HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-15 City Council Summary MinutesCITY
COUMCIL
Minutes
ITEM
Regul ar Meeting
July 15, 1985
Oral Communications
Consent Calendar
Referral
Action
Item #1, Foothills Park Dam
Item #2, Security Services at Municipal Services
Center
Item #3, Pavement Management Maintenance System -
Computer Services Agreement
Item #4, Park Boulevard Underground Conversion
Project (U.U.D. 28)
Item #5, Cambridge Avenue Underground Conversion
Project (U.U.D. 27)
Item #6, Santa Clara County Mortgage Revenue Bond
Program
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Item #7, Special Election, November 5, 1985 Ballot
Arguments for Measures
Item #7-A, Request of Mayor Levy Re Reconsideration
of Measures B and D (Resol utiiun 6409)
Recess.
Item #8, PUBLIC HEARING: Pl anning Commission
Recommendation Re Changes in the CS (Service
Commercial) , CN (Neighborhood Commercial) , and OR
(Office Research) Zone Districts
Item #10, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission
Recommendation Re .Appl ication of Real Estate Arts,
Inc for a Tentative Subdivision Map Combining 5
Parcel s into 1 for Property Located at 2701 El
Camino Real
Item #11, PUBLIC HEARING; Extensions of Develop-
ment Moratorium Wi thin Downtown Palo Al to and
University Avenue Parking !Assessment District
Parking Ordinance
cull
OE
PALO
1LTQ
PAGE
5 0 4 9
6 0 5 0
6 0 5 0
6 0 5 0
6 0 5 0
6 0 5 0
6 0 5 0
6 0 5 0
6 0 5 1
6 0 5 1
6 0 5 1
6 0 5 1
6 0 5 9
6 0 6 3
6 0 6 3
6 0 7 6
6 0 7 8
6 0 4 7
7/15/85
ITEM PAGE
Item #14, Planning Commission Recommendation Re
Exception from Downtown Moratorium Provisions to
Permit Additional Floor Area for Creation of a
Pedestrian Arcade Area for Property Located at 499
Hamilton Avenue
6 0 7. 9
Item #15, Request of Council member Bechtel Re 6 0 8 1
Enforcement of Zoning and Neal th and Safety
Regulations
Adjournment to Closed Session Re Personnel : 11:55
p .m.
Final Adjournment: 12:30 a.m.
6 0 8 1
6 0 8 1
5 0 4 8
7/15/85
Regular Meeting
July 15, 1985
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, .Fletcher, Klein,
Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley.
ABSENT: Witherspoon (conveyed regrets
family illness)
absence due to
Mayor Levy announced that a Special Meeting re Planning Commission
interviews was.held in the Council Conference Room at 6:15 p.m.
Mayor Levy announced the need for a Closed .Session re personnel to
be held at some point during the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Nancy. Gordon, 60 Alannah Court, introduced the Palo Alto AYSO
1980 soccer team which went to Hamburg, Germany and , the
members of the Hamburg team. Palo Alto played against. She
also introduced the Paloma team, and Harry Kreplin, their
spokesperson.
Mr. Kreplin thanked the Council for the invitation, and was
pleased the connection to Palo Alto in AYSO or CYSO soccer
continued after six years. He thanked John Gril 1 i and his
assistant John Lyndon who did a good job welcoming them.
Mayor Levy welcomed Mr. Kreplin and all the members of the La
Paloma Sports Club of Hamburg, West Germany to Palo Alto. The
Paloma Sports Club known as the "USC Paloma" from Hamburg,
West Germany 'would visit Palo Alto from July 10 to July 29,
1985, and USC Paloma had approximately 1500 members including
450 youth involved in a variety of sports activities and was
one of the best known sports clubs in Hamburg. During 1984,
USC Paloma celebrated its 75th anniversary. The under age 19
boys team known as the "Timers" from the Palo Alto Soccer. Club
was hosted by USC Paloma during their visit to Hamburg to 1984
to compete in USC Paloma's 75th anniversary competition. In
1977, USC Paloma sent a team to Palo Alto under the sponsor-
ship of Palo Alto's AYSO and was looking forward to its return
visit to Pal o . Alto that summer. The City of Palo Alto, the
Palo Alto Soccer Club, and . the California Youth Soccer Asso-
ciation were proud to host the three youth teams from the
Paloma Sports Club and extended the warmest of wei comee to the
young visitors from West Germany. The City Council and resi-
dents of Palo Alto wished the USC Paloma good luck in all of
their matches and the most successful tournament. He pro-
claimed eul y 15, 1985 as USC Paloma Day in Palo Alto and
requested all citizens of Palo Alto join in welcoming the
youth visitors from Hamburg, West Germany and a successful and
enjoyable stay in the Bay Area. He presented a :,framed pro-
clamation to Mr. Kreplin.
Mr. Kreplin thanked the Mayorand presented a tie, Photograph,
flags from the Hamburg Sports unit, Hamburg Soccer unit, the
Hamburg . Sports Club, information about Hamburg, and a poster
to Mayor Levy in friendship from the Mayor of Hamburg, West
Germany.
Marc Strassman, 685 Scofield Street, thanked the City Council
for scheduling a meeting to decide on cable. He hoped Council
woul d consider the wi shes of the people.
CnNSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Couacilmember Sutorias moved, seconded by Cobb, approv-
al of the Consent Calendar.
Referral
None
Action
ITEM #12. FOOTHILLS PARK DAM (PAR 2-15) (CMR:422:5)
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Hardesty
Associates for $20,000; and
2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the agreement of
up to $3,000 for reimbursable and additional service costs.
AGREEMENT - PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL/
PLANNING CONSULTANT SERVICES - FOOTHILLS PARK DAM
PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 84-03
Hardesty Associates
ITEM #2 SECURITY SERVICES AT MUNICIPAL SERVICES CENTER (SAF 3-9)
(CMR:4T3:5)
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Stanley Smith
Security, Incorporated, in the amount of $18,000; and
2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to
$2,000.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Stanley Smith Security, Inc.
ITEM #3 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT MAINTENANCE SYSTEM - COMPUTER
SERVICES AGREEMEN (PWK 2-5) (CMR:421:5)
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with ARE, Inc.,
Engineering Consultants, -iii the amount of $19,740 for computer
services relating to the Pavement Management Maintenance
System; and
2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the agreement for
additional services of up to $2,500.
AGREEMENT
ARE, Inc., Engineering Consultants
ITEM PARK BOULEVARD UNDERGROUND CONVERSION PROJECT (IJ.U.D. 28)
(UTI 840 (CMR:418:t)
Staff recommends that:
1. The low bid of Lewis and. Tibbitts, Inc. be accepted and the
Mayor be authorized to execute a contract for the work; and
2. Council authorize execution of change orders to the construc-
tion contract up to ten percent of, the contract amount or
$29,935
AWARD OF CONTRACT - Utility Trench end Substructures
Lewis Tibbetts, Inc
6.0 5 0
7/15/85
CONSENT CALENDAR (Cont'd)
ITEM #5, CAMBRIDGE AVENUE UNDERGROUND CONVERSION PROJECT (U.U,D,
Staff recommends:
1. The low bid of R. Flatland Co. be accepted and the Mayor be
authorized to execute a contract for the work; and
2. Council authorize execution of change orders to the construc-
tion contracts up to ten percent of the contract amount or
$7,936.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Utility Trench and Substructures
R. Flatland Company
ITEM #6, SANTA CLARA COUNTY MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM (PLA
2-6) (t`MR:429:5)
Staff recommends that Council approve the Developer Agreement for
the Palo Alto Housing Corporation and the Third Amendment to the
Kinney and Kinney Developer Agreement.
DEVELOPER AGREEMENT
Palo Alto Housing Corporation/
City of Palo Alto/Santa Clara County
THIRD AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPER AGREEMENT
Kinney and Kinney/City of Palo Alto/
Santa Clara County
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
Mayor Levy added Item 15-A, reconsideration of Measures B and D
(Resolution 6409) in order to consider the deletion of the
advisory vote relative to barriers.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, to bring
forward Item 15 A, reconsideration of Measures 8 and D to become
Item 7-A,
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #7 SPECIAL ELECTION, NOVEMBER 5, 1985 BALLOT ARGUMENTS FOR
MEASUR!S (Continued from 7/13/85) (ELE 2-2)
Mayor Levy said the first item before the Council was the question
regarding Measure A.
Councilmember Sutorius was concerned that Council needed to
address Measure 0 and whether there would be a Council statement.
Mayor Levy understood Council did not take action on the arguments
per sc. Council's action was whether the Council, as a body,
wanted to take a position on any of the items which were part. of
the election. Council was not discussing the arguments except
Council would sighthem as individuals if they wanted, .and Council
would discuss whether any , of the arguments would be signed as a
council
Jack Morton, 2343 Webster, Trust for Community Skating, reempha-
sized their effort was devoted to giving the voters a chance to
decide the choices involved in the l ony-ter,ta solution for' the
Winter Club. The Trust expressed its appreciation to the Council
for the adoption of the exchange and undedication measures and
would welcome Council endorsement of the measures, but would be
content to have the measure presented to the people of Palo Alto
neutrally, and for Council, after hearing from those people, to
act in accordance with the wi shes of the people of Palo Al to.
Councilmember Sutorius said technicalle Measures A and B were
called for election by the Council as Council actions, but those
actions resulted from recognition that the Trust for Community
Skating circulated two initiatives and successfully qualified them
for the ballot. In response to the content of the separate ini-
tiatives, Council melded the spirit, intent and provisos and
offered to place the single initiative for the swap. The Trust,
with its responsibility having sponsored two of the initiatives,
carefully considered the content of the Council -proposed ballot
measure, and based on their response and evaluation, withdrew from
filing either of the two petitions for which they qualified.
Philosophically and ethically, the right to propose the arguments
for both measures A and 8 as they were now designated resided with
the Community Trust.
MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved that Council not take a
position on Measures A and B.
Mayor Levy ruled the motion out of order because Council could
take the action by not acting.
Vice Mayor Cobb said where Council was significantly divided on an
issue, it seemed to him to be not only inappropriate, but mis-
leading for _:Council to take a position as a Council. It was
potentially confusing even if it was tabulated that it was done by
a split vote. Where the Council's view was unanimous as it was
with respect to Measure D, then it was appropriate for Council to
take a position. He proposed that Council not attempt to take
positions on those measures where it was divided.
Councilmember Klein believed it was moreappropriate to express in
the ballot argument that Council's vote was whatever it was and
let the public decide what a split vote of the Council was worth.
On the particular issue, while he agreed with Councilmember
Sutorius' comments that the primary argument should be made by the
Trust, there was nothing wrong with Council being a joint signer
of the ballot argument with a group such as, the Trust.
MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved that Council go on record \as
being a joint signatory with the Trust for Community Skating for
the passage of Measures A and B.
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Councilmember Woolley said Council had, at its places, the revised
maps with the addition of "office building," "restaurant" and "car
dealership." The effort was, to make the map, which would appear
in the ballot argument, as neutral as possible. She believed the
additions further helped to clarify the location.
Mayor Levy said the Council , as a body, would not take a position
on either side of Measures A and B, but individual Councilmembers
indicated a desire to sign the arguments on both sides of the
measures.
Mayor Levy said the next issue was Measure C, the Yacht Harbor.
