HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-01-19 City Council Summary MinutesCITY
COUNCIL
M!UT€S
Regular
January
CITY
OF
PALO
ALTO
Meeting
19, 1981
ITEM PAGE
Roll Call 5 6 7
Oral Communications
1. Mary Macur, 1250 Willow 5 6 '7
2. Mi lly Davis, 344 Tennessee L ie 5 6 7
3. Frank Manfredi, 219 Addison 5 6 8
4. Louis Fein, 1540 Oak Creek Drive 5 6 8
Correction to Minutes 5 6 8
4. Consent Calendar
Solid Waste Energy Recovery Study 5 6 9
Deletion of industrial cost recovery rates for
large industrial sewage dischargers 5 6 9
2375 East Bayshore Road -.Site & Design Approval -5 6 9
Agenda Char1ges, Additions and Deletions 5 7 0-
5 7 0
5 7 2
4277 Miranda Avenue - Change of District
(Continued on Page 585)
640 Forest Avenue-- Final Subdivision Map
Public Hearing: 3003 Country Club Court - Preliminary
Parcel Map 5 7 2
3666 El Camino Real - Exception to Nonconforming
Use Termination 5 7 5
4277 Miranda Avenue Change of Distrtict (Conintued
from Page 5 7 0) 5 8 5
35n Ross Road - Use Permit Allowing Operation of a
Private Education Program
Mayt?r Henderson re VAJ, Applicants
Mayor Henderson re Pipeline
Councilmember Bechtel re Pepper Tree
Adjournment
5 9 8
5 9 8
5 9 8
5 9 9
5 9 9
5 6 6
'1/19/81
January 19, 1981
Regular Meeting
The City Council of true City of Palo Alto met on this date in
the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m., Mayor
Henderson presiding.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy,
Witherspoon
ABSENT: Brenner, Fazzino, Renzel
Mayor Henderson conveyed to Assistant City Clerk Shirley
Poitras Council's regret at her resignation, and expressed
Council's appreciation for all the many services site had
performed for them and for staff, and extended tier best
wishes for success in any future plans.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Mary Macur, 1520 Willow Road, demanded a recount of
the vote for the Oak Creek Condominium Conversion, as
she challenged the 85% approval vote which had been
announced. She asked if there existed a policy
prohibiting those living and working at Oak Creek from
voting, and how vacant apartments were counted in the
vote.
Mayor Henderson stated they were not in a position to discuss
the subject at any length that evening, but suggested that
perhaps City Attorney Abrams could briefly explain the
procedure followed by the city for verifying the Oak Creek
Conversion vote count.
Mr. Abrams said the city was in the process of verifying the
consent forms • which had been filed, seeki rid, to verify them
against the history of the apartment rents and usage presented
to them by Mr. Carey. Upon completion of the count, a random
sample of the Oak Creek residents will be taken to ensure that
those forms representing consent were in fact correct:.
Mary Macur then asked if a recount could be requested
even if the 85% approval vote-- were verified.
Mr. Abrams replied that decision would have to be made by
Council, for instance, if they believed there was some error in
the initial count z
Mayor Henderson suggested that Mary Macur leave her telephone
number with Mr. Abrams, to discuss the issue in more detail.`
2 Mi f ly Davis, 344 Tennessee Lane, read a letter from
Herb Zeman, Chairman of the Charleston -Meadows
Association, and Mr.` and Mrs. Robert . Stillman,- 474 -
West Charleston, regarding a vir-iorirce g g granted for
property located at 495. W. -Charleston. ,(A copy of
this letter, addressed t.o the City Council and dated
January 18, 1981, is on file. in the Office of the City
Clerk.) The letter requested that ,_the -variance be
declared invalid, as the tritees werenot notified,
and that Council arrAnge for a , new Public ' ieari ng and
ensure that all owners and occupants within 220 feet
were r::otified1=, The writers also suggeted; zoni n
change to require applicants to submit complete lust
of addresses to be notified.
5 5.7
1/19/81
Mayor Henderson pointed out that the .issue 'w'as an agenda item
and would be discussed later that evening.
3, Frank Manfredi, 219 Addison, was appearing belfore the
Council to air his feelings to his fellow citizens
about the dire condition of this country, as a result
of the election of _Mr. Reagan to the presidency, It
was his conviction that the election was "bought."
Among ,his suggestions were to close the banks, strip
the Savings & Loan Companies of their power, disband
'the Federal Reserve and give Congress the power to
coin money and set intorest rates.
4. Louis Fein, 1540 Oak Creek Drive, wished to make a
public objection to the City's counting of consent
votes without the converter making a proper applica-
ion - which to him consisted of, not only a set of
consents, but also the iease,'terms of the lease,
prices, etc. He believed the' procedure being followed
by the city in the Oak Creek conversion was wrong, and
that the procedure for checking consents by random
polling, as outlined by Mr. Abrams, was ridiculous.
He reiterated his suggestion that the only procedure
for ensuring legitimate consents was for the city to
take charge, and for the consents to be notarized as
rot given under duress. He said he would put these
opinions in writing for delivery to the'Council.
Mayor Henderson announced that he had beer asked to repeat that
the League of Women Voters was conducting a survey of the
number of listeners to the radio broadcast of the Council
meetings, and for listeners to call:941-8700 or 321-3246.
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27 , .1980
Correctioe's to the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of
October 27, 1980, had beers. submitted by Vice -Mayor Fletcher and
Councilmember Renzel.
MOTION: Councilmemoer Witherspoon moved, seconded by Levy,
that the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of
October 27, 1980. be approved as corrected.
MOTION PASSED: The motion passed uanarimously, Brenner,
Fazzinc'and Renzel absent.
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 30t 1980
Corrections to the minutes of the Special Council Meeting of
October 30, 1980, had been submitted by the Office of the,City
Clerk.
MOTION: Vice -Mayor :Fletcher •)moved, seconded by Witherspoon,
that the mi mutes of the Special Council Meeting of.
October 30, MO, be approved as corrected.
MOTiON PASSEL:._, The mtion passed unanimously, Brenner, Fazzino
and R"nzel absent:.
Council +iember,Eyerly had a question about, the, voting on
the ITT Consultant agreement and the funds involved, at the
Regular Counci't Meeting of Janua'y 12th. ' The memo he; had
requestedto substantiate -'the fact that five votes were
sufficient for approval of .an cr dinance had not yet been
received. He wished cl ari fi^&tion as to whether it would be
submitted, or what had been decided, in view of the documenta-
tion that the ordinance had boen,passed.
Mr. Abrams responded that the memo was in process and would he
on the agenda the following ,week. The City Clerk had been
informed that declaring the -ordinance approved was premature.
CONSLNT C.ALEliioAR --
Mayor Henderson asked that the item concerning the Final Sub-
division Map for 640 Forest Avenue be removed for continuance,
because of incomplete documentation.
None.
Refe1-ral Items
Action Items
SOLID WASTE -ENERGY RECOVERY STUDY -
EXTENSION OF CONIKACI iu Simir7 iS LIST
.11
Staff recommends that City Council, acting as General Adminis-
trator ,for the JPA=;, approve the extension to the agreement with
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company for the development of the
time -phased program requested by the JPA.
AGREEMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT N0. 4087
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT SERVICES
(Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co.)
(Resource Recovery Study, Phase
Step I)
DELETION OF INDUSTRIAL COST RECOVERY
Staff recommends that. the City Cour ci 1 adopt the resolution
deleting the ICR portion of Utility Rate ScheduleS-2 and
return to the customers revenues collected'under this rate
schedule, resulting in refunds of approximately $13,000 to
large industrial sewage dis-chargers.
RESOLUTION 5{t 7 -entitled "RESOLUTION
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING" SCHEDULE 5-2 OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES RATES AND.
CHARGES TO DELETE THE INDUSTRIAL COST
RECD '.ERY RATES FOR' LARGE' INDUSTRIAL
.SEWAGE DISCHARGERS."
2375 EAST 6AY_SHARE ROAD
DF.SI N APPROVAL -
The -P 1 ancii rig Commission and Architectural Review Board unani =
mousy of recommend approval the. application of Debra J.
Holvick"foie Site and Design Review for property located at 2375
East Bayshore Road.
Y.i ce=Mayo`, Fletcher moved, seconded
the ConsehZ Calendar as aurende4.
5 0 9
1/19/81
<WitherSpoon,
pprov'61_of
MOTION PASSED: The motion to approve the Consent Calendar
passed unanimously, Brenner, Fazzino and Renzel absent.
AGENDA CHANGES ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
1. Henderson re VAJ Appointments.
2. Henderson re Med Fly Program.
3. Henderson re Pipeline.
4277 MIRANDA AVENUE
CHANCE OF DISTRICT FROM R-1 TO R -E
WILLIAA ANTE EULA YOU FANS
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the.
application of WilliaEi and Eula Youmans for a change of dis-
trict for prcperty located at'4277 Miranda -Avenue from R -I to
R -E.'
Mayor Henderson said -he would be happy to jiear comments from
the Councilmembers about the possibility of continuing this
item, as there were only six members of the Council present.
Couiici lmember °Levy said that he had talked to the City Attorney
about possible conditional use restrictions that had not been
previously discussed before the Planning Commission. He
thought it might be better, since only six members of the
Council were present, and five votes were required -for any
action, that it be continued to a date convenient in the
future. His understanding was that there was no particular
necessity for dealing with it that, evening.
Mayor Henderson was concerned that so many members of the
public were present to discuss this item, and so much work had
been put into it; he would be very disappointed at not being
able to -speak to it. On the other hand, he could understand
that those supporting a zone change would feel they had not had
a fair hearing without a full Council to vote on it.
Vice -Mayor Fletcher was• also concerned about so many: -people
having made a effort to attend the meeting. She wondered if it
would be possible for them to.proceed ati4, if the rezoning were
to fail, to agendiie the item in a few weeks.
City Attorney Abrams responded
poi►ded that this was not feasible., If
the application for rezoning failed, it would have to return to
the Planning Commission as a. new application. If there were
not sufficient votes to pass the ordinance that evening,. and
the Council did not tie s -3, so that there: were no other
,.options available to the Council, such as continuance, etc.,
then the application would he fi nal ti•y denied and would have to
be submitted as`a new item.
V i ceMayor :Fletcher said she, was still reluctant to continue
the item, .,until she heard, the arguments* -°- Shethought she; would
prefer to pt oceed, . rather " than disappoint the rna,ny 'residents'
who wer there for .that -matter. She suggested stopping short
of taking a vote there did not seem to be ..enough .support.
Mayor Henderson asked the audience for a show of hands of those
attendi nq for that item. The result was, qu i te a number of
people.
Councilrnember Eyerly asked if -the public hearing could be held
that evening and then continue the item to a later meeting.
Mayor Henderson believed , there were two alternatives: (1) the
item could.be continued immediately without any public input,
holding the discussion with public hearing at a later date, or
(21. conduct- a public hearing that evening -and continue the
discussion. and vote tc 'a later date. He asked. Mr. Abrams if he
was assuming ,correctly that Council could rule that -the public
had been heard and not have to -reopen a public hearing.
Mr. Abrams replied that would be permissible, as this was not
technically a Public Hearing -• that had been held by the
Planning Corrirnission.------1he Council__-i.ai ample discretion in
scheduling public input.
Counci lmember Eyerly interjected that, with -those comments, he
would favor hearing those members of the public in attendance;
if Council did •decide to continue --the Item, this could be done
without more public input.
