Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-03-26 City Council Summary Minutes• CITY COUNCIL MINUTEs Regular Meeting Monday, March 26, 1984 ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 4 3 6. 3 Approval of Minutes of January 23, 1984 4 3 6 3 Consent Calendar 4 3.b 4 Referral 4 3.6 4 Item #1, Financial Consultant Selection, 4 3 6 4 Parking Lot J - Referral to Finance A Public Works Committee Item #2, Advanced Waste Water Treatment Facility Effluent Discharge - Referral to Finance & Public Works Committee Item #3, Landfill Methane Recovery Project - Referral to Finance & Public Works Committee Action Item #4, Underground Conversion = 4000 Block of Orme - Rejection of Bids item #5F Acquisition of Parcel of Land State of California Department of Transportation East Bayshore Road '.Wi der i ng Item #6, Pl eject. Mobility Transportation Development Act Funding for Fiscal Year 1984-85 Item #70 Ordinances re California Avenue Area (2nd Reading) Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #8, PUBLIC HEARING` Planning Commission Recommendation for a. Wew, Chi District Regulation Requiring Issuance of a Conditional. Use Permit for Office Use exceeding 15,000 square feet on any site, Item #9, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re! Application of Timothy Trailer for Preliminary Parcel Map for property located at 570 Matardero Road ITEM #10, Policy and Procedures ;ommittee Recommendation re Amendments to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 re Membership on the Historic Resources Board 4 3 6 4 4 3 6 4 4 3 6 4 4 3 5 4 4 3 6 4 4 3.6 4 4 3.6 4 4 3 6 5 4 3 .4 3 6 S 4 3 7.5 4 3.7 6 4 3 6 1 3/26/84 ITEM Recess 9:30 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. Item #11, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission 4 3 7 8 Recommendation re Application of Enshallah Developments for Comprehensive P1 an Land Use Map Change, Zone Change, and Subdivision of One Parcel for property located at 3520 Ross Road Item 412, Report from the Council subcommittee on 4 3 8 9 Ice Skating Item 413, Third Year Career Criminal Apprehension 4 3 9 2 Grant Item 414, Final Subdivision Map a 830 East Meadow 4 3.9 2 (Former Ortega School) Item #15, Ortega School Site Disposition of 4 3 9 3 Walkways 4 3 9 5 for 409 Sherman and Similar Projects Item 416, Status Report on Parking Considerations PAGE 4 3 7 8 Item 417, Dissolution of Solid Waste Management 4 3 9 9 Authority Item #18, Request of Mayor Klein re Special Closed 4 4 0 0 Session on Thursday, March 29, 1984 Downtown Study Committee 4 4 0 0 Item 419, Cancellation of April 2, 1984 City 4 4 0 0 Council Meeting Item 420, Request of Mayor Klein re City of Palo 4 4 0 0 Alto's Ninetieth Birthday Adjournment: 12:10 a.m. 4 4 0 0 Regular Meeting Monday, March 26, 1984 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met an this day in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at 7:40 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, Witherspoon, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1 Mayor Klein said the community was noticed concerning the proposed demolition of the Ross Road School site, and Item #11 on the agenda was the application of the Enshallah Developments for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map change from School District to Single Family Residential for the former Ross Road School site. He intended to rule "out of order" discussion about the demolition of the school site and whether it was a wise public. policy. Such questions were of great. public interest, but not decisions for the City Council. Under the law, the School Board had the sole autho- rity over whether schools should be opened, closed, or demolished. The City Council made rulings on sites owned by the School Dis- trict and declared surplus to determine the appropriate land use only —industrial, office space, or residential. The appropriate land use of the parcel was the only question before the Council, and members of the public who wanted to speak on whether schools should be opened, closed, or demolished should do so during Oral Communications, whereas remarks concerning the use of the Ross Road site should be made when Item #11 was called up. Jack Otto, 3157 Louis Road, was concerned about the di silosel of. the Ross Road property because the City had already disposed of several school properties under the assumption of a diminishing school population. The School properties were purchased and built on the assumption of a continually growing school population, which did ;sot happen. Should they be needed again i n the future, the p;.aperty would be gone. He did not understand why land was sold for commercial or residential expansion. No residential ex- pansion was needed because the City was already over -populated, polluted, and traffic bound. The money was needed for education. Stanford had needed money, but was unable to sell its property, end it now . received three times the sale price through leasing. Stanford still owned the property, which it could eventually use for its own purposes. He was confused about the City policy, and why school properties were sold to increase congestion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 1984 Councilmewber Sutorlus noted the following corrections to the January 23 minutes: paragraph 2, line 3, should read "one hundred thousand t" Pap 4157, paragraph. 2, line 4, should read "would detract fro,* fhe econoki c vitality area"; Pa a 4158, paragraph 3, line 7, should read "an observable brake 4 3 6 3 3/26/84 Councllmemher Witherspoon submitted the follotping corrections: Pa a 4141, paragraph 3, should read "Councilmember Witherspoon said she was reminded of the parking problems downtown and the need there for long-term parking lots of just that size." 4149, paragraph 5, at er a word wrong". have come." they line 5, delete the rest of the sentence Line 17, change the words "they came" to Pa a 4160, paragraph 5, line 8, change the wards "retailers" to re a s oppers.w MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Nlnutes of January 23, 1984, as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTION: Vice Mayor Levy AetNtd, seconded by Bechtel, to approve Consent Calendar Items 1-7. Referral ITEM #1, FINANCIAL CONSULTANT SELECTION, PARKING LOT J - REFERRAL ITEM #2, ADVANCED WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY EFFLUENT OIS- WORKS COMMITTEE aa-m-7 • ITEM #:i ram LANDFILL METHANE RECOVERY PROJECT - REFERRAL TO FINANCE & Action ITEM #4, UNDERGROUND CONVERSION - 4000 BLOCK. OF ORME - REJECTION UT-Inus (UT Since it was determined that the project could be worked into the Utilities Departmentwork schedule, staff recommends that Council reject all bids and direct City crews to install the required sub- structure and electrol iers an Orme Street. ITEM #5, ACQUISITION OF PARCEL OF LAND - STATE OF CALIFORNIA —Trim V�ff11SliriLf9t us iRl'k17JrvI%1l9! LVN - i : Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution. RESOLUTION 6240 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF ALTO DEDICATING A STRIP OF LAND (1,1ii+ SQUARE FEET) FOR PUBLIC TRAMSPORTATIO4 PURFOSES" ITEM #6, PROJECT MOBILITY - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT /ACT FUNDING �_•1SCAL Staff recommends that Council adopt the Resolution authorizing the filing of Palo. Alto's clans for the TDA Article 4.5 funds for fiscal year 1904-85. RESOLUTION .6241 entitled' 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF O ALTO AUTHORIZING _T$$E. FILING OF A CLAIM .IVITO • THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION._ COMMISSION FOR ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION -DEVELOPMENT ACT .FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1964-85. 4 3 6 4 3/26/84 _. ITEM #1, ORuINANCLS RE CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA (2nd Reading) (PLA l ORDINANCE 3519 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF IHk Gil, a PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 18.44 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMBINING DISTRICT) AND CHAPTER 18.46 (RETAIL SHOPPING COMBINING DISTRICT) AND AM.NDING SECTION 18.90.085 REGARDING CONDITIONAL USES OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE" (1st Reading 3/12/84, PASSED 8-0, WITHERSPOON ABSENT) ORDINANCE 3520 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF CITY DW 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" (1st Reading 3/12/84, PASSED 8-0, WITERSPOON ABSENT) ORDINANCE 3521 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF iNE LIIT yr rALO 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" (1st Reading 3/12/84, PASSED 8-0, WITHERSPOON ABSENT) MOTION PASSED unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS None ITEM #8, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING eOMMISSI0N RECOMMENDATION FOR A on nue rom ' %I b 184) Planning Lc eni ssi oner Joseph; Hirsch had no comments to make since the item did not return to the Planning Commission since the Council's January 16, 1984 referral to staff. Councilmefber Woolley asked if there was any way an applicant could get an exception to office space exceeding 15,000 square feet if the ordinance passed. Planning Projects Manager George Zimmerman said no. Staff intended to exempt that from the variance provisions so that it was impossible fcr an exception to be granted. Council*ember Woolley- was unclear because the staff report proposal 'nonetheless allows some office space which in turn could serve as an economic incentive for mieed use projects with housing and offices.' She asked Mr. Zimmerman to expand on the impact of the proposed ordinance on mixed use. Mr. Zimmerman said it ` was difficult to prophesy the economic effect on potential mi xed-u;e projects in CM districts in th.e future. He cited two projects that were approved --the James Road project mentioned in the December staff report contained apprvx,i_mately 13,000 square feet of office space, and the office component would not be permitted if the proposed regulation went into effect. The smaller project at Barron and El Camino was approved but never built. It contained a little over 3,0G0 square feet of office space with eight housing units. The lot area was approximately 6,000 square feet and would barely be included. As the effect of the ordinancewas difficult to estimate, staff made a conditional statement, and it was a relatively restrictive requirement, Councilaealber Bechtel said the Council was handed a sheet by Mr. Moss with a number of figures, . which she presumed he would exp1 ki n. 4 3 6 5 3/26/84 Councilrmiemcmber Sutorius commended staff for their responsiveness to Council direction and for the nature of the proposal and recom- mendation. Given the second reading of the California Avenue ordinances and the changes included, the Grecian Health Spa would change from CS to CN. He asked staff to observe, based on their knowledge and experience, the impact of the CN site on the present facility, the nature of the change proposed in the CN zoning, and what likelihood there was of the building ever disappearing. Mr. Zimmerman could not prophesy on the likelihood of the building disappearing, but said it was improbable that the structure could convert to office use under the proposed regulation and the cap of 5,000 square feet. He believed the total area of the Grecian Health Spa was between 8,000 and 9,000 square feet, which meant the remaining square footage in the structure would have to be put to another permitted use. Counci.lmember Sutorius said the Grecian Health Spa was a spe- cialized facility. Staff responded well to the Council's direc- tions, but he recalled staff's original recommendation to the Planning Commission and the support for that recommendation when it first came to the Council. He asked staff for a romparison between the CN change they now proposed and their initial pro- posal. Mr, Zimmerman said staff would still be more comfortable with the threshold procedure rather than a fixed cap because it would allow more flexibility and possibly more incentive for mixed use -- commercial and housing --on sites where such projects might be appropriate. The only difference between the original proposal and the one now before the Council might be that staff would be more comfortable with a threshold somewhat lower than the original staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and somewhat high- er than the recommendation now before the Council-- perhaps in the range of 10,000 square feet. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. Bob Moss, 4010 0rme, agreed in general with the staff recommenda- tion and the suggestion for a 5,000 square feet maximum, and no conditional use beyond that. He agreed with grandfathering in existing uses that became nonconforming with the ordinance when passed. He differed with the opinion concerning Section 3 (iii) of the ordinance which allowed offices vacant at the time the ordinance was passed to retain office use for six months. Staff might have a reason for that, but, with the vacancy rate .and the need for offices in Palo Alto, six months was excessive. .Two or three . months was adequate. He did not want offices allowed to remain vacant for economic reasons for more than three months in Palo Alto. If they did, the owners were asking too much or some- thineewas wrong with the structure or the location. He referred to the handout he gave the Council related to the percentage of office space allowed, and the staff recommendation that S0' percent be allowed for office uses. He tried to show what would happen if that was \reduced to 25 percent and 15 percent --the Barron Park Association requested 15 : percent office uses on sites. He also tried to relate the recommendations to a aller lots, particularllr those along El Camino Real. The staff report mentioned five lots there less than 5,000 square feet, and 31 lots. between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet. _, There were also 11 such lots in Midtown. He concentrated on lots between 5,000 and 10,000 square. feet. He showed the permitted office use at 15 percent on a 4,500 square feet (the average size of a lot between 0 and 5,000 square feet), which would allow 675 square feet of office use. At 25 percent the figure would be 1,125 square feet. the staff recommendation would allow 2,250 square feet. 5i x jobs would be created._ with a mixed office and retail at 15 percent; seven jobs at 25 percent, and 13 Jobs at 50 percent. There was a big increase from 25 to 50 percent.' The same ratio applied on the 9,990 square foot lots and the 19,900 square foot lots. He noted the 50 percent for the 4'3 66 3/26/84 19,900 would not be allowed under the staff proposal or his. Only 4,975 square feet would be allowed, which was the same as 25 per- cent. He pointed out that the housing deficiency would increase as a result of going to 50 percent of the floor area ratio allowed for office space. The lower part of the chart showed two of the 15 properties that would exceed both the staff's and his allowable office use, and would have to be grandfathered in. Five other properties would be allowed under the staff's 50 percent proposal and would need no special treatment, but would requi,'e special grandfathers ng under either of his proposals. Six other}s would be allowed without any special treatment under the 15 percent office use, but not under any of the higher ones. Three others w►iuld be allowed in 25 percent office use. He clarified that if Council allowed 15 percent of the site to be office use, 10 of the 16 properties would have to have special treatment by being gran- fathered in. The other six would pass. At 25 percent, nine prop- erties would be legally acceptable and require no special treat- ment. Regarding the 2,500 square feet. -minimum office siee on any site, he preferred a straight percentage of 15 percent, elthough 25 percent would not damage the concept because a 2,500 square foot minimum for offices represented at least half the site of the nine small lots along El Camino Real. Many locations for office space existed in the City, and it was unnecessary to allow 2,500 square feet to make the small lots along El Camino Real suitable for office space. He referred to the column for 9,990 square feet site area,. which showed that the difference between 25 and 50 per- cent represented an increase in job potential from 18 to 25, with 42 lots failing into that category -.