Florence LaRiviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, represented the Board of
Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Audtbon Society, and said one
of the primary goals of the National Audubon Society was to pro-
tect wetlands, since their loss nationwide reached alarming _ pro-
portions. They had newspaper clippings from the Palo Alto Times
as long ago as 1929. She said 90 percent of the hfstorlc marshes
were gone, a sad loss when considering they and the open, waters of
the Bay forayed the basis for clean air, moderate cl larate,and the
1
1
abundant wild life of the area. Over the years, the Audubon
Society always objected, to the piecemeal destruction of tidal;
marsh which resulted from indiscriminate dumping of dredged mud,
most of which was done solely to keep the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor
open for pleasure boating. Fifty years of dredging experience and
one study after another failed to reveal any sound long-range
solution to the problem. The ones the group remembered were the
Balloon Plan, Gerritt Ecbo, Baylands Master Plan, Dames & Moore,
Water Resources Engineers, Cooper -Clark, Gainy Associates, George
knol ton, and Henry Heid, not: to mentions enurnerabl a staff and
County meetings, studies, analyses, and valuations and recommenda-
tions. The Audubon Society strongly urged that Council honor the
earlier vote of the people and the position against continued
dredging taken by the City Council in 1980. That decision was to
allow the inner harbor to return to nature after one more dredging
leaving access to the Bay available from the public ramp. That
action was in full accord with the Bay Commission's policy of
discouraging marinas in areas of rapid siltation., The initiative
before the Council was highly distressing because at the outset,
it did not define the reasonable methods of maintaining the harbor
so- the voters could not know what they were voting for, and it
placed that decision in the hands of future City Councils whose
environmental sensitivities were unknown. The public would have
no resource to bring about change except through another vote of
the People. She respectfully requested that Council vote to take
the "no" position.
Tryg Ager, 954 Blair Court, said preserving the harbor required a
policy and a practical plan. In the initiative there were three
concepts:
1. The policy statement was that Palo Alto would continue to have
a harbor;
2. The harbor would be user -supported. Its financial self-
sufficiency could turn it into an asset. A user -supported
harbor in Palo Alto was not a pipe dream. The harbor func-
tioned successfully on a user -supported basis for the past
four years. Even without the usual commercial trappings of a
marina, such as, fuel, boat yard or restaurant, there was a
revenue base for an adequate maintenance program. The exist-
ing model was a good plan for the future.
3. Reasonable actions to maintain the harbor would be permitted.
Determination of reasonability ul tf 1 ately rested with the City
Council. The initiative set a goal and took a balanced, rea-
sonable approach to achieve it.
Opposition to the harbor took on the aspects of a crusade. Pub-
lished remarks which insinuated the harbor had no redeeming social
value already. appeared. Sea Scouting and mariners programs in
Palo Alto, along with public junior sailing and other organized
individual boats ng„acti vi ti es, were positive aspects of Palo Alto.
The long-standing programs which involved hundreds of Palo Altarss
over the years would go away if the harbor did. The project to
save the harbor represented positive, solution -oriented efforts by
citizens. The idea' as a means of preserving the harbor were con-
tributed by the people who used it. It was neither thoughtful nor
constructive to allege that the harbor issues were as simple-
minded as mud or as selfish as privilege. The proble with the
harbor was the complexity of its maintenance and its affect on the
environment Even if the harbor was a good thing for the commun-
ity, there were the environmental issues. The area was intended
to be a public park and the long-term environmental impacts were
important. Conditions which made the harbor usable for recrea-
tional boating could be managed without lasting environmental con-,
sequences. Basically, opponents of the . harbor did not believe it
pcsed a long-term environmental threat, .which was shown by the
idea that unless the harbor was maintained, it would become a
marshy Waste disposal projects in the Bayl ands," :.the landfill
6 0,5 3
7/15/85
Corrected
9/23/85
and sewage treatment posed a much greater long-term environmental
problem _than. the harbor, but harbor maintenance meant dredging.
Study atter study dealt with the obvious symbiotic relationship
between the harbor and the landfill. Dredging produced spoils
which the landfill operation consumed. As long as production and
consumption of dredged material were in balance, there would not
be negative environmental impacts from dredging. There might be a
net environmental gain since native Baylands materials were used
for dump cover and distance foothills were not mined for their
landfill. In terms of the expense of dredging, when dredging was
totally paid for by harbor users, direct costs of dredging could
be factored out of the costs of landfill cover. it meant harbor
users subsidizing the landfill, not the City subsidizing the
harbor. Common sense said symbiotic dredging where usable cover
was basically delivered free was an alternative worth serious
consideration. That evening's agenda corcerned action on ballot
arguments. The Council acting as the body which called the elec-
tion must ensure the voter information was prepared fairly and
reasonably. A vote in official public session to sign off on
arguments no one saw fended an appearance of premature judgment
added to the fact that Council was divided on the issues and there
was good reason to avoid the spectre of a Council position.
Because of built in constraints and its character as a public
choice on a matter of policy, the harbor decision should be made
by voters at the polls. The City Council could afford to be are
impartial observer.
Douglas McConnell, 4174 Cakhill Avenue, volunteered in scouting
for the past 16 years in the Palo Alto/Stanford Area Council, and
during the past three years, he commodored the Sea Scout program.
Since the scouting organization was "'apolitical," he spoke as a
Palo Alto resident. He urged Council to not prejudge the harbor
issue nor to give the appearance of prejudging the issue by voting
for Council to prepare the ballot argument against the initiative.
He requested that Council as a body remain neutral. The spoils
from the dredging were essentially a free resource. For the past
four years, they were fully paid for by the users of the harbor.
The harbor and the future of the Sea :>cout program and junior
sailing were small pieces on the same mosaic as the provision for
swimming pools, tennis courts, and other recreational facilities
for Palo Alto residents with diverse inteeests. He was happy to
hear the Council positively reaffirm the recreational programs for
people with diverse interests last Monday evening. He requested
the harbor remain open and not be subsidized by the City even
though there were subsidies for tennis courts, swimming pools,
bowling green, various little league and bobble sox fields, Nature
Interpretive Center, and other facilities provided by the Council.
Scouting was an important factor for good in a community like Palo
Alto where 42 to 44 percent of youth of scouting age were involved
at some point during those years in a scouting program. Different
scouting programs served different needs, and for the past 55
years, the Se.a Scout program at the Yacht Harbor developed good
citizens. If the harbor closed, the environmental impact on youth
and on everyone in Palo Alto would be adversely affected. On
behalf of the Friends of Sea Scouting, he urged that Council keep
an open mind and not give the appearance of unanimous support to
one position or another when Council was clearly divided.
Councilmernber Renzel; asked how many youth were involved in the Sea
Scout program.
Mr. McConnell said the Sea Scout program had a total of four units
and 114 registered volunteers and scouts active in the program
Counci i meMber . Fletcher asked how many of the participants were
Palo Al to residents.
Councilmember Renzel said in March, 1985, there. was an article in
the :pan Jose Mercury which indicated there were nine members in
the Palo Alto Sea Scout troop, and she asked how it related to the
figures he provided.
Mr. McConnell did not recall the article and said nine was a
totally erroneous figure.
Councilmember Renzel said the figure was provided by the man who
ran the program out there for many years. She clarified it said
nine members in Troop 51.
Councilmember Woolley urged that Council not take a position
either wty. She said Mr. Ager represented the small boaters and
Mr. McConnell represented the young people. The approach was new
in that the initiative took a broad perspective, and by looking at
the total picture instead of just a piece of it, a solution might
be found which the narrower focus of where to put the mud so far
had not suggested. The proponents of preserving the harbor
believed Council would not seriously consider another proposal
because the previous initiative was a policy statement to the con-
trary, and another initiative was necessary so the Council's mind
set would be in a direction of looking for a solution. For
example, Council recently had before it the study .concerning the
effluent from the Sewage Treatment Plant. The effluent study did
not fully consider the harbor option because the consultant
decided the use of the harbor was ,a political question. Council 's
expectations were that it did not want to find a solution, and,
therefore, a solution was not forthcoming. As with skating, if
the initiative passed, the specific future action would not be
determined by the initiative, but by the Council. Therefore, she
believed it was confusing then and awkward later for the Council
as a body to oppose something they might well implement. She
urged that Council let a policy brought forth by the people be
decided by the people.
Councilmember Renzel said the initiative was similar to one
defeated by the voters in 1980, and its general wording appeared
to offer some sort of new, reasonable proposals. She said the
options were fewer then than they were five years ago. There were
only three ways to "maintain* the harbor; that is, the place where
people parked their yachts:
1. Improve scouring action;
2. Dike it off from the bay as proposed in the sewage lock pro-
posal; or
3. Dredge.
Councilmember Renzel said there were only two potential sources of
improved scouring action short of returning the flood basin, ITT,
golf course, airport, and industrial lands to full tidal ,_action.
One source was to reroute San France squi to Creek throu;lh the
harbor. The Yacht Harbor Technical Report indicated that would
scour about 35 cubic yards of mud from the harbor each year, but
not effective when compared with the hundreds of thousands .of
yards of mud dredged from the harbor to no avail. The second was
sewage effluent. For many years, the sewage effluent emptied
through the harbor without significant impact on siltation. The
plant would discharge about 90 -acre feet of water per day compared
with the 3,600 -acre ' feet of tidal prism that maintained a maximum
depth of eight feet in the channel historically. The proposal for
a diked off harbor with a lock system for access to the Bay was
costly and destructive to marshlands as well as the tidal prism in
the outer channel. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Devel-
opment (BCDC) staff in a letter dated June 21, 1985, , said °the.
levee lock system is not consistent with State law and the Bay
plan policies on filling the bay protecting tidal rearshes and mud
flats maintaining surface area and volume of the Bay, and
developing marinas. They strongly discouraged any further consid-
eration of the levee lock system fo.r the Yacht Harbor. What
remained there was to continue to dredge and dump on the City's
park dedicated.baylands. Since the election in 1'80, options for
dumping the mud narrowed. Yacht Harbor Point, the current
disposal site of 11 acres was committed to marsh restoration and
public access as mitigation for problems caused by the current
dredging so it would no longer be available. The ITT property
which was previously proposed as the primary disposal site was now
park dedicated and was proposed by the sewer utility as a holding
pond for sewage effluent. Furthermore, the cost .of dredging to
ITT and then using the mud for dump cover was about twicethecost
of the impermeable fill which the City now purchased from an
outside contractor. City staff was adamant that the primary
disposal dewatering area might not be located on top of the refuse
area. In any case, the part of the dump nearest to the harbor was
soon scheduled for completion as park. The question remained
where to put the dredged mud. She urged her colleagues to oppose
the harbor dredging initiative or to let the voters know exactly
which magical, reasonable solution was favored for maintaining the
harbor because the City Attorney said reasonable is whatever five
members of the City Council said it is.
MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Klein, that the
City Council take a position opposing Measure C.
Vice Mayor Cobb said he already stated his position about when the
Council was divided, and his vote should be interpreted in that
regard. He believed the matter should go to the people for them
to decide. Many serious questions were raised to him by opponents
of the measure and he intended to carefully listen, make a deci-
sion .and act accordingly. He wanted to have all the information
before making a final decision. He opposed the motion, but it did
not mean he was taking a position on the measure because he had
not yet concluded his position.
Councilmember Klein supported the motion. It was not a new issue,
a previous Council took a position adopting the Baylands Master
Plan. A group of citizens chose to initiate a referendum which
was ►voted on by the citizens of Palo Alto in 1980, and the citi-
zens chose to endorse the Council's position. A firni policy was
on the books, passed by the Council in the 1970's and endorsed by
the people in 1980. He supported the policy, and while Council
had not voted on it in the 4-1/2 years he was on the Council,
there was no reason to reconsider it. Having adopted the policy
and as one who supported it, it seemed to him to be improper to
back off the position and throw his hands up and say he was
neutral. He was not neutral and was willing to stand up and be
counted by the people of the City of Palo Alto. If there was
ever a proposal before the Council which offered a way out of the
problems, he would have been willing to consider it. One was not
before the Council, and he could not go on a general statement to
change a well thought out policy that was considered and debated
over the years. In order for him to feel comfortable making a
change in the basic policy of the City, he would have to be shown
some specific proposal. He saw no evidence to overturn the long-
standing City policy, and believed it w?s appropriate and desir-
able for the Council to go on record as stating it to the voters
to give them guidance.
Councilmember Bechtel said Councilmembers Renzel and Klein elo-
quently stated her concerns. She could understand why the propo-
nents of the measure were able to get signatures. It was a gen-
eral statement and everyone liked things that were user -supported.
The facts related to user -supported showed that in the past there
were a number of large boats in the harbor that had to leave.
