HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-06-13 City Council Summary Minutes1
1
CITY
COUNCIL
MINUTEs
CITY
Or
ALT()
Regular Meeting
Monday, June 13, 1983
ITEM P A G E
Oral Communications
Minutes of March 21, 1983
Minutes of April 4, 1983
Minutes of April 11, 1983
Item #1, Resolution of Appreciation for Varian
Associates re Water Pollution Control Efforts
3 3 9 4
3 3 9 4
3 3 9 4
3 3 9 4
3 3 9 4
Item #2, Ordinance re 4145-4161 El Camino Way (2nd 3 3 9 5
Reading
Consent Calendar 3 3 9 7
Referral 3 3 9 7
Action 3 3 9 7
Item #3, Below -Market -Rate Appreciation ,Formula 3 3 9''7
Change
Item #4, Compensation Plan for Classified Employees 3 3 9 7
Item #5, Utility Pole<..Inspection, Treatment and
Reinforcement Program _
Item #60 Downtown 1 Underground Conversion (Under-
ground Utility District No. 24)
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Item #7, Request of Councilmembers Levy and Klein
re Councilmember nary Fazzino's Resignation:
Appointment to Fill Vacancy
Item #8, PUBLIC HEARING: California Avenue Area
and University Avenue Area Offstreet Parking
Districts & California Avenue Offstreet Parking Maintenance
District _
Item #9, PUHLLC HEARING Planning Commission
unanimous recommendation re Application of Kinney
and Kinney for a Tentative Subidivision Map at
Parking Lot Q
Item #1U, PUBLIC' HEARIM`: Planning Commission
recommendation re; Application of Enshallah Devel-
opment for a ``Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
Change for property located at 1400 Dana Avenue
(former Crescent Park School site)
3 3 9 8
3 3 9 8
3 3 9 8
3 3 9 8
3 4 U~ 1
3 4 0 3
3 4 0 3:
'3 3 9 2
6/13/83
Item #_II, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission
recommendation re Application for Comprehensive
Plan' Land Use Map Change and Zone Change for
property located at 830 East Meadow Orive
Item #13, Planning Commission and Architectural
Review Board recommendation re Site and Design
Review lof an Erosion Control Project within
Foothills Park and the City Reversion Parcel
Item #14, Foothills ,9ark. Erasion Control Project -
Park Improvement Ordinance
Item #15', Request of Vice Mayor Fazzino and
Councilmember Cobb re School Revenues
Item #16, Request of Councilmember Fletcher re
State Bicycle Programs
Item #I7, Request of Councilmember Fletcher re
State Budget
Item #18, Request of Mayor Bechtel re Intergovern-
mental Council Trails and Pathway Committee
Item -#19, Request of Councilmember Witherspoon re
CATV Meeting
Adjournment
PAGE
3 4 3
3 4 4 2
3 4 4 2
3 4 4 3
3 4 4 4
3 4 4 5
3 4 4 5
3 4 4 5
3 4 4 6
1
Regular Meeting
Monday, June 13, 1983
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
7:34 p.m.
PRESENT Bechtel, Cobb (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Eyerly,
Fazzino (arrived_, at 7:40 p.m.), Fletcher, Klein,
Levy, Renzel (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Witherspoon
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Michael Flicker, 235 Walter Hays Drive, was an attorney repre-
senting Viacom. He was present because cable television was
supposed to be on the agenda for June 20, and he urged the
Council to reschedule that meeting as quickly as possible.
Although a three week delay did not seem much, they had exper-
iencecl delays all along and were concerned that continued
delays would push the _entire process into next year or even
further, to the end -of next year, which would be intolerable
foe the Council, the _staff and probably Viacom. He hope; a
date certain, and as soon as possible, would be chosen for
rescheduling so the private companies could have something to
rely upon and could get to work responding to the RFP. The
process had started September 13 --nine months ago --and there
was still no RFP to respond to. The work involved in respond-
ing to an REP was much greater than simply drafting the RFP.
It had taken over three months to draft it and, although there
were political considerations with the other cities involved,
it would make everyone's job more difficult if it was not done
quickly.
MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 1983
MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Fletcher,
approval of the Minutes of March 21, 1983 as submitted,.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino and Menzel absent.
MINUTES OF APRIL 4,1983
MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, approval
of the Minutes of April 4, 1983 as submitted.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino and Menzel absent.
MINUTES -OF APRIL 11, 1983
MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Fletcher,
approval of the Minutes of April 11, 1983 as submitted.
MOTION PASSED ;unanimously, Fazzino and Renzel absent.
ITEM #11 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR VARIAN ASSOCIATES RE WATER
rurrann CONTRA E H'URTS
MOTION: Countilmember, Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, approval of
the resolutionof appreciation.
KEESOLUTION 6125 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
nrammerrrifriMLO ALTO CONGRATULATING VARIAN ASSOCI-
ATES FOR RECEIVING THE CALIFORNIA MATER POLLUTION
CONTROL - ASSOCIATION'S 1983 .*INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
CONTROL' AMARD"
MOTION PASSED enanimously, Fazzino_ and Renzel absent.
3 3 9 4
6/13/83
1
Mayor .Bechtel read the key portions of the resolution, which said
that Varian Associates had been involved in several environmental
efforts over the years, including early wastewater control ef-
forts, noise reduction, etc. The California Water Pollution Con-
trol Association founded the industrial Wastewater Control Award
in 1911 to be given to private industry which had achieved_ or
exhibited a position of recoynition for accomplishment in the area
of industrial wastewater control. The purpose of this .award was
to stirnc ate .interest on the part of industry in taking positive
steps to Meet torrent water pollution control standards, and the
selection of -Varian Associates for this honor was reflective of -
their efforts to maintain good relations with_ the community and
the high degree of reliability designed into their wastewater
treatment and hazardous. 'waste program. The resolution concluded
by saying, NOW, THEREFURE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the
City of Palo Alto hereby gratefully records its appreciation and
congratulations, as well as the appreciation of the community, for
the outstanding achievements in the area of industrial wastewater
control of Varian Associates." Will Kranzthor, a representative
of Varian, was present. to accept the resolution.
Will Kranzthor, Varian Associates, accepted the commendation on
behalf of Varian Associates_ and stated that Varian thanks the
Mayor and the Council in their recognition of Varian's program to
improve their wastewater and the controls of their discharges. He
gave special thanks to Ash Chapman and Steve Hayashi of the. City
staff for their help and suggestions, and for sponsoring Varian to
improve this California Industrial Wastewater Control Award.
Varian would continue to lead in the area of hazardous waste con-
trols and to cooperate with the City in every possible way.
Mayor Bechtel expressed her thanks.
ITEM #2 ORDINANCE RE 4145-4161 EL CAMINO WAY 2nd Readin
t on inue rom
8
MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, that Council
reconsider the vote to refer the item to the Architectural Review
Board.
Mayor Bechtel intended to move that Council refer the item to the
Architectural Review Board (ARB),, but they first had to vote for
reconsideration.
City .Attorney Diane Lee stated that Mayor Bechtel was moving to
reconsider the entire item, not necessarily the referral portion.
AMENDMENT; Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy to reconsider
the entire item
Councilmember Witherspoon requested a recap of the decision that
was being reconsidered.
Mayor Bechtel stated that last week, the Council voted on whether
to refer to the ARB rather than .having the item come back directly
to the Council. It was to have come back tonight, but the maps
were not ready in time for staff review. Since then, she, had
changed her position and;felt the ARB should review the item prior
to the final Council vote. The vote last week was 6-2 not to send
it to the ARB, with Counci lmember,s Cobb and Klein voting for
referral.
Counci lmember. Eyerly requested additional comments'
on why Mayor
Bechtel wanted the ARB,to reconsider the item or what they were
going to look at. He wanted some feeling._ asto why.. there should
be a referral back to.them,'consi'dering the amount of time already
put in on the item by the Planning Commission, the Council., etc.
3 3 9 5
6/13/83
Mayor Bechtel was arguing on the other side and would address that
argument after they voted to reconsider. The item was actually on
the agenda and she was not sure why they were voting to reconsider
the entire item.
Ms. Lee apologized and said that Mayor Bechtel was correct. She
was not present last week and thought the Council had passed the
item on second reading when, in fact, they had. not.
Major Bechtel clarified that they had not. They were voting on
reconsideration of the referral to the ARS and, if that was cor-
rect, she would go back to her original motion.
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN.
Mayor Bechtel stated as she studied the plans further and talked
to people in the area, she concluded there were too many changes
from what was originally before them. There was a new recreation
facility, for example, and movement of some portions to the third
floor, which changed the roof lines and the appearance of the
project. Because there had been so many changes, the maps them-
selves had some inaccuracies. She felt for the benefit of the
Council, it would be better for the ARB to look at it thoroughly
beforehand.
Councilmember Eyerly noted that they would be looking at the
changes that had been made in the architectural design. He asked
whether the item would then be returned to the Council with the
ARB`s recommendation, or what .would happen, next.
Ms. Lee said the ARB would make a recommendation and refer it back
to the Council. The only thing the Council had done last week was
continue the second reading to this week, so she was not sure they
needed a motion to reconsider. She thought that, rather than pass
it at second reading, they could refer it back to the ARB.
Mayor Bechtel felt the reason they needed reconsideration was that
they had already voted on the very issue on which she was going to
ask that they vote again. 'When they voted on it last week, it was
turned down on a vote of 2-6.
Councilmember Cobb thought it was_.absolutely essential that they
reconsider the item and send it back to the ARB. As he said last
week when he voted against i t , he thought they had followed a most
unusual and very dangerous process in their handling of this -mat-
ter so far. Their ability to leap from real time changes made
before the Council to a second reading with hardly a step in be-
tween was a real injustice to the people living in the neighbor-
hood.- By sending it back to the ARB, they would give people an
opportunity to respond to the current plans, which none of the
Councilmembers had seen yet. It was absolutely essential that
they do that part of the process again, and that- people who were
going to have to live with the project have an opportunity and a
public hearing to respond to plans, not at the last minute with
the second -reading about to pass, but with tome time to think, to
react, and to give their input.
Councilmember Levy reiterated that this had been an unusual,
extraordinary procedure. Last week, he had voted to continue the
item to this week because they were told by the developer that
there would be just a few minor changes, in the plans which would
come before the Council; this week. It was everyone's expectation
that if they were to approve the item for a second reading, there
would be some strict contingencies that it would go to the ARB and
have to be approved by the ARB after the second reading. Now that
the presentation of the final plans' had been delayed in any case,
he thought- there was no reason not to go through the more normal
procedure, which was to have the ARB look at the final plans.
3 3 9 6
6/13/83
1
Since this would be a PC, the final plans represented the zone.
They had not really looked at the final plans up to this point,
and he would feel much more comfortable after the ARB had gone
through them thoroughly.
Councilmember Eyerly asked staff whether the developer had been
able to submit the change in plans within the time frame. He also
wondered if the developer had any comments to make and asked
whether staff could give them a little more idea about the time
frame if the item went back to the ARB. He understood the resi-
dents Were unhappy because they had not gotten the reading they
wanted or the opportunity to address the issue in finality, but he
also thought they needed to think about the developer, too, as to
how much delay there was. Since the developer had not met their
commitment to get the plans here, Council should not feel badly
about referring to the ARB, but he hoped it would not take two or
three months to get the item back to Council.
Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said it was correct that the plans
were not submitted in time for last week's packet and to allow
staff review of the plan beforehand. The agreement with the
developer was that plans would be submitted the next day for next
week's Council packet. If the item went to the ARB, it would be
scheduled for July 7 and, if the ARB was able to make a recommen-
dation at that time, should return to the Council for the second
meeting in July.
MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSED 8-1, Witherspoon voting "no."
MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, that Council
refer the project at 4145-4161 El Camino Way to the Architectural
Review Board.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
Mayor Bechtel requested that this item be heard by the ARB as
early as possible and come back to the Council as quickly as pos-
sible.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Councilmeaber Witherspoon moved, seconded by Levy,
approval of the Consent Calendar.
Referral
Action
ITEM 13, BELOW -MARKET -RATE APPRECIATION FORMULA CHANGE
Staff recommends. that Council adopt a motion directing staff to
make requested revisions in the deed restrictions for the BMR
program. `.
ITEM #4, COMPENSATION .PLAN FOR CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES (CMR:354:3)
Staff recomrhends Council approval of this resolution which imple-
ments a 3% salary increase as agreed.
RESOLUTION 6126 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
HL CITY vi 'PALO ALTO AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN
FOR CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL 0SE1U) ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION
NO. 6032 AND -AMENDED BY RESOLUTION.NO. 6068"
3 3.9 7
6/13/83
cioit5/ti
ITEM #b UTILITY POLE INSPECTION, TREATMENT AND REINFORCEMENT
REINFORCEMENT
VIMGRAn i.1'4R : 19 3
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to
execute the attached contract with Osmose Company, in the amount
of $130,000, for the inspection and preservation of wood poles in
Palo Alto. Staff further recommends that the City Council
authorize the Mayor to execute'the attached agreement with Pacific
Telephone and Telegraph Company (PT&T) for the joint participation
in inspection and preservation treatment of wood poles in Palo
Alto.
AGREEMENT INSPECTION AND PRESERVATION OF WOOD POLES
Osmose Wood Preserving Company of Amr..rice, Inca
AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PARTICIPATION IN INSPECTION
AND PRESERVATION TREATMENT OF WOOD POLES
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.
ITEM #b, DOWNTOWN I UNDERGROUND CONVERSION UNDERGROUND UTILITY
Staff recommends that the low bid of Power Anderson Inc. be
accepted and the Mayor be authorized to execute a contract for the
work; and that the Council approve the Downtown Palo Alto I Joint
Construction Agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute this
document,on behalf of the City.
AGREEMENT
Power Anderson, Inc.
AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PARTICIPATION
INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES SYSTEM,
UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 24, DOWNTOWN PALO ALTO I
pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
Councilmember Fletcher added Item 417 regarding the state budget.
Mayor Bechtel added- Item #18 regarding a letter from the Trails
and Pathways Committee of the Intergovernmental Council.
:ounciimemher Witherspoon asked whether there would be an extra
meeting to discuss cable television.
City manager ai it Zaner responded that he would like to get an
indication from Council as to whether a special meeting would be
411 right .or if Council would prefer to hold it over until July.
Mayor Bechtel said the 'l tem to set a date would, be added at an
appropriate place on the agenda.
Mr. Laner said that would be• Item #19 at the end of the agenda.'
ITEM #7 RE UEST .OF COUNGI.LMEI4BERS LEVY AND KLEIN RE COUNCILMEMBER
'1Wintihue.T-Trom:b1717V1777177mmmi
Councilmember Levy reminded his colleagues that Councilmember
Fazaino -toad resigned his ;-pos_ition dn the Council effective January„
TThete, would- 40:4n election. in November, ---and it would be
* -poor, process if:- they;"sere not -to use that election to fi l i the
scat_ tpa�t .. would be vacated. shortly thereafter-. This item was
discussed briefly two weeks ago, and there- was a certain amount -of
reluctance on the part,; of some Council -members to pass such a -
re.solut on iYi.n "tile ,two-year seat --,to the fifth highest vote
"getter- because='it would not_ be binding an the subsequent Council
which wou,l-d, take office next year. Also, using the November
1
1
election as- a popularity poll without it being an official elec-
tion does have certain problems connected with it. Nonetheless,
as a general objective, it was wise to allow the public to select
Councilrnembers whenever ,possiule, and he thought they should
strive to carry that out this November. Another alternative -he
wanted to present, because it might be a worthwhile concept, was.
that if a resignation were to take place now, the Council could
act in time for the election in November to fill a seat which
would then become vacanl' Uecember 31, 1983. He understood that if
the resignation were to -take place now, either the seat .could stay
vacant or it could be filled by appointment of the Council until
the individual elected in November took office on January 1. His
personal desire would be simply to reappoint Councilmember Fazzino
to serve in the interim. With an official resignation having
taken place, -they could allow the seat to be filled as part of the
balloting in November. He requested the City Attorney to speak to
that concept.
City Attorney Diane Lee said Councilmember Levy had expressed
exactly what would happen if there were to be a vacancy by any
member of the Council prior to calling the election. Then the
Council could choose, under the Charter, either to fill that
vacancy by appointment or to let the electors fill it at the
NuveMber election. The person elected would take the seat begin-
ning January 1, 1984.
Councilmember Levy asked by what date the seat would have to be
vacant.
City Clerk Ann Tanner stated that the election would be called at
the first regular meeting in July, which would be July 11. How-
ever, there was a special meeting of the Council on July 1, and
presumably there was a desire that there be no gap between the
resignation and the appointment. If the resignation could take
place in time for the matter to be agendized on June 27, then the
Council would have the appointment in place for the July meetings
and for the July 4 holiday. Therefore, she suggested that the
resignation be in the hands of the City Clerk by June 21.
Councilmember Levy welcomed the views of other Counci lmembers,... as
to the -best way of choosing 'a replacement, given the options.
Councilmember Klein saw this issue as nuthing more than a discus-
sion, since motions on the subject were not really
appropriate.
He had talked to a number of Councilmembers and members of the
public. While there was no perfect alternative, he believed that
with the thorough airing the issue had received among the public,
it was now an appropriate procedure for Councilmember Fazzino to
resign and for the Council to reappoint him immediately'to fill
put the -rest of the year. An election for the remaining two years
of. the term would then _be held on.,.. November 8, 1983. He intended
to vote to reappoint Councilmember Fazzino for the-:. remaining por-
tion► of this year if ne submitted his resignation in accordance
with the schedule set forth by the City' Clerk,
Councilmember Witherspoon concurred with: the comments previously
made. This: seemed the cleanest end simplest way to -handle the
matter. It was awkward to try to commit a future ,Council, espe-
cially: if they realized_'the chances were that the'=people here now
and making the commitment could be in a minority of ,.four-
January, so perhaps they Could' not even .fulfill the commitment if
they -had to.
Councilmember Eyerly thought the latter process was good. Coun-
cilmember Fazzino- had indicated that .he could serve until the
first of the Year, and he had every -righi to do o so. If he felt he
had. support'for Such reappointment, he should be willing to submit his resignation. This would create the process, which he_felt was
3 3 9 9
6/13/83.
1
1
1
fairest for the community, so that anyone interested in running
for Council could then actually file, campaign and run for either
the four-year seats or the two-year seat. This was the best
approach; since Councilmember Fazzino did not have to resign, but
had said he was going to do so the first of January anyway, and he
suyyested that it be done early so the process could take place.
Councilmember Fletcher added that she had made her views plain the
last time this was discussed, which were that the Council should
not dictate to the next Council what procedure to use for filling
the vacant seat. She was grateful to Councilmember Fazzino that
he was making the move so the electorate would have a full say in
who was going to replace him.
Councilmember Menzel said the City Attorney, in response to.Coun-
cilmember Levy's proposal, had responded as to what the options
were should a resignation take place immediately. Since the
resignation would probably be made in contemplation of a reap-
pointment, she wondered if it would be a valid resignation.
Ms. Lee did not think the person resigning had stated in any way
that his resignation would be made in contemplation of reappoint-
ment. She thought he - was hopeful, but the Council was not bound
to vote the way they had just stated. There was nothing binding
on the Council to reappoint Councilmember Fazzino should he choose
to resign, and therefore he could not resign in contemplation of
being reappointed. She had not read the resignation to_ see what
it was based on, but even if it were in contemplation of being
reappointed, that did not taint the resignation. They would have
to look at the language of the resignation to determine if that
were so.
Councilmember Renzel wondered what procedure would be followed -if
other people expressed an interest in applying for the vacancy.
Ms. Lee stated the Council had no rule of conduct inscribed in
either the codes or the Charter for a process for filling vacan-
cies.` In the past, the Council had conducted an interview pro-
cess. Given the fact. that this was an unusual situation where
sor4eone was stepping down early in order to hold an election, the
Council could choose to deviate .from this process or to,follow the
process of having interviews. It was pup to the Council; there was
no binding rule to do either.
