HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-08-01 City Council Summary MinutesCITY
COUNCIL
MINUTES
duly
MI()
11.10
Regular Meeting
Monday, August 1, 1983
ITEM PAGE
Ural Communications 3 6 3 9
Consent Calendar 3 6 3 9
Referral 3 6 3 9
Action 3 6 3 9
Item #1, tlarron Park Trunk Sewer 3 6 3 9
Item #2, Ordinance re 2850 Middlefield Road 3 6 3 9
(Former Hoover School Site) ('lnd Reading)
Item #3, PUBLIC HEARING: Architectural Review
board Recommendation re Planned Community Zone for
Property Known. -as 4145=4161 El Camino Way
ltern #4, PUBLIC, HEARING: Appeal of Nancy Clair
Stone from the Decision of the Director of Planning
and the Architectural Review Board to approve the
design of an 8 unit residential condominium
development at 905 Middlefield Road/722-728
Channi ng
Item #5, Finance and Public Works Committee
Recommendation re Civic Center Structural Repairs
and build Out
3 6 3 9
3 6 5 5
3 6 5 9
Item #6, Resolution Accepting Deed to Lee Property 3 6 v 9
Item #7, Request of Councilmembers Witherspoon and 3 6 7 0
Cobb re Rebuttal Argument re Measure E (November 8,
19tH ballot
Item #8, Request of Mayor Bec F.t: l ie Resolution of
Appreciation for Pacestters
Item #9 Cancellation of August 8, 1983 Council
Meeting -
Adjournment
3 6 7 1
3 6 7
3 6 7. 1
3 6 3 8
8/01/83
Regular Meeting
Monday, August 1, 1983
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met Fyn this day in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at
7:40 p.nr.
PRESENT: Bechtel, ,'Cobb, Lyeriy, Fazzino, Fletcher,
Klein, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon
Mayor Bechtel announced that an executive session regarding liti-
gation was held at 7:00 p.m.
URAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Klein, approv-
al of the consent calendar.
Referral
None
Action
=
ITEM #1 BARRON PARK TRUNKS (CMR:431:3)
Staff_ recommJnds that a contract in the amount of $545,386 be
awarded to Dalton Construction Company for the construction of the
Barron Parr Sewer Project.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Dalton Construction Company
ITEM #2, ORDINANCE RE 2850 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD (FORMER HOOVER SCHOOL
ORDINANCE 3455 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
ALo,. ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING NAP) TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF A PORTION OF TIIE PROPERTY KNOWN AS
2850 MMIDDLEFIELD ROAD (FORMER HOOVER SCH0 L SITE) FROM
PF TO RM-3 AND RM-3(L) (1st Reading 7/18/83, PASSED 7-0,
Fazzino, Levy absent)
MOTION PASSED unanimously,
ITLM #3, PUBLIC HEARING: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDA-
T1om alTaNNEu COMMUNI
Director of Planning and Community Envi._ronment Key._ Schreiber said
a chronology was paced at the ,Counci_linembers places tonight in
view of the fact that the item had been before_ the Council a num-
ber of times He clarified that as presently configured and under
normal City policies,' the project pound be required to provide 161
spaces. Thee -zoning ordinance contained -a provision, with mixed
use projects, to reduce the amount of required parking to a maxi-
mum of 20 percent. The redo ti:on on the first page of the plans
referred to the 20 percent, but did not count retail for which all
of the parking was regeird. The total parking provided of 161
spaces versus the required 193 spaces for the total project
resulted in a red+jcti on of 16.6 percent.
Councilmember Cobb asked if any evidence existed that the. multi-
plex parking, concept worked successfully over any period of time.
3 6 3 9
8/01/83
Mr. Schreiber said the only reductions granted under that provi-
sion of the zoning ordiih nce were for projects not yet constructed
or vccepied. It was a provision of the zoning ordinance not yet
seen in operation.
Councilmember Cebb asked if there was any evidence from other com-
munities.
Mr. Schreiber said that in areas of multiple uses, when adding up
the parking requirements for each use, the City's regvirements
were too high. Some of that information was based on studies done
in connection- with the- downtown parking garage, although not
directly applicable to the residential situation. The theory was
that the peak hours -and activity time of commercial uses did not
coincide with peak residential time, and that there would be a lot
of overlap. The proposal was structured such that the residential
units would each be assigned one space and the remainder of spaces
would be shared parking available for office and retail as well as
residential.
Councilmember Cobb asked if staff's calculations and assumptions
took into account evening and weekend use of retail.
Mr. Schreiber said generally, as the amount of retail space grew
in a project, the willingness of staff to endorse a reduction dee
creased because retell rt eve d
di .
- .z;: n.wl % h Ld3e carne times that resi-
dential uses expected to have parking available --evenings and
weekends. With the proposed project, given the amount of retail
space --about 3,5UU square feet of leasable retail space --staff
relieved there was not enough retail to trigger that type of major
parking impact. In addition, there was 7,000 square feet of of-
fice space, and staff believed the balance was appropriate. He
would not want to see any greater reduction in the parking.
Counciloember Levy asked if the project went up to 40 feet in
height.
Lining Administrator Bob Brown responded that it was 38 feet.
Councilmember Levy asked if the project was able to exceed the 35
foot height limit because: sloped rocfs made the average 35 feet.
Mr. Brown said that was correct for the residential component.
The commercial component of:, the project had buildings of 3'v feet,
but there was an additional three foot parapet wall at the top of
the buildings which shielded the solar panels, elevator equipment,
etc. At one time it was suggested that it could be removed to
lower the apparent heiyht'to 35 feet, but upon further considera-
tion the AR6 recommended the parapet be maintained on the build-
ings for aesthetic reasons.
Councilmember Levy asked ebout the height of an average single
family home in the area. -
Mr. Brown said the majority of the homes in the area were single
story and approximately 15 or 16 feet. The single family zone,
which adjoined the proposed project, allowed -a-maximum height to a
peak of 30 feet.
Councilmember Klein _asked how many jobs would be created with the
proposed project, and the previous Cox project, and the impact of
the project on :the jobs/housing imbalance.
Mr. Schreiber said if four employees were used per 1,000 gross
square feet, Which was the standard for offlce and slightly high
for retai l, , the 15,000 gross square feet of Commercial area would
yield about .btl employees. The previous approval, which was still
valid for the site, had 1Z 800 square feet which would have yield-
ed about 51 employees.
3 6 4 0
8/01/83
Mayor decrrtei clarified that 41,000 square feet would be allowed
ender the present zoning.
Mr. Schreiber said almost 50,000 square feet would be allowed. If
that were used as a round number, +rith four employees per 1,000
square feet, the project would yield about 20U employees.
Councilmember Fletcher asked how much retail square footage was
removed.
Mr. Schreiber estimated it was somewhere in the range of 15,000 to
20,000 square feet.
Councilmember Henze] clarified the height was measured from grade
level after the grade ,.as adjusted to drain to the street.
Mr. Brown said he understood the grade was raised two feet and the
measurement was from the existing grade.
Councilrnember. Renzel clarified that the buildings would be down
two feet into the grade as it was raised.
Tony Carrasco, Carrasco & Smith, 701 High Street, the applicant,
said the building sat on a two foot podium and the grade was
counted from below that two foot level to the mid point of the
root.
Councilmember Renzel clarified that the building would not be per-
ceived by adjacent residences as being two feet taller than an-
nounced. She asked if the grade at the property line with
Tennessee Lane would be the same as in the previous proposal. The
new proposal reflected that the gymnasium was moved from an under-
ground location to an above ground location, and she asked what
was happening to the space underground.
Mr. drown said the gymnasium ;as moved from three locations one of
which was underground. Two small gymnasiums were on the podium
level --one for the commercial and one for the residential. He
understood that the underground space would be used for residen-
tial storage.
Councilmember Renzel asked if the gym was ow designed exclusively
for use by the residential component of the project.
Mr. drown said that was not yet identified by the application.
Couricilrlember Renzel clarified that since it was a PC, the previ-
ous residential zoning had no bearing on whether the commercial
property could be serviced.
Mr. Brown said it would depend more on the CC&R's for the projeCt
as a whole.
-Councilmember Cobb asked whether some type of 'public benefit was
necessary as a basis for granting a PC, and what benefit the City
would gain over the existing zonings
Mr. crown said the findings were included in the ordinance, and
the : jubl is benefit would bc the nine below -market -rate units
included in the project.
Councilmember Cobb clarified that it was a total of. nine BMR
units, but a certain number of BMR ° s .,.would be allowed by the CM
zone.
Mr. Brown said the difference would actually be _about four --54
units could be built on the project withoijt benefit of.the rezon-
ing,' and approximately five BMR units could normally be expected
from the site.
3 6 4 1
.8/01/83
Councilmember Klein asked about the status of the prior Cox pro-
posal.
Mr. Schreiber said 'here was no limit on the ARB approval, and the
property owner could core in tomorrow and pick up the building
permit.
Mr. Brown said a final subdivision snap was filed at the County,
and was in place for the Cox project.
Councilmember Klein asked if the Council could move to•rezone the
property if the proposed project did not go forward, and what
would_happen to the Cox proposal.
Mr. Schreiber deferred to the City Attorney. With a valid sub-
division and ARB approval in place, it would get down to the ques-
tion about whether the subdivision triggered some type of right to
go ahead and build the project.
City Attorney Diane Lee said usually --unless it was a condominium
conversion --the only thing that guaranteed any vested rights was
the building permit.
Councilmember Klein. clarified that if the proposal were rejected,
the Council could move forward to change the zoning.
Ms. Lee said yes.
Mayor Bechtel commented that several letter writers mentioned the
neiyhborhood commercial study which was beginning, and she asked
when the results might conceivably be heard by the Pl anni og Com-
mission and the Council..
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said research had com-
menced, lnd a staff report was expected sometime in September for
hearing by the Planning Commission in October. It would be before
the Council in November or December.
Mayor Bechtel asked what kinds of things were under study.
Mr. Freeland said there were three policy areas as follows:
i. Whether the present CN zone was performing as it was expected
for the properties to which it was applied;
Z. The City received -A number of proposals for modifications over
the past few years primarily coming from the Barron Park resi-
dents. Each time, the applicants were advised that the CN
zone was up for review in 1983, and no actions were yet taken.
Staff would look at all of the proposed modifications received
over the past few years; and
3. Staff would look at other commercial strip properties in the
southern part of the City along El Camino Real to _see if other
properties were suited for change to the CN designation.
Mayor Bechtel asked about the height of most of the buildings in
the previous -Cox project.
Mr Brown said it was 35. feet, but those buildings had -large s lop-
i-ng roofs. He said the --actual height to peak was closer to 38 to
40, feet.
Councilmember Levy asked about -the square footage devoted to resi-
dential and commercial retail uses. in the previous Cox proposal as
compared with the project before the Council.
Mr. brown said -the commercial retail square footage was 12,800
square feet, and 30 percent of that was retail. Staff did not
have the square footage for the residential component of that
3 6 4 2
8/01/83
project suite IL did meet the zoning ordinance and there was no
floor area ratio limitation on the residential zones.
Councilmember Levy clarified that there were nine fewer units in
the project, and he asked if they were larger units.
Mr. Brown said the units were substantially larger --the average
being around 2,000 square feet. The average for the proposed
project was around 1,000 to 1,200 square feet. -
Mr. Schreiber noted for the record that the previous, currently
approved, Cox project, contained 12,800 square feet cf commercial
area of which up to 30 percent could have been retail. There was
no requirement that any of it be retail, but 30 percent was the
maximum and that related back to the parking requirement and the
reduction given.
Councilmember Levy asked for clarification that the project re-
placed 15,000 to 20,UOU square feet of what was formerly retail
and commercial space.
Mr. Brown said that was correct --there used to be a vaccuum repair
shop, adult bookstore, and antique shop, and nothing except on --
street parking was provided.
Councilmember Eyerly said the proposed project had 15,000 square
feet of commercial space --4,500 square feet of which were retail
and 65 units. . The current zoning allowed 49,500 square feet of
commercial space which could be all office or retail and 54
units.
Mr. Brown said that was correct, but the two could not be com-
bined.
Councilmember Eyerly asked if hei ghts, ' density and maximum office
usage were being considered in the CN zone, multiple family .,ones
or the downtown and California Avenue CC zones.
