HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-20 City Council Summary MinutesCITY
COUNCIL
M1NUTES
CITY
of
PALO
ALTO
Regular Meeting
Monday, September 20) 1982
ITEM PAGE
Oral Communications 2 5 0 8
Minutes of July 26, 1982 2 5 0 8
Consent Calendar 2 5 0 8
Referral 2 5 0 8
Item #1, Planning. Commission Recommendations 2 5 0 8
on a Downtown Food Store' and on Historic
Preservation in the Downtown - Referral to
Policy and Procedures Committee
Action 2 5 0 8
item #2, San Francisquito Creek Erosion 2 5 0 8
Control - Project 82-06
Item #3, Street Tree Trimming 2 _5 0 8
Item #4,. Additional Authorization for Baylands
Boardwalk Renovation. - Contract with Jack 1
Cohen Builders
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Item #5, Public Hearing Continued: Planning
Commission Recommendation re Application of Eula
Youmans for an exception from Termination of
Nonconforming Use at 4277 Miranda (Public Hearing
Continued from 7/19/82)
Item #6, Public Hearing: Planning Commission
Recommendation re Application of M¢rianne C.
Pel l egrini for a Zone Change for Property Known as
1161 Colorado Avenue
Item #7, Public Hearing: Planning Commission
Recommendation re Applicati o'n of Paul C. Valentine
for a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions for
Property Known as 471 C,hanning Avenue
ITEM 09, Amendment to Sign Election Ordinance
Item #10, Report on Impact of Cottage Zone
Assignment On the Pl anni ng ° Division Workload
2 5 0 9
2 5 0 9
2 5 0 9
2 5 1 8
2 5 1 8
2 5 2 1
2 5 2 2
2_.5"0 6
9/20/82
ITEM
Item #11, Annual Charges to Stanford for Use of the
Refuse Area
Item #12, Request of Mayor Eyerly re Palo Alto
Jaycees
Item #13, Request of Councilmember Fletcher re
Sidewalks in the Stanford Industrial Park
PAGE
2 5 2 4
2 5 2 5
2 5 2 5
Item #14, Request of Counci imembers Eyerly and 2 5 2 7
Renzel re Lytton Plaza Lights
Item #15, Request of Councilmember Levy re Bicycle taw 2 5 2 8
Enforcement
Item #16, Request of Councilmember Levy re 2 5 2 8
Resolution of Commendation for Palo Alto Timbers
Resolution to be Proposed at LCC Conference 2 5 2 8
Adjournment
2 5 2 9
1
2 5 0 7
9/20/82
Regular Meeting
Monday, September 20, 1982
1
1
The City Counc'i l of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m.,
!lice Mayor Bechtel presiding.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fazzino, Fletcher,
Klein, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon
ABSENT: Eyerly
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Susan Macafee, 207 Gibson, Mill Valley, provided the City Clerk
with a copy of the City of San Rafael Smoking Ordinance No. 1344,
and hoped the Council would have an opportunity to review it and
amend the City of Palo Alto's Smoking Ordinance accordingly.
MINUTES OF JULY 26, 1982
MOTION: Councilaember Levy moved, seconded by Fazzino, approval
of the minutes of July 16, 1982 as submitted.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Couacilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Cobb, approval
of the Consent Calendar.
Referral
ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATT,ONS ON A DOWNTOWN FOOD
AlID ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE -DOWNTOWN - REFERRAL TO
POLICY AN PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
Action
ITEM f2, SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK EROSION CONTROL - PROJECT 82-06
Staff recommends that Council adopt the following:
1. That the Mayor be authorized to execute the agreement wi th the
Santa Clara Valley Water District for $67,500 to be shared
equally between the jurisdictions for the construction of
embankment stabilization along San Franci squi to Creek; and
2. That staff be authorized to execute change orders to the
agreement up to $4,500.
AGREEMENT
Santa Clara Valley Mater District
ITEM #3 STREET TREE TRIMMING (CMR:483:2)
Staff recommends that Council_, authors ze tbi :Mayor be authorized to
execute -a contract w.l th, P.i ed 'Pi per ` Exter+i hators, Inc'. ; in the
amount of 043,243 to trim street trees.
AWARD OF CONTRACT _
P1 ee Piper Exterai orators, Imc.
ITEM #4, ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR BAYLANDS .BOARDWALK
Staff recommends that Council authorize staff to:
1. Execute the change order in the amount of $5,250 for the con-
tract with Jack & Cohen Builders; and
2. Execute other change orders, if required, which would not
exceed ten (10) percent of the total contract.
MOTION PASSED unani•oesly, Eyerly absent.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
C.ouncilmember Levy added the following items to the agenda:
Item #15., re Bicycle Law Enforcement; and
Item #16, re Resolution of Commendation for Palo Alto Timbers
ITEM #5, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM TERMINATION OF NO tCONFURNI T
HEAR I N -FRUI4-T71
Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown said that the recom-
mendation was unanimous to deny the request for an exception from
the_ nonconforming use provisions of the City's ordinances. No one
represented the applicant at the Planning Commission hearing, and
the only information available was the written request.
Therefore, the Commission was unanimous in being unable to make
the findings necessary to grant the exception. About a year Tego,
the Planning Commission recommended a change in zone for the
property because it was believed that it could be done in such a
way that would protect the interest of the neighborhood and
preserve a needed facility. The Commission did not feel it could
recommend a continuation or an exception frog the nonconforming
use provisions.
Vice Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open.
Frank Cri st, Attorney, 55O ' Hamilton Avenue, represented Mrs.
Youmans, the owner of the subject property. Of all the down- Zon-
ings where the City granted a period of time in which the property
owner could "amortize his investment," this stood out as the most
unique. In 1971 Mrs. Youmans received a building permit and
built the present facility, which cost $500,000 at that time. He
believed that Mrs. Youmans was entitled to the extension of time
in light of the fact that under most of the City's downzoni ng s,
the people could turn around and convert the store, which was a
nonconforming use, into the neighborhood commercial such as
occurred on El Camino Real. The facility on the subject property
was single purpose, and when - it was downzoned to residential,
there was no way to convent the facility into a home. The ques-
tion was now whether the Council had granted Mrs. Youmans a suffi-
cient period of tine in order to amortize the $500,000 invest-
ment --and he believed the answer was no. He believed that there
were many cases that stated that a sufficient period of time must
be granted to recapture the initial investment. The. Period of
time granted was insufficient and the Council must consider the
hardship placed on Mb's.' Youmans. When ` )4ental Health Management
(MHM) , Inc. was unable to have the property rezoned, they termi-
nated their , lease, and Mrs. Youmans hod to move. back in and com-
mence to operate it herself. The medical patients only paid her
about $35 per day as opposed to the $125 -received by the. MHM.
Therefore, her ability to recapture - the $500,000 by 1992 was
totally inconceivable.
-
1
1
Roberta Taylor Brady, 551 Foster City Boulevard, was a health
planner for San Mateo County. Everyone was aware of the aging
population and the needs of the aged. There were not enough
facilities now to accommodate those needs. She was familiar with
Creekside Manor and Mrs. Youmans, and was for the Creekside Manor
facility, which was also a facility for the mentally disordered.
Rather than downzoning the property, Mrs. Youmans should be com-
mended for her commitment to and efforts for the disordered and
the aged. She commented that she had seen such facilities --it
took a big _commitment, and not too many people were willing to
serve the disordered or the aged. She urged the Council to consi-
der Mrs. Youmans' commitment. She read the following letter into
the record from the Santa Clara County Heal th System Agency (HSA)
to the Planning Department. "Creekside Manor. Convalescent Hospi-
tal Rezoning Appeal ....The Santa Clara County Health System
Agency, in its capacity as the area agency responsible for evalu-
ating the need for; the operation and continuation of licensed
health facilities, hospitals, nursing homes and other facilities
wishes to' support the rezoning appeal filed by Creekside Manor
Convalescent Hospital. The HSA has projected a need of skilled
nursing beds to serve th,e elderly and mentally disordered for all
of Santa Clara County.. The greatest need has been identified . in
the area which included the City. of Palo Alto. Available records
indicate that Creekside Manor Convalescent Hospital has provided
high quality care for its patients and has maintained a consis-
tently high 92 percent occupancy level. We' believe that any such
action in rezoning the area in which that facility is located
could havea negative impact on the facility and the services it
provides. With the outstanding record established by the opera-
tors of Creekside Manor in providing care for the frail , elderly
and mentally disordered, we strongly urge the Commission to consi-
der the rezoning from R-1 to RE of the neighborhoods surrounding
the facility...."