Councilmember Cobb joined his colleagues in indicating the proper
course of action. Whenever possible, any Council should avoid
appointing successors because that tended to create political
inbreeding, which was not,a healthy thing. Councilmember Fazzino
was elected by a- very_,laryte, substantial vote and should serve as
much of the term as he.. could. By going through this process, it
was possible to have an election where the people could decide who
sat on the Council, which was the proper thing to do. He commit-
ted -publicly that if Councilmember Fazzino went through the pro-
cess, he would vote to appoint him to 'the interim positioi until
January 1.
Vice Mayor Fazzino, speaking as the lame duck in question, appre-
ciated the comments of the Council on this issue. In his public
statement a month ago, he indicated that he would be leaving at
the end of the year. He wanted to serve out as . much of hi S term:
as possible, and January 1, 1984 seemed like the right time. At
the same time, because of . the various legal issues involved, he
wanted to accommodate the Council and the community in terms of
having a successor chosen by the_ voters That was a far better
approach than to have the appointment made by the Council, so he
would_ do everything pussibla to expedite it. Although there was
no motion on the floor tonight and he might be a great risk
3.-4 0,O
6/13/83
with his colleagues, he intended to submit his resignation, not
dependent upon reappointment. He would, however, ask the Council
to reappoint him for the interim period so that someone could take
office after the November 1983 election.
ITEM #8, PUBLIC HEARING CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA AND UNIVERSITY
i vtriuk NKtH VrrJ JKLL i r#kKK11Vli uiStr'lcts a ua]-1tnrtil
venue s ree ar ng ain enance 1s.ric
Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open. She said this
item concerned bonds on the City's two offstreet parking mainte-
nance districts, California Avenue and University Avenue. There
was one letter at the Councilmembers' _places from Mr. Ellis
Jacobs, who had questions concerning the assessments. Hopefully
staff had seen it and would be able to answer the questions.
There were no cards from members of the public on Item #8, and she
asked 'if there was anyone present who was a member of the assess-
ment district and wished to address the Council Since there were
not, she declared the -public hearing -closed.
Counci I member Eyerly asked, if the resolutions were moved, that_
the rnree Calif+a,rnia Avenue resolutions be separated from the two
for the University Avenue assessment district. He would not par
ticipate in the University Avenue district since, being a property
owner, he would be in conflict of interest.
MOTION: Councilmembe r Eyerly moved, seconded by Fletcher,
approval of the first three resolutions dealing with the
California Avenue assessment district.
RESOLUTION 6127 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL
PALO ALTU CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT
AND ASSESSMENT ROLL CALIFORNIA AVENUE CAMBRIDGE
GARAGE PROJECT NO. 65-09 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1983-84"
RESOLUTION 6128 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL
bt (IlL CIIY ut PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT
AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - CALIFORNIA AVENUE OFFSTREET
PARKING PROJECT N0. 71-63 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1983-84"
RESOLUTION 6129 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL).
tit THE C11 1 ut PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT
AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA OFFSTREET
ARKING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1983-84"
Mayor Bechtel asked the City Clerk if there were ally written pro-
tests.
City Clerk Ann Tanner replied there were none.
Mayor Bechtel noted that the letter from Mr. Jacobs was more. an
inquiry than a protest.
City Manager Bill Zeiler wanted to get Mrb Bagdon's response to the:
question on the record.
City Engineer George Bagdon said there were some changes received
during the period of time in which people had to respond, and he
needed to read those into the record. In response to Mr. Jacobs'
letter, which was received late- this afternoon, 14r. Bagdon had
telephoned Mr. Jacobs about the first item, concerning the break-
down for stripping and ,signing, and they would get that informa-
tion back'to him by letter. In addition Mr. Jacobs was concerned_
about the level of service for street cleaning and street signs.
He had been advised that Dale Pfeiffer, Deputy Director• of Public
Works, would attend a future CAADA meeting and it could. be- dis-
cussed with him; at that time. On the second item, concerning
transportation, the figure of 50% overhead added into the $4,000
for transportation costs was done incorrectly. He needed to read
into the record a change to incorporate that comment. On the
Engineer's Report and Assessment Ro l i , California - 0ffstreet Park-
ing Maintenance Uistrict, the gross amount for maintenance cur-
rently read $27,700; it should be corrected to $25,428. In addi-
tion, the assessment rate per adjusted square foot now read
.0421250; it should be corrected to read .0386699. The assessment
rate per square foot of land area n;ow= read .0092747; it should be
corrected to read .0085140. The -final roll would incorporate
these changes, and each individual assessment would be adjusted
accordingly. Ln addition, there was one other change which
affected all three assessment rolls for the California area. On
the California Avenue area offstreet parking maintenance district,
page 9, Parcel 12433-022, 405 California, Use Code 20B, the
square footage now.read 3,900 square feet; it should be corrected
to read 2,845 square feet. Parking required now read 16 spaces;
it should be corrected to read 11 spaces. The total square foot
age now read 1,712; it should be corrected to read 6,651. Parking
required total now read 37; -it should corrected to read 32. Park-
ing provided now read 8; it should be corrected_to read zero (0).
Assessed square footage now read 6,045; it should be corrected to
read 6,657. The assessment amount for the square footage now read
$254.65; it should be corrected to read $280.43. The total
assessment now read $289.43; it should be corrected to `read
$315.21. This change carried over to the two other districts,
Project No. 11-63, page 6, the same parcel, Use Code 208, now read
3,900; it should be corrected to read 2,845. Parking required now
read 16; it should be corrected to read 11. The total square
footage now read 7,712; it should be corrected to read 6,557.
Parking required now read 37; it should be corrected to read 32.
Parking provided now read 8; it should be corrected to read zero
(u). Assessed square footage now read 6,045; it should be .cor-
rected to read 6,657. The total assessment .amount now 'read'
$442.49; it should be corrected to read $487.29. Finally, the
California Avenue parking garage, Proj cZ No. 65-09, the same par-
cel, Use Code 20B, should be corrected to read 2,845. The. total
should be corrected to read 6,657. The parking required should be
corrected to read 11 for 208 and 32 for the total. Parking pro-.
vided should be corrected to read zero (0). Assessed square foot -
aye should be corrected to read 6,657. The assessment amount
should be corrected to read $358.04.
Mr. Zaner explained to the Council -the reason there were so many
corrections that did net appear on their documents, They had not-
ified the people in the district, the information came in very
late, some as late as tcday, and the engineers had to do the
recalculations, so the numbers Mr. Bagdon read were very minor in
nature, but they`did have to be read into the record.
Councilmember Levy asked for clarification about assessment dis-
tricts. He asked if it was true than there was no difference in..
assessment for a given piece of property based strictly on_ its
location within the district. The fact that he was closer to one
parking lot than another or closer to City Hall did not, of it-
self, make a difference in the assessment.
Mr. 8agdon said that was correct.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
MOTION: Councilmember Klein, seconded by Levy, moved to approve
the resolutions confirming the Engineer's Report aid.: Assessment
Roll for the University Avenue area offstreet parking.
RESOLUTION 6130 entitled 'A RESOLUTION OF THE : COUNCIL
Ur Tlilt- G1TY OF PALO ALTO. CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S ,REPORT
AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA CIVIC
CENTER GFFSTREET PARKING PROJECT NO. 66-08 FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1983-84`
RESOLUTION 6131 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE COUN-
OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S
REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA
UFFSTREET PARKING PROJECT NO. 75-63 FOR FISCAL YEAR
1983-84'
MOTION PASSED • unanimously,•1yeriy not participating.
ITEM #9 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOM-
MENUS 10 I
r7TTUN OF R11 NET A R1NNE
Mayor Bechtel declared the .public hearing open.
Planning Commission Chairperson glean McCown stated on behalf of
the Planning Commission that this application was consistent with
the prior Planned Community (PC) zone approval, and that nothing
more needed to be -said.'
Mayor Bechtel said since neither the applicant nor any members of
the public wished to address the Council on this item, the public
hearing was closed.
NOTION: CouncilMember Witherspoon, seconded by Klein, moved to
approve the Planning Commission recommendation for a tentative
subdivision map for Parking Lot Q to divide one parcel into three
parcels, one of which to contain two commercial -condominium units,
and the other to contain 44 residential condominium units and 44
parking stalls.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #1U PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION BY A VOTE OF 5
s r 1 r t ;.
UtvtLUF't9LPil 'a KrrL1 !1i LUN FUK A (UNrKLI1LNSivt PLAr1 LAND IUS MRP.
RAM FROM SCHOOL DI YRICT LANDS TO Sf GLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL A
rnirriti=r7Mr-FFF- ZUBLIC FACILITIES) TO R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY`
-3iB'6-Ii isioN, WIC CONDITIONS F ONE PARCEL
TA1 (U(
CRt?CENT PARK Sant sra) r) CcMR : 33.673 x.
Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open.
Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown, speaking for the
Planning Commission, said the Planning Commission's recommendation
involved four separate but •interrelated actions. These were a
recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map change, a
zone change from PF to R-1, a subdivision map approval, and recom-
mendation (or lack thereof) on -the manner in which the BMR-contri-
bution should be handled in "connection -with this property'. There
was extensive public testimony at two -hearings before the Planning
Commission, primarily concerned with the sizes of the parcels to
be included in this subdivision. There was a segment of the
neighborhood most immediately surrounding the property that sup-
ported the initial 24 lot subdivision proposed by the school dis-
trict, and there was also a substantial group of. --neighbors.. who
desired to have a larger lot size in this subdivision. The figure
that was used principally was a lot size of 8,,000 square :Jeet.
The lot sizes in the 24 _ lot subdivision recommended by the Plan-
ning Commi ssi on ranged 'from approximately 6300 to 9,500 square feet
in various; patterns. The -Commission felt, on a 5-1 vote.` that the
pattern was consistent with the surrounding 'neighborhoao° and the
Comprehensive Plan policies concerning th.e usesof-pool',sites. She
noted specifically . that Commissioner Christensen's vote against
the 24 lot subdivision was because of her belief that the subdivi-
sion pattern did not provide- enough housing. She would have
1
have preferred an R-2 rather than an R-1 zoning pattern, which
would have generated more housing on that site, her belief being
that this pattern did not fulfill the Comprehensive Plan policy in
favor of providing affordable housing on school sites. The
-second, and really the major topic ,of discussion by the Commission,
was -the issue of how the BMR contribution should be handled for
this property. From the minutes and updated staff report, it
could be seen that the discussion broke down to two alternatives.
One was the original school district proposal and staff recommen-
dation that there be ,a contribution of funds, specifically
$90,000, to come from the revenue the school district would real-
ize on the' lots capable of having cottages on them. The second
alternative was the contribution of a specific lot, or a lot that
would be capable of supporting one duplex unit, that would _be
available either for sale or for rent and would be developed by -
the Housing Corporation. The specific proposal involved the Hous-
ing Corporation seeking to develop such a lot, -if it were -given to
the Housing Corporation. If it were not feasible to develop the
property, either for economic reasons or for other cost considera-
tions, then if the lot were sold, the housing fund land bank would
receive $90,000, and any excess from the sale of the property
would go back to the school district. Those were the two compet-
iny concepts. -The vote by the Commission was split 3-3. The
three Commissioners supporting .the in -lieu funds felt the cost
effectiveness of tht use of the money would be far greater if it
were taken eand combined with other funds than if two units were
built in this particular subdivision. There was also a concern
about the isolation and potential tokenism of requiring one duplex
lot in the middle of an otherwise standard R-1 subdivision. The
other side of the argument, and the position that persuaded three
other Commissioners, focused on the strong policy of the Compre-
hensive Plan in favor of the provision of actual units rather than
funds and the notion of .distributing below -market -rate units
around the community rather than saving funds and building a
multi -family project that would locate them all in one part of the
community. There was no recommendation from the Commission on
that issue because it was a 3-3 vote. She commented that there
was a motion,_which failed on a 2-4. vote, to specifically encoor-
aye the school district to apply for use permits on five remaining
lots that could potentially support cottages. As presented to the
Planning Commission, the school district itself intended to pursue
use permits for cottage units on three of the 24 lots. The school
district, itself,, would not build the units, but the properties
could then theoretically be marketed with already existing use
permits. That motion failed on -the basis .that the Zoning Admin-
istrator should. be free to make that decision when and if such
applications were made either by the school district or subsequent
property owners.
Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said that , today he received a let
ter frorr,• the Palo Alto Historical Association which responded to
his request tor possible street name: for. the public streets in
the subdivisions. Their suggestion for the Crescent 'Park site was
Ashby Drive. Their 'recommendation was based on the fact that
Delmar -and Ella Ashby were early residents and major property own-
ers in the Crescent Park area. Unless the Council had problems
with the name Ashby -Drive, staff would return with that recommen-
dation on the final map.
Vice Mayor Fazzino said Ashby was a major street in Berkeley,
California, and he was concerned about being a Second city` using
that name for a street.
Councilmember Eyerly asked for clarification regarding the ads run
by f.nsh'al lab Developments : regarding the sale of the properties
which were not yet subdivided and whether the City had any liabil-
ity.
City Attorney Ui ane Lee said -that in no way committed the Council
on how it would; decide on any of the items coming before it. In
terms of the ad itself_, while that might normally be a -violation
of certain sections of the Business and Professions Code, there
was an_exemption under thosee-sections applying to public agencies,
and the school district was a public agency. The Subdivision Map
Act used to contain a prohibition against offers of sale under
these types of circumstances, if that could be' construed as such.
It was academic because the code section had been amended to
remove that particular type of activity as a violation. There was
not ofly no liability on the part of the City, but probably Prot on
the part of the school district.
Councilmember Eyerly asked Mr. Schreiber whether there had been
any recommendations from the City staff to Enshallan or to the
school district about how many lots might be in this subdivision,
since this related to lot sizes.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
staff had recommended a 24 lot layout. In analyzing the number
and size configuration of tiie property, ,it was their feeling that
a layout of lots of that size was compatible with the general. area
of that part of Palo Alto. This was a critical factor in making
the recommendation.
Councilmember Eyerly asked whether the applicant brought that num-
ber of lots to the staff to: have the appra i'sa l confirmed, or if
the staff actually made the recommendation to them.
Mr. Schreiber said the subdivision map was developed by the appli-
cant. The advice provided by staff at the beginning of the pro-
cess was that the most appropriate land use designation for this
area would be single family residential.
Councilmember Eyerly also requested an explanation for the benefit
of the public regarding the requirement ent for notification to sur-
rounding neighbors within 300 feet..
Mr. Schreiber said staff sent notices to neighbors within a 300
foot radius around a subject property which has applied for rezon-
ing or a Comprehensive Plan change. This had been lengthened from
250 feet, which was the radius some years ago, to provide wider
distribution of public hearing- notices. Mr. Brown had shown a
transparency of this site indicating the 300 foot radius.
Councilmember Eyerly wanted to understand completely the use per-
mit process as it related to a cottage zone on designated lots in
this subdivision.
Mr.. Brown said an application had been filed for a cottage` use
permit for three separate lots within the subdivision. That use
permit -would be heard by the Zoning Adminiz.trator following Coun
cil --approval of the tentative ma . The'application would be
;noticed to the neighborhood, once again using the 300 foot radius,
and the decision would be final ueless. a-ppealed to the -Planning
C mmiss.ion and City -Council.
Councilmember Cobb had another question, about the advertisement.
He._ had concluded from something in the _minutes and testa mony ' .that
the scho-ol district had not yet decided whether they were going to
devei op .the lots individually or se l them,: -to a 'developer. That
struck .him ds being -particularly interesting-, since that decision
apparently had not been made yet, and he requested staff Comment.
.`4
Ms. Lee was unsure what Councilmember Cobb was asking. Perhaps
this was not even an offer to sell, as that term was defined by
the Business and Professions. Code and the- Subdivision Map Act.
She asked if that was what he was referring to.,
Councilmember Cobb said perhaps the school district would address
this question when they had their time at the microphone. .He also
inquired which lot on the 24 lot development_map was the one indi-
cated as the potential BMR lot.
Mr. Brown said the lot discussed by the Planning Commission and
supported by staff -as being a potential duplex lot was Lot #8,
which was 8100 square feet.
1
1
1
Councilmember Cobb said, as a side comment to Councilmember
Fazzino, that he thought no one would mistake Ashby Avenue in
Berkeley for Ashby Avenue in Palo Alto. He then questioned the
distance between the ends of the street (possibly to be called
Ashby Avenue), which was a little over 200 square feet from center
line to center line. He wondered if that was a little short,
given the proximity to the other street, and if it would .cause
traffic problems.
Mr. Brown sa d Ted Noguchi, the traffic engineer, had looked over
the layout and -had Jle problems with it. The street would not
receive a great 'deal of use, and the distances from Center Drive
and 0a na to the new street would not be•. a .-problem.
Councilmember Cobb sensed a feeling on the part of the affected
neighborhood that they had not seen many alternatives for the
devel opment . of this site. He `asked how many alternatives were
presented in the neighborhood meetings-,
Mr. Schreiber thought the applicant could best respond, since
there were neighborhood meetings without City staff present which
involved the heaviest discussion of alternatives.
Councilmember Cobb was struck by the fact that this did not seem
to be the optimal way to lay out the lot. He had attempted to
envision a cul-de-sac rather than a loop development, which did a
number of things, including increasing the average size of the
lots. No lot would be as small as 6,000 square feet, and he
thought it made.;a much nicer development. He realized there were
some technical issues to be addressed, but he would at least like
to have that available for the public to see, so that if there was
any feeling from the affected neighborhood, they could comment.
He thought the lots would all be legal and the number of variances
would be small. It offered some advantages which the proposed
development did not. .He apologized -=for reverting to his,Planning
Commission days but, judging both from the public testimony and
front lookiny at. the plans, he had the feeling they could do better
if they took another took at the property..- He wanted to get some
reaction while the public had a chance to speak.
Mr. Schreiber said the transparency on the screen was prepared_by
Councilmember Cobb, a few minutes ago from material he had worked
on earlier today. During a brief review at the staff table, 'two
lots appeared to present a potential problem in terms of future
'development --Lot 18, circled -in the upper right hand corner, and
Lot -24. Lot 18 was 70 feet by 120 feet; given the layout of the.
-lot, there would be a front.ya.rd facing' Dana. With a 20 foot set-
back from the back property line_and six foot side yard setbacks,
that left an area 30 feet wide -and -108 feet long for the potential
building>to fit in. This was an unusual --shaped area in which to
try to situate a house --not impossibl_,e, but somewhat difficult. A
very ;,similar. situation occurred with Lot -24; sirnce",the _street
wound no :1 onger go past the other... side of ' i t , Lot` 24 would not be'
a -corner l.ot. - 11. would be . approximately 120 feet by 74 -feet,'- so
the buildable area would, -be about 34 feet'.by 108"- feet. That made
two dots +i-th su6.stantial•iy constriicted:bui id4b:le, a'�=eas
1
tiouncilinember Cobb reiterated that he --was not attempting to opti-
mize the lots he was trying to illustrate the possibility of a
cut-de"sac. He had seen many lots similar to those long lots
developed in the City, there was nothing unusual about them, and a
large home could be put on them because of their substantial size.
The proposed layout increased the minimum lot size and the average
lot size for the development, and made the development more pri-
vate. He believed that if the -appropriate civil engineers started
from scratch and were more effic°ent'with corners, etc., a better
.job could be done. He attempted to conceptually illustrate the
possibilities with_a cul-de-sac approach since the development was
24 lots, accomplished everything before the Council., and was more
desirable and acceptable.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked regarding the Planning Commission
recommended condition that the trees on the tentative map be
retained, whether the purchasers of the properties would be bound
to do their own landscaping.
Mr. Schreiber -said no.
Councilmember Witherspoon requested clarification of the BMR for-
mula because she understood that if the Council did not go with
the -cottage zone concept --especially the part tied to developments
on other school site areas --it turned to the original formula,
which stated that the developer was expected to start negotiating
on the premise that the Council would require one BMF! unit for
every ten units. She asked if that meant there were two lots here
to begin the negotiating.
Mr. Schreiber said that could be the case. At one of the first
negotiating sessions it was suggested that the school district's
representatives lay the groundwork for further discussions. A key
factor was that it was the second single-family subdivision of ten
or more lots to be processed under the City's BMR program. The
first was a 1U lot subdivision in the foothills on the Hewlett
property. That situation was unusual because the developer was
going to•develop and sell lots, perhaps to one ---builder or 24 or 25
different builders dependent .upon the number of lots, which made
it dtlficult to obtain BMR units.
