HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-03-12 City Council Summary Minutes8
8
CITY
COUNCIL
MUIUTEN
CITY
Or
MI 0
ALTO
Regular Meeting
Monday, March 12, 1984
ITEM
Oral Communications
Minutes of January 16, 1984
Item #1, Appointment of Two Human Relations
Commissioners to fill two three year
commencing April 1, 1984
Consent Calendar
Referral
Acton
P w tr. w
4+4 I III Z
Item #2, Resolution of Support for Foothill/De Anza
Community College Measure "A" on April 10 Ballot
Item #3, Flood Basin Consultant
Item #4, Reroofing and repairs at
Community Center - Rejection of Bids
Item #5, Blanket Order Contract for
Carpentry/Millwork
Item #6, S,tarm Drainage Improvements
Esther Clark Park
Item #7, Terrnan c hoo1 Site
Mitchell Park
Miscellaneous
downstream of
Item #8, Planning Commissinn re_c mendation re
application of Association for Continuing
Educations for Site and Design approval of antennae
and an electronic equipment building on Black
Mountain
Item #9, Ordinance re Classification of Property et
3045 Middlefield Road
Agenda Changes, Additions. and. Deletions
Item #13, Policy and Procedures Committee
recommendation .-ire Amendments to PAMC Chapter 16.49
re Membership on the Historic Resources Board
Item #10, Stop Signs at Webster Street/Forest 4 2 9 4
Avenue
PAGE
4 2 9 0
4 2 9 0
4 2 9 0
4 2 9 1
4 2 9 1
4 2 9 1
4 2 9 1
4 2 9 1
4 2 9 1
4 2 9 1
4 2 9 1
4 2 9 2
4 2 9 2
4 2 9 2
4 2 9 2
4 2 9 2
ITEM PAGE
Item #11, Stop Signs at East Meadow/Ross Road 4 2 9 5
Item #12, PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of the 1984-85
Community Development Block Grant Program
Item #14, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission
recommendation re Comprehensive P1 an amendment to
add a policy to the Urban Design Element regarding
the scale and retail orientation of the California -
Cambridge Avenue Business District
Recess: 9:20 p.m. to 9:36 p.m.
item #16, Downtown Study Revised 4ork Program
Continuance
Item #14, Continued
Item #15, Downtown Underground Conversion
Amendment to Contract
Adjournment: 12:42 a.m.
4 2 9 9
4 3 0 0
4 3 0 5
4 3 1 6
4 3 1 6
4 3 2 6
4 3 2 6
4 2 8 7
4 2 8 9
3/12/84-
Regular Meeting
Monday, March 12, 1984
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at
7 :35 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb; Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel,
Sutorius, Woolley
ABSENT: Witherspoon
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Anne Yoshie Narahara spoke on behalf of the CAMP FIRE groups,
which was celebrating its 74th birthday. She led the audience
in the pledge of al l egience to the flag and in singing "You're
a Grand Old Flag," and presented gifts to the Council and
staff.
Mayor Klein thanked the CAMP FIRE group and said it was always a
pleasure to 4 ave them attend a Council meeting.
MINUTES OF JANUARY 16, 1984
MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Sutorius,
approve the minutes of January 16, 1984, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #1, APPOINTMENT OF TWO HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSIONERS TO FILL
I -2 -1St --
EAR. TERM
Mayor Klein read the names of the seven applicants for the two
three-year terms:
Harry Ani syard Mary Payton Minkus
James A. Nichols Jean M. Ramacciotti
Allan C. Sidle Virginia E. Stafford
William H. Stephens
Mayor Klein said the situation was unusual because both Dr. Sidle
and Ms. Minkus were appointed only a short time ago to fill
unexpired terms. They both served well and deserved an
opportunity to serve longer. He intended to vote for them,
although his vote would in no way reflect on the other applicants,
who were high quality and would have been given more consideration
had Dr. Sidle and Ms. Minkus not just been appointed.
FIRST ROUND OF VOTING
Votin for MINKUS : Cobb, Bechtel, Klein, Levy-, Woolley,
Renzel, Fletcher
Voting for SIDLE: Sutorius
City Clerk Ann Tanner said Ms. Minkus had seven votes and was
apIai nted.
Councilmember Sutorius did not realize that voting was alphabe-
tical, and wanted to recast •his vote for Ms. Minkut. He was
pleased the vote was unanimous, and echoed Mayor Klein's remarks,
SECOND ROUND OF VOTING
Yotirg far SIDLE: Fletcher, Renzel, Woolley, Levy, Klein,
' ""�' Bechtel, Cobb, Sutorius
4 2 9 0
3/12/84
Ms. Tanner said Or: Sidle had eight votes; and was appointed:
Mayor Klein congratulated. Ms. Minkus and Dr. Sidle, and said the
Council was pleased they would continue- to serve on ,the Human
Relations Commission and looked forward to -three more years of
service.
CONSENT CALE;NUAR
Referral
None
Action
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to
approve Consent Calendar Items 2 - 9.
ITEM #2 RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR FOOTHILL/DE
"ALLEGES4EASURE "A" A
ANZA COMMUNITY
RESOLUTION 6238 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
TAE CITY OF PALO AL IO REGARDING MEASURE "Am: A MEASURE
FOR THE PRESERVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF DE ANZA AND
FOOTHILL COLLEGES"
ITEM #3, FLOOD BASIN CONSULTANT (PWK 5-4) (CMR: 195:4 )
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Ratify the hiring of Linsley Kraeger Associates, Ltd.,
hydrology consultants; and
2. Adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance creating Capital
Improvement Project 83-28 and appropriating $30,000 to that
project.
AGREEMENT
Linsley Kraeger Associates
ORUINASCE 3516 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR TIC FISCAL
YEAR 1983-84 TO ESTABLISH AND PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION
FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT No. 83-28 'FLOOD BASIS!
ANALYSIS"
ITEM #4, REROOFING AND REPAIRS AT MITCHELL PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
IrSt i B U S -TPK -T14 _ �..
Staff recommends the Council authorize the rejection of the bids
received for reroofing and repairs at Mitchell Park Community
Center on February 29, 1984.
ITEM #5,. BLANKET ORDER CONTRACT FOR MISCELLANEOUS CARPENTRY/
IkILLWb1K TruK 7) (CMR: i§O:4 )
Staff recommends the Mayor be authorized to execute a blanket
order contract with 4 Star Construction Company for a period of
twelve calendar months or an aggregate total of $20,000 for
various projects as assigned, whichever occurred fleet.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
4 Star Comstrrctioa Company.
ITLM 5' STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS DOWNSTREAM OF ESTHER C ARK
OAR
ASR 2 - : =
Staff recommends that Council:
4 2 9 1
3/12/84
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Barrett,
Harris & Associates, Inc. for professional services in the
amount of $35,ODU; and
2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the agreement o.
up to $7,000.
AGREEMENT
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES
STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Barrett, Harris & Associates
ITEM #7, TERMAN SCHOOL SITE (PWK 6-2) (CMR:188:4)
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Wilsey & Ham
for professional services in the amount of $119,300; and
2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the agreement of
up to $20,000.
AGREEMENT
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES
SPORTS FIELD IMPROVEMENTS
Wilsey & Ham
ITEM #H. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF
U
M
9 ECTkO 4I C Eta
LA 3"-1 ,
ITEM #9, ORDINANCE RE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY AT
0 (2nd le
ORDINANCE 3517 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
lHr I;irf OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3045 MIDDLEFIELD
ROAD FROM RM-2 TO PC" (1st Reading 2/17/84, PASSED 7-1,
Renzel 'no,* Woolley absent)
Councilmember Renzel asked to be recorded as voting "nom on Item
9, Ordinance re Classification of Property at 3045 Middlefield
Road.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel voting °no' on Ite0 9, Classi-
fication of 3045 Middlefield Road, Witherspoon absent.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Levy, to bring forward
It 13, Amendments to the .Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) re Mem-
bership to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) for purposes of e
continuance.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #13, POLICY 8 PROCEDURES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE AMEND-
•av
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Klein roved, seconded by Levy, to
continue Item 13 to March 19, 1984.
Councilaaember Bechtel said the P&P Committee discussed the timing
of,amendments _4t the _request of City Clerk Ann Tanner because ap-
pointments would be coming up in thenear future and proper noti-
fication was necessary. Any change would need to occur soon be-
cause of the 30 day period before an ordinance went into effect.
4 2 9 2
3/12/84
The Council wuul d know in a week whether to make the suggested
changes, and even if the 30 day period was not past, the Council
could still implement the ordinance. She did not object to the
continuance, but was curious about why it was requested.
Mayor Klein advised members of the public who wanted to speak on
the item to address only the question of a continuance, not the
substantive underlying issue.
James Stone, 365 Lincoln Avenue, Chairman of the HRB, said the
proposed amendments related not only to membership in the Palo
Alto Historical Association (PAHA) but to other qualifications for
tRb membership. The PAHA and HRB learned of the proposed changes
three days ago, and were not previously contacted by the Council
or P&P Comni tte . Between the December referral to the P&P Commit-
tee and the March 6 meeting when the matter was discussed, the
Committee agenda was not circulated to the HRB. Even if it was,
he doubted they would have realized it concerned them because the
item was designated "Proscribed members of Boards and Commis-
sions." He had a limited opportunity, as Chairman of the HRB, to
discuss the matter with other Board members and make comments. He
would rake a presentation that evening if necessary, but it was
detailed. A continuation would give the entire Board an opportu-
nity to consider the matter and provide a written statement so the
Council could consider the matter in time to meet the necessary
deadlines.
Carl McDowell, 580 Arastradero Road, President of the PAHA, said
the PAHA learned that the item was placed on the agenda last
Friday at 4:00 p.m. He received several telephone calls that day
and read the background at the College Terrace library at 5:00
ptm. that evening. The PAHA requested the matter be continued for
two weeks to give the PAHA time to consider the subject and make a
presentation to the Council or P&P Committee. The PAHA wanted to
cooperate with the purposes of the Committee and the Council.
Councilmember Woolley said she also spoke with the City Clerk
because she was concerned about the scheduling and how it would
affect the appointments to come up on June 1. At worst, a two
week delay would mean the first HRB meeting in June would be
attended by incumbents and there would only be one meeting without
the newly appointed representatives. She did not believe that
presented a particular problem. She was concerned that a one week
continuance left little time for the ordinance to be redrafted and
put into the packet.
Mayor Klein was more concerned about a two week continuance. T�:e
ordinance would not have to be redrafted; the proposal before the
Council was from the P&P Committee, and would be the one consi-
dered.
Councilmember Woolley said there was no problem for the HRB which
met on Tuesdays, but there was a problem for the PAHA.
MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO CHAISE THE NOTION TO CONTINUE THE
ITEM TO LARCH 260 1984
Councilmember Renzel was concerned about the procedure because the
i t.-'ra already went to the P&P Committee and came back as a Commit-
tee, report. She was surprised the HRB and PAHA did not receive
prior notice. She supported the continuance, but was concerned
since the Committee met on Tuesday to discuss the matter, and now
its recommendation would be in the air.
Mayor Klein said thy:;; Committee recommendation was up for consid-
eration, and it was now a question of giving members of the public
sufficient time to comment.
Vice Mayor Levy pointed out the draft ordinance before the Council
did not reflect the P&P Committee desire that at least two members
4 2 9 3
3./12/84.
"shall be architects, landscape architects, building designers, orother building professionals.
Assistant. City Attorney Sandy Sloan said when the ordinance
returned to the Council, it would include all appropriate
changes.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #1O, STOP SIGNS AT WEBSTER STREET/FOREST AVENUE (PLA 4.9)
(CM: on nue ram
Councilmember Renzel said regarding the Webster/Forest stop sign,
staff confirmed that the recent survey was done from October 20 to
February 23 when the staff report was written, and basically no
accidents were reported.
Councilmember Bechtel was convinced by the staff recommendation
and the additional letters from members of the public that a stop
sid,_was not needed. The additional red "No Parking" signs around
the intersection were appropriate and a stop sign was not needed.
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to not
adopt the resolution for a stop sign at Webster/Forest.
Cuunc;iiioeinber Fletcher said the solution ` was to ban parking on
corners by red curbing any for "No Parking" signs. When she in-
spected the intersection, it was difficult to see the red paint on
the curbing, especially on two corners, because it was old, faded
and chipped. A large van was parked along one curb, which was
supposedly painted red on Forest, and she noticed that the recent-
ly erected "No Parking" signs were on Webster only. If it was not
desirable to have a sign on Forest, she suggested the curbs be
painted red.
Transportation Engineer Ashok Aggarwal said the problem arose for
people who traveled on Forest because when they stopped at the
stop sign, they could not see due to illegally parked cars, where
the red curbs were faded. There was not a big problem on Forest
concerning the red curbs, and in lieu of the red paint on Webster
Street, the "No Parking" signs were installed.
Councilmember Fletcher said if visibility presented a problem on
Forest, the red curbs should be repainted or signs put up.
Mr. Aggarwal said the traffic on Webster went straight through
without stopping, so drivers were not concerned with visibility.
Drivers stopped on Forest and had to look right and left before
proceeding. It was essential that no cars park close to the in-
tersection on Webster, and was the main reason for the signs. The
red curb on Forest was for turning purposes, not so much for visi-
bility.
Councilmember Fletcher said it was supposedly a violation to park
at the corner on Forest. That was not being observed because
there were no signs and the curb paint was too faded. If it was
necessary to ban parking at the corner, it should be emphasized.
Mr. Aggarwal said the curbs would be repainted.
Council member Renzel said she traveled the intersection frequently
and concurred with Council member Fletcher. The red curb marking
was faint. If a large van was parked at the . corner of Forest, a
driver still had to pull out in front of the van to see down
Webster. Some clear markings should be made there, and she was
still dubious about whether the accident rate at the intersection
over the past two years could be ignored. If no stop signs were
put in at that time, the ratter should be reviewed during the next
normal review to see whether the accident rate remained low.
4 2 9 4
3/12/84
""` ND' 4Lt T : Counc i l mo fiber Renze i moved, seconded by Fletcher, to
:iri L w
review the Webster/Forest sign during the next annual stop sign
review process.
AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously,.Witherspoln absent.
ITEM #11, STOP SIGNS AT EAST MEADOW/ROSS ROAD (PLA 4-9)
a on nue roan
Director of Planning and Cornmeni ty Environment Ken Schreiber made
the following correction to CMR:175:4: Page 1, line 3, paragraph
"Description of the Intersection and Traffic," should read that
traffic on Meadow was 3,700 vehicles per day, not 2,100. It was a
frustrating traffic management situation, and the design of the
intersection was critical. A transparency of the angle at which
Ross and Meadow intersected showed that drivers headed eastbound
on Meadow turning left on Ross had to make a sharper turn than for
a conventional 90 degree intersection. Drivers westbound on
Meadow turning right on Ross had to make a less acute turn than
normal. If drivers went too fast or did not pay attention, they
could end up in the parking lane or on the sidewalk rather than in
the Ross travel lane. Staff used a time lapse camera to photo-
graph the intersection every two seconds from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30
p.m., the previous Monday, and it showed approximately 60 cars
turning left from Meadow onto northbound Ross. The cars tended to
follow one of three paths and negotiated the turn smoothly, ending
up in the Moss travel lane. A witness to an accident the previous
Thursday morning saw an elderly driver southbound on Ross stop at
the stop sign, slowly enter the intersection and hit an eastbound
car. The driver left the scene of the accident and was not appre-
hended. The staff report noted that the stop sign on Meadow would
reduce such accidents, but the number of such accidents was well
below the number usually associated with the installation of a
stop sign. Accidents to parked cars on Ross occurred more infre-
quently, and police records and discussions with Mrs. Model
indicated two such accidents per year. Staff estimated the number
of drivers turning left from Meadow to northbound Ross at_. about
80,000 to 100,000 annually, and would recommend stop signs if it
was believed they might substantially reduce or eliminate the
problem. A review of the times in which the accidents occured,
the age and behavior of the drivers, and related information led
staff to doubt their effectiveness. Based on the information,
staff recommenced the alternative of a 100 foot "no parking" . area
on Ross Road. The negative features of stop signs included their
negative impact on the bike lanes on Meadow and the increased air
and noise pollution impacts from vehicles --especially buses.
Recognizing the trade-offs the Council would have to consioer,
staff provided a draft resolution for the installation of stop
signs on East Meadow at Ross Road if desired.
Vice Mayor Levy asked for confirmation that a parked car on Ross
was hit once or twice a year.
Mr. Schreiber said that was correct.
Jim Model 3669 Ross Road, showed a videotape, and said he _talked
with some Councilmembers regarding the intersection, and it was
ludicrous that one or two accidents per year_ was not considered a
problem. , Five accidents since 1979 involved his vehicles, and -one.
accident involved two vet 4cles. His neighbors across the street
had two cars and their house . gas hit, but police files showed 10
reported accidents since 1979. His experience .indicated that
about one-third of the accidents at that corner were reported and
a report filed. A report was filed on an accident which involved
4 2 9 5
3/12/84
1
1
1
their car In December 1979, but no record was found, and he'ques-
tioned police r°ecurdkeepiny. Visibility was poor, and the angle
of the intersection and speeding along East Meadow were major
problems. From the signal light at Middlefield Road to the stop
sign on Louis Road was a half mile of wide inviting street which
encouraged excessive traffic, particularly during the commute
hours. The staff report mentioned that Colorado and Loma Verde
had the same kinds of problems, but had four-way stops at Ross
Road and every other cross intersection. Irrational drivers and
their ages were cited, but he believer) that had nothing to do with
-the particular situation, and that older people, such as the one
the previous Thursday, were a problem. To ban parking in front of
his home and those of fire or six of his neighbors on East Meadow
was unthinkable. The problem was to cut down speed and the poten-
tial for children playing on the sidewalk being hit because
drivers turned wide, and .went up onto his lawn. One of their
cars, which was parked hie h in the driveway and inside the set-
back, was hit. Something was needed to prevent that, and it was
basically a question of speed. A stop sign, even a "Hollywood
stop", would slow cars down, and probably prevent most of the
houses and cars in driveways from being hit. The CalTrans.criter-
ion was fine if all accidents were reported. He requested a four-
way stop similar to the one on East Meadow at Wilbur School and
the one on the other side of Alma to reduce the number of acci-
dents Within the intersection because of improved visibility, and
stop cut of control vehicles. He wanted people to have time to
cross the wide intersection, and his videotape clearly showed
there was a problem at the intersection.
Bob Moss, 4010 Ormie; asked the Council to reject the proposal for
a stop sign on East Meadow and Ross Road. He had driven that
street for more than 12 years, and traffic was less now than when
the school was open. With regard to speeding, the traffic survey
the previous summer showed the 85 percentile speed on that section
of East Meadow as 32 or 33 m.p.h., approximately the same as in
the mid -1970s, compared to the actual measured speed of 34 m.p.h.
on Los Robles, a 26 foot wide street and not a major collector
street, although it carried over 5,600 cars daily. e Excessive
speed was not a factor, and experience showed that adding step
signs resulted in a more -.unsafe situation. People tended to run
stop signs in the town, .and a consultant's survey done several
years earlier showed the average speed through stop signs in Palo
Alto was five m.p.h. The accident that occurred the previous week
actually occurred at a stop sign, controlled portion of the inter-
section where someone went through the stop sign and hit a car on
the uncontrolled portion of the street. The accidents depicted in
the staff report were primarily a result of bad driving --a drunk
driver, no license, and speeding --drivers who would not have been
slowed or deterred by a stop sign. Some people who did not want
to move their cars wanted a stop sign to disaccomrnodate over 3,000
drivers daily 'so they could park on the street. He would have
thought that the second time a car was hit, the owner .would have
moved it. If there was no need for a stop sign when Ortega School
was open, nor when the Jewish Community Center was- there and
attracted thousands of people per day, there" eras no need for a
stop sign on. a main collector street in a -city that already had
more than 870 stop signs. He asked the Council to reject the
request.
Douglas. MacDonell, 3649 Ross Road, lived about four houses up from
the corner on the same side as the Hodel house. He was angered by
the previous speaker because he had -two small children, and --wanted
cars parked there so that whencars ran up the inclined curb on to
the sidewalk, they would not hit his children
Walt Reid, 3650 Ross Road, lived .in one of the homes affected by
the proposed parking ban. The question was not a matter of speed
or irrational drivers. He was on the road 12 to 18 hours a day in
the Ci ty,: represent) ng Gal State .as a tow operator. He asked how
long 1t`wo,ild take before a child was .hit by a tyro ton car moving
4 2 9 6
3/12/84
et 40 to 45 m.p.h. through the inter~section. It was a reasonable
question because he had found himself taking the intersection at
5U m.p.h. not. realizing what he was doing. The corner was a major
problem. People parked their cars in their driveways, and a City
park was around the corner without a crosswalk leading directly to
it. Stop signs were definitely needed, not the removal of cars.
It was crazy to put in 100 feet of red line when people's property
was damaged and money was lost. Three weeks ago. between East
Meadow, Lorna Verde, and Alma and Middlefield, over 40 cars were
vandalized. He took care of them, one at a time, for over four
hours. If residents had to move their vehicles away from their
residences, and someone stole their batteries and slashed their
tires after a YMCA meeting, he did not think the Council would
pay. The pedestrian traffic; south and northbound to the Park was
great, and he saw a near miss about two weeks earlier at that
corner. Coming northbound on Ross Road into. the East Meadow
intersection, a driver had to merge his vehicle out beyond the
crosswalk for a clear view of east and westbound traffic. If
someone pulled out on a bicycle or in a vehicle, that driver would
have problems. People could not be replaced, vehicles could. He
noted that for five consecutive working days at 7:30 a.m. a police
officer was at ehe corner, and that showed the City realized there
was a problem there. It was on the edge of a high industrial and
technological area, and many of those people did not pay attention
to their driving; their windows were fogged up and they drove at
excessive speeds. There were many schools in the area with child-
ren commuting on bicycles --it was an accident waiting to happen.
The residents might consider digging the holes to put in stop
signs. The stop signs were justified.
Counc i l member Cobb said he was persuaded by comments that a stop
sign was justified. He was particularly bothered that the best
solution, short of a stop sign, was to tell people they could not
park in front of their houses. He enjoyed parking in front of his
house and it was inconvenient when he could not. Although he did
not think stop signs would totally solve the problems, it would be
a net improvement to an area with a history of problems.
MOTION: Councilmewber Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, approval of
the resolution to place stop signs at East Meadow/Ross Road.
RESOLUTION 6234 entitled PRLSOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
1111" ) ALTO AMENDING THE CITYWIDE STOP INTER-
SECTION KAP TO ADD STOP SIGNS ON EAST MEADOW DRIVE AT
ROSS ROAD'
Counc i.l member Fletcher supported the motion, and could not agree
there was no problem because there were not more than one or two
accidents per year. If one's own car were involved, or one's own
home was in jeopardy, it was a big problem. One or two aecidents
per year showed a pattern and convinced her a problem existed.
She was not sure that, removing the cars would solve the problem
since the cars were also hit in driveways too. Although the prob-
lem might not be entirely solved, the number of accidents would be
less.
Councilmember Woolley said, having visited the site on two occa-
sions during the past few days, she supported the motion. She
checked out the three streets that angled across from Alma to
Oayshore--Colorado, Loma Verde, and East Meadow --and there were
eight intersections where Ross, Lora Verde, .and Greer crossed.
All three_ streets had the same angle problems as East Meadow, yet
seven had four-way stops, only East Meadow did not, and it was
probably the worst since it was the widest. Colorado and Loma
Yerde were quicker to cross since they were physically narrower.
As staff pointed out, in order to maintain the integrity of the
major streets, they had to be kept open so that traffic did not
seek residential streets as shortcuts. Nevertheless, there was 4
danger at the intersection because the angle of the corner and the
width of the street outweighed that policy.
4 2 9 7
3/12/84
Councilmember Renzel concurred with her colleagues and favored thR
proposed stop signs. The accident record was clear, and the
Accident Reporting Standards indicated police reports were pre-
pared only on those accidents which resulted in death, injury,
hit-and-run under the California Vehicle Code, where City property
was involved, where a vehicle required towing, or when a drunk
driver or traffic violation was involved. She believed the police
reported accidents were insufficient to determine the difficulties
in a particular intersection. The Council had clear indications
from the actual reported accidents plus the statements by members
of the public that there were many unreported accidents and near
misses, and that the requested stop signs were justified.
Councilmember Bechtel said, after listening to members of the pub-
lic and her knowledge of the intersection, she was convinced the
Council should at least see if the stop signs made a difference.
She supported the motion.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember• Bechtel moved, seconded by Woolley,
that staff be directed to evaluate the East Meadow/Ross Road
intersection and report back in one year after looking at traffic
data.
Councilmember Bechtel said she offered the amendment because she
wanted stop signs to benefit the area and to make it better for
everyone. She did not believe it would be beneficial to erect "No
Parking" signs in front of the homes in the area, but was uncer-
tain that a stop sign would do the trick either. She was willing
to give it a try.
Councilmember Sutorius supported the amendment, and hoped staff
would have the latitude, and their schedules would allow them to
include comments and recommendations that might apply to the
length of Ross Road from Colorado to Mayview Many intersections
were controlled by stop signs along that route and there was not
mdch conflicting traffic to require the extensive signalization.
Just beyond East Meadow there was a three-way signal intersection
which he questioned. had the question been discussed and voted on
two weeks earlier when originally on the agenda, the Models and
their neighbors would have anticipated his nonsupport because of
the amount of time he spent there and his view of the traffic dur-
ing the noon hour and the late afternoon peak commute time. With
the new information presented by staff that. evening, including the
corrected traffic volumes, he --supported the motion.
Mayor Klein supported both the amendment and the main motion. It
was unreasonable that any set of homes in the community should he
subjected to one or two accidents a year on an almost predictable
basis. He was willing to try the stop sign approach because he
did not know what else to do at that particular juncture. He was
not persuaded stop signs were the answer because they were nbt the
total answer in other areas, and he supported the amendment to
evaluate the question in a year to see if it was working. He
hoped the stop sign would provide the solution in that area so
that the people on the intersection could park their cars in front
and not have to be concerned there would be a disastrous bump in
the night.
Councilmember Fletcher had no problem asking staff to evaluatethe
effectiveness of the stop sign, but they would not gain much
statistically from a one year evaluation where historically one or
two accidents a year occurred. She asked whether one accident
within the year would constitute justification that the stop sign
was of no use and should be removed. Without the stop sign,
there could have been two accidents;, they -could not know. She
would favor*_ the amendment if it directed staff to •keep track of
the accident history in that intersection and come back with an
evaluation and recommendation after three to five years. She did
not feel one year would be of much use.
4 2 9 8
3/12/84
As Corrected
4/30/84
Councilmember Bechtel wanted to hold to one year. If an accident
occurred at the intersection, she did not believe the reason was
because the stop sign did not work. There were all kinds of acci-
dents, but accidents such as those which occurred over the past
five to eight years where cars crashed through driveways or into a
house was another kind of accident. If such accidents continued,
the question would have to be reconsidered, but if two cars met in
the middle of the intersection, that was something different.
Councilmember Fletcher said statistically an evaluation would be
meaningless after only one year.
Councilmember Bechtel believed differently because they would have
a record.
AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Fletcher voting *no,"
Witherspoon absent.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
Councilmember Bechtel clarified that the stop signs would be in-
stalled within two weeks.
ITEM #12, PUBLIC HEARING:
ADOPTION OF THE 1984-85 COMMUNITY
L
Mayor Klein said the Finance & Public Works (F&PW) Committee unan-
imously recommended approval of the staff recommended amounts for
the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding.
Councilmember Cobb for the F&PW Cormi ttee said with Councilmember
Witherspoon absent, the Committee voted to adopt the staff report
as presented.. He referred to Table 1 of the staff report which
showed the only difference between what the Citizens Advisory Com-
mittee recommended and that recommended by staff and the F&PW Com-
mittee was the additional $16,000 for the CAR Swim Facility Energy
Improvements a;::I the ...subtraction of $15,000 for Retirement Jobs,
The
Inc. Committee as unanimous in its thanks to the Citizens
Advis-ory Committee which was .chaired by Mr. Edward White, and he
thanked Mr. .White for a ;lob Yell done..
MOTION: Councilmember Cobb for the Finance and Public Works
Committee moved approval of the staff recommended amounts for Com-
munity Development Block Grant funding; that the Citizens Advisory
Committee be commended for its excellent work; and that Council
make the following findings:
1. That the proposed 1984-85 CDBG Program will not have a signi-
ficant environmental impact;
2. That the 16 proposals recommended by staff in this report be
included in the I984-85 CDSSG program; and
3. That the staff be authorized to submit an application to HUD
to include the Palo Alto 1984-85 program, certified to be con-
sistent with the City's approved Community. Development Block
Grant Plan.
RESO TIO$ 6235 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
TwE ' LO ALTO APPROVING THE IJSE OF 1984-85
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS"
Councilmember Sutorius referred to the second page of the resolu-
tion, and asked if the reference was missing to the Housing Land
Bank that would , receive moneys from the Terrnan land sale up to ;
$152,320.
4 2 9. 9
3/12/84
Executive Assistant Glenn Miller said the reference was missing
and should be included in the resolution. The asterisk and the
footnote should appear exactly as they were in the report, but it
was missing from the actual resolution.
Mayor Klein clarified Counc i l member Cobb would include the refer-
ence in his motion..
Councilrnember Cobb said yes, and thanked Councilmember Sutorius
for catching the omission.
Mayor Klein declared the public hearin`,# open, and having no re-
quests from the •public to speak on the item, he declared the pub-
lic hearing closed.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
ITEM 114, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
ormy
E'EE.LLRT kmill A'R'E STALt AFirD itETIT. 0117117 17101 10' ov
Ibt -tOII tSS D I STR
Mayor Klein said although the item was not shown on the agenda as
being a public hearing, it was noticed and would be regarded as
such. The item concerned a series of recommendations by the
Planning Commission (PC) with regard to the California Avenue
Study: Council would first hear from staff and the public, then
go into details of the recommendations.
Planning Commissioner Joseph Hirsch said the major objective of
the recommendations before the Council was the reduction of the
development potential in the California Avenue Study area, The
proposed resolution explained the major findings and policy inten-
tions of the study, which the Planning Commission ccnsidered an
excellent summary of the process, the background information that
led to the study, and the resulting recommendations, It provided
a Comprehensive Plan policy to maintain the existing scale and
retail orientation of the California -Cambridge Avenue business
district, ana various programs to support it. The Commission's
recommendation was unanimous. Attachment #B" related to Land Use
designation changes to multiple family residential for certain
properties, and neighborhood commercial from service commercial
for properties outside the El Camino Real Parking Assessment Dis-
trict. Attachment C set forth the Community Commercial Combining
District and the Retail Shopping Combining District, which both
passed unanimously by the Planning Commission. Some concern was
felt about the Commission recommendation regarding the Neighbor-
hood Commercial zone, the designations for the Week's property at
the intersection of El Camino Real and Park Boulevard and the
McUonald property on Park Boulevard, The Neighborhood Commercial
zone was consistently applied by the Planning Commission along El
Camino Real, although some believed the property should have been
recommended Multi -Family Residential Some grandfathering of that
and other properties was made, but additional grandfathering would
be requested that evening with regard to Section 7 of Exhibit "d."_
The present useson the McDonald property were grandfathered, but
no expansion or reallocation of uses was recommended.. Exhibit "E"
dealt with parking requirements, and the basic consideration was
tho effect of making a recommendation when the Neighborhood Com-
mercial zone was not fully defined --the timing of the present mor-
atorium and when the new zone, if any, would go into effect. The
Commission opted for a more restricted zone, although all restric-
tions were not fully specified. It recommended adoption of the
Wilbur Smith parking requirements,_ although there was discussion
on the impact of the exemption. from -- __parking requirement
because it would promote parcel assemblage with undesirable side
effects. The Commission took action- to reduce the opportunity to
develop stew buildings without any parking requirements, and recom-
mended a study of the problem of assemblage of small parcels.
4`300
3/.12/84
Chief plauniny Official Bruce Freeland said he was asked to clari-
fy some issues on the Weeks' property at 1661 El Camino Real. The
Commission recommended a grandfather clause to allow projects that
received Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval prior to the
date ofthe new regulations to complete the project under the mor-
atorium rules. He was requested to comment on the setbacks along
El Camino Real. There was a special 25 foot setback along the El
Camino frontage of that property, which requirement was separate
from the zoning and from a different part of the Municipal Code.
He was asked to clarify that it was subject to application for a
variance") The 25 foot setback was not an absolute given, and
there might be grounds for a variance. Regarding whether it was
normal to extend the grandfather clause when an application was
not made, if an application was made, as a matter of course, the
grandfather clause would have been extended, and he believed it
was a consistent position. It was since pointed out to him the
City did nut normalcy create grandfather clauses to extend an
invitation to applications not yet made. For the record, he
wanted to make the distinction between that subject grandfather
clause and other grandfather clauses.
Councilmember Bechtel asked whether an application was made for
the particular Weeks' property.
Mr. Freeland said no ARB application was received. There might
be variance applications, but he was not sure.
Councilmember Bechtel said she heard rumors of a variance appl ica-
tion, but they were not confirmed.
Mr. Freeland did not know whether an application was made.
Vice Mayor Levy asked what was allowed under the moratorium
rules.
Mr. Freeland said the El Camino frontage of the Weeks' property
was zoned CS, so all uses and the site development standards of
the CS zone were in effect except for the two standards changed by
the moratorium. A CS zone normally allowed a 2:1 floor area
ratio, but the moratorium limited projects to a 1:1 floor area
ratio. Also, under normal CS zoning, buildings of up to 50 feet
could bel,erected 150 feet beyond residential properties, and 35
foot high buildings could he built within 150 feet. Under the
moratorium rules, the height was limited to 25 feet. Otherwise,
the uses and site development standards of the CS zone were in
effect.
Councilmember Woolley asked staff to comment on the two options
for the property at 409 Sherman. They presented two different
ways of solving the problem, and she asked which would be easier
for staff to enforce,
Mr. Freeland said he and the City Attorney net with Marilyn
Taketa, who represented the property owners, to discuss the
methods. It was suggested to Ms. Taketa that if her clients
desired buildings of the size that could be accommodated under the,
preraoratorium rules, which they believed was the intention,
another method would be to slot rezone the property, but leave it
CS. The applicantsmight want to address that question later.
Councilmember Cobb said he was struck by the sentence on page 3 of
Section 7, which said the CM zone was recommended by staff with
the understanding that the CH zone aV' wed office- uses on.. the
larger parcels, including the former Grecian Health. Spa+. He
double checked what was in the various zones, and both the CS and
CN zones . allowed medical, professional, and general business
offices. If one looked over:.: the list of things that could happen
in either one of those zones, offices probably represented the
highest economic use of those properties and generated the most
4 3 0 1
3/12/84
money for the owners. It was difficult to understand how they
improved their situation, or how they could get the results they
wanted. He was not convinced they would get more than a string of
offices.
Mr. Freeland said there were two major differences with regard to
offices in the CS and CN district. In the CS district, people
could go to underground parking and that expensive type of parking
solution, and get a larger building than in the CN zone, with a
2:1 floor area ratio as opposed to a 1 : 1 floor area ratio. The
Ch district currently placed limitations on office configuration.
The CS zone allowed an entire structure for the use of a. single
tenant, while in the CN zone, no more than 2,500 square feet could
be for an individual tenant, and no more than 5,000 square feet
could be served by a common entry. Therefore, the size of the
space within the building was more constrained in the CN than in
the CS zone to encourage dentists and more neighborhood type
activities to fill the space. Staff would return to Council on
March 26 with a report on the percentage or other limitations on
the overall size of offices to be built on CN properties, which
was what Commissioner Hirsch referred to when he said the rules of
the CN zone were not yet entirely fixed. There might be more
restrictive controls on offices in a few weeks, which depending on
the situation, could be a benefit or a detriment. It might force
some uses to more intensive non -office ;use, but he was not sure
about the outcome.
Councilmember Cobb said the rules of the CN zone seemed to be the
critical question. They were trying to eliminate certain classes
of uses, were concerned about too much office uce, and were trying
to eliminate intensive use. He was getting conflicting signals.
They might try to stop one, and although an intensive use might
not tae an office, it might be more objectionable.. He wanted to
assure the Council did the right thing to reach its ultimate ob-
jective of lowering intensity and the nature of the use.
Councilrnember Renzel asked about the zoning of the Weeks' property
prior to the 1976 Comprehensive plan.
Mr. Freeland said it was an R zone, which allowed professional
offices as part qr the district. He did not know the pre -1976
zoning categories well enough to be exact, but understood it was a
residential zone that allowed offices as part of a permitted use.
Councilmeriber Renzel said that was also her recollection. She
believed it might have been rezoned to CS because then there was
an existing office use and it might have slipped through the
cracks in the course of re-evaluating land use in the whole City.
She wondered if staff looked at possible residential rezoning or
redesignation of the property during the current study.
Mr. Freeland said no. The parcel was not part of the boundaries
of the original assignment, which was the land from Park Boulevard
to Stanford Avenue along Cl. Camino. In looking at the map, he
realized they recomlended the CN zone _ for the rest of the strip
and left an anomaly of the one parcel as CS, so he took the liber-
ty of adding it to the study area and giving it a consistent
treatment with the rest of the El Camino frontage. Staff did not
make a detailed study of the correct land uses of the let and.
neighborhood, but simply looked at consistency on the El Camino
Yrontaye.
Counci 1member Fletcher asked if, as a result of .the discussion of
the particular property since the Planning Commission meeting, and
considering the residential: nature o.f that side of Park Boulevard,
whether Mr. Freeland would make a different recommendation than
the one made at Commission level.
1
Mr. Freeland could not say staff studied a residential alternative
for the site, but he saw no objection to a residential land use
for the site. It was somewhat unique in that it was a commercial
corner in a residential block, and he considered a residential use
consistent and compatible with the block. It was not part of the
material they studied and it was not given any great thought
beyond not leaving the property zoned CS and an anomaly. He
would not argue against residential use.
Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open.
David Gleason, 396 Stanford Avenue, was a resident of the
Evergreen Park neighborhood and was concerned about the proposed
project on the Weeks' property. It was a mystery and sore spot in
the rezoning issue, oartly because of its location on the edge of
residential Evergreen Park and Southgate districts, it was not
contiguous to any other commercial development, and its status was
difficult to define. Its current use was acceptable, but the pro-
posed development was not appropriate. The .developers were
unwilling to come to terms with the problems the project would
create for the area. As a nearby resident and former president of
tale neighborhood association, he was involved with the issues of
the now abandoned Grecian Health Spa across the street from the
Weeks' property on Park Boulevard, which created coneaeae ahn„y
its size due to its being a commercial site in a residential
neighborhood. The spillover of traffic, parking, noise and crime
gust cause circumspection. The proponents solicited assistance
from two former City officials, Mr. Knox and Mr. h4aynor, who tried
to influence residents. That was necessary because, as the
developers were aware, the project was inappropriate for the par-
cel, and like a square peg in a round hole it did not fit, It
was not the place for_ an office building. The neighborhood strug-
gled for several years with traffic and parking problems generated
by development, and the appropriate use would be residential. He
urged the Council to consider that it would be the only office
building of its kind, would not fit into the neighborhood, and
would generate traffic problems. Other residents opposed that use
of the property, and such usage encouraged neighborhood resis-
tance. A grandfather clause might have been appropriate for main-
taining the current usage of the property, but not to secure com-
pletely different usages., especially one that would create more
density and traffic. If a. grandfather clause was used, he urged
it be made effective immediately and not on the date of the zoning
ordinance in a month's time, which would allow the developers to
return and. request a further variance. Mr. Weeks would like to
make a heelthy profit on the investment, and he did not oppose
that, but the argument was heard on behalf of the former
California/El Camino Winery project, the Birch/Cambridge office
development, and several other projects in the California Avenue
district, which were allowed to slip in under the moratorium the
previous fall. Too many exceptions were made for anyone with a
project to build, and he asked the Council to take a stand on the
responsible zoning modifications created not by choice, but out of
necessity.
Jon Parsons, 323 Maui acre, addressed the Weeks' property. He and
several : others urged that it be rezoned residential, as opposed to
CS or CH. The site was primarily residential under the old R3 -P
zone untf l 1976, when it was changed to bring it more into . con-
formance with reality. The property since then ,was used as a
school. The building and current use was obviously residential,
yid blended In well with the other residences. The only other
commercial use on the El Camino frontage beyond Park, which was a
real boundary in the area, was the Over business further up the
street which appeared to be an old residence converted into a
retail use and which fit nicely with the, community. No traffic
problems would be generated because there was the little El Camino
that sheltered the residences from the street, and sufficienc t.
access from Park Avenue. The residential ,zone would also give a
standard 20 foot setback. The Chi had ° different setbacks --a
4 3 0 3
3/12/84
certain amount on Park, a historical 25 foul, on El Camino. It
would also avoid a problem on the upcoming variance application
whereby the developers would attempt to build within nine feet of
El Camino and within five feet of an adjacent neighbor's fence.
All such problems could be avoided by rezoning the property resi-
dential, in conformity with all the uses north of Park, which
would be the only 1 ogical , reasonable, and compatible use of the
property. The grandfather clause should be addressed, regardless
of any action the Council took that everting. Currently, a devel-
oper could go forward with plans that had ARB approval as of the
effective date of the ordinance, which would give a five week win-
dow. The current clause was not what he considered a grandfather
clause to protect and provide fairness for those who actively
relied on the .zone as it existed. It amounted to special treat-
ment for those who were al ready told the community's best inter-
ests lay with the community acting through the City Council to
permit patti ny together a plan or package within the five week
window it arbitrarily created. It would encourage developers to
throw something together, race to the Planning Department, and get
approval at the last minute. He did not believe the City wanted
that sort of planning to happen in an area that impacted so
directly on the close neighbors. The downtown parking and the
California Avenue grandfather clauses were emergency ordinances
and applicable at the time of Council action. That made sense
since the rationale behind the grandfather clause and the whole
concept of vested rights was that once the Council acted, the
world was on notice, and could not race to get to -some protected
haphazard results. He requested, as a matter of public policy and
independent of any rezoning that might occur, the grandfather
clause be amended to encourage thoughtful, careful, and timely
planning, rather than a race to the Planning Department with stop-
gap plans.
Don Maynor, 2471 East Bayshore Road, Suite 501, first .spoke on
behalf of his client, Georg_ a McDonald, who owned the property at
2165 Park Boulevard, which involved two buildings, the fronts of
rich were office use, the backs warehousing. Four different
uypes of use were on the property-- retail, general business, of-
fice, and warehousing. It was the quietest commercial use in
town, and one had to be there to appreciate the quiet, and the
neighbors consistently supported Mr. McDonald's continued use of
the location. The Commission unanimously approved the grandfather
clause to allow Mr, McDonald to continue those uses, which was
appreciated. He suggested two amendments, the first was an admin-
istrative problem with the Lytech exception process to relieve the
administrative burden of both staff and the applicant. Because of
the nature of the exception, nothing would be lost in terms of
review. Secondly, they asked for flexibility for uses on the
property . A potential problem on the property involved Peninsula
Scientific because the blockage of Park Boulevard was giving that
tenant a difficult time. If she should terminate, Mr. McDonald
would attempt to replace that retail use with another retail use,
which in view of the difficult traffic problem, would be difficult
to do, and which meant leaving the space vacant. To avoid having
to return 1 ater with .a probl em that would probably be impossible
to resolve, he suggested a grandfather clause to _provide Mr.
McDonald with some flexibility and protect the City. The basic
concept was to allow existing uses within the existing improve-
ments to expand so 1 ong as the expansion did not result in a more
intensive use. For instance, if the retail use, which was the
most intensive use, terminated, it would then n be possible to put
in a. less intensive use such as office use, which was what they
were trying to achieve. If that problem: were not resolved that
evening, he did not think it would be resolved later He would
appreciate the Council's consideration for the existing use on the
property and the solution of the grandfather clause.
George McDonald owned the buildings at 2185 and 2185 Park Boule-
vard, and he asked Mr. Maynor to speak for him i n regard to the
4 3 0 4
3/12/84
mechanics of the zoning and the grandfatheriny. For 30 years he
was in business and a homeowner in Palo Alto, and during that time
he had cordial relations with his neighbors. He subrni tted letters
from the people immediately aajacent to his property who were in
favor, and thanked the staff and the Planning Commission for their
help during the zoning process. He was not asking to enlarge or
add to the buildings, he was there a. long time, and the buildings
were built to last. He was concerned that because of circum-
stances beyond Nancy Holmes' and his control, Peninsula Scientific
might be forced out of business. He wanted to move in himself and
not leave that space vacant, and appreciated the help so far.
David Schroin, 302 College Avenue, said he followed the California
Avenue Study from its inception, and came to say that although
some things were done to reduce the amount of development that
could take place, there was still an open door to many things
damaging to the community. He listened to a part of the meeting
over the radio, and heard about vandalism and accidents in another
part of town. As he listened to such separate incidents, he won-
dered if the Council connected it all. His perception was they
were creating a City that could no longer be kept in order. The
more complex a City became, the more densely settl ed, the more
buildings and people packed into it, the more difficult it was to
keep in order. Vice Mayor Levy, as an investment advisor, was
aware of many of the larger cities in the East where the old in-
frastructure was decaying, and efforts to find resources caused
them to float large quantities of paper. He was sure Vice Mayor
Levy did not advise his clients to buy that paper because it would
ire worthless some day. Palo Alto was confronted with a similar
situation. The kinds of land use changes that remained possible
within the California Avenue area would make it more difficult to
avoid the type of complaints heard earlier, when residents were
confronted with projects such as the one on the corner of Park
Boulevard and El Camino Real. That land was suitable for housing,
which the community needed. Offices and the employment they pro-
vided were not needed in the community. The overall effect of
allowing such development would make the community a less pleasant
place for all.
Ronald Hall, 158 Park Avenue, said the Weeks' property was sur-
rounded by a residential use and fit into the area well. An
increased commercial use by the proposed office building would be
visually out of scale and would increase the traffic and conges-
tion of the small neighborhood. The California Avenue study area
and development was under pressure from the new buildings going
in. The jobs/housing imbalance in the City and the California
Avenue area would continue to increase and he asked. Council to
consider the residential uses as proposed to act as a transition
from a single family, single story residential neighborhood to the
Cl Camino and the commercial area on Park on that edge of the
neighborhood.
COUr#C1L RECESSED FROM 9:20_11 12.2121.24.1._ -.... :..,
Mayor Klein said approximately 20 more persons wished to speak.
Mr. Hall introduced letters from Charles Clark, Jr., Ray and Lynn
uavis, and William and Mary Fitch, which he asked the City Clerk
to enter as part of the record.
Lr ac Richert, 5;35 Ramona Street, #27, was the architect for the
Weeks' estate. He was compelled to try and correct some misstate-
ments and misperceptions offered by various people which
heightened the emotional aspects of the situation. At one of the
first Commission meetings, there was discussion about a 50 foot
building that was to be put on the property. Even before the mor-
atorium, a 50 foot building could not have been erected. Several
people spoke about the property being surrounded by residential.
but t►'at was the case on two , sides only. Across Park Boulevard
was the Heal th Spa, with El. Camino Real on the other side. One
4 3 .0 5
3/12/84
person said that office use was inappropriate, although the
present office use was appropriate. Someone mentioned single
story residential, and a number of residences in that area were 30
feet high. People said the building would be out of scale, but he
did not know what building they were talking auor:t. They might be
talking of a building which recently applied for a variance and
ARB approval with a site coverage of 9,900 square feet versus the
present 8,000 square feet. The ridge height would be four and a.
half feet higher than the existing one, and contrary to it being
five feet from a residential fence line, its closest point was 32
feet to a property line, and approached the equivalent of a City
lot separation between it and resi defti al buildings. The project
had a 0.67:1 floor area ratio with a 25 foot height, and provided
100 percent of the parking on the property. A final misstatement
made by a speaker was that they were "developers" who were jumpinn
to take advantage of a grandfather clause and were not involved in
the process in which the neighborhood was apparently involved, and
they would try to take advantage. He was involved in the Weeks'
estate since 1977, two years after Mr. Weeks p':rchased the prop-
erty. In fulfilling his fiduciary responsibility to the estate,
the latter asked for a number of feasibilitia studies for the site
to determine its value. He offered to share the thorough study of
the residential use of the property, which was not mandated by the
Planning Commission, City Council or anyone. He said conceptual -
studies when the property was zoned CS with no moratorium indicat-
ed slightly larger developments than would be possible under CH or
residential zoning, but the approach would be identical with a
residential development on that property and every other property
in what might be called a transitional situation. Such buildings
would try to focus inward, with the buildings moving to the peri-
meter to provide a buffer against elements such as El Camino Real,
to a common area with amenities and landscaping buffered from
noise. The result was that the building pushed to the property
lines on all sides to the extent possible. In order to comply
with the daylight plane, the units pushed up as far as possible.
The issues of privacy and sunlight, etc., would become exacerbated
as a result. In contrast, he showeo a transparency of a project
they submitted which exceeded 50 feet and 30 feet. It did not
overlap the Woodsmi th property at all. They considered the con-
cerns aoout exposures, and made sure no windows overlooked Mrs.
Woodsmith's property. Impacts and ramifications of residential
zoning on a property such as the Weeks' property, and its transi-
tional nature, implied its location was in an area where' the
buildings would try to get to the perimeter of the property and
focus inward. That was _ not the kind of protection residents were
looking fora Protection wash,the initial goal of the California
Study which he supported through the sounding board, Planning Com-
mission, and Council meetings. They supported a reduction in
development potential, and reducing the 2:1 floor area ratio to
1:1. They found it appropriate to reduce their own floor area
ratio to 0.67:1. They did not support the 25 foot height limit,
but for architectural reasons, not for development reasons. They
were not "developers." Mr. Weeks was trustee of an estate, and
tried to fulfil a fiduciary responsibility..
Councilmember Cobb asked when the project was submitted for ARB
review, and what type of variance was being requested.
Mr. Richert said the project was .submitted to the ARB that day arad
resulted .from trying to preserve office use on the property after
many discussions with Mr. Freeland and the planning staff. They
were constantly told the only vehicle in the City was a PC zone,
and since it was a long drawn out affair, they decided to try and
,develop under the moratorium regulations. The variance applica-
tion concerned the 25 foot special setback, first imposed as a
result of CC4R's written in 1904. The same setback was imposed on
every property in Evergreen Park, and was initially imposed on
1691 El Camino Real. From th.e 1930s to the late 50s, all setbacks
wt'? reproved from every property in Evergreen Park except for the
4 3 0 6
3/12/84
one on El Camino Real. They wanted to get rid of it, but in the
interest of time, applied for a variance to reduce it so the prop-
erty could be moved away from residential properties, which they
considered appropriate, and maintain a setback consistent with CN
zoning. Another aspect of the variance was an existing fence that
bordered the property, which might be the reason for the five
feet.
Councilmember Cobb asked whether a variance request was inherent
in an office use on that property for a new development.
Mr. Richert said the variance request would be inherent in any
kind of office or residential use because of the shape of the
property and the 25 foot setback which ate into it. His residen-
tial conceptual drawings indicated a variance requirement.
Councilmember Bechtel was also interested in timing, and whether
Mr. Weeks and the nine people he represented planned to develop
the property and construct the building shown in the drawing, or
sell it with buildings, plans and permits.
Mr. Richert said Mr. Weeks intended to sell the property because
it appeared to be the only way to sell the property for office
use, which up until that evening everyone believed was appropri-
ate.
Councilmember Bechtel said the sale could be made, but the buyer
might not want to build the particular plans.
Mr. Richert said the buildings would then have to remain as is or
conform to whatever zoning was applied.
Councilmember Bechtel said another zone change application could
be made.
Mr. Richert said that was true, but for expanded office use, it
would have to be the proposed project or none unless it was appro-
priate under applied zoning.
Vice Mayor Levy referred to the 25 foot setback from El Camino,
and asked if that was a general rule that applied along El Camino,
or whether it related to the specific property.
Mr. Richert said the setback originated in the CC&R's for the sub-
division in 1904 and applied to all nonbusiness use properties in
Evergreen Park. It was on a setback map because in the early
years, such setbacks only showed up on setback maps. As the set-
back map became less important, the special setbacks were removed
f► --ow all the properties except for that one.
Jan Shuler, 2650 East Bayshore Road, recently acquired a small
piece of property at 409 Sherman Avenue, solely to construct a
12,000 square foot building for her owl business Arabian Horse
World magazine. Because the acquisition was of immense prdpo T
Tr -der financially, she called the City Planning. Department many
times to ensure the zoning and parking ordinances allowed such a
building to be erected on the site. She was never informed of a
study that would affect her plans, and was told the . planned con-
struction was in accordance with the City's parking ordinances.
Based upon those assurances, she made the financial commitment to
buy the land. Escrow closed on September 6, 1983, after a lot of
time, effort, and money was expended, and offers on other suitable
building sites were withdrawn. Barely a month later, the more-
tors gar was announced, and she was placed _in an untenable situa-
tion. The cumulative effect of the proposed zoning, and parking.
regulations would substantially reduce the value . of her property
and deprive her from using the property for which it was acquired.
-- to erect a building for her business. She appealed to the
Council for help. She did not want to delay or frustrate the
Council's action on the proposed ordinance changes, but proposed
4 3 0 7
3/12/84
two amerdments specifically to deal with two factors unique to her
situation and which most contributed to the undue hardship. She
bought the property when zoning and parking changes were imminent,
but prior to when information was provided to the public by the
Planning Department, and relied on existing zoning regulations in
good faith. She believed that because of the unduly harsh conse-
quences of that reliance --the inability to go ahead with the proj-
ect as planned and despite her financial commitment --the grand-
father clause could be amended to include projects which received
preliminary ARB review prior to the effective date of the ordi-
nance and properties purchased within 60 days of the commencement
of the California Avenue moratorium on October 25, 1983 with a lot
size of 5,000 square feet or less, and not commercially developed.
She believed such an exemption would apply to only 409 Sherman
Avenue since no other properties changed hands during that period.
The small size of her property and the fact that it was not com-
mercially developed would render the property useless if the pro-
posed ordinances passed. She ran a night shift, had no retail
trade, and few office visitors to require additional parking.
Their maximum parking use was usually not more than 20 to 25
spaces at any given time during peak business hours. She would
encourage her employees to use car pools, cycle, or use the train,
to substantially reduce their parking needs. She assessed her
ability to make a voluntary contribution to the parking district,
but the acquisition of the property substantially tapped her
resources. She was confident the Council would base its decision
on an informed understanding of her position; and if that decision
was fair and reasonable, it was all anyone could ask of the legis-
lative process. She thanked the Council for its time and consid-
eration.
Marilyn Taketa, 2471 East Bayshore, represented Ms. Shuler, who
outlined the events leading to her present predicament despite her
efforts to ascertain the zoning regulations. A legislative solu-
tion to her problem was submitted and it centered on expanding the
grandfather clauses to encompass small lots, or lots purchased
shortly before the moratorium went into effect to eliminate the
time squeeze factor of lis. Shuler. When the actual wording of the
legislative changes was discussed with the City Attorney, problems
centered on the fact that the property was not technically within
the moratorium ordinance. A better :ray to achieve the same goal,
at least with respect to the floor area ratio problems, would be
to leave the property as CC, while grandfathering in the parking
restrictions. Either al ternative, the grandfather expansion or
not applying the zoning change at that time, was acceptable to her
client; fairness on the issue was important for her client.
Other property owners in the general area enjoyed an advantage
over Ms. Shuler because they were aware of the California/
Cambridge Avenue Study and its tendency toward development reduc-
tion. The study was ordered over two years ago, acid early last
year . the Council approved a citizens participation plan to allow
those most affected to be involved. A community sounding board
and an assessment district committee was formed, which was com-
prised of the owners, tenants, and merchants in the business dis-
trict itself. The committees met throughout 1983, received and
reviewed materials, discussed the various future alternatives for
the study area, and formed the basis of the ordinances before the
Council Those with interests in the general area were intimately
involved in formulating the changes that would affect their prop-
erties and were able to put development projects is into motion be-
fore such changes were implemented. The moratorium was discussed
a few months before it was made operative, and one project, now
exempted from the moratorium and recommended for grandfathering,
took advantage of that foreknowledge and went in for City approval
just prior to the moratorium on August 2, 1983, and received the
required ARB approval on September 1, one month before the mora-
torium. Ms. Shuler was not so fortunate, and was caught in a time
squeeze. She did not buy her property until - September 6, 1983,
and was not knowledgeable about the City's study and its potential
4 3 0 8
3/12/84
implications. While she was informed about applicable development
restrictions, the study and its potential adverse implications
were not called to her attention. As she prepared plans for sub-
mission to the City, the moratorium was imposed --one month after
escrow closed --and cut off her options. In the interest of fair-
ness, she believed the grandfather clause should be extended to
cover her situation. Had she been privy to prior knowledge, her
submission would have been concurrent, with the close of escrow,
and she probably would have been grandfathered in. ARB approval
took as little as 16 days from the date of application, or within
six weeks with a clean project. The grandfathe n clauses before
the Council exempted any project with ARB approval prior to cer-
tain dates across the board. If the underlying intent, rationale,
and design of the grandfather clauses was to cover projects suf-
ficiently underway to indicate a bona fide development intent with
a concommitant expenditure of time, money, and effort, the 409
Sherman project should be included to avoid undue hardship. The
lot was small and hard hit by the requirements for parking and
floor area ratio. It was purchased at a premium price shortly
before imposition of the moratorium, and the owner was not privy
to the study despite her care to check out applicable development
requirements. There was no question that Ms. Shuler was making a
bona fide attempt to expeditiously carry out her development plans
at the time of the moratorium. Grandfather clauses, as used in
Palo Alto, were intended to avoid unduly harsh results in a manner
fair to all. The date of ARB design approval was the cut-off date
criterion in the moratorium, and Ms. Shuler's attempts came close
to being within that period. A recent precedent was set in Palo
Alto to grandfather in projects not that far along in the City's
processes in. the East Bayshore study. Design approval was not the
only potential criterion available, and it did not take into ac-
count newly acquired parcels just gearing up to enter the process.
She strongly urged the Council to find that Ms. Shuler, and any
other owners of small parcels caught in the same time squeeze,
should, in all fairness, be grandfathered in with projects that
received sufficient notice to begin the City approval process
before the moratorium.
Mayor Klein asked staff to elaborate ate on the solutions with regard
to the Shuler property.
Mr. Freeland said the problems were parking, and the allowable
building size. Anything less than the full 3:1 floor area ratio
that existed prior to the moratorium in the CC zone was not useful
to the present owners of 409 Sherman. If the Council intended to
allow a building of that size, the only possible solution for that
one parcel would be to not rezone to CC(2 ), and 1 eave the CC zone
in place. Regarding parking, option A of Ms. Taketa's letter of
March 7, 1984, which was on file in the City Clerk's office, was
the most acceptable to staff. Staff was concerned an exemption
from parking would magnify the potential impact on the parking
assessment district. If the 12,500 square foot building was
erected and used for office purposes, according to the Wilbur
Smith study, about 40 parking spaces would be needed, but the
owner disagreed. An exemption of approximately 0.5 floor area
ratio was built into the ordinance, and that subtracted about
seven required spaces and left a deficit of about 33 spaces in
excess of the spaces allowed under the ordinance. -:The proposed
grandfather clause represented a considerable addition to the
deficit in the California Avenue area, and an additional burden on
the property in general to eventually raise money to provide park-
ing structures. He wanted that impact to be clear; and, should
Council choose to exempt /the property from the parking require-
ment, it should ; be aware of that consequence.
City Attorney Diane Lee responded to MS. Taketa's letter, and said
the standard for "a taking in the law was to deprive a property
owner the economic use of his property, .and regardless of whether
the Council decided to have the grandfather clause, the record
should clearly- state that "a taking" was - not the case. With.
respect to the changes in the language related to development
4 3 0.9
3/12/84
standards for the property, either option' A or El, she was tro,.bl ed
by drafting what she considered to be somewhat convoluted greed -
father clauses that applied to one property. If Council voted to
keep the CC zoning, she believed a more straightfarward way to
deal with the problem would be to have the app' )cant apply for a
variance. The purpose of that procedure was to provide someone,
deprived through hardship with rights to make its property value
equal with others in the district. If that was the case, a vari-
ance procedure might be considered, but she was legally troubled
with the wording of the options and the concept of the action.
Mr. Freeland quoted page 2, paragraph 2 of Ms. Taketa's letter as
"Thus, the maximum building size on this parcel would be limited
to an economically unviable 1:1 floor area ratio in operation
while surrounding parcels woul d enjoy a 2:1 or better floor area
ratio;" and point (4) of the following paragraph: "the substantial
effect of depriving (tree owners) of any reasonable or beneficial
use of the property." Regarding the extent to which the property
was unique and whether beneficial use of the property would be
denies by the full application of the ordinance as originally sug-
gested, he said within the parking assessment district he counted
97 parcels of land, and 24 were less than 5,000 square feet in
size and most were already substantially developed. Five of those
parcels, including 409 Sherman, were less than 5,000 square feet
and had small existing buildings, which he defined as 0.5:1 floor
area ratio; and of those five, one was a vacant lot and another
had a structure smaller than the one on 409 Sherman. Five small
parcels between 5,000 and 7,000 square feet had small buildings on
them, including 409 Sherman, and 10 lots were small with buildings
on them or vacant, and many functioned economically. Some were
restaurants, such as 444 California Avenue, a 4,063 square foot
lot; there were retail uses at 447 California Avenue, a less than
4,000 square foot lot with a building of a little over 2,000
square feet; and personal service uses at the building at 240
California Avenue. There were four eating establishments in the
buildings he mentioned, and evidence that small structures in the
California Avenue business district carried a variety of uses.
The CC zoning permitted a variety of uses, and he took strenuous
exception that the zoning, as originally recommended, would deny
all reasonable use of those parcels. That was not true. Under
the zoning, there was a 0.5 floor area ratio exemption from build-
ings without having to provide additional parking. The evidence
was that small properties functioned economically there.
Mayor 'Klein asked for clarification from a Planning Department
standpoint about the proposal to exempt or grandfather in proper-
ties sold 60 days prior to the moratorium.
Mr. Freeland said he teed to not say whether the Planning Depart-
ment favored the mechanisms, but rather whether they were a satis-
factory means to an end. He believed the way to handle the land
use side was to not rezone the property; and Option A seemed . an
acceptable way 3 r which to exempt the property from the parking
requirement.
Mayor Klein asked Ms. Lee to comment.
:s. Lee said her concerns related to the land use _ options, not
parks ngs, She was concerned about the general concept of legisla-
tion, but that, was a policy matter for the Council to decide. She
had no problem witt. the specific wording of option A, but was
troubled by the wording of . the parking proposal and the amendment
to the CC(C) zoning ordinance provisions because the City did not
use preliminary reviewexcept as a time cut off i n its other ordi-
nances. It was proposed that preliminary ARB review be used as an
approval; time for the proJects. Preliminary review was a basic
l nfor*ail look at something, and Council was being asked to use
that as a basis byapproving either A or B.
Mr. Freeland said anothe- difficulty with the A and 8 proposals
for the CC zoning was that no guidance was given about the appl1-
cable zoning standards, and it was left ambiguous. He believed
the intent was to allow a 3:1 floor area ratio building, but the
language did not necessarily allow that. It was a question of the
Council's intent, and it might be more clear by not rezoning.
Ms. Lee said it was also a clarity issue for options A and B on
the CC(2) zoning ordinance. There were no clarity problems on the
parking suggestion in option A.
Vice Mayor Levy asked for clarification that the owner of 409
Sherman was not advised a study was in progress for California
Avenue when she spoke with staff prior to the purchase.
Mr. Freeland said staff attempted to piece together evidence about
the contacts at that point, and made every effort to get word out
to the community about the study. Staff's response to an inquiry
would have depended on the inquiry, and it was possible that ques-
tions were asked and staff did not realize .the full extent of the
required answer. That possibility existed if the questions were
directed to the wrong staff person, or if questions were not
formulated in a clear context. Staff could.. not find specific
recollections of the conversations.
Vice Mayor Levy said the question was raised about encouraging
assemblage of small parcels, and although Mr. Freeland indicated
that a number of small parcels was being used economically, he
asked whether a small parcel could be developed economically in
the future with acceptable parking under the ordinance before the
Council, or whether assemblage of smaller parcels into larger ones
was strongly encouraged.
Mr. Freeland said the requirement for on -site parking was clearly
an incentive to assemblage. The larger the piece of ground one
started with, the more practical it was to design parking for any
structure that might be built, and that was true for the downtown
as well as for California Avenue. The push toward assemblage
would continue to large groups of property; and it , was true that
the smaller the property, the more difficult it was to physically
design parking for it. The smaller the parcel, the greater the
urge towards parcel assemblage,
Vice Mayor Levy asked if it was proper to say that a parcel as
small as 5,000 square feet would have to be built on stilts, with
parking beneath.
Mr. Freeland said -he looked at the assertions in the letter, and,
although it might not be the only design, he believed it would
,need something like that. A building of 0.5 floor area ratio
could always be put inawithout any parking, but onT si to parking on
a small lot was difficult= A staff member calculated how many
parking spaces could be obtained with a Tot the dimensions= of 409.
Sherman; . Without actually laying out the spaces, and using only a
theoreti'cai as ount of space per car and backup, it was -11 spaces,
whereas the letter- spec i ffed . eight'. It was in tho same ballpark,
park,
and the conclusions were the sage, not -many cars could get into
the lot, and -something i i ke building on st#its woul d_.be necessary.
The figgures might be off by 1,00,0_ feet either way, but they were
easiantially -correct.
Councl l member 5utori us said not much time elapsed slnce the
•February 22 Co lAsion meeting when Commissioner 'Chandler -and
Others discusse€1 potential changes In the formula-- which: Mr.
Freeland directed -1 toward not - eko-uraging arse abl°age.- He asked
whether. Mr.. - f reel end-- had an : `apportuti ty to.: cowl der the ." nuisbers
and percentages..
!fir. Freeland said n
1
Councilmember Woolley asked regarding the problem of the 33 space
deficit to the Assessment District, if the Council allowed the
project to go ahead, had Mr. Freeland had a chance to review a
compromise to allow the property owner to make a contribution.
Mr. Freeland did not believe that sort of compromise was possible
with the kind of zoning decision before the Council. A statement
of recognition of the problem was made by the owner, and a state-
ment of interest in exploring what could be done, whi :h concern
was voluntary. Staff did not try to solve that problem.
Councilmember Renzel referred to the suggestion that Council
retain the 3:1 floor area ratio by simply not rezoni,g the parcel,
and she asked how it would relate to the surrounding parcels that
were already developed and would be rezoned to the CC(2). 'It
appeared those parcels were developed to the maximum possible
under the CC(2) , and she asked for confirmation.
Mr. Freeland said he would.teed to research the question..
Mayor Klein suggested the public be heard in the interim, and that
shortly- the Council consider whether the agenda could be accom-
plished that evening. He declared the public hearing open.
Geoffrey Thompson, 416 Oxford, was concerned that the Weeks' proj-
ect was office space, and would add to the jobs/housing imbalance
in Palo Alto. A new office development went against the imple-
mentation of a long-term policy to swing that imbalance the other
way. He had no objection to the current level of use, and its
appearance was moderately attractive. He agreed that residential
development would push the edges out to give an inward focus and
cause problems to surrounding residents and he had mixed feelings.
If the City cared about the jobs/housing imbalance, : such parcels
should be scrutinized closely. He was unhappy about projects that
were allowed to slip under the California Avenue study,, and spe-
cifically referred to the project at the corner of California and
Birch, which after being inactive for a year, quickly poured two
yards of concrete in order to be grandfathered. They went to the
Council that same evening to say they started construction and
were assured they would not be subject to any of the effects of
the California: Avenue Study, and did nothing since. He was not
sympathetic to requests for grandfathering, and given the perform-
ance in the past from developers,. the Council should not be recep-
tive without better arguments than those demonstrated in the
past.
Zong Lao, 214 Sequoia Avenue, spoke about the Weeks property, His
property line was adjacent tothe parcel in question, and he asked
the Council to deny the request for commercial development. They
had a good neighborhood, and Mr. Weeks hired the previous City
Attorney and some previous members of the Planning Commission who
knew what to say to make the project go through. He and other
neighbors were small homeowners .who needed the Council's help. He
previewed the proposed development, end there were 85 parking
spaces. Calculated on 10 uses per parking spot on any given day,
it meant 850 cars entering and leaving a building that used to be
single family residential". He referred to the environmental
study, and reiterated the need for Council help. He was a natur-
alized citizen who bel i eyed in the American way of doing the right
thing. It was late and people stayed at the Meeting ng beCauso the_,
subject was worthwhile and the Council was listening. They did
not want what was happening in the neighborhood= attorneys were
going door to " door and i nti'aai dat1 ng people. They had a sense of
va.loe in their community, snd .he opposed the possibility of a
grandfather. clause. He strongly urged denial of the commercial
development, to maintain the residential-neN'ghborhood, and believed
Council Should provide the lowest density residential zd, i ng.
Bob Noss, 4010 Or me. said the present CS zone in the area was an
historical accident:. When the C8 zone was first: adopted :in 1978,
it was considered experimental and applied only in the Carron Park
area because zoning protection was needed ;n the 'neighborhood.
The staff report of last year verified that CN was viabi`z and suc-
cessful, and it was now appropriate to go back and correct the CS
zoning on the lots to be more in keeping with what the community
at large required --a lower intensity commercial development along
El Camino Real. The purpose of rezoning the entire area --the
CS(2) zone and the reduction from CS to Cat --was to attack and
acknowledge problems. There were too many jobs,. cars, traffic and
not enough parking or housing. Anything which permitted grand-
fathering in of higher intensity uses defeated the purposes. Of-
fice uses in the commercial zones --especially CS and CN--were less
desirable than retail, and created four times as many jobs as
retail, exacerbated the jobs/housing imbalance, and defeated the
rezoning for residential and the residential incentives toward
which Council worked over the past few years. As for changing the
economic use of the property by changing zoning, the property at
the corner of Park and Sherman was exactly 5,000 square feet, con-
tained a 3,750 square foot building and 12 parking spaces, and was
being used economically. The Council would not deprive economic
use of the property by reducing the intensity from a 3:1 floor
area ratio to something less. He believed the Council should
focus on the public needs and benefits --not on economic issues for
a property owner or a developer. There were problems in the, area
and severe impacts on the carrying capacity of parking in the
street from overdeveloped property, and he urged the Council to
adopt the CN zone. along El Camino, seriously consider a residen-
tial zone for the property across Park surrounded on three. sides
by residential, and adopt the CC(2) zone in the areas outlined.
Audrey Poulter, 1731 Park Boulevard, lived next door to they Weeks'
property at Park and El Camino, since 1968. As a neighbor, she
was interested in its development, and although neighbors could
not insist the property stay as is. they should have a voice in
assuring a reasonable development. The property currently had a
residential feel to it with two scattered buildings. It was
originally a residential parcel that slipped into more commercial
use over the years after being a school. Residential zoning would
provide a 2U foot rear yard, which was not the case with CS or CN,
and would provide better setbacks on E1 "Camino and Park Boulevard.
Their bedrooms were seven feet from the property 1 i ne, `and she did
not want an office building next door to her. Residential devel-
opments were often better landscaped, and she "wanted some height
limit as under CS or CM, and urged an RM-3(T) or RM-2(T) zoning
which had a two story limit. S,he believed the Planning Commission
was bowed. over when Don Maynor and Naphtal i Knox went in at the
last minute fur a grandfather clause. Grandfather clauses should
protect thosewho prepared plans for a project wi thout knowing a
tone change was going to happen —not protect projects which plans
diced not yet exist. Grandfather clauses amounted to special .treat-
ment and trade a mockery out of proposed rezoning. Mr. Maynor
advised her that the property was being rezoned to C1i, but did not
me-nti on the grandfather clause or that the property would not com-
ply with CM setbacks on Park Boulevard. Some neighbors were told
by a Counc i lmember that residential meant • three stories,' but it
was not mentioned that RM-3(T) zone in Evergreen Park was only two
stories. She hoped the Council heard her plea and would zone the
property residential and not crake a mockery by a specia'l'ly created
grandfather clause,
Ms. Pouf ter, representing Agnes Anderson, 1743 Park Boulevard,
read a letter ;'from Ms. Anderson which was on' fil e in the City
Clerk's offic . Ms. Anderson was disinterested in a two-story
office building at 1681-1691 El Camino .because the increase in,
traffic that building would generate would'add to an already con-
gested street. . A large underground garage would attract _crime,
which = problem was constant with the health spa at Park Boulevard
and El Camino. Although the spa was closed for three months, a
robbery -and other problems occurred. She was concerned about
pollution and vandalism, and that the quality of life would deter-
iorate. She lived at her address since 1953, and from her kitchen
window she used to be able to see Stanford, the trees and hills.
The spa was built and her view was cut off, and she did not want
that to happen again. It was outrageous to allow the construction
of a commercial building ten feet from the property lines of her
neighbors. The neighbors were rightly concerned about the lack of
privacy on their 1 ots--nei ghbers looked out for one another, but
with an office there, one would never know who was in the build-
ing. She urged that the property not be used inappropriately as
commercial, and that it be returned to residential but only
RM-3(T) or RM-2(T). If well landscaped, noise from traffic would
be reduced, less traffic would be generated by those units than a
two-story office building, the neighborhood crime watch program
would be more effective, and the neighbors would know who their
neighbors were.
Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, supported the comments made
toy David Gleason and Jon Parsons who encouraged that the Weeks'
property be rezoned to residential. She used the California.
Avenue area often and was concerned about the impacts of the, pro-
posal on traffic and the City as a whole. The employment to be
provided was not the kind people desperately needed, and the big-
gest impact was the pressure on the housing market. If Council
took the jobs/housing imbalance seriously, it was appropriate to
rezone the property to residential. She understood that the pro-
posal was about 24,000 square feet of office space --or about three
times that currently there. She sympathized with property owners
who expected to develop their property in a certain way, but lib-
eralizing the grandfather clause set a dangerous precedent for
future properties, and could boomerang on the Council in its at-
tempts to achieve long -tern c,bjectives. She reminded the Council
about the massive rezoning effort on El Camino in 1976 or 1977
At that time, a strict grandfather clause save-;# the day in terms
of allowing the City to accomplish its objectives there. She en-
cour=aeed.the Council to not liberalize the grandfather clause.
Marilyn Mayo, 404 Oxford, represented Anne Ercolani, 2040 Ash,
and stated that the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association Steer-
ing. Committee's position < regarding growth and development in the
California Avenue area was that it was already at its maximum
potential in terms of traffic, and that its current scale and
level of service should remain the same. The proposals reduced
the potential commercial development in the area, and would enable
the area to continue serving the community much as it had in the
past. The change in zoning on Park Boulevard, north of California
Avenue to residential would at last bring a strip of land into
conformity with the surrounding parcels. She supported passage of
the ordinances with one exception. Over the last two years of the
study, mention was frequently made of the Weeks' property proposed
for rezoning to CN, yet .the owner asked that the grandfather
clause be changed to allow him to build a project with CS require-
ments. There were two issues, the most appropriate zoning for the
parcels and the grandfather clause criterion. The Evergreen Park
Steering Committee always recommended rezoning the El Camino prop-
erties to residential. The Weeks' property was clearly appropri-
ate; it was previously residential, and all its adjacent neighbors
Mere single family residences. Those neighbors agreed with resi-
dential zoning provided with a (T) zone and a two-story limit.
Since all adjacent properties were single family, she believed the
MA -2(T) was most appropriate. She was told by Mr. Weeks' repre-
sentatives that residential was not feasible, but that was not
true as confirmed by staff in discussions that morning. She could
only assume the representative meant that at the asking price -res-
idential was not feasible. She hoped the community needs of noos-
ing, and not more development and jobs and the desire of a parti-
cular owner to maximize his profits, would be the basis of the
Council's decisions. The grandfather provisions were for those
persons who relied sway ly on existing City rules which they found
4.3 1 4
3/12/04
were to be changed. They were not to encourage people to rush in
a project at the last minute to get in an "under the gun" t e of
policy. Discussions about rezoning went on for years whileRdis-
cussions regarding the proposed project emerged the past month.
If Council decided to retain the parcel commercial rather than
residential, unless the project was approved, it was likely to be
a restaurant. While she believed an office building would be more
compatible with the neighborhood than a restaurant, she could not
support the proposed change to the grandfather clause because it
would be an undesirable precedent and defeat the purpose of the
process. She urged the Council to rezone the parcel to RM-2(T),
pass the grandfather clause effective immediately, and the rest of
the ordinances as proposed.
Lois Johnson, 230 Sequoia- Avenue, said she watched the development
of California Avenue for the past 40 years. She wanted-tosee the
Weeks' property remain residential in nature, and preferably
rezoned to RM-2(T).
Naphtal i Knox, 1025 Forest Avenue, said some years ago Stan Norton
asked why so many planners were needed on staff because the town
was built up, and it appeared the City was done with planning. He
was a planning consultant in business now for three years, and as
his practice grew, he moved annually and faced stiff rent in-
creases. Like many others, he lived and worked in Palo Alto, as
did one of his present and future employees: He dealt daily with
the loss of supply and demand, and he believed office supply was
sufficiently limited and the demand sufficiently great .that he
paid higher rental rates than he would have to pay elsewhere. Mr.
Schrom's insinuation and the remarks of others that offices were
nut needed did not jibe with his experience at 677 High Street or
420 Florence. He was unwilling to have another citizen of the
community dictate the place of his livelihood for the ultimate
result of that selfish approach would be that he --a 12 -year resi-
dent of Palo Alto --would have to move his business out of town,
and he wanted to stay. Mr, Moss mentioned the Gi amal i s building
of 3800 square feet on a 5000 square foot lot. The application
made that day to the ARB for the Weeks' property was a building of
21,000 square feet on a 31,600 square foot lot and the proportions
were approximately the same. It was actually less building per
square foot of lot than was the Giaenalis' building. The Victorian
at 420 Florence was approximately a 10,000 gross square foot
building on a 5,600 square foot lot, and by comparison, tr a Weeks'
building was proposed at double that size 20,000 square feet, but
was on a lot six times the size and it would have 85 parking
spaces. There was no parking at the Florence Victorian in down-
town Palo Alto. Those representing the Weeks' estate did not pro-
test the application of the CN zone before the Council to the
Weeks' property, and were reasonably satisfied with the grand-
father clause unanimously approved by the Planning Commission, but
preferred that the Council amend that: grandfather clause to give
Mr. Weeks an increased measure of risk protection as he proceeded_.
through the AR8 approval process, In anticipation of the discus-
sion about rezoning to residential, he agreed with Mr. Gleason
that the present use of the property was appropriate in scale,
texture and size. He, Mr. Maynor, and Mr. Richert had the task of
working for a client who knew he must proceed beyond that current-
ly there, that time did not stand sti l i , and that things would
c hangs and they were trying to find the best possible solution in
a situation where change was imminent. The buildings on the prop-
erty would change because of the laws of real estate, _ the loca-
tions, and economics. After roany maeetings with staff, the repre-
sentatives concluded that residential was inappropriate It was
only on the surface that residential was better --that there would
be more housing and fewer jobs --but as Mr, Richert illus_trated,
the particular property was dialyzed and residential would not
work to the advantage of the neighbors. The same people request-
ing residential that .evens ng would be back i n six months protest-
i ng the condominiums or below market rate rentals which wbuld be
financed by tax exempt bonds, Too much: :f that was .already seen,
4 3 1 5.
3/12/84
1
and the Council backed down time after time and said that
neighborhoods could not be disturbed since the small nember of
dwelling units gained would be at a high price and it was not
worth it. The property was too small for residential on El
Camino, and was unlike the Barron Square property with a lot of
depth and where tennis courts were placed adjacent to El Camino.
It was unlike the Vistas de la Plaza properties with the blue
roofs that placed the lower income housing units and a high wall
along El Camino and were al so on a much 1 arger parcel . Those
properties were many times the size, .depth, and had possibility
for residential. He showed a transparency which illustrated a
comparison of the setbacks, and said there were a lot of
misstatements about what those setbacks might be. An application
was made for both a variance and ARB approval, and the action was
based on good faith. If Council considered residential on the
property, he saw nothing in the public notice: with respect to the
Comprehensive Plan hearing that permitted Council to do so at that
meeting.
MAYOR KLEIN RE THOSE ITEMS TO BE HEARD AFTER 11.00 p.m.
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to bring forward
Item #16, Downtown Study Revised Work Program, for purposes of
continuances
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #16, DOWNTOWN STUDY REVISED WORK PROGRAM - Continuance
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to continue Item
#16, Downtown Study Revised Work Program, to Larch 19, 1984.
Council ember Renzel asked staff whether the one week delay would
have any major impact in scheduling.
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said no.
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED by a vote .of 7-1, Sutories voting
"Roe' Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #14, Continued - PUBLIC HEARING RE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE
t TR177RDINANCE CHANGES TO IMPLEMENT THE CALIFORNIA AVENUE
Don Maynor, 2471 E. Bayshore, Suite 501, said he heard many mis-
statements that evening, and was bothered when proceedings were
broadcast over the radio with suggestions that people were mis-
lead. When he stopped by to see Ms. Poulter, she was ill and he
was. unable to explain every aspect of the complicated project.
He did not learn about the 0M -3(T) zoning until that morning, and
the representatives were late on the proposal because the property
owner, Mr. 'Meeks, was a trustee of the estate and did not
previously believe he could develop the property. It was only
recently that he determined he could take: a project, get it
approved, and marked an "approved project" without having to take
it through construction. They. then realized that a CM zoning
would be placed an the property, and it ,was important for the
community and the property to apply for an office use --what they
considered to be the best use of the property. He clarified that
when Mr. Richert presented a transparency of residential plans,
those studies were done with the CS zoning. Under a residential
zone, there would be some setbacks, and Mr. Richert attempted to
point out that a typical residential property , would ;tend to force
the property lines. He understood that the property was zoned
R -3(P) in 195.3, and that an office type use continually existed on
the property since that time. Regarding the variance, the Weeks`.
property was the only commercial property in the Evergreen Park
area with any setback, and it was 25 feet. Going South On El
:Camino, all the CS properties had their setbacks taken Off, and
regardless of the outcome that evening, Council might want to
consider the appropriateness of a setback map when ordinances now
put people . on .notice of their setback requirements. The setback
map tended to be a trap for the unwary because not many people
were aware of its.:
4. 3 1 6
3/12/04
i stence. It was said that there would be 85 parking spaces
under the proposed project, and that under an RM-3(T'j, 28 spaces
would be required. He understood that with 85 parking spaces on
an office use, the number of trips would be double --or 170 trips.
-
With a resi del ti al project, there would be 28 spaces multiplied by
nine --or 262 trips. The intensity of use on the property would be
higher with residential usage than under office use. He believed
that type of information was worthy of exploration, and that
evening was the first time anyone had a realistic discussion of
residential use for the property. Looking at the size of: the
property and the fact that it did not have the depth that others
along El Camine had where residential developments occurred, it
was not suitable for residential properties because 1 t would force
the property lines, and those same people concerned about privacy
would see_ the residential project closer to them than the office
project. That should be carefully analyzed and it should not be_
done .based upon some people's opinions that the -property had
potential for residential use and because of the jobs/housing
imbalance. That was a shortcut for poor planning. The City did
not countenance poor planning, and there was no careful analysis
of the property for residential use. He clarified that there were
no discussions with staff with respect to a residential use on the
property, and if such strong sentiment existed to consider the
property for residential use, he suggested it be returned to the
Planning Commission for a careful. look at the project and the
notion of a residential use on the property. With the change to
the grandfather clause, he suggested that the project would go
through at a reasonable rate and would not be lost as a result of
a frivolous appeal. His concept with the amendmentto the grand-
father clause was to allow a reasonable opportunity to proceed
through the variance and ARB process in a manner to allow for
close scrutiny of the project. The unusual approach of grand -
fathering in a project at the last minute was sought because of
the substantial interest for the City and the neighbors to see an
office use occur on the property. A CN designation provided the
likelihood for a use that would not be popular --such as a res-
taurant.
Elizabeth Uarri s, resided at 1638 Portola Avenue for 35 years, and
saw many changes in the Weeks' property. The entire area had a
residential appearance including the present Weeks' property.
When one considered setbacks, all of the houses were setback quite
a space from the walkway which went through, and it would be
unusual to provide the right for a building to be much closer to
the sidewalk. The sidewalk and the particular intersection was
busy --students jogged, cyclists came continually from Stanford,
and there was a lot of traffic along El Camino. The Weeks' prop-
erty ,was the only commercial property for several blocks, and it
was allowed to come in through usage. It would be wise to con-
sider specifying the use as residential. It was interesting that
Mr. Freeland said it was just included without great considerativA:
because of its commercial designation, but that the commercial
designation slipped through without any more consideration other.
than the property existed at the location. She • believed the prop-
erty should not. be considered as commercial because it was on t1
Camino, because the present atmosphere was different than what
existed on the south side of Park Boulevard.
Beverly Wood -Smith, resided at 202 Sequoia. Avenue for 34 years,
located directly behind the propertye o' - the corner .of C1 Camino
and Park- BouIevard.O The property edjolncd her home by approxi-
matel.y 130 feet.. When she- first moved into her home i n 1350, one
of those structures on what was now known as the "Weeks' property'°
was- a residence. The people.who lived: there ran a school for
blind children .in the larger building. Both- buildings . gave the
appearance of residences and' because . bf th .t, and the nature of
activities conducted there, the residents felt fortunate through
the years to have had these. tenants as neighbors. The large.
Of 1 ce building proposed by- $r... Meeks `bet tinged in the business::.
d i stri ct--not on property surrOunde by foor residential al homes
4 3 1_.7
3/12/84
1
within two residential districts --Southgate and Lvergreee Park. A
building of that sort would be inappropriate in the unique loca-
tion and would have a devastating effect c,n those who lived
nearby. She feared it would be a foothole for more commercial_
enterprises to take over their neighborhoods in the future. On
the Opposite side of Southgate ---at the corner ',,• Churchill and
Mariposa --a parcel which had been commercial w'th a garage since
she was a child was recently advertised for sale as a residential
property. She believed the same zoning should apply to the Weeks
corner which was just as much a part of Southgate as the other.
Last week she met with a member of the Planning staff who con-
curred that the parcel should be zoned residential and should not
have been included in the California Avenue/El Camino Real study.
If the office building was approved, it would add to the problem
of too many office buildings and not enough housing. It was not
too late to reverse the trend by changing the zoning on the prop-
erty to residential with a 25 foot height limit -.the same as in
the new multiple family zoning in evergreen Park. A residential
zone would provide ample setback in front to keep an attracti ie
face on El Camino Real as well as provide a buffer for the resi-
dents. Housing was all along the front of El Camino Real between
Churchill and Park Boulevard, and a residential zone would also
provide a deeper setback for her and her neighbors. She did not
understand why anyone should be able to apply for a grandfather
clause without first having plans completed and approved by the
ARB. Last Friday, Mr. Weeks' attorney, former City Attorney Don
Maynor, informed her that the plans were not ready. Since no
plans were yet approved, she believed the project received special
treatment, and she did not see why there should be a grandfather
clause for a project not reviewed until after Council changed the
zoning. It was especially disturbing to her as a citizen that
,such special treatment should be granted at the behest of former
City officials. She loved Palo Alto, and her father was City
Attorney of the old town of Mayfield while attending medical
school and later became a prominent physician and surgeon in Palo
Alto serving on the Palo Alto City Council for eighteen years. It
broke her heart to see the changes to denigrate the life styles of
those who lived in Palo Alto. She was sure that no one would
appreciate having a two story office building directly adjacent
their homes with strangers looking over their garden and invading
their privacy. She urged Council consideration to change the
zoning of the property to R1-2 to 6e compatible with the rest of
the neighborhood.
Ms. Smith read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Oscar Bankston, 1633
Portola Avenue, who were•concerned about any rezoning of property
located at El Camino and Park Boulevard. They endorsed and
favored the position taken by Beverly Wood -Smith regarding the
matter and urged the Council to take action in accordance with her
recommendation.
Ms. Simith read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Greg, 238 Sequoia
Avenue, who were new Southgate homeowners, liked the residential
character of the neighborhood and wanted it to remain. They were
pleased to see the garage at the north corner of Southgate--
Churchil and Mariposa --turned to a residential zoning when the
garage left, and believed the property at the south corner of
Southgate --El Camino and Park --should be taken out of the
California Avenue plan and returned to residential zoning as well.
They believed the owners of the property were trying to twist due
process in order to build something to enhanc..e the economic val ue
of that particular property but which would change the. character
of the neighborhood. The zoning of the property should be
returned to residential, and if those actions , were unreasonable,
they req ested that substantial setbacks --particularly from the
back and, side fences ---be established.
Jeannine Olson, 1654 Portola Avenue, did not believe in rules of
,natural, growth in economics and transitions , and things yetti ng
blyger and better. She studied 16th Century Geneva which was one
4 3 1 8
3/12/84
of the roost crowded cities In the world. Those people filled in
the gardens and stables, and threw the sewage on the street. She
believed that some of that already _ existed on the sidewalks
between her property and the Weeks property, and she was afraid
that if there were more people there, they would pick up more beer
bottles, call the police more often because someone was loitering,
to say nothing of the parking problem already existing on that
corner of Southgate. It made a difference to her sense of privacy
and propriety that the property should look as residential As it
did presently.
Mayer Klein declared the public hearing closed.
Mayor Klein said a series of two resolutions and three ordinances
was recommended to the Council by the Planning Commission, and he
suggested Council go through them in order,
MOTION: Couucilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Sutorius, to
adopt the resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan to add a
policy to the urban design element regarding the scale and retail
onentediou of the Cal ifornia-C«mbridge Avenue Business District.
RESOLUTION 6236 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
O ALTO RECOMMENDING AM AMENDMENT TO THE
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADD A POLICY TO THE
URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT REGARDING THE SCALE AND RETAIL
ORIENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA -CAMBRIDGE. AVENUE BUSINESS
DISTRICT"
Councilnember Sutorius said that in seconding the motion, he
echoed the comments of Commissioner lorthway at the Planning Com-
mission on the item. He acknowledged that on some matters rela-
tive to the overall study, he did not support the resulting
actions, but believed it was important to leave behind a solid
record about what triggered the study and its goals and purposes.
Councilmember Renzel believed there might be some interest on the
Council in dealing with the problem of small properties such as
409 Sherman, and page 3 of the first resolution, middle paragraph,
spoke to rezoning all of Cambridge and Sherman Avenue to CC(2).
She asked whether the other properties in the 400 block of Sherman
Avenue thatwould be rezoned to CC(2) were fully developed within
that, criterion.
Mr. Freeland said 409 Sherman was the most underdeveloped of all
the properties in the area, and had a building of a little . over
1,000 square feet on a little more than 4,000 square foot parcel.
A property immediately adjacent had a building with a floor area
ratio of a little over 1; the next two parcels below had floor
area ratios of just under 2; the next one had a floor area ratio
of just over 1. There was only one property clearly over the pro-
posed new 2:1 floor area ratio, several parcels were near the 2:1
floor area ratio and the rest were somewhat under.
Councilmember Renxet asked if any of those parcels provided park-
ing.
Mr. _Freeland did not recall
Cbuncilmeiaber Renzel said it was not her custom to feel .concern
for a property, but the purchase of 409 Sherman' was made shortly
before the moratorium took effect and the information was not made
available to. the purchaser. Even though eoonomic value remained
with the:._ property,, the losses to be suffered were significant for
the owner of that particular. parcel_ . She preferred to see the
parcel deleted from the rezoni rig.
AM OMENT: Cau ci ime*ber Renzel ■o _ •d, seconded by Bechtel , to
add tni word "- generaliy' on page 3 (flrst paragraph, after
'Avenue' bad,; before "ah:.i.l haver. . -
Mayor Klein believed the amendment was the appropriate test vote
on whether Council wanted to take fiction to allow the owner of 409
Sherman to develop her property in the manner suggested.
AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon e,bsent.
MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded_by Klein, approval of
the resolution to amend the Comprehensive Plan by amending land
use designations of certain properties in the California Avenue
area.
RESOLUTI0M €.237 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
O ALTO RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF THE PALO
ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE CALIFORNIA
AVENUE AREA"
Councilmember Cobb asked whether the resolution before the Council
included the discussed grandfathering.
Mr. Freeland said no.
City Attorney Diane Lee said it was a land use designation.
change,, and grandfather clauses were included in the zoning.
Mr. Freeland said the only issue had to do with the Weeks' prop-
erty. If it was the Council's intention that the property be
residential, it should be excl z.ied from the resolution.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Bechtel moved seconded by Renzel, to
remove the Weeks' property, 1681-1691 El Camino Real, from the
proposed Land Use Map Amendment 'area of proposed Comprehensive
Land Use change from Service Commercial' to 'Neighhorhood Commer-
cial."
Ms. Lee said any changes the Council desired with respect to Com-
prehensive Plan matters must go back te. the Planning Commission.
If Council was to give the property a residential designation, it
would go back to the Planning Commission f.or its advice and
recommendation. That was not to say the resolution must include
the property, but if Council wanted to change the designation from
that recommended by the Commission, it should be referred. As
pointed out by counsel for the Weeks' property, there were con-
cerns about the E s -A because did not analyze the environmental
impacts of designating the property residential. Staff did not
believe Council could do so tonight, but the wheels to do so could
be put in motion. She believed the property should be removed
from the resolution because otherwise it would be given a desig-
nation that Council did not want to. give; and, there should., be
some separate motion to refer the study of the property as resi-
dential to .the Planning Commission.
Vice Mayor Levy asked.. where the owner o F. the Weeks' property was
left if Council passed the amendment on the floor.
Ns. i.ee said the owner of the Weeks` property was still bound by
the existing moratorium, and could develop under current regula-
tions. She could answer the question more completely after all
motions were made relative to the Weeks' property.
Vice Mayor Levy asked for guidance because he was not certain
whether the best_use of the property was residential or CM, and he
did not want to make a statement with a vote that saidhe endorsed
residential use.
Ms. Lee wanted to keep her options open until the Planning Commis-
sion made its recommene -ti on about a .residential land use designa-
tion on the property.
4 3 2...0
3/12/84
Councilmember Renzel said she believed the Council was taking
action as a result of a Planning Commission recommendation to
change the zoning to neighborhood commercial, and wanted the
record to reflect that the property was once residential and as a
result, was developed in a manner compatible with residential. In
the course of a massive Comprehensive Plan change in 1976, the
property more or less slipped through the cracks as a change to
commercial zoning, when it should have perhaps been retained
residential, with a grandfather clause as had occurred in other
parts of town. She preferred to go back to the residential zoning
which she believed was appropriate for the area of the residential
lend use. For that reason, she supported the motion to delete the
Weeks' property from the redesi gnation.
Councilmember Sutorius shared the position of Vice Mayor Levy and
would vote in favor of the motion to assure a fair study and due
process, at;4 his vote did not indicate his disposition in terms of
the ultimate question.
Vice Mayor Levy said he observed the property was originally zoned
residential, but it was not attractive for people to live _ in the
residential site on -El Camino. The use naturally evolved from
residential to another :.pore office oriented use, which was why he
questioned whether residential was the best use now. Whatever
evolved should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
AMENDMEMT PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent,
MO` IOM: Councf lr ember Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel,
regarding 1681-1691 El Camino Real as follows:
1. Refer to the Planning Commission for reconsideration the ques-
tion of Comprehensive Land Use designation at 1681-1691 El
Camino Real;
2. Staff to return with amended Environmental Assessment (EIA) of
that parcel; and
3. City Attorney to prepare ordinance to extend the present
moratorium or place a new moratorium on any new development
for four months an the property at 1681-1691 El Camino.
Vice Mayor Levy asked for clarification about the moratorium in
effect which would be the basis for the new moratorium.
Mr. Freeland said the moratorium limited the floor area ratio and
height of projects, and left the present zoning in place so that
it did not prevent projects from being processed and approved.
Ms. Lee said the oratori urn referred to in the motion would be on
any development of the particular parcel because Council would not
want it to be developed under existing regulations because it
mi yht preclude an ultimate residential use of the property. .As
she understood the intent of the motion, staff was being asked to
enact a moratorium on any development of the property for four
months.
Councilmember Woolley said that was correct.
MOTION PASSED unaolmoesly, Witherspoon absent.
MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Klein:, to intro-
duce the ordinance ce to add Chapter 18.44, Community Commercial
Combining District; and Chapter 18.46, Retail Shopping Combining
District; and amending Section 18.90.085 regarding conditionals
uses of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for first reading.
MOTION CONTINUED
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
O ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 18.44
(COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMBINING DISTRICT) AND CHAPTER
18.46 (RETAIL SHOPPING COMBINING DISTRICT) AND AMENDING
SECTION 18.90.086 REGARDING CONDITIONAL USES TO THE PALO
ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE"
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to introduce
for first reading the ordinance amending Section 18.08.040 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code to change the zone classification of
certain properties in the California Avenue area with the
following changes:
1. Delete 409 Shermanfrom the map labeled °Area of proposed zone
change from 'CC' to 'CC(2)$";
. Delete 1681-1691 El Camino Real from the map Area of proposed
zone change from 'CS' to ' CN' ", and
3. Delete second paragraph of Section 7.
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION
18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING
MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN
PROPERTIES IN THE CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA'
Mr. Freeland said in the interest of consistency, a referral to
the Planning Commission could go hand in hand with a Comprehensive
Plan Mai: change to consider the appropriateness of a change from a
multiple family district and which district was preferred.
Councilmesber Cobb said the grandfathering of the McDonald prop-
erty would fall under Section 6, and he wanted that accomplished
as part of the same motion.
Mayor Klein suggested there be a separate vote because it was a
policy issue and the Council policy was not yet established.
AMENDMENT. Councilmeaaber Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel, to
add language to Section 4 after a...which were lawful conforming
permitted uses,° the language or uses consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Desi geati on for such sites." At the
end of section 6 to add the language "if there are mixed uses
existing on a site on the effective date of this section which
uses were .deemed as conforming uses under this section, any of
such uses may be expanded within th, existing site improvements of
said site provided that such expansion does not replace a less
intensive use."
Mayon Klein said the language was submitted by Don Maynor, counsel
for Mr. McDonald, and was included in his letter of March 6, 1984,
which was on file in the City Clerk's office.
Councilmember Renzel interpreted the language to mean a less
intensive use, but she was not sure that 18.83.100 was the proper
section,
Mr. Freeland said unless there was an objective yard stick to mea-
sure loss' or more intensive, it would be administratively diffi-
cult to deal with the language, The effect would perpetuate com-
mercial use of the property in that the intention of the grand-
father clause on the part of staff was to allow present uses to
remain but to still think . about eventually converting the site to
residential use. If classes of occupancy could continually change
so Long as it was not more intensive, in effect it created 4 spe-
cial permanent commercial:_ use pattern on the property which staff
did not favor.
4-3 2 2
3f12184
Ms. Lee was concerned about determining a less intensive use it
any frame of reference. In zoning there was a different view
about whether some of the uses contemplated by the property owner
would be less intensive. She was concerned it was an open-ended
term.
Councilmember Renzel said she seconded the amendment, but in
thinking about it she could only support the portion that said "or
uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation
for such site." She withdrew her second.
Councilmember Sutorius seconded Councilmember Cobb's amend-
ment.
Councilmember Bechtel said when the idea was first presented to
her by the owner of the property as a way to allow him to continue
to use his building and move some of his existing office into the
space, it sounded like a reasonable idea. The more she thought
about the fact that ultimately the City wanted multi -family resi-
dential in the property, the point raised by Mr. Freeland about
essentially allowing the use to remain in perpetuity, she con1 d
not support the amendment. She supported allowing the existing
uses to remain and the previous grandfathering in to allow the
warehousing and existing uses to remain.
Vice Mayor Levy said conceptually, it appeared that intensity
should be defined in terms of the number of people working on -site
and the number of automobile. trips to the site. He asked how
"intensity" as used in the amendment could be defined to' give a
clearer feeling about what was being voted on.
Mr. Freeland did not know. He used the example of a retail use
and an office use. The office use would have a higher level of
people occupancy in terms of permanent employees, and would there-
fore have a lower parking requirement. Retail use would have a
much higher trip generation than the office use, so dependent upon
which criterion was applied, there might be different conclusions.
Some objective measures would have to be established.
Vice Mayor Levy said if there was to be one objective measurement,
it should be the trip generation because that was the element with
impact on the neighborhood. He asked if that was consistent with
Councilmember Cobb's thinking.
Councilmember Renzel asked that the question be divided because
she wanted to support the one which permitted the current amorti-
zing use of the warehousing to continue, but she did not want to
deal with the part of the question related to uses being shifted
around.
Councilmember Sutorius said on page 15 of the Planning Commistion
minutes, he understood Mr. Freelanes comments to say that parking
was the only objective measurement in the ordinance...and that it
could be defined in terms of traffic or other criteria, but the
criteria being used would have to be established. When he read
the minutes, and seconded Mr. Cobb's amendment, he interpreted
that to mean parking was a valid and .properly established criteria
to define intensity and that as it applied to the situation, re-
tail would be the highest intensity that teold continue_ on the
property in the event the existing retail left the property.
Mr. Freeland said that was correct, and the ordinance should refer
to the standard. If it was to .refer to the parking section, it
was 18.83.080 i n his ordinance, which was - the table which listed
the number of square feet for a 'different type of use for dif-
ferent parking spaces.
Mayor Klein agreed basically with the comments of Couuciimember
Bechtel, and some language stated by Mr. Freeland. If .Council
adopted the last sentence proposed in the amendment, in effect, it
creatod a permanent commercial use on the site, and he did not
want to do that. If Peninsula Scientific went out of busThess as
a result of business reasons, and not because of any action by the
City of Palo Alto, the landowner could use the variance procedure,
permitting the City to pinpoint what it wanted to do with regard
to the property and not create a blanket situation to result in
the property being commercial forever. He intended to not support
the second part of the motion.
FIRST PART OF AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent,
to add words "or uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Designation for such sites.'
SECOND PART OF AMENDMENT failed by a vote of 3-5, Cobb, Levy,
Sutorius voting "aye," Witherspoon absent, to add language as set
forth in last sentence- in the exhibit to Mr. $aanor' s letter of
March 8, 1984, that *if there are mixed uses existing on a site,
etc.
•
Ms. Lee clarified that Section 7, beginning on page 2 and ending
on page 3, should be deleted in its entirety.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded . by Cobb, to refer to the
Planning Commission proposed zone change of Weeks' property for
their recommendation.
Counci lmember Renzel asked if ► t was an open-ended zone charge
referral or whether the Commission should consider residential.
Mayor Klein intended for the motion to be open --ended because he
believed the Council wanted the Commission's best judgment.
AMENDMENT: Counc1lmesber Bechtel moved that the Commission con-
sider residential zoning . for the particular Weeks' property.
AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
Cauncilmember Cobb, asked staff for counsel regarding the best ap-
proach to dealing with the parking ordinance amendment.
Mr. Freeland said with respect to creating a clause to provide
relief to 409 Sherman, staff believed the language proposed under
their option A was acceptable.
Council member Renzel said she would second a motion to approve
the ordinance with a minor amendment. Where it sa. ' "was pur-
chased within 60 days," she suggested it say "within btu days prior
t. the commencement of the moratorium."
MOTION: Counci lmeMber Cobb moved, seconded by Nenzel , introduc-
tion for first reading of the ordinance amending Chapter 18.83 of
the Palo Alto municipal Code related to off-street parking and
loading regulations in specified areas of Palo Alta with the in-
clusion of the language within 84 days prior to the commeacement
of the moratorium, for first reading.
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING. entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 18.83
01F THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO OFF-STREET
PANXING AND LOADING REGULATIONSIN IN SPECIFIED AREAS Of
PALO ALTO"
4 3 2 4
3/12/84
Mayor Klein did not know why the fact that someone bought property
at a particular time should be a basis fur distinguishing as to
the parking requirements.
Mr. Freeland said there was an assertion that because of the coin-
cidence between the date of purchase and the moratorium in the
progress of the study, the possibility of a hardship was intro-
duced by lack of knowledge.
Mayor Klein said that was scary because Council must assume that
people had knowledge of such things, otherwise it would never get
anything done because people would always say they did not know
the City was considering any changes.
Ms. Lee said that once Council established a precedent, it opened
itself up to the argument being made against the Council in the
future.
Mayor Klein was sympathetic to the people, but not because they
claimed to not have knowledge.
Mr. Freeland suggested that the section be held over. Staff
understood that Council wanted to find a clause that would relieve
the applicant of the bulk of their parking requirement, if not all
of it, but it should be clarifed.
Councilmember Bechtel believed the suggestions of Councilmembers
Cobb and Sutorius-arid reinforced by Mr. Freeland were appropriate.
Palo Al to Central built 20,000 square feet of office space and
was required to do extensive mitigations; the proposal was for
12,000 square feet of office space, and that applicant had no
parking requirements.
MATIOb TO CONTSquk: Councilmember Bechtel . Moved* seconded by
Klein, to continue the ordinance for two weeks and direst staff to
stud; the parking requirements and explore ways of working with
the owner of the property at 409 Sherman Avenue.
Councilmember Renzei asked if it might not be better to pass the
ordinance and have an amendment return related to the particular
problem, so :that Council could move ahead with the rest of
California Aeenue•area. She asked to what degree Council could
grant variances to the parking requirement.
Ms. Lee said the ordinance could be passed, and ietaff could be
directed to work on an amendment to take care of the parking prob-
lems and return to the Council in two weeks. She deferred to Mr.
Freeland about the variance.
Mr. Freeland said parking requirements were subject to the same
variance proceedings as any other aspect of the zoning ordinance,
and the tests were the same --having to define a unique
circumstance, which seemed to apply to the property. The test of
detriment was difficult, and if the variance created a large
parking deficit, it could be construed as a detriment to the dis-
trict,. and good grounds for appeal by people in the area if such a
variance were granted. The parking requirement c`Wul d be reduced
to zero on a variance if a finding could be made that a detriment
would not be imposed but that was unlikely.
Councilmember Renzel clarified that only the administrative
granting of a variance was limited to a 20 percent reduction.
Mr. Freeland was not aware of any section of the ordinance which
limited the scope of a variance application. The moderating
factor was=` the findings, and the greeter the request the more
difficulty in making the findings
4 3 2 5
3/12/84
e
Councilmember Bechtel desired to chanc9e her motion to continue as
proposed by Comic i lmember Renzel to read "to approve Exhibit E,
and direct staff to work with the applicant of 409 Sherman and to
return with appropriate language when the ordinance returned in
two weeks for the second reading."
Mayor Klein ruled the change of language out of order. It was not
an amen 'ment but a follow up motion and inconsistent. The motion
on the floor totally eliminated the parking requirement from the
409 Sherman property. Gouncilmember Cobb included ;the 60 day
language in his motion.
Councilmernber Renzel withdrew her second from the motion.
MOTION TO CONTINUE RESTATED: Corancilmember Bechtel moved,
s::.onded by Klein, that staff explore and report back in two weeks
with amendments re proposed grandfathered properties in regard to
parking requirements.
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE
ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 18.83
OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE. RELATING TO OFF-STREET
PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS IN SPECIFIED AREAS OF
PALO ALTO'
Mayor Klein said the ordinance meant that 409 Sherman would be
subject to the full parking requirements, but staff could work on
an amendment to alleviate the situation to some degree and return
to the Council in two weeks.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
Mayor Klein congratulated the Council on having completed Item 14,
after four and a half hou'^s work
ITEM #1S, DOWNTOWN UNDERGROUND CONVERSION - AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT
.. , CMR r$3 :4 )
MOTION: Counci lmember° Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, to adopt
staff recommendations as follows:
1. Authorize a change order to Contract No. C-4316 in the amount
of $30,000 to accommodate the Lot J Parki i' Garage, and
2. Authorize staff to execute additional change orders to
Contract C-4316, if required, not to exceed ten percent (1Ut)
($93,561.00) of the original contract amount.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 12:42 a.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
4 3 2 6
3/12/84