Helen Bristow, 726 Harding, San Jose, represented herself and her
six children. Her husband was a heavy equipment operator and had
25 tons fall from 90 feet on top of him. As a result, he became
an alcoholic and ultimately a patient of Creekside. The facility
was locked and people could not wander away. Her husband was now
a fine citizen.
Barbara Gordon, 1400 Oak Creek Drive, was in the long-term care
Ombudsman program and had visited Creekside Manor for . several
months: There was no doubt there were not enough facilities --
especially locked -ones --facilities could not be promoted without
regard for the neighbors. A number of circumstances. -including
poor communication on everyone's part --including the City's --
helped to create the tensions between Creeksi de Manor and its
neighbors.
Charles Jenkins, 4277 Miranda, was the. Administrator of Creekside
Manor and was licensed to do so by the State' of California since
1980. The facility was licensed to hold 50 patients and was full.
--The admission policy was to accept: ambulatory --patients with a pri-
mary diagnosis of a psychiatric nature. it Was termed . a skilled
nursing facility', and in the mental health community, it was
termed as a Jeri -psych facility. The patients were- predominantly. : ri
-older and were in the facility, ratter -._-than a general skilled
nursing facility because they were confused and might walk onto a
freeway or into someone-. else s room if not placed_ into a locked
controlled facility. Further, the staff was specialized in the
treatment and aledicati ons _required for certain mental. it l nesses .
Creekside,Manor did not receive ,patients directly from the crimi-
nal justice system al though due to the:tendency_ of society to lump
mental illness and criminal behavior togethere some patients at
some time mi ght->have entered the criminal' 3 osti ce ---- systam. -' They
did not :accept assaulted patients, ai though most of the staff was
trained to verbally cala an-- agitated: or a.“01ted patient because
1 t _would not be fairfair:.tor the. older patients ;- who could ,:not protect":
the*solves _from eachother. is his` opinion, `and the.:opinion of
2 5.-1 0
9/20/82
medical experts, patients with mental illnesses were less violent
than the general population. They were too wrapped up in their
own environment to go outside to assault others. He characterized
the average patient at Creekside as age 65.4, with 60 percent of
the .patients over 65 and 92 percent over 50 years; 34 percent were
diagnosed as having organic brain syndrome; 20 percent were diag-
nosed as schizophrenic; and approximately 20 percent with senile
dementia, which affects 15 percent of all individuals over age 65;
84 percent of the patients were Santa Clara County residents, with
the other 16 percent coming from San Mateo, San Francisco and
Monterey . Counties. He distinguished between a "citation" and
"noncompliance," and said that a "citation" was a violation of the
California Administrative Code or the California Health and Safety
Code in which there was actual or probable risk to the life and/or
limb of a patient., and a Class A or B violation would be issued in
that instance. A Class C violation, or "noncompliance" was a vio-
lation of standards or regulations in which there was minimal
relationship to the health, safety or security of the patient, and
it was not uncommon to see up to .30 or more "noncompl i ances" dur-
ing a State health inspection. During the last inspection on
August 5, Creekside received 19 "noncompllances, of which none
were standards. In the 1960's following on the coattails of the
human rights movement, the State of California envisioned a plan
to partially di smantel the State Mental Health Hospital System and
return the patients to the communities where they could receive
more support. The chronic mentally ill were just as disabled as
the physically disabled who had a place in the community. They
needed family and friend support in a protective setting. Creek -
side had an obligation to accept the mental health patient back
into the community. He urged that the Council remember that the
residents of Creekside Manor were also residents of. the neighbor-
hood and of the City of Palo Alto.
Beatrice Straub, 3163 Oakbridge Drive, San Jose, was the owner/
operator of a skilled nursing facility in Los Gatos, and past pre-
sident of the Nursing Home Association for Santa Clara County.
She spoke of a retired nurse who had nursed in Santa Clara County
for 32 years, but as she got more senile, her family could not
control her. She kept running away and was ultimately placed in a
facility. The facility tried everything, but could not keep . her
in the facility. She was ultimately restrained by being tied to
her chair, and was untied every two hours and walked. When she
was untied, she would wander into peoples' rooms, take their
belongings, take things out of the closets and take them back to
her room. All this time she was on the wai ei ng list for Mrs.
Youman's. State law prohibited an unlocked facility from locking
its doors. Doors could be locked to prevent entrance, but exit
locks or,locks on closets and personal belongings were prohibited.
The retired nurse finally got into Mrs. Youman's facility, was
taken out of restraints and allowed to walk around. She was now
leading a fairly normal life. Ms. Straub urged that the Council
consider the rezoning.
Eul a Youmans, Applicant, 340 North Lake Drive, :,en Jose, said the
facility was licensed to care for mentally disordered persons when
she took it over in 1963. The facility was a converted older
house and the occupancy capacity was 16 at that time. The facil-
ity was zoned RE and autheri zed under a use permit that was issued
by the County of Santa Clara at that time. Palo Alto ul ti eatel y
annexed ` the. area. No change had occurred in the category of
patients since the facility opened in 1963 other than the Depart-
ment of Health Services was now the licensing facility instead of
the Department of Mental Hygiene who licensed the facility in.
1963. Creekside Manor was a skilled nursing facility with the
Department.of Health Services permission to be '.a locked facility.
The <facility was locked to protect the senile patients 'and to keep
them fro wandering into the neighborhood. Prior to Pine Creek's
public hearing, she had never heard any complaints. Her relation
ship with her neighbors had been good, and she time ,call ed if one
of her patients got out. She was willing to work with her neigh-
bors in any way possible. Creekside Manor did not keep dangerous,
mentally i11 patients, and cared for the low keyed mentally i11
persons who needed supervision in all of their daily living. The
Pine Creek Facility forfeited its lease, but did not advise Mrs.
Youmans until the State. removed all of the patients. The cost to
reopen that facility was horrendous and she received no funding to
do so. She would never be able to recoup her expenditures, espe-
cially since she had been catering to medical patients. She asked
how her neighbors would feel if the City took their house and said
they were going to tear it down, that they could not be paid. It
not only affected her emotionally, but also physically. The
facility was a part of her, and she did not believe that the power
of being meant for her career to end in a disaster. It would be a
disaster if her facility was torn down. She made a commitment to
serve the indigence patient of the community and accepted the med-
ical patients when no others would. They came to her after they
spent their money in other facilities, and she hoped the Council
would consider her remaining in the area.
Carol Murray, 4281 Miranda, did not agree that having a psychia-
tric facility such as Creekside Manor was appropriate. She did
not know how psychiatric facilities should be run, but she was
sure that they should not be run in the middle of a neighborhood
where there were young children and families. It was a locked
facility, but patients did escape. Her daughter was walking --
there were some patients out --they made some rather gross and
obscene statements to her and reached out to grab her, which was
very frightening to her. There eas always the screaming, moaning
and groaning, awakening in the night and the banging on the doors
at night. In May she was awakened in the middle of the night and
went to her door. A man was standing there who had escaped. She
called the police and about an hour later she was asked to iden-
tify the man. Several days later she read that the man was an
ex -employee, hod robbed the home and was being held for rape in
the hospital. The facility was not appropriate in a neighborhood
where children were being raised and where there were families.
It was not that the aged should not be cared for, but they should
not be in that neighborhood.
