Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-20 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCI L M1MUTEN Regular Meeting October 20, 1986 ITEM Oral Communications Minutes of September 22, 1986 Consent Calendar 1. Ordinance re Cooperative Purchase with Other Utilities (2nd Reading) Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- mendation re Planned Community Zone Change Application of Robert H. Lee and Associates foi: Property Located at 2995 Middlefield Road 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- mendation re Application of Robert Trent Jones, Jr., for a Zone Change From R-1 to PC for Property Located at 705 Forest Avenue Recess from 9:45 p.m. to 10:03 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING* Planning Commission Recom- mendation re Appeal of 250 Cambridge Associates from Decision -of Zoning Administrator for a Variance for Property Located at 255 College Avenue 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- mendation re Application of F. W. Woolworth Company for an Exception for Property Located at 725 San Antonio Road 7. Planning Commission Recommendation re Ronald Reagan Presidential Library 8. •Hazardous . Materials Storage Amendments* and Resolution 8A. (OLD 2) Pooper Scooper_Ordinance Adjournment a t 11:50 p.m. Ordinance CITY OF PAL 0 ALTO PAGE 7 7 8 0 7 7 8 2 77 8 2 7 7 8 2 7 7 8 2 7 7 8 3 7 7 9 0 7 7 9 6 7 7 9 6 7 8 0 1 7 8 0 2 7 8 1 1 7 ;8 1 2 7 8 1 3 Regular Meeting Monday, October 20, 1986 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:33 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius Mayor Cobb announced Councilmember Fletcher and Vice Mayor Woolley were representing the City at the California League of Cities Conference in Los Angeles. Mayor Cobb announced a Closed Session re Litigation to discuss Smith v. Mulder et al., pursuant to Government Code Section 54956(a) would be helTIat some point during or after the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding the Golden Triangle procedure :for exceptions,and referred to his letter hand delivered to the City Clerk (on file in the City Clerk's office) . The City's precipitovs adoption o.f a moratorium and .35 floor area ratio (FAR) was unwarranted in those areas in the City which had already been subject to a study and a revi- sion in the FAR. Council took that action in regard to California Avenue, Downtown, and the Geng Road Parcel, and should also take that action not only in regard to the Bayshore/Sawn Antonio area but also in regard to the CS and CN areas when the study on that series of zones returned to Council for action. He believed Council treated the property owners and developers shabbily and. did not follow reasonable procedure. Even though the mistake was of short duration, it should be rectified. He reminded Council a .35 FAR had ever been proposed or adopted for any zone in the City of Palo Alto. He asked Council to agendize the item and make an exception for those areas where Council had already estab- lished what an appropriate zone should be. 2. Brian Hauck, 2381 Middlefield Road, was angry and disappointed in the Council meeting of October 14, 1986, concerning the landfill rate increase for which there was great concern for nonresident maintenance gardeners and very little for resi- dent businesses. Council exhibited confusion over how the landfill and related programs operated and what the issues were; the issues, were landfill life and gate receipts. The types of materials maintenance gardeners generated were easily made into •compost. Maintenance gardeners already had the 7 7 8 0 10/20/86 option of leaving the materials curbside at Palo Alto accounts. Councilmember Levy's motion to allow nonresident maintenance gardeners to use the compost area was reasonable, would not reduce landfill life, and would generate gate receipts. The staff proposal passed by Council remained unclear, and he was still unable to determine whether resident businesses would be included under resident or commercial on the rate schedule despite clarification by staff, Currently, PASCO picked up curbside residential plant debris in plastic bags, and the compost material was dumped at the landfill. The program had a substantial negative impact on landfill life. Presently resident businesses separated compost from landfill at no cost to the City --in fact, generating gate receipts --and separated recyclable materials from landfill. Resident businesses were a valuable asset to the community. He proposed Council allow nonresident and maintenance gardeners use of the compost program. He urged Council clearly direct• staff as to whom the new rates applied. Resi- dent business owners driviity their own vehicles, signs or no signs, with driver's license and vehicle registration showing the sa a residence address should be charged resident rates. Councilmember Levy clarified compost material picked up by PASCO at curbside was not left off at the compost area of the dump. Mr. Mauck said compost material picked up by PASCO was dumped at the landfill, and the compost materiel from maintenance gardeners went to the compost area in the landfill. Gilds Kabbane, 732 Willow Road. Menlo Park, had Gilda's Big Apple hot dog carts in Palo Alto, and paid $1,060 per annum for the Master License and individual vendors who worked for her, and paid Santa Clara County Environmental Health $1,088. She paid full sales tax so the City received revenues from the California State Board of Equalization. She wanted Council to justify the fee. Each vendor also paid an initial fee to the Police Department. Lois Fariello, 302 Manzanita Avenue, was a Regional Vice Chairwoman for the United Way of Santa Clara County. presiding over the Palo Alto/Stanford Chapter. The Chapter consisted of 47 volunteers and its fission was to make the community aware of United Way services and the services of the 94 agencies currently funded. Councilmember Levy was on the Chapter Board and they valued his input. The Chapter thanked the City employees partici- pating in the. annum_ United Way campaign. Their goal was to raise $21 million in the County for the 1986 fund drive. She emphasized the important of YOlunteers who . ime6s the United Way the most cost-efficient organization in the field4 In 1987, United Way of America would celebrade its 100th birthday. Prank Riddle was the 1986 campaign chairman for the chapter. 7 7 8 1 10/20/86 Frank Riddle, 310 University Avenue, was Area Manager for Pacific Bell, and the 1986 Campaign Chairman for the Palo Alto/Stanford Chapter of United Way. United. Way funded human care services throughout Santa Clara County, and 94 agencies currently received $15,800,000 from funds pledged in the 1985 campaign, and a number also received funding from the City of Palo Alto. He listed the agencies in Palo Alto currently receiving funding from United Way, and said the City Clerk had brochures with the figures regarding funding (on file in the City Clerk's office). One measure of the quality of any community was how it helped others less fortunate. He urged the City and all citizens of Palo Alto to join in the important effort. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1986 Councilmetnber Renzel had the following correction: Page 7717, third paragraph, third line, the word "property" should read "building." MOTION? C©uncilaebor Sutorius mowed, seconded by Klein, approval of the Minutes of September 22, 1906, as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Woolley absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Counciimembc r Patitucci c:emoved Item 2, Pooper Scooper Ordinance. MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Patitucci, approval of the Consent Calendar. 1. ORDINANCE RE COOPERATIVE PURCHASE WITH OTHER UTILITIES (2nd Reading ( 1130) ORDINANCE 3715 entitled "ORDIWAMCE. OF THE COUMCI. OF THE CITT.Of PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 2.30 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE POR COOPERATIVE PURCRRSES WITH OTHER UTILITIES' (let Reading 10/6'96, PASSED 9-0) MOTIO* PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Woolley absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Director of. Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said Item 2, Pooper Scooper Ordinance, would become Item 8-A. 7 7 8 2 10/20/86 1 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE PLANNED MMUN ON ZE CHANGE APPLICATION OF ROBERT H. LEE AND ASSOCIATES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2995 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD (300) (CMRt518:6) Commissioner Chandler said the Architectural Review Board (ARB) originally denied the application because the redesign of the sta- tion was not exemplary as Council requested. Three Planning Commissioners believed the station should be approved with the proposed design modifications. Some Planning Commissioners were ready to approve the application with minor amenity improvements, but it was unclear whether such improvements would be acceptable to Council. The Planning .Commission requested additional guidance on what standard should be applied. Architectural Review Board member Linn Winterbotham did not believe the ARB looked for an exemplary station but rather com- patibility with the neighborhood. The ARB did not believe the application was compatible with the residential character of the Midtown area in terms of materials or the existing layout of the station. There were some serious circulation problems with the existing site havingthe fuel islands perpendicular to Middlefield Road as opposed to those parallel to the road which required having excessively wide driveways for entry and exit into the site and creating vehicular conflicts with cars leaving the fuel islands and passing by the service bays. '<Councilmember Bechtel understood the applicant was replacing the underground tanks at a cost of about $135,000 and providing addi- tional landscaping. She asked about the extant of the proposed landscaping. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said the landscaping was fairly substantial when considering the present landscaping. The land- scape plan also included walling the site. on three sides where it was adjacent to a residential district as required by the ordi- nance. Included in the facade upgrade was repainting the budding a brown color and reroofing with composition shingles. Councilmember Levy wasparticularly concerned about aesthetics and asked for comment. Mr. Winterbotham +aid two major aesthetic problems had to do with the reuse of the existing metal siding on the building and the belief it was an inappropriate material for the Midtown area. Secondly, landscape improvements were strictly around the perimeter of the. site and there was no effort to improve the interior and the street frontage. 