-31 along El Camino and 11 in Midtown. He suggested tie Council declare a 25 percent maximums, with 5,000 square feet absolute, no minimum office size on any lot and three months for vacant offices. There was already a signifi- cant incentive in that CM zone for housing because a third floor was allowed with all residential. It was the first commercial zone in the City to allow that, and it represented a significant 50 percent increase in buildable space, which was enough. They should stay with that, and try to encourage neighborhood- serving retail uses and discourage office uses, especially on the smaller lots along El Camino. They should preserve the retail vitality oe. the area and try to cut down on the potential for job and traffic growth. Eric Richert, 535 Ramona Street, opined that the proposal might create a vacuum in the zoning ordinance related to office develop- ment. Proposals to accommodate properties appropriate for devel- opment were inappropriate for the 3:1 and 2:1 floor arte retios of c_S and CC zonings, and the now 0.5, 0.25 or less floor area ratio in the CM. There was a place in the City for zoning to provide for.modest sized professional office .use --a type of use not overly sensitive to high traffic thoroughfares nor particular=ly burden- soiae to such thoroughfares or neighboring residential areas. Without that type of provision i n CH zoning, high intensity uses such as :retail and restaurant prevailed. While that might be suitable for the smaller -properties along El Camino Real, it was inappropriate for other properties thet should provide a transi- tion between the thoroughfares and the residential properties. Robert Pope, 537 Wilber Lane, said his business in Palo Alto, made site selections and did strategic planning for all types o.f cor- t;.:rations, and he was involved ,daily with companies -seeking office space. He echoed the concerns.'of the previous speaker, and under- -stood the intent of downzoning certain areas, but said there was 4 danger of throwing the baby out with the hathwater. CH zoning watt to control -commercial development as it related to residential areal , to avoid Sprawl,' and he understood that need in some areas distoried by $r.- Moss. However, some areas included in the -propo- sal were 1 nappropri ate for Of zoning, let alone the further restrictions proposed. He cited the three lots On the `corner on the east side of , E1 Capri no Real opposite Palo Alto Square.. -The 'Crocker Bank site Was about -28,000 to 30,000 square feet, and a 5,000. square feet limitation would make At totally -infeasible for 4 3 6 7 3/26/84 development. he Council could effectively shut out a dis- appearing minority in Palo Alto --the users of 2,000 " to 5,000 square feet of office space. Regarding the two Palo Alto Square towers and Page Mill Place, one tower had 140,000 square feet, of which 20,000 square feet was leased to tenants of 5,000 square feet or less. Only fourteen (14) percent and nine and a half (9.5) percent of the Palo Alto Square buildings fell into that category, and 22 Percent at Page Mill Place. Many smaller com- panies and those growing moderately and requiring 3,000 to 5,000 square feet were in the path of expanding law firms and corpora- tions in those high-rises, and would be forced to move when their options expired. The logical areas would be some of the larger parcels under consideration, and to limit that development would force smaller companies to Mountain View or Los Altos for office space, which was not the intent of the proposal. He urged that the proposal be returned to the Planning Commission, for a review of the appropriateness of larger lots, and a discussion with the owners to see what might happen on them to avoid a broad sweep of what could be allowed in the area. Mike Smith, Crocker Properties, San Francisco, spoke for Crocker Bank on its property at 205 el Camino Real . Some time ago, he approached the Planning Commission regarding the original down - zoning of the site to CS, and stated his concerns -about the sig- nificant ramifications that Crocker, as landowners, faced. Conse- quently, the downzoning was enacted, and the property was now limited to CN. Crocker hired architects as consultants to make a feasibility study to analyze maximum CS, CN, and a modified mixed -:use zoning, and they came up with several interesting variables. Crocker developed a feasible plan which made sense for the City, but was told that further restrictions might be imposed on the CN zone. He asked if the Council analyzed the impact on property owners of a significant parcel size. The Crocker prop- erty was 28,000 square feet, and its development scheme had a floor area ratio of 1:1, and a feasible package for 5,000 square feet of retail on the ground floor with a 2,000 square foot relo- cation of their existing branch, and the second floor contained 15,000 square feet gross of office. The scheme appeared to address the concerns about parking requirements, and developed a piece of land than badly needed it. Crocker strongly believed its studies met the requirements and were positive for the City. Now there was a possible cap on offices at 5,000 square feet, leaving an infeasible mix on the parcel. He did not see the kind of - 4esi red retail going into the site --it would not work --it WAS an anomaly." Sraal,ler parcels would not hove the same concerns, and he asked the Council to consider the owners of larger parcels and the infeasibility the mixing of offices was for them. It would not encourage the owners to develop the land and improve the City. The City's direction meant that large property owners, such as Crocker, would let its property sit. Alternatives might be to subdivide the parcels to !eni ng them more into line with the Council intent; sell the parcels to fast food chains since the implied zoning would be ideal, and there could be hamburger and taco stands instead of neighborhood, services. He did not . think the Council wanted any of those alternatives. A good mixed use development that worked with the. City, the landowners, and the neighborhood communities. was preferred, and he asked the Council to not preclude all the parcels under a small parcel of CN, but consider the large parcel owners and the creativity a large parcel could generate. The proposed :restrictions were noncreative and inflexible, and the alternatives were not the best for the City or for Crocker. Crocker worked -with the City on several occasions and voiced its opinions, and appreciated and respected the con- cerns of the neighborhoods about parking. It strongly believed the plans provided the required parking for its needs and custo- mers. Crocker Bank was a viable neighborhood servici, and he asked the Council to reconsider the restrictions already imposed and not go any further. He introduced Rob Steinberg who would amplify Crocker's development schemes Rob Steinberg, a partner iri the architectural firm of Goodman, Steinberg & Associates said he was an architect and resident of Palo Alto, and was concerned about the density and different zoning requirements for the City. He applauded the Council, staff and Planning Commission for its efforts in the zoning change. He. pointed out that when a zoning was changed to such extreme, it could be a double-edged sword. It was important to look at some specifics.- Many people did not want to hypothesize about what might happen, and his firm studied an individual piece of property, and found that interesting information came out of a specific, as compared to a general, study. It was a double-edged sword because in an attempt to limit office space to help the relationship with adjacent residential neighborhoods, the City might encourage a development of a different nature, such as fast food restaurants that could afford a higher land value, or restaurants and bars, which were potentially more disruptive to neighborhoods than a balanced mixed use project. The size of the site greatly affected the regulations, which varied substantially from a large to a small parcel If the 5,000 square foot cap was put on the Crocker Bank site, it would reduce its limit on the office area by about :9. percent, which was extreme. Over the past month, studies on the property in terns of the original CS found a lot of construction was al 1 owe;i on the sites. He recognized the concern and that the CN zone was looked at in terms of the 15,000 square foot limit recommendation from the Planning Commission, which allowed design of a project on the site that met all the purposes outlined in the CH zoning ordinance. Retail at grade level, adequate parking on site to cover all uses, and 15,000 square feet of offices could be worked in. He believed the result would be a more respo tsi+,e action to what the Council was looking for. He requested an opportunity to work with the staff or the Council to go through some specific proposals to show that the 15,000 square foot range on offices, as initially recommended by the Planning Commission, gave great potential to develop a positive contribution to the City. Tom French, an attorney with Ware, Fletcher & Friedenrich in Palo Alto, represented Crocker Properties. The zoning regulations, if adopted, would economically harm Crocker Properties by reducing the value and utility of the property and would leave an uniquely large site with a limited ability to economically and feasibly develop for office and retail use. The regulations, as contemplated, encourar-d the wrong kinds of uses on the site. He requested that Crocker, with the larger site, be given an opportunity to present a proposal that adequately addressed the concerns of the Council without the restrictive implications of the proposed regulations. Steve Rothert, 561 North California Avenue, worked for Coldwell Banker, and formerly with Sutter, Hill Ltd. As a former developer and office leasing specialist, he foresaw the smaller office user of 2,500 square feet unable to find office space. The company he previously worked for was in Palo Alto Square for 10 years, but a law firm took over its space. They were unable to find 5,000 square feet and had to move out. Several employees lived in Palo Alto and would have :;liked to stay in the area. He worked in office leasing, and found the small tenant of 2,000 or 3,000 square feet could not find office space. He asked that some. Provision be included so that a site that could provide a 20,000 square feet office building, and a modest impact in a commercial area be -allowed to be considered. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, found the ordinance and Mr. Moss' suggested changes excellent. The conditional use permit was not a good idea because it put a burden of attending variance hearings on business - persons and neighbors, and the burden of interpretation on the Zoning Administrator. The Neighborhood Commercial zone Was intended to bring in vital retail commercial space to serve the citizens closeto where people lived. If the City : zoned to permit office building, which was booming in 1Pal o Alto. they would get offices in the Neighborhood Commercial zone and retail would leave. Palo Alto did exciting work in creating the zone. It worked, and its potential was something to look for- ward to, and she did not want to see its evolution cut short. Zoning determined the value of the land, and if offices did not go in, the value would adjust itself to where retail could come in. She did not advocate cutting commercial square feet in general, only the commercial potential for offices for a particular purpose so the Neighborhood Commercial zone could develop as it was intended and to its fullest extent. The question of mixed use was interesting, bu•t she was a housing advocate. Nothing promising so far came up in a mixed use proposal --the most promising, El Camino Way, was awash, with no net gain in housing. The other proposals she saw were clearly to the advantage of the commercial develop- ment and to the detriment of the long-term, low to moderate hous- ing needed. The intention of mixed use was to develop it in the more commercially intensive areas in town --not the Neighborhood Commercial zone. By limiting the zone that evening, offices would continue to grow in Palo Alto, the only question was whether• the growth would be within reason. The development of restaurants would be controlled by limiting the number of office workers who encouraged new restaurants to locate in Palo Alto. A few years ago there was pressure to make Palo Alto a convention town, which would encourage many office workers, corporate activities, etc., and a sleazy element came in. She feared the cycle was repeating itself. They were getting another push for a convention town, and she feared the honky-tonk would return. A clear message was sent about what the City intended to accomplish in the Neighborhood Commercial zone, which should be kept going. There was a distance limitation ordinance for fast food restaurants, so that would not be a particular problem. Mayor Klein declared the pobl i c hearing closed. Councilmember Fletcher said in Mr. Zimmerman' s comments to Coun- cilmember Sutorius it was said the previous recommendation would allow more flexibility for mixed use, and she asked for clarific- ation. Mr. Zimmerman said that according to today's economics, most developers believed that in the mixed use project, office would in effect ,subsidize the cost of making housing feasible i n commer- cially :'toned areas. Staff could not provide the "magic number" in terms of cutoff size, but there was a possibility that the present proposed restriction was too restrictive, but the ultimate effect was unknown. Mr. Freeland said in terms of the mixed use parking allowance, staff believed office was the use most compatible with residential in terms of allowing some overlap of parking. Staff was less com- f ertabl a with . retail, which might be active on Saturday at the same time residential people needed to park. Officewas a fairly good companion for a mixed use project from a parking point of view. Councilmember Fletcher asked if there was a provision for a vari- ance for the extra large lots as was suggested. Mr. Zimmerman said no. At the last public hearing, staff was directed by Council to return with just a flat . cap, and there was no variance procedure i n the proposal - before the • Council. Councilmember Fletcher said she had no problems with the latest roposais. P NOTION; Cord la.ehrr Fletcher sowed, *icoaded by `echte14. adopt the staff recommendations arc fofloas: 1. Fled as aesati tit eeati rdaMeatal 1.pact; 4 3 7 0 3/26/84 MOTION CONTINUED 2. Approve a new CM District regulation limiting total floor area in office use on any site to 50 percent of the site area provided: (a) that a site shall be permitted to have at least 25,000 square feet in office use if all other zoning regulations are met; and i b) that no site shall be •permitted to have more than 5,000 square feet in office use; and 3. Approve a grandfather clause permitting existing and vacant legal and conforming office uses in CN District sites, which exceed the above limits, to continue, remodel and reconstruct provided there is uo increase in floor area or in any other size of improvement. (Grandfather provision for vacant of- fices would eypi re within six months if these offices remain vacant or become occupied by other conforming uses.) ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE ALTO AMENDING THE NEIGHBOR- HOOD COMMERCIAL (CM) REGULATIONS REGARDING SIZE OF OFFICE USES" Counci lmember Fletcher said there were plenty of sites for office construction still in town, and far too many when considering the jobs/housing imbalance and the fact that the City was losing ground all the time. The Comprehensive Plan objective was to reduce job potential, and office use was a job creating use. The Council did not want to be irresponsible in not caring about where the people who worked i n De i o Alto lived, and that should be the Council's prime consideration, as well as the compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, and making it more possible for housing to be built on the sites in conjunction with minimal office use, Counci imember Witherspoon said the report dated March 22, 1984, page 4, stated the new proposal would not encourage lot splits, and after hearing the speakers, she disagreed. According to the inventory, the City had nine parcels that were over 30.000 square feet, and she believed the only way one could be developed feasi- bly under the proposed ordinance would be by a lot split. Mr. Zimmerman said the report stated that given the relatively restrictive size of the proposal, staff questioned whether there would be sufficient economic incentive to develop 5,000 square feet of offices per site, in relatively separate buildings, to make lot splits financially attractive. That might be the case in the larger lots, but staff did not believe it was likely in the smallcr lots under 10,000 square feet. There was the possibility with the eerger lots, CouncilMember Witherspoon .-said she was concerned that over half of the available developable land would be in the larger parcels. Mr. Zimkerman said most of. those parcels were developed-, and he believed it was unlikely they would be redeveloped in the near future -Ante office. There were some sites where redevelopment of_ the larger lots wave`s possible. CoOnci lmembee Witherspoon agreed with the intent -of of the ordinance to focus the CSI zone ,on - the a neighborhood... -whether it be ° office, professional,_, or retail. $o a of the_ 1 arger parcels might be in- appropriately zoned CN, but that was a -different issue. She requested that property owners hive some way; short of a zone change, to .apply for..a- hardship si tuation. -She did net see why_it Was_jinappropriatei,t0 allow 'for a variance p;rocedure,, and asked 'for e l ari fi cation that most zoning ordinance resrtri ct1 ons had some way 4 3 7 1 3/26/84 to appeal short of a zoning change especially with a layered situation triggered by different kinds of uses. Mr. Zimmerman said a provision could be added if the Council desired, The Council could change the proposal and make it a threshold, as originally recommended by staff, or the language could be clarified in Chapter 18.90 for variances and conditional use permits to specify that the particular provision would be allowed for a. variance. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified the original staff proposal, which Council requested be modified, included a provision for a conditional use permit. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct. Councilmember Witherspoon said she liked the rrovision because the City did not have to grant a conditional use permit, but it provided control. Many good planning decisions could be made with large size parcels, and the ordinance as proposed virtually pre- cluded development. Councilmember Renzel asked if shared parking in a mixed use development was a matter of right or a variance granted by staff. Mr. Freeland said the variance could be granted by the Director cf Pl anei ng. The matter was fairly discretionary and took place at the Architectural Review Board (ARB) level. Counci l Member Renzel said the issue of whether offices were more compatible with residential mixed use than retail did not have to affect a parking shortage on Saturdays because the mix of shared spaces depended on the kinds of ur es anticipate:., and presumably that would be 'hooked at by staff. Mr, Freeland said yes, but given a certain number of square feet of use, it was much easier with office than retail for staff to find those conditions to justify the reduction in parking. Counci l saember Renzel believed the ordinance was a step in the right direction. The neighborhood commercial zone was primarily to encourage the neighborhood commercial/neighborhood serving use. The added housing incentives were to encourage that upper floors be used for housing where they were not appropriate for commer- cial. She did not believe they should be the "tail wagging the dog" in the zone. and the proposal .was a good compromise to encourage the retail to continue to permit the mixed use residen- tial --it was a good solution overall. Related to the incentives for housing, the City currently provided bonuses for mixed uses such as waving the usable open space requirement with 99 percent housing and one percent commercial; but a project with 100 percent housing was bound by the usable open space requirements. She asked if it was appropriate, in conjunction with the proposed action, to refer to the Planning Commission a study of the par- ticular incentives and whether it was oppropriate to grant the incentives for 100 percent residential. Mr. Freeland said the change might be in the package of zoni ng ordinance amendments for the year, but there was no problem with a referral. CouncilMember Woolley was uncomfortable with a firm cap on the amount of office space in the CW zone. She believed there might be an unfavorable impact on a potential mixed use project, and that the door should be left open for much needed housing. The City had . little experience with the CN zone, and she believed flexibility should be retained to encourage a possible housing project. The Council just added a large new area along California Avenue , on Cl Camino, and its effects were unknown in terms of a mixed use project within n the COI zone. Further, a use permit was consistent whereas a can was inr_nnsistent with the City's present regulations for commercial uses in the CN zone. For example, a grocery could go up to about 15,00U square feet, and then had to apply for a conditional use permit. An eating or drinking estab- lishment could go up to 5,000 square feet, and then it had to apply for a conditional use permit. There was no firm cap, and there was the possibility for flexibility. She believed there might be some specific cases in the CN zone when the neighbors would be better served by an all office use than by some of the other uses allowed. The Weeks' property was a perfect example. The European Health Spa had difficult parking problems, ane an office use might be better for the neighborhood. AMENDMENT: Counc i l member Wool i ey moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to amend 2(b), of the motion by adding at the end, "without issuance of a conditional use permit.* Councilmember Cobb said the Council motion in January to set some kind of cap was unanimous, but he believed that cap would .be some percentage of the total buildable space, and now it was absolute. Listening to the comments refreshed his concern about the question of unintended consequences of the CN zone. The Grecian Health Spa was mentioned earlier, and he believed the zone change might well be a disincentive to getting rid of that special purpose building and something more compatible. The zoning might cause that ouilding to remain because there was no incentive to tear it down. He was interested . in comments as to how much CN potential there was before the City had more CN zone than there was retail neigh- borhood serving uses to fill it up.because otherwise it might attract some of the wrong kinds of things. He realized that was an economic study type of question, but he wanted to know if there was a limit to how much of that kind of zone could be put out before it rnaxed out and the city observed unintended consequences. Would the zone start to attract fast food franchises and other undesirable uses from a neighborhood point of view. In view of his concerns, he believed Councilmember Wooliey`s amendment made sense in that it provided a little more flexlbility to deal with special cases. Mr. Zimmerman said with regard to what occurred to date in the CN district, in the first staff report in November when the effect of the rezoning on El Camino was evaluated for the, five year period from 1978 to 1983, staff noticed a modest but incremental shift from uses which were permitted in the more liberal county commercial zoning about ten years ago to the neighborhood commercial. The .-raximum amount of CN district zoning that the City could economically tolerate was responded to between 1978 to 1983, and now more neighborhood commercial was being added. He deferred to Mr. Freeland. Mr. Freeland did not believe anyone knew the limit on the amount of C11 neighborhood serving land uses. There was constant pressure -urn El Camino to have the old type of uses phased out. The Grecian Health Spa was an awkward building, and the only use which could reoccupy the bui l di:g and fill the space was the same use that was there before. . Any change in use would' have to meet on -site parking requirements, and there was some on -site parking, but. probably not enough to allow many uses to fill the existing building. The building was so awkward there was a good chance it would be . torn down and redeveloped if the economic potential existed. If it were not possible to get back as much building in a . redeveloped configuration for an office use as they might be able to occupy for; office and the existing parking, the site might not be redeveloped. He did not know whether there were any plans to redevelop. Countilm€nber Cobb asked in the context of the proposed amendment, if the Grecian Health Spa building was put to some sort of office use, if there was more potential to -provide the adequate parking for it as opposed to a restaurant use or some other use that would fit within the CN zone but which had a different type of parking and traffic generation. 4."3 7 3 3/26/84 Mr. Freeland said there was more likelihood of u ing the building for an office than for a restaurant, but it was hard to say -- someone might block off part of the building as storage. Councilmember Renzel asked if a property owner a PC zone which included more office space Council passed the ordinance as originally amendment. could come in with than shown if the moved without the Mr. Zimmerman said yes. Councilmember Renzel clarified nothing in the land use 'category for CN prohibited office space in excess of the limitation shown. Mr. Freeland said no, but the City would have the test of pub?ic benefit and the finding that the use could not be achieved urder a conventional zone. He believed that before the City could grant a PC for a straight office development, it would have to exhaust the possibilities of a CN zone or some other zone that would allow the office to be developed in the first. place. Councilmember Renzel said it would be a tough test to meet because the City's other commercial zones permit similar uses. She was not that worried about the larger sites, and opposed_ the amend- ment. She believed there were ample other zones in which to build offices. The City had reasons for wanting neighborhood commercial in the areas it was being zoned, and it made sense to limit the office spaces there and give the zones a chance to develop as con- templated and to channel the office space into those more appro- priate areas. Vice Mayor Levy asked what the criteria would be for the issuance of a conditional use permit. Mr. Zimmerman said one general criterion would be the test of an office use exceeding size limit and would be consistent with the specific purposes of the CN district, which state that uses were to be commercial and neighborhood serving and a size to ensure a neighborhood serving use. Staff did not have specific criteria developed to determine at what size a use was no longer neighbor- hood serving. Vice Mayor Levy asked what the City would likely see developed on the larger sites if it held to a limit of 6,000 square feet. Mir. Zimmerman said most of the cri district sites were currently developed, but those presently underdeveloped in terms\o.f..floor area ratio could go to retail or housing. If housing value was such; they could go 100 percent housing. He reiterated the staff concern that the 5,000 square foot cap for office might be restrictive on some of the larger sites in terms of encouragement for mixed use. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified the motion on the floor would eliminate the old two -tiered proposal for the RN. She saw a useful neighborhood commercial use as a small professional office where there were a number of profess ona l s who shared a lobby, reception area, or special. labs. Under the proposal, that would be precluded, and one would have to have a mini practice to have thetotal office space come in under, 5,000 square feet. She was concerned that if _.the amendment failed, the neighborhood profes- sional buildings would be precluded by the City. Mr. Freeland did not believe the neighborhood buildings would be precluded as long as they were square' -feet. Currently, there could be no more than feet with d common entrance or 'lobby. Councilmember Witherspoon said it would professional building in a neighborhood. professional under 5,000 5,000 square nice to have a pooled 4 3`7 4 3/26/84.. Corrected 5/07/84 Councilmember Sutorius supported the amendment. He was not uncom- fortable with the on gi na-i staff proposal and its approval by the Planning Commission would have supported reverting to that origi- nal proposal, and would have accepted 10,000 square feet as op- posed to 15,000 square feet as the limit. He believed the present proposal, with the amendment, was a fair approach and it went toward avoiding the unintended consequences of the combination of the City's recent rezoning and the change in the sizing of the. sites. The zone was already constrained with a 1:1 floor area ratio, a front yard setback that was common throughout the zone, additional setback requirements that might be appropriate depend- ent upon the adjacency to the residential zones, the site was limited to 5U percent development of the site itself, and there was the restraint of the on -site parking. There was an accemul a- tion of restrictions and constraints that would continue to pro- vide for what seemed to be a reasonably healthy evolving Ch exper- ience, and that would be jeopardized if Council acted on the pro- posal without the amendment. He would be particularly concerned about a few of the locations cited and other locations which were smaller sites where there would be no incentive to upgrade, which would not provide the enhanced appearance of some of the City's CN area in . the long term. Councilmember Fletcher said in response to Councilmember Witherspoon's concerns about groups of professionals wanting to join their efforts in a single site, there were clusters of medi- cal offices throughout town where there were separate entrances. She believed that type of development was not precluded under the new proposed restrictions. Further, the Council should do every- thing possible to encourage housing. There were density bonuses for mixed use or 100 percent housing which was not as restrictive as the ones proposed for office. She would not support the amend- ment because the City had plenty of office space, and there were plenty of sites for offices. The Council must remember that the new people being attracted to the offices would have no place to live within reason. AMENDMENT RESTATED: ADD LANGUAGE TO PARAGRAPH 2(b) TO PROVIDE THAT NO SITE SHALL RE PERMITTED TO HAVE MORE THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET IN OFFICE USE WITHOUT ISSUANCE CF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Fletcher, Rerun, Klein voting *no.' MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unaaieouslyr MOTION: Councilmember Rem] mowed, seconded by Woolley, to refer to the Planning Commission the question of whether the in- terti was being given to mixed use projects should be applied to 100 percent residential projects in C$ and other zones where the inctmtires existed. MOTION PASSED eaaaimoesl,p. ITEM f9, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE Mayor Klein sad a letter requesting withdrawal of the application was at the Counci l ieebe' ' places that evening which must be ap- proved by the Council. NOTION: Councilmember : Ronan mowed, seconded by Woolley, to ac- Cgrpt tbm withdrawn of the appl i cati en by Timothy Trailer for Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions for property located at 570 Oatadero Road. MOTION PASSED by a vote. of 8-0, Cobb. not partici,p1ti.nO." ITEM #Ius POLICY ANU PROCEDURES (P&P) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE �rrt u trirTffriTTTI on nued from 3/TZ%84' [CTfU 5-9J - Councilmember Bechtel for the P&P Committee geld that no members of the historical association or the HRB attended due to lack of notice. MOTION: Councilarember Bechtel for the Policy and Procedures Committee moved that staff be directed to redraw Chapter 16.49 of the Pilo. Al Municipal Code so that members of the Palo Alto His- torical Assocf ati on were encouraged to apply and that it be given notice of openings on the NRB. Actual appointment to the HRB was the City Council's respossibility within the other guidelines laid out for the HRH. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Counci lumber Bechtel mowed, seconded by Cobb, that staff be directed to redraw Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code so tket members of the Palo Alto Historical Association were eacooreged t.o apply and that it be given notice of openings on the HRB. Actual appointment to the HRB was the City Council's responsibility within the other guidelines laid out for the HRB, and to incorporate the HRB recommendations dated March 14, 1984, as follows: Section 16.49.040(3)(a), second sentence; delete remainder of sen- tence following the word "of," and insert "history, erch1tecture, or historic preservation.. Third sentence, delete ; esrai Oder of sentence following word "pro- fessi onal s," and insert 'and at least two members shall possess academic educed tin or practical experience in history or a related field, one of whom shall be a nominee of the Palo Alto Historical Association."` ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled °ORDINA1 CE OF THE CDLWCTL Df TAE 0171 ut PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 16.49.040(3) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE MEMBERSHIP. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE HISTORIC RESOURCES Councilmember Fenzel asked whether there was a way to have ` the Historical Association provide more than one nominee so that the decision on the appointment remained with the Council at the time it went through the selection process. Council*ember Fletcher said that when .there was a vacancy on the HRB, ads were placed in the newspaper, and she asked whether the City would be faced with that same dilemma. City Clerk Ann Tanner said a section of the ,Municipal Code on the procedure for HRB appointments required advertising of all vacan- cies four times in a two week period. Vice Mayor Levy asked if the HRB was the only instance where a nominee or member of . a board would be nominated by an outside, non -Council appointed organization. City Manager 8111 Zaner said yes. Carl McUowei l , 580 Arastradero Road, President of the Ni I o Alt° Historical Association, was grateful that Council postponed con- sideration of the item because it provided the `Association and Mr. Stone, Secretary of the Association and Chairman of the HRB the opPortunl ty to present comments and recommendations. The Assodi a - ti on was proud of its ability and opportunity to serve the HRB and the City Council, James H. Stone, 365 Lincoln Avenue, Chairman of the HRB, said the process of nominations and advertising vacancies was an advantage that should continue. He believed the limit to one Association nominee did not follow because in cases where there were three vacancies, it might be reasonable to offer several nominations to the Council. The proposed ordinance and substitute motion stated there must be one member of the- HRB who was a nominee of the EsNCE C N141.7 {. v�. v...,. Historical Association, and 'A member who owned and occupied a des- ignated historic structure. The City was in great shape because the two continuing members of the HRB provided all coverage. Mr. Kerrie was a professional architect and occupied' a designated his- toric structure. Ms. Wilson was a qualified historian and the nominee of the Hi stori:al Association. All . three appointments were open to the Council in terms of the professional qualifica- tions. Yice Mayor Levy admired the Historical Association of which he and other members of the City Council were lifetime members. The original ordinance tied the Council's hands as to whom it could appoint to the HRB at a specific poi rat; i n time, and shifted the Council's responsibility away. He intended that the Historical Association be intimately involved with the HRB and continue to play . an active role, but believed it was a bad precedent to man- date the Council to select a nominee of an outside organization no matter how excellent that organization. The Council should en- courage the participation of those organizations where appropri- ate, but 'not tie its hands and have the appointment in the hands of an outside organization. That subject was discussed at the P&P Committee, and language was proposed which specifically mentioned the Palo Alto Historical Association and encouraged that its mem- bers apply, and that individuals be nominated. He intended to honor the experience and dedication of the members of the Histor- ical Association by appointing its members, but Council must reserve the final anal ye i s to itself if it bel l eved the community would not be properly served. He believed the other recommenda- tions made by Mr. Stone were excellent in terms of having one owner/occupant of a historic structure, and the practical or aca- demic experience in history. AMENDMENT : Yice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Renzel , to delete language after the word '°field' in Historic Resources Board pro- posal and add PIP -..Committee's recommended sentence that the °'Pal o Alto Historical Association shall be given notice of vacancies os,,. the Board and shall be encouraged to have its members submit ap- plications," Counci lmember Woolley said Mr. Stone did an excel l ent job dis- cussing the composition of the HRB. The need for two architects was undisputed, and several others sent letters pointing out the fairness and ease of including a property owner. She received a call from a ;property owaer who believed that type of representa- tion was needed. The third new representation concerned someone with historical experience, and she strongly urged its, inclusion in tIae new ordinance. Staff was limited in terns of the HRB, and its .members needed to be able to perform the work. It largely produced. brochures which involved research, and it updated the inventory sheets. Half of the 485 were done, largely by Mr. Stone He had professional background which was important to the gradp, and theNABwas often asked for advice concerning legisla- tion so that practical experience in historic preservation proved to be important to the applicants. The Historical Associationhad an unusual; relationship with the City. The material contained in the . City libraries actually belonged to the City, but the Reference Librarian .who helped people use those files was employed by. the Historical, Ass ;c. ati on. The dues of its . members paid her salary --the City previouslycontributed $1,2©0 to her salary, but that ceased since Proposition 13. She believed the unusual rela- tionship merited direct involvement with the HRB. 4 )3 7 7 3/261/84 Mayor Klein supported the proposed amendment because he believed it was anomalous and wrong for the City to delegate its appoint- ment process to an outside organization regardless of its worthi- ness. He concurred with the comments about the major contribution of the. Historical Association to the community, but could not jus- tify giving the Association a right which the City Council did not properly grant any other organization. He believed it was bad public policy for the Council to give any of its prerogatives away and urged Council support of the proposed amendment. AMENDMENT PASSED by a voa of 5-4, Woolley, Bechtel, Witherspoon, Setorius voting "na.4 Vice Mayor Levy seconded Councilmember Woolley's commendation of the HRB, and its contributions to the community. Mayor Klein concurred, and expected that the Council changes would not be major, and that key members of the Historical Association would apply and be appointed to the HRB. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, RECk:SS FROM 9:30 p.m. TO 9:45 p.m. ITLM #11, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE AT''v 1Trrt a ' ' 4. IFRUFIRTT LU ATtU AT Mayor Klein said petitions were circulated in the community urging people to attend the Council meeting that evening with regard to the demolition of school sites. He stated the Palo Alto City Council had no jurisdiction over whether a school should be closed and whether the school should be razed. That deci siun was solely the responsibility of the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). The Council's ,jurisdiction was land use, which meant the proper designation for the property once the PAUSD determined it should_no longer be used as a school. Under the law, the Council must give the .school board some economic use of the property, and could not mandate that it be left as a school --that option was not . open. The -Council decided the appropriate use of the property, whether it should be office space, commercial, etc. With regard to Ortega and Crescent, the Council decided the proper land use designation was residential. There were several land use designa- tions within the re:3identi.el category, and time was spent discuss- ing how many wilts of housing Should be -allowed on those sites, and the confi gure 1 stns of the lots. That was the ;role of the City Council. For. those who warted to speak to the public issue of whether schools should be closed or iehether school buildings should be razed, the appropriate agency for discussion would be the PAUSD.,---- J -� ue Simitia ,was Yice President of PAUSD, and on its. Property Committee along with PAUSD member Alan Davis, • Mr-. . Simi tier indicated a wi 1 l i ngnesz` to speak with people interested in the issue and have the Property Cored tee call a special meeting to discuss the matter. The PAUSD would meet on April 2, and it had Oral Communications at thestartof its meetings.'- He urged interested citizens to speak with the PAUSO at. that time. Since it was not within the Council's power to'do anything .with regard to school closures, Ant 400 -0 rtal a "out of order" any discussions. which focused on that rather than the application for the Coopre hensive Plan redesignationee zoning change antU various land use designations with regard to the)Ro.ss Road school site. -Zoning Administrator.- Bob Brown said the staff -report mentioned a change in the mep-from the Planning Commission meeting regarding the_ connection of the : new roadway with .Ross Road. The intent of 4 3 7 8 3/26/84 the muds fi cati on was to align the new roadway with Talisman Drive ve so that autos could maintain the same lanes. With the island, it created three lanes of traffic --two inbound; one being a right turn only from Ross Road; the other_ inbound would be directly across from Talisman Drive; and the far lane would be outbound. Councilmember Bechtel asked what would be in the divider aid whether it would be maintained by the City. Mf. Bruwn said the Public Works Department preferred that the divider be concrete. If there was desire to soften the entrance with City street trees, that opportunity existed on either side of the entry drive, but the central island would not have a street tree and would not require City maintenance. He said the divider was about seven feet wide and twelve feet longs ;;Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. Tom Murphy, 777 Christine Drive, said he was a CPA by background, and was number oriented in discussing the ordinance. The issue was whether the zone change was appropriate, and whether it would benefit all parties involved. The site was currently an active private school which rented the site from the PAUSD, and paid ap- proximately $100,000 per year in rent. In terms of the net to the PAUSD, he believed there was a net positive cash flow from the use of the school site as a school site. The scteol was an excellent neighbor and everyone spoke highly of it. Mayor Klein said the Council was advised on many occasions that it could not zone a property for school use ---that option was not open to the City Council. Thomas Jordan, an attorney with Hopkins, Mitchell & Carley, 525 University Avenue, and a resident of Palo Alto, said his firm represented Dick and Wanda Walker, adjacent property owners. He bel s eyed it was the first time an issue before the Council of con- flict in a real case --not a planning case --of opportunity develop- ment rights as opposed to solar rights. The Walkers' house was designed as a solar house for 19 years, and it operated well. Certain statements were made in the written material presented by the PAUSD coecerning the house. The house was clearly determined by City staff to be an effective solar house. It was well designed according to the technology at the time, and the Utilities Conservation Department estimated that the space heating bill of the house, which was about $600 per year, would be twice that amount if the house lost its solar energy. It did not take complete blockage before solar lost its effective balance as a solar house. With increased gas rates, they were talking substan- tial yearly and forever increases in gas usage and cost. The statements in the PAUSD paper of $100 per year were inaccurate, and the Walkers' figures were verified by the City's Conservation Department. He said the house had a large window wall oriented mainly southeast. It was designed to catch the early morning and morning sun. A large overhang blocked out the sun from noon or so in the summer and prevented it from entering the house. The sun struck the cinderblock wall inside the house which was the solar heat collector. The sun hit the cinderblock, heated it, and preserved the heat for the rest of the day. The early morning light was most important. He directed the Council's attention to Coalitions 19 and 20 of the subdivision crap. Condition 19 granted an easement to the Walkers' lot over lot 6 only, which was immedi- ately adjacent to the' PAUSD.'s lot --not Lot 7, 8 or any of the other lots between the early morning or morning sun at .. the Walkers' . house. The easement started at 9:30 a.A.-- about 1-1/2 hours of sunlight at the Walkers might be blocked by a structure or vegetation. The easement was measured from a single point on the Walkers' 43 foot long window collector. Condition 20, applied to street trees, and the condition was that street trees in front of lots 6 a.nd 7 would not exceed the heights. He requested that the already granted: easement be made better. The easement should 4 3 7 9 3/26/84 hove been grantee, but the Planning Commission had a lot before it, and the specific technical recommendation of staff only got together about two days before the hearing. A lot of computation in terms of the impacts could not be done. He believed the ease- ment should be over more than Lot 6. Mr. Walker ran a computer model, and it was 29 percent of his energy, which was unknown at the time of the Planning Commission hearing. Balancing that against the impact of what could be built on the school site, reasonable houses could be built. The possibility of an easement starting at 9:10 a.m. would be measured to the entire window wall rather than the single point. If the tests were to balance inter- est between adjoining property owners, he submitted that a 29 per- cent loss by the Walkers compared to that small restriction on the school district was not sufficient to not grant the Walkers' request. Kenneth P. Fehl, 736 E. Meadow Drive, said everyone was aware of the wisdom and fc ree i &it of Leland Stanford when he granted land to Stanford University requiring that it never be sold off for private use. He was curious about whether the founding fathers of Palo Alto shared the same wisdom and foresight when certain areas were set up i_ n the City for public use. He visited the County Recorder's Office to examine the deeds for the public sites for- merly known as Ortega and Ross Road Schools. Of the two sites, one was owned by the PMUSU, one was owned by the City of Palo Alto outright, and the deed for the Ross Road site was missing and declared lost. Before the Council paved the way for the private sale of the land at the Ross Road site, he requested that copies of duly recorded deeds be furnished for public inspection to see if those deeds contained the same provisions of wisdom and fore- sight as Stanford University to prohibit the W vate sale of those public lands. Gerry Steinberg, 10300 W. Loyola Drive, said that although the PAUSU had difficulty accepting the theory that it was under any legal obligation to grant an easement without consideration, the PAUSU was prepared to accept the staff recommendation. The staff report differed from the Planning Commission in that the Commis- sion recommendation deleted Item #5, on page 14, which would have permitted vegetation on Lot 6 to be higher than the building limitation if it did not reduce the Walkers' sunlight by more than 10 percent. Mr. Walker agreed in principle with that concept, but the parties disagreed as to which date the sunlight penetration. reading should be taken. The Planning Commission recommended that the Lot 6 property, even during the summer months when shade was important, would be restricted to having vegetation heights limited from 6 to 20 feet on 32 percent of the lot. 4r. Walker had trees on his property in strategic locations which .were 10 to 25 feet high. Those trees did not impair the sunlight penetration because Mr. Walker trimmed his trees every year in order to guarantee a solar access. Item #5 of the staff report would offer the property owner of Lot 6 the same privilege, but it was after the close of the public hearing that the Commission discussed Item t5 and the difficulty of determining and esnforcing a sunlight pen- etration provision. According to Rick McClure, the City's Solar Specialist, a precise instrument existed to measure sunlight pene- tration through vegetation. The measurement and enforcement Of Item 05 would be no more difficult than measuring and enforcing the vegetationheight restrictions on the easement. She believed a fair compromise on the issue was not to restrict the vegetation height on Lot 6, but rather guarantee the Walkers' sunlight through pruning the vegetation just as Mr. Walker did on his own property. The PALJSD requested the Council reinstate Item 05 of the staff report . as one of the provisions of the solar easement. Nr. Walker : was appealing the Planning Uo+arisssion recommendation on the basis that the solar easement recommended was insufficient to protect his tunlight.- specifically., major concerns over the starting time of the easement and the height .limitations of vege- tation for Lot 7. Mr. Walker asked that the sunlight penetration be available at 6:00 a.m. Staff proposed a 9:00 a.m. starting time, and she was told there were no precedent solar easements to guarantee solar access prior to 9:00 a.m. A 9:00 a.m. starting time was considered to be restrictive, and the California Solar Shade Control Act of 1978 measured the time from 10:00 a.m. Mr. Walker stated that a 9:00 a.m. starting time would take.- away 29 percent of his, present total energy based upon readings taken on December 21. That was true for the one day, but for the total heating season, which should be the measurement criteria utilized in discussing the issue, the loss was closer to `•13 percent. That was translated into a $50 additional heating expense for the en- tire heating season, and Mr. Walker's calculations did not reflect the .sunlight that entered his home after 12:00 noon. That sun- light did not reach his solar collecting room, but it did enter his living room and offered a measurable amount of solar heating. In comparison to the possibility of a $50 additional heating ex- pense to Mr. Walker, the easement restriction placed' on Lot 6 could significantly impair the value of the property. The restrictions stipulated that a portion of the structure be one- story; that a flat roof be necessary on part of the ore -.story; ' and that vegetation be limited. Although the exact dollar figure related to those restrictions was not presently available, profes- sionals estimated the cost of that restriction could translate to $10,000 -to $20,000 t n lost see es revenue for the lot. Regarding the height of trees on Lot 7, staff, the PAUSD and Dick Walker had many discussions an the point, and regardi ng the orientation of the lot and the possible sun blockage by trees, the concern was that large trees might be planted in the front of Lot 7 thereby obstructing the sunlight plane to Mr. Walker's house. Staff addressed that concern in part by requiring condition 20 of the subdivision approval, which instructed the City Parks Department to choose street trees that would.not attain a height to interfere with the Walker's solar access. The staff also stated the possi- bility was low that the owner of Lot 7 would plant trees of such a height between the street and structure to impair the sunlight to Mr. Walker's house. Mr. Walker cautioned the Council on the nega- tive impact the Planning Commission recommendation would have on the Palo Alto Solar Program.. Contrarily, she believed that impos- ing the easement would protect solar access from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and it was greater protection than the standards set by the California Shade Control Act. The City would be protecting a solar installation and at the same time would balance the property rights of the adjacent property owner. The PAUSD accepted the Planning Commission recommendation and requested that Council restore Item 5 of the staff report. It commended the City staff for their untiring efforts to help the parts e- find a compromise, and realized thet the present staff proposal was a compromise . It was less than Me. Walker wanted, and more than what the PAUSD believed it should donate. The P ►IS) still had difficulty accept- ing the fact that the property would be encumbered with a solar easement restricting the height -and roof design ofa future home, and growth of vegetation of lot 6 without any compensation to the PAUSD. Stella Zaa+vi 1 , 821 Thornwood Drive, said the Jewish Community Center ( CC) leased the Terman site for $100,000 for 20 years in order to keep the lands - public for future use. She believed it was appropriate to lease the Ross Road site pending further demo- graphic studies. She believed more thought should go into selling the school lands, Gary Abler, 3718 Grove Avenue, was the parent of a school aged child and concerned about the use of the land. He suggested that single family dwellings might not be the best possible answer, and proposed that the site be designated open space until the City had a chance to more carefully review the plan and :�obtai n better records on the number of, school aged children i n Palo Alto. Mayor Klein reiterated thet the _Council could not designate that the lard be retained as open space. 4 3 8 1 3/26/84 Mayor Klein declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Klein asked staff to comment on the deed to the property. Mr. Zaner saki the property was owned by the PAUSD, and he possessed a copy of the preliminary report from the title company indicating that the property was examined and vested in the PAUSD. Councilmember Woolley said she was employed by.. the PAUSD, and asked the City Attorney whether she could participate on the item. City Attorney Diane Lee responded that under the _Political Reform Act, salary from a governmental institution was not a source of income, and therefore, she could participate. Counci lmember Woolley asked Mr. McClure to compare the impact on the energy savings versus the impact on the restrictions of Lot 6 for the Planning. Commission recommendation and the plan mentioned by Mr; Jordan concerning the light on the entire window wall instead of at just one point. City Solar Specialist Rick McClure said that in the case of the Planning Commission, staff estimated a 13 percent loss in solar energy gain to the house over the entire heating season, and under the City's current rates, it would cost the Walkers about $50 per year. The house was fairly energy efficient, and 13 percent was not a huge number. In terns of the impact on Lot 6 for the new subdivision, staff saw that approximately a 4,000 square foot house or more could be built on the property under the easement as proposed by the Commission, and there were a number of design options. The average house in the neighborhood was closer to 2,000 or 1,500 square feet, so there was a lot of design flexibility in Lot 6. To go one step further, the comments of Ms. Steinberg regarding the policy was clear• that 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. was the case in solar easements throughout the nation. In the case of the entire window, he believed Mr. Walker should share his analysis. Dick Walker, property owner, said that since the Planning Commission hearing, he commissioned a computer- model to tell what type of energy might or might not be gained under different. pro- posals. In the _deep winter, under the Planning Commission pro- posed_ easement, he would lose 29 percent of the energy which flowed to the window. Under his original request, he .. would only lose seven percent, and 'under the compromise which Tom Jordan men- tioned as a possibility, he would lose 15 percent of the energy to that window. Mr. McClure clarified that Mr. Walker's Less would be cut approxi- mately in half to go with the new proposal --from approximately 13 percent by staff's numbers or 15 percent by his own, down to seven or eight percent over the entire heating season. He believed Mr. Walker's drawings were. quite accurate compared to the illustration contained in the staff report, and the change was the one-story construction area was larger than i t was in the staff recommenda- tion adopted by the Planning Commission, and those more to the right than was currently in the staff _ report. There would be a smaller house constructed under the option, but absent calcula- tions on the amount of square footage, there would not be too much difference from what he presently saw. Councilme.ber Woolle asked regarding the measurement of Item #5, which was dropped from the staff report, whether the -City or the property made the measurement. Mr. McClure said the staff report proposal presumed that Mr. Walker or the owner of Lot 6 would purchase the equipment. That equipment was accurate, and they a would not be. a problem in 4 3 8 2 3/26/84 determining the exact percentage of loss. The 10 percent maximum loss could not be achieved over any one period of time because it was 10 percent in any given half hour duration. To lose 10 per- cent on any given day of the year, the person would have to be a fanatic about trimming the' bushes to the exact height of the sun as the arcs across the sky. Under the current proposed easement, if the people in Lot 6 planted a rose bush against the fence and it grew up into the plane, it would technically violate the ease- ment. Under the exemption, it would not be a violation. The Planning Commission was concerned in the area of measurement, and while the devices were accurate, there might be a question about whether it occurred at the specified time. Pl anni ng Commissioner Joe Hirsch said he recommended elimination of Condition 5 because it was a source of potential controversy between the future property owners, and he believed a line of sight along the lines recommended in the staff report was a more easily verifiable easement than anything else. Councilmember Woolley said Mr. Walker's letter mentioned the importance of an easement on Lot 7 for vegetation only, and she asked if -it was likely that trees could be planted between the front house and the street trees. Mr. McClure said it was possible to plant trees in that area, but it was the considered opinion of the Planning and Utilities Departments that it was unlikely large trees would be planted in that area. He said it was a matter of whether the person who purchased Lot 7 would grow trees, which could conceivably be done. Councilmember Cobb said compromises were discussed, and he asked if the PAUSU was closed to a compromise to eliminate the discus- sion. Mr. Jordan did not believe so, based on the number of hours already invested. Their position was clear, but the school district backed away from further discussions. Mir. Si mi ti an, on behalf of PAUSO, took exception to the statement that the district had backed off from discussions. Staff suggested a compromise proposal at one point as a possible means to resolve the issues, and in a meeting with Mr. Brown and Mr. McClure, the PAUSE) was prepared to indicate substantial acceptance of the terms of the compromise proposed, and met with substantial resistance from Mr. Walker and his counsel at to time. Mir. Brown said regarding the level of compromise, that neither side substantially backed off from the easement it offered at the beginning of the negotiations, and he did not believe much more would be accomplished. Councilmember Renzel asked about the baseline measurements of the loss of energy and whether someone would have to have a year's worth of measurements on an average year in order to determine the loss for that particular day in _a subsequent year "i f Exception 5 were retained and the measurements taken. lir. McClure said the measuring technique would involve two meters --one placed immediately above the other on a single pole. The top meter would measure the available unobstructed sunlight with •no trees, and the bottom one would measure the sunlight coming through the trees. It would be a matter of dividing the bottom number by the top number to come up with the fraction. If it was more than 10 percent, the situation would create a viola- tion. Councilmember Renzel asked if the current solar standards which used .the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. related more to active solar panels as opposed to a passive solar installation. 4 3 8 3. 3/26/84 Mr. McClure said the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.. or 1.0:n0 a _m to 2:00 p.m. worked equally well for active or passive solar, and were the hours when the sun was .most available. I',: was consis- tently applied to both systems. Councilmember Renzel said the subject passive solar house was ori- ented to the southeast and was designed in such a way to use morn- ing and not afternoon sun. She asked if that practice was uncom- mon or whether the practice was standard for passive solar. Mr. McClure said i t was not really a common practice for passive solar or active solar. Typically the houses were oriented towards due south, and he believed the designer of the Walkers' home took advantage of the adjacent play yard and recognized the opportunity to take advantage of the early morning sun. He pointed out that the window wall faced more to the south and took advantage of the southerly sun as it rose. Councilmember Renzel said there was some discussion about whether the loss was ?9 or 13 percent, find clarified that staff determined it to be a 13 percent loss during the heating season. She asked what was considered to be the heating season. Mr. McClure said staff's numbers of 13 percent were for five months of the heating season. Mr. Walker's number of 15 percent was a six-month heating season. Councilmember Renzel asked about the 29 percent. Mr. McClure said that was the shortest day of the year when the sun was the lowest in the sky. The heating season in Palo Alto typically ran from September, October through February, March. He said the sun was much higher in the sky during the months of November, January, October and February. Councilmember Bechtel said regarding whether the property should continue as a school site, much as s.,e sympathi z with the con- cerns of those in attendance, the issue was properly discussed with the school hoard- City staff should be commended for its efforts on the issue, and it appeared a compromise was reached. The school district gave the easement_ without any compensation, which was a precedent, and potentially decreased the value of the property. Mr. Walker compromised by not getting as much sun as he wanted, and did not compensate the school district. She supported the staff recommendation with the addition -of the original Item 5 for measurement for vegetation. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt the Pl anmi mg Commission recommendations in C4R:2175:4, . as follows, and deletiig 117 from conditions: t 1_Sa___e_e_re, P1 L Land 411111atiatia_VILLIELItelt Adopt resolution amending the Land Use Nap from School District Lands to Single Family Residential gad adopt ordi aasce changing the zoaimg from PF (Public Facilities) to R-1 (Slagle Family Resi- dence District) for mi nete,am lots and R-2 (Two Family Residence uistrict) for Lot 15 until suck time as a Planned Community zone providing for two for -sale Slit waits i s approved, and make the following additional flading: 1. The proposed land use and zoaring designations are coasisteat with the housing objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan which call for maiatemaace of the existing character : of dove)opmeat of residential aeighberhoods 1r, the proposed lot sizes arr cows)stoat'with serrosading single family proper- ties. The single family land use will also provide hossl al opportunities for the development of new single family resi- dences. Vacant land for such single family development is very limited within Palo Alto. 4 3 S 4 3/26/84 MOTION COT 1 !;WED : For the Subdivision The Council finds that the subdivision will not have a significant impact on the environment and that the proposal, including the design and improvement, is consistent with the adopted Comprehen- sive P1aa including the imposition of a solar access easement to preserve the functioning of the adjoining passive solar home in camp'iance with Policies 6 mad i of the €nviroameatal Resources Element, complies with the Subdivision Nap Act and Title 21 of the PAMC; that the site is physically suitable for the type and den- sity of the proposed development; that the subdivision is not likely to result in serious public health problems; that there are no conflicts with public eesewerts and finding that the exceptions for lot width on Lots 6, 7, 100 11, and 12, and flag lot access width for Lots 13 and 14: 1. There are speclel circumstances or conditions affecting the property including the fact that the exceptions are required for lots which are located on curved portions of the roadway and that the lots are proposed in a wedge shape between cul- de-sac bulbs and the squared boundaries of the property; 2. The exceptions are necessary for the preservation and enjoy- ment of a substantial property right of the petitioners; 3. The granting of the exceptions will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the site is situated in that increased density or development potential will not result from these exceptions and that the lot area for the subject parcels is well above the minimum for the zone district; and 4. The granting of the. exceptions will not violate the require- ments, goals, policies or spirit of the law in that the excep- tions are minimal in size and compensated by increased lot area. Approve these applications with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit drainage plans, i acl udi ng calcula- tions to the City Engineer for approval; 2. All livable floor levels for future structures shall comply with the requirements of the Mood Hazard Reduction Program andbe a minimum of 7.5 feet above mean sea level. A 'note that this site is in the flood hazard area .shall be on the final map; 3. A topographic map of the ,,s1 to with one foot i stervai s shall be submitted to the City Engineer; 4 .. The new street is to be cosstr acted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Mistime curb radii shall be 30 feet, and col- de-tac radii of 40 feet; 5.. Fences shall not be erected closer than 10 feet from the face or Curb. This ..will allow unrestricted accessto utilities by City staff; 6. A public utility easement shell be shown ea the final sap to compliance with .that shown on the typical. street section and shall include the prohesed store drainage system; 7 . Subdivider shall submit construction pleas :liar the streets skews en the map mad shall offer: these street* for dedication to the public le the Owner's Certl,f icate en the map; MOTION CONTINUED: 8. Subdivider shall submit construction plans for the street and utility improvements.(lncluding street tree plantings) pro- posed to the City Engineer for approval. These Improvements shall be constructed prior to recordation of the nap or a sub- division agreement with the City of Palo Alto; 9. Prior to submitting a final map the subdivider shall submit a detailed soils report; 0. T`te existing perimeter fences of the site shall be removed and replaced with fencing of a standard residential height. The fence design and removal/replacement plan shall be tubject to ARB review as a regularly scheduled item and notice shall be given to adjoining property owners; 1. All existing trees shown within proposed residential lots shall be reviewed by the City Arborist and retained where healthy and feasible. A tree planting program for all street freetages and north and south site perimeters shall be sub- mitted by the developer to the City Parks Department and shall be subject to approval of the City Arbors st; 2. All electric service systems including communication systems shall be installed underground by the developer; 3. Street lighting in conformance to City standards shall be pro- vided by the developer. Plans for street lighting shall be approved by the Chief Electrical Engineer prior to recordation of the final map; 4. A common access easement for Lots 13 and 14 shall be prepared and recorded with the final map; 5. The shared accessway for Lots 13 and 14 shall remain open in common and shall dot be separated by fencing or ether obstruc- tions; 6. On -street fire hydrants will be required as per Fire Depart - meet specifications; 7. The applicant shall caaaply with the Below Market Rate housing requirements by providlag Lot 15 to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation for future development of a duplex structure; 8. The applicant shall provide an easement for solar access to the adjoining prepert) owner, Walker. The easement shall con- tain the restrictions which *re conceptually outlined in the February 24„ 1984 staff report with deletion of the vegetation exception described on Page 14, Item 5 of the Fehruary 24 staff report. The easement shall be englleered and written by the applicant and shall be submitted for review with th final subdivision map and recorded by the Covet, Recorder with the final neap; end 9. That the City Parks Department choose street trees for Lots 5 and 7 which will not •ttpls_ a height which will intertere+w1ter solar access to the Walker residence. Further, direct the Utilities Department to preceer with estahl i shaeat of am endergreorad utility district to incited. properties at 745-777 Crlstine Drive, RESOLUTION :_6242 AS AMENDED •entitled *RESOLUTION OF TI E y ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE -PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT Of THE `CITY OF PALO ALTO= BY AMENDING TUE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTY, KNOWN AS 3530, ROSS : ROAR (FORMER ROSS ROAD SCHOOL SITE)s MOTION CONTINUED: 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 THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3530 ROSS ROAD (FORMER ROSS ROAD SCHOOL SITE)" Councilmember Cobb spoke to those members of the public who ad- dressed the school site closure question. lie lived in Palo Alto for almost 40 years, and shared a lot of the concerns. The diffi- culty was that the school district ran a red ink budget and was selling surplus capital assets to close the red ink down as ,much as possible. The only way the City could preserve those prop- erties in open space and public use was to buy then, and it did not have the resources to do so. It purchased as much open space as possible using the Naylor Act, but the City's resources were limited, and it was not possible for City Councils to deny school districts the economic value of their lands through the zoning process. Councilmember Woolley did not support the prohibition on removal of trees and believed the hassle likely to result from neighbors having to purchase meters and measure the shade at certain times, in order to determine whether the foliage needed pruning, was un- reasonable. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel, to delete Item 05 on Page 4 of the February 24, 1984 report, from the motion, which state, "No existing trees shall be removed without approval from the City's Parks Department, unless indicated as being removed on the tentative subdivision map. All planting in the public easement shall be subject to the approval of the City Arbors st." Councilmember Renzel supported the amendment because the City had an existing passive solar facility in existence for a long period of time which was built in contemplation of the continuation of a public facility, which expectation was reasonable 20 years ago. The purchaser of the new lot would do so with their eyes open, and would know exactly what was permitted. A tremendous variety .of plant material could be used in Palo Alto of all differing heights and shapes, and the northerly side of the property was not a place where the property owner would necessarily desire shade anyway. She believed it was reasonable to limit the growth in that area to keep it out of the solar easement in order to encourage continua- tion of solar in the facility. Aside from the dollar costs, the citizen attempted to be energy conserving by a creative design based on reasonable expectations at the time and up until recently. The possible detriment to the district was presently undocumented, but she calculated that some 3,600 square feet of single story building could be built, which was a large house. If they utilized the portions that could be second story, it could be much larger, She:adid not believe the restraint was unreasonable on the adjoining piece of property that was almost 10,000 square feet, and it- was ',reasonable to restrict the'vegetation on the northerly portion of the site and make it an easier, better defined easement. Councilmember Witherspoon asked for clarification on Section 18, which said "the easement shall be engineered and written by the applicant," and whether the "applicant" meant school district, Mr. Brown said that was correct. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified City staff would review the matter and she asked if any problem would return to the Council.. Mr. Brown said that staff would attempt to resolve any problers. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified the Council would not see the matter again unless there was a dispute. Mr. Brown understood the intent of the Council in granting the easement and would enforce it. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-4, levy, Klein, Bechtel, Cobb voting "no." Councilmember Fletcher preferred that a City tree be planted on the traffic divider at the entrance. City trees would be planted along the street 1,n any event, and she did not believe that one additional tree would cause any hardship. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, that staff seriously consider planting that would not interfere with safety on the traffic divider at the entrance way. Councilmember Fletcher said she was concerned because of the expansive concrete. Councilmember Renzel said the neighborhood would be new, and the City had a standard of having the entrances to various neighbor- hoods defined with a sense of place, and the opportunity existed for something along those lines, even if ground was the most appropriate. Mr. Brown said staff would attempt to find some vegetation. Vice Mayor Levy strongly supported the amendment. An expanse of plain concrete that size with weeds growing through it in time was ugly, and he was impressed by the dividers planted or wood con- structions added particularly along Ernbarcadero, and believed the City could do something to soften the entrance to the new Ortega Drive and give it a nice feeling. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Renzel said the City had a standard procedure of draining properties to the street; and for flood control purposes, properties had to be built above the 7.5 elevation. She was con- cerned that the boundaries with adjacent property owners in a large subdivision have no grade differential. There was a problem with many other subdivisions and developments, and as much as a two foot grade differential between properties. She wanted assur- ances that the issue was resolved and that no grade differential existed at the property lines. Mr. Brown said the site would not have a substantial grade dif- ference due to the increased elevation to the 7.5 foot level, and compared with the East Meadow Ortega site.' There would be natural drainage of the •site towards Ross Road. Councilmember Renzel said in other places the City's drainage toward the public street required that the backs of the properties be built up. The backs of the houses to the rear property lines were sloped in order to keep the grade equal on both sides of the fence while the remaining portion of the property drained to the front. That was the solution for the Cesano propertv, and . it did not result in substantial drainage to an adjoining property; but protected someone on one side of the six toot fence from being four feet from the top of the fence. Mr. Brown believed th.e Cesano property involved a perimeter drainage ditch, gravel, etc., but could not respond for the Public Works Department. Councilmember Renzel asked how Council could have that put into the tentative map so that it returned to the Council as part of the final map. 1 4 388 3/26/84 AMENDMENT: Councilmember Ren=el coved, seconded by Fletcher-, a condition that to the extent possible there be no grade differ- entials at the abutting property lines of the existing properties versus the new properti e. Mr. Zaner said staff would attempt to ensure that the rear lot lines had no differential as they met. Councilmember Renxei said there was a condition .that the Cesano property have no differential, which was violated, and the City had to compromise after the fact. It was feasible for portions of the rear yard to drain downward versus the remainder of the prop- erty draining out to the street. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Mr. Hirsch said Commissioner Cullen requested a redesign of the entrance road at the Planning Commission hearing, and the Commis- sion did not reflect on the design before the Council that eve- ning. He requested that the Council review the design and satisfy itself that the proposal was safe. He was concerned about the island and left-hand turns in front of it, and on the far side, the right-hand turns. He questioi'ed that one might become con- fused and_ think that to turn left into the roadway one had to go around .:,the island. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, that staff be directed to study the creation of an underground utility district for affected properties on Cri st.i tie Drive. Councilmember Sutorius was pleased about the opportunity to im- prove the aesthetics and save maintenance costs and inconvenience if the district was formed. MOTION PASSED unanimously. COUNCIL UETERMIKATION ABOUT 11:00 .:n, Mayor Klein believed Council should be able to finish the agenda. ITEM #12, REPORT FROM THE COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE OH ICE SKATING (PWK WHETHER TO COMMENCE NEW ITEMS AFTER Councilmember Cobb said when he and Counciimembers` Woolley and Sutorius were given the draft reportto review, he added the next to last paragraph that the issue was more than the preservation of ice skating in Palo Alto, but also to get more appropriate uses in more appropriate places. The ultimate result would be for the YMCA to operate on Middlefield Road as .a recreation center to include ice skating, and have housing developed on Ross Road% which would remove some of the "al's" present constraints. He requested that Council provide comments, guidance, and assistance on what transpired to date _ and what should be done to provide support for the activity, the constraints of that support, etc., and that the subcommittee be allowed to 'continue to pursue the matter as far as. possible. The clock was running --the original target date for demolition of the facility was May 1, 1984. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the committee, the City, or the YMCA heard from Mr. Peery • Mr. Zaner said the City received a - letter and a phone call from Mfr. Peery that the information in the me?o was accurate. He was prepared to sell the property, and give the City some time to work with the YMCA to wort out the financial arrangements. 4 3 8 g 3/26/84 Councilmember Witherspoon was reluctant to tie up the :mount of City money mentioned in the report for seven years without any in- terest. She realized there were other ways to go about the finan- cing, and Mr. Zaner's memo mentioned guaranteeing a conventional bank loan for the YMCA. Councilmember Cobb said one approach was that any moneys used would be repaid with interest. Councilmember Renzel said Mr. Peery was asking $2.5 million for the site, which she assumed was based on appraisals confirming that price, but the City could not help to set an overly high price by getting involved in some type of loan situation. Mr. Zaner said an independent appraisal was not done by the City, and Mr. Peery's was done for his own purposes. Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, represented the Trust for Com- munity Skating, and reassured the Council that the program opera- tion was self-sufficient. Through February, the Trust for. Commu- nity Skating had in tact its working capital grant of $25,000 from the City plus the $27,000 it raised from the general community. From a program standpoint, the Trust was confident it could main- tain a popular program and not impose further on the City. They had already explored one possible cashless solution which involved the exchange of one City asset for another, and the Trust request- ed that Council encourage its subcommittee to continue on that road. The Trust saw no way to resolve a decision between some future housing gain against preserving a popular recreational proarala, and believed the Trust would prefer a solution that did the fewest possible things within the community. Regarding the fair market value, he understood the Chinese Community Center next door was on half as much land and was asking almost $2,000,000, which seemed to indicate Mr. Peery asked a below market rate for the land. The brief studies of the Trust indicated the price was fair if not better than fair. Vice Mayor Levy said the operating data to date were without ex- penditures for land or renovation of the facility, and he asked what those elements showed when factored in. Mr. Morton said last year the Trust purchased the facility, and covered the cost of purchase plus approximately $15,000 of ongoing reaovatlons. The program would have produced enough to maintain the facility at an approximate level of $30,000. Through March, the Trust would make final judgments about what should be done this year in terms of upgrading the facility., He expected that 'the present facility could be maintained and improved incre- men- tally each year through the _ foreseeable future. Vice Mayor Levy clarified that _the Trust's cash flow would be $30,UOU which amount would be available to cover the purchase. Mr. Morton said yea. Alan Henderson, 565 Arastradero Road, on behalf az' the Palo Alto YMCAs thanked Councilmembers Cobb, Woolley and,.Sutorius, and the various -embers of the. City staff who worked on the .subject. - The 'YMCA realized that a $2.5 million investment commitment was diffie Cult to make, and at that: point, 'neither the City nor the *V" had the answers: on how such an unidertaki ng might be accompl i shed. He hoped the Council. could keep -the subject alive long enough o search for alternatives -and answers. Following the meeting with the City and the "Y" representatives, Mr. Zaner asked the 'Planning staff to look into, several questions-, rel acted . to height 1 i of tai tions, parking and noise. He also asked Mr. Ford to look into financing ai ternati ves . There .was -not not sufficient time to recei ve answers, and he hoped time_ would be provided by the Council. The "Y" --was oompl eti fig a written agreement soon to- be presented to Mr. J _ C 3 J_ � L that _ 1 the _ 4 / Peery, and were confident i deli L �.ha 1. the arrdnyeiiieiits would d be iiidde. The latest problem was a noise analysis prepared at the request of the developer of the former Chinese C+,nmunity Center property, which showed a significant violation of the noise ordinance by the ice skating facility. The developer agreed to expend up to $10,000 to mitigate the problem. If the cost exceeded $10,000 by a significant amount, the YMCA did not have the necessary funds to do the work, which would put ice skating in Palo Alto in immediate jeopardy. Time was needed to work on all the questions --Mr. Peery was willing to give the rest of the year to work on the problems, and he hoped the Council would go along with that schedule. Mayor Klein said the Council was only requested to make .>comments that evening. He hoped something could be done to save the ice skating facility, but believed it would take more work on the part of the private sector than the City. He was concerned that any financial involvement by the City in any ultimate solution not impair the amount available in the City's Capital Improvement Fund. The City had about $5 million available in the fund, and to take$2.5 million or any such number out seemed disproportionate, and he could not find that the City should spend such a high pro- portion of its funds on the particular project. Numerous other requests for capital improvement funding would be shortchanged and many required higher priority. He was concerned that any finan- cial involvement of the City in the project be balanced to a sig- nificant degree by contributions from the public --either through the "Y" or directly to the program. The actual process of getting those contributions was important, and. it was a gourd way to gauge public support. He was not persuaded that the asking price of $2.5 million for the property was correct, and believed the City needed an independent appraisal --not from anyone with any involve- ment whatsoever in the negotiations, with the "Y ," or the skating rink. It was a lot of money and he wanted assurances that the price was right. It must be clear that the City did not own the property, have any operational responsibility, or be called upon to make up any operational deficits. He wanted his concerns reflected in any ultimate plan. Councilmember Fletcher endorsed the statements of Mayor Klein. Councilmember Renzel endorsed the statements of Mayor Klein, The matter went from an interest in saving the Winter Club to an acquisition of a major site, a shift in the YMCA from Ross Road to the subject ;•site, and a project of greater proportions. She was concerned to what extent the project hinged on the Winter Club, and that the City __would not be involved but for the Winter Club interest. She believed that should be evaluated. Vice Mayor Levy associated himself with the comments of Mayor Klein. He did not want the City to forego the interest income it ordinarily earned from any committed funds. If the City committed to the $2.5 million, it represented annual interest income of about $250,000, which amount was substantial. He believed any City commitment should include annual payments of interest equal to what it would have earned on the camkitted funds. Councilmember Cobb thanked the Council for its input. He hoped the City could find a way to succeed because there was the ,larger issue than just thy: ice skating --to get the right .kind of use on the Middlefield Road site. That location was appropriate for the YMCA, which was currently pinned in by residential properties and was unable to do many of the things i t would like; and housing was the perfect use of the Ross Road site. The money involved was significant which was difficult,"because the City's resources were limited and must be used wisely. He appreciated the comments of his colleagues and hoped a solutior could be found. No Action Taken 4 3 9 1 3/26/84 ITeM #?3_ THIRD YFAR CARFFR CRIMINAL_ APPRFHFNSION GRANT (SAF 3-S) City Manager Bill Zaner said .it was the third and final year of the Career Criminal Apprehension Grant (C -CAP). The percent increased each year and the final contribution would be the largest the City made to the program. MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon Moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Approve )udget amendment necessary to conduct the prograa; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into contract with the State Office of Cr#minal Justice Planning as outlined in the grant award contract. RESOLUTION 6243 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF ALA ALTO ACCEPTING FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE GENERAL FUNDS FOR THE 'PALO ALTO CAREER CRIMINAL APPREHENSION PROGRAM' ORDINANCE 3522 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE CAREER CRIMINAL APPREHENSION PROGRAM AND TO PROVIDE FOR RECEIPT OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING" MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITLM #14, FINAL SUBLUVISION MAP - d3' EAST MEADOW (FORMER ORTEGA Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland introduced Associate Planner Sarah Cheney. Ms. Cheney said the matter was not on the Consent Calendar because staff recommended that Condition No. 14 of the tentative map be eliminated. Councilmember Sutorius asked regarding Condition No. 14 and the recommendation to eliminate the 10 -foot pedestrian path, if the 1U feet would be apportioned equally to Lots 11 and 12 or whether any discussion took place relative to another apportionment. Lot 10. was a BMR lot, and he asked if any portion should be assigned to that lot. Ms. Cheney said no discussion took place in terms of the alloca- tion of the lot area. The PAUSD would determine in which lot the additional area would be included. Councilmember Renzel said there was some discussion at the tenta- tive map stage about retaining the right of way, and she asked why staff wanted it deleted. It allowed access for the neighborhood to the park without having to go to East Meadow Drive. Ms. Cheney said the recommendation to eliminate the walkway was because staff saw it as a potential problem in terms of future maintenance, nuisance and vandalism; Councilmember Renzel asked for elaboration in terms of why it would be moreof, a nuisance than a sidewalk or pathway which went elsewhere in the City. Real Property Adm1.nistrator, 4eak Diez said staff conducted a sur- vey when deciding_ what to do ref th the walkways that would dead- end into the new development, which indicated that walkways continually provided a source of problems for the City in terms of 4 3 9 2 3/26/84 maintenance and fur the adjacent property owners. Soma property owners had their homes robbed, and the walkway was a convenient way for the criminals to escape. There was a lot of illegal activity in terms of motorized vehicles, broken glass, congrega- tion of students and others, and the residents of the area pointed those out to the City as the experience with older walkways. He believed a lot of those conclusions supported staff's initial recommendation against creating a new problem with the walkway. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, ap- proval o.f the staff recommendation to delete Condition 14 of the tentative map which required a 10 -foot wide pedestrian pathway be provided between Lots 11 and 12, direct the City Engineer to remove the pathway from the final map prior to recordation, and approve the final map and street name of ORTEGA COURT. Councilmember Renzel was not persuaded by the nuisance theory, and said that of the 150 surveys sent out, 40 were returned, and 30 people agreed they wanted to have those rights. That suggested to her 120 people were indifferent or content with the situation as it stood, and when trying to encourage alternative modes of trans- portation and families with children, to have a little neighbor- hood ..o close to a park and require e walk around the block to yo to a park that was 59 feet away was .tragic when the opportunity existed to make a safe access that was not a nuisance. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved to retain Condition 14 of the tentative map which required a 10 -foot wide pedestrian pathway between Lots 11 and 12 as part of main motion. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Renzel voting 'no.' ITEM #15, ORTEGA SCHOOL SITE - DISPOSITION OF WALKWAYS (PRE 8-2) 1cMR:ZU0:4) Real -Property Administrator Jean Diaz said that since the date of the packet, Match 22, 1983, many adjacent property owners became concerned about the possible effects of reassessment on their property taxes as a result of possible eequisition of portions of .the walkway. As a result of that concern, staff spoke with the property owners and with the Santa Clara Assessor's Office who advised that the additional tax would approximate $25, and perhaps less, recognizing the problems of limited benefit and burdens for the property owners. The Assessor clarified that the conveyance would not trigger a reassessment of the entire property as many property owners feared. Section 61 of the Revenue and Taxation Code clarified. that the Assessor could only assess the new portion added. Since no conveyance took place, the Assessor could . not put that in writing, which some property owners requested, but he drafted a letter to the Assessor's Office summarizing the'i,c:onver- sations. Councilmember Renzel said she received a call from a .property owner who did not want the easement, and she asked what happened i n that event. Mr. Diaz responded that the property owner on the other side might want the additional ;dare in which case everything was fine. In the event that neithei property owner abutting a particular por- tion was interested, there was the situation cf looking to other abutting property owners. The situation arose at Seale -Wooster Canal where the two property owners backing up to the property did not want the easement, but someone at , an angle did, and wound up with an 'L' . shaped addition to " their parcel. The worst ._case was that none of the _propet,sy.owners .would want to go through with the easement such that the City would take care of conveying Earl l tof a 4 3 9 3 3/26/84 particular walkway in which case the only option would appear to be to leave it open and incur the ongoing problems. Councilmember Renzel said if the Council made the decision to sell or convey the walkways, it had no ability to require that anyone take them. Mr: Diaz did not believe that could be imposed on anyone. Councilmember Renzei asked if the City had significant problems along those walkways or the normal things one expected wherever people passed. Mr. Diaz said according to some of the questionnaire— responses, some properties incurred significant problems. One house was robbed four or five times largely due to the convenient access from the walkways to the property. There were recurring, signifi- cant, ongoing maintenance problems with all Ortega walkways, and complaints were received on the issue for at least six years. He believed there were sign.fican.t problems with the walkways espe- cially if they served no real access to any park facilities. Councilmember Renzel clarified that the walkways transected the blocks which made it easier for people attempting to get from point A to point B. Mr. uiaz said the one walkway which extended from Corina to Nathan did not provide a shortcut to the park, but rather a shortcut from one block to the other. The other two walkways went from Corina and Ross Road to the new development, would dead-end at a fence for the new residential development, and were the greatest source of potential problem. MUTIOW: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the staff recommendations as follows: 1. That the Ross Road walkway (Walkway C) which leads directly to Ramos Park be kept open since it is used as an access to the park, and that fee title be conveyed from the PAUSD to the City; 2. That the Council authorize the City Manager to accept the con- veyance of fee title for Walkway B from Valley Title Company for subsequent disposition by the City; 3. That the Corina Way (Walksways A A D) and Ross Road (Walkway B) walkways be closed; 4. That fee title to the walkways be conveyed to the adjacen owners for a consideration of $15O/transaction; and 5. That the City, at its expense, remove the concrete walk- ways. Ray Eden, 38:((0 Louis Road, said he spoke with nine of the -ten. property owners who were all concerned about whether they would lose their Proposition 13 protections. Six property owner's were in attendance, and he asked whether the property owners would get a letter from the County Assessor confirming Mr. Diaz' understand- i ngs. Mr. Diaz sald...the--key was that -thei Revenue and Taxation Code clearly, stated the Assessor cou-ld not reassess the exlsti"ng property. _The Assessor's -Office .could not provide the assessment _,in writing until the conveyance actually took plate. Mr. Eden -said the property owners were concerned- .that no future technicality result in. their entire homes being asses.sed. ;.The 5U4 square feet was n r�ot worth what would be lost by, reassess- ments. 4' 3 9 4 3/26/84 Mr. Diaz said he would provide the property owners with a copy of Section 61 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Councilmember Renzel said despite the fact that some adjacent property owners were pleased she was concerned about losing pedestrian accessways that were used by people for a number of years conveniently and which still provided some closer pedestrian access for the park. She would oppose the motion. Councilmember Cobb informally requested that Mr. Diaz follow up and ensure that nothing happened to surprise the property owners after the parcels were conveyed. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, ReHze i vut i lty `Hu.' ITEM 016, STATUS REPORT ON PARKING CONSIDERATIONS FOR 409 SHERMAN ATIT" 'i TI`[` i` YROJETTS 7Trt Tl i GM'1Z Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said the staff report spoke for itself. The primary issue was whether the Council wanted to proceed in a process to allow the attachment of some conditions for some parking contribution from a potential project at 409 Sherman Avenue. Staff did not believe that on -site parking could be reasonably reflected, Councilmember Renzel asked whether the findings for a variance were sufficiently flexible that a variance was possible. Mr. Freeland said staff could not guarantee that a variance would be granted, but he discussed the factual points with Zoning Administrator Boo Brown who agreed that a case could be made and that the conditions for a variance could probably be met with 409 Sherman. Jan Shuler, 2650 E. Bayshore Road, said two weeks ago the Coun- cil°s unanimous vote provided hope that her project might go for- ware, Since that time, she worked with staff in good faith to come up with a fair and equitable solution. She never intended to get special treatment, but tried to present the facts of her situ- ation in a straightforward manner. She employed legal assistance that was knowledgeable with City procedures to put forth workable solutions satisfactory to the City, had an engineering firm demon- strate the infeasibility of providing on -site parking on her lot, and since escrow closed on 409. Sherman Avenue six months ago, spent a lot of time and money in an attempt to extricate herself from the p,robl em. She believed the variance procedure could be a oonafide solution for someone who bought a small lot in the California Avenue area now or in the future and knew they would_ get 2.:1 coverage, that a variance would be required if no on -site parking could be provided, that the conditions yet to be estab- lished must be attached to the variance which would require addi- tional expenditure, and that a weighted formula would be applied for parking assessments to require more expenditures, She did not believe it was fair to apply .that procedure to her property because she did not know that those facts would apply to 409 Sherman Avenue. That was why .she asked that the grandfather clause be applied to her situation. She acted in good faith reliance on existing ordinances when acquiring the property. To relieve the Council's concern that she would do her part to ad- dress the parking situation, she volunteered $22,750 to the park- ing district, the amount' that her proposed building would have paid into the .parking assessment district since its beginning in 1968, if the new weighted formula la agreed upon in the study comiti t- tee was not imposed. That assessment formula was intended : to equalize old and new properties in the -California Avenue area .and would :require a substantially higher assessment for new buildings_ just entering the district. She believed that' once Council under- stood the full implications of the formula, it would realize it was carefully designed to take tare of inequities between old and new properties with regard to parking. She turned to the Council to act on her behalf and consider her problem as it related to the purpose of the grandfather clause- - tc protect persons who acted in good faith reliance on existing ordinances. She realized that Council actions must take the full picture into account, but it was true that public welfare for which Council was responsible was as pertinent to one person as it was to all. She feared that the variance procedure would result in more delay and confusion and she needed to resolve the problem as soon as possible. Uon Mdynor, Attorney, 2471 E. Bayshore Road, filled in for Marilyn Taketa, and said that Ms. Taketa and Ms. Shuler wrote two letters to the Council (which were on file in the City Clerk's office). A variance created the possibility of delay through appeals or the need for the weighted formula to be decided upon. That would create an additional delay for Ms. Shuler who originally intended to begin construction in January, 1984, and there would be more pressure on her current lease situation. Although there were reassuring words from Mr, Brown that there might be grounds for a variance, there was no guarantee, and he was not convinced that there would ultimately be a solution. Under the variance procedure, Council looked to the hardship associated with the property itself, and in the particular . instance, he believed it was unfair because there were a number of strong, equitable situations that took place worthy of consideration but not appropriate under the variance process, including the 16 month search for the property followed by a good faith reliance on e5ul yc and ultimately payment of market price for {C:X 1 y e, i ii i � r. i v - i vii :i x: iu .. � payment � the property. That was important when asking for more money from Ms. Shuler. It was easy to look at the parking situation in the abstract, but it was essential to look at Ms. Shul er' s economic situation and the fact that she analyzed the property and paid its market value at the time. She was now faced with a situation of a weighted formula comi;ig in and having to pay 65 percent more then existing property owners. That requirement would further strain her economic analysis of the project making it more questionable, and to ask for additional money to help with the parking assessment seamed unfair and unreasonable. It would be different if it was an existing property which was purchased for $10, $20 or $30 per square foot ---the going rate a few years ago --in which case there would be more economic leeway for the property owner to make such a ;payment towards the parking assessment district. He es pnasixed that there were already grandfathered projects that would not sake any payments at all, two of which were grandfathered solely on the basis that they received . preliminary ARB review, and Ms. Shul er' s project was scheduled to Pecei ve that same review next week. He did not believe there was enough basis to separate her situation from the other grandfathered projects, and those projects were not asked to pay anything. The. fact that a weighted formula was coming to attempt to deal with some of the inequities was more than appropriate to deal with her situation. Two Weeks ago the Council recognized and dealt with an apparent injustice that would result from the zoning ordinance, and a potential for that injustice still existed, and he requested that the grandfather clause exempting the property from the parking restrictions be adopted. He understood that the current parking ordinance had its first reading that evening and there was no opportunity for an amendment to that ordinance. If Council was inclined to go with a grandfather approach, he understood that it would require another first reading in which case the appropriate motion would lee for staff to work on appropriate language. He believed there was a oasis to come up with the language based on the ARB review which was similar to the language in the current ordinance and it would not require much of a change. Mr. Freeland said the ordinance received - its second reading that evening, and in order to include a`grandfather clause, a new ordl-. dance would be . required to amend the ordinance passed that evening Both speakers referred to the "weighted" assessment formula, and; he said tee California Avenue Parking Assessment Committee sou 1 d : propose a new formula which would charge new, 4 3 9 6 3/26/84 developments higher assessments than old. The formula would only have effect if new bonds -were passed, would be applied to future bonds, and -would not affect the existing bond spread. Councilmember Woolley asked staff whether the project -was unique, or whether others were in a similar state. Mr- Freeland said it was unique in that the CC zoning was left on the zoning, and the size of the proposed building on the small lot was much larger than any future property owner would attempt to develop in the area. .There was a 2:1 floor area ratio on all other properties within the assessment district. The size of the parcel was not unique ---it was unusual and among the tee percent of properties with the smallest lot si ee--but it was not the smallest lot.. Councilmember Woolley asked whether it was likely to be the only application of its nature. Mr. Freeland said the project was the only one of which he was aware. Councilmember Woolley believed the variance procedure was time consuming, and there were no assurances that the procedure would result in action that Council would approve. Two weeks ago, the Council allowed the building to be constructed, and parking was the other side of the coin. The variance procedure might be bur- densome enough and the parking requirement heavy enough to negate the possibility of con structi ;gig the building, but she realized that as many as 40 new spaces would be added to the current defi- cit. She suggested that the item be continued, and two or three Councilmembers be appointed by the Mayor to work with staff and the applicant to see if, an agreement could be reached. NOTION TO CONTINUE: Councilmember Woolley moved to continue the item and that the Mayor appoint three Counc 1 l aaembers to work with the staff and applicant to find a resolution of the problem. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Councilmember Witherspoon believed the Council grandfathered in projects that were already wet 1v down the pipeline, and one per- suading factor was that they all provided parking. Although it might not be as much as would be required under the City's new parking regulations, it was more than required under the old zoning --which was none. Mr. Freeland said it was true that the other projects provided parking, but he disbelieved that the parking provisions were the basis for the grandfather clause. Those projects were approved prior to the moratorium, and when the moratorium passed, those projects were given the right to proceed. Parking might have been in the minds of some of the Counciimembers at the time, but he did not believe it was explicit. f.ounci l member Witherspoon noted that Ms. Taketa' s .letter spoke of another grandfathered project that did not provide parking. She was uncertain about the impacts of the Council suddenly deciding to grandfather . i n the, 409 Sherman project when it did not provide parking and was not in the pipeline when the zoning change took effect. Mr. Freeland could not think of a project other. than those allowed to proceed under the terms of the moratorium and included in the grandfather condition. There were a number of applications in the district . since that time but _ all were required to conform to the new zoning. 4 3 g 7 3/26/84 Counciimember Witherspoon clarified that the staff recommendation WAS to proceed with the variance procedure if Council desired to make an exception in the case rather than a grandfather clause. She asked staff to play the devil's advocate for not proceeding with the grandfather clause requested by the applicant. Mr. Freeland said the central issue boiled down to whether Council wanted a condition where the City could get an off -site parking contribution through money or some other means which might be accomplished through a variance. If Council found that the merits of the situation were not the primary concern, it might pass the grandfather clause where there would not be the additional condi- tioning. Ccuncilmember Fletcher said the discussion to grandfather the other projects was that two were not originally recommended for exemption because they had not proceeded through the ARB process, and only made applications. One Councilmember argued that the projects provided sufficient parking without being required to do so under the existing ordinance, which was seconded by another Councilmember. She believed the variance procedure was reasonable and equitable, and considered special factors. NOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renmel, to adopt the staff recommendation that no special language be ;added to the ordinance regarding parking provisions in the California Avenue area. Councilmember Renzel said the project was about to receive pre- liminary ARB review, which was very preliminary, and the variance procedure, through the Zoning Administrator stage, was a natter of a noticed public hearing, and a decision a few days thereafter. She did not believe they were talking more than three or four weeks for the process. ir. Freeland said it was usually about six to elgnt weeks for variance. Councilmember Fenzel believed the time frame was reasonable if the project was at preliminary review stage with the ARB. It made the process clear and did not, through faulty language, incorporate other projects that Council did not intend to incorporate. In the course of the information provided to the Council, she believed th'ey were talking on the order of 25 parking spaces, and riow it was about 40. She was concerned that it was a significant parking requirement to place on the rest of the district, and that it was reasonable for staff to find some reasonable contribution' toward the parking and the project could still go forward in a decent form according to the desires of the applicant. Councilmember Cobb was troubled with the variance process in terms of the project because of the cost factors and problems to the applicant already. The variance process added more months of uncertainty in terms of the money she invested. He asked if the Council could mrifie-shot" grandfather the project without exposure with regard to the possibility of other projects sneaking in. City Attorney Diane Lee responded that it depended on whether therewereother projects similarly situated. Staff was troubled by any parcel , purchased within so many days because it did not know what was porch >.,:d within what period of time, and a deed was not required to be ' recorded aftejr property was purchased. It was factual in terms of what was in the pipeline and the date deter- mined to be the cut-off on any grandfather clause. 4 3 9 8 3/26,414 _ Councilmember Cobb said that a combination of purchase date and lot size might restrict to the point where it would be a rifle - shot. He opposed the motion and hoped there might be some kind of "rifle shot" grandfathering because Council was close to breaking someone who, unlike many other developers whose problems the Council attempted to solve in a fair and equitable manner volun- teered a substantial contribution to the assessment district. He had not heard such an offer from a developer in a long time, and was impressed. 1 1 1 Councilmember Sutorius referred to the statement that the variance process and ARB review incurred a six to eight week period. He asked if it was normal in a variance procedure that the ARB would not receive the project on the scheduled dates, so that even preliminary review could not be accomplished. Mr. Freeland said projects were not checked at the preliminary review stage against the zoning code. He was concerned about the importance that preliminary review was assuming through the grand- father clauses which should not be the case. It was strictly a service of the ARB to advise an applicant at an early stage of the design development, and was not approval nor a formal review. Staff would not send a project for approval to the ARB that did not conform to the zoning, and a variance would be necessary before the project was ever sent to the ARB for approval. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Woolley, Cobb voting °no.° ITEM #17, DISSOLUTION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY mr-b T cMR:19 :TT City Manager Bill Zaner said the Council tonight received an amended agreement, which should be set aside. The agreement in the Council packet should be used. NOTION: Councilmember kennel movsd, seconded by Levy, approval of the resolution and agreement regarding the dissolution of the Solid Waste Management Authority, using the original agreement snot revised), and on page 3, Section 2.03 delete the words Director of Hansa Resources of. RESOLUTION 6244 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF LO ALTO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A MEMO- RANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING DISSOLUTION OF THE WORTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHO- RITYs AGREEMENT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING DISSOLUTION OF THE NORTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, CITY OF CUPERTINO, CITY OF LOS ALTOS, TOT! OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, CITY OF PALO ALTO, CITY OF SUNNYVALE, AND COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Councilmember Renzel said the vote to approve the Memorandum of Understanding was 4-1, with the County of Santa Clara not being represented and Los Altos Hills voting "no" because it disagreed with the attachments related to the .division of the Ferrari Brothers dumping capacity, which the Authority's attorney ruled should be assigned in proportion to the amount paid in. She said i t remained to be seen how it would work out in terms of getting unanimous approval of dissolution, and all the City Council could do et that point was approve authorization of the memorandum of understanding. Councilmember Cobb referred to Mr. Zaner' s memo (CMR:213:4) of March 22, 1984, and asked what was meant by "the unusual circum- stances surround ng this dissolution" that might make it necessary for the Council to take some action in addition` to approving the agreement. 4-3 99 3/26/84 Mr. Zaner said if the agencies did not pass the agreement in a form identical to that before the Council, it might be necessary to take another step with regard to the dissolution, which would then be returned to the Council. Councilmember Sutorius supported the motion, but with as much regret as he ever had. He appreciated Counciimember Renzel's services in the effort, and was disappointed that her efforts, and those o.f her colleagues, world not come to pass. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #1t , REQUEST OF MAYOR KLEIN RE SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION FROM 984, IT7IgaRfiEi Mayor Klein said a tentative schedule was set from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 29, 1984, to interview candidates for the position of City Auditor, with the City Clerk to. advertise. UOWNTOWN STUDY COMMITTEE. Mayor Klein referred to the Downtown Study Committee that was.. created the previous week when the Council authorized him to appoint a large body of people. There would be the usual advertisements and letters, and he requested requested that the names of persons interested in filling the 9 vacant slots by given to him. ITEM #19, CANCELLATION OF APRIL [, 1984 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to cancel the City Council meeting of April 2, 1984. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #20 HEQUEST OF MAYOR KLEIN RE CITY OF PALO ALTOS NINETIETH MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, that tke City Clerk prepare a resolution recognizing the City of Palo Alto's 90tk Birthday in April and request assistance of .Palo. Alto Historical Association in supplying information. MOTION PASSED unanimously, ADJOURNMENT The Council adjourned at 12:10 a.m. ATTEST: APPRsOYED : 4 4 0 0 3/26/84