Gary Pinkis, 186611Martha Avenue, Hayward, Director of the Nursing
Home Ombudsman Program of Catholic Social Services of Santa Clara
County, said the Ombudsman Program ` in Santa Clara County was one
of 32 local Ombudsman programs in . California, each designated by
the California Department On Aging and ..charged by the California
Legislature and by Congress in the Older American's Act to invest-
igate and help resolve questions, problems and complaints made by
or on behalf of older persons living in skilled nursing facili-
ties, intermediate care facilities, and now with no additional
funding, 43,.000 residential care facilities in California. There
were 57 skilled nursing facilities in Santa Clara County and six
of them were locked, but three did not accept older patients. The
shortage of locked facility beds was the most critical shortage of
'beds of any type of in -patient facility in the County, followed
closely by heavy care medical patients for skilled nursing facili-
ties. Most nursing homes had - houses around them including the
other locked facilities. He believed that no one should have to
live next -,door to noisy neighbors, and the facility must cooperate
with the neighborhood to make for a compatible living situation
The Ombudsman: Program: could provide ,a vehicle to facilitate that
type of communication and cooperation. The biggest problem in
nursing homes was the lack of community involvement --facilities
needed to be accountable to the community for the care they pro-
vided. The community `must accept its responsibility that the care
for the most elderly and :.most frail people in the community and
these . people, by, definition, were the nursing home_, patients.
Where the community- was actively ' involved in nursing homes,
involvement to the point where the residents themselves could
actively take a part in the coinsuni ty, the quality of - life;and
care was significantly better thanin facilities that experienced
a lot of isolation from the rest of the community. That was the
rule not the exception. He believed it was in the best interest
of the community and of the elderly to take an interest in ending
the isolation that nursing homes were experiencing.
Mrs. Petra McGillivray, 2997 Waverley Street, had nothing but good
to say about Creekside Manor. She thought more people should have
compassion for their father and mother and anyone elderly. She
had two patients at Creekside--her father, 82 years old, and her
father-in-law, who was there for ten years. Her father-in-law was
placed in every convalescent home, ran, away and was nearly killed
everywhere he was. Her aunt was there now, and her father and
father-in-law had since died. She recommended that the Council
consider Creekside Manor. They had locked facilities for the
people that were unable to do for themselves.
William Youmans, 340 North Lake Drive, Vice President of Creekside
Manor, said had heard all kinds of complaints in the various City
meetings, but had never had a neighbor come to the facility or
contact them with a complaint. He would appreciate complaints
going directly to the facility in order to try and work them out.
Kenneth Babb, 2952 Sherwood Drive, San Carlos. He was a legal
sociologist and very familiar with the problems which confronted
the Council. He knew Creekside Manor and Mrs. Youmans, and knew
that Creekside Manor was a well organized and administered facil-
ity. The residents were not harmful --most of them were somewhat
elderly and ill --and lived in an enclosed and locked facility. By
and large he found them to be institutionally well -adjusted indi-
viduals in need of care and attention which was provided very ade-
quately. He assured the Council that there was really no threat
to the neighborhood, and the residents were always under profes-
sional supervision. He hoped his assurances would abate any anxi-
ety that seemed to prevail in the area. In reviewing the Planning
Commission Minutes of December 17, 1980, it appeared that the dis-
cussion was to rezone the location as an R-1 as distinct from an
RE. Apparently areas on the map were not clearly delineated and
lines had to be redrawn. There were discussions on the fact that
the facility was not a typical single family lot and that it was a
very large lot adjacent to a cemetery and orchard, which locations
were zoned RE. It was undoubtedly a unique situation in which the
facility was set up under an RE zoning and had .now been zoned
downward to R-1 virtually in midstream. He emphasized that there
was a continuing need for the facility in the area , and to the
best of his knowledge, there was a constant request for admission.
He felt that attested to the professionalism that prevailed at
Creekside. It also indicated to him that the facilities supply of
those:, types of homes could not cope with the growing and continu-
ing ' demand. No one reallyknew when they or a relative would need
a facility such as Creekside. He realized it was not always easy
for the Council to make a decision that pleased everyone, but
whatever the decision, . he urged that it be tempered with compas-
sion. He urged the Council to consider its decision to grant an
exemption to the facility to continue in its present status as was
the case when the facility was established in 1972.
Jackie Berman, 810 Miranda Green, said her house backed up to the
property in question. She did not know Mr. Jenkins , and assumed he
was a fine administrator_. She questioned Mr. Pinkis' comment that
all nursing _ homes were near houses. She ,spoke for the neighbor-
hood and said that termination of the use, of the property as a
"convalescent facility'. should proceed as scheduled for the fol-
lowing reasons:
According to State -law, convalescent facilities, hospitals or
nursing names could not be controlled in: any way by ,local or
County ._ordinances. Once zoned as a hospital, or any of those
designations, it was up to' the administrator to . decide on what
type of facility it -wwoold be. Those kinds of: decisions were
removed from the local authorities since the permit was
granted by the City.
2. The facility as presently used contained insufficient outdoor
space to reasonably accommodate the needs of the patients who
were not bedridden, and it was not buffered from the neigh-
bors. Consequently, the noise Made ;,y patients and stars'
when outdoors, intruded on the neighbors lives. The kind. .
noise to which she was referring was not comparable to chi
ren playing in a playground. It was often the yelling of very
disturbed people or staff members who were trying to deal with
an incident.
1
1
J •
The applicant stated that the property was a buffer between
R-1 and other uses, which she assumed meant the cemetery.
That was illogical, not only because they needed a buffer
between the hospital and the neighborhood, but because the
property shared a single access road with the neighborhood.
Ms. Berman did not think the question was one of providing care to
the psychiatric elderly patients of the community, but rather
whether the location was appropriate and was the use consistent
with the neighborhood. The neighborhood was unanimous that the
application should be denied.
Louis Young, 874 Miranda Green, said that Miranda Avenue was the
only access to Creekside Manor and the neighboring homes. Miranda
was approximately 36 feet wide with no sidewalk. He was fright-
ened to drive through the access road when patients were wal king
down Miranda Avenue. Instead of the green space being utilized
for walking, the patients of Creekside were allowed to walk all
aver the street while exercising. In most instances, there were
approximately 15 patients walking around with usually one or two
uniformed attendants who seemed not to be able to control where
the patients walked. One neighborhood concern was that one of the
patients could step in front of a car at any time, being that the
attendants seemed unable to control their exercise routes. The
point was that the neighbors did not know which of them might be
the unfortunate driver, who might injure one of those patients.
They requested that the City Council uphold the latest recommenda-
tion of the Planning Commission and not extend the zoning amorti-
zation period for Creekside.
Bill Rutludge, 854 Miranda Green, said the neighbors of Miranda
Road were unanimous in their support of retaining the R-1 zoning
and not extending the zoning amortization period for the noncon-
forming use. This was the sixth time in less than two years that
they had mustered out to the Planning Commission and to the City
Council to demonstrate their unanimity on the issue. On August
25, 1982, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to, deny exemp-
tion from the required termination for nonconforming use. The
Planning Commission, and before that the City Council, found that
the site was fundamentally inappropriate for use as a convalescent
hospital. Neither the City nor - the neighbors could control the
type of patient. There was a marginal access road, the site was
completely hemmed in by the cemetery fence, the creek bank of
Adobe Creek and the driveway, of several neighbors, Circumstances
had changed over the years such that the facility was now essen-
tially a concrete compound. The only relief for the patients was
borne solely by the neighbors of Miranda Road. Regarding finan-
cial return, the mortgage on the .building ended in January,
1992--a full year and one-half prior to the amortization date.
Some people might recall that Mrs. Youmans counsel, on September -
17 1980, represented the mortgage as being 25 years in duration
rather than. the correct 20 years. Additionally, there was a sub-
stantial residual value to the site which would benefit the owner
at the end of the amortization period, which would occur in July
of 1993. The owner and her counsel had alleged financial impair-
ment, but to the neighbors', knowledge had not presented any kind
of financial', analysis to support that claim. The notion was -sug-
gested that having an amortizaton date for ending the nonconform-
ing use --even one as late as 1=993 --would somehow deprive senior
citizens of Pal o Al to Of proper care or of rental housing. That
idea was without merit and had nothing to do with the issue of
appropriateness of the site as a convalescent hospital Contrary
to some of the ,rheteric from this : session, previous Council ses-
sions and previous Planning Commission sessions, John Aceveda, the
State Medical Administrator for the Creek Medi-Cal Administrator
for the Creekside facility said that all of the patients were
Medi-Cal cases for which the State paid $39 per day. Those people
were indigents who were virtually "being dumped" there from sur-
rounding counties including San Mateo, San Francisco and Alameda.
