HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-20 City Council Summary MinutesI. .
TEM
Approval of Minutes
CITY
COUNCIL
Minutes
CITY
O�
PALO
ALTO
Regular Meeting
Monday, October 20, 1980 - 7:30 p.m.
PAGE
Or31 Communications
Mayor Henderson Presenting Resolution
Paul Garrett, 3827 Corina Hay
Consent Calendar - Referral
University Avenue Corridor Study
Consent Calendar - Action
1221 Parkinson - Setting Public Hearing
Amendment to PAHC/City Agreement re Compensation
of Board Members
Annual Charges for the Use of Refuse Area by
Stanford University
Approval of Project -Installation of a Solar Water
Heating System -Municipal Golf Course Club House
Resolution re Pheripheral Canal
Resolution re Support of Proposition One
Traffic Signal Installation at Hanover/Hillview/
Porter - Budget Amendment
Ordinance re 1980 Speed Limits
Resolution re Student Organization for Somalia
Refugees
875 Alva and 140 Homer - Exceptions from Non-
conforming Use Termination Provision
424-434 Webster - Final Subdivision
255 La bert - Exception from Nonconforming Use
Termination Provision
Los Trancos Access Road - Site and Design Review
1720 Montebello Road - Site and Design Review
Public Hearings:
Community Development Block Grant Progress Report
475 Forest Avenue -Tentative Subdivision Map Approval
775 and 765 Colorado - Preliminary Parcel Map Approval
3805 E. Bayshore }- Preliminary Parcel Map
640 Forest Avenue - Tentative Subdivision Map
600 Middlefield/664 Hamilton - Tentative Subdivision Map
Downtown Parking Management Plan
Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Nap and Open Space Plan
Map Changes - Public Hearing
University Lands/Santa Clara !County General Plan
4131 El Cassino - Exceptions fro Nonconforming Use
Mitchell Park Recreation Center - Painting Services
32100 Page Mill Road - Site and Design Review of Trail
System -Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space District
400 San Antonio Road -Change, from L$ to R$-3
Coufcilmessber Renzel re Cesano Grading Plan
Adjournment
3 1 8
3 1 9
3 1 9
3 1 9
3 1 9
3 2 0
3 2 0
3 2 0
3 2 0
3 2 0
3 2 0
2 1
3 2 1
3 2 1
3 2 1
3 2 1
3 2 1
3 2 1
3
3
3
3
3 2
3 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
5
8
3 3 1
3 4 2
3 4 3
3 5 2
3 5 2
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
2
8
8
3 1 8
10/20/80
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in a Regular
Meeting, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, with
Mayor Henderson presiding.
PRESENT: Brenner, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy,
Renzel, Sher (arrived at 7:45 p.m.)
ABSENT: Witherspoon
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF
Councilmember Witherspoon asked that the following corrections be made
to the August 11 Council minutes:
Page 118, paragraph 1, line 2, after the word "feeling" add the words
"among proponents of an early dump closure." Sentence would then read:
"Councilmember Witherspoon said she has always thought thatthere was a
feeling among proponents of an early dump closure that if they stopped
dredging the harbor and then tied -;hat into the closure of the dump, some-
how they would be able to close the dump sooner than had been the policy
up until a few months ago."
Page 118, line 6, strike the word "evidently."
Page 118, line 12, after "Whether it" strike the word "is° and replace
with the words "will be."
Page 118, paragraph 3, line 3, change the word "extending" to "expanding."
Page 118, paragraph 3, line 5, change "boats" to "boat slips." Sentence
would then read: "Shy: would also like to point out that this Council
vetoed expanding the nuWler of boat slips in the harbor:"
Page 123, paragraph 5, line 7, change the word "ordinance" to "initiative
petition."
Page 126, last paragraph, line 2, sentence should read: "She wanted to
point out that in the past when they had had a split on the Council on
controversial issues that were to appear on the ballot (she was speaking
of Measure H as an example and the last one was the Veterans Building),
they did not appear as 'supported by City Councils' out of respect for
the minority Counc i lumbers who were opposed to the issue."
Councilmember Renzel asked that on page 115, last paragraph, line 12,
that the nerds "sealed up" be changed to "opened up to title action."
On page 116, third paragraph, line 2, she asked that the word "manmade"
be changed to "mammoth." On page 117, second paragraph, line 5, she
asked that the word "spent" be changed to "budgeted," and in the third
paragraph, line 9, the word "concerned" be changed to "concerted." On
page 122, first paragraph, line 8, she asked to change the word "soil"
to "spoil" and that the spelling of "Audubon" be corrected on page 126.
MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino ncved, seconded by Levy, to approve the
minutes of August 11, 1980, as corrected.
The motion passed unanimously, Councilmember Witherspoon absent.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF
AUGUST '•55, 19!30! { T-- - - " , ;
Mayor Henderson said on page 151, line 2 at the top of the page, he
would like the word 'the" changed to "a" so that the sentence reads '
"He said he was . a leading voice on the Council in developing the 05
Zoning for Palo Alto's foothills.
3 1 _8
10/20180
MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Fenzel, approval of
the minutes of August 25, 1980, as corrected.
The motion passed unanimously, Councilmember Witherspoon absent.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Mayor Henderson presented a Resolution of Appreciation to
members of a Palo Alto student organization in recognition
of their efforts in assisting Somalia refugees. He commended
the efforts of the Student Organization for Somalia Refugees;
Palo Alto is proud to have such an organization within the
City.
2. Paul Garrett, 3827 Carina Way, said he was present to call
Council's attention to the deterioriation of neighborhood
standards in the Barron Park area. He projected slides of
the areas where he had concerns and urged the City Council
and staff to take corrective action. Mayor Henderson asked
Mr. Garrett to provide him with his home phone number so
that he could speak with him later.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Henderson said he rictd remove Item 14, Planning Commission recom-
mendation re application of Janet A. Thain, at the request of a member of
the public.
Councilmember Eyerly said he would like to remove Item 5 regarding the
award of contract for painting services at the Mitchell Park Recreation
Center. He said he would also like to be recorded as voting "no" on
Item 3, the amendment to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation/City of Palo
Alto agreement.
Councilmember Fazzino said he would like
on Item 9 re Traffic Signal Installation
Reimer Associates for Site and Design of
Vice Mayor Sher said he should be shown
Item 4 re annual charges for the use of
University.
to be recorded as "abstaining"
and Item 16 re application of
the Los Trancos Access Road.
as "not participating" on
the refuse area by Stanford
Councilmember Fletcher said she would like Item 1 regarding the University
Avenue Corridor Study to be referred to the Bicycle Advisory Committee
in addition to the Policy and Procedures Committee.
The f o 1 l owi ng items remra i ned on the Consent Calendar:
Referral
UNIVERSITY AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY
.e erra c an roc ores
a c v s� amritt+e j (C MR:477;0)
'. . YYa�iMO I W.arfsy....u�
Staff recces that in order to give neighborhood residents an additional
opportunity to be heard on this matter, that the matter be referred to the
Policy and Procedures Committee and the Bicycle Advisory Committee (as
added by Councilmember Fletcher).
Action
SETTING A HEARING RE VACATION OF
)Z21 PARKINSON (CMR:45I:O)
Staff reams that Council adopt the Resolution Declaring Intention to
Order the Vacation of Paul i c Utility Easement and Setting of a Public
3 1 9-
10/20/80
Hearing Therefor; direct the City Clerk to schedule the public hearing
for November 3, 1980, and publ ish a Notice of. Public Hearing for at
least two consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing in accordance
with Government Code Section 50440.
RESOLUTION 5840 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
Tiff CITY aSF PALO ALTO DECLARING ITS INTENT TO VACATE A
SURPLUS PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AT 1221 PARKINSON, PALO
ALTO, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING THEREFOR"
AMENDMENT TO PALO ALTO HOUSING
..e.•: na. •�■a ■ +ter. gintnEWITSt
r..:w'l s •v■* vi
• Y
a 1
Staff recommends approval of Amendment #9 to Contract 3526 with the
Palo Alto Hou si ng Corporation.
!MOMENT TO PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION AGREEMENT
REGARDING FINANCIALLY INTERESTED DIRECTORS
ANNUAL DES FOR THE USE OF
_ SIT`
Staff recomends approval of the Amendment to the Agreement with Stanford
University and that the Mayor be authorized to sign the Amendment which
has been approved by Stanford University.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. 4039 USE OF PALO ALTO
REFUSE DISPOSAL AREA
APPROVAL OF PROJECT - INSTALLATION OF
AL
Staff reccemei ds approval of the award of contract to 8uffalow's, Inc.
RESOLUTION RE PERIPHERAL CANAL
RESOLUTION 5841 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
Oa OF pAttilEto MOWING THE REFERER ' TO STOP THE
PERIL CA*AI. AND SATING PROPOSITION 8 ON NOVEMBER
ALLOT°
SOLUTIQIN RE SUPPORT OF •
MenTrtreirrtgETRYRNIA
;0)
Staff recommends that Council enact the resolution supporting Proposition
One - California Parklands Act of 1980; and that this is not .a project
for the purpose of . C. E. Q.A. , and therefore no envircnmental assessment
is necessary.
PISOLUTION $4►2 entitled ` R SOI UTION OF THE AIL OF THE
'1'-W IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION ONE (CALIFORNIA`
PARNLANDS ACT Of 1 )"
TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT
:0)
ltafr ;roommowds Oat 'Council e
320
18/20/40'
ORDINANCE 3237 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
O PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1980-81
TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC
SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF HANOVER/HILLVIEW/PORTER"
ORDINANCE RE 1980 SPEED LIMITS
ernallTraTirrg
ORDINANCE 3238 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OT PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 10.56.010 AND ADDING SECTION
16.56.015 TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SPEED
ZONES"(1st reading 10/6/80)
RESOLUTION- RE STUDENT -ORGANIZATION
RESOLUTION 5843 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CIfriff—PIE0 ALTO RECOGNIZING AND SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF
THE STUDENT ORGANIZATION FOR SOMALIA REFUGEES"
875 ALMA AND 140 HOMER
rimmissmum-NrwoRmING
Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of Peninsula
Creamery for property located at 875 Alrra and 140 Homer for exceptions
from the nonconforming use termination provision.
424-434 WEBSTER
TTRAL SR I sToid (CMR :467:0 )
Staff recommends that Council approve the final map.
255 LAMBERT
PTf RO i NONCONFORMING
SANK, N.A.
Planning Commission unanimously recommends denial of the application
of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for property located at 255 Lambert for an
exception from the nonconforming use termination provisions.
LOS TRAMCOS ACCESS ROAD
AP L'CATION OF RETWR ASSOCIATES
Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board unanimously recommend
approval of the application of Reiser Associates for Site and Design of
the Los Trancas Access Road on 107 acres of land located west of
Foothills Park,
1720 CELLO ROAD
Trrnotromonanu
xmormrtrwarasu
Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board unanimously recommend
approval _ of the application of Gil .. Cable for Site and Design Review for
property located at 1120 Nontebalto Road,
321
10/20140
MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Levy, approval of
the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed unanimously, with Councilmember Eyerly voting "no"
on the Amendment to Palo Alto Housing Corporation/City of Palo Alto
Agreement, Vice Mayor Sher not participating on the Annual Charges
for the Use of Refuse Area by Stanford University, Councilmember
Fazzino abstaining on Traffic Signal Installation at Hanover/Hillview/
Porter and the Planning Commission recommendation r2 Site and Design
of the Los Trancos Access Road* and Councilmember Witherspoon absent.
PUBLIC HEARING: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mayor Henderson declared this was the time and place fora Public Hearing
regarding the Community Development Block Gram Progress Report and asked
if any member of the audience wished to speak. There being no one who
•wished to speak, Mayor Henderson declared the hearing closed.
Councilmember Fazzino asked Glenn Miller, Executive Assistant in the
Planning Department, for a timetable on the CDBG funding process. Mr.
Miller replied that they are in the process of reviewing proposals and
then a public hearing will be scheduled at an upcoming Finance end
Public Works Committee meeting. At that time, staff will present its
recommendations to the Committee. The Committee will then review the
recommendations and make their own recommendations to the City Council.
PUBLIC HEARING: 475 FOREST AVENUE
Nr T, A
Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the application
of Paly Cowprest, a limited partnership, for approval of a Tentative
Subdivision Map for property located at 475 Forest Avenue.
Mayor Henderson said this was the time and place for a Public Hearing
on the application of Paly Cowprest, a limited partnership, for a
Tentative Subdivision Map at 475 Forest Avenue.
Councilmember Ranzel asked if the property were on the historic resources
inventory and if it were possible to continue the matter for referral?
Mr. Schreiber replied it was not on the inventory. The Planning Commission
action took place on September 24 and the Council has thirty days to
continue.
Mr. Abrams advised that if no action were taken, the application would
be dyed approved. They would need specific action to deny.
MOTION: Court lmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Levy, to approve the
Planning Commission recommendation.
Councilmember Fletcher remarked that the driveway would be 20 feet
wide, and wondered whether driveways needed to be so wide,
considering the smaller size of many cars.
Mr. Schreiber replied that the Zoning Ordinance established a guide-
line of 20 feet for driveways, to prcvide for adequate two-way
access.
Councilmember Fazzino said he would abstain because, while recogniz-
ing the rights of a property owner to develop his own property, he
was concerned about losing what he considered to be a valuable home
to condominiums. He felt it was unfortunate more attention was not
given to its historic impact on the community.
Mayor Henderson said the fact the home was not included in the his-
toric register left him no choice but to support the proposal.
MOTION PASSED on the following vote:
AYES: Eyeriy, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Sher
NOES: Brenner
ABSTAINING: Fazzino, Renzei
ABSENT: Witherspoon
PUBLIC HEARING:
rrararmirrrOTORADO
irirraWITUrrk=AP
Planning Commission, by a vote of 5,-1 (Commissioner Cullen) recom-
mends approval of the application of Macario Sales for a Preliminary
Parcel Map for property located at 775 and 765 Colorado.
Mayor Henderson declared the Public Hearing open. There being : no one
to speak to this item, he then declared the Public Hearing closed.
Councilmember Fletcher asked if this item was going to be subject to
A.R.B. reviews
Mr. Schreiber replied that, being a single family structure, it would
not, unless there was a condition to that effect.
Councilmember Fletcher said her concern was with the dilapidated, un-
usable condition of the structures on the property. If Council had
the prerogative, she would like to add that condition.
City Attorney Abrams said the jurisdiction of the A R B is
established by statute, and review.of a development can only be
required by the A.R.B. when it fails within the parameters of that
ordinance. They would not be entitled to add that as a condition;
their only recourse would be ,to change the ordinance.
Councilmember Eyer 4y said he noted that -there were two exceptions on
the lot sizes. Tha width of the two lots was 50, not 60 feet. The
lot split would result in two 5436 -square foot jots, where the code
calls for 6,000 square feet. He felt that such splits should not be
323
16/20/80
approved, considering the amount of variance iron the regelations.
He would therefore not be able to support the Planning Commission
recommendation.
Councilmerrber Brenner said as she understood the map, the lots were
smaller than indicated by the figures. It seemed to her the width in
each case was measured diagonally, not at right angles. She wished
to know the exact vertical width of the lots,
Mr. Schreiber replied that, by rough scale, they were 48-49 feet
wide. However, this was a parallelogram, so the area remained
unchaflged. The engineers had checked the area.
Counci laeember Brenner pointed out the map did not show it that way.
As she saw it, the width of the lots were even less than 50 feet, and
either the map or the staff report was incorrect. She would have to
vote against the Planning Commission recommendation.
Counci lmetaber Fletcher said in theory, and considering only the
numbers, she would also be against splitting the lot. However,
considering the unsightly wasted space in the the back portion, she
felt that splitting a lot and building a horse there could only be an
improvement in the general appearance of the area.
Councilmember Frzzino said in his opinion it would be extremely
hypocritical of the Council to approve this lot split short of addi-
tional reasons for allowing it, considering the number of lot split
requests they had rejected in the past two years in older homes in
order to prevent piecemeal splitting. Therefore, in the absence of
extraordinary reasons which he did not see in the staff report, he
would vote against the Planning Commission recommendation.
Councilmearber Renzel said, after studying the area, with its unusual
configuration of an extra long, narrow subdivided lot, and considering
the fact that the proposed lots did not greet the code, it did not
make sense to her to approve a subdivision there. She would there-
fore vote against the Planning Commission recommendation.
Mayor Henderson said at first he felt strongly inclined to vote
against the proposed lot split. However, after viewing the property,
he reverted to agreement with Mr. Cobb at the Planning Commission and
with Councilmember Fletcher°`s statements. He could not see any other
use for that arta in relation to the existing two houses; a home
built there ,would be of benefit to the neighborhood. Therefore, with
some hesls'; ition, he would support the Planning Commission recommend-
ation.
MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fletcher, to support the
Planning Commission recommendation for approval of the application
for approval of a Preliminary Parcel Nap for property located at 775
and 785 Colorado.
MOTION FAILED on the following vote:
AYES: Fletcher, Henderson, Sher
NOES: Brenner, Eyeriy, "Fazzfno, Levy, Itenzei
ABSENT: Witherspoon
3 2 4
10/20/80
pWWLt HHRHEAR G: 3805 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD
7MTM AT108
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the
application of Cortana Corporation for approval of a Preliminary
Parcel Map for property located at 3805 East Bayshore Road.
Mayor Henderson declared the Public Hearing open. There being no one
to speak to this item, he then declared the Public Haring closed.
MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Eyerly, to approve
the Planning Commission recommendation.
Councilmenber Renzel expressed her apposition to this recommendation,
os she felt dividing off this narrow lot would be detrimental to the
Baylands area.
MOTION PASSED on the following vote:
AYES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Sher
NOES: Brenner, Renzel
ABSENT: Witherspoon
PUBLIC HEARING:
)i4O FOREST AVENUE
ION t4AP
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 4.2 (Commissioners
McCown-Hawkes and Christensen) recommends approval of the application
of James E Kuball for approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map for
property located at 640 Forest Avenue.
Mayor Henderson declared the Public Hearing Open. There being no one
to speak to the item, he declared the Public Hearing closed.
Councilmeraber Fazzino asked City Attorney Abrams how many other
condominium conversion proposals have beaten the Council's moratorium
action of a week or two ago, or how many more actions could they
expect to make before the moratorium is completely in effect.
City Attorney Abrams replied that this was the only application that
has been in process. He confirmed that Councilme*ber Fazzino was
speaking of the October 2nd date, which had not yet been adopted.
When and if that is adopted, there will be three: this one, a
three -unit application, and Oak Creek. He believed that was it.
Coancilmeeber Fletcher commented that this' was a seven -unit
condominium, and all the tenants had been there for a short period of
time. It seemed very suspicious to her, and she wondered whether the
previous tenants were not somehow manipulated out of the building, to
:sake way for tenants who might be more amenable to the conversion.
She was really upset to see apartments being lost, because she did
not see any new ones coming forward, whereas they had a- slew of
condominiums, every time they.received referrals fro+a the Planning
Cosmission. She was torn, ano not. sure - she would have liked to
vote against it, but the Council did pass the exception to the
moratorium, and they are keeping within the regulations. She weu1d
probably vote for i t .
Mayor Henderson said he cold sympathize totally but in his case he
felt he had to follow the law in this case, and it seemed to be
within the law..
Councilmembsr Eyerly said he would note that the applicants seemed to
be within the bounds of the .low, a (though this sur $sal should not
3x5
10/20/110
hold any weight) he did note that ten of the twelve people who were
living there had given their written consent for conversion, so he
had no problem with supporting the recommendation of the Planning
Commission,
Councilrnember Renzel said she wished to ask Mr. Abrams a question.
As she understood his memo they received the last time they
considered condomimium conversions -• the ordinances they had for
condominium conversions that require two-thirds consent, etc. - those
were simply pre -conditions to applications, not a guarantee of
approval. She asked if this was correct.
City Attorney Abrams said this was correct.
Councilmember Renzel asked if they did then have the prerogative of
turning down a subdivision if they could make the appropriate
finding.
City Attorney Abrams replied "yes," but he did wish to point out one
thing. In his comments there, he did not mean to give either
encouragement or discouragement to any action that Council might wish
to take, but they would be establishing precedent, since they knew
at that point that the principal matter before them on condominium
conversions was the consistency with the General Plan; that by the
Council's actions, they (the staff) would begin to interpret the
General Plan. He thought the Ceunc i l should be aware of that
matter.
Mayor iiender on said he thought they were having a problem in
determining whether' seven units would be realty reducing the overall
stock and what has happened since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted
in 1976. They knew what 700 units dice, but it was very difficult
with seven. He asked if Mr. Abrams was saying that still would be
taken for precedent.
City Attorney Abrams said he was addressing his comments to the
currently existing Comprehensive Plan, which addresses condominium
conversions, Page ll, and had as a policy maintaining the present
number of multi -family rental units, and had, as Program 14,
continued to adopt the condominium conversion ordinance. The present
number as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan would be the 1976
number - there would be no question about that. They would then be
required to evaluate whether there has been an increase between 1976
and the present. He believed the figures provided him show it would
support at least an increase of seven units, before the Council 'map.
The Planning Department had provided him with some figures showing
approximately what the increase was, and Ken might clarify that from
1976 to the present It was above seven units, so the Council could
be assured of that.
Mr. Schreiber agreed that, since .adoption of the Plan in 1976, there
hod been construction of somewhat more than 200 rental units. With a
few exceptions; they were all subsidized units; Lytton Gardens,
Westwood, the project down on Sheridan Avenue, account for the bulk
of those units.
City Attorney Abrams wished to add one more thing. The -fact that
they were dealing right then with the number; of 250 did not mean
there were not more. They had not evaluated, and they sight not be
able to evaluate, the -number 4f condominium units which were
presently rental units, and they titre there for multi-fanily rental
units within the weaning of that policy. But they could soy with a
certain amount of assurance at that time that there were more than
seven which had been increased, *rd he thought that was 411 they were
saltingthen.
326
10/20100
Mayor Henderson said that was where he was having his problem,
because where he lived there were seven rental units in the
condominium, and that had cone since the 1976 Comprehensive Plan,
Councilmember Renzel asked if they also had a figure on how many
multi -family units had been lost in the last four years, through
either conversion (for instance, 101 Alma had taken place before the
ordinance) and what about the loss by demolition. She wondered how
many units they had lost.
Mr. Schreiber replied they had not calculated; they had put that on
their work program, but had not gotten to it. They had not been able
to calculate the number that had been lost.
Councilmember Renzel gave this instance, in that evening, of the Item
19, with four units going off, six units of condos coming on, for a
net loss of four rental units. They had had numerous others in that
vein, but presumably those would not still be offsetting those
subsidized units that had been built by the City.
Mr. Schreiber answered that very definitely all three of them will
last four years; they had had, with those subsidized units,
significantly more constructed than demolished. There was a net
increase in rental units.
Councilmember Renzel asked if then the City's Program speaks only to
multi -family and not loss of single family rental units that have
become owner occupied.
City Attorney Abrams said that was correcti and wished to mention one
other matter while they were discussing the Comprehensive Plan. They
should also be aware that, while that is the policy which relates
most directly to condominium coversioms, there were of (:curse other
policies within the Comprehensive Plan that compete for their
interest in a given condominium conversion application. There was a
policy which states: "Policy 7. Encourage the development and
provision of three and four bedroom ownership in rental units in
order to provide housing more suitable for families with children.'
Those were all policies there that also impacted their decision, in
making a finding that was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
they had ample latitude within that plan to set their own goals and
priorities.
Mr. Knox just wanted to clarify that they did keep track of
demolitions by the number of units that are demolished. Many, tires,
though, they were dealing with units that 'had been single family
dwellings which had been immediately converted to multiples. The
number .that was legally -permitted was the number that wae reported to
Sacramento in terms of demolitions. So, when the Freeman House came
down on the corner of Forest and Bryant, he recalled people talking
about 17 people living in that house, but it was listed as one s ingl e
family dwelling
Councilmember Brenner said she thought the subject had been pretty
well covered. Inasmuch as she felt it was not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan to continue to diminish the supply of multi -family
rental - units, she .would rote=: against the motion, if there was a
metion on the floor.
Mayor Henderson diked if someone would step forward and make a
motion. CoUnci lamember Eyerly. made :the following motion:
MOTION: Councilmember Eyer l y raven, seconded by Fazz i no, that
Council approve the Planning Commission recommendations.
3 2.7.
10120/80
MOTION PASSED on the following vote:
AYES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Sher
NOES: Brenner, Renzel
ABSENT: Witherspoon
PUBLIC HEARING:
too 1 11JDLt! LtLL;/664 HAMILTON AVENUE
t
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the
app ication - of .Frank Morrow, partner, for approval of a Tentative
Subdivision Map for property located at 600 Middlefield/664 Hamilton
Avenue.
Mayor Henderson opened the Public Hearing, and called on Lou
Goldsmith, of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation.
Lou Goldsmith, representing the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, first
apologized for not having a representative attend the Planning
Commission meeting. He explained they were still exploring the
possibility of purchasing one of the units, as one of the options
under consideration. The price had risen to $132,000 from the
originally quoted price of $105,000, which they felt was too high for
a single unit going into the B.M.R. Program, The most they would be
able to borrow on the market would be about $35-40,000; the rest
would have to come from in -lieu payments or other sources available
to the city. It was the Housing Corporation's opinion that this
would be committing a very high proportion of those funds to a single
unit, but they would prefer to accept the in -lieu payments rather
than taking on the 12 -year rental recommended by the Planning
Commission, as this would require an undue proportion of their energy
and effort. Moreover, the rental allowed on that unit would not be
within any of the Section 8 limits, but rather at 30% of the median
income for a family of four, working out to #595 a month for a
two..oedroom unit hardly low -market. In their view, the money would
be better applied to the general purposes of getting more units
elsewhere.
Mayor Henderson asked if the $132,000 price quoted was for the unit,
not counting land, and Mr. :Goldsmith said "yes," adding that it did
include their construction loan interest and other costs such as
legal, management, etc., allocated over the 12 units according to
floor space,
Mayor Henderson asked if the in>lieu payment was $3,000; and Mr.
Goldsmith said it was now about $3,500, but might rise to about
$4,000 per unit at the time of sale. They estimated a total
contribution of about $50,000,
CouncilmeMber Fazziao asked if Pir. Goldsmith and the Housing,
Corporation felt the quoted cost figures were reasonable, Mr.
Goldsmith answered this was at very difficult projects the
rehabilitation costs were quite high, dnd the 12 units had to be
°sihoehorned* in. He did not .haveany good basis on which to question
the costs. He added that the unit- was larger than when originally
discussed. The developers had increasedthe size from about 1100 to
1325 square feet, prohebly because of the prospect of reclaiming it after 12 years
Vice -Mayor Sher requested Mr. Knox or Mr. 'Schreiber to refresh his
memory on the formula for computation .of ;he in -lieu payments. -
3 2.8
10/20/80
Mr. Knox's reply was 13,000 multiplied by the number of units, based
on the Cost of Living Index. He went on the explain this figure as
the average of their receipt of in -lieu payments for which they were
negotiating. Until two years ago, these were negotiated based on
figures sutmitted by developers. The cost of a below -market rate
unit itself was to be equivalent to the cost of a market -rate unit
less any land costs, profit. Once the increment was established
between market rate and the below -market rate, they then tried, when
dealing with in -lieu payment, to obtain an equivalent amount of money
where it was not possible to obtain a unit at a price within range
for those earning in the 10-12O% median income range. Based on that
experience, they saw they were averaging $2,000 to $2500 a unit, and
settled on $3,000, based on cost of living figures as of May -June
1979 CPI for all consumersin the Bay Area. This is the figure they
have been using since then.
Vice -Mayor Sher asked if the $3,000 figure had already been
negotiated with an escalator, as referred to by Mr. Goldsmith. Mr.
Knox replied this was correct, and was included in the staff report.
Vice -Mayor Sher explained he wished to verify whether, if the option
of in -lieu payment were selected, there could be some discretion
about the amount, which was already fixed. Mr. Knox acknowledged the
figure might seem low to the Housing Corporation and others, but the
staff had followed the