUTION EXTENDING RESIDENTIAL NON -PARK USE OF A
PORTION OF ARASTRADERO PRESERVE PAR 2-23) (CMR:122:6)
Staff recommends the Council adopt the Resolution extending to
November 5, 1986 temporary non -park use of the 0.956 acre portion
of the Arastradero Preserve for interim residential use.
(ESOLUTIAN 6478 entitled "RESOLUTION OV THE COUNCIL OF
TI4 CITY Ot PALO ALTO EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY NON -PARK
USE OF THE DEDICATED 0.956 ACRE PARCEL ON .THE
ARASTRADERO PRESERVE FOR UP TO ONE TEAR"
I1111 #5-_ PLANNINii COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
RCD 'i R P LICA 8 ACON Olt COMPAI4Y T�`li�REMO'LI'NG
OF FAL L A 80 SAN A N R [}
The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board (ARB)
unanimously recom end approval, with conditions, of the
application of deacon Oil Company for site and design approval to
completely remodel existing gas station by removing and replacing
existing buildings and all on -site improvements at 780 San Antonio
Road,
6 7 2 2
1/13/86
MOTION PASSED uv,Inin!ou=1y
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS.
City Manager Bill Liner said Councilmember Fletcher's item re.
Council Legislative Committee Request four Resolution of Apprecia-
tion to Assemblyman Byron D. Sher and Senator Rebecca Morgan would
be Item 7-A.
Councilmember Levy added Item 7-B Regerdi g tie County's pending
action on Upen Spare.
ITEM #6, PUBLIC HEARING: WEED ABATEMENT (CMR:126:6) (PWK 5-2)
Mayor Cobb said it was the time and place set for a public hearing
on resolution declaring weeds to be a nuisance. He wanted the
record to reflect the notice, of hearing was . given in the time,
place and form provided for in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. He asked if the City Clerk received any written
objections.
City Clerk Gloria Young said no.
Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open.
William Terry, owned Parcel No. 182-54-014., Laurel Glen Drive, and
received from the County Weed Abatement Section a notice of nox-
ious weeds pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The pueeees.e
of the Weed Abatement Program was to prevent fires and abate
nuisances caused by such weeds and combustible trash. In the year
he owned the property, he removed six pick-up loads of combustible
trash from the area, and had cooperation from the Police ',Depart-
meet and Public Works in trying to control combustible trash.
While they were trying to prevent fires and control weeds, the
property he owned was cleared of all brush and consisted of mature
oak trees and grass. It was surrounded on two sides by private
property which was heavy brush, and it also bordered the Arastra
property which was heavy brush. He was somewhat concerned that
while he went about his civic duty and controlled grass on his
property, what was done about the brush in the foothills.
City Manager Bill Zaner said Mr. Terry would be provided with a
copy of the Council -adopted Foothills Fire Management Plan. It
addressed the questions of fire breaks and clearing the fuel in
the area. It was not 100 percent effective all the time, but
there was a program in full effect. Chief Wall and his crew were
responsible for administering the plan and a substantial amount of
money was spent in the budget for it each year.
Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing closed. He asked the
record to reflect one person appeared to speak on the subject, and
clarified the resolution passed by the Council would reflect it
also.
NOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Sutories,
approval of the resolution.
RESOLUTION 6479 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
TH CITY OF PALO ALTO ORDERING WEED NUISANCE ABATED"
NOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM 17 PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMl4ISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
/I EN RON;i4 NTAL : IMPACT R PORt FOR SAN AtNTON1O/WEsr—BAYSHORE AREA
C M R �.� L L USE KM CHANGES- (PLA 7-11T
tCMR:127:‘)
Mayor Cobb asked that Council's questions reflect the types of
motions anticipated so staff could comment on the approval of the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
6 7 2 3
1/13/86
Chief pianniny Official Bruce Freeland said there was confusion
about some of the numbers related to growth under different pro-
posals for .the San Antonio Road area, and staff put together some
data on commercial and industrial growth for the entire City,
which might put some perspective on the City-wide picture before
launching into the one piece of the picture. Presently, there
were just under 20,500,000 square feet of commercial and indus-
trial development in the City outside the Downtown. Downtown was
taken out because it' would make some of the later comparisons
harder since it added another 3,400,000 square feet. A little
more than 1,585,000 square feet of the 20,500,000 square feet was
in the San Antonio area, or about= 7,.7- percent. Under the current
zoning, there was a potential.in the City to more than double the
existing development of commercial and industrial use in the City.,-
Exciudiny the Downtown because it was not known what zoning to
assume for the area, there was a potential for an additional
27,540,000 square feet of commercial and industrial development
City-wide. The present zoning of the San Antonio Road area would
allow an addi-tieeal 3,383,924 square feet, or a little over 12
percent of the remaininy commercial and industrial development
potential of the City exclusive of the Downtown area. The point
was it was a sizable fraction of a City-wide growth potential,
which might be lost in the more detailed look of the area itself.
Staff would refer to Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4. Area 1 was 'basically
the commercial transport area, the area toward Mountain View on
the Mountain View side of San Antonio between Charleston and the
Bayshore Freeway. Area 2 was basically the Fabian area, which
dominant use was aerospace. Area 3 was the other side of Fabian
south of Charleston. Area 4 was the service commercial area pre-
dominantly along the Mountain View side of San Antonio Road. He
referred to a chart entitled "San Antcnio/West Bayshore Study
Buildout Under Various Alternatives," which identified the amount
of additional development which could occur in each of the areas
and a total for the San Antonio Road area, Alternative Flo. 4 was
the staff proposal, which allowed 320,151 square feet more than
the existing 1,5e5,105 square feet currently there. The Planning
Comr.issivn recommendation a-ilowed 487,195 .square feet beyond
existiny development. Council received a letter from the Chamber
of Commerce (which is on file in the City Clerk's office) which
contained information that should be clarified. At one point in
the letter, they referred to what would happen if all four areas
were allowed to build to a 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR), and stated
it would only entail about 16,480 square feet. In fact, the num-
ber should be 562,594 additional square feet. The Chamber letter
later referred to allowiny all properties to build to a 0.75 FAR
believing it would allow only 202,000 square feet above the
Planning Commission recommendation. The final column on the chart
showed the actual number for -a 0.75 FAR. In fact, it would be
1,727,690 square feet above existing development. Council might
want to consider options other than those contained in the EIR and
staff report. The EIR was written such to allow a certain amount
of flexibility in the way FAR could be combined for different
areas. However, the EIR did not consider anything above a 0.75
FAR for Area 1, and did not consider anything above 0.5 FAR for
Areas 2, 3, and 4. If Council wanted to entertain development
which excesded 0.75 FAR in Area 1 or 0.5 .FAR - in any of the. other
areas, they would not be covered by the EIR as written, and would
require staff to prepare a supplemental EIR. Ordinances were
attached to the staff report labeled "Ordinance 1" and "Ordinance
2," The numbers were reversed. Ordinance 1 should be _Ordinance
2, and Ordinance 2 should be Ordinance I. With those changes,
they would correspond with the references in the staff report. _
Planning Commissioner Pam Marsh s;aid. the Planning Commission_
reviewed the draft EIS, for the San Antonio/West Bayshore area on
November 6, .1985 and unanimously recommended -the EIR be certified
as complete. It further voted ;to recommend the changes to the
City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations detailed.in docu-
ments. The Commission, by a vote of -3-2, recommended Area 2 be
rezoned to a FAR of 0.5 rather than the 0.4 initially suggested
dl
i
1
1
by si:.a l f . Th 'rili i is l oii made the change first to promote consis-
tency within the San Antonio area, and in consideration for the
major landowners in the area. Ford Aerospace occupied about 90
percent of the land in -Area 1, and the Commission believed Ford
was capable and committed to provide leadership in the creation
and promotion of traffic mitigation programs to address additional
development not only at Ford, but throughout the San Antonio area.
The second change recommended by the Commission was to state that
general business uses remain a conditional use in Area 1. It was
true staff studies indicated the current mix of general businesses
located yin the area had traffic patterns which did not indicate
high generation of traffic, but it was also true general business
uses often generated more-` traffic than other typical GM uses.
Retaining the requirement -the general business use obtain a con-
ditional use permit should enable the City -to control or refuse
occupancy to high traffic generating uses. She notes the data the
Commission used in the decision was later revealed to inaccurately
exaggerate the differences between GM and general business traffic
patterns. The-refore, Council might want to review the Planning
Commission's decision. She pointed out the corrected data stir
indicated the general business uses were about twice as intensive
in terms of traffic as other kinds of warehousing or other kinds
of yenera.l business uses.