Councilmember Witherspoon commented that the. Hewlett situation was
similar..
Mr. Schreiber said that was true, but Mr. Hewlett was willing to
provide a parcel to the City, and -acquired the parcel as an _access
way which the City later dented. That situation was handled, but
he did not want to -use it as a precedent.
Councilmember Wi therspoon, understood --that the proposal included a
$90,UUU in -lieu payment, which was considerably less than the min-
imum bid in the advertisement price for one lot. She was curious
about how the figure was established, but would discuss it later.
C3unci lmember 'Fletcher asked why the project had an" envi ronmental
impact assessment rather -.than an environmental impact report.
.Mr..Schreiber responded that staff had recommended a finding of no
.significant -environmental impact, and did an environmental analy--
sis under the state environmental guidelines, which included; a
variety of findings which, if: made, could lead to a finding of
significant impact and trigger an environmental impact report-. In
this case, no .significant impacts were found to call for an AA
environmental impact report„ Traffic and loss of the "existing
recreation:" and open space area .Mere analyzed within- the. context of
the fut;E-.re use of _ that part _ of Palo Alto. Staff's conol usi on and -
recommendation -was that there were no significant -.environmental
=impacts which would trigger-th.e "whole' environmental impact report.
The Council's 'obligation was to review the staff,, work on the
3 -4 0 7
6/13/83
subject ' and make an environmental finding based on its own concl u-
'sions as to whether it was appropriate to proceed with a negative
declaration (a declaration of no significant environmental impact)
or a full environmental impact report.
Ms. Lee_ said in terms of making that finding, there was a staff
report which analyzed the pertinent environmental impacts, and
Council needed evidence that one of the findings in Appendix G of
the State LII( guidelines, which listed all ,the particular types of
significant effects, was not properly analyzed i.n the negative
declaration that staff suggested they adopt-.
Councilmember Fenzel clarified that in order to meet the require,
ments for a cottage zone, there would have to be plans for the
development'of the entire site --both units as well as for adjacent
units, and how the applications in -the case of .vacant land would
be processed.
Mr. Brown responded that the requirement that plans be submitted
for a cottage unit and- for adjacent residences was not part of the
cottage ordinance or the use permit section of the zoning ordi-
nance, but in most built up areas, - it was_ advisable to have an
idea about where the cottage would be located and what impacts - it
would have on adjoining neighbors' privacy. Since no homes were
planned and there were no plans for a cottage..unit in the future,
they would try to determine the best area on ' the lot to locate a
cottage and impose various setback restrictions to require that it
be located in a particular area. There would also be restrictions
concerning the height of the structure, which wallfaces could not
have _windows, what types and heights of windows could be used,
etc. It would have to be conceptual in approval, but he believed
it could have adequate restrictions to assure the protection of
adjoining properties. Additionally, ali three cottage lots
requested by the school district were internal lots. Lot 6 was on
Uana Avenue, but across the street from existing residences; lots
23 and Z4 were internal lots, so the cottage lots would not back
up onto existing residences, either on Pitman or Kings Lane..
Councilmember Renzel said she was concerned that the Council
normally dealt with a developed parcel which contained aelarge
house and some extra space -on which to put a small house. �' With
undeveloped land, there was the potential to develop two rather
substantial houses without the requirement that one be a rental.
it was poss'ble to buy them jointly, which essentially added two
more units }o the, subdivision without actually creating lots fo-r.
them. e Since there was considerable discussion by the neighbors
about how many lots would be created, she was concerned that they
be cottages and not full-sized units.
Mr. Brown said he intended to limit the square footage of the cot-
tage units, and- even. though plans .would not be submitted, he
intended to place limitations on thee].
Councilmember Renzel said that recently the City received requests
for the subdivision of properties which contained cottages, and
were denied. She asked what prevented that type of application
from successfully going through in the future where the cottage
unit wascontemplated as part of the subdivision:'
Mr. Brown said there was nothing to prohibit an application, but
reiterated that past applications for lots substantially larger
than the City's current 'standards were denied in all cases, and
the chances for appToval remained slight.
Councilmember Levy asked if there was'any problem with the concept
of a cul-de-sac for the proposed location.
Mr. Schreiber said staffs only concern would be the length of the
cul-de-sac, benerally, staffattempted to not encourage cui-de-
)cs longer than 3bU feet, and the proposed location would be
slightly larger.
Councilmember Levy clarified that the concept would be a viable
way in which to increase the total amount of square footage
devoted to the residential lots.
Mr. Schreiber said it was and the applicant might comment on
whether an alternative was developed using the cul-de-sac concept
and why it was not°pursued.
Councilmember Levy asked if it was intended that the Council act
on the proposed name of Ashby Avenue tonight.
Mr. Brown said no --the subject would return to the. Council with
the final subdivision map at a later date.
Councilmember Levy clarified that the Ashbys were early residents.
of the area.
Mr. Brown said the Ashbys were residents and landowners, and that
Lincoln A•renue was named Ashby Avenue until 1930.
Councilmember Levy commented that a number of Palo ail tans not cur-.
rently memorialized deserved. to have streets or a parks named
after them. He hoped that before agreeing on a name, the City
would receive alternate recommendations which included Palo Alto
residents of national stature as well as persons of local histori-
cal interest. He believed: Palo Alto presently created people of
national stature faster than it had streets or parks to take note
of them.
Mr. Schreiber commented that the City had a street naming proce-
dure, and that the Palo Alto Historic Association was asked for
recommendations. If the Council was not satisfied with the recom-
mendation, the matter could be referred back to the Historic Asso-
ciation for further review and consideration,
Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open.
Geraldine Steinberg, President of Enshallah Developments (appli-
cant), said that last November, in conjunction with the architec-
tural firm of Goodwin Be Steinberg Associates, Enshallah Develop-
ments was awarded a contract from the Palo Alto Unified School
District (PAUSD) to act as its consultant for the disposition of
eight surplus school sites. As a public agency, PAUSD was con-
scious of the importance of an open planning process; and for all
eight sites, it sponsored an introductory meeting to receive input
from the affected community. After a plan was conceived, it was
presented back to the community for review and comment. For ' the
,Crescent Park school site, two neighborhood input .meetings -were
-held-.-one' sponsored by the neighbors..and one by PAUSD and the
Crescent. Park Association. There was a lot of publicity for the
meetings --the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association sent out 250
notices; -PAUSD placed a quarter page, paid advertisement to
announce the meeting; announcements were made through the schools;
1,000 flyers were sent home with children; information was -in-
cluded in the school newsletters; and flyers were mailed to a list
of Pala Alto oryanizations. Joan Johnson, President of the_Dis-
tract PTA, received 2,000 flyers which_ were distributed by PTA
members at individual homes surrounding the school sites. Both
input meetings. at Crescent Park discussed open space, the size of
the lots to be created, and -the timing of the sale 'of the prop-
erty. There was strong sentiment by the neighbors --who adjoined
the site to have the Crescent Park site sold first; because of the
concern over vandalism, deterioration of the building, and uncer-
tainty over the compatibility with the neighborhood:of future uses
by lessees.- In response to that sentiment, PAUSD gave priority to
the -Crescent Bark _Site, and made- application for its . rezOning
first. The Underlying zoning for_ the area would allow 27, lots on
..the site,.and the original proposal to the PAUSD after the neigh.-.
borhood input meeting was to fiie-a map containing 25 lots.. After,
reporting back,: to the neighborhood, the map was' revised to contain
3 4 0 9
6/13/03
i
1
24 lots even though the PAUSD appraiser stated unequivocally that
it was in PAUSD's best interests to maximize the number of lots.
The average estimated sale price was about $125,000 per lot, and
even though larger lots might_ bring additional money, the
appraiser- Desmond Johnson --estimated a -net loss of $100,000 for
each lot eliminated from the PAUSD plan. - In an effort to create
an interesting, diversified project, the 24 lots on the submitted
.subdivision called fora variety of lot sizes --13 of which Con-
tained over 7,500 square feet; and of those 13, eight were over
8,000 square feet. The average lot size across the street on Dena
was 7,238 square feet, and the PAUSE) average lot was 160 square
feet larger. -Its goal was to create a proposal consistent with
the surrounding community. and interesting in its variety. She
presented a zone of intere's.t map to illustrate the average lot
sizes circling the site.. The lots on Kings Court averaged 6,000
to 6,262 square feet; one side of Pitman averaged 7,350 square
feet; the other side of Pitman adjacent to Kings Court averaged
7,250 square feet; larger and varying sizes were behind Crescent
Park School on Pitman; across center -the average square lot on one
side of Forest was 7,320 square feet; and. on the ether side of
Forest it was 7,446. The PAUSD lots averaged 7,398 square feet
and were in keeping with the neighborhood.
Regarding the BMR program, the original proposal to the City for
cottage zoning was based on the City's desire to create more
affordable units, and the PAUSD's goal of meeting the requirement
without further financial inpact. The Palo Alto Housing Corpora-
tion and City staff had reservations about the impact of the BMR
restrictions on the sale of the cottage lots, and after many meet-
i nys , representatives from the PAUSD, City and the Housing Cor-
poration reached a consensus-- that PAUSD would apply for three
cottage lots in the interior of the project and a use permit for
the cottages would be in place when the property was sold. .There
was no guarantee that the cottages would be built, but there was
such interest in the second dwelling that the PAUSD had reason to
believe that a buyer would pay a premium for the extra use permit.
in addition, the PAUSD would pay $30,000 for each cottage zoned
lot, and by that plan, the City -would ,realize three extra afford-
able units and would also receive $90,060 in in -lieu payments. At
the first Planning Commission meeting, the idea that the PAUSD
donate one lot from each of the R-1 sites now in the zoning pro-
_cess for a duplex- -was presented. The PAUSD believed that the
$90,000 payment, in addition to applying for the three cottage
zoned lots-, was the more favorable alternative, and -she believed
there.were-strong arguments in favor of the alternative from the
City's point of view. If a duplex idea was -followed, four dupl.ex-
es would be built on the four R-1 sites now going through the pro-
cess, and by contrast, the in -lieu payment plus the cottage zon-
iny, would contribute $300,000 from the four sitaa ..and $90,000
from Crescent Park. She was advised that the $300y00'could be
leveraged to buy up to 20 rental units for the program, and if the
City was interested in producing the greatest amount of units, she
believed the the -lieu payment plus the cottage zone would meet that
requirement. She'received ;na.ny calls about the ads in the paper,
and explained that it was not' -the intent to sell any lots at this
time. --T,he ads were --placed in order to: test the demand for indi-.
viduait lots because part of knsha1iah.Developments` contract with
the PAUSD was to recommend how the property should be sold, and it
Was in -the contract to place the -advertisements- in_ four local
-papers and tabu late the- results: -... After analy-zing the results of
the ads,..facts w.ou_ld--be yathered.concerning the cost of developing
the'- lots versus sel l i ny_..the ;entire property to one developer. The
informati.on--would be provided to PAUSD at the end of the month, a
public dl scuss i on' would -be'-held on the pry's and _cons of i ndi vi dua 1
lots," and -=-the decision would iprobabll = e____ ode in- July. Al.i
-callers were- advised Ghat, the.; subdivision map was neat yet ap-
proved, nothing could be :sent to -them, and that the ..process was
now; i n the hands .of he .: Ci y.- The _timing of the ads was regret-
ful,- but -- it was net -intended to.suggest that a subdivision map was
approved or that the City hid -approved any nu ber of lots -for a
subdivision map. A ;great deal of interest -was expressed in the
reioni ny of the ` Crescent- Park ,School-4i,te and : there were ,severa l
3 4 1 0
6/13/83
strong points of view. Some residents wanted- to see larger lots;
some wanted a more creative use of the land --such as a planned
unit development; some wanted to see smaller lots so that more
affordable housing could be created. It was interesting that
since last Thursday when the first ad appeared in the paper - they
received over 10U -calls from people interested in lots _in Palo
Alto. The overwhelming majority of :those callers asked that
everything possible be done to keep the lots affordable in order
that individual architects might b.e hired because if the lots were
too expensive-, they woul-d, be priced out of -the market,. She
believed their map was a compromise --it was not the highest and
best use of the property, it did not compare with the large lots
in the area, but it was consistent with existing neighborhood pat-
terns and a thoughtful product of the planning process. Many
people wanted to speak to the issue tonight and she requested that
Council permit her to make closing remarks at.the end of the pub-
ic hearing.
Councilmember Eyerly said he understood the School Hoard set a
policy in terms of how to divide or sell the vacant properties
to the effect that it wanted to maximize the economic return to
the school district without harm to the surrounding housing area.
He asked if that was correct.
Ms. Steinberg said that was correct. The PAUSU wanted to maximize
the profit, but not at the expense of the neighborhood in terms of
conformity. It was important to have a public process in Crescent
Park.
Councilmember Eyerly said he understood that people wanted the
lots to '-e affordable, and he asked if an economic analysis was
done in terms of what the lots might bring. The appraiser of the
school commented on the pricing, but after looking at other vacant
lots in town, he aid not necessarily agree with the appraiser's
estimated worth of the lots. He asked how the designated prices
were determined which related to the policy and maximum economic
return to the PAUSD.
Ms. Steinberg said the PAUSU appraiser made a study of whether
larger lots would bring in more money than two smaller lots, and
in addition, they made a market study of the various sites-, inter-
viewed developers, real estate agents, and other appraisers, The
information F vided tonight was the result.
Councilmember Eyerly asked if that information was documented.
Ms. Steinberg said the work product would. be submitted to the
PAUSU, and that a portion already had. -She would provide the
Council with a list.of people interviewed.
Councilmember Eyerly said.he-understood that Enshallah Develop-
ments was advised to treat the different neighborhoods=�:similariy
in terms of the recommended number Of lots out of a school site,
and he asked how that was done.
Ms. Steinberg said a number of factors were taken into considera-
tion --the underlying zoning i n° place in each :of theneighborhoods;
the professional opinion of land planers and architects; and the
input from the community. That information was given to the civil
engineer who came upwith a layout. That layout was presented to
the community, and in both 'Crescent Park and Ortega, modifications
ions
to the subdivision map were made in response to neighborhood con-
cerns.
Councilmember.,-Eyerly said the City_. received a lot of input: from
the Crescent Park cow�munity, and some. figures from: -Mr. Treble
indicated --percentages of the different sized lots proposed for the:
Crescent Park., subdivision as compared to a-:100 foot zone of : i of l:u-
ence and a 600 foot- zone. Mr,: Tt'ebl a indicated that _ about 29
percent of 'the lots : a n the proposed subdivision were 6,590. -Jett or
1
1
1
lower; only six percent at 300 feet; and only 14 percent at 600
feet. That was: not intended to dispute the number - of lots in the
larger sizes, but the.smaller sizes appeared to be in'contention
with some of the residents.. Regarding fair treatment of the
neighborhoods, 29 percent of the lots were proposed to be 6,500
feet or smaller, wnere in -the outlying area there was only six
percent within the 300 foot band and 16 percent within. the 600
foot band. He asked if 29 percent of the lots were proposed to be
6,500 feet or less because of the other proposed: subdivisions.
Ms. Steinberg -said the number of lots surrounding a site in cer-
tain categories were not considered. The underlying -zoning was
reviewed to see how many lots the site -would yield -_-in the subject
case, ei nice lots could fall within the zoning. She said many -
different configurations were reviewed and several different ones
were submitted to the City. The long cul-de-sac lot was -rejected
by the City and the loop configuration was preferred. The desire
was to come up with a nice subdivision for each of the sites, and
no attempt was made to come up with the exact number of lots that
were 6,000, 8,000 or 10,00.0 square feet in the area. There were
24 lots and 13 were over 7,500 square feet.
Councilmember Cobb asked for clarification that the City rejected
the cul-de-sac lot concept.
Ms. Steinberg said two or three concepts were submitted and the
long cul-de-sac was apparently unfavorib/c to the Fire Department.
Councilmember Cobb asked whether the City rejected that alterna-
tive.
Ms. Steinberg said various alternatives were presented and one
alternative was preferable, but none were rejected.
Councilmember Cobb asked how many concepts were presented to the
people who attended the neighborhood meetings.
Ms. Steinberg said .the neighborhood was shown only the one con-
cept, but someone in the neighborhood would have liked to have
seen an entrance from Center Onto Dana, which was not as accept-
able as the loop road for various reasons. The 25 -lot configura-
tion was shown'first and had•differen_t depths for the Pitman lots;
a 24 lot configuration was then shown similar to the 25 lot con-
figuration; then a Commissioner at the Planning Commission meeting
suggested that because the lots who backed up to the loop road and
faced Pitman were larger, it would be wise to have lots 9, 10, 11,
12, 13 and 14 deeper, and their engineers redesigned the plans to
meet that comment. Three configurations were shown publicly dur-
ing the City process and one or two additional configurationswere
shown at the community meetings.
Councilmember Cobb clarified that the configuration which received
the bulk of the discussion--both at the City and neighborhood
level --was the loop concept before the Council or a' relatively
minor variance.
Ms. Steinberg said that was correct,
Mayor Bechtel commented that follow-up time for the applicant was
not normally provided, but if questions arose, the applicant would
be called -upon.
Jim Ray, McKay and Somps Engineers, 1.955 The Alameda, _,San Jose,
said a' number of possibilities were,,, reviewed before a plan was
presented to the staff. _ Specifically, the cul-de-sac plan was not
presented becausetwo lots, 18 and 24, would have, a limited depth
for a building site. Although 6,000 square feet could be obtained
or the average lot size increased, it made lots 18 and 24 a more
difficult siting., In going through the process, the engineers
3 4 1 2
6/13/83
decided on 24 lots that were of equivalent building area rather
than creating -two unusual, difficult building sites.
Councilmember Cobb clarified that the. cul-de-sac concept would
require variances in order to optimize the, use of the particular
site, but he understood that other lots - in the 'proposal would
require variances.
Mr. Ray said • the variances were not ,v'o the front and rear set-
backs, but rather to the minimum subdivision lot standards in
terms of frontage and lot depth.
Counci lmember Cobb thanked Mr. Ray for his comments and said he
would note that the lots required variances, but were virtually
the same size lot on which his house was built.
°avid Spencer, 1403 Pitma.i Avenue, said his property backed up to
lots 9 and Ill of the proposed subdivision. He stregsed that the
site had been vacant for twc years and was badly deteriorated.
The neighbor's property was burglarized by people with access to
the school property. A Neighborhood Watch Program was in place,
but was largely emasculated because there were .no neighbors to the
rear of their property. Regarding the in -lieu payment, he be-
lieved it would be inconsistent to zone one lot R-2 and the rest
R-1 and urged that the entire project be developed either R-2 or
R-1. He believed the cul-de-sac concept faced the wrong way
because the fire station was located on the corner of Embarcadero
and Newell and any access should be closer to Newell Road than
Center.
Line Crane, 140 Lois Lane, represented the Palo Alto Athletic,
Council and reiterated their comments during the Naylor Bill
acquisition discussion on December 6. At that time, the Athletic
Council requested that a development of Eleanor Park be accom-
plished within a two year time frame to allow for additional soc-
cer fields with the reminder that current usage of Eleanor Park
invalidated the proposed transfer of activities from Crescent
Park. The City set a precedent of sorts - for providing recrea-
tional \facilities by acquiring both Hoover fields, one acre at De
Anza and one and one-half acres- at Ortega. If Crescent Park
fields were eliminated, facilities at the north end of town would
be strained. It was apparent that Crescent Park would be the
first to go, and planning must begin immediately to -replace _the
lost facility. Un behalf of the Athletic Council, she urged the
City. Council to begin work with the neighbors in the Crescent Park
area to develop a master plan to satisfy the_,retreational needs of
the area and offered assistance in any planning for the future. of
Eleanor Park.