In a telephone conversation today with Mr: Aceveda, he indicated
that those outlying areas were currently generating the only
source of patients and that he would be surprised if there was
even one person in the facility from Palo Alto. That was not the
issue, but it was necessary to have some balance to the earlier
comments. Regarding the continuing of the services provided by
the facility, the amortization date provided ample time for plan-
ning for those necessary services at a site appropriate for the
purpose. He quoted Councilmember Fazzino from the July 6, 1981
City Council meeting that "the issue before the Council was the
appropriateness of the use in an overwhelming R-1 area, particu-
1 arly when concerns about noise, parking and other intrusions were
raised by the neighbors and there was overwhelming support for
amortization of the present use." The issue was the same today.
It weighed`' public gain against private loss. They believed the
equities were clearly on the side of the Miranda Road neighbors.
He urged that the Council deny the application for exemption from
termination of the nonconforming use at 4277 Miranda.
William V. Henderson, 268 Castro Street, Mountain View, was a real
estate appraiser, consultant and real estate broker. He studied
the property for valuation purposes as a conforming use and as a
nonconforming use. The results of the preliminary investigation
showed that there was a vast difference in value --over $600,000.
In his opinion, the time period al l oted was not sufficient to
recover any investment or to amortize the property.
Councilmember Levy asked Mr. Henderson to estimate what the proper
amortization should be.
Mr. Henderson estimated that the property had a normal remaining
effective life of 40 years, going on the valuation as of the date
of the nonconforming ordinance.
Councilmember Levy felt it was more appropriate to determine
amortization from the original cost and the original investment.
He asked for some guidance in that regard.
Mr. Henderson said the original investment was $500,000 on the
improvements. If they were set up. on a 40 year life, and ten
years were gone so that one-fourth was depreciated, with no allow-
ance for inflation, present worth or --present value. .The valuation
techniques . always brought things up to present day. Someone could
have bought, the property four years ago and it was conforming five
years ago. Then a new amortization schedule was started, and a
new depreciation sche;rule.
Councilmember Levy clarified that his data did not include the
residual value of the land, . the income from operations or the
actual investment which was made
Mr. Henderson said he was looking at it strictly as a real estate
consul taut valuating the property under two conditions-eas . a con-
forming use and as a nonconforming use to be, amortized in 1992 or
1993.
Councilmember Cobb' asked about the . current market -value of :: the
property, site and improvements, with thee*isting zoning.
1
1
Mr. Henderson said his preliminary estimate of val ue was
$1,405,000 for the land and improvements of which he placed a
depreciated value on the improvements of . $809,000. Taking the 40
year remaining life, and depreciating that 20 percent, he arrived
at the $600,000 loss.
Eleanor McWilliams, 780 Josi na Avenue , had lived in Palo Alto
since 1951, and said perhaps the cemetery needed to be rezoned.
No one wanted to live by mentally ill people. On behalf of
Parents of Adult Mentally Hi (RAM!), she urged that the property
not be rezoned. One percent of the population was mentally ill.
She urged that the Council think i t over before selling out the
site.
Dr. Pail Heim, 1902 Webster Street, was a psychiatrist who visi-
ted Creekside about every other week to see some of the patients
that were having problems and some that he had developed relation-
ships with since the facility had reopened. A lot of the people
were not identified as mentally ill from years ago. He thought .it
was important to remember that the patients were people and had
great capacity to relate. He was impressed with the progress that
some of the patients had made over the past six months. He did
not think the place was noisy in the main. He thought it was sad
that no one wanted these people around.
Ralph White, 580. Van Buren, Los Altos, said there were a great
deal more nice residential R-1 homes surrounding the subject prop-
erty that were shown on the map. He had 1 i ved across the creek
from the subject facility for almost 16 years. He had observed
the people from the facility out wandering, and had ob served them
in his own yard on a couple of occasions . In recent years, and
primarily during warm weather and almost always on weekends, they
had observed a lot of noise coming from the facility. He had not
succeeded in making contact with anyone over there in order for it
to be taken care of. He had tried and was told that whoever was
running the place was not there on weekends. He concurred that
the location was inappropriate for that kind of facility. He had
lot of compassion and empathy for the people, but did not think
the faci 1 i ty was needed in a nice residential neighborhood.
Lucretta Van Zandt, 340 Wilton Avenue, had lived at her current
residence since before the facility was established. The facility
had served a great purpose for the many years it had existed. Her
aunt was at the facility and it provided her with a wholesome
home. The facility offered relief because "one did not want to
throw a relative away."
Juanita Stewart, 3618 Morrie Drive, San Jose, was, the Director of
Social Services at the Valley Medical Center in San Jose. She
said there may well be patients at Creekside from out of the
County, but there were a good number of local people who relied on
the facility. The Objective of Creekside was rehabilitation ser-
vices and a good wholesome environment_ for people with psychiatric
problems. She recalled when President Reagan was' the Governor of
California, and a major policy change in California directed citi-
zens back; to their local communities when they had mental health
probl ems. The f nderlyi ng assumpti on was that there would ,be
rehabilitation services and places :for those persons in: their
local communities. Pal "o Alto, li ke`` a lot of other con' uni ti es
throughout California, tried to divest themselves of any involve-
ment with mentally tll or recovering mentally ill people Often
the patients were mentally ill end might also have medical prob-
lems, ' and a 1 of ;of thee!' isere qll to aged,' .which 'Meant that they
were the most vulnerable 'peopl`e`. 1fi the community. She urged the
Council to carefully Consider the el lmi'nation of one 'facility.
There were- only " six facilities in the community and ,1f
one was
eliminated, 50 residents would be banished from the = community Kith
no facilities to eccommodate'. them,
Jennifer Wilson, 650 Moana Court, was 17 years old and a student
of Gunn High School . She thought the point was whether the loca-
tion was appropriate and not whether anycne cared about the aged
people of the community.
Jennifer Reid, said her parents lived at 880 Miranda Green, and
she had had various encounters with patients out walking on the
street. She did not contest the need for a hospital of this
nature, ideally one equipped with adequate access roads and good
exercise facilities, She thought that perhaps Ms. Youmans could
switch to another kind of operation.
Kathleen Johnson, 90 Coronado, was 17 years old and a volunteer at
Creekside Manor. She was considering a psychology major in col-
lege and wanted to work with psychologically disturbed people.
She took the people on the walks that everyone appeared to be com-
plaining about. The road was in terrible condition which was why
people drove . it so slowly. It would be appropriate to build a
sidewalk in order to accommodate wheelchairs, and the wheelchairs
were pushed down the road because they could not be pushed in the
dirt. There was no chance of the people running onto the road
because they walked very slowly and probably had not run for 15
years. The. road was narrow, dangerous and bumpy. She worked at
Creekside about ten hours a week during the summer and about four
hours a week during school. The times she had been there she had
never heard any loud screams or moans. She had never felt threat-
ened by any of the people they were kind people, very confused
and some were very disturbed. Some of them used bad language, but
they were not threatening or violent, and did not want to get out
and kill someone. The area was small, but the people were so old
that they did not need a. lot of area. Usually the one short walk
exhausted them for the rest of the day. She would very much like
to continue working at Creekside.
Sheree Miller, 4277 Miranda, was the Director of Nursing Service
at Creekside. Regarding the concern that patients might be
dangerous, her 13 year old daughter accompanied her to work fre-
quently and volunteered her services. Her daughter had a learning
di s- ability and was in a special school Creekside had provided
an opportunity for her daughter to receive love from the pa-
tients, and to give her \ love to them. Many patients were like
grandma and grandpa to her. If the patients . were. dangerous or
violent, she would not take her child into the facility.