Mayor Cobb said the office building on Middlefield Road was listed
at 4157 Middlefield and he believed it was 4151 Middlefield Road.
Mr. Freeland said the addresses staff used were from th- City's
block books and he believed they were legally correct. The detail
could be researched by staff for the second reading of the ordi-
nance.
Councilmerber Renzel referred to the distinction between doing the.
general overall EIR and a project -by -project EIR for individual
proposals, and asked if when Council certified an EIR for a gen-
eral area and later .acted for the general area, it wdz obligated
to ensure its actions provided sufficient mitigation or one of the
statements of unusual circumstances. In other words, if Council
made a blanket EIR from numerous properties so only matters not
covered in the EIR would be discussed in subsequent property -by -
property proposals, was Council obligated to ensure its decisions
provided adequate mitigations.
Associate Planner Sarah Cheney said yes. The mitigation measures
identified in the EIR would be applied to any projects approved
within the study a;-eas.
Mr. Freeland said there was a provision in the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which allowed Council to adopt a
project without full mitigation of impacts. It called for
findings of over,iding community benefits, economics, social,
etc., and it was within the Council's authority to determine it
was not feasible to make all the mitigations and the development
was still desirable for economic, social, or other reasons. From
that standpoint, Council did not have to perfectly mitigate every-
thing. In the event Council did not completely mitigate all the
impacts, it was incumbent upon the Council to make findings of
overriding community benefits, and to state the reasons therefor.
it would transfer to the individual projects to come later, and
they would still have been environmentally cleared by the action.
Counci liember Renzel was troubled because . at the point Council
certified the EIR, there was an assumption it would take an action
to address- some of the environmental problems. If Council failed
to address the environmental problems adequately and produced one
of the statements of overriding benefits, which it would appar-
ently have to do in any case because the mitigations proposed did
not yo far enough, she asked if it meant future Councils were
stripped of environmental review which might recognize some of the
mitigations should and could be done.
6 7 2 5
1/13/86
Mr, Freeland said future environmental assessments would not be
required of individual projects so long as when a project was
received, staff looked at it and determined whether it was ade-
quately covered by a pre-existing EIR. Staff would have a pro-
grammed EIR meaut to cover it, and would also have to ask whether
the facts assumed in the EIR were still valid, whether conditions
changed so the traffic was worse or some other factor changed
which was not anticipated. In the event staff believed there was
a change iii circumstance, the EIR would no longer serve the proj-
ect and a fresh analysis would have to be done. Further, on indi-
vidual projects, there might be specific unique iss'ies to the
project. The project might be near a creek which presented an
issue related to the Riparian habitat or some such thing. Those
unique issues on each project were to be looked at individually_
and there might be other circumstances in which there would be
future environmental review.
City Attorney. Diane Lee referred to the power of other Councils
with regard to projects, and in terms of the environmental review
of those projects, to some degree if none of the circumstances
referred to by Mr. Freeland occurred, then a future Council would
not have the power to review those projects or make them prepare
EIas. However, Council's legislative power remained unchanged.
If for reasons other than environmental or it chose not to adhere
in the present proceedings, and the present or future Council
wanted to impose an additional or greater requirements in a par-
ticular area of the City, currently Council was free to do so.
Councilmember Renzel clarified legislative meant zoning require-
ments.
Ms. Lee said yes.
Councilmember Fletcher said there was one office building at 801
Charleston adjacent to a single-family residence on one side and a
gas station on the other, and directly across the street from 800
Charleston was proposed for rezoning to residential. She asked if
it was another appropriate site to be rezoned to residential.
Panning Administrator Lynnie Melena said staff never looked at
the site for residential. If Council wanted to look at it, the
particular site would have to be referred to the Planning
Commission for review.
Councilmember Fletcher said Leghorn was in Mountain View, and she
called the Mountain View Planning Department to find out the
potential buildout. She was advised a 30 percent increase was
still allowable. She asked whether it made any difference in the
traffic impacts of the whole area.
Mr. Freeland said it was hard to answer on the spur of the moment,
and deferred until he had more information.
Councilmember Fletcher refer-ed to the various impacts listed in
the EIR, and said increased development was the most severe on the
landfill. She asked whether new developments could be required to
participate in a recycling program similar to what Syntex did, or
whether requirements could be made as applications were received.
Ms. Cheney said she raised: the issue and the City presently pre-
ferred to make it a voluntary program. In terms of the option to
require it, she believed it was open.
Ms. Lee believed the program could be made mandatory, but the City
Manager was concerned about enforcement.
Councilmember Fletcher referred-- to noise impacts of the Areas 2
and 3 on the residences which backed up onto those developments.
She believed it was an oversight.
6 7 2 6
1/13/86
M. Cheney said if it was considered, noise would he a problem tor
neighboring residences, the issue would have to be further
assessed in a supplemental environmental assessment. As Mr.
Freeland stated, if any issue was not adequately addressed in the
EIR, the specific issue would be addressed in a supplemental
environmental assessment.
Councilmember Bechtel asked about the sequence of GM and GM(1).
As she understood it, GM(l) was a new zoning district established
when the Hewlett-Packard building was constructed. Staff now
proposed to eliminate the GM(1) zone created about five or six
years ago and combine it with, straight GM. She was concerned that
what Council did in one part of town inadvertently affected two
other property owners. She asked why it needed. to be done, how it
could be avoided, and whether there were costs 'to the Hewlett-
Packard property since the. City created the zone and now it was
being taken away, and the other property near or on Lambert.
Ms. Melena said staff agreed it was not the best way to set up new
zone districts, but did not believe there would be a cost except
for mailing out the public hearing notices and conducting a
hearing. Staff recognized the problem and realized it would face
the problem as it went from one area of the City to another under
the original program which was to do individual studies. The
realization was one reason staff proposed, and Council approved, a
City-wide study in order to look at all the areas at once, antici-
pate how all the different zone districts would affect all the
other areas of the City, and it would not be done piecemeal, which
was what ended up happening in that case,
Councilmember Bechtel said staff was making a couple of property
owners jump needlessly through a hoop and attend a public hearing.
The question was whether staff could get along leaving the old
zoning district on the books and not combining them.
Ms. Melena said it could be left on the books. There would be two
zone districts with exactly the same reyulatior;s.
Councilmember Bechtel referred to the Woolworth property and the
medical office building located at either 4157 or 4151 Middlefield
Road, and understood both staff and the Commission wanted to see
those properties remain. She gathered the idea !as to change the
underlying zoning to residential so if Woolworth's decided to
close its doors, an office building could not be put up in its
place. She asked how the City could automatically grandfather
those properties in without requiring them to also jump through
hoops and attend subsequent public hearings.
Ms. Melena said in the case of the Middlefield property, the pro-
posal was to automatically grandfather it in.
Mr. Freeland said the same ce u ; d be done with the Woolworth Garden
Center, The difference between simply grandfAthering in and
having them go through the exception process had to do with the
scope of uses allowed to continue on the site. In the case of the
grandfather clause, it would be considered a.retail use presently,
and any retail use cculd replace it. In the case of the exception
process, it could be made more specific. The exception could be
for a garden center so just that use could remain. It could be
done either way. If it was done the more general way, the prop-
erty would have the certainty they would not have to go through
either eny additional process, but they would need more latitude
for future uses other than a garden center.
Councilmember Bechtel clarified there was no way Council could
specifically say it was presently for a garden center.
Mr. Freeland said staff was unable to identify any way to get that
precise.
6 7 2 7
1/13/86
Councilmember Bechtel asked about the obligations of the property
owner for the exception process
Mr. Freeland said it put a burden on the property owner in that
there was a fee, an application to be completed, hearings before
the Planning Commission and City Council to attend and state their
case, and it was an upsetting event in that it had no certain
outcome. The outcome was determined as a result of the public
hearing process.
Mayor Cobb believed a lot of the problem specifically came from
Mountain View and even more would come when the t-ewlett-Packard
operation went into the old Mayfield Mali. He asked if the City
had any leverage on the City of Mountain View or aey mechanism
whereby the City could attempt to get some cooperation with
respect to mitigations of the problem from that City since they
contributed .in significant ways.
Assistant Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel said the City was
currently working with Mountain Viewe,:n terms of getting a traffic
signal at San Antonio aed East bayshore. It also involved
Cal Trans which presented an added difficulty. It was not an easy
process, and he suspected any intra-City coordination would not be
easy. He had not had any practical experience and did not believe
the City as a whole did either.