Mr. Freeland said heights, density and maximum office usage were
being reviewed for the CN zone. Neighborhood. associations sub-
mitted proposals over the past few years several of which dealt
with freight and other details of the CN zone. Staff was presently
studying the zoning for California Avenue and the area east of
Lmbarcadero Road out past Ming's. 0n California Avenue, the ques-
tion of height was being looked at and whether a 50 foot height
liinit was -excessive or whether a 35 foot height limit should be
established, and the question of overall development being pro-
duced l n' the area. The Emba rcadero Area was not as concerned with
height as with types of uses, i irritations on office uses, and a
reduction in the floor area ratio of some of the sites which re-
mained out there. One specific issue- was whether the CN zone
served neighborhood types of office. uses or general types of of-
fice uses, and statistics were being compiled to shed light _on
that subset.
Councilmember Eyerly asked . i f density was being 1 boked at in any
of the multiple family zones. -
Mr. Freeland said -, 4 ' recent and- quick survey of all the rnultip-ler
farm ly. districts An the City in terms of density when existing
rental units were demolished for new condominiums indicated that
multiple, family zones were predominantly developed to an intensity
equal to the density applied through the zoning. Most- of -the -
sites in the multiple family districts did not have additional
development potential. The samewas true for most aspects„of the.
development regulations ---those places already at or above -the den-
sity tended to be at Ora -Dove the site cnvera.ge. A numl;er of
localized situations were identified where the Planning Commission
intended to go back and review particular areo,s for possible down -
zoning. Some' areas' near downtown: had old victorian . houses
3 5 4 3
8/01/83
rehabilitated for sin e family use yet they were located in an
RM-4 district. He believed follow-up action from the Commission
would, look ae particular-' zoning as it applied to places where it
appeared- to be anornaious rather than through a re-evaluation of
heiyhts and densities -'in general for the multi -family districts.
Mr. Schreiber said existing zoning allowed 4S`,550 square feet of
commercial which could all be office. There could be 34 residen-
tial units on the RM-2 and RM-5 portions of the site, and the max-
imum development would be almost 50,000 square feet of commercial
and 34 units. The previously approved project had 54 units and
12,t3UU square feet of commercial whereas the proposed project had
bb units and 15,000 square feet of commercial.
Mayor Bechtel clarified that although the previously approved
project had fewer units and about 2,200 less square footage of of-
fice commercial, the units and building structure were larger.
Mr. Schreiber said the average size of the previously approved
project was 1,400 square feet, and with the slightly smaller
amount of commercial, the site coverages were comparable.
Mr. Brown said there was a difference in the two projects of about
4,UOU square feet of floor area, but that the Cox Project was not
calculated out in its entirety because it met the zoning.
mayor Bechtel aeciarea the puotic nearing open.
Augustus Roses Maxemin, who represented Amax, Inc., 336 Cambridge
Avenue, said the public benefit was that the housing would be.pro-
vided to the first --time median and professional income buyer, fam-
ilies with children, and that the project tied nine 8MR units,
Stanford Plaza provided for smaller, well designed, and functional
units that would result in a substantial increase in the number of
potential buyers that were previously priced out. of the market due
to the high price of real estate, mortgages, etc. It was a waste
of land and resources for projects to sit empty for years awaiting
foreclosure, and such misfortunes occurred to developers while
thousands of people in Palo Alto paid increasingly higher rents,
-could not afford `o buy a house, and - .itched• their hoaleeownersh;p
dream slip further away. After nun=.erous Meetings with City offi-
cials and input from several members of the community, he believed
Stanford Plaza as well designed and functional, and that the City
of Palo Alto would be proud of the project.
Jean Ul msted, 240 We Charleston, was concerned of the precedent
the project might set for related areas whe! a construction was
possible, ana she wanted Palo Alto to remain a place wnere people
enjoyed living. She presented survey report forms from 91 peopl e
in the area wherein they were asked whether they wanted 4 two or
three-story building, and what type of construction —housing and
retail or housiriy, retail and office. When a,aked to choose be-
tween two and three: stories, 82 out of the 91 wanted two storms,
'one wanted one story, one wanted three stories, and nine -did not
answer. When asked to choose between all housing; housing and
some retail; nous'ny, retail and some office, 45 those all hous-
ing; 29 these°. hou.siny and retail; 8. chose housing, retail and -=of --
f i ce--of those eight responses, seven wanted a two-story project..
ti he concluded that the neighborhood wanted- a two-story:... project
with all housing or housing and some retaile-not a three- _ sto.ry
housing, retail and office space project as was proposed. Regard-
ing shared parking,, there would be 70 spaces for residents, 60 for
commercial and 31 shared spaces. . Since the .protect was expert--
mental,.-sne asked what would happen if all the residents took the
bus. Palo Altans tried to use the bus service as much. as pos-
sible, . which Meant a lot of pressure on the shared parkin4.-. It
WAS' —a150 p0551ole that. resiaents with —Mare -than otte-car wouia use
the ,car parked in the assign_ ed space and leave the car parked in
the shared space. She was concerned --about what would happen if
the parking concept did not work, and concluded that the customary
parking requirements for the project should not be reduced.
3 6 4 4
8/01/83
Herb ieMdrf, 464 W. Char=leston, said an ad appeared in the Palo
Alto Weekly last week wn•lch had a tear off sheet for people
return. here were 43 responses received as of today --40 were
against the project and ;i were in favor. He received 25 more
responses in rinposrtion to the project at a meeting of the
Charleston Meadows Association before tonight's meeting, and of
the three responses in support of the project, one was received
from the Traynor family. Soine neighborhood concern_ s had to do
with the fact that a large piece of undeveloped land existed .next
to the proposed Stanford Plaza project, which was presently owned
by the Traynor family and ripe for development. An effort was
made at the time the. zoning ordinance was being approved to have
that property zoned in such a way that it would be developed resi-
dential to the extent possible. As was expressed in the last sur-,
vey and in several letters to the Council, the Charleston Meadows
Association concluded that it wanted a development limited to two
stories. The three stories not only impacted the adjacent resi-
dential zones, but did not fit the present neighborhood commercial
zone as it existed on El Camino Way. The highest building or that
street was two stories and there were no three- story buildings
nearby. The proposed project could set a precedent that would be
followed on the larger adjacent parcel, and the Association be-
lieved there should not be a lot of office space in the proposed
project or in the neighborhood commercial zone because it was not
in keeping with the concept of the zone and commercial space that.
would serve the neighborhood. The Charleston Meadows Association
requested that the Stanford Plaza project be denied because it was
too high and there was not enough parking. He said it was within
the Counci l 's power to make certain that a worse project was not
approved if the proposed project were denied. If the proposed
project were not deemed appropriate and if something worse could
occur within the present zoning, there was something wrong with
the zone on the property or how it was defined. He suggested that
the CN might be more strict or perhaps a different zone applied to
the property to assure that a worse development did not occur. An
improvement in the Cpl zone might be to limit a building to two
stories and to prevent office use from being acceptable in the
neighborhood commercial zone. If allowances were given to the
developer, they should be given to those willing to put in only
housing. Consistency with a two- story limit on the property must
mean consideriny doing the same thing with the adjoining property.
He suyyested-that the reinstitution of the daylight plane, as in
the original RM-2 zone, would protect R-1 zones from such a devel-
opment.
Millie Davis, 344 Tennessee Lanes said the objections were based
on the extreme density of the project. As compared to the Peter
Coutts Hill project, with seven units per acre, the proposed El
Camino Way/James, Road project had 37.8 housing units per acre plus
15,00U} square feet 'of commercial= Questionnaires were sent out in
the past few days, 17 responses were received, and all respondents
were opposed to the project. Most respondents also' checked the
Middlefield/Channiny Way proposal, and all but one was opposed. A
telephone nuEnter was -given to call with comments, and 18 calls
were received su far, and all but one opposed the project. The
proposed offices in the project added to the density, created jobs
which -detracted from the housing benefit, would not generate sales
taxes, and required City services. It said that the offices were
necessary to finance the project, but- no figures were supplied to
support the statement, and the figures presented were the square
foot construction costs for standard grade projects An envircnT-.
mental assessment worksheet,,dated March.19, 1981, for the -previ-
ous owner of the site, William Cox, gave the price of the land,
and using the two_figures, it appeared that in today's improving
housing market, -it was. possible to have a financially viable hous-
ing only project. At the City Council meeting of April 5! 198.1, a
motion was, made to study a possible reduction in the height limit
for mixed use prijects and .,the incentives for an all residential
use as opposed to:` an ince iti`ve for including some commercial.
There was discussion about the possibility of reducing the height
3 6 4 5
8/01/83
limit --the limit in the neighborhood commercial zone had beer; 25
feet, which would be a two story building. In the 1978 zoning
ordinance, a provision was included that if the third floor were
a ll housing, the height limit could be increased to 35 feet. That
caused problems in Barron Park where the neighborhood commercial
zone was immediately adjacent to single family homes. Some of the
height limits in neighborhood commercial zones included Menlo Park
with 15 feet; Sunnvale, 20 to 30 feet dependent upon the height of
the next single family home; Los Altos, two stories oe 30 feet
whichever was most restrictive; Saratoga, 20 feet; Mountain View,
two stories or 35 feet whichever was most restrictive. The Coun-
cil appeared to be amenable to the idea of restricting the height
in the zone yet believed that -since a study was pending, it would
aelay the decision until it was completed. The proposed applica-
tion was received in January and yet the decision was not made.
It was mentioned it would take several months to complete the
study, but it appeared there were some decisions that did not re-
quire a study. Decisions could be made immediately in terms -of
the height limit in the neighborhood commercial zone, whether of-
fices should be allowed, and the possibility for a bonus in an all
housing projects, and she asked the Council to vote on those as-
pects of the neighborhood commercial zone tonight. It was calcu-
lated that if the proposed site were developed to two stories of
all housing with about a 45 foot lot coverage, there could be ap-
proximately 65 housing units, which was exactly what the proposed
project was going to provide, yet it was also putting in approxi-
m� i n h e t h. 1 •J n.. } s1 ri n t n a rt ft./1.m t h si � a h n i. e i n ..
Robert Hansen, 434 Tennessee Lane, was a member of the Charleston
Meador. -s Association and urged opposition to the Stanford Plaza
development.
Inez Brennan, 4144 Wilkie Way, was an active member of the
Charleston Meadows Association and emphasized that the Association
opposed the project from the beginning. The Comprehensive Plan
was developed over a number of years with a lot of citizen input,
and she urged Council opposition.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said__the lot coverage of the Cox project was
22,015 square feet or 29.3 percent of the lot area. The residen-
tial area covered 62,250 square fees., and with 54 units, was an
average gross residential unit size of 1,054 square feet. When
the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map were enacted in late 1978,
many projects which had already received building permits became
nonconforming, and could not be- bu?1L in the new zone. Five ex-
ception applicants appeared at the first City Council meeting in
January, 1979, and ail five were rejected unanimously, Mayor Carey
presiding. He believed there was adequate precedent to rezone the
Property as long as the building permit for the Cox project was
not actually issued. The Barron Park Association believed the
proposed project was improper for the CN zone, and were concerned
about the deferred parking.`, As pointed out by Councilmember Cobb,
the deferral was experimental, and the Barron Park Association _be-
lieved the area_was wrong for an experiment because if it failed,
it was too late to .change _it. The area was already congested acrd
would yet worse in the future. He believed the project was more
like a planned community CPC) where the developer was getting a 20
percent density bonus, in the housing. He proposed that there be a
miri.imum of 180 parking spaces, and that the deferral be cut to no
more than eight percent. The overall density. should be reduced to
60 units hecause the ,ox Project built out to the maximum residen„
tial :density was 64. The developer was giving three additional
BMR units, and he suggested a one for one density bonus to give
the developer six, additional units --3 BMR's and three market rate
units. Regard;ny whether the market rate units would sell, the
minutes of _the Ju ly 13 meeting of the Palo Alto Housing •Corpora-
tion reflected'that there were some problems selling the Redwoods
because they were small, had Only one closet, and one parking
space. One ,applicant turned down the unit and said such small
3 6 4 6
8/01/83
units were an exploitation of the program. Ile found the Redwood
units to be well laid out, and well aes'iyned, but would yive him
and- his wife claustrophobia even with all the mirrors. The
Iaryest units of 1,144 square feet would cost between $185,000 and
$215,000, and he believed small units at high prices or large
units at high prices had proven to be a drug in the market in Palo
Alto. No one was being done a favor by approving a project with
units that wuuld sit fallow on the market. Regarding the jobs/
housing imbalance, Mr. Kelley would be converting Mayfield Mall
from shoppiny to offices --over 500,000 square feet. That would be
an increase of three jobs per thousand square feet at the standard
ratio of 1,000 square feet for retail per worker, and 250 square
feet per office worker. That project alone would create a need
for approximately 1,200 housing units in the Palo Alto area. It
could not be said that because it was across the line in Mountain
View that it would not create an intense need for housing, and es-
sentially wipe out all the gains from Stanford West. He suggested
that the Council look at those living in the area now, and if the
development was too massive or oppressive, it should be rejected.