Vice Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing closed.
Counc i l member Fletcher said it seemed hardhearted to turn down the
application --an invaluable service was being performed for which
there was a need. She pointed out that if the application was
denied, the facility would net be shut down tomorrow. The amorti-
zation ran until 1993, and . control over future uses of the facil-
ity was no longer in the hands oflocal jurisdictions. The facil-
ity could be T .put to a variety of uses, some of which the Council
may not welcome. She guessed that by 1993 the particular appli-
cant may be thinking about retirement and mo€ing on to some other
endeavor, and the Council had:, no control over who would handle the
facility . after the present administrators left. With the over-
whelming opposition in the neighborhood continuing the use inde-
finitely for that type of facility., the Council had no choice.
She was comforted by the fact that there would be time for _ plan-
ning for another site or some other type of facility.
MOTION: Councilwember Fletcher need, seconded by Klein, to
deny the . application of Eal a Yeomans for an .oncepti on from term,-
nati oe of a Nonconforming Ilse at 4277 Ili raoda.
_
Vice Mayor Bechtel commented, that the City received a letter from
Sherman Weldon of Half MoOn Bay, who asked that; ..his Ofoents be
added to the record. He was convinced , that Creekside Manor was
among the betterrun facilities of its kind in the state.
1
among the better run facilities of its kind in the State.
Counci lmember Witherspoon said that _ Counci l member Fletcher made
her comments eloquently. She asked if Ms. Youmans obtained her
permanent license in August.:
Staff indicated yes.
Councfilmember Cobb supported the motion. Ile Was . a • Planning
Commissioner when he first became aware of the issue, and said
that the Commis'sion struggled to try and continue the socially
beneficial use without having to go through a Zoning change
Finally, the -Coriai'ssion's unanimous recommendation to the Council
was reversed by the Council. The night of the Planning Commission
hearing there was an operator from . the facility that received
kudos 'from all around to the extent that some of the neighbors
were :willing 'to raise their vgi ces in support of trying to find a
way,= short of a zoning change, to accommodate the operation at
that site.. The facility' Was very operator dependent, and if the
right type of operator was not there, then problems in the neigh-
borhood seemed to get worse, which was one of the reasons the
Council should support the motion. He commented that the property
did have substantial economic value even with its present zoning,
whereas it might have more with a' change of zoning, particularly
if the amortization ran for a long period of time, its property
value was such in. Palo Alto that . ten years from now, the owner
would have substantial economic value ,. and therefore;, would not be
faced with such a liability..
MOTION PASSED uniniioaslY, Eyerly absent.
ITEM #6, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
•
MOTION: Corncilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Cobb, to
uphold the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the proposed
zone chatge fide; R-2 -to RN -2 since the regeetted change could' lot
be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Land Use Nap' which
designated the land use for this property as Single Family
Resi denti 31 .
Vice Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open.
Jean Scott, 3136 Genevieve Court, reaffirmed the West Bayshore
Residents' Association opposition to the zone change, and con-
curred with the Planning Commission recommendation: She urged
Council support.
Vice Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing closed.
NATION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent.
ITEM #7,. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE •
AF'LICAT1
wi LACL 'T Ivss l UK 1: Ungll -MOWN_ AS 11(1 LHANiTWV AvLNUL
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said the matter was a sub-
division previously approved in 1979, and inadvertently the final
map was never. recorded. The application was approved unanimously
by the Commission.
Councilmember Klein advised that he and the applicant were law
partnersy,and he would not be participating in the item.
Vice Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing . open,
Yale Jones, 1812 Edgewood Can_ e, Menlo Pa& was a co-owner of the
property and represented Paul Valentine. He encouraged support of
the recommendation.
•
2 5 1 8
9/20/82
Vice Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing closed .
MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Cobb, to
uphold Planning Commission recommendation that the project will
not have a significant impact on the environment; that the proj-
ect, including the design or improvement, is consistent with the
adopted Comprehensive Plan, and complies with the Subdivision Nap
Act and Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; that the site is
physically suitable for the . type end density of the proposed
development, that the subdivision is not likely to result in
serious public health problems, that there are no conflicts with
public easements; and making the findings as follows:
1) There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property, in that the relocation of the existing residence on
the site and the proposed lot line adjustment wi l 1 contribute
to the preservation of an older single family residence, and
that granting of the exception will not add to the everal l
extent of nonconformance of the two parcels but will exchange
locations of the .existing substandard lot vith the proposed
new substandard lot;
2) The exceptions are necessary for the preservation and enjoy-
ment of a substantial property right of the petitioner;
3) The granting of the exceptions wi l l mot be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory
in which the property is situated in that the proposed lots
are consistent in size with the present , land use pattern;
and
4) The granting of these exceptions will not violate the require-
ments, gaols, policies or spirit of the law in that it will
allow a duplex rental unit on the site and preserve an older
single family home.
MOTION PASSED unani soaisly, K1 ei n "not parts ci pep ng," Eyerly
absent.
ITEM #ls, PUBLIC NEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE
APYLrtAri
Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown said the basic problem
was a need . to subdivide the property in an unusual fashion as a
result of some legal compl icati ons in the way title would be made .
The Commission was comfortable with the expl anati onboth from the
applicant and staff as to what would be involved in the compli-
cated subdi vi s# on application , The P1 anni ng Comm1 ssi on unani-
mously supported the application.
Vice Mayor Bechtel said she appreciated the kinds of questions the
Planning Comai:ssioners asked because it saved the Council a lot of
time. She agreed that the issue WIS complicated.
Chief Planning Official Bruce -Freeland said a •question was raised
at the Pl anni ng Commission about whether the property. could >i t` be
used for commercial development, and the potential for future
attempts to use part' of the property in a commercial manner,
either as individual units in the condominium, once established,
or in the event that one of ' the hots was not fully completed,
since it was zoned commercial. There was a restrictive covenant
i n the CC&R' s for the project against coenerci al use of the
project which provided protection against commercial, use of the
project.
Councilmeaber Renzel asked if once a tentative: asap and a final map
on a Condominium subdivision was approved by the Council and the
CC&R,' s _were filed, CC&R ` s:- could be Modified and who controlled
it
Mr. Freeland said the CC&R's could be ,amended by a unanimous vote
of the Homeowner's Association.
Counci1a+ember Renzel' asked what would happen if the developer was
the association until some units were sold
i
1
Mr'. Freeland said there would be a period of time when the
•
developer. would control: the Homeowner's Association. During that
per rod of time it. would ' be possible for the developer to amend the
conditions. He advised that Mr...Remsberg was in attendance if the
Council , had concerns.
Councilfiember Renzel asked if a condition of , the tentative map
could be that the properties he used only' for residential
Anthony Bennetti, Senior Assistant City . Attorney said the City
Attorney' s office was uncomfortable in making that a condition of
a final subdivision map in that it did not deal strictly with the
types of land division. questions. that were dealt. with in a tenta-
tive' ,m,ap e There was not really a question of compatibility with
the _ Comprehensive P1 an and, therefore, there did not seem to be
anything to tie that onto. He understood that the developer
offered to make the amendment to' the CC&R's subject ,.to. the
approval of the City. Thee Department pf. Real Estate was com-
fortable with that kind of condition' in the CC&R' s He suggested
that representation from, the applicant be obtained to include that
f. type o condition,
Counciimember Renzel said that, once the preliminary and final con-
dominium subdivision were approved, could they be undone.
Mr. Benretti said the condominium concept c old ngt be undone
without' Council app'rov'al.@ He sate' the covenants ran with the land
and 'the Council would' •
be ' i nvol ved ; with any change, In the use
because the 'covenants provided that; it would be restricted to
residential .
Counci lmeraber Rertiel said that the total acreage a1 ready had
tentative and final condominium. subdivision map approval., and now
the Council was creating a new tentative map for the land., divi-
sion. She asked if the Council would al so need to have a final
map for the subject division.