Counci lriierrrber Levy asked City Manager Zaner if he had a date to
recommend for continuing the item. Mr. Zaner recommended
February 2nd.
MOTION: Counci lmerrrber rLevy moved, .seconded by Bechtel , to
continue to February 2, 1981, -the item regarding the appl i ca-
tion of.Willlam and Eula Youmans for change of zoning from R�1-
to R -E for property located at 4277 Miranda Avenue.
Ccuncilmember Bechtel explained her reasons for seconding the
lotion - that she understood how inconvenient it was for the
members cf the public to :turn out for a meeting, but continuing
after hearing their input was a fair approach -for -them and for
the Council.
Vice -Mayor Fletcher was still reluctant to continue the natter.
One of the reasons wes that some of the Councilmembers had some
new approaches to the problem or new ideas about the type of
conditions to Impose, and she felt these should''be aired.
Those having a direct interest will not know what the Council
Sri €l address, if they leave after the public hearing that
evening.
Counci lmember Levy asked if she was suggesting that Council
discuss the item first, and then determine whether to`continue
it. He felt it would be a disservice to the public to have
their input that evening and then not to vote; if there was to
be public input, they should go ahead with the vote.
Mayor Henderson commented that he Would be able to make a
better judgement ife,he had an idea of the votes, in terms of
whether oelay was really worthwhile when the votes were there
anyway. He asked some members of the public very directly
involved to state their preference about continuing the item.
Arthur Ri nsky, 885 Moana Court, strongly preferred the hearing
and a decision of the matter that evening. He explained that
it was difficult to gather people to attend a meeting when the
financial effect' was not =direct; they were all there,_had
written -ti'e letters, attended to Jthe Planning Commission
requirements, kind would like to have their hearing that
evening. He thought he spoke for the neighbors, but, in the
interests of fairness, asked those who agreed with him_to
stand up.
5 7 1
1/19/81
There appeared to be emphatic agreement among the public that
the matter be discus ed that evening. Mayor Henderson stated
that the preference of the public was obvious.
Steve Player, 2370 Tasso, was representing the applicant, the
Mental Health Management Institute. He spoke for voting for
Continuance, as there were only six members of the Council
present. He felt this was an issue deserving the attention of
the full Council - an issue sensitive not only to the
neighbors, but to his client, so that he could continue to
operate at that particular site and deliver the kind of
services to this community that it wished to deli.ver to the
elderly of the community. He thought the three absent members
of the Council should hear the public input and cast their
vote.
Councilriember Eyerly asked the Assistant City Clerk Office if,
should Council vote for continuance, that section -ef yi%e.
;ni nutes of the present meeting would be -available for -
consideration by the absent Counci i,embers.
Assistant City Clerk Shirley Poitras replied that the minutes
would be made available if needed, even if out of sequence.
!Mayor Henderson interjected • that there was al So the- alternative
of abstracting justethe ,pertinent portion.
MOTION FAILED: The motion to -continue to -February 2nd the item
re change of district for 4277 Miranda Avenue' from R-1 to R -E
failed on the following vote:
AYES: Bechtel, Levy
NOES: Eyerly, Fletcher, Henderson, Witherspoon
ABSENT: Brenner, Fazzino, Renzel
640 FOREST AVENUE
' I 4AL SUBD IV IS l.oN MAP
Mayor Henderson had removed this item from the Consent Calendar
for continuance, because no material hadbeen turned in at that
point regarding this matter.
MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Levy,
the item until receipt ef meteriel=
MOTION PASSED: The motion passed on,a unanimous vote, Brenner,
Fazzino, Renzel absent.
PUBLIC HEARING:
3UUi t UUN-IRY CLUB COURT
PRECIMINARY FATCEL MAP,
7717A707,TRIT—TU157-0TATo. (CMR :104 :1 )
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-3 (Commissioners
Christensen,, Cullen and McCowan-Hawkes opposed) recommends
'approval;of theapplication of Richard and Judy Bogard for
approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map (with exceptionsf for
property located at 3003 Country Club Curt
Staff recommends that the City -Council either approve or"deny_,
the Preliminary Parcel. Map applicationbased upon the :physical
suitability of the lot for developent _a'`d, rot makefuture
development subject to architectural review by either the City
or a nearby homeowners association.
to continue
Mr.,Abrams explained that site and design review did not
currently' apply to this particular parcel. Recognizing, in
reading the Planning Commission minutes, that this was a
cPuc al issue for the neighbors, the City Attorney's office
sought to evaluate how the Council could possibly impose that
kind of site and design review, and concluded that this must be
done through a rezoning of the property. The question was
whether Council; ,wished to consider the map at that time and
have the rezoning subsequentiy (not preferred by the City
Attorney's Office), or to continue the matter and consider the
map th'Freafter, if rezoned to a "G" designation.. Continuance
would nave to be with the applicant's concurrence, however,
because of the 30 -day time limit.
Mayor Henderson confirmed that rezoning involved a new applica-
tion, He suggested that Council hear public testimony, and
then decide whether or not to continue the item.
Robert Beetle, 2944 Alexis Drive, felt there were only two
issues of substance involved: (1) Should the one -acre average
lot size for the original subdivision be maintained, and (2)
was the proposed new lot suitable for building? Regarding the
first issue, he felt that the intent of the original Planning
Commission and the decision of the original City Council was
that the lets_ should be kept to a one -acre average. He felt
the second ovssue was really -the key. It was significant:_to him
that the three Pla.nning.Commissioners who voted against`--
appeoval were the three who_ had actually visited the site. He
suggested Council continue the hearing until they inspect the
site for suitability for building.
Dick'Bogard, 4162 Crosby Court, said his family had purchased
the site a year ago, a home on two acres. They were there that
night to ask approval of their prel i rni nary parcel map
application. In preparing the application: a soils report
indicated bedrock 12-18 inches below surface, a civil engineer
report sited a house on the lot without extensive cutting, a
landscape architect determined that the location for the house
would not impact the screening vegetation. Of all the adjacent
neighbors, including six immediately adjacent, nine, in Country
Club Court, and 14 others in the subdivision, none were present
to voice objections at the Planning Commission hearing. Three
:others who view the house did object. There was some confusion
'caused by the lack of architectural drawings, because they did
not have immediate plans for building a house. Theytherefore
hired Ronald Harris, an architect, to draw up preliminary plans
which would speak particularly to the style, location, and
impact of the proposed house. He hoped these plans, which had
been provided to Counci 1, would: clear up any confusion and
prove the lot was extremely suitable for -building.
Ronald Harris, Triangle Associates of Palo' Alto, ` had ,prepared
the architectural drawing of the proposed building, which he
felt_ showed the lot could definitely take a• house without
crowding ordestroying,.the covering trees.
Planning Commission Chairman Fred Nichols wished to correct..
for the record, a comment made by one of the.. speakers „that only
-three of -the,-Planning Commissioners (those who had recommended
disapproval) had vi s.;ted the site.. 'i e,.knew;„ of_ at least = two_
others_w,:o ad The P1 anni 4g Commi ssi sin s pol i c was for all
of the Planning Commissioners to attempt to visit all of the
sites.
5 7 3
1/19/81
Councilmember Eyerly asked about another driveway he noted on
the Preliminary Parcel Map, located on the lower part of the
property with an easement across two lots at the bottom.
Bob Brown, P-'anni ng-Department, replied that the driveway was
currently abandoned. Apparently it had originally been used as
secondary access.
Councilmember Bechtel asked staff what was the average slope of
Parcel "B,"
Mr, Brown answered that the slope on Parcel "b-" was between, 15
and 30 %, the 30% toward the iior'theast. The buildable area was
.on a 15 to 20% slope.
Councilmember Eyerly said it seemed to him that two issues were
Involved: (1) whether Council felt the property should be
subdivided, and (2),whether the property should go to site and
design review. He suggested a vote on the issue of subdivi-.
sion. If that motion failed, then site and design review would
be called for at a later date.
MOTION: C ounci lnrember Eyerly moved, _seconded by Levy to
reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the
application for subdivision of the property.
Vice -Mayor Fletcher said she had visited the site, which was
unusually steep, with dense vegetation-, and viewable from
across the valley. What concerned her at that point, however,
was the findings Council must make in order to grant the
subdivision. From the record, the applicant had stated he did
not intend to build for 20-30 years, and the purpose of the
subdivision was to increase his credit rating for his current
employment. She did not see that kind of reason for granting
the subdivision.. She felt the general welfare should be
considered rather than the applicant's credit rating. -
Mayor Henderson asked Mr. Abrams if there was anything to
prevent the applicant from reapplying for a su;di v i si on at a
future date, and what the time limit was.
Mr. Abrams answered the time restriction was one year. He then
asked Counci lmembe4_ Eyerly if his motion also included a
finding that the proposed site was not suitable for the type of
development proposed, as this was required for denial. This
finding, along with inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan,
was probably the most applicable to the issue.
Councilmember Eyerly said his motion would deny. the division of
the parcel because of the nature of the original subdivision
and the lowering„ of the acreage of the parcels to an average of
less than one acre. He d -id ;not feel he was in a position to
decide on the suitability or unsuitability of the building
site, because he dial not have the material:
Councilmember Bechtel agreed that the'sproperty was unsuitable
for development. She was sympathetic with the property owner;
however: (1) the original ,development .i n 1964 was . a gross 15
acres, with an average .of ,one acre per lot, though she did
understand that some of the lots were somewhat seal l er than one
acre, 1; -) ,the felt .that a 15 to 30 X slope was too -steep, (3)
,she understood from the',staff report that the area was a' fairly
high -risk' zone as ` far as earthquake hazard, and (4) the amount.
of ,'vegetation inthe "areas
5 7
1/19/81
Councilmember Witherspoon decl ared herself .a 'majority of one-."
She had.come to.the same conclusions from the same data as
everyoneelse. She did wish there was an ordinance proscribing
certain developments based on the.slope of the land.,- and on
earthquake and fire hazards. However, she did not feel justi-
fied in denying subdivision based on the ord1nance presently in
effect. She noted that Councilmember Eyerly had pointed out
that, When the area had been oriyinally subdivided into 14 lots
in -1964-, some were larger and some smaller. The staff report
of December 17th pointed out that the Council, in 1964,
discussed this and decided not to change the dimensions of the-
lot so as to preclude future subdivision.. She had to assume,
therefore-, that theyr di d not agree with the recornu endati ons of
their staff report at that time that the lot should never be
subdivided. Although She would —Very much like to see engineer-
ing studies in the kind of control that design review would
give this development;- she would vote against the motion on the
floor.
Councilmember Levy said that Vice -Mayor Fletcher and Council -
member Bechtel had stated his feelings on this matter very
well. He did wish to mention that he had visited the site, as
he had visited all the sites presently under consideration.
Mr. Bogard said he appreciated the Counci lmembers bringing up
the point of the previous Council action, because the Council
in 1964 did speci`ically consider whether that particular lot
should`be brought. down in size, so as to preclude the
possibility of future subdivision. Both the Planning
Commission and the City Council decided to leave it as it was,
Regarding the vegetation and suitability of the lot, he really
believed that the documentation which had been provided, at a
yreat deal of effort and expense, did prove the suitability of
the site"for building. 'He.also reiterated that none of the
neighbors - those immediately adjacent, -on -the street, or in
the subdivision, had registered _any objections to the proposed
subdivision. He urged the -Council to approve his application.