7 7 8 3 10/20/86 Councilmember Levy asked if the aesthetics could be improved with the same circulation pattern. Mr. Wintetho::ham said no. Councilmember Sutorius was concerned about the parking. The plan provided for six parking spaced, and that afternoon there were no fewer than 16 vehicles parked on -site exclusive of what was at the pump and involved at the service bay. Other cars were also parked for a long time which might or m.ight not have been associated with the station. He Asked for comment. Mr. Brown said the plan met the zoning ordinance requirements for the size of the building. Despite the fact only two parallel parking spaces were shown on the northerly property line, there was also an area where parking could occur adjacent to the landscaping. In the rear, typically auto repair facilities used tandem parking for the storage of vehicles awaiting service. Councilmember Bechtel clarified although the ARB strongly recom- mended the service bays needed to be reconfigured, staff did not concur. Mr. Brown said from a safety standpoint he did not believe a redesign was necessary. From an on -site circulation standpoint, it would be desirable, but staff did not feel strongly in terms of a recommendation to the Council. Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open. Hugh Cunningham, Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), 5202 Seaview, Castro Valley, said ARCO presented a fair project for a PC devel- opment. It proposed a new single roof, repainting the building brown, and adding.. building perimeter and general landscaping. Anv amenity suggested by the. City consistent with the scope of what ARCO was trying to offer would be welcomed and incorporated into the project. ARCO agreed reorienting the islands would not have the benefit of the cost. The cost of relocating the island, which would include rebuilding the canopy and remote self-service equipment, would cost an incremental $135,000. Due to the high water table at the site, ARCO's tank installation needed to be double -wall plastic and steel which increased the costs approximately $20,000. He corrected the Planning Commission minutes and the statement ARCO was not a high volume outlet. Midtown ARCO was an average performer in ARCO's group of California stations. No food sales revenue existed via the AM/PM Mini -Market; ARCO had a substantial capital budget for gasoline retailing in conjunction with AM/PM Mini -Markets, which was not afforded in Palo MAO. The citizens wanted the service bays and the application ' omitted a food store under a PC which could= have been done. ARCO offered the community a ` convenience. He ui'nder- stood the Shell station on €mbarcadero was turning its. full 7 :7 8 :4 10/20/86 1 1 i service station into a pumper. ARCO preferred to be an AM/PM Mini -Market, but made concessions to the City because the citizenry responded to what was there. Regarding the metal siding, the Texaco station on the Stanford Campus was metal and the new Shell rebuild without service bays was also metal. ARCO's improvement costs were substantial. Other PCs in Midtown did not have substantial underground storage tanks to contend with. The facelift on Century Liquors was on the exterior only. Century Liquors and other shops on the Midtown strip could easily be replaced and came and went with market demand. Mayor Cobb said according to the report, there was a total cost of $200,000, which included the tanks at $130,000 and improvements at $70,000. A $300,000 figure was included with no explanation, and he asked if it represented another $300,000 or an additional $100,000. Mr. Cunningham said a new service station with bays,. etc., could probably be provided for about $450,000 --or $320,000 incremental. Mayor Cobb asked to what extent ARCO was willing to go t.e a little higher level of physical improvement apart from the bays. Mr. Cunningham believed wood siding on the building might possible, particularly if it was limited to the front. Mayor Cobb clarified ARCO was willing to look at some other physi- cal eprear ce improvements. Mr. Cunningham said that was correct. Councilmember Renzel said in June, . Mr. Cunningham stated ARCO's volume: was about 15 percent more than ARCO's California average. Mr, Cunningham said ARCO's average in California was higher than in other states. His earlier figure of 15 percent higher than the average California station was incorrect. It was closer to 10 or 12 percent. Councilmember Renzel asked how Midtown ARCO's 200,000 gallons per month volume related to the volumes being pumped in other stations in the Area. Mr. Cunningham could not respond for the area but said ARCO did two and one-half times better than the industry average. Councilmember Renzel said many Palo Altana supported Mr. Ortiz and the service he provided. She asked what guarantee the City had the :dealer would stay to the location. 7 7 8 5 10/20/86_ Mr. Cunningham said the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act stated as long as a company remained in busyness, the location had to be offered to the incumbent dealer upon renewal unless he was dele- terious to the operation. Mr. Ortiz did not have that problem. Councilmember Renzel asked whether the Act also fixed the rent structure. Mr. Cunningham said ARCO's rental structure was its own; It loaded a. front-end fixed cost, had no variable cost, and no penalties in increased rentals for Mr. Ortiz pumping additional gallons. ARCO had only a passive rental on the service bays but percentage of no the sales. Councilmember Sutorius asked about the adequacy of parking. Diosdadd M. Ortiz, 1161 Camano Court, said in order to be profit- able in a repair business, he needed at least 20 parking spaces. He was afraid he would end up parking on a City street because of the volume of business in repair. He averaged about 12 cars per day. He believed six spaces was inadequate. If planters were put ten feet around the perimeter. they would take his parking Gloria Brown, 1766 Fulton Street, could not understand why the ARCO station was given such a hard time about trying to stay in business. Other than replacing underground tanks, she saw nothing wrong with the station the way it was. She urged Council support the people who wanted to keep the service. Mrs. L. B. Laflin, 1880 Channing, agreed with Ms. Brown. People wanted the station where it was, and she believed the structure looked fine. It appeared the people at ARCO were being rail- roaded. Harrison. Otis, 2721 Midtown Court, supported the ARCO station., The people wanted the station to remain. ARCO was a good outfit and kept its word. Bill Evers, 933 Colorado Avenge, concurred with Ms. Brown. The record showed people were primarily interested in the presence of the . gasoline and repair service and not in a station that would win awards for aesthetics. Mayor Cobb declared the ?'b * is hearing closed. Councilmember Bechtel wanted to keep the bays in the direction they were. She appreciated the ARB concern, but the safety issue was not crucial. She believed a redesign was needed in regard to parking, and there might be too much landscaping. She clarified when one Councilmember made a comment, : it should not be inter- preted as the direction of Council. It was not her intention .that. the station be "exemplary.° 7 7 6 6 10/20/36 NOTIOMs Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to approve the request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map change from Multiple Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial by adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 5569 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE TT OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TUE PALO ALTO COMPREHEN- SIVE PLAN BY CHANGING TUB LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY AT 2995 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD FROM MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL' Councilmember Renzel was concerned with making the Comprehensive Plan change before the proposed zone change was before Council. A PC zone was the design that came to Council, and unless they were prepared to approve a design that evening, it would be preferable to continue the whole matter indicating Council's desire to make the change if the design was appropriate. She opposed the motion and indicated her willingness to consider it when the PC plans were before Council again. Councilmember Patitucci asked if both the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map change and the PC zone change were required to accomplish the end result. Mr. Schreiber clarified the desired end result was the elimination of the amortization schedule that ran until 1991. To do that, both actions were needed. Councilmember Patitucci asked if there was any immediate reason for one action versus the other. Mr. Schreiber said staff suggested splitting the items in order to not convey that the policy decision Council made in initially sending the issue for design review or the policy decision that a plan change should be looked at favorably, was jeopardized in any way. Staff suggested taking action on the plan change to elimi- nate uncertainty and potential concern in the community. Councilmember Patitucci queried if the applicant decided not to apply for a PC. Mr. Schreiber said assuming the zoning did not change, the amorti- zation schedule would run, and the service station use would have to bediscontinued by 1991. Councilmember Levy said the PC zone was the key decision. He supported the motion on the floor for the reasons Mr. Schreiber etated. It was the appropriate signal to send to the operator and community that Council had not chanced any basic policies but were still not ready to approve the . PC zoning. 7 7 8 7 10/20/86 Councilmember Renzel believed staff's recommendation was a politi- cal one. The same thing could be accomplished by reiterating Council's June position that conceptually they would like to look at the issue without taking the final step of changing the land use until they saw the plans. Such action ensured the City was not in the position of having a land use and the applicant having the upper hand in dealing with the PC zone. Mayor Cobb said by casting a vote indicating- Council's intention to do something specific, the applicant was not left hanging in terms of investment money, etc. For that reason, Council should move ahead with the land use change and deal with the specifics of the PC subsequently. Councilmember Sutorius indicated that had he been present at the earlier Council meeting, he would have opposed the item. Phi- losophically, he supported the position of the Planning Commission as oriainal)y enunciated and identified with the comments made by Commissioner McCown regarding the action of the Planning Commission in its most recent meeting. NOTION PASSED by as vote of 5-2, Renzel, Sutorius voting "no,. Fletcher, Woolley absent. Councilmember Bechtel asked if the matter could be continued.. and sent back for redesign. Mr. Schreiber believed the correct action would be to return the item to the ARB for additional design review. OTION I Councilmember Bechtel m4ved, seconded by Levy, to return the Planned Community zone change to the Architectural Review Board for further design review.i which review is not to rsorie.tation of the gas pump islands. Councilmember Bechtel said her primary goal was to ensure adequate parking for the site. The area could use aesthetic improvement but not to the extent there was not adequate parking. Councilmember Levy supported the motion. He believed the ARB focused so much on the orientation of thepumps, it did not focus on more important areas. ARB defined his use of the word "exem- plary* as compatibility with the neighborhood which was correct. The visual appearance of the station was important. Council was granting ARCO a special situation in terms of location without any competition for a significant area. Thus, Council . had the right to ask that the station be highly compatiblewith the ._ primarily residential neighborhoods surrounding it. Such compatibility represented significant landscaping and attractive buildings. The parking issue needed to be discussed and resolved. 7:,7 8 8 10/20/86 Councilmember Sutorius believed the ARB did a good job. Regarding parking, he encouraged consideration that some potential existed for doubling the number of spots on the rear of the property through diagonal parking with tree plantings. It might be a com- bination of narrowing the dimension of the planting area but cut- ting- into it with diagonal parking spaces, resulting in more spaces with a good pocket planting situation together with a two - to three-foot wide planting strip along the back. He encouraged an extremely strong position on a rigid sign program including going beyond what the sign ordinance could control, most particu- larly in regard to signs on the inside of windows. He asked that the design consider where the dumpster would go, the appearance of the dumpster location, and the dumpster with respect to the over- all plan. There was an opportunity to improve the facade with slight additional expenditures. Councilmember Pa t i tucci supported . the motion. He was concerned Council was dealing with the decision at too detailed a level. A series of trade--o,:fs had to be made in regard to aesthetics, usage of the site, and economics. It was up to the ARB or the Planning Commission to get the best deal possible to present to Council. He would like to see a project that balanced those three items. MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO INCORPORATE IN THE MOTION LANGUAGE TO U IRE THE PLAN PROVIDES FOR ADEQUATE ON -SITE PARKING Councilmember Klein wanted to ensure Council .had its standards in the motion. He believed the ARB and staff got off on the wrong foot with the use of a quotation out of context. A Council standard was not a standard until Council adopted it by a motion. He associated himself -with Councilmember Patitucci's remarks. The overall guidelines were clear, i.e., that Council wanted to retain the facility and that appropriate upgradings were in order. A iCO was a fine corporation but'".in business to make money, and it was not keeping the station open as a service to the citizens of Palo Alto. One of Couni1's goals was to make the community look nice. Through appropriate consideration and negotiations, an acceptable goal could be accomplished, and the station could continue to exist Councilmember Renzel concurred with most of Councilmember Klein's remarks. There was a broad stretch in the area that wee devoid of landscaping, and Council was obliged to ensure improvement. She believed if the bays were rotated there would be more space across the front to landscape, and more space on the sides to provide parking. She assumed the motion did not prohibit the pumps from being rotated if that design turned out. to be what would work. The present design was not optimal, for moving cars through the station. Council was granting the developer a significant addi- tional value to the property, Gas stations had a potential for 7 7 8 9 10/20/86 being deleterious to their neighborhoods, and it was important for Council to recognize it was highly likely the City would own as parkland all the land surrounding the property. She concurred there needed to be some way of incorporating more on -site parking. Because the area was walled, it might be desirable to trade off some of the rear or side landscaping, either in the manner sug- gested by Councilmember Sutorius or in some other creative manner, and shift that landscaping to where it was visible from off site. She concurred with Councilmember Sutorius the ARB and Planning Commission did a good job and hoped they would continue to press for a good design if not an exemplary one. Mayor Cobb clarified the motion instructed the ARB review was not to include reorientation of the gas pump islands, but the appli- cants were not precluded from doing so. He noted for the record the applicants indicated the level of improvements offered, apart from the reorientation of the pumps, could be .improved upon and they were willing to work with the City. In reply to public com- ments, zoning laws -could not guarantee the particular operator would be there for any length of time. Council tried to pass laws that created a situation that, regardless of who the operator was, would look reasonable for the whole City. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Woolle7 absent. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLI- CATION OF ROBERT TRENT JONES, JR., FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM _ R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO PC PLANNED COMMUNITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 705 FOREST AVENUE (300) Councilmembee Renzel clarified the item .was a nonconforming use which would become a conforming use by change to a PC zone. Mr. Brown clarified the use was presently grandfathered and had no termination schedule. It would become a conforming use under the PC district. Councilmember Renzel asked if the project would be categorized as a professional office. Mr. Brown said yes. Councilmember Patitucci asked with the expansions, whether the property would have met the residential criteria for size, coverage etc. Mr. Brown believed so and would verify that point. Councilmember Levy asked about the applicant's willingness to limit the employment on site as part of the PC, and `whether the limit could be written into the PC. 7 7 9 0 10/20/86 O Mr. Brown said the applicant made that suggestion in early discus- sions with staff. It was not suggested because staff and the Planning Commission were unable to make the PC findings. Mayor Cobb said the minutes indicated if the applicant was willing to live with a five foot ceiling, staff could grant the approach he wanted - because it did not qualify as additional space. He wondered if there was flexibility or if five feet was a hard and fast height. Mr. Brown said the height was not hard and fast but was a recom- mendation by the Chief Building Official. At five feet, the space clearly would not be usable floor area but would function as a storage area, for example. Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open. Allen .Zink, 96 Tum Suden Way, Woodside, said the main problem was the condition of the foundation of the 54 -year old building. The civil engineers recommended the foundation be replaced either by vacating the building for four months or excavating to the foundation walls. The idea was to extend the present one-third basement into a full basement enabling the engineer to get to the foundation wall. The fully -excavated basement represented ideal flat storage for architectural plans. A conditional Use Permit was not available because of the increase in "habitable" space. A suggested alternative was to reques.t a PC zone change, which did not restrict the increase in habitable space. The glassing in of the patio area was before Council because the Jones Company would like to have. such a space to lay out plans for their business. The patio space present41 existed, but was not glassed in or used because it was outdoors. Put lic benefits • for the basement included using private funding fur putting a new foundation on a historically significant building and a new seismically safe foundation. . If storage of the documents was required, off site, there would be increased traffic by employees going to and from the storage space. Regarding the patio glassing in, the plantings around the glassed in patio area would beautify the area along Middlefield Road. Robert Trent Jones, Jr., 705 Forest Avenue, was trying to create a basement which was half built and historically used into a fully usable storage site for plans. They presently had storage outaide the ouilding and it was increasingly difficult to run out and get the plans. They were willingto restrict themselves to the uses suggested by staff and wanted to continue to be public spirited citizens. He believed his proposal was warranted. 7 ! 9 1 10/20/86 Councilmember Levy was concerned if the floor space •of the facility was increased, there would be an increase the number of employees and traffic problems. He was interested in Mr. Jones' offer to limit the number of employees at the facility as part of the PC in order to ensure ally increase in so-called usable space would not be accompanied by more people. Mr. Jones was open to such a suggestion. He liked the size of his operation and had no plans to increase it. Councilmember Levy asked about the total floor space. Mr. Jones said the building was a "wedding -cake" building with a small upper layer of about 1,400 square feet. The first floor was about 2,200 square feet and the basement was the same as the first floor. Mayor Cobb asked if there was some range of height where Mr. Jones could avoid the PC. Mr. Jones believed there were other health and welfare reasons for his height request. Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing closed. MOTE Councilmember Klein moved, secondad by Levy, to approve the 'application of Robert Trent Janes, Jr. for a zoning change true It -1 to PC as applied for *abject to the additional condition that the number of employees at the site be limited to 13. Councilmember Klein understood the staff and Planning Commission recommendation, but Council needed to look at the rules in a more broad context. Council did not want to drive out a business which was quiet, did not impose traffic burdens, and never received a complaint from residents in the area. He did not believe Council wanted to prohibit the applicant from fixing the foundation or upgrading the building to better withstand an earthquake. He believed the public benefits included preservation of a dignified building, which added to the quality of the architectural land- scape in Palo Alto. Another public benefit was enhanced seismic safety. The issue was raised that the application might serve as a precedent since other landowners in the community had similar applications denied. The "no" to other landowners was not the continuation of the use of a particular building but the possi- bility of conversion from present uses to others, which he found to be a significant difference. The concern that the additional square footage might result in an increased number of employees and worsen the City's traffic woes could be handled by the condi- tion to the PC application. He was advised that similar limita- tions were placed on other PCs. 7 7 9 2 10/20/86 Mr. Brown said limitations were placed on certain types of use permits having employment restrictions such as day care centers. 1 Mr. Schreiber said the difference in the subject instance was the City had no mechanism to monitor employment on site absent any complaints. Councilmember Klein said the monitoring issue came up in many ways and he did not see where it was any more of a problem in the sub- ject instance than it was in other areas of the City's Municipal Code; that is, the City could only enforce things on a complaint basis with an occasional inspection. Limiting_ the height to five feet was unrealistic and the employment limitation would serve the purpose. He urged support. Councilmember Levy said in addition to the public benefit of main- taining a handsome historical building and a greater degree of safety, the City would ensure fewer employees on site and would reduce the amount of traffic generated by enabling the occupant, as long as it was the present occupant, to store his drawings on site. He was generally concerned about the number of people who worked in Palo Alto; when problems of density and traffic arose, they were problems of people imore than square footage. Sometime ago Council considered whether it could monitor the number of employees City-wide and put something in the Comprehensive Plan related to such limitations. It was essentially an impossible task City-wide, but for a small site and 13 employees, it seemed to be monitorable by complaint, by the number of vehicles parked on site, and by looking at the employment records of the occupant. Thirteen employees was modest for a building of 3,600 square feet, but regardless of the increase in square footage, the number of employees would be limited and would be small even for the site as it existedbefore the enlargece nt. Councilmember Bechtel concurred with Councilmembers snlein and Levy. She presumed if the motion passed, the PC would require an ordinance. Mr. Schreiber said an ordinance was not prepared because the PC application was initially denied by the Planning Commission. If Council desired to consider approval, the motion could be modified to conceptually approve and refer the item to the ARB for design review. An ordinance, - which included necessary findings, would return to Council along with the ARB recommendation. Councilmember Bechtel asked why the project needed to go through the ARB when the majority of the work was in the basement. Mr. Brown said there was an expansion to the csterfor of the building and any exterior construction to a site which became commercial went to the ARB regacdless of size. 7 7 9 3 10/20/86 Councilmember Sutorius opposed the motion. He concurred with the staff and Planning Commission recommendation. While Council could find rationale for supporting the motion, he believed there would be a precedent set for the type of action and Council might find people strongly disagreed with the fairness with which Council treated situations. He queried a filing situation which would not require a full basement, but rather a corridor arrangement in the area that would be excavated. He suggested a deprr eyed corridor with flat filing arrangements on either side that were accessible, easy to store and off the ground. Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Sutorius. Mr. Jones improved the property when he revised the entry from Middlefield to Forest. It was a relatively low intensity use, but the area was zoned R-1 and on the non -Downtown side of Middlefield Road. They were talking of increasing the square footage from 3,600 square feet to 6,050 square feet. While Council had a grandfathered use of 3,600 square feet, if the PC went through, it would change the status of the property to a legitimate profes- sional use in an R-1 zone in an area that would be under increased pressure from the Downtown to move outward. Even though the base- ment was expected to be used for storage, a lot of activity might occur in it, and she preferred to see other ways of possibly accommodating the need for a basement. If the City allowed the full basement which was 2,200 square feet, the PC could specify up to 250 square feet could be used as a conference room. The front of the property would then remain historically accurate and there was not that particular increase in space. Council ran the risk of a significant change in the nonconforming use in the area. Councilmember Patitucci asked whether it could be determined from a structural standpoint to build as large a basement as was pro- posed or was it necessary to just replace the existing basement.. Mr. Brown understood the proposed excavation height was simply to allow the foundation work to proceed while the house sat as it was and work went on as usual above. It was possible to raise the house entirely off its foundation, replace the footings, and put the structure down. The foundation could not be accessed from underneath the building without raising the building or excavating the basement. Councilmember Patitucci clarified no approvals would be needed to just replace the foundation. He wasnot uncomfortable, with the proposed improvements but was uncomfortable with applying the PC zone. He opposed the motion. Mr. Schreiber suggested .the motion be modified to refer the item to the krchi tecturel. Review Board for design review, Implied in the motion was conceptual approval. 7 7 9 4 10/20/86 MAKER AND SECOND OF MOTION AGREED TO INCORPORATE LANGUAGE TO REFER THE ITEM TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FOR DESIGN REVIEW Councilmember Bechtel responded to Councilmember Patitucci's opposition to the motion because he did no.,like the PC concept. If Councilmember Patitucci liked the concept, a PC zone was the only way to accomplish the proposed improvements. It would be a good idea to support the motion. Mayor Cobb asked if a professional office PC could exist in a single family zone. Mr. Brown said the PC would take the place of the R-1 zoning. If Mayor Cobb referred to a Comprehensive Plan designation of single family with a commercial PC, it might not be appropriate Mayor Cobb agreed with Councilmember Patitucci. He believed Council needed a use permit process which enabled the creation of some type of user -specific approval which existed as long as the particular user was in place and disappeared when the user was gone. It would enable Council to deal with issues which were so clearly user -specific and not use a PC in a way he believed was inappropriate. NOTION FAILED by a vote of 3-4, Klein, Bechtel, Levy voting "aye,' Woolley, Fletcher absents NOTION: Mayor Cobb mewed, seconded by Rommel, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation for denial of the requested PC rezoning based' upon the following findings: 1) The proposed project is of such characteristics that the appli- cation of general districts will provide sufficient flexibility to allow they proposed development in that the principal cospo-- neat of the proposal, the basement storage expansion, can be accomplished wader the current R-1 District regulations by tra- aitioaal construction techniques not requiring excavation, 2) Development of the site under the provisions of the Planned Community District will net result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulatiOWN of general districts in that the minimal benefit of to ation replacement can be accomplished by alternate contraction; and 3) Me uslis per*ttted and the site development regulations applicable within the proposed PC Sistrict would.. allow for inc/roamer intensity of commaraiO4 uses through additional usable floor area, which is : la VimUtilia of .Comprehensive Plan Employment Policy 1 which states, *Continue efforts to reduce 7 7 9 5 10/20/86 NOTION CONTINUED employment potential implemented with the 1976 Comprehensive Plan and 197$ Zoning Ordinance.' A key provision, in the 1976 Plan and 197$ Zoning Ordinance was .reaosin9 of the Middlefield Road area east of Downtown from professional office use to residential, thereby capping potential for expansion of existing office uses. Councilmember Levy asked if there was any other way to allow either user -specific changes. Mr. Brown said short vt changing the zoning ordinance require- ments, restricting grandfathered professional offices in the R-1 District, no. The ordinance was specific in not permitting any expansion._ The zoning ordinance text could be changed to apply to all grandfathered office uses. Councilmember Levy said it was unfortunate the PC represented the only way to get at the change he believed a majority of the Council considered worthwhile for the community. The proposed PC zone as it was designed was as close as possible to being user-speicific and to ensuring that the building would stay as it had, both in terms of appearance and intensity of use. He was still inclined to see the PC granted than to continue with a generally grandfathered in office use. Councilmember Klein said there was no other reasonable alternative other than a PC. The suggestion to amend the ordinance produced a whole range of new problems including unintended consequences because there were many grandfathered uses which would all have to '9e analyzed one by one to ensure Council was not creating more o a problem than it solved. While the PC proc.es might not be perfect, it worked. NOTION PASSED by a vote of 4-3, Klein, 8ecbtel, Levy voting •no, * Fletcher, Woolley absent. COUNCIL RECESSED TO ACLOSED SESSION RE LITIGATION FROM ,9t45 R.m. TO i0:03 p.m, 5, PULLIC HEARING: PLANNING CO MI '�SION RECOMMENPATIO R DENIAL OF APPEAL OF -25a-tommt-imitiawm FROM S ZONING ADNINISTiR TOR TO GRANt A VARfAk Pkotif A i i rer AND DAYLIGHT PLANE R FOR R TE tTY Mayor Cobb announced that he would not part'0 pato due to a flict of interest. con- Councilmember Renzel said there was a lot of discussior.i 'tout why the garage went across the full extent of the back f e prop- erty. It looked like a strange building to be a garage and she assumed there would be something on the second story; there had been no discussion about what would happen inside the building. Mr. Brown understood the first floor of the garage was to accom- modate vehicles for the family and antique cars. The second story was to be used for storage. Councilmember Renzel said no driveway access way's e'hown' on the plans, but it looked like accessing the garage required the whole backyard. Mr. Brown said the applicant preferred to have his rear yard paved and have some privacy. He and his children would use the paved area for basketball, etc. Councilmember Patitucci said it seemed one of the purposes of the structure was to block the viewofthe office building. Mr. Brown said yes. ::ouncilmember Patitucci asked if there were any restrictions on using the space above the garage for an additional unit. Mr. Brown said the space above the garage could not be used for a dwelling unit with a kitchen, nor for living and sleeping pur- poses, but could be a family room. There was also a limitation that any plumbing be limited to two fixtures. Councilmember Klein declared the public hearing open. Tig Tarlton, 561 Orange, Los Altos, Managing Partner of 250 Cambridge Associates, was concerned about equity and fairness. The property at 255 College Avenue was at one end of four sub- standard parcels that backed up to „450, 26q/ . and 270..Cambridge Avenue on which they put a three-story office building. They worked diligently to meet City requirements in every respect even after the building permit was issued. They landscaped a part of the City's parking lot next door and planted additional trees along the boundary with 255 up to 277 College Avenue and would be willing to plant additional trees to effect greater screening. They were trying to preserve light and air for the ground -floor and second -floor tenants who would occupy the rear office space. At their expense they substituted a six -'foot concrete, sound - abatement wall for the variety of wood fences at the back of the building, If the screening was,a necessity, one compromise would be to move the garage structure back from the property line >a few more feet with -► stepped roof structure to .maintain light and air. 7 7 9 7 10/20/86 Brian Keast, 255 College Avenue, said with regard to the severe reduction in available air and light, when 250 Cambridge was built, it covered 15,000 square feet and stood three -stories high, and the Environmental Assessment: seated the effect would be minor. He wondered how a 600 square -foot garage could alter Mr. Tarlton's light and air. The variance program was part of the rules. Mr. Tarlton was supposed to treat the northwest side to minimize glare, and reflective glass windows hardly did so. The six-foot. wall did little to improve security, sound abatement, and privacy. He .did not believe a garage would prevent leasing of the commer- cial office space. Palo Alto had a total of 19 percent of its office space available; Mr. Tarlton had 2,1 percent of that and had not leased even half of his space. Councilmember Patitucci was concerned the building did not meet the dimensions or criteria of a typical garage. He asked how many cars the garage would hold. Mr. Keast said three. Councilmember Patitucci asked how the second floor would be reached. Mr. Keast said by an inside stairway. Councilmember Patitucci clarified the second story was full height. Councilmember Bechtel asked what Mr. Keast's plans were for the second story. Mr. Keast did not want to rent the second story. It would be virtually impossible to put any plumbing that far out in the 'lack -- yard. He planned to use part of the area for drafting and the other side for an exercise room. Judy.. Glees. : 245 College Avenue, Apartment E. supported Mr. Keast's variance request. The Planning Commission minutes incorrectly stated Stan Shaver, who owned the building she lived in, did not support the Kea st's request. She submitted a notarized letter (on file in the City Clerk's office) expressing his support. The garage would serve as a physical barrier to afford her privacy from the office- building. For privacy and in hope of reestab- lishing the residential reel of her neighborhood. she asked Council to grant the Keasts the request for variance. She read a letter from her brother (on file in the City Clerk's office) at Apartment C, 245 College Avenue, who supported the building of the garage and objected to the lack of privacy caused by the office building. 7 7 9 8 10/20/86 Councilmember Patitucci queried the landscaping by the appellant. Mr. Brown said the landscaping required by the ARB approval was put in, but he believed it would not ,achieve any significant screening even when mature. Councilmember Patitucci understood there was a 20 -foot setback requirement in the rear yard for the property and asked what the setbacks were of structures on other lots adjacent to the three- story building. Mr. Brown believed there were other structures on the rear prop- erty line, all single story. The rear setback was 20 feet, except for an accessory building more than 75 feet back from the street property .line, in which case it could be on the rear line if it was a single -story structure. The pro;lew in the Keast's case was the proposed structure was two story. The variance could be modi- fied through conditions if appropriate. Councilmember Bechtel was sympathetic to the appellant's argument that he played by the rules, etlt believed the Keasts were severely affected ,and there were extraordinary circumstances as outlined in the staff report and recommendation to the Planning Commission. The lot was substandard in width and was right next to the commer- cial zone in a residential zone. NOTIO*: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by aenxel, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation upholding the deci- sion of the Zoning Administrator to grant rear and snide yard and daylight plane variances for the proposed detached accessory structure, subject t(% the following findings: 1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the subject property is substandard in width (3$ feet where 60 feet is standard), and area (5,016 sq. ft. where 6.000 seq. ft. is standard) and is located adjacent to commercially toned prop- •rty= 2) The granting of the application is necessary for the pres•rva- ti.os a i enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or sawocsssary hardship in that rear -yard privacy of the subject property has been eliminated by the prime and design •f a three-story office structure ten feet from the eo n property lino. The proposed garage in intended to be of a height to limit visibility of the office structure from the rear yard of the subject property and to eliminate views from the yard of MOO swb pt property. and to eliminate views from the office OtVueta�. into the rear yard area; and 7 7 9:9 10/20/86 MOTION CONTINUED 3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improveremts is hose vicinity in that visibility of a barren rear yard for office tenants will be replaced by that of a sloping roo_ f .line, ; The =office. de reloper has not previously demonstrated a desire to improve views of tenants or to provide the adjacent residential homeowners adequate privacy through planting of sufficiently sized and spaced landscaping along the common property line Councilmember Renzel believed the garage design was massive and would not be desirable in many locations, but the justifications for it were substantial. She did not find appellant's arguments compelling with respect to light and air. The roof sloped away from the existing building, and the existing building was air- conditioned and had mirrored, dark glass. The variance allowed the owners reasonable use of their property without causing prob- lems to the neighborhood. She supported the motion. Councilmerber Patitucci opposed the motion as currently before Council. He sympathized with the desire for a variance but saw other ways to achieve the objective. The same structure at a different height, or with a stepped -up height where the second floor was not a full 660 square feet would provide sufficient size for a variety of activities. The variance was excessive. . Counciianemher Sutorius visited the site, looked at the situation from the apartment next door, and., also visited 250 Cambridge. From the third floor there was little visibility into the back because the windows began four feet above the floor, and the third floor was , set back from the property line. .From the second floor there was a less impeded view. Landscaping . solutions. would be better with regard to the ultimate appearance. However, the applicant for the variance needed vehicle storage and other space. He shared Councilmember Patitucci's dilemma. He was on the ARB when 250 Cambridge went through and .knew concern and caution were taken, but he acknowledged the grevillea tree had not grown as much as anticipated. Hewanted to near turther discussion. Councilnember Levy shared the dilemma of Councilaeubers Patitucci and Sutorius. He did not like to see a building of thatsize and with the backyard of concrete but understood the homeowners' prob- lem. There were always problems with a residential zone adjacent to a commercial zone, and each problem was unique. He suggested the contour of the building be reduced by a sharper slope to the peak. 7 8 0 0 10/20/86 AMENDMENTS Council.eaber Levy moved to include a condition that the slope to the peak of the building be maximized as much as possible. AMENDMENT DIED P'OR LACX OF A SECOND !LOTION PASSED by a vote of 4-2, Patftucci, Sutorius voting °no," Cobb 'snot participating, ° Fletcher, Woolley absent. MAYOR COBB ON .ITEM; TO CONSIDER .AFTER m. Mayor Cobb announced Council would consider the remainder of the agenda. 6. PUBLIC HEARING; PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLI- CATION OF F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY FOR AN MXCEPTION FROP THE REQUIREMENT TO TERMINATE ITS GARDEN CENTER .USE BY THE YEAR 2001: FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 725 SAN ANTONIO ROAD 300 Planning Administrator Lynnie Melena clarified the Planning Commission recommended the application for an exception from non- conforming use termination provisions be granted to allow con- tinued operation of a retail store selling primarily plants but also incidental garden supplies and landscaping materials. Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open. Sue Diamond, One Market Plaza, San Francisco, an attorney repre- senting the Woolworth Garden CenLee, said on January 27, 1986, Council rezoned the property from Service Commercial to RM-2. One of the consequences was a 15 -year amortization period imposed on the Woolworth• Garden Center.. The minutes from the rezoning hearings indicated there was some desire to retain Woolworth. It appeared Council's objective was not to get rid of Woolworth but to ensure that nothing took its place other than a residential use if it shut down. Council indicated an objective to ensure Woolworth received an exception from the I5 -year amortization period without jumping through hoops. Woolworth had no problem abiding by the eondition for a four -foot landscaping strip. Virginia Carleton Smith, 390 Maclane Street, supported the Planning Commission and appeal of Woolworth for the Garden Center. Most residents were committed to the greening of Palo Alto and needed the center for both bulk materials and garden supplies. There was ;only one such facility in Palo Alto, and it was . in a desirable location. The Center provided employment for a number of people: physically and educationally handicapped, minorities, high school students, ornamental horticulture students and gradu- ates. The Garden Center waa a valuable addition to the City. She submitted a letter from hr. and Mrs. Trevino (on file in the City Clerk's office), 7 8 0 1 10/20/86 Harrison Otis, 2721 Midtown Court, believed it was important to retain the Garden Center. The Center was unique, beautified the City, and was used by many residents. The City badly needed commercial taxpayers. Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Srtorius, to adopt Planning Commission recommendation that the application for exception from nonconforming use termination provisions be granted to allow continued operation of a retail_,. shore: selling primarily plants, but also incidental garden .. supplies and landscape materials at 725 San Antonio Road subject to the following .condi- tinng o Woolworth's install a four -foot wide landscape strip (including irrigation) on the San Antonio Road side and on the Gxddbhouss condominium side of _ its parking lot. Councilmember Patitucci asked why Council could approve a change in the amortization period as if it was an administrative item within the current zoning and not have to approve a PC so the Center could continue to operate, when earlier that evening a aittt�atinn r" tired a Pr as the only solution. Ms. Melena said in both cases the applicants had a two-year period in which to apply for the exception from termination. With the earlier item, the applicant did not apply during the two-year period and, therefore, only had the option of applying for a zone change. NOTION PASSRD unanimously, Fletcher,, Woolley absent. 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE. THE RONALD REAGAN PRESI- DENTIAL LIBRARY (23 2) (CMR:519:6 ) Councilmember Patitucci would not participate due to a possible conflict of interest. Commissioner Chandler said the Planning Commission recommendation and whether the intensity of use was consistent with Palo Alto's open space guidelines, thefocused primarily on the ground coverage of the proposed structure. The Commission also considered traffic as an element of intensity and were given various figures com- paring the amount of exhibition space in the facility with that of Other presidential libraries. At the time of the hearing, there ,was no discussion of the use as a conference center or the 400- saat auditorium which apparently was a matter of controversy to the Stanford Board of Trustees. 7 8 0 2 10/20/86 Mr.- Schreiber said the item before Council was a request from Santa Clara County for a definition of "low -intensity" that could be used by the County in ev ting potential development in Academic Reserve and Open Space designated land, not only the Academic Reagan Library site but other lands with the same land use designation; and to advise the County whether review of the proposed presidential library should be processed under the current Academic Reserve and Open Space designation or with the County Plan change for the library site- to an Instruction and Research Land Use category. Design review, the Environmental Impact Report, or any type of specific approval were not before Council. Staff anticipated those items would come in the future as the project moved ahead, and would go to the Planning Commission and the Council. Cauncilmember Levy said a letter from Naphtali Knox and Associates (on file in the City Clerk's office) restated in slightly different language the Planning Commission recommendations. The letter added the tenth development criterion that ground coverage be in accordance with Palo Alto's Open Space (OS) District regula- tions, but deleted the language that said the site coverage standard should be 3.5 percent. He asked whether adding the tenth criterion was a clearer statement than the Planning Commission language as it stood. Mr. Schreiber said staff had no difficulty adding the ground coverage factor into the list of suggested development criteria. From a substantive standpoint, however, the -. Planning Commission motion indicated the proposed development should be "somewhere around" the site coverage in the OS district of the City Zoning Ordinance and did not have to be exactly 3.5 percent maximum site coverage. Staff's feeling would be to look to the intent rather than rely on a specific formula. The wording proposed by Mr. Knox was. that ground coverage be "in accordance with" Palo Alto's OS District regulations. He interpreted "in accordance with as establishing a stricter standard than the Planning Commission suggested and staff recommended. He interpreted "in accordance with" as a 3.5 percent site coverage maximum. Commissioner Chandler concurred with Mr. Schreiber. The Planning Commission's intent was not necessarily to require the site £eased by the Reagan Library encompass .that amount of acreage but rather to permit a more general process involving a special area plan whereapproximately that amount of space in that foothill area would generally be left as open space in conjunction with the development. Mre Schreiber believed if Mr. Knox' language was reworded to ground coverage should be "in general conformance" rather than "in. accordant* with," it would convey the Planning Commission's and staff's intent. 7 8 0 3 10/20/86 Mayor Cobb suggested Council should give specific language if it wished to pursue Mr. Knox' wording. Mayor Cobb said Fred Hummel, with respect to design, and Naphtali Knox, with respect to planning, were available for questions. Charles Palm, 2185 Waverle y Street, representing the Reagan Presidential Foundation, preeentcd a slide show of other presiden- tial libraries and the site of. the Reagan Library. The design was essentially for a four-sided building around a courtyard which used up architectural themes from the campus and was low key in design, with over half the square footage below grade. The building materials would be sympathetic to the natural environ- ment. Parking was placed behind the building and would not be visible from any public roadway. The Library would emphasize the scholarly nature of the facility rather than the public programs. The exhibits would emphasize documents and photographs rather than three-dimensional items. Traffic would be an important consideration for the City and County. There would be an Environmental Impact Report, but the relative increase caused by the Reagan Library was small and would not conflict with commute - hour traffic. Aeother important consideration was visibility. CQunci 1member Sutorius clarified the hours of operation would be 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and asked ii the hours were when the Library would be open to the public or actually the limit on the operation. He did not recall the auditorium being described during the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Palm said that was the time the exhibit areas would be open to the public. The scholars would be allowed to go to the Library during the course of a regular 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 'p.m. period. The Libary would not be open in the evenings. An auditorium was included in the program statement. The auditorium had 350 :seats, and they believed it was integral to a presidential library. The auditorium would be used from time to time throughout the . course of a year; e.g., if President Reagan visited the Library, it might be valuable to have the students listen to him and an auditorium would be needed. They might hold conferences co -sponsored by the Library and academic departments of the University. Mr. Palm said the auditorium had been in the program statement from the beginning and had always been included in their assessment of traffic. About 380,000. persons per year visited the Johnson Library. They estimated about 364,00.0 per year including visitors to the research rooms, auditorium, and exhibit program. The Johnson Library figures included the same typal of visitors. Council,.e*ber Sutorius said all the stakes he could identify were on the right-hand side of the paved portion of the road that went up the hill, with the exception of one stake on the left-hand side of that road. He asked if the. Library was on the other side. 7 8 0 4 10/20/86 1 1 Mr. Palm said nog he did not know what that stake represented. Councilmember Levy was concerned with the relationship of the City and the County to the operator of the museum. He understood once Stanford signed the lease with the federal agency' which would operate the Library, the City and County and all other government agencies lost all ability to regulate the use of the site because it was then in the ,hands of another government agency having precedence over the local agencies. He asked if Council's only controls needed to be exercised before the leases were signed. Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission minutes referred to both a license agreement as well as a lease. He understood there would be initially a license agreement between the University and some entity, probably the Presidential Library Foundation ---not the federal government ----to build the facility. At that point a lease ecluld occur between the University and the federal government. Senior •Assistant City Attorney Anthony Bennetti said the site actually leased to the United States government would ordinarily be beyond the City's control. However, it was completed the project would be complete at that time and the anticipatedt no .�, ads they further changes by the federal government, although the City could not legally prevent changes. Councilmember Levy clarified the federal government could add to the Libary building on whatever site was designated as the Library site. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. As designed, the potential lease area and the actual physical Library were similar in area. There was not much additional land readily available for physical expansion of the Library without doing tremendous damage to the proposed design. In regard to programming, use permits usually contained a condition such as hours of operation, number of con- ferences per year, etc., and he understood those types of zoning restrictions would again pass out of County and City control once it became a federal facility. From staff's standpoint, that was of greater concern than potential physical expansion of the struc- ture. Councilmember Levy clarified while the intention was for the audi- torium to only be used a couple of times .a year, it could be used all the tiMe and become part of the programming for exhibits or tourist activity. Mr. Schreiber said yes in terms of zoning, but another element was the relationship with the University and federal government and the type of lease. From a governmental standpoint, the City lost control. 7 8 0 5 10/20/86 Councilmember Klein understood there would be a series of restric- tions, and the federal government would be bound as part of the lease. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. His response to Councilmember Levy focused on the relationship of activities on the site and zoning regulations. Councilmember Klein asked whether the problem was solved by the County's making the zoning restrictions part of the lease with the federal government. Mr. J3ennetti said the lease conditions would be enforceable, but as a document between Stanford University and the United States y there be way, for the City to prevent the tiMiLi{l!!t"i{{b, there would ...v no lease from being amended. If the footprint was limited as to what was leased to. the U. S. goverment, presumably Stanford's ability to do further development and seek further governmental approvals would be conditioned on its good faith enforcement of the lease conditions and not making any amendments inconsistent with the spirit or whatever agreement was reached between the parties. In terms of whether the City had control over the United States gov- ernment, the answer was no, but the City would have ind rect con- trol by enforcing the conditions it imposed on Stanford as condi- tions of Stanford's lease with. the United States. Phil Williams, Stanford Planning Director, said the Stanford Board of Trustees offered a 20 -acre site to the Reagan Library Foundation for construction of the library and its related open space setting. Stanford intended the selection of the valley site, the foreground open space with continuing implementation of its Reforestation Plan, the rural character of the access road and the restrained character of the architectural design combined to preserve the open apace character of the area and to meet the intent of the low intensity definition being considered by the City. Stanford agreed with the general thrust of the staff report (CMR:.519:6) and the nature of the problem described as a visual one requiring qualitative judgment. Stanford agreed the nine criteria listed in the report supported the concept of preserving the open space character of the land. Stanford acknowledged . the right of the City to reference its open space zone among . the criteria to be considered as guides, but the designation on the land was Academic Reserve and Open Space, which was not identical to merely open space. Further, numerical ratios might not be appropriate in implementing the other nine criteria. The Center for the Advanced Study of Behavioral Sciences was cited as an example of a facility that met the open space characteristics required, yet the ground area coverage of the Center was approxi- mately 20 percent as compared to three and one--Ilalf percent. The Center was snuggled among the trees with low one-story buildings 7 8 0 6 10/20/86 which covered more ground than they would if they were taller buildings. Stanford could not, in good conscience, agree with the use of any specific ratio as a sole or determining precedent for defining "'low intensity," Stanford believed it would be to the City's and, Stanford's mutual benefit if the recommendation to the County included the City's open space ,criteria as a general guide- line among the'\others and not as an overriding guideline which seemed to be its s intent when listed separately. Stanford con- curred with the idea of listing the ground coverage as a No. 10 on the list, but with some additional wording as fo.l ews: "Ground coverage should be generally in accordance with Palo Alto's Open Space District regulations while recognizing the nature of the academic uses proposed." Councilmember Bechtel said the open space was :largely used by cows and joggers, and she asked what would happen to them: Mr. Williams said as part of the Reforestation Plan, the cows were fenced out so the oak trees could grow. Stanford assumed the site occupied by the Library would be fenced for security and the access road would be outside the fence and generally follow the alignment of the jogging road until it got to a driveway leading to the `Library, and would proceed beyond. It would tend to serve the same general purpose it presently did for joggers and access to the area. Betsy Crowder, Cor mi ttee for Green Foothills, 2253 Park Boulevard, said the Committee was concerned over the continued development taking place on Stanford's open space. Regarding conformance with the County General Plan, the Committee agreed with the Planning Commission and staff that the proposed land use could conform to the designation "academic reserve and open space" if the nine developmental criteria were approved by Council and if a special area plan was made. The Committee suggested a regional plan for the entire 1,000 acres of antenna hill, the area bordered by Page Mill. Road, Interstate 280, Alpine Road, and Junipero Serra Boulevard. One of the greatest obstacles to understanding between Stanford and Palo Alto . was the one-at--a-time development proposals by the University. Another suggestion was for the University's. Foothill Regional Plan Working Group, composed of members of the University staff, to be restructured to include observers from the City of Palo Alto as it drew up plans for the future of the foothill land. Anthony Siegman, 550 Junipera Serra, was a Stanford faculty member and a campus resident near the proposed library site. He worked with the University's Foothill Working Group planning for the foothills region. A dominant element in the plans was a large auditorium located in its own separate wing of the building, which did not appear in the description of the facility given to the 7 8 0 7 10/20/86 Planning Commission and repeated several times in the material to the Council. The Reagan Library was portrayed as an archival library which a few people would visit and in which scholars and students would work and study. The plans defined a large modern auditorium on an attractive site outside <:the central campus con- gestion with the adjoining exhibit space, no less than six addi- tional smaller auditoria and conference rooms, kitchen facilities, an enclosed courtyard suitable for social functions and easy access and parking. It defined a belief that the facilities would be perceived or used as other than a major conference and meeting center. It might as well be called the Ronald Reagan Library and Conference Center. A' conference center would bring to the foot -- hills site traffic which was doubtfully adequately considered in the stated traffic counts. The limited extent to which the Reagan Library was either a Stanford or an academic facility in its origin, planning and likely future use, raised serious questions as to whether the open foothills area should be damaged to make room for it. The library proposal did not originate in any aca- demic planning process within Stanford tJhiversity and he ques- tioned its desirability by any Stanford academic department. No academic department at Stanford invested any of its resources of any faculty billets in the development of the library. The Library would be far outside the classroom zone on campus, more than three times as distant as most of Stanford's other major classroom facilities. No Stanford classes were intended nor likely to be held in it. The design was not reviewed by Stamford in anything like the detail that one of its own projects would beA For example,`•no alternative designs for the Reagan Librarywere available to, nor reviewed by, Stanford. The Library was not a part of Stanford's presently incomplete plan for the foothills region. As a faculty member, he contributed to the planning of Stanford's proposed near -west campus development and supported Stanford's continued careful development of its land. A more° suitable site for the Reagan Library would be near the hotel/ conference,center complex planned for the Sand Hill Freeway/280 junction. Many on campus and the faculty believed the library plans were inappropriate and visually obtrusive since it projected above the highest point of the ridge line as seen from Junipero Serra Boulevard. He urged the plans be found to be inconsistent with the claimed academic and research purposes and the allowable zoning of the area. Samuel Brain, 3737 La Donna Avenue, opposed the proposed site for the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. "Dian Hill" had minimal development and was one of the remaining open areas in the vicinity of Palo Alto. As well as being .attractive all year round, the "dish" was a favorite place for walkers . and ` runners. The Reagan Library would bring approximately six conventions per year, sightseers and traffic and would destroy the treasured tranquility of the hill. He believed the size and bulk of the 7 8 0 8 10/20/86 1 Library complex with the 350 -seat auditorium was inconsistent with the use of the land. It opined the planning process was being rushed in order for the Library to be ready by the end of President Reagan's term. He wanted to see a more stately pace prevail because the Reagan Library would be around for a long time. He shared the concerns of many of his fellow Palo Altan:s and urged the University to relocate the Library to a site with less visual impact and destruction to one of the few undeveloped hills in the area. John Hanna, Counsel for the Reagan Library Foundation, 1836 waverley Street, was available for questions. $OTIO s Conaacilaember Sutorius moved, seconded by Klein, regarding the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation as follows: 1. Review and approve the use of the nine suggested development criteria (cited in the September 19, 1946, staff report to the Commission) for determining whether a land use in the University Lands - Academic; Reserve and Open Space area is "low intensity,* adding a tenth criterion; *Ground coverage should be in general conformance with Palo Al to ' s Open Space District regulations; 2. Recommend that the proposed Reagan Library be processed by Santa Clare County with a use permit under the current zoning and. the University Lands - Academic Reserve and Open Space County General Plan land use designation; 3. Recommend that the Library use permit application be accor ponied by a special area plan for the area delineated on the ;sap, which incorporates the area between the Retch Retchy right -of --way end Junipvro Serra Boulevard, but also includes several hillsides visible from the road, and which stretch** from the first house on the southwesterly side of the road to the golf course, with the nest enact area subject to the special area plan to be determined .after more extensive analysis is cooperation with County and. Stanford staffs; and 4. Bete that final approval of the library location can occur only after review of the environmental impact report, special a rsa plan, and more detailed design plans. Counci,lmember Renzel generally supported the Planning Commission recommendation with the discussion ok the standard for the acreage associated with the special area plan which she believed provided more strength and a stronger statement to the County that Palo Alto wanted to see something with a standard similar to that of the City's 3.5 percent coverage. By including the statement with 7 8 0 9 10/20/86 the other open space development criteria, the City removed the emphasis_ which she believed was fully intentional on the part of the Planning Commission. She hoped the Reagan Library would be surrounded by sufficient open space to appear_ low density. She shared the concerns of the visual aspects. The area was somewhat virgin and she questioned the "refuge" status of Stanford. The proposed site was an area of Stanford which still had some habitat value which needed tobe addressed somewhere in the environmental documents. Councilmember Bechtel asked Mr. Schjreiber whether the motion, which substituted the 3.5 with Item No. 10, general conformance with Palo Alto's Open Space District regulations, to be in the spirit of the Planning Commission's recommendation and :wes as strong as the Planning Commission- recommendation. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Councilmember Bechtel supported the direction recommended by the Planning Commission. She commended staff for responding to the County of Santa Clara's Planning Department and providing criteria. She could not imagine a building with a red -tiled roof and sandstone in the style of the old union building .blending in at all. Councilmember Levy was concerned there was auditorium included in the plans.` fairly large Mr. Schreiber believed it would be more appropriate to discuss the auditorium in the use permit and design review process which would occur after- the EIR was prepared. Councilmember Levy referred to Item No. 10 in the criteria and said Palo Alto's Open Space District called for coverage of 3.5 percent- _.relative to the undeveloped open space. From a practical standpoint, he asked i f adding the language would make it more clear to the County reviewing authorities. Mr. Schreiber said the information could be transmitted to the County, but he preferred it be as an explanatory part of the letter staff would send to the County rather than as part of the criteria. He was concerned citing a specific number wouldresult with questions of whether the City meant the exact figure or something close to it. Councilmember Levy supported the motion and said ate ff:adnd the Planning Commission satisfied him: in tests of the restrictions which should be placed around the developmnt of the ,*it*. There were many processes remaining related to the EIR, traffic and . the overall design. His concerns regarding the overall open space 7 8 1 0 10/20/86 development criteria were answered by the Planning Commission in terms of reducing the visibility of the site and also making sure there was adequate open space set aside in connection with the developed area. AM MDMEMT: Councilasaber lensed moved the ground coverage be generally in accordance with Palo Alto's Open Space District regu- lations of 3.5 percent and be charged to Item No. 1 and the other items be renumbered accordingly. £ IDNEXT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOMD Mr. Schreiber said the motion approved ten criteria as set out by staff and the Planning Commission as amended. to incorporate the relationship to the OS District.. He believed the intent was to indicate to Santa Clara County that the County should proceed with processing the Reagan Library with the Use Permit under the cur- rent designation rather than getting into Comprehensive Plan amendments and those procedures at the County level. Mayor Cobb commended the Planning Commission. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci "not participating," Woolley, Fletcher absent. 8. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND RESOLU- TION (1440-l) (Cf4R; 520 :6) Fire Chief Bob tall said the resolution and the amendments to the City's hazardous materials ordinance reflected changes to State Taw. The amendments ensured continued standardization of hazardous materials management throughout the County. The changes before the Council were a culmination of efforts with other cities, Intergovernmental Council, and the County. Mayor Cobb asked about the extra effort on the part of the City. Chief Wall said extra service levels were required. Additional information was required from Hazardous Materials Storage permit appiieanta, and some changes were needed in the data base system. It would take a bit more time and staff effort to do the necessary work in establishing the business plan and reviewing area plans, work with the County .to ensure local efforts coincided and aug- mented efforts at the County level. Councilmeaber Renzel commended Chief Wall, his staff, and the other lire departments around the County for their effort in hazardous materials storage. The report reflected it was in the bast interests of the City to retain local control of hazardous materials, and she asked whether Palo Alto's ordinance was stricter then the State ordinance. 7 8 1 1 10/20/86 Chief Wall said Palo Alto's ordinance was stricter than the State's. The Waters' bill indicated "the County shall administer," but in Santa Clara County, the Hazardous Materials Programs were managed at the local level. LOTION: Council.eabor BecbLel moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve the staff recommendation aR follows: 1. Adopt the Emergency Ordin&ace amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 17, Hazardous Materials Storage; and 2. Adopt the Resolution designating Palo Alto as the "local administering agency" under Chapter 6.95 of . Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. RESOLUTIO$.6570 entitled "RESOLUTION OF _TBE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ASSUMING RESPORSIBIL:ITT BY THE CITY FOR IMPLEMENTING CHAPTER 6.95 OF DIVISION 20 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AS THE LOCAL ADMINISTERING AGENCY" ORDINANCE 3716 entitled *EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CQjN ta aE CITY or PALO ALTO MENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 17 OF Y'NE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONFORM TO PROVISIONS Of' THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF THE STATE or CALIFORNIA AND CONTAINING A STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR ITS URGENCY" NOTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley, Fletcher absent, 8A. QLD 2) , .POUPER SCOOPER ORDINANCE (2nd Reading) (1050) Councilmember Pati tucci believed the fines were excessive and asked about Council's options to revise the fines on a second reading. Mr. Bennetti said if Council wanted to revise the fines, staff needed to draft new language and return. Five votes were needed to adopt an ordinance, and if the three dissenting votes from the first reading continued to vote "no," Council did not have enough votes to adopt the ordinance that evening. The proposed ordinance had no fines, and City Attorne=y Diane Northway's report indicated general infraction limits proposed by the code fok all violations ,were $50, $100 and $250. Officers who observed violations did not have to cite. If a person was not informed of the ordinance, the officer could issue warnings and make an educational effort. The City did not have to set the bail schedule for such violations at the maximum levels. The bail schedule could be at a lower level which allowed the Court, on an uncontested infraction, to collect a lower amount as the ultimate penalty for violation of the 7 8 1 2 10/20/86 1 ordinance. If someone went to an adversary hearing on a particu- lar case, the standard was not; to exceed $50, $100 and $250, but the judge could set the penalty at any amount in between. The City Attorney could recommend the penalty be set at less than the maximum and had the discretion to dismiss cases which were not meritorius in her opinion or in the opinion of her deputy. There were many options in the process before maximum fines were imposed. Mayor Cobb clarified Council could return the matter to staff to draft a lower fine schedule. Mr. Bennetti said yes. Councilmember Patitucci asked where the fines were stated. Mr. Bennetti said there was one section as Palo Alto Municipal Code which said any entire code can be penalized. up to a maximum the beginning of the infraction under the of...." Councilmember Patitucci clarified if there were specific sections where the City did not want to imply the maximum, additional language was needed. MOTION: Co ac f lnenber Pa t i trace i moved, seconded by itenzel, to return the peeper scooper ordinance to staff for a revised fine schedule at half the suggested .;level. Mayor Cobb supported the motion because he believed the fines were excessive but would continue to oppose the ordinance when it returned. NOTION PASSIM a anleous1y, Fletcher, ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:50 p.m. ATTEST: Woolley absents APPROVED: Mayor 7 8 1 3 10/20/86