Sylvia Seman, Executive Director of the Palo Alto Housing Corpora-
tion (PAHC)-, 3380 Middlefield Road, said the PAHC recommended that-"
the BMR contribution on both Crescent Park and Ortega be one lot
on each site large enough to accommodate a dupie.x. PAHC hoped it-
proved to be economically feasible. to construct -a duplex on free
land such that each half could be sold or rented at prices afford-
able to 13MR families --$75,000 for a two -bedroom, one bath, 1,250
square foot unit. - If the construction proved to be impractical
and the lot was sold, the City's housing fund would receive the
previously agreed to $90,009, including any adjustment for infla-
tion. She referred to the remarks of Commissioners-l1cCown _.a.nd
Northway on page 13 and 14IH of the Planning Commission minutes,
where -both commented on the uni-que opportunity the proposal pro
vided. If the units were built, the Comprehensive Plan clearly
state d interest to have BMR;;. units. Scattered around, the City- rather-
-than accepting payments in -lieu of units ,0u,ld be achieved. If
the,units could not be provi,ried, the City's housing: fund would get
,the financial contribution: that=h-ad been consistently discussed
throughout the-; negotia.ti`on process with_. the School ,District. As'•
stated by Mr. Northway,. it was --one place where the City could pos-
sibly "have .its cake and -eat -it too."
Councilmember Witherspoon asked Ms. Seman if she believed the
$90,000 in --lieu payment, in the event the units could not be
achieved on the site, was feasible'and equitable.
Ms. Seman said she believed that through the system of negotiation
used by the City with all developers, it was equitable.
Councilmember Cobb asked how the in -lieu payments would be used if
the City decided to accumulate the $300,040. He was concerned
that the entire amount would be lumped to one -other school site,
which raised the serious question of equity. Further, he heard it
might -be spread over town to purchase rental units, and he asked
how Ms. Seman saw that accumulated fund used.
Ms. Seman opined. that it might be used to write down part of the
land on the Hoover School in order to achieve a multi -family
development, which she believed the neighbors would approve. She
did not see that many rental units around:.town would be acquired,
but it was'a possibility.
Mr. Schreiber noted that the there were two factors. If the pres-
ent structure was preferred, the money would not be paid in a lump
sum of $3UO;UU, but would come in over time. It could also come
to the City and it would be the Council's responsibility to appro-
priate the money for whatever project was deemed proper.
Councilmember Levy understood that the concept of a BMR duplex
on -site was implemented in one or two neighborhoods in town, and
he asked whet the impact had been and the responses of the neigh-
borhoods.
Ms- Seman said that from the perspective of the BMR program and
eel1ine the units to families, duplexes were the most popular
Decause families loved th' single family house, and a duplex pro-
viAed half a house cued half a yard and was great for raising a
family. The two developments referred to by Councilmember Levy
were Foothill Green where the developer built single family units,
kept the two lots and put in duplexes. The other development was
the old Cesano property called "Palo Alto Greens." There was a
large condominium around the periphery, some single family homes
and some duplexes, It was difficult to determine that the devel-
opment was duplexes because they looked just like single family
houses. She advised the Council to look at both developments to
see how successfully they were integrated into the single family
ee
homes.
Councilmember Levy asked if there were households with children in
each of the units.
Ms. Seman said it was not confirmed that the households had child-
ren, but a two bedroom unit was eligible to a family of two to
four. Some residents were young couples who would hopefully have
children, and in.another case, there was a single woman and child;
and one two bedroom, unit had an elderly couple and their adult
retarded son.
Christopher Treble, 1 Crescent Drive, read a letter to the Council
from Gary Labak, 1403 liana, which was on file in the City Clerk's
office, and which residence was located directly across from the
site. Mr. Lubak stated that he signed the 24 lot petition because
he was told there would be 24. or 25 lots on the Crescent Park
school site, but nothing less. He later learned,- that the tenta-
tive plan was for 21 lots, and asked that his name be removed from
the petition because it was falsely obtained. He further author`
razed Chris .Treble to speak on his behalf at the City Council
meeting of June: 13, 1953. Mr. Treble said that althou_ gh, the Coun-
cil received a number of letters on the subject, a petition was
delivered with over 2, 5 signatures, which indicated distress over
the potential density on the site and that a subdivision with a
minimum 8,000 square foot lot size was prefe'rred.. The petition
was presented to the Council as a direct result of failure of the
3 4 1 4.
6/13/83
School Board or City to listen to the views expressed by the com-
munity. Mr. Treble said that while he believed there was an
attempt to give, the City input, that input was foreclosed by an
unwillingness to present alternatives or permit the community to
vote in any way, shape or form to form any kind of consensus. His
comparative analysis of lot sizes indicated that all lot sizes up -
to 9,500 square feet contained substantially more lots on the
Crescent Park school site expressed as a percentage of total than
there was within the 30U foot zone of influence designated by the
City -or within the wider 600 foot zone of influence which he
.counted himself. For example, the case mentioned by Councilmember
Eyerly contained 6,500 square feet, 29 percent of the lots on the
site fell within that class, and and only six percent within the
:3UU foot zone of influence. Even when one got to 9,000 square
feet, 97 percent of the lots on the site fell within that designa-
tion whereas only 7U percent of chose within the 300 foot radius
fell within- it. He believed it was inaccurate to say that the
lots Conformed to, -what existed in the neighborhood because they
clearly did not. The number one policy of the City'.s plan was to
maintain the general low density character of existing single-
family areas, and it was ,incumbent on the Council to see that the.
subdivision related more closely to the mix of the neighborhood,
Everyone was aware of "the financial needs of the PAUSD, but a move
to a lower density requirement --contrary to the comments of the
school board's consultant -would not result in a loss of revenue.
His company participated in the market study where the 'Steinbergs
requested information, anal. he believed it could be categorically
stated that the site could maintain lots within the size ranges
shown --either d 24 or 25 -lot subdivision-- on a straightforward,
across-the-board, square foot price with no diminution' in price
for a larger or smaller lot. Within that price range, the
Crescent Park market could be met and a large or small home could
be put on the lots. The petitioners_ requested that the City
observe the single-family density provisions of the Comprehensive
Men and carefully look at the responsibilities expressed on page
38 of the Comprehensive Plan that the City "look at the effects
upon outdoor and indoor services and programs offered at school
sites, the potential users of the sites of closed schools, the
possible effects on neighborhoods, traffic and safety. The peti-
tioners did not believe the neighborhood was adequately considered
as was indicated by the comments of prior speakers regarding the
recreation facilities.
Councilmember Fletcher asked Mr. Treble for clarification that the
school district would not lose financially if the number of lots
were reduced because the remaining lots could be increased in
price.
Mr. Treble said that was correct and that it was an accepted rule
of thumb that doubling the size of a lot did, not 'necessarily
double the price. Ranges in lot sizes, provided there were no
excessively large or small lots in relation to the neighborhood,
could support a price relationship pretty much one -for -one
dependent upon the lot size. One could end up with a lot priced
as low as $100,000 that could support a $300,000 home, in Crescent
Park and which would be within the range of those presently exist-
ing. Conversely, there could be lots .priced as high as $200,000,
and which could support homes in the $600,000 range That -type of
spread could be seen without great difficulty.
Uon Spicer, 970 University Avenue, believed the plan proposed
tonight maximized the benefits to the school dletrict, but mini-
mized the benefits to the neighborhood. He was not sure that
PAUSO's benefits would be as'nuch as that projected and suggested
dividing,the surplus school site into 21 lots versus the 24 lots.
The Coanprehensive Plan proposed that surplus school sites be put
into open space 'and residential facilities. He could not under-
stana the attitude that if. the 24 lot proposal was disliked, the
25 -lot proposal could be presented, or why the Planning Commission
wanted a higher density than that expressed by the neighborhood.
George Galvin, a 31 -year resident of 1445 Dana Avenue, went on
record that he and his family completely agreed with the 24 -lot
plan submitted by the Planning Commission, and believed it main-
tained the integrity of the neighborhood. He urged the Council to
expedite consideration of the problem so that building might get
underway.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, asked how many square feet existed in an R-1
743 zone.
Zoning Administrator Bob Brown responded that it would require a
minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet.
Mr. Moss supported the location of BMR duplexes on site because
money did not guarantee actual housing. The City needed housing --
it could not live on $90,000 --and hot:sing should be provided in
order for the community to obtain something useful. He supported
the suggestion that the school district require that lots 8, 23
and 14 be dupiexee; and if legally possible, he suggested a state-
ment of direction to staff from the City Council that when the
development application was received, nothing could be epproved,on
those three lots unless a duplex was included. In terms of the
return to the school district, the 25 lot subdivision was super-
ior, and an additional lot could provide approximately $100,000 to
$120,000 and cover, the entire $90,000 BMR contribution of the
school district. He pointed out that when considering the subject.
item and the one to follow, the zoning on the subject land was
R-1, a 6,000 square_ foot lot, and completely consistent -with
existing zoning. On Ortega, the nearby zoning was R-1, 743 or an
8,000 square foot minimum lot size, and the zoning proposed for
Ortega was a smaller, nonconforming inconsistency with the neigh-
borhood lot. If the number of lots were reduced, the people at
Ortega and Crescent Park would be treated differently. The people
at Ortega would be discriminated .against because they had an R-1,
743 surrounding district area and were getting an R-1 development.
On the other hand, if the lot number at Crescent Park was de-
creased and the sizes increased, it could result in an R-1, 743
inserted in the middle of a pure R-1 district. He believed the
inverse square law in physics also applied to BMR housing in that
the intensity of energy decreased with the inverse of a ,distance
from the source. By the same token, the intensity of the opposi-
tion to BMR or higher density housing decrOsed with the distance
in the person's property line.
COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:40 TO 9:50 p.rr.
Anne Ercolani, 2040 Ash, said the was encouraged to see a proposal
that rezoned a portion of Palo Alto to R-1, single family residen-
tial. Since she lived in Palo Alto, most proposals were for -high
density, multiple --units, and most were approved. Palo Alto resi
dents and nonresidents referred to the_ quiet ambience and -residen-
tial character as the things most liked, but as.high density proj-
ects were built, she observed the changing of the City's character
along with increased congestion, noise and traffic. She referred
to an article in last week's Times Tribune about the changing
character to an urban area. sTrImpnr7rmrt the R-1 zoni-hg be
passed for the subject proposal, the Ortega school, and:_ the
remaining site proposal to come up in the future--. Further, she
urged that the Council not:make the foregoing the only single°lots
:available in the future of -Palo Alto, litut to' continue_. to require
that future projects encourage -single family homes iA : ordet'.,, to
maintain the character of Palo Alto. In terms of the specific
plan, she -hoped hoped the BMR units would be on site so that -the arca.
bore its own burden for responsible and affordable housing without
requiring _that, a=di.fferent site be'asked to have a high density
_project inv. their area With- additional -:B$R's -arid Crescent- Park
being the only quiet neighborhood around. She encouraged -that - the
Council pass the - -1 rezoning requested;
-3 4 1_6
6/13/84
1
1
Albert:T. Spaulding, a 23 -year resident -of 541 E. Crescent Drive,
was the past director and president of the University and Crescent
Park Association. The Association covered boundaries from San
Francisquito Creek, Middlefield Road, and Channing- Avenue, and
about 1,300 homes. The Crescent 'Park School site was just about
in the middle, and consisted_ of approximatelya1,300 people --not
just a few people within the immediate area. A basic premise of
the Crescent Park and University Association in —lets.. 29 -year exis-
tence was oppositio' to spot zoning, and the proposal to tonstruc.t
three duplexes in a'e R-1 area was spot zoning.
Jeanne Spaulding, 541 E. Crescent Drive, was President of the Palo
Alto High School PTA, and resided An Crescent Park for 23 years.
Some IOTA objectives were to promote the welfare of children and
youth in home, school, community and, places of worship; to develop
between educators and the general public such united efforts as
would secure for all children and youth the highest advantages of
physical, mental, social and spiritual education. Physical wet=
fare implied play and recreation space, and the. neighborhood was
concerned about the loss of playing .fields and other open space as
the Crescent Park School site. Members of the Planning Commission
assured her that the same space could be transferred --4.9 acres --
by developing part of Eleanor Pardee :Park. Money needed to be
made, and only the Council could vote the appropriate funding at
the present time. She requested that the Council, by motion
tonight, provide the funding for the development of the playing
fields and recreation improvements at Eleanor Pardee Park, and
that it be made a 'condi tion of rezoning. She believed that would
forever ensure the -continuation of the space for the City's
children. She believed that a careful perusal of the City's bud-
get would locate the necessary funds, and if necessary, the money
could be transferred from the development of Greer Park or
Foothills Park. Disposal of the Crescent Park School site re-
quired much thoughtful consideration. The Crescent Park area con-
sisted of more than just Dana and Center Drive'.. -it included the
entire northside from Middlefield to Newell and from Channing to
the Creek, and was entirely zoned R-1. She did not believe the
zoning should be changed and that spot zoning of any kind to. down-
grade those homes purchased many years ago should be prohibited.
She recommended that the site only be rezoned to R-1; and that a
condition of rezoning be the development of what was left of
Eleanor Pardee Park. She reminded the Council that imbedded in
concrete in front of City Hall was a seal which read, "This Center
of Municipal Government is dedicated to the servicee-of residents
of Palo Alto."
Mayor Bechtel said regarding the request for playing field space
at Eleanor Pardee Park, six months ago the Council made its deci-
sion about which school sites would be purchased for, open space,
and it was concluded that Eleanor Pardee Park was only ,one and
one-half blocks away from Crescent Park, and staffwas instructed
at that time to make plans for soccer and other playing fields at
Eleanor Pardee Park, and the F&PW Committee unanimously passed a
motion 1-1/2 weeks ago to that effect. The project was in the
works, and staff would report back soon.
Gary L. Mayes, 1331 Hamilton Avenue, objected to the rezoning to
R-i because of the proposed density, but more; importantly, he
objected to the manner and tactics used by the consultant and the
developer. He did not understand how a developer or consultant
could advertise three cons;cutive days prior to a meeting in the.
newspaper. It might be leeil, but he questioned the ethics and
morality, and he objected to unfair treatment of the Crescent Park
residents. He primarily objected to the loss of open space, and
prior to Mayor ,Bechtel `s comments, he was unaware =of „the,. proposal
to put playing fields on Eleanor Pardee Park. He reinforced "those`F
plans by saying that the loss.of the playing field at -Crescent
Park affected the safe place for children to play in, the -area, and
the alternative of Eleanor Park in its present condition was
3 4 1 7
6/13/$3
unsafe, and the Police Department had many records of drug sales.
It was not 'a place for children to go unaccompanied in its present
condition. When the Crescent Park soccer field was eliminated in
the fall, ten teams, from 13 to 1-5_players or 150 children, would
be -displaced and would have to cross Embarcadero or Oregon which
compounded what the AYSO representative- related last fall that
there was already in excess of 100 people crossing in that -area.
Girls' softball, T -ball, basketball, and backboard skating area
would also ',be lost. Eleanor Park was 10 acres, and approximately
five acres were developed into the current park.' There could be a
plan to develop a playing field back by the massive oak tree, down
and encroaching into the existing gardening area. The gardening
area could be relocated south and east and, there was plenty of
room for gardeners and for children to have recreation in the City
of Palo Alto. The current Crescent Park playing field was 50,
yards by 85 yards, which equated to 38,250 square feet. He calcu
hated that based on $2 per square foot for development purposes on
the high end, it would cost approximately $78,000 to develop a
playing field from scatch. The low end would cost $1.25 per
square foot, and would equate to $47,800. In view that the devel-
opment 'was addi ny on approved_ extra lots, it seemed to be a small
price for the development of the recreation facilities which the
developer was taking away from the children. Another alternative
would be to revamp existing open space in Eleanor Park. A portion
of the jogging path could be relocated, and al plan for a minimum
amount of grading and site work, with a plan to use sod, and the
existing water and maintenance system could be utilized. _That
could be done by not only replacing existing Crescent Park field,
but also developing a true playing field which did not currently
exist on Eleanor. The entire field could be revamped without the
loss of one tree and which would mean only relocating one olive
tree. He requested -that the Council make a condition of any
rezoning from PF to R-1, that the City or developer provide for a
replacement playing field at Eleanor Park. He presented the Coun-
cil with a true to scale drawing of the southern section of
approximately five acres at Eleanor Park, and an overlay, which
was one man's attempt to illustrate that with a little imagination
and cost, the jogging path could be revamped without any encroach-'
ment or violation on existing trees in Eleanor Park, one small
olive tree could be relocated on the area, and with a little grad-
ing, two playing fields could be constructed for less than
$10,000. That seemed like a pittance to request in view of the
proposal.
uordan Gaul, 1405 Uana, directly across from Crescent Park School,
stated tnat he was not in favor of the present 24 -lot subdivision
as presented by the School Board, but completely agreed with the
views and recommendations presented by Mr. Treble.
4iay Whaley, 24 Crescent Drive, represented his two children --ages
12 and 9, and was happy that the transformation 'of Eleanor Park
was "yin the works,". The Crescent Park grass field was 'needed argil
well used over the years, and as Duvanek. School became full , its'
playground would become overexpanded, and he encouraged that the
Eleanor Park transformation -be included. r Yesterday, about 100
students at D4variek School signed a petition endorsing the Eleanor
Park transformation.
I'iancy Treble, 1 Crescent .Drive;- said the first policy of the Come
prehensive Plan was- to "maintain the. general, low .-density charac-
ter of existing single family areas."- That should not."be diffi-
cult because single family zones were over 90' -percent of Palo
Alto's residentially zoned land, -And little new. construction could _
take place. She believed staff: should have proposed an erviron--
menta l - impact report because -.`they were talking about approximately
100 homes: being buil�t,_throughou:t-.the City. _ The City was committed
to low density, single family". nelghbor•hoods, and, program 3 commit-
ted the ---City "to- provide a cottage duplex zone which ' al lows-. two
detached- single family --.houses on one.. lot .in areas_ where such
deve,lopalent exists or Would f t t i n with existing single_ family
properties. Takiny the duplex zone into consideration,. it would
not just be the the proposed site with 24 dwellings --24 dwellings
would happen at Ortega School, with 17 or 18 at the Ross Road
school site and the UeAnza site, continuing to use minimum lot
size standards for single- family neighborhoods to discourage
splitting of larger lots. Duplexes in all of those neighbor-
hoods --not just Crescent Park -.going to the 6,000 square feet, the
minimum lot size on which to build would be 7,500 square feet.
Uividing 7,80U square feet by two would provide two dwellings --
neither of which would meet the minimum requirement: of 6,000
square .feet.: A density of 8,000 square feet, with ;the sage for-
mula and a 30 percent larger lot, would require 10,400 square feet
as the minimum lot size. Divided by two, that would equal 5,200
feet and very close to the minimum lot size. She objected to the
issue at Ortega, DeAnza and Ross Road in addition to. Crescent
Park. Program 37 of the Comprehensive Plan relating to Transpor-
tation, required that "improvements be made in pedestrian .-and
bicycle safety to make it easier for students to get to school as
travel patterns changed because of school closings." Dana Avenue
was the corridor used by children. to go to school. She lived on a
loop road, which road would become one of the most attractive
nuisances Palo Alto could create. She had three boys, which had
many friends, and those kids tore around the loop road to and from
school, and someday a nasty accident world occur. Policy 7, Urban
Design, Gateways, was to strengthen gateway identity. The sense
of entering was an important contribution to community identity.
The motorist entered Palo Alto through many types of gateways
includiny crossing the creek bridge, using a freeway ramp, driving
along an arterial street or through the University Avenue/El
Camino interchange. Using the same formula, Center Drive was one
of the main arterial roads coming into Crescent Park, and directly
across the street from the school were only three lots, and the
Center side of the subdivision map showed _five. She believed
three of those five lots were 63 feet across and did not maintain
the character of the neiyhborhood.
Ur. Arthur M. Bodin, 1421 Pitman, said the developer asserted par-
ticipation and openness to feedback, and that the neighborhood was
provided ample opportunity to participate. The alternatives were
not presented at the meeting, and at the March 17 so called public
meeting, which was not run by or for the neighborhood, there was
disinterest in using or getting feedback from the _neighborhood.
The petition from 200 neighbors against lowering the density was
thus far ignored, and when the neighborhood wanted a straw vote at
the March 17 meeting to set the minimum lot size at: 8,000 square
feet, the developer blocked that expression of feedback by ad-
journing the meeting. A sample of the same attitude was seen
tonight by the developer not.being satisfied with the first speech
four times the Length of anyone else`s, 'and requesting the last
word. In defining what was in keeping with the- neighborhood
character, the developer stated that no consideration was given to
the density of the surrounding Aeighberhoodseaonly wha-t was al
lowed on paper. The' developer's definition;, tonight<<was -guided, by
what was financially best for the school district. Having had two
children .who went throuyh the program, he appreciated the school
district and supported: it having money, but -the school district
who only used the space by day and abandoned --it- `t►wo years ago, was
not the same as the neighborhood who lived with it day and night
and would- for all- the years to come. The Ross Road site would
apparently have 17 lots, the UeAnza SiteewOuld have 18 lots, and
he believed .19 lots would --be ample for the Crescent Park site.
The criterion should be what was there,:- typically, .,and . a disin-
yenuous criterion would be -_.that which was on paper rather. than
what was really there. Another version of the inverse square law
would be that the intensity of- support for the existing_ lot sizes _.
falls off #,.aversely as the square of -the distance, which indicated:
that _those closest to the situation and most, affected cared and
saw that the proposed plan was ' not_ in keepl_ng, with what -etas in the..
neighborhood. He urged that some: form of: cul-de-,-sat: plan be
adopted both for increased lot sizes and safety that, the. site _tie
limited to. 19 lots, that -the plans for cottages and duplexes in
the neighborhood would be incompatible, and a requirement that
whatever was built carry the overdue burden to bury the high ten-
sion wire running in back of Pitman at the same time as the build-
ing. Adopting the foregoing would reduce the tension in the
neighborhood.
Ronald Koch, 1275 Martin Avenue, believed development. cif the area
was foregone, but.he and his neighbors did not support high den-
sity.. He -and his neighbors requested a .firm commitment regarding
the replacement of the playing fields as soon as -passible after
the loss of the Crescent Park fields, which he understood was a
low priority. They were cooperative When their school was lost,
because for various'reasons it made sense to close the school, but
now the district wanted to develop Crescent _Park without almost
twice the density of other closed school _sites and without return-
iny the important recreational fields being lost. , The matter
could be rectified easily by requiring the developer --the school
district in the subject case --.to provide: replacement of lost
recreation sites through designated funds to be generated by the
sale of the lots. Specifically, that a condition of rezoning be
an additional $3,000 to $5,000 to each lot to provide for replace-
ment. Replacement should occur at Eleanor Pardee Park and there
was presently between 150,000 to 200,000 square feet used for dog
walking, vegetable gardening, and natural undisturbed space.
tine -half of that space could be devoted to playing field replace-
ment the net result of which would be that the Eleanor Park's
natural character remained in the form of vegetable gardens, and
the remainder of the, park could be seen from the street thus mak-
ing it safer for children. It would be for day use only, and
small neighborhood children would return to the park to play as
most now left it unused because of fear for their personal safety.
The neighbors asked to receive back a part of what they gave ' up ,
and that as a condition of rezoning, the developer --whether it be
the school district or a private developer --be required to give
the neighborhood back what was taken. he emphatically stated that
24 new families would move into the development and everyone would
benefit from the replaced playgrounds. He reminded the Council
that the present and future members of Crescent Park would remain
after the profits were made and the developers were gone.
Goodwin Steinberg, Los Altos, clarified regarding the degree of
study made with respect to alternative road layouts, that prior to
hiring McKay and Somps--an attempt was made for the -best possible
civil engineer, studies were made of the road as a single road'
coming in from Center Avenue with a cul-de-sac at the end of it;
as a single road coming in from Dana witha cul-de-sac at the end;
and with a loop road and a loop within the property. Those
studies were done in connection with staff from the Planning
Department, Police Department and Fire Department who were opposed
to. an overlong single in -line road. The recommendation was .pro-
vided in combination- with staff and the PAUSD, and he urged
approval .of the road layout. A cul-de-sac would require addi-
tional approval of the Council, and in addition to selling the
property to a builder/de-veloper, they were attempting to get come
munity:. participation, sell -the lots, and provide programs where
individual architects, solar, etc., could be obtained.
Jeannie K. A. Thomas, 751 Center. -Drive, said her property was
immediately adjacent to the -.Crescent Park School site, and::she
des,ired.that the site be developed as soon as possibe. There -had
been some= degree of vandalism and prs$bl erns in the neighborhood-,;
and she saw .one `reason to believe it would not -continue if develop-
moment did not get underway. The 24 lot subdivision was satisfac-
Cory-- to . he'r, but having i t developed was most .important.
Katie Cho, 1470 P_i tman,.,_believed the proposed density was too_ :high:
and she agreed with Ms. Treble and Mr. Mayes.
Linda_-_Ui 1-t--; 187U University Avenue, was president of the Duvanek
PTA, a parent of two boys, an ex -soccer coach -and baseball man-
ayer. She expressed her concern over the loss of the play areas --
the soccer fields and basketball courts --to their children. With
the possible loss of the- playing field, the options in north. Palo
Alto were shrinking, and the size of Eleanor Park offered avail-
able space for development without the loss of Open park space.
Angie Hamlin, 1407' Hamilton, completely concurred with Chris
Treble, but wondered if the decision would be regretted. Once the
school site was gone, it was gone.
Katsy Swan, 14U0 Hamilton, totally agreed with Chris Treble and
hated to see the school go. .
Nancy Ginsburg, 30 Tevis Place, said that as a mother of four
children, she was aware of the difficulty of finding housing in
Palo Alto; as _ a teacher in the Palo Alto School District and with
children in the district, she was aware of the need for funding;
but as a resident of Crescent Park, she felt like the recipient of
an attitude to stick it to Crescent Park. She did not believe the
attitude..was intended, but no amount of juggling lot sizes on
paper could justify smaller lot sizes on thee'Crescent' Park School
site than on -the Ross Road or DeAnza site', and went on record ask-
ing for as low density housing as possible on the Crescent Park
School site, and also agreed with Chris Treble's plan. Because
she lived close to Eleanor Park, she was shocked to hear about the
proposed plan for development, and she asked that the plan be con-
sidered carefully. Some people liked the open spaces, gardened
there, and liked having an open area.
Carolyn Tucher, 4264 Manuela, President of the Palo Alto Unified
School District, said the resolution before the Council later,
indicated the kind of awareness of individual Councilmembers of
the PAUSu's difficulties meeting the community's desire for qual-
ity education with the kind of funding currently provided by the
state; and that in order to do everything possible to continue the
quality of education, the sites were being sold. The first goal
of the PAUSD was to Meet all of City requirements in developing
the sites for nousiny; and to cooperate with the City, the citi-
zens in the affected areas, and the entire community. Crescent
Park was the first application because it was requested by the
Council in December-, 1982, and PAUSD was eager to try and do what
seemed wise to the Council. . The PAUSD worked closely with staff
as did-ethe consultant, and on -behalf of PAUSD, she thanked the
City staff for their willingness, competence and the quality of
support provided to meet the City's "requirements fcr the applica-
tions. Many things that needed working out were taken care of
before plans ever went to the School Board_ and when items on
their agenda were discussed or there were neighborhood meetings, a
staff representative always attended. In addition to meeting City
requirements and _cooperating .with the spirit of those require-
ments, the PAUSD) tried to involve the community as much as possi-
ble in bringing forth plans. A minimum of two meetings were
scheduled at every site, and in the case of Crescent Park, she
believed there were at least six meetings as well as a great many
individual telephone calls, private Meetings, and other efforts.
The bottom line was that there was no one view which seemed to
represent the interest of all :those involved in the case. She
believed it was true of the neighbors, as much as At was true with
the PAUSD, that everyone would -have been pleased if a single plan
could have been developed, but that plan was not found... She was
not aware that voting on the.proposail was a standard procedure for
developers who appeared ,before the - --City, and in .the PAUSD's
efforts to involve the community:, that .implied a; responsibility_
that the neighbors should vote o'n.which plan . +as the best. She
believed'the developer was always allowed to present the plan, but
PAUSt) wanted to go beyond that and involve the:- ne.i ghbors-.'to the
extent possible, but that did .not mean'tha neighbors had the final
3 4 2 1
6/13/83
,J�
decision on which plan was best. The PAUSD also desired -to
cooperate with the City.on its BMR requirement, and the first
effort to meet that requirment was the proposal of the cottage
zone. That was believed to have a let in, the PAUSD's favor, and
seemed to satisfy the City's requirements, but after talking at
length with staff at the Housing Corporation, the consultant went
back to the district with the recommendation -that a mutually
worked out compromise be accepted, which was recommended by staff
to tne Planning -Commission. The Board voted to change the PAUSD's
position although it involved a cost of some $90,000 end:a cost on
all the sites of approximately $300,000. The decision of the City
to take certain portions of the sites for open space would reduce
the values of the properties by over $2,000,000 to the district,
end-PAUSD paid all norina i fees required of any developers, and the
proposal worked out in tne compromise was for a $300,000 in -lieu
- payrnent•.in addition to. the provision. of small units ava�llable_ for
rent The ,proposal" was made at: the Planning Commission level. that
instead= that a Jot. be given ,from :each of the .sites. e Originally
the idea was that the district would go back to the 25 lot plan,
provide a lot to the City, and still nave 24 for sale. The pro-
posal was now for 24 lots, ` and if one were taken, 23 would be left
to sell. If the council applied that..evenly across all. the sites,
that would mean at DeAnza where there were 18'lets, there would be
17 less to sell, and at DeAnza over an acre was going_ -to community
open space and why there were not 24 lots at DeAnza. There had
been some talk about giving more than one lot for duplexes or BMR
units, which would further reduce what the district had, available.
The Council had before it -an appraiser of Desmond Johnson on the
• value of the lots, which was contested, but Ms. Steinberg could
provide a list of those who provided her with information in order
to conclude that a value was surrendered when reducing the number
of lots. The PAUSD wanted to -be partners with the City, and what-
ever was required would be done with as much grace.. as possible,
and the money left would be spent educating the children.
dill eampe, 1210 Dana Avenue, had reservations about the proposed
plan. The criterion of the plan was that it should provide the
greatest return to tne PAUSD without harm to the neighborhood, and
at the same time, it was heard that the criteria for development
was based on the specifications for R-1 zoning. Everyone knew
that the Crescent Park neighborhood was not a set of specifica-
tions in a code book --it was real families, living in real houses
on the lots, and he did not believe the specific proposal fit -the
character of the neighborhood. He found it difficult to believe
that in good conscience the developer could say that the proposal
did not harm the character of the neighborhood without actually
having made it an _explicit consideration. He believed everyone
felt the sense. of urgency to the immediate neighbors of the
Crescent -Park School site, and without question, they had a real
interest in seeing the development progress. It was tragic to see
that sense of urgency used as a lever to- press ahead with a
restricted set of alternatives which appeared to be .the case in
the proposed situation. The decision would have long term conse-
quences for the neighborhood and ht urged the Council to reject
the proposal sand urged consideration of a reasonable alterna-
tives.
Frank Patitucci,''1427 Dana, believed the Planning Ci}mmission min-
utes contained most of what was heard tonight, bui since others
said._, it, everyone must say it, because at some/ point, someone
started counting and everyone needed to be co!nted. Everyone
wanted Crescent "Pa fk to <remain a school, but i t`.` was accepted by
the- neigIhborhood. Most everyone. would have :preferred :to retain
the' open space and- _ recreational, uses; but when the iscussions
arose over the Naylor legislation, that was clearly noti\an option
for`. the -particular school. He "Urged ::the Council to Wee with
those who said to get on with tee development of El eai or Pardee
Park. The remaining issue was the number of lots, ande,ihe idea of
single family zoning was pretty much accepted. The �t`Quncil had
been provided with different ideas as to the rate at which people
would like to see it developed, but he lived adjacent to the site
and there was no question from his standpoint that it needed to
commence.- The site was deteriorating rapidly and was approaching
dangerous TeVels. When various options were considered, the plan
presented as a PAUSD approved plan was for 25 lots. That plan.had
a couple of meetings which were, -unsuccessful in terms of receiving
input -and dialogue and some neighbors believed a nr;rber of lots
should, be taken out in order to: come up with better usage and
frontage to the existing neighborhood.' PAUSD came back with a
24 lot plan, and after analyzing it, he decided he could accept
it. In the process, a number of other neighbors went around and
talked to every adjacent property owner, and at the time, each
said they could live with a 24 lot plan and it was preferred to
the 2b lot plan. The idea was to try and get the PAUSD to go from
25 lots to 24. There were 30 lots that touched Crescent Park
School , ,and of the 27 people questioned, 27 agreed with the 24 -lot
plan, A couple of people changed_their minds, but he believed
that. if everyone were offered the same opportunity, everyone would
prefer 20 lots over 24. A trade off was faced, and the question
was what was acceptable. He believed the 24 lot plan Was accept-
able because living across the street on Dana, he'lived an a 7-,200
square foot lot, and when presented with a plan for an average lot
size of 7,100 square -feet, he could say it would downgrade his
neighborhood, but with the plan for an average lot size of 7,400
square feet, he could no longer make that argument.. People wanted
to see the neighborhood upgraded, and if that was possible and the
PIUSU would still yet its money, he would agree. The question was
a reasonable compromise in the middle_position, and he concluded
that it was 24 lots.
Ronald Cowger, 8/9 Newell Place, supported the transfer of the
playing field at Crescent Park School to the Eleanor Pardee Park
and strongly recommended a plan similar to Mr. Mayes` that would
make workable fields for the children. He had two young children
and hoped they would be able to use the area before they were too
old to enjoy it.
Receiving no further requests from the public to speak, Mayor
Bechtel declared the public hearing closed.
10:30 .m. - COUNCIL TO DETERMINE WHICH ITEMS TO COMMENCE AFTER
asD�r�..�s yr
Mayor Bechtel believed that item 112, regarding College Terrace
Toning changes and amendments, should be continued.
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Bechtel eroded, seconded Witherspoon,
that item #12, College Terrace - be continued until June 20,
1983.
MOTION PASSEL? by a vote of 8-1, Fletcher voting 'no.'
RETURN TO ITEM #101 CRESCENT PARK SCHOOL SITE
Mayor Bechtel said with regard to the playing fields. at Eleanor
Pardee Park, that a member of the public spoke of a discussion
with a "Counci lmember where playing fields were not a high priority
for that particular Counci1member. It was a high priority for
her, and six months ago along with other Counci lmembers, she voted
to refer the Matter to staff for ways to add playing fields at
Eleanor Pardee Park.` She further supported a special motion by
the Finance and Public Works Committee, and encoureged those
interested in the item to make their concerns known. The budget
process was such that the CoUncli would approve the 1983-84 bud-
get, including the Capital IMprovement portion, onAune 27, 1983,
and it was appropriate to make comments At that time. The F&PW
Committee recommended that staff be prepared to report to the
Council as to how such playing',fields could be completed and how
the other portions of the park'' desirablo for community gardens,
etc. could be preserved. -
Councilmember Cobb said he suggested the cul-de-sac plan in order
to.stimulate some alternatives, and he was still not convinced,
despite the comments he heard, that the subdivision -could not be
designed in such a way as to ameliorate some of issues. His goal
was to increase. the lot size and create_ a more private development.
end in general create something with more -economic value since he
believed cul-de-sacs had significant advantage s_en,d must -be more
marketable lots. . Regarding the recreation needs, as eone who
.coached young children, -)fa believed the playing fields were abso-
lutely ;necessary and he 'would continue to strongly recommend get-
ting:on with.::the program of replacing_the playing fields at
Crescent Park. Regarding OMR's, ,the requi rements. were established
City policy for longer than he had been involved with City govern-
ment, and unless and until the policy changed, he believed the
Council had an obligation .to follow it as fairly as possible.
That raised the equity issue, and he believed that whatever was
done on the site must also be done at other sites of a similar
nature developed by the school district. Regarding what would
happen if in -lieu funds were- accumulated, he did not believe it
was good planning or fair that the entire in -lieu payment be
lumped at one other site;, which got back to .Mr. Moss' inverse
square law. That was not an equitable way to deal with the issue,
and he believed that whatever rules werej. decided for Crescent
Park, meet he applied uniformly throughout all sites of a similar
nature.
Councilmernber Klein said he lived at 1433 Dana, which was directly
opposite Lot 19 on the proposed map, and his family was also sorry.
to see the school close. He was very familiar with the Crescent -
Park School site --it was a recreational facility for his family
over the years, and he and his boys played every sport there. He:
was aware of the level of use of the facility, its nonuse at
times, and the marked deterioration of the site. He was concerned
with what happened in his neighborhood, and out of self --interest,
he would not vote for something he believed would b'e harmful to
him or his family. He did not find the proposal to be such a
threat; and. found that , the proposal =maintained ;.the.: 1 owe dens.i ty,
residential character of the community.:: , He , coul;d not, +in good
conscience,- say to his constituents that_ the average lot size and
even the smallest ones on Lots 20 and 21 would be i n any way harm-
ful -to the neighborhood in which they would be -situated. The
differences were relatively small --.they were talking about whether
19 „units or 24 units would make a difference, -and he,believed the
additional 15 or 20 people who ,night live on those extra :five lots
would be an _addition to the community --not a: detriment. He: did
not find that a 6,000 square foot lot across the street from his
7,200 square foot slot would lower his residential value, but to
the contrary believed' a good example of what happened with real
estate values with a development such as the one proposed.was the
Harker School site which was:built-seven or eight years ago. The
homes built on Harker- were on similar, sized lots-, and:°.were an
addition to the community and demonstrative that the.real estate
values of the existing homes in the neighborhood. went up: -rapidly
after the development was completed. He believed,At was `clear
that the proposal 'before the Council, was satlsfactnry. It was
always possible to improve things,: but that could drive one crazy
because there was no end to, that process. The question to. him was
whether the proposal before:,the Council was-sat1sfactory and kept
. with tile programs -in .the Comprehensive Plan, :and be found: that it
was. Hi s job as a. Counci lmember was - not to : r•.edesi gn, everything-,
bu to find whether the propos t was for the -,_good of pa:lo M to and
.the particular neighborhood.: i'he_, question as,::.to where!-_tPte BMR
housing should be_ was troublesome, .and: he did not. find, the:- talk of
equity�'to be'.persuasive. He believed' it assumed that:8M housing
was somehow a detrimf,pt to:the=community :or a`ny commrni,ty: in which
It--:was4ocated., The -people wpo Kved int- BMRunits t-hroitghout.the
{pity were good ci tizers, and as -goad as anyone else., ih; the commun-
: i ty.. A "share the -pain" phi l.osophy.was- erroneous.,- ,nd; he .was much
more concerned.; about finding`;a way •to produce as .many- ;units as -
possible in .-Palo Alto for- :BMR: families; in keeping -.with the
3 4 2 4
6/13/83
character of the community. Only so many places could fit into
the community without changing its character, and another question
was how much the City could afford. The federal government dra-
matically -cut back -its support of housing and the City was back on
its -own limited resources. To see the City squander some of those
resources in the name of false equity -was a misallocation of dime;
talent and financial resources. ale would Much prefer taking the
money, i;iultiplyieg it by the money received from other school dis
trict sites, and building more units at some particular site to be
selected in the future. He did not bel ieve the City would' get its
moneys worth by building two.. duplexes in Crescent Park, -and it
would be engaging in some type of obescience of false_. god. of
equity when that was not,the ,case at a11. The playing fields were
a concern even though it was not• an issue before the Council
tonight. The F&PW Committee instructed the -staff to report back,
but 'not this budget- year. This budget year was completed, and at
the meeting of June 27, 1983, additions or deletions could be made
to the Capital Improvement budget. He supported the idea of an
attractive program at Eleanor Park for playing fields, and was
impressed by ton i yht' s proposal.- The .City of Palo Alto, like
almost every government agency in California, had severe monetary
restrictions --its Capital Improvement Program had tremendous
demands placed on it, and if a way could be' found for doing it at
a lower price than that initially estimated, he would be all for
it. He suggested that tonight's proposal be looked at carefully
to determine whether it could be done at a price the City could
afford. There were concerns about how the park should be devel-
oped, and recalling the fights in the 1970's over whether there
should be tennis courts, etc., there were other neighbors with
different concerns. He believed it would be inappropriate for the
Council to enact a program to develop things at an unknown price
and .with unknown environmental costs, and that it should be done
right. It was a question of moving ahead with all deliberate
speed, but carefully so as not to waste money or harm a very valu-
able park.
MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to
adopt the Planning Commission recommendations for the Comprehen-
sive Plan Land Use Redesignation and Zone Change that the proposed
amendment of the Land Use Nap from School District Lands to Single
Family Residential be approved and the change of zone from PF
(Public Facilities) to R-1 (Single Family Residence District) and
a tentative subdivision map for twenty-four lots be approved, with
a finding of no significant environmental impact, and the fol-
lowing additional findings:
1. The proposed land use and zoning_ designations are consistent
with the housing objectives and policies of the Comprehensive
PIan which call for maintenance of the existing character of
development of residential neighborhoods in that proposed lot
sizes are consistent with surrounding single family proper-
ties. The single family land use will also -provide housing
opportunities for the development of new single family resi-
dences. Vacant land for such single family development is
very limited within Palo Alto;
The BMR housing obligation shall be satisfied through an
in -lieu payment of 190,000 for the Crescent Park -site, due
within one year after sale of the first lot at that particular
site. If all or part of the payment is not received after
that date; the PAUSD will incur an interest charge on the
unpald balance ofprime rate inus one percent calculated from
the date ofthe recording of the final sebdivision Nap for, the
.site;
. The "swbdivision will not have _ a significant impact On: the
environment and the proposal, including the design and
leProverent, is consistent with the adopted Cdaprelensive
Plan, complies -Kith the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 of
the PAMC; the site is physically suitable for the type and
1
MOTION CONTINUED
density of the proposed development; the subdivision; is not
likely to result in serious public health problems; there are
no conflicts with public. easements and _ finding : that_ . for the
exceptions for lot width on Lots 9, 14 and 15.
a. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting
the property including the fact that the exceptions are
required for lots which are located on the outside curves
of the interior roadway and that the lots are proposed in
a wedge shape between the curved street frontage and the
squared boundaries of the property;
b. The exceptions are necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the peti-
tioners;
c. The granting of the exceptions will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other property in the
vicinity in which the site is situated in that increased
density or development potential will not result from
these exceptions and that the lot area for the subject
parcels is well above the minimum for the zone district;
4. The granting of the exceptions will not violate the
requirements, goals, policies or spirit of the law in that
the exceptions are minimal in size .and compensated by
increased lot area;
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
E
1. Deed restrictions requiring orientation of future single
family residences towards Dana Street and minimum building
setbacks of 20 feet from the Dana Street property line shall
be recorded for Lots 5, 6, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22;
2. The applicant shall submit a plan indicating .the critical
invert and ring elevations of the drainage _system on Center
Street, and also prepare calculations demonstrating that the
capacity of the existing storm drainage system has not been
exceeded prior to submittal of engineering plans -;for site
improvements;
3. All livable floor levels for future structures shall comply
with the requirements of the Flood Hazard Reduction Program
andbe a minimum of one foot above the existing ground eleva-
tion;
4. The new street shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. .Minimum curb radii shall be 30 feet;
5. Fences shall not be erected closer than 10 feet from the face
or curb. This will allow unrestricted access to utilities b,y
City staff;
6. A public utility easement shall. be shown on the final map in
compliance with that shown on thetypical street section;
7. Subdivider shall grant fee title to the City for the street oa
streets shown on the maps and shall offer ' these .streets for
dedication to public in the Owner's Certificate on the neap;
8. Subdivider shall submit construction plans for the $.prove-
gents proposed to the City .Engineer for approval. He Shall
construct these improvements : prior: to rdcordatior+ of the ; sap
..
or enter into a subdivision ;agreement with the City Of Palo
Alto;
3 4 2 6
-6/13/83
MOTION CONTINUED
9. The developer will need to realign the sidewalk and curb near
the intersection of Forest Avenue and Center Drive to its
standard within 'the public right-of-way;
0. Developer shall construct a ramp for the'handicapped at the
intersection ..of Dana Avenue and Center Street and ;also at the
intersection of the new street and Dana Avenue;
1. Prior to submitting a final map the subdivider shall submit a
detailed soils report;
2. The existing perimeter fences to the south and east of the
site shall be removed and replaced with fencing of a standard
residential height. The fence design and removal/replacement
plan shall be subject to SERB review a% a regularly scheduled
item and notice shall be given to adjoining property owners;
3. Unless indicated as being removed on the tentative subdivision
maps all existing trees proposed for removal shall be reviewed
by the City"Arborist and retained where healthy and feasible.
A tree planting program for all street frontages and north and
south site perimeters shall be :submitted by the developer to
the City Parks Department and shall be subject to the approval
of the City Arborlst
4. All electric service systems including communication systems
shall be installed underground by the developer; and
5. Street lighting in conformance to City standards shall be
provided by the developer.. Plans for street lighting shall be
approved by the Chief Electrical Engineer prior to recordation
of the final map.
RESOLUTION b132 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY or PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF
PALO ALTO BY AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A
PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT 1400 DANA AVENUE (FORMER
CRESCENT PARK SCHOOL SITE)"
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
ALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION
18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING
MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF A PORTION OF THE
PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1400 DANA- AVENUE (FORMER CRESCENT PARK
SCHOOL SITE) FROM PF TO R-1"
Councilmember tyerly said he received . about as many telephone
ca=lls on the issue as he did with the; massage parlors seven years
ago. He prepared for tonight's decision by receiving considerable
input from the residential community, Ms. Steinberg, and Carol
Tucher. The School District was mentioned in the City Charter in
that the City Council should have regard for its problems --the
PAUSU had financial problems, and its proposal and request were
good. The PAUSU wanted all subdivisions on the four school prop-
erties treated equally, and its policy decision was to.. maximize
its income with little or no harm to the surrounding community,
which issue was debated tonight. The City Council_ Strove for. good
City governme t and that required ample communication with every-
one involved in 'an issue sothat a:decision could be made without
Oe existence _of those adversary, community positions expressed
- tonight. , He was. pleased to_; see that: the FAPli Committee a-ked for
,a. stiff report' on the -open- space issue, but -did. not . see how the
City Council could support the_purchase. of open space at Crescent
Pa k, _School' when hl eanOr ,Pork was id such close proximity and the
possibility that the University and Crescent Park communities
might`'
-not support a change in the park. -Regarding whether to
3 4 2 ?
6/13/83
proceed with the development because of a deterioration in the
school site, the people in the immediately adjacent area wanted to
move ahead and he could not help but be sympathetic to their con-
cerns, but to those people residing further away, the issue was a
reduction in the number of lots within the proposed Crescent Park
subdivision. He empathized with those concerns because there were
a lot of large lots in the University and Crescent Park subdivi-
.sion much larger than the residential lot.; abutting the remainder
of :he Crescent Park School District. He believed some of the
splitting of the community could have been avoided with a. change
in how the proposals to be presented to the City were analyzed.
He did not believe the consultant properly weighed the increased
value of lots in the Crescent Park area ine terms of what they
would brine compared to what would be brought in with similar size
lots in other school districts in the community. If one perused
the real estate listings and what things were selling for in the
City, Crescent Park was a choice. area. If the consultant had sure
veyed ail schools in the -Crescent Park district in the same way
and come in with an average lot size for the different schools, he
-wa , sure the value of return to the school district could have
been as high for Crescent Park with fewer lots. Compromises must
be reached in an attempt to meet the desires of the community, and
while the 24 -lot subdivision might not be acceptable to some,
others believed it -was alright to move forward. He believed the
process went far enough, and the proposed development was as good
as any. When development occurred, he did not believe there would
be any problem with its 'appearance, or being tied to the neighbor-
hood. He agreed with the motion on the floor in terms of the BMR
situation, and that it would be irresponsible for the City to take
a lot in that area and_ rezone for a BMR duplex development. He
was not sure about whether it was proper for the City to require a
BMR from a raw land development because the housing development
plans in the Comprehensive Plan could be -interpreted several
ways --and when the school' district was involved, he was not sure
whether the City had the right to ask for BMR units. He supported
the suggestion of in -lieu funds, and if the residents of the area
were unhappy with a cottage zone or use permit on those three
lots, they had every opportunity to speak to that issue.
Councilmember Witherspoon sa 'i1 she understood that the option of a
use permit on those three lots for a cottage zone was not part of
the motion; that it -was strictly an in -lieu payment.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
he understood -the motion incorporated the modified staff recommen-
dation contained in Ci~1R:345:3, dated June 9p 1983, and which
included both the payment and the PAUSD's application for Crescent
Park III duplex use permits. The modified recommendation separat-
ed the direct' tie between the- receipt of payment and the receipt
>>.of use permits, but both the use permits and -payment were ,part. of
the Pik proposal.
Mayor Bechtel clarified that it did not condition the payment upon
receipt of the Use permit..
Mr. Schreiber said that was correct.
Mayor Bechtel said part of the plan was actually 24 lots, three of.
which the PAUSD planned to apply for a use permit for cottages,
but the Zoning Administrator was not obligated to grant that use
permit.
CouncilRember Witherspoon said she basically agreed with Council
members :Klein and Eyerly, and also being a resident of Crescent
Park whose children went to Crescent Park School, the was con-
scious of her neighbors' concerns. She did nOt believe she had
spoken to so many of her neighbors since discussing,whether
Eleanor Park should be "passive or active" eight years ago. She
remembered that her neighbors opted for;"passive,"..and if playing
fields were now constructed" with or• without lights, the total
3 4 2 8
6/13/83
1
community must again be involved. That should be thoroughly
reviewed, .,but down the' road. She was sorry to see Crescent Park
close but pointed out that the Council- did not have a lot of say
in the matter. Whether the proposal was the ultimate development
plan for the site could be debated for hours, and she believed the
proposed configuration with an open-ended, two -ended street was
probably the --safest and most practica-1 and had little quarrel with
tyre layout of the lots. She did not believe that a lot size, give
or take 1.00 feet, was nearly as important as the privacy of neigh-
bors which could be affected by the configuration Of -' lots and
their orientation to each other. She had less of a problem with
whether it was 24 or 22 lots as long as the layouts ensured maxi-
morn privacy for other neighbors and each other. She believed the
24 -lot configuration was satisfactory and preferred to go ahead
with the development plans as soon as possible. She reminded the
neighborhood that about four years ago when, the Council looked at
the Comprehensive Plan zoning for the neighborhood, it was alarmed
to see the rate some of the larger, lots in the neighborhood were
being subdivided --especially those around Forest and Hamilton.
The Council, therefore, down zoned the area and was reluctant to
allow- any more lot splits and a number -rot requests for the cottage
and/or duplex zone were rejected in that neighborhood. To zone a
lot "duplex" in the subdivision and allow a cottage'zane on three
lots would be contrary to the policy being slowly developed over
the past four years and she understood Councilmember Klein's
motion to only include in -lieu payments. He evidently meant to
include that and for the City to consider the possibility of a
cottage zone. She would not withdraw her second, but was opposed..
to that possibility.-
Councilmernber Fletcher: asked that the BMR portion of the motion be
separated for purposes of voting. -She supported the motion be-
cause of the City's policy to scatter BMR units throughout the
community, and the Planning -Commission intended that if the pro-
posal did not work financially, it still had the safety valve of
revertinu to the in -lieu payment. Regarding whether second units
were in keeping with the neighborhood, current state law rmandated
that cities permit second units on large lots, and other large
lots in Crescent Park might make en application for second units.
It .would be in keeping with the neighborhood if one or more- lots
had more than one unit constructed. She supported the concept of
playing fields at Eleanor Park, but also remembered sitting
through the heated debates as to what should be developed there,
and the Council would be remiss in making that decision tonight
without the item being fully noticed -and agendized so'that the
immediate neighbors of Eleanor Park could : make e their opinions
known. She was bothered that the roadway was -40 feet wide, plus
five foot sidewalks on either side. She lived in a complex with
140 units, and the roadway serving those units was 26 feet wide
with parking on one side and -two-way traffic 'was permitted. She
would hate to have to look out her window at a 40- foot: roadway,
and suggested an amendment that the street width be as narrow as
possible.
City Attorney Diane Lee said Council's responsibility was to
approve a subdivision map., and it was important to be Specific in
_terms of ghat c eu 1 d be approved, so that -a finding of conformity
could be made at'_:the time of the final map. For example, a spe
cific alternate dO wing would be proper, but statements such as
"as : narrow as 'posse le" was improper because it would --be '-:hard to
determine conform) ty) at the time of the final map.
Coundiimember Fletliher pointed out that some streets north of-.
-°Uregon Avenue were,736' feet and served hunbreds of homes _adeq'uate-
ly. The sign at, -the b trance to_ her complex read "10 MPH," and
because th _ +`:did wa.s so, narrow,- people. went._ very -slowly.. - She
asked if a, `�i0-foot roadway t s a reasonable width, -
Mr. Brown responded that the 4U -foot, curb -to -curb width came from
the Public Works Standard Specifications, approved by Council, but
Councilmember Fletcher was correct that many of the streets north
of Oregon Avenue were less. In the specific area, Forest Avenue
was iii feet wide and Dana Avenue was 30 feet wide, but had rolled
curbs and a lot of parking on the sidewalk. The 40 foot --width was
intended to allow an eight foot wide parking strip on either side
of the street, and two, 12 foot wide traffic lanes. The City
Engineer and Fire Department considered that to be the optimum
solution.
Mr. Schreiber believed that 32 feet should be considered the mini-
mum --it would allow two, 12 foot lanes plus one eight foot parking
strip on one side. It was difficult to'regulate parki.ng on only
one side of the street and there were the concerns of the Fire
Department about access_to their equipment on a street narrower
than 40 feet. The 40 feet was derived from the Public Works
Standards and also based on Fire Department reommendations.
Councilmember Fletcher said •that with the 26 foot roadway in her
complex, the parking spaces were marked with painted tees on one
side and she had never seen a car parked on the wrong side. The
street was narrow,, but no problems were experienced with fire
trucks getting by, ari.d she was reluctant to go above 30 feet.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by
Witherspoon_` that the street width be no wider than the width of;:;
Dana Avenue (30 feet).
Councilmember Eyerly asked whether the Oreen House condominiums
were public streets or a common area for the development.
Mr. Brown responded that it was private.
Councilmember Eyerly was opposed to the amendment because it would
be a public street, the number of lots in the subdivision had been
decided, and the only reason he could see for narrowing the street
would be to make the lot sizes larger. That issue was basically
decided and he did not -see any point in narrowing the streets. He
believed that in order to have a better subdivision with public
streets, it was necessary to have the amount of space recommended
by staff.
Mr. Laver said that staff was charged with. the responsibility of
reporting to the Council as to the adequate street widths for pub-
lic safety purposes, and the minimum standard recommended to Coun-
cil, and adopted, was 40 feet. That figure was recommended in
order for emergency vehicles to move in and out, to have adequate
room for parking on both sides of the street, and still have an
adequate traveiway. Staff did not recommend that the figure be
reduced in the subject case: -it would be a public -street, and the
City would be responsible for its maintenance, and Council would
be responsible for the,;traffic flow including emergency traffic.
Councilmember Levy asked if there was any reason that the proposed
street could not have the same configuration as Dana Avenue with
rolled curbs.
Mr. Brown said he would rather defer to the Department of Public
Works because he =did not know the maintenance problems associated
with rolled curbs, but that a representative was not An atten-
dance.
Councilmember Levy said he was surprised that the proposed street
would be wider than Dana Street because it seemed to work well in
the area. He would support giving - the developer the ` freedom to
put in a narrower street down to the same width as Dana because
it was in the developer's best interests to. have :-the whole
development as attractive and saleable as possible and for the',.
3 4 3 0
6/13/83
individual lot sizes as large as possible. He could not support
the amendment is presented "that the street -widths should be no
wider than 30 feet,." but could support a motion that the street
widths should be no narrower than the present width of Dana Ave-
nue, which he believed would provide the developer with some
opportunity to narrow the street if he believed it was in the best
interests of the development.
MAKER AND 'SECOND OF AMENDMENT AGREED TO CHANCE WORDING TO READ
THAT THE STREET WIDTH SHOULD NE NO NARROWER THAN THE PRESENT WIDTH
OF DANA AVENUE (30 FEET)
Councilmember Fenzel said the center line on the map to the -edge
of the property lines on the new subdivision was shown as 25 feet
on either side which she assumed was 40 feet of roadway and five
feet on either _side. Up near Center Street, Dana was also shown
as 25 and 2a, and she -a-sked what the distinction was and why one
was turning out to be 30 feet.
Mr. drown responded that there was only 50 . feet for the public
right-of-way which included the five foot wide sidewalk, and two,.
five foot wide public utility easements on either side. In the
case of most other public streets in the area', the right-of-way
included the utility easement in the dedication. There was no
separate utility easement outside of the public right-of-way.
Councilmember Renzel clarified that each side of Dana Street had
10 feet of sidewalk and public utilities easement, but that only
five feet were dedicated on the new subdivision. She opposed the
amendment because single-family neighborhood streets also had many
parked cars, and although it was not encouraged by the City, there
were more cars in single-family neighborhoods. The City had prob-
lems with overnight parking in many neighborhoods partly because
there was not ample frontage for cars to park. She said that two
curves were fairly close together in the proposed subdivi';Sion, and
more driving space --which would reduce the frontage on a number of
lots and allow parking on the straight parts of the street --was
required for visibility. It was important for the -street;, to be
full sized, and the rains` last winter showed how important a
street's holding capacity was for water as it went down into the
drains and out to the bay, and it was important for the Council to
-maintain the City's.standards for streets and make sure they func-
tioned effectively.
Councilmember Klein asked whether the revised amendment was suffi-
ciently precise to determine conformance .at the time of final may
approval. .
Mr. Schreiber said it was clear that the street could be no nar
rower than 3U feet, and he believed -the amendment would leave
staff with enough discretion to determine conformance.
Councilmember Klein pointed out that the i;mendment changed the
dimensions of several of the ,lots.
AMEHJHENT PASSED by a vote of =4, Eger` y, Renzel, Klein,. Cobb
votin
Councilmember Levy .believed that tonight was another step along a
long road of unhappy circumstances. No-one liked l osi., g a school
twat represented open space, a -neighborhood, and a community, but
the foremost factor in the City'was_ Proposition 13,.and the com-
munity's inability to Z.ocally raise taxes to support its school
system. The birth rate was bower, and. Palo, Al to -'s desi rabi ):ity 'as `.
a living place caused AReople to stay even' after their chfldren
grew up' -.and - graduated, ' and as a result,= the "school -populations.
declined —He said that Crescent Park rand other isChoOlt as°- well
were closed` _and a number, of si tes reuui red di`spos.i t i on a
school district determined whetheri--to::sell a site and while he
sympathized with.: its cause, in matters • such .as --;-the future` - of
neighborhoods, areas, and City policies, the school district
should be treated the same as any other developer. The zoning in
the area should be fair and the BMR process should be underlying
for all developments in the City. Regarding the size of the
development, the difference between 19 units_.and 24 units was
small and he was satisfied that the PAUSU, in presenting the
development to the Council, presented one which generally con-
formed with the neighborhood. It averaged 7,300 square feet per
lot size, and miyht turn out to be somewhat larger, and was a rea-
sonable reflection of Crescent Park. In terms.of the BMR require-
ments, the issue was whether to accept the money or the units.
the argument ayainst on -site units was that the development costs
of the units would be higher than if the money was accumulated and
all the units were developed on one site. Arguments in favor of
on -site BMk Units included that it conformed to the Comprehensive
Pan. He believed the Council was correct when it endorsed the
concept in the Plan that -a couple of units meeting the general
feel and layout of a neighborhood should be set -aside with any
development for lower income housing. The concept'worked in other
parts of town, and most residents did not know where the units
were because they were designed to be the same general size and ,to
blend in with the neighborhood. The concept of a cottage zone
would require that several lots be zoned for cottages, and he was
uncomfortable with that because the cottage zones would actually
add more units, whereas one lot set aside for a BMR duplex, would
only add ehe unit to the site. He did not believe cottages were
conducive to children, and• it was important to do as much as pos-
sible to develop households with children in town. School sites
other than Crescent Park would come before the Council, and all
should be developed consistently. If the City was able to put a
couple of inconspicuous BMR units all around town, they would con-
tribute to the diversity of the community, and everyone would
benefit.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, that
the below market rate housing obligation be satisfied through the
provision of one lot rather than an in -lieu payment and that Lot 8
be rezoned from PF to k-2 until such time as a planned community
zone providing for two for sale 8NR units is approved.