MOTION PASSED: The Motion to re'varse the Planning Commission
decision and deny the application for subdivision passed on the
following vote:
AYES: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fletcher, Henderson;.: Levy
NOES: Witherspoon
ABSENT: Brenner, Fazzi no,, Renzel.
3666 EL CAMINO REAL
tgtPT ON FROM NiiT ONF"ORMI NG USE
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 5-1 (Commissioner Heneke
opposed'.', recommends..denial of the application of Kent Emigh
for an exception from the nonconforming use termi'nat i on
provisions for property located at 3666 El Camino Real.
Mayor Henderson commented that. -he had intended to state the
vote requirement for each item; Ahis item required a . majority
vote of those` counci members .present:
Linda Pocan, 410 Sheridan, said that the exten,ion requested oy
Mr. Emigh was an extension of the business that Was his l tvei i -
hood. ' Ne was not asking for rezoning,: batonly for a very
reasorabl a period of time to continue the perati nn of his
5 7 5
1/19/81
business. His nearest neighbors were supporting his applica-
tion, and she felt it only fair for the Cound.i1 to give him a
fair hearing and consider his request.
Donald Davis,, 1410 University, an attorney with the Firm of.
Fenwick, Stone, Davis .and West, was there .as an individual
supporter of Kent Emigh. He had appeared.en numerous previous
occasions before Council, strongly supporting a residential
point of view. However, he felt there were certain occasions
when it was necessary to consider the individual needs of
particular property owners. He was very familiar with M.
Emigh's establishment, which he found definitely acceptable
within the context of the residential. attitude and overall city,
pol cy. Mr. Davis asserted, that Mr. Emigh was -one of the few
businessmen in Palo Alto who had attempted to comply strictly
with all,the city's zoning ordinance, and was ahead of his
titre, in fact., in making his building consistent with the land
use of the, area. He therefore urged that the 10 -year extension
be granted --to Mr. Emigh.
Aldena Duval, 707 Florales Drive, was speaking on behalf of
Michel le Emigh, the applicant's daughter, who was very con-
cerned that her father be allowed to maintain his integrity as
an individua_1 and i:is benefit to' the community as ,proprietor of
Auto Sport, Ltd. She was supporting his application, not just
because he was her father+, but because he was a human being who
struggled lawfully,; within this country's system of free enter-
prise, to establish an ethical, contributing business, which he
should be allowed to continue.
Sarah Black, 783 Cereza Drive, in the Barron Park area, adja-
cent to the Auto Sport, Ltd., first expressed her concern with
the zoning regulations and the beautification of E1 Camino. A
canvassing of the Barron Park community surrounding her
neighborhood had revealed a strong consensus for supporting Mr.
Eniyh's business, considering it a beautiful place and
representing 30 years of his life's work. She read a petition,
with 250 signatures, asking the Council to grant Mr. Emigh a
reasonable amount of 'time to amortize his investment by
approving his application for a ten year extension beyond the
termination date. The Barron Park Community had another
request: that the Coueicil organize and/or appoint a.committee
to deal with the entire real problem of El Caminoi that is,
from Menlo P -ark to Los Altos/Mountain View, made up of
representatives_ from business, residents of close _.proximity,
other residents, Chamber of Commerce real estate, and the City
Council It cras their conviction that this issue affected
peopl e' s`' l i ves, livelihood and future, and -should not be dealt
with piecemeal,.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, reminded Council that the central issue
was the neighborhood/commercial zone, which had beengiven
months of consideration duri bg the development ,of the Compre-
hensive Plan. The intent was to upgrade El Camino Real, and to
protect residential 'neighborhoods around other nei ghhorhodd/
commercial zones, such as Charleston, Midtown, and Alma Plaza.
He ='pointed out that zoning rests with the land, and not with
the individual, that this should be kept _ in mind when
considering individual cases, and recalled the two similar
reques,ts., ih-recent weeks which had been._ denied He .asked that
Counci�i uphold the Planning: Commission's, recommendation, deny
the"extension; and preserve the integrity of the neighborhood/
commercial zone, in the hopes 'of eventually improving the
overall quality nf. El;Camino.
5 7 6
1/19-/81
Don Coop, 10900 Wolfe Road,. Cupertino, working at Hewlett/
Packard, had known Mr. Emigh far a number —of years. He could
only speak of his integrity in the way he ran his business; he
could dot' think of a finer business in the area, and -felt it
would be a travesty of justice to deny him his right to
continue his business in the fashion he had in„*he past.
Edward-Cuidaux, 1375 University Avenue, #2, had been.a resident
of Palo Alto for close to 60 years. It was inconceivable to
him that different blocks of the same area would have different
-types of zcning;;-to say, in other words, that one man could
stay in business in an area, and, just a block away, another
man could not hae that business. He did not see how that
could be compatible with commercial zoning along E' Camino
Real. A former speaker had compared El Camino Real with
neighborhood shopping centers - there could be no comparison.
El Camino Real was commercial/business from one end to the
other, just by the nature of the fact that it was a through
highway. He thought the whole situation should be reconsid-
ered, and that commelrcial zoning should be restored to the
area.
Kent Emigh, 3666 El Camino, owner of Auto Sport, Ltd, recapped
the background of his business: In ]972, he had met with the
City of Palo Alto, in a desire to'make his home in Palo Alto
and invest his life savings into a new business, and he had
followed the city instructions exactly in building. Now, a few
years later, by some strange "bodge-podge" his, whole life's
work was to be destroyed. He had tried to .deal with this for
the past four years; he was getting weary of this and he felt
this was the intent of the City staff. He could not understand
the rationale behind the concern of one or two of the residents
- it seemed to him that, if they put all of their -effort into
the ugly quonset huts, junkyards, disco bars on either side of
his business, and try to clear up this whole zoning mess once
and for _all, everyone would have a much happier place to live
in.
Frank Crist, 550 Hamilton Avenue, attorney for Kent Emigh, said
he understood the desire for consistency in zoning patterns,
but wished to remind Council that they were dealing with human
beings. Six years ago, Mr. Emigh was allowed, under the City's
ordinances and zoning laws, to invest his life savings, and
build a business that was to be his livelihood. Mr. Crist—did
not think they could detach themselves from a nice zoning map
that would appear to be clean and orderly, without really
looking at the human factor i n this case. Mr. Emigh was a man
of European descent to.whom building one's business on his
piece of property way really one of life's goals, and this
problem was seriously affecting his health. Hewas given the
right in 1972 to participate in his life's dream; now, eight,
years later, an ordinance tells him that after 1992Ae would no
longer be al l owe:'to continue his dream. They:, were `Only
talking about an additional ten years - he did not feel that
was too much to grant an individual, especially one Itho
conducted a very ,fine business in a very fine edifice, and who
was strongly supported by his neighbors, with at least 250
signatures. He begged the Council to consider the individual,
becau=e there were exceptions to every rule and -they must deal
with the human factor.
Robert Br.azington, 197 California Street 122, Mountain View,:
works for; Varian`\AsSociates in Palo Alto, drives _down El Camino
every day, and sees the buildings_ which are allowed to continue
in their use, and Mr. Emigh's building. He felt that, if we
b 7 ---7
1./19/81
must have this type of zoning to clean up El Camino to lock
better, then we should really look at the buildings we are
"cleaning up."
Don Lucas, 511 Cliff Drive, Aptos, was in a related business to
Mr. Emigh's in Santa Cruz. He was just starting out in his
business and was a member of the Federation of Independent
Businessmen there. He first expressed his appreciation of..
Council's willingness to study "spot" zoning on El Camino. In
conjunction with this issue, they strongly recommended that Nir.
Emigh,.owner of Auto Sport Ltd., be granted a ten-year exten-
sion to operate his busi nes,s as it exists. In 1972 the City of
Palo Alto approved Mr. Emigh's property on El Camino Real for
use in a highly specialized auto sales and service operation.
This past commitment represents a reasonable and equitable
solution -to his current nonconforming use status. A lifetime
investment of years and dedicated hard work were at stake; a
ten -near extension to operate, until the year 2003, would allow
Mr. Emigh to amortize his business and defray some of his
losses resulting from the arbitrary down -zoning of his prop-
erty.
George Parry, 510 Barron Avenue, resides in property adjoining
Mr. Emigh's business. This was the second time he was appear-
ing for Mr. Eni_i.gh; the previous time was before .the Planning
Corninission. He wished .to point out the different views of
those who had visited the site. Commissioner Cullen had stated
a month ago that she was appalled that the area had not been
landscaped. He wondered that she had not seen the 30-40 foot
Monterey pines growing there, and submitted a photograph show-
ing the landscaping. A section in the Planning Commission
recomniendations concerned their ideas for the property, includ-
iny the construLti on of a 6 -foot masonry wall, of appropriate
color to enclose the entire yard. He strongly objected -to
that, his view was now of Monterey pines; -,f of 1 owi ng their
recommendation would give him a view of a gall. He felt that
somehow things were being done for his protection, when he and
Mr. Emigh work together very well as neighbors. These kinds of
restrictions seem to be a mounting kind of situation for him
and his business. He was sure, Council will be -�confr•onted with
problems to do with nei hborh'ood/commercial zoning many times,
but in this particular case and his particular property, Par.
Emigh was the ideal ri.eighbor. He wo;:1„d hate to see what could
possibly replace. that*business under the C/Ii :zoning. They (the
neighborhood) will probably have to fight this battle again
with the property across the street, where the Council, the
Planning Commission and'the ARB approved a project that'fits
within the C/N ,zoning, but which the residents felt to be
totally absurd. He recommended the Council approve the request
fur a ten-year extension,'not only to protect Mr. Emigh's _
rights, but his rights as a neighbor.
John Marquis, 3511 Ross Road, a clinical Psychiatrist, and a
customer and friend of Mr. Emigh, attested to what .an adverse
effect the situation was having on 'Mr. Emigh's emoti_ on"al
health-. Mr. Marquis was a::20 -year resident of this area-, was
;interested ire envi ronmental concerns, had been on the Board of
Directors of._the Ecology _Center Foundation in Berkeley, was a
former Chairman of the Mid -Peninsula -Chapter of:the American
Ci Sri 1 Li bertf es .t�ni orz. He thought ---that .,what needed to be:
considered„ was, not a spot .ors a map whi chi :died not neatly"
_correspond'to the zoning changes that -have-b en ,made. What
-must be ke te n .i °nu was chat We were al;( human beings, = t_al ki ng
about a human- being's Ai.fe and ambitions, goals and plans, that
no one was 's"uggesti ng even they the zoning be returned, hack Ao'
C-3 - it was simply a scatter of asking for an extension so that
a man could end his :professional .and working life with di g-
rr t y •
Aaron Goodman, 5535 Pine Lane, Los Altos, read a letter he had
written to the City Council. He believed extension of time
requested by Mr. Erni gh to run his bus i ness , Auto Sport , Ltd.,
on El Camino Real, reasonable and fa3.r. His main concern was
with the City -of Pato o Alto, its neighbors, and himself. The
job of the City Council was 1.o attempt to provide an environ-
Ment for a good life in Palo Alto, to ensure the protection of
peoples rights, and in general to improve the quality of life
for.the residents.. It was his opinion that, in the case of
Auto Sport, Ltd., they were not doing that - somehow they
seemed to feel_ that heavy-handed following of the letter of the
law was 'getter than a realistic look at the intent. Auto Sport
Ltd. served the interests of Palo Alto; it improved, not
detracted, from the city. It .was a bu i ness which served the
neighborhood, particularly when compared to many others along
the E1 Camino. If Auto Sport, Ltd. was not allowed to con-
tinue, he himself would be personally affected, because he` was
not only a loyal customer but a friend. There were of course
other sources of service, but none he cared to use. Auto Sport
was one of the reasons that the Mid -Peninsula was a great place
to iive. He begged the Council not to "kill that goose."
Jeff Wach e_l , 3685 Whi tsel l , on the same.,, bl ock where Mr.
Emigh's business was located, drove by it twice a day. As a
neiyhbor who was familiar with the neighborhood and how it had
developed,.he supported Mr. i:miyh's petition for a ten- year
extension on his opportunity to continue his business there.
It seemed to him, that, as an -individual businessman, Mr. Emigh
should at leas: be allowed that simple opportunity, after he
had acted in good faith in _1972 to comply with the Council's
wishes _in terms of the architecture and layout of his property.
He felt that it. behooved the Council to spend their time
upgrading the other bui ld i;.gs along that stretch of .E1 Camino,
as other speakers had mentioned, than discussing Mr. Emigh's
zoning. Mr. Emigh deserved to stay there, he' was a good
neighbor, and he would like to see him stay.
B.'"t}ahl is Mr. Emigh's neighbor on the corner of Kendall and El
Camino, the owner of a cleaner -establishment and the lot
-behind. His main concern, besides the concept of the beautifi-
cation of El Camino (and it seemed to him that Mr. Emigh's '
establishment far exceeded any of the requirements for a
beautiful, clean business) , was :the idea of "spot" zoning,
allowing the larye number of "ratty" -looking enterprises under
the, present law. He saw a great deal of controversy arising
over the whole area, and envisioned even more in the not too
distant future. Until' the -=issue is completely resolved, he did
not see_ any reason why Mr. Emigh should not be allowed to -
continue -with hit -business, as it added to the neighborhood,
and he would hate to see someY'disco" replace it.
Gertis_Mathews, 38t Curtner, works at Varian Associates, had
known ;Kent Emigh :for many years and' expressed his opinion that..
the Auto--Spor.t,Ltd. afforded the community sorfe aesthetic
_beauty 4nd sincerity., He .felt .that,- if the City Council
rejected the -request for extension, they would have failed
themselves and the .community
Mt=. Harrison, 27744 Lupine. Road, had lived in Palo Alto for
over 50 years. _Me, had had a few exposures to Aui;u'Sport, Ltd.,
and he was throwing his support toward the granting of the
5.7 9
1/1/81
ten-year extension.. Fie had never been in business for himself,
but he knew whet a blow it would be to hint, saving "nickles and
dimes" to upgrade a building, then to be told by a group that
the building could not be used after a particular year.
Whether or not he retrieved. his :money, he would be demoralized.
Therefore, he had empathy for Mr. Emigh, and was giving him his
support
David JFeeny, 4056 Park Boulevard, the past president of the
Ventura Neighborhood Association, recalled the many discussions
regarding E1 Camino durinC the formation of the Comprehensive
Plan. He cited the- land use map .as the end rosult of those
discussions. He did not doubt that Mr..., Emigh-was a fine
businessman and that his Awsiness was an, asset, but he felt it
unfair to the other businessmen to allow "spot zoning." He
_pointed out the inclusion of the neighborhood/commercial zone
as one of the more lauded of the Comprehensi-re Plan; one of the
features of this -zonee-was that it had to be contiguous. He
urged the Council to uphold the Planning Commission's upholding
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Sara Mau, 3102 David Avenue, resident of Palo Alto and an
employee at .Varian Associates for the past 1#s gears, had known
Kent Emigh for a long time. He exhorted -Council to consider
the human factor - by a stroke of a pen, the city wanted to
take away a man's business. Mr. Emigh was just asking for a
short extension; he thought this should be given serious con-
sideration. Auto Sport. was an asset to the community, and Mr.
Emigh had a longstanding reputation for reliability. He begged
the Council to reconsider permitting him to stay on for the
extended time he asked for.
Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, read the names of a few
pople from the Ventura neighborhood who could not attend that
evening, but who wished to express their support of the Council
upholding the Comprehensive Plan and denying the extension.
She went on to state that the place for auto repair, ;in Palo
Alto was in the C-3 zone, pointing out a large, area \,i n the
former Maximart site. She repeated the many arguments for
keeping El Camino a neighborhood/commercial zone, closed with a
warning that the city would leave themselves open. to a lawsuit
if they made an exception for this particular owner.
San Sparck, 4099 Laguna was representing the Board of the -
Barron Park Association, that was another .e1 em&nt of the Barron
Park community that ‘did not agree with the previous speaker.
The Barron Park area was a 1ai'ge neighborhood consisting of
over, .1500 homes. They .asked that the request for the extension
of termination be denied. He read a letter sent to the Council
by the Board, dated January 15, 1981 (a copy of which is on
file in the Office of the City Clerk), , asking the Council to
avoid *spot zoning,* to be consistent with past votes on
auto -related business, and to uphold the Comprehensive Plan.
Ernest Anderson, 3780 El Camino Real, owner of a business:
across the street. from Auto Sport, Ltd, recalled that, when the
new zoning was in planning approximately ten years, they had
had several =,,notifications. 'He had not attended the meetings on
this issue, because he had not realized it would turn out to be
residential, His p,rouerty was now neighborhood/commercial and
onconforming, but he did not intend to move, he had improved`
the front of his building. Mr. Emigh'hod 'guilt his edifice:',
with permits and approval plant, before the new zoning went
into effect: and .he lair, no reason why such a good application.
of building and lane caging should, not be given an additional
ten years. He himself was nonconforming - he .did not know what
"ronforiiing" would really be in a commercial neighborhood,
because it was not possible to park on El ___Camino to enter a
drugstore or barbershop.- He pointed out that the Manning
Commission was ca';�abl a of error... but the Council did not ha°fe
to duplicate that mistake. He strongly urged theca to grant the
ten-year extension.
Mayor Henderson said there were two basic facts that Council
could not ignore: (1) Both the Council and the banning
Commission did spend years studying the El Camino problem, with
input from all elements of the community Over a lung period_ of
time, and the outcome was the rezoning of segments of El Camino
Real to neighborhood/commercial. (2) The Council recently
ruled on two other automobile uses in the neighborhood/commer-
cial zone.
Any change of zoning brought with it at least two etremely
difficult problems:
(1) -Placing limitations, in this case amortization, on existing
businesses. It_ -was not pleasant to seemingly abit.rarily close
out a person's private business, ess, yet they had an obligation to
the public welfare. In the case of the neighborhood/commercial
zoning, it Was to correct an unpleasant, unsightly situation in
our city. Therefore, in taking this step for the public good,
what was thought to be a fair amortization period was set - a'
15 year period to alleviate individual I-iardship. The city
either had to follow through on the neighborhood/commercial
zoning, or reverse that basic policy. They were in .great
trouble if they -acceded to. one person's request and not to,
another's. Many businesses in that area.were being amortized
under the neighborhood/commercial zoning.`.
(2) To rUle out a certain business establishment, when even
less desirable similar businesses existed nearby. Unfortu-
nately, -.-that was difficult to avoid, because the zone lines
must, be drawn somewhere. If any mistake was made in this area,
it may well have been in not extending the neighborhood/commer-
cial zone a greater distance along El Camino. He did not like
ruling against Mr. Emigh, but they had to follow their policy,
or rescind it, He did think Mr. -En1i gh had a very valuable
property, including a building easily converted to other uses
compatible with neighborhood/commercial zoning, and tliat.`he
would not sufferthe loss of his investment in that property.'
These were -extremely difficult decisions, but, based on the
city having established a policy over years of study, "he just
did not see any alternative. With that in mind, he would make
the following:motion:
MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fletcher, that the
Council uphold the Planning Commission recommendation and deny
the application df Kent Emigh for an extension of ten years
beyond the nonconforming use termination date.
Counci lmember Eyerly had a few questions for staff, and thought
perhaps some of the comments,mi ght help explain to the audience
the reasons behind some of the past actions He noted in. the
Planning Commission minutes for October 29th, that a motion had
been made ,for amortization of the ' building. 'He confirmed that
this was really an"err'ot,, because the,; amortization applied to
the business.- He commented that - he was sure the` -;amortization
schedule given was fair from the, staffers. viewpoint, but asked
for the source of the schedule, and the rationale behind the
figure of 15 years.
L
George Zimmerman Principal Planner, replied that the 15 -year
period was generally similar to the amortization schedule that
had been established in a. previous ordinance, and was based
upon two thi ngse (1) the type of°'constructi'on, from fully
fireproof.(Type 1) to wood -frame (Type 5), in which a
nonconforming use was housed; and (2) the date of the
construction. For example, illustrating the two extremes: A
fully fireproof (Type 1), newly built car->truction housing, in
1978, a nonconforming use, would be given a termination period
of 35 years, not for the building, but for the use. At the
other end of the scale, for a 50 -year old, wood frame building,
housing a use which became nonconforming in 1978, the minimum
termination period was 15 years.
Counci lmember Fyerly was not sure he agreed with that type of a
schedule - relating the amortization period for a businness to_
tine type of construction housing the use did not seem really
equitable. Regarding the precedence -for amortization
extensions, he noted there had been one or two cases where
extensions had been granted. He remembered one as being the
Animal Care Unit, -and asked staff if they remembered any
other s, and for-- iJie reasons- why -the amortization on the Pet
Clinic had been extended.
Mr. Zimmerman answered that three exceptions had been granted
to date: (I) The El Camino Veterinary Hospital for a 20 -year
extension, the reasons cited being the community need and t'le
willingness of the applicant to meet the conditions set fo,r::'
in granting that extension. In addition, the effect on
adjacent uses was giver, because the new residential had
already located adjacent to the hospital prior to the time it
became nonconforming, so the Commission and -Council agreed that
the veterinary hospital did not have an adverse affect on
surrounding -uses that were otherwise consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Masuda Transmission, which covered part of one lot of a
neighborhood/commercial zone on El Camino Way. The scale of
the operation was considered small and the adjacent uses on El
Cans i no Way were al -read r�ei hborhood commercial .
J y g / ,The rear
portion of that parcel remained nonconforming, therefore still
subject to termination, and that- was considered a buffer with
the multiple -family residential zone behind.
(3) Peninsula Creamery at two sites: the,milk-processing
plant on Alma Street, and the .Ace cream -processing plant on
Homer. This exception was granted for the life of the use.
Counci lmentber Eyerly asked what the age of the property was on.
the auto -related use, Masuda Transmissions.
Mr. Zimmerman replied that the building Was wood frame and
about 2.0 years ._old; the use therefore had a 15 -year life. It
was the belief of the Commission in voting to . grant that
exception that, given the neighborhood/commercial character of
the adjacent uses, most likely the market forces would dictate
the changing of that use within the next 15 or 20 years
anyway.
Councilmember Eyeriy'emphasized that the exception was,granted
on a wood -frame building: H. further emphasized that .excep-
tions °had: -been granted for extensions to the 'amortization
period for a variety of reasons. He asked if there was any
reason, from the staff's standpoint, why an exception should
not be granted for a hardship case. From what he -heard from
Mr. Emigh, the -'problem was not --that the property could not be
rented, but his health condition was such that he wished to
sell his business.-. It was not the fear of the building being
used at some future date for another use - the hardship
complaint was based on health reasons.. Mr. Cmigh wanted t'u
reciver his investment from a business he had built up over a
long period of time. He did not wish to continue it for the
amortization period, but wanted to sell the business. He had
already had one experience of not being able to sell because of
the amortization period imposed on it. He asked staff if they
had' any comments regarding this kind of reason for granting an
amortization extension.
Mr. -Zimmerman replied that the nonconforming use tcrmi r:ati on
provisions in the zoning ordinance required that the findings
of staff, the Commission and Council determine -whether the
applicant use was compatible with adjacent uses that ,were
otherwise consistent with, and not detrimental to, the Compre-
hensive Plan. There was no provision calling for hardship; the
issue to address was only the compatibility of the use with the
djacent uses.
Councilmember Eyerly affirmed then that there seemed to be no
provision made for hardship cases. He suggested trying for an
exception on the grounds of compatibility, and quoted Mr.
Zimmerman from the Planning Commission minutes of October 29th
as mentioning in the motion of giving the extension, that
certain precautions should be taken to preclude other undesir-
able businesses taking over, suggesting that, if there were an
extensio ; of the nonconformance, it should go through A.R.E..
for review of design and landscaping, and that the hours of
operation -should be made to conform with the neighborhood hours
of operation for adjacent uses. It seemed to\him those.were
reasonable conditions to place on an extension of a
nonconforming use. Regarding the fears expressed regarding the
possibility of the property becoming a gas station or a
junkyard, should the Council decide to grant the extension,
Counci lmernber Eyerly asserted that it appeared to him it would
be possible to prevent that by placing limitations on the
amount of gas to be stored there, -and prohibiting the storage
of wrecked, non -value automobiles. He asked for comments.
Mr. Zimmerman explained that .the comments quoted by Council --
member Eyerly were in response to questionsby the Commission,
when they were exploring the. possibilii_y of granting an exten-
sion for the applicant at that meeting. The Comms.sion then
vote -L to continue the item fr another two weeks, . so as_. to
:evaluate the application further. His comments at that time
were suggestions`t:hat, if the Commission did consider recom-
mending either granting an- exception or an extension to the
termination period,, they apply _coed i t°ions similar to those
which had'Fbeen applied to other nonconforming Uses for which
they had recommended an exception.
Councilmember Eyerly asked if it would be possible to preclude
the . nonconforming business, if it were granted a ten-year
extension, from being replaced by other undesirable uses, such
as those already mentioned.
Mr. Zimmerman replied that :i t would ` be possible to prohibit ,411
undesirable uses mentione, excet that,; the pity could not
set restrictions on the type of automuui ies i}n a business..
5 8 3
1/11/81_
Councilrnember Eyerly thought that, with the restrictions which
could be placed on the nonconforming use, and'taking into
account the hardship case, Council should extend- the noncon-
forming use. There had been many witnesses that evening
testifying that Autcj' Sport was of value to the comruni ty and to
the immediate neighborhood. He had other fears about the
neighborhood/commercial zone which he had previously expressed:
It was a neW zone; they were not sure it would work; a consid-
erable amount of space on El Camino had changed to that zoning
because of the insistence of the neighborhood. He was not
against it, but in this case, ha would hate to close out -the
business with the type of support it had, until they had ample
time to study the effect of changing that area to a neighbor-
hood/commercial zone. They may well experiern.ce, in about five
or ten years, the necessity for expansion of the uses permitted
in that zone because of the -inability to rent the property for
the allowed uses. This was a fear of his because the drawing
area was not very large, being limited by the railroad tracks,
and. the fact that the Barron Park area was not all that deep.
He thought the upgrading of Auto Sport a short time ago made it
much more attractive than some of the -buildings which were
outside of the neighborhood/commercial zone, although he
realiaed the zoning line had to be drawn somewhere, this
business was included. But it still seemed grossly unfair to
him to close out -Mr. Emi gar' s business, and not others in the
other zone. That was why he felt -so strongly on this hardship
case, that they should work it out because of the strong
support and the other items he had mentioned about avoiding
undesirable uses. He was going to vote against the motion to
deny. -
Vice -Mayor Fletcher pointed out that many of the arguments
given by Councilmember Eyerly had also been given for a previ-
ous application which had been recently denied. She concurred
with orie of the speakers who warned that they could very well
be faced with a lawsuit unless they dealt with people on an
equitable basis. She then asked the City Attorney about the
possibility of the applicant renewing his request for extension
before the expiration of the 13 -year amortization period, if it
were now denied.
Mr. Abrams replied in the ;negative.
Vice -Mayor Fletcher then commented that there was another
avenue ope-n, and that was to revise the Comprehensive Plan to
permit this type of use, imposing whatever conditions ,deemed
necessary for the public benefit. She really had problems with
approving an exception for a use, which was specifically _noncon-
forming according to the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive
Plan was a very flexible document however,' receiving extensive
revision every year, The new neighborhood/commercial zone may
well turn out to be unsuitable or undesirable and have to be
changed before the expiration of the,, l3 -year amortization
period. There was also tha problem that it was the use which
would be granted the approval, not the particular applicant at
the time. There was no -way to control any future undesirable
use being made of that location by a future occupant. She
therefore supported the motion.
Counci lmember Levy first expressed his appreci ati cry to all
members of the pool is Pad`' spoken\on,this issue, both
representing the neighborhood in the broader sense, and the .,
particular close neighbors off- E rtyh .; He also appreciated,
the patience of all those Mari ti ng to speak to thex next _item.
He thought that what was being discussed that evenin reflected
the difficulty of balancing the equities in this issue, because
the real issue was not Mr. Erni gh -a.s a businessman, but the
proper zoni X199 - for - th;it very difficult area. He thought all
would agree that Mr. Emigh had built a tasteful building, that
he seemed to_run a quiet,-;7esponsible, clean business, was
considerate of his neighbors, and that they appreciated him as
a neighbor. However, the issue at hand as not extending him us
a pgson in that location, but rather `that kind of business in
that location. Mr. Ernich had been in businesu for 30 yeurs -
the amortization period carried him to a total of 43 years, and
he was asking for another ten years for this particular busi-
ness. .He was reluctant to grant him those ten years. This was
not an issueof spot zoning. They had zoned a fairly substanR
tial stretch`of El Camino as neighborhood/commercial; it
remained- to be seen in the long term whether in fact that was
the ri qht zoning for that area, ut the Commission and the
Council, after lengthy deliberations,- had decided that was the
right zoning in order to improve that very difficult area. He
thought Mr. Emigh's building a flexible building, with a satis-
factory equity, and this was not really a case of destroying a
building, but"simply requiring a change in its use in 13 years.
He believed that the Planning Commission had. iri fact balanced
the factors of the general community with the specific location
in a reasonable way, and that they should be upheld.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the motion included the
conditions discussed by Councilmember Eyerly and t7
Zimmerman.
Mayor Henderson replied that his motion upheld tilt -2 Planning
Commission recommendation.to deny the application, so there
were no conditions to_consider.
Councilmember Witherspoon confirmed that the concerns expressed
at the Commission level about the conditions to be imposed on
the use need only be. Addressed if an exception were granted.
MOTION PASSED: The uoti. n t� uphold the Planning Commission's
recommendation and deny -the application -of Kent Emigh for a
ten-year extension on the nonconfori'ing use..termination for
property- located at 3666 El Carina Real passed on the•following
vote:
AYES.,, Bechtel, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Witherspoon
NOES: Eyerly
ABSENT Brenner, Fazzirc, Renzel
RECESS: Recess was called from 9:55 to 10:10
4277 MIRANDA AVENUE::
MANGE OF, DIsTRIeT FROM R-1 TO R -E
The Planning Commi s•si on unanimously recommendsapproval of the
application of William and Eu, a Youmans for ,a change of
district for property located at 4277 -Miranda Avenue from R-1
to R -E.
Mayor ienderson.. sa.i d_; that five Counci 1";: bte:s ,.were . necessary for
upholding this Planning _Commission recommendatlon:.-to change the
zoning.
5 b 5
1/19/81
Counci'unember Levy asked Mr, Abrams to explain the .possibility
•of utilizing the R -E zone combined with the conditional use
perelit.
Mr. Abrams explained that, if the Miranda.Avenue property were
rezoned to -R -E-, a conditional use permit would be required for
the centem; l ated expansion of the building. It was his opinion
-that the Zoning Administrator could impose certain conditions,
based•on the evidence presented to_.him, upon the granting of
the zoning use permit., One of the questions referred to the
imposition -of a time limit- on the -permit. Theoretically and
legally, this was permissible-. Of course, each situation must
be decided on its own- evidence. Therefore, it was up to the-
applicant, in this case the Youmans, to persuade th'e Zoning
Administrator that the time limit was appropriate, -and. that the
15 -year time limit would:minimize any -injurious effects on• the
-neighborhood. He added that this aspect was discussed at -the
Planning Commission level; but it was -decided that - it would be
fairly difficult to acquire the evidence. Gf course, if thg
Zoning Commission. or the applicant could do se, that time limit
-could be imposed.
Councilmember Levy asked if his understanding was correct than,
if the property were rezoned to R -E, and the owners did not
apply for any expansion, the facility would then simply be
considered a legitimate use and therefore allowed to continue.
Mr. Abearras answered that yes, it would be a conditional use in
the- R-i zone, and therefore no longer nonconforming. However,
if the Council approved the R -E zone within the context pres-
ently before them, namely that the reason for the rezoning
request was proposed expansion, and if that expansion were not
applied for within a reasonable amount of time, it was his
opinion.the Council would be entitled to reconsider that zoning
through the Public Hearing process, and revert it back to R -I
or any other zone deemed appropriate.
Mayor Hendrson then opened the meeting to public -input, remind-
ing those present that the Planning Commission had heard a
great deal of evidence on this matter already, and asked them
to please 'State their opinions briefly, adding n_nly new
information.
Evelyn Dwyer, 279 Ferndale Way, Prngram Director at Pine Creek
Center, had participated, as Administrator of the Palo Alto
! eni or Day Health Program, in the .field:; of aging almost four
years ago to move the County Mental Health System to provi ae" a
facility such as Pine Creek. The treatment 'program they were
seeking to provide was one they found to.,be needed for Palo
Alto residents as way l as resident3 of -the entire county. The
people they' were 'trying to,.serve were those Over 60 years of
age, who had failed in the t r homes or any of _the other care
facilities, due to the severity of their physical and psycho-
togical._,probl ems. There was really a dearth of this type of
service, where the physical and psychological' aspects were
combined in one facility.' The treatments provided,.un`'ier
contract, included medical diagnosis, treatment ..and monitoring
a multiple =disciplinary::. mental status determination, medication
analysis: end adjustment, "psychotherapy groups/and socializa-
tion, activity groups,;. training ,and activities ,of daily :_living,
reality/orientation and` patient government. 'tile, facility was ..
trying to serve,,60 patients, `with a program as detailed above,
in small groups totalling approximately 30 'groups each week, in
the space provided by. only three rooms. She contrasted the
space;. provided' for the present facility with the facility
5 8 6
1/19/81
provided for the Day Health.Ptogram five large rooms for 30
patients without the complicated treatment needs of those at
the Pine Creek Hospital. 'She urged the Council to approve the,
request for change in zoning, to allow the addition of an
administration building, so as to enable them to meet their
contract - with the county.
Steve Player, 2370 Tasso Street, an attorney., was representing
Mental Health Management, Inc. Rather than repeating his
statements made at the Planning _Commission level, he wished to
clarify some points.. The administrati=ve center, the reason for
expansion, was required by the Mental Hiealth.. Management
.pursuant to their contract with Santa Clara County, in order:
for them to carry out the services provided to the elderly as
required by County regulations and also by the State. Mental
Health Management was a private corporation",hich was leasing
tie space from the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Youmans. It
was only discovered, after the process for use permit had been
initiated, that the.R-1 zone prevented the addition of the
required facilities. Basically, the occupant was submitting a
plea, with the consent of the property owner, fcr a change back
to the original des i gn,ati on of R -E zoning. He recalled that
tie Planning Commission considered, in approving the request
for zone change, two points (1) the possibly inadvertent
redesignation of that particular parcel of land from R -E to
R-1, and (2) the locating of that type of establishment in an
existing neighborhood. In fact, there had been an establish-
ment of that nature in that particular neighborhood for almost
25 years. It was bordered by Alta Mesa Cemetery, by the creek
aid by Foothill Expressway. Only one side was bounded by a
residential R-1 neighborhood, two lots of which were owned by
Eula Youmans. He professed himself very impressed by the
caliber of people running the facility and their willingness to
cooperate, by means of meetings, open houses, etc., with the
neighbors and attempting to meet wherever possible the concerns
raised by the neighborhood. In summary, he thought this was an
area whtch could be handled by charge ,in designation to an R -E;
the conetional use permit procedure ;provided for the type of
protection requested by the neighborhood, and urged the Council
to sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission and
approve the change in zoning designation.
Frank Crist, 550 Hamilton A,enue, was representing Mrs.
Youmans, the property owner. He first extended h;i s "compliments
to Palo Alto as a very progressive ct`ty, as: evidenced by the
attemptto solve the jabs/housing imbalance. He; felt the mat-
ter under discussion was of a similar -nature -the community
had to take responsibility, in this case for their senior
citizens, and could not pass that problem on to thee nei-ghbori ng
cities. This was a facility, one
of very few of that type,
that took care of senior citizens.— His client had operated
this .facility since .'1953 in 1071 Ole requested from the
building department .' approval for building a 30 -room facility.
Receiving enthusiastic commendation and approval, -she invested
her life savings in this project. There was no way the r
property could ever be, rented or sold as ;a`sinyle family, ,R-1
dwelling. There were then two points to consider: (1) the
social feed and ,responsibility to be met; and (2) the human
element of.a person acting,; i n good faith, and be i ngl' treated in
a manner which he, as a bus i nc-ssman, could never r't eeat his
11 ent or Mr. Emi gh -,as it appeiti.ed the city could, -.
Mayor' Henderson announced. that, it being
now 10:30. p. ,m.. the
meeting " had to' be .interrupted, accordIns� to tht new Courci
.regulations, }n order to''decide whether :or not .to consider' any
of the regaining__items -en-_ the -agenda. He hoped they would,
because the agenda for the following meeting was quite:'full,
n. items would hopefully l not require r a. d the remaining p y q e very
lengthy discussion. He would therefore move the following':
MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Eyerly. that
Ccenci.l take the position to continue with the agenda.
Counciimember Witnerspoon felt Council should continue with" the
agenda for the two following items only.
Mayor Henderson countered that the items following the next two
would actuary take very little time, and a decision had to be
made on the VAJ.
Vice -Mayor Fletcher said she thought that,: judging from the
number of cards, there was ,at least an hour of tes;.imony on the
item presently under discussion. A,fter,confirming that the
item reaardi ng modi r 1 ca :ions of the City's public hearing
notice procedures had been inadvertently starred. as an urgent
item she moved the following amendment to the motion:
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Vice -Mayer i-letcher moved, seconded by
Witherspoon, to continue two items on the agenda: (1) The
Planning Commission Recommendation for Modifications of the
City's Public Hearing lot i ce Procedures, and (2) Request of
Councilmembers Eyerly, Bechtel, Fazzino and Witherspoon re
Rental Housing for'Cmployees.
MOT1[)N PASSED AS AMENDED: Moti ::,n passed, as amended, on the
following vote:
AYES: Bechtel, F1etcher, Levy, Witherspoon
NOES: Eyerly, Henderson
ABSENT: Brenner, Fazzino, Renzel
J. Victor Gonzales, 1199 Tolteca -Court, Fremont, a Consultant
with Menta°I. Health Management, Inc., stated that his task was
to coordinate the implementation of Pine. Creek Center. He
wished to bring to their attention a few of the problems
identified by the community. A_ Mr. Player had mentioned, Pine
Creek Center had met with the community and had extended their
invitation to address the problems and to resolve these kinds
of issues now and le the future.., He then` addressed some the
neighborhood concerns: (1) Parking, - the problem wac tempo-
rary, due. to renovations now in progress. (2) Sewer Capacity -
the Util:ity' Department had been, contacted, and indicated :ttiat :..
one, more facility would not add any extra burden on the exist-
ing sewer line; (3) Glaring -Lights the direction' of the
lights ,was now pointed down, away from 'neighbors. ° The minimal
lighting was - required for security and sdfety reasuns. He
asked Council to keep:sin mind that thiswaS a treatment program
funded by :the County,` in conjunction with Medical, and a_ unique,
innovative approach to:•treating the, geriatric. population in
need of physical and psy bol ogi,cal help, perhaps :becoming a
national model 4nd leading the way to anew approach in' the
i ndustry,of _ providing better care to these types of patients.
He ,reminded them that the state ::hospitals were cl osi dg -down,
and communi ties were:�bei ng requ,,red to care for these patients
in local°..areas, andu�lged them to encourage, rather than'
discourage, this program.
ee
Hank Lewis, 4277 Miranda Avenije, Director of bperait i ons, for
Mental Heal th--Mc'nagement, said what was at issue was a very
difficult technical and political situation. He repeated
previous statements regarding the uniqueness of both the type
of program and its funding. The State of California, in moving
away from state hospitals, was making an extended commitment in
all .counties to assure community -based programs cf this type._
He -then -briefly summarized the background of the property: The
zoning had ,been changed from R-1 to R -E in 1978, possibly an
oversight, according to statements made by the city staff,
Following selection 'by the County, a lease agreement was -
implemented with Eula Youmans in 1980. It'had been planned
from the beginning to expand -the site by adding a modular
building for administration. The Mental Health Management
would not have entered into the lease agreement if they had
known about this present obstacle to expansion. They had
invested and committed $90,000 for renovations, repairs and
remodeling in the facility as or now. It was not until October
1980, in researching their application for a conditional use
permit for expansion, that the city found the zone had been
changed. For some unknown reason, Mrs. Youmans had not been
notified of the zone change in 1978.; He explained the need for
space: (1) More space was urgently needed for proper
treatment. Standards of care for geriatric patients ha.Ye
improved dramatically since 1972. ,In addition, they were
providing a specialized treatment program on top ,.of an existing-
skilled nursing facility. (2) More space was needed for staff.
(3) More space was needed in order to meet their contract -
obligations with Santa Clara County. They, had been notified by
the State Health Department that the facility in its present
capacity barely met Title 22 standards,'and had been told by
the State Surveyors that they were not allowed to convert any
of the existing space to offices. There was no loophole within
an R-1 zone for an exception; an R -E -zone was t,e proper zone
for that site, and a conditional use permit was `a very
effective measure for protecting the neighbors' interests. .He
felt, therefore, that -there was good good case for returning the,
site to an R -E zone, pointing out that_the Planning Commission
had unani mOus ly supported this position..,
Councilmember Eyerly asked whether any plans had been made for
additional parking for visitors, etc., if the change in. zone
-\were approved, and 'the desired expansion ,took place.
Mr. Lewis answered that there were 21 paking spaces currently,
and that the site, with the-c.proposed modifications, met the
ordi nance re4 U��+ i cements for parking. Parking would be adequate.
for staff and visitors, when .the current. renovation ` activities,
were completed. They were :willing to make a commitment to
ensure .ample parking for visitors, by encouraging car-pooling
by staff, etc.
Eula Youmans, 4101 ' Old Adobe Road, = the owner <of thePi ne Creek-
Center at 4277 Miranda Avenue, . said she had ,been given permis-
sion by the city to expand the facility from `the original old
15 -bed operation in 1963,., to _ the present convalescent hospital.
She was encouraged by, tbe city officials to seek a permit;
because 'o'f c' he. dilapidated condition of the,facll lty 'then, and
becaase of the neld foe that kind of operation. She 'could not
believe it was ths. city's :intent to gi re someth1,ng .Only to
take it away. She owned thejoroPerty across from the f_aci l ity,
and was. the closest neighbor. She ;had_ worked very hard ,for 17
years for,the community, had invested a large sum of money; and
still had a large loan liability. Den a1" of rezoning Would,
.
depreciate the property, making it unsaleable, and disallow
•
her the opportunity to retire with adequate funds for support
in her last years. She pleaded with the Council to reconsider
rezoning of her property back to the original R -E zone.
Counci lmem5er Eyerly asked Mrs. Youmans if she owned he ,prop-
erty at 4285 and 4283 Miranda, across the street from the
facility
Mrs. Youmans replied that she owned the property at 4285 and
the lot in the rear of 4285.
Counci[member Eyerly had note & the high fence surrounding the
property at 4285, making it difficult to see around the corner.
He asked if she would be willing to lower that fence, if the
zoning change were approved for the facility.
Mrs. Youmans replied that she believed the fence ;lad been placed
there for protection from the noise, etc., from the nearby
freeway.
Councilinember Eyerly replied that there was a certain amount of
resentment in the neighborhood about the unusually high fence.
Unwillingness to lower the fence would have some influence on
his vote on 4277 Miranda.
Mrs. Youmans requested a delay in the answer, to give her an
opportunity to consult with her son en the matter. She added
that the neighbors had not voiced objections to the fence
(which had been approved by the city) or anything else before
this recent request for a conditional use permit for expan-
sion. However, she did not wish tor any bitterness; she was a
Christian, and wished to live at peace with her neighbors.
Tthur Ri risky, 885 Moana Court, an attorney, had become
involved in the rezoning matter after his neighbors had voiced
concerns about protection of their rights. They categorically
opposed the change in zone from R-1 to R -E. Seven of the
neighbors would each give a brief presentation of their
objections, and he would return and give a brief summary of
thier position.
Bill Rutledge, 854 Miranda Green, said he would try to estab-
lish two points. (1,) the 1978 rezoning to R-1 was entirely
appropriate, (2)_ the owner of the property at 4277 Miranda had
virtually ignored three of the six restrictions on the current
use permit. e Mr. Rutledge then showed slides and a map of the
property in question, pointing out 'that the closing of the. Old
Miranda Road in 1955 caused their poc%et neighborhood to be the
only access to 4277 Miranda, that their' nei ghborhood, being
purely residential .was properly zoned R-1, and 'illustrating
the absence of heavy shrubbery to mask the parking'.:lot, the
high-de'ibi tty lights which were bothersome to the ;people across.
the expressway, and the drainage, i nto the creek.
Lewis Young, 874 Miranda Green, professional land developer,
wished . to discuss lot coverage and the ease of removing the new
building should it he _installed 'on the site. The owners showed
a25+u3% lot area coverage in their plans, including the pro-
posed additional new bui dins. The lot area coverage would
actually be 3.2.36 :with_. the addition of.the proposed building.
