Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-07-14 City Council Summary Minutes7;4 5 3 CITY COUMCIL MIMUTEN ITEM Oral Communications Consent Calendar Action Regular Meeting July 14; 1986 2. Award of Contract for Park Repair and Maintenance CITY OF MI ALTO PAGE 7 4 5 2 7 4 5 2 7 4 5 2 1,4 5 2 3. Award of Contract for Civic Center Block 7 4 5 2 Btreet Settlement 5. Memorandum of Agreement with Palo Alto Peace 7 4 5 3 Officers' Association and Compensation Plans for City Employee Groups Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 6. Downtown Study; Final City Council Actions on 7 4 5 3 the Fine], Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) , = Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Historic Building Site Moratorium. and Ftue Assignment PUBLIC SEARING: Planning Commission 7 4 6 6 Recommendation re Appeal of Roger and Debbie IN. obler irom recision of the Zoning AdminA4 tra for for Property f oca tech a t 4293 Wilkie Way (Continued from, 7/7/86) itecece from 4:30 3O p . to 9414*. : wa.1, 7 4 7A, r� ree nt : fOr Civic Censer Building rerg 7 4 Coh orvat io Regular Meeting Monday, July 14, 1986 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on,this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Beihtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Michael Shafran, 330 Cowper Street, received a building permit to a add room and make repairs to his house. He subsequently applied for a permit to add a bedroom in the attic and was told he would have to wait five weeks due to a backlog. Five weeks have elapsed and that day he received a call from the Planning Department stating he would not receive a permit for another five weeks because when his house was built 80 years ago, two 25 -foot lots were combined to make one Jot. The Santa Clara County Recorder showed a dotted line down the cen- ter of his property which had to be removed before the permit would be issued. He was frustrated because no one mentioned the problem when he made his first application. His appli- cation did not violate any building ,,: requirements. He requested City Council assistance, CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Levy removed 1, Agreement for Civic Center: Building Energy Conservation. 4. Contract for Health Plan Cost Containment, removed by staff. NOTIO s Coemoila.ober Suterius moved, seconded by Woolley, approval of the Consent Calendar. Action. 2. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PARK REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE (PWK 7/PAR 2) (CMRi 8x61 Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with 2onga r Johnson for $ 32 per hour; not to exceed $14,500, f AWARD OF CONTRACT 2+o tia r Johnson 3. AWARD • OF CONTRACT FOR CIVIC CENTER BLOCK - STREET SETTLEMENT (PWK 24IPWK 7-2) (CMR: Staff recommends that Council: $ Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with O'Grady Construction Company in the amount of $112,183; and ° Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $15,000. AWARD OF CONTRACT O'Grady Construction Company 5. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH PALO ALTO PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION_ AND COMPENSATION PLANS FOR CITY EMPLOYEE GROUPS PER ) (CMR:39 :6) Staff recommends Council approval of the resolutions amending the Merit System Rules and Regulations to Add the Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association; Adopting a Compensation Plan for Police Non -Management Personnel; and Amending the Compensation Play for Classified Personnel (SEIU). Funding for these compensation plans has beenincluded in the 1986-87 budget. RESOLUTION 6532 entitled "RESOLUTION OF TSB COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP PALO ALTO ADOPTING A COMRENSATION PLAN FOR POLICE NON -MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION 6214 RESOLUTION 6533 entitled 'RESOLUTION. OF. THE COUNCIL `.IWP WreffY FO PLO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 1601 OF TOE, MERt? SYSTEM RULES AND . REGULATIONS RE MEMORANDUM OF $NNT BETNM= THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND TUE. PALO. +lLTQ PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION'° RESOLUTION 6534. entitled ."RESOLUTION. O . t[N COUNCIL OF Tilt CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE .. `OMENSATIOO PLAN FOR CLASSIFIED PrassonNEL (SEIL) ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION O. 6387 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NO. , WU,.. TO REFLEX CHANGES IN TITLES OF EMPLOYEE CLA LFLCAT OR ESTAB' LISHMENT OF NEW CLASSIFICATIONS° MOTION PASSED nnnn i w isl y 4 AGENDA- CHANGES ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manager Bill Zaner announced that 1, Agreement for Civic Center Building Energy Conservation would. become 7-A. 6. DOWNTOWN : STUDY: . FINAL... CITY NVIR• ' NEN . IMP CT R T AMENDMAN ONIhG OR INANC N RATORfUM 6 FIITU ' E = NME 4n t nu* roN ) COUNCIL Ft ACTIONS ON THE FINAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TS H STORIC_ BUILbING (CMR: : ' 7 4.. 5 3 7/14/86 Manager, Special Projects, George Zimmerman referred to the traf- fic impacts at Willow and Middlefield Road in Menlo Park, and said no official response to Council's letter of June. 18, 1986, was received from the Menlo Park City Council._ According to Menlo Park., City Manager Mike Bedwell, no responses were written by indi- vidual +1enlo Park City Councilmembers. The .overriding considera- tions for, traffic mitiations should include reference to three additional intersections on- El Camino in Menlo Park, i.e., El Camino and Camb : i ge; El Camino and Middle; and El Camino and Ravenswood, which ere identified in the Final EIR as having sig- nificant impacts, but which were not discussed at the City Council meeting on the Downtown Study, during the mouths. -of April, May, or June, 1986. Regarding the parking regulations, which appeared on page 17, of the draft. CD regulations, specifically in Section 18.48.100(v)3, the Planning Commission, in its transmittal of July. 10, 1986, under Housing Item. 17, requested the section not -exempt parking requirements on changes from residential to non- residential; however, the provision was implicitly contained in the section, but for olarificatiOn staff added a final sentence as follows: No exemption from parking requirements shall be avail- able where a. residential use changes to a nonresidential use." Staff recommended a minor wording change to the CD regulations in Section 18.48.i00(v)3, on lines 5 and 6, from "...fiscal year 1985-86" to read: "...fiscal year 1986-87.°' The change was recommended so the new parking regulations reflected the current Series G Parking Assessment adjusted square footage. Senior Assistant City Attorney Sandy Sloan referred to page 7 of the staff report (CMR:386:6), and said the City Councils actions which needed to be taken that evening were divided into four parts: Final EIR; Downtown Project; mitigations necessary for the project; and historic properties. She requested Council make separate motions for each of the four areas. If Council decided to revise some of the resolutions or ordinances, it could be done, but she preferred Council make a final motion on the project itself following any changes. Mayor Cobb referred to page 5 ,of CMR:386:6, Areas Requiring Clarifications, and said the items were less ti!au perfectly "clear as a result of Council actions, and the comments rejected staff's understanding of what Council intended. 1' Council agreed with the comments, no further comments or actions wee necessary. If Council disagreed, it should be statedthat evening before Council made its final motions. • Planning Commission Chairperson Pat Cullen said the Planning Commission generally agreed with all of the City Council's recom- mendations with three differences related to Housing. 'The corner of Addison and Alma was originally zoned residential and changed to RM-2. The area below the site on Alma and behind it on Addison was R-1, and a CS zone was not a transitional zone to single family residential. The Planning Commission believed a multiple family residential zone was more appropriate for the corner. 7 4 5 4 7/14/86 e Regarding the Housing Incentives, the Commission was concerned about the transition between the R-1 zone below Addison running all the way from Alma to Middlefield. RM-2 allowed 21 units to the acre, which would be across the street from an R-1 zone which allowed five units to the acre. . The only .two places in Palo Alto where that occurred were; subject to controversy --Loma Verde, where RM-3 was across from R -1, and the Hoover School site, which backed up to an R -1 area. The Commission believed the .25 floor area ratio (FAR) and the ability to insert, a. few small affordable housing units rather than having a large housing development was a better way . of getting a few more housing units similar to the housing units which existed above the watercourse Way in the CS zone. The Planning Commission urged reconsideration of the par- ticular zoning and perhaps another look. at the .25 FAR where Council recommended RM-2 and .4 FAR where Council recommended RM-3. The Planning Commission was still concerned about the President Apartments. The present parking requirements were almost no parking. If the Apartments were converted to a hotel, there would be no increase in parking because they would have the same kind of parking requirements as presently existed. The Planning Commission believed a conversion to hotel would be a mis- take given the traffic presently Downtown and. that which would be generated by an additional hotel. The Commission urged