Mayor Cobb asked whether staff gave any consideration to the pos-
sible unintended consequences of actions Council might take. He
was specifically concerneC about tine potential for driving out of
Palo Alto certain services the City might like to remain.
Mr. freelaed said the argument was certain businesses had to
expand in order to remain viable, By having the restrictions on
future growth, they would at some point expand to the point where
they could no longer grow on the sites in'which they were pres-
ently located. He saw no reason to believe any part of the pro-
posal, other than the limitation on the size of buildings, would
change whether those businesses were viable. If the traffic wor-
sened greatly, the businesses would be less viable. Regarding
whether the .buildings could be enlarged, one of the purposes of
reducing zoning was to make it less possible to expand. There was
a table in the EIR, on page V -A-28, which identified the numbers
of parcels and the percent of the parcels in each of the sub -areas
that would still have expansion potential under the various
rezonings proposed. In order to line them up with FARs, he
referred to Table 1 on page 'II -2-5. Those two charts together
showed for each FAR how many parcels remained with development
potential. He opined under the Planning Commission recommendation
and from the evidence it would be similar to Alternative 5. It
would have somewhat more development in Area 2 tean was shown in
Alternative '5. Overall, 60 percent of the parcels, and he be-
lieved it would be somewhat higher with the Planning Commission
recommaendation, would still have development potential with a 0.5
FAR, which meant there would be something less then 40 percent
which would not. If the businesses needed to expand in their
present location for the 40 percent, it might mean those ..particu-
lar businesses would not stay'. The majority of parcel's had room
for some expansion, and when totaled overall. quantitatively, it
went back to the Planning Commission recommendation and the poten-
tial for 4n add{,tional 487,195 square feet. He did not believe,
other than the_ limitation on building size, the City was taking
actions to force buildings out. The gaestion as to what extent
the Council was willing to constrain -minor expansions through FARs
versus its feeling on how it would affect the particular
businesses might turn out to be a policy and judgment. matter.
Mayor Cobb asked if it iwas technically feasible to consider the
concept of a sliding scale afd FAR which would recognize the dif-
ferences between warehousing, which. bas a low traffic generator,
and some of the other business: uses which were higher.
6..7 2 8
1)13/86
Mr. Freeland said it was possible, and if Mayor Cobb wanted to
pursue it, he would comment on some of the difficulties.
Councilmember Renzel referred to the mitigation of having a trip
reduction program, and said in order for the trip reduction pro-
gram to take place, the City would have to permit some development
to occur. Presumably, the trip reduction programs currently in
place had not been operative long enough to have any experience on
how effective they were. She asked what happened if the City used
a higher FAR than it otherwise might because it believed the trip
reduction program would work, and then it failed to work.
Mr. Freeland said regarding recourse, it went back to whether in
the future traffic was worse than anticipated when the City certi-
fied the EIR. If staff relied on assumptions which proved not
valid and the traffic was worse, at some point, the EIR would have
to be found no longer to serve the purpose and would have to be
supplemented or a new EIR would have to be done. There were no
direct consequences or remedies in terms of the individual busi-
nesses. So far, staff took the approach of a voluntary program.
The City of Pleasanton adopted an ordinance which theoretically
gave it the ability to enforce trip reduction programs. Palo Alto
had not brought forward any ordinance which went to mandatory trip
reduction. The report suggested the formation of a committee with
the, Chamber of Commerce and businesses to explore what could be
done in the whole area of trip reduction. Staff expected to
return with some ordinance as part of the City-wide study, but
currently, staff was unaware of anything it could do if a firm did
not perform voluntarily.
Councilmember Renzel followed on Mayor Cobb's question regarding -
warehousing versus other kinds of uses, and referred an experience
with a developer who put in racquetball courts with a certain
number of parking spaces. Questions were asked about what hap-
pened if the racquetball court went under, and staff responded
they would be unable to occupy because an office was not allowed
in a racquetball court. In fact, offices were now in the racquet -
bail court, and there was inadequate parking. In the same vein,
she asked what remedy the ''ity had if someone built a large ware-
house, occupied it for a few years, and ',the warehouse was no
longer economic so it went elsewhere and there was an empty
building without a warehouse use to put into it.
Mr. Free'and said an illegal use was in violation of the ordi-
nance, and was enforceable. Probably, the City would be faced.
with an application for some change in regulation. Staff would
probably feel the owner had a good case.
Councilmember Renzel clarified the City would not have accom-
plished what it hoped to accomplish in terms of trip reduction.
Mr. Freeland would argue against taking, that type of measure
because of the stated difficulty and he believed there were also
other practical difficulties.
Councilmember Levy asked if there was anything the City could do
regarding the Woolworth site use to take the action then, which
presumably would be the outcome of a public hears rig for grand -
fathering.
is. Lee said no. Currently, Council was zoning property which was
a general action. If Council took specific zoning for one parcel,
it was known as "spot zoning." and she believed Council heard from
City Attorneys over the year, that spot zoning was illegal.
Councilmember Levy asked if it would be possible for Council to
take action on preserving the Garden Center use on a subsequent
action without having a public hearing preserving the right of the
property owner to make application to change the grandfathering.
elements in a way other than Council by its action.
6 7 2 9
1/13/86
Ms. Lee believed any subsequent action taken by the Council with
respect to the property would obligate Council to have public
hearing under the present zoning codes.
Councilmember Levy referred to the Lambert site currently zoned.
GM, and asked whether the permitted FAR would be affected by
Council action that evening.
Ms. Melena said since the property was zoned GM and assuming
Council adopted regulations for GM different from the ones pres-
ently in existence, the new regulations would apply to the prop-
erty. The new regulations said the property exceeded 0.5 FAR end
would, therefore, become a noncomplying building.
Councilmember Levy clarified the building was currently permitted
to go to a 1 :1 FAR
Ms. Melena said that was correct.
Councilmember Levy asked if the same would occur if Council took
the action recommended by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Melena said yes.
Councilmember Levy asked if the property owner was notified of
that evening's hearing.
Ms. Melena said he was sent a copy of the staff report with the
pertinent section pointed out. The owner of the property also
owned property in the San Antonio Road area.
Councilmember Klein referred to the San Antonio/West Bayshu e
Study 0uildiut Under Various Alternatives chart, and was confused
about the disparity between staff's Alternative 4, Area II, and
what the Facility Manager at Ford Aerospace state1 in the Planniny
Commission minutes on page 7 of the November 6 meeting. The
Facility Manager stated the 0.4:1 FAR would "represent a complete
ban on the slightest additions or modifications to most of our
existing facilities because the average FAR already exceeded 0.4."
If he read the chart correctly, the staff recommendation would
allow an additional 133,000 square feet- over the presently
existing 855,000 square feet or a 15 to 16 percent increase over
what they presently were. Since Ford was approximately 90 percent
of Area II, it seemed staff's figures indicated there was room for
Ford Aerospace to expand some fairly significant degree. He asked
for clarification.
Ms. Melena said the Facility Manager meant certain parcels sere at
or above 0.5 FAR and they could do nothing more on those parcels.
tin other parcels, most notably the vacant one on Fabian, they
could add a lot of floor area. Under 0.4 FAR, they could build an
80,000 square foot building on that parcel alone. The remainder
was spread over other parcels below 0.5 FAR.
Councilmember' Klein clarified Ford had certain parcels that were
not developable, and he asked if those were the ones they
contemplated buildiny on.
Ms. Melena did net believe so. Ford believed they needed the
option for minor expansion on some parcels already at 0.4 FAR.. If
a 0.4 FAR _was established, they could not expand on those
parcels.
Councilmember Klein aekad if staff spoke with Ford since the
Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. eMelena said staff had not talked about it since. the. Planning
Co miSsion meeting, and she was not sure whether there was .a lack
.of understanding,
6 7 3 0
1/13/86
Councilmember Sutorius referred to large property owners in the
City of Palo Alto with large developments, and said the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) process looked for development
plans. Syntex was one where, during his time on the ARB, they
received a revised proposal in terms of the Syntex General Plan,
made comments and ultimately it was accepted as the concept for
development. At the same time, Ford was asked for such a plan and
he asked whether it was received.
Mr. Freeland was not aware of one.
Councilmember Sutorius urged the Ford representative to speak to
the issue during the public hearing.
Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open.