Early indications were that there were losses and it was difficult
to make the particulars harbor '"user -supported." There- were no
specifics in the proposal. Everyone wanted to see small boats,
and the Council unanimously , directing staff to explore that and
1
preliminary discussions had commenced with BCDC about the pos-
sibility of a sailing station or some access into the outer
harbor. It was not the same as the subject measure which was in
the inner harbor. She shared the concerns of some of her col-
leagues about where to put the mud. BCDC said harbors should not
be maintained that require excessive and continual deedging as
Palo Alto's did. She supported the motion to oppose.
Councilmember Sutorius believed the discourse shared, questions
raised, and analyses propounded presented ample opportunity for
response during the election period. He was confident in the
electorate to determine whether the quality if the dialogue and
reasonability of the responses met the tests of what each voter
would use as a decision. He understood the rationale expressed
for Council's not taking an official position, and did not believe
the issue was one where Council should take an official position.
He did not know his personal position, and as he was contacted and
raised questions about the subject, he clarified he did not know
where he was on the issue. The questions were real and important
and they must have good, clear answers in order for him to see
there was a way to move in the direction the initiative proposed.
While he claimed no particular position, he took a position of not
wanting to be part of a Council majority which advocated the "no"
position at that juncture. He would not support the motion.
Mayor Levy said six years ago when he first ran for Council, the
Yacht Harbor was an issue. At that time, he believed the Yacht
Harbor was a benefit to the community and the City should maintain
it if it could afford to. Since then, he studied the question
because they were asked . on many occasions to take posi ti ons on
whether the Yacht Harbor should be maintained and supported by
city funds. He said "supported by City funds" because every study
indicated fairly substantial City funds would be required. Every
proposed process for keeping the harbor open was found to be
costly; He still believed a Yacht Harbor was a benefit to the
community, but as he looked at community priorities, he did not
believe a Yacht Harbor, worthwhile as it was, should be supported
by individual public taxpayers. He believed Council should take a
position on the issue because he studied the issue over the years
and every study brought him to the same conclusion. He saw no
reason why he should not reiterate that conclusion that evening
and during the election. If during the election, facts were
brought out that proved him wrong, he was willing to accept it and
bow to the will of the public and perhaps change his own opinion.
Unfortunately, at that point, he was satisfactorily convinced. it
was not financially feasible to keep the Yacht Harbor open. .The
proposed measure raised false hopes and assumed the Council would
do something different than what it would do that day. If he were
now shown a way to financially keep the harbor open, he would do
it. If the measure passed, his vote would not change because the
measure said Council would only keep it open if at that point a
way was found to do it which was completely user -supported. He
believed the only responsible action for him was to go or record
notifying the public about the results of his studies as their
representative over the past six years. He supported the motion.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-3, Woolley, Sutorius, Cobb voting
*no,' Witherspoon absent
Councils ember Renzei said on July 7, when John Walker, President
of. the Palo Alto Harbor Association (PAHA) was at the meeting, she
inquired about whether the requested information concerning
PAHA's financial condition would be forthcoming. He indicated it
was placed in the mail the previous week. It was later ascer-
tained the information was not yet submitted to the PAHA's
accountant.
6 0 5 7
7/15/85
MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, that
the City Auditor work with the Count; and Palo Alto Harbor Asso-
ciation (PAHA) to examine PAHA `s books and records to determine
their total revenues and expenditures, assets and liabilities,
reserve accounts, and tax records for the period covered by their
contract with the County, and to provide a written report to the
Council as soon as possible.
Councilmember Renzel said it was desirable to get the information
in time for the ballot arguments, but short of that, the City
needed the information for purposes of the election. Inasmuch as
the initiative proposed the harbor to be 100 percent user -
supported, it was important for the voters to have, in the ballot
statement, evidence that the. harbor was 100 percent user -supported
during the period of the contract with the Palo Alto Harbor Asso-
ciation.
Councilmember Woolley asked whether it was professionally possible
to tell the County we wanted to see their books and records.
City Attorney Diane Lee said they could ask.
Councilmember Woolley said the staff report included a letter from
the PAHA indicating the report Was in the hands of their accoun-
tant and they anticipated it would be available on July 17 or 18.
Since it was probably not possible for the information to be
received by when the ballot argument had to be in, she suggested
that rather than take the City's staff time, the City find out
whether the information was forthcoming.
Councilmember Fletcher agreed with Councilmember Renzel that the
information was crucial and the sooner .it was obtained, the more
reasonable the arguments would be during the campaign on the
issue. If the information was forthcoming, then nothing was lost.
on the other hand, the action would ensure the information was
received by the City as early as possible.
Mayor Levy asked if the maker and second had any problem adding to
the motion a request that the City's Auditor work with the County
and with PAHA.
Councilmember RenzeZ had no objection. The City's legal entry
into the PAHA books was through the County. If the PAHA wanted to
make its books available directly, that was fine,
Councilmember Fletcher also had no objection.
Mayor Levy supported the motion. Regardless of whether the infor-
mation was received in time for the ballot arguments, it was
important for the data to be available to the public during the
course of the election. Having the City cooperate with the PAHA
and the County to develop accurate financial data was in every-
one's best interests.
City Auditor Mike Northrup assumed the County would allow the City
to audit PAHA'_s records. He, al so assumed sufficient documentation
was available for the City to determine or reconstruct some type
of financial statements. He assumed PAH4's staff and its accoun-
tant would be available for questions. The motion said he would
audit for the period covered by their contract, and he assumed
Council would accept a period that might be less if the records
were deteriorated as time went on. In other.. words, if 1980 o.r
1981 was not available, Council would accept 1982, 1983 or 1984,
Whichever chever records were available.
Councilmember Renzel said the intent was to be able to provide to
the voters an accurate picture of the user -supported nature of the
harbor. Whatever i nformati,on fir. Northrup Could obtain would have
to be satisfactory.
6 0.5 8
7/15/85
Councilmember Sutorius said the electorate would also decide the
Winter Lodge issue and the user•supporting nature of it. He ack-
nowledged that a considerable fund of information was provided by
the Trust for Community Skating on their. financial situation, the
participation, revenues, and expenditures. He appreciated the
purpose behind the request being made. He wished.Council was not
voting on it because he liked to think the material would be
available fn the time frame spoken to by Councilmember Woolley.
By the same token, he did not want to be recorded as voting "no"
for not pursuing the information he believed was germaine to the
overall issue. He would support the motion for the technical
reasons and hoped it was understood that the information was made
available by other organizations for similar situations. He did
not believe it was unreasonable for it to be available from PAHA.
Vice Mayor Cobb believed the motion was an example of one reason
why there was a City Auditor. He was a professional who could
provide the Council with unbiased and necessary information to
help evaluate the issue, and it would go a long way towards
answering some of the unanswered questions in his mind. He wel-
comed the opportunity to get the data and he assumed the propo-
nents of the measure would be fully cooperative, and the City
would have the information it needed to not only help the Council,
but to also help the voters make a proper decision on the economic
question.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Woolley voting 'no, Witherspoon
absent,
Councilmember Woolley asked whether the vote on the ballot argu-
ment be recorded as five in favor, three opposed, and one absent.
Mayor Levy said that was correct.
ITEM #'-7-A, REQUEST ,OF MAYOR LEVY RE RECONSIDERATION OF MEASURES B
# (UESOLBTION 6409) (ELE 22)
MOTION: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, to reconsider
Resolution 6409 and divide the motion into (a) and (b):
a. To reconsider Measure B in order to change map; and
b. To reconsider in order to take Measure D off of the ballot.
Mayor Levy asked the City Attorney if the question could be
divided.
City Attorney Diane Lee said the question coui=y;. be divided because
the resolution before the Council only spoke to one of the items.
She was concerned about what Council wanted to do with the map at
that time. When the options were discussed with respect to
deleting a particular ballot measure, one of the bases for her
saying it was appropriate to do so was because it was an advisory
measure, and therefore, she did not believe it prejudiced the pro-
ponents or opponents in terms of changing something that should
have been fixed the previous Monday so they could be writing their
ballot arguments. There was a distinction in the Election Code
between advisory measures and regular measures. If the ballot had
too many items on it, the Registrar could just drop an advisory
measure. There- was a difference in -the treatment of ordinary
ballot measures and advisory measures.
Mayor Levy clarified that for the purposes of revising the map,
Council should not reconsider Items A and B.
Ms. Lee said yes.
MOTION. DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING
6 0 5.9
7/15/85
Councilmember Bechtel understood from the City Attorney that she
advised Council against the reconsideration of Measurers A and B.
If Council voted on the natter=, she would vote "no."
Councilmember Renzel asked if Council was to address the substance
of the motion or just the matter of reconsideration. She con-
curred with Councilmember Bechtel.
Mayor Levy clarified Council was voting on the reconsideration,
not the substance of the matter.
Councilmember Klein clarified it was inappropriate for Council to
change the map, and that a lawsuit might be filed against the
City.
Ms. Lee said yes.
Councilmember Klein was constrained to vote against the motion.
Councilmember Sutorius was also constrained to vote against the
motion. He regretted it was the case because the purpose behind
the proposal was to clarify and improve voter understanding.
City Manager Bill Zaner said the City Attorney advised him that he
could revise the vicinity map before the Council because there was
a clerical error. Faber Place was moved slightly north of where
it belonged and it would be returned to its proper spot.
Ms. Lee said Council could always correct a clerical error in
order to not mislead the voters by a City mistake.
FIRST PART OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM "B" failed by a vote of
1-7, Fletcher voting 'aye." Witherspoon absents
Reconsideration of Item "D"
Lois Johnson, 230 Sequoia Avenue, said on June 24, 1985, a peti-
tion was presented to add a chapter to the Palo Alto Municipal
Code to limit the use of traffic barriers as a form of traffic
control, which was denied. She urged reconsideration of the
Council denial to put the petition on the November ballot and give
the citizens of Palo Alto the opportunity to make their own
choice. At least six percent of the registered voters wanted
something done and requested a law or service by those! in charge
of performing such duties. The Council was not asked \so like the
petition, but rather to give each person who cared enough to cast
a vote, the opportunity to speak out. As elected representatives -
of the people, it was the Council's duty to hear the voices. The
use of traffic barriers for control of neighborhood traffic was
around for more than 20 years. Some believed that form of traffic
control was the salvation of their neighborhoods; some did not
care whether the use of the streets was limited; and some believed
traffic barriers were a destructive. influence on the neighborhoods
and the City as a whole. Their petition should indicate the dis-
agreement on the use of traffic barriers was serious enough to
warrant a vote of the electorate to decide the issue. With due
respect to the City's legal staff, the decision on the legality of
the petition would have to be made in the courts. There were no
cases to date where an initiative petition on traffic barriers was
denied and subsequentlypresented for a judicial decision. There
was a precedent for putting such an initiative on the ballot in
Berkeley in 1976, which lost. Theirs' might also be defeated, but
they were willing to take the chance. They believed there were
enough people in Palo Alto who were seriously concerned about the
situation to warrant the opportunity for a City-wide vote. Each
Councilmember spoke against the petition on June 24, and each
indicated they would work to have such an initiative defeated,
which was their individual right. It was their right to work to..
the initiaitive's acceptance. As servants of the people, she did
not believe Council had the right to refuse a choice.
6 0 ..6 0
7/15/85
1
Mayor Levy did not intend to reconsider the matter of whether the
original initiative petition should be on the ballot and under-
stood Ms. Johnson planned legal action in that regard, and he
would await the results of that action. The issue in his mind
related to her . letter (which is on file in the City Clerk's
office) as secretary to the Citizens Against Barriers, which
stated she was opposed to the advisory measure being on the
ballot. He clarified that she opposed the advisory measure being
on the ballot.
Ms. Johnson said yes. Many of the members of Citizens Against
Barriers believed it would only confuse the voters.
Mayor Levy asked how many members Ms. Johnson checked with com-
pared to the number that circulated petitions.
Ms. Johnson was only able to contact about ten people. The deci-
sion to remove the advisory measure was unanimous.
Mayor Levy asked if any member of the public indicated a desire to
sign an argument in favor of the advisory measure.
City Clerk Ann Tanner said no.
John Canyon, 270 Leland, did not understand why it was improper to
request that barriers be removed when it was proper to request
them. On June 24, 1985, Councilmember Fletcher said if the bar-
riers were removed, she would lose the bicycle paths on Bryant.
