Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-05 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNC1L 1 MINUTE3 Regular Meeting August 5, 1985 CITY ALTO ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 6 1 2 2 Approval of Minutes of June 3, 1985 6 1 2 3 Approval of Minutes of June 10, 1985 6 1 2 3 Item #1, Welcoming Students from Oaxaca, Oaxaca, 6 1 2 3 Mexico Consent Calendar 6 1 2 4 Referral 6 1 2 4 Action 6 1 2 4 Item #2, Sewage Transportation, Treatment, and 6 1 2 4 Disposal, Los Altos Hills Item #3, Resolutions Re Management/Confidential/ 6 1 2 5 Hourly Compensation Plans Item #4, Ordinance Re California Avenue Parking 6 1 2 5 District "Ad Valorem" Assessment Rate 198586 Item #5, Ordinance Re Development Moratoria in 6 1 2 5 Downtown Area (2nd Reading) Item *6, Ordinance Re Off -Street Parking and 6-4 2 5 Loading Regulations (2nd: Reading) Item #8, Ordinance Re Evergreen/Southgate Permit 6 1 2 6 Parking (1nd dead:nj) Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 6 1 2 6 Item #9, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation Re Zoning Ordinance Amendments Pertaining to Airport Uses in the PF District, Hotels Having Rooms With Kitchens, and Chemical Storage Facilities Item $'iU, PUBLIC HEARING: Moratorium on Issuance of Demolition Permits, Building Permits, and Variances on Substandard Lots in the R-1 Zone of the Coll e`ye: Terrace Neighborhood Recess Item #12, Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Recommendation Re Application for Site and lesIyn. Approval for Parking Lot Improvements, Including Siynage and Pedestrian Access Trail, at the City's Ar4.stra Parklands 6 1 2 6 6 1 3 2 11LM Item #11, Planning Commission and Architecural Review Board Recommendation Re Application of Carl Holvick Company for Site and Design Approval at 3801 East Bayshore Road PAGE 6 1 5 3 Item #13, Park Improvement Ordinance - Downtown 6 1 5 7 Park North Item 13-A (Old Item #7), Ordinance Re OR, CN, and CS Districts Item #14, Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Capacity Expansion Item #15, Request of County. ilmemt.cr Renzel Re Ballot Arguments Adjournment: 12:10 a.m. 6 1 5 7 6 1 5 7 6 1 5 9 6 1 6 0 1 1 Regular Meeting August 5, 1985 The City Council .of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzei, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Cobb, Witherspoon Mayor Levy announced that a Closed Session re Personnel 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. William R. Smith, 1813 Edgewood Drive, lived at that address since 1958. His concern was controlling development. The moratorium on building should be maintained and expanded. The Los Altos Hills sewage affected the treatment plant which was already upyraded and expanded in the past. The Bay Area Water Control was pushing for extending the outfall to the Dumbarton Bridge, and its natural extension would be to go to the Golden Gate at some cost. San Francisco was completing their outfall extensions at a cost of minions. Regarding school destruc- tion and replacement with million dollar tract houses of 47 gables, the lack c.f schools would be felt in the near future in spite of the demographers' predictions. It was a Palo Alto problem and not a school district or neighborhood one, and it should be recognized as such. He thanked the City for dedi- cating the -Arastra property. He rode horses on the property from 1966 to 1974 and worked on the Arastra Citizens Com- mittee. Ile was concerned about the undedicated 77 acres and discussions regarding it as a source of money through develop- ment. To him that was a step in the wrong direction. 2. Ann Cribbs, City of Palo Alto Recreation Department, intro- duced the winners of the 1985 Great Palo Alto Chili Cook -off, Paul Spears and Bob Kaplan. She presented each Councilmember with an apron from the Chili Cook -off. She said Mr. Spears and Mr. Kaplan were invited to represent Palo Alto in a cook- off in Hawaii in October, 1985. Mr. Spears said it was a privilege to participate in the fourth Annual Chili Cook -off held in Palo Alto in Mitchell Park on July 4th, Mayor Levy said as the Mayor of Palo Alto he had many impor- tant functions, one of which was to be the judge of the Chili Cook -off. He did not know at which point the_ Judge Roy Without Beans," chili entered his palate. It was a privilege to be the_ judge of the chili, and the overall quality was. high. As Mayor, he had the right to issue proclamations, and said over 1,000 people attended the Fourth Annual Chili Cook off sponsored by the Palo Alto ' Recreation Department and Compadres Restaurant. Fifteen teams participated in the contest held on July 4, 1985, and members of the public tasted a variety of mouth-watering chili which included every ingredient from chicken to rattlesnake. The profits benefited the City of Palo Alto Recreation Department's Orthopedically Handicapped: Summer Programs and the Palo Alto Bayshore Rotary Club's Good Works Program for youth in the community. The "Judge Roy Without Beans" team's chili received the highest marks. On behalf of the City of Palo Alto, he congratulated the "Judge Roy Without. Beans" team on winning the Fourth Annual Chili . Cook -off Contest. He also congratulated the City of Palo Alto's Recreation Department, particularly Anne Cribbs and Margo Dutto,p. It was the fourth year of an outstanding Fourth of July event where many people participated. He presented the proclamation to the winners, and wished them the best in Hawaii. 3. Ralph White, Neighbors Abroad, introduced Mr. Joop Teekamp, a visitor from Enschede, The Netherlands. Mr. Teekamp was unable to attend the evening the Enschede exchange students were recognized. Mr. Teekamp said he was a member of the Board of Vebey, the Sister Association of Neighbors Abroad. He appreciated the hospitality the nine Dutch children received. They enjoyed their visit very much, as was . he, and he was flattered to be present and have the opportunity to express his thanks. Mayor Levy thanked Mr. Teekamp and welcomed him. With Mr. Teekamp, in the Council Chambers were many students arid some adults from Oaxaca, Oaxaca, Mexico, anoth€r of Palo Alto's Sister Cities. Palo Alto benefited a great deal from its Sister City Program. MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 1985 and JUNE 10, 1985. City Clerk Ann Tanner .submitted the following correction to the Minutes of June 10: Page 5855, third paragraph from bottom, third line, the word "not" should be "now," MOTION: Councilmeraber Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel approval of the Minutes of June 3, 1985, as submitted, and approval of the Minutes of June 10, 1985, as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb, Witherspoon absent. ITEM #1, WELCOME STUDENTS FROM OAXACA, OAXACA, MEXICO (PRE 2-1-1) MOTION. Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Menzel, ap- proval of the resolution. RESOLUTION 6415 entitled ."RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF 0 ALTO .RECOGNIZING -THE PRESENCE OF, ANA WELCOMING TO CBE CITY OF PALO ALTO REPRESENTATIVES OF OAXACA, OAXACA, MEXICO." MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb, Witherspoon absent. Mayor Levy said the City was honored to , have in its midst many students from Oaxaca, its Sister City in Mexico. The cultural excnanye. which resulted fro* people -to -people communication was the foundation of the Sister City Program, which attempted to further international understanding. The City of Oaxaca was Palo Alto' -s Sister -City in Mexico and honored Palo Alto by Sending its 5 1 2 3 8/05/85 1 representatives to visit. The City of Palo Alto recognized and welcomed Marco Antonio Silva Gutierrez, Antonio Woolrich Bermudez, Donald MacBeath 'Rocher, Silvia Vargas Hernandez, AdFiana t3ustamante L., Veronica lriarte G., Max Octavio Jarquin Fernandez, Hector Castaneda: I., Ana Leticia- Morales, Isabel Cristina Ruiz Martinez,- Ernesto Suarez Linares, Alicia Bal lesteros R., Cecilia Guzman G., Veronica Diaz Carballido, and Pedro Sandoval Centeno. Participation in the cultural exchange exemplified the mutual objectives of the two cities to promote, enco'-Jrage, and cultivate understanding -between the people of Oaxaca and Palo.Alto,. and the opportunity to Welcome the Oaxaco visitors to Palo Alto was mitually beneficial. Marion Mandel, Vice President representing Neighbors Abroad, said Neighbors Abroad, Palo Alto's official Sister City organization, was pleased to present to --the Council the 15 students from Oaxaca, although only 14 were present. It was the 21st year of the exchange with the Sister City of _Oaxaca, and during all of that time relationships were formed which were long-lasting. Families still communicated with their brothers and sisters, and sons and daughters over the years. People went to Oaxaca and participated in the weddings of their brothers and sisters, and the same thing happened with Oaxacans who came to Palo Alto. When students came back from Oaxaca, they referred to their mothers and fathers, and meant their, Oaxacan ones , and vice versa. They were glad the City of Palo Alto decided to enter into the program. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb, Witherspoon absent. Mayor Levy presented framed copies of the Resolution to all the yuestS. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Renzel removed Item #7, Ordinance re OR, CN, and CS Districts. Councilmember Klein advised that he would not participate on Item #5, Ordinance_ re Development; Moratoria in the Downtown Area; and Item #6, Ordinance re Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations. MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Consent Calendar. None Referral Action ITEM ,112, SEWAGE TRANSPORTAT ION , TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL, LOS ALTOS HILLS (Uft C (CMR : 438 5 ) Staff recommends that Council authorize the. Mayor to execute the Amendment No. 6 on behal f of, the City. AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO AGREEMENT PAR \\ SEWAGE TRANSPORTATION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL Town of Los Altos .Kill s ITEM #3, RESOLUTIONS RE MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL/HOURLY COMPENSA- TION PLANS (PER 2-1) (CMR:457:5) Staff proposed Council approval of the resolutions adopting com- pensation plans for Management and Council Appointees, Confiden- tial Personnel and Hourly Employees, and the resolution amending the Merit System Rules and Regulations to delete Section 709. Fu- nding for amending these plans has been included in the 1985-86 budget. In resolution 6416, the control point and salary data for the Assistant City Clerk was incorrectly listed in the City of Palo Alto Compensation Packet and the correct listing should be: Class No. (109); Title `Assistant City Clerk); Grade Code (48); Control Point (2,712); Approx. Annual; (32,552); Approx. Bi-Weekly (1,252); and Approx. Hourly (15.65). RESOLUTION 6416 AS AMENDED, entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL a1= THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL AND COUNCIL -APPOINTED OFFICERS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 6303, RESOLUTION 6317, RESOLUTION NO. 6344, RESOLUTION NO. 6349, AND RESOLUTION NO. 5400" RESOLUTION 6417 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLO ALTO ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 6283" RESOLUTION 6418 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR HOURLY PERSONNEL AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION N0. 6151" RESOLUTION 6419 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PKLO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE MERIT SYSTEM RULES AND REGULATIONS BY DELETING SECTION 709" ITEM #4, ORDINANCE RE CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING DISTRICT "AD VALOREM" ASSESSMENT RATE 1985-86 (PLA 4-5-4-2)`(CMR:447:5) Staff recommends ,the City Council adopt the ordinance fixing 1985- 86 ad valorem assessment rate for the California Avenue Parking District. ORDINANCE 3624 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE C Ii'( or PALO ALTO FIXING AN ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985-86 FOR THE CALIFORNIA AVENUE DISTRICT OFF-STREET PARKING PROJECT NO. 55-5" ITEM #5, ORDINANCE RE DEVELOPMENT MORATORIA IN DOWNTOWN AREA (2nd Reading) (PLA 7-2) ORDINANCE 3625 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CTTY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING AND EXTENDING THE ORDINANCES IMPOSING DEVELOPMENT MORATORIA IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA" (1st Reading 7/15/85, PASSED 7-0, Witherspoon absent, Klein not participating) ITEM #6, ORDINANCE RE OFF—STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS (2nd Reading) (PLA 7-2) ORDINANCE 3626 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL Of THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3502 REGARDING OFF-STEET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS IN A SPECIFIFED AREA OF DOWNTOWN PALO ALTO" (1st Reading 7/15/85, PASSED 7-0, Witherspoon absent, Klein not participating) 6 1 2 5 8/05/85 ITEM ;#8, ORDINANCE RE EVERGREEN/SOUTHGATE PERMIT PARKING (2nd Read i ny) (PLA 7-9-2 1 ORDINANCE 3627 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING UHAPTER 10.46 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH ESTABLISHES A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING AREA IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE SOUTHGATE AND EVERGREEN PARK NEIGHBORHOODS TO EXTEND THE VALIDITY OF THE PARKING PERMITS" (1st Reading 7/22/85, PASSED 8-0, Witherspoon absent.) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Klein not pa.rtici pating" on Item 05, Ordinance re Development Moratoria in Downtown Area, and Item 06, Ordinance re Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations, -Cobb, Witherspoon absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Mr. Zaner replied that Item #7,_ -_Ordinance re OR, CN, and CS Districts, would become Item #13-A. Councilmember Kenxel added Item #15, re Ballot Arguments. ITEM #9, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE ZONING UROINANC AM NOM N E ER INING AIRPORT USES IN THE PF DISTRICT, HOTELS HAVING ROD -RS WITH KITCHENS, AND CHEMI L S R GE FACILITIES (PLA 7-9) (CMR:454 Counciiriiember Klein asked for clarification regarding the hotel kitchen material because the more he read the more he got con- fused. He believed the question was whether there was an .issue. He asked how the proposed change would make a difference to a proposed hotel developer in the downtown or on El Camino. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said currently the Zoning Ordinance did not allow any hotel operation in the City if more than ten percent of the rooms had kitchens. The City was contacted by prospective hotel developers interested in building hotels with higher than ten percent with kitchens. The: developers believed the market was going that way; more people wanted suites with kitchen facilities in their rooms when they were going to stay for longer periods. Staff did not believe there was jusification for the ten percent number, and suggested there be no such limitation on rooms with kitchens. Councilmember Klein understood that part. By making the change, he asked whether the Council encouraged, or was neutral with regard to, potential conversion of existing apartment buildings to hotels. • He believed the now President Apartments, formally President Hotel, was a classic example-. Mr. Brown said the President Apartments could convert at any time to a hotel simply by removing 90 percent of the kitchens. Councilmember Klein. asked about the cost to remove _a kitchen from a unit Mr. Brown did not know that. Councilraember Klein _imagined it would be $5,000 to #10,000 to rip out a kitchen. He realized it would cost more to put one :in, and asked what constituted removal of the kitchen. unit constituted Mr. Drown said the kitchen ,Councilmember Klein. clarified ..a •stove would be taken out, but leaving' the refrigerator was okay,. Mr. Brown : repl l ed a I 2. 6 8/05/85 Councilmember Klein asked if in the President Apartments situa- tion, removal of 90 percent of the kitchen units • would auto- matically allow them to become a hotel . Mr. Brown said with a use permit, removal of all kitchens would allow the conversion without any City approvals. Planning Commissioner Mark Chandler understood the current down- town parking ordinance which kept being extended in conjunction with the Downtown Moratorium also would require an upgrade in the amount of parking provided on the site to what would be required under the new use. Generally, if it switched from one commercial use to another, more parking was not required, but the parking ordinance provided that when changing from a residential use to a commercial use, parking had to be provided to meet the commercial use's demand. He did not know whether the President Apartments Presently had sufficient parking to do that. Councilmember Klein clarified the President Apartments was not an applicant. He .asked if staff concurred with Commissioner Chandler' s remarks. Mr. Brown said not necessarily. The conversion from an apartment to a hotel would probably be a less intensive parking use. In terrors of parking for residential , a one -bedroom required one space per unit. A two -bedroom unit required two spaces per unit. The hotel would require one space per unit so there might be a reduc- tion in the parking requirement. There might not be an additional requirement placed on a conversion such as that. Commissioner Chandler said for any existing apartment use in a CC or other commercial area which presently did not have sufficient parking, upon conversion, it would have to provide the amount required. For instance, if a given building was currently in apartment use with ten parking spaces available because it was not built with parking, but it had 30 units, 30 parking spaces would be required for a hotel use, and it would have to come up with 20 additional spaces before it could convert. It was true the 30 for the hotel use might be less than the 50 that would theoretically be required if it were built new today as apartments, but it would nonetheless have to add the additional spaces upon conversion. Councilmember Klein believed they were going down a path that was irrelevant to the issue before Council because, if what staff was saying was correct, it would be true on any conversion regardless of the discussion of kitchens, Commissioner Chandler aglaeed from residential to commercial Councilmember Klein asked, using the President Apartments as an example, whether staff was saying that under the existing ordi- nances, the President could shift from apartment to: hotel without any City approvals being required, ignoring the parking for the moment, as long as they took out all of the kitchens. Mr. Brown said that ,as correct. Councilmember Klein .w;,aid no City approvals would be required if all, kitchens were rembved. They would need. City approval if they took Out all but ten percent. Mr. Brown said that was correct. -Councilmember Klein clarified it would be subject to a,use permit, and asked- staff what their = standards would he in granting the use permit Mr. Brown said the standard would would be whether it was detrl'mental to property in the general vicinity and whether it conformed with the Comprehensive Pl an 6`1 2:7 8/05/85 Councilmember Klein wondered if Council had the wrong issue before them that nlyht. He was concerned about the ease at which an apartment could shift to a hotel. It was not the issue before the Council, and the kitchen issue seemed to him to be a minor one compared to the greater one of trying to prevent a loss of resi- dential units. He asked whether the staff and Planning Commission focused on what could be done to prevent the shift, which he reyarded as detrimental, from apartment buildings to hotels. Director of Planning and Community Environment- Ken Schreiber agreed it was a legitimate issue in the downtown that could be addressed further to study the specific regulations that would apply since the existing situations would be in the downtown area. There might be some other residential uses in that type of cate- gory, but the bulk would be in the downtown. Councilmember Renzei said if Council . made the change in the ordi- nance and someone could change an apartment building into a hotel oy simply removing the stoves, once it was a hotel , could the stoves be put back in and a condominium subdivision made. Mr. Brown believed it would be possible, Councilmember Renzel asked in regard to chemical storage, if what it did was basically allow any building to have 2;500 additional square feet for chemical storage. She asked if there was any way to limit the :additional square footage to those buildings which existed right then. In other words, was there an added part to .the ordinance to encourage the containment of chemicals in circum- stances where it would otherwise not presently be permitted. If Council did not somehow limit the ordinance, it seemed to her someone could build a new building and conveniently forget to do their chemical storage until a little bit later, thereby getting another 2,500 square feet of offices, or laboratory space, etc., even though it was relatively small. If she were a developer, she would not build_ the chemical storage initially, but would wait until the offices were built and then return. She believed it was contrary to the current trend of thinking and wondered if there was a way to limit it to buildings with no floor are ratio remaining at that point in - time. Mr. Brown said the ordinance could be rewritten to allow exemption only for square footage up to 2,500 square feet, which would be beyond the .4 or maximum floor area ratio in any given Lit dis- trict. However, he believed those were inspected and controlled better than -any other buildings n the City since the Fire Depart- ment was involved in the review of those buildings and the per- mittiny for the storage of chemicals, and was involved in the annual inspection of those structures. He believed there would be sari nyent inspection `: of those structures if they were used for chemical storage. Councilmember Renee] was not worried about whether they would be used for chemical storage. She clarified her question was whether it permitted the company to have the additional square footage for that purpose when they were not permitted to have the additional square footage for offices. For example, the building was 2,500 square feet below their floor area ratio, they .were gang to chose to',bui l d -.their office space, or their manufacturing space, with that 2,b00 square feet because they knew next week they could go in and ask for their chemical storage and be exempted b,y the lit-- tle extra amount. The idea was whether there was some way to limit it to hardship cases that existed as of that point in time, so they could hot create their, hardship case by going, in later and asks ny for chemical storage. In :: other words, if they built 2,500 square feet of - space between the present and when . they wanted their chemical storage, that was it. They could not do it Was. there a way to structure the ordinance to do that. Councilmember Fletcher referred back to the hotels and kitchens, and asked whether it was possible to write the ordinance that was applicable only to new construction, so existing residential units would not be converted. Mr, brown said yes, Councilmember. Klein asked with regard to Councilmember Renzel's question, whether it was possible to limit the 20500 square foot addition to existing buildings, and how staff expected to accom- pl ish it. Mr. Brown said his initial consideration was staff would exempt the 2,500 square feet from counting towards floor area, ratio for those projects which were either at or above the floor area ratio limit. He was not certain, however, it would do exactly what Councilmember Renzel suggested. Councilmember Klein was not certain either because he believed Council had advice from staff in the past that they could not discriminate so drastically between existing buildings and build- inys to be built in the future. City Attorney Diane Lee believed the difference was the City was Ovine something extra to somebody in order to allow them to meet a requirement the City imposed for health and safety reasons. In order to encourage conipl iance, they were in- a sense giving a bonus. The bonus was not necessary for buildings that were not constructed because they would be designed in such a way that they did not exceed the maximum floor area ratio; whereas there was a problem with existing buildings. Councilmember Klein said that was fine, and clarified that staff could put language in the ordinance that said it only applied to buildings that were in existence as of August 5, 1985. Ms. .Lee said it could be something to that effect. It might not be worded in precisely that way. She believed staff would have to give some thought as to how precisely they wanted to word it but it would accomplish the goal , Councilmember Klein asked if the gist of it would be precisely what he said. Ms. Lee said yes. Councilmember Woolley hypothesized that Building A was to be built next year and the occupant did not require chemical storage. Ten years down the road the building changed hands and the new use required space for chemical storage. She asked what would happen in that case if it were built out to the full extent. Ms. Lee said if the ordinance had a cut-off date for buildings that were in existence as of that date, it would not apply to .the hypothetical building. There would be no exemption for their chemical storage facility. They would have to apply for a vari- ance. Councilmember Woolley clarified that .al ready-bei i t . space woul o have to be converted for that purpose. Countilmember Renzel said- Councilmember Woolley actually :refined Councilmember Klein's question aelittle bit. She did hot want---- p0-vela to use . up their remai hi ng. floor area ratio to, build their empl oy:► ent-gene rating part of ` thel r companies_ and then returnretterne to Council later .far . the,i-r. 2e-500 bonus chem.ical, -storage. It :'seemed 'to her at the --:'poi pt they., heeded chemical storage, :If -they -had used up thei r floor; area, ratio fro the present time forward-, they had to convert thei-t sparce`, they had to --do the -chemical >storage'. It seemed to her :to go *ith the territory: Councilmember Sutori us believed there was a "Catch 22" situation in that the regulations requi red separate chemical storage for reasons of it being a hazard. The situation would not exist where developers used their square footage within the existing building, it was al ready built to capacity; or, in many situations, they rniyht be in excess of what the LM allowed because the Lei's were revised downward from time to time. He did not see how the situa- tion would occur where they converted, something within their facility. They would have to destroy something and el iminate square footage. He did not believe that was fair or real istic to expect, and hoped the City was not headed toward a change that would make that the prospect, MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Sections 8 and 9 be amended to state the 2,500 square feet addi- tion be allowed for chemical storage apply only to existing build- ings as of August 5, 1985. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled °ORDINANCE OF Dir. COUNCIL Of THE CITY OF PLb ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 Or THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING CODE) REGARDING AIRPORT -RELATED USES, HOTEL ROOMS WITH KITCHENS AND CHEMICAL STORAGE FACILITIES' Councilmember Klein clarified the additional 2,500 square feet would apply to building existing as of August 5, 1985. He asked if that was sufficient direction to staff. Mr. Brown asked whether it was existing buildings, or existing buildings currently at or in excess of the floor area allowed by the zoning. Councilmember Klein said the latter. Mayor Levy declared the public hearing open. Receiving no re- quests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Renzel was al so concerned regarding change over from apartments to hotels by the kitchen limitation. It seemed Council should 1 ii0t it until they had further information about the implications for the multi -family housing in areas where hotels might be built. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, that amendments,.. relating to Motels be limited to. new .construc- tion. Councilmember Fletcher _saw no problem with instituting the change allowing kitchens in hotels as _long as Council safeguarded the existing multi -family developments. She believed it was probably - a positive move that allowed people to stay in hotels a little longer rather than have such a quick turnover. There was a pressing need for that kind of a facility in the area. Counci lmember Klein .wo ul d not support the amendment primari 1 y because it did not accomplish anything along the lines being. "dis cussed. He supported the goals, but was concerned about the potential to convert existing apartments, which the City was in desperate need for, to hotels, _ which it was not " in such desperate need for. All it meant was that a potential converter only had to yank out a few more kitchens, which would not be a big impediment, especially since they now knew that : to yank out a kitchen just meant removing the stove. If one was going to take out 90 percent of ,the stoves, achy not; take out 100 percent of the stoves and get. to the same, place. He preferred Council reject the amendment and pass a .motion to direct staff and the Planning COMM ission to.- con- sider the:. problem and report back to Council as soon as possible with the intention draft ion. that Council ; would something -. with teeth to; prevent- Such conversions_ from apartments to hotel sf Councilmember Bechtel believed Council was beyond the hasic issue. There was some validity to passing the present motion and simul- taneously yetting into the other issue. Except for the hotel/ apartments, which actually went from a hotel to an apartment building, she did not know of any other case in Palo Alto where an existing apartment building was converted to a hotel It seemed that in order to be truly marketable, . they needed to: do more than just remove a kitchen to make it a hotel. The ki nd of apartment buildinys might not have the kind of access that made them attrac- tive to people who wanted hotel -type living as opposed .- to apartment -type living. The only reason someone would want to convert from an apartment building to a hotel building would be to yet increased dollars per night,. and one would not get increased dollars per night unless it was Made suitable and acceptable to a potential hotel resident. She did not believe simply removing a stove would be that attractive. She believed Councilmember Klein might also be speaking to a non -issue. She supported the amendment.. Mayor Levy said his experience was that motels were converted to longer term residences, i.e., motels occupied by people for a week, two weeks or three weeks while on a short-term stint in the Bay Area; or they might be converted as the President and Cardinal were into essentially permanent long-term apartment living. He believed the Planning Commission recommendation made sense in terms of what he saw as being in the best interests of the com- munity. Councilmember Renzel was particularly concerned that next door to the President another hotel was being built and was under the same or similar owners. If Council passed the ordinance and it applied to existing construction, they could convert more readily by not having to move out the stoves. At least if they had to move out the stoves, it might be a minor impediment. It seemed to her the situation was serious. Council went to great lengths, in multi- family zones to prevent conversion of existing rental units, and there was a case before the Council where someone could readily convert an apartment house to a hotel by a small physical man- euver. She wanted to keep the physical maneuver until the protec- tions proposed by Councilmember Klein were in place. She believed Mayor Levy perceived that many motels and hotels were converted to longer term occupancy, but she was not sure it was apt to happen in at least one case. She hoped Council would keep protections in place, however small for preventing any kind of ready conversi on of housing, particularly one which provided housing for the :elderly. Councilmember Sutorius associated himself with the comments of Councilmember Klein and believed he was correct in quoting from the Planning Commission minutes that staff reported to the Commission that in the new hotel under construction, none of the rooms were designed to include kitchens. So, the logic expressed was erroneous because it was not the direction the hotel was headed. He . asked if that was what was reported to the Planning Commission. Mr. Brown said the new. hotel on Cowper Street did not include any kitchens. Councilmember Sutorius=would not support the amendment._. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 4.3, Klein, Levy, Sotorhhs voting `no,* Cobb, Witherspoon obsent. Councilmember Woo11ey asked about the "amount of .square footage. needed for hazardous material storage, and whether 2,500 square feet was unusually large. Mr. Brown believed 2,500 square feet was a reasonable maximum size for a fairly large chemical storage facility, 6 1.3 1 8/05/85 Cuunc..ilmember Woolley clarified .that 2,5OU square feet would he adequate, and an operation might well need a smaller amount. She clarified that if a building changed ownership and the new occu- pant. needed a storage facility, and did not have it, and the building was already built out to the maximum, the occupant would have to demolish a' .section of their original building and build the storage facility at some distance from that building. Mr. Brown said that was correct. Mayor levy said the ordinance before the Council was changed in two ways. It was amended such that items related to hotel s woul d be limited to new construction, and the item related to chemical storage facilities would apply only to existing buildings that were -already at the maximum allowed . square footage. The motion would be divided for purposes; of voting. Council would first start with . Section 4 of the ordinance which related to airports and airport -related uses. F IRST PART OF MOTION RELATED TO AIRPORTS AND AIRPORT -RELATED USES PASSED unanimously, Cobb, Witherspoon absent. Mayor Levy said Sections 5 and 6 of the ordinance applied to hotels with kitchen facilities limited to new construction. SECOND PART OF MOTION RELATED TO HOTELS AND KITCHEN FACILITIES AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 6-1, Sutorius voting "no," Cobb, Witherspoon absent. Mayor Levy said Sections 7, 8, and 9 related to the construction o•f chemical storage facilities and applied only to existing buildings which were now at the maximum allowed square footage. THIRD PART OF MOTION RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF CHEMICAL STORAGE FACILITIES AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 5-2, Woolley, Sutorius voting "r:o,M Cobb, Witherspoon absent. MOTION; Counci1member Klein moved, seconded by Renzel that staff and the Planning Commission investigate whether adequate safeguards exist with regard .to conversion of apartments to hotels under the present zoning ordinance. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb, Witherspoon absent. ITEM #1O, PUBLIC HEARING: MORATORIUM ON ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMITS BUILDING EMITS, AND VARIA ICtS ON SUBSTANDARD Les T Tilt R-1 " N LL G E R N IGHB RH OD PL -1c6 (CMR': 453: 5) . . . Planning Commissioner Mark Chandler said the Commission responded to a resubdivision of the existing neilghborhood with lots cur- rently used for one home, or pieces of land being used for one home, being broken into the smaller underlying legal parcels with the existing home being raised. The Planning Commission con- sidered the issue of substandard lots generally around the com- munity and decided the situation in College Terrace was unique because of the resubdiv isian aspects, and did not recommend it be. applied to the scattered substandard lots existing throughout the community. The Commission received testimony which indicated the present trend was likely to accelerate. The issue was raised by an existing development and one in the rudimentary planning stages. - The. Commission received testimony that other - land owners were sot kited for similar types of development , and at the Commission's meeting with staff, they were unable to determine whether a certain, lot wlth only one address was composed of smaller lots. The answer was received by a member of the audience i e ilved in thedevelopment process, which lead the Cow missi on to believe there was the potential for''the, status quo to not remain. When the Cemmi'ssion considered the floor area ratio . for the single- family :,, zone genera °1 l y,_ many > Co em i s s i one rs hoped to 5 13 2 8/05/85 simultaneously come up with restrictions for substandard lots_ that would obviate the need for a moratorium. As the discussion pro gressed, it was e apparent that the -Commission was unincl fined to recommend :any change based on its information. Therefore, more study was needed, particularly for the substandard lots. Be -cause the Commission received some citizen letters, he emphasized the recommendation was for a limited moratorium which would not affect remodels or additions to existing residences. Because of that fact, the moratorium would be limited in its effect almost excl u- sively to the resubdivision activity now being seen. Councilmember Woolley said that since the Commission` s discussion on the relationship between the bulk of the house to the size of the lot was the previous Wednesday night, she asked for a-- brief summary. Commissioner Chandler said a lot of testimony was received from citizens, who believed a problem existed with the bulk of new homes, and constructive testimony was received from designers about the implications of floor area ratio relative to other sorts of restrictions that might be useful for solving the- problem. The Commission believed there was a need to better define the problem perceived in the community and try to determine whether Council wanted to go ahead and think about other kinds of restrictions that might solve the problem. The Commission received a slide presentation from Mr. Brown at the first meeting which showed various houses, and many Commissioners were struck by the fact that their reactions to the homes with respect to its impact on its neighbors, etc. was not necessarily strongly correlated to the floor area ratio. For that reason, the Commission requested that staff list the suggestions made at the meeting the previous week and report back to the Council for direction as to how to pro- ceed. Councilmember Woolley said the staff report referred to the need for legal research to determine whether something could be done to see that multiple lots now being used for one residence could stay that way. She asked if anything else had transpired since the report was written. City Attorney Diane Lee said no. Her office needed to get together with the planning staff and define which direction to go and how to proceed. Counci1member Woolley asked if anyone knew of other cases where multiple lots being used for one residence were being considered as a site for two or -three residences. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber was unaware of, any other examples. Councilmember Woolley asked whether staff analyzed whether it made sense economically to buy a residence, tear it down, and build two or three. Mr^. Schreiber said it depended on'\many factors. In College Terrace, it appeared to rake economic sense. Mayor Levy declared the pubic hearing open. He read the following comments into the record. Mr. and Mrs Norman° B. Ti ndal a (whose letter is on file . in the City Clerk's office) owned property :r.in College Terrace and were concerned about the trend to crowd residences on narrow lots, and as in the case of the _ Bowdoi n Street ; property, the subject of the article in the' Palo Alto Weekly, on duly 10, about the use by= developers of - architectural design completely inharmonious with she character of the netghoorhood The crowding also jeopardized_ the,.. quality of the landscaping which = helped -to make the area unique. It seemed the developers, only considered the maximum return from rentals, In many cases, they did not plan to make their homes in Palo Alto, but wanted to take commercial advantage of high rental returns from. Stanford University and the industrial park. Councilmember Klein was concerned about .the precedent of reading letters into the record. Many people wrote letters to the Council which never got read into the record, ,and he was not sure why the Council should distinguish between those and the present people just because they had made a request. ,4n some issues the Council got hundreds of letters. Mayor Levy said the point was well taken. Councilmember Klein clarified the Council read the letters they received, but he was bothered by reading them into the record. Councilmember Fletcher suggested if the letters were not yet seen by the Council , she would accept the gist of the letters. Mayor Levy suggested he pass them co the Council . Counci 'member Fletcher believed that would be acceptable. Vi v i anna Toole, 2045 Bowdoin, l ived on one of three cottages owned by Isabel Rose, and lived close to where two big condomiel ums were recently built. She heard the property e yxt door was bought and the same person - who built those condominiums was interested in bulldiny more buildings there. Mrs. Rose told her about people who approached her about selling her property which was on the street. She introduced Mrs. Rose to tell about the incident. Isabel Rose, 586 Loma Verde, owned three lots on Bowdoin Street in College Terrace. She recently had someone go to her house unan- nounced trying to get her to sell at that 'moment including some offeriny of money as to what the price might be. She did not want to sell her properties. Her tenants were happy and she wanted it to continue. Me. Toole said some went to Mrs. Rose' house, pressed her into trying to sell the property and flashed many bi 1 1 s in her face and said they would be back. She was concerned about what was going on and believed a moratorium might give the City, an opportuity to see what was happeniny. Terry Unyer, 2095 Bowdoin Street, said she just moved to Palo Alto and purchased a brand new, beautiful home on Bowdoin Street. She 1 ived alone and it was important for her to have a home which was safe, well-built, well -designed, and one which she would not have to move out of for a long time. She moved into her home that week and was a proud, happy, and content new homeowner.. She looked forward to many happy years in Palo Alto and hoped she could, become a contributing member of the community. She was distressed when she received in the mail yesterday the notice of a pending moratorium which would block, or prolong the situation next to her. The old building was about two feet, from her new, well-built fence. It was a back -of -the -lot -building, a cross between a tumbledown _ barn, a garage, or .: a sheo, and was a ` fire hazard to her. Site did not want to worry about:- a hazard Now she was told there would be a moratorium to study whether the property next : to her should be sustained in: its condition, or whether it would be removed and- another nice new home built there. She was afraid that the alma should be not who was going to live next door, but the condition of the building itself, its safety, and the life- time. Lisa Pearson,. 910 S California Avenue, opposed the moratorium. Her main objection was: it seemed overbroad, particularly the` pro- hibition of ail new -building' for one year, with no exception: Made for a fire of . a residence and no right of an owner, to rebuild under the present wording.._. The concern seemed . to focus on the 6 13 4 8105 /85 demolition of existing structures rather than rebuilding of new structures. She was also concerned about the definition of lot sizes. used and its sweep of all substandard lot sizes. .The con- cern again seemed. to be on the 25 -foot lot sizes. Many of the lots in College Terrace were two, 25 -foot lot sizes, or 50 -foot lot sizes. Yet they would still be defined as substandard and no building could take place on them, or rtiirnodeling with variance, because they used the City-wide definition of 60 -foot by 100 -foot lot sizes being necessary before one was exempted out of the ord l e nance. As one looked at ,College Terrace, it perhaps involved ten residences in the whole College Terrace area. It was hard to ascertain since the city recognized its lot 'map was not necessar- ily up-to-date in terms of designating the true " boundaries and current subdivision status of lots , but she believed it was fair to say that approximately 90 percent of College Terrace . would be affected by the moratorium and a standstill would be imposed upon any kind of activity .on those lots that fell within the definition of the moratorium. She opined the inclusion of variances on all construction in the area on substandard lots again was overbroad. Some variances did not increase, or have an impact on the over- building problem, which she took to be the concern at that point. As suggested by Ms. Unger, some -new building could give a needed facelift to the area. She suggested the City -target its concerns rather than calling a halt to things that might improve .the character of_ College Terrace for a year. She suggested that Council focus its concern on where there' was destruction followed by -proposed rebuilding„ rather than any new rebuilding for fire or. -other reasons, and on what kind of rebuilding was objectionable. Lot size -should also be appropriately defined. If eit was the 25 -foot lots that Council was concerned about , then limit the moratorium to that, She suggested an allowance for an i nd i v id ual consideration of variances to see whether the proposed remodels would have an adverse impact to the ambiance of College Terrace, or that might upgrade it. She believed the proposals would keep the integrity of the area plus allow some reasonable opportunity for families to live in Palo Alto. Ui l 1 Sayer, 2295 Cornell Street, said six years ago he and his wife purchased a smal l , by the current proposed moratorium, sub- standard lot and talked earnestly with City officials because they knew the house they were purc.htsing would require some additional buildin g They understood at that time there was current ordi- nances which defined living area -versus lot size ratio, The cur- rent ordnance would allow them to do . the building they wanted, or would want in the future. They were al so told about variance rules in the City that if their neighbors agrO.ed they had some -- thing,.' and had no problems with the variance, it could be granted. He took the same position as Ms. Pearson. He got the feeling he was a mernbor of a class of about 70, and two or three people in the class misbehaved, and everyone was kept out of school and put into a bailiwick they did not want to be in. He urged the pro- posed moratorium .might be overly broad although he understood from Coramissioner Chandier that he did not believe it was as broad as indicated by the paperwork. If Council was concerned about demo- lition and rebuilding, and if there must be a moratorium, with. which he disagreed, he suggested it be limited 'to demolition and rebuilding. The character of College Terrace was one of variety and there were undoubtedly many different opinions as to who pre- ferred to demolish which buildings. It seemed the moratorium, as phrased : in: the paperwork, provided the residents was overly broad and would limit their freedom and rights. Daryl Pearson,;. 737 Mayfield Avenue, owned property on Bowdoin Street, He suggested Council request that staff provide a separate count on lot sizes beginning with Cornell and running up through Amherst Street .'because over the last 50 years, large apartment houses were l earl l y built down between El Camino and down as far as Cornell. That figure could be, pertinent to < what Council ultimately decided. There were many lots in College Terrace where two, 25=logs were combined,, and the number of 8/.05/85 6. 1 3,5 r 60-fooL lots in Colleye Terrace were virtually nonexistent. By using the 60 by 100 and saying enything .less was substandard, it would obviously make property owners have to own three 25 -foot lots. The staff report indicated it would be necessary to deter- mine if there were leyal methods to require multiple substandard lots under common ownership to be treated as if they were not sub- divided_, He owned two contiguous 25- by 125- lots. Each had a two -bedroom. one bath house on i t . Both houses were built within the last 15 years and were meticulously maintained. For, economic reasons, they were not candidates foe demo. ition. They were ideal cottayes for a young family with children who could have a lot_ and garden. If because there was coonon ownership, he was l rev�ented from selling one and would instead have to sell two, he did not believe that was fair. Leonard Kurland, owned 1281 Stanford Avenue, for 12 years, but resided in Rochester, Minnesota. i=or the price he paid, he could not appreciate the concept that his was a substandard lot. It. happened to be 50 by about 150 feet, over 7,000 square feet, but the house on the lot was the type that Ms. Unger described next to hers. It was over 70 years old, and they intended to do something with it. He anti his wife were seriously considering moving to Palo Alto and the lot on retirement from his present position in the next year- and--a-half, and had started plans for reconstruc- tion. The moratorium would prevent them from doing that. He fully agreed with Ms. Pearson's comment about the 25 -foot lot. If the problem was with 25 -foot lots, he suggested consideration should be restricted to those lots. If there was contiguous own- ership on two, 25 -foot lots then, as far as he was concerned, he always thought of it as one lot. Half the house was on one and part of the house was on the other lot, so they were treated as one lot. As it now stood, he opposed the moratorium. With the information available to the Planning Commission and the knowledge and experience of the Council, decisions could be made more quick- ly than a year. He read about the need for additional personnel but feared moratoria had: a way of perpetuating themselves and any- thing more than six months was totally unreasonable. Considera- tion should be given to the problem; the problem was 25 -foot lots, and the timing need not be as long for a so-called study because so much of the information was available. Paul Murphy, 1540 College, said: right across from them was a bungalow, which a dentist had tried to buy for several years from the owner, an elderly lady, who would not allow it. He finally purchased a house near Oregon. Some new people were going to move in for $800 a month, but the lady did not want to sell and he believed she hoped for better and bigger things. Next door was a house which was a perfect target for demolition, and next to that was a vacant lot on the corner. There was a lot of land there which was a perfect target. He was tired of being a target, or feeling like their area was a target. He was concerned about trying to shoehorn people into Palo Alto for monetary purposes. He sympathized with developers and contractors, 1 aborers, and so on, but did not believe those needs should be met at the expense of residents. He was impressed by the number of people who al- ready spoke that evening. It was a carefully -orchestrated pro- eram. He was ;impressel and a bit scared because some interested people were determined. He saw . people poised to fracture the character of their simple, modest neighborhood unless there was a moratorium to consider, the results Jane 8avel as,% 1314 College, lived in and owned the house on a sub- standard lot. She was interested in the question Counciim ber Woolley asked about : the economics of the whole procedure, but did not believe Council cp ld legislate whether people wanted to make. money out of something: She pointed out that two ugly houses put -too, close together in the neighborhood would soondestroy the eco- nomic value that: people put on , living in College Terrace. If the neighborhood wound up with wall-to-wall, three-story houses and no landscaping, it would be as attractive economically as it was at 6 1 3 6 8/05/85 present, Some lone -range protection of the economic values has involved in the whole issue of keeping the neighborhood status quo. She sympathized with Ms. Unger' s statement about her new house. She moved into a neighborhood she liked, in a house ' she liked, and found there was a lot of controversy about it. How- ever, there were differing views about the house next door to Ms. Unger. It was not a wreck at the time the two new houses were put up. It was being happily occupied by a family that was there for a long time. It was in fairly good shape until the construction that took place and the change in ownership. She heard people ask why it was not on the list of historic houses in Palo Alto. There was a difference of opinion about the appearance of those houses in College Terrace, but Council could address the issue of how neiyhbor3 were affected. Marilyn Nagy, 2260 Hanover, lived in a beautiful , small cottage and wanted to protect College Terrace. She was wary of regula- tions and moratoriums. She agreed with people whose experience was that moratoria could so easily be extended. Section 3 of the proposed moratorium said that one may remodel but without a vari- ance on an existing property. In fact, on a 25 -foot wide lot, it amounted to a prohibition. One could not remodel or build using the kind of setbacks and daylight plane without variances. Al- though one should be able to remodel , and not be subject to a punitive kind of regulation, a de facto prohibition would be incurred. She suygested the moratorium be reworded so it was not so punitive to presently -existing homes and homeowners in the area. David Larirer, 2284 Bowdoin Street, was one of the so-called rich developers everybody was talking about. He clarified a point that Mr. Chandl er made concerni ng whether there was some ki nd of a question if one house was on one, two, or three parcels, legal lots existed. There were clearly three legal lots on the proposed property they were talking about; legally subdivided lots. He was opposed to the moratorium and the prohibition of tearing down a building that was almost falling down on its own. He invited anybody in the room to go through the buildings on Bowdoin Street they were looking at, and it was pretty evident that they could not be brought up to Code. It would be easier to tear the build- ing down and rebuild it exectly as it was, and it would be cheap- er. He was also opposed to the discriminatory action which was aimed at one specific piece of property. It raised questions for people in all other areas of the neighborhood and issues that people wanted explored, but the main thiny was the City government was tryi ny to call a moratorium on building, and it was being directed at one specific property which he believed was a gross violation ofthe property rights of the owner of that lot. Colin Mick, 2130 Hanover Street, said the quality of a neighbor- hood was not necessarily determined by the quality ' and appearance of the dwellings that wade it up, and to worry that .one dwelling next door to another one was a detriment and caused a threat ignored the historic nature of what _ College Terrace was and the style of dwellings that were there. He lived in College Terrace for a long time and considered it to be one of the safest neigh- borhoods in Palo Alto, and his discussions with the Police Depart- ment bore that out. He favored the moratorium, but had a couple of questions. 1r :section 2, the definition of substandard lot he believed should be defined as 50 -feet which would be a more accurate reflection Of the average size lot in College Terrace. College Terrace was composed primarily of 25 -foot lots, and there were running down the middle of each of the major blocks, 30 -foot lots which were part of an historic easement for a street that at one time went through and was now represented by Cambridge and. Oxford at the lower end of the Terrace. Because, of that there 1 were d few lots that ran tttrauyh the meddle of each block which floated around 80 feet. He favored -some kind of moratorium because he was subjected :to a development similar to the ones discussed on Hanover Street where an older house was actually retained but one of the side dwell inys was demolished; and a small bui ldine was put up on a ..subdivided lot, in that case, there were .many trees in the area, and they mediated something of the change in the character. However, the development on Bowdoin Street so far had no mediation through landscaping and, as a result, they were an eyesore. -He favored changing substandard lots to 50 -feet, and was also concerned with Section 3 which apparently precluded any variances. There needed to be some room for variances. tither than those two chanyes, the moratorium should stand. Martha Platt, 2265 Bowdoin, supported the moratorium but agreed the definition of a substandard lot should be _anything less than 50 feet, not 60 feet, representing an awareness of the substruc- ture in the neighborhood which .was 25 feet. She looked at some of the block books for Upper College Terrace from the west side of Hanover through Amherst and found 38 lots equal to -or greater than 60 feet, and 77 lots equal to or -greater than 50 feet. That indi- cated' there were many 60 -foot or greater rots, but there were many more 50 -foot lots. To exempt the 77 people from Hanover on up, and a similar number down toward -El Camino, was inappropriate. With that dual ification,-- she supported the moratorium. College Terrace was vul nerabl a and that feeling was shared by many of the people who signed the petition to the Council (which is on file in the City Clerk's office) a month ago. There were 144 people from the Amherst, Bowdoin, and Columbia area who supported a morator- ium. If all the houses on multiple parcels were converted to ZS -foot townhouses or small houses-, there would be an increased density from 113 to 266 from the west side of Hanover up through Amherst alone. There was ar<- article in the Palo Alto Weekly about the development on Bowdoin Street in which the architect said, "I put two separate houses on one lot," and the editorial 'writer said that by drawing a new property line down the middle and putting a biy yaraye and basement underneath, the buyers (quote from the builder) , "...yot a lot of house. They sell for $280,000." She was concerned about the motivation of those who took advantage of the particular physical situation of College Terraced She sup- ported a moratorium with several Modifications as to minimum lot size and the variance point. Leien Prezbyl a, 2101 Middlefield Road, lived there for over 38 years and owned two houses in College Terrace at 2300 and 2308 Amherst, which, were one behind the other. The houses next door were also "one behind the other, and looked bad. They were in a nice orderly neighborhood. On the other side, facing the property on the left hand side, were two beautiful houses built one behind the other which looked very nice. He invited the Council and the Planning Commission to take a look before they made a decision. Look at his property at 2300 and 2308 Amherst and then make a decision on what was done. They were already shoehorned in. He wondered if the young man who spoke about it being a safe neigh- borhood knew about the College Terrace rapist who operated,. up there for about four years. He got in because the older homes had their electric outlets ; on the outside and he could disconnect them, whereas that could not be done with the newer ones. He wondered if Mrs. Rose knew that, if the ordinance was passed, her property would be virtually useless. Many years ago, when : Mr. Stanford was getting land for Stanford University, he wanted that land because it was the only land up and down El Camino that jutted up west of El Camino. Mr. Stanford bought land on both sides of El Camino but could not get ::,that. He took : the man to court and, during the two years it was in litigation, the man sub- divided the lots. It was a practice in thosedays up and down the Peninsula to copy .San Francisco. : "Seen Francisco was built largely on 25 -foot lots, which may be about 100 or so deep, and : so the lots were sold subdivided. Hee had two lots and mostly everyone. used two lots. There were one, two, or three exceptions and he wondered if the Planning Commission aaw that. By passing the moratorium, Council would restrict building on virtually all lots in College Terrace. He bought his lot many years ago when thej raised seven children. He realized he needed additional income in the future to put his seven children through col 1 ege, and as time went by his health failed and he was forced to retire and use the property as income. He had never advertised his places for rent in 24 years. He kept the rents low and the property up, Hi s properties did not look as nice as the newer ones, and maybe someday he would upgrade them. He al ways repaired the homes himself, and always maintained them along with his six sons, but he could no longer physically do the work, He might have to sell the property, but if Council passed the moratorium it would mean the val ue went down, and the income which he chose to use for retirement would no longer be his. He suggested Council not have the moratorium at all`. Tucker Stanwood, attorney at law, 2376 Bryant, represented Jean Almond, who wanted to reorient and develop the property on Bowdoin Street which was, he believed, the cause for the discussion. Council needed to figure out why and when a moratorium was neces- sary. One reason to impose a moratorium would be a trend in development that adversely impacted an area; or, the present zoning regulations, the present system, broke down and could not deal with sucn a trend on a case -by -case: basis. Council needed to look at whether there was a trend that night, and he believed the Commissioner was not objective when he reported the discussion held at the planning Commission the previous week. There was no mention during the discussion c, any rumors of development by developers swooping in on the area. His only comment was there was only one demolition in College Terrace over the last years, and that was Mrs. Almond's demolition on the property on Bowdoin where two single-family homes replaced it. Thera was only one application on record presently to demolish a property and that was by Mrs. Almond. In his mind, the action was totally directed to her. He was glad to hear there was some attempt to talk about rumor:; and vulnerability of College Terrace to outside developers, but it was simply not the case. No trend was out of control. One developer could be penalized under such a development. The devel- opment being proposed for College Terrace represented, on the particular property, the realignment of three lots into two lots. He had designs for the proposed two homes to be built within the framework of existing redwood rees and an old oak tree. Mrs. Almond tethered her designs based on public outcry over earlier applications, and there was no trend out of control because she was responsive to the desires of the community. The property was being bui 1 t on by David Larimer, who lived down the street There was no need for a moratorium; no trend had to be stopped . Case - by -case analysis could take care of any problems the Planning Commission or others had with Mrs. Almond's development. He believed the proposed moratorium was arbitrarily imposed on Mrs. Almond solely. its side effects would be to impose restrictions on others. One person spoke of a potential redevelopment of his property when he retired, but it was improper and an imposition on the City to place a`moratorium on College Terrace to the exclusion of the rest of the City. Judith Thielen„ 2120 Bowdoin Street, lived in College Terrace for 12 years because of the unique character of the neighborhood and the diversity of its residents. They were concerned about changes in the 1 ast few years. There was an increase in the . density of population and vehicles; houses were constructed that did not blend in with the existing structures or environment They saw the forcing out of lower and moderate income families because their homes were demolishedto . make way for new, _,expensive houses.; in the past year, two separate parcels were purchased on Bowdoin Street by an individua\l developer. A single-family dwelling was replaced with two large: structures that were incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood, and;<an existing, single-family home was proposed for demolition - to ,be`° replaced by`` three new structures. Renters of 15 years were forced out and given no option to pur- chase the property. As mentioned earlier, at least one other property on Dowdoin was approached by someone wanting to buy and redevelop her parcel which was made up of three substandard lots. There was a development trend and they were concerned about its effect on the character of the neighborhood and its population. They uryed that Council proceed with the moratorium in order to allow for careful consideration about the future of the sub- standard lots in Col 1 eye Terrace. R. B. i(av inoky, 2091 Cornell Street, owned property adjacent to College Terrace. He was indifferent on the moratorium, but if it went into effect, he urged the Council to require a ..little more. explanation as to what was permitted. For example, they owned three rentals and, if there was an earthquake or fire, as he understood things, the houses could not be rebuilt since they were on substandard lots. Even if the limit was dropped to a 50 -foot lot, then two could be rebuilt and one could not. He believed they were involved with an overkill. He agreed additional restraints might be needed on - what could be done in Palo Alto. There was a variety available in setbacks, side yards, daylight planes, -and floor area ratios, that made it possible to control whatever the City was trying to control. It was hard to accept the idea the City was trying to preserve something in College Terrace as it was probably one of the most fragmented residential areas in town. There was not a College Terrace style. People did what they thought needed to be done at the time. He owned what he understood was one of the five oldest houses in College Terrace, but it was not about to fall down, If Council adopted the mora- torium in its present form, it would preclude for the time of the moratorium one of the better ways of utilizing the 25 x 125 foot lots, which was to take the two and cut them into 50 by 62-1/2, It could not be done, and yet one would get a much better utili- zation of the property by doing it. Some areas needed to be studied, and he respected that staff needed time to respond to the Council's concerns. He suggested six months. :. A year was too long, although six months would probably require that Council set something else aside. COUNCIL RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION RE PERSONNEL 9:40-10:10 p.m. Mayor Levy declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Woolley said Council heard the word "variety" many times that night and, to her, it was the key to the Terrace. She biked over there on Sunday afternoon, went down the sidestreets, and found it interestiny that she felt impacted by the variety. From an aesthetic standpoint, there was some good architecture and some bad architecture. Two new add-ons, one at 2350 Harvard and anott'ere one at 2293 Princeton were handsome additions to the neighborhood. She checked with the neighbors on those buildings and they agreed. They had no problem even though those were large structures, they were done in a tasteful manners Therefore, she believed design had lot to do with it. It was not ,ust a matter of bulk. There were new residences; there were old ones --2310 Yale was older than anything else in Palo Alto -and went back. before Palo Alto was even founded. There were large residences; there were wall ones, and it was important to note the large residences were the ofd ones. The historic ones were some of the biggest in the Terrace. She suspected the reason for the ;.variety was largely - economics; when the earlier houses were built, they were built or spec in the late 080'x. Unfortunately for the people' who -built them, the area did not catch on and she believed only three Stanford' professors ended up living in the area in the early days. Most of them ended up in Professorville, preferring Palo Alto to Mayfield, so the area did ,.not take off. It was a gradual process. over the,; -years of developoaent, which was why there was so much variety in architecture. She believed the concern was about the size of houses that was being caused by the pri c.e of land in Palo Alto, Builders felt the need to put on more house per lot. The Planning Commission was addressing that problem and she did not see it as being unique to College Terrace. The dif- ference to her was there were two factors which made the sub- standard lots in College Terrace bearable: 1) It was an old area and there was a lot of mature landscaping. There were some lovely old oak trees, and other large trees that gave a feel ing of green- ery and softened all the buildings. 2) Not all the houses were built on the 25 -foot lots; many were on either two or three lots so sporadically there was more space around the structures. The real problem was they did not want to see properties that present- ly took up two or three lots be replaced bymore structures on the same amount of land. Rather than go about the ordinance as it was written which was overkill, she preferred that Council direct staff to prepare an ordinance which dealt strictly with one struc- ture being replaced with two or more structures on the same land. MOTION: Councilmember Woolley eoc A to direct staff to prepare an ordinance which placed a moratorium on replacing one structure with two or more on the same land. Council member Woolley said yes. Parts of the original ordinance, for example, the July 1st cutoff, could stay, but essentially staff would have to return to Council with a new motion which would not deal with the remodeling of existing structures. As expressed by many people that evening, she believed that was overly restrictive. If something was going to be done there was a pobl is hearing; there was a chance for further review, and she did not see that .Council should restrict that kind of activity. It needed to be studied with all of the City, and the cases that were received between then and when Council came up with a solution could be handled with the usual process. She believed the losing of open space was something Council needed to get at. Mayor Levy clarified that Councilmember Woolley did not want to move the ordinance before the Council but rather to deal with the question of a moratorium related to replacing one dwelling with more than one dwell ing on the same lot. Counci1member Woolley said not the same lot necessarily because she realized that in some cases, there was one dwelling on two lots. Mayor Levy clarified whether it was the same lot or"a combina- tion. Council member Woolley responded the same property or the land. NOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, aproval of the ordinance for first reading with the following changes: Deletion of the word 'variances* in .`Section 1; in Sec- tion 2, that definition of 'substandard lot'" be amended to read "a width of less than 50 feet or a depth of less than 100 feet:* and that Section 3 be amended to, add a period after the word *regula- tions,* and also deleting "and does not require an application for a variance.° ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING entitled *ORDINANCE OF THE rageTririiir ALTO IMPOSING A MORATORIUM IUM FOR. ONE MEAN ON THE PROCESSING OF . APPLICATIONS FOR UENNOLITION PERMITS BUILDING PERNITS, AND VARIANCES ON SUBSTANDARD LOTS IN THE , R-1 DISTRICT OF Tt : COLLEGE TERRACE AREA'. • Councilmember Bechtel said after listening to members of the pub - lit ;and thinking about what was, a substandard lot, she lived on staff's definition of a substandard ;lot, Her tot was 50 felt wide, which used to be standard in Palo Alto, apparently, 50 by 150 feet, and there were many parcels such as hers that- were built iaaybe 60 years ago. . With her motion, if an owner` wanted 'to remodel and apply for a variances it was part of a process with public hearing procedures, etc., and could be turned down if needed, but at least it allowed for those special circumstances. She needed guidance about how and where to allow an escape for. extraordinary circumstances such as fire or earthquake to replace an existing structure, if it could be in there, with the exact wording to,be put determined by the City Attorney. City Attorney Diane Lee pointed out some minor corrections to the ordinance. In Section 1, the: word "variances" should be deleted so essentially the Council was not putting a moratorium on all variances per se; -and in Section 3, she ended the sentence, she believed, a little too early. It should not just stop at the end of "may be' processed." It should go on to say, "...provided that any such remodeling or addition conforms to current zoning regula- tions." She believed the period should end there and Council should eliminate the section concerning the rest. She suggested keeping "-processed" where it was. She wanted to ensure there was One other spot related to variances. Just simply keep it to "pro- cessed" period as she had originally said, but the variance in Section 1 should be removed. Mayor Levy clarified the ordinance was moved with the following modifications: Section 1, delete the word "variances" which was the last word of the section; in Section 2, the definition of "substandard be modified to read "a width of less than 50 feet and a depth of less than 100 feet"; Section 3, a. period after the word "processed" to make it read "An application for remodeling or adding to an existing home may be processed." Finally, an addi- tion for extraordinary circumstances such as fire or earthquake would be an exception. Ms. Lee said staff looked at Section 3 and believed it would be in keeping with what was moved to put the period after "regulations," with the understanding that once a variance was obtained, one was in conformance with current zoning regulations, and there would be nothing in the language to preclude application for a variance, if the maker of the motion was concerned about that issue. Councilmember Bechtel said that was acceptable to her. Councilmember Klein needed to be persuaded that a moratorium was necessary. he was concerned they were changing the normal concept of a moratorium into something different. It looked as if Council was trying to come up with a general moratorium, and he suggested a moratorium was not necessary. There was a prod etn, brt the problem was tine they had ' in other areas of the community.` The problem was one of design which they were not getting into any- where. Council was presently committed to not have the Architec- tural Review Board (ARB1'` review single-family homes. The problem was College Terrace did not rise to the level: of the need for moratoria in other areas of the community, such as downtown. His concern was in order to try and satisfy those people concerned about some of the developments that went in and were worried that everything in College Terrace would be bad, Council was suggesting a moratorium. Council also wanted to satisfy those people who properly pointed out that a moratorium was overkill, and to satis- fy those who were trying to design sort of a mini -moratorium He was not sure Council was -capable of doing it. He believed Council might be going ..down an impossible line, and perhaps the moratorium was not appropriate in that case. Councilmember Woolley agreed with Councilmember Klein. It seemed to her that regardless of the motion, Council was concerned about 'mine one house be replaced by two and, therefore_ , taking up some of the open, or, empty lots in the -Terrace. It was a specific problem, and she was not really sure the trend was established that night. She asked for clarification if one were to remodel a house, but needed to demolish part of it, it would be all - right in terms of the motion. Director of Pi ariri i rig and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said remodel my under the Building Code could include demolition of part of the structure. Councilmember Renzel believed any time there was a planning problem and the process that required public hearinys, etc., to modify zoniny ordinances, subdivision ordinances, or whatever legal actions needed to be taken, planning options were lost if a moratorium was not established. It was a standard practice to preserve planning options while planning. While it was not a City-wide problem as far as the 25 -foot lots were concerned, it was a major problem to any neighborhood to- suddenly have a grossly out -of -scale structure put into it and superimposed on the exist- neighbor hood, which was what was seen in College Terrace. Those who opposed the moratorium were divided into two types of people; those who owned some of the 25 -foot dots, or those with lots that were 50 feet wide and were concerned about their ability to remodel, etc., which she believed .was taken care of by Council - member Bechtel ` s motion. She concluded from the people who lived at one address- --and owned several of the 25 -foot lots at other addresses, there was some plan to do something more with those properties than was currently seen on the ground; and, before that happened, Council should have protective ordinances in . place so what. occurred was proper design as pointed out by Councilmember Woolley.. Unfortunately, the way the zoning ordinances, worked, there were parameters and people could do whatever they wanted within those parameters. In the case of the zoning ordinance, the parameters were designed_ for 60 -foot lots, and sometimes they were applied on 50 -foot lots, and sometimes they were applied on .25 - foot lots. It miyht be .the height limit that needed to be changed for 25 -foot lots, or some other mechanism needed to be used in order to keep the buildings put on those smaller lots in scale with the intent of the zoning ordinance, which was to set '';some parameters to keep things within some sort of scale, Clearly, there were protests as to what could actually happen because nobody believed it ever would happen, but, in the case of the 25 -foot lots, there could be a devastating effect on the neighbor- hood. People lived there. They went out their front doors, 1 ooked out their windows, played in the yard, gardened, and to have somethiny totally out of scale superimposed on them was a gross injustice., To not take action and to wait until the problem became more apparent, would have lots of_ people investing, properties changing hands, a lot of things would occur in- the meantime that _:would make it harder to take the corrective action clearly needed. She supported the motion and hoped those on the boundary would consider it was where people lived-. The most important place to most people was where they --lived, and the Council should pay attention to the people who were there and concerned about what would happen in their neighbarhood. Only one gcrson who spoke was really planning to live on their property.; the rest of them were as income --properties. The Council needed to recognize, if the survey that was presented was --correct, the 113 lots an three streets could become 260 units, That was of great concern, and there was no reason,to bel._ieve the investment market would not would not going to _ look to that kind of potentiality. She urged -that Council support the ordinance. Councilmember Sutori us also needed to be persuaded the proposed ordinance was appropriate and necessary. He believed the problem was not of the magnitude that, required the, severity of the pro- posed ordinance, The amended one still seemed; to suggest there would be a one-year hold on things because staff indicated that, absent a change in priority of the assigned work, it ,would be about a year ,before information came back that could lift the moratorium, even the one th t -w,as modified by the motion. That struck him as an excessively long .time. He regretted the work load .situation and existing study requirements were such that it would take that long. He did not see that Council; would shift around the a ork, load. significantly to cut back on the period. -He wondered whether the existing work beinvdone. by staff with the 6 1 4 3 8/05/85 Planning Commission on the floor area ratio subject was •not going to make a significant contribution that was transferable into the College Terraye situation. SUBSTITUTE NOTION: Councilmember Sutorius coved, seconded by Klein to direct staffAo prepare a temporary ordinance that would limit development in the R-1 district in College Terrace by the imposition of a .35 floor area ratio and an exemption of 400 square feet for grade level covered parking. Mayor Levy clarified _ that it was a .35 floor area ratio plus 400 square feet for the garage. Counciloember Sutorius said as an example, using a 50 X 100 lot that was 5,000 r.quare feet, a .35 FAR could have. a 1,750 square foot single-family resident built on it and, in addition, up to a 400 square foot covered garage. Councilmember Fletcher believed the Council was not the proper _forum for debating floor area :ratios without the process having gone through the Planning Commission. It was a perfect illus- tration of why a moratorium was needed. As to the reason - that College Terrace was singled out was because there was a real threat to the neighborhood. She could think of no other area in town that had such a preponderance of small, moderate -income homes on oversized lots where a financial killing could be made on such a vast number of lots. That type of a neighborhood which served moderate -income people should be cherished. One way to do that was to study how to preserve it and how to prevent the abuses, If Council adopted a moratorium for a year, it did not mean it was going to have to be a whole year --it might be less. She saw no other method to prevent the vast changes that were on the horizon if Council did not impose a moratorium. Councilmember Bechtel concurred with Councilmember Fletcher and did not believe it was appropriate that Council got into the whole complication of floor area ratio. The Planning Commission had held at least one, perhaps two meetings, and had continued the item. The purpose and the reason Council was even considering such a measure as a moratorium was to take time out to ask what the planning options were and possibilities. Council should realize that people would build to\ whatever the limit allowed and i f there was a 25 -foot wide lot, if the pressures were there suf- ficiently, someone ultimately would build to that. Also, in Palo Alto there were some rather large lots, maybe an acre or two, which were. being divided. She did .not object to that, .that was a different issue, in College Terrace trere were existing 25 -foot wide lots. She remembered an area when she was working for the County that was an unincorporated portion of Cupertino where, back -in about the 1880s or 1890s they did what were called "paper" lots. It was a paper lot subdivision with 50 -foot wide lots on an increadibly steep hi l l . The County went in and managed to recom- bine those. She did not know if legally Palo Alto would be able to do anything like that, but the rules did need to be reviewed. It was a reasonable ordinance and she encouraged Council to vote against the substitute motion. Councilmember Renzel said to those who were concerned about over- kill, she she would have agreed prior Councilmember Bechtel's motion because of the fact the :definition of a "substandard " .lot. was 60 feet,:_. when clearly in College Terrace almost all of the lots b feet with f__ p That was corrected by were :J ii i�vL or less fi L1i a few �T. i:� {,tVrlS. the motion. The remodeling was corrected; the ability to use a variance process was added back in. If, as was said, there was some sort of overkill remaining for the possible demolitions of individual homes for substitution of multiple homes on the 25 -foot lots, and if there was not really any proposal to do it then it would be prohibited while Council studied it. Furthermore, the attorney for one of the people who proposed to develop some of the lots indicated there was little testimony except with respect to his client's lot. As she understood it, he was not present at the. earlier meeting of the Planning Commission when there was a lot of testimony related to proposals for lot splits. It was clear that Council had a problem they should deal with and the r;roeetori um attempted to deal with it. In regard to Councilmember Sutori us' subsstitute motion, if Council was unable to get a moratorium, then it was better than nothing. However, the evidence presented to the Planning Commission in regard to the floor area ratio showed even a .4 floor area ratio did not really restrain the problem of mass of buildings. She was not certain it would solve the problem. Finally, with respect to the exemption for the garage, in commercial zones where they had a floor area ratio, the purpose was to limit employment potential, and garages did not create employment potential. In the case of bulk of houses in an R-1 zone, it was the bulk of the buildings not the level of activ- ity that was of concern to the Council, and, for that reason, she did not believe it was appropriate to exempt the garages. The garages were part and parcel of the bulk of a ,building that was put on a lot which was what concerned people. She strongly ob- jected to the exemption for garages in the single-family zones where they were attempting to deal with the bulk and mass of buildings to which those garages contributed. She opposed the substitute motion and supported the main motion and hoped that some of the rest of the Council worrl d also. Mayor Levy believed he was the only Councilmember who opposed the moratorium when it was discussed at the Council meeting in July. He opposed the moratorium because, at that time, it was suggested they have a blanket moratorium covering every parcel in the af- fected area, which he believed was n,verkil1 . He favored moratoria only if handled with care and discretion. Now Council had two alternatives which represented partial moratoria, and he believed there was nothing with partial moratoria designed to deal with the problems they saw. The problem, as he saw it, was extremely nar- row lotsecombined with structures designed for larger lots, which combination resulted in houses that were too large for the lots. He did -not believe here was a problem when the width was 50 -feet, even though that` was 10 -feet less than. the normal standard in the rest of Palo Alto. He believed the original concept givers in Councilmember Bechtel i s motion was a valid alternative, to leave alone those lots that were 50 -feet wide and at least 100 -feet deep, which gave a moratorium on the really too narrow lots; the ones that were 25- to 35 -feet wide. The substitute motion was good but he had a problem with the fact that the concept of a .35 floor area ratio was untested. He would be willing to go along with it if there was not a better alternative. He was also con- cerned that if they took a small lot, 25 X 125, and developed it to that floor area ratio and added in a 400 -foot garage, they developed the lot to 48 percent of its total. He- was not sure that was too much, but it seemed to be. He would vote against the substitute motion and would go along with the original motion. 5 1 -4 5: 8/05485. Councilmember Klein appreciated Mayor Levy's,. remarks dole they came closest to his own views. He would not support the substi- tute motion, and while it might ultimately .be the right area, he (id not believe it was a good idea for Council to adopt numbers without a thorough study, which was not yet done, and it was not fair to experiment even on a short-term basis with that type of precision. He. .was marginally persuaded the facts were there to support .a moratorium and was concerned that Council and the peopl e not regard moratoria as some type of a panacea. He sometimes felt that although people paid lip service to the words, they believed 1f a moratorium was passed, it was permanent; and that clearly could not be the case. It was not within the Council ' s power to do so. Change would come, and the Council should be prepared in the best way possible, and if people did not like it, he did not know what to do about it because it was a part of life. He . wor- ried that Council promised more than it could deliver.. He had a feeling that in 18 -months to two years, someone woulia` .be. upset. Even if they changed the rules in College Terrace, someone was going to be upset with the design of new houses there. On balance, he did not believe. Council gave sufficient consideration to the lots in Col l eye Terrace that were really not the same as. elsewhere in the community because they were smaller in size. For that reason, he concluded that he could not support the sort of compromise mini -moratorium.. He did want to say he believed staff Gwent overboard on the time. It was not a huge study and they did not need to divert resources from other areas. He understood they were presently shorthanded in the Planning Department due to per- sonnel turnover, and he expected the moratorium to be one year and no more, and would need a lot of persuasion to go over a year. He did not for a moment believe Councilmember Fletcher was correct that they were going to come in under a year. He had not seen that happen yet. Council owed it to themselves, the property owners, and the community --who all had rights --to do things cor- rectly, but there was always a balance to be struck, and one of the things Council could do to strike that balance was to promise themselves to live with the time limits and get the job done in a year. . Councilmember Sutori ue said ari' irony was that over the last three years the P'anniny Commission, and then the Council, including a lot of staff work, devised zoning regulations specifically aimed at the problem wherein housing was being lost and replaced in like number but by more expensive housing. Co, the Council created a ratio process that said, "If you demolish existing housing, you've yot to replace it with a factor of..." and it was true it was applied in multiple -family zones and in special areas -much like Col l eye Terrace. The main motion was aimed in a totally different direction. Also, it seemed to him that despite Councilmember Klein's encouragement to staff to take less than a year, and he also encouraged tnat, he believed the facts of life were that the ball would be in the Council's court, not in staff's court if they were going to make it happen any faster. Except on the lot that was smaller than 50 feet in width, every aspect of what people. complained. -;about at the Planning Commission and at the Council, would totally- be permitted by the proposed moratorium because all it did Was say there was a new definition of substandard and say- ing that if it was less than 50 feet, one could not have a demoli- tion permit and could not build .on it. If it was 50 feet or more, the sky was, the limit for every single thing that was built that people complained about because there was no change in control on - the amount of square footage that could be built; there was no change that would affect the material; there was no change that would affect the height; there was no change that would affect what went underground versus what went above ground and, for that reason, he believed a limitation related to floor area ratio would definitely influence what, not only in bulk was out there, but how many situations were actually acted upon, of which there , would be b 1 4 5 8/05/85 few because taking the 25 -foot lot for example, one was talking about a 800-9UU square foot single-family residence. He did not believe the economics were there that it was going to create a lot. He believed his substitute motion did as much to get at the problem, about which people were concerned, in a temporary manner, but still allowed people to do things to their property. If a developer wanted to do something, it would be controlled. Councilmember .Renzel said . there was no irony in trying to protect the 'quality of life in the single-family neighborhoods, which was what Codncil was attempting to do in College Terrace and in the north side of Palo Alto with the aforementioned other regulation. Further, the Planning Commission continued to study the problem of bulk in R-1 zones, and whatever solution they came up with would_ apply not only Citywide, but also in the 50 -foot lots in College Terrace. Mayor Levy said the substitute motion was that staff be directed to prepare a temporary ordinance to limit R-1 development by the imposition of a .35 floor area ratio, and an exemption of 400 square feet for grade level covered parking SUBSTITUTE POTION FAILED by a vote of 1-6, Sutori us voting aye, "' Cobb, Witherspoon absent Mayor Levy clarified that in the original motion, the definition of "substandard" was either a width of less than 50 feet or a depth of less than 100 feet. He clarified that if either of those dimensions were "substandard," it made the lot "substandard." Councilmember Bechtel said yes. Councilmember Woolley agreed with Councilmember Sutorius' comments and believed his assessment of the original motion was correct. She did not support the substitute motion because the number game went too far. As she saw it, the motion before Council did nothing to individual residences because any kind of a remodel was permitted even if it was on a 25 -foot width lot. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Brown said that was correct. Councilmember Bechtel said a remodel could take place, and if a variance was needed, they would sti 1 i need to go through the pro- cess. There was no presupposition concerning a variance. Councilmember Woolley clarified the process was different- with or without the moratorium. There could still be individual struc- tures which were large for the size of the lots, but that was all right because it was primarily a matter of the sensitivity of the designer, which was being studied in the City as a whose. She was, therefore, willing to let it go "as is* at present. The moratorium, only got at substituting mul ti pl a houses for single houses, which was a problem in College Terrace and not a problem where there were large lots. It was reasonable to have amora- torium on the one narrow problem. She hoped it might be as much a legal study; as a .building parameter study. Therefore, since it was not all within the Building Department, it might help to spread the staff load and speed up the time within which it could be accomplished. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb, Witherspoon absent. ITEMS TO CONSiDER AFTER 11:009.m. Mayor Levy announced that Council would consider : the remainder of the agenda. 1 I U M S TO . CONSIDER AFTER 11:00 p.m. - Mayor Levy announced that Council would consider the remainder of the agenda, MOTION: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Klein, to bring forward Item 112, re Arastra Parklands, ahead of Item 011, re 3801 East Bayshore Road. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb, Witherspoon absent. ITEM #12 PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RECOMME DATION Rt APPLICATION FOR SITE AND DESIGN APPR6VAL FOR PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING SIGNAGE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TRAIL, AT THE CITY'S ARASTRA PARKLANDS (PLA 9) (CMR:455:5) Barb Merritt, 124A Pine Street, Santa Cruz, was on the Citizens Committee to help develop the Arastra property. Regarding the parking lot, the Committee originally intended to allow spaces for the horse trailers as well as have the parking lot visible for safety reasons. In terms of having horse: trailer parking, the Committee believed that since the City was going to the expense of having horse trails and allowing the barn to have shows, there needed to be a provision to allow for parking of trailered horses. The Planning staff believed any trailer parking could be done up at the barn, which would have trucks with trailers going up John Marthens Lane. If that idea was presented to the people who lived on John Marthens Lane, there would be many complaints because it was not safe, which was why the Committee intended to have teal er parking in the parking lot. She believed that i f the trailer parking became a problem, it could go into the extra grass parking lot. Sne suggested that when people brought in a horse trailer, they could contact the ranger first to have the grass parking lot opened. In terms of horse access to the park from the 77 acres, she understood horses did not walk well on paved paths so if the intention was for horses to go on the paved path into the park, it was unsafe for a horse to walk on a paved path so it would have to be a gravel path. As far as visib l ity of the parking lot, the Committee intended to have the parking lot be visible from the road in order for it to be viewed by the park patrol or the pol ice in order to avoid any thefts in the parking lot. She was a little confused by the use of the earth berms to hide the parking lot when the visibility of the parking lot would help to control vandal ism. She understood the use of the earth berms in terms of aesthetics,- but when aesthetics got in the way of safety, it was another question. W. R. Smith, 1873 Edgewood Drive, l ived at that address since 1958 and was also a member of the Citizens Committee on the Arastra property and its development. He echoed the comments made by Barb Merritt. He did not understand the berm.. When the Committee reviewed the project, they asked that the berm be put out. It was another clod on the drainage already there. He saw no reason for the ` berm. He al so did not see why a walk could not be put from the parking lot for horses to get across into the park. He agreed there was a conflict between what was required by the State on handicapped persons getting to the park, which needed someesort of a surface which might not be a good surface for horses, but in their discussions the Committee discussed a parallel system where the horses could use one thing and the handicapped persons' could use a special surface. When the people got . to the park at that particular point, there were ; no special services so he saw no. point in getting the spacial surfaces for 700 feet. It made no sense. Larry Faber, 3127 David Avenue, was . al so a member of the Com- mittee. Regarding the _ trailer parking, he guaranteed- that if - a sign was put :uP that said, "No trailer parking," there would be trailers parked along Arastradero Road, which was urksa fe.' There. were: some wide places where you could pull out, but getting the horse out of the trailer= and ye€;iing on him, a motorcycle could come alouy and somebody could yet hurt. He believed the trailer parking was a must, and the idea of putting it in the overflow was fine i f the overflow was left open, but more problems would be created than would . be solved if a ranger had to be contacted every time a trailer wanted to park there. He did not believe ,Mr. White would support that kind of manpower requirement. He was also opposed to the berm. The Committee asked the people from the Midpeninsul a Regional Open Space District to address it, and one of the first things the man :said to the Committee was, "Don't hide your parking lots. Keep the m visible to the rangers going by and to the cops going by, otherwise you've got troubles." He did not care if a little berm was put there, a log or something like that to restrict the parking area, but urged that the parking lot not be hidden from the road. He asked about the iron gate to be put at the park entrance. He wanted the park itself closed after hours, but it so happened that entrance was also the entrance to the so- called Arastra Trail . which was put in there for safety of young riders, to keep . them off Arastradero Road with all its turns. Something needed to be done --put the gate in to close the park, but leave the trail open 24 hours a day for safety. Regard- ing the restrooms being put in the parking lot, in the original concept of the parking lot on the other side, which was too expen- sive, the idea was to put the restrooms bO to 100 yards up the trail behind the bushes to keep them out of sight, together with the yarbaye cans because otherwise they invited litter. He be- lieved that should not be changed. The restrooms should be put in the same place as they were originally, but not out in the parking lot. Councilmerrber Klein understood horsemen used the Arastra property and the trails there for years, and asked if that was correct. Mr. Faber said yes. Counc i lmember Klein asked where the horses carne from at the pres- ent time. Mr. Faber said they came basically from all over, but mostly from the Los Altos Hil i s area, the Portola Valley area, and some of the Palo Alto and Stanford lands. Councilrnember Klein asked if people presently trailered their horses in. Mr. Faber said it was restricted land and not open to the public. Councilmember Klein understood that, but horsemen were using it. Mr. Faber said he had known people to park in the Park and Ride lot with their trailers down on Page Mill Road and ride up. If permission was obtained from the State to use the Park and Ride lot as a trailer staging area, he hail, no objection, but understood i t was tried and they were turned down. Counc i l member Klein .asked whether the . people from Portoi a Valley and Los Altos Hills just rode in from their communities. Mr. Faber estimated that 90 to 95 percent of the horses who would use the property would ride in and would not be trailered in, but there would be more trailers used when tae trail went through to the Los Trancos Open Space because it would be a long ride and people would want to use it. He advised there would be a trail up there, which was presently in the planning stages. Co uncilmember Bechtel believed some of Mr. Faber's comments were good, and was `also concerned about the berm. She knew aestheti- cally they liked to hide parking lots around office buildings.,. but safety was an issue and advantage should be taken of the .Open Space District's experience in dealing with those kinds of safety issues. She asked whether staff looked at the question. 1 Supervising Engineer =lames Harrington said to remove the berm itself was a cost item rather than a deduction. Topsoil would have to be removed from the site, and staff chose to stockpile the topsoil through the berm and utilize the feature. Staff under- stood one of the reasons the berm was placed there was for a future off-street bike path. In that regard, when staff looked at the plan again, it was decided to move the whole parking lot further uphill to provide room for the future bike path. 1 Councilmember Bechtel asked if that meant moving more dirt because it had to be moved uphill. Mr. Harrington said no. Councilmember Bechtel asked about the safety issue. City Manager Bill Zaner said the plans were circulated . through the police department who had no comments. The berm was only three feet tall. It was not a tall obstruction. The ground gently sloped up anyway. He did not believe it would be too difficult for both the rangers and passersby to have a fairly good view of the parking lot. It would break up some of the visual impact of a graveled area with vehicles on. it. Staff recommended the berm remain. Councilrni=mber Bechtel asked about the location of the bathrooms and the garbage cans. An "attractive nuisance" could be made where people in need of the facility came whipping in and used it and departed ten minutes later. She asked if staff would be happier hiding the facility. Mr. Zaner said staff would be happier by not putting in the facil- ity at all. Staff recommended to Council on many occasions that public restrooms ended up being public nuisances no matter where they were put. If the restrooms were goieg to be put in the area, they were probably better off in a position where they could be reasonably well seen so there would not be the vandalism problem and people misusiny them. He would leave them were they were. Counciimember Bechtel asked if there were actually bathrooms, in the approval at that point. Mr`. Zaner replied no. Counc i 1 member Bechtel liked the staff recommendation for the non - bus parkiny lot plan, but wanted to ensure there was some provi- sion for limited horse trailer parking and if that could be done in the overflow area. Mr. Harrington said if the overflow area were used, the weather conditions and the present design, referred to as the original design, was not wide enough to accommodate turning maneuvers of a car and towed trailer needed to be considered. In order to accom- modate a trailer system, it was necessary to make the parking area larger to provide for °maneuvering into parking and maneuvering out of the parkiny . area. It seemed to him they either not provide for equestrian, or fund were needed to provide for the larger option shown in the staff report. Counci lmember Bechtel had a problem with large parking lots. On the other hand, if Coencil did not provide some parking it was inviting problems. There would be people who would trailer up to the stable area on John Marthens Lane unless there could be some other parki ne for trailers either ,at the Park and Ride lot or alony Arastradera Road. It was supposed to be a low -intensity kind of park e; and bus loads of people could park at the Park and aide lot and• walk in. 6 t b 0 8/05/85 MOTION, Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Rcnzcl, to adopt the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Approve, with the following conditions, the site and design application for the parking lot design (286 feet x 66 feet plus pedestrian trail) as recommended by staff to the Planning Commission. This design does not provide for formalized horse trailer or bus parking. a. That grading may proceed beyond October 15, 1985, subject to the discretion of the Director of Public Works, pro- vided that erosion control measures are implemented to mitigate any risk of erosion; b. That cable used between bollards be of a neutral color, such as grey. 2. Approve the budget amendment ordinance for the replacement of fire damaged fences and a horse bridge by adding $36,000 to CIP 84-30 and by transferring funds from the Reserve for Capital Projects. ORDINANCE 3628 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1985-86 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 84-30 'ARASTRA PARKING LOT," Councilmember Fletcher believed it would be a mistake to have spaces for two horse trailers because once it was known there was parking for horse trailers, it would not be limited to two horse trailers-. People would expect to find parking and there would be six, eight, or ten spaces for horse trailers. Two parking spaces would not be sufficient. The problem of parking on Arastradero Road could be solved by putting "No Parking" signs at the side of the roadway. She believed it -was best to not have the horse trailer parking and .let people know there was no horse trailer parking. People would find a way to get there if they wanted to. Councilmember Woolley essentially agreed with the comments of Councilmernbers Bechtel and Fletcher, She was also not interested in having buses go there. She knew the school district did not use buses, and if Palo Alto School District children went there, they would be going by cars. She was also concerned about in- creasing the cost of the parking lot for the two horse trailers. As she understood it, the trails were only supposed to be used in dry weather so if worse went to worst, the reserved parking space in dry weather was a possibility, but to provide two parking places made no sense because it encouraged a use Council did not want to encourage at a l l . There was the possibility of a bike path in the future, and she checked with staff who said it would be no problem to move the lot back five feet to allow space for the future bike path. She suggested it might be worth adding. Councilmember Fletcher understood staff already intended to move the path back from the original plan, Mr. Harrington said no. Until directed by Council, staff would proceed on the original plan wi tt o tt the move, but it could be done for a cost of about $I,OOO. ,. Councilmember Fletcher said she would accept the language. Mre Harrington suggested that the term .jai :suitable distance" be used rather than pirininy it down. NOTION INCLUDED LANGUAGE THAT THE LOT 8E- MOVED D DISTANCE TO. -PROVIDE FOR A FUTURE BIKE PATH BACK A •SUITABLE e Counc i i reiirber ten ze i supported the mat' on . She agreed with her colleagues that if Council was going to say sech parking was available, they were apt to have more people than could be accom- modated and they were back to where they were without any parking. in terms of special events, the horse sows were limited to four times a year, and she believed the people on John Marthens Lane could tolerate .a few trailers four times a year. Clearly, there was a lot of horse use of the Arastra property with the existing trail system, and at that point, Council should proceed to get parking for the general public to have access. If there was a need to deal with the horse issue later, Council could address it then. Mayor Levy asked if the Planning Commission recommendation of the square shape allowed space for the horse trailers. Mr. Harrington said yes. . Mayor Levy clarified it would .be no extra cost versus the staff recommendation. Mr. Harrington said the extra cost would be on the order $20,000, which .also included the equestrian trail. Mayor Levy clarified the Planning Commission recommendation, the Park Committee recommendation, and. the Trail Committee recom- mendation were essentially the same. Mr. Harrington said yes, with minor differences. Councilmember Sutorius understood the project and funds associated with budgeting did not presently contemplate the restrooms; that space was provided in the design.. Mr. Harrington said the original design included two portable restrooms. Councilmember Sutorius clarified they were included in the cost. Mr. Harrington said yes. He understood it was suggested by a member of the public to remove the restrooms to a site inside the main boundaries away from the parking lot. In doing so, servicing of the restrooms elould be limited. Access would have to be pro- vided to the facility., Mr. Zaner believed Councilmember Sutorius was correct. The response did leave the impression that the restrooms would not be installed at that time.. The restrooms were in the contract and would be installed, and unless directed otherwise by the Council, would be in the location specified on the plan, which was on the 77 -acre side of the road. Councilmember Sutorius clarified that in acting on the motion, tnere would be restrooms in that location. He just wanted to make sure everyone understood it. He - supported the staff' recommenda- tion as far as the location of the lot and its size. He accepted the situation as far as reusing the moved dirt in a modest berm as long as it did not present a safety problem. As he understood the motion, Council st i 1 l had the option of either picking up another parking place or making, a decision about the restrooms prior to the time they actually got physically located there if Council did not want them in that location Mr. Harrington ,said it was possible. Mayor Levy clarified the plans called for toilets --not bathrooms, restrooms ors washrooms. Zoning Administrator Bob `toi"1 ets. Mayor Levy asked if the question of the location of the toilets would return to Council if the staff recommendation were approved that night. Mr. Brown said no. Mayor Levy clarified that if Council wanted the toilets in another location, they needed to discuss it that night. Councilmember Bechtel said the more she thought about the issue and where and how big the parking lot should be, the more she was convinced the Planning Commission and Citizens Committee were rihht. She believed Council was putting its head in the sand if they believed people would not try and bring their horses in a trailer. She would oppose the motion as presently made and go along with the Planning Commission recommendation. If time was of' the essence, she asked why the item was not before the Council sooner. The Planning Commission approved it on June 26, and it was Auyust 5. One of the arguments staff made to oppose the Planning Commission recommendation was that staff would have to take a little time to do a little redesign, and it would get into the rainy months. That did not seem to be valid o her since it took the extra time to get it before Council. Some additional space was needed. She did not like using a lot of land with parking lots, but believed Council was fooling itself ',f they did not believe a couple of trailers would need to be accommodated. Mayor Levy agreed with Councilmember Bechtel. The Committee's recommendations were opposed because of cost and because of the invitation to horsemen outside the area to use the facility. lhe cost of $20,000 was reasonable, and as far as the vans were con- cerned, he did not believe the City should be so selfish as to close down the park as much as possible. He believed the Com- mittee felt that two vans . would serve a need and the City would not suddenly be inundated with six or eight. If people came from other areas to join with Palo Al tans and neighbors riding in the Arastra property, he saw no reason to so dramatically oppose it. He believed the Committee recommendation was worthwhile and should be given some consideration. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-2, Bechtel, Levy voting "no, Cobb, Witherspoon absent. City Attorney Diane Lee said six votes were needed to pass a budget amendment. VOTE ON MOTION TO BE RECONSIDERED. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF MOTION RELATED TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS AT ARASTRA PARKLANDS PASSED by a vote of 5-2, Bechtel, Levy voting no, Cobb, Witherspoon absent. SECOND PART OF MOTION RELATED TO BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE PASSED unanimously, Cobb, Witherspoon absent. ITEM 111 PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL'; REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONREAPPLICATTOWO Y FOR -SITE kNO DEs ICIft PRtiYAL AT 3801 EAST BAYSH6RE Rd1RD PLA -9 Planning Commissioner Mark Chandler said the : Commission believed the project was in conformance. The decision was made earlier with respect to the -zoning, and the major question was whether the landscaping to be installed by the developer on City -owned land would consist of plants from the .Bayl ands Master Plant List, and the C®'imission was satisfleo they would be. Councilmember Renzel sow no discussion as to the impacts on the so-called *borrow" site for the parking abobt whether the site continued to meet all the zonliig ordinances or hether it was in another jurisdiction, or what. 7oniny Administrator Bob Brown said there would be no zoning ordi- nance impacts of the additional parking on the adjacent site. There was no restriction on impervious coverage, setbacks related to parking, etc., so there was no zoning problem. Councilmember Renzel asked why there was no restriction. Mr. Brawn said impervious coverage only applied in the 0 West District. Councilmember Renzel asked if there was any landscaping require-- ment on the adjacent parcel. Mr. Brown said the only landscaping requirement in that district was perimeter landscaping around a parking facility, and in the rear portion of the site there was no parking so .there would be no landscape requirement in the area. The new parking being placed in the area would require additional landscaping which would be part of the submittal. Councilmember Renzel asked whether the building on the adjoining site was at or above the current floor area ratio permitted in those areas. Mr. Brown said it conformed with the existing restrictions. It was at or below the floor area ratio. Councilmember Renzel clarified there might be room for expansion on that site. Mr. Brown was not certain what allowance there was for expansion, but knew it was built under the current regulations so it was at or below the allowable floor area ratio. Councilmember Renzel said if the site was downtown or in some other zone where no borrow site existed, but . there was site and. design review, she asked if site and design review permitted the City to place design requi rements that mi ght impact the si ze of the building. Ms. Lee believed Council had that flexibility under site aad design review wherever it was. Councilmember Renzel said. while it was indicated that parking for the building could be accommodated on the site, she presumed that with design review, the City could determine where the parking should be and what kind of landscaping and screening it had. She asked if that was correct. Ms. Lee .said yes. NOTION: Councilmember Sutori us moved, seconded by Klein, -to adopt the Planeing COMMiSSIOR and, Architectural Review Board recommendation for approval of the Site and Design application, finding that the project will net have a significant impact on the environment, and sake the following conditions` 1. The applicant will provide landscaping as selected by the City Parks Department for portions of the City property between the subject property and the existing bicycle .path and towards, the rears of the- site is conformance with the conceptual off -site laedscap1pg `Platt. The applicant shell provide a final ` land scope' fee the . off -site - andsa ailping for approval - by' the A*B prior to issuance of al building permit.. The applicant shall also Provide_ the City a signed maintenance agreement =for these off*Site . laodScaped areas; MOTION CONTINUED 2. The applicant shall obtain and record a relocation of the Santa C1ara,-Yalley Water District access easement on the sub- ject property to allow for planting of perimeter landscaping, five feet in width, adjacent to the south westerly property line; 3. That the applicant obtain approval from the Director Planning and Community Environment for off -site parking; 4. That easements for access, parking and drainage be provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of build- ing or grading permits; 5. That drainage plans be submitted to the Public Works - Engineering Department at least 30 days prior to building permit application; 6. That measures be incorporated into the building design to achieve a shading coefficient of .35 or lower on southwest facing glazing, and that the use of solar and/or refrigerant vapor heat recovery be incorporated to meet at least 50 per- cent of service water heating deeds; 7. That recommendations contained within the submitted .soils engineering report be complied with during grading operations; and 8. That site grading not occur between October 15 to April 15 of any year. Councilmember Sutorius said his motion did - not ignore the thrust of the questions raised by Councilmember Renzel , but he made it with the belief that several pluses were gained through the appli- cation process and the design. Among those he counted the bicycle path connection to be made between the adjacent commercially developed properties which would allow access by employees and visitors to the bike path, the landscaping situation, and what .he perceived to be a building design that looked_ fully compatible with the building to the front of the property. As the land- scaping matured, he believed it would be an attractive building and something with which the City would be pleased. Councilmember Renzel said she was not only concerned about the size of the building that could be built by borrowing parking from an adjoining site, but also with the precedent that might be set in terms of flouncing buildings over property lines, or construc- tion over property lines in order to maximize development. There might be other places where the Council. would see the same - sort of maneuvering goiny on, and she believed, particularly in the Bayl ands area, Council had to be careful to make sure the designs were compatib‘a with 'the Saylands area. Maximizing a building in that i ocat . an was not the way to go. Since there was no discus- sion at the Planning Commission of the implications of `permitting neiyhborino sites to be used for borrowing parking, she preferred that Council refer the matter . back to the Planning Commission 'to review that subject. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Menzel mewed that: Council refer to the Planning Commtssi,n , approval _of the _ Site and Design application of Carl Hol vi ck Cgmpaaey for site and design approval for a 15,442 squire foot Office, bgildiag for property located at 3801 East;Kayshore Road for discussion of the implications of permitting neighboring sites to be esed for berrowed_parking, and to be certain that there were net some a eider-reath1n4 ramifica- tions of this prohosnl SUBSTITUTE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 5 1 5-5 8/05/85 i tounciitnemher Henze' believed it was a mintake to use the mecha- nism to allow a bigger building, particularly in view of Council's efforts to limit office construction in Palo Alto, and with the concerns expressed by citizens. As an aside,_ she asked where it left Council with respect to the exemption granted to the El Camino Veterinarian that had a condition on it that they board their animals over at the site. She - presumed they had some alter- native in sight for their night boarding of animals since it was the site where they were going to do it as part of their condition for that exemption en El Camino, Mr. Brown was not certain what arranyem ents the applicant made for their night board iny, but they would not be allowed to use the other facility for which they were given an exemption for the boarding and would have to find an additional off -site, Mayor Lev' asked if the borrowing of parking enabled the applicant to build a bigger building than hewould otherwise be able to. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said no. The Planning Department came to that conclusion after careful analysis. Mayor Levy asked why not because he assumed it simply left more space available on the applicant's own lot to develop the site. Mr. Schreiber said in essence, the use o.f off -site parking re- quired Director of Planning approval. His instructions in the office were that the application was nut to go forward with the off -site parking until it could be clearly demonstrated that the same sized building could be built on the parcel , with all of the parking on the parcel. Mr. Brown did some analysis which was on the screen and which he would explain further. Mr. Brown had a transparency which showed an alternate site plan prepared by the applicant. It indicated a building along the rear portion of the site which was essentially the dame size as the building -proposed, providing all required parking on the subject property. Staff was convinced by reviewing the site plan that the sane sized building could be created without the adjoining prop- erty being used for parking. Mayor Levy asked if the applicant could return to Council and add to the building by more intensely utilizing his own site for added parking. Mr. Brown said no. The building vas at the maximum FAR and there was no possibility of an addition, Councilnember Renzel said her point was Counei1 probably would not approve a design looking like that, and would require landscaping and setbacks because of the sensitive nature of its location. As a result, they would probably end up. with a smaller building. The fact that they were borrowing parking enahled them to improve their overall design admittedly, but they could improve their overall design on their own site, That was her concern, and she believed the City Attorney and planning staff indicated Council had the right, under the Site and Design Ordinance, to require reasonable restrictions to improve the design so that it was compatible with ;its location and Special clrcurstafces__which__she . believed they had in that case; MOTION t PASSED by vote Witherspoon absent. ITEM #13, PARK IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE - DOWNTOWN PARK NOI?FH DFLA 7-1b) (CMR°390:5) MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the ordinance. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE atiNCI.L OF THE CITY OF- ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMUNITY PARK AT DOWNTOWN PARK NORTH" Mayor Levy asked if staff needed a request from Council regarding a name for Downtown Park North. City Manager Bill Zaner said no, the process was already started. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb, Witherspoon absent. ITEM #13-A (OLD ITEM #7), ORDINANCE RE OR, CN AND' CS DISTRICTS (1st Reading) (PLA 7-9-2) NKR:446:5 Councilsnember Renzel said she removed the item from the Consent Calendar because when Council removed the higher floor area ratio from the 'CS zone, it was not removed from the OR zone. She believed it should be done. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the ordinance for first reading with the OR exception for hotel sites removed. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE iI L H T O ALTO SETTING INTERIM REGULA- TIONS REGARDING THE FLOOR AREA RATIO IN THE OR, CN AND CS DISTRICTS AND EXTENDING THE LIMITATIONS ON 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)" (1st Reading 7/15/85* PASSED 8-0, Witherspoon absent) Mayor Levy asked for clarification about whether the ordinance would be a first or second reading. City Attorney Diane Lee believed they were back to another first reading because it was not clear in terms of the first reading. The second reading would be in two weeks and they could proceed. Mayor Levy said it was another first reading. Councilmember Renzel asked if the ordinance was still within the existing moratorium so there would he no problems. Ms. Lee said there would be no problem. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb,; Witherspoon absent.` ITEM. #14t -PALO ALTO REGIONAL WATER .QUALITY CONTROL PLANT CAPACITY EXPKNSION (PLA 7.4) (CMR:4T5 : 5) MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the staff recommendation to award the Design Contract to CH2N-Ni I 1 to the amount of $518,000, which includes a $50,000 contingency to be used for possible unforeseen work during the course of the design. Staff ' also recommends Council approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance for $618,000 fret the Wastewater System Improvement Reserve Fund. AWARD OF CONTRACT CNt2Mt-11111, Inc. MOTION CONTINUED ORDINANCE 3629 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UT —ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1986-86 TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE DESIGN OF THE PALO ALTO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT EXPANSION" Councilmember Renzel said when the last expansion of the sewage treatment plant was received, there were some admitted problems with the EIR being somewhat inaccurate in what it represented to the Council. That process brought out that by the time the Site and Uesiyn review time was over, there was not much latitude for doing much about the design. In conjunction with approving the contract which would involve some construction of new buildings and additions to the plant, she expressed her concerns that the plant not encroach bayward any further than it already had. The landscaping that went in with the last plant expansion got all torn- up for a new chlorine contact plant and the mitigating cir- cumstances of the original expansion in 1975 were lost. She hoped it would be considered by CH2M-Hi 1 1 . Councilmember Fletcher asked if staff intended to preserve the Bayl ands side from further encroachment. Assistant Director eof Utilities Operations Stephen Hayashi, said yes. CHZM--Hill was aware of the restrictions on the site, and staff worked with the Planning Department in terms of those restrictions. Councilmember Fletcher clarified that consultant would be restricted from construction in that area. Mr. Hayashi said yes. There was presently no proposed construc- tion in that area. Councilmember Renzel asked if there was any expectation to get some landscaping back in the corner such as was beginning to flourish when the c.l orine contact plant went in. She asked if there was no requirement to replace the 1 andscapi ng that was previously approved for the corner. Mr. Hayashi believed Councilmember Renzel referred to the mainten- ance building. It went through the Site and Design review process and received approvals at that time. Councilmember Renzel clarified tnat where Embarcadero met Bay Road, there was substantial landscaping prior to the installation of the chlorine contact tank which was a subsequent addition to the expansion about ten years ago. All the landscaping was ripped out, the tank was installed, and it was left to do its own thing. There was never any replacement of the landscaping that was torn out. Mr. Hayashi said it was not part of the present contract. Mayor Levy confirmed that Council was approving $618,000 for the design contract. He asked about tree estimate of the overall construction costs, Mr. Hayashi said it was estimated to be about $6.2 million. Councilmember Renzel would reluctantly support the motion. She realized the work needed to be done, b u t she supported it with the understanding that staff put forth, in previous study -sessions and meetings, that further expansion was not anticipated. MOTION PASSED ubanimoua1y9 Cobb,. Witherspoon absent. 6 1 5 8 8/95%_85 HEM #1b, RUNES{ OF COUNCILMEMtER RENLEL RE BALLOT ARGUMENTS Councilmember Renzel said proponents of Measure C made some false and misleading statements in their ballot arguments, and she believed Council should request the City Attorney to file a Writ of Mandate as provided in Elections Code Section 5025 to have the statements amended or deleted. MOTION: Councilmember Wenzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, that the City Attorney be directed to file a Writ of Mandate or rebut- tal argument re Measure C (argument in favor of Measure C) as pro- vided in Elections Code Section 5025) Councilmember Renzel was particularly concerned about the rebuttal statement, 'The Harbor today is user -supported and shows an operating surplus" was bl atentl y false. The City Attorney's impartial analysis as a user -supported meant no taxpayer subsidy. Measure C proponents apparently concurred by using statements like "users not go.',ernment" and "without committing City funds," and Measure C meant the harbor paid its own way. Yet the publicly available staff report from which proponents quoted in their arguments was clear that in addition to whatever the Palo Alto Harbor Association (PAHA) paid since 1980, the County paid $48,935 per year to maintain the Harbor. Furthermore, there were no payments representing °operating surplus" from PAHA to the County as required in their agreement with the County. The fiscal year 1984 financial statement available from PAHA contained an impor- tant footnote which said that $21,639 in expenses were deleted from the report. If they were properly included, PAHA would have shown an operating deficit in July of 1984. John Walker, Presi- dent of PAHA, made public statements as recently as February, 1985, that his organization was deeply in debt. Without a current financial statement, it was impossible for her.- Walker or any Measure C proponent to know whether PAHA broke even or lost money, but if they made money, it should have been paid to the County. It was not, and meanwhile, the County paid close to $250,000 run- ning the Harbor since 1980 with only $500 to $1,500 in launching fees to offset it each year. The voters had a right to correct information and she tel ieved it was a proper matter for the City — Attorney to pursue. Councilmember Klein agreed with the tenor of Councilmember Renzel's remarks, but; he did not agree with the motion. The statements put forth uy the PAHA people were wildly inaccurate, misleading, and unfortunate. It was clear to him from the sketchy financial statements that they last money and that the facility was not presently user supported. He recognized people coul d debate what the words "user -supported" meant, but everyone was clear it was expected to mean "totally paid for by the users." For them to claim it was presently the case was untrue. He was sorry to see the campaign descending to a 1 evel where people used untrue statements at the start. However, he did not believe it was an appropriate area in which'to get the City Attorney's office involved. He believed the matter should be resolved legally by private litigation or by a free -wheeling debate in public during the election campaign. He did not want to go on record against the motion since he believed the basis of Councilmember Renzel's charges were accurate. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded Sutorius, to postpone the matter indefinitely. Councilmember_ Bechtel .concurred with the comments made by both Councilmembers Renzel_, and Klein. She was concerned that the voters might be given misinforreation when they were told that something was user -supported when it was not user -supported. She believed it was valid that Councilmember Renzel brought the con- cern to the Council , outlined it and documented it in the hope tnat the information could be given to the voters. At the same time she concurred with Councilmember Klein. that it was something 8/05!85 that would have to be debated separately from the City. She sup- ported the substitute motion. Mayor Levy also supported the motion to postpone indefinitely. He believed the voters of Palo Alto would reach the correct col.cl u- sion as they weighed the pros and cons which would fully come out in the course of the election. He believed that was the proper forum to make the final decision on the question. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-1, Renzel voting "no," Cobb, Witherspoon absent. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12:10 a.m. AFTEST: City Cl APPROVED: 6 1 6 0 8/05/85