Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-09-21 City Council Summary MinutesI CITY COUEICIL MINUTES' Regular Meeting Monday, September 21, 1981 CITY OF PALO ALTO ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 1 2 6 5 Approval of Minutes of June 25, 1981 1 2 6 5 Consent Calendar - Referral 1 2 6 5 Bicycle Boulevard Study 1 2 6 5 Consent -Calendar •- Action 1 2 6 6 Utility Rule and Regulation Change -- Water 1 2 6 6 Services from Fire Hydrants - Resolution 5958 Request for Proposal - Golf Professional 1 2 6 6 Selection - Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 1 2 6 6 PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommends Denial of the Appeal of Nahib and Ahmad Waleh from the Decision of Zoning Administrator to Approve Variance for Daylight Plane and Six Foot Setback Restrictions for Property located at 2360 Emerson Street PUBLIC HEARING: Community Development Block Grant Progress Report PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Barbara Turner, Martha Turner, Charles Gundelach, Delfino Grelli, and James Paulin from the Decision of Zoning Administrator to Grant a Use Permit for a Convalescent Facility and Variance for Daylight Plane Intrusion and Side Yard Setback at.427-457 Webster/615` University (Lytton Gardens III) 1 2 6 6 1 2 6 7 1 2 6 8 PUBLIC HEARING: Arastra Park Dedication 1 2 7 Ordinance Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Recommend Approval of the Application of Citation Developers for Site and Design Review for Office Complex at 2100 Geng Road Appeal of David N. Schroder to a Demolition Order. 778 Loma Verde Avenue -_ Findings in Support of Denial of Tentative Subdivision Map to Divide 350-360 Hawthorne Street 351--357 Bryant Court 1 2 8 0 1 2 8 4 ITEM Request of Councilmembers Bechtel, Fazzino, and Klein re Overnight Parking Ordinance Mayor Henderson re Special Executive Session on September 22, 1981 Adjournment PAGE 1 2 8 8 1 2--9 1 1 2 9 2 L 2 6 -A 1/21/81 Regular Meeting Monday, September 21, 1981 e i The City Council of the. City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:44 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Fletcher, Henderson, Renzel, L.evy, Witherspoon, Fazzino, Klein ABSENT: Eyerly ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Fred Weiner, 2932 Emerson, said he was concerned about the delay of the just cause eviction ordinance which- was directed to staff by the Council on May 4, which would include a number of just causes for eviction. City Attorney Don Maynor said that the finishing touches had been made to the ordinance and it would . be ready for the Council with- in two weeks. MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1981 Vice Mayor Fletcher had a correction on page- 3(, bottom of the page, which said "MOTION PASSED unanimously. She said she did not know the exact vote, but knew that she voted "no." City Clerk, Ann Tanner said the vote was checked that day and Vice Mayor Fletcher .gas correct - she had voted "no." Vice Mayor Fletcher had a correction on page. 989, center of the page, which said, "Couneilmember Fletcher said she was relaying what the research firms said." She said the word "research" should be "search." MOTIONt 'dice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the June 25, 1982 minutes as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Courici lmember Fenzel removed item #3, Site and Design Review for Citation Developers, 2111 Deng Road. Mayor Henderson removed item 4, Findings for 350-.360 Hawthorne Street/351-357 Bryant Court. MOTION: . Courtci lmember Wither spoon ,moyed o<; seconded by Fazzi na approval of the Cslnsent Calendar as amended. Referral BICVCL BOUVVARD STUDY - REFER TO POLICY AND PROCEDI#RES cu il 1 11- E€ fir. Staff recommends mends that the subject of _a_bicycle a boulevard demon- stration stration project : be referred to : the- Poi icy and Procedures Committee for review'. Action UTILITY RULE AND REGULATION CHANGE WATER SERVICES FROM FIRE RYD WANTS (CMR:472 : T ) Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution, revising Utility Rate Schedule W-2, effective October 1, 1981, to reflect current cost associated with providing water service from fire hydrants RESOLUTION 5958 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 15F PALO ALTO AMENDING SCHEDULE W-2 OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES RATES AND CHARGES PERTAINING TO WATER SERVICES FROM FIRE HYDRANTS" RE VEST FOR PROPOSAL - GOLF PROFESSIONAL SELECTION -.PALO ALTO CMR: Staff recommends that Counci 1 I) approve thaw proposed Request for Proposal w Golf Professional -. Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course; and 2) authorize staff to proceed with the selection process. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly 'absent.': -AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manager Bill Zaner announced that i tem , 3, Site and Design review for office complex at 2100 Geng Road, would become item 9-A; item 4, Findings for. 350-360 Hawthorne Street/351-357 Bryant Court, would become item 10-A. Mayor Henderson said he wanted to add Item 12, regarding the pro- posed starting time for the Special Executive Session to be held on September 22. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION BY A VOTE OF 5-1 RECOMMENDS L A O ARRAD W 3 PLANE AfTh SIX FOOT SETBACK'tES`rRICTIN 2TC0 EMETITT STRUT T APPEL ITIMWriTT Mayor: Henderson advised that the City had received a letter from Richard H. Dwiggins, Attorney for the Appellants, requesting a continuance on this matter until October 19. City Manager Bill Zaner said that the agenda of October 19 had several planning items already scheduled, plus the County was expected to attend that meeting to address the Council on the Airport Master. Plan. Mr. Zaner said that item needed to be on the agenda on that night because the County had a . timetable and in order for the. Council to get their comments to the County about the airport, they would have to do it on October 19. Richard H. Dwiggins, 425 Sherman Avenue, said that Mr. Waleh was developing a. ;computer program to show the Council the amount = of light he would be losing. He had not-_campletel that, and was out of town on business -and would not bey; returning until October 3. Counc i 1 ember , Bechtel said she was concerned about delaying the item for that long. She asked if =there;were:' legal _ ti qe limits in which the .Council must respond. Barry A. Henni ngs, , 2360 Emerson, ,the'- applicant said that the process was com*enced in June, _aqd :: that they had . hoped to _ build this fall. His position was that he and his Wife would like the. 1 1 1 1 item presented as soon as possible. City Attorney Don Maynor said that the Municipal Code provided that the appeal must be heard within thirty (30) days of receipt of the recommendation by the City Clerk. Councilmember Renzel said she did not think it would take a com- puter program to calculate what kind of shadow would be cast, but would be willing to continue the matter to October 5. Councilmember Fazzino said he thought it would be fair to hold the matter off until October 5. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved,_ seconded, by Witherspoon, continue the item until October 5, 1981. MOTION PASSED unanimously Eyerly absent. PUBLIC HEARING: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRESS CMR: :I Mayor Henderson said, that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUOY required that the progress report be reviewed at a formal public hearing. City Planner, Glenn A. Millet said no action was required except to hear `rom the public or answer any questions on , 4he Comma+pity Development Block Grant Program.:: Vice Mayor Fletcher said that one of the recipients of COBG funds was the Stevenson House, and there was a rumor that the Stevenson House was being sold to a private party. She asked what re- straint there might be to such a sale, and, if there was any hope of recovery of public funds, also was a private party who would be buying it for profit. Mr. Miller said that generally, on any of the projects over $25,000, there were deed restrictions which required the contin- ued use of a project as it was intended,or the return :of the funds. He said that in the case of the Stevenson House, their current loan for last year was $15,00.0, which was below the special level. Mr. Miller said he had been in contact with the executive director who. had not had any proposal for a; sale. He said Stevenson House `was a `"Section 202 Development," which meant they had a 50 -year loan from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and he thought that the tenants there were protee'ted in case there was a sale. He saii, that the members he had talked to from Stevenson House were not aWar a of any pending sale. Vice Mayor Fletcher said that a member of the Unitarian Church, which was closely allied with the Stevenson House, contacted her and wanted to knew` what the restrictions were. eeir. Miller said it was true that these types of developments received a number of offers from -rivate developers, but there were thirty Section 8 units in the development, and the tenants must be protected in those circumstances. He said there: were:. also, about fifteen rent supplement units, and the rest of , the units`were under the low interest rate loan that the development: was built under He said he thought it was built in 1967 or 1968, so It' had a number of years . remaining on a 5o -year loan. Councilmember Witherspoon said, she wanted to be sure that the Projects *ere funded to: the full amount as stated ,in .the ;report. 1 2 6 7 9/21/81 Mr. Miller said that of the projects listed in the report, not all of the money had been spent. Some of the funding for the projects had begun July 1.. The projects which began a year ago July 1 were almost fully expended .with the exception of money for landbanking. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. He thanked Mr. Miller for his presentation and said no action was necessary tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF BARBARA TURNER MARTHA TURNER CHARLES CUrirrArrr = GIIttl.J, AND JAMES PAULIN FR#101 THE DECII1ON OF 1 1.. • Planning Commission Chairperson, Jean McCown-Hawkes said that during the course of the hearing, the Commission had lengthy testimony from both the appellants and representatives of the applicant discussing various issues concerning the financing mechanisms for the project and the need for the particular pro- ject. She said those issues were raised by the appellants and responded to by the representatives of Lytton Gardens. She said that as to the variances requested, the principal focus was the daylight plane intrusion on the Webster Street side. She said that was viewed by the Planning Commission as minimal in light of the overall street frontage Which was available. Regarding the use permit, she said the Planning Commission made the findings required by the Zoning Ordinance that the use was appropriate for this particular site and location given the need and the location of the property close to, the more intense development in the downtown area. There was 'one change required in the use permit as contrasted with the Zoning. Administrator's recommendation which related to the number of parking spaces being provided. She said the number was corrected to a total ,of. 59 spaces rather than 66, which was discussed in the Zoning Administrator's hear- ing. She said the 59 spaces was in compliance with .the Zoning Ordinance, and on that basis, the Planning Commission was com- fortable with that one modification. Director of Planning and Community Environment, Ken Schreiber added that during the Planning Commission discussion comments were made regarding the ,possible availability . of parking con- nected with Lytton Gardens I and II as overflow parking if needed for Lytton Gardens III. He said that Lytton Gardens III was pro- viding more_ parkin than the Zoning Ordinance required, but staff went outto survey the existing parking facilities three times at Lytton Gardens I and I I , On Friday they .found° that of the 101 spaces, 39 were vacant. This morning they' found 30 of 'the 101 spaces vacant; and. at noon - today, they found 37 vacant so ; the pattern showed that approximately 30% of the existing parking _at Lytton. Gardens I and 11 was ,vacant. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. Barbara Turner, Appellant, 424 Webster Street, said .-they appealed. the granting of- the use ::per mit for. ,'.20 beds, public . skilled nursing facility because 1) they felt it would -destroy the' resi- dential character of the 400 block of Webster Street, 2) they felt that the financing was shakey, and 3) they ` felt that the questions regarding impact and future financial ark; _ ownership status had not . been asked and adequatel i answered. She said it was a project which' had been forward totally :,without public debate or information. She said the Certificate of Need hearing 1 1 1 in 1978 was noticed with a single notice in the San Jose Mercury of October 26, 1978 in the Legal. Notices section. There was a list of the people who attended the hearing, and they were asso- ciated with Lytton Gardens, Stanford and the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. She 'eas concerned about the cost- of the facility. According to Lytton Gardens' own material submitted to the State, there would be approximately. 10,000 elderly people in Palo Alto by 1985, and of those, 37% had incomes of less than $3,000; 24% had incomes between 53,000 and $6,000, which. indicated 5100 people with incomes of less than $6,000. She said it would cost in excess of $36,000 annually to stay at Lytton Gardens Convales- cent Hospital unless you were one of 36 people who got a Medi-Cal bed. Thirty-six beds would hardly service an elderly population. of 10,000--6100 of whom were dependent upon Medi-Cal. She asked if the goal of the City of Palo Alto was to build this particular facility, or was the goal of the City to build affordable beds for nursing care for its elderly population,- Each of the 120 beds would cost $87,500 apiece or more. She quoted a statement made in the report submitted to the State by Lytton Gardens, "Emphasis must . be placed on a facility that will offer services to low income patients supported by the Medi-Cal program." Sixty- one percent were admittedly unable to afford the Lytton Gardens' rates. She said that Community Housing, Inc. stated that its reasons for being created as developing integrated housing for senior citizens of low income. She asked why was . a hospital for the rich being build Why _was'the City floating bonds under its own name for a private organization, the private organization to be affiliated with two other private organi zeti ons? Why was Stanford or the nacre of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic not on the bonds, since they were the institutions that_, would have formal contracts. with the hospital. Mrs. Turner said that the 36 beds pledged by Lytton Gardens for Medi-Cal patients would be filled from the day the facility opened. Competition in the field was for the remaining 84 beds. A new facility would draw patients away from older. facilities and every skilled nursing facility in the area was competing for the full -paying private patients. She asked why. the City of Palo Alto was not helping Hillhaven with its $9,000 weekly loss from its Medi-Cal beds, and why City assistance was only available to Lytton Gardens. Was the City ready to assist every developer who built a skilled nursing facility for the elderly? She asked why Lytton Gardens . was not requi r'ed .to be cost effective, and why was the builder of phases I and I I not allowed to, bid on phase III, in spite of the fact that there had been no construction com- plaints on I and. Ii. Sh:e . asked why the bidding was not open bidding, and why wea a only three bids allowed. Why was the cost. per bed at Lytton, Gardens 20% higher than other beds in the State? She said a continuum of care was usually interpreted to mean multi -level care, but Lytton Gardens residents which re- quired intermediate care would continue under contract to go elsewhere. She safd, the Lytton Gardens report cited residents as having left Lytton . Gardens because of lack of nursing care. Further, Lytton Gardens statistics showed th t residents who had left Lytton Gardens permanently had done so because they needed intermediate care --not,`- skilled- nursing=care. The facility was not proposed to offer a full continuum of care. A Lytton -Gardens survey of 1975 to. 197.8 showed - that,. 22 residents a year needed skilled nursing care. She could net understand why Lytton Gardens could : not develop -a`: facility similar to Chann i Pte: -Mouse.. which had just 'enough beds foe' its ,Own facility. ' Ms Turner asked .,why the -Lytton Gardens pan; had gone forward without = regard :for: the neighbors, on Webster Street -She said that in January of 1981, when they first learned of the nature of the facility, they requested a meeting with Lytton Gardens' Board to discuss measures which would mitigate the facility's impact on the neighbors across the street. She said then, as well as now, there was no willingness on the part of Lytton Gardens to work with the neighbors to develop a mutually satisfactory parking ramp entrance design. Their only alternative had been opposition to the entire project. There were accommodations which the neighborhood would accept, and the appellants would welcome the opportunity to work them out. She said traffic on Webster would be increased a minimum of 25% by the facility. Other similar facilities, such as Sharon Heights Convalescent Hospital, were located so as not to impact the residents of the street by their traffic. Parking was one of downtown Palo Alto's main problems --private developers were required to provide two parking spaces per two -bedroom unit; and 1-1/2 spaces per one -bedroom unit. She asked why Lytton Gardens was allowed to provide 66 spaces for 120 bed patients, 65 staff, 30 day care residents, and 10 medical students at one time on the site. She, said the appellants had been- informed by Lytton Gardens board that plans had progressed too far as of last January to make any accommodations of the neighborhood, yet Ken Abler told the Planning Commission last Wednesday that necessary changes to the garage resulted in the loss of 10 parking spaces. The appellants were also told that the City would not allow the replacement of the ramp closer to University Avenee, yet when they asked Ted Noguchi if it were true, he said he had not •even been consulted. She asked why Lytton Gardens had not been required to show conclusively that the facility could rat Te- :3 l t tho a_ varlance -like e private :�.- art � rri_' t developers were required :o do. They appellant's inspection of the plans revealed areas within the building proper where the stairwell required by the Fire Code could be located. She said they did not feel that calling Webster Street the project's side- yard was accurate. Two hundred feet of their building was lo- cated on Webster Street. She asked why alternatives had not been nonsidered. Circumstances have changed since hhe facility was first planned. Three skilled nursing racilities within Palo -Alto City limits were being phased out. Hillhaven was for sale; the Stanford Children's Convalescent Home wes being phased out; and Pine Creek was closed. Together, those facilities represented 1-1/2 times the beds planned for Lytton Gardens. She thought they could conceivably be purchased for a far smaller capital outlay than a totally new project. The advantage to Palo Alto's elderly population would be having a residential addition on the Webster Street site, and have theneeded skilled nursing facility beds. On behalf of the appellants, she requested the following: s. That the Council explore ,the alternatives provided by the faci 1 ities available now or within the next two years. She said Lytton Gardens would not be _completed for two years. That the Council seek the wishes of the Palo Alto residents regarding issuing $9.3 million of -bonds for the facility, and 3. That the Council set up d forum whereby the resi d.p . s . of Webster Street ecould'have some input to. whatever _s_- bet lt on the site Owned by Lytton = n- Gardens. -- -- _ Del f i..,no Grelli, 444 Webste,' Street, said he was not against senior ci ti ens, but he had lived : at ' is - residence for 15 years and .the `tr of f i c ' on Webster gent worse and worse . 1 2 7 0 9/21/81 1 1 Charles Gundelach, owned the apartments next to Barbara Turner, and read a letter from James S. Paulin, which said that in the past several weeks he had addressed the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission.. He referred to the decision of the City of Palo Alto to guarantee the bonds of a private corporation. He had asked for rome determination as to the legality of the course, and did not feel that he had received a proper answer. The people of the City of Palo Alto might approve the bonds, b.ut he felt they should be given an _opportunity to express their own views on the matter. He said that considering the sizable amount of the bonds, the question should be addressed. He was concerned about the possible loss in .the value of the property on the other side of Webster_. He realized that the question could not be answered with certainty, but it was a question which deserved a fair consideration. .He did not think there was any way that the petitioner in the action which was before the zoning and. planning bodies could match the awesome list of speakers who spoke for - the construction of the hospital. The action by itself did not consider the issue. Martha Turner, 311 Middlefield Road, said she was opposed to a convalescent hospital.,. that everyone believed would be built to take care of Palo Alto seniors. She did not believe the facility would help the older members of the community because there was no guarantee or even assurance that Palo Alto residents could gain admission to a Lytton Gardens nursing facility. She said the Certificate of Need issued by the State required that Lytton Gardens III set aside 209 or 35 beds for Medi-Care and Medi-Cal patients. She said that the maximum cost per day reimbursed by those programs was about $40. Under the assumptions of the financial feasibility study prepared by Booz-Allen, -Hamilton, the Yemaining 84 beds would cost between $8O-$100 per day, and in addition, each patient was responsible for their own private doctor and medication fees. The result was that this convales- cent hospital would be for wealthy- people who could afford some $2,500 minimum for just bed care --riot typical of the older Palo Alto residents. Palo Alto's senior -citizens would still have to go outside of the area for care. Th'e_ facility was not designed to provide care for those Palo Alto residents that needed it most -.