reconsid- eration of the original recommendation to rezone the particular block to residential, which it was currently. Councilmember Fletcher asked about the process if Council changed some of the resolutions and ordinances. eis. Sloan said there was no requirement for Council changes to return to the Planning Commission. Minor changes could be con- sidered in the first reading, but major changes would require staff returning with the ordinance for first. reading. No new pub- lic hearings would be required, except for the rezoning of the area on University Avenue, which was not previously discussed at any of the public hearings. Councilmember Sutorius said staff recommended Council approve the ordinance to extend the current moratorium on new construction in the Downtown Area for ..historic properties for a six-month period; or approve a moratorium on the issuance of permits for demolition of historicbuildings in the Downtown Area for six months. The City Attorney's memorendum submitted a proposed ordinance. and spoke to the subject of preservation and identified modest changes which might be made to the ordinance if preservation were a prime intent, The material Council received from the City Attorney's office included suggeetiotis , as to how demolition could be con- trolled and how remodeling could be contained to interior rather than exterior. When staff referenced the potential of an alterna- tive action, he asked whether the City Attorney's suggestions were responsive to the alternative. Mr. Zimmerman said yes. i.4 5 5 7/14/06 Vice Mayor Woolley said a summary of staff impacts was contained on page 3 of CMR:386:6, and she was unable to trace the impacts back through the text She asked where staff impacts came in. Director of Planning and Community Environment_ Ken Schreiber said staffing impacts for economic monitoring and urban design were not called out in the staff report. He anticipated the equivalent of one-half position for reviewing plans and development proposals, and the use temporary staff: time. .A need, existed to create a more detailed property -by -property dataebase in preparing for dealing with property owners and other applicants. Economic monitoring assumed approximately one -quarter staff person and some temporary personnel. Urban design anticipated approximately one -quarter; historic preservation could hike up to one -quarter. In total, staff believed the impact was 1.25 regular staff and one-third to one-half.. temporary staff. The bulk was in reviewing plansand development proposals. Vice Mayor Woolley referred to CMR:386:6, page 7, Item #3, Exemption on FAR Limits and Parking, third paragraph, which said "...the seismic, hist'oric and minor expansion parking exemptions apply only to sites within the Parking Assessment district..." She asked if "within" meant geographically located within the district or "within" in the sense of being a member of the Assessment District. Mr. Zimmerman said "within" meant a member of the Assessment District. It excluded ?:_those properties within the geographic limits, i.e., residential, which were technically not part of the Assessment District, or commercial providing the full complement of parking.. Vice Mayor Woolley clarified a historic property, which until then, was a residential property iodated geographically within the Assessment District would not receive the incentive for historic buildings which other historic buildings , received in the assess- ment district. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct because while there, was, a con- version, there would be a conversion of uses if one referred to a conversion of residential to commercial. There would not be an addition and the exemptions spoke to additions. Vice Mayor Woolley clarified they were talking about an addition of up to 2,500 square feet in order to get the exemption. Therefore,. 'within" would mean geographically within the parking district, not necessarily a member. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct. Councilmember Klein referred to the moratorium on historical units end asked how it would affect the long-standing problem with Mr. rheas; ts; house on Emerson. 1 Ms. Sloan said if Council decided to add the section on not demol- ishing historic structures during the moratorium, she did not believe the building had a current demolition permit so it would fall under the moratorium. The City Attorney's office took the position that if the Chief Building Official determined something was so hazardous to health and safety that it should be condemned, the condemnation would take precedence over a moratorium, which finding was yet to be made. Councilmember Klein was concerned.. nothing was being done with respect to the property, and its historical significance seemed to be outweighed by the other problems. He queried whether there was anything Council could do to separate the other problems from the rest of the ordinance. Pis. Sloan said the Chief Building Official determined what was hazardous to health and safety because he had the most experience in the area. As it presently stood, the Chief Building Official determined there was a lot of nuisance in terms of people "hanging out" and spending the night, but the building itself was not a hazard to health and safety. Mr. Schreiber said as a structure last used for a residential pur- pose, the City could not issue a demolition permit until a building permit'was approved for a replacement structure whether it be residential or aommercial. Even if the structure were exempted from the moratorium, a development would still need to be approved. Councilmember• Klein asked what staff believed should be done with the site ignoring all of the City's various ordinances. Mr. Schreiber said staff had no evidence the building met the standards generally applied to condemnation orders under the Building Code. The Fire Chief could order demolition for Fire Code reasons, but had not seen fit to do so. One member of the Historic Resources Board (HRB) opined the building could be reha- bilitated. Under normal circumstances, the property owner would move ahead to. try and reuse the property, but he was caught in the bind bf moratoria and other regulations which prohibited demolit- ion. Councilme ber Levy said Program 20 encouraged shoppers to walk along portions of El Camino, and he asked which parts of El Camino it referred to. Mr. Schreiber said the . wording was taken from the 1981 Comprehensive Plan and first incorporated in the 1976 Comprehensive Plan. It was part of the planning logic which led to rezoningextensive portions of El Camino to neighborhood comaer commcal to encourage retail activity rather than auto oriented activ ty. Staff had not used the pedestrian zone along the por- tion of El Canino and therewere no plane to pursue it, but it might be considered in the future. The language was not a sub- stantive change from the existing Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Levy, referred to the increase in staff, and asked whether there would be any savings in staff time due to the exten- sive downzoning and presumably the reduction in applications or a change in their nature. Mr. Schreiber anticipated the Downtown area would be the scene of considerable renovation projects, which projects were often more difficult to process from an analysis standpoint than a new devel- opment project because of the presence of older structures, code problems, and interpretation issues. As such, the development in the Downtown area would probably take more staff time than was previously spent before the moratoria and Downtown Study. Councilmember Levy referred to the $50000 appropriated for the Downtown Committee on Design and Amenities and understood the $5,000 was to primarily pay for staff time. Mr. Zaner said staff understooc the $5,000 were funds appropriated by the Council for use in the Committee's work exclusive of staff, i.e., consultant report, material, supplies, field trips and what- ever else was necessary. Staff did not understand the $5,000 was to include staff support. The $5,000 figure was simply made by Council and there was no recommendation by staff in terms of the amount of money or time required to support the Committee. Ken Alsman, 1057 Ramona Street, said the HRB believed Category I and II buildings were already covered to some degree under the existing ordinance for review and had some degree of protection under the demolition provisions. He recommended they not be covered by a moratorium from that standpoint. However, there was a need to provide protection from demolition Category III and IV buildings. Chop Keenan, 400 Hamilton, worked with the HRB and believed it was extremely helpful. At the intersection of University and High he attempted to make an historically accurate building and used the HRB as a resource for information. The proposed ordinance got into mandatory type situations where buildings were categorized, and he was more concerned with the Category III and IV buildings. There was too much room for argument in Category III and IV, and the City was building a new power center and new bureaucracy with which to deal beyond ARB, Planning Commission, and City Council. He was concerned about the arbitrariness of what could occur in a designation, and certain findings for economic utility. Warren Thoits' building was probably the extreme of the situation where a member of the HRB that day said the building should be redone. It could be rehabilitated at a cost, and he suggested the building was far beyond economic utility. He never found bureaucracies to be concerned with.. economics. He suggested the HRB remain 1 advisory, look over buildings order to plenty of and the ARB, Planning Commission and City Council could the various matters. The submission of materials for in the subject categories to the HRB was important in obtain appropriate comment, but he believed there were controls in Downtown Palo Alto. MOTION: Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report certifying that: 1. Final Environmental Iw2act iteport FEIR) A. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality. Jc.t. i.CEQA) and The Final EIR: was presented to the.City Council. The City Councilreviewed and considered the information contained in the Final SIR prior to approving, .the project. MOTION PASSED unanimously. MOTION: Mayor Cobb moved, . seconded b.y . Re-azeel, to adopt all resolutions and ordinances as follows: 2. Downtown Project - Approve the Downtown. Project which consists of: A. The resolutions- on, Comprehensive Plan amendments including; 1) Adding policies affecting the Downtown Area; 2) Changing the land use designation of properties at 217-291 and 325-329 Alma Strset4 12.0. Hawthorne Avenue; 212-258, 247w301 and 324 High St.reeet,..� and 115 and 163 Everett Avenue from Regional/Community Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial; 3) Changing the land use designation of properties at 913-951 Emerson Street from Service Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial; 4) Changing the land designation of properties at 215-239 High Street from .R.gie l/Cosmunity. _ Ccemercial to multiple Family Residential; and 5) Changing the land use designation of the property at 657 Alma Street from Regional/Community Commercial ' to Service Commercial Be The Zoning Ordinam+ce amendments including; 1) Adding Chapter 18.4$ to create a Commercial Downtown (CD) District; 7 4: 5 9 7/14/86 MOTION CONTINUED 2) Changing the zone .classifications for the majority of Downtown Area properties from _amity.. Co rgial (CC) and Service Commercial (CS) to .. the .new Co*mercial Downtown (CO) district; and 3) Changing the zone classification from 215-239 High Street from CC to RM-3; and C. Future staff, review body and committee assignment* Ordinances that are approved in at first reading by the City Council on July 14, 1916, . will receive a second reading on July 28, 1986 and.. will_ thou become effective on August 28, 1986 The current Downtown moratorium . wiil be rescinded on the effective date of these new regulat,Lons. RESOLUTION 6535 entitled "RESOLUTION OF.. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO. ALTO COMPREHEN- SIVE PLAN TO ADD POLICIES AFFECTTING . THE DOWNTOWN AREA REGARDING PREVENTING AN INCREASE IN THE, PARKING DEFICIT, PREVENTING THE INSTALLATION OF CERTAIN. TRAFFIC LIGHTS, PREVENTING SAND HILL ROAD TRAFFIC .. fRi ON. CROSSING EL CAMMINO REAL, IMPLEMENTING A TWELVE -,POINT . PARKING PROGRAM, REVIEWING HISTORIC BUILDINGS, LIMITING NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND, MONITORING .GROUND FLOOR RETAIL REQUIREMENTS° RESOLUTION 6536 entitled 'RESOLUTION or THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE. RLLO .ALTO. COMPREHEM- SIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION or THE PROPERTIES AT 217-291 AND 325-32S.. ALMA .STREET; 120 HAWTHORNE AVENUE; 212-256, 247-301 AND 324 HIGH STREET; AND 115 AND 163 EVERETT AVENUE FROM REGIONAL/COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONMERCIA.L' RESOLUTION 6537 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE .PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY. CHANGING TIE ..LAND ..0 E. DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES AT 913-051 EREISON STREET FROM , SERV ICE COMMERCIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL' RESOLUTION 6538 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF mi CITY Or PALO ALTO AMENDING 10111 PALO ALTO COMPREHEN- SIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THR PROPERTIES AT 215-239 NIGH STREET FROM REGIONAL/ COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" 7 4 6.0 7/14/86 MOTION CONTINUED i RESOLUTION 6539 entitled "RESOLDTIOR.OF..TH.i. COUNCIL_. OF THE CITY OF. PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO £L .. COAPREHEMSIVE PLAN ay CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGMATION...QF...THE. PROPERTY . AT657 ALMA STREET FROM REGIONAL/COIINOII.T! , COHIU CIM.: TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL" ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING 4ati tied , .NORD.IMINCE OF THE tOONCIL OF THE -CITY OF PALO ALTO. _ AKIN .CRATER 18.46 T. TITLE 16 (ZONING -CODE) TO CREATE A COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN (CD) DISTRICT'' Including staff suggested amendments: AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Woolley moved,` sscaaded by Renzel, to sake it clear that the adoption of the.. CD . district repeals the moratorium placed on the downtown area,. xsiiae.. SECTI‘:.a 3. (page 20) of the Ordinance adding Chapter 11. La Title 18 to create a Commercial Downtown (CD) District to reads SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective upos—r iiimiencement of the thirty-L.irst..day after the numbers 3502, 3570, 3586, 3589, 31.25, 3,86.0, and 3661 imposing, amending an /or extending. moratoria in the downtown area shall be repealed SENT PASSED unanimously. AMENDNENTI Vice Mayor Woolley woved, seconded by Rensel, to update the 1965-86 reference to the &ninser e s Report for Bond-_. Plan G. financing in the Parking Regulations, . amending Section 16.66.100 (b) 3 to read '1966-67.* AMEMDMEST PASSED unanimously_. ORDINANCE FOR FINEST READING entitled *ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 'OF- - PALO . ALTO AI LADING SECTION 16.06.000 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE. ZONING MAP) TO • CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS Or: THE MAJORITY ,OP EXISTING C( .AND,:CL P P. £*TI: S IN TSB. ,DONWTOiNi AREA (AREA SURROUNDING UNIVIDAITTAVENUE DAM ALMA STREET AND MIDDLEFIELR : ROAD) FPM CC OR CS TO CD' ORDINANCE FOR FIRST R. I entitled "O INAMCE OF THE 3COONtIL . or rya .: Arm . _ AWIRAnG AncTIOX 10-.411.040 OF. - TMs : PALO AITO *UUICIFAL . CODR (THE- ZOOM ) TO CRAKE THE ZONE CLASS/MC/WON OP :TIE PROPERTI W.41$23, RIGNAMENT F CC: TORN3' Councilmember Levy referred to Section 3 of the resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan to add policies affecting the Downtown Area, and believed paragraph 2 went into unnecessary detail in determining how the parking deficiency was found. AKBMDIEIJT: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, to amend Resolution 6536, Section 3, paragraph. 2, to reads •Including all., of the projects approved prior- ,to.. Na►y 19466, the Downtown parking deficit is approximately 1,600 spaces.' Councilmember Renzel was - concerned since it was a Comprehensive Plan to be used by future Planning Commissions and Councils, it mght be helpful to have some background of what happened with the parking deficit and the background of whythe actions were needed. It seemed to her- the numbers were staggering when one thought in terms of 12 parking space3 per block. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Renzel, Woolley, Cobb, Bechtel voting 'no." Councilmember Levy referred to Resolution 6535, Section 4, Program 18A, and said the heading for Program 18A related -to additional traffic signals on Middlefield Road, and - he preferred the word "additional" rather than the word "new." AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Rouse', regarding Resolution 6535, to - revise .Section...t page 2, by replacing the word 'new' in Program 181: and the text with the word 'additional." - AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Levy referred to the bottom of page 5, of Attachment II, to CMR:386:6. In Item 2 atthe bottom, he believed the use of the word "sleeper" should be eliminated. He suggested *2, read: "Immediately implement a program, wor.king.with Downtown employers, to minimize or eliminate, all day packers utilizing short-term parking spaces by moving them care throughout the day." In Item 12, 'Drive Along Trips' should be "Drive Alone Trips." Mr. Schreiber said the changes could be made without an amend- ment. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renxel, to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use .Map for 101E-1027. Alma Street and 112 Addison Avenue from Service Commercial to Multiple Family Residential. - Councilmember Fletcher agreed the area :houldbe zoned residen- tial. T€ -e current businesses had 15 years notice, which was ade- quate. Councilmember Bechtel would normally agree since- the business use was next to a single family residential use except for the his- toric precedent. The businesses occupied the subject properties "i 4 6 2 - 7/14/86 i for 40 and 50 years. Alma was a major arterial and it was true one corner backed up to single family housing, but she did not believe it was appropriate to change them to a multi -family residential. It was a small area next to .what was presently an existing parking lot which could change to a commercial use. She believed it was appropriate as previously. 