Andrew Sutter, 410 Sheridan Avenue, spoke regarding the BMR units.
He rented an apartment in Palo Alto for the last year and he and
his fiancee would like to be able to buy something and stay in
Palo Alto. He would be able to afford the units being discussed
whereas most other units he would not. He supported the project
and asked the Council to consider how a less dense project or one
without office units m3Uht suoDort as many_ of tI-c hnlnW-manrint
rate housing units so that young professionals might better be
able to afford them.
Grey, Frenkl in, 241 Forest, believed the issue of affordable hous-
iny for young professionals in Palo Alto was important. He had
rented in the City for six .years, and for the past four years
searched for a place to buy ir. Palo Alto. The price of real es-
tate in the area skyrocketed and housing prices were distressing.
pie asked the Council to consider the plight of young professionals
trying to live in the area because it was almost impossible for a
young professional to buy property in Palo Alto considering the
market price of property and the governing interest rates. He
currently earned 1.5 times the median household income of Santa
Clara County, but could not afford to buy a douse in Palo Alto be-
cause he could not qualify for a loan. He believed he represented
a group the Council would like to attract as residents, but unfor-
tunately ne could not because of the price of housing in the
area.
_Tim Tight, 196 Colorado Avenue, said he was fortunate to own his
house which he bought at a probate sale in 1978 for $60,000, and
which consisted of 800 square feet and required three years of
work to make it inhabitable. He recently went to graduate school
and did not realize. how fortunate he was in 1978 because of his
fellow graduates, few were able to afford houses in the area. The
only ones with houses were those with houses in other cities. It
was a -tough plight faking the young professionals of today, and
one which should be addressed in. Palo Alto.because of the tremen-
dous need for young talented professionals in all fields. He be-
lieved the developer was conscientious in addressing the problem,
provided an aesthetic housing project, units much in demand, and a
sizable number of below market rate units that would be handy to
students.
-Tiro Berry,: 4217 AcKel. ar Large, hoped tine architectural designs
would be approved. As a resident of the immediate area, he saw
the construction and enhancement of the neighborhood vith the Red-
wuod Condominiums on El Camino- Real.` He believed the pro'osed
construction of :the Stanford Plaza would do a great deal to make
the area a more pleasant place to live. The Council previously
granted permits -to build apartments and condominiums which blended
nicely into the existing neighborhood-, and the prapvsed project
3 6 4 7
8/01/83
would not only improve tne current condition of the pruderty, but
would also give young prospective property owners a chance to ac-
quire property in ti:e Palo Alto area. He was interested in main-
taining his residency in the City --the many activities in terms of
shopping, schools, and cultural events, were beyond reach to the
majority of people in the area, and Stanford Plaza would put the
benefits of the City within the reach of a few more. He urged
approval of the plans, and that construction begin as soon as pos-
sible.
Steve and Joan Jennings, 369 Whitclem Drive, urged the Council to
deny reclassification of the property at 4145-4161 El Camino Way
to PC because they believed the project represented an extremely
dense use of the less -than two acre:, of land in the neighborhood,
and that it would negatively impact existing heavy traffic condi-
tions ini the Alma, E1 Camino Real, Charleston, and East Meadow
areas.
Richard Leza, 4191 Br; a rwood Way, said the Greenmeadows Associa-
tion supported the project.
Uouylas Ross, 1315 Ramona Street, said Mr. Moss indicated that
people were not excited about his BMR program, and he believed
over half the units were called for, and the balance could be
pointed toward the Housing Corporation and its real estate sales
capability. There- was no problem in selling the units as evi-
denced - by the fact that the market rate units which were exactly
V=f�. .aiiwz 31 zE an4 b.�i c� U. n e a i l sU i u. The other. units
varied in size and were selling well. He did not believe the
sales price of The Redwoods had anything to do with the project,
but if anything, it was positive. The density was over 45 units
per acre and higher if the driveway were taken into account.
People could do high density projects and create affordable hous-
ing in Palo Alto as demonstrated by the success of The Redwoods.
Florence LaRiviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, said at earlier meetings,
her neighborhood association was enthusiastic about the changes
that were proposed. They first heard that there would be nine BMR
units, arid were delighted to donate those $55,000 units to the
City until it was discovered that the units would be much more ex-
pensive. It was believed that those who resided there would have
a pleasant environment because of the reduction in the coverage of
land, but it was ascertained that a recreation building would be
added. She was confused about what could occur under the Cox plan
with the 45,000 square feet of commercial. She understood that
the_ proposed project was more than the floor coverage that might
have been expected if the original zoning was adhered to. The
neiohborhood was upset because it was likely that with the point
of the arrow, the land could be developed from the point adjoining
the Amax development all the way to Charleston Road. She lioped
the Co!_:a ci : took the .,feelings of the neighborhood to heart and did
something to alleviate their feelings of disadvantage.
Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing closed.
Councilmember Cobb cited the almost overwhelmingly strong neigh-
borhood opposition to the -project an- opposition which he did not
believe was improved by. the fact that at -one point the Council ap—
peared anxious to run the project through in a cavalier fashion
with .respect to procedure. A lot of commentary was heard to the
effect that the density was too high for the area, and as he pre-
viously pointed out, . -the multiplexed parking --the duplicate use.of
parking spaces for both commercial and residential use --was an un-
proven concept and its failbre would overflow -into a neighborhood
with already serious parking problems. -As one who lived. not far
tram the affected. neighborhood_and in a. single story Eichl.-er, he
believed it was outrageous to put a three story building next to a
single story "Eichler" type neigh,_ .00l Regarding the
3 6 4 8
8/01/83
justification for d PC, there was a net gain of a few below market
rate units which hardly seemed an appropriate justification for
PC which created the problems for those who already lived in the
C'ty. He relieved it was a questionable process for the Council
to override the CN zone with a PC when it was only months away
from completing a study of the CN zone. The CN zone was requested
by the people in the general Barron Park area, and if a PC was
justified for the proposed site, the same public benefit would be
argued for the adjacent property, and the same kind of density
could be carried down to Arastradero Road. He believed signifi-
cant traffic and parking problems would be thrown to the neighbor-
hood streets no matter what happened. He believed it was only ap-
propriate to reject the proposal in its present form with a refer-
ral back to the Planning Comm,ssion for a less dense project; or a
motion to cut the height from three stories to two stories.
MOTION: Councilmember Cobh moved, seconded by Renzel, to reject
the project.
Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Cobb, and said
when she previously supported the project she expected the pro-
posed reductions would result in some substantial improvements in
the open space and general design, which did not occur.
Councilmember Klein agreed with Councilmember Renzel. He would
not support the proposal because it was still too dense for the
area. He did not see the benefit to the City by granting a PC
7nnk-..ehPeO WAS no annrPcir hh: imndrt nn tho inheihn4ieinn
ance, and the extra your units in the BMR program were not worth
it. He believed the best course of action was to reject the pro-
posal and move to take the appropriate action to get a zoning on
the property that would produce a housing project everyone would
feel comfortable.
Councilmember Levy said that as he looked at the map of the area,
it was difficult to favor rejecting the proposal in favor of a low
density residential alternative. He saw an area entirely sur-
rounded, except for a small area, by other commercial endeavors,
it sat close to a major thoroughfare, one side was RM-5 zoning,
and a small portion of the project backed up to R-1 and R-2 zon-
ing, If it was the first step towards a major rezoning of the
area, he could join in reconsideration, but thet was not proposed
and he believed it was not the proper time to review it. The area
was zoned as part of a Comprehensive Plan that involved looking at
the City as a whole. Palo ?Alto was not a monolithic city where
everyone lived in one kind of dwelling --it was a diverse suburb
and almost cosmopolitan in that it had a number of defferent types
of units. Transitions were never comfortable, and the question
was whether the transition was acceptable. He believed the proj-
ect was far preferable to the alternatives allowed by the zoning.
The single family houses in the _ nei ghhorhood were 15 feet high,
and the proposed project where it abutted the R-1 zone went up to
approximately 20 to 25 feet in height, and as it moved towards El
Camino Way, to 35 feet in height. The amount of commercial space
was i5,UU0 square feet gross, and over 40,000 square feet would be
acceptable in a neighborhood commercial zone.-- There was a reason-
able number -of rest--ential units, and he. heard the neighbors, say
that the number of bodies occupying the area wad not that much of
d problem. The concern seemed to be more the 'bulk --the height,
and the._way the project filled the total envelope. He was not
prepared to vote on the project as it currently --existed, but did
not ,see a benefit jn rejecting the- project given the surrounding
area and what it meant for the" tota l i ty of the community.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon said she :would not support the motion to
reject the project. She believed tonight was the culmination of a
long process -that started last October, and while -the project was
not perfect, she found it to be an exciting project architectural-
ly and believed the applicant did his best to make it so given the
neighborhood constraints. The jobs/housing 'imbalance was not
3 5 4 9
8/01/83
computed oe a one to one ratio and the latest consensus indicated
1.b to 1.8 employed -persons per household in Palo Alto. Flow many
more housing units to add to the housing stock in Palo Alto was an
ayoniziny decision given the fact that City was beginning to re-
develop lots adjacent to R-1 neighborhoods. It was proper to dis-
cuss concept and whether the Council should change its philosophy
in the Comprehensive Plan review scheduled for next year. She
urged the citizens and the Council to re-examine the philosophy
during reconsideration. She believed the developer compromised on
the proposed project and her only.quarrel was that the City might
need more parking. She wanted to see the project built and be-
lieved_that some of the ads were unfair and in many cases exagger-
ated in terms of the neighborhood impacts. Given the busy arter-
ial at the site, the project was probably the, best one for it.
She did not want to see the, project built out to its full allowed
density under certain circumstances.
Councilmember Eyerly was disturbed that every time a permit for a
multiple femtly unit was applied for, the residents in the sur-
-rounding areas objected regardless of the density. It always
seemed to be -after the fact, and W
.,as becoming more frequent with
each project. The application was filed in October, 1982, and the
developer put forth considerable effort to compromise and bring
back some type of valuable project for Palo Alto. He believed
many people in town were unrealistic about the economic ground
values, and talked about lowering the densities on properties
which abutted El Camino Real or El Cimino Way in that immediate
ArPA, ee Wnlitd dire to cCC R-1 !I^netng en Et Ceminn tut it
wee
not feasible with the ground values. He was sympathetic to the
fact that it was a transition zone and that some of the transition
zones had to be in areas such as El Camino. The fears of the com-
munity were in terms of height and traffic. He did not believe
the height' fear was entirely realistic because substantial set-
nacks abutted the it.-1 areas and it was not three stories immedi-
ately adjacent to the R-1. Traffic was a fear for everything in
Palo . Alto, and the project was designed to ingress and egress off
el Camino Way. If there was an overload of traffic in the resi-
dential areas, that was a problem the City had to face. He be-
lieved the Council must be fair to all property owners whether
they were owners of R-1, multiple family or commercial property.
Those owners had riyhts to develop their properties in some way
and they had a right to depend upon the zoning reflected in the
Comprehensive Plan, and it was unfair to disallow some sensible
type prof act. He did not support the motion, and hoped the Coun-
cil would put forth some type of motion to approve the ordinance
in its present format or in some amended way.
Covncilmember Fazzino said Vice Mayor Witherspoon end Council -
member Levy best reflected his feelings. Given the neighborhood
concerns_ ebout heighe, harking, and general bulls, he was willing
to work With Counciirnember Cobb and other Councilmembers to alter
specific aspects of the project to reduce the impact on the area.