-the elderly dependent upon financial assistance. Most of the seniors who spoke in support of the hospital would not be able to afford a beds Since only 36 beds, would be available for people with limited financial resources and not only elderly, not only Palo Alto residents, she felt:: that community interests were not being- served. She had observed that Palo Alto's most crying need was for _ housing for its seniors Lytton . Gardens had been successful in that matter, Why could they not expand on a solid basis? Since the users of the proposed skilled nursing facility were not only from Palo Alto, she did not understand why the City needed to lend its financial support to a commercial and private venture.- ; ,.As a taxplying, resident of Palo Alto, she objected. The City had agreed to issue a bond to finance the construction of :a 120 -bed , public convalescent facility; which did not serve the residents of Palo Alto. She said the bond was proposed to mature in seven years from issuance, -but no provision" was made that would pay off its. obligations. Although .the bond. `would be insured by the State of California, the insurance lasted for --only the seven;- years of contracted life There was. no, sinking fund provision for repayment and' she 'saw only two primary needs for community housing to. relieve the $8.6 million which would come due seven years after the ` hospital . opens: 1) Sell the_ ski i Led nursing:hote 'to :another eperator or, 2) Resubmit the. !fonds :issue. She found both prospects; alarming. as ,.the ,.backer .:of the bond, : from the prospective of a bond purchaser, and ,as a neighbor of the - ,r project. She said the facilities own financial projections fore- casted deficits into the second year of operation with bond interest payments held at a nominal 9%. In today's interest rate environment-, annual interest payments would increase some $400,000, pushing profitable ;operations past the seventh year. She did net know who would purchase a money -losing operation, or buy -a bond which was financing a continuing- defici..t She said that Community Housing had .asked that it .be exempted from various zoning regulations and received variances' from the Zoning Admin- istrator. She could see no reason why privately incorporated community housing should not conforrn to_- the same zoning and buil- ding parameters adhered to by private developers in Palo Alto-, Webster- Street was a residential street _and already suffered from .County bus traffic routed along the block from Lytton to University. The prospect . of a_25% increase in daily traffic was unpleasant. She said the. project did not seem to be in the best interests of Palo Alto citizens, and _she thought that the Council and the City faced difficult social questions. -She hoped the Council would take the necessary time and action in the citizens' best interests. John V. Beahrs, 1830 Guinda Street, President of _the Senior Coordinating Council, and speaking in that capacity, was opposed to the appeal of the Turners. He said their _presentation was excellent, but he thought many of their arguments were premature. He was also Treasurer and a Director of Childrens' Hospital at Stanford. He :did not understand Ms. Turner's idea that Chil- drens' Hospital was to be phased eoute The Board of Directors of Childrens' Hospital had not voted to phase out that facility, - they hed voted to participate in a study which would determine whether care of the very sick child was better handled by a closer proximity to the Stanford Medical Center. He said their. decision -went no further, and he believed that any phasing out of. Childrens' Hospital was speculative and improbable. He thought that Palo Alto deserved better nursing care than was currently available, and he was alarmed at the very pour level of service generally provided unless there was community participation and intervention. Elizabeth Taft, 3391 Cowper Street, . 14 years, Public Health nurse Discharge Planner at Stanford Hospital, said that in her position she did about 40-45 placements into nursing homes from Stanford. Most of them were community residents although not all from Palo Alto. She said that the •low income residents, particularly, ended up in facilities out of the area because none of the -cur- rent Palo Alto facilities or Menlo Park were accepting Medi-Cal patients. Those facilities that were accepting even private patients had a waiting list of a week to ten days at least before a patient could be placed into them thereby increasing the cost of acute care while they awaited hospital beds. She ., said more beds were needed in Palo Alto --for competition as well as to -meet the needs of Palo Alto - patients She said shesupported the pro- ject because medical students and physical therapy students were not receiving first-hand experience with the needs of the long- term care patient as theywould in a -skilled 'nursing facility. Robert Medea'r i s , 858 Arbor Road, ; Menlo Park, a Founder ' and Director of Lytton Gardens, read e letter from Dave Reese which stated "In 1970, the_ group of people: who became- =the directors of Community Housing, Inc.,- organized a corporation to:. serve the Palo 'Alto area through the development , And :operation of housing facilities for low and moderate income : elderly. We opened our first phase of 218 i(`lependent living -apartments in 1975.. - We saw the need for higher 'levels of care, opened, phase II in . 1979, providing 50 more units of independent living and =59 units of 1 2 7 2 9/21/81; 1 community -care. We also saw a substantial need in the community as a whole --not just Lytton Gardens --for skilled nursing care. We thus began planning in 1911 for phase III, a' 120 -bed skilled nursing facility to serve Palo Alto and its surrounding communi- ties. We have received support for this project from numerous -areas. Some of the most important of these areas are: 1) the local community who has donated over $1,400,000 to this project; 2) the City of Palo Alto, which has guaranteed a loan that has enabled us to buy the land for this project; 3) the Office of State Health Planning and -Development who not :only saw the' need in this community for skilled nursing facilities of this size, but has also issued a Certificate of Need requireci for its con- struction, and in addition provided mortgage insurance which will back our bonding issue. With the support from these groups and many, many .more, we are convinced that this project is not only needed in Palo Alto, but is wanted by virtually all of its resi- dents. We urge your support of the Zoning Administrator's , de- cision." Mr. Medear i s said he thought the issue before the Council_ was a zoning issue, and he thought all of the questions had been an- swered previously. He asked all the supporters of Lytton.Gardens in the audience to stand, and said although_ it was an impressive amount of- people, it was just a token -of the people who supported the project. He said he had been associated with the project since 1968, and it had resulted in one of the . finest cooperative efforts between the private sector, a nonprofit sector, and government of all sorts -that is found in the United States, which -he thought; was incredible in. and of -itself, and said that the City's support was appreciated. Mayor Henderson declered the public hearing closed. Councilmember Levy said,some questions had been raised about the financing of the project, and Palo Alto's involvement in that financing. He was .on the Finance and Public Works Committee when the issue of financing was discussed, and although Palo Alto's name appears on the bond, it was his understanding that Palo Alto was not obligated i.n any way in cennecti on with the issuance of the bonds, but rather it was an obligation of the State of California Health Finance Authority. He asked Mr. Maynor --if his understanding was correct. City Attorney Don Maynor said that was his understanding. He deferred to the representative of Blythe Eastman to expand on the answer. Vince Forte, representative of Blythe Eastman/Paine Webber Health Care Funding, Inc., said that the bonds being proposed would carry the name of the City of Palo: Alto, but would be obligations.. of Community Housing, Inc. and Lytton Gardens, Inc He said the bonds would also be insurance provided by the Office of Statewide Health. Planning -and Development to the; California Mortgage Insur- ance program. That program provided beat in the event the grin-' ci pal obligor, Lytton-` Gardens Community Hoiusi ng, could ' not make its payments, they would" make the paymentsor procure the default as specified in the document. He said the, insurance also went to satisfying the full amount of the final- maturity. It was not an /obligation of the City. NOTION: Councilmenber Levy moved, seconded by Witherspt+on, de- nial of the -Appeal and to ophold :`the Ml anrii g ommission's. recd = mendati,or granting' he variance and: use permit -with conditions, for reasons: (1) Community Housing, Inc. has demonstrated its ability .to build and generate facilities for the elderly which are not detrimental to the immediate neighborhood and are benefits to the entire community. (2) The street sideyard intrusion and daylight plane projection along Webster Street are minor (fifteen feet by eight feet) since the Webster Street property frontage is 260 feet in length. (3) The daylight plane violation to the rear of the development extends along the owner' s own property 1 i ne (Lytton Gardens 11) and would only affect residents or that project which fully support the convalescent facility. (4) Hardship would be created to design a nursing facility with offsetting floors which do not match up vertically. Councilmernber Fazzino said he had had strong and positive feel- ings about the project since the .Council first discussed the issue almost two years ago. .He thought it was important to refit- er ate that at that time, the Council conducted an extensive eval- uation of the project viabi:lity in terms of use, incorporation into the rest of :the Lytton Gardens' project, loan payback, and lack of bond obligation by .the City. He was disappointed when he felt that a novice judge ignored the facts regarding the City's Public Notice process, and almost allowed the project to die due to delay. He believed the project had received full discussion and analysis two years ago, and that the recent delay was unwar - ranted and for all practical purposes, not related to the issues of zoning and bonding. He wanted to move ahead as su'on as possible. Councilme3ber Renzel commented that the very limited issue before the Council was an 8 foot by _15 foot protrusion into the daylight plane along Webster Street. She thought. Ms. Turner had raised questions which Councilrnember Renzel had also had regarding whether the project would result in a significant number of beds available to low and moderate income people. She said that issue had been decided, and what the Council . now had was a minor vari- ance, and it was a small area compared : to the street frontage that was affected, and she would support the variance. Mayor Henderson said he thought that much of the testimony re- lated to the facility itself as though it was not needed or would not serve the community. He couldn't think of anything except hohus i ng that. was more needed i n Palo Alto than convalescent fa- cilities. He realized that this one facility would not solve the great shortage alone, but it was a start, ad he thought a model for additional pew skil-led nursing facilities in Palo Alto. He thought that the '> Council's experience with Lytton Gardens 1 and 11 gave them a pretty good feeling that this facility' would.. be a model and something that others would be able to learn' from. Hopefully, Palo Alto would have more such facilities in the com- munity. He said the Council had been through the' financial ':de- tails at t earlier times, -and_ they were satisfied with the finances as presented, and with the City's' participation in guaranteeing the bonds in name only without any direct obligation on the pant of the City. He was' pleased to support the project. _r Mr. Schreiber clarified the Counci 's motion for the record. He understood that the Council was denying the.. appeal and approving the Planning Commisslon recoa endat•i on granting Goth the `valiance and the . use Permit as issued by the Zoning Adn1 ni s_tr ator with the additional 'conditions as noted in the, September 17 staff report to the Council, including the modification of the parking. 1 1 requirements to 56 underground parking spaces and three surface level parking spaces. Mayor Henderson said that was correct, and that specifically added were the findings .for the Council's reasons in taking the action. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent. PUBLIC HEARING: ARASTRA PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE City Attorney Don Maynor said .there would be some minor changes to the acreage of the various parcels by the final ordinance reading. Councilmember Witherspoon said she was concerned that when the Council decided what to do with the park, it would be too late if the "Reimer Residence" was already in dedicated parkland.. MOTION: Councilmember Withe!spoon introduced . the following ordinance for first reading and moved, seconded by Renzel, its approval. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 22.08 (PARK DEDICATIONS) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE . BY ADDING SECTION 22.08.320 (ARASTRA PROPERTY)"{ AMENDMENT: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Levy, exception of that residence known as 1529. E. Arastradero Road; that minimum legal setbacks of 30 feet not be included, and that when final decision is made re final use of Arastra Park, deci- sion will be made to continue use or dedicate the house City Attorney Don Maynor said the house could be excluded, but staff would need to know with some precision how much property should be included. He said the original home included about 1.6 acres, which would be easy to describe since it was on a current map, but if the Council wanted a smaller area, it would have to be developed. Councilmember Witherspoon said she did not want anything near a proper ten acres because she did not want anyone to ever consider sel i ing it off separately. Mayor Henderson asked Mr. Maynar. for clarificationonthe defini- tion. He said Mr. Maynor had stated that if the Council intended to use the home for conventional reside0,tial purposes rather than park purposes, it .might need to be excluded. He asked about the limitations when speaking of "park purposes." He asked if the Council needed : to be concerned about it 'being used by park. rangers. Mr. Maynor said that it could be the park use. Councilmember Klein e ked. if .,the:` problem could be approached the other way F at b�,id by including the house within the dedicated park land, but provide an exception for a limited period of time? He said Mi. ._ Maynor recommended :that:'. the Council not make this a part of Foothills Park at present due to the `numerous . restrictions imposed by the Palo Alto Municipal Code on Foothills Park :and he asked why? use which. was ancillary to Mr. Maynor said primarily because ,of the restrictions • 1 Alto residents and because horses would not be allowed. Councilmember Renzel also questioned the various ways that exclu- sions from park dedication could be provided and whether it could be done for a period of time. She said she thought the Red Cross building was done in a way that periodically the Council had to renew the exemption from the park dedication; otherwise, the under iying dedication would take hold., She said she would prefer to see the Council dedicate the entire`area with some sort of provision for temporary renewal of -an exemption for the house, and at any point where the City stopped renewing the exemption, it would be automatic reversion to the park dedication. Mr.. Maynor said that may be possible, but he would like to spend some time thinking about it. He did not want to pass the ordi- nance -and then find out that an error was made, and have to go to an election to take it out. Coun.cilmember Renzel asked Mr. Maynota if it would be suffice to say that the income from rental would be paying. for the mainte- nance? Mr. Maynora said it had to be fairly directly related to the park use. He said there were a lot of .cases which indicated what types of park uses were. appropriate, and each one individually had to be looked at. In his opinion, Coupcilmember Renzel's alternative would be too remote. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. Rose Gray, 1235 Hamilton Avenue, Chairperson of the Loma Pr seta Chapter of the Sierra Cl ub, said that the Sierra Cl ub had closely followed the progress of the use of the Arastra land. She was sorry to hear that the Council wanted to parcel out portions of the proposed dedication. She was curious how many of those could happen within the 438 acres. She said that the Sierra Club cone sistently suggested that the entire 515 acres be dedicated as open .space parkland, and they continued to take that stand. She said they believed it was the best use of the land --it was an investment that would preserve. the land in its natural splendor for the people _ of Palo Alto. They were concerned that any devel- opment of housing on any part of the land would incur not only added expense. to Palo Alto taxpayers, but it would also not help with the housing problem in Palo Auto, If any of the property were developed for housing, it would encourage others in the sur- rounding property to follow suit. As a leader, Palo Alto should set a ' precedent for other landowners to follow in the foothills. The Sierra Cl ub urged that the 515 acres be kept as open space parkland, and not cut up into island portions within the land it- self. She -asked what happened with the Mullen property and the eonrcecti ng " link along the Hewlett property being dedicated along with the 438 acres? Mayor Henderson responded that Kr. Maynor had indicated it would be coming before. Council shortly. W. R. ` Smith," III, 1873 i dgewood Drive, said he appreciated the access to the property as a horseback rider, and enjoyed the ability to see the wildlife in the area. He did not " want to see the regulations of Foothills Park incorporated into this parcel. He.suspected that a :lot of the use by hikers, etc., could occur with little or ; no ; expense to the City, as was done to the owners of the property by the horseback community which he was a member of for about 10 years. He pointed out that the horseback riding was a; good way, at a minimal.cost, of essentially- maintaining the trails. He thought it could still be done and it was compatible with riders, etc., to do it, and that the dedication of parkland was appropriate, and it was appropriate that some parts of it may be developed. He did not think it should be as restrictive as Foothills Park. He thought there were a lot of people who could use it, and he would like to see the language support those ideas. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing closed. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by. Witherspoon, to add a provision to the ordinance which would say 1529 E Ar astr adero Road may be rented for non -park purposes for a period of one year from effective date of this ordinance, such one year period subject to renewal by City Council. Vice Mayor Fletcher said she was overjoyed that the land was finally being dedicated. She said when she first became a coun- ciimembeir in 1977, that was the first thing she wanted to do. She said the then City Attorney advised her that it was premature because the City needed to wait until all related litigation in the foothills was completed. Regarding the comments about the 77 additional acres, the Council still had that option open to them, and they would be making that decision within a few weeks. Councilmember Bechtel said she was very glad to see the dedica- tion happening. She hoped the Council ,would make a decision soon as to how they would be using the property. Councilmember Renzel commented that she thought it was exciting to finally be dedicating the Arastra property. She said she would feel much better when the Council added in the e Mullen and Arastradero Creek property because it provided secure protection for properties all the way from Skyline down to the lower Arastra, property. Councilmember Levy said he supported the amendments to continue using the Reiner home as a residence. He thought it was phrased in such a way that the Council would never be able to. develop that house as • a single lot, it would always have to be part of. the dedicated parkland. He also supported the motion to dedicate 433 acres and to not designate Arastra as part of Foothills Park until such time as the Council had resolved the questions of the Mullen ►roperty and the total area. He said he reluctantly.: op- posed dedicating the entire 515 acres at this time. There were other open spaces in the lower part of town, school sites, which althgugh they were not as large nor as extensive in terns of open space, were important areas in terms of the recreation and social: richness of the community. He ' thought it was important: that the Council consider those areas and make.. sure it had the 'funds necessary to maintain the open space in those areas as well as the foothills open space. he thought that reserving the 77 -acre Parcel at this time for a pOssible use as a source in order to maintain tP'e open space from the school sites was the. `right thing to do. He would support the 438 acre dedication at this time, but would net go beyond that. Councilmeaber Klein said he would support the motion on the floor, The Arastra property Was the. issue that got him inter- ested ' rkTa)o Alto politics, and over the years, he had put in a great deal''_. Of effort, -towards maintaining open space in. the hulls. He was thrilled :"that: a : good deal of the property wasgoing to be permanently _-a part of, Palo Alto's open space and parklands. He , : was disappointed that the Council could not move tonight to make it a part of Foothills Park, but he was persuaded that such ac- tion would be premature. -He thought horses and things had to be worked out, but it was his aim that the property be part of Foot- hills Park in the not too distant future. He did not want the 77 acres to be part of the park dedication because the City only had limited resources, and decisions had to -be made on where to place: them. He thought that those who had 'walked the two parcels would have to agree that there were very significant differences be- tween the two parcels.- The 77 _acres, while desirable, were not nearly .as• desirable as the 438 acres. Councilmember Levy had correctly pointed out that- there were many areas in Palo ,Alto where the Council would want' to have assets available to preserve urbarh open space --Open space that people: could use on - a day to day basis. He thought that both kinds of .open _space were: criti- cal to the quality of life An Palo Alto, and ..by using the 438 acres as dedicated permanent parkland and reserving the possibil- ity of selling the 77 acres, the Council had struck a balance he- tween the two types, which he thought was in the best interests of the community. He would support -the motion as it stood. Councilmember Fazzi.no said he was pleased that dedication of at least 4-38 .acres of the Arastra land was occarring He said he would support Councilmember Bechtel `s motion to dedicate the entire property because he was not convinced that the housing return to the City would be that tremendous. He was concerned that as a policy arid philosphy the Council, not get into the piece -meal approach of bargaining one piece of open space for another. He thought the Arastra land should stand by .itself and that the Council should not establish it as a precedent. The school sites were an important issue, but a separate one. He said the Council would be looking at the idea of approving a separate financing mechanism on the. ballot next year to determine whether school sites should be purchased. He thought that citi- zens of Palo Alto would have to vote on that issue and that issue alone. He said he was concerned that the Councfl not continue to use Ara .tra as a bargaining gift for school sites. He appreci- ated the comments of Mr. Smith and others regarding the use -of the area. He said it was an issue that the Council needed to spend a great deal more time on. He thought that once the dedi- cation ordinance was approved, the Council should immediately commence a Ludy . of use of 'the area with respect to trails and possible attachment to Foothills Park. He supported the motion with respect to the interim conditions regarding the home am that site, Councilmember Witherspoon reiterated that she thought that resources were getting more precious in Palo Alto.. which was why she wanted to wait and see what the Council wanted to do before the house or the 77 acres was i ncl sided. Mayor Henderson said that the action brought him great satisfac- tion and joy because he was on the Council that voted the open. space zoning. He considered that the most significant action taken,:dur i ng his period of Council service. He went through a number of depositions concerning the suit on 'the Arastra property which resulted in many hours of deep concern as to whether the City would make it though the Court actiona Finally the suit was settled and the City acquired the property. _ The Council had reached its finest hour —the dedication of the 438acres. Mr. Maynor asked if it was Countilmember Klein's intent that the parcel to be excluded be deemed park property unless the City Council took action wi th,rn one year to declare it for non -park used 1 2 7,8 9/21/81 1 Councilmember Klein said his intention was that the house was permanently part of the park and that it 'was being exempted for a period of one year from the restrictions on park use and that the exemptions could be renewed by the Council for extra periods of time when the one-year period came up. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Bechtel said she thought it would be a mistake to develop the 77 acres, it would be setting a precedent for all ow- i ng that type of devel opment in the Palo Alto foothills and she thought the City needed to keep that parcel in open space. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Ren ze1 , that the entire 515 acres be dedicated for park purposes. Counc•ilmeoeber Renzel commented that: she was mindful of the Coun- cil's interest in •acquiring school sites. She said it became very clear to her in the presentations that the Council had on the development of the Arastra pr cper ty that the City was not a party that would make a lot of money out of the Arastra property. If development were allowed in any kind of an environmentally sensitive way, the amount of money the City would rece ve for it would be very smal I compared to its commitment on school sites. Personally, she did not feel it was worth it for the city to lose the 77 acres on that account. She did not favor pursuing any further exploration of development on the Arastra property, wed felt the Council should seek other sources of funding for the school sites. Councilmember Levy wanted to make it clear that the Council was not foreclosing the possibility of the ultimate dedication of all 515 acres. The Council was simply moving slowly and prudently and making sure of all the data, facts and different al ter nati ves available before moving on the extra 77 acres. He would vote against dedicating 515 acres, but only at this time, to keep the options available as he considered all the information which came in. Mayor Hender son seconded Counc i lmember Levy' s statement . He thought it would be inappropriate to move at this time before . ven considering the . consultant's report. He thought that all of the Councilmembers had previously . commented that they were. making no commitment about any other use of that land at this time. He thought the Councilmembers owed it to the citezens, taxpayer s and future voters on ballot* issues to study the 77 acres and make a firm decision on that as a separate issue. Councilmember Bechtel commented that she would be back and would make another motion in a _couple of months when the Council had more information. Mayor Henderson said he.. hoped the Councilmembers would hold open minds when the studies did come back. Counci-lmember Mein urged those who had been proponents - to start corns nit forward with: -al ter nate : mechanisms for financing the aC qui - sition of school sites. He said it was easy to say you :' auld vigorously, Support something - which went on the , hailot. He thought perhaps the :. 7.7 acres should go on the ballot because it was a choice. The ' City did :. have limited resources, and ; the City had to. "decide where to put tteao• 1 Councilmember Fazzino reminded the Council that they had moved forward with at least a commitment to putting a specific finan- cing mechanism on the ballot --the Utility User's Tax, and he was committed toward that process. AMENDMENT FAILED to dedicate the entire 515 acres by a vote of 5-3 as follows: AYES: Renzel, Fazzino, Bechtel NOES: Klein, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Witherspoon ABSENT: Eyerly ORDINANCE AS AMENDED FOR FIRST READING PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent. RECESS FROM 9:30 p.rn. TO 9: 5 .m, PANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD UNANIMOUSLY Councilmember Renzel said this item was a mitigated negative declaration and she recogni zed that staff had wor ked very hard to negotiate the mitigated negative declaration, but when she saw that a demand of 200 to 300 units of affordable housing would be created and that the housing mitigation was $170,000, she found it difficult to say that the problem would be mitigated. She thought that the Council would have to address the problem at some point as to how they would deal with the housing demand created by the continued intense land development. Regarding the design of the project itself, which was the subject before the Council, the developer had tended to his own needs by providing the parking at the periphery and alI the landscaping in the center. She personally felt that at least along Geng Road where the public using the athletic facilities and the Golf Course, etc., would be more exposed to the project there should be more attention to the landscaping along the periphery as well. From a City planning prospective, the Council should not be looking only to see that the project -worked .for the developer, but also it should provide some benefit to the City. It looked to her as if the narrow margin around the edges was not adequate. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to adopt the r ePormendation of , Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board to approve the application with the condition that definitive landscaping/irrigation plans, including trees to be. removed and trees to remain, will be submitted. Councilmember. Bechtel asked if the portion along, East `Bayshore Road was highl+ ri sible. Councilmember Witherspoon said she thought. the` landscaping as shown was- _ adequate. She did not think the site would be seen from East 8ayshore Road, and she would be reluctant to require more than the peripheral landscaping already indicated_ in. the Architectural Review Board approval, `which assured Sixty , feet of landscaping along Geng Road. Mr. Hoover of `hoover Associates explained that 'the area that the staff had. included for landscaping was -'from 80 to 120 feet. He -said their concern at the other end was that they did not own the 1 2.8.0 9;21181 1 1 access all the way to the road and that they were going through an easement. He said there had been an attempt to get _a reason- able amount of landscaping, .but actually the landscaping they contended would be their front entrance along Geng Road. Councilmember Renzel said she guessed: that at the Frontage Road .there was parking within forte feet of the edge of Hoover "Asso- ciates' property, and she thought that_ iri that area some of that par king could be removed to .another portion of the site, and the portion .which was going to be visible from Frontage Road could be put into landscaping. Mr. Hoover said that Hoover Associates would do anything in terms of fine tuning. Vice Mayor Fletcher said there was a berrned lawn .along Geng which should shield the view from Geng Road for the parked cars behind the landscaped area. She asked if along the property line of East Bayshore, which was visible' from East Bayshore, it could be a lower form of landscaping which would shield the view somewhat. Mr. Brown said he thought there was an under story of flowering shr ubs and ground cover s under neath the trees. He thought it would be appropriate to require some sort of shrubbery there. Councilmember Renzel said she was concerned that the strip for planting was only ten feet wide, and the rest of the space was parked cars. She said she would like to see at least four: car spaces on either side of that entryway along the two sides of the angle, either put into landscape reserve or transferred perma- nently elsewhere in the site. John Sutorius, Architectural Review Board (ARB), said that the landscape plan had not been before the ARB. He said that was yet to come so what was before the Council was a conceptual landscape plan. He said there were comments during the ARB meeti nil about the concepts. He said the ARB was anxious to see that the Geng frontage was adequately enhanced and ne believed that in concept, that was what the Council was seeing, but in detail, many of the things the Council was pointing to would be worked out when the detailed landscape plans went before the ARB. He said that by those comments he did not want to give the Council the feeling of a blank check regarding the East Bayshore Frontage, but he did assure the Council that the landscape plan for the adjacent property currently under development which was rather extensive would be brought to the _ meeting when the ARR considered = the -land- scape plan for an adjacent development. Mayor Henderson said that the minutes of the August 20 ARB Meet- ing did say that definitive landscaping irrigation plans includ- ing trees to be removed, trees to remain, weuidbe submitted. Mr. Schreiber said staff concurred with Councilmember Renzel's thoughts regarding the first four or five parking spaces : in each direction. He thought Mr. Hoover had indicated before- that they. were receptive to that idea, andhe thought that : putting - those spaces in a landscape reserve. Mould. be'approp;•iate. Counci'member Renzel asked :-about modifying where the spaces were to be located elsewhere. She said if the parking demand came, then the landscape reserve would get pulled' out, and she was cone cerned that, there be -permanent public protection with landscaping in those entry areas and let the landscape reserve occur else- where., She.. said that when the Council approved a site : and design review with a conceptual landscaping plan, how tied were they to the ten foot perimeters shown. Did the conceptual plan mean that the ARB only looked at what species the trees and shrubs go with- in the landscaped areas? Mr. Schreiber said yes, the area to be landscaped would be idih. tified in the Council approved plan. Councilmember Renzel said that the Council had to decide whether they wished to see additional landscaping in certain areas at this point even though it would not be specified what types and kinds. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded. by Bechtel, that Council specify that in the plan, the area in the vicinity. of East Bayshore Frontage Road entrance increased landscaping be provided with those parking spaces moved elsewhere on the site and possibly put into landscape reserve elsewhere- on the site, but that the permanent landscaping be in the vicinity of the entryways. • Councilmember Bechtel said she thought the Architectural Review Board had heard the Council's concern about the landscaping An the trees in order to provide. adequate protection from East Bay- shor_e Road and Geng Road but she thought- that Councilmember Renzel's amendment specifically expressed concern about the two entrances most visible from those two roads and she thought it made sense to specifically have-those details. She urged Council -support of the amendment Counci lnenber Witherspoon said she would like the ARB to also look at the lighting. She said there had been security problems in the area, and it was a difficult site to patrol. Mayor Henderson said he would like to leave it that the .Council had given the ARB a message of some concerns, but he was not ready to spell out that such and such must be done. He said he would rely on the ARB to make a judgment when the landscaping plan came back. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5 - voting "no," Eyerl.y absent. Fletcher, Henderson, Fazzino Councilmember Renzel said that given the concerns about security, there was a tendency for companies to build very high and glary spot light type lighting on their parking lots. She thought the bright lights were a traffic hazard and hoped that nothing like that would be built in Palo Alto. She was concerned that the quality of the lighting used in this project be similar to that which was used at Ming's. She said a standard had been set in Baylands' Projects. She _.woul_d like -to see an, entryway to the Baylands that was appropriate for an entry=, to a park and she did not want to see lighting that would create a traffic hazard. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel , moved, seconded by Bechtel, to suggest to Architectural Review Board that they take special care in addressing the problem of high efficiency outdoor lighting. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Fazzito, Witherspoon voting "no," :Eyer ly absent. 1 2 8 2 9/21/81 Councilmember Renzel said she recognized that staff had negoti- ated the best they could on the housing mitigation. She,was con- cerned about what the Council could do when they kept getting housing mitigations which were, in and of themselves, substantial sums of money, but when related to the housing demand created were miniscule. 1 1 1 Mayor Henderson said . thy: -".was brought up every time, and he thought the Council would aced to set new requirements concerning housing as long as the City could not pick out one developer and seek mitigation payments which were far out of line with the pay- ments they had agreed to with other developers. He said that until the Council did something specific, he did not see the Council had the leeway to take such a big step with this partic- ular developer. Councilmember Renzel said this was a case where the developer was being given a mitigated negative declaration which meant that the Council could require an environmental impact report. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, that the housing matter be re -explored with regard to the mitigated negative declara- tion. Councilmember Levy asked if the mitigation amount was consistent with what the Council had required for other similar projects, and if the amount was based upon the square footage? Mr. Schreiber responded yes. He said it was based on the amount of square footage and the fee was escalated by about sixty .per- cent last April, Councilmember Levy asked if the employment density in the project would be comparable to what they were seeing in the industrial park? 1. Mr. Schreiber said staff saw a r -age of employment densities. He said it would .probably be on the higher end if the actual employ- ment was at the level projected at this time. It was a "spec" office building so there were no tenants signed up, so all staff had was ,an estimated figure based on maximum occupancy. Councilmember Levy asked Mr. Schreiber if he thought there was some .other" basis that could be negotiated with the -builders for a different level of housing mitigation payments? Mr. Schreiber responded that in terms of another basis, staff investigated construction costs in other industries Some. years ago and felt that square footage was the best method of basing a payment. As far as substantially increasing the level of pay- ments, it became ` a matter of being able to justify under the environmental quality guidelines the level of payment. On this site, the City had gone through a process where it had looked at vacant sites -and changed the Comprehensive ` Plan, rezoned any number of vacant sites to multiple -family residential. Staff had seriously considered recommending denial of this type of ;.project and ,a Comprehensive ,Plan ..change to multiple -family residential Staff did not feel that:, given the environmental setting, the flood plane, the underlyinj bay mud, the earthquake problems, the isolation of the site, the garbage trucks next door, the lighting f►om the athletic center, etc,, it was a suitable residential area Staff felt that 'the earlier decision to exelode it from consideration of multiple -family residential was correct. As such, staff worked from within the framework of the mitigation process and had been using it for the last couple of years. Councilmember Levy said he went along with Mayor Henderson in feeling that there was nothing really that the Council could properly do with the proposal, and if Council wanted to set different levels for mitigation payments, he thought they would have to do it as a policy matter for the future. AMENDMENT FAILED for lack of a second. Councilmember Bechtel thought it was appropriate for the Council to talk ,abo=3t the fact that they had no choice with the property. She said she had al so looked at the property, and she agreed that it would not be appropriate for housing, but she thought that the Council should be thinking in the future about the fact that they were putting in a demand of 200 to 300 additional housing units, and the housing mitigation payment was more than was recently agreed upon by Hewlett Packard in June of 1981. Regarding the traffic problems, she was pleased to see that as part of the traffic mitigation, the developer would be paying to make some improvements at that intersection. She said she was prepared to. vote in favor of the project. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent. APPEAL OF'.DAVID N. SCHRODER TO A DEMOLITION ORDER - 778 LOMA VERDE AVENUE (CMR:439:1 ) '. Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the position of the Chief Building Official and the. Palo Alto Fire Department :and require that the violations and nuisances be abated in the time line specified or the Director of Public Works be authorized to have the necessary work performed "according to Chapter 16.40 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.. City Attorney Don Maynor said that this was a hearing in accord- ance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code. He said that the hearing would give the appellant an opportunity to appear and present evidence. Following the hearing, the Council was required by the Code to make written findings which would be prepared by the City Attorney's Office and returned in a few days. Mayor Henderson declared the hearing open and receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the hearing closed. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Klein, denial of the appeal and uphold the position of the Chief Building Official and the Palo Alto Fire Department: and require that the violations and nuisances be abated in the time line specified or the Director of Public Works be authorized to have . the necessary work performed according to Chapter 16.40 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Councilmember Wi ther spoon ' asked what type of findings the Council had to make, and who owned the property? Chief Building Official Fred Herman said he did not know who owned the property, but said that the property had been in liti- gation since before the fire. He said that the person the court had awarded the property to refused to accept it. The current recorded legal owner was David N. Schroder, which was_; why . the 1 2 8 4 9/21/81 City was putting a lien on the property so that regardless of who ended up owning it, the lien would stay. Mr. Herman said the City wanted the property cleaned up as soon as possible. Mr. Maynor said that they would find out who the owner was before the City commenced any work. Vice Mayor Fletcher asked if Mr.. Schroder had been notified about this hearing? Mr. Herman said he was. Councilmember Renzel asked if the house on Lorna Verde was sub- stantially destroyed and would basically have to be rebuilt? Mr. Herman responded that the ordinance gave an option of reha- bilitating or demolition. He said the house was approximately 50 to 60% damaged, and the remainder of the property was a total disaster. There were numerous structures and buildings which were hazardous not only for an attractive nuisance, but also for fire or general safety. Councilmember Witherspoon asked what findings the Council was supposed to make? Mr. Maynor said that it was his understanding that Mr. Schroder was the legal owner, and the City Attorney's Office would prepare the findings and place them on the consent calendar. If Mr. Schroder was not the legal owner, however, they would have to do this over again. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly absent. FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF DENIAL OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO HA rx S R El - 6 BRY NT COUR COUNCIL TO Mayor Henderson asked Mr. Maynor for clarification that all the Council was to consider tonight was the findings, that the action on the property had been completed by the Council. Also, Mayor Henderson clarified that the only people who could participate in this matter were those who voted on;the item on August 17. At that time, the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the application was upheld by a vote of 4.2, Fletcher, Renzel, Bechtel, Henderson voting. °aye," Eyerly, Witherspoon, voting "no." Fazzino, Klein, Levy absent. Mr. Maynor said that was correct. As a quasi-judicial body in following a hearing, only those members who were there at the hearing and heard the testimony could participate. He said that by State law, the Council was required to adopt findings and the staff had prepared proposed findings. Mr. Maynor said that if the Council wi shed to . approve or change any part of the findings, this, was the time to do it. He pointed out that it was not a public hearing, it was a merely a requirement the Council had to meet under State law in- adopting_ formal findings. Councilmember Renzel said that some of the coursciime_mbers - had made findings, but that they were not in writing on August 17 Barbara Turner, 424 Webster :.Street,"._:said she was the applicant : for the subdivision map. She said that in the second finding, it 1 2 8 5 9/21/81 stated, "The existing six units have a density within the para- meters of the multiple family zoning and are less expensive per square foot than the Project's proposed eight new multiple - family units." She believed that Jvhn Hanna had presented testi- mony that showed the current rentals on those units were as expensive, or more expensive, per square foot than the new units would be or the new units existing today were renting for. She said the units rented for between $.56 and $.80 per square foot, and averaged about $.60 per square foot' which was about the going rate. She felt testimony was presented which was different from the findings. "The proposed development would undesirably alter the neighborhood character as evidenced by testimony of local residents living in the vicinity of -said Project." She said that the residents did present that testimony, but it was not accurate in terms of the neighborhood. The north side -of Hawthorne Street had 28 units on it --that one block between Bryant and Waverley; the youth side of Hawthorne which, 350 and 360 were on had 13 units on it. She felt it was not accurate to present the neigh- borhood as a single-family neighborhood. Ms. Turner said that in Finding #3, it stated that "an almost ,equal number of condominium units for sale." She said that it was actually a 33-1/3% increase from 6 to 8. Two was not all that great, but two as a proportion of what was there now was a fair amount. Ms. Turner said that in Finding #4, it talked about low-priced rental units. She said they were not low priced, they were small, but their square foot rental was high. Currently, they were renting for $375, $450, .$425, $250, $735 and $450 and averaged 600. to 800 square feet a piece. The units were only suitable for one single adult. She said thet 350 Hawthorne had two bedrooms, but with that exception, all the others were only large enough- for one single adult. Currently there were five adults living in the six units. She said they were not low, income persons, they were all professionals. Ms. Turner quoted from Finding #5, "the physical design of the proposed Project is massive." She thought it was unfortunate that the plans had not been shown to the Councilmembers.because John Northway spent hours in the neighborhood assessing what was, there now and designed something that he felt confident would fit into the neighborhood. She said they were eight vicforian town- houses. They look like the house on the corner of Waverley and Hawthorne. The height was well under the 35 foot height for an RM-2 zone, 35% coverage was the maximum allowed in an RM-2 zone. She said they had a negative declaration on the project. Origi- nally they. had proposed eight condominiums with a total of 1.5,000 square feet. She did not feel that the findings were in keeping with the testimony which was presented. She asked if the Council would look at .her plans. Mr. Maynor :advised the Council .that the public hearing was closed and they could only; consider testimony which was presented at that hearing. Unless the information was presented before, he, thought it would be in appropriate for the Council to receive new information now. Vice Mayor Fletcher said ,she; thought most o.f the findings were appropriate. She said that because people were professional did not mean they were anything else than ' moderate income, She believed that the units were suitable for families with one ;fie, t 2 8 6 9/21/81 child. She said two -bedroom houses were definitely large enough for more than one person. MG[ION: Vice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Henderson, to adopt findings and City Attorney's Report dated September 17, 1981.. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Bechtel, that "per square foot" be removed from paragraph '2. Mayor Henderson said he felt comfortable with the amendment. He said that Council was talking about the cost of the housing per se and who could live in it. As Vice Raynor Fletcher said, the current residents were of moderate income nature. Councilmember Renzel said she supported the deletion of the phrase because she thought the net effect.. was the housing units available now would be replaced with housing units which would cost more regardless of whether they were occupied by one or more individuals. She said that the per units cost was what someone had to pay, that one could not buy so many square feet of condo- minium. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Klein, Levy, Fazzino "not partici- pating," Eyerly absent. AMENDMENT: Mayor Henderson eqpied, seconded by Fletcher, in Para- graph 3, to delete the phrase, "of which three are multiple - family rentals units." Councilmember Renzel commented that if those units were. subdi- vided then they were multiple -family, .-and were in conformance with the zone, and she thought it was important to have that language. She thought that the distinction was that when there were multiple units. on a parcel, they were multi -family under the definition of the City's zoning code and` the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Bechtel said she understood it to mean that one building had three units, and the other buildings were individual and, therefore, not multi -units,- She also thought the language should be left- in, AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN: Mayor Henderson retracted the amendment. AMENDMENT: Mayor Henderson moved, se onded by Bechtel to change wording "low-cost" to "moderate cost" in Paragraph 6. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Klein, Fazzino, Levy "not partici- pating," Eyerly absent. Councilmember Witherspoon observed that while she agreed with the amendments, she did not use these findings in her vote. She said she would vote against the findings although _she' -did not think they were inconsistent with some e the facts of the situation. Her problem was that for each Of ahese findings, taken from the text of the Comprehensive Plan, one could go into the re5t of the Comprehensive -Plan and find other findings perhaps in support of the projects Her main concern about the denial of the project based on the text of the Comprehensive Plan was that she felt more comfortable starting from the premuses of whether, a project was consistent -with : the zoning and the land use map, .-and this. project was.. _-Then,- if it was not consistent or if there was, a, guests on,. "or a : request for variance, she;.' ooked at the text- in the Comprehensive Plan to decide "whether it was in conformance. 1 2 8 7 9/21/81 1 1 Mayor Henderson said that a number of the counc i l member s did go through the existing units and walked around the neighborhood, and he thought the findings were consistent With the statements made on August 17, which were the Council's reasons for voting against the project. He said that the Council had been concerned about the mix that already- existed there, i.e., apartments, con- dominiums and single-family dwellings, and it was important that the mix be retafned in the area.- Further, the Council .said they wanted to start the residential zoning. at a higher level at Lytton and then reduce it toward the creek. He said the combina- tion of those two factors and looking at this particular project lead the Council to the decision they made. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 4-1, Witherspoon voting "no," Klein, Fazzino, Levy "not participating," Eyerly absent. RE UEST OF COUNCILMEMBERS BECHTEL, FAllINO AND KLEIN RE OVERNIGHT Councilmember Bechtel said that those counci !members who had originally voted for enforcement of the •exi sti ng over ni ght par k- ing ordinance were concerned about the great number of vehicles that were on the streets which were potential crime problems, made the streets less safe for children, and generally detract from the City of Palo Alto. Recently, the City Manager had out - 1 fined the costs, and the attorney had described the legal diffi- culties in enforcing and making the ordinance stand up to the courts. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct staff to draft an ordinance to (1) significantly modify the abandoned stored vehicle enforcement_ policy as outlined in the City Manager's Report dated September 10, 1981; and (2) that the ordinance prohibit overnight parking to-,kcertain commercial vehicl-es and trailers including recreation vehicles and trucks, in all residential zones. Councilmember Bechtel felt that these two steps tightened up enforcement and the el imination of commercial vehicles would make a dent. She did not believe it world - be the whole answer, . and she thought the Council would need to review it, and it might be necessary to refer the ordinance back to the Policy and Proce- dures Committee for additional study. Counci'member Klein said the City Manager's repott was persuasive that the costs of the program would be - unfortunately -large at this time, so he was willing to try a lesser approach to see if they could come up with something that would be helpful to the problem in the community. Heespoke about two communities on the east coast which had aver night' parka ng -ordinances. In Brookline, Massachusetts, the ordinance worked well. When visiting Brook - 1 fine, the people at whose home he was staying made it a point that their .car :- had to, be off the street and in their driveway or ei se thr' _,would get a ticket. He said he made a note as he walked around the neighborhood that everyone did have their cars off the street in that neighborhood. He - said he did not see signs placed all over Brookline warning people - against over ni ght parking, and he did not see the curbs painted either he would like staff to check and see how other communities were able to do this well while Palo Alto was not. He would= support the: substi- tute motion, and hoped a dent could be, made in the problem. '`., Councilmember Fazzino. thought that Councilmember Klein's news was encouraging. He joined Coun ilmembers Klein and _Bechtel on this issue. He Was: a proponent. of the need ` to get cars off ` the 1 2 8 8 9/21/01 streets which did not belong to residents of homes. His concern about the Council's Ppproach a month ago as stated in the recent staff report related to costs, legal problems, and also that the system was perhaps getting people to pay money, but still par k their cars on the streets. eHe was much less concerned about developing a traffic and over hi ght parking fund than he was with the issue of getting cars off the streets. Because of that, he felt there was more opportunity of accomplishing that with the abandoned/stored vehicle ordinance. He clarified with Mr. Maynor that the code presently read that a vehicle could be towed after 72 hour's, and asked if that time period could be shortened? Mr. Maynor said it was not clear in his mind that the time period could be shortened. He said it was clear that if the Council did shorten the •time, they could not use the state law which allowed the car to be hauled away --that was premised on the 72 -hour rule. Counci lmember Fazzino asked if a citation or warning could occur in 24 or 48 hours. Mr. Maynor said that appeared to be something that could be done. The only thing that was not clear to him was whether the 72 hours was ci early preempted by State taw, but that appeared to be only a condition on removal. AMENDMENT: Counci member Fazzino moved, seconded by Bechtel , that some kind of warning system be establ i shed on: the basis of 24448 hours and that a strict system of enforcement on the basis of complai nts be used and enforcement procedures be reeval uated in one year. 1 1 Counci lmember Witherspoon applauded the coun i lmember s for coming up with a good compromise. She said that one of the concerns was the cost of the previous proposal, and she asked how the City was going to enforce the ordinance. Mr. Zaner .said it ' would require _ additional resources no matter what enforcement program was used. He said the City did get a portion of the fines back from the court. Counci lmember Wither spoon 'felt that when the ordinance was written, it should be written in such a .manner so as to preclude someone merely moving their "abandoned" vehicle across the street and thereby satisfying the requirement. Vice Mayor Fletcher said as one who had voted against the previ- ously suggested ordinance, while she was not against getting the cars off the streets, it was the type of ordinance .that bothered her, .She did not like that it would be determined that certain neighborhoods would be subject to the ordinance, and others would not. !Jean Libby, 1222 Fulton, had a petition supporting requiring the enforcement of existing ordinances and regulations regarding street parking in residential areas, 'R-1. She said that as an additional safeguard against the erosion of R-1, zones, the number of street parking permits issued should not exceed the space adjacent to the' R-1, residence. Will Beckett, 4189 Baker Avenue, felt that the City ; should enforce its current rules against ::overnight -street parking. He asked enforcement be self -funding via permit sales. 1.2 8 9 9/21/81 Jane Grubgeld, 3746 La Calle, felt that the manner in which the ordinance was suggested scared everyone, but at the same time, she was pleased with some aspects of the proposal. She supported no on -street parking. Bob Moss, 4010 0rme, said that 'during the Policy and Procedures Committee meeting, there was some uncertainty on -the part of the staff _as to whether signs would have to be posted, and how fre- quently, the cost, etc. If the City _was going to have a 72 -hour abandonment in the towing ordinance, he thought there would still be the notification .problem. Regarding enforcement, he thought it was obvious to an officer driving around at 4:00 a.m. when a vehicle was illegally parked if the overnight parking ordinance was bei ng .. erforced. If - an officer .saw the car parked and the City had the 72 -hour towing ordinance, M. Moss could not imagine the officer making a note that the car .was parked on his beat. Further, he thought most of the objections related to the need for a parking permit and obtaining one either for themc.el ves or a guest and- having to pay a fee. He realized that the fee was to make the program self-sustaining, but the total dollar amount was relatively small. He thought the Council could get the same result by either going with enforcement at a lower level and not charging the fee, or by charging a lesser fee or making some othet arrangement where it would not be quite as onerous. He thought that the 72 -hour towing would be at least,.as difficult to enforce as a straight overnight prohibition. Councilmember Renzel asked what the current law was on commercial vehicles. Mr. Maynor said there was a prohibition, but it was covered by the overnight parking ordinance. He said there was a State law which indicated that the City could only prohibit coma',rcial vehicles in excess of five tons. Although the City could _teal with that under the zoning ordinance with commercial vehicles parked on the property itself, but the State seemed to preempt out on the street .up to five tons or more. He said there was a lot of ambiguity in the State law, and one of the things staff might want to do would be to get a clarification from the Attor- ney General's Office as to what areas preempted the City in State law. He said it was impossible to determine with any certainty where-ethe Citywas preempted. Councilmember Renzel saia that determining abandonment, she thought one would have to ,determine that the vehicle had stayed in the same place for some period of time that constituted aban- donment and was not just parked there overnight. She was con- cerned that the Council had had to back off of a policy that they did establish based on a considerable amount of exploration of the options. Councilmember Levy said it was important to recall that the.,. City had had this ordinance on the books for many years. The City had enforced it successfully for many years both in terms of clearing the street of cars and not resulting in significarst complaints from the public. He said the reason the City stopped enforcing it was because ' the Police Department decided it was better that they used their resources elsewhere not because there was any public concern or demand. He said the:: result was that over the years, people parked their cars on the streets instead of their garages.. He said everyone was a victim of the packtrat society and everyone accumulated more worldly goods than they had space for, Councilmember Levy was concerned with the enforceability of alternatives. If there was a 24 -hour ticketing, that would mean that thee Police Department would have to go around twice. Every 1 2 9 0 9/21/8.1 car would have to be marked and thencome back 24 hours later and if it was still there, it would get a ticket. He thought that the beauty of the overnight parking ordinance was that once a car was seen that was illegally parked, it was illegally parked and it received a ticket, He thought the City needed an ordinance where there was a certainty of enforcement. He was not happy with the ordinance and he felt it would be much less onerous in the enforcement than people were worried about. He supported leaving the ordinance on the books as is and enforce it. Mayor Henderson asked regarding the warning system or citation in 24 to 48 hours, if it would cause any serious problems in terms of staffing or cost over the straight 72 -hours, or would it all be done on a complaint basis. Mr. Zaner anticipated that it would be done on a complaint basis. He reminded the Council that even with the overnight parking regulations, automobiles may not be removed from the street for 72 hours. The automobile could be tagged, but the automobile would remain on :the street for 72 -hour because state law would take precedence. Mayor Henderson said he did not like cars parked on the street, but did not see the practical possibility of a successful over night parking ordinance. He thought that what was before - the Council tonight was precisely what he had_ been looking for. He_ would support the motion. Councilmember Bechtel said she agreed with Jane :rubgeld`s sug- gesti on of voluntary cooperation and that working to solve the problem was very important. She thought that the use of - a util- ity mailer "blurb" would be helpful. AMENDMENT: Counci lmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fazzino, that staff explore public relations types of things for solving the problem of parking in the streets. i;ouncilmember Klein said he woulo oppose the amen;dtr.ent. because Council was not establishing it as something that was against the .law. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 4-4 as fol 1 ows AYES: Renzel, Fazzino, Witherspoon, Bechtel NOES: Klein, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy ABSENT: Eyerly MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Renzel', Levy voting "no," _ Eyer 1 y absents HENDERSON RE SPECIAL_ EXECUTIVE SESSION ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1981 TO MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fazz i no, .,that the Special Executive Session on September 22, 1981 to start at 7GO p.m. instead .of 6:30 p.m. MOTION PASSED :unanimously, Eyerly absent. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:30 pi.m. 'ATTEST: APPROVED: Mayor