Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-23 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES' CITY OF Mt() iLTO Regular Meting. Monday, April 23, 1984 ITEM PAGE Item #1, Recognition of Palo Alto's 90th Birthday 4 4 3.0 Ural Communications 4 4 3 0 Minutes of February 27, 1984 4 44 3 1 Item #2, Resolution of Appreciation to Queene 4 4 3 1 Ami rian Consent Calendar 4 4 3 1 Referral 4 4 3 I Item #3, Capital Improvement Program - Referral to 4 4 3 1 Planning Commission and Finance arci Public Works Committee v ar a:a aaa - - *Action Item #4,..Facilities Maintenance Training Services Item #6, Reinforced Fabric Pavement Item #7, Ordinance re Neighborhood Commercial (CM) Regulations regarding size of office uses Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #8, PUBLIC HEARING Appeal of Jon Parsons, et. al . , from the decision of ARB and Director of of Planning and Community Environment for approval .of officc ►:: u i ray fur pruper ,y at 3101 ParkBlvd. Recess to Executive Session re Personnel__ Item #9, PUBLIC SEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re application of Alan Pi ran for tentative subdivision map for property located at 745-.769 Loma Verde Item #10, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommendation re application of John Brooi sBoyd for tentative subdivision map for property located at 907-915 Cowper Street Item 011, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission , . , recommendation re application of Fletcher Roams for tentative subdivision map for property located at 3065 Louis Road (Piers Dairy property) 4 4 3 2 4 4 3 2 4 4 3 2 4 4 3 2 4 4 .3 _2 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 8 4 4 5 1 4.4.5. 3 ITEM Item #12, Council Legislative Committee recommendation to support AB 2894 (Condit) re legislation to expand local government's authority in the use of radar to enforce speed limits PAGE 4 4 5 4 Adjournment to Executive Session re Personnel 4 4 5 5 12:10 a.m. Final Adjournment b 12:32 a.m. 4 4 5 5 Regular Meeting' Monday, April 23, 1984 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the Council Chambers at City Ha 1 l , 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, Witherspoon, Woolley Mayor Klein announced that the evening marked 90 years since the establishment of the City of Palo Alto, and many citizens attended the meeting to celebrate the event. MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to bring forward Item #1, Recognition of Palo Alto's 90th Birthday. MOTION PASSED unanimously ITEM #1, RECOLINITION OF PALO ALTO'S 90TH BIRTHDAY MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Sutorius, to adopt the resolution observing andcelebrating the 90th birthday of the City of Palo Alto. RESOLUTION 6250 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF O ALTO OBSERVING AND CELEBRATING THE 90TH BIRTHDAY OF THE CITY" Mayor Klein Said the City of Palo Alto was first incorporated on April I5, 1894 and became a Charter 'City in 1909, and 1984 marked the 90th anniversary of Palo Al to' s hi story as a municipal cor- poration. During the past 90 years the City grew from a small village to the diversified and active City known today. The City enjoyee a reputation for the quality of services provided to its citizens, and the services, programs and environment enriched and made Palo Alto a desirable place to live. The goal of the City Council and staff was to maintain Palo Alto's natural and cultural resources and- protect the City's heritage as a pleasant and at- tractive residential community, and it was resolved that the Coun- cil of the City of Palo Alto observe the 90th birthday of the C-i ty, and encourage residents to jai n i n reflecting on the City s history and the- quality of life enjoyed mere today. --- Mayor Klein said a member of the public reminded him that April 23rd -was also Shakespeare's birthday; MOTION PASSED unanimously Mayor Klein announced that Vanessa Ruotoio, cello; Michael Moon and Joe Firschein, violins; and Mark McAulifee, viola, would en- tertain the public during the reception, He invited the publ ic`to join the Council in the lobby for birthday cake. FIRST ADJOURNMENT Council and public adjourned for the City's90th birthday celebra- tion. The meeting was called to order at 8:15 p.m. by Mayor Klein, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Phillip La . ki viere,_ 453 Tennessee Lane, said the Yacht . Club.. was stirring things up again in the Baylands in spite of the 1980 defeat of the initiative to dredge the harbor. A barrage of arti- cles implied that it wouldbe a crime .against nature toclose the Yacht Harbor and that ft was a natural deep water harbor 48 feet deep, which was untrue. The Harbor Association misinterpreted 4 4 3 0 4/23/84 the s urid i iiys given as reet on a 1911 chart as fathoms, and the nufbees on the 1906 and 1916 charts were the same. A 1975 bulle- tin said it was necessary to deepen channels whe n Yacht Harbor was born in 1928, but historicaiiy the harbor was not deep. Both an 1898 chart and a mid -50s chart showed a two foot sounding in the main channel, and vessels were only able to pass at high tide. Computer simulations of scarring effects showed the redirection of creeks into the harbor to be nil, and early four to seven foot depths were due to the lower part of San Francisquito creek acting as a slough to the sediment -clearing 240 acres of marshland --not tne scouring action of flood flows. That volume was reduced due to a 7,000 to 1,000 acre-feet loss of marsh to diking, dredging and filling, and the events went a full circle -=marsh destruction to build the Harbor was leading to its death. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 1984 MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the minutes of February 27, 1984, as submitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley abstaining. ITEM #2, RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO QUEENE AMIR IAN MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt a resolu- tion of appreciation to Queene Amirian. RESOLUTION 6251 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF [NL C1 t l/ Uw VALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO QUEENE TAHOOMY AMIRIAN FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE IN THE LSTABL ISHMENT OF THE CULTURAL CENTER" Mayor Klein said a room at the Cultural Center would be dedicated to Ms. Amirian on Sunday, April 29, 1984, and as formally pre- sented, the resolution stated that Queene Taboomy Aw i ri an unself- ishly devoted her time, energies and talent to the creation and development of the Palo Alto Cultural Center from 1961 to 1970, and was a member of the Mayor's and Citizens' Advisory Commission on future uses of the City Hall site from 1966 to 1968. Her un- ceasing efforts led to a greater understanding of the importance of the cultural arts as enhancing and vital to the life of the community and the creative activities of its citizens, and in sti mu1 ati n9 the establishment of the Cultural Center as a communi- ty resource and support facility for the arts in Palo Alto. The City appreciated her contributions to the cultural life of the City and its citizen and recognized her services by recording its appreciation of her outstanding public service. MOTION PASSED unanimously CONSENT CAL ENUAR Councilmember Sutorius removed Item 5 re Police Department's Selection Process for Entry -Level Police Officers from the Consent Calendar. MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Consent Calendar Items 3, 4, and 6. Councilmember Sutorius asked tobe recorded as. voting "no" on Item 07, Ordinance re CN Regulations. teferral ITEM 03, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REFERRAL TO PLANNING r+' R e • 4 4 3 1 4/23/84 Action ITEM #4, FACILITIES MAINTENANCE TRAINING SERVICES (CMR:199:4) Staff recommends that the Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with Bechtel, Inc. in the amount of $15,000 for the current year and for $15,000 in the two succeeding years subject to Council appropriation action; and 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders not to exceed $5,000 over the three year period. AGREEMENT. Bechtel Civil & Minerals, Inc. ITEM #6, REINFORCED FABRIC PAVEMENT (CMR:235:4) Staff recommends that Council execute a change order to the exist- ing contract with O'Grady Paving (#4397) for an additional $30,000. AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT O'Grady Paving Company ITEM 17, ORDINANCE RE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN REGULATIOMS 1 rs IIIIMMEIWNOWeet easing ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANANCE OF in COUNCIL '5' 0 ALTO AMENDING THE NEIGH- BORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CM) REGULATIONS REGARDING SIZE OF OFFICE USES" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Sutorius voting 'no' on Item 7, Ordi- nance re CM Regulations. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS None ITEM ;8, PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF JON PARSONS, ET. Al., FROM THE ITTEMT"T1717T �. . -ARAT I0N FOR Ar- Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said the decision of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) was being appealed, and the is- sues and decision before the Council were to determine the appro- priateness of the design for the location and its environmental assessment. Much of the appellant's concern was that the area was inappropriate for the type of office land use, and staff also shared some misTivings about the appropriateness of offices in the GM district in that location. The issue before the Council was the appropriateness of the design and the adequacy of the environ- mental assessment. The land use question would be appropriately dealt With in the separate study of the GM district already assigned to staff and Planning Commission by the Council. He received a number of communications regarding the accuracy of the traffic analysis in the staff report, and clarified that traffic forecasts were subject to considerable potential for error and variation, and that the numbers could not be guaranteed Many circumstances could alter' the actual traffic produced by the proj- ect in the location, including the normal fluctuation on any street and in any location over time.. The analysis was based on counts of traffic, which could vary by 15 percent either way from day to day since a natural variation occurred in all traffic anal- ysis. The assignment of the number of trips to the project was $/ec8i As Corrected 5/Z1/84 based on standard tables that appeared valid on average for office projects. It was a speculative office building and its ultimate occupants were unknown, so the standard for the number of employ- ees and trips generated could go either way. The equations used to produce levels of services were geared to certain standard en- gineering circumstances, and the analysis might not be 100 percent correct due to the nuances and subtleties of an individual appli- cation. A range of variation was always true in traffic analysis, but staff believed the one presented was as good and reasonable as one could expect. There was no reason to believe better or worse than the information presented. The table which showed the reserve capacity of the eastbound on -ramp to 0reoon Expressway in the staff report was recalculated. He clarified that "reserve capacity" was the number of additional trips before the intersec- tion changed from one level of service to another, and that a recalculation showed somewhat more reserve capacity, which changed the conclusions of the report. The intersection would remain at service level D. Vice Mayor Levy believed the level of service at the inter- sec- tion was well above D level, except for the evening peak hour. Assistant Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel said his personal observations indicated that during most of the heavily traveled times of the day it operated at about the C level, and was better than that during the morning. None of his estimates were calcula- ted. Vice Mayor Levy asked how long the service level remained at D. Mr. Stoffel said the calculation referred to only a part of the peak hour. Analyses at other hours were not made. From personal observations, he considered it remained at Level D through most of the 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. peak period, although it was not always at its worst level during that time. Councilmember Cobb asked how close it might be to level E. He understood that staff looked at projects currently being con- sidered when making the calculations, and he asked if they ap- proached, or entered, service level E --the total potential under the existing zon-ing.: If the area was built out in office building to anything resembling the potential of the existing GM zone, he asked if it might represent service level E. Mr. Stoffel said it was extremely likely. Staff had not yet made the calculation, but looked at the Maximart site, which although zoned CS and not GM, was in the vicinity. If the Maximart site were used to its full potential, it would bring the intersection to service level E. He believed it would be the same for GM par- cels only. Councilmember Cobb believed there was a clear potential in the immediate area for a traffic service level E if more building oc- curred than that presently identified, and he asked Mr. Stoffel to comment on that event. Mr. Stoffel said such descriptions were couched in subjective` terms, but service level E meant an intersection was handling as many cars as it could per hour assuming it was not physically changed in any way. To drivers it meant long delays,,, long queues, with congestion backed up from the intersection and probably af- fecting othee intersections. Level of Service E represented an extremely _bad quality of service. He quoted the California Avenue report that. C level was: "rood. Stable flow, with most drivers restricted in the freedom to select their': own speed, change lanes, or pass. In urban areas, backups may develop behind turning vehicles." Level 0 was: „Fair. Approaching unstable flow, with operating speeds tolerable but fluctuating." 4 4 3 3 4/23/84 ie Councilmember Renzcl asked; when an intersection moved from ser- vice level C into service level 0, if the addition o.f one car beyond level C meant a transition from an acceptable stable flow to a fair, tolerable, but fluctuating flow. Mr. Stoffel said the levels of service represented a continuum. If he drove through an intersection that was very good, he could not tell when it changed from one level to another. The standards were set up to assess the capacity of an intersection and show how many cars it handled, The descriptions blended into each other somewhat, and it was impossible to tell hew much difference one car, or even one hundred cars, made in tipping the balance. Councilmember Menzel clarified Mr. Stoffel spoke in fairly speci- fic quantities of reserve capacity remaining with the various developments and scenarios, and she asked if staff had a ballpark figure for how far the had to go in the other direction to bring the intersection back 'to C. She asked what kind of differences were involved. Mr. Stoffel said the report before the Council stated clearly and correctly the level of service was not an accurate measurement, but when such a chart could be developed, it gave staff a good handle on what was relatively happening on the four cases shown. They were progressing towards worst conditions, but he did not want the chart to be considered any kind of guide to show that an extra 85 cars meant it had to be closed down. lie believed the level of service could vary by one level, dependi rtg on the way it was measured and how the traffic volumes were measured at the time it was calculated. He believed the existing case was barely into Level 0. Most of the reserve capacity of 285 cars reflected the full spectrum of service level 0 --the top of the chart showed them barely into 0; and at the bottom, after approximately 300 vehicles, the plateau was crossed and they were essentially onto another plateau --E, Councilmember Menzel clarified that the particular street had a low capacity and the continuum was short for each, level . of ser- vice. Mr. Stoffel said yes, but clarified that it was not unusual. Most cases he looked at showed that the plateau for the level of ser- vice 13 was often approximately that number of vehicles in a simi- lar situation. They processed many cars per hour through the intersection, and they also merged into a heavy flow on the Expressway, which was the other component of that level of ser- vice. Councilmember Woolley asked if the Council historically denied or declared there to be a negative impact on the environment when a specific project might change the level of service of a nearby intersection, and conversely, whether projects having such an effect on a specific intersection could have been denied but were not. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber referred to an application in about 1976 for a .Midas Muffler facility on El Camino Real which raised a lot of . concern about traffic. The Council dealt with the sane site a few years. later when it came up for development of mixed use residential with offices; on the ground floor. The site was adjacent to family residences and was small, with difficult access from an alley. The Midas Muffler application was appealed to the Council and rejected, and one reason cited by the opponents was the impact on traffic, but the problem was more one of accessing a difficult site adjacent to single family houses, and not so much the capacity of an intersection itself. 4 4 3 4 4/23/84 City Attorney Mane lee AddPA that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended since 1976, and was recently amended to deny the use of CEQA, or any CEQA findings alone, as a basis for denying a project. A denial must be based on some other ordinance, and the case in question would have to be based on the architectural review ordinance and its findings. One option was to require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), since none was made in the case, but the project could not be denied based solely on CEQA. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. Jon Parsons, 323 Maclane, was not the spokesperson for the appel- lant, but his name happened tobe first. He spoke as an individu- al, and said that an EIR should not only be required because of the traffic impact for that site, but for its cumulative effect. The proposed projects were not isolated and set apart from sur- rounding areas --a lot was going on in the area, including the recent completion of Phase I of the Palo Alto Station project. Present traffic counts did not begin to take into account the realities of the immediate future, and the Maximart site down the street and across was considered by the Council to be sufficiently important to set aside all development. Another project for a 20,000 square foot office went before the ARB for the corner at Park and Page Mill. The cumulative effect made an EIR essential to adequately assess the situation. Park Boulevard was the major bicycle route from south or west Palo Alto to downtown, and the additional projects might create a hazard for bicyclists and dis- courage them. The bicycle lane southbound on Park before the intersection with Page Mill diverted out into the stream of traf- fic, with the right turning vehicles on the right- hand side of the bicycle path and direct traffic on the left --hand side. There was no signalization and it was dangerous. He stated that he was an appellant of the larger issue about whether more offices were needed without any off-settieg housing. A building of 40,000 square feet was not small, and the anticipated density was one worker for every 200 square feet. The CalTrans report generally attributed 250 square feet per worker to such buildings, and the project would bring traffic into an area of Park abutting a dense and overused neighborhood. Barriers were used as a last ditch effort i►00 yards further down to stop the perceived traffic prob- lem, and regardless of whether the project was appropriate, the timing was inappropriate, The Maximart site was taken off the auction block, . and the Planning Department was holding neighbor- hood meetings on the issue. A small piece of asphalt should not make such a large difference --the Maximart site was inappropriate for immediate development, so building across the street should not be allowed. The staff report said it was a serious land use issue and could lead the way in changing the area from service and manufacturing to a more intensive type of office development. It said there was legitimate concern for the future if the GM zone was used extensively for office development. Staff also voiced concern about possible Maximart site development and its p.m. peak hour traffic,. and Council should seriously reconsider before going ahead. He quoted from the resolution celebrating the 40th birth- day of Palo Alto which stated the goals of the Council .and staff for the City. In that ve' n, the Council should extend the Maxi - mart moratorium or refer it to the Planning Commission for further study. Ideally, the Council should stop the project at once and not give developers a green light when it was not in the City's best interests. Florence La Riviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, said much development imminent in the Park/Oregon vicinity was not estimated in the figures on page 6 o.f the staff report. Even so, lever of service E would be reached with 85 115 extra peak hour trips The report described trips onto the eastbound on -ramp to Page Mill as though it were a typical intersection, whereas the underpass was dangerous.. Because of the small amount of land available when it was constructed, the road was narrow, the walls vertical, the intakefoutiet ramps curved sharply, and the visibility for enter- ing drivers was limited. ()rivers speeding to go on the underpass had to brake immeaiately for the 15 m.p.h; sharp righthand turn for -southbound Alma. During the rush hour near the converging Blow of traffic there were gunned engines, shrieking brakes and horns. Employees from Hewlett-Packard said .that frequently a wrong -way driver from Park went westbound into Page Mill. Current GM studies were important, and until completed, the overwhelming amount of office commuter traffic on an unaerpass where accidents already occurred must not be permitted. Traffic generated on Park Boulevard used streets all over the City and community, including Uayshore Freeway, for which the MTC predicted an alarming future. She asked the Council to look closer at the impact of the proposed .construction. Ronald Hall, 158 Park Avenue, said there were many reasons the Evergreen Park and California Avenue areas were before the Council duringthe last years. The area was changing and development con- tinuing. As a resident, he wasconcerned by the total development of the area bounded by the Ventura and Evergreen Park neighbor- hoods, the railroad tracks and El Camino because its total poten- tial development was incredible. California Avenue and Maximart studies were made; there was a possible change in CS zoning in some areas; and the Weeks' property cane up for a number of con- siderations. The total cumulative impact on the nonresidential area he described needed to be considered. Traffic was one major problem, and build -out of the area would affect not only the traf- fic on Page Mill and its entrance and on Park Boulevard, but the development of traffic up and off Page Mill Road would affect the traffic allowed onto Page Mill Road. It was a major consideration to extend the study area throughout the entire nonresidential area, but further major nonresidential development in the area could cause long-term, long-range problems. boa Moss, 4010 Ors+me, quoted page 7 of the staff report which said that the appellants cited what staff considered to be a serious land use issue for that stretch of Park Boulevard, and that it should be addressed directly through consideration of the zoning for the area. Page 8 said there was unquestionably an issue of the cumulative ability of the area to accept additional traffic oefore reaching level of service E, and that the project con- tributed to it. It also described the eastbound on -ramp to Oregon Expressway as the one critical link, and he was amazed the con- sultant's report did not look at the ramp. The appeal was the only.. way the public and ARB had to raise the issue of the appro- priateness of the land use, .i n the area. In the minutes of the March 1, 1984 meeting of the ARB, Jon Schi nk stated that it was the type of project that should include the Planning Commission, and ci tea the public controversy regarding the Maximart site and the jobs/housing imbalance. The staff report and ARB minutes ran an appeal for review by the Council and_ the Planning Commission because of the larger issues. He found fault on the basis of non- conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The estimates of traffic were only estimates --the project wouldconsume most of the avail- able capacity for the ramp so they would not be able to accept any traffic from the eventual Maximart project,which was likely to be primarily residential, -.and which would be forcedto bear the en- tire burden of mitigating the unacceptable traffic levels created at that ramp. Regarding whether the finite amount of traffic capacity available i n \the area would be consumed by an office project, at the last meeting, Councllmeriber° $utorius questioned the appropriateness of having exclusively' office use developments in the GM zone which was intended for specific uses. The Council asked that the GM zone be studied, but by allowing the project to go_ ; forward, Council would foreclose on that ability, and on, the ability to develop the Maximart site in a manner most appropriate to the: community. Vice Mayor Levy had asked about the 'level of service during the rush hour, and page 4. of the staff report said that the queues reached the corner of Park and Page Mill about 15 4 4 3 6 4/23/84 separate times --mostly between 4:45 and 6:U0 p.m. When the proj- ect was in place, the queues would start to wrap around onto Park Boulevard and the congestion would rapidly back up into the California Avenue area. Staff noted that the disgorgement of passengers from the Southern Pacific (SP) created congestion, and increased traffic on the SP was a regional, City, and State goal. If a bottleneck was _created at that intersection making it unac- ceptable for passengers to debark and get back home, it would back up to San Francisco. The City should not consume the capacity on the ramp for sdch projects, and the 160 plus gobs created would more than consume all the housing presently proposed --or envi- sioned --for the Maximart site. If the project was approved, he believed the study of the GM zone and Maximart site would be moot, and that council would preclude doing as it wanted in the area. He asked the Council to reject the project as proposed, and to remand the basic issue of the appropriateness of the land use in the area, tied to the Maximart review, back to the Planning Com- mission, and to severely limit the amount of office use in the GM zone to prevent the GM zone from being consumed by offices. Jeffrey look? 302 College, concurred with many things already said, and asked the Council to consider the cumulative effect of development in that area. Individual actions that caused dele- terious cumulative effects were often small and innocuous --an example was 101 at the rush hour where the blame .for the traffic jam could not be ascribed to one particular car. Clearly, the solution was to restrict driving at some point, -unpleasant as it might be. It seemed arbitrary t� the first one restricted, but in a recent San Francisco suit there was a verdict against the City and the developers of failure to assess the cumulative effects of development. The newspapers were full of articles indicating too much activity, that changes were occurring too fast; that the environment was deteriorating, and traffic was getting worse. They must say "no more" to developments, especially commercial and office development. . There was a moratorium on Maximart and a review of the GM zone in that area was underway. He asked the Council to not give the green light to the developer until both studies were fully executed. uavid Jeong, 4056 Park boulevard, said the previous speakers voiced his views, and he especially concurred with Bab Moss that zoning would strongly influence future zoning in the area, espe- cially in that kind of density. There were many similar vacant or underdeveloped buildings on Park Boulevard, and the traffic spew- ing out from them would be terrific. It would set a precedent to influence the Maximart decision--Maximart might become rOsiden- tial, and Olive Street and Chestnut' were residential. Southbound bicycle traffic from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. on Park Boulevard was the - ,heaviest and it used a most dangerous bike lane in the middle of the road. At the intersection of Page Mill and Park, cyclists ran the gauntlet of six legal and two ill,egat turning patterns.of both cars and bicycles. Cars traveled as though there were no bike lanes, and the dilemma could only worsen with increased traffic. Park Boulevard's function' as one of the City's most important bikeways would critically deteriorate, especially for students and employees of Stanford and workers in the Industrial Park --two areas --where it was important to encourage transportation alterna- t1ves. Bob gown, 2747 Park Boulevard, said he and his brother were prin- cipals of Vance Brown & Sons, the developers of theproject before the Council, The firm was started in 1932 by his father, and they built many homes, schools* and commercial buildings in the City. He and his brother had a long established concern for the community, and were educated _there. They served on numerous pub- lic service agencies, from the Palo= Alto Housing 'Corporation to the Boy Scouts. They had offices and a yard in the Parke.Boulevard neighborhood and spent the majority of the day there. 1 Allan brown, 2747 Pdrk Boulevard, was the president of the company anti head of the development group for the proposed building. Having been on Park Boulevard since 1960, he watched the situa- tion. Their company had major growth only during the past five years, and he and many of his subcontractors drove in the area (luring peak hours without difficulty. In the center of the prop- erty was an hourglass shaped parcel that stood as a right of way for Southern Pacific, and his company owned the two parcels on each side as part of a partnership for some time. After the dis- cussions the previous summer on the Maximart property when the Owners discussed their flans, a moratorium was placed on the Maxi - mart site. There was discussion about whether his and other par- cels in that GM zone were included, but Council specifically ex- cluded them from the motion, so they were not part Of the ._study zone, Relying upon that decision, his company closed the purchase of the SP property and combined the parcels. Working with the City of Palo Alto on a combined parcel map, they agreed to remove the -tracks across Park Boulevard, and hired an -architect, struc- tural and civil engineers, a landscape architect and a soils engi- neer to draw up plans for a high quality building with a brick ex- terior complying with all zoning requirements, a lot of planting andopetn space, below the height l irri tati ons and with as much set- back room as possible. The building would be within easy walking distance of both the SP depot and the north/south bus artery on E1 Camino so people could get to work easily without a car. There would also be ample inside bicycle storage. They worked closely with the City staff to meet Palo Alto's highest standards, and ARS 3-1 approval was evidence that it was achieved. The building was completely in accordance with GM zoning, and they asked no excep- tions or variances. The building was 0.56:1 and smaller than the 1:1 ratio allowed. It was eight feet lower than the maximum, provided comfortable setbacks where none were required, and the buil .inch and landscaping were high quality. Bill Bocook, Architect, 4041 El Camino Way, made a slide presenta- tion of the site and surrounding area. The area was mixed-- fair- ly recent buildings, fairly old, and some that would be changed or altered to fit other descriptions at some point. He had slides of many four-story buildings in the area. The zoning was GM, and the site was 65,000 square feet--ar a little bit more than 1.5 acres. GM toning allowed a- 1:1 floor area ratio in terms of density; had no setback requirements; a 50 -foot height limit and no landscape requirements. The proposed building had a density slightly over half the density that would be allowed on the site; setbacks of 24 feet on the front, and 40 to 50 feet on the backside near the tiAacks; 18 percent landscaping; and a height of 42 feet. Parking was tour cars per 1,000; and they were required to have 160 and they proposed 162; with 17 bicycle stalls underneath the build- ing,protected from the weather and screened. The building had shower facilities for men and women and there was an employee pic- nic recreation area in the parking lot and on the right hand side of the parking lot. The frontage was over 350 feet and -would be landscaped from 10 to 20 feet i n width, and it Was a good opportu- nity to start a street tree in the area. The owner wanted an. out- s tandi ng . but simple building with the mechanical equipment out of sight. The building materials were basically brick --not brick .plate, and dark grey glass: The. elevator -was e?et: trio underslung equipment -Operators and .the equipment was in the garage to further~ reduce any visual any impact from a distance. Bub brown, of Vance Brown, developers, said some appellants asked fo_r a full C13t, Which was inappropriate. If required., he be- lieved it would he the first time for a project of its relatively small si ze, and i t would repeat the graphic study done by his con- sultaut, and further by City staff. The City Attorney advised that an kIR could not' be the basis for denying -the project. Many appellants objected to- the .zoning but as City staff advised -it the issue -was not zein i r.g, but whether the design and ARB decision ' was proper. 4 4 3 8 4/23/84 David Schrom, 302 College Avenue, was directly impacted by the proposed project because the street network, . as represented fn the consultant's report, would_ be affected by traffic to and from the site, included the Evergreen Park neighborhood. He had actively sought to exclude through traffic from that neighborhood, and every time there was nearby development, it put pressure on those streets. The people in the neighborhood were close to the point where their views were less important to the Council than the views of those who drove by their homes on their way to or from work. That situation was too familiar. He listened to the archi- tect's report, etc., and empathized with everyone. Palo Alto__kept arriving at the same stage in the proceedings with an audience full of protesting citizens who sensed that something was being taken away from them, and a handfull of people whose legitimate and direct interests were threatened. The City's planning process failed when there were so many situations where appeals at the last minute cited how the owner of the property relied. He asked how so many people were misled and others displeased so that_the process required ZOO people go to City Hall for two or three hours on a Monday night with great regularity. On one ',land, people. relied on their right to build the building; and on the other, relied on being protected from such construction. He believed treating projects one at a time without recognizing the cumulative effects would eventually destroy the quality of Palo Alto. Traf- fic was now popular end people read the front page of newspapers about the traffic hcrrors in the bay Area. The City must recog- nize that additional development would not pay its own way, and a line must be drawn. He pref ereed that the line be drawn firmly, and as soon as possible. bill Cane, 636 Webster Street, lived in the middle of Webster between Hamilton and Forest. .Shortly after he moved into his house, he became aware that many houses were being demolished nearby and large structures were replacing them. Their neighbors were evicted and within a short period of time, a large office building was to be built at the corner of Hamilton and Webster. At that time, he was too naive to appear before the City Council or the various boards to have done something about it, but he attempted to fight back. The .Council had an opportunity to estab- lish the character of an area influx. if the green light was given to the development, the momentum would be increasingly dif- ficult to change. He urged that the line be drawn, and that the developers be given a clear message. The Council should take advantage of its citizens who appeared and expressed knowledgeable and well informed concern. Cole Richmond, 260 Chestnut Avenue, President of the Chestnut/ Wilton Homeowners Association, said traffic was bad, but he lived at his address for 35 years, and he knew what it was like in 1949 and now. Tomorrow night he would attend a meeting with the Plan- ning staff at the Ventura School to iron out more problems on the moratorium of the Maximart site. He was appalled when he rode his bicycle and saw the sign "for sale, 3 -story office building" at the site. He was surprised that his homeowner's :association was not advised of the action on the site because he represented 320 people to the south. He saw traffic so bad trying to turn on Oregon that he cheated and went all the way to California Avenue to go home. A lot of out of state traffic was not aware of bicy- cle lanes, and he suggested that a lot of people used the bike lanes as a passing lane in that .area. He emphasized that anything with an impact on his neighborhood and any development in the GM or CS zone should, result in notification of all- the surrounding homeowners' associations. Anne Ercolani, 2040 Ash, Chairperson, Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association, said numbers could be played with to almost -any con- clusion, and that the City should .focus on the acknowledged traf- -tic problem in the area. A study in conjunction with ` the (:ailfornia Avenue Study said that with no more development in Palo Alto, the Page Mill/E1 Camino intersection would go to an E level, 4.4 39 4/2.3/84 and the proposed project could only ado to an existing problem. The Oregon on -ramp had no viable mitigation measures available other than the overpass proposal at El Camino and Page Mill. No matter which numbers were used most options were closed because of the physical characteristic of the intersection and the already approved projects. Since an urgency situation existed with unmit- igation circumstances, there were legal grounds as well as prece- dence to reject the project. She did not support a gamble with the numbers game, urged rejection of the project, and that the area be considered along with the other GM parcels i-n the area. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing closed. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION RE PERSONNEL FROM 9:40 p.m. TO 10:23 Mayor Klein asked what the Council could do under the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and California State law with regard to the appeal. City Attorney di ane Lee said Section . 16.48.090 of the PAMC dealt with appeals of Architectural Review Board (ARB) decisions. The Council could take any of the following actions: 1. Under CEQA, the Council could require an environmental impa o -t report (L I tR) to be prepared on ` the project before acting on approval or disapproval. An EIR could be a "full blown" EIR which would consider ail environmental aspects of the project, or a "focused" EIR; 2. disapprove the project, approve the negative declaration, and approve or disapprove with modifications the project; or 3. Refer the appeal to the Planning Commission for a recommends- Giurr. Regarding disapproval , the project would have to be disapproved based on standards articulated in 16.48.120 of the PAMC. The only possible basis under the City's ordinance for disapproval of the project would be environmental factors, and she believed traffic would be an environmental factor under the City's ordinance to allow the Council to disapprove the project. She reiterated that CEQA required, under certain circumstances, the preparation of an E 1R, but that could not be used as the sole basis to disapprove the project. Authority to deny the project would have to come from other ordinances or statutes, and in this case, Council had the authority to disapprove the project under the City's ARB ordi- nance. She deferred to Mr. Freeland for further comments. Mr. Freeland said the only possible grounds for denial under the ARES ordinance would be environmental concerns; he assumed there were no aesthetic problems with the building itself. If the design was found to be an attractive office building,,.. end there were no new thoughts other than those contained in the appeal or stated in that evening, Council had all the standards of review. Staff assumed that since no one objected to the actual physical design of the building, its placement on the site, materials, bulk, height and color, that those were not presently issues. The issues were environmental, and the main factor was traffic. Staff was concerned about a denial based on-traffi; in that there was no evidence that .traffic was: now, or likely to be given, the foresee- able projects in the area, at an unacceptable level of service. If . the City started using level of service "O" as a basis for denial of a project, that was a precedent that should be carried to other projects. The City Council never established a firm policy on when different levels of service were acceptable or not, and staff relied on the distinction between lever .o'f service D and F as a standard differentiation between acceptable and unaccept- able based on standard engineering practice and the use of level 4 4 4 0 4/23/84 of service. Staff believes it took into account the cumulative impacts when it did the traffic analyses which included the pro- posed project, the other proposed project nearby on Park boulevard, and all of the approved projects in the California Avenue area, Staff allowed for some additional growth within the (.e1 i forni a Avenue area based on the Angus McDonald report, and still found additional capacity to absorb trips and remain in the level of service u category. If Council believed it was an unsuited land use, a moratorium could be established on the site while the other study was being done or refer the matter to the Planning Commission to consider with the zoning of the site. The Commission was expected to deal with the question of area wide land use on May 30, 1984, and it should return to the Council 4n dune. - - - Mayor Klein asked for clarification that Council could: 1. Request a full EIR; 2. Disapprove the -project based on the traffic impact; 3. Refer the project to the Planning Commission; or 4. Continue•the matter -and request a moratorium on the land. Ms. Lee said the moratorium was_ not mentioned as a Possibilityt undev the ordinance, and she advised that Council should take an action under the ordinance or continue the matter. Council would need to do something with the appeal if it considered a m,ore- tceeium, and if it did .not want to pursue the project, the matter should be continued, and a moratorium prepared. Mayor Klein asked -for clarification that if Council enacted a moratorium and the- study- was concluded, the land use designation would be changed o,n the site. M. . Lee said yes. Mayor Klein aseed not grandfathered in. paree! s a i. t; -ea e art ea .^47 -�nni iraiirtn ..loam . ..rr . e :,.M ... Ms. Lee said the fact that an appeal was filed vacated any approv- al by the ARii, so currently there was no ARb approval on the prop- erty. i,iven the area in question, she believed grandfather clauses were added because of a hardship on a particular property or because there were projects with that approval. Planning staff would have to answer whether it was necessary, but the City was nut required to have a grandfather clause. Mayor Klein clarified that it would be inappropriate to say mora- torium, but the fourth action would be a _continuance while staff prepared a moratorium. Ms. Lee said that was correct. Mayor Klein said the land use designation was not the question before the Council. Councilmember. Cobb asked for clarification that if the proposed project did not push the City into level U, and project k+4 did not pusn the City into level 0, .there was no basis to deny... the project. if project N+7 pushed the City into level C, only. Proj- ect N+7 could be denied because it was the first time the City was pushed into level of service D. Mr. Freeland believed the test for the definition of "cumulative impact" in CEtA, was to look at all present and foreseeabe future projects --not all possible future projects, but those that might be reasonably anticipated. If the City reasonably anticipated there would be projects to cause a level of service D to occur, he believed a case could be made for a cumulative impact. Staff was concerned that the situation did not exist and that it looked at 4 4 4 1 ,4/23/841 1 i all of the known and reasonably probable develc?ment that might be anticipated in the area, but that was not the same as build out of the area under the zoning. Councilmember Sutorius said that on Palo Alto Central, in addition to the SP Caltrans lot and the redirection and recirculation of traffic, etc., he believed a healthy mitigation contribution fund was established and that the boundaries extended from Lambert to Churchill, and Ash to Park Boulevard. He asked what was expended from that fund to date. That fund could be used to pay a portion of signalization costs, and the developer was responsive in terms of any uses to which those funds could be applied. He asked for clarification about, the pro and conf discussion on four-way stop signals, signalization, and questions about similar situations in the East Bayshore and East Embarcadero area where a major develop- ment was assessed and subsequent development shared in the asso- ciated mitigation expenses. He did not know how that was being reviewed, and the potential mitigations that might be appropriate at some point. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the mitigation funds for Palo Alto Central started out at $130,000, and about $26,000 was expended to date -for the Evergreen Park'barriers. He believed the boundaries suggested by Council - member Sutorius were essentially correct, and in terms of the Park/Page Mill intersection, the installation of four-way stop signs was not a significant expense. Staff did not believe the intersection would function better with that type of modification, and given the levels of traffic in the area, staff would probably rot get to signalization. The problem was the on -ramp. The intersection functioned well until a lot tried to merge onto the Expressway: then traffic hacked up rapidly and went around the corner of Park and Old Page Mill onto Park Boulevard. As soon as there was a substantial break in the traffic, it cleared out. The on -ramp problem was not ono where staff saw a clear mitigation. It was a constricted location and a difficult turning movement in an environment where he did not believe the City physically had the option to extend a merge lane short of a- monumental construc- tion job. There was money left for mitigation and although some could be used on the Park/Old Page Mill intersection for stop signs, it would not do much, but there was not near enough money for a monumental construction job. Councilmember Sutorius clarified that there might not a practi- cal mitigation to alleviate the problem regardless of whether: the trip generation was created by any particular use--CN, CS, multi- family residential, office, etc. Mr. Schreiber believed it was a fair assessment of the situation. Councilmember Fenzel clarified if two or three more projects made application ,.and became part of the probable projects, at that point the City would be on notice of a change in the level of ser- vice at the intersection. She asked if her understanding was cor-- recfi that CEQA would then come into play in terms of the cumula tiv.e impact issue, and at that point, any project being considered would be part of the total probable cumulative impact. Mr. Freeland said the definition of "cumulative impact from sev- eral projects" was the change in the environment which resulted from the incremental impact of the project when ` added to other closely related past/present and reasonably foreseeable, probable future projects. Cumulative impacts could result from indi- vidually minor, but collectively significant projects taking place over a.. period of time. It would take several projects about the same size to reach level of service E. Mr. Schreiber emphasized that level of service D and E was part of a `continuum, the City had no forma,? policy on' level of service, and while staff would: -work with level of service 0 as acceptable, 4 4 4 2 4/23/84 1 1 and level of service E as something to be avoided whenever possi- ble, there were many communities in the Bay Area who made a clear decision that level of service E was acceptable. He did not advocate level of service E, but there was nothing inherent in the review and planning process that D was acceptable and E,. was some- thing with which no one could live. He emphasized that it was peak period, and relatively confined periods of the day --maybe an hour or one and one-half hours.= MAYOR KLEIN RE NEW ITEMS TO COMMENCE AFTER 11:00 Tim,/ Mayor Klein said the Council was required to hear Items 9, 10 and 11, and he suggested that it might be appropriate to continue Items 12, 13, 14 and 14-A. City Manager Bill Zaner requested that staff reschedule any con- tinued items on an appropriate agenda. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, to. continue Item 113, Bike Locker Installation; Item 114, Downtown Study; and Item 14-A (Old Item 15), Police Department's Selection Process with the understanding that staff would reschedule these items as convenient. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5.3-1, Klein, Cobb, Witherspoon vot- ing "no," Levy "not participating." RETURN TO ITEM #8, APPEAL OF (JON PARSONS, ET, AL.) Councilmember Fletcher said total build -out was not reviewed in the traffic projections, and she asked if the possible increase in SP ridership was considered, or the build -out of the particular site. She believed it could almost legally double on the particu- lar parcel. Mr. Freeland said build -out was riot specifically factored in, and a 68,000 square foot lot with a 1:1 floor area ratio could increase another 28,000 square feet. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to continue Item 18, Appeal of Jon Parsons to the first meeting in September; and that staff be directed to prepare a moratorium ordinance to include all sites under study. Councilmember Fletcher believed the City was faced with cumulative impacts of considerable increased traffic in the not too distant future, and since the area was under study to examine future trif- fic impacts as well as other impacts, it would be advisable to hold otf on the particular parcel. The Metropolitan Transporta- tion Commission (MTC) included in its immediate priority listings for new rail starts, the downtown extension of the Southern Pacific. If that went forward, that alone could easily double the SP ridership which would increase traffic to and from the station, which was across the street from the on -ramp. It was already a problem during rush hour, and it was a highly used bicycle route. It was listed in the Comprehensive Plan first as a possible bicycle boulevard, and the Palo Alto Bicycle. Advisory Committee (PABAC) did not use Park Boulevard as the first test site for a bike boulevard and chose Bryant instead because it already .had some of the characteristics of a bicycle boulevard and they chose to use a street without those characteristics as a better test case. The accident statistics compiled by Diana Lewiston of PABAC over the last two years clearly showed that where there was heavy traffic with turning movements, the accident rates were much higher than other streets with lower traffic volume and little cross traffic. She did t : t believe the arguments in the staff report were valid in that regard. Increased traffic on Park Boulevard would detract from its possibilities _as a bicycle .boulevard in the future, and Council should take that into con- Sideration in any possible rezoning 4 4 4. 3 4/23/84 s Corrected 5/21/84 Councilmember Woolley said she did not believe it would helo for Council to require a full LIR or send the matter to the Planning Commission for recommendation, and they probably had as much in- formation as staff or the applicant could provide. She did not believe Council had firm grounds to deny the project based on traffic because as explained, the findings for level of services was an inexact science at best. While the appellants might be right that staff estimates were low, she did not believe Council could be any more certain about which figures were correct. Deny- ing the project because the level of service was at D or nearing E would set a precedent to preclude new ,buildings in many areas of town and have far reaching effects. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Woolley moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to approve a negative declaration for property at 3101 Park Boulevard and the recommendation of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) that Council uphold the decision of the ARB and the Director of Planning and Community Environment to approve a 40,000 square foot office development. Councilrnember Woolley agreed with staff that the problem was zon- ing but believed zoning should be directly addressed, and Council could be faulted for not having done so sooner. The City should appreciate that the applicant forced it to focus on the issue, but it was not fair to change the rules in the middle of the game. She supported a moratorium on the GM zone not presently under mor- atorium with the exception of the subject project which she believed progressed too far to be included.. Councilmember Witherspoon agreed wit n Councilmember Woolley. Traffic . was the only concern, but it was an area wide problem. Mareye residents and neighbors pointed out that it was a land use study which should have been studied sooner, but regardless, there would be development on the site. If rezoned to multi -family res- idential, there would be development and more traffic, and probab- ly more than with the proposed office building, which did not cover the site as it could, and provided more parking than required. It was one of the most attractive office projects, in terms of density and aesthetics, the City had seen in a long time, and it was in an area which desperately needed redevelopment and a new image. Traffic was a moot point because it would be involved no matter which development was along Park: Avenue. The City should study its potential build -out there, and .plan in a more more orderly fashion, but she did not believe the project could be denied, which was what a continuance would do, or that Council could, under CEQA, continue the project and deny the developer the . right to proceed with'- development when he. conformed to all exist- ing zoning. She would support taking a hard look at the future carrying,.capacity of neighboring GM zones as well as the other areas assigned to the Commission, but wanted the proposed project to go forward. Councilmember Renzel. said it was one of the more difficult deci- sions -she had to make as a Councilmember because she was familiar with both the appellant and applicant and recognized the good -points and effort to do right by Palo Alto. Shin'., Baas in the pl arm ping business ten years ago and could see the fast moving film with the. street. pattern changes as described by Mr. Schrom, and new the Council was in a -snowball running downhill and . in a dif- ficult position to slow or stop. Council must make an effort in that regard, or have a City it did not like with problems impos- sible to solve. S.ne preferred the City did proper planning in an unpressured circumstances and the only .way to get space was with a moratorium. With the congestion level, chances people took to enter the merging point, cross movements -with the new entrance to the California Avenue station, barrier system to the south, and rai l roadtrack to_ the east, she believed the area must. be Studied and- dealt •with rationally or else there would be severe pr°oblems.. She opposed the substitute motion. 444.4 4/23/84 Councilmember Cobb said the peoject was at 40,000, just below the housing mitigation threshold and there was potential to build another 40,000 square foot unit. He believed an additional condi- tion was needed that if the property continued to be built upon at any time, the cumulative total square footage would apply to the required housing mitigation. Otherwise, there was the potential for two 40,000 square foot units at separate times with no housing mitigation, which would compound the problem. Councilmember Woolley said she did not propose a moratorium in the substitute motion, but believed the whole property --even that being discussed that evening --should be studied in terms of rezon- ing although the particular building could go forward. The other part of the property might not necessarily be able to contain an office if rezoned at a later date. Councilmember Cobb said if the substitute motion went forward with no mitigation, then regardless of the rest of the studies, an additional 40,000 square feet of office space should provide 80,000 square feet of mitigation. otherwise, a way existed to short-circuit the system which compounded a problem too much. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Srtorius, that any additional construction on the site to add additional square footage would require the provision of housing mitigation measures based on the entire square footage of construction -on the_site. Vice mayor Levy supported the amendment. It appeared to impinge on an element of the ARB approval that the applicant discuss with Planning staff the possibility of making a contribution to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PANG), and he asked for clarifica- tion and whether it related to the amendment. Mr. Freeland said a question was raised at the ARB about whether the applicant would be willing to voluntarily consider some hous- ing contribution. The applicant suggested that he might be will- ine to tali about it, and the condition was that discussion occur which Would be followed up on the statement by the applicant. There was no requirement for housing mitigation. Vice Mayor Levy clarified that a contribution would be a start toward what Councilmember Cobb was attempting. Mr. Freeland said a voluntary contribution should be a credit against any : requi rement on future developments, and he believed Councilmember Cobb spoke to_ what happened if the full •8,000 square feet of building eventually occurred on the site. Normal- ly, the City only counted each phase of building and requested a housing contribution above 50,000 square feet ,o that neither phase of building would meet that criteria. The amendment said the City should ---count the total amount of building on the site and go on record that it would be the City's future intent. Vice Itayor levy believed i t was a good policy for the City gen- erally. Councilmember Sutorius seconded the amendment because he believed the safety valve aspect was reasonable. Based on the information provided, he believed the applicant did not propose to enlarge the property, but the property could be sod, and the requirement would go with the land and the . building. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Bec,htel said additional mitigations were, needed for the project because inadequate sidewalk area was obstructed in various places, and the only way to get to the SP was to walk on a new car bridge constructed as part of the Palo Alto Central devel- opment, and which had no sidewalks. She would not support the substitute motion because by Councilmember Fl etcher' s motion, 4 4 4 5 4/23/84 the project would he continued. It did not mean a denial --it meant a continuance while the Planning Commission looked at the matter. By May 3U, 1984, she believed the developers would have a clear message about what would happen with the project. A couple of years ago, the Planning Commission looked at the area in terms of housing, and did not go forward. The total area might not end up that dissimilar, and by disallowing the particular piece to be part of the whole package precluded the City's planning options.. The entire picture should be reviewed. e 1 1 AMENDMENT: Councilmewber Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, that the project be referred to the Planning Commission to look at additional mitigations particularly in the areas of pedestrian and bicycle access from the project along Park Boulevard into the SP area. AMENDMENT OUT OF ORDER: Mayor Klein ruled the amendment to the substitute motion out of order. Cuuncilmember Bechtel encouraged the Council to vote against the substitute motion. Vice Mayor Levy said normally when things went through the ARB, there was talk about undergrounding utilities, and he asked if that wa; discussed and whether it was appropriate in the proposed development. Mr. Freeland said undergrounding was not listed as a condition of approval, and he had not ascertained the history of the site. He was not aware of the discussions. Vice Mayor Levy would reluctantly support the main motion for fairness and proper procedure. The time to institute a moratorium to include the property was when the Council originally discussed the area. Ho moratorium was enacted at that time, and the owners of the property made application for the development based on that fact, and he believed their actions were based on Council consid- eration and definite inaction in that regard. To institute a mor- atorium at that point and retroactively include the property was unfair and an imp;-oper action for the Council. Councilmember Sutorius supported the substitute motion, and allied with Cole Richmond and David Schrom about the planning process. The planning was now better underway, although not as well as it could or would be carried out in the long run. He believed the application demonstrated many things that would be better taken into account, although he concurred with Vice Mayor Levy in terms of the equity situation and the previous action of the Council. It appeared that the moratorium and continuance subject presumed the project would then be denied, which was contradictory and con- trary to the action of the Council in California Avenue, downtown, East Bayshore and East Embarcadero area where projects conceived through the process were exempted from moratorium action. Some of those projects were nowhere near the state of completion and review as the project before the Council which had total and com- plete ARB review.' Councilwember Cobb agreed with the issue of fairness. He was con- cerned about the -traffic problems and that lines had to be . drawn. Changing the rules in the middle of the game troubled him, and if there was to. be consistency in the way he approached some of the. issues, it was not .a good. way to go. He did not like moratoria, but Council must get a =hundl a on what it was doing, and - i t seemed to be the only .way to deal with those issues. Fairness must ,pre- vail, botihe was uncomfortable. Mayor Klein associated himself with the remarks of Vice. MayorLevy and several. other Counc i lmembers in terms of. fairness. 1#e was often concerned in cases regarding zoning issues, and people 4 .4 4 .b 4/23/84 should tie: ao l e to rely on the City's zoning rules and regulations. !here should not be an ad hoc planning process where every time someone was concerned about an issue, the Council re-examined everything. That was allowable under the rules, but that power should be used sparingly and only in an absolute emergency. That was not the case with the subject case, although he wished the property was included in the moratorium with the Maximart site. Since the Council did not do so, the applicant acted in good faith, and the Council was obliged to treat its citizens fairly, which required that the project be allowed to go forward. He agreed with Councilmember Sutorius that if there was a moratorium, the property would have to be exempted from any new regulations to be consistent with other actions on moratoriums in other areas of the City. He supported the suiisti Lute motion. Councilmember Renzel said many references were made that the City's planning options were narrowed if the substitute motion passed, and she was concerned that there not be such a reading made of the project. Given the zone, the project was perhaps able to be compatible with many other kinds of zones and capabilities. She hoped the decision on the project, given that it was a fair- ness issue, not be read as anything more than making the Council's options more difficult rather than proscribing options. Councilmember Fletcher said it was ironic Council now used not having put a moratorti um on the parcel as a reason for preventing a moratorium from now goi r}g into effect. She proposed a moratori- um at the time Council referred the entire GM zone to the Planning Commission, but had insufficient support. The moratorium as a holding action until the Council rezoned or denied the project outright was not the case. In the California Avenue area, Council had a moratorium, study, and finally downzoned, which might well be the same at the subject location. That could let the project go forward because it did not use the -allowable floor area ratio. She said peak hour traffic was considerably less with housing than with an office complex. She urged an open mind and that Council oppose the substitute motion and support the original motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION RESTATED: THAT THE APPEAL BE DENIED AND THE PROJECT BE APPROVED, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ARB, WITH THE CONDI- TIONS LISTED ON PAGES 13 and 14 OF THE STAFF REPORT AND THE ADDI- TIONAL CoNDITIOH THAT ANY ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE TO ADD AUUITLOt4AL SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIRE HOUSING MITIGATIONS BASED ON THE CUMU .T Il E AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE BUILT OM THE SITE. SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Fletcher, Renzel, Bechtel voting "no. Councilmember Fletcher said the. last page of the EIA stated Planning staff requested the applicant propose a program to advo- cate alternative transportation modes, i.e., trains, etc., and she asked if that needed to be added as an amendment or whether it would go ahead. Mr. Freeland said it was included. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel droved, seconded by Klein, that staff be directed to prepare anordinancefor a moratorium for the rest of the GM area .along Park Boulevard which is presently under study. Councilmember Sutorius asked how the ordinance would proceed and coordinate with the existing study. Mr. Freeland said the study was intended to be before the Planning Commission on May 30, - and it would return to. the Council during the summer. No oevel opient would be approved until such time as the study was completed and any new zoning had a chance : to take effect. 4 4 4 7 4/23/84 Couhcilmemb_er Sutorius a5tieU about the ri4o 1 to the mission uii the Maximart site. Mr. Freeland believed it would be on May 16. annirg Conii- Councilmember Sutorius observed that from: a Planning process, to have those going separately seemed out of balance. Mr. Freeland said staff might consider holding Maximart back because the GM could not be moved forward. Councilmember Cobb supported the motion. Council was properly r ri ti ci zed for too much government by moratorium, but it was the only way Council could deal with and dispose of the fairness issue. He was concerned about the traffic problems in the area, and Council l .must get a clear handle on t'e wrong kind of develop- ment and keep it at a scale to allow the area to survive. The only clear signal was a moratorium, and although he was not crazy about the approach, it kept the Council fair and open with the developing community, and out of the position of casting troubled votes on the issues of fairness. Vice Mayor Levy believed the moratorium was proper in the subject case, but was concerned that the summer agenda was a full one, and that even though the Planning Commission would hear the matter at the end of May, it might not return to the Council until September. Mr. Schreiber said the last two meetings in June were committed -- one for cable television and one for budget review. The items from the Planning Commission in May were likely to return at the first meeting in Julys _ Vice Mayor Levy said whenever there was a moratorium, Council owed it to everyone concerned to move on it as rapidly as possible. He hoped a way could be found to bring the item back at the earliest possible moment after Planning Commission consideration. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Witherspoon voting 'no.' ITLM #9, PUBLIC ;TEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE LUr1uvrFlN IUri UN!. Planning Commissioner Joe Hirsch said the project was reviewed with the nearby neighbors, the changes were made, and no opposi- tion was raised at the Commission hearing. One neighbor supported the project and commended the applicant for the compromises made including the reduction in density to something less than the otherwise allowable density under applicable zoning. The appli- cant provided on -site guest parking to minimize any spillover to neighborhood streets; and family units having three bedrooms were provided including one, three -bedroom below -market -rate unit. The. Commission was unanimous i n its approval of the staff recommenda- tion. Counclmember Sutorius said the map identified a Phase I and Phase 11 zone of . the subdivision, and he asked how that was being ef- fected from a time element standpoint and the bearing it had on the provision, of required irriprovements, BHR, etc. He asked about the status of undergro►unding utilities on the project. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said there was a separate proposal for an underground district for the entire ' area out to the corner where Century Liquors was located. The proposed proj- ect would be undergrounded, and it was a question of whether the pole which served Bay Microfilm also came down. Director of Planning and Community. Environment Ken Schreiber said after approval of the tentative map, staff would meet -wi th the 4 4 4 8 4/23/84 applicant and City Attorney's office to prepare a subdivision agreement implementing the BMR program. The standard procedure was to phase in the BMR at least in a percentage consistent with the split on the units. The BMR units must be allocated to the different phases and the details would be worked out before the final map went to Council. Councilmember Sutorius asked if that suggested the Loma Verde Place cul-de-sac treatment could be some time off, since it was included in the Phase II area. ; Alan Pinn, Pinn Brothers Construction Co., said the phasing was put on the tentative map to facilitate the sale and closing of units and the requirements of the State Department of Real Estate. It had nothing to do with construction although it allowed some of the units to be sold and closed without having to pay the home- owner's fees on the entire project. Construction would be accord- ing to phasing, and if something happened and the second phase of construction was not started, the improvements would still be bonded with the State to install the common area improvements on the entire site. The construction of the units themselves would. be a phase situation. Councilmember Renzel asked about the .width of the private streets which were essentially driveways. Mr. Freeland responded that it was approximately 25 to 30 feet. Councilmember Renzel asked if he meant from garage door to garage door. Mr. Freeland said yes. Councilmember Renzel asked about the City's normal requirement for an apron in front of a garage when on a public street. Mr. Freeland said there was typically a 16 or 20 foot setback which normally worked fine for driveway backup area on the indivi- dual property. Councilmember Renzel clarified basically there were not two drive- way aprons between the garage doors. Mr. Freeland said no, but the driveway apron was not a part of the condori,ni um map before the Council. The design of the `units was approved by the ARB, and it was not properly a concern of the map. It was reviewed at the time of ARB approval by the Transportation liivision.and Division of Inspectional Services and found to be in conformance with city standards Councilmember Renzel asked if the Council was net permitted look at...:subdivisions in terms of circulation patterns. City Attorney Diane Lee said Council could look at the circulation patterns, but could not look at the manner in which the buildings or air spate above the property on the map was to be divided. Councilmember Renzel clarified if Council wanted a proper street dimension, it could be required as part of the tentative map. Ms. Lee said yes. Mayor. Klein declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. 4 4 4 9 4/23/84 1 0 MOTION: Councilmember Cobh moved, seconded by Sutorius, to auopt the Planning Commission recommendations finding: 1. That the project, including the design and improvements (e.g., the street alignments, drainage and sanitary facilities, loca- tions and size of all required rights -of -way, lot size and configuration, grading and traffic access) is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and complies w!th the Subdivi- sion Map and Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; 2. That the project will not have a significant impact 'on the environment nor be likely to result in serious public health problems; 3. That the proposed project, together with its design and im- provements is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing objective of "maintain(ing) the character and physical quality of residential neighborhoods...° in that the replace- ment of the previous commercial uses by multiple family hous- ing will im9rove the neighborhood, and the proposed project is consistent with the Palo Alto Housing objective of "increasing its housing supply, especailly for individuals and families who earn low and moderate incomes" in that the development adds 39 new two and three bedroom units, four of which will be Below -Market -Rate units. Approve the tentative subdivision map with following conditions that: 1. The developer shall dedicate for public use a strip of land ten feet wide on the northeasterly side of the property adja- cent to Loma Verde Place, as shown on the map; 2. The subdivider shall submit construction plans for the pro- posed improvements to the City Engineer for approval and shall construct these improvements prior to recordation of the map or shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the. City of Palo Alto; 3. The subdivider shall provide four Below -Market -Rate units as agreed to in a letter dated October 11, 1983; and 4. A soils report shall be submitted before approval of the final map. Councilmember Cobb was pleased that the developer met With the neighborhood and that the concerns were dealt with positively. He complimented the developer for not building to the full density the land allowed, and for providing guest parking i n an area where on -street parking was hard to find. Councilmember Fletcher associated herself with the comments of Councilmember Cobb. Councilmember Renzel agreed with the reduction in density and the guest parking provided, but was concerned that previously any time there was a driveway that exceeded 300 feet in length, it required a public street. The Council backed further away . from that and had\subdivisions with 25 foot wide streets and automatic garage door{openers. It was basically' a small R-1 district with no on - street parking. She saw a tight circulation pattern within the development and when the City bUi ?t the last of the limited hous- ing apt to be built, She wanted i t done properly ° withwi0e proper cir- culation. The map did not have that, and 25 or 30 feet from garage door to garage door with no defined circulation pattern seemed to be tight and difficult. She preferred a subdivision wi th a pub1 i c street on a map that large. Although she was pleased to see housing in the area, she wanted it done right. She would not support" the motion, MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Renzel voting "no.° 4 4 5 0 4/23/84 ITEM 41u, f'ubL IC HEAK INU : PLANNING COMMISSION RFCOMMFNDAT IOH RE H YLICAM ION OF 1UHN BROOKS BOO FUR iLi,[1AI IVY. SUBDIVISLElll MAP (PLR .i-1I Planning Commissioner Joe Hirsch said the project was for a sub- division having ten condominium units on two previously existing lots. One lot presently had five apartment units and thl other had four medical offices. One new unit would be a 700 square foot bMRunit at a sales price of approximately $68,000. The motion to approve the staff recommendation carried by a close vote of 4-2, at the Commission level , and in the eyes of the majori ty, the project met all applicable regulations and was consistent with the RM1-2 zoning on the site. While some Commissioners indicated they voted for the motion with some reluctance, they saw no basis to deny the application. The project provided ten units where there were previously five and eliminated nonresidential usage of the medical offices in a residential zone. The minority believed the project was inconsistent with the existing residential neighbor- hood and that on one parcel, five units were being replaced with five units. They were also concerned about the internal circula- tion pattern, the excessive number of curb cuts, the loss of on - street parking, and the lack of on -site guest parking. The minor- ity believed they could not make the finding that the project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to maintain the character and physical quality of the adjacent residential neigh- borhood. Councilmerrtber Cobb asked for a value judgment in terms of the parking impact with the additional curb cuts, degree of crowding in the neighborhood and the impacts expected from spillover and guest parking. Mr. Freeland said when the matter was before the ARB, staff ob- jected to the elimination of all of the parking in the street and the number of curb cui.e. it was acceptable to the Transportation uepartment and raised as a design objection by the ARB planner. The ARB disagreed with. staff, and although it was not unaccept- able, staff did not believe it was good. Councilmember Renzel said there were two parcels, one with commer- cial and one with residential, and asked if the entire parcel had to be developed at once or none at all. Mr. Freeland believed the entire site would have to be developed at once. lt,was not laid out in a Way to sever off one piece and have the other stand on its own. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. Having no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. MO1I4li Countilmeaber Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation that the project, including the design and improvements (e.g., the street alignments, drainage and sanitary facilities, locatioAs and size of all required rights -of -ray, lot . size and configurations, grading and traffic access) is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and tor- p11es with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; that the project will not have a significant im- pact on the environment nor be likely to result in serious public health problems; that the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed development; and that there are no conflicts with public easements, and recommend approval subject to the submittal of a signed Below -Market -Rate agreement and the fol- lowing conditions- 1. A site drainage plan be approved by the City Engineer priorto issuance of a building permit; 4 4 5 1 4/23/84 MO I IUM CUM I INUtU 2. The broken and patched areasof the existing sidewalk shall be replaced at time of construction with standard' sidewalk and curb; 3. Abandoned driveways or portions thereof shall be replaced with standard sidewalk and curb; 4. A handicapped ramp shall be installed at the easterly corner of Chancing Avenue and Cowper Street; S. Concrete in the planting strip shall be removed. Landscape. plans in the street right-of-way shall' be submitted to Public Works for approval; 6. Street trees shall be installed as required by the City's Parks and Recreation Department; 7. The above improvements shall be installed prior to request for final occupancy, and shall be guaranteed with a bond prior to approval of the final map; and 8. Street permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Depart- ment prior to doing any work in the street right -of- way. Councilmember Fletcher said the Planning Commission minutes stated the 8MR unit was to be 700 square feet, which she believed was almost unlivable. She was troubled by many aspects of the project because everything seemed squeezed into the maximum amount. There was loss of landscaping and she believed the project would be unattractive, She opposed the motion. Council received a letter with some recommendations, and if the motion failed, she would move that the matter be referred back with the suggested require- ments contained in that letter, Councilmember Cobb said there was barely the right number of park- ing spaces and the absolute maximum number of units that could be squeezed on the property, which suggested hard to define impacts. The -units were family, and there would be more than two cars per unit. Parking problems would be created in the neighborhood, and while it could probably take a little more traffic, the reality was that the project would use the last of the easy parking which existed in the neighborhood. The project was dune by the book, and he saw no legal reason to oppose the project, but it suggested that the City's book needed to be changed. Councilmember Renzel said Council just approved a huge project with little 25 .foot aisieways between buildings Where people would have to turn into garages and if one happened to be leaving the garage at the same time they would bump into each other. There would be trouble getting around and there were no public streets, and all - the buildings faced inward so that people had to go in to find where they were going. file project before the Council was on a public street and offered the benefits of public streets, and people were saying it was tight. She found it hard to see how one could vew the proposed project in that way after the project was ;Mast approved. She was not happy .about losing the house nn the corner, but did not believe there was any choice, The project at least utilized the street properly and would not have as big an impact as the one just approved. Vice Mayor Levy said there were three driveways on Channi ng and he did not see the purpose of the one in the middle. City Planner -Sarah Cheney clarified there were driveways on Chancing, and the smaller: one provided a turnaround so that the car would not be backing out onto Channing. Vice Mayor Levy asked if the preserve the old house. Ns. Lee said no. City had any 1 eyal recourse Vice Mayor Levy said he shared Councilmember -Renzel's feelings that it was unfortunate to lose the house, but he believed the City was gaining a conversion from commercial use to five extra units of residential units. He endorsed the project. Councilmember Sutorius supported the motion, and being somewhat familiar with the house on the corner, while he shared the concern about losing a building of its charm, the rehabilitation costs were impractical. He said the parking situation should be less difficult than was presently experienced because more cars were generated by the medical/dental practice and more street parking than would be generated by residential use on the entire property even with more than two cars per household, Council was not mak- ing a _.design review, but the project would. be carried forward by the same architects who did the adjacent residential building which he believed was handsome and enhanced the area. Mayor Klein. supported the project because he saw no reason to vote against it. He was dismayed by the BMR unit, and he wished he had the authority to ask for a redesign. He did not believe the City was getting what it had iri mind, and as one who long used the dentist office in the building, he was sorry to see it go because it was about as unobtrusive a commercial use as one could find in a residential neighborhood. It was a plus in that the Council's. long-standing policy to try and remove office space from residen ti al neighborhoods was being done with some additional housing. MOTION PASSEL! by a vote of 8-1, Fletcher voting "no.' ITEtI #l1, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE LL • Planning Commissioner Joe Hirsch said the parcel was adjacent- to Seale Park and was otherwise surrounded by R-1 single family resi- dential property. The Commission considered the parcel to be im- minently suited for the proposed development with the__ conditions as proposed by staff and supplemented by the Commission. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. Vince Fletcher, President of Fletcher Homes, applicant, 5975 Via Del Cielo, Pleasanton, thanked the Hi stfrical Association for con- sidering the desires to name the street after the Piers family. He agreed with the conditions of approval. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing closed. MOTIOM: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Planning Commission recommendation finding. 1. That the project, including the design and improvements (e.g., the street alignments, drainage and sanitary "fstilities, loca- tions and size of all required rights -of -way, lot site and configuration, grading tad traffic access) is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and complies with the Subdivi- sion Map and Title .21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Cede; 2. That the project will not have a significant impact on the. environment nor be likely to result in serious pobl is :' health problems; 4 4 5 3 4/23/84 1 MOTION CONTINUED 3. That the site le physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed development, and that there are no conflicts with the public easements; 4. That the proposed project., together with its design and im- provements, is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan objective to "ma;antain the general low density character of existing single family areas" in that it is located in the midst of a single family area and replaces a commercial use which was incompatible with the neighborhood. And approve the tentative subdivision with conditions that: 1. The site perimeter shall be fenced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Architectural Review Board. That portion adjacent to the Santa Clara Palley Water Depart- ment (SCVWD) easement shall also be fenced to the satisfaction of the SCVWD; 2. Fee title shall be grented to the City for the street shown on the map, and the offer of street dedication to the public shall be made in the owner's certificate on the final map; 3. The new street shill be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall conform with the existing street (Louis Road); 4. Existing sidewalk along the frontage of the site shall be replaced in kind; 5. A floodwal l shall be constructed along the SCVWD right -of. -way to an elevation of ten feet above sea level and shall extend from Louis Road to existing concrete floodwaall along Seale Park; 6. Improvement plans for the fl oodwal i and fence adjacent to the SCVWD easement shall be sent to the SCVWD for review and issu- ance of a permit; 7. Construction improvement plans for all of the above (Nos. 1-6) shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval, and the improvements shall be constructed prior to recordation of the final sap or a subdivision agreement must be entered into with the City of Palo Alto; 8. Prior to submittal of the final map, a detailed soi l e report shall be submitted; and 9. There shall be a notation on the final map that the design ` of the development shall comply with the flood insurance rate map criteria, all habitable floor levels shall be at a minion* elevation of 7.5 (USGS). Further, that the street be named Piers Court. AMMMW MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #12 , COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT ritirr-rtrriirinrrnr Atli MItY IN ?HE Mayor Klein said the recommendation was to support AB 2894 which was legislation to expand local government's authority in the use of radar to enforce speed limits, with the condition that the por- tion of the bill which required use of radar conditioned upon a 30 mile an hour speed limit, be changed at local option to 25 miles per hour, which was consistent with the City's regulations. 4 4 5 4_ 4/23/84 MU T- IUN: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Klein, to ap- prove recommendation of the Council Legislative Committee that the City Council support AB 2894, with the provision that the bill be amended to retain the 25 mph posted speed limit at local option. mayor Klein clarified the bill as presently written would not allow the use of radar on those streets without increasing the speed limit to 30 mph, Vice Mayor Levy said the committee recommendation was better than the present status, and he asked if wording could be added in a letter to Assemblyman Sher that the City preferred to have the local option to retain the 25 mph posted limit, but raising it to 30 mph was a better alternative than denying the use of radar all together. Councilmember Renzel said the City always had the option to raise speed limits, but 30 mph was a. State minimum level at which radar could be used without required engineering surveys. It was not necessarily better, in that the speed limit had to be raised. MOTION PASSED unanimously. AuJ0URNMENT Council adjourned to Executive Session re personnel at 12:1U a.m. F I AE ADJOURNMENT Final adjournment at 12:32 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: C ►1" erk gdpor t.1 1 4,455 4/23/84