He believed it was the Council's duty to follow the mandate of the
public. Councilmember Renzel commented that Council gave a lot of
time and consideration on the issue, which was true, but he
believed it was only half true because the majority of the Council
listened to the side with which they agreed and did not hear the
opposition. Despite the fact that the Citizens Against Barriers
showed that many people had strong opposition to the barriers in
Evergreen Park, they nevertheless went in. The elected officials
were expected to be statesmen. It was difficult for the. Citizens
Against Barriers to believe they were getting democracy and
government for the people and by the people.
Councilmember Klein would not support the motion to reconsider and
was opposed to the motion to strike the item from the ballot. An
extraordinary action was uncalled for; there were no extraordinary
circumstances for Council to take an action which was not agen-
dized and of which the public was unaware. It should only be done
in unusual circumstances, and he found none which had changed
since Council last considered the matter. Council did not take
actions without gutting matters on the agenda. Ten` telephone
calls over the weekend hardly constituted public notice. The
entire public had a stake in such an issue, and at minimum the
3,004 people who signed the petition had a stake. The vast majo-
rity were unaware of Council's reconsideration including the
people in Evergreen Park who were on the other side of the issue.
It was inappropriate for Councfl to take any action. The only
thing which had changed was Ms. Johnson's letter to the Council
that Citizens Against Barriers did not intend to put an argument
on the ballot in . favor of the proposition. Council had no way of
knowing whether someone would appear at 4:59 p.m., on Friday, with
an argument in favor. Moreover, it was not the Council's deci-
sion. If petiole wanted to step e orward, it was their business; if
they did not, .Council had no control. The reasons for putting the
matter on the ballot a few weeks ago remained the same. He.
basically believed it was desirable for Council to give some voice
to those who signed the petition and to clear the air in order to
have an understanding of where the citizens of Palo Alto stood on
the..meesure. He urged rejection of the motion to reconsider.
6-0 6 1
7/15/85
Mayor Levy agreed with Mr. Canyon in most of his comments although
he disagreed on the purpose of 641-r ier as d traffic control
device in a community. He believed the public should be heard
from and that the initiative should be an open process. He was
sorry Council's legal advice was clear that the matter was not
appropriate for an initiative process, and that Council would open
itself up to protests and legal action if it appeared on the
ballot. Council was caught in a position with which he was uncom-
fortable, and he believed he saw a way out by putting the item the
Citizens Against Barriers wished to have on the ballot in the form
of an advisory measure, which was legally acceptable. His reasons
for doing so was as a service to those who signed the petition not
because he advocated it. The Citizens Against Barriers made a
strong statement in writing that they believed placing the item on
the ballot as an advisory vote would cause confusion and would
undermine the initiative process They planned to pursue action
through the courts, and he understood their feeling. In addition,
Citizens Against Barriers believed they should oppose the advisory
vote and since Council would also oppose the advisory vote, it
appeared the strongest advocates for the proposal would not ad'vo-
cate.it. Thus, the election became a travesty and meaningless.
If it was overwhelmingly defeated, as he expected it would be in
any case, there were many in the community who would say it was a
meaningless vote because there were no strong supporters. Two
arguments were made for Council to not reconsider. First, the
Citizens Against Barriers were only a small group. There were
several thousand citizens who signed the petition and Council had
a responsibility to them. He did riot believe the Citizens Against
Barriers were an irrelevancy. There were cases in the past where
petitions were circulated, votes gathered, and then not submitted
because those who circulated the petitions believed another way of
dealing with the matter was more appropriate, which was
represented by the Winter Lodge. In the subject case, the
circulators of the petition denied legally to have their petition
on the ballot and said they believed their interests were best
served by not having anything on the ballot at present. Those who
signed petitions did not usually read them in detail. The
petition was lengthy and he suspected few of the thousands read it
in detail. He respected the Citizens Against Barriers, none of
whom wished to have the advisory vote on the ballot. If one or
two wished to nave the advisory vote on the ballot, he would not
oppose it. He believed Council had an item which was frivolous;
there was a cost to have it on the ballot, to counting the votes,
and it was a travesty. He saw no point in having the measure on
the ballot. He suggested clarity would be served by taking it
off.
Vice Mayor Cobb agreed with Councilmember Klein. Acting on the
best legal advice available, Council concluded the measure could
not be put on the ballot as presented, and tried to be responsiblet
public servants by putting the advisory measure on the ballot
Council did not know how the legal challenge to its attorney's
advice would come out, and he urged those who circulated the peti-
tion to write an argument in support of their position to, at least
send the message if that was the message the public wanted to
send, and attach whatever caveats it chose, including . that they
believed\the advisory was at best a shadow of what the real thing
should have been. The circulators of -the petition could do that
in their argument and still pursue their other avenues. It would
provide a chance for their position to be brought by the public to
the Council in the clearest possible way. He believed Council had
an obligation to those who signed the petition to let them be
heard in the loudest .,possible way, and acting on good legal
advice, Council did ,precisely that.
Councilmember Fletcher said one member of the public said if _bar-
riers- cO311 d be- requested, why Could they not .request=' .they be
removed. Those who requested themdid not do _i t by petition, they -
made a request of the Council, and both sides were heard. Council
in its best judgment made a decision. ' She- spoke against the
measure because she did not want to lose the bicycle path referred
6 0 6 2
3/15/85
1
to as the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard. It was not only her
decision, the network of bicycle boulevards was part of the Com-
prehensive. Plan, adopted in 1976, before she was on the City
Council. It wa.s adopted after a lengthy and thorough process
where the Planning Commission held many public hearings. The
concept was supported without one voice in opposition. She clari-
fied it was not only her opinion that the bicycle boulevard was
benefit to the City, it was part of the City's plan. She was also
greatly concerned that a permanent barrier be erected to prevent
traffic from crossing El Camino from Willow Road to Alma Street.
Councilmember Woolley agreed with Mayor Levy that she was con-
cerned and bothered by the possibility of a measure with no sup-
porting arguments. She was swayed by Councilmember Klein's point
that the item was not agendized, and it was inappropriate for
Council to make any change.
Councilmember Sutorius believed many of the points cited by Lois
Johnson having to do with the purposes and processes of govern-
mental bodies and being responsive to the public were well recog-
nized by the action of the Council in seeing that the measure, in
a Verbatim manner, but as an advisory measure, would be on the
ballot. He believed the analogy with the Winter Lodge subject
raised as a reason for rescinding that action was weak in the
sense that the initiative for the barrier subject was a submitted
initiative, and once submitted, an initiative could not be with-
drawn or altered in any form. Council substituted for the spon-
sors in the sense of making it an advisory measure and he believed
it was entirely appropriate that it continue on the ballot. He
encouraged the proponents for the original initiative take advan-
tage of having a sponsorship of the argument process and conveying
a message to the electorate.
SECOND PART OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE RESOLUTION CALLING FOR
AN ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELETING FROM THE NOVEMBER BALLOT
ITEM Po" RELATED TO AN ADVISORY VOTE ON BARRIERS 2-6, Fletcher,
Levy voting "aye,' Witherspoon absent.
COUNCIL RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION RE PERSONNEL FROM 9:25 p.m. TO
9:48 p.m.
ITEM #8, PUBLIC HEARIN>J: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
CHANGtS IN THE CS (SERVICE COMMEI IAL), CN tNEfGHBDRHOOD
tOMMERCIATTARIJO Ciff ZONE DISTRICTS (PLA 7 -9 -2T ---
Planning Commission Vice Chairman John Northway said the Commis-
sion concurred completely with staff except it believed the drop
in the floor area ratio (FAR) from 2 to .5 was too much and recom-
mended a drop to .75. The Planning Commission believed the staff
recommendations were necessary as an interim measure in order for
the staff study to continue.
Vice Mayor Cobb said the Merner people raised a question which
suggested a major retail use might be driven from town as a result
of the change. The other question had to do with a question
raised by small property owners as to whether the restrictions
might render some properties totally undevelopable because of the
economics. He asked for comment.
Planning Commissioner Northway said with regard to the smaller
properties, one reason the Commission believed .75 was reasonable
was because it was important that the small service -oriented bus-
inesses in the zone be allowed to continue and expand in a reason-
able sort of way. With the parking requirements, and with the
type of businesses already there, It was unlikely the businesses
would opt for an underground parking garage so they could ° even
build to a 1:1 level. The Commission believed .7S would allow
some expansion and with the parking requirements, it could be
worked out on the smaller properties. With regard to Hubbard and
Johnson, any lumber yard with which he was familiar rarely covered
its entire site with covering, which would be what a 1 :1 FAR would
require. It seemed to him a .75 FAR for a lumber yard was
reasonable, especially considering the amount of parking required
for a retail lumber yard such as Hubbard and Johnson. The Com-
mission believed the .75 was a fair FAR that allowed small exist-
ing service -oriented businesses to continue and to have some
expansion, and it would discourage combining lots and taking major
parcels and doing something that would severely change the service
orientation of the properties.
Vice Mayor Cobb asked if any thought was given to some kind of an
exception procedure that would enable the City to let the projects
of smaller properties go through if they met certain tests.
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said no. He reminded the
Council that staff suggested the changes be a two-year ordinance
to be i n .place while staff gave a more in-depth study to the ulti-
mate zoning necessary for the parcels. He believed the types of
businesses currently located in the CS, CN, and OR zones were
inherently not businesses that required a large building in rela-
tion to the site. The back of the staff report included bar
graphs which indicated existing sizes in terns of floor areas of
properties subject to the changes, and all the zones were typi-
cally in the area of .3 to .4 FAR which Indicated they were sup-
ported by at -grade parking. They were relatively small, low value
buildings with at -grade parking which was the kind of building
with relatively low rents that he believed made it possible for
iiany of the businesses in the area.. The major difference between
the Planning Commission's recommendation for a .75 FAR and the
staff's belief that it could be smaller was that staff inherently
did not believe development at the .75 or larger range was likely
to be of the similar type of business to those generating the
concern. Staff and the Commission agreed their should be some
wriggle room for some additional small expansion. Staff did not
believe an exception should be necessary, particularly if Council
went with the .75 FAR, and in any event because it was an interim
measure.
Vice Mayor Cobb said an example raised to him was a currently
vacant piece of property which was proposed to be undevelopable
in any form under the proposed conditions.
Mr. Freeland said staff could not comment on the particulars of an
unknown vacant parcel, but he found it hard to believe,a property
could not be developed. It seemed to be a strong statement.
Buildings .typically found i n the proposed zones were in the .3 to
.4 FAR, and he saw no evidence said those types of buildings could
not be built again.
Mayor Levy declared the public hearing open.
John G. Merrier, 795 Cl Camino Real, was concerned that the interim
measure not be permanent. He understood part of the concern was
generated by traffic flows and problems with neighborhoods, but
suggested his property was isolated from residential areas. He
believed some of the restrictions on properties were echieved by
more restrictive parking and landscaping requirements which of
themselves presented more strong economic problems to keep devel-
opment from . idly occurring. He felt economically, dispropor-
tionately penalized for keeping the property for a long time and
having a n existing lease which he proposed to continue for a long-
term future use. It seemed the particular activity unsettled his,
presumption that there was some stability to property located in
such a high -density, commercial area. He understood the repre-
sentation of: support for the'downzonfng was virtually nonexistent.
If part of the .interest was generated by the residents, then'
interests- seemed to be evidenced by a matter of convenience to
some extent. They did notseem to show any concern.
6.0 6 4
7/15/85
Julia M. Raigent, attorney for Mr. Merner, 400 Hamilton Avenue,
said the zoning proposal before the Council had significant
impacts upon the property owners in the CS and CN zones. In the
case of the CS zone, the proposal was to reduce the development
potential to almost one -quarter of what it presently was. Assump-
tions were being made that were supposed to be determined by the
study to be conducted during the period or the zoning, proposal,
which resulted in putting the cart before the horse and deter-
mining the outcome of the study before the study was made. Mr.
Merner.' s property wa s a .case in point. Staffs' intentions were
✓ al id and something that anyone in Palo Al to would support.