Councilmember Renzel agreed with Councilmember Levy that it was
important to provide a variety of housing unit types and that they
be in every area of town. The -City faced a number of other .school
:site rezonings and it was appropriate to attempt to be consistent
with respect to the requirements and provided an opportunity to
get units directly.
Councilmember Cobb clarified that his use of the term "equity,"
did not mean to refer to anyone who might occupy the units He
grew up ---in a poor family, had always considered himself to be a
good citizen, and did not believe he had those kinds of concerns.
He would support a lower density development for_the site --the
proposal before the Council was a compromise and the 24 units
would probably pass. An on -site BMR unit would add one extra liv-
ing unit and no extra lots, and the in -lieu payment route would
accumulate the.abilitt. for a lot more density on one site some-
where else. He believed the City was getting carried away with
density in various parts of town.. anad would have„ to start drawing
back. The busyness of leveraging to pack a lot more `on-some"other
site bothered him, and if the amendment failed, he- would support'
the main motion-, but would resist, a's stoutly as he could, -exces—
sive density on some other=` school site when it came up.
Mr. Schreiber clarified that at the present stage in the process,
the concept of an in-lietf payment did, not include any Council
approval of the cottage use permits. That would < be a separate
process, would go to the Zoning Administrator, and only on appeal
to the Commission and Council. . If the City decided that the BMR
solution.was to be adupiex lot, there was nothing to_preclude-the
PAUSD as the current °property -owner or a future property owner of -
any large enough individual lot from coming in for a use permit.
The PAUSU filed an application for three use permits on lots.&, 20
and _24, oand the Loning.Administrator's public hearings would 5e
scheduled shortly.
Vice Mayor Fazzino said the BMR issue was the most difficult ques-
tion for,him with regard to the entire project. He searched all
weekend for reasons to oppose it, and a number of speakers gave
him good ideas to use in public argument. His past comments and
personal feelings about units and the concept of ,BMR's, always
supported the concept of actual units rather than in -lieu payments
if possible. He supported the BMR concept in the proposed project
and did not believe it would change the nature of the project. It
was much preferable to, some of the proposals discussed at the
Planning Commission. He agreed with Councilmembers Levy and Cobb
about the equity issue which must be applied City-wide with neigh-
borhood considerations in mind. The very' minor` BMR concept pro -e.
posed had _all kinds of considerations in mind with respect to the
nature of the' neighborhood, and he believed the small BMR con-
cept --if feasible --would enhance the project, He would support
it.
Counci lmember Eyerly believed the Council was unclear- about what
could happen with a BMR .in -lieu payment, and everyone needed to
consider that the proposed subdivision was not a housing develop-
ment. The City's policy in a housing development was for a devel-
oper -to provide 10 percent --or some negotiated figure. --of the
units as BMR's, but that same policy was not set on raw land. The
houses could be developed individually, but if the school district
sold the property to one developer and the City did nothing
regarding in -lieu payments or BMR, a developer could be forced to
provide 10 percent of the units as BMR's if one development for
the entire -site was pursued. The school district, through nego-
tiations with City staff, agreed to provide in -lieu payments if it
was successful in obtaining use permits on the three lots and if
the neighborhood did not object. That would provide the moneys to
be used at Mayfield School or some other'areas where it was
needed. lt was not a matter of transferring density to "some other
school or any other particular area, it was a matter of havii'ng
money to provide lower cost housing. The BMR program would take a
lot away from the school district which would penalize them more
monetarily than the in -lieu payment program worked out with staff.
That needed consideration, and he did not believe the BMR was the
answer.
Mayor Bechtel_ said Counci lmember .Eyerly's comments were well tak-
en, but she believed the principle supported by the Council in the
Comprehensive Plan that below market units would not be concen-
trated in one part of town was correct. She lived in an another
part of town called "Old Palo Alto" where some houses were built
over 50 years ago.- Around the corner from- her house were two
duplexes that fit comfortably and nicely into the neighborh000d,
and .no one particularly noticed them. As Planning Commissioner
John Northway said, a very attractive house. could be built,, it
would simply need two entrances.
AMENDMENT REGARDING THE BELOW " MARKET RATE REQUIREMENT FOR A LOT
AND : REZONING h (UN; PF TO R-2 PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Eyerl y,
Klein, Witherspoon voting 'no. '
Councilmember Renzel completely agreed that the 24 lot subdivision
was reasonable for the area. The average lot size.. was larger than
the City's standard 6000 square foot lots which was acceptable in
most of the town, and she believed it was in keeping with the gen-
eral surrounding area. She understood that the motion included.
both in -lieu payments and the ..cottage concept, and ,asked if the
amendment which just passed : eliminated the cottage concept Or
whether it was still included in the motion.
Mr. Schreiber said he understood the amendment was to remove all
cottage references. from the motion.
1
f
1
Mayor Bechtel said the cottages were removed as an in -lieu pay-
ment, but the application was still pending and the lots were
large enough.
Ms. Lee said that was correct, but that motion was not appropri-
ate for the Council because the procedure was to file a use permit
with the Zoning Administrator. A public hearing had not been held
and no decision Iiiad been _made, and through an. -appeal,; it might be
before the Council at which time a decision could be made.
Counci lrember Renzel , said she understood that the Council was not
bound, but expressed the concern that the neighborhood was accus-
tomed to haviny a school and would absorb a lot of change in the
course of the sobdivision process. In her opinion, it was more
appropriate for the cottage zone application to_come in after a
major portion of the development occurred, and impacts of adjoin-
ing developments were known. There were a number of lots in the
proposed development, that would qualify -' for a cottage as there'
were on a number of other 'streets in town, and in a sense, a
couple of lots were preselected by the PAUSD to be the ones to
have the cottages, but that did not preclude application by the
others. She was pleased that the amendment passed regarding the
BMR units on-s.ite.-
Vice Mayor Fazzino said that including making the best of a less
tnan perfect situation on the Crescent Park School :closure, he
believed the PAUSD plan before the Council was relatively fair
with respect -to density and lot square footage. He was at a loss
to understand why 8,001 square feet -upgraded an area and 7,901
square feet downgraded it particularly given the character of the
surrounding -area.. He doubted there would be much difference in
terms of property value once the project was completed, and the
plan provided a fair return to the school district which, given
the fair plan before the Council,-sheuld be a criterion for con-
sideration. He agreed With Councilmember Cobb's support for a
cul-de-sac concept, but a majority of the Council clearly believed
otherwise. He was saddened that additional consideration was not
given to the advantages and disadvantages of the cul-de-sac con-
cept which he believed was better for the neighborhood.. If possi-
ble, he wanted to attempt to tie the project "morally" to the
development of a playing field or two at Eleanor Park. He was
intrigued by Mr. Hayes' proposal which seemed to accommodate both.
athletics and continued passive use of part of the park, which was
the original intent of the park's donor. He strongly encouraged
the school district consultant.to not run ads about perspective
housing unless and 'until a final decision was made by the City
Council. He believed terrible judgment was exercised in the sub-
ject case, and ' a lot of legitimate anger was heard by neighbors
tonight. He wanted._ the project to be expedited and. associated
himself with comments made by Councilmernber Renzel with respect.to
the handling of cottage applications. It was far more appropriate
to handle those .applications when the impacts were understood.
..Councilniember Eyerly. sale he 'understood that -the previous amend-
ment took- one lot for a BMR unit, and was a substitute for the
in -lieu payments --not a preclusion of applications for cottages.
Councilmember LevpeStrongly supported the development of Eleanor
Park and hoped.: the Council could move as quickly as possible: He
reiterated that ne questioned the wisdom as Ashby for the name of
the road and _.hoped careful: thouy,ht would be given before it came
back to the Council
Councilmember . C_obb ssociat*d, himself with the remarks of Vice
Mayor Fazzino artd -: Counci lmember Renzel. He ::asked for staff. come
faent regarding. ;the h#gh_..tensfon wires.
3 4 3 4
6/13/83
Mr. ianer said he understood the only wires_ running back on Pitman
were the residential services. Two undergrounding projects had
taken place in Crescent Park and _staff attempted to hit them as
poles and circuits needed tc be replaced.--
Councilmember Cobb asked, since a development - was going through
anyway, whether it was economic to take care of extra under-
yrounding since mare would have to be laid.
Mr. Zaner said in a subdivision as large as the one proposed, if
possible, service would be made underground, but undergrounding
existing services was another question.
Counci imember Renzel asked -if a motion was necessary if under -
grounding was desired. She believed that the case of raw land
would be; the best time to put in undergrounding..
Mr. -Schreiber said the new .lots would be served with under-
yrounding from the new streets, -but the rear property or the prop-
erty line service served the existing lots on Pitman. An under-
yroundiny projeCt4ould financially impact the existing lots if it
was an assessment type process and would not impact -the new devel-
opment.
Counci,lmember Renzel clarified that it was understood that the new
subdivision would be undergrounded,
Mayor Bechtel pointed out that i t 'was condition 14 on page 4 of
CMR:33b.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously.
RECESS FROM 12:00 a.m. TO 12:05 a.m.
ITEM #11, PUBLIC HEARING RE PLANNING COMMISSION REC0MMEl+1DAT10N RE
4nnnfr: rr[vri r f r u r.- k • rur'\
a J c , • s
R
ED
Planning Commission, Cha rperson Jean McCown commented that the
Planning Commission recommendation was. basically in conformance
with the 24 -lot subdivision proposed by the applicant and -`'recom-
mended by staff with:a few changes. There was a requirement added
that,Lots 12, 13,- 14 and 15 -*the ones fronting on the bulb. of the
cul-d0-sac---would have deed restrictions requiring that the rear
yard setbacks be 20 feet. The intent ,was to protect the- proper-
ties with privacy and those that backed onto.those lots. Staff
recommended to the Commission _that Lots 5, 14 and. 22 'be specifi-
cally restricted so as to preventany possible construction of
cottages, -but that' recommendation was not included by the Commis-
sion in its recommendation to the Council. Because of the Commis-
sion's, ' sp1 i t vote on the BMR recommendation for Crescent Park, it
did : not vote on -the -8MR recommenda,tl..on for Ortega, but there was
extensive -discussion and consensus . on the part of the Commission
that it would like to see the site treated --whatever policy deci-
sion was made with respect to BMR s's.=-the = same way as Crescent Park
or any other similar g-1 site. If the Commission were to make a
recommendation- to the. Counci l again tonight, it would be to treat
Ortega the same as Crescent Park.
lonifg Administrattor' Bob Brown sai _i he_ had -a r°eGommendation from
the Historic:.Association to name aproposed-street "Urtega Place."
Also, there .was some discussion at the. Planning--Comm-ission meeting
regarding the walkways- which lead to:: the site and since that
time, a. --lot of public interest._Was expressed. -'about either having
them closed -or people adjacent to them having the .right to acquire
them as. part of their property... The Real Prop:eTty Administrator
requested -Council d#section to begin research on the, City.' -s rights
to :those �raIkways--whether. the City; swned, them .b fee or_. as ease-
mehts`--to proceed with either. va-cation of -the easements' or sale of
the properties to -the -adjacent property owners.
3 4 5
6/13/83
1
1
1
Councilmember Menzel asked to what degree the walkways were used
by children wanting to go to the Ramos Park, and whether it would
be appropriate to extend the walkways through the new -subdivision
to yet to the park 'so that children could avoid having to go the
long way.
vi rector of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
the walkway off Ross Road was blocked. and the feedback received by
staff on the other which stretched from the site, passed-Corina
and Lewis and all the way to Nathan was that its use by children
was minimal, -and its use by teenagers and others was sporadic and
disturbing. Some people in the neighborhood who did not live
adjacent to the walkways believed they were shortcuts, and those
who lived adjacent to the walkways believed they were a real prob-
lem and wanted to see them eliminated. He did not believe anyone
indicated that they were used extensively by small children. Pro-
viding direction to the Real Property Administrator to research
the matter and start it as a project would elicit more. neighbor-
hood comment.
Councilmermber Ren,zel said looking at the perimeter of Ramos Park,
the only -access` was from Last Meadow and everyone on the Corina,
Lewis, fathan.Way had quite a distance to reach access.
Mr. Schreiber said there was a small walkway off Ross Road, and
the Real Property Administrator wanted some direction' to do` the
research on the .eventual disposition of those which dead -ended
into single family lots.
Counci l member Fletcher said the staff report to the Planning Com-
mission gave the -same dimensions as for the Crescent Park site.
The June -9, 1983 staff report, condition No. z, top of page 3,
read, ";minimum curb radii shall be 30 feet, and minimum radius of
curvature at the beginnig of the cul-de-sac shall be 25 feet,"
and she asked for clarification.
Mr. Brown said the -radius figure was from the center of circle of
a cul-de-sac bulb and did not relate to the width of the street.
Counci lmernber Fletcher clarified that the width of the street was
4U feet plus the five foot sidewalks.
Mr. Brown said that was correct.
Counci lmernber• Witherspoon said regarding the easement, that it
occurred to her that those who lived in the subdivision would have
to go all the way out to East Meadow Drive. and go around to get
into Ramos Park whereas an easement could be created. If -six feet
were the accepted width of an easement, three - feet each -could could be
taken -from Tots 8 and 9 --both of whilch lots were large -rand at
least people in the cul-de-sac could go through to the park. She
believed it was logical to at least make it easier for the subdi-
vision to. se the park without having to go all the way out. to
Last Meadow Drit'e.' She .was also concerned about the contour line
in the middle of the cul-de-sac. if she understood correctly, it
was three feet whereas -the contour line to the left was Jour feet,
which created a awaie drainage Wise.
Mr. brown said that was Correct, ,but the entire site would have to
be raised- in elevat_ivn due to the fact -that it was. located in a
flood Zone,.and a lot of -fill would be placed on the site.
Counci lrnember Witherspoon clarified t_hatthe point would then be
for the water
Last Meadow. -:.
Mr, brown said -that was
to flow from the cul-de-sac`into the storm drain on
correct.
Counci lmember Levy asked. pn._wliich lot the bMH would b
it was determined to beoh site.
located if
3 4 3 6
6/13/83
Ms. McCown said the -Planning Commission recommended that it be
located on lot 10, which was 7,500 square feet, in the interior of
the subdivision and backed onto the park.
Geraldine Steinberg, represented PAUSD the applicant, and agreed
with the staff report and the recommendation of the Planning Com-
mission. She asked the Council to turn its attention to Condition
#16, which requested a permanent deed restriction' for eight fooie
sideyards for the zoning district rather than the normal six feet.
.The crescent Park area was six feet, and eight feet was recommend-
ed by staff becauuse originally the zoning district was 8,000
square feet. When the surrounding area was studied, eit was deter-
mined that Amore than half of the properties were smaller than the
district, but when the existing lot configurations were studied,
the PAUSU proposal was determined to be in conformance with the
neighborhood. The PAUSD was ccaiing in at 6,000 square feet al-
tWouyh some of the -surrounding area had 8,000 square foot lots,
and.she believed that if the district was going to be 6,0 00 square
feet, there should not be that permanent restriction of eight foot
side yards. She asked the Council to consider and hopefully elim-
inate that restriction..
Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open.
Susan Uorsky, 3846 Corina Way, said her neighborhood was generally
satisfied with the plan and appreciated the meetings. Their con-
cerns related to the placement of the cottage zone property which
was moved after their concerns were expressed. The latest con-
cerns related to the fact that the neighbors believed their area
was zoned R-1, and while she Was not that familiar with the dif-
ferences, the report reflected' R-1 743, which meant the 8,000
square foot minimum lot. _,The report reflected that the requested
applicant Was not consistent with the R-1 743 zoning which extend-
ed from Ury Creek to Charleston Road or from Middlefield Road to
Lewis Road, In some ways, the 6,000 square foot minimum would be
allowed, but in order to make it more equitable to the neighbor-
hood zoning, they asked for the 8,000 square foot side :setback and
other variances. She asked that it remain in order to be equita-
ble to the entire area.
Helene Fertig, 3838 Carina Way, said her lot was directly behind
Lot 15, and addressed the Council because of the unexpec ed vari-:
ance request mentioned .by Ms, Steinberg. She attended the Plan-
ning Commission meetings' and complimented them on the kinds of
responses they provided. Lot 15 had unique problems and was set
up as an exception, with a request that the deed have a 20,foot
setback with the eight foot variance on the site. It only had a
40 foot frontage on the cul-de-sac. and was only a 6,200 square
foot lot. There were problems in terms of any house that went up,
and her discussion with Mr. Brown indicated that it was net the
most desirable situation to allow for; are exception, and that it
wou';d more than likely be one of the lots where they would try to
make it as .broad was possible. She -was concerned about the impact
of a house the way it was currently set up, and respectfully
requested that the original decision of the Planning Commission be
honored and that the newest, request fora variance be opposed.
Jim Kay, McKay- and Swaps, emphasized that an eight - foot sideyard
would reduce the width of the house to 42 feet, leave little flex-
ibility in its design,- and unnecessarily limit the, -design .by
requiring wider, setbacks than would be allowed in a--.6,000 square
foot zone. They never understood `why the lots surrounding Ortega
were, not 8,000 square feet and it would be a serious detriment to
the lots to require the additional_- two feet of sideyard an each
side`. •
Goodwin 'Steinberg, 10300 Loyola Drive, Lot eAltes, said if _ the
width were limited, the` d 'signs of, the houses on the street .,.would
be limited, and the overall 1_00ke of the-subdi,vis-ion WOOlde be a
disappointment. Rather than try and limit the space,, he believed
the extra four feet made, a difference .in what- could be done with
the design and _shape . of,, the'_h`ouses, and L.he :nei.ghbors would , be
much happier.
3 4 3 7
6/13/83
1
Councilmember Levy said he understood that the change.of the'side
yard setback's would not change the relationship of the dwellings
to the neighbors on Corina Way.
Mr. Steinberg said that was -correct.
Councilmember Renzel said she recollected that the neighborhoods
were mostly single story, and there would be a significant differ-
ence if the new houses :1,4ere two stories and six feet from the
side yard versus eight feet.
Mayor Bechtel said Councilmember Levy's paint was that the rear
setback restriction was 20 feet and there was a zoning restriction
on all lots.
Mr. Brown said there was zoning restriction on all lots, and there
was a request that a deed restriction be placed on Lots 12, 13, 14
and 15, that would preclude them from coming in setback vari-
-ances.
Ms. Steinberg said she believed that if the side yards ,were
restricted, the tendency to go up was greater. If there could be
more space on the ground floor, she belieVed Mr. Steinberg was
trying to say that from an architectural view, more could be
done.
Receiving no -further requests from the public to speak, Mayor
Bechtel declared the public hearing closed.
MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to
adopt the Planning Commission recommendation for the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Redesignatlon and Zone Change; that the proposed
amendment of the Land Use Map from School District Lands to Single
Family Residential and the change of zone from PF (Public Facili-
ties) to R-1 (Single Family Residence District) aCd a 24 -lit
tentative subdivision map be approved; that a finding of no sig-
nificant environmental impact be made, and make the .following
additional finding:
1. The proposed land use and zoning designations are consistent
with the housing objectives and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan which call for maintenance of the existing character of
development of residential neighborhoods in that proposed lot
sizes are consistent with surrounding single family proper-
ties The single family land use will also provide housing
opportunities for the development of new single family resi-
dences. Vacant land for such single family development is
very limited within Palo Alto.