'recommended. Councilmember Renzel said the question was the 4onirig and what kinds of uses the zoning might permit. Many Councilmembers looked fondly upon many of the current uses and believed it would be nice to keep them, but in reviewing the area again, she was struck by how much vacant land there was. If Council left the CDS zone, it would end up with redevelopment of the site for the present use or the present use plus multi -family which would be highly intense. There was good reason to reconsider Council's decision particu- larly since it was a fragile neighborhood which needed some buf- fering It was unrealistic to expect the economics of the area to remain status quo if current zoning was left. She urged recon- sideration. Councilmember Patitucci said Council placed a .4 FAR on commercial development. Under current zoning laws and setbacks, a, single family house on the site could have a .6. FAR. Single family resi- dential had more mass and density than the CDN and CDS zones. The existing uses proved to be compatible. People who bought knew what existed, and he did not see Council could see 15 years down the road for a better land use. Council should stick with its previous decision. Councilmember Bechtel said within 150 feet of the residential area were special protections which applied to the properties. Councilmember Levy associated himself with the comments of Councilmembers Bechtel and.. Patitucci. He did not believe the City received any complaints from the residents in the area. The resi- dents were -comfortable living with the nearby commercial, and the commercial was also on. a busy street. Council should stick with its previous decision. AMEN DENT FAILED by a vete of 2-7, Renzel, Fletcher voting ware.' Ccuncilmember . Levy referred, to page 13, Attachment. II, of CM`R.386:6, under No. ' 7. ' He suggested deleting the phrase not less than." The sentence would read: "Require that 75% of the ground floor area of a site and 100 percent of the portion of the building fronting on the street... Mr. Schreiber said there was no, problem. Vice. `Mayor Woolley referred to future staff assignments and was concerned Council give clear direction. The Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee discussed the importance of staffing in the 7 4 6 3 7/14/86 overall budget, and Council could either tell staff it was all right to add staff, or Council could say they wanted the assign- ments'stretched over a longer period of time without future work plans anticipating increased staffing. It was Council's responsi- bility to take a stand at that time. She asked for staff comment. Mr. Schreiber said no additional staff was proposed. As a part of the normal budget process, Staff would evaluate the appropriate- ness of staff resources for the next budgetyear. Mr. Zaner said if the Council assigned the work, staff would prob- ably return with a list of priorities for the Planning Department and Council could select which items they wished to delete from the workload. The alternative -was to add staff which he under- stood Council did not want to do. Vice Mayor Woolley was concerned additional staff was in the back of staff's mind since anticipated numbers were included. She did not mean to imply such a request would riot be justified, but it was Council's job to shift assignments and priorities so such requests were not necessary. ARESDM1NT:' Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to :fat to the Planning Coamission the recommendation to change th ** iag on the site of the President Apartments to multi -family r * tae l . AMEXIMENT FAILED'. by a vote of 2-i, Renzel, Fletcher voting 'am' ° Mein 'not participating." Councilmember Renzel said if some future Council or . Planning Commission looked at the multi -'family zones and made changes on the zones which affected the density, she asked about the refer- ence to the commercial zones which now used the specifications as a basis for residential density. She asked whether Council needed to do something to clarify the reference so it would hot get lost in some future discussion. She was concerned the zones would be called "CDC" and "CD" and there would only be a little reference in terms of the residential densities. Ms. Sloan said no such cross reference existed, but staff would consider the suggestion. Councilmember Renzel said although she was concerned about some of the exemptions with respect to additional parking deficits, she believed the overall thrust of the`motion was good. NOTION AS AMENDED Pusan unanimously. MOTION& Mayor Cobb moved, *Seconded by Renzel Council cortifi- cati+ is folio's, 7 4 6 4 7/14/86 MOTION CONTINUED 3. Miti0at,ions - For each significant environmental effect of the pr6J.ct., changes oralternatives have bean ..required in, or incorporated into, the project which _avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental, effect asidentified in the final EIR or such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and ' jurisdiction of another... public agency or specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR and overriding. considerations have been found, all as set forth in attachment to..CERz3$iz6. Mayor Cobb said CMR:386:6 containedall of the mitigations and statements of overriding considerations and minor changes indi- cated by staff. MOTION PASSED unanimously. MOTION: Councilmeaber Rensel moved, seconded ,by Sutorius, to add an ordinance re Noratorivw for Downtown*...Historic Structures. ORDINANCE . FOR FIRST READING entitled.. 'ORDINANCE OF THE COCJ�iCIL OF THE CI ? OF PALO ALTO .,3.IROS.ING A MORATORIUM FOR SIX MONTHS ON CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT_ INVOLVING HISTORIC STRICTURES/SITES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA"' AMENDMENT= Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Klein, to raids.* the ordinance with substitute for Section 1(a) as follows: 'The interior remodeling of any historic structure; or the exterior remodeling of a Category I or II. ,structure; or the exterior remodeling of a Category III - o: IV structure which received Historic Resources Board recommendation And design approval pursuant to Chapter 16.46." • AMENDMENT • PASSED unanimously. AM EMzs Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Klein, to revise the ordinance to add a new Section 34 to read ■A moratorium is imposed on the issuance of all demolitl permits involving historic structures in Categories I, II, III IV and structures. within historic districts on this historic inuentory in the Downtown area as shown in Exhibit *A. Vice Mayor Woolley said the HRB were meeting weekly during July and August and were holding work sessions of reclassification of the inventory. There were some Category III buildings Wiing con- sidered for reclassification to Category II in the Downtown area. While the reclassification Was underway, it Vas important to pro- tect the buildings the same as Categories I and II, AMINDMENT PASSED unanimously. 7 4 6 5 7/14/86 MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. Mr. Schreiber referred to CMR:386:6, dated. July 3, 1986, page 8, and said he -believed the first - motion -included resolutions and ordinances, but did not include item 2(c)., future. staff, review body and committee assignments. Mayor Cobb said it was included in the motion. MOTION, Couscilmem+her Levy moved that _.. .the. -appropriation of $5,000 previously authorised for the . Committee on Design and Amenities included the offsetting of stmLfiag,ccusts. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND 7 S. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPEAL OF ROGER. AND DEBBIE W. KOHLER FROM DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4293 WILKIE WAY (Continued from 7/7/86) (PLA 3-1) mayor Cobb said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended the appeal be denied an to . Behold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to grant a variance for front and rear setbacks for a single story, single-family dwelling for property located at 4293 Wilkie Way, Councilmember Patitucci asked if staff was aware of what trans- pired between that evening and the original hearing which was postponed in an attempt to arrive at a solution to the neighbor's purchasing the property. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said no, but as of the last City Council meeting, he spoke with the proposed developer who indi- cated no interest in sale of the property atthat time. Councilmember Patitucci asked if the City took any action at any time to promote a negotiation between the parties in order to arrive at a conclusion that would not have to go before the Council. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken .Schreiber said in response to a letter from one of the neighbors, there was a suggestion that any transaction regarding acquisition of the prop- erty could not be facilitated by City staff but was a private matter between property owners. Staff would not be involved in negotiations or arbitrating the situation. Cne ncilmember Patitucci asked if there was data available on what was paid for the property. Councilmember Bechtel said several residents implied underhand dealings with the developers getting special benefit, such as a 7 4 6 6 7/14/86 utility pole being moved sincetheprevious Monday's meeting. She asked for staff's comments. City Manager Bill Zaner added staff checked out material available prior to that evening, especially comments from people in the area alleging a substantial amount of utility work was done. 