Regarding serious economic effects to property owners, she did not
bel ieve staff was in the position to make that determination. In
the Planning Commission meeting, five or six proper=ty owners said
the proposal would have a . significant economic effect, and she
bel ieved they were the ones to make the determination on whether
they could develop their properties under the proposal In the
case of Hubbard and Johnson, they found themselves competing in a
market which required them to put their product under roof as
o pposed to being out in open parking areas and land as it cur-
rently was. The lease between Mr. Merner and Hubbard and Johnson
provided they would extend their lease for close to 40 years if
they put a .new store on the property. Hubbard and Johnson might
not be able to build that store under the current zoning proposal ,
which would potentially drive them out of town to surrounding
areas and meant a retail use, which she bel ieved to be supportive
o f the neighborhoods and people in Palo Al to, would no longer be
avail able. The demand for space in Palo Al to would not go away by
downzoning the development potential of properties in an effort to
address the parking and traffic problems. Under those scenarios,
it created more pressure for office space and the kinds of uses
that dictated the higher rents so a property owner did not have an
option except to try and build projects that would bring those
higher rents to make economic use of the property. It was a
reverse effect of what the zoning proposal was intended to
achieve. A lot was heard about residents being concerned that
convenient retail uses were moving out of town and she believed it
was a side effect of the down zoning. There needed to be a more
specific solution to the problem of parking :_ and traffic . In the
particular situation, there was a guessing game going on as to
what development potential had an effect on the parking and traf-
fic problem . Numbers were pulled out .of ` the air that had long-
term and significant effects on the proper ty owners, especially
because Council would be in a difficult position to try and raise
the FAR after the action that evening even though the intentions
might be sincere to reconsider- after the study saes completed. She
believed responsible zoning dictated that a decision of that mag-
nitude not be made without a more thorough study being done, not
o nly testing the impacts on parking and zoning, but on the effects
on the residents in Palo Alto and the businesses in general a other
than just the parking and zoning problems which needed to be
addressed in a way that did not have other negative side effects.
Councilmember Sutorius asked about the present FAR of the Hubbard
and Johnson operation
Counc it member Fl etcher asked when the 1 ease was up for renewal
Ms. Baigent understood it had two years before the .right to extend
arose. The right could not be .exercised unless a. new store was.
built.
Stephen Burg, 955 Industrial Road, was an officer of Evans
Products .• Corporation, the -owners and operators, of Hubbard and
Johnson. Hubbard and Johnson was pleased with its business and
Palo Alto and planned to stay. They wanted to bpi i d a new store
which would provide the customer better parking, access,;._ and
service. The buildings currently_ on the property represented
about one-third to fi fty percent of the buildings that were on the
property when they l eased it ten years ago. They tore down, _many
old, broken dnwn hid 1ding e and el ected to not repl ace them, but to
sell the merchandise out of doors. They leased, as additional
property for receiving purposes, something from an . adjoining
neighbor which tied into the property. The buildings, which
represented about .3 FAR were all old and virtually unworkabl e in
presenting a new, modern retail business in the community. They
wanted to build a new one. Economic reasons forced them to delay
the project for two -and -one-half years. Hubbard and Johnson cur-
rently anticipated completing initial sketches for staff consid-
eration, plans and buil ding a store in 1986. He did not know what
would be proposed, but knew under the new 1985 retail homes cen-
ter, much more was enclosed under roof than was outside. Hubbard
and Johnson had not had an opportunity to 1 ay out a site pl an wi th
a new store and approach staff with what could be built. They
wanted to have that opportunity, but did not know if the proposed
.5 FAR would be acceptable. He did not know if .75 would be
acceptable, and said it depended on what staff and the Archi-
tectural Review Board (ARB) believed was architecturally accept-
able on the premises, on what size package of merchandise could
then be put in a new, modern facility, and what the impact of
parking and landscaping would be on a new facility. They wanted
the opportunity to do it and requested the property not be down -
zoned, and if it must be done, he urged that Council carefully
consider the impact of a .5 or .75 FAR. He bel ieved a 1 :1 FAR was
within a workable range and that between the other constraints in
the City, there were many controls on what could happen with the
property.
Councilmenber Klein did not believe Hubbard and Johnson had any
competition within a meaningful radius, and asked if that was
correct.
Mr. Burg bel ieved the nearest meaningful competition was the
Hubbard and Johnson in Mountain View.
Councilnember Klein said based on the radius of competition; it
indicated Hubbard and Johnson would build their new store no
matter what FAR was created.
Mr. Burg repl ied not if it was not economically .feasible.
Councilmember Klein suggested Hubbard and Johnson was in a semi -
monopoly position and would continue to make profits no matter
what building was on the site.
Mr. Burg said if Hubbard and Johnson could not get better facili-
ties than what it currently had, it would live with. the sane
facilities. Hubbard and Johnson would stay in Palo Al to.
Peter Taskovich, 751 Gail en Avenue, agreed with the downzonttnng
concept, but hoped the study coul d occur faster than two years.
Robin Faisant, 750 Welch Road, attorney for Evans Products
Company, which did business in Palo Alto as Hubbard and Johnson
Lumber, and was the lessee of the Merner property. The property
was a lumber yard for almost 50 years. The lease presently had
two more years to run and Evans Products then had an option to
extend the lease to the year 2017 provided that Evans put a new
building there. It wasa coincidence that Council was looking at
a downzonin9 for two years which might effectively prevent. Evans
Products from exercising its option and result in some leverage
from Mr. Merrier. It wa s., a good coma un i ty for Evans and the cor-
porate desire was to stay, but he was not sure it would be pos-
sible. If the downzoning to an extreme figure of .5 went through,
he bel ieved they would be prohibited from building a modern facil-
ity frost an economic viewpoint and would be in a posture of going
with hat in hand to Mr. Kerner and asking for an extension of the
lease on some terms and Just running the same buildings. If they
were prevented from building` a new facility, they might just go on
business as usual which was an economic loss to them and Mr.
Herner, but it would keep them in the community. They were
deal ing wi th a staff -generated proposal to cut the level opabil ity
of the property by a factor of four. At the Planning Commission
no one supported the proposal except staff. The Planning Commis-
sion vote arrived at the Council as a unanimous vote, but it was a
compromise. Some Commissioners indicated a 1 :1 ratio might be
considered. Generally, he believed the effect of the down zoning
might force his cl ient' s property into a less beneficial use than
what the City could otherwise enjoy in the next 32 years. He
believed it was important to realize that part of El Camino was
different frog, the rest of El Camino and extremely different from
downtown. Staff pointed out there was a lot of congestion at the
intersection about ore -quarter mile south of the property, but in
terms of El Camino itself near the, property, it took a "Big Game"
or "Superbowl" to congest that part of El Camino. It was usually
free flow at all hours of the day. He was concerned that staff
had not specifically considered a 1 umber yard in making the
blanket proposal . The only subject specifically covered was
hotel s and motel s and staff acknowl edged a special rul e might be
permitted there. A 1 umber yard was a different breed of cat from
the other uses. A 1 umber yard was not benefited by a high fl ow of.
traffic,. it was a destination user. People formed an intention try
go to the lumber yard to buy something, and it was different from
typical retail uses which were lumped in the rest of the CS uses.
it also generated a lot less volume of traffic and parking per
square foot of floor area than any other similar kind of retail
use. He did not believe the proposal was adequately researched
and ne felt like it was a punitive measure without enough study.
In 2"7 years as a city attorney., he never saw a property upgraded
or upzoned after a measure such as the proposed one was applied.
As a practical matter, to ever think it would go back up was not
in the cards. He hoped Council would see fit to not lock them
into an undesirable development posture. In particular, he wanted
the opportunity to work with staff to bring forth drawings and
work with all of the City`s criteria for parking, l andsc aping and
architectural control to do a development tht would be a credit to
Palo Alto . Staff asked him how they could need a ratio of .75 or
higher, and he responded the lumber yard presently there was not
the a typical lumber yard of the future. In the future, even the
lumber itself would be stored under roof. All of the nursery
supplies and plants would be under roof and there was a consid-
erable amount of roof area which was counted as floor area needed
than was seen in the typical .old fashioned lumber yards in the
area.
Mayor Levy clarified that the significant difference in terms of
desired floor area between the Hubbard and Johnson of today and
the Hubbard and Johnson of the future was that the l umber space
would be covered.
Mr. Faisant said that was effectively the case. It might be a
1 ittl a more compl mated .
Mayor Levy clarified there would be no significant change in the
l aynut which generated more traffic into the lumber yard area.
Mr. Faisant b el ieved that was true .
Councilmember Bechtel understood the lumber aspects were tieing
emphasized as needing to be covered.: Her knowledge of Evans
Products was i t was more of a hardware business than a 1 umber
business. She asked if there might be more of an emphasis on the
hardware aspects which were the retail store portions rather than
the uncovered portions;
Mr. Faisant said it was a home improvement center, and .it con-
tained hardware and -lumber in a mix . The mix was not seen as
changing and the eaiphasi s would remain as i t was. It was not a
home supply center in the sen sea they did not sell dish drainers
and hot pads. They more into the home improvement, home beauti-
fication market..
Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington, urged Council to adopt the staff
recommendation of the .5 FAR for the CS zone. The staff report
was clear that the purpose of the interim ordinance was to curtail
development during the study in order to see what should be done
l ater. If development was to be contained, .75 was higher than
the average CS in Palo Al to. The previous speaker seemed to feel
that the Merner site was different and special and presented a
different problem. She did not suppose any ordinance worked out
perfectly for everyone, but they saw their location on El Camino
as being special and not presenting the traffic problem seen in
other places. She disagreed. She saw no reeson for the CS to
have a higher FAR than the CN. The purpose of the interim ordi-
nance was to curtail development.
Linda Ross, 201 Loma Verde, President of the League of Women
Voters (LWV) of Palo Al to, on whose behal f she stated that con-
trary to the Planning Commission's recommendation on the item, the
LWV urged Council to impose a moratorium on new development in the
CS, CN and OR zones pending completion of the Comprehensive Land
Use Study of the commercial and industrial areas and the traffic
studies slated for Palo Alto. As was their rationale in their
June 17, 1985 statement to the Council in support of the contin-
uation of the Downtown Study area moratorium, the LWV's land use
and planning positions supported a _planning process which, prior -
to final decision --making being publicized, allowed public comment
on the development alternatives and their probable consequences;
land use planning which included consideration of housing, jobs,
transportation,. and air pollution; and opposed development in an
area of the City which was under a special planning study. As
stated in the staff's June 7, 1985 report to the Planning Commis-
sion, an area -by -area approach to reduce development potential
proved unsatisfactory because it did not permit a comprehensive
view of growth or its overall effect on traffic. Because incon-
sistencies resulting from an ad hoc approach might occur and be
exacerbated as more areas of the Ci ty were looked at in isolation,
every reason cited for Council's seeking any kind of break on
development in the study area was an all the more compelling
reason forimposing a moratorium at that point. Permitting even a
small amount of additional development in the study area increased
the risk that problems with traffic, the jobs/housing imbalance,
and general land use imbalance would worsen and the options for
deal ing with such problems would be reduced by the time the study
was completed. Many of the intersections in the area were already
at level "E," and more development would unlikely improve the
situation. The purpose of the study was to determine the desired
planning and land use configuration. The purpose of a moratorium
was to ensure that a meaningful and thorough study offering
options for viabl a corrective action could occur. The LWV of Pal o
Alto urged that Council impose a moratorium on the subject area
and reject the Pl anning Commission' s recommendation only to reduce
the FAR.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, spoke as President of the Palo Alto Civic
League and as Chairman of the Land Use and Zoning Committee of the
Barron Park Association. He pointed out that contrary to some of
the statements made by the property owners, there was a letter
sent by the Civic League to the Planning Commission supporting the
reduction in FAR in both the CH and CS zones. He referred to the _.
June 7 1985, staff report, and said it was disturbing that the
Planning Commission selected a .75 FAR for the CS zone with no
supporting data. The only data provided said the existing 2:1
ratio would allow almost 5.4 million square feet of additional
develoment in the. CS zone, and a .5 ratio would reduce it to
577,000 square feet. There was nothing stated about how much
development there might be at a .75 FAR, but more than 80 percent
of the existing parcels,: according to the staff- report,
presently
developed in the CS zone had less than .75, and, therefore, could
have a significant amount of additional development. The .5 ratio
proposed in the staff report for both the CS and CH zone would
still Wow in excess of ` 750,000 square feet of development.
Regarding the viability of development on small parcels, many
parcels in the CH zone along El Camino were only 4,000 to 5,000
square feet, and were developed and used viably and economically.
As to the effect ,of excessive development, particularly along El
Camino adjacent to the residential communities, the experience in
Barron Park was that any development along El Camino had an ad-
verse impact on the adjacent residential communities in parking
overflow from the commercial strip and increased traffic. Any
excessive development exacerbated the ,Jobs/ housing imbalance. He
urged the City Council to adopt the staff recommendation for a FAR
of .5:1 in both the CS and Cli zones. They also supported a mora-
torium on further development in those zones during the pendency
of the study as recommended by the LWV.
Councilmember Woolley asked about the number of parcels under
.75.
Mr. Moss directed Councilmember Woolley to the bar graph in the
back of the staff report, and said there were 27 parcels that were
.8 or above, and 115 parcels that were less than .75. He calcu-
lated 81 percent were below .8 FAR.
John Wanless, 2682 Cowper, endorsed the reduction in FAR in con-
cept, but was concerned about the impact on Midtown. Midtown was
currently experiencing a great development in residential units,
and he saw a reduction in FAR might have the opposite effect in
forcing developers to develop multi -unit residential units in the
area. There were many old buildings along Middlefield Road with
sufficient depth to support multi -unit type housing which could be
torn down. Without a consistent reduction in the number of hous-
ing units, they might see another Hoover site which could occur in
Midtown. He urged consideration of that fact before adopting the
FAR concept.
Barbara Newton, 1585 Edgewood Drive, said it was supposed to be a
time of curtailed development in Palo Alto while a comprehensive
study was prepared. She referred to the same bar graph used by
Mr. Moss, and pointed out there were 21 vacant lots in the CS
zone, 17 CS lots with a .1 FAR, and 16 CS lots with a .2 FAR. It
meant there were 54 properties significantly smaller than the pro-
posed .75 FAR. If all of the lots decided to develop to the .75
FAR, it could result in a lot of large buildings. She understood
the Sports Medicine building on Everson was approximately .8 FAR
which was close to .75 FAR. She did not believe Palo Alto needed
or wanted anywhere from 21 to 54 buildings of that magnitude. She
was concerned that the .75 FAR would not prove to be a lid on
development, but would be seen as a last chance for development
possibilities. She recommended the FAR in the CS zone be limited
to .50 in support of the City staff recommendation. She said 49
other people joined her in signing the Palo Alto Tomorrow peti-
tions stating they wanted City-wide curtailment.
Mayor Levy declared the public hearing closed.
MOTION; Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel , to
adopt the Planning Commission recommendation (with the exception
of amending the FAR in the CS zone) finding that the following
charges will not have a negative environmental impact and that
these zoning ordinance changes be approved and remain in effect
for two years
In the CS zone district, the FAR be reduced from 2.0 to 1 to
0.50 to 1 for nonresidential uses except that sites . used exclu-
sively for hotels and motels be allowed f an FAR of .75 to 1.
Sites used exclusively for residential development or for mixed
residential and nonresidential development mold be allowed a
FAR of 2.0 . to 1, .. bat the nonresidential portion could not
exceed 0.50 to 1 FAR.
6 0 6 9
7/15/85
NOTION CONTINUED
• In the Cif zone district, the FAR be reduced from 1.0 to 1 to .5
to 1 for nonresidential uses. Sites used exclusively for resi-
dential development or for nixed residential and nonresidential
development would be allowed an FAR of 1.0 to 1, but the non-
residential portion could not exceed .5 to 1 FAR;
• In the OR zone district, the FAR: for all uses be reduced from
.75 to 1 to .5 to 1. Sites used exclusively for hotels and
motels, or for residential development, or for mixed resi-
dential and nonresidential development would be allowed an FAR
If .75 to 1, but the nonresidential. nonmotel section could not
exceed .5 to 1; and
- In the CS zone district, the ordinance limiting office develop-
ment to 5,000 square feet per site remain in effect until July
1 , 1987 .
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled °ORDINANCE OF THE
COUNCI ar THE tITT OF PAI0ALTO SETTING INTERIM REGULA-
TIONS REGARDING THE FLOOR AREA RATIO IN
THE OR, CN AND
CS DISTRICTS AND EXTENDING THE LIMITATIONS OF THE SQUARE
FOOTAGE OF OFFICE USES IN THE CS DISTRICTS (EXCEPTING CS
DISTRICTS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA BOUNDED BY LINCOLN
AVENUE, ALMA STREET, HAMILTON AVENUE AND RAMONA STREET)
Councilmember Fletcher said .5 would still allow significant
devel opment. In the case of Hubbard and Johnson, she suggested
the possibility of a PC to allow for such specialized use. She
did not bel ieve it was proper to set a standard based on a special
single situation.
Councilmember Bechtel said the original staff recommendation
incl uded exceptions for hotel s, motel s, and housing to encourage
housing, and she asked if the motion should have included them.
Councilmember Fletcher said no because she was not persuaded by
the staff comments. On the other hand, she might be persuaded by
comments from other Councilmembers.
Mayor Levy said the proposed ordinance allowed for residential
uses in the CS and CN zones apd also spoke to hotel and motel uses
in the OR district.
Councilmember Bechtel said on the bottom half of the first page of
the ordinance discussing FAR, it stated the maximum FAR for non-
residential uses shall be allowed a maximum a, floor area for
hotels to .75.'° She wanted assurances that when the blanket
change was made to .50, it did .not include that portion.
Mayor Levy said in Section 3, paragraph 2, it stated "in all CS
districts except those bounded by Lincoln and Hamil tau Avenues and
Alma and Ramona Streets, the maximum floor area ratio for nonresi-
dential uses shall be .75 to 1." He interpreted the motion to
amend that section to read .5 to I. It continued on the next page
with paragraph 3 and discussed residential uses. He understood
only Section 3, paragraph 2 was affected.
Councilmember Fletcher said that was correct.
Councilmember Bechtel believed staff made strong arguments in
their original recommendation that housing be encouraged, and in
response to the member of the publ lc from the Midtown area, as she
looked at the neap, she did not See _ the kind of problem he envi-
sioned. In otber-. parts of the community, = .75 was reasonable for
that portion of the property that world onlybe for housing. In
terms of the possible revenue from hotel s and motel s, she -bel ieved
staff made some strong arguments.
6 0 7.0
7/15/85
AMEMDMEW7: Cnunciimember Bechtel moved the ari9inal staff
recommendation on that portion affecting hotels, motels, and the
housing portion. $ In all CS districts except those bounded by
Li nccl n and Hamilton Avenues and Alma and Ramona Streets, the
maximum floor area ratio for nonresidential uses shall be .5 to 1
except that sites used for hotels shall be allowed a mcx#mum floor
area ratio of .15 to 1.6
Mr. Freel and said the only substantive differences were the incl u-
sion of the .75 FAR for hotels and motels. Houses were taken care
of because it established that the overall FAR remained at 2:1 .
Just the nonresidential component was limited to .5, or in the
case of hotels and motels, .75.
AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Council member Bechtel supported the citizens and members of the
community who wanted to preserve the _character of the community.
She bel ieved staff made some good recommendations. She bel ieved a
moratoriums would be appropriate during the study period as
pointed out by the LWV. The .5 was a compromise from a moratorium
and allowed some limited development during the period, and gave
the City a time-out while it determined the best possible use for
the land in the CS, CN, and OR zones,
Councilmember Kl ein associated himself with the comments of
Councilmember Bechtel. Staff made a persuasive case, and he
believed .5 was more appropriate for the CS zone, and by supported
the motion.
Vice Mayor Cobb said it was suggested that if Council wanted to
deal with the case of Hubbard and Johnson, which seemed to be
unique, a PC might be appropriate. .He asked if that were true.
Mr. Freeland said in order to have a PC zone, Council would have
to make a finding of public benefit. There was no hard and fast
definition of a public benefit, but he believed simply having a
hardware -lumber store was not the typical publ is benefit, It was
ultimately up to the Council and Commission to debate. He would
be surprised if Hubbard and Johnson was able to produce a building
of more than .5 FAR on the site . The main parcel was about
135,000 square feet in size, and if one assumed a .5 FAR, it was
approximately a 67,500 square foot building. If it were a bulk
lumber storage ---no warehouse —it would require about 192 parking
spaces, or 400 square feet each to lay out or about 77,000 square
feet of 1and . In order to have a building larger than a .45 to 1
FAR, the building had to be multiple story or the parking had to
be underground. He would be surprised to see plans for a 1 umber
yard be mul ti pl a story or have underground parking.
Vice Mayor Cobb said regarding the property owner with a small
piece of vacant land, the interest was to put in a mixed use which
used commercial to support some residential , which was presumably
one of the goals. It was proposed by those property owners where
economics were such that there would not be any housing on the
site without some el bow room for people in those small site s
because by the time setbacks and dayl fight planes, were "pl egged in,
it was impossible to put housing there. He was concerned about
whether Council was dealing with unintended consequences. He
generally supported the motion, but would be concerned if Council
encouraged an al l commercial development rather than one which was
mixed use with some housi ng because the economics did not work for
the mixed use on , smaller properties. He suggested one. way ' to.
approach the problem might be have staff look at the particular
issue and see whether the need existed for that type Of exception
process in order to not lose the housing opportunities if it
turned out to be too difficult a situation and, therefore,
encouraged 01 commercial growth.
Councilmember Renzel pointed out the City distinguished the CS
zone from the other commercial zones because it allowed for cer-
tain kinds of services that were not permitted in the other zones.
She bel ieved Mr. Freel and cl early outl ined that a high percentage
of the existing CS uses were low floor area ratio buildings
because of the nature of the use. If the zone was for the purpose
of Omitting those kinds of, uses, she bel ieved its structure
should rel ate primarily to those uses. Cl early it was nice to get
some residential in those zones from time to time and the City
permitted a higher FAR for residential in those zones if someone
wi shed to utiI ize it, but to get back to the basic principle, they
were deal ing with a CS zone and uses which were important to the
community and which. the City wanted to encourage. To raise the
FAR to the point where the price of the land would be bid upon by
those who wished to put a different kind of use on it would dis-
courage the kinds of uses for which the zone was designed. She
strongly supported the motion and associated herself with the com-
ments of her colleagues.
Councilmember Woolley commended staff on their thorough research
and cl ear presentation on what was a compl icated issue. She liked
the fact that the .recommendation was a more fl exible approach than
a moratorium; it allowed for remodel ing and additions, but not for
large new developments; and she supported the fact that it in-
creased the present incentive to build housing rather than commer-
cial , She disagreed with Councilmember Fl etcher' s amendment to go
al ong with the staff rather than the Planning Commission on the CS
zone, and bel ieved the parking 1 imitations and maximum square
footage for office limitations, coupled with the Planning Com-
mission recommendation of .75, gave a package that provided enough
deterrent to large development over the study period. She asked
if going back to the original Pl anning Commission could be accom-
pl fished by going back to the wording of Section 3, No. 2.
Mr. Freel and said yes.
AMENDMENT: Coenciimember Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, to
change .the FAR in the CS zone to .75
Councilmember Sutorius debated between the .75 as recommended by
the Planning Commission because the staff table .analysis which
produced the square footage situation as it appl ied to Hubbard and
Johnson were the larger and unique uses that created some of the
situations which were perhaps part of the motivation of the P1 an-
ning Commission in their recommendation. He would not support the.
.75 FAR because the application: of the higher square footage as
demonstrate] by the charts in the staff material were not borne
out by need.
Councilmember Renzel opposed the amendment to change the FAR. It
was a CS zone and there was good evidence that those kinds of uses
did not need the high FAR, and to establish a higher FAR created
competition that would drive out the. uses. It was a temporary
ordinance to allow time for a proper study to take place without
forecl ()sing any options.
Councilmember Klein did not support the amendment. The figures
provided by Mr. Freeland indicated that to get to .75, one had to
provide underground parking which was expensive and drove up
ren..ts. If it drove up rents, it seemed to him they created a more
bout' queem atmosphere of which there was pl enty in Pal o Al to. He
preferred to keep the economics of construction in order to main-
tain some of the uses in the CS zones in town .
Mayor Levy was concerned that Palo Alto -would be overofficed
Palo Alto had become the downtown of Silicon Valley, and was the
most desirable area tolocate offices. He no longer saw Palo Alto
as a self-contained community -of: 50,000 with a little downtown on
University Avenue and the rest of the town was shopping. The
entire_ town was desirable to build offices and it.: was seen on
Cai ifurnia Avenue as well as Univer:i ty Avenue and it was
ning on 11 Camino. currently, the City had a 1 imitation of 5,000
square feet per office which was appropriate. Office use would
develop higher rents for the property owner than retail use, and
by having the lower FAR, Council provided a strong incentive for
every piece of property that was 10,000 to 12,000 square feet or
less to be completely developed as an office. If Council had a
more expansive floor area ratio, it would provide more of an
incentive for retail uses on those sites which he believed were
better uses for the town. An owner of a 10,000 square feet piece
of property could put 'a 5,000 square foot office there or a some-
what 1 arger retail use . He was wel sati sfied that a somewhat
1 arger retail use was a better trade-off for the community than a
5,000 square foot office building.
AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-6, Levy, Woolley voting "aye,"
Witherspoon absent.
Councilmember Sutori us was interested in an amendment to affect
Section 3 and apply to the CS districts described in paragraph 2,
which were those not inci uded in the Downtown area. He asked for
assistance in the wording, and said the intent was to permit an
appl icant to apply for an exception to exceed the 0.5 and go. up to
a .75 if there were publ is benefit.
Mr. Freeland said during the moratorium appl ications could be made
for an exception to a project which would be of public benefit.
Such projects might include, but were not limited to, a grocery
store serving the needs of elderly and mobil ity-impaired downtown
residents, preservation of an historic building or a residential
use, or otherwi se allowable use under the zoning code if such use
was restricted to a total floor area not to exceed 50 percent of
the fl oor area ratio under the zoning. The only real criteria was
public benefit.
Councilmember Sutorius asked if final action was that night or
whether there was a second reading whereby it was feasible if the
wording posed any problem for the attorney or staff, they coul d
add to it.
Ms. Lee suggested Council incorporate the moratorium exception
procedure in the Downtown moratorium ordinance and ask staff to
make the corresponding changes to the ordinance.
Co unc i l m em ber Su to r i us said that was fine,.
Mayor Levy bel ieved the essence of the motion was to permit excep-
tions to the .50 FAR up to a maximum of .75 for public benefit
uses.
Ms. Lee said it was the same procedure as the Downtown moratorium
ordinance.
AMENDMENT: Councilmewber Sutori us moved, seconded by Woolley to
permit exceptions to the .5 FAR up to a maximum of .75 for pubs lc
benefit _ uses utilizing the same procedures as in the Downtown
moratorium.
Council member Wenzel said with regard to Councilmember Fletcher` s
question about PC' s, the major question was pubs is benefit, which
was identical.: to the amendment. She preferred to leave the .exist-
ing process in place and allow a project to go in under PC. It
would have to demonstrate the same public benefit one way or the
other, and she preferred to keep the ordinance clean and have
anyone wanting an exception to use the PC process. She would not
support the amendment.
Counciimember Wool] ey asked about the advantage of including it in
the Downtown Moratori um.
9/15585
Mr. Freel and cl ar i r i ed she meant opposed to the P1 anned Commun i ty
zone process.
Councilmember Woolley said yes.
Mr. Freeland believed it was a less. rigorous process spelled out
In the exception process. A Pl anned Community zone required
fully -developed architectural drawings .and hearings before the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the P1 ann1ng Commission which
was tine -consuming. Some of the exceptions considered for the
Downtown and which were granted were very minor items. He be-
lieved .a less rigorous process was an advantage in that regard.
If they were talking about larger buildings than the City other-
wise wanted, there might be justification, for requiring the
additional detail of a PC zone.
Councilmember Woolley cl art fled it was true a PC zone was continu-
ously monitored whereas the exception process was not.
Mr . Fr eel and said yes.
Councilmember Woolley said from the standpoint of monitoring,
there was some reason to include it, particularly, as pointed out
by Mr. Freel and, for the small er exception. They were not things
Council wanted to continually track of over a long period of time.
Councilmember KI ein said whil e the motion had some surface appeal ,
he would not support it because he bel ieved there was a difference
between it and the Downtown. The Downtown was an outright mora-
torium. Council introduced the exception process for publ is bene-
fit to provide some flexibility, and flexibility in the process
before Council that night was already built in by the fact that
a moratorium was not declared and a small amount of construction
would still be al Towed. It seemed to him that if Council wanted
to go beyond that flexibil ity, the PC process already on the books
should be used
Vice Mayor Cobb was al so tempted by the amendment but concl uded it
would not solve the Hubbard and Johnson problem. He was not sure
that problem was solved. If Council was to deal with a large
project, he would rel uctantly suggest the PC was a better way. He
was stiO concerned about the very small parcel s, but believed
it had to be dealt with by a separate motion which he would deal
with as a study request later.
Mayor Levy said the amendment was to permit . exceptions to the .5
FAR up to a maximum of .75 for public benefit utilizing the same
procedures as in the Downtown Moratorium.
AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-5, Woolley, Sutorius and Levy
voting "aye,' Witherspoon absent.
MAYOR LEVY RE ITEMS TO CONSIDER AFTER 11:00 p.m.
Mayor Levy asked Mr. Zaner which items had the highest priorities
and whether any of them might be deal t. a►i th another. time,
Mr. Zaner said Council had a request in the packet to postpone
Item 13, 3045 Park Boulevard, so that would not be heard assuming
Council granted the request to continue., He understood there
might be. a request to continue Item 9, 103 Kellogg. Regarding
Item 12, a 1 egisl ative report, he saw nothing there that looked
critical from a time point of view, The other public hearings
could also be postponed if Council wished, but he believed they
would go fairly quickly as staff did not see a great deal of con-
troversy surrounding them If Council took off Items 9, 12, and
13, it might get them through the evening a little faster.
6 0 1 4
7 /15/85
Mayor Levy suggested Council continue Items 9, 12, and 13 until
date set by staff, and asked staff and Ms. Lee if it was in order
to bring those items forward and continue them. to a time set by
staff rather than a time certain.
Ms. Lee said Council needed to set a date certain for public
hearings so people in attendance that night knew to when those
matters were continued. Staff could advise Council, or Council
could delegate to staff, the determination of the Leg isl ative
Committee report.
Mr. Zaner suggested Council might continue the public hearings to
July 22, 1985. After a week of negotiations with the cable com-
panies, he bel ieved the report staff would make to Council on July
22, including the presentations from the cable companies, would
not take the entire night. Substantial progress was made. Many
of the controversial items were cleared out of the way so Council
would have time that evening to finish the items. He mentioned
parenthetically that it appeared staff would not need the July 23,
which Council could cl ear off its cal endar .
Mayor Levy clarified a minimum of public input was anticipated on
July 22, so July 23 was not needed.
Mr. Zaner bel ieved even wi th the pubs lc input, Council could
handle the hearings that might be set.
MOTION: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Menzel , to bring forward
Items 9, 12, and 13 for continuance.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
MOTION: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Menzel, to continue Item
9, 103 Kellogg, to July 22, 1985, and Items 12, Legislative
Report, and 13, 3045 Park Boulevard, to dates set by staff.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
RETURN TO ITEM #8 , PUBLIC HEARING RE CHANGES IN THE CS , CH , AND OR
ZONES
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
Vice Mayor Cobb was still concerned about unintended •consequences.
For exampi e, the City Might get an all -commercial devel opment
rather than one which encouraged some housing. He suggested with
respect to the areas covered by the previous motion, Council ask
staff to study and report back as to the need, if any, and give
Council recommendations for possible exception '`mechanisms for
small properties where the exception would allow a mixed --use
project where housing el ements would not otherwi se be obtained.
MOTION: Tice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, with respect
to the zones covered by the previous motion, that staff study the
:ice of smaller parcels with the aim of encouraging mixed ases
where they might not otherwise be possible, Which 'cold involve an
exception process.
Councilmegiber Bechtel did not like getting into exception►\ _pro-
cesses to begin with, and did not l ike the idea of another staff
assignment. She believed staff Careful ly reviewed the conse-
quences, and hopefully all unintended consequences, and she, would
not support the motion.
Councilmember_ Renael said the previous motion allowed for a floor
area ratio of 2 for housing when ='provided in the zone, and limited
the- service commercial use to .5, which= was: anrpl a incentive. It
was a two-year situation and she bel ieved there would be few mixed
uses that would want to be incorporated along with ,a service com-
mercial use in any case Be that as it may, the provision and
incentive Were incorporated in the ordinance and would benefit
l arge and small properties al Ike . She would riot support the
motion.
Vice Mayor Cobb hoped Councilmember Renzel' s statement was true,
but obviousl y if a property owner brought the example forward,
they were concerned it might not be the case . He only requested
that staff advise Co unc it whether there was a need for such an
exception. It would give staff a chance to focus on the particu-
1 ar problem, and if no need existed , staff could._ return and tel 1
Council, and that would be the end of it If there was a need for
a process, he wanted to know because he was concerned about the
small property owners. The particular instance had to do .with an
undeveloped tot which was practically open. If Council locked
people into that situation, he was not sure it would help the
neighborhood to leave it as empty, vacant property. They might
get a 1 i et1 a housing if they made sure the economics worked for
people on small properties.
Mayor Levy would not support the motion because staff had reviewed
the situation, and bec ause at some point, there had to be an end
to the el aboration of studies Counc it requested. He bel ieved they
could let the two-year moratorium be as it was, par ticul arl y since
they were allowing a fl oor, area ratio of 2.0 for mixed uses, which
was pretty substantial .
MOTIOW FAILED by a vote of 1-7, Cobb voting "aye," Witherspoon
absent.
ITEM #10, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
APPLICATION OF REAL ESTATE ARTS, INC., FOR A E A'IVE SOBDIVISfON
MAP COMAINING 5 PARCELS- INTO 1 FOR PI CPERTY T 270). EL
IAT1Ie1O REAL (PIA f
anning Comri ssioner Hel ene Wheeler said the Commission' s discus-
sion focused on the extra development potential the merger of the
five parcels would bring, particul arly the traffic impacts. Staff
pointed out there would be no increased potential in the develop-
ment of the commercial portion of the property, and the commercial
component would increase traffic potential to' a greater extent
than residential . There would be some increased residential
devel opment potential , but the Commission concluded the unique
nature of the proposed housing and the location of the site along
maj or arterials without heavy impact on residential neighborhoods
made the project a benefit for the community. The Comm i ssion
unanimously recommended approval .
Mr. Bruce Freel and said a revised environmental assessment
addressed the issues raised at the P1 anning Commi ssi-en.
Mayor Levy declared the public hearing open .
Otto Foyt, 1052 N. Cal ifornia Avenue , was an owner of Real Estate
Arts, and presented Palo Al to' s first rental housing project in
about 20 years. It was an apartment project, not a condominium,
and there was no condominium map. The property was zoned RM-5,
and they proposed 40 units, four of which would =be below -market -
rate. Along ` El Camino, they had a small portion of Cpl, which`
would have 3,650 square feet of office and financial services. It
took about seven years to acquire the property on a 50 -year: land
lease fro the owner who was in Hong Kong. Thirty neighborhood
residents along with staff and ARa members attended a meeting and
there was unanimous support. The site was currently occupied by
an abandoned gas station and vacant land behind it on Sheridan.
They requested no variances and complied with all setbacks and
zoning and parking requir ents. The question before the Council
was the merging of five 'tots into one because if ,they tried to
develop the fivelots separately, they could not do so because of
the required setbacks for each lot. By merging the five lots,
6 0 7 6,
7/15/85
their architects created a meaningful- landscape plan with signifi-
cant open space and mature trees. As traffic mitigation, they
proposed each tenant be given a packet of information concerning
bus schedul es as there was a major bus stop at El Camino and
Sheridan in front of the project. The packet would also contain
information about train schedul es, a nearby Cal Trans Depot, l imou-
sine, and other services to the airport. They would al so provide
information concerning the Ci ty' s bike routes, hiking, and jogging
routes, and shopping in the nearby California Avenue district.
They were close to jobs and employment and would make bicycles
available for tenants to ride to work and shop. Their location at
the entrance to the Stanford Research Park provided new housing
within walking and biking distance of _ from 23,000 jobs. They
believed the amount of traffic would be reduced in Palo Alto as
people could walk and bike to work rather than drive and commute
from the East Bay and San Jose. The ARB provided unanimous con-
ceptual design approval and they were scheduled to meet again on
Thursday, July 18, 1985, to clarify certain design items. He
requested Council support for Palo Alto' s first rental housing
project in many years by the merging of the five lots into one
parcel .
Mayor Levy declared the publ is hearing closed.
MOTION: Councilmember Woolley moved, seconded by Fletcher,
approval of the Planning Commission recommendation finding the
application fora tentative subdivision map to merge the five par-
cels at 2701 El Camino Real will mot have an adverse environmental
impact, and that the proposal complies and is consistent with the
provisions of the Subdivision Nap Act, this title, and the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan, including all elements thereof, and all
other provisions of the Palo Alto Nunictfipal Code and state law,
including, but not 'limited to Section 66473.6 and 66474 of the
Government Code.
Councilmember Fletcher was pleased with the innovative proposal
and liked to hear about traffic mitigation measures. Many buses
stopped at the corner of El Canino and Sheridan, and she pointed
out the AC Transit Lines which went to BART in Union City. She
looked forward to the project.
Mayor Levy clarified Councilmember Woolley moved the Planning
Commission recommendation.
Councilmember Wool 1 ey said yes.
Vice Mayor Cobb asked if the appl icant' s comments with respect to
the neighborhood support were correct.
Mr . Fr eel and said yes.
Vice Mayor Cobb was unenthusiastic. Neighborhood support would
sway him to vote in favor,\\but for short-term, rental s, he bel ieved
the ideas about using publ is transportation, bicycles, etc., were
a drew and _Council was fooling itself if they bel ieved it would
be any different. They would, be car -oriented people, and if they
were long - term rentals, it might be different. He observed the
development potential was increased five ° units, but no increase
was made with respect -to below -market units, which was what : he
bel ieved got the City in trouble: with respect to =the condominiums
being built. The neighborhood support weighed in the balance for
him, but a few yearsdown the road, he believed they would see
that no traffic problems were solved and he hoped the neighbors
were still happy with the :extra density and traffic.
Mayor Levy was satisfied that as long as they were rental units,
there was a considerable public benefit. 'In the present market,
rental units were cl ose to being acceptabl e as to moderate income
famil ies. He would not approve a condominium map for the project.
under any canceivabl e circumstances.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #11 PUBLIC HEARING: EXTENSIONS OF DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM
DISTRICT PARKING ORDINANCE (PLA T-2) reMR:428: 5)
Council member Klein said due to the supposed conflict of interest
as rul ed by the Fair political Practices Commission, he would not
participate in the. item.
Mayor Levy decl ared the publ is hearing open.
Linda Ross, League of women Voters (LWV) , 201 Loma Verde, earl ier
referred to the LWV's request regarding continuation of the Down-
town moratorium anil the reasons for making the request. She
incorporated by reference their reasons. The LWV was disturbed
by, and opposed, the proposal to modify the moratorium by l uniting
the prohibition on ground floor conversions to the Peoestrian
Shopping Combining Di strict rather than continuing the prohibition
in the entire primary Downtown Study area. The proposal before
the Council was apparently unaccompanied by any figures regarding
the potential square footage that could be converted to an office
use in the fringe area of the Downtown Study area or the impact .on
parking and traffic conditions generated by such office uses. A
superficial comparison of the maps of the Pedestrian Shopping Com-
bining Di strict and of the entire Downtown Study area indicated
limiting the prohibition to only the Pedestrian Shopping Combining
Di strict would make a large part of Alma vul nerabl a again to con-
version to office and •financial service uses. The traffic and
land uses on Alma were already a cause for Palo Alto' s concern
about growth, The LWV reminded the Council that the entire Down-
town Study area was the subject of the City's planning study, and
that the core of Downtown may contain the more serious conse-
quences of recent growth and development does not•mean the fringe
of the Downtown Study area should be opened up to potential devel-
opment of the same uses which might have placed the Downtown core
area in its present predicament. Doing the Environmental Impact
Report (E IR) should ensure consideration of alternative balances
of office, retail , and residential uses and the concomitant prob-
lems of parking, traffic, and air pollution generated by each such
use. The LWV respectfully requested Council avoid a piecemeal
approach to the planning study and continue the moratorium on the
entire Downtown Study area pending completion of the study.
Mayor Levy decl ared the publ is hearing closed .
Councilmember Bechtel asked for comment regarding exclusion of the
Alma extensions on either side of the core area.
Mr. Fr eel and said the recommendation wa s made because tho se areas
were no longer under study by the P1 anning Commission or the Down-
town Advisor=y Committee as potential areas for the ul timate appl 1 -
cation of a ground floor use control policy. The Committee would
be looking at the precise boundaries of the ground floor use con-
trol policy in the next few months, but all of the areas.. under
active consideration were within the Pedestrian Combining Zone,.
not outside.
MOTION: Coueciimember Menzel- moved, seconded by Cobb, to adopt
the staff recommendations as`\follows:
1. Finding that the ordinances will not have a significant
adverse environmental impact; and
2. Adopting the following ordinabces:
MOTION CONTINUED
a. extending the effective period of the Downtown moratorium
on new construction, subdivisions and parcel mergers
within the primary study area, and ground floor . con-
versions to office and financial service uses within the
(P) Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. until May 28,
1986; and
b. extending the effective period of the iJn1versity Avenue
Parking Assessment District parking regulations until May
28, 1986.
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY Ot -PALO ALTO AMENDING AND EXTENDING
THE ORDINANCES IMPOSING DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA'
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE
COUNCIL or ThE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO.
3502 REGARDING OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULA-
TIONS IN A SPECIFIED AREA OF DOWNTOWN PALO ALTO'
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein 'not participating,'°
Wi therspoon absent.
ITEM #14 , PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE EXCEPTION FROM
DO N TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA FOR
eltAT1UN OF A PEDESTRIAN ARCADE AREA F611 PROPERTY LOCATE` AT 499
HAMILTON AVEPU€ (PLA 3-1)
Planning Commissioner Helene Wheeler said the Planning Commission
recommendation was unanimous in favor of the exception from the
moratorium with the conditions and assurances that the design
approved by the ARB be implemented and that the public amenity in
the form of the pedestrian arcade be protected and preserved and
not converted into usable floor area space.
Mayor Levy said arcades and any covered area was considered part
of the floor area built up space, and if he had an extension over
a window, which was a permanent awning, he clarified it was con-
sidered part of the floor area of the building. He asked why.
Mr. Freeland said in the subject instance, even though the area
was open to thn outside, it was considered part of the floor area
ratio because it was actually within the structural components \ of
the building; that is, the columns and the outside of the building
that were used to define the arcade were actually the structural
elements of the wall and could easily be enclosed in the future if
they were not built within a special manner. If it were .simply
the area under a balcony, i t might not matter.
Mayor levy clarified it had to be within the structural members of
the building to qualify.
Mr. Freeland could not give the exact definition. In the subject
instance, it was the explanation he received from the Building
Department that it was within the actual structure of the build -
Mayor Levy said if Council approved it, he asked if the area could
be enclosed without Council approval . Mr. Freeland said it was a condition of approval as suggested , by
the Planning Commission, and it could no.t be enclosed.
5 O 7 9 ..
5/85
Jive Baer, 532 Chalon ing, confirmed the spirit of the developer- to
comply with what they believed the moratorium was directed at and
the important pol icy of the City to .make retail space in the down-
town more attractive. They did not intend to enclose the arcade
and would do everything possible to create a building which en-
hanced architecturally, and from a retail point of view, the
important corner of Hamil ton and Cowper_. A strong architectural
statement was important in the location to balance the 1 arger
building across the street at 400 Hamilton. They were eager to
get on with the project and make a contribution to the Ci ty.
Councilmember Fl etcher said the present building had many bicycles.
parked inside. Under the zoning ordinance, they were not required
to provide for bicycl e parking, and she asked whether they had
pl ans to provide comparabl e, secure parking.
Mr. Baer said it was not yet raised at the ARD 1 evel . There were
two areas where bicycles could be located. On one edge of the
building wa s an approximately eight foot corridor which was the
difference between the edge of the building and the next building.
There was an entry to the second floor which was open to the air
in part, and it might be that bicycle parking could be provided
there. It would be considered.
NOTION: Counctlmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to
adopt the Planning Commission recommendation approving an excep-
tion to the provisions of the Downtown moratorium, finding that:
I. The projects benefits t.o the public outweigh the potential
increase in traffic and parking demand generated by the proj-
ect in that the leasable floor area of the building will mot
be increased by the building renovation, and, the requested
exception is for an unencl osed, unl easabl e, pedestrian -
oriented a*enity, which will conform to Program 18 of the
Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan which encour-
ages 'street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in
shopping districts; and
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi-
tions applicable to the project involved that do not apply
generally to properties in the Downtown moratorium area in
that the additional gross floor area is not leasable space,
but is provided as a pedestrian/architectural amenity.
Mayor Levy liked the proposal and believed it was an enhancement
of the Downtown area. He was uncomfortable as he heard that
"arcades" were to be considered enclosed space. He asked if that
was being reviewed_ as part of the Downtown Study or whether staff
would prefer a separate request for another study.
Mr. Freeland said it was not being studied. It was mostly a
question of how the Building Code was interpreted in relation to
the zoning ordinance which was why he could not provide a clear
answer to the earlier question.. The d i ffl c ul ty was that if sta ff
died not look after the arcades, there was al ways the chance they
might be filled in in the future. He was not suggesting it. was
the case with the subject proposal , but perhaps it was better to
have them singled out for special treatment.
Mayor Levy encouraged the construc tior of .arcades like the one
proposed and hoped the developer would not -be penal ized for them.
MOTION PASSED unanimously,, Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #15, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER BECHTEL_ RE F►4FnRCFMFHT OF
'KING ANn HIM _ ' IONS (VLA 7-9-2f
Councilmember Bechtel said her request was the result of a peti-
tion sent to her and a photograph (which is on file in the City
Cl erk' s office) . They were concerned about what was happening in
Palo Alto with the properties and the adequacies of the zoning
enforcement, as well as various parking problems where people
parked on the roll ed curb areas where they blocked the sidewai k.
MOTION: Council•eaber Bechtel moved, sec eded by Fletcher, that
staff be directed to report to Council on zoning .enforcement pro-
cesses and the adequacies of staffing levels and regulations.
Counc ilmember Woolley supported with having staff look at the
problem and agreed there was a need. She did not want to mislead
staff by incl uding the adequacy of staffing levels because she did
not intend to add to staff in order to better enforce the ordi-
nances.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember ,Woolley moved, seconded by Sutorius,
to delete the question of staffing levels.
Councilmembers Bechtel and Fletcher had no problem revising the
motion.
MOTION RESTATED: STAFF BE DIRECTED TO REPORT TO COUNCIL ON
ZONING ENFORCEMENT PROCESSES.
Vice Mayor Cobb said the language on the petition suggested inter-
esting maneuvers with respect to limiting the number of cars
people could park around the house. He clarified the suggestion
was not to pursue those suggestions.
Councilmember Bechtel said she specifically excl uded them because
they had to do with ghat a person could do on their own private
property. Someone might have a large piece of property and have
space to be abl a to put that number of cars.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent,
ADJOURNMENT>.TO CLOSED SESSION
Council adjourned to a Closed Session re Personnel at 11:55 p.m.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT
Final adjournment a t 12:30 a.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED: