HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-07-16 City Council Summary Minutesr
4 8 0 2
4803
4 80 3';:
CITY
COUNCIL
MINUTES'
CilY
Mt(
ill .1 0
Regular Meeti ng
Monday, July 16, 1984
ITEM PAGE
Oral Communications
Approval of Minutes of June 11, 1984
Item #1, Resolution Welcoming Representatives of
Enschede, The Netherlands
Item #2., ^,ppoi ntment of One Historic Resources
Board Member to Fill the Unexpi red Term of Robert
A, Nerrie
4 8 0 0
4 8 0 0
4 8 0 0
4 8 0 0
Item #3, Appointment of Two Planning Commissioners 4 8 0 1
to Fill Two Terms Commencing August 11, 198.4
Consent Calendar
Referral
Action
Item #4, Resolution re Authorization o_ f Signature
of Mark R� Harris, Director of Finance* on the City
Bark Accounts
Item #5, Terman Site Library Improvements
Item #7, Greer Park Restrooms and Security Lights
Item #8, Utility Operation Center Building Design
and Const,ucti on
4 8 0 1
4 8 0 1
4 8 0 1
4 8 0 1
4 8 0 1
4 8 0 2
4 8 0 2
Item #9, Consultant Selection for the Design of 4 8 0 2
Flow Meter Stations
Item #10, 0rdi nances re Stanford University 4 8 0 2
Hospital Modernization Project (2nd Reading)
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Item #11, Mixed Use Concept for the Former Max#mart
Site (3180.3200 Park and 300-380 Portage) Subject
to Conditions on Type and Amount of Development and
Subject to Negotiation on Conditions on the Housing
Component and Adoption of RM-3 Zoning; Modification
of ,the Mo reto ri Um on Dev el opme Tit to Al 1 ow
Acceptance of an. Application for a PC Zone for.
Mixed Use fors the Site, and Termination of the
Moratorium on'the Remaining Parcels on Lambert- and
Ash Streets
Item #12, 14odificatiOn of the Gt (B) Zone.. to Allow
General Business SeNices as a Condition of Use and
to "Grandfather" General Business Offices.
ITEM
Item #13, Rczoni ng Properties i n the Park Boulevard
GM Zone Area from GM to GM(B), and Terms nation of
the Moratorium on Development i n the Park Boulevard
GM Zone Area
PAGE
4 8 0 3
Recess 4 8 1 4
Item #14, Council Legislative Committee re HR 4103
- Federal Legislation Concerning Cable Tel evision:
Review of City Position
4 8 2 8
Item #15, Undergroundi ng Christi ne Arive as a 4 8 2 9
Condition of Ross Road School Site Development
Item #16, Request of Councilmember Bechtel for a
Staff Report on Stanford University Hazardous Waste
Disposal Practices and City Monitori ng Procedures
4 8 2 9
Adjournment: 11:10 p.m. 4 8 2 9
Regul ar Meeti ng
Monday, July 16, 1984
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at
7:30 p.m.
PRESENT:
Bechtel (arrived 7:40 p.m.) , CuJb, Fletcher, Klei n,
Levy (arrived 7:43 p.m ), Renzel, Sartori us,
Witherspoon, Woolley
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 1984
MOTION: Councilmewber Witherspoon moved, seconded by Cobb, to
approve the mi notes of June 11, 1984, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel and Levy absent,
ITEM #1, RESOLUTION WELCOMING REPRESENTATIVES OF ENSCHEDE, THE
MOT IOW Councilme.ber Sutorius moved, seconded by Klein, to
adopt the resolution #elcomi ng the representatives of Enschede.
RESOLUTION 6278 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
SIT of PACO ALTO RECOGNIZING THE PRESENCE OF, AND
WELCOMING TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, REPRESENTATIVES OF
ENSCHEDE, THE NETHERLANDS'
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel and Levy absent.
Mayor Klein said that cultural -.exchanges resulting from people -
to -people communication were the foundation of the Sister City
program to further international understanding. Enschede was Palo
Alto's sister city in the Netherlands and had honored Palo Alto by
sending its representatives. He welcomed Nico and Jannie Bakker,
Johanna P. Bertelink, Johanneke Fokkelien Van Egteren, Eric R.
Ellerkamp, Egbert Klein Onstenk, Brenda E. Loep, Marco P. Nieuwe
Weave, Julius F. Scholten, Isabel CO. Schut, Barbara J. Sjnerdsma,
Michi el J .F. Vink, Jolien A. Wevers, Duco Wiideboer, and Stephen
A. Van Zuylen. Participation in the cultural exchange promoted,
encouraged, and cultivated understanding. The opportunity to wel-
come visitors from Enschede had proven mutually beneficial, and
the City recognized the visitors and welcomed them into the com-
munity. On behalf of its citizens, the Council expressed appreci-
ation to the City of Enschede and its representatives for their
significant contribution to the Sister City program.
Duco Wildeboer thanked the Mayor: and Council on behalf of the
visitors, and hoped for more exchange programs in the future.
ITEM #2, APPOINTMENT OF ONE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEMBER TO
nit —FITE l
RESULTS 0E :THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING
Voti ng for Mullen: Renzel, Bechtel, Witherspoon
Voting for Gifford: Fletcher, Woolley;, Klein Levy, Cobb,
.....r.....rr. S u t o r 1 t. s
City Clerk Ann Tanner announced that Jonathan B. Gifford, was
appointed to the Historic Resources Board on a 6-3 vote.
4 8 0 0
7/16/84
Mayor Klein extended his congratulations to Mr. Gifford, and said
the Council was very glad to have him on the Historic Resources
Board (HRB) . He thanked the .other applicants, and hoped they
would remain interested in the activities of the City.
ITEM #3 APPOINTMENT OF TWO PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO FILL TWO
TEh , cuu b-4-2-i�lf
RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING
"fot " for McCown:
Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein,
Levy, Renzel, . Sutor1 is, Witherspoon,
Woolley
RESULTS OF THE SECOND ROUND OF VOTING
Voting for Christensen:
Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein,
Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, Witherspoon,
Woolley
Ms. Tanner announced that Jean McCown and Ellen Christensen had
been appointed to the Planning Commission by unanimous vote.
Mayor Klein said the unanimous votes cast by the Council for each
candidate reflected the pride it felt in the service rendered to
the City by Ms. McCown and Ms. Christensen during their first
terms as Planning Commissioners and its anticipation of the same
service during the ensuing four years. It was heartwarming to see
people devote so much time to the City's activities, and he
thanked them:
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Klein said that Item 6, Storm Drainage Improvements in the
Vicinity of Oakhi l l and Mesa ,venues, had been continued by staff.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Sutorius, to approve
Consent Calendar Items 4, 5, 7-10, with Item 6 removed from the
agenda.
Referral
None
Action
ITEM #4, RESOLUTION RE AUTHORIZATION OF SIGNATURL OF MARK R.
MAKxa� U.KL . 1111774'61-171-I'mj"-46'`
ur r sr4Paai.,l
f
City Manager Bill Zaner recommends that the signature of Mark R.
Harris be effective immediately on City bank accounts.
RESOLUTION 6279 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
LO .ALTO AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
ADDITION OF THE SIGNATURE OF NARK R. HARRIS, DIRECTOR OF
FINANCE, AS AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE ON . BANK ACCOUNTS WITH
THE CROCKER NATIONAL _ BANK AND OTHER BANKS OR SUCCESSORS,
IN ADDITION TO THAT OF WILLIAM ZANER, TO BE EFFECTIVE
IMMEDIATELY"
ITEM #5, TERMAN. SITE LIBRARY IMPROVEMENTS (P41K 6-2), (CMR:395:4)
Staff recommends that Council:
1)
Authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with . Post Tech,
Inc in the amount of $215.:758.
2) Authorizestaff to execute cha tge orders to the contract of
up to $33.000.
AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Post Tech, Inc.
ITEM #7, GREER PARK RESTROOMS AND SECURITY LIGHTS (PAR 2-7),
Staff recommends that Council:
1) Authorize the Mayor to execute the attached contract with
Accurate Construction, Inc. in the amount of $174,000;
2) Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract of
up to $27,000.
AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Accurate Construction, Inc.
ITEM #8, UTILITY OPERATION CENTER BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Staff recommends that Council:
1) Authori ze the Mayor to execute the attached agreement with
Walker Associates, Inc. for professional services in the
amount of $18,820, and;
-2) Approve the execution of change orders to the agreement up to
$3,000.
AGREEMENT
INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND GRAPH DESIGN
Walker Associates, Inc.
ITEM #9, CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR THE DESIGN OF FLOW METER
err --T r"- 4T, 1 cig :: 9
Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to sign the
attached contract with Metcalf and Eddy for an amount not to
exceed $15,600 for the design of four flow metering stations.
AGREEMENT
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES
PALO ALTO SEWER TRUNK AND REGIONAL WATER QUALIT ,;
CONTROL PLANT RECYCLED WATER FLOW METERS
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.
ITEM #10, ORDINANCES RE STANFORD UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MODERNIZATION
rr e a ng
ORDINANCE 3548 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE - COUNCIL OF
1st t i U 1 UP. PALO ALTO AMENDING -SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING NAP) TO CHANGE THE
ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PARCEL ON WELCH ROAD PRESENT-
LY USED FOR HOSPITAL PARKING FROM OR TO PF' (1st Reading
7/2/84, PASSED 7-1, Rene') 'no", Fletcher absent)
ORDINANCE 3549 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF TKE
tin OF IITO ALTO AMENDING SECTION -18.08.040 OF THE PALO
ALTO MUNICIPAL ` CODE (THE ZONING ..NAP) TO -CHANGE- THE ZONE
CLASSIFICATION OF THE VACANT PARCEL ON WELCH ROAD PRE-
SENTLY USED AS .A HOSPITAL HELIPORT FROM OR T8 PF' (1st
Reading 7/2/840 PASSER 7-1, Renze1 'no', Fletcher
absent)
MOTION PASSED unanimously on Items 4, 5, 7-9, Fletcher and
Re nze" voting 'no" on Ordinance.- 3548 . re Zone change for hospital
parking; *enzel voting *no* on : Ordi pace 3549 re zone change for
hospital heliport.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
None
Mayor Klein suggested that the Council follow the precedent estab-
lished by the Planning Commission for simultaneous discussion and
questions on Item 11, the Maximart site; Item 12, GM(B) zoning
modifications and "grandfathering" of general business offices;
and Item 13, rezoning of properties in the GM areas on Park Boule-
vard. The Council would, however, discuss each item separately
when arriving at its decisi ns.
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Sutorius, to consolidate
the public hearings on Items 11, 12, and 13.
MOTION PASSED unanimously
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:
ITEM #11, MIXED USE CONCEPT FOR THE FORMER MAXIMART SITE (3180-
3200 P1
') r T "
lift iTtlrinTrIrtfr-
s
r
x- re
1
ITEM #12, MODIFICATION OF THE GM(B) ZONE TO ALLOW GENERAL BUSI-
USU L O'fFICLS (PtA 3-b);
ITEM #13, REZONING PROPERTIES IN THE PARK BOULEVARD GM ZONE AREA
- ;
'FraTrr---
ITTTUR,T777177PmENT IN THE PARK BOU
Ter
oissa
Executive Assistant to the Director of Planning, Lynnie Melena,
discussed the major points .in the two staff reports. In the area
of traffic, the amount of information the Council was given could
cause confusion. The staff report concentrated on traffic gener-
ated by Maximart and, with the exception of the approved project
at 3101 park, did not include traffic from possible development in
the Park Boulevard area. From its analyei s, staff concluded that
none of the alternatives for the Maximart site listed in the staff
report would push the critical on- ramp to the eastbound Oregon
Expressway to Service level "E," although the reserve capacity
would be significantly lower .for the mixed use alternatives. It
was also concluded that the "all housing" alternative would put
tr re traffic on the surrounding streets than the nixed use during
the weekends and after 6:00 p.m. For the Park Boulevard study,
the traffic from the various Park Boulevard scenarios was added to
those for the Maximart. To the four combinations, a fifth, re-
flecting the staff recommendation, was given to the Planning Cam -
mission at their meeting and distributed to the Council that eve-
ning, asit was inadvertently left off =He staff report. It re-
flected the staff recommendation of build out under GM(B) and
01(1) in the Park Boulevard area and of multiple family use in the
Maximart area. The Planning _•Commission .further recommended mixed
use at the Maximart, as reflected in scenario 3 of the table.
Other combinations had not been covered i n the staff report, as
there were too many possibilities. For the Maximart study, staff
had addressed several housing issues, analyzed the costs of build-
ing, th2 income ranges to be served by market -rate housing, and
the subsidy required for a target group with $30,000 annual in-
come. The rajorsontclusions of the housing section were that,
except for the Below Market Rate (BMR) units, the market rate
housing would be affordable for households earning, 150-220 percent
of median income, or beyond the income range Palo Alto tried to
reach. It was concluded that a large subsidy would be needed to
4 8 0 3
7/16/84
dke units affordable to fariii1 ie$ earning s3Q,uuv or less. Staff
found the proposed mixed use moderate i ncame uric is very appealing,
especially if certain conditions could be met, but fi naily recom-
mended that the Maximart site be all housing. The Planning Com-
mission recommendation for mixed use he,d been a close call. In
the Park Boul evard area, the major questions of the preservation
of space for light industrial and community serving uses . and the
fi ndi ng of reasonably shaped areas te zone for housi ng were ad-
dressed. Light industrial for the Peek Boulevard area was recom-
mended, with specifica+ly GM(B) zoning. The' staff report recom-
mended LM(1) for Hewlett-Packard, but the Commi ssi o n would con-
sider the question more closely before making a recommendation.
In addition to the staff reports to the Planning Commission, two
reports to the Council summarized the actions before it that eve-
ning. The Planning Commission's recommendation concerning Maxi -
mart was reflected in items 1-5 of the report of June 1, 1984.
The Commission recommended modifying the moratorium ordinance to
al low Maximart to come in with a mixed use proposal. However,
after its meeting and upon reflection, the moratorium for the en -
ti re area was seen as unnecessary. Adoption of a RM-3 zone for
Maximart meant that any development was effectively restricted to
multiple family housi ng. Two ordi nances were before the Council
for Maximart--one to rezone the site from CS to RM-3, the other to
lift the moratorium. There were three ordinances in the Park
Boulevard area --one to change to the GM(B) zone, which although
applicable City-wide was recommended as a result of the study in
the area; secondly, a zone change for the enti re area from GM to
GM(B), with the exception of Hewlett-Packard and 216 Page Mill
Road; the thi rd was to lift the moratorium from the area, with the
exception of the Hewlett-Packard site, which would remain under
moratorium until October 30, 1984.
Chief Pl anni ng Official Bruce Freel and discussed the status of 216
Page Mill Road approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
on July 13, 1984. A letter had beef received from the owner of
the property that accurately reflected the facts. The ARB had
given approval to a buildi ng of approxieaately 20,000 square feet
at 216 Page Mill Road. Heupdated the council on the staff's view
of action Council might contempl ate that eveni ng. The staff
report suggested the Council not take action on the parcel as part
of the rezoning because i t was not known if the project would re-
ceive ARB approval. Had it not been approved by that evening, the
question of the grandfather clause for the site would have arisen
if the Council intended to allow the office building to occur at
that site. For that reason, staff recommended that the i tem be
returned to the Council l ater. However, as the project had been
approved, there was no reason not to 1 nclude it in the rezoni ng.
The public hearing notice was sufficiently broad to make it a pos-
sible action for the Council. Should the Council wish to rezone
the property to GM(B), it would then be treated with the same
grandfather clause that protected the project at 3101 Park Boule-
vard. In the event the Council had other feelings abowt the use
of the site, the grandfather cl ause would have to be amended.
There was no reason to avoid dealing with the zo ni nga of the site.
Pl anni ng Commissioner Jean McCown commented on the Maximart site.
The Commission's recoraarendations on the property were consistent
with those of previous Commissions. As could be seen .from the
minutes, the deciding factor was tine economic data contai ned in
the staff report. They were the numbers the Corrrmiss1on continual-
ly faced when trying to fulfill the City's goal for creating op-
portunities for affordable housing. The P1 anni ng Conti ssion
recommended that the City take advantage of a concrete opportunity
to cooperate with the private sector to provide rental housing
which, if, It occurred, would be unique in the history of the past
five to ten years i n Palo Alto. ` The Commission `'was i nfl uenned I n
its decision i n part because of the del re to act on an opportuni-
ty : that presented itsei f rather than await the possibility of
market- rate housing being built on the site --potentially in 15
years time.
Councilmember Renzel asked if the Council should choose to go with
the staff recommendation regarding Maximart, would they refer it
back to the Commission for a report on the Comprehensive Plan
change.
Mr. Freeland said the Commission had considered the Comprehensive
Plan change and the Council had a report from them on it. How-
ever, the change was not noticed for that evening.
City Attorney Diane Lee said that as it was not noticed, the Coun-
cil could not make a Comprehensive P1 an change that eveni ng.
Councilmember Renzel obtai ned confi rmation from Ms. Lee that it
would also cover a referral .
Mayor Klein followed up by asks ng what the Council should do if it
disagreed with the Planning Commission decision.
Mr. Freeland said the question arose only with regard to the Com-
prehensive Plan designation, which would require the Council to
instruct staff to return with a resolution to change it. As the
Commission had considered the issue explicitly and given its
recommendation, it would not require to return to the Commission.
Ms. Lee agreed. She said the Council did not need to return it to
the Commission, but only to notice a hearing on it. She would
double check the poi nt i n the Code.
Vice Mayor Levy said that in various places the phrase "housing
development appropriate for families" was used. He asked if the
deft ni ti on meant "a household with child ren."
Executive Assistant G1 enn Miller said it did. The recent Housi ng
Element approved by the Council made an effort to be more expli-
cit.
Councilmember Bechtel said the ordinance before the Council under
Items 12 and 13 concerning Park Boulevard GM zone specifically
excluded 216 Page Mill Road. She asked Mr. Freeland to confirm' he
now recommended its i ncl usi on, and that i y be considered a part of
the grandfathe.ri ng by addi ng it to the ordi nonce.
Mr. Freeland said tine only difference was on the map on the
attached exhibit. The property simply needed to be added back on
to the map. He offered to show a slide.
Councilmember Bechtel said there was much discussion about 2747
Park Soul ev arc; at the P1 arming Commission meeting . Paragraph 2,
page 2 of the July 12, 1984 staff report said i t was wan accessory
building". She asked i,f that meant it would be eligible to stay
and be used for the purposes allowed there.
Ms. Mel ena said that was correct.
Chief Building Official.
It was the deferral nation of the
e
.Councilmember Bechtel congratulated the staff on an outstanding
job. She obtained confirmation from Ms.' : Mielena that RM(0) use
was al lowed i n GM(B)
Councilmember Cobb added hi s compliments to the staff. He found
both reports very thorough, and the Maximart report gave very use-
ful housing :cost data much needed by the Council. He asked for
clarification of what kinds of office use, in the broadest sense,
were allowed under a GI (B), eitherpermitted or conditional, and
which were not. He understood there was a distinction the Zoning
Administrator could awake with regard to_ high traffic generators.
Ms. Helena said that admini-strative offices were allowed under
G/4(11). The Zoning Administrator would not have to make a deter-
mination, as it was a permitted, not a conditional, use.
4 8 0 5
7116/84
Councilmember Cobb asked for clarification of the di f fereiices
between an administrative office, a general office, and general
busi ness services.
Ms. Melena said the defi nation of administrative offices was given
i n the Zoni ng G rdi nance.
Mr. Freeland explained that admi nistrative offices were the head-
quarters offices for a corporation or a business, where the office
uses were for the administration of that particular busi ness. He
quoted, "'Administrative office service' means office and service
facilities performing headquarters, regional, or other level man-
agement administrative services for firms and institutions."
Using an insurance company as an example, the general business
o:'fice would sell insurance, whereas the administrative office
would run the insurance company.
Councilmember Cobb asked if a law office that was totally locally.
based coul d be allowed, as it.. woul d be the admi nistrative office.
Mr. Freeland said it would not. It would be a professional busi-
ness office, as the primary service would be to serve its cus-
tomers. The president, who might be in the business of running
the fi rm, would not constitute the majority use. A component of
the business would be administrative, but the principle use of the
law fi rm would be professional busi ness offices.
Councilmember Cobb understood that offices conducti ng a service to
the public of one kind or another would not be a permitted use.
Mr. Freeland agreed. He said that professional, general, or medi-
cal offices would mostly fall into that category.
Councilmember Woolley pursued the question of al lowi ng admi nistra-
tive offices i n the GM(B) zone. It could represent a very large
office use of the type hey tried not to have i n the GM(B) zone.
"c. Helena said it represented a large number of square feet at
v1 ett-Packard because i t was such a 1 arge site. It was permit-
ted a.s long as it served and provided support to the major use of
a site which was not general business offices.
Councilmember Woolley asked for elaboration on "providing support
services for the site." She supposed it did not refer to an of-
fice that was part of an automotive repel r shop.
Ms. Mel ena said . that could be called an admi of strative office.
The major function —the automobile service--was an allowed use,
and the administrative office would support the main use. In an
administrative office that supported general offices --such as a
law firm-- al though the administrative office would be allowed, the
general busi ness office would not, making the administrative of-
fice unnecessary.
Councilmember Woolley said she could understand why they would
want to allow an administrative office that was necessary to ser-
vice a Iarg r portion of the site, when the administrative office
was only a mi nor portion of the use of the enti re site. However,
she did not consider it appropriate to allow the enti re site to be
used as an administrative office in the GM(6) zone.
Mr. Freeland said that the GM(8) : zone was developed ,for applica-
tion in the Worth Bayshore area. The sole criterion was traffic
generation. They were now lifting a zone that had been intended
to eliminate uses with high traffic generation characteristics.
The GM(8) zone generally matched the /kinds of businesses they were
comfortable with in the area and was the best match of -existing
zones to the conditions found there. A few use categories in the
GM(8) district —administrative , offices and research and develop-
ment (R&D) --were different in kind from the uses that were at
present found 1 n the area al ong Park Boulevard. Al though it was a
concern, it was neverthel ess a cl oser match than any other zoni ng
district they hard. Staff was reluctant to put forward yet another
entirely new zoning district for application to the property,
although it might be worth considers ng for future fine tuni ng.
Councilmember Woolley agreked there -was a great proliferation of
zones. As the area had been singled out for study and they were
reaching the point of fine tuning the zoning, she asked how her
colleagues felt about c reati ng yet another zone to exclude the
administrative offices and the RM(D) uses.
Mr. Freeland said that although he was becoming nervous about the
number of districts they were creating he would not resist an
assignment to look further at the GM(B) district, particularly in
regard to that area and the North Bayshore. area for which it had
been originally invented, to consider whether the zone would still
serve if administrative offices and R&D were deleted. He thought
there was a good chance i t would. The zone could very well be
used in other areas under consideration for the CS and GM assign-
ment related to the moratorium of the previous week. He thought
it would be useful, when l ooki ng at those other areas, to ask the
same question --was the mix of uses in the GM(B) zone correct for
all the different areas where they would consider its use, .They
were two candidates for deletion from the district. There were
very few, if any, administrative office services in the North
Bayshore area, so there might be no need for that category in the
GM(B) zone. .The process i n i nventi ng the zone was simply to
delete uses with a higher than average traffic generation.
1 Mayor Klein said that while they were still in the question
period, motions and directions to staff were not suitable.
Councilmember Fletcher obtained confirmation from Mr. Freeland
that the Hewl ett-Packard world headquarters i n the. Stanford
Industrial Park were cl.assifiod as administrative offices and that
it was possible for an administrative office to have intensive
use. She asked if it would be possible to define administrative
offices for that particular zone as occupying less than a certain
percentage of the site. It could be a requirement that the admin-
istrative office be related to the use on the site and occupy a
mi nor part of the site i n relation to the remai nder.
Mr. Freel and said that was a descripti:Fa of an accessory use.
Even if it were removed from the district, administrative office
services could occur on a site as long as they were accessory to a
main permitted Use. That was always the case for accessory uses.
Councilmember Fletcher 'considered that to be a good solution.
Ms. Lee referred back to the .Code requirements, which gave . two
different procedures.. As she had previously ,.,,_iz`ioned, there was
an initiative ordinance into.. which the 1555 provisions of the
Government Code had been incorporated, which . resulted i n some very
confusing language regarding the adoption of Comprehensive. Plans.
It would be necessary under either procedure for a pu: llc hearing
to be noticed and held. However, the question of whether the
matter had to go back to the r41 ann.! ng Commission could be deter-
mined in different ways. She interpreted it in the way the law..
provided, which: was to have a reasonable construction. As there
had al ready been a report from the pl arming Commission, no purpose
would be served in gel ng back to the Commission for a second.
When an item started at the Council,- was referred to the Commis-
sion and came back to the Council, she did not consider it neces-
sary for it to return to the Commission. Only when an item
started at the Commission and came to the Council and the Council
wished to charge it, did she interpret the procedure to require
that it go back to the Commission. In the present case, the Coun-
cil could have the hearing, but the item did not need to ` be
returned to the Commission.
4 8.4..7
'/16/84'
Mayor Klein questioned the amount of employment at that time on
the Maxi_mart• site and what could be anticipated under a mixed use
in the future. Page 5 of the staff report of June I stated that •
one-third of the site was currently vacant. Other parts of the
report i ndi c ated 300 to 350 employees as bei ng currently on the
site. . He asked if staff had verified - the number independently.
Ms. Mel ena said staff had not been %col a to do so. The number came
from the property owners. The Council might wish to check the
current number of empl oyees with them.
Mayor Kl ei n said the report i ndi c aced the site was used for wa re-
housi ng. It was a very high number of employees for warehousi ng.
Ms. Mel ena agreed it seemed a high number of employees for that
use, -but staff had no way of goi ng out to check the numbers given.
Also, she had the impression that during the past year the use had
varied from month to month.
Mayor K1 ei n asked what number of empl oyees staff estimated 120,000
square feet of office space would produce.
Ms. Helena said that in the Environmental Assessment (E IA) staff
mentioned 300 to 350 jobs for that number of square feet.
Mayor Klein asked how the number was computed, and how it compared
with other sites i n town.
Mrs Freeland said it reflected a level of employee density signif-
icantly less than one would expect in an office building, being
between two to three workers per thousand square feet. It was
consi stent with R&D acts vi ti es in tears of employee density in
Stanford Industrial Park.
Mayor Klein obtained Mr. Freeland's confi rmation that •office use
would be approximately doubled. He asked how many housing units
300 empi oyees transl ated i nto.
Mr. Freeland said it would mean 200 housing units.
Counci lmember Bechtel asked Mr. F reel and if the area was zoned for
R&D, how staff would ensure it remained as such and not be con-
verted into offices--adnii nistrative or otherwise. She did not
want to know how the zoni ng book said it would be done, but how it
wasedonepractically, realistically, and logically.
Mr. Freeland said a problem arose because some industrial compan-
ies, without change of occupants of buildings, could change func-
tions. Many of the buildings in the- Industrial Park were very
flexible about the types of activities that could go on inside
them. They had to be designed in that way to be used by the types
of industrial firms the City had: The problem was that it was
possible for use to change from R&D to offices without the City
necessarily knowing about it. Supposedly there would be some Bled
for internal changes when the building was remodeled requiring
permits to be i ssued by the Sulldi ng Department, At that poi nt,
forms would have to be filled out indicating the use. He could
not guarantee that staff would learn, or be able to put:, together,
a picture showing the use was changing from R&D to office. He
could say they were di sti nctly different from a defi ni ti onal poi nt
of ' view.- Staff could enforce the zoning ordinance if they di s --
covered a change had been made. However, if gradual change took
place over time it was entirely possible staff would be unaware.
Cod nc i l member Woolley asked Mr. Freeland if it would be ea i er to
monitor any change from R&D to offices for a property under a PC
versus a GM(B) zone if it included R&D as a permitted use.
Mr. Freeland said exactly the same problem would arise. The dis-
tinction was cl early defi ned. The same problem arose whether they
had the need to enforce those definitions through a PC or regular
zoning. It was not a real problem, but a potential one.
Councilmenber Woolley said she might not thoroughly understand the
PC. From Council discussion about the shopping center at Embarca-
dero and Bayshore, she: had the . impression that- PC's were an on-
going commitment.
Mr. Freeland said that although they tried to inspect PC',s from
time to time, they were more concerned with whether the land-
scaping was in good order, if new buildings the staff was unaware
of had sprung up, etc. The PC would have an advantage in that the
inspector could go inside and look, but it might be difficult to
discern a difference without close inspection.
Mayor Klein declared the public heari no_ open on items 11, 12, and
13, which had. been consolidated.
Stephanie Sussman, 739 Josi na Avenue, said she would like the site
to be all housing. She had lived in the area for 18 years and was
very familiar with it. The City's theme was housing need. The
size and site were ideal ---close to transportation but not directly
on El Camino or the railroad tracks. It was large enough to be
developed into a sel f-contai nevi neighborhood with attractive land-
scaping, with both rentals and owner occupied homes. The proposed
$30,000 income ceiling was too low for Palo Alto. People earning
more needed moderate income housing. A. person earning $40,000
should spend $1,250 a month for housing, but the lowest Palo Alto
rental was $1,200. Apartments rented for $1,000 and up, and most
three or four bedroom houses rented at $1,600 upwards. The em-
phasis should be on family, so more three -bedroom units were re-
quired. both the mixed use and all residential housing would gen-
erate traffic. The main traffic in the City was duri ng the busi-
ness day and mixed use would contribute heavily to it. Weekend
and evening residential traffic was lighter. There was a danger
of RS0 being mixed with housing. RS0 generated much garbage and
chemicals. Machinery made noise, and there would be continual
delivery trucks. It was not a good combination for the site,
Robert Bleibler, 559 Cherry Avenue, Los Altos, said that for 81
years, four generations of his family hid run their business. It
was located at 411 Page Mill Road and was necessary, as they made
repairs for people, and generated only three-; or four cap trips
daily. The staff report agreed that the area Was noisy. It was
too noisy for 'housing, and people lived there only because they
could not afford to move. It would be very expensive to move his
business. A $500,000 offer r for it had been withdrawn. He could
not 'find a place i n Palo Alto large enougho He had moved out of
High Street 31 years, ago to the present site because he thought it
would never be built up. If the Council decided to put him out of
business 3 he would take them to court to buy him an equivalent
site, with the cranes and other necessary machinery.
Councilmember Bechtel asked Mr. Freeland if -Mr. Bleibler would be_
Allowed to stay i n the area's She -understood that the proposed
zoning would allow him to_ stay.
Mr.. _Freel and said fir. Biei,hler's use would be unaffected by the
change i n-- zoni n ;,
Mr, Bleibler thanked Counci imei ber Bechtel..
of'1 earni ng whether he could_ stay.
He had not had a way
Boyd - Smith,: 755. Page Mill Road, spoke for the owners -of the Maxi
mart property. He - highlighted several statements in the staff
report of June 1, 1984, which was generally thorough and accurate.
Page 8, of the report stated that if the holding costs (incurred
4.8 0'9
7/16/84
1
between completiuri and sale of a unit) extended beyond estimates,
actual construction costs would greatly increase, reducing profit
levels drastically. Page 10 reported that the lowest priced con-
dominium units ($130,000) at an 11 percent interest rate would be
affordable to households earning 141 percent of the County median.
Page 12 said that market rate units would probably be affordable
only to househol ds earns ng 150-220 percent of medi an i ncome. Page
19 said that mixed use with R&D would generate the lowest number
of weekly trips. Page 22 said that if the site was zoned Multiple
Family Residents al but not developed for 15 years, its i nterim use
would woesen traffic. Page. 25 .said an all -housing policy could
delay redevelopment for 15 years or longer, The E IR estimated a
mixed use concept would result in the creation of 300-350. jobs,
nearly equivalent to the existing number. The property had been
in transition for the past year. They had pl armed for mixed Use
development and either allowed 1 eases to lapse or refused exten-
sion. The 350 employees figure was accurate in late fall 1983
when a survey was made. There had been significant move -out si nce
that time. Much more than one-third of the property was presently
vacant. He spoke in favor of a mixed use development to include
120,000 square feet of R&D and 95 units of rental housing. He did
not agree with the holding costs mentioned in the staff report.
The absorption rate for major housing developments i n the City was
one to two units per month in 1983 when interest rates were sub-
stanti ally lower. The cost of an average unit would be $20,000 to
$40,000 higher than the costs given i n the report, destroyi ng any
possibility of financial vi ability, al ready indicated by the
report to be precarious. No one would develop a project doomed to
failure from the beginning. The traffic impact of all -housing was
equivalent to mixed. use. In November, 1983 some people had ex-
pressed the hope of federal funds to make housing viable. He
referred to the Peni nsul a Times Tribune of July 14, 1984, i n which
a senator staterTi prices on the Peni nsul a were so high he
doubted Congress could ever design a program to help home builders
in they area. A schoolteacher he knew who had taught i n Palo Alto
for 17 years and earned $27,000 could not afford to rent or buy i n
Palo Alto. He knew 11 recently graduated Stanford couples who
could not locate i n Palo Alto. The best the nation could: produce
would be barred from living in the r.ity unless its government
faced the economic realities of the maeketpl ace. BMR units were
only a token. A rental housing development on the site would pro-
vide affordable units to young married couples, the elderly, and
professionals who could not afford to buy a home i n Palo Alto. It
would not exacerbate the jobs/housi ng imbalance. There were 350
people working on the site wi th a potential for more who would be
replaced by the R & D. The traffic would not be appreciably dif-
ferent from all -housing. More importantly, it would serve as an
exampl e to the entire county . of how affordabl e housi ng and R&D
buildings: could be built. By approving all -housing, the Council
would ensure the site remai ni ng i n its present use for at least 15
years. The developers were trying to build affordable housing.
They could not, and would not build the typical $140,000 -upwards
Pal o Alto condominium. The site would not support it. By zoning
the surround/ rig area light Manufacturi ng, the Council made it more
difficult to eve e erect housi ng. It was unrealistic. The devel-
opers offered a mixed use'. development that would not create new
jobs, but would offer a net gain of 95 affordable housi ng units.
Councilmemb i. Cobb asked Mr. Smith .if the type of mixed .use proj-
ect proposed would move ahead on a short tern schedule if the
Pl anni ng Commission recommendation were approved,
Mr. Smith said that would now be more difficult. A contract for
$350,000 to reroof the warehouses was at present under way, and
some leases on the perimeter of the property had been executed.
Some parts could be done immediately, but other parts would have
to be deferred, because having reed the writing on th y, wall, they
were geari ngup to put the. property back in use.
Councilmember Bechtel asked Mr. Smith if they envisioned being
able to meet tie general conditions • proposed by staff, such as a
20 -year rental.
Mr. Smith said the,', could meet the 20 -year rental, although other
questions would h l'ie to be worked out.
Councilmember Bechtel asked if the rental units would afterwards
be sold at market price.
Mr. Smith said that was the current plan. It was difficult to
know what rout d happen i n 20 years' time.
Councilmember Bechtel remarked on the reroofing work, and thought
it would be difficult to complete the project in 18 months, or
even to start construction.
Mr. Smith said that parts could go ahead du ri ng that period.
Councilmember Bechtel asked if he referred to. R&D or housi ng.
Mr. Smith said any work would have to obtain City approval . They
would not be all owed to go ahead with the R&D and not the housi ng.
The work would have to be done on a phased basis in a way approved
by the City.
Mary Ann Loughran, 1177 Amarillo, #3, asked the Council to approve
either al 1 -housing wi th some rental, or some rental with R&D. She
was a renter who lived alone, and would like to see affordable
rentals for families because four or five people were now living
in one -bedroom apartments.. One -bedroom apartments would then be
freed for secretaries like herself. It was difficult to get a
secretary to work in Palo Alto because it meant a commute. She
would like to be able to stay in Palo Al to,
Millie Davis, 344 Tennessee Lane, brought 108 petitions respondi ng
to an advertisement in the July 4, 1984 Palo Alto Weekly concern-
i ngj the Maximart site. Peti ti ons were s ei rrg rece ved, and
read: "Please change the land use of the Maximart property, ex-
cept for .the small businesses along Lambert, f rom Commercial to
Residential." They were received from Crescent Park to Green
Meadow and showed support for the all -housing project, as did
polls in the Charleston/Meadows area. There was little support
for offices. Because of the severe housing shortage, the greatest
net housing was top priority.
Denny Petrosi an, 443 Ventura Avenue, said the property owners had
often contributed to Palo Alto's welfare, but the mixed use pro-
posal had strong long-term disadvantages. The Oregon Eastbound
on -ramp was the most critical and limiting traffic factor. Mixed
use would bring the level of service down to "E." The staff
report did not cal cul ate a 40 percent margi n of error, and the
reserve of 80 cars would be absorbed by the mixed use. If the
Council intended to reduce offices, traffic and the impact on the
housi ng market and preserve the small businesses, .i t was unfair to
deny it to some yet allow one property owner three times the size
of 3101 Park Boulevard, the employees and the traffic Some work-
ers on the property would be displaced by any development. The
Council had an extremely rare opportunity --a, clear shot at 12.5
acres. The moratorium was to look at the availability of the
large, scarce resource for multi -family housi ng. She did not want
co have only 10 BMR units left for the public benefit after 15 or
20 years. She urged 100 percent multiple family housing for an
immediate benefit of 38 BMR's, a net reduction in employment, and
increase in the housing stock . As a renter she was stressed by
the Jobs/housing imbalance. The mixed use would_ cause a . deficit
of as many is 300 housing units. Office use alone could bring in
600 employees. If only 95 housing units were provided, a 1.5 job
figure per unit would give a 300 deficit of housing, a calculation
she offered to explain later. Housing needed a strong residential
identity, but the 95 units would be isolated i n a growing indust-
rial area. It would mean primarily market rate housing, which it
was said would not sell in Palo Alto. The developer p1 anned to
develop some in the future, but if it would not sell now, it would
not sell then. The rezoni ng of school sites to residenti al shoul d
stop if housing would not sel l . The low-cost rental option was
attractive, but by that time the current Council would not be able
to ensure the public benefits. It was not bad if residential l and
use caused del ay. Any development woul d take several. years. Hope
should not be given up for a 1 arge, subsidized development in the
future. The Cl ty supported the Palo Alto Housing Corporation
(PAHC). A Council 15 years earlier had zoned certain parcels
residenti al . Devel opment was del eyed, but there was now housi ng.
P1 anni ng meant usi ng such foresight. Park Boulevard should be
rezoned GM(B), with administrative offices only as accessory to
another permitted use and limited to 5,000 square feet. She
passed charts showing turning pattern problems of the GM(B) zone
with the 216 Page Mil Road development which would cause problems
bicyclists. The project needed more review,, and should not be
grandfathered i n. The p roperty apps led for should be rezoned
GM(B) with the rest of the strip.
Bob boss, 4010 Orme, said that Table 1, page 16 of the June 1
staff report, showed that only the pure RM-3 zone would not have a
significant adverse impact on the traffic capacity of the ramp,
and Table 2, page 18 showed that i t was the only zone that did not
create a decrease of level of service to HE at least one inter-
section i n the .limed' ate vicinity. Referring to Table 3 on page
20, al though the RM-3 zone did not create the lowest number of
trips on either a daily or weekly basis, it created the fewest
peak hour trips. As the most appropriate zone for the Maximart
site appeared to be RM-3, he urged the Council to adopt the re-
zoni ng ordinance before it. When consideri ng zoni ng and ' and use,
the Council should not also consider economics. The zoning and
land use in Palo Alto should not be decided by the prime rate or
the efficiency of developers. If the Council bent with the eco-
nomic wi nd, it would have no effective land use pl an for the City.
He urged that all the area crosshatched, including 216 Page Mill
Road, be rezoned GM(B) . The problem of administrative offices
could be handled by p1 aci ng an absolute limit on the amount of
square feet for admi nistrative purposes as an accessory to other
uses. Al ternatively, a certai n amount could be penal tted use,
with anything above being a conditional use, although conditional
uses created much staff work. On page 13, Table 6 of the Park
Boulevard GM study, scenario 2 for a full build -out showed zero
capacity for the on- ramp at Oregon Expressway and Page Mill Road.
That meant that the GM(B), not i nci udi ng the Maximart site, would
be at the limit of capacity. Additional development in the area
would create level of service !Ep at the intersections and the
on -ramp duri ng peak hours. When the Council adopted the morator-
ium on the GM zone and allowed the development at 216 Park
Boulevard to go forward, both Counci lmember Woolley and Mayor
Klein explicitly stated that when it returned to the. Council, they
would have had the advice and ;ounsel of the Planning Commission,
as it woul d have been referred to the Planning Commission and . the
ARS. That had not happened. The ARB rescinded thei r referral to
the Commission, which had not studied or made recommendations on
the site. Mayor Klein also stated that al 1 rani ng it to proceed was
nota commitment- to grandfather it in. The approval by the ARB on
the previous Thursday woul d become final after 10 days, unless it
was appealed, The adoption of the ordinance that evening would
not automatically: grandfather in the project at 216 Page Mill
Road. He thought the building was good looking, but objected to
20,000 square feet of .offices on the site and the resul ti ng traf-
fic. He would find it acceptable if the developers dedicated it
to a lower -intensity use. However, if they insisted on _going for.
ward with. offices someone -might very well appeal the ARR deci-
sion.
1
Harold Hohbach had an office building at 260 Sheridan Avenue. His
letter of July 12 outl i ned events si nce the moratorium. The ARB
meeting scheduled for July 5, 1984 had been put off until the
12th, so he had not obtai ned a verbatim transcript of the meeti ng.
He asked the City Clerk to give the Council his revised Schedule
A. He had obtained unanimous approval from the ARB--no smal
task --which applauded the design and approved the project, which
r±net many of the problems they raised. The architect had done an
outstands ng job with a difficult site. It would not pose a traf-
fic problem but help the whole arca. He asked that i t be grand-
fathered out of the GM( B) ordi nonce, i f enacted.
Doug Hohbach, 204 Sheridan, said he resided directly across Page
Mill Road from the site. He showed shots of what motorists, bi-
cyclists, and pedestrians experienced as they went round the site,
the previous uses of which were a service station, a junk yard, a
towi ng site, etc. He showed the view the Hewlett-Packard employ-
ees had. It was an industrial area, surrounded en three sides by
roads, with the cement plant directly across the street. Staff
ag reed it was u nsui tzbl a for housing. The best possible use was
as an office buildi no'. The ARB recognized it as a 1 andmark site.
There were possibilities for it to have a very nice appearance
i nstead of its present sub -par use.
Mike Lyzwa, 87 Encina Avenue, an architect for Hoover Associates,
said the site posed several probl ems, bei ng surrounded on three
sides by streets, with a continuous flow of traffic and much
noise. It was an oasis in the middle of vehicul ar and pedestrian
traffic and called the "gateway to Palo Alto" by members of the
Planning Commission and the ARB, who required the building and
scheme to be very significant and a calling card for the City.
They had designed a building to fit the existing site ---triangular,
curvilinear, with a retaining wall, green colors and on a slope.
The site was a pedestal, the retai ni ng wall 1 and the vi ne-covered
si ope were used, and a bus 1 di ng was put in that was sleek, rel at-
ively narrow, proportionally correct, and not overly imposing upon
its neighbors --the Hewlett-Packard parki ng lot, the cement plant
and the Oregon Expressway. They had picked up on the existing
colors with green -polished stone, green glass, and an open arcade
to scale the building down from the pedestrian sites on Park
Boulevard and Page Mill Road. He showed slides of the projected
building from various views. The surrounding wall also screened
out noise and created a buffer. There was a water feature in the
riddle of the courtyard which would also block out traffic noise.
It was the correct building for the site
Councilrnember Bechtel asked Mr. Lyzwa to confi r i.. the building was
20,000 square feet i n size.
Mr. Lyzwa said it was. They ° were below the 1:1 ratio for the
site. In answer to Councilmember Bechtel's further question, he
said there were four parki ng spaces per 1,000, as requi red by the
City, which meant 80 parks erg spaces with two handicapped stalls.
Peter Stern, 2274 Princeton Street, said Governor Cuomo had spoken
at the democratic convents on about the magni ficent mosaic that was
America. College Terrace and California Avenue neighborhoods had
been a magnificent Mosaic, but restaurants and shall service areas
were being replaced by new office buildings and it was getting
ever harder to afford housing there. In College Terrace the aver-
age increase since 1965 was 600 percent and it was very hard to
rent for under $1,000. If the Council could influence an area as
large as the Maximart . site by zoning, they should see that it was
devoted:. to housing. He had na recommendations about the different
mixes, but only asked that they cut back on the changes in the
mosaic of the area. They had. vet 01 quently drawn the line the
previous week on office dui 1 di ng construction, and should . now pur-
sue the momentum in shaping that dust rl`ct of . Palo Alto.
Jon Parsons, 323 Macl ane, spoke in favor of all -residents al hous-
ing on the Maximart site and against the g e andl afi heri ng i n of the
development on Page Mill Road. Referring to the area being a
"gateway to Palo Alto," he found i t ironic or fitting that it was
composed of two office buildings. It was difficult for the Coun-
cil to make the decisions with which the citizens would have to
live. There was no question that all-housi ng was the best thing
for Palo Alto. However, some housing was better than none. He
remembered the impasse with Stanford West. He urged the Council
to go for all- residential housing, and apologized for the 1 ateness
with which he entered his card.
Mayor Kl.ei n declared the public heari ng closed.
RECESS FROM 9:25 .V....2.:_19_12 2 p.m.
Mayor Kl ei n suggested that the ratters be taken up in the order
listed on the agenda, while recognizing that items 11, 12, and 13
were combined. The Council should make references among them as
it deemed appropriate.
NOTION: Caunciluember Cobb moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to
adopt the Planning Commission recommendations for a mixed use con-
cept for development of the _former Maximart site at 3180-3200 Park
Boulevard/300-380 Portage as follows:
1) Finding that the actions will not have an adverse environment-
al impact; and
2) Rezone to RN -3, but leave the land use crap as i s . Adopt a
policy encouraging a PC application subject to conformance to
the fol 1 owi ng:
A) The uses on the site should be limited to
(a) not. more than 120,000 square feet of manufacturing,
admi ni strative office, research and development or
other uses allowed in the Gill(B) zone; and
(b) at least 95 housing units; and
8) The housing on the site should be subject to negotiation
regarding the following general conditions:
(a) It should be rented for a minimum of 21 ;cars, afford-
able;: to households with a maximum income of $30,000
(1984 doll ars), with yearly rental rate 1 nc reases
limited to Consumer Price Index changes;
(b) Housing development acid units should be appropriate for
families —units should have at least two bedrooms;
(c) Existing residents at the time of conversion from
rental to ownership should be given a minimum one year
advamce noticebefore their units are to be Converted.
Existing tenants must be given reasonable opportunity
to purchase units before the general public;
(d) When the units are .sold, they will fall :under the
City's B14R provisions;
3) Reduce the development potential of other properties in the
Park Boulevard corridor th rough appropri ate zoning as
recommei4ed in the Part Boulevard Study;
4) Modify the d pratoiriup oral reeve to allow acceptance of an..
application for a PC xode{based On mixed use; and
5) Terminate the •oritorius ordinance for the ON and CS parce1 s
fronting on lambert and Ash Streets. Further. adopt ordinance :.
rezoning the site from CS to ill -3.
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION
18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL. CODE (THE ZONING
MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY
KKOWN AS 3200 PARK BOULEVARD ('MAXIMART SITE') FROM CS
TO RM-3"
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
ALTO TERMINATING THE MORA-
TORIUM ON THE. PROCESS OF APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING
APPROVALS IN THE AREA INCLUDING AND SURROUNDING 3200
PARK BOULEVARD (THE FORMER "MAXI$ART SITE')'
Councilmember Cobh said he took all the comments seriously, but
made the motion because the Planning Commission recommendation
offered the only possibility for some affordable rental housing.
Mary Ann Loughran had spoken very el oquently on the issue. Immed-
iate action was necessary because of immediate. need. The area had
needed redevelopment and revitalization since he was growing up.
It had long been a blight on the community and needed immediate
improvement. A zoning change that eliminated the mixed use possi-
bility would condemn the area to at least 15 more years of that
bl fight. The Planning Commission recommendation -simply 1 eft open
the possibility of a PC application on which they could negotiate
with the property owner to see if the ends laid out in the pro-
posals could be met. Presumably, if they could not be achieved,
the RM-3 zone would take effect and the all -housing would proceed.
The Planning Commission left the door for negotiations open, wntcn
should not be closed before the puss i L i i i,y had been explored,
The jobs/housing imbalance had been Much discussed. He, too, was
concerned, and had twice voted to extend the various moratoria to
the downtown area because the projects goi ng in there were bl owl ng
the jobs/housing imbalance completely out of the water. He could
cite one project of several that had as many square feet as the
mixes use project, with no public benefit of immediate, affordable
housing. The mixed use project suggested was awash with regard to
the jobs/housing. It was a sufficient benefit, as it would help
people such Ms. Loughran while they were still around to be
hel ped. Al -housi ng zoni ng would cl ose the door on the Mixed use
possibility --it was only a possibility-- and would mean nothing
built for 15 years, and only then if the economics of the housing
market had changed. The staff report, which he considered some-
what optimistic, said that any housi ng built on the site would be
market rate. Except for the BMR units, they would be far above
affordability and prices people such as Ms. Loughran could pay.
The Council had to-, recognize that any action should be taken in
the context of future acts en. He assumed his colleagues would
join him in acting favorably on the GM{ B) zone. An all -housing
zoning on the Maximart site would put tremendous pressure on the
Council to preserve small busi nesses. He -compared housi ng erected
back-to-back with such businesses-- sometimes the cleanest and
prettiest i n the world —with the situation where people put hous-
ing near an airport, then yelled to have the airport moved. The
potential for a similar situation was there. Mountain View was
adding some 5,000 to 7,000 jobs right on Palo Alto's border, which
Palo Alto could. do nothi ng, about. New offices were goi ng i n down-
town at a terrifying rate. Nothing had been done about that so
far. The proposed project was very gall in comparison, and
ground was being lost very fast on the jobs/ housial- lmbal once i:n
tithe :, areas. They could not do as much about that as they wished,
but could do something about �nother important poi nt---the "mosaic"
described by one speaker. Palo Alto did, not want one kind of up-
per middle clas.`. resident, but' a diversity', or mr�.saic.._ Jobs and
housing were getting - out of c9ntrol, but the Council could main-
tain diversity by acting immediately on the possibility of the
xed. Use proposal .
Vice Mayor Levy . offered the same arguments,, but from the other,
side. He agreed that limiting ' employment was an impb rtant need
for the community and that the housi ng base should be expanded
wherever possible. However, he did not agree that Councilmeieber-
possible. However, V f l 1 i \. {� � . �i
should throw in their hands about 11 i1 ti ug etiipl uyu'e nt. There
should be as much housing as possible in keeping with the nature
of the community they were trying to develop in Palo Alto, with as
much BMR housing as possible. Developing the Maximart site for
all -housing would accomplish those objectives. There were six
trade-offs. The fi rst was that mixed use would provide 350 jobs
and 95 BMR housing units, whereas all -residential would provide
350 housing units, of which 10 percent would be BMR, and no Jobs.
The second was that a mixed use would generate 305 peak -hour trips
against 200 trips from a residential development. Next, the mixed
use would. provide 95 BMR units; the all -residential would provide
35. The mixed use would provide 95 rentals against approximately
140 rentals from all -residential . Most . of the latter would be at
affordable levels. Data developed in Palo Alto indicated that 40
percent of condominiums were rented, so a substantial number of
rentals would still occur i f the project was developed as all -
residenti al and condoms niums. Another trade-off was whether an
immediate mi xed-use devel opment was preferabl e to a rest denti al
development i n 15 .years.- He was not convinced that there would be
an automatic 15 -year wait, as the numbers he had run indicated an
all - resi denti al development at RM-3 density would be profitable
and provide an incentive for the developer to move ahead expedi-
tiously. A 15 -year wait would be worth it to develop the area
properly. The final trade-off concerned the living environment.
Putts ng 95 rental units i n the middle of an essenti ally commercial
area was not wise from a pl anni ng point of view. There were i nev-
itabl a conflicts from mixing commercial and residenti al develop-
ments. Unless there were clear and substantial benefits from
doing so, his instinct told him it was unwise. For economic,
planning. and environmental reasons, he considered the best use
for the site was all -residents al . He would oppose the P1 anni ng
Commission recommendation and replace it with one for all- resi-
dential. He asked for advice or. how to proceed. He endorsed the
PI anni ng Commi ssion recommendati on for RM-3 zoni ng for the site,
but not the concept of goi ng beyond that to encourage a mixed use
PC.
Mayor Klein said they could vote the motion on the floor up or
down. Should it fail, it would be i n order to offer an amendment
to strike everything from the motion other than the ordinance
changing the zoning from CS to RM-3, then direct staff to bring
back an ordinance for a change s n the Comprehensive PI an.
Vice Mayor Levy felt it would be clearer to offer an amendment to
strike the mixed use concept.
Ms. Lee said a request for a resolution amends ng the Comprehensive
Plan accordingly should also be made.
AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Levy moved; seconded by Renzel , to delete
2) (1) Mixed use concept, and direct staff to bring back resolut-
ion amending Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Klein said the amendment Maul d delete everything from the
motion except the rezoning of the property from CS to RM-3 and
terms nation of the moratorium
Councilnember Witherspoon pointed out that the Planning Commission
had not recommpnded the map be changed to allow the mixed use.
The zoning would be changed to residential, but the land . use
designation would remai n.
Mayor .Klein said that was
di rection to the staff
Covnci lmember Witherspoon spoke t o opposition to ; the amendment-.
As discussedthe previous fall, she felt an opportunity was pre-
sented for a very high quality development to serve as an anchor;
for a neighborhood very much in transition. A number of property
why the amendment would include such
1
owners hod asked at the Planning Commission hearing what kind of
neighborhood i t would become --commercial or rest denti al . They did
not know whether to. put money 1 nto thei r, properties or get out. An
anchor for the neighborhood was important_ and overdue. Rental
housing would be the only affordable type of housing in town in
the future. Except for what the PAHC had been able to achieve, no
private developers had built rental housing in the town for as
long as she could remember. Tho only reason that rental housing
was any kind of bargain was because it did not keep up with the
costs and because, in addition to other subsidies, there was an
IRS tax break to the owner. She said Vice Mayor .Levy had said
that if the project went forward as all -housi ng, there would be a
certain amount of rentals. Traditionally, people bought condos on
enec and rented them out for the tax breaks. hoping the properties
Jul appreci ate. However, that had ended. - The carryi ng costs
were too high, and appreci ati on i n real estate over the past three
or four years had not kept up with expectations. As Soya Smith
had said, projects such as Palo Alto Central that had counted on a
certai n number of condomi niums bei ng bought on spec had not been
real l zed. She did not- blame Mr. Smith for not bei rig interested i n
producing a project that might get -caught in such a bind. They
would not get any housi ng--rental or otherwise unless the mixed
use project was explored. She would hate to see the opportunity
lost. It was a very exciting project that could turn the whole
neighborhood around. The :neighborhood did not have to be either
all residential or all commercial . It was an exciting possibility
to have a good mix of neighborhood cornmerci al bust nesses surround-
ing some high quality new housing projects, not only on that .site
but also on the other sites bei ng considered for rezoni ng.
Councilmember Fletcher said the proposal of the project held many
attractions for her as a strong proponent of affordable rental
housing. However, when balancing the number of jobs against the
number of rental s, she could see no justification for goi ng ahead.
The two biggest concerns in the City were the jobs/housi ng imbal-
ance, which would not be improved, and the traffic, for which
mixed use was not the best in that particular area. If the mixed
use were allowed on the site under a PC, all other sizable lots to
town would come in with similar proposals, and the additional
housing they had tried so hard to create would be lost i n rel ati on
to the jobs. Another problem with the mixed use was that it would
be very difficult, as staff had pointed out, to prevent conver-
sions to office uses from the RMD.. Employment on the site could
easily creep up from the projected 350 without the City learning
about it. The management of the Greenhouse agreed that 40 percent
of its condominiums were rented out. She ascertained from Mayor
Klein that the 216 Page Mill. Road project would not be considered
at that poi nt, then asked what zoning would be pl aced on the ..4e-
mai ni ng parcels on Lambert and Ash ' Streets, should the Planning
Commission recommendation to terminate the moratorium be
approved.
Mr. Freeland said the area was at present primarily in the CS
zone, with one parcel in the GM zone. . That zoning would remain in
effect. The area was, of course, subject to the other moratorium
on offices over 5,000 square feet, which would continue.
Councilmember Fletcher said she could go along with that.
Councilmember Sutorius associated himself fully with Council mem-
bers Cobb, and Witherspoon. He was unconvinced that the proposed
Planned Community project development would contribute unfavorably
to the jobs/housing imbalance. He- had either misunderstood the
calculations or their development. The site at • present had
273,500 square feet developed, with 90,000 square feet unoccupied.
At present ithad _a.CS- one under o.ratorium, ,with a potential -for
Over one million square feet' -of --development.,: The currant employ-
ment at the site was stated as , being In_= excess of 350. The cur-
rent averages used in' City data 'showed • the existing, -development.,
including -the unoccupied area, capable._of —accommodating -'upwards of
48 1 7_
7/16/84
700 to 800 employees . The 1 ndic ati ores were that if the P1 anrted
Community proposal was not endorsed and further explored, the
existi ng uses would be mai ntai ned for the life of the amortization
period. Therefore the City faced a 15 -year period with the poten-
ti al for growth i n excess of the current 350 employees. The capa-
city was there, and there was no reason to believe it would stay
at the 350 level for the enti re period. He contrasted that with
the Planned Community mixed use recommendation which proposed a
maximum of 120,000 square feet of limited uses for other than res-
idential- purposes. In addition, it could provide 95 housi ng units
with conditions that the Council had recognized and spoken to --
most notably a 20 -year rental period at a target income level
below 100 percent of the current median income for a three -person
household, which he understood was now $33,000, although the
materi al showed $30,000. Using City data proposed for the housi ng
mitigation ordi nance to be discussed the following week which cal -
cul ated 1.8 workers per working household, the 95 housing units
would accommodate 171 workers. The City figures for 120,000
square feet of non- residents al usage showed an average of 350
square feet per employee, or 343 employees, lower than the current
figure and perhaps half the number that could exist for a 15 -year
period if it were left in full development of the existing physi-
cal buildings. He further coat rasted that situation with hypo-
thetical ones.. If the proposed housing mitigation ordinance was
approved, a 120,000 square feet commercial only proposal would re-
qui re a total of five units to be contributed to .the BMR program,
based on 120,000 square feet of development, minus 20,000 square
feet threshold, with the square footage fo r ul a process applied to
develop, rounded off, five units, which at 1.8 workers per house-
hold, would accommodate nine employees. Alternatively, the devel-
oper would need to make a monetary payment of $50,000 per unit, or
a total of $250,000. He looked back over the materials capably
provided by staff and considered the economic information and the
monetary contribution the Planned Community proposal offered. By
providing housing that was the equivalent of accommodating 171
workers, it contributed 50 percent of the housing for the employ-
ment the project would generate. He agreed with Councilmembers
Cobb and Witherspoon that it was right and responsible to enter
into serious negotiations to see if they could make that occur.
With regard to the concern that employment might creep over cur-
rent estimates, he wished to amend the amendment so that under
Item (2) of the main motion, paragraph (a) would remain as is,
paragraph (b) would become (c) and a new paragraph (b) would be
inserted.
AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilmember Sutori us moved to insert
language as follows: (b) °Employment on site unrelated to housing
shall not exceed at any time 343 persons.'
Councilmember Sutorius saidethe additional condition would ensure
that employment would not creep up and that concerns about the
acknowledged limiting uses would not be bypassed. It would also
set a limit below existi ng employment, and perhaps a hal f, or
more, of what empl o,yment could grow to :over the 15 -year period
they would face by reioni peg to all-housi ng.
Mayor Ki ei n ruled the proposed amendment to the amendment out of
order. Should the amendment be defeated, a further amendment to
the 1 anguege of the motion could then be made. However, if the
amendment passed, the language Councilmember Sutorius wished to
amend would have disappeared.
Counci lmer'b:er Renzel associated herself with Vice Mayor Levy and
Councilmember Fletcher. Many stati sttca1 arguments had been
bandied about. It was important to remember they were discussing
one sizable piece of land of over 12 acres offering a tremendous
opportunity tor good City planning. The serious situation of the
jobs/housing problem was known. Although it was highly tempting
to consider the mixed use project because of its rental opportuni-
ties, it'provided only half the housing_ it would generate. In the
meantime as Councilmember Cobb had pointed out, the Council was
very slow to move in a number ot other areas i n town where rampant
development was taki ng pl ace, which fuel ed the c ri sis. The office
bui l di ng might be a drop in the bucket rel ative to the overall
problem in terms of added office space, but there was a clear
probl em all over town of job generation without commensurate hous-
ing generation. The location was suitable and of ample size to
design and create a neighborhood. It was very important to pursue
i t . She was willing to wait, although she was unconvinced it
would be 15 years. They were 1 ooki ng at long- range p1 anning and
the picture they had of the future of Palo Alto. Her picture was
of all -housi ng.
Councilmernber Woolley opposed the amendment and supported the main
motion for one major reason --need. They: all agreed there was no
way Palo Alto could supply all the housing the community could
use. They agreed that the housing built should be affordable.
Without goi ng deeply into figures, the affordable range emphasized
i n the Comprehensive Pl an was either low income housi ng--less than
80 percent of the medi an i ncome, or medi an i ncome-80 to 120 per-
cent of the medi an. In only a. few p1 aces, al though she woul d like
to see it in more, was mention made of supplying housing for
middle income people --120 to 150 percent of the median. According
to the staff report, the most probable housing resulting from all
residential zoni ng would be higher than all those categories. It
would not be unique, but of the kind they were al ready getti ng and
which often stood empty. It would not help those whom the Council
would most like to help, and so she supported the main motion but
not the amendment. A bonus she was enthusi estic about was that
the development would be made by the private sector. So far, most
of the housi no produced in the low and moderate i ncome range had
been done through a governmental agency. It was highly 1 audable
that the housi ng in question would be done by the private sector.
Councilmember Bechtel found the mixed projectproposed very tempt-
ing. However, when weighing the pluses and minuses, she felt they
were being confused by the affordability issue. What fueled the
demand for housing in the area was its attractiveness and the jobs
there. They added to the demand for housing which, when i n i nsuf-•
ficient supply, would increase the cost of both rental and for
sale. They should not be deluded that the housing would be
affordable forever. The staff now proposed a 20 year rental
instead of 10 years, which was more attractive. Nevertheless,
there would be increases i n rent. There were tremendous risks in
conti nui ng to rent, as the cost of rental housi ng conti nually
increased. Because the housing would not offset the added jobs,
she supported the amendment.
Mayor Klein said his colleagues had been very eloquent. He com-
mended Vice Mayor Levy for his thorough analysis, with which he
associated himself. The Council had an opportunity to reduce the
number of jobs in the crmmunity and add a significant amount of
housing . They would have to be patient, although he was not sure
it would take 15 years. For a perceived short-term:. benefit, they
would have to give up a reach larger long-term benefit. As he was
not willing to' do that, he .supported the amendment.
AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Cobb, Sutcri rs, Witherspoon,
Woolley voting aO."
MOTION PASSED, es amended, by a Crete of 5-4, , Cobb, Witherspoon,•
Sutorias, Volleys,voting "no
Mayor Klein said the Council would flow consider the interrelated
Items 12 and 13.
Ms. _Lee; said that a member of the public and a CQunciimesber hat
raised questions about, the 2),6 P=age: Mill Road -property and the
proper interpretation of -the grandfather . clause.. As it was
presently:- written, the ._clause would be :triggered in ort0 .instance
by the approval of the Director of planning ..and Community Envi ron-
merit.
11684
Tnat action would occur as of the effective date of the ordi nance,
45 days hence. To avoid a semantic argument, she asked the Coun-
cil to advise her whether they wanted the parcel included or not,
so she could offer the appropri ate i anguage.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the GM(B) zone had yet been
created.
1
1
Mayor Klein said he gathered the GM(S) zone was created i n consid-
eration of the east of Bayshore area the previous year,
NOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Sutorius
to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation that the GM(B)
zone (a combining zone which prohibits uses with high traffic and
employment generati ng potential) be revised:
I) To allow general business services .as a conditional use, and
2) To allow existing and approved general offices to remain as
lawful conforming uses but not allow them to expand --either
for offices or other uses as long as the primary use on the
site is general officer (a grandfather clause).
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE
tIMITCTrarrrm=m—urinnorALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 18.57
OF THE PALO ALTO MDNICPAL CODE (GENERAL MANUFACTURING
COMBINING DISTRICT) REGARDING GENERAL BUSINESS SERVICES
AND GENERAL BUSINESS OFFICES"
Mayor Klein said . that under Item 12 they would discuss the 216
Page Mill Road issue, administrative offices, and R&D uses.
Councilmember Renzel referring to 216 Page Mill Road, . asked if it
would be incorporated into Section 2 (B) if no specific action
was taken and assuming there was no appeal of the ARB decision.
Mr. Freeland agreed it would be so if the! ARB decision was not
appealed and if, under Item 13, the zoning of 216 Page Mill Road
was changed to GM(B). The ARB approval would then stand and the
project could proceed under the grandfather ci ause, as written.
Mayor Klein asked the City Attorney if the ordi nan;:e would return
for a first or a second reading if the Council directed her to
prepare language that would allow 216 Page Mill Road to go for-
ward, regardless of whether or not it was appealed.
Ms. Lee said she would give the appropri ate language that event ng.
Mayor Klei n said the 1 anguage should grandfather in the property,
regardless of whether or not it was appealed. He was not attempt-
ing to prejudge an appeal, but rather to ensure that a different
standard would be used at that time,
Councilmember Fletcher opposed the amendment, because when the
project was 'diScussed earlier the Council had acknowledged that it
would create traffic problems. It was understood that there would
be discussion at the Planning. Commission level on how to address
the problem the traffic would generate at that particularly bad
spot at the on- ramp to the Oregon) Expressway. All . the praise the
project . received at the ARB had dealt with design. From the
material the Council had been given, it appeared the traffic prob-
lem had not been addressed at all The real crisis there was the
traffic at the on -ramp to the Expressway. It did not make sense
to invite a level of service to cause such a problem.
Couhcilieember Renzel . concurred with Councilmember Fletcher that
the :`::ARB had been quite impressed by the razzle-dazzle of_= the
design but had not dealt wl th the i me rrel ati o nshi p of the proper-
ty and the traffic in the overall area. She procedurally opposed
4 8 2 0
7/16/84
the motion. She did not know if an appeal was pendi ng, but to say
the Council would allow the approval to stand, regardless of an
appeal, suggested an appeal was futile and abused the process in
pl ace. For that reason she opposed the amendment.
Mayor Kl ei n said that was a mi sapp rehensi on of the amendment.
Grandfathering referred to the stage a particular application had
reached. It could, for example, be set at the time a proposal was
submitted to the Planning Department or the ARB. They were only
setts ng a cut-off time. An appeal of the ARB decision had nothi ng
to do with the particul ar ordi nance or zoni ng i n question. It was
a very different process --a cl assic case of mixing appl es and
oranges. The amendment in no way prejudged the appeal, because
nothi ng i n the ordi nance had anythi ng to do with an appeal .
Councilmember Renzel said that if the ordinance was adopted as is,
it would include 216 Page Mill Road.
Mayor Klein said it covered the zoning only, not the design or
whatever else the ARB had to consider.
Councilmember Renzel agreed, but poi nted out that it permitted the
item to go ahead and be included in the ordinance. Assuming it
got, through, it would be permitted. Should an appeal come i n, the
Council could decide. If the Council di sapp roved the appeal and
concurred with the ARB, 216 Page Mill Road would still be included
in the ordinance. However, to say it would be treated separately
in anticipation of an appeal was an abuse of ,the appeal process
made available to the public. She did not necessarily anticipate
it occurri ng, but it was possible. It was a right the public had,
which the amendment would bypass.
Vice Mayor Levy said he did not +ii sh to prejudge the ARB action.
He added parenthetically that, with perhaps the exception of the
Northern California building, he had been very impressed over the
years with the thoughtful ness with which the ARB acted. The prop-
er course of procedure was not to simply allow the fact of filing
an appeal --regardless of whether it was granted or not --to change
an ordinance. It meant that the Council abrogated its responsi-
bilities to anyone from the public filing an appeal As that was
not a proper procedure, he endorsed the amendment.
Councilmember Woolley said she was also concerned about procedure.
She found the process very convoluted. At the time the study
began, the project had not received ARB approval. It was,. there-
fore, not included i n the study, and it was the expectation of, at
least some Councilmembers, that the ARB liaison person who was.
present and some of the staff that the project would not be recon-
sidered by the ARB but would be forwarded to the P1 anni ng Commis-
sion. In fact, it wa reconsidered and approved by the ARB and
not forwarded to the Pi anni ng Commission. The ARB minutes i ndica-
ted the 5-4 vote by the Council tograndfather it in showed Coun-
cil approval of the project. However, she did not consider the
Council had given firm approval. The Council should indicate to
the Planning Director-- who had until the next day to approve or
disapprove the project-- that the Council wished to review it.
Given such indication, he would prob`bly forward it to the Coun-
cil.
Councilmember Cobb asked the City Attorney how the Council could
get their hands on the project should the amendment pass. Me
asked if they should so instruct the Director of Planning, would a
public appeal be necessary, or was it not possible because :i t met
all the criteria provided by the grandfathering.
Ms. Lee said there were two different processes. The project in
question was going through the pipeline. The Planning Director's
representatives were present, and she presumed if the Council.
wished to see the project, it would be arranged. The issue of
" O A r l a w.. ♦ 6
,:......�.- ...,�...� �.y' + �r ti��a� �i.a vt the pipeline should be grand -
fathered in was a separate issue.
1463
Councilmember Cobb said he concurred with Counciimeraber wool ley in
wanti ng to see the project and have the opportunity to do whatever.
the Council might deem necessary with respect to traffic, etc. He
asked Mr. Freeland if the Council could be assured, should the
amendment pass, that it would see the project.
i
Mr. Freeland said i t was safe to say that if the majority of the
Council indicated a wish to see the project, they would. However,
he could not give an assurance at that stage of the discussion.
Mayor Kl ei n obtai ned confi motion from Mr. Free] and that a Coun-
cilmember could appeal an ARB decision without a fee.
Mayor Klein said the short answer was that any Councilmember
could have the item brought before the Council.
Councilmember Renzel suggested as an alternative that the. Council
could request it by majority vote.
Ms. Lee said the appeal period was 15 days, commencing the pre-
vious Thursday and expi ring on Friday, July 27, 1984.
Mr. Freel and said that Councilmember Renzel's suggestion for the
item to be brought before the Council by a majority vote would be
advisory to the Di rector of . PI anni ng. If a Councilmember wi shed
to be assured, he or she should file a formal appeal.
Ms. Lee provided the 1 anguage for the amendment.
AMENDMENT: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to amend
the Ord' narce to add language to grandfather i n 216 Page Mill Road
by amending page 2 of the Ordinance, Section B, #2, to read "...a
recommendation for approval by the Architectural Review Board..."
Councilmember Renzel asked staff if there were any other outstand-
ing antique ARB • approvals i n the area.
Mr. Freel and said he was only familiar with 216 Page Mill Road and
3101 Park Boulevard. A recent, very minor change to the Wills
Body Shop property which did not add square footage was the only
other ARB approval he could recall.
Councilmember Renzel asked if he knew of any ARB approvals given
prior to the time a limit was pl aced on their duration.
Mr, (reel and did not believe there were any other general busi ness
offices i n that area that had been approved and not come forward.
AMENDMENT FAILED by a. vote of 4-5, Levy, K1 ei n, Witherspoon,
Suti rips rota ng "aye.'
MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved to refer to the Planning
Commission the GM(B) zone for purposes of evaluating the effect. of
R&D and administrative offices.
Mayor K1 ei n ruled the motion out of order because of the motion
on the floor.
Councilmember Bechtel asked. for confl rmation that, as the amend-
ment had failed, the language of the motion would remain and the
3101 Park Avenue property would be grandfathered in.
Ms. Leeconfirmed that the 3101 Park Avenue property was grand -
fathered in in any event. The issue was what to do with the proj-
ect that might, or might not, be :approvedby the Planning Di rector
the fol lord ng day;. Although it would probably not receive
approval, if the _Council wished to make clear that the property i n
question should not be g randfathered in, she suggested suitable
l anguage for l nsertion into the ordi nance after the word "time" i n
Section 2, subsection (2 ), line 4. The ordinance would be
i ntroduced that evening. The map on n the next ordinance would al so
need to be amended to incorporate 216 Page Mill Road. Since no-
tice had gone out i ndicati ng the property might be rezoned, no due
process problem would arise.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved,, seconded by Renzel, to
insert into. Section 2, subsection (2), line 4, the following lang-
uage: ....an ordinance rezoning the property to GM(B) is intro-
duced..."
Mayor Klein obtained confirmation from Ms. Lee that if the motion
passed, the project at 216 Page Mill Road would not be . allowed
under the zoni ng. Any questions of appeals from the ARB would be
moot, si nce the applicant could not go forward with the project.
Ms. Lee said it would be up to the applicant. If it passed, the
ordinance would go into effect i n 45 days from that date.
Mayor Klein asked if she was implying that the applicant could do
sonethi ng duri ng the i me ri ai .
Ms. Lee said that, although infrequently used, - there was a right
to referend an ordinance, which was the reason for the 30 day
period after the second reading, and why ordinances were not en-
forced until after that period had expi red.
Mayor Klein asked if it would be possible for the applicant to
move forward and obtain a building permit, etc.
Ms. Lee said it would not, because the time i cool ved would. not
make it practical . She assumed, but could not guarantee, that an
appeal would be :1 ed to prevent it from happening.
Councilmember Sutorius said they seemed to be maki ng a judgment
when several colleagues indicated a preference for an approach
offering an opportunity to review di rectly. . He personally did not
wish to requi re it to come before the Council; however, he thought
that action fairer than the action proposed by the amendment,
which would severely limit the opportunity for .recourse and would
place an unnecessary burden on the applicant. Both Councilmembers
Woolley and Cobb had asked to have it brought before the Council.
SUBSTITUTE A lEND14i NT: Councilmember Sutorius moved to change the
language of the ordinance_5, Section 2, (2). to read: 'request that
the Director of Plainning and Community Environment bring the
application of 216 Page Hill Road forward far Council's review and
consideration.`
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT .DIED for lack of second..
Mayor Klein said he was i n a quandary. He had understood that
staff had requested directions. However,` by going back to the
I anquage, the Council was not doing so.
Councilmember Sutorius said the direction would be to leave the
language as staff had originally proposed, and to provide the
safeguard that was of considerable concern by ensuri ng the project
case before the Council. It would not require either the appli-
cant or a member of the public to engage the appeal process.
Mayor Kiwi n ruled such a substitute amendment out of order, as it
merely reversed the original one. Councilmember: Sutorius' proper
course of action would be to vote tine on the _ amendment. He asked
staff what the result would be i f.. the language was left as i s .
Ms. Lee said the Director of Planning and Community Environment
had not approved the project. .The trigger time for that would be
in 45 'days. The Director would find himself in a quandary the
next day, and she suggested that the Planning' staff should i ndi
cafe if the Council had' given him sufficient" direction. He was
I /1 6W
being asked to do inconsistent things —he could not both approve
the project and refer it to the Council under the section. He had
alternatives --he could approve the project, send it to the Coun-
cil, or there could be an appeal by an outside person. It would
not be possible to do those many thi ngs at the same time under the
ordinance.
Mayor Klein shared that concern. The Council's present posture
meant they had killed the project. It would not be necessary for
the Council to take a second look, because unless the language was
changed, the project would never come to the Council or go for-
ward. It was not an appropriate result.
Councilmember Renzel said that obviously it would make a differ-
ence if the motion on the floor passed. However, she had under-
stood staff to say that the 1 anguage of 2(b) permitted , 1S Page
Nil1 Road to go forward, provided it was not appealed.
Mayor Kl ei n said that was not correct.
Mr. P reel and said the language on the floor, "an ordinance rezon-
ing the property to GM(B) is introduced," would kill the project.
The origi nal 1 anguage, wi th no amendments, was ambiguous. If
approved by the 01 rector of Planning and Community Envi ronment the
next day, the project would be grandfathered in. If he did not
approve it, a curious thing would happen. It was unl ikely to
reach the Council wi thin the 45 days for the ordinance to become
effective, so he presumed it would be left unapproved. It would
slip out of the grandfather clause and be killed.
Vice Mayor Levy extended his sympathies to all. He desired to
give the project a chance, whether or not it was appealed, to the
Council He asked the City .Attorney for advice.
Ms . Lee suggested he return to the original motion.
Vice Mayor Levy poi nted out that the origi nal motion had been
voted down.
Ms. Lee said the motion had been the avenue to achieve his .end.
If the Council wanted to see the project and guarantee it, they
should file an appeal with the City Clerk on the item to guarantee
it would be grandfathered in. If it was approved, it could be
billed i n accordance with the approval .
Vice Myo.r Levy asked what the effect would be if the former mo-
tion were approved, and the project at 216 Page Mill Road was ap-
pealed, heard by the Council, and turned down.
Ms. Lee said that as the Council would have turned down the appeal
on its merits, it would be dead.
Vice Mayor Levy asked what the zoni ng for 216 Page Mil l Road would
be.
Ms. Lee said that would:, depend can Council's action .i n terms of
applying the zoning of the property, which had not yet been dis-
cussed. The property was not included in the crosshatched part
that was to become GM(B) on the current zoning asap. At present it
was GM, and any possible change would be another issue.
Councilmember Bechtel asked for clarification. The City Attorney
said the property was not considered a part of GM(9). Staff had
suggested earlier that Council use a later map than the one with
which they had been provided. St"ff had originally recommended
the parcel riot even be included.' She suggested a war; out of _ the
problem of grandfathering woula,:be to omit the property and defer
a deci si orb. She wes prepared to make a motion to ,direct that the
matter be brought directly to the Council ;,rather than have a citi-
zen appeal it.
SUBSTITUTF MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel Pioved to defer a
decision on 216 Page Mill Road until after an appeal of the Archi-
tectural Review Board decision is heard by the _City Council.
Mayor Klei n rul ed the substitute motion out of order as not ger-
mane to the ordinance before the Council amending the GM zone.
Councilmember Bechtel said she .would vote against the amendment
and defer her motion until an appropriate time.
S! BST ITUTE MOTION WITHDRAWN.
Councilmember Renzel asked if it was possible for another un-
desired office project to come in if 216 Page Mill Road was
deleted from the GM(B) zone, and the project that had gone through
the ARB did not for some reason fly.