He agreed with Vice Mayor Witherspoon and Councilmembers Levy and
Eyerly about how lone it took to develop the Comprehensive Plah
and--tne many di.scusslons between the City and developer about the
appropriateness of the project in that particular area. The ele-
ment of truss:_ and faith must be, respected, and he could not vote
to reject the project outright, etthough he was emotionally tugged
to do so given -the neighborhood opposition. He was as frustrated
as ,.other Councilmembers and neighbors that the -City struggled so
often with projects, such as the one proposed about 'whether it
arriyht b.e totally 'rnsatisfactory to adjoining neignaorhoods. He
could not be'l i eve 'the City Council spent nine years on the Compre-
hensive processe which had an .annual amendment process, and
had continuing community opposition to the proposals-, The Council-
hed__much work ahead to lower the densities in locations where res-
idential areas. abutted commercial. He was particularly concerned
about the downtown and College Terrace areas Where a 'lower height
reduced potential for job creation, and increased_•'parking
3 6 5 0
8/01/83
restrictions should be imposed. He hcpcd the result of the CU
study would point in those directions. The.,plan before the Coun-
cil was developed within the parameters of the zoning, and he
hoped his colleagues would reject the motion so specific aspects
could be addressed. Un the positive side, -he believed the Council
worked closely with the developer and provided its support for the
housing proposed for the site. The project was directed toward a
major aspect of the Comprehensive Plan, had generally good archi-
tecture, and should be encouraged. Ile urged the project not be
rejected outright-, and that ways to. reduce its impact on the
neighborhood be discussed.
Councilmember Fletcher said the neighborhood association played an
active role in developing the Comprehensive Plan, land use and
zoning maps, and raised no outcry until the project, which matched
the zoning, was proposed. Neighborhood opposition was easy to
raise in any project, but those people who wanted to live in Palo
Alto were not represented. She wanted to see young professionals
live in Palo Alto, as they had in the past, and therefore she
would reject the motion. She was amenable to an alternative sug-
gestion, such as that voiced by Councilmember Cobb.
Councilmember Renzel reminded the Council that one of the first
priorities of the Comprehensive Plan was to protect and preserve
R-1 neighborhoods. She rejected the remark that the neighborhoods
had not complained until after the fact --concern was expressed at
every stage. The adjacent property that everyone was concerned
Ahn" !'1A -C' net r4 -Ket re her CFO --e m oe:i all a dense LUfle wi i 4 Use
potential for a much greater impact: Land values were based on
toning, and the PC zone incorporated parts of a neighborhood cour-
t uercial and a RM-"l. zone. That was a compromise because the neigh-
bors originally wanted solely residential zoning. The Council
could not complain about the buildings being erected all over town
and sho:,rla not take responsibility for the zoning that permitted
it.. Since the zoning was.established, many aspects changed, such
as .usable open space requirements and raising the daylight plane
heiglt. She said responsibility must be accepted by everyone, and
.changes made quicklyr
Councilr;emoer Cobb a -greed entirely with Councilmember Renzel. It.
was unfair for the Council to say people showed excitement only
when something was to happen in their neighborhood. Most resi-
dents did not.follow zoning ordinances closely, but left that job
to the Council, where it belonged. It was unrealistic to expect
people to show concern about th;ngs that did net closely concern
them. The zone was a PC, which allowed increased density for some
public benefit, and in this case the public benefit was a mini-
scule number of additional units. The Comprehensive Plan could be
interpreted widely, but he did not believe the five major pro-
posals of the Flan were met. Those were to maintain the general
low character density of the single family areas, to slow down
graawth, to maintain existing housing and provide some new housing
at the below to moderate income levels --which the project did but
only a little more than the epproved project for the CN zone. The
fifth:, proposal was to change the appearance and function of El
CaminO Real in a positive way, and while the' proposed project
could improve the physical appearance, it could create a wall 'of
undesirable bui ldinys, all -the way to Arastradero. He did not
think the project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plana
Mayor b echtel'agreed that the project was too dense and .caused too
much traffic for- the_site, but was amenabl-e to some other pro-
posais--in particular something ti't would eliminate the third
story.
MTiUllll FAILED by a vote of 4-5, Menzel, Bechtel, Klein, Cobb
voting 'afire. °
3 6 5 1
8/01/83
MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved seconded 1 t theMOTION: by that
project be referred back to the planning Commission for a recom-
mendation for a two-story project.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked staff, if the motion should pass,
would the developer's option be to not ask for a PC but to go with
the existing zoning that would allow for three stories.
Mr. Brown said they could either do that or ask for a building
permit for the Cox project.
Councilmember Fazzino was supportive of the proposal to reduce the
height to two stories. He had voted in favor of the project three
months earlier, and still felt it made sense in general.. He had
been swayed by neighborhood concern about the impact of the third
floor. The project should not be continually referred back to the
Planning Commission, and a specific policy should be set that eve-
ning. He felt it would constitute a strong statement to state
that during the CN study all issues of height, parking, general
bulk, and possible density reduction would have to be studied. He
supported the moliuji ta reduce the stories from three to two.
Councilmember Klein supported the
height would kill the project, and
he wished to make it clear that
precedent, and he did not consider
cy to adopt City-wide. Sometimes
propr late.
motion. A reduction in story
thus meet his wishes. However,
his vote did not coiis.itute a
story reduction as a wise poll -
three -story buildings were ap-
Councilmember Levy did not think projects should be decided on in
Council. The motion would encourage the develcper to cover a
large area of land with two-story buildings, which he felt was a
bad design policy. He would prefer a development with varied
heights and a plaza. A single family neighborhood was made
pleasant by the diversity and open spaces. If the Council mandat-
ed two stories throughout the project, it might not kill it, but
would cause a very dull development. The Council should consider
the impact on the single family neighborhood behind it and draw up
criteria on the setbacks and how the project should be scaled down
so that it phased in pleasantly. He thought a two-story require-
ment was a bad policy and he hoped the project could be looked at
more creatively.
Councilmember Fletcher agreed with Councilmember Levy. It was
necessary to reduce the bulk and the density, but not to tie down
the Planning Commission in its options. Responding to a comment
made from the pu:lic, she said the Council could not immediately
rezone the property --that was a lengthy process.
Councilmember Eyerly sought areas of agreement. He understood
current zoning permitted 34 units to be erected on the RM-2 and 34
units on the RM-5 and he asked how many units could be built on
the CN zone.
Mr. Brown said 20 snits plus whatever commercial square footage
would add up to a total of 49,500 square feet of total floor area
on that portion of the site.
Councilmember Eyerly said the proposal showed 15,000 square feet
for commercial use, with a total of 65 units on the; whole project.
The Council's aim was to hold commercial use dowr to the minimum
of 15,000 square feet and try to reduce the total number of units
from 65 to approximately, 54 units, with some conditions regarding
height, arid requiring the three-story buildings to be set further
back from the rear property line. He asked for the distance from
the R-1 area property line to the three-story buildings.
3 6 5 2
8/01/83
Mr. Brown said the distance was about 40 feet.
Councilmember Eyeriy said those were some of Lhe parameters to
look at. However, they should first vote against the motion.
Councilmember-Levy urged the Council to reconsider. He felt re-
ferring the project back to the Planning Commission was needless.
The Council should address the, specific items of contention.
REFERRAL MOTION FAILED, 5-4, Renzel, Fazzino, Klein and Cobb
voting "aye%
MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to
refer the project back to the Planning Commission for a revised
project with less density and less bulk,
Councilmember Cobb asked Councilmember Fletcher to incorporate two
items into her motion. He asked for inclusion of Councilmember
Levy's request for a sensitive transition to the single family
neighborhoods, and reducing or eliminating multiplex parking.
Councilmember Fletcher was not sure elimination of multiplex
parking would be°suitable. She asked Councilmember Cobb to mcke a
separate motion on that natter.
COIiNCILMEMBERS FLETCHER AHD FAllINO INCLUDED IN THEIR MOTIOM A
REQUEST FOR A REVISED PROJECT THAT IS A SENSITIVE TRANSITION TO
THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
'ice Mayor Witherspoon said she thought the Council was now moving
ahead, but asked for c_o►nfifrnation that the proposal complied with
the daylight pane requirements.
Mr. Brown said it did. Even the earlier versions, with units
closer to the Tennessee Lane frontage, had complied with the 20
feet, 45 degree requirement.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon felt they must be more specific, and asked
if they would require a psychological barrier --no windows on that
side, or a physical_, one --with the setback greater than the day -
tight plane required.
Mr. Brown showed a transparency of the project seen from Tennessee
Lane.
Councilmember Levy agreed the request was vague. He suggested the
request be directed to the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The
neighbors were concerned about the impact of the three-story
building, and he felt the ARB could ensure a proper physical
transition; so the total bulk of the project did not destroy view
lines. It was, therefore, acceptable to refer the project back to
the ARB with the specific request t.hat`' they look at those ele-
ments.
Mayor Bechtel disagreed.. The design was somewhat sensitive to the
transition to the neighborhood. The transparency showed that the
area closest to the single family area was one.. story, moving into
two-story and then three-story units. The problem was not only of
design but also of density, and therefore should go back to the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Brown commented each review by the ARB stated the design was
very appropriate, but staff did not wish to become involved in the
land use type decisions --.the density. They left that to te Plan-
ning Commission and the Council.
Director of Planning and Community Environment_ Ken Schreiber said
that density should be referred back to both tIie Planning Commis-
sion and the ARB, as it concerned both bodies.
3 6 5 3
8/01/83
As Corrected
12/12/83
Councilmember Cobb said the ARC considered only those policy is-
sues that were left. He found the design nice looking and ques-
tioned only the scale and bulk of the project. If the Council
could not resolve those issues, they should be referred to the
Planning Commission. The Council should not act as planning com-
missioners. He was willing to refer the project to the Planning
Commission with the understanding it would then return to the
Council with less scale, less density, and a better transition to
the neighborhood.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel, to
requiro the multiplexed parking (shared parking deferral) be
eliminated or substantially reduced.
Councilmember Renzel said a large three-story ouilding would have
a much more significant impact on the one-story area than would a
small three-story building. Only one three-story family house had
been built in Palo Alto in the past fifty years, and it was one
of the ugliest in town. It was not so much a question of height,
but how the building blended iii.
Councilmember Fletcher pointed out that a reduction in scale and
bulk would increase the price of the units, as would more parking,
resulting in expensive condominiums. As it would provide no pub-
lic benefit, the project would be tu• ned down. She was not con-
vinced parkin; was a problem. However, referring it to the Plan-
ning Commission a irl not rule ut height not -rule �,�.,, +��.. r ��e�. paHKiny limitations.
The Commission would have the Council's comments and would con-
sider all aspects. Therefore, she preferred to leave the question
of parking open.
AMENDMENT FAILED, 5-4, Renzel, Klein, Fazziho and Cobb voting
"Aye".
Councilmember Eyerly felt the matter should be referred to the
Planning Commission, which would be free to look at the possible
reduction of units if economically feasible.
Councilmember Levy asked if the developers could abandon the
planned communityconcept, and esk for permission to build the Cox
proposal witn ten percent fewer units and approximately 15 percent
less commercial space.
Mr. Brown said that was possible, with a parking deferral of ap-
proximately 13 percent for the entire project.
Councilmember Levy said, by refo,rring the project back to the
Planning Commission, the Council was endorsing the Cox proposal,
Mr. Brown said he thought the applicant would reconsider the Cox
proposal or a project conforming to the existing zoning.
Councilmemher Levy pointed out that the existing zoning allowed
50,000 square feet of commercial space or three and a third times
as much as the current project. He asked if so much could be
built.
Mr. Brown said parking limitations could become a factor, also the
ARB would assess the traffic generated. He was unable to hazard a
figure.
Councilmember Levy asked if it would be possible to add u -P to 34
residential units.
Mr. Brown said 34 residential units and 49,500 square feet of -com-
mercial space could be erected.
Councilmember: Levy said there were two alternatives: either the
relrrAnt prniort of 1 f. f.l��1 cnilxra foot A third of rfhi.�h .must kA
..� �. � , .- � .. < • ... r must vV
retail, with the rest as office space, and ou residential units,
3 6 5 4
8/01/83
As Corrected
12/12/83
of
pr
ed
fi
th
which nine we -e BMR units. The alternative would be the Cox
oposal, or 12,300 square fret of cowiiercial, hone of which rieeii-
Lo be retail, with 54 residential units, of which he assumed
ve would be BMR units. He asked for a comparison of the bulk of
e two projects.
Mr. Brown said preliminary calculations showed it to be about ten
percent less floor area.
Councilmenber Levy asked if i;t was as sensitive to he neighbor-
hood.
Mr.
ally
that
have
spac
Coun
appe
thou
Coun
duct
new
amen
Brown said pro
being 26 fee
point. The
a large centr
e being broken
cilmember Levy
ared small, t
ght the choice
cilmember Klei
ion of density
ordinance mea
ded.
bably not, beceuse it was not set back so radic-
t from the property line and rising straight at
configuration was ale() different. It did not
al plaza but two or ehree smaller ones, the open
into smaller, less functional units.
did not know which to choose. The Cox project
he current one more thoughtful. However, he
between the two would be made by the motion.
n said he understood the ARB could require a re -
of zoning, preventing unlimited building. The
nt the zoning shown in the records could be
11 - fl,
1' I i • L 1 IJ ri i i 3 li 1 .J
ronmental impact.
was
U
1 t h e reduction were based on e Y 1-
COUNCILMEHBERS FLETCHER AND FAllIiIO INCLUDED IN THEIR MOTION
THAT THE PROJECT BE REFERRED BACK TO BOTH THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BOARD AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REFERRAL MOTION TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARE PASSED by a rote
of 8-1, Witherspoon voting "no".
RECESS FROM 9:55 p.m. TO 10:10 p.m.
ITEM #4, PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF NANCY CLAIR STONE FROM THE
t DIRECTOR TH KTTEOT
ATT-RETTITERTTTL-77WURTRWR
,
ut 1L'LUVeer-AT 7105 $IUDLEF ILLU L3A iJ72 -Lz8 CKAMNTNG'jC R:43J:3)
�... w s�r�wrw
Staff recommends that the City Coun:i 1
(1) Approve the negative declaration and find that the project
will have no significant adverse environmental i pacts;
(2) Find that the proposed project is compatible with the goals
and purposes of the architectural review process (Chapter 16.48 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code);
(3) Uphold the decision of the Architectural Review Board and the
Director of Planning and Community Environment to approve the
project subject to the condition that no building permits for the
construction of the project shall be issued until the ownership
issue receives a final judgment on the merits by a court of com-
petent jurisdiction determining that the applicant has title to
the property.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
the property was zoned RM-4 and was adjacent on one side to R-1,
single family_ and on the Middlefield/Channing corner to R-2 zones.
Although the zoning and initial proposal was RM-4, the ARB process
resulted in a three unit reduction and project design. modification
to respond to the concerns -of the neighborhood. The density, site
coverage, height, and usable open space met RM-3 zoning require-
ments.
3 6 5 5
8/01/83
City Attorney Diane Lee said they had suggested insertion of a
condition preventing work beyond the ARB stage` without resolution
of the ownership issue, Appropriate language was suggested in the
staff report which the Council was asked to incorporate. That
particular question need not concern the Council in arriving at
its decision.
Mayor Bechtel asked if the Council was able to review the compati-
bility of the project with the neighborhood.
;Ms. -Lee said it could, because how the project fitted in with the
neighborhood was part of the project design.
Councilmember Henze] sa'd that in answering the appeal the Council
was performing ARB work.
Councilmember Cobb asked for the status of the other project that
constituted the other half of tiie dispute.
Ms. Lee said she believed work on the interior not requiring a
building permit had been done. Work on the exterior had begun be-
fore it was discovered that ARB approval had not been obtained.
At that. point the other claimant to ownership was encouraged to
file an application.
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said ari application
bccri filer. There was a proposed rehabilitation of office
frontiny on Middlefield.
Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open.
had
use
Ernest Ames, 1015 Fast Hillsdale Boulevard, Foster City, architect
foe the projects said initial zoning allowed for development of 11
units in addition to some office use. Planning staff persuaded
thee} it was inappropriate, as mixed use would considerably augment
traffic. A residential development of 11 condominiums was
presented to the ARB in April. At that time they learned the
neighborhood ob,;ected to the size, bulk, height; of the project,
and to the possibility of excessive traffic. The project was re-
designed and reduced from 1, -/DO to 1,400 square feet and from 11
to eight units. At the urging of the ARB the plan was made More
compact, allowing -,more space between the development and single
family homes on both Middlefield and Channing. The plan was
pleasing and scale -related to adjacent residences, and specifical-
ly designed not to be overwhelming. The neighborhood groups and
the AIth applauded their efforts. Presentations to the groups had
been made The ARB insisted that the height of the eight unit
project be dirn-iiished by putting the parking ur:ierground. This
was agreed to, and there were two underground parking stalls- per
unit. He felt much time and effort to accommodate neighborhood
concerns had been expended, and the project was pleasing and dould
improve the City.
Gerald Lllersdorfer, 405 14th `Street, Oakland, the_attorney for
the developer, said he felt the project met the concerns ex-
pressed. The project eeduced traffic; improved the visual quality
of the neighborhood, and met the existing zoning, which Wes not
residential. The project tended away from professional offices
witti mvre traffics to a more residential use. The project met all
concerns, and there was no valid reason to deny it.
Donna Bendotoff, 751 Channing Avenue, said marry. of her neighbors ,
were on vacation or had left the meeting. She did not feel tho
ARB ruling was in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The
project did not preserve the character of the neighborhood.
Neighbors felt the large building was inappropriate. Tne neigh-
borhood had grown -during the last decade and had been upgraded
from rentals to owned homes. They wished to maintain a -family-
oriented neighborhood in the face of many public use . They did'_
3 e 5 6
8/01/83
not want such projects imposed on them. There was insufficient
buffering and it was aesthetically unfit. A,member of the ARB had
agreed, sayi ny it was entirely wrong for, thate neighborhood and
calling it d biy stucco box. The ARB did not feel it under their
jurisdiction to recommend changing a zoning they thought incompat-
ible. She urged the Council to review the RM-4 zoning of the
area. She was not opposed to increasing housing in Palo Alto, but
felt the existing apartment building met this need better,
especially for 1U4 to moderate incomes. The corner lot was more
compatible with the environment. The four apartment houses would
be replaced by four -condominiums, and the other house to be re-
placed could not be developed into a large building. Their peti-
tion, circulated in the neighborhood only, received much positive
support. She showed slides to prove the condominiums would not
fit in.
hike Wright, 7b5 Channing, said one of the objectives of the Com-
prehensive Plan was to avoid drastic changes in neighborhoods.
The zoning was revised in 1978 to reflect a aradi;al change of
Scale, but he felt the condominiums represented an abrupt one --
there was a lack of transitional zoning in the area, Middlefield
Road represented a natural barrier. Between Willow and Oregon
Lxpressway there were no three-story buildings comparable to the
project, and he asked the Council to prevent the exception being
imposed on their neighborhood.
Jim Weayer, 975 Channing, agreed with the previous speakers. How-
ever, his primary objection was that the RM-4 zoning was totally
inappropriate for the area. Four senior citizens lived in the
bui l�' ny adjacent to the project, and the Comprehensive Plan said
disp cement of individuals, especially the elderly, should be
avo sed. The project was put before the ARB before local resi-
dents were informed, They learned of it from the newspaper.
Ronald Remmel, 827 Middlefield Road,, referred to the zoning made
prior to 1978. A light commercial area RP -3 was rezoned to `RM-4.
The current buildings fit into the community. Referring to
earlier remarks that people complai: 'd only after the fact, he
said ;le and his neighbors had not re ized the potential for such
a project existed, otherwise they would have protested earlier.
The existing light commercial and apartment complexes were compat-
ible, but the proposed project dramatically detracted from the
neighborhood. Immediately across Middlefield was Webster Woods, a
City. low-cost housing project. The development was pleasant, be-
cause open space and aesthetically pleasing materials were used.
The proposed architecture was incompatible. He hoped when re-
zoning was considered, their neighborhood would be included. The
current apartment house was and had been fully occupied. the
project would make those people homeless. Manyeyoung profession-
als were looking for housing, but would find the project unaffordi5
able at .$3UU,000 per unit. The project would not fill a need for
young professionals. When he grew up there was a mixture of
people, and he liked to `see the same mixed clmmuni ti es.
Cou.nci lmenrber Levy asked if it was the physical intrusion, not the
number of automobile trips generated or inhabitants to which they
Objected.
Mr, Rernmel felt b.uRk was the essence of the problem, `1e had no
means of estimating traffic flow. -There were 22 children on the
street„ a rarity in Palo Alto, There were Churches throughout the
commodity, ardd weekend parkin?, was a problem. There was 'currently
parking for the apartment complex, and no weekend business in the
light commercial area-. He disliked the bulk -and the architecture
of _the proposed project.
Jerry Rodder, 715 Sunshine Drive, Los Altos, had title to the 905
Middlefield koad property and planned renovation of the interiors,
of which 80 percent had been completed. He hoped the ARB would
3 6 5 7
8/01/83
approve the exterior design.
Councilmember Fletcher received confirmation from Mr. Rudder that
he was renovating the 905 Middlefield -Road property.
Alice Williams, 454 Tennessee Lane, whose children had friends in
that neighborhood drove in the area very often. She concurred
that Webster Woods was a fine development where children were hap-
py and comfortable, The Channing Avenue residential area was a
pleasant, -friendly neighborhood with fine older homes. The proj-
ect would be an intrusion, and the area should be rezoned.
Kathryn Vi_nokur, 919 Channing, appreciated the Councilmembers'
comments during the previous discussion about anomalous rezoning,
transitions from multiple to single family use, land coverage, and
scale, which applied equally to the current project. A long time
resident, she had seen many large scale buildings in downtown Palo
Alto built and remain vacant. She felt the reason for that was
they did not provide balconies or outdoor access. While a larger
number of units was desirable, the project was out of scale, and
she asked the Council to consider —that aspect. Visitors would
have to park on the street. Single. family owners understood
greater density would have to occur, but the zoning had caused a
dramatic change. :Ole -small unit on the corner was only so zoned
because of its professional use.
Millie [iavia, 344 Tennessee Lane, complimented the Council on hav-
ing voted approval of the new RMD zone to preserve existing habit-
able .structures. The application would result in the demolition
of existing, habitable rental units and run counter to that deci-
sion. She supported the residents opposed to the application.
Mayor Bechtel closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Eyerly agreed with the neighbors' comments. Regard-
less of the zoning, the. aesthetics and the height of the project
were too great. He might support a two-story development more in
keeping with -the neighborhood.
MOTION; Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Fazzino, to up-
hold the appeal and to reject the Architectural Review Board
recommendations for the project.
Councilmember Fletcher said she found the project completely out
of scale. The ,Ccuncil..was at fault for approving an RM-4 zone
surrounded by RM-1. That should have beer rectified when the Zon-
ing Ordinance was under consideration. She was in favor of the
motion.
Councilmember Fazzino supported Councilmember Eyerly's comments,
but said the applicant had acted in good faith, meeting with the
neighbors to try to resolve concerns. However, he was in favor of
the motion. He would like to preserve the single family homes and
low scale commercial use of Middlefield Road. The idea of the
condominium project'.,replacing the old Church of Scientology had
sold very poorly. He felt such projects would never sell well,
and in particular when they wet a out of scale. The project was
aesthetically unacceptable and inappropriate in size. He hoped
the existing site could be saved.
Councilmember Klein said he had had an office at 400 Channing, and
enjoyed the area. He had mixed feelings when disagreeing with his
colleagues He found the project appropriate. The ARB's findings
were not out of character. There were many large, older two-
story houses in the area, so a three-story house would not cause
too great a contrast. A reduction in density beyond`, that already
in existence was contrary to Council policy, The project would
provide a net reduction in traffic, an unusual occurrence and a
plus. The proposal of the other "owner" would result in more
3 5 5
8/01/83
traffic. The developer had acted in accordance with the ordi-
nance, acid his proposal met even RM-3 rather than RM-4 zoning.
However it could be rejected because the ARB Ordinance allowed
zoning to be ignored. . That was very unfortunate, and meant Palo
Alto had no rules anyone could rely on. People had a right to
rely on zoning and the ARB ordinance meant the City would be
regarded as not living up to its promises; He found the project
not deleterious to the community. Neighborhoods almost always
opposed new projects in Palo Alto, but frequently changed their
minds, as with the Webster Woods project.
Councilmember Renzei' concurred with Councilmembers Fletcher,
Eyerly, and Fazzino. The Council was standing in the shoes of the
ARB, and it was appropriate to consider whether the project was
compatible. Many of the ARB members felt it was not compatible
with the neighborhood but was within the zoning, an entirely dif-
ferent matter. The project was clearly out of scale with a neigh-
Lorhood in which she used to live and knew well. She had been
impressed by the upscaling of the, homes and by the number of
children. She was on the Planning Commission at the time of adop-
tion of the new Zoning Ordinance when eight multi -family zones
were reduced to four. The' zone that was the closest fit without
increasing density had been applied. The criterioe used was the
number of units, and incompatible site characteristics had not
been considered. Everyone erroneously assumed that various apart-
ment developments reflected the maximum potential. The R3(P) zone
then had a height limit of 12 feet at the property line and in-
creased by one foot for every five feet in, so by that standard it
would be necessary to allow 90 feet frcr the next property to
build. 30 feet high, but the project allowed 30 feet. Then only
nine units would have been allowed and open space requirements
also differed. She gave a short history to shot' how necessary it
was to re-examine the pockets of inappropriate zoning. The proj-
ect was clearly incompatible. Referring to Councilmember Klein's
remark abort "hysteria" concerning three stories, she reiterated
the substantially different impact of small and large three-story
buildings. A smaller one allowed more light and air. With regard
to the ARB, an architect on the Planning Commission asked for the
parameters of the zone to be set high to allow the architects to
be creative. No one thought that by setting the parameters they
would set the minimum developments for those sites. They had
given the architects latitude to provide nice buildings, but only
got the big ones. If the ARB was not to be given design latitude
then the parameters must be tighter because otherwise obtrusive,
incompatible projects would continually appear. She thought it
crucial the ARB have a design review that went beyond the mere
zoning specifications.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon was concerned with the design. The height
limit was acceptable, unless it was built wal,1-to-wal i . Density,
i f well designed, was alsb not a factor There was a small light
well in the center that would not be used, and there was very
little outside area which was unacceptable. The project was very
close to other buildings. Rezoning should be addressed when the
Comprehensive Plan was reviewed. She would vote for the motion on
the floor.
Councilmember Cobb said Councilmember Klein's comments were valid.
The Zoning Ordinance should have meaning. However, the zone was
completely wrong for the area. In the next -round of zoning such
problem areas should be scrutinized, as there were several that
could provide seeds for catastrophe. Once such areas had .been
settled, zoning should be adhered to. Although he thought the
ground was becoming shaky legally, the Council could not damage
neighborhoods through a narrow interpretation. _ He supported the
motion and referred to his comments earlier about "condomania."
The project was so big and had such :an impact on the neighborhood
that he could not support it. That should be considered 'a holding
action until zoning was corrected.
3 6 5 9
8/01/83
As Corrected
12/12/83
1
i t,e: e Levy agreed with CouncilmaErbcr Klein. He felt that
4 ���ri�i �E3.. Ei{�vr Li;i ii i;� .e
had the project been designed with wood shingle siccing, it would-
have'been approved, as the objection was one of aesthetics, not
density. .The project reduced traffic and the jobs/housing imbal-
ance. He drove down that street every day.- The trees were tall
and thick and would dwarf the project. The trees, were not shown
in the drawings to hide the "stucco box." The house, on that
street were large and could not be contained in photographs taken
from across the street. The RM-3 density was contained in two
projects that were broken up and was acceptable, although he did
not like the architecture. He deferred to the ARB decision in
that regard. Some reliance must be felt for z.oniny. -Council's ad
hoc decisions increased housing costs tremendously, and it was now
customary for applicants to approach Councilmembers and Planning
Commissioners to influence decisions.
Mayor Bechtel said she looked for three-story, buildings in the
neighborhood, and believed one was located on Cowper near Forest.
That was the closest one she found, and she believed the project
did not fit into the neighborhood.
Mr. Freeland said in view of the Council's feelings, the following
formal finding should be included it the motion that the project
is --not compatible with the goals and purposes of the City's Archi-
tectural -'Review Board process in that it violates the standard
that the project should be compatible with the immediate environ-
ment of the site and the standard that the design should promote
harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between
different designated land uses and that.the project is not compat-
ible with neighboring properties due to its height, scale, and
general aesthetics
CUUNCILMEMBERS EYERLY AND FALLINO INCORPORATED THE FOREGOING
LANGUANGE INTO THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Klein and Levy voting "no".
1Ti<.M #b FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE
0
Counci lmember Klein suggested the item before the Council be d--
vided into three sections: I) Method of financing for the repairs
on City Hall and the proposed build out; 2) whether the City
srrould proceed with the build out portion of the project; and 3)
if the votes were affirmative on the financing and build out,
should the issues be referendable. Regarding the method of finan-
cing, the F&IW Committee recommended the City adopt the lease/
purchase financing method using a nonprofit -corporation and certi-
ficates of participation, and as a sub -issue, with a negotiated
sale rather than one that went to bid. The Committee was unani-
mous in approving the lease/purchase financing using the nonprofit
corporation certificates of participation with a negotiated sale.
Reya rdi ny whether to proceed with the build out, the Committee' by
a vote of 3-1, Witherspoon voting "no," recommended reonsidera-
tion of the issue and deletion of the build out portion'. e.He be-
lieved that since the method of financing the project was to be
out of General Fund revenues whe)i all was saki and done, and since
the money for the build out would also have to come from the Gen-
eral Fund projects, the project must be compared to other capital
improvement projects.. Aithouyh he believed the build out would be
sornethiny nice dndo also needed for the' City, there were other,
projects far -more needed, and he could W. justify proceeding with
- the build out at the present time. the Committee sent a 1 of of
time. discussing Whether the repair project should be referendaile
and whether the build out portion shoulde be referendable. The
Committee voted 4-1, Hitherspoon voting 'no,," that both projects,
tf approved, should be referendable. The feeling was that as many
things as'possible should be subject -to the ability of the voters
t.o override the-.Councf.i's decisions. Even though he voted for the
iiJi-ly Out —and -repairs to be referendable, staff's presentation
3 6 6 0
8/01/83
persuaded him to change v make his ,. !}t to ,i3ur.� the
e r tpa r e work not
referendable, but if the Counc+l went forward with the build out
portion of the project, he wanted 1t to be'referendable. There
were miscellaneous items the Committee was unanimous in approving.
Those recommendations were set forth in items 2, _3_ 4; and 5, con-
cerning neyotiatic rs w;th law tiro"s and financial consultants, and
preparation of the necessary leyal and financial documents. H'
suggested that a vote should be taken separately on each of the
four items.
MOTION: Counciimeraber Klein moved for the Finance and Public
Works Committee to adopt the lease/purchase financing using a non-
profit corporation and Certificates of Participation with a nego-
t f ated . sale (due to the need to expedite sales of the issues and
the flexibility this would allow in the volatile market) as --the
preferred vehicle for financing the Civic Center Structural Re-
pairs and Build Out projects.
AMENDMENT: Councilmeaaber Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, that
the City Council not sit as a Board of Directors.
Counci lmember Levy said he was one ewho voted iri favor of the fi-
nancing method. He had a problem with the entire project because
staff -thrust a whole combination of too many items into one. It
started out more complex than; it ended up, but one complexity re-
vull ved -around the' financing method, with which he was uncomfort-
able. They came so far that he would not vote against it, but
would abstain because the Council was voting the City an encem-
brance of $500,000 per year for the next 25 years. The Council
was voting for a project that would cost about two and one-half
tines the real cost of the project because of the interest on the
bonds over the 20 year period. The City had some reserves over
and above its normal operating reserves, but as he reflected, the
Committee was remiss not to seriously consider using a portion of
the existing reserves because every dollar spent would have saved
a couple of dollars .in Tony -term interest expenses. The fact was
that tie project did not generate any income to the City --the
Money would have to be paid out in hard dollars either today or
tomorrow. The future revenues of the City would be hard pressed
to- keep up with the rate of inflation given the restrictions of
Proposition 13. He questioned whether a bond issue was the best
way, The City did not have enough money . to finance the entire
project out of pocket --same debt would have to be incurred --but he
believed that incurring total debt was unwise. He strongly ob-
jected to the fact that the project was not a part of the Capital
Improvement Budget, the process of which was just completed, or
the normal budget. The Council knew two months ago that the City
would have encumbrances of $500,000 to $750,006 per year, which
was . a tremendous amount of -honey, which staff should have incor-
porated jr,eo the analysis during the budget process. Staff should
have pointed out that the Council was facing those amounts per
year for the next 20 years if the build out were pursued. The
Council must face the structural costs, but he wished the City
reserves were taken down to do so. The Council did not like to
take the City's reserves because it meant less money to spend en
something else. Dollars were dollars, and he believed it was bet-
ter to face them new .rather than letting someone -else face them in
five or ten years.
Mayor Bechtel said _she believed -the City's reserves were pru-
dent--i n the range of ten to fifteen percent -andt those were
needed for emergency issues. The Council made major .policy decis-
sions when it came to funding a participation in a Utility proj-
ect, and she hated long -tern financing as much as anyone. She
believed the structural -repairs° to City Hall were essential, and
that the proposed -alternative eras .the best one Presented.
Counci lmelnber Klein cor+mefted that he did not believe it would be
appropriate to use the City's last -dollar to do the repairs, but
1
that 1ooe teriii i ifidI'Ciny should be u_sed on major projects with a
benefit over a long period of time, which category the proposed
project fit. There was a justification for having people iri the
future pay for something they would enjoy as well as those who en-
joyed it now. He believed depleting the City's resources so as to
purportedly. save interest on the money would not be a wise policy
to follow.
Councilmember Levy asked for clarification that the City's operat-
ing reserve was about $3,000,000.
Director of Budget and Resource Management Larry Moore responded
that there were two reserves_ generally considered unrestricted --
the reserve for general contingency, which was approximately $3.5
million; and the second reserve of about $3.4 million.
Councilmember Levy clarified that the total reserves totaled ap-
proximately $6,000,000.
Mr. Moore said the total reserves were in excess of that, but
clarified that the City was in the process of closing the books,
and that later in the month the Council would get the information
in terms of the exact year end reserves for the 1982-83 fiscal
year, which would be in the range of $6,000,000 to $6,500,000.
Councilmember Levy asked about the General Funds budget.
Mr. Moore said the General Fund budget for the 1963-84 fiscal year
was approximately $34 rai l l iorn.
Councilmember Levy clarified that the total $6,000,000 was about -
1U percent of the General Funds.
Mr..Moore said that was correct if the money for the reserve for
capital projects, as well as the reserve for general contingency,
were included.
Councilmember Levy said he estimated that the reserve for capital
projects was the reserve that should have been looked to and taken
down. That would have left a 10 percent operating reserve which
would be the envy of most jurisdictions. Although the reserves
for capital projects would not pay for the total structural im-
provements, hQ believed it should have been considered for partial
funding of thy project.
Mayor Bechtel asked pow Much of the reserves for capital projects
were already earmarked.
Mr. Moore said the reserves were not allocated to any particular
project, but as Council made additional appropriations during the
Bourse - of the fiscal year, that was the source used.
Councilraember Eyerly said the recommendation was foe the nonprofit
corporation to issue tax exempt certificates of participation, and
asked if the City cou 1 d buy. them back after a certain number of
years rather than letting them run, similarly to_ what Could be en-
acted on bonds.
Ken Jones of Jones, Ha 1 l , Hi i 1 & White, the City's bond counsel
said_the mechanism was a long-term lease on which the City of Palo
Alto was obligates to pay the rent. The,nechanism was lease/pur-
.chase, and. it . was possible toe i:€iclude provisions --although not
universal- whereby the -City could move in and exercise its op .ion
to purchase at any time during the period of the lease And buy out
the rights of the nonprofit corporation for cash so that the lease
payments would terrlinate. Whatever capital was reelainirlg unpaid
at that point 'would be paid off.-
Councilmember Eyerly believed i t .would be wise for the Council to
accept the _-financing Amethod, and that- consi"de-r'ation be given to
3 6 6 2
8/01/83,
the -City's option rights. He expected.there might he a difi'e_rence
in the costs to the City if they could be bought back in five
years, and that parameters might be set after they received a re-
port from staff.
Mr. Jones said his comments to date were in the legal area only,
Councilmember Eyerly's question got into the financial area. He
believed there would normally be a need for "call protection" in
order to protect the rates.
Councilmember Eyerly believed that the motion might be passed in
substance, subject to more input from staff as to what parameters
might be needed. If not too expensive, he wanted to see included
the option to buy back the certificates if the City was in the
financial position to do so. He did not agree with Councilmember
Levy that the City was in the position to pay for the project out-
riyht, althouyh the profits from utilities might be goad in a few
years and money might be available. He believed the option should
be pursued before locking in the City.
Mayor Bechtel clarified that the motion did preserve that option.
Mr. White believed tonight's motion was directed solely to the
general question of method.
Mayor Bechtel clarified that there was nothing in the motion to
restrict or limit the Council from the options mentioned by Coun-
cilmember Eyerly'.
City Attorney Diane Lee said the option was not precluded in the
motion, and that the documents could be drawn in that manner if
that was the Council's desire.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon said she agreed that it might be nice to
hay e mechanism to buy the rights back, but she did not want it
to affect the saleability. She assumed the bonds would be pur-
chased by investors, and if the City could turn around and buy
them back in a few years, it might reduce their marketability.
She believed there were others mechanisms for accomplishing the
same end, steth as a self -amortizing fund, that would pay the lease
payments over a period of time.
Councilmember cohb said another reason for not drawing down -the
reserves for capital projects was because the City still faced
some major school site issues and needed every bit of flexibility
possible. He believed a structure with value and use long into
the. future was an entirely appropriate item for long-term financ-
ing.
AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Levy net participating."
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy not participating.°
MOTION TO RECONSIDER BUILD OUT PORTION: Councilmember Klein for
the Finance and Public Works Committee moved that the City Council
reconsider the build out portion of the project and delete it from
the Civic Center Structural Repairs:
----
Councilmember Eyerly asked for -:.clarification, in terms eof the
staff build out numbers,' from when the building was constructed up
to now.
Budget ana Operations Analyst Bob Woods said he was unable to pro-
vide the information _back that far, but had the projectiorls origi-
nally made and submitted to .thee Council when.the issue was first
pres!nted, In May of 1981, staff made a survey of needs and pro-
jected that approximately 4b bodies would need accommodations Me
commented that adding a h if-time person represented an entire
body that needed space. Since that time, the City approached that
number give or take a couple of peo'p1 :.
3 6 6 3
8/01/83
Councilmember Eyerly clarified that the build out since 1981 w(+s
basically close to 46, end to a great degree occurred in the
Police Uepartment and Utilities.
Mr. Woods said yes.
Councilmember Eyerly clarified that the restructuring necessitated
installing another elevator and completion of the fourth floor to
provide movability as the building was restructured. He asked how
many administrative people could be housed sensably on the fourth
floor, and how many people could be cared for in terms of desks
'and facilities on the mezzanine and above the police area.
Mr. Woods sa :d generally speaking, the numbers represented a gross
planning estimate of about 200 square feet per person, which in-
cluded all support areas, hallways, etc. The fourth floor con-
tained about 5,700 usable square feet, and somewhere in the neigh-
borhood of 18 to 19 people. The mezzanine contained about 2,200
square feet and would accommodate about 10 people. The police
area contained about 8,7UU square feet and could accommodate about
43 people.
Councilmember Eyerly said the fourth floor and mezzanine would ac-
commodate about 28 people, which did not meet the existing crowded
conditions for about 18 people, and the extra police area might
provide about 30 extra slots. He said there were a lot of un-
filled staff slots, and he asked if someone currently used what
used to be the Assistant to the City Manager's desk.
Assistant City Manager ,:une Fleming said that during the budget
process, the former Assistant to the City Manager position was re-
classified to Executive Assistant. That person would occupy the
office Mr. McNeely formerly occupied, and the position was
filled.
Councilmember Eyerly asked if an area was held fora person when a
position was not reclassified and a vacancy existed in a staff
position.
Ms. Fleming said usually the position was not vacant for such a
period of time to hold the spot. if for some reason, a position
was held and not filled, someone else would be put there and
moved out of a hallway or somewhere where it was crowded.
Councilmember Eyerly said from being around City Hall he saw the
need for space and the crowded conditions particularly in Utili-
ties and the Police Department. The crime enforcement division
was located on Level A, and used part of the open area designated
fur training or part of the cafeteria. .The building was crowded,
and not because employees were frivolously added. Particularly in
Utilities and the Police Department, the people build out was re-
quired if the service levels desired by the community were to be
provided. He long believed that the City's -most: valuable asset
was its employees, and 'if the employees worked in crowded condi-
tions and were not pe vided for: properly, the desire to work and
fi ll empty positions sometimes went begging. The C i; y ;pad a high
demand for servile levels, and he believed staff did°a ..fine job.
Jo continue to provide thate services level,. it was important to
care for the employees. It was unrealistic to say the space was
not needed, and he did not know why some of -the Counci lmembers
changed --their minds, although,: it was, blamed on the financing
method and that it should stand in line in the, capital improve=
tents. He believed ithad become a political confrontation due to
the full page ad runAaysMras Rosenbaum, and his feelings't.hay there
should _never be growth in City Hall in terms of an elevator or_
extra spud. Councllmember •Eyerly believed it .ties unrealistic to
respond to the input from someone in the community who- was not
realistic about what was needed to provide e services mentioned.
He hoped the Council would realize that A:project` like the one
proposed did not have to be .pot in the capital . improvements, was
entirely proper for bonding, and if the money were to be taken out
3 6 6 4
8/01/83
of capital improvements, he believed the proposed pi'uje .'t had d
hiyher priority than any more open space purchases or any more
capital improvement projects which benefited -the residents of the
City particularly. He asked the Council to reflect on what was
done for the residents of the community in the past few years --the
amount of ground picked up, and the money put into parks, etc.
When compared to other cities, Palo Alto provided a level of ser-
✓ ice in those amenities way above and .beyond. He urged that Coun-
cil go ahead with the financing plan and provide moneys for the
build out as suyyested for City Hall and to not reconsider and
chanye the course.
Mayor Bechtel said that when She toured the building, she under-
stood that a portion of the mezzanine was already developed and
about eight employees presently worked there. The remainder of
the mezzanine, although not completed, was used for storage. She
understood from the F&PW Committee minutes that there was a plan
and need for additional storage, particularly for some of the
Utilities Department. Even though the mezzanine was not com-
pleted, it was not as if that space was not available for stor-
age.
Heal Property Administrator Jean Diaz said that was true. It -had
two small limited areas that were already built out, which had
been used since the buildiny was constructed --the current organiz-
ation development staff area and the old employees lounge area was
one, and the other area was immediately adjacent to it and was
used for storaye. Not much more could be done in that area -there
were no windows and staff could not be put there. It war current-
ly used for lockers for meter readers and some storage. The other
areas on the mezzanine were not asa ile at all unless significant
structural work was done --there were no doorways, and in order to
{make the areas usable, the walls would have to be broken and a
floor put in. It currently only contei nog structural steel mem-
bers, and could not even be:used for storage without considerable
effort.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon said Councilmember Fyerly expressed some of
her concerns. It was an opportunity to go ahead with two projects
under the Same financing umbrella, and if staff found a way for
the City to pay off the obligations early and seve interest, that
would be appropriate, although_ she was not hopeful that it would
occur. She was 'concerned that the Council said the public
demanded services, yet -the public did not want the City to house
the necessary people. The Council must resolve that dichotomy,
and if; it did not vote to go ahead with part of the build out, it
mi gY : be possible to re-examine which areas were most cost effec-
tive for build out, but the City Manager should be asked, to iden
t ify those staff members still "unhoused," to develop a policy on
continuing those programs. Otherwise, staff could not be expected
to continue indefinitely in the halls and closets.
Councilmember Fazzino respected the arguments of Vice Mayor
Witherspoon and. Councilmember Ey+erly, and admitted that after six
months of discussion on the issue, he was not convinced that there
was a major space problem in City Hall. Six months ago, he sup-
ported the greater build out plan not to provide more space for
City staff, but because he believed there was adequate 'space at
City Hall that could be leased to .private users which might even-
tually bring additional revenue to the City. Even though that
proposal was long by the wayside, it did not change his views with
respect to the perceived needs by staff about space. Over the
past Few years, most of the yrowth in City staff occurred -in the
Utilities --area, and most of those people could be accommodated at
other sites. He did not believe that everyone- nOw in City Hall
needed. to be in City hall. He associated his comments with those
made by Councilmember Cobb at _.the F&PW Committee, and believed
staff should take a careful look at farming out a number of the
people in City Hall to existing City`'`acilities around the commu-
n ity. it Would- be -a more decentralized and effective presence
3 6 6 5
8/01/83
1 Or City st a i i , and the City Manager should ask himself whether
the people were absolui.ely necessary at 250 Hamilton 'Avenue. He
believed.that only a few people would fit on that list. That was
not intended as a value. judgment, but rather that many of the
people could do their jobs best at other existing City facilities
without a great cost. If- one walked around City Hall, one would
find that there was still poor -utilization of space --some people
had large offices, and others sat in an area with three -or four
desks. He believed that much more effective utilization of -space
in City Hall could be achieved if some design changes could occur.
He could not support the proposal that additional space was needed
at City Hall and supported the F&PW Committee recommendation.
Councilmember Levy said he long believed that the added office
space projected for City Hall was.unneeded and t.o expensive. He
thanked his colleagues on the F&PW Committee who, after many
months of wrestling with both the long and sheet term budgetary
needs of the City also came to that conclusion. Tonight the
Council wOuld approve a substantial expenditure for structural
work on City Hall te include substantial new office space --5,700
square feet --and the third elevator. The -cost of the added office
space woul€3 be $300,000 per year for .20 years, which money could
be better spent for school site acquisition, street and sidewalk
maintenance,' the development of Greer or Terman Park, Downtown
Park North, the maintenance and repair of the City's storm drains,
and just general maintenance of the City's infrastructure which
often seemed to develop unexpected but absolutely necessary needs.
He believed Councilmember Klein was correct that the additional
office space should stand in line -behind other more pressing
needs. It was said that the City would save a substantial amount
of money by building the office space now in conjunction with the
structural build out, but that -savings was relatively small --
$100,000 or less in a total cost of several million The cost for
the office space was high in Palo Alto's market today --over $200
per square foot for the 12,000 square feet to be built. Office
space was available in many downtown locations at a cost of that
or less not only for the office space...bet for the land cost and
parking. He agreed with.Councilmember razzino that City Hell was
nut overcrowded. He did not want to slough off the fact that 500
or more signatures on petitions, coiupons,._etc., .c4me before the
Council from members of the community. That was an unprecedented
matter --the issue was not zoning, did net relate to the use of
recreational land, did not concern traffic, parking, open space,
or someone `s job, and yet 500 or more Palo Al tans 'toek the time
and stamps to write and say that the item should not receive the
highest priority among the many needs of the community at the
present time,
Councilmember Cobb. said that as a result of the required struc-
tural repairs, the City would gain the expanded fourth -floor. For
:`zany yeare he managed space in .an industrial plant of over 400
people, and creative space management dad some excellent things.
When discussions began regarding the build out, he believed the
City should consider a. more extensive b;.tild. out if it were to be
used for leasing spate to._ the private sector at a net profit to
the - City. Subsequent review disabused that notion, and he never
supported a bv;i'Q out for the purpose of expanding staff space
tie was not :or, iced that addl ti ona l staff space wts needed, but
to the extent. niece -scary, he bel;eyed careful, consideration should
be given to the use of a vacant school site, particularly the
Cubberlev: site, which appro ch would enable the use of relatively
i.ne;pensive slaace, certainly less expensive than what the" build
out would bey; it would_bring City .government into, the south: part
of town; and would help o
. preserve a key school site in. public.
use. He- agreed with Councilmembers Klein and ..levy that much_ more
important _capital needs existed in the community about which the
community :.was more concerned, such as school site purchases, El
Camino-Hea_l beautification, the completion of Greer Park, etc. He.
hoped his- colleagues would join in -.opposition to the build out.
3 6:6 6
8/01/83
I� l Fletcher
�,. r.- L J 4 4 7 J and
_
Couec1 meiiiber' i ietche tooreii the bui Wilily avid saw the ove cr-uwded
carol Liuns fug` many of the Ci ey's eiiipluyees. Tlie service levels
could not be maintained, and staff members could not be retained
without reasonable working conditions. In the private sector,
mane industries expanded their faei l ities because modern computers
and data processing were more prevalent and took up more space.
More space was needed per person- than was needed in the past, and
she doubted that the crowded conditions in City Hall --where em-
ployees had to sit in draughty hallways or doubled and tripled up
in, offices with file cabinets and storage items --also existed in
the private industry. She was not surprised that an ad which in-
dicated that the City proposed to spend money to expand facilities
at City Hall attracted a lot of responses since the ad was written
in such a way as to present the proposal from one side only. Ad-
ditionally, it was ecebenefit for the City to have adequate work
space for its employees, but the benefit was intangible in terms
of the citizens. Politicians did not like to spend money on build
outs such as the one proposed because money for added park space,
libraries, community centers was seen as accomplishments that the
citizens appreciates because they could see it. The need for ad-
ditional employee space was as great, but more difficult and in-
tangible a concept to get across. She concurred with Councilmem-
bers Eyerly and Witherspoon who believed that in order to maintain
the service levels in Palo Alto, decent working space must be pro-
vided. Palo Alto was far superior to other cities and the County
when it came to the way in which staff responded to inquiries and
concerns of the citizens, and that could not continue without good
staff.
Mayor Bechtel concurred with the comments made on both sides of
the issue acid agreed that adequate space needed to be provided for
City employees. However, she believed the _fourth: floor build out
required by the structural repair work, and the eorrpl et.i on of the
third elevator would save considerable staff time, She did not
believe the space on the mezzanine was used as efficiently as it
could be, but disagreed with some of her colleagues who contended
that the building was not crowded. It was crowded.and it would be
d mistake to try and move employees to sites as far away as
Cubber-ley_ because there would be problems of efficiency. The
third and fifth floors were extremely crowded, and the seventh
floor was relatively sparce The City's total funding require-
ments could not justify the build out at the present time and she
would support the motion to only do the structural repairs.
Councilmember Henzel associated herself with the remarks of Mayor
Bechtel and Councilmember Klein. The need for additional space in
City Hall was clear, but some Could be achieved by reorganizing
existing space, and ----some would ultimately be gained by the addi-
tion of the fourth floor upon completion of the structural work.
When looking at the various fdndiny requirements of the City over
the next few years, she concurred that it was best to ncit proceed
with the City He l l build out at the present time. It was not so
much a matter of whether the -build out should occur as when, and
although doing it now might save $IUU,UUU, the City would have to
spend a lot of money to sa e that 44oney, and she believed it, was
better to do it One') more "leisurely". basis when the City vas. more
clear about its financial picture.
NOTION. TO RECONSIDER AND DELETE BUILD OUT PORTION PASSED by
vote of 6-3, Fletcher, Eyerly, Witherspoon voting 'ne..
NOTION: Coarsi imember' Klein for the Finance : and P ibt: t Works
Committee -moved that the method of financing be referendable.
Counci lmember Kle1tr said based on the staff report and the timing
necessary for the Work to commence, he .intended to not -support the
motion. If that motion failed, he would make a motion to Make the
method of financing the City Hall repairs nonreferendable.
3 6 6 .7
8/01/83
Mayor Becht e 1 c 1 a r i f 1 ed that the rationale was the urgency gency ♦0 com-
plete the project and the liabilities that might be upon late City
if some damage occurred to the building or individuals:as a result
:of structural problems, and that the Council should move expedi-
tiously to complete the necessary repairs.
Councilmember Klein said if the matter were-referendable there
would be a built-in delay of 45 days, whereas making it nonrefer-
endable,• the City could -move forward tonight.
Councilmember Levy asked what delay would come about by making the
financing method referendable.
City Attorney Diane Lee said the first reading of an ordinance
could be tonight, the 30 days ran from second reading which would
be two weeks from tonight, and .the ordinance would become effec-
tive on the 31st day after second reading for a total of 45 days.
If the ordinance was passed to be-referendable, there would be a
first reading, second reading, and a 31 -day period before the or-
dinance beeare effective.
Mayor Bechtel. said staff recommended that there not be an ordi-
nance and there would not bea first or second -reading.
Councilmember Levy said he supported making the financing method
referendable. He was sensitive to the need to accomplish the
structural repairs as expeditiously as possible, but believed the
City could move ahead on the preliminary planning and authorize
whatever initial expenses might be required out of City funds
while awaiting the possibility of referendum. He did not expect
the matter to be referended because no one seemed to be opposed,
but when expending the amount of money required for the project,
he believes; the door should be left open so that the public could
challenge `the Council's actions if they. saw fit to do so. .He
believed the necessary preliminary wort: could still be done, and
that the project could move. ahead on an expeditious schedule.
MOTION. FAILED by a vote of 1-8, Levy voting "aye."
MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, that Coun-
cil authorize the forwation of a nonprofit corporation in accord-
ance with the Artt,cles of Incorporation attached to C$R:441:3; and
that there be a fi've member board of di rector* to serve staggered
terms, appointed by lice Council upon recommendation by the
Mayor.
ARTI ,LES OF INCORPORATION
PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
bob Moss, 401U Orme, suggested that there be a nine member board
with each Councilmember nominating an -individual. ,He hoped the
people selected would be knowledgeable and experienced in the com-
munity. He believed there should he broad participation, and a
nine member board would provide three staggered terms with one
third of the board being appointed periodically.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked how the improvement association or
board that oversaw, the bonds for the golf oourte- was appointed.
Councilr;ei ber Fazziro said City staff was asked to make'a recome.
snendation which turned out to, be five prominent members of the
area.'S golf clubs.
Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked if the board overseeing the
particu-
lar lease/purchase arrangen ent would be able to undertake _ future
lease/ purt:hose projects.
City Attorney U a.ne _ Lee said yes as ;approved by the City Counci l .
Assistant City Manager June Fleming said the City had experience
with a five member . board and it was easier for smaller numbers of
people to reach an agreement.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved for the Finance. and Public
Works Committee to direct staff to negotiate a legal ssrvice con-
tract with Jones, Hall, Hill. and White as bond counsel related to
the financing; to proceed with the negotiations with Security
Pacific/Merrill Lynch for financial consultant/underwriter ser-
vices and to negotiate with Rauscher Pierce Refsnes in the event
do agreement is not reached with security Pacific/Merri l l Lynch;
and to direct and authorize staff and the selected legal counsel
and financial consultant to implement the selected financing. Any
financial, leasing documents, etc., are to be returned to Council
for its approval.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
Ms. Fleming said staff understood Council's actions tonight and
would proceed with all of the necessary documentation to take care
of the structural repairs of the facility. Staff strongly be-
lieved there were things to be taken care of immediately and would
return expeditiously with al l the necessary documents for the
August ?2 agenda. Staff would not proceed further with any items
related to build out.
Councilmember Levy asked if the proper' phrase for the financing
was a "purchase lease back" or a "lease lease back."
Mr. Jones responded that it was a "lease lease back."
MOTION: Councilmember Eyarly moved, seconded by Witherspoon,
that staff prepare a capital improvement program project for the
build out for inclusion in the next CIP.
Mayor Bechtel said she would oppose the motion because she wanted
to see what happened with the structural repairs and its effect on
moving staff around. She urged staff to be as creative as. pos-
sibie in using the space available.
Councilmember Levy said the CIP was staff's prerogative. and Coun-
cil only said that the build out should take place in the priority
listing of capital=items to cone befcre the Council. Staff should
place the item in whatever priority they believed was appropriate
for Council consideration next year.
Councilmember Fletcher agreed with Councilmember Levy.
Councilmember Renzel supported Mayor Bechtel's position and to
some extent the comments of Ccuncilmembers Levy and Fletcher. She
believed Council must remember that staff paid attention to the
vote taken tonight with respect to build out, and she did not ex-.
-pect that staff_: would :willingly want to put their heads on the
t i n by recommending it as a capital improvement program project.
She. would entourage staff to come.forward with a five year program
or whatever time fraree was appropriate with Various spaces avail-
able. She concurred with, Mayor Bechtel that she _would rather set
hoer the space was uti i ized 'after the fourth floor build -out-.:
NOTION FAILSI by a vote of 2-1, Eyerly, -Witherspoon votiwg.
Mayor Bechtel thanked ,-a11 the. staff members and consultants for
being prese_n-t.
ITEM #6, RESULUT1OI ACCEPTING DEED TO LEE PROPERTY
Cvrrrncilmerrber Klein asked if the City was to get possession of the
property now rather than in 1996.
3--6 6 9
8/01/83
City Attorney Diane Lee said no. The -City was being quitclaimed
any Interest that holders under a later recorded deed might have
gotten in some of the property originally conveyed to_the City as
a future interest. Essentially, the City- was getting what it
already got, but the reason the City was getting it again in a
quitclaim deed was because there were subsequent deeds which
clouded the title. In order to uncloud the title the title com-
pony recommended that the City -accept the -quitclaim deed.
MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to ac-
cept the quitclaim deed.
RESOLUTION 6165 entitled *RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
IHL CITY OF PALO ALTO ACCEPTING A DIE& CONVEYANCE BY THE
LEE-PAULSEN PARTNERSHIP TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO OF
APPROXIMATELY 7.7 ACRES ADJOINING FOOTHILLS PARK"
CUUNCILMEMBEI( LEVY LEFT MEETING AT 12:15 a.m.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent.
ITEM #7, REQUEST OF CUUNCILMEMBERS WITHERSPOON AND COBB E
REBUTTAL AkGII E iI RE MEA o env er a o
Vice Mayor Witherspoon deferred to Councilmember Cobb for some
minor grammatical corrections to the proposed draft.
Councilmember Cobb said the first sentence of the proposed draft
should read, "Awarding a franchise for Cable TV is a very appro-
priate function for representative government." The second sen-
tence of the proposed draft should read, "Far from excluding pub-
lic participation in the decision of a complex issue, having the
Council rather than the electorate award the franchise, would
allow the maximum of public input and debate in an impartial and
non-competitive uublic meeting -atmosphere rather than in the tur-
moil of a partisan political campaign." The second sentence of
the second paragraph should read as follows: "In the case of
Cable fV, the issue of whether to grant d franchise is appr•opri-
atel•y the Council's, which already has the right..." The remain-
der of the second paragraph should read, "The public always has
the right to referend such action, and has occasionally _done so by
inexpensive grass' riots campaigns. Accordingly, putting such a
matter to a vote should be the public's -option., -not a mandated ob-
ligation.' The last paragraph, second sentence, should read,
"Therefore, submitting a non -controversial issue at great expense
to the voters, where all the losing bidders automatically have the
opportunity to overthrow the decision, is not in the pbbiic inter
est." He said the changes reduced the word count from 247 to 241,
and he believed the argument read more clearly than before.
Mayor Bechtel said that, because of the extra space, she suggested
adding: "The Council unanimously supports Measure E." She asked
that the word count be checked to determine if sufficient space
existed.
MOTION; Vice Mayor Witherspoon moved, seconded by Cobb,
adopt the rebuttal argument opposed to Measure E as amended.
MOTION MASSED unanimously, Levy absent.
MOTION: . Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, that the City
Attorney be directed to draft an ordinance that mould require an
ordinance to issue a franchise for cable television.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent.
_City Clerk Ann Tanner said the argument _Just approved would be
signed Palo Alto City Council by Mayor Bechtel , and if additional
3 6 7 0
--U/01/83
C i 1ina i�urec were f� o be added,
t h ^-h(� p 1 _-------- ._ City .+ .a �,. v were w �. \r v 4i V i3 is , I i s .l j i `% i7 i C received f 1 t a e
Clerk's office by August. 2.
ITEM #8 RE UEST OF MAYOR BECHTEL RE RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that the
City Clerk be directed to prepare a resolution recognizing the
outstanding achievements of the Palc Alto Pacesetters.
MOTION PAUSED unanimously, Levy absent.
ITEM #Y CANCELLATION OF AUGUST 8, 1983 COUNCIL MEETING
MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, to cancel the
City Council meeting of August 8, 1983.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Lefy absent.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 12:20 a.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
3 6 7 1
8/01/83