R-E! allowed a maximum of 25% lot coverage; the existing let,e,
coverage,' even + ithoutthe proposed building, <aas-- 29 23%. The
proposed new 'building ,was a removabl e, demountable type struc
hire, designed to be=hauled Write the sine :in two pieces, and
car-easiry i;e removedat the end of the ,l3 -year amortization
5 9 0
1/19/81
•
•
period. In summary, he would like to -see no rezoning, and the
present nonconforming use terminated at the end of the 13 -year
amortization period.
Allan Reid, 880 Miranda Green-, a landscape architect, stated
that the owners did not fulfill their commitment, made when
granted the use permit, regarding landscaping. He pointed out
the lack of heavy concealing shrubbery, the lack of any ' attempt
to stabilize the creek bank, and the drainage into the creek:
The Water District had not been granted rights to enter. the
premises for investigation and/or shoring up of the creek
banks. Jhe asked that ;ounci 1 heed the objections of the neigh-
bors and deny the rezoning request.
Mayor Henderson commented that Council had received and read
all the letters received on this issue,: and copies were on fide
in the City Clerk's Office.
Eric Edelson, 4327 Miranda Avenue, said he was opposed to the;
changing of the zoning designation, because he had little
confidence in the city being able to monitor or police the
regulations, and he had less confidence in Mrs. Youman's
ability or commitment to do so.
James O. Haning, 4283 Miranda Avenue, said that, during the
summer, there were many occasions when heavy trucks were parked
in their driveway, unloading equipment, supplies, etc., for,
constriction at the rest home property and the large fence.
Permission was never asked of them for' parki ny on their .private
property. His driveway, being adjacent to the rest home, was
the first place found by "escapees." They generally escorted
them pack, although he suspected they just wandered around.
their property and off somewhere, when the family was away from
home, Mr. Murray, a neighbor, had reported some had actually
entered his house. During warm,weather, the nearby neighbors
are usually_ assailed by shouts and moans from the back of the
rest home. He asked that the use permit and the change in
zoning be denied.
Carol Murray, 4281 Miranda, lived directly beside Pine Creek.
She had also lost :faith in how the facility_would be used. She
had been informed, upon moving into the neighborhood seven
years ago, that a nursing home was locJ ed next door. It had
really become a psychiatric center, and she quite frankly did
not feel qualified to deal with those patients who did wander
down her driveway, had come into her home, and who screamed
pathetically for hours on end. She si rnpiy did not wish to see
this continue; she did not think it appropriate. It was much
worse than either she or her neighbors could convey - it went
on for hours.
Jackie Berman, 810 Miranda Green, said she did recognize
Council had a very difficult decision to make, because the
peti;tioners who had occupied the facility only since September'
Saw the issue, and had presented kt :differently than the
neighbors. What they saw was a history of expansion and
intensification, and a change in the patient population. As
she understood the law,' It presented to the Planning' Commission
by the Council, changing the zoning would establish the right
of any future,leasee to use the property'as'/a hospital with
terms and conditions over which neither thekOieighbors nor the
city would be able to e;:erc i s e any control .V She questioned
whether t_ hat lccati,on was an ,=appropriate permanent site 'for a
hospital facility. Pine Creek, with whom they had worked out a
proposed compromise, and whom they felt would operate the
5 9 1
1/19/81
0
1
1
facility in a responsible manner, only had -- a five year lease,
with two five-year options to renew. The facility will
continue to carry the designation .of "hospital, which will
remain with the land. She -emphasized that, while the institu-
tton's mission and patient population had changed, the site
structure and access had not kept pace. Ccrintering suggestions
made by some Counci lmeMbers and the petiti oners that, the
neighborhood simply seek enforcement of the laws and regula-
tions, she said they were sympathetic to the patients, who were
caught in the middle, with i.he neighbors, of the unfortunate
situation of a hospital being located on an inapproprite site.
The only solution the neighborhood could see was to retain the
present zoning, accept the compromise of installing the
moveable building, and then removing it, or the hospital having
to do without the proposed adminstraiive space.
Art Rinsky gave a brief summary of the points made by the
speakers for the neighborhood. They had sought compromise;
they felt the limited site was inappropriate for any type of
medical facility and that they could Act depend on any compll-
ance with restrictions placed:on tie land use to protect the
neiyhborhood. Finally, the existing amortization for the
nonconf<rminy use would allow for orderly transition - Pine
Creek Center would have the site for at most 14-1/2 more years.
They believed the site was properly zoned R-1; if changed to
R -E, the nonconforming use wi l l remain' and there would he
pressure for further expansion.
Willie Youmans, Jr. 4285 Miranda Avenue, addressed the issue
of the large fence, stating that he had applied for all, the
necessary permits and variances for building the fence, and had
agreed to cut the fence back to make it more visually accept-
able.
Vice -Mayor Fletcher -asked if a business was being conducted at:
4285 Miranda.
Mr. Youmans replied that there was no business :tieing operated
at that location, and ae investigation by the Building anal
Planning Commiss;on had so determined.
Councilmember Bechtel wanted to r_tnfirm with staff the number
of parking spaces.
Zoning Administrator Mario Sanchez replied that there were
presently 23 parking spaces.
Councilmember Bechtel addressed the matter of lot coverage.
According to one of the speakers, R -E allowed for 25%, when the
actual existing coverage was 29.3%, and 32% was proposed to
cover planned ,expansion.: She asked if staff could confirm
those figures. .
Mr. Sanchez said they had run some calculations -based on their
information, which indicated that, with the proposed addition,
the facility would still be under the 25% allowed. He had
discussed this point with one of the neighbors, who had per-
formed some kind of analysis during a survey of the lot. He
could only state that., if the zoning change were approved, the
applicant, ° whenapplying for the use,permit, would be required
to pr vide the necessary "engineering drawings documenting the
lot coverage., If it exceeded 25%, the applicant wo-uld have to,.
apply for a variance as well'.
5 9 2 ..
1/19/81
Councilmember Bechtel said she understood, then, that approval
of rezoning would only be -the first step - t -)e --applicant would
still have to request the necessary building- permits. She
asked if that would include any changes.to the use permit, and
if public hearings would have to be held before any variances -
were granted:
Mr. Sanchez answered that, even if the rezoning were approved,
a new use permit would still be required for the proposed
addition, as well as a variance.
Councilmember Bechtel said she had visited the property and
agreed with some of the speakers' statements that the bank was
severely eroded and that the cement decking did hanglover the.
creek. She asked if measurement- of the lot coverage._ incl uded
the creek, and if there were some remedial actions that could
be taken t) stabilize the creek bank.
,Mr. Sanchez did not have an answer to that; the issue thus far
had only involved a request for a change in -designation..
Staff would investigate that situation if, and after, the zone.
change were approved.
Councilmember Bechtel then addressed Assistant Planning
Director Kenneth Schreiber. Recail=r'g that there had been
quite a bit of discussion at the Planning Commission level
regarding the reason for the rezoning of the property to R -1,
she asked for a review of that discussion and the length of
time the property had held an R -E zone designation, prior to
its rezoning to R-1.
Mr. Schreiber was not sure how far back the R -E zoning extended
for that property' that information predated the records
available to the present staff, but it was a considerable
length of time, certainly reaching back at least into the
19Ws. 's. As the Council was aware, the City went through a zone
change. process in 1978, following adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan. A review of the information available from the Planning
Commission minutes for that period indicated no discussion_of
the zoning designation for the site. A check of the records
disclosed that: (1) The maps_ used by.,the Planning Commission
at the time showed -a remnant of:a line .through the area which
could Mistakenly be assumed to be a property line. (2) The
designation of R -E; was given -very late in the process. The
'earlier proposed designation for the cemetary was first A/C
(agricultural' conservation), then 0/3 (open space). "In either
case; those zones were not, of course, consistent with the
residential area and any number of parcels. . The conclusion he
reached from these pieces of evidence, was that the el -Ai -re area
:as lumped together as residential, -to- be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, but also an the basis that "the cehre.tery was
to be<. zoned first A/C and then- 0/S, 'inward'the end-_ of the
zoning, process, when the cemetery was 'changed `to, R -E, the
entire area was treated -as -one subdivision.
Counci lme41-tber Bechtel asked if there had been any requestn from
the -neighbors to rezone the property to R-1 at that time.
Mr..' Schreiber said there was no indication of. any . such requests
in the records, not, was there any discussion of this issue in
the Planning Commission minutes.
Councilmember Eyerly asked staff if there was any indication,
in the on gi lal zoning of _ all 'this property, whether 4277
Mi randy, was zoned residential at the same time and if the old
1
Care Horne was in usage before the building of the neighboring
homes in the subdivision.
.r. Schreiber replied that, regarding the 1978:process, the
9.71929 designation for the residential areas v -as applied early
in the process of. developing the eiew zcn i ng map._ . The cemetery
='wa,s proposed for ~A/C and the boundary line drawn at that time.
also. The boundary line was never changed, -and the proposed
residential area zoning was never changed.
C.ounci iuuember Bechtel stated she was very sympathetic to the
neighbors' concerns and, at the same time, teethe concerns of
the operators of the facility. eShe recognized the very r•ea1 -
need for this type : -of. The general public feeling was
that this type of facility should be built elsewhere, not in
their particular neighborhood. She pointed out the unfeasi-
bilty of this attitude - this'was the only facility of its kind
in Santa Clara County, She -'knew the P l anai ng Comrni ss i on had
invested. a great deal of, time -exploring the possibility of some
kind of compromise. She really did want to investigate any
possibility for wor%ing out some solution amenable to the
neighbors, as -well as the applicants. As she understood them,
the options were: (1) Denial of the request for rezoning, the
applicants would not be able to expand, they might lose their
contract with the County, aid have t2 close the facility
sooner ln.any case, the owners were obliged to discontinue
operations by the end of a 13 -year )jeriod. (2) Allow the zone
change with very stringent conditions or with a tinned, specific
use. permit. A use permit could always be revoked for non-
compliance of conditions. She asked the City Attorney what the
possibilities were for exercising more stringent controls.
Mr. Abrams replied that the one other alternative was to allow
expansion of nonconforming, uses. This was prohibited by --the
current ordinances because, at least theoretically, it was not
desirable to allow expansion of nonconforming uses, particu-
larly those being amortized to a specified date. He thought
that this would end by becoming a policy matter, having effects
beyond this application, and requiring an amendment to the
nonconforming use Statutes. These would apply uniformly,
although provision could be made stipulating application to
only the specific kinds of uses found to meet particular
community needs.
Mayor Henderson asked for a motion on this item. He asked Mr..
Abrams about the possibility of making a motion to deny.
Mr. Abrams replied that, in order to pass the rezoning, five
votes were necessary, regardless of the wording of the motion.
He thought he should correct a statement he had riade earlier in
response to Counci lmember_ Bechtel's..question. �.Lacki no the five
approving votes, Council could choose to continue the item. If
defeated and not continued, the ordinance would be abandoned
and in effect defeated.
MayorHenderson asked if his uriderstandi ng was Correct that
there, 'was' no need ,.to make a motion, and that' the request for
zone change would su ply. die if nomotign were made.
Mr. Abrams said. Council was required to -take -some action,
Councilmember Witherspoon saidshewould make motion for
upholding of the Planning Commission's recommendation, just to
put a motion on the floor. However, sne did not . intend to vote
for it.
5 9 4
1/39/81;
Counci l member Wi therspoon moved, seconded by U,ecfrtel , to uphold
the Planning Corirnissie n's recommendation- for -adoption of the
following Ordinance for first reading.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO AMENDING Sf CT I ON
l8,08.04O OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL.