Mr, Freel and said it would be covered by the moratorium on offices
of over 5,000 square feet i n the CM zone.
Mayor Klein asked the Council to vote on the amendment to add
language to ensure that the property at 216 Page Mill Road was not
grandfathered i n.
AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 7-2, Fletcher and Renzel voting
"aye.*
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved to defer a deci-
sion on rezoning 216 Page Mill Road to GM(B) until after the Coun-
cil has heard an appeal of the decision of the Architectural
Review Board, and directing staff to bring the item forward as
soon as possible.
Councilmember Bechtel said that rather than voting for the grand-
fatheri ng suggested by Mayor Klein, which put a label on the zon-
ing, it would be better to defer the decision until after an ap-
peal had been made.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION DIED for 1 eck of second.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by
Sutorius, to reconsider the amendment to the ordinance to add
language to grandfather in 216 Page Mill Road by amending page Z
of Ordinance, Section B, #2, to read ....a recommendation for
approval by the Architectural Review ,Board.,..
Councilmember Cobb offered to file an appeal if necessary, but
felt it would be simpler for the Council to amend the motion to
instruct the Director of Planning to review the project and send
it forth wi Ith his -:recommendations. He wi shed to remove the motion
Mayor Klein had made, with that addition.
Mayor Klein said they would first vote on the reconsideration of
the amendment.
Councilmember Renzel said she was confused. Councilmember >;Cobb
had been on the prevailing side that had defeated the amendment
earlier. However, when he moved to reconsider the amendment, he.
said he would ask the Director of P1 ann, ng to bring the project
before the Council.
Mayor KI ei n expl ai ned that the i nstructions to. the Director of
Planning would not form part of the substitute motion to resurrect
the amendment.
Councilmember. Renzel asked what the point would be, if the motion
Councilmember-Cobb intended ° to make,Would be different.
Mayor Klein said Councilmember Cobb was only 'adding extraneous.
language. The motion to reconsider would resurrect the unchanged
amendment. If it passed, amendments to the amendment would be In
order.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED by a vute of 8-1, Renzel The.
AMENDMENT: Cou bomber Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, to
di rect the Di rector of P1 annl ng and Community Envi rorment to
review the project for 216 Page Mill Road and send it forth with
his recoamendati on.
Mayor Kl ei n said he understood the amendment w.as not bi ndi ng on
the Di rector of Pl anni ng and Community Environment but only
advisory.
Mr. Freel and said that was correct, but he was sure it would be
taken under serious consideration.
Councilmember Renzel recalled that the motion added 1 anguaye to
exempt any applicaticn that had obtained recommendation for
approval by the ARB, pursuant to Chapter 16.48. As that had
already been done, Mayor Klein's unamended language would permit
it to go through if it had received a recommendation for approval.
The amendment to bring it before the Council would therefore be
i rrei eeant, as i t had al ready been exempted by the motion.
Mayor Klein explained that there were two different proces ees--
zoni ng and ARB. Appeals were always all owabl e. An appeal was
possible for a project that had gone through the ARB which had
zoni ng. The Council could then do as it saw fit, but it would not
affect the zoning. The project would be denied because of the
issues before the ARB and el timately the Council .
Councilmember Renzel understood Mayor Klein to suggest that the
office 1 imitati ons woul d have an exemption for the project;
however, when it came to the Council, and the Council objected to
it because it was offices and more intense than other kinds of
uses, it would al ready have been decided.
Mayor Kl ei n asked staff to correct him if he was wrong. He under-
stood that under the ARB ordinance, the ARB and, ultimately the
Council, had a great deal of discretion and could refuse projects
on the basis of density and matters of that nature.
Mr. Freeland concurred, but said that the reason
ordinance should be design -related, If the Council
could not support a bui l di ng of the suggested size,
had not overcome the difficulties of fitting the
site, it could be turned down because of its size.
under the ARB
felt the site
and the design.
size into the
Councilmember Renzel said that meant it could not be refused be-
cause of the intensity of its use. If the building fitted in
well, the intensity of use would not . be a matter for discussion.
Mr. Freel and said it could be discussed. The context was a Tittle
different with the ARB.
Mayor Klein said he sag reed. He had resisted such 1 arrguage,
although he was i n the minority.
Mr. Freeland said the Council could explicitly impose requirements
stricter than the site development standards in the zoning ordi-
nance. Supposedly, the reasons for such action ,should relate to
the basic fi ndi rigs and considerations in the ARB ordinance,- which.
i-.ncluded rwany -.i ntensi ty-rel ated factors.
Ms. Lee recapped staff recommendations. If the Council felt the
underlying use unsuitable for the site, it should not be grand-
fathe red. The ARB o rdi na nc a rel ated to the use - i n rel ati o n to.. the
design and how . it fitted into the surrounding neighborhood, not,, to
what the zoning on :the pr5opertyi n its purest sense ought to be.
Counciimember Witherspoon said she would again support the -origi-
nal motion and the amendment. However, they could not be tied
together. The motion concerned the wording of the ordinance,
whereas the amendment was procedural and applicable to only one
building site.
Mayor Klein agreed she was technically correct. They should be
voted on separately.
AMENDMENT M ZTHDRAWN,
Councilmember Fletcher asked if it was correct that she should not
vote i n favor of the motion i f she felt the site i napp rop ri ate for
office use. If the motion failed, the underlying zoning would
still permit office use.
Mayor Klein said that was technically correct. However, it was
assumed it would be rezoned to G4f4(B) in the next series of mo-
ti ons. Once that occurred, unless the site was grandfathered in,
office use would not be permitted. If the notion passed, and the
site was rezoned GM(B) , it would be g randfathe red in for office
use.
Councilmember Woolley asked what the Council would have to do if,
after voti ng agai nst the amendment on the fl oor, the 1 and use map
was changed to GM(B). and the Council decided, when it returned to
them, to approve the project.
Mr. Freeland said that if that was the direction in which the
Counci 1 was headed, Councilmember Bechtel's suggestion had shown
clear thinking. If the Council could cause a situation to be
created in which the project reached the Council and the property
was not rezoned at that poi nt in time, al 1. future options would
be open, depending on the decision reached with regard to ARB
approval. The Council could still go ahead and change the zoning
later to GM(B), or turn the project down on the basis of the ARB.
Councilmember Cobb said they were trying to have the option to
reduce the i ntensi ty of use on the site. If the amendment passed,
together with the changes to be recommended, (which would be
separated), he asked if the Council would have sefficient tools.
Could the Council look at traffic --an environmental impact and
rel ated to the design, or look at the design in terms of size in
rel ati o n to the site, and b nisi c al l y . get to the question of whether
i t was a too intense use of the site. He asked i f the motion
before the, Council would allow. it to take action to reduce the
intensity.
Mr. Freeland said he believed they could do so -
Mayor Klein asked the Council to vote on the amendment to add
language to grandfather in 216 Page Mill Road by amending page 2
of Ordinance, Section B, #2, to read ' ...a recommendation for
approval by the Architectural Review Board..."
AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Reezel and Fletcher voting
"no."
•
Mayor Klein asked the Council to vote on the main motion to adopt
the Planning Commission recommendation that the GM(B) zone be
rev i s ed
MOTION PASSED aaauinously .
MOTION: Cooae11oosber Cobb mowed, seconded by Klein, to direct
the Director ef:,..Planning and Community Development : to review the
project for 216 `Page Mill Road and send 1t forth with -his nacos-
meodatioe.
LOTION PASSED inanirtously.
3i4fi3ei
1
MOTION: Cvu n i imembe r Renze i moved, seconded by Woolley, to
refer to Planning Commission the question- of. RID and administra-
tive offices in G44(B) zone.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Witherspoon voting "no."
Mayor Klein said the Council would discuss Item 13.
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, to adopt
the ordinances to change the zone classification of the properties
in the GM area on Park Boulevard and to terminate the moratorium.
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
AL0 ALTO AMENDING SECTION
18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING
MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTIES
IN THE GM AREA ON PARK BOULEVARD FRON GM TO GM(B)"
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORD INAMCE OF THE
t UURC 1L of THE C 1 TT " F )ACti ALTII TERMINATING THE MORAT-
ORIUM ON THE PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTING
NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE IN PORTIONS OF THE GM AREA ON PARK
BOULEVARD"
Mr. Freeland said that for the sake of consistency, the map should
include 216 Page Mill Road.
MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO INCORPORATE LANGUAGE INTO THE ORDI-
NANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 TO ADD 216 PAGE MILL ROAD TO THE
MAP
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
Mayor Klein suggested the Council attempt to conclude the agenda
that evening.
ITEM #14, COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE RE UR 4103 - FEDERAL LEG -
Mayor Klein said he understood the item to be a report only, and
that no action need be taken,
City Manager Bill Zaner said that was correct. No action would be
taken by Congress until later that month. The report was to keep
the Council informed as to where the legislation was at.
MOTION: Cou nc i 1 aerobe r Bechtel moved to accept the report.
Mayor K1 a G;p said that it was not usual to accept reports.
MOTION NITHDRA'IN.
Cou nc i l meMb e r Witherspoon suggested the app rop ri`ate place for dis-
cussion of the report would be at the. Legislative Committee.
Mayor Klein said he felt the report sho1 d have been informational
only and not agendized. Tv -,a Legisl atiqe Committee had informed
staff that they would take fi nal action when the final 1 anguage
from the C o ng re s s w a s received.
Councilmembe' Witherspoon said that when they again met, they
could: decide on a possible recommendation.
Mayor Klein said no action would be taken. The Council understood
the situation.
ITEM #15, UNDERGROUNDING CHRISTINE DRIVE AS A CONDITION OF ROSS
•
.
:
Mayor K1ein said that staff recommended the underg rou ndi ng
district not be created.
Mr. Zaner had nothi ng to add, but offered to answer questions.
MOTION: Council*ember Renzel moved, seconded by. Sutorius, to
adopt the staff recommendation that no underground utility
district be created on Christine Drive at this time.
Councilmemher Renzel said it was unfortunate that the Christine
Drive homes were reluctant to be incorporated evefi though it could
have been done fairly readily.
Councilmefnber Cobb questioned the letter ent out to the property
owners. If he were a property owner, he would conclude from it
that he would have to pay several thousanu dollars immediately to
have the work done. He asked if the amount could be paid off with
the utility bills.
Mr. Zane r said it was allowed to go to the tax bill, and could be
paid off over a period of time.
Counciimember Cobb said he felt that alternative should be made
more cl ear i n the letter as i t might not be obvious to the
property owners,.who might have declined because they did not want
to put up the whole sum at one time..
ITEM #16, REQUEST OF; COUNC1LMEMBER BECHTEL FOR A STAFF REPORT ON
7171TruRD tfi4 HE RS ITY
CounciImeober Bechtel referred to her memo of July 12, 1984
contai ni ng newspaper cl ippi ngs. She understood that Stanford
University was in the process of taking corrective action, but
wished to be sure the City had all information,
NOTION: Couneilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to
direct staff as follows:
I) To investigate the Stanford incident and to provide a full
factual report to the Council;
2) •To determine if a violation of City ordinances has occurred
anek to advise Council as to what action,' 1f any, is being
taken in that regard; and
3) To describe the oagoirg monitors mg process mom in place; to
assess its adequacy in light of this i c1 dent and to
recommend air additional resources that might be required to
improve the City's ..ability to deal with these a ki sds of
situations in the future.
NOTION :PASSED unarm*Ously.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11 10 p
ATTEST:
1
APPROVED:
/1082