Michael Traugott, 841 Newell, owned 4151 Middlefield Road, and
wanted to grandfather 4151 Middlefield Road. The purchase of the
property was intended as a long-term investment upon which to
build financial security for himself. To amortize the zoning down
to a potential 15 -year use was disastrous in terms of the econom-
ics of purchasing the building six months before, and the process
was unknown to him at the time of purchase. The term "grand-
father" left something unknown, i.e., the percentage of the
building needed to be classified as professional ese in order to
qualify. "Professional building" seemed to be the buzz word, and
his building qualified as a professional building according to 88
percent of it. His building was unique because even though it was
a multi -tenant office building, it was occupied by few tenants and
those who occupied the majority of the space had relatively few
employees. The total building of over 20,000 square feet pres-
ently had no more than 45 employeesee His application contained
pictures of the parking lot taken at different times of the day in
which it could be seen there was more than sufficient parking.
Some tenants had been there for over 10 years, and were looking at
expanded use. People had'leases just renegotiated and planned to
stay there for a while. He asked Council to grandfather his
building, to consider and approve the draft ordinance which he
believed was changed in No. 2, Section 3, where it said if any use
was rendered nonconforming by the rezoning of property RM-2 pur-
suant to the ordinance and was located in a building occupied at
least fifty percent by uses determined by the Zoning Administrator
as iiirofessional and medical office uses that it be "grand -
fathered." He urged Council consideration of grandfathering and
allowing its use to continue indefinitely,
Naphtali Knox, 1025 Forest Avenue, referred to the EIR at Page
XIII.9, Page 42, of two drafts, one which said "Revised and
corrected December 13," and the original draft was prepared and
presented on. Page 43, Planning Commissioner Marsh noted the
Commission suggested modifying the staff recommendation that gen-
eral business services remain a conditional use in Area 1, and the
result of the recommendation was Council had before it an ordi-
nance for the GM zone in which general business services were
conditional uses requiring a use permit rather than permitted
uses. During its ieliberations,' staff recommended general
business services be permitted uses. The final EIR also went on
in XIii-C, -16, as follows, "Mr. Knox` purpose in introducing this
table was to show that if a warehouse or manufacturing use were
displaced by overly restrictive FAR regulations, then a general
business service could rove: in to replace it thus generating more
trips than the previous use and defeating the purpose of, the
rezoning." They were correct; his proposal was the City relax its
recommendation to reduce the FAR's. Instead the Planning
Commission recommended the restriction of general business serv-
ices in opposition to the staff recommendation and would continue
to require use permits under the new zone. As the Manning
Commission's recommendation was based at least in part on an
incorrect graph, Council mig"tt want to reconsider the recommend-
ation. He urged Council to revise the ordinance to make general
6 7 3 1
1/13/86
business services a permitted use. The reduction of FAR was a
severe enough blow to business in the area. He_was not rep-
resenting a general business service category and apologized if
any action he brought on behalf of another property owner
adversely. affected the people who were needed so much in the
community. In the Planning Commission minutes, Commissioner
Marsh stated on Page 26, "What would be the feasibility of'raising
the floor area ratio if we keep general business uses on a Use
Permit level in that area?" Mr. Freeland responded: "This is all
feasible. We're into a situationewhere we have an adverse traffic
situation...Our objective...was to try to put forward as aggres-
sive an overall p• gram as we could.... Whether we've gone too far
and are being too harsh on the property owners `'for not enough
benefit in terms of traffic....We're very Much into'a judgment
area as to what you think the City can tolerate in terms of traf-
fic versis what le fair, reasonahle, and necessary 1r
and wa le �. �.. V JJVI1 J 1 fl terms IISs of
land uses." He opined it was a harsh and overly restrictive
recommendation from the Planning Commission. He suggested Council
consider some Of the things members of the business community,
citizens of the community, and the staff said and asked Council to
ameliorate some of the actions recommended by the Planning
Commission as it took action that evening.
Don Klages, 281 University Drive, owned Wideman's in Palo Alto,
which, including the building,- had been there since 190'6, and also
represented the Chamber of Commerce. He apologized for some of
the fiyures in the letter sent to Council (on file in the City
Clerk's office). The Chamber of Commerce obviously worked from a
different set of figures: The 7.5 figure of 1,700,000 was unreal-
istie and they did not stand by it, but did stand by a philos-
ophical approach of what was flexible and how much more growth the
Chamber believed the area should have. He did not "rave an answer,
but asked Council to think about the harshness of the provision,
remembering they, were going from 3,4_ million down to 500,000
square feet. The Chamber urged some flexibility so small busi-
nesses had the opportunity to grow and stay in the City of Palo
Alto without a tremendous restriction. He suspected it would be
many years before it was considered by many of the people there,
but they were taking away the flexibility. He also ,believed
Council should consider the major problem in the area which was
traffic. It was a peripheral street, on the edge of Palo Alto,
and must of the .traffic either went to Los Altos, or Mountain
View, or other businesses, and those property owners in Palo Alto
had to be for the through traffic other communities helped cause.
He was not sure about the solutions, but believed there were many
opportunities to change. He was struck when the new Chamber
studied the issue and was.conccrned about working closely with the
City and staff. In the six months he ,was with the Chamber as
President he saw a wonderful relationship in dealing with the dif-
ferent people at different levels because there was good
communication. They worked together to make a better community,
but he saw _a problem because they were also dealing with the
possibility of a seismic ordinance which was diametrically opposed
to what was being talked about because if the City decided to do
something to upgrade the buildinys and require the property owners
to rebuild their unreinforced masonry walls or supp-orts, and did
not allow there to grow or expand, it might become economically
infeasible for those people to -exist in business. The Chamber got
into the issue with both feet and about 15 members of the Chamber°
worked hard to try and come up with the right answers. The
Chamber requested another week or two to -work with City staff to
see if there was something a little better for the business com-
munity in the City.
.Janis Bolt, 2450 El Camino Real, Executive Vice President, Chamber
of Commerce, said the Chamber appointed ex officio positions on
the Chamber's Board of Di rectors to ensure communi.cati on with the
Mayor and City Manager of the City. She compl imented Mr. 2aner
for attending the Chamber's board meetings. It was in the best
interests of the business community and the community -at large to
have the communication and the Chamber intended to pursue it on`_ a
6 7 3 2
1/13/86
concrete level. The Chamber was interested in the present traffic
conditions in the City. Most lived in the community and were con-
cerned about Palo Alto's quality of life. To that end, a meeting
was arranged with representatives fromh RIDES, the Santa Clara
County Transit Department, CalTrain, and one or two other agency
people within the commercial and shopping districts. The Chamber
hoped to follow in the footsteps of Varian and few other indus-
tries in the community who put to good use traffic trip reduction
measures. It was a step in the right direction; it was a new con-
cept and was one initiated by the Chamber of Commerce. It would
hopefully perform as a model for other communities to work with
non -joined kinds of busiesses with similar needs in terms of
reducing traffic, providing more parking, and making less pollu-
tion. The Chamber -had long-range goals and realized it could not
say they were accomplished, but the local Chamber of Commerce was
with the Council on the issue and hoped the City was willing to
work with the small-business operators particularly to ensure it
was possible to do business in the community.
Robert Bernhardt, represented Ford Aerospace, which occupied about
90 percent of Area 2, outlined in the EIR being considered. Ford
supported the recommendation to maintain a light industrial clas-
sification in Area 2, Further, it supported the Planning
Commission's recommendation to reduce the maximum FAR to 0.5:1,
and not to 0.4_:1 suggested by staff in the draft EIR. By adopting
the 0.5 FAR, Council would reduce the development potential in
Area 2 by 85 percent .while still allowing moderate development
potential needed to continue existing businesses. A 0.5 FAR would
put Area 2 at the same FAR as the other GM areas under considera-
tion in the EIR. Ford accepted the City staff recommendation for
a new zoning district entitled "GM," but with the provisions of
the GM -1 zoning district, and the application of the new GM zoning
to Area 2. Ford accepted the draft ordinance, under the revised
numbering, as presented for consideration. Ford also accepted the
Planning Commission and City staff recommendation to impose traf-
fic and other mitigative measures for new development projects in
the area provided approval of future Ford projects was not delayed
because of the mitigative measures. Ford was willing to reach
agreements with the City relative to reasonable, feasible miti-
gative measures directly related to development planned by Ford in
the area. Regarding traffic mitigation measures, Ford supported
the concept of $1.20 per square foot, traffic impact fee. Ford
also supported the concept of additional costs to cover specific
mitigative measures directly attributable to large projects pro-
viied an upper limit for what one project should contribute was
also established. Any major project, 50,000 square feet or
larger, ',would probably affect all intersections in the area to
some extent, yet Ford believed no one project should have to hear
the cost of all or most: of the improvements identified - in the EIR.
He proposed an upper limit of $2 per square foot be established as
contribution to traffic mitigation measures by any one project.