FUR THE SU8DIVISYUIN
The subdivision will not have a significant impact on the environ-
ment and _the proposal» including the design and ,improvement, is
consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, complies with the
Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 of the PA$C; the site is physi-
cally suitable for the type and density of the proposed develop-
ment; the subdivision is not likely .to result in serious public
health problems; thereare no conflicts with public easements and.
for the exceptions for lot width on Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15; and
lot depth on Lots 5, 12 and 15,'the .Council finds:
1. There are special circumstenCes or Conditions affecting the
property including the fact that .the exceptions- are required._
for lots which are l ecated oft the , curves. of.. the: cul-de-sac
roadway and ..that the' _lots ire proposed in. a -wedge shape
r:
between the ,curved street frontage and the squared boundaries.
of the;, property
2. The exceptions are necessary for the preservation _mud;, enjoy-
ment of a substantial property right of the petitioners;
MU�ION CONTINUED
3. The granting of the exceptions will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity
in which the site is situated in that increased density or
development potential will not result from these exceptions
end that the lot area for the subject parcels is well above
the minimum for the zone district; and
4. The granting of the exceptions will not violate the require-
ments, goals, policies or spirit of the law in that the excep-
tions are minimal in size and compensated by increased lot
area.
Approval of these applications is recommended with the following
conditions:
1. All livable floor levels for future structures shall comply
with the requirements of the Flood Hazard Reduction Program
and be a minimum of seven feet above mean sea .level (this will
require floor elevations approximately 3.5 feet above existing
grade);
The new street to be constructed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. Minimum curb radii shall be 30 feet, minimum
radius of curviture at the beginning of the cul-de-sac bulb
shall be 25 feet;
3. Deed restrictions shall be included for lots with frontage on
the new street requiring that fences shall not be erected
closer than , 10 feet from the face or curb. This will allow
unrestricted access to utilities by City staff;
4. A public utility easement shall be shown on the final map in
compliance with that shown on the typical street section, and
includes the storm drainage system proposals;
5. Subdivider shall grant fee title to the City for the street on
streets shown on the map and shall offer these streets for
dedication tom public in the Owner's Certificate on the final
Map;
6. Subdivider shall submit construction plans for the improve-
ments proposed to the City Engineer for approval. He shall
construct these improvements prior to recordation of the map
or enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Palo
Alto;
. Prior to submitting a final map the subdivider shall submit a
detailed soils report;
t. The existing perimeter fences to the south and east of the
site shall be removed and replaced with fencing of a standard
residential height. New fencing shall be constructed on the
west property boundary. The fence design and removal/
replacement plan shall be subject to ARB review as a regularly
scheduled item and notice shall be given to adjoining property
OMAer.S;;
9. Unless indicated as being removed on the tentative subdivision
dap. all existing trees proposed for removal shall be reviewed
by the City Arborist and retained where healthy and feasible.
A. tree planting progras for all street frontages shall be sub-
mitted by the developer to the City Parks Department and shall
be subject to the approval of the City A-rborist
0. All electric service and communication systems shall
installed underground by the developer;
3 4 3 9
6/13/153
MOTION CONTINUED
1. Street lighting in conformance to City standards shall' be pro-
vided by the developer. Plans for street lighting shall be
approved by the Chief Electrical Engineer prior to recordation
of the final map;
2. Deed restrictions shall be recorded creating building setback
lines for Lot 5 of twenty feet from side property lines and
ten feet from the rear property line; and
3. Deed restrictions shall be recorded requiring 20 foot rear
yard building setbacks for Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15; and
4. weed restri cti o.ns shall be recorded requiring interior ,.side
yard setbacks of 8 feet for all lots.
FOR THE VARIANCE
Council makes the following findings in approving a rear setback
variance for Lot 5 allowing a rear yard setback of ten feet where
twenty feet would otherwise be required:
1. There are exceptional ar extraordinary circumstances or condi-
tions applicable to the property involved that do not apply
generally to property in the same district in that Lot 5, due
to its orientation to the street, has a lot depth of 70 feet
where 100 feet is standard;
Z. The granting of the application is necessary for the:preserva-
tion and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnec-
essary hardship in that the substandard lot depth creates a
buildable area only 30 feet deep where most standard parcels
have a buildable depth of 60 feet; and
3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that
the rear setback is adjacent to land which will become Ramos
Park. Requiring twenty feet side yard setbacks as per better
building separation between the future residence on Lot 5 and
those of Lots 1 and 8.
RESOLUTION 6133 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
Tnrerrtryrntro ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO COMPREHEN-
SIVE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
BY AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF THE
PROPERTY AT 830 EAST MEADOW DRIVE (FORMER ORTEGA SCHOOL
SITE)
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINPMCE OF THE
rITUAC-1-C JP lift GUT T bF PALO ALTO. AMENDING SECTION
18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE . ZONING
MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF A PORTION OF THE
PROPERTY KNOWN AS 830 EAST MEADOW DRIVE (FORMER ORTEGA
SCHOOL SITE) FROM PF to R-1'
AMENDMENT: Condition 14 requiring specific _eight foot sideyard
setbacks on all lots be deleted.
AMENDMENT: That a 10 foot wide walkway access be designed con-
necting between lots 11 and 12 cul-de-sac to Ramos Park.
AMENDMENT: BM& requirement to be satisfied by provision of one
lot (Lot 10) for future duplex development as recommended by the
Palo Alto Housing Corporation and that Lot 10 be rezoned from.P-F
to R-2 (Two Family . Residence Oi strict ): until such . time as, a
Planned Community zone providing for two for -sale BMR units is
approved.
3 4 4 0
6/13/83
Councilmember Levy clarified that by deleting Condition 14 requir-
ing the eight foot setbacks, the condition would stand at six
feet.
Mayor Bechtel said she was opposed to designing the walkway access
because her'experience was that .occasional interrelationship prob-
lems arose- between the park and adjoining neighbors; and for the
protection of the new subdivision, it would h..e better to have _a
e solid fence backing up to Ramos Park. It was! not a Icing walk to
the East Ileadow entrance, and she was opposed to the fact that the
proposed walkway access .would serve only those 24 lots around
Ramos Park and the remainder of the neighborhood would be served
by the walkway off of Ross Road.
Councilmember Cobb asked if the motion included the same 8MR
requi remnent as Crescent Park.
Councilmember Levy said he intended' that it -be part
motion.
his
Councilmember Cobb. asked to separate the setback request because
he was concerned that the City could not restrict houses from
yoiny to two stories even though there might.be less inducement
with a wider side yard setback. He was concerned that the City
could get the worst of both worlds --a six foot setback and two
stories,
Councilmember Renzel associated herself,.with the comments of Coun-
cilmember Cobb, and said that to her knowledge, .no single story,
single family homes had been built in Palo Alto recently. All
buildings were gigantic and the City's zoning ordinance was
recently amended to permit a daylight plane to allow an 18 foot
setback at a six foot sideyard. If a lot of those kinds of units
were built close together, there could be quite a change to the
neighborhood and she asked to vote on the issue separately.
Councilmember Fletcher said she would not mind the restriction on
some of the larger lots, but did not believe it was practical on a
6,000 square foot lot especially one fronting Meadow. She did not
believe the six foot sideyards would be that much of a detriment
to the immediate neiynbors, and would support the amendment.
AMENDMENT Councilmember Fletcher' moved that the roadway be no
narrower than 30 feet.
Mr. Brown clarified that the majority of the roadway widths on the
local residential streets were about 34 feet.
Councilmember Fletcher believed -that landscaping would be more
attractive, would cut down on the desire to speed, and'was more in
keeping .with a small development serving a limited number of
homes.
AMENDMENT FAILED. FUR LACK OF A SECOND.
Mr. Schreiber suggested that the walkway amendment be specified as
a ten foot walkway and that if approved, Council provide direction
as to the appropriate location which he suggested would be between.
Lots 11 and 12. Staff could not endorse the walkway because it
would probably create more problems than it was worth.
Mayor Bechtel concurred with Mr. Schreiber and opposed the amend-
ment to require a walkway_.
Councilmember Renzel said -the Comprehensive P1\n contained a
policy ' to encourage alternatives to the automobile, and 'she
believed a walkway would make it easier for people to walk to
their nearby parks. She -believed that -everything possible -should
be done to encourage:pedestrians- off the main thoroughfares to
access parks, and she would support the amendment.
3 4 4 11.
6/13/83
1
Councilmember Levy believed that with the existing walking on
Corina Way, there was an opportunity for the developer to -provide
the neighbors on Lewis, etc., with a more direct route to Ramos
Park, which -would encourage more use.
i
AMENDMENT REGARDING 10 FOOT WALKWAY ACCESS PASSED by a vote of
5-4, Fazzino, Bechtel, Klein, Cobb voting "no."
AMENDMENT DELETING SPECIAL EIGHT -FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ON ALL
LOTS passed by a vote of. 5-4, Renzel, Fazzino, Witherspoon, Cobb
voting "no."
Councilmember Eyerly asked that the BMR portion of the motion be
voted on separately.
Mr. Schreiber clarified that the BMR amendment designated Lot 10.
AMENDMENT REGARDING BMR REQUIREMENT PASSED by a vote of 8-1,
Eyerly voting "no."
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously
MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, that staff be
directed to research the title and existing use of walkways lead-
ing to the Crescent Park and Ortega school sites and report back
to Council as to appropriate actions.
Councilmember Renzel clarified that the motion directed staff to
study whether it was appropriate to dispose -of the sites or wheth-
er they were currently used by pedestrians to get through the mid-
dle of the block rather than going around. She did not want staff
to study the matter only for purposes of disposition.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #13 PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
ITEM #14 FOOTHILL PARK EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
PARK
MOTION: Mayor Bechtel roved, seconded by Renzel, to consolidate
items 113 and 14 regarding; Foothills Park.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
bMOT1ON. Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Fazzino, approval
of the Site and -Design review of an Erosion Control Project within
Foothills -Park and the City reversion parcel, with the following
condition, and introduced the park improvement ordinance.
1. Any work within the Lee subdivision Common area shall be con-
tingent upon the acquisition of the necessary easements from
the property owner; and
URUINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
trnITTr ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING
A .PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION. OF AN EROSION CONTROL
PROJECT IN FOOTHILLS PARK"
Vice Mayor Fazzino said: he did not like two or three City staff
members sitting in the back of the room for five or six hours and
being paid City rates when there were so many unanimous votes.
3 4 4 2
6/13/83
City Manager Bill Laver clarified that none the staff members in
attendance were being paid. -
Vice Mayor Fazzino commended_their public service.
MUT1ON PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #r15, RE BEST OF VICE MAYOR FALZINO AND COUNCILMEMBER COBB RE
�1 �i.�i.1/Ib1tlMIw.��sr.�rY—r ���� ��rrw .��. ��� d ■.�oae�sw
Vice Mayor_Fazzino said that the item before the Council was
related to the State of California education.budget. He and Coun-
cilmember Cobb put the item on the agenda because both felt
strongly about the need to adequately support education. Every
national and state:report released the past couple of years. indi-
cated that a period of_decline was being experienced in -terms of
financial resources and test scores, and they were interested in
reversing that tren(, particularly in Palo Alto where there was
such a history of outstanding educational services. Some might be
concerned that education was not an issue for City Council discus-
sion, but as pointed out -by Councilmember Eyerly earlier in the
evening, the issue of education was covered in the City Charter
and was clearly an issue about:whicheCouncil should be concerned.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Fazzin#r moved, seconded by Cobb, that Coun-
cil support sending a letter to the Governor of California indi-
cating Palo Alto's support for the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction's proposed education budget.
Councilmember Levy had a problem supporting a proposed State edu-
cation budget he never saw.. He said he would be happy to state
his feelings as an individual, but believed it would be irrespon-
sible as a City Councilmember. He would endorse a statement from
the -Council supporting the highest possible level of funding for
public education in the State, but could not support a specific
budget when it had not been analyzed adequately.
Councilmember Eyerly believed Councilmember Levy had a point, and
could support a motion to provide input to the City's legislators
in Sacramento about a study to determine the impact of the State's
school district funding. That might get attention in Sacramento
and perhaps they would come to grips with the problem. He did not
believe that had been done since Proposition i3, and the school
district's ability for proper funds continually eroded. He asked
for clarification of the motion in terms of funding.
Vice Mayor Fazzino said the motion assumed general support for
schools. Recently, there was a lot of public comment, newspaper.
reports, and scrutiny by the State Legislature regarding the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction budget, and lay;t-year,. Super-
intendent Hoenig campaigned heavily on the issue. In view of the
issue's close analysis, he and Councilmember Cobb believed the
motion was the most effective way to turn around California educa-
tion. In an effort_to obtain a letter of support -from the -Council,-
to the Governor., he was'willing to support a more general motion
in the event the one on the floor, failed.•
Carolyn .Bucher, President of the School Board, said she was
delighted that the Council was considering the letter in whatever,
form --the important thing was that the City of Palo Alto went , on
record in support of funding for education. She conimended Vice
Mayor Fazzino and Councilmember Cobb for putting the matter on the
agenda for consideration, and-thanked.the Council for its contin-
ued support of the education effort.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked who the Council was attempting to
influence with its letter.
1
3 4 4 3
6'/13/83
Ms. Tischer responded that the State Senate and Assembly passed two
separate bills --AB 70 and Sb 813. The Assembly accepted the
Senate Bill as the vehicle and it was now going to Conference Com-
mittee as Sb 814. She believed it was pretty much a foregone con-
clusion that a satisfactory bill would come out of the Conference
Committee so that letters in support: to the Governor were right
where they were needed.
Councilmember Witherspoon clarified that the only danger would be
if the Governor vetoed the bill, and could not see wasting time
with a letter to the Pro Tem.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by
Menzel, that the Mayor be directed to send a letter to the Gover-
nor, etc., indicating Council support for the highest possible
State level of funding for public education.
Counci lrnember Fl etche' commented that a letter should be in the
form of a mailgram because the Governor was supposed to sign the
proposed budgets by Wednesday assuming the Conference Committee
agreed on the other items. She suggested that the motion request
the Governor .to support the funding level approved by the Con-
ference Committee.
Councilmember Klein said he supported the resolution as proposed
by Councilmember Cobb and Vice Mayor Fazzino. He believed the
substitute motion was too wishy-washy and Governor Deukemejian
could say he was already do
-ing it. Everyone was An favor of the
highest reasonable amount, but there was a big political dispute
over that figure and it was encumbent on the Council to take a
stand. It did not mean the Council needed to know every detail --
it was a question of philosophy and ne was much more in agreement
with Superintendent Hoenig than with the Governor.
SUBSTITUTE NOTION FAILED by a vote of 1-8, Levy voting "aye."
MAIN MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-0, Levy "abstaining."
1TEM --t16, -RL UES.T Of,. CUUH�CILMEMBER FLETCHER RE STATE BICYCLE
Councilmember Fletcher said the State Bicycle Programs would be
decimated if the recommendations'to the Governor went forward.
Both the Assembly and Senate approved the full $5.4 million pre-
viously budgeted which were now being recommended for deletion to
the Governor. She pointed out that locally the CalTrans adminis-
trators installed and administered 346 bicycle lockers at the
Southern Pacific depots which wcJld no longer be in effect if the
funding were eliminated.
MOTION: -Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to
.send a mailgram to Governor Deukemejian to retain the funding for
the State's Bicycle Programs at the $5.4 million level.
Councilmember Eyerly was opposed to the motion because -.he did not
believe the Council was in the position to_critique the State's
budget in view of its monetary problems and not having it before
them and having weighed all the requests„ He believed it smacked
of a special interest: group trying ,to impact the Governor_ on the
budget, and ne was reluctant to do so unless he knew all of the
other req=rests and from where the money should -come„ The..Gity'
CounW was not studying the State's budgets and he would vote
against the motion.
Council`taember .-Fletcher clarified. that 95 percent of...the funding.
would come from federal gas tax funds -.which would not- be used if
the budget item was deleted. The other five percent represented
the salaries- from the gas tax funds wwhich-_woul.d not be transferred
to ..the genera 1, budget if it were el'imi nated from the= budget. The
positions funded by that amount would be SeatterecL throughout
3-4 4 4
6/13/83
Ca IT-rans rather than being retained in the bicycle programs. It
would not enhance the budget overall --education or any of the
other programs --if it were deleted from the budget, and both the
Senate and Assembly recommended that At be retained.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Eyerly and Cobb voting "no.."
ITEM #17,-KEtiUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE STATE BUDGET
No action taken.
ITEM #18, REQUEST OF MAYOR BECHTEL RE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COUNCIL
No action taken.
ITEM #19, REQUEST OF CUUNCILMEMBER WITHERSPOON RE CATV MEETING
Councilmember Witherspoon asked about -deciding when the Council
would nave its cable meeting, and suggested that it be a special
meeting for cable television only.
Mayor° Bechtel asked about the consultant's availability.
City Manager Bill Zaner said the consultant was testifying an S-66
back east and was being held up. The principal consultant working
on the City's project was the one staff wanted to attend.
Councilrrember Witherspoon expressed her reluctance to postpone the
issue any longer than necessary.
Mr. Laner reminded the Council that the purpose of the special
session was to issue the RFP.
Vice Mayor Fazzino said three months ago the Council talked at
length about the schedule and begged City staff and the consultant,
to adhere to the schedule. Staff proposed that Council, staff and
the consultant yet together in mid -July and claimed that Council
could still stick to the original schedule, which he believed was
ridiculous. According to the consultant's contract, he was re-
quired to be in Palo Alto .on certain days, and the June 20 date
was, known for a long time. He was very upset that the consultant
would not be available June 20 and that the Council had to go
through the process of finding alternative dates to meet every
one's calendar needs. He blamed the City staff and the consultant
for creating the mess and said he would be more upset if the
schedule down the road were affected in any way. He reiterated
his earlier comments about the need to adhere to the original
schedule.
Councilnenber Renzel did not believe Council should be so harsh
with staff when the consultant could. not help having to testify
before the Senate with regard to a bill that could make all Coun-
cil .actions moot and a key staff took a new job which would also
affect timing to some degree.
Counci lmember Fletcher said the cable television process was very
lengthy and that two weeks would not make that much difference.
She believed the Council -should stick to the July 11 date.
CounCi lmember Levy did not believe al_i _ nine Counci lmembers had to
-de present because the RFP was previously, before the Council, was
discussed a-na:received unanimous agreement regarding its direc-
tion. He assumed that implementation of that RFP would not be:
controversial ibut if it was,-: the Council -could delay __it then urr,t11- -
the full Council could be present.. He did not believe that would
happen, and that it would be -another Step in many. Those who
-spoke in favor of delay were those generally favoring municipal
ownership, and''he pointed- out the Council would not reach._ that
3 4 4 5
6/13/83
point until the RFP was completed. It behooved everyone to move
the process along as fast as possible in order to finally make the
key decisions.
Councilmeiiiber Cobb agreed with .Councilmember Levy, but asked how a
date could be set when it was not known whether the consultant was
available. He suggested that staff find .out when the consultant
would be available, provide a battery of dates-, and it could be
decided at the next Council meeting.'
MOTION: Counts lmember .Witherspoon moved, seconded by Bechtel,
to schedule a meeting on June 28, 1983, subject to the consul-
tant's availability.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein moved that if the consultant was
not available on June 28 that Council also request June 29,
1983.
Councilmember Klein said he did not intend to harass the consul-
tant, but wanted the point to get across that the Council wanted
to move at the first available date.
Councilmember Renzel advised that there was an all day meeting for
the .Joint Powers Agreement on Solid Waste on June 29, 1983, which
all Councilmeinbers were invited and urged to attend.
MAKER AND SECOND INCORPORATED THAT MEETING WITH CONSULTANT BE
SCHEDULED WEEK OF JUNE 28, 1983.
MUT1ON PASSED unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 1:00 a.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
3 4 4 .6
6/13/83
• CERTIFICA3'E OF AUTHENTICITY_
This is to certify that the microphotographs appearing on this
microform, starting with,,
and ending with
arc accurate and complete reproductioais . of
as delivered to the undersigned
in the regular course of business, for microfilming.
It is further certified that the micrographic processes used
were accomplished in a manner, and on a microfilm which meets
the requirements of the ,merican National Standards Institute
(ANSI) and the Association for Information and Image Management
tAIKU .