Mr. Freeland said yes. In the procees of; doing so, t;h;g; previously
approved condominium map was not. being eliminated .
Counci l member Renzel said the staff report had some discussion of
building wall s on property lines not having windows. She asked if
she was correct that otherwise,. since,it was, a commercial zone,
there were no setback' requi resents and, therefore, no potenti al
for . violation of setback_ requirements because of the lot lines . `
Planning Technician Phyllis Potter said that was correct.
Mr. Freeland said that some of the buildings actually crossed the
parcel lines, and ,from a legal point of view, they'. must be separ-
ate structures `so that the boundary between the parcel, lines was
just like the boundary of ,any adjacent parcels in the downtown --
where the commercial structures abut, they must have fire walls in
between.
Counc i l meeiber Renzel asked if they were being built that way.
Mr. Freeland said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open. Receiving no
requests to speak, she declared` the public hearing, closed.
MOTION: Councllmeaber Cobb moved, senonded by Fazzino, to
uphold Planning Commission recommendations that the project,
including the design and improvements (e.g., the street align-
ments, drainage and sanitary facilities, 1 ocatl ons and size of all
required rights -of -way, lot size and configeration, grading, and
traffic access) is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan
and complies with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code; that thr project wl 1 l mot have a significant
impact on the environment nor be likely to result in serious pub-
lic health problems; that the site is physically suitable for the
type and density of the proposed development; a +d that there are
not conflicts with public easements, and recommend approval with
the following conditions:
1) The developer shall pay for the bonded assessment on the prop-
erty or apply to the City engineer for segregation prior to
filing the final map;
2) The developer shall sell twelve (12) Type A snits (1 bedroom,
515 sq. ft.) at a price of $55,000. Phase I (Parcel 1) will
provide six BMR units out of its total 32 housing units.
These same six units will be applied to the completion of
Phase II (Parcel 2) creating six BMR units out of a total of
53 total units. Since Phase III (Parcel 3) has no BMR units
(6 units are to be built in Parcel 4) , occupancy of this area
will be conditioned on either: (1) Parcel 4 being at the fol-
lowing stage of construction: A. Roof completed; B. Exterior
enclosed; C. Completion of 'rough inspections' of electric,
plumbing, and mechanical systems, or (2) Deposit $5,000 per
unit with the City for all market rate units beyond 60 (i.e.,
the number of market rate units for which no BMR have been
provided), 86-60 = 26 x $5,000 = $130,000. This amount will
be held by the City as a BMR in -lieu fee until the final six
BMR units receive their occupancy approval from the
Inspectional Services Division. Occupancy of the 25 market
rate units in Parcel 4 will mot be granted until the 6 BMR
units in Parcel 4 receive their occupancy permits.
3. Openings in exterior walls are not permitted when the walls
are less than five feet from the prolerty line.
AMENDMENT: Cownci l member Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon,
to require that any changes in the CCR `s to change to commercial
use be approved by the City ,Cos nci l .
George Rersberg, Ross Wilson Enterprises, Inc., 525 Alma Street,
said the comendment was satisfactory with the applicant.
AMENDMENT. PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent.
MOTION AS MENDED PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent.
ITEM #9, AMENDMENT TO SIGN ELECTION ORDINANCE
Anthony Bennetti , 'Senior Assistant' City Attorney said a recent
federal court decision, Taxpa reerrs_for Vincent, provided some limi-
tations on election signs on pubTfc prnnerty. The ordinance pro-
vided_ that unlike . the situation which the court found in Los
Angeles, Palo Alto expressed a definite policy . in controlling
signing in residential neighborhoods for aesthetic values. The
Court indicated that had they seen the kind of comprehensive
effort in the Los Angelessituation, they might have ruled differ-
ently. The Palo Alto City Attorney took advantage of that by pro-
hibiting election signs on any public property in a residential
zone. The ordinance was presented ..in two .forms --as an urgency
ordinance and as a regular .ordinance Staff recomended: that both.
ordinances be adopted --the urgency ordinance would take effect
immediately on the basis that the City was well into the =campaign
season and would need the ordinance effective in order, to make it
applicable during the election period. If . that= ordinance were
1
i
1
challenged on the basis of . the Council ' s finding an urgency, the
regular ordinance would take effect thirty-one days fol 1 owing
second reading.
1
1
1
Vice Mayor Bechtel clarified that the ordinance adopted by the
Council two weeks ago was superseded.
Mr. Bennetti said that was correct. Now th..t the City was going
to have some signs on , public property, staff wanted to •make the
other conditions about elimination of some of the criteria appli-
cable to those types of signs as well, Before, the City had a
complete prohibition on public property' signs and, therefore, the
conditions would not apply.
Counci1member Fletcher asked about the findings the Council ,would
have to make for an emergency ordinance.
Mr. Bennetti said Council had to find that the ordinance was nec-
essary for the immediate preservation of the public health or
safety in the sense that the signs could cause physical hazard to
City workers on utility poles, etc., to the extent that the ordi-
nance was necessary for the immediate effect during the upcoming
campaign season. Further, a provision existed where signs needed
to be out of a motorist's line of sight and to keep signs from
interfering with public emergency responses at signals and fire
hydrants.
MOTION: Councilmeaber Fletcher moved, seconded 'by Renzel,
a; proval of the emergency ordinance.
ORDINANCE 3389 entitled =ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
Tkt GUT OF 'PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BUILDING REGULATIONS . REGARDING ELECTION SIGNS AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY'
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent.
MOTION: Counci l meter Fletcher moved, seconded by. Renzel
approval of the regular ordinance.
ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE
0 ALTO AMENDING THE PROVI-
SIONS OF THE BUILDING REGULATIONS REGARDING ELECTION
SIGNS"
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent.
COUNCIL RECESSED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION FROM 9:40 .m. TO 10:00
Vim. re se emen.
ITEM #10 REPORT ON IMPACT OF COTTAGE ZONE ASSIGNMENT ON THE
rLANPl1 N i1
Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said that the assignment,
as initially proposed, would involve a comprehensive survey of
blocks : to look for large lots a pote`ntial1y lengthy series of
di scussi ohs with the P1 anni ng Commission on, and a number ofrezoning
hearings to put on larger building sites with minimum standards in
certain areas. Staff recommended two alternatives to maintain'
some control on the number of cottage units that would be permis-
sible, on _blocks with oversized lots
Alternative A: The present Zoning Ordinance limits the number of
use ,p r s°. w i ch : may: be'_.1 ss:ued for the sale. of beam and Wine in
any _given 'block through the establishment : of _`stri`ct :standards
within the ;chapter oh tondi ti onal NSe s r A , sl mi l fir #ipproac h .cou d=
;be taken to allow no, more than `two (or' whatever leverthe the Council
sets) cottages per block.
2 _ S 2 2
9/20/82
1
1
Alternative B; The cottage concept is contained in Housing.
rPogram 3 or the Comprehensive Plan. Since use permits must con-
form to the Comprehensive P1 an the Council could add language to
Program 3 which would address the need to limit the number of
cottage units in any R-1 neighborhood. The language could require
that no cottage use permit be issued on a block containing three
or more lots large enough to accommodate cottage units without the
Planning Commission and City Council having first reviewed the
block and; reaffirmed that the zoned. lot size standards were
appropriate.
Councilmember Renzel advised that she would not participate in the
item.
Councilmember Levy asked about the criteria by which a cottage
could be Oaced on a lot. He clarified that the lot had to be
oversized by 35 percent, and had to conform to. all of the setback
requirements and lot coverage requirements that prevailed in the
normal R-1 zone.
Mr. Freeland said that, plus
structures, was correct.
12 -foot separation between
Councilmember .Levy asked what the minimum lot size would be that
would handle a cottage.