CODE -(THE ZONING MAP) 10 CHANGE THE.
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS
-4271 MIRANDA ROAD FROM R-1 (SINGLE
FAMILY) TO R -E (RESIDENTIAL ESTATE).
Councilmember Witherspoon asked. Mr. Sanchez if the terra
"expanding the use" meant the physical expansion of the
facility, or the intensification of use. For in tance, would
i c ma�C.e any difference if the applicant were to request
'permission to build another story over an existing building,
rather than on another portion of the land.
Mr. Sanchez explained that blinding another story would still
be classified as a physical expansion.
Councilmember Levy suggested a compromise which would be
acceptable to hire, and apparently to the neighbors as well - to
keep the facility as R-1 zoning, but allow expansion for the
amortization period of 13 years. It appeared that this not
permitted under the current city ordinances. He thorsght it
worthwhile to reconsider the relevant ordinances, especially in
certain instances, such as a medical facility, where there was
an important community value. This was obviously a rare
instance; property owners did not usually request expansion of
a use to be amortized in a short period of time. In this
particular case, if the facility would benefit from that use
and desired expansion of that use, and if this were acceptable
to the neighborhood, he .hought that the City, as a policy
matter, should find some way of accomplishing this.
Vice -Mayor Fletcher said this was a difficult situation for
her, because she was,really sympathetic to the need for the
facility, but it was located so closely to the R-1 area and
there was so unanimous opposition to it..ff=om the neighborhood,
that she could not justify approving -a permanent zone change
A permanent zone change would mean that any number of hospital
uses could be located at that site, which was not really an
appropriate area ,for that use. She 'could support the kind of
facility that would ;benefit from being in a 'neighborhood, to
give a fan y setfi ng. Special -use permit's had been given to a
number of sucn operati`oris, limited to no more than eight
persons. However, this being a very intensive medical use in
very close proximity to the neighbors', she igould prefer to not
rezone the lot, but she would look"fav,orably on any means for
continuing the vresent use to its maximum benefit.
Councilmember Eyerly.: repeated the other Counci lmembe.rs' senti-
ments that-this.was a difficult decision to make. HeF:thought
they were all sympat etic to the neighbors' concerns, particu-
1 arty regarding- the abgses o• ..the =use permit which had been
there for some time. At the same -time, they all realized the
lack .,of `such facilities in the" area and the urgent need for-_
them. : fie felt there -must be -some-Way-of urmounti ng the prob-
lem of allowing -this institution to continue and protecting the
neyhborhood, at the same time. It appeared to ---him that the
Council should continue the item= to Februar -2 cutting off any
further input from the community, in order for.staff to
prepare
a report spelling out two aspects- for,Council to consider: (1 )
The zone compromise proposed byCounctlmember Levy. Mr.
Abrams had explained that, even with a zone change to R-E, the
applicants would still have to request a use permit for
expansion and -variance. (2) The imposing of some --stringent
conditions on the use permit, addressing a time limit and some
of the neighbors' concerris. He thought the ramifications of
the zone change were -complicated and difficult to understand;
the report would give Council something more concrete to
study.
Mayor Henderson asked Mr. Abrams if Council could initiate
action to reconsider the ordinance with regard to allowing
expansion on nonconforming uses, it the request for zone change
were dernied that evening. Further, if the facility would be
eligible for expansion under that change in the ordinance,
should it- be approved iii a few weeks.
Mr. Abrams answered that Counc_i1 could initiate the change in a
nc)nconform;ny use ordinance. If the Council denied the zone
change, the property would be prevented, for a period of one
year, from reapplying' for a similar zone change. -
Mayor Henderson confirmed his understanding that, if the
Council made a change in the ordinance to allow expansion in
nonconforming uses,,the property would be as free as any other
nonconforming property.
Councilmember Bechtel thought suggestions by both Councilmem-
bers Levy and Eyerly merited further discussion. She ques-
tioned one point, however. If the fear of rezoning to R -E was
that the use would be allowed, with a conditional use permit,
as opposed to the R-1 zone, where it was not allowed at all as
being nonconforming, she wondered if they were discussing the
same thing. R -E actually required a larger lot size, it was
restricted in that it required a conditional use permit; it was
not automatically guaranteed - there were a myriad of other
uses permitted, such as a riding stable, not just medical
institutions. She therefore urged that Council pass the pro-
posed motions, attaching stringent restrictions -at the time of
the application for a conditional .use permit.
Mayor Henderson spoke for Councilmember Fazzino, who was
absent. He had telephoned to state that he would have
supported retention of the R-1 zone designation if he had been
present; he felt that he must respond, . in such a situation, to
th;e. overwhelming opposition of the residents. For his own
part, he had supported, and in fact had sometimes led the move
:cent, for many social programs through:the years. However,
there have been some exceptions to this support, when there had
been overwhelming 'opposition from the. neighbors, not `divided
neighborhoods, but united ones. 1'he Miramonte'-Heal.th Services
on a facility in the University Park area was a good example.
In this case, the residents --had seen significant changes in the
rest home, from 12 to 'u'ver 50, and then a change in the nature
ce the services. _He could'not approve further.,changes An the
intensity of the u`se, as much as he supported what was being
done there,
Councilmember Eyerly confirmed that -the motion to continue took
preference, aAd--:nove'i-_the foi lowing:
'MOTION: .Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Bechtel, to
-continue the item to February 2,}.preclude any further _citizen
input-, and direct staff to -report on the two approaches that
hLd.been suggested for Council to study.
5 9 6
1/19/81
Mayor Henderson said that motion went counter, to .what he had
said regarding the necessity for taking action that evening on
the request for a zone change, and that continuing :the item for
two weeks would be doing a disservice to them and io those
members of the public in attendance.
Councilmember Witherspoon asked if Mr. Abrams had not stated
ghat Council was required to take action that even ng.'
Mr. Abrams explained that he had only said that Council could
not simply let the matter_ die.
Councilmember Witherspoon then suggested that Council vote or.
Councilmember Eyerly's motion first, and then on the motion to
either uphold or deny the Planning Commission's \ recommendation
for approval of a change in zone.
Councilmember Levy thought he agreed with-Councilmember
Eyerly's intent, but was inclined to vote against the motion to
continue the whole ,issue. He did not see any way of supporting
the R -E zone that evening, and he thought that should be
dispensed with first. He did not believe -this would tie their
hands in terns of exploring the possibilities of permitting
expansion within an R-1 nonconforming use.
Mayor Henderson then called for a vote on the motion to
continue.
MOTIONS FAILED: The motion to continue the item until meeting
of February 2 failed on the following vote:
AYES: Eyerly,_ Bechtel
;HOES: Fletcher,, Henderson, Levy, Witherspoon
ABSENT: Brenner, Fazzino, Renzel
Mayor Henderson called for a vote on the motion to uphold the
Planning Commi ss i on's recommendation to approve the change in
zoning from R-1 to R -E.
MOTION FAILED: The motion failed on the following vote:
AYES: Bechtel,
NOES: Eyerly, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Witherspoon
ABSENT: Brenner, Fazzino, Renzel
MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Eyerly, to
direct staff to report back to Council ='cm how expansion can
take place within a nonconforming use during an amortization
period.
MOTION PASSED: The motion passed on a unanimous vote, Brenner,
Fazzino and RenzeI absent.
Councilmember Levy checkedwith staff the.; earliest date that
Council could expect the report. Mr. Abrams promised that the
report would be .submitted to Council within at last .tko
months.
5 9 7
1A9/81
3530 ROSS -ROAD
O'W I NG OP ERAT I CN
OF A PRIVATE E UL M
ULA 1=1�UCATIOH CEH
INC.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the -.
appeal of Mid -Peninsula Education Center, Inc. for a use permit
to allow the operation of a private education program at 3530
,loss Road.
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher,
upholding of the Planning -Commission's recommendation.
There being no.discussion on this issue, nor any objections
from the public, Mayor Henderson caked for a vote.
MOTION PASSED: The motion passed unanimously, Brenner,
and Renzel absent. ee
Mayor Henderson recalled that Council had voted to continue. the
two items following: (1) Modif`cations of the City's Public
Hearing Notice Procedures, and (2) Request of Counc'ilmembers
Eyerly, Bechtel, Fazzino and Witherspoon re Rental Housing for
Employees=
MAYOR HENDERSON RE VAJ APPLICANTS
Mayor Henderson expressed some concerns he had with this item.
He professed himself a non -expert in this field; it seemed to
him that all of the 11 applicants were totally qualified. As
he did not really feel qualified to ask the right questions, he
would be very receptive to working with a Council subcommittee,
if there were three members interested in interviewing the
applicants.
Councilmembers Eyerly, Levy and
services. Maeor Henderson then
Eyerly, Levy and Witherspoon to
member Witherspoon .chairing, to
recommendations for ffi 1 1 i ng the
Jury.
Fazzino
Witherspoon offered their
appointed Councilmembers
form a subcommittees Council -
interview applicants and make
vacancies on the Visual Arts
MAYOR HENDERSON RE MEDFLY PROGRAM
Mayor Henderson said the Medfly Program\had., been discussed at
the Intergovernmental Council the previous Thursday evening
(1/15/81), where he had reported on Palo Alto's excellent
gran. The State Representative had responded with great
os" for Palo Alto, and the fact that lies initial draft of
program was virtually adopted by the State. Mayor
nderson first commended City Manager William Zaner for the
speed with which he set the staff to work on the program rihen
so directed by Council, and then Geoff' Paulsen, Fruit Remover
Coordinator, who has been receiving all kinds of- accolades from
the County for Palo.Alto's Fruit. Removal Program.
MAYOR HENDER3ON RE PIPELINE
As a matter of ,information, because of the almost universal
concern regarding the possible pipeline, Mayor Henderson
announced that.. the: South. Bay Di scha�r9ers'.were to appear before
the Regional Water Qual i ty. Control'doard the :following
Wednesday evening (1/k 1 /81) . A 'ret.ommendat i on had been made Correction
for the establishment of a monitoring program fur the South Bay SeePg765
for five years, and a certain level of ' prwammi ng had been 4/6/81
5 9:8
1/19/81
suggested and approved by most of the other agene.es. The
Regional Board was now requesting a much more ambitious
program, to include some very difficult original research by
the cities, and costing about $350,000, instead of $100,000.
The cities were planning on speaking at the meeting ,4.n an
attempt to hold the Board to a more realistic figure. All
those interested were welcome to attend the meeting..
Councilmember Eyerly asked if the two continued items were to
be discussed at the next Council meeting, or if they should be
continued to another meeting, considering the lengthy agenda
proposed for the next Council meeting. It was decided to keep
them on the agenda for the following meeting.,
COUIC1LMEMBER BECHTEL RE PEPPER TREE
Councilmember_Bechtel asked if the City Manager and the appro-
priate city staff Would investigate the partial removal that
day, of a healthy, mature, 200 -year old Pepper Tree at the
corner of 595 Tennyson Avenue, mistakenly cut when a stump was
supposed to be removed.
Vice -Mayor Fletcher announced that the County was holding
another public workshop on the Palo Alto Airport at the Palo
Alto Cultural Center on Tuesday, February 3. The Policy and
Procedures Committee would not meet that evening, but would
probably meet two weeks later.
ADJ0URUitjEUT
The Council meeting adjourned at 12:00 Midnight in memory of
Jim Bloch, Councilmember of the City of Menlo Park.
ATTEST:
5 9 9
lt9/a.1
APPROVE:
1