'That was not true. The utility work had not been done, costs had not been paid, and services not provided. Mayor Cobb said Council received a letter that evening (on file in the City Clerk's office) which said, "The motion to delay this matter was passed quickly and now I have some serious questions about this fast action. Mr. Fleming must have had definite assur- ance that this appeal is a futile effort and our democratic process a waste of time." Tho assertion was completely incorrect. He spontaneously suggested delaying the matter due to concern Council's discussions on bingo would continue into the early hours of the morning, which they did. He had no idea how the matter would be resolved that evening, The only motivation behind the delay was Council's consideration for the members of the public. Councilmember Levy asked what changes had taken place in the per- mitted builc'eut from the time the property was acquired by the present owner from Los Altos until the present time. Mr. Brown believed the only zoning change affecting the property was the restriction on second -story construction on substandard cote. The lot would be allowed only a single -story house without benefit of a variance to permit a second story, but that had not been requested by the applicant. - - Councilmember Levy asked what happened to the applicant's original application for a two-story house. Mr. Brown said an application was filed for a variance for a two- story home in April, 1984, by a different applicant. The variance was approved by the Zoning Administrator, appealed by the neigh- bors, and the Planning Commission recommended denial. The variance was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant before being heard by City Council. - Councilmember Levy asked why that application. required a variance since a two-story hnu$e was allowed at that time. Mr. Brown said- tha 1984 variance request required a rear -yard setback of 11 feet where 20 feet was otherwise required. Councilmember Patitucci believed Council was being asked to make a no -win decision and would like to hear discus¢ion about some sort of arbitration or negotiation in which the proponents on either side felt highly motivated to reach a reasonable conclusion. He asked the City Attorney whether the City had the capability to perform an arbitration function. 7 4 6 7 7/14/86 Senior Assistant City Attorney Sandy Sloan replied the City had no capability to either require or engage in arbitration in that man- ner. The applicant asked for variance from the site regulations. All common law regarding variances and, in particular, Palo Alto's Municipal Code spoke to the physical , characteristics of the land. Council Was required to look at certain facts about the physical characteristics of the land, to make or not make certain findings; and to either approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the variance but not to get outside of Council's jurisdiction of dealing with the land use and engage in some concerns of economics or arbitration. Councilmember.Patitucci asked what was the last date Council could act on the matter... Mr. Brown replied September 22, 1986. Councilmember Patitucci asked if it was possible to build any structure on the site without a variance and would it be two- story, Mr. Brown said only a single -story structure would be allowed without a variance since the lot was substandard. The next-door neighbor, Mr. Kohler, an architect, presented a`_possible plan indicated the size home he believed could be constructed on the lot. The plan was fairly accurate and was for a two -bedroom, "MU square -foot house, The house was even smaller than the cotaage ordinance allowed, which was to 900 square feet, and still required rear -yard variances. Without a variance, it would be extraordinarily difficult to develop any habitable structure on the property. Theoretically, a structure without a variance could be built, but would be on the reznge of a studio of not much more than 500 square feet. Councilmember Klein asked if it was an appropriate action for Council to continue the item for 30-45 days, and urge both sides to negotiate some settlement. Ms. Sloan said Council was free to continue the issue until the final deadline of Septembr 22. Such a continuance was warranted - if Council did not have enough information to make a decision that evening. Councilmember Bechtel referred to a proposal by Roger Kohler dated May 27, 1986, for 680 square feet plus that gar age, making 840 square feet, that required no variances Mr. Brown said the previous proposal had some atr t .rural difficul- ties with the carport.. The proposal which required some variance was more realistic.: Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open. 1 i Roger Kohler, 4291 Wilkie Way, presented letters and petitions (on file in the City Clerk's. office). He apologized for the letter from his mother who misunderstood what had happened. The issue had become so emotional for those involved, it was hard to see through the maze. He recently found out from the Santa Clara Valley Water District the Adobe Creek was to be widened poten- tially all the way to El Camino Real. The creek was currently under construction on _Louis Road and the idea was to take the channel in a trapezoidal configuration to make it rectangular. The slope would be 90 degrees. He referred to a packet of drawings of the proposed residence and adjoining properties showing the requested variance. His main concern eas the major amount of variance requested. The required 20 -foot front yard was reduced to 14 feet; the setback for parking was reduced to 20 feet for the backup for the garage. Mr. Brown stated that was no longer an issue in the plan checking of projects. Last year when a two-story project was submitted for the property, Mr. Herman or he reviewed the plans and one of the reasons the project was rejected was the lack of required backup space. The -amount of landscape area was about 890 square feet, a reduction from the more than 1,300 required. The garage as depicted would required at least one start and back up, which would be noisy and create pollution. It wou.ld be virtually impossible to park,_ a full-sized car in the garage without stopping and starting three or four times. He took pictures around Palo Alto of several backup spaces, and they all exceeded 30 feet. He deigned a house of 680 square feet which could be built without any variances. The car- port was cantilevered out into the rear yard the allowable four -foot overhang. Cantilevering the roof over the parking space was structurally more difficult but not a big issue. By keeping to the zoning ordinance, the landscaped area increased in the front yard to 1,300 square feet. Councilmember'Fletcher asked if the Berman house of 880 square feet included the garage. Mr. Kohler said no. Councilmeanber Levy said the house Mr. Kohler designee looked as if a car would. also need to back and turn to exit the garage, but not to enter. Mr. Kohler said that was correct. He did not know how the house could be designed without moving the parking into the middle of the lot where cars could pull out in the front direction. Cars usually backed directly out of the older flag lots. His real con- cern .was being able to enter the garage without having to start and stop several times, which would create noise for the neigh-, bors. Councilmeiber Levy asked what the distances were of Mr. Kohler's property from the other two adjacent properties. 7 4 6 9 7/14/86 Mr. Kohler replied his property was about 12 feet from one prop- erty, and °about 25 feet from the Berman's. Councilmember Patitucci asked what a 680/700 square -foot house on the subject property would sell for. Mr. Kohler said condominiums in Palo Alto sold for over $200,000. Councilmember Patitucci asked what the house would cost to build. Mr. Kohler believed approximately $100 a square foot. Councilmember Patitucci asked if the cost to build subtracted from the market price was an estimate of the land value. Mr. Kohler said Mr. Fleming had the lot appraised at $100,000. He did not know whether that appraisal was with or without the house. Councilmember Patitucci was attempting to determine whether Mr. Kohler's design built without a variance meant there was some value in the land. Councilmember Klein said any buildable property in Palo Alto had quite a bit of value. Councilmember Patitucci clarified the neighbors would be satisfied with Mr. Kohler's design, and the larger design was the problem. Mr. Kohler did not believe a variance that had a direct impact on his property should be permitted. One neighbor calculated about 70 percent of the perimeter of the house was in the variance area, Councilmember Patitucci had the impression from a number of the letters received that many of the neighbors did not want any building on the property, and there was a difference between some- thing versus nothing being built. Mr. Kohler said there was quite a bit of difference. They were really present to discuss the variance issue. Bill Armstrong, 363 Whitclem Place, shared the north common prop- erty line with 4293 Wilkie Way. The underground water and electric utilities were installed during the appeal in 1984. The neighbors believed the installation to be questionable at the time, but were unable to find out who paid for or ordered the utilities. The utility crew who put in an anchor for the current changing of the anchor pole also were surprised the meters were in place. He was not listed by the City as an appellant but paid half the $90 to appeal and Claimed half the honor. Over 90 per- cent of the more than 170 petition signators were from the four -block area. He believed the Zoning Administrator's finding 7 4 7 0 7/14/86 O that the owner/developer, Mr. Fleming, had a hardship was in error. At the May 28th meeting of the Planning Commission, Roger Kohler showed how it was possible to build a small but adequate, two -bedroom house on the property without a variance. Another drawing had a small variance. Obviously, any developer wished to maximize the size of the house to maximize his profit. It must. be found the owner had a hardship to grant a variance. Palo Alto's handbook on applying fora variance differentiated hardship from "mere inconvenience or a desire to make more money." Second of the three findings necessary for a variance was that no neighbor, nor the neighborhood in general, would suffer a hardship. The mere fact of building on the open space was already a hardship, but to encroach further into the Kohier family's, minimal backyard space was indeed a hardship from the increased noise alone. He submitted the Zoning Administrator's finding was in error. On the one hand, there was the professional developer who went in with his eyes wide open, warned by the experience of the first vari- ance, warned verbally of the neighborhood opposition, who closed escrow_ without a building permit and then claimed hardship. On the other hand, a family of four who lived in their home for 12 years, redesigned, rebuilt, and thus upgraded the neighborhood, through no fault of their own saw 40 years of de facto open space suddenly and without notice change to a substandard R --1 lot with the attendant noise, traffic, and auto pollution. They then had the existing minimal space diminished and were told there was no hardship. If he was right on either count, by the City's own rules the variance could not be granted. He asked if it was Palo Alto'e intent to allow substandard lots to be purchased by indivi- duals who then claimed hardship and were entitled to "reasonable development." He heard they must compromise each other's hard- ships but could see nothing about a compromise. The lot was never intended for residential use. Michael Fleming, 576 Maybell Way, said the past week he pondered the data before Council and attempted to decipher what the issues were concerning 4293 Wilkie Way. He read all the material sub- mitted by the appellant and found a fair number of half truths and exaggerations, most of which did not apply to the variance. In reading the letters submitted by Mr. Kohler and others, ho believed the main issue for them Was the legality of the lot. Supporting the moratorium and appealing variances was an inexpens- ive method of avoiding the main issue. He hoped the Council could separate those issues and deal with the one truly at hand. He heard much of the injustices permitted against the neighbors and how, by upholding the appeal of the Kohler's and Mr. Armstrong's, the wrongs would be corrected. He submitted that was not the issue before Council that. evening. He heard of the variance acting as a precedent for, the rest of the City allowing over- development of residential ,property, that it was a •. case of big-time builders versus the neighborhood residents of Palo Alto. He submitted that was not the issue. The property rights of all property owners were the same whether they be developers, property -occupying owners, or the City of Palo Alto. They all had 7 4 7 1 7/14/86 equal rights. The purpose of the variance process was to permit a caso-by-case consideration of special and unique circumstances; not to set precedent. He acquired the property in May, 1985, from the City of Los Altos. He purchased the property through an option he bought from Kurt Schnoor who assured Mr. Fleming he had attempted to design a multi -story house on the property for him- self to live in, needed a variance for his plans, and been given the variance, but retracted his application when the Planning Commission upheld an appeal by Mr. Kohler to the variance. Mr. Fleming was aware of some fairly severe setbacks influencing the property and understood Mr.. Kohler's concern about a multi -story structure looming over his backyard. He believed the actions taken at that time by the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission had no relevance to the issue before Council that eve- ning. Mr. Schnoor had no present connection. A day or two after Mr. Fleming closed escrow on the lot, he received a call from Mr. Kohler informing him the lot was not legal, not buildable, and that Mr. Kohler would file a lawsuit if a building permit was obtained. In purchasing the property, Mr. Fleming believed the lot, despite setback restrictions, had definite potential for development. With regard to the development potential, when he first bought the _lot it had a first -story capable structure of about 600 square. feet. The second -story structure covered the 600 square feet and also covered the carport, giving a development potential of usable living area of about 1,750 square feet, a floor area ratio (FAR) of 44 percent, and a lot coverage of 23 percent. He had plans drawn up and submitted to the City for a permit. He had the lot surveyed and found the Santa Clara Valley Water District's easement projected a foot or two more into the property than he was orginally told by Mr. Schnoor. In August, 1985, the City Council suggested a moratorium on all substandard lots in the City hoping to consider options such as eliminating second stories without variances or limiting the FAR ratio. With the knowledge of the additional intrusion into the property by the Water District's easement, the fact they needed to redraw the plans to stay within the setbacks --still a possibility at that point --and the quickly -closing time window, they realized they had to sit out the moratorium. Within the moratorium period, they considered the lot, its size, and the impact of the building on the neighbors and decided to take a fresh look at the lot, attempting to ignore the narrow, tall building envelope the set- backs proscribed. With the moratorium issue ended, they were told any second -story structure required a variance. They were faced with a usable living space of approximately 600 square feet, a lot coverage of 23 percent, and an'. FAR of 14 percent. Suddenly the lot had become virtually unbuildable. That was not the lot they purchased. He was not sure it was the City's intention when they passed the second -story limitation to render R-1 substandard lots useless and unbui].dable. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:30 .m. TO 9:45 p. m. 7 4 7 2 7/14/86 Councilmember Patitucci clarified Mr. Fleming purchased the prop- erty before the building moratorium on substandard lots and at that time, even though the lot was odd -shaped, there was a two- story buildable window. M. Fleming said yes. Councilmember Patitucci asked whether anything was buildable in Mr. Fleming's design without a variance. Mr. Fleming believed something was buildable. Councilmember Patitucci said about 700 square -feet livable area. Mr. Fleming said if relief was put in the front of the building to make the design aesthetically pleasing without a 75 -foot wall, it would probably be about 500 square feet. David Stritmatter, 363 Whitclem Place, said last summer during the building moratorium on substandard lots it was suggested a vari- ance be required to build on a substandard lot. At that time it was determined the City ` could not do that because of putting itself in a position' of possible inverse Condemnation if a vari- ance was not passed. That evening they were discussing a variance to build on a substandard, 4,200 square foot, flag lot and, according to the developer, he did not design the house in accor- dance with the required setbacks because they were excessively restricting. Thus, the variance was for_. an entire house, not just some exceptions. He asked how that could be if in Palo Alto one could not build a house of any consequence on a piece of property within the existing setbacks or could one essentially bypass the variance procedure by purchasing the property and claiming hard- ship. To sacrifice the neighborhood was a denial of the democratic proces and a no -win situation. Janet Dole, 809 Richardson Court, believed the City Council should disapprove the variance. Rex Garr, 353 Whitclem Drive, spoke also for his wife and asked all neighbors to stand who were present to support the appellants. He and his wife lived in their house for 22 years. He was glad to have the opportunity to address the issue which had been going on for quite a few years, and expressed appreciation for Bill Armstrong and Roger Kohler for bearing the financial burden. One of the problems in putting the building on the substandard lot was that more than half the perimeter required a variance, which was excessive. He and his wife urged the Council to deny the vari- & rice G. R. Barr,':. 393 Whitclem Drive, lived on the corner of Wilkie Way. With reference to the utility installation, he witnessed installa- tion of an underground vault in the sidewalk. There were at leest three to six City trucks or heavy equipment, and at least three to 7 4 7 3 7/14/86 eight men there for about two and one-half days. He did not understand the City Manager's statement about no rendition by the utility people. He asked if any utilities were provided by the City. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, associated with the remarks of Messrs. Kohler and Armstrong. Flag lots were a sensitive issue in Palo Alto. The reason why the ordinance required the lots to be larger than normal by 20 percent was to protect the neighbors and neigh- borhood from intrusion, and to allow sufficient property for an adequate driveway and turnaround for parking on the lot. The subject development Was less sensitive to the neighbors than normal. The lot was substandard even for the existing zone, let alone for the flat lot. It was also important to note that there were problems with building because of the proximity of th'e. creek, and with encroachment on the creek; therefore, any variance which allowed a structure close to the creek bank created potential problems and hazards. The Water. District was to enlarge Adobe Creek and cut into the bank, and there would be some disturbance to the soil. A house built within one and one-half to two feet of the creek bank top could suffer some dislocation. It was per- fectly reasonable to restrict development on difficult lots and was done many times, e.g., in the Foothills, the fringes of the Foothills, and around Lake Tahoe where there were many properties which could not be built on because of theirsensitivity environ- mentally. The lot was a similar sensitive one, and it was quite appropriate to require careful controls. The variances granted by the Zoning Administrator were excessive for the particular proj7 ect, and he urged Council to uphold the Kohler's appeal. Wilton Johnson, 4287 Wilkie Way, said his property adjoined the lot in question a.t one corner. His wife and he bought the prop- erty in 1964 when there was a pumping station on the lot in question with a utility easement. Granting the variance would be a hardship on the immediate neighbors, particularly the Kohlers., He urged Council to disapprove the variance. Betty Dole, 809 Richardson Court, stated her objections to the decision to grant the variance and urged the City Council to dis- approve it. . Paul Chestnut, .3060 South Court, did not live in the Wilkie Way neighborhood but visited the property recently. As a home owner, he was amazed the variances were granted. Given the many sub- stantive reasons for not granting the variance and the vehement opposition of the neighborhood, he did not understand how the regulations could be so easily disregarded. If Palo Alto was to have rules governing the uses of residential properties, the rules should be followed. Larick Hill, 780 Palo Alto Avenue, was the architect on several redesigns of the project and had done three sets of plans. The 7 4 7 4 7/14/86. original set of plans allowed about a 1,750 square -foot house without any variances to the side,, front, or rear setbacks, although a variance was required for parking. Subsequent down - zonings, moratoriums, and changes in zoning rendered the buildable area difficult to make a reasonable house. He did not believe Council's intention was to make the lot unbuildable but to prevent overbuilding and imosition on the neighbors. With that in mind, they redesigned the house, made it one story, kept it low, and moved the living area to the back of the lot so as not to impose upon . :the Kohlers. The 38 -foot long area, where the house jogged into the front setback 6 feet, was away from the living side of the Kohlers' house, was the private side where the bedrooms were and was all dual -glazed and would be quiet. As required by the Zoning Administrator, they soundproofed the fence. They did everything to minimize the impacts upon the neighbors. They tried to protect the oak and other natural features. Upon seeing Roger Kohler's suggestion, they angled the garage so the cars could enter and back out more easily. He did not see how the proposed house impacted the neighbors any more than any other possible house. He did not see that a 1,033 square -foot house on a 5,800 square foot lot was overdevelopment. The lot was zoned R-1 in 1954. They started with a potential of 1,750 square feet, the initial proposal when redesigning was 1,240 square feet, at the Zoning Administrator's suggestion, he, created an envelope which allowed 1,033 square feet. which the house was redesigned to fit. The proposal was reasonably, aesthetically acceptable to potential owners. The difference between their proposal and Mr. Kohler's consisted of a 6 foot by 38 foot intrusion into the front setback. There was a need for small homes in Palo Alto. As mentioned in the Zoning Administrator's letter to Council, if the lot had been rotated three more degrees, the side facing Mr. Kohler's yard would have had a six-foot setback, and a building footprint of 1,786 square feet would have been allowable. There was truly a hardship imposed on the lot. Debora Goldeen, 4215 Ruthelma, liVed close to the site in ques- tion. She was moved by Bill Armstrong's speech. He accurately represented her views on the issue, and she read Mr. Armstrong's concluding paragraph. Mr. Armstrong said the woree the lot, the more Palo Alto had to compromise the zoning ordinances in favor of the owner in order to avoid the threat of inverse condemnation which defeated the purpose of a zoning ordinance. The lot was a good exampleas it was never intended for residential use and the 25 -foot setback the County used for the subdivision in the 1950s was proof: of that. Why were the setbacks also not grandfathered in as was, for example, the substandard 10 -feet wide driveway. He called that selective grandfathering. The whole area of variances needed review and definition because the net effect of building on such a lot was .in direct conflict with the stated principles of 4he zoning ordinance; specifically, to protee•t LA a established character and social and economic stability of a neighborhood. Nothing similar existed in the neighborhood. If the variance was 7 4 7 5 7/14/86 allowed, the zoning ordinance would have failed. The proposal downgraded the neighborhood, and he requested the variance be denied. Ms. Goldeen also requested the variance be denied. Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Patitucci read all the material, studied the issue closely, and visited the site. He felt uncomfortable being asked to make the decision. He tried to find a way to set in motion a process by which the decision would be made between the developer and the adjoining property owners. The best outcome would be for the adjoining property owners to purchase the property and include it in their own properties. He was dismayed there was no greater progress toward such a solution. While not totally pleased with the proposed development, by denying some sort of reasonable development on the site Council was granting property rights and value to the adjoining property owners. Although he was not sure anyone would be pleased with the result, in Palo Alto even a 680 square foot, odd -shaped property would probably sell, and somebody would make money on it. MOTIONi Councilmember Patitucci moved, seconded by Klein, to postpone consideration to City Council meeting of September 22, 1986, to encourage the parties involved to work out financial arrangements that are satisfactory to both of them. MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO MODIFY NOTION TO READ SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 Councilmember Patitucci emphasized he did not find a happy solu- tion emerging from the issue and believed time would help. Councilmember Klein shared Councilmember Patitucci's attitude towards the problem, although his rhetoric was slightly different. When -Council was faced with such decisions, they were acting in a quasi-judicial manner. The situation was win -lose; one side won absolutely and the other side lost absolutely. That was an unfor- tunate result in many such cases. There was much emphasis throughout society to achieve an alternate dispute resolution by which there was not just a win -lose but a partial win -win situ- ation. The people involver achieved some of the results they wanted which was preferable from a societal point of view than having absolute decisions rendered by whoever acted as judge. That situation was needed in the instant case. There were weak- nesses on both sides. He had not totally made up his mind how to vote. The pressure on both sides should be that the real risk in not reaching a compromise was they might loge everything they wanted. He believed the neighborhood was not so much against the variance but really did not want any development. He understood that, but on the other hand what was being proposed certat.nly would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. There *ere pluses and minuses, and a compromise should be reached. He suggestedthe parties hire a neutral person to mediate the matter 7 4 7 6 7/14/86 to try to reach a solution rather than having an acrimonious dis- pute. He urged his colleagues to support the motion. i Councilmember Levy supported the motion. He also was undecided and believed whichever way he voted was an injustice to one side. In his personal conversations with the applicant and the appel- lants, they both indicated willingness to come to some agreement. The owner of the property said he was willing to sell the property at essentially his costs, being the costs of acquiring the prop- erty and the money he put into it so far. Those who appealed the. variance said they would be happy to buy the property at a fair price. Striking a deal would unquestionably be the best solution because, whether a 1,000 square -foot house was built or a 500-600 square -afoot house, it would be an imposition. Hewas not con- vinced that one would be a greater imposition than the other, so the neighbors had. a lot at stake in trying to secure the property and prevent any dwelling from being built there. The community would be better off if that was the case. He concurred with Councilmember Klein that if the parties did not reach a solution, they were both at great risk of suffering. He was happy not to act as Solomon in such a difficult decision in which there could be only losers. Councilmember Fletcher reminded Council the item was on the agenda previously and postponed at the request of appel3, ants in order to see if they could reach a price at which the property owner would sell the lot. She questioned Mr. Armstrong on what kind of reso- lution came out of that discussion and was told the price asked by the property owner wee way out of line from what the neighbors believed the lot was worth. Unless the property owner that eve- ning publicly stated his willingness to lower his price,' she did not see the use in postponing action. She also opposed the motion because s:' a eeu? d be absent on September 15th. Councilmember Bechtel said whether the neighbors purchased the property from the property owner was not an issue for Council. Council's issue was whether or not to grant the appeal or uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator, and Council had an obli- gation to make a decision on those issues. Council was advised by the City Attorney that the lot was buildable. They were shown it was possible to build something on the property, granted not very big. Council had an obligation to review whether or not variances were appropriate. She agreed there might be reason for some limited variances because of the size of the lot. Even though the Zoning Administrator did an excellent job of reducing the size of the property, etc., she agreed the proposed variances were too great. In the schematic drawings, over half of the lot as designed even with its reduced configuration was in an area that required a variance. That was not appropriate. Variances were for special circumstances. She opposed the Motion and if the motion failed, she would propose another motion'to deny the vari- ances requested. 7 4 7 7 7/14/86 Councilmember Renzel said Council knew the property was a flag lot which was a different kind of circumstance from ordinary lots which faced on the street. Council was required by the ordinance regarding variances to make findings, and the third finding w4s there should be no detriment to adjoining property owners. Two proponents of the present motion already indicated they believed there was detriment to the neighboring properties. She did not see how the proponents would be. able, either at present or in September, to make a finding there was no detriment to adjoining properties. In a flag lot, even with its normal 15 -foot wide access way, all activity for that particular lot funneled in- between other neighbors. When a lot faced a street with 60 -feet of ''frontage, access to that lot was basically on the street and not imposing on adjoining neighbors. Likewise, with respect to setbacks a similar circumstance applied. With an isolated lot, every side of the property abutted an adjoining neighbor. When those setbacks were intruded into, all the activity for the lot was compressed into a. much smaller area. The question of whether it was appropriate to put that kind of activity onto adjoining neighbors was a serious one. One property line was a creek due for additional work to change from a trapezoidal to a box channel. The community had experience with problems from the creeks, and it seemed only prudent Council recognize it was wise to stay away from the edges of creeks when building. That had not always been done, and massive amounts of public subsidy went to shore up back yards along San Francisquito Creek. She did not have trouble denying the variance. While Council should consider what the developer could expect when he purchased the lot versus what he could expect at present, there were properties all over town that Council rezoned and did not ask the price but looked at the public health, safety, and welfare and made zoning determinations accord- ingly. Council did that with respect to substandard lots. The property owner happened to purchase and owned the lot during that time, but it was not relevant to the discussion that evening. She urged her colleagues to vote against the continuance and to deny the appeal. Many members of the public were present that evening with respect to the issue. Vice Mayor _iJJoolley said she usually enjoyed being on the Council, but that evening was an exception because Council was unable to arrive at a good solution. She spent a lot of timeconsidering the three findings Co.unci•l .had to make. She did not have trouble with the first finding that there be a unique or extraordinary circumstance because of the unusual orientation of the lot. The third finding was whether or not there would be a hardship on the neighbors, and the question was not so much the variance as whether there should be a building at all. She did not believe the proposed building would be more of a hardship on the neighbors than any other. The issues of turnaround, exhaust, family activ- ity, etc., were not that significant. The situation would be dif- ferent it the question was whether there be any building at all. She was uncertain about the second finding of whether a hardship was imposed on the person. doing the building and had not made up 7 4 7 8. 7/14/86 1 8 her mind on whether the variance should_be granted or not. She supported the motion and urged the parties involved to work through the complex history of ownership and interaction to arrive at a solution where they both won before Council had to make a decision in September. Councilmember Sutorius said reaction to the findings necessary to be made was similar to that enunciated by Vice Mayor Woolley. He wrestled with the decision of whether to uphold the Zoning Administrator's and the Planning Commission's . judgment, ard had visited the site and the neighbors' properties. Parking and access to the site were not a real concern. The first 85 feet of his driveway measured less than 10 feet in width, and he believed the proposed entrance and garage arrangement was safe for access and egress. The discussion on flag lots was unnecessary and in- appropriate as the, property owner had not created the flag lot in question. He did not believe it mattered whether the acquisition of the property was made by a person who intended to build his own home on the property or to build for sale. He supported the motion on the floor but, if the motion failed, he was prepared to act on the subject that evening. Mayor Cobb associated himself with the comments of Councilmember Bechtel. He believed Mr. Fleming knew the road would be difficult when he bought the property because it was a difficult piece of property to develop. However, absent themoratorium,'- Mr. Fleming could have built a two-story house more obnoxious to the neighbors than what could be built with the variances. The variances being asked for were excessive and set a bad precedent tor any similar future issue. He had difficulty with the kind of thinking that someone bought a piece of property with the feeling it could be made whole through the variance process. He might be willing to consider some smaller variances to give buildability to the lot, but the present variances were far too great. He was in sympathy with the objectives of the postponement and hoped it worked and achieved the desired result. He urged both parties to be reason- able and recognize neither had the perfect case. = However, he did not anticipate'. that would happen and believed Council should resolve the issue that evening. Councilmember Fletcher concurred with Councilmembers Renzel, Bechtel and Mayor Cobb. The variances were excessive. The City did not have an obligation to go to that extent to accommodate a development on the site. .She was particularly concerned about building so clone to the creek bank. The precedent was terrible, and she would not want to live adjacent to a flag lot where cars did not have adequate room ; to drive straight. She was uncertain what could be achieved by postponing a decision. The proper action would be to uphold the appeal, and, the applicant would be free to return with another proposal with less extreme variances. Denial of the variance4 that evening would not preclude the parties working out a purchase agreement. Council's obligation was to act on the appeal that evening.. '7 4 7 9 7/14/86 MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Rensel, Bechtel, Fletcher, Cobb. voting "no." MOTION: Councilmember Patitucci ■roved, seconded by Klein to reconsider for purposes c f the changing . .. date. of City Council meeting. MOTION PASSED unanimously. AMENDMENT: Couacilmesber Fletcher movsd, seconded by Levy, to change date from September 15, 198 to September 8, 1486. Mr. Zaner said Mr. Fleming would not be present on September 8, 1986. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-5, _ Reaz®l, Fletcher, Levy, voting "ayes. °1 NOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Menzel, Bechtel, Fletchvr, Cobb, voting "no.' Councilmember Patitucci suggested the City Manager and staff might help encourage the process to achieve a positive result. 7--A. (OLD #1) AGREEMENT FOR CIVIC CENTER BUILDING ENERGY CONSERVATION (PWK 9/PWK 7-2) Councilmember Levy asked what the savings were for the expendi- tures involved. City Manager Bill Zaner said staff anticipated a savings between $44,000 and $46,000 a year in energy costs. The program hould pay back in two years and three months. Councilmember Levy asked if the grog, am would pay back in six months because the agreement was for $18,000. City Manager B;11 Zaner said the contract cost was $18,000 but the total project would cost. approximately $100,000. MOTION: Coenciltersher Levy moved, seconded by Bechtel, to authorise the Mayer to execute the agreement with Keller and Gannon for 818,594, and to autherixe staff to execute change orders to the agreement of up_ to 82,888. ACREEMUT Keller and Gammon Mechanical Engineers MOTION PASSED unanimously. 7 4 8 0 7/14/86 1 Councilmember Patitucci thanked the City Clerk and_ staff for the compact and neat package which helped Council. do its job more efficiently. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10:40 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: Mayor 7 4 8 1 7/14/86