It emould affect Section 16.46.005 of Ordinance 3. Regarding peak
commute times, Ford agreed with the staff position that the com-
mute period might last longer than one hour, but it believed the
3:30 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. window was too long for a designated com-
mute period. He suggested something like 4:45 p.m. to 6:15 p.m.
or 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. should be adopted. Otherwise, the net
affect would be employers would not -institute or would discontinue
flex time. Flex tiMe was not popular. with some employers, and
white by itself it might not resolve traffic congestion during the
peak hours, it was still' valuable in distributing commute trips
from local businesses. over a period of time. Ford agreed with:the.
final EIR. and the ordinances submitted that evening. He urged
approval by the Council provided a provision for an upper limit on
the contributions for mitigating measures by any one .:project be
included in Ordinance- 3p
6 : 3 3
1/13/85
Councilmember Sutorius asked Mr. Bernhardt to comment on the
status of the development plan for the overall Ford Aerospace
properties.
Mr. Bernhardt said Ford presently had 14 buildings on Fabian Way;
3 were on the west side, and the other 11 on the east side. Dif-
ferent operations were in each building, and it was not easy for
the activities to cross the street, e.g., on the east side were a
number of manufacturing activities: a machine shop, assembly areas
for piece parts, small modules up to the size of satellites with
high bay areas, test facilities including many one of a kind --
space simulations chamber, a lab for lightweight materials, and,
environmental test equipment; not the kind of things' that one
would expand in another area. One would probably expand them
where they were if they had to be grown, but they would be kept
together.
Councilmember Sutorius asked if there was an intent to provide a
development plan. The plan was a pending item for many years at
the ARB level. The requirement might no longer be expected for
some of the rationale offered, but the points made were part of
the reason the City looked for such a plan. He realized it was a
dynamic situation on Ford properties because of the nature of the
business, but one of the results was multiple changes, sometimes
affecting the same area, and often difficulties or uncertainties
with respect to traffic circulation, safety, and general problems
associated with the construction itself. He queried whether such
a plan was being designed because they were talking about an area
where Ford was the predominant property owner and developer and
a case was made, with which the Planning Commission concurred,
for a O.5 FAR as opposed to a 0.4 in the stuff recommendation.
Mr. Bernhardt was unawere Ford owed a master• plan for the site.
If that was something in the past with which he had not caught up,
he would do it.
Councilmember Sutorius said that took care of the response he
needed. From what he understood, Mr. Berhardt would follow
through and had no objection if it was an expectation on which
staff could follow up.
Mr. Bernhardt said yes.
COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:10 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Mayor Cobb said he was advised Council should deal first with the
EIR and its certification and then with the various changes as
listed an the first page of the staff report. If any time in the
evening.: Council took an action which made the certification of the
EIR something Council could not complete that evening, staff would
interrupt so Council could give staff appropriate time to make
whatever changes and additions were necessary. If staff did not
interrupt, he assumed any actions Council took left the EIR prop-
erly certifiable.
Councilmember Bechtel said staff advised if Council decided to go
higher than 0.5 FAR, Council could not certify the EIR. Since she
did not intend to go any larger than 0.5, -and hoped the rest of
the Council agreed, she commended staff on an excellent report.
NOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, sec ded by Fletcher
adopt staff recommendation as follows:
1- Envi ron +rntal Impact Report
That Council certify.
(1) That the :;Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act;
6 7 3 4
1/13/86
MO1I0w CONTINUED
(2) That the Council reviewed and considered the infurmation con-
tained in the Final EIR prior to approving any aspects of the
project a.alyzed in the EIR.
Furthermore, the Council makes the following statement of over-
riding considerations that:
WHEREAS mitigation measures which substantially lessen the sig-
nificant effects of the project on traffic, air quality and noise
levels have been identified; and
WHEREAS all reasonably feasible traffic, air quality, noise and
housing mitigation measures and other mitigation measures will be
incorporated into the project approval and will be employed at the
time of new development in the area; and
WHEREAS the majority of traffic contributing to the projected poor
levels of service in the study area is regional traffic, and the
significant air quality Impacts expected to occur in 1995 are due
to traffic along Highway 101, and provision.of mitigation measures
addressing these problems are outside the jurisdiction of the City
of Palo Alto; and
WHEREAS the major road widenings to increase street capacity and
briny potential levels of service at area intersections to an
acceptable level would require expansion of existing right-of-way,
and removal of existing structures and are not considered eco-
nomically feasible and are not in compliance with policies of the
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS prohibiting all new development in the San Antonio/ West,
Bayshore Study Area because of local and regional traffic problems`•_
would place an unfair burden on study area property owners;
THEREFORE it is found that the public benefit of permitting some
additional development in the San Antonio/West Bayshore CS/GM
study area outweighs the potential unavoidable adverse environ-
mental 'Reacts on traffic, air quality and noise, which are,
therefore, considered acceptable.
Councilmember Bechtel clarified in Area I the staff recommendation
was for a 0.75.
Mr. Freeland responded no, but it was considered in one of the
alternatives.
Councilmember Bechtel clarified it was considered, but for the
others it was 0.5.. In any case, she held by the motion.
Mayor Cobb clarified Council could deal with the one thing and
still have the report be completely certified because it was one
of the programs listed in the report.
notion PASSED unanimously.
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Woolley, to
adopt Planning Commission recommendations as follows with the
change that the General Business Services Uses be Permitted Uses
rather than Conditional Uses
1. Comprehensive Plan Cheer's - Adopt the Resolution amending the
Comprekensrve an mad Use Map to change the properties OOO
Charleston, 4157 Middlefield and 725 San Antonio from Light
Iadestrial and Service Commercial to Multiple Family
Residential.
6 7 3 5
1/13/86
MOTION CONTINUED
2. Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Adopt draft Ordinance No. 1
establishing a new GM zone district, revising the GM(8) zone
district, and establishing the CS(3) zone district.
3. Zone District Changes - Adopt draft Ordinance No. 2 changing
the zoning of property in Area IV from CS to CS(3) , property
at 800 Charleston from GM to RM-2 properties at 4157
Middlefield and 725 San Antonio from CS to RM-2, and making
special provisions foie nonconforming uses.
4. Traffic Mitigation .ordinance - Find that the traffic
oitigation or fnance wf11 not have an adverse environmental
impact and approve the ordinance "...Amending the Palo Alto
Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 16.46 Regarding Approval of
the Projects with Impacts on Traffic in the San Antonio/West
Bayshore Area."
RESOLUTION 6480 entitled `RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITE' OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO' `ALTO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION
OF T•HE PROPERTIES AT 800 CHARLESTON, 725 SAN ANTONIO
ROAD, AND 4157 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD TO MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE'
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
C : IL H I Y F At0 ALTO AMENDING THE GM AND
G4(B) `TONING DISTRICTS AND CREATING A CS(3) ZONING
DISTRICT
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION
18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUW"CIPAL CODE (THE ZONING
MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLAJSIFICATION OF VARIOUS
PROPERTIES IN THE SAN ANTONIO/WEST BAYSHORE AREA"
ORD1P NCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
U LO H CITY A ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 16.46 REGARDING
APPROVAL OF PROJECTS WITH IMPACTS OK TRAFFIC IN THE SAii
ANTONIO/WEST BAYSHORE . AREA"
Councilmember Bechtel said staff and the Planning Commission did
an excellent job reviewing the area and made substantial reduc-
t ions in what could be built in the area which area could have
substantially more development. Reducing the area in the general
business services from a 1:1 FAR to a 0.3:1 was a substantial
reduction. Her rationale for going back to Permitted Uees was it
encouraged -the small business people who had some dhange to remain
there. In talking to Manning staff and others, she decided
although she was not wild about fooling around with zoning de:ig-
nat i ons from GP4(1) to GM and back and forth the way they had been,
ehe saw AO alternative and it seemed those property owners were
minimally affected. In addition, the property_. of the medical
office building was essentially grandfathered in under the recom-
mendation. Council heard nothing --from Woolworth's. She kk new
members of the community wanted Wool worth's to stay so_ it would,
probably return as on exception. There was no question in her
mind if Woolworth's went out of business and were no longer there,
:she did not want to see a Gemco or. K-Marte there;- and- wanted to
see residential, so it made ,sense te go with the residential for
the area. As to the Area II, and whether it should.be- an.(3.4 or a
0.5 FAR, it was a larye area and Council already made substantial
reductions, and the reduction as recomMended by the -Planning
Co ission .was acceptable.
6.7 3 6
1/13/86
Councilmember Klein asked for clarification regarding the property
at 4151 Middlefield. Was it correct under the motion made by
Councilrember Bechtel, the property would not be grandfathered.
Mr. Freeland said it would be gi andfathered, and was included in
Ordinance No. 2 referred to by the speaker.
Councilmember Klein said he might be confused about the speaker's
concern about the definition of "professional."
Mr. Freeland clarified the grandfather clause stated if 50 percent
or more of a building was in conforming uses at the time of the
rezoning, the entire building might be occupied by the grandfather
uses.
Councilmember Klein generally agreed with everything Councilmember
Bechtel stated, but referred to the presentation by the Chamber of
Commerce since he appreciated their thoughtfulness and work. He
could not support their request to continue because the item was
before the City in one way or another for quite some- period of
time, and when Council had that much of a head of steam up, it was
appropriate to act. It was unfortunate about the confusion on the
numbers, but it was time to -move forward. Regarding the sugges-
tion that Council consider a third lane southbound on San Antonio,
he did not consider the alternative as an acceptable way for
Council to enter its deliberations. There were some statements to
the effect Council was going too far since a lot of the traffic
problem mentioned was generated outside of the area, and outside
the City. He did not believe Council could approach problems that
way because nobody would do anything. They had to start somewhere
and the only place Council could start was within areas of its
jurisdiction. Following up on Mayor Cobb's remarks, hopefully, it
_would be some leverage the City could exert on Mountain View and
other neighbors that it substantially reduced the development
',potential in its community to help relieve the traffic they all
Shared. He hoped the next step would be Palo Alto's having
ongoing dialogue with Mountain View and other neighbors because
they did not live in a vacuum and the neighbors' traffic impacted
Palo Alto and vice versa. Something had to be done or they would
all be swallowed up in traffic. He was pleased with -;ghat the City
did in its report and the actions Council would take that evening.
He hoped it `would be a step forward.
Councilmember Renzel generally concurred with the thrust of the
Planning Commission recommendation, but further concurred with
some of the staff recoirmendations. She was particularly concerned
about the extra tenth of a point FAR with respect to Area II. It
was 160,000 square feet, and as she recalled, was something like
400 employees, over 200 trips at peak hour, and a significant
amount of development. The City was looking at something like
70,000 square feet '0 year development for the whole Downtown, and
it was more than twice that although not in one year. A company
the size of Philco-Ford could easily go in .with a Planned
Community Zone or something else if they found their needs
exceeded what a rezoning allowed. To leave the zoning wide open
for people's choices left the City vulnerable to a significant,
amount of square footage being added without much review.
AMENDMENT. Coonci 1 mevber Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to
modify the motion- to reto re ' to the staff recommendation of a 0.4
FAR for Area 1I.
Co nonmember Fletcher concurred with Councilmember Renzel's --com-
r ehts. Her thought was if people needed .to expand beyond what was
allowed Under -the 0.4:1 , they could apply for a variance which was
simply processed in the Planning Commission,
6 7 3 7
1/13/86
Councilmember Sutorius did not support the amendment, The review
opportunity existed, and perhaps existed more elaborately there
because the development potential identified was essentially one
major parcel. Any major project proposal would have thorough
staff and ARB review, and he was confident in view of the comments
on the record than evening and discussion with the representative
of Ford during the recess, communication would occur between staff
and Ford relative to their development plans, and that a cohesive
process would be followed.
Councilmember Renzel reminded Council they were told earlier regu-
lar projects which went in presently within the confines of
Council's action on the EIR would not have an environmental
assessment; they were covered by the action, so there would not be
an environmental review on a subsequent project unless there was
something new and different from what was in there. Effectively,
the environmental process was done with the environmental review
and the City would be faced with a normal building permit and ARB
process.
Mayor Cobb associated with the comments of Councilmember Sutorius
and believed the Planning Commission did a careful balancing act.
He complimented Commissioner Marsh and her colleagues. It was
carefully done and weighed, and he would stay with the Planning
Commission recommendation.
-AMERDME1T FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Renzel and Fletcher voting
'aye."
Councilmember Renzel :greed with the Planning Commission recom-
mendation regarding general business uses and believed the
reasoning of the Planning Commission was sound that Council was in
the process of rezoni nys all over the community. A certain move-
ment would take place of businesses from one area to another, and
Council could not adequately predict what kind of pressures might
exist to convert. warehouse uses and some- of the less dense service
uses into those more general business -type uses. Council faced
he potential of a wide-open situation there, and it made sense to
follow the Planning Commission's recommendation. If it turned out
to not present any .kind of big problems in the future, . Council
might drop it from tee xoniny ordinance.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved to reinstate the Planning
Commission recommendation to require Adai_ional Use permit for
General Business uses.
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Councilmember Renzel said she generally supported the action. It
was important, as Councilmember Klein pointed out, and she agreed,
even though Council did not control all the traffic problems in
the area, Council had to deal with the part over which it had
jurisdiction.
Councilmember Fletcher said Council wanted to ask Mountain View to
cooperate. The letter in the Final EIR stated the fAR in Mountain
View for manufacturing and R&O uses was 3.5:1, which was the high-
est, while on the north Bayshore where most of • the new development
occurred, the limit was 0.25:1 to 0.30:1, so Mountain View already
went far in downzonin.g. She wanted the office building at 802
Charleston considered for multi -family housing. Staff indicated
it was not. really looked at. The building was adjacent to single-
family hdmes. The house right next to it seemed to be barely six
or eight feet away. It was directly across the street from 800
Charleston which would be rezoned in the male motion passed, which
meant the entire block on both sides of the street would be resi-
dential with the exception of- the Shell station at the corner of
Fabian, which was apvopriate.
6 7: 3 8
1/13/86
Councilrnember Levy concurred with the thrust of the action Council
was taking and believed it was important to take action. An argu-
ment was made perhaps Council was being too restrictive because in
terms of the room which might be needed by businesses in the area
to grow. However, at some point, an area was _filled to its
natural capacity, and they were getting close to it in the par-
ticular corridor. When an area was built to capacity, there
simply was no more room for businesses in the area to grow within
the sires they had. Normally at a certain point, businesses did
not add on to the floor space they had, but rather moved, and when
the additions took place, they were substaantial. Clearly, the San
Antonio corridor could not take too much more land use. He
applauded both staff and the Planning Commission. He believed it
was important for Palo Alto to coaperate closely with Mountain
View in the corridor.
Mayor Cobb looked at the matter from the perspective of having his
own business office in a building just down the street on the Palo
Alto part of San Antonio, -and dealt with the traffic daily. For
example, between 12:30 p.m. and approximately 1:15 to 1:30 p.m.,
it was impossible to get in and out of the building's driveways
because the traffic was literally bumper to bumper from Charleston
all the way to practically the Sears Shopping Center. It was a
serious situation. He tended to leave the office late, but if he
left earlier, closer to 5:00 or 5:30 p.m., the.. Charleston/San
Antonio intersection was an incredibly bad situation. lie con-
fessed he was concerned about losing the service industry there.
It was his concern over unintended consequences of , well-
intentioned acts. He asked it the staff would monitor the results
of the actions taken that evening to see if there were unintended
consequences.
Mr. Freeland said the only monitoring staff aid on an ongoing
basis was en accounting of the amount of development in areas and
the amount of new development approvals. If Mayor Cobb referred
to mix of businesses, vacancy rates, no staff would not normally
have it monitored.
Mayor Cobb said he would deal with the subject separately because
it would probably be an issue for some of the other zoning also.
He suggested it would probably be worthwhile to write Woolworth's
and inform there as to the process available for them to coat i nue
their operation so they did not just get a bureaucratic notice
which said they were out of business in 15 years. It was not what
the public wanted, and if en explanation was given about what they
could do to continue their business, it would be helpful. He
asked if staff needed specific direction or whether it would
simply be done.
Mr. Freeland said if the main motion passed, staff would take care
of writing to Woolworth's.
_Mayor Cobb believed Palo Alto needed to do more than 'sit down and
find out about Mountain View's ordinances. Palo Alto needed to
P_?2 an effort to work with Mountain View and impress upon them
their actions were compounding the situation to a high degree. He
mentioned the traffic problem with which he lived on a daily
basis, and he feared about iesat he would have to live with once
the Howlett -Packard site went into operation.': It would add so
many cars and he queried whether they would be able to get in and
out at all during the day. Palo Alto needed to take a tough
stance and push hard to get help from tfountain View in terms of
mitigating the problem. He was concerned about driving businesses
out, but overall he believed the Commission did a superb ;yob. He
hoped Commissioner Marsh s oul d carry the statements back to her
colleagues.
6 7 3 9
1/13/86
Councilmember Sutorius referred to Mayor Cobb's inquiry regarding
the ruonituriny process, and said the accounting,. tabulation to
which he referred was probably the semi-annual intensity report
which seemed to he rather complete because it identified the
areas. He clarified it was already do area where the City had a
complete employment and square footaye history on a cumulative
basis with pending development.
Mr. Freeland said that was correct, and w,iat staff did on a
regular basis.
Councilmember Su'torius said since the information was available,
ne asked if there was any merit to an annual threshold for moni-
toring purposes similar to how the California Avenue situation was
approached recognizing a totally different environment and pur-
poses behind the establishment of the maximum growth the Council
wanted to see occur. The annual tracking would be to see if the
Council needed to step in. Since staff made a recommendation
whici. totaled out to some 320,000 plus square feet of build -out
potential versus what Council was about to act upon which had e
potential of 487,000 square feet, he asked if there was value to a
threshold which might say something like if growth in the oe all
area in any year exceeded 35,000 square feet, which was less than
10 percent of what Council approved, but was close to 10 percent
of what staff recommended, it would be a trigger point.
Mr. Freeland said if the FAR's were being set at a higher level.
than proposed by the motion, Council might well want some kind of
performance measure to see if development occurred faster than
what Council wanted. He believed the recommendations were
intended to be the future development of the area, and development
within the recommendation, whether it be Staff's or the Planning
Commission's, was acceptable. He did not believe Council needed
to monitor to see whether it was the dumber it wanted. If Council
was interested in monitoring, it might be more pertinent to look
at the traffic level of service itself. Staff intended to have an
onyoiny program to report that information, which measure might be
more relevant.
Councilmember Fletcher commended staff on the EIR, and said it was
exceptionally well done both in terms of depth and the quality of
analysis. The form in which it was presented was welcomed. She
was relieved to see Council deal with cumulative impacts, which
problem Council dealt with on individual projects. It was grati-
fying to see Council deal on an area basis.
Mayor Cobb said staff did such a professional job perhaps the City
found a new fund-raising mechanism and could hire the City staff
out as consultants. i
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
Mayor Cobb requested if any of his colleagues had a motion to
make, it be made and seconded before any commentary,
MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Klein, to
request the . Planning Commission consider 801 Charleston for
rezoning from Office ` Use to Multi -Family residential to be
considered along with other zoning ordinance amendments.
Councilmember Bechtel did not know enough about the property, and
was not committed o..ie way or the other. She was willing to go
alone with the referral to the Planning Commission because it
could be explored. It did not necessarily mean she was
committed.
Vice Mayor Woolley did not believe it was a major issue, but went
out and took a closer look at the property. On the corner was a
Shell station, then 801 Charleston, then the beginning of solid
R-1. alony Charlestown. The particular property looked like it
6 7 4 0
1/13/86
would be there for a long time, and looked to be a moderately new
building. It had parking on the first floor anal possibly profes-
sional offices on the second floor, and fairly mature landscaping
around it. As she looked at the property, she believed it
provided a suitable buffer between the gas station and the R-1
properties. It also did not look like a property likely to
change in the near future. She would not support the motion
because she did not believe ft would be a fruitful assignment.
Councilmember Levy associated himself with the comments of
Councilmember Bechtel.
Councilmember Renzel asked about the expansion potential 'of the
particular parcel.
Ms. Melena said the site had no expansion potential.
Councilmember Renzel clarified the only thing which might happen
was a change in use rather than any physical change.
Ms. Melena said that was correct.
Councilmember Sutorius said for the reasons suggested by Vice
Mayor Woolley and the rationale Councilmember Renzel built toward,
he was less than enthusiastic about a referral to the Planning
Commission. He asked if there was any reason it could not be
referred to staff for a report as to whether it was appropriate to
handle as a Planning Commission item. He could not see going the
public notice route, hearings, etc. He clarified the City was in
the open period during which people could nominate possible
changes in the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Freeland said it was true it was an open period for possible
zoning ordinance ehanges.
Councilmember Sutorius understood the motion automatically started
a public hearing notification process.
Mr. Freeland suggested it be referred to the Commission as part of
the year's zoning ordinance amendments to see if it should be
pursued.
Councilmember Sutorius preferred that course .of. action.
MAKER ANO SECOND OF MOTION INCORPORATED CONSIDERATION OF 801
CHARLESTON IN 'THE OTHER ZONING MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
Councilmember Fletcher said Area Ii was asked to reduce potential
traffic by 45 percent, and she believed an incentive whereby
instead of the City's having minimum parking requirements should
have maximum parking requirements in order for a tight parking
situation which would then be an incentive for the employer to
work on ridesharir.g programs.
WOTION TO REFER: Coa cilaembsr Fletcher moved, seconded by
Renzel, to refer to the P1annln5 Commission consideration of
placing maximum parking requirements in the San Antonio area and
having the area which would normally be pat into perking he put
into landscape reserve.
Councilmember Fletcher believed it was a prime area for the
requirement because the employees were not immediately adjacent to
a residential area.
Councilmember Renzel believed putting the spaces in landscape
reserve made the spaces potentially there if needed. It also
meant there might be a positive incentive for companies to work
More diligently toward the 45 percent trip reduction.
6 7 4 1
1/13/86
,r. w:.,.i.-�� -°-'�'-�r-'*-_..---'7g--�•--�---�F<ri ..y-�:.:w1Y.W vw.;'.:�.ta.._
Councilmember Klein was not unsympathetic to what Councilmember
Fletcher suggcst :d; however, he had ao idea whether he would ulti-
mately favor it. It was a novel idea and should have been more
fully developed rather than being added at that point, He hoped
Council would have additional time to give it sufficient throught
rather than adding it at the end of a project that had a lot of
other major considerations.
MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Renzel, Woolley, Fletcher voting
"ayes
MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Klein, to direct
staff to meet with the Mountain View staff to communicate the Palo
Alto City Council's action to them and report back to the Council
on the impact of Mountain view's zoning on the San Antonio cor-
ridor.
Councilmember Levy viewed the motion as the first step of meeting
more with Mountain View and developing joint programs to amelio-
rate the traffic problems particularly in the San Antonio cor-
ridor. It was not a question of fault, but rather a, process for
cooperation across the City lines.
Councilmember Renzel agreed with Councilmember Levy's comments
with respect to no finding of fault because she believed the City
of Mountain View was just in a different stage of development than
Palo Alto. It was clear from the EIR that Mountain View's regula-
tions were far more stringent than Palo Alto's, and Palo Alto was
20 years ahead of Mountain View. She supported the concept of
coordinating with Mountain View with respect to traffic and prob-
lems in the corridor, but believed it would be a better motion if
it was phrased in terms of cooperation.
Councilmember Pati eucci said it seemed to him Palo Alto was
increasingly affected by actions over which Council only had a
limited amount of control, i.e., traffic, air pollution, etc:,:_ He
suggested the City of Mountain View be informed the Palo Alto
Council took the action in an attempt to reduce some of the
traffic impacts, and to suggest that the City of Mountain View
might jour Palo Alto in a joint study of the area.
Councilmember Levy agreed with Councilmember Pati tucci . Council
should determine what actions dere to be taken towards mutual
cooperation.
Mayor Cobb said in line with Councilmember Renzel's comments, he
would approach the Mayor of Mountain View with the idea of coop-
eration. He believed they would appreciate Palo Alto's actions.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
Councilmember Levy was concerned about the owner of the Lambert
property. The person was apparently contacted and, as staff indi-
cated, the written contact was thorough. He would personally be
more comfortable if the property owner was also contacted by tele-
phone to be advised of the effects of Council's action that
evening.
Mr. Freeland assured it would be done.
ITEM 7-A .RE U
EST .OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE
MAN
BYRON D. SHER ANO SENATOR 'REBECCA
MOTION: Yico Mayor Woolley roved, seconded by Fletcher, to
direct staff, to prepare resolutions of eppreciatfioa to Assemblyman
Byron Sher and Senator Rebecca *argon thaoking them for their
strong support of various pi eves of l efli sl at# aoa
6 7 4 2
1/13/86
Councilmember Bechtel clarified the resolutions were in recogni-
tioii of Aesemblytian Sher's and Senator Morgan'e excellent voting
records over the past year.
Mayor Cobb believed it was fair to assume the City Clerk woul d
incorporate that in the resolutions.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM 7-8 REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER LEVY RE COUNTY'S PENDING ACTION
ON OPEN SPACE ink 8-2-13
Mayor Cobb realt. d Ms. Elkind spoke under Oral Communications,
but he asked her to make a few remarks on the item.
Ms. Elkind reminded Council of the explanation by County staff
regarding their interpretation of the existing language in the
County General Plan. The critical question was the meaning of
"low -intensity recreational use," and how it was interpreted in
the hillside. The staff interpretation was influenced by the
intent of the hillside designation, which was to leave the hill-
side areas in their natural state. One distinguishing factor of
low -intensity was the intensity of the services required. There
were two elements to the question of intensity of use: The natu-
ral state as the intent of the designation, and the question of
services which would be costly in the hillside area. The County
would consider the following day a reinterpretation of the lan-
guage of low -intensity recreational use in order to accommodate a
shooting range in the hillside zones throughout the County. She
was concerned because it set a significant precedent If shooting
ranges were defined in the County as a low -intensity use because
it was wri ;ten into the ordinance, everything of a questionable
intensity use would then be measured against shooting ranges.
Where did one draw the line between shooting ranges and more
motorcycle parks in the hillside. She queried the difference
between a shooting range and a small shopping center which did not
sere just the neighborhood or community. From her perspective
and that of the County staff, it represented a significant depar-
ture from the intent of the language in the General Plan and was,
in fact, a response to a specific problem.
Councilmember Levy concurred with Ms. Elkind's remarks.
NOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Retael, the City
Council go on record as strongly opposing any change in the
County's General Plan that would permit shooting ranges in the
foothills areas as designated for an amendment in the Hillside
Zoning District and if it is amended in the General Plan, that the
Council recommends strongly there be limitations on the hours,
noise, and development of the ranges.
Councilmember Levy said the City had substantial hillside areas
within the County, but close to ralo Alto, which would, be affected
by the proposed use. It was always the intent in Palo Alto to
maintain the hillside areas to the extent possible in their
natural state for recreation and scenic enjoyment. The use of a
Gun Club and a shooting range was a substantial: intrusion upon the
natural state of the area in terms of noise, taking the area out
of public enjoyment and significantly limiting it. Palo Alto
formerly had a shooting range in the Baylands area, but Council
authorized its removal because it was. 5o completely incompatible
with the natural state of the Baylands, and the ,satire thing was
true in the hillside area. Although the specific reason the
County waslooking at the issue related to property some distance.
from Palo Alto, it still affected areas potentially close to Palo
Alto. Therefore, Council had an interest in making sure the
County definitions of natural and proper uses of hillsides were
appropriate for Palo Alto's community as well.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
6 7 4 3
1/13/86
Mayor Cobb thanked Ms. Elkind for bringing the matter to Council.
Ms. Eikind thanked the Council and asked if it was possible to
communicate by telephone with the Board of Supervisors.
Mayor Cobb said City Manager Bill Zaner indicated the information
would get to the Board of Supervisors first thing the following
morning.
ITEM #8 REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE POLITICAL SIGNS
(PWK 2.6)
Councilmember Fletcher said under the current regulations, the
City could have political signs posted virtually all year round,
which she considered to be a big deficiency in the City's sign
ordinance. Council took great pride in the present sign
ordinance, and the tight control over signs, but political signs
seemed to have slipped out from under them.
MOTION. Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel , to
direct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to Palo Alto
Municipal Code 16.20 to restrict the posting of political signs to
no more than 90 days prior to an election, or a time the City
Attorney may determine to be appropriate.
City Attorney Diane Lee said staff would do some research on the
issue, and if the motion passed, would return an ordinance to
Council together with staff's opinion with respect to the
constitutionality of any ordinance drafted. She believed there
were more problems to be dealt with when regulating political
signs on private: property than on a public property context, and
staff would be reviewing those for Council.
Councilmember Klein said to some degree Ms. Lee answered his ques-
tions with regard to the constitutionality of the proposal. He
was bothered by /the idea that the City Attorney had the discretion
to extend the time.
Ms. Lee said she told Councilmember Fletcher she was not sure if
staff could do it. Ninety days was the appropriate amount of
time, but some of the cases which ruled on the issue had some
discussion about the appropriate time period. She believed it
dealt more in terms of the legal aspect of the issue as oppose:i to
discretion to do it.
Councilmember Klein asked If he was correct in assuming staff
would not draft an ordinance which gave the City Attorney discre-
tion, but would recommend a particular time.
Ms. Lee said the discretion would be as presented to Council in
terms of the time. In other Words, the ordinance would say '"90
days," "120 days," whatever was tied into some election period
depending on what staff's research determined. That was the point
at which she was supposed to exercise the discretion as opposed to
an ordinance which said the City Attorney had discretion to do X,
Y, Z. She believed the discretion came in the actual drafting of
the ordinance and detern#ning the number of days prior to the
election.
Councilmember Klein was concerned it was an infringement on First
Amendment rights, which he held pretty dear, to restrict what was
on people's own property about an election, and he was bothered by
the idee that whatever number of days Council came up with might
not work. Ninety days looked fine for a_ City Council election,
but elections for President of the United States tended to run for
more than a year. The candidate putting up those signs, which he
believed triggered the ac ti on y ended up with .a negative result
from putting them up all over the place so far in advance of the
election, so he preferred to rely on the good taste of people
rather than trying to legislate the sensitive area.
6 7 4 4
1/13/86
Councilmember Fletcher referred to the good taste of their people,
and said sho had no problem with lawns signs in front of people's
homes because they had to look at them themselves and were not
going to put up anything gross. However, the signs being put up
on the longer campaigns were from people outside of Palo Alto.
Her motion did not include residential areas at all because she
had not seen any abuse there, but the sign which instigated her
request was at the Charleston Shopping Center at the corner of
Middlefield and Charleston, which was barely on private property.
It was on a post, was torn down, and presently lying on the
ground. She queried whether the motion would be more acceptable
if it read, "Signs on private, non-residential property."
Councilmember Patitucci asked whether signs on private property
had to adhere to the regular size and other restrictions_.
As. Lee said there. were restrictions on signs in terms of residen-
tial property. She believed residents were only allowed one per
frontage and there was a limitation on the size for temporary
signs. She believed the same restriction applied on commercial
and industrial properties.
Councilmember Patitucci clarified Council was isolating political
signs and saying they could only be there for a period of time.
Ms•:' 'Lee said Councilmember Patitucci hit on -one of the problems
staff had in looking at the issue. The two challenges made in
such -cases were Equal Protection; in other words, why were they
singled out political signs when they could put up other kinds of
temporary signs for longer periods of time: "For Sale" signs, for
instance, being one of those kinds of signs, or "For Rent" signs.
There was also the issue Councilmember Klein mentioned which was
the First Amendment issue of political expression.
Councilmember Bechtel was prepared to support the motion because
she was offended by the signs she saw along El Camino, but the
question was whether any __of them were legal. They were on
pri'vite, commercial property. if she remembered the City's sign
ordinance, the property owner had to get permission. The signs
were all over and were large, and she did not know if they met the
City's size regulations or if staff checked any of them.
Ms. Lee did not know the answer to the second part of the ques-
tion.. The City had regulations for all its signs in all its
districts.
Councilmember Fletcher said Ms. Lee referred to temporary signs
which were permitted, but in essence, those signs could be put up
year round which she did not call temporary. She also believed
even temporary signs had to go through Architectural Review . Board
(ARB) review, whereas the political signs did not, so they could
be offensive and overly prominent which ARB review would never
allow.
Councilmember Levy was also concerned about the First Amendment.
He did not believe the intent of the motion wes to .impact the
First Amendment, but rather to set an 'appropriate period in front
of an election whereby exceptions could be made to the City's
normal signage requirement in order to allow the First Amendment
to have leeway in a political context. Ninety days in front of an
election seemed appropriate. It might not be appropriate, which
was what he wanted the City Attorney to review matter and return
to Council. Council might not be able to do what it wanted, ;but
certainly to have permanent political . signs was inappropriate and
inconsistent with the intent of the First Amendment. He wished
Council could rely on good taste, but good taste did not seem to
be a hallmark of political campaigns. Therefore, he supported the
intent and the action Council was taking, and hoped the City
Attorney could find a practical way for Council to implement the
concept Councilmember Fletcher was trying to further.
6 7 4 5
1/13/86
Councilmember Klein said another problem with any time limit on
the signs was it favored the incumbents. An incumbent did not
need to start his campaign so far in advance. Maybe there was an
entrenched incumbent and the challenger probably believed he or
she needed a long time of name exposure. He believed Council was
entering into a phase which could create more harm than good.
Mayor Cobb associated with the comments of Councilmember Klein.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Patituccl, Klein, Cobb voting
°no..
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 10:37 p.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
6 7 4 6
1/13/86