Mr. Freeland said it varied with the. prevailing. minimum building
site area. The R-1 basic district .had about a 6,000 square foot
lot size, and the minimum lot : si ze to handle a cottage would have
to be about 8,100 square feet.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said the staff': report was an example of what
happened when the Council tried to do something good without suf-
ficient data in advance. The basic problem of overloading suscep-
tible areas with large numbers of cottages was something he and
the Barron Park Association pointed out. He supported Alternative
B wi th the clarification on . the reference to block. He thought of
a block in terms of a street with houses on either side : which
extended from one intersection to another. If that was the con-
ventional definition, :there were a. lot of discrepancies in Palo
Altos He referred to. Kelly Way, which was about 200 yams long
and had only nine lots uiltar, which extended . from.. Arasiteadero
to Donald contained scores of -lots and extended for about half a
mile. There were similar discrepancies between block "sires
throughout the City. He proposed that instead, _,of referring to a
"block" that some specfid dimension be given. When someone came
in and applied for a cottage, the area around it should be looked
at. He suggested a radius of 500 feet which would then include
properties behind and across the street, and would still carry out
the intent of limiting the number of potential cottages in a
specific contiguous area. With that modification, he concurred
with the staff request that they not be asked to look at every
block in the City to give the Council a status report in advance
of actual applications.
Councilmember Fletcher said that a _surge_ If conditional use permit
applications for cottage units was not an`t`1c;ipated, She believed
that most people ,with large lots did not want close neighbors and
would not rush to have a second unit built do their lot. Many
people had swimming pools or _ tennis courts or just wanted open
space around them.
NOTIOM;: Coencilotmber Fletcher Sieved, secoadee by Lever, to
*1 Iew turf eerrent Cottage Ordi eaace to be, :erffecti v+e far two Years
With per-lo+lt stst!s raper_ is to ..tka `Goeac#l. and then assess
v thar addl ti ►a*1 toetrel s_ _are aetess*v' .
Counr_i1m tuber Cobb would not support the motion because he.
preferred ::Ai ternati ve 8 which bus i t- i'n some -additional `controls.
He suspected that- stafV was right ---that it would not make a
difference ,to= let it run --but just in Case they were not, -he
wanted to have some protection built into the system.
Councilmember Levy said he was concerned overall that Council
asked staff to do a lot of nit-picking work. Alternative B was
the next best alternative, but if the City had a situation where
there were three lots that were large enough, the matter had to be
referred to the Planning Commission and the City Council for
review. He was not sure what the Council would be reviewing at
that point because there were no standards .for making a decision.
Councilmember Fletcher suggested that the Council allow things to
run for two _years. It was known that in two years the Council
would not be inundated with cottages, but would gain some
experience. At the end of two years, the Council could look at
that - experience and determine whether any future changes,
controls or new . standards were necessary. He felt that was a
better way to proceed than Alternative B, which did not give any
standards by which to .operate,
Councilmember Klein said he would support the motion. He com-
mented that although he had no strong objections to the two-year
standard, he was not enthusiastic about the time period. He
assumed that if - any problem arose earlier than that, staff would
promptly inform the Council and they could move more quickly than
two years. He' understood the two years to mean that regardless of
the number of applications received during that period, the
Council would look at the matter again anyway.
Mr. Freeland believed that the most direct communication Council
would receive would be appeals of the Zoning Administrator's
issuance of the use permits. He thought that was the most logical
sign of trouble the City would receive.
Councilmember Klein did not see much discretion for the Council or
the Zoning Administrator the way the ordinance was drafted.
Mr. Bennetti said that standard was in the ordinance, but Council -
member Klein was correct in terms of practicality. There was not
a whole lot that would make one lot different from. another. If
the Zoning Administrator turned down two or three ' of them, the
Council would receive appeals.
Mr. Freeland said that if staff felt a . problem emerging, the
Council would be notified immediately.
MOTION PASSED by a vote .of 6-_1-R1, Cobb voting "no," ,Renzel 'not participating," Eyerly absent.
ITEM #11, ANNUAL CHARGES TO STANFORD FOR USE OF THE REFUSE AREA
rcMR:4b4:tf -
MOTION: Counci 1 member Fazzi no moved, seconded by Witherspoon,
approval ofthe staff recommendation to authorize the Mayorto
sign Amendment No. 3 to Contract with Stanford University.
AGREEMENT
Amendment No. 3 to Contract ,lo. 4039
Use of -Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Area
Councilmember Fletcher was curious about why the amendment did not
go through during . the budget process.
Assistant Director . of Public Works George Bagdon said the amend-
ment was done at this time every `year-, Staff took=a couple ..o€.
samples each year, and when it was complete and the budget was ,
approved, then staff went through the calculations.
MOTION -PASSED unanimepsly, Eyerly absent.
ITEM #12, REQUEST OF MAYOR EYERLY RE PALO ALTO JAYCEES
Council member Fazzino introduced the item to the Council in the
absence of Mayor Eyerly. He said that the Palo Alto Jaycees had a
long record of outstanding service to the community, and were one
of the few local service groups which allowed women to join to the
point of setting up a separate legal entity to bypass the medieval
beliefs of the National Jaycee organization. The National Organi-
zation recently decided to eliminate the radical thinking of local
organizations like the Palo Alto Jaycees and was taking local
Jaycees to court to prevent them from cohti nui ng their practices.
The local Jaycees believed that the proposed resolution of support
from the City Council could assist them in their litigation with
the National Organization of Jaycees.
MOTION: Corncilmember Fazzino coved, seconded by Cobb, that the
City Attorney draft a resolution of support with regard to the
Palo Alto Jaycees litigation.
President of the Palo Al to Jaycees Steve Poi seer provided informa-
tion about the background of the Pal o Al to Jaycees, and the ser-
vices they had provided to the community for over fifty years as
well as the leadership training opportunities provided to both men
and women. The Palo Alto Jaycees requested a resolution from the
City Council supporting the Jaycees' rights to offer leadership
training opportunities to both men and women.
V ce Mayor Bechtel said she supported the Palo Al to Jaycees'
efforts on behalf of women.
Council member Klein was interested in the status of the lawsuit.
Mr. Poi seer said that the U. S. Jaycees moved the issue out of
State court i nto Federal court and were sari ng the Palo Al to
Jaycees for removal of the right to use the trademark "Jaycees„
because they were unsuccessful in 1981 to revoke the Palo Alto
Jaycees' Charter. The Palo Alto _Jaycees convinced the Honorable
J. Barton Phelps of the California Superior Court in Palo Alto to
issue an injunction _ protecting their chapter from any kind of
action because of membership policies. November 19 was the first
pretrial hearing and the Palo Alto Jaycees would ask the federal
judge to recognize the fact that the U. S. Jaycees were circum-
venting the injunction which was already issued. The Palo Alto
Jaycees were going back to Judge Phelps in a couple of weeks with
a request that he enforce • the injunction by a contempt citation.
A lot of time and money would be spent, but the Palo Alto Jaycees
had taken a leadership role for the last seven or eight years and
planned to continue to do so. Jaycee Chapters throughout the
country contacted the Palo Al to Jaycees with concern about the
i ncor a because other Jaycee Chapters al so provided 1 eadershi p
training opportunities to women.
Counci1member, Levy said that he was very proud of the work being
done by the Palo Alto Jaycees. He wished the Palo Alto Jaycees
every success in theirefforts to convince the National Jaycees of
the lack of wisdom in. the courts. He supported the motion.
!NOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly. absent.
ITEM #13, REQUEST OF. COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE SIDEWALKS IN THE
STAW.TR1J I-NMrRFAL PARK
Councilmember Fletcher said that for years she felt Palo Alto was
superior to cooauni ties that only catered to the automobile. 'She
recently , realized that Stanford Industrial Park had a similar
situation where most of it did not provide . sl dewal k_s . She noticed
yesterday on the north Side of Page : Mill : Road. that = there were. curb
cuts at the intersections, but the curb cuts lead on to the lawns
or into the shrubbery _ in . anticipation of soured*y having side-
w.al ks
1
he time had come --people walking from the, buses on El Camino up
Page Mill Road to their pl aces of employment were forced to wal k
in- the street.
MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Menzel, that
staff be directed to work with the appropriate entities of the
Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group to form an assessment
district for the purpose of the construction of sidewalks in the
Stanford Industrial Park.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked about the point of bringing the
Manufacturer's Association into it.
Counci 1 member Fletcher said that the industries in the industrial
park were active in the manufacturing group section which worked
hard to fi nd al ternati ve ways for peopl e to get to their jobs
other than by single automobile. They had gone out of their way
to entice people to use public transit. The Transportation
Coordinators in the Industrial Park had regular meetings which
City staff attended. The Director of Transporation for the City
suggested that perhaps it could be brought up in that setting. On
the other hand, everyone was aware that Stanford was the property
owner. She would let staff determine the best way to handle the
matter.
Councilmember Witherspoon said she preferred that staff bring the
matter up in their next liaison meeting with Stanford. She
observed that joggers never used sidewalks.
Councilmember Fletcher said she was thinking more about the people
who walked to and from the buses. She said there were express
buses that went through the Industrial Park and the employees had
to walk in the street to get there. When she rode around the
Industrial Park a couple of weeks ago, during lunchtime, the bike
lane was filled with walkers and joggers and there was no room for
the bicycles .
Councilmember Fazzi no said .<he wal ked to and from work every day
from College Terrace using Industrial Park sidewalks which existed
from hi s home to Hewlett Packard. He did not believe there was a
major problem. Where he walked, it was fairly easy to walk along
the edge of the lawn. The bike lanes in the area were wide enough
toaccommodate the occasional walker. Foot traffic was not exten-
sive in most of that area because of the sel f -contained nature of
the large firms. There were a lot of parking lot routes through
sites which were paved to get through to key places at which
people congregated such as the New Leaf Restaurant. .garron Park
had survived for many years without sidewalks and did not wish to
have them. The fact that sidewalks did not exist would not be a
precedent or enough of a reason to provide sidewalks in the area..
He was not sure that -the manufacturer's group was the . right group
with respect to the speci fi c si dewal k i ssue since they tended to
focus on County -wide issues and not city -by -city kinds of things.
They were talking about difficult economic times for most of the
Industrial Park firms, and he thought it was wrong for the Council
to talk about imposing this kind of economic expense, and it would
probably fall on deaf ears with respect to Stanford and the firms
in that area. If there were specific areas where there were prob-
lems, he wanted to hear about them and thought firms would like to
hear about them. He walked through the Industrial Park this
morning and was comfortable that the problem was not a major one.
He would not support the motion
Councilmember Renzel said she would support the motion. She was
unaware that there a were large expanses of the City without side-
walks. She was surprised that the - City did not require them as-
part of the subdivision as was done in all other developments.
She thought it was more appropriate to : deal directly with the
affected firms in the industrial park rather than the manufac-
turer's group which emcompassed, a wider area•." r
2 5 2 6,
9/20/82
As Corrected
12/6/82
Councilmember Renzel suggested that staff deal directly with the
firms whose frontages were involved in dealing with a mechanism
for financing the sidewalks.
Councilmember Fletcher said that would be acceptable if not too
cumbersome for staff. -The manufacturing group's transportation
committee worked in zones and did not always work together as a
County. A zoned group existed with a different director for each
of the industrial parks. There was a group already working on
transportation problems, but any way staff wan4ed to proceed was
fine.
Councilmember Renzel said that while Councilmember Fazzino may be
able to wal k from his home to his place of employment, the Ci ty
was trying to encourage people to use alternative modes of trans.-
portation. A major bus transfer terminal existed at the corner of
Pa e Mill and E1 Camino, and it was unreasonable to expect people
to take an indirect route to get to their destination in the
Industrial Park due to a lack of sidewalks. She suspected that a
lot of people were not walking in the Industrial Park because
there were no sidewalks, and regarding the economics, forming an
assessment district was a time-consuming process, and a lot of
things had to happen before any liability would take place for the
sidewalks. She found it hard to, believe that a firm like Hewlett
Packard --even in troubled economic times --could not afford
sidewalks.
Councilmember Cobb also worked in the Industrial Park, and sensed
neither a demand nor a need for sidewalks. People on his staff
took the bus to work and walked into the plant. He had never
heard anyone say there should be more si dewal ks . He pointed out
that many of the firms in the Industrial Park were lessors and for
the most part staff would have to deal with Stanford. Further,
maybe Hewlett Packard could afford sidewalks, but there were a lot
of smaller companies up there struggling during the economic hard
times. The timing for the matter could not be worse, and he would
not support the motion.
Vice Mayor Bechtel commented that the formation of an assessment
district only involved contacting the property owner rather than a
master leaseholder.
Mr. Zaner said the assessment district involved the property
owner. If the Council made the assignment, he assumed that staff
would be left free to contact whoever was necessary in order to
complete the assignment.
Councilmember Cobb reiterated that Stanford was the appropriate
entity to contact. they owned the land,- and would pass the costs
on. The industrial Park was` al ready an expensive place to have e
business,, and the motion would hurt -the smaller firms in particu-
lar. He believed Council should oppose the motion.
MOTION FAILED by a vote_ of 2-6, Fletcher, !teazel voting "aye,
Eyerly absent.
ITEM #14 RE VEST OF COUNCILMEMBERS EYERLY AND RENZEL RE LYTTON
wu�ees�rr�
Councilmember Renzel said there were nice light standards on
Lytton ,Plaza which were disconnected at the time the City pur-
chased the property because they were connected to the adjacent
building which was privately owned. How that Lytton Plaza was
dedicated as a park, the. City should'; attempt to hook the lights up
electrically —perhaps to the parking lot : of the street lights
electrical system.
NOTION; Co.Ncileeaer Rommel moved, seconded bX Fletcher, to
direct staff to make tee : appropriate electrical teaiections, _and
direct staff to return with information_ on cost and feasi-
bility.
2 5 2 7
9/20/82
Councilmember Klein asked for a cost estimate to connect the
lights and to run them during the year.
Mr. Zaner said that staff would return with that information.
Councilmember Levy said that even though he believed the Plaza was
poorly nay.ed, it should be lit.
LOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent.
ITEM #15, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER LEVY
RE BICYCLE LAW
Councilmember Levy provided the .Council with a report on bicycle
accidents in Palo Alto, written by . Diana Lewiston, wherein she
mentioned that there were over 90 accidents over the past year
involving bicycles in Palo Alto. She categorized how they
occurred, and based on that report, he believed the City could do
more to provide bicycle law enforcement, particularly in the main
areas which appeared to be causing most of the accidents. One of
them was wrong way riding on both streets and sidewalks, and the
other was the fact that most bicycles did not have lights for
nighttime use.
MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, that
staff be directed to report to Council on bicycle law enforcement,
particularly related to wrong ray riding and lights on bikes et
night.
Councilmember Levy hoped that with the report from staff, Council
could enunciate a stronger policy for enforcement of bicycle laws,
and if necessary change the current laws,
Councilmember Witherspoon asked what should be contained in the
report.
Councilmember Levy responded that he wanted staff to confirm the
data contained in Ms. Lewiston's report, and how bicycle laws and
regulations were currently being enforced.
Councilmember Fletcher said that the author of the report was in
the audience.
M*tlI M PASSED unanimously, -Eyerly absent.
ITEM #16, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER LEVY RE RESOLUTION OF
Councilmember Levy said that the Palo Alto Timbers soccer team
recently captured the 15 and under age group championship in the
Calgery Invitational Soccer Tournament, which was the second
largest soccer tournament in North America.
MOTION: Councilmember: Levy moved, seconded by Fazzina, that
staff b. directed to prepare a resolution commending the Palo Alto
Timbers.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent.
RESOLUTION TO BE . PROPOSED AT LCC CONFERENCE
Councilmember Fletcher annuunced that the League of California
Cities Policy Committee on Transportation accepted the proposed
resolution on traffic barriers as submitted by the City of 'Palo
Alto. The resolution would be- reviewed and submitted at the
annual convention .next. month.
2 5 2 8-
9/20/82
ADJOURNMENT
Council adiourned at 10:40 p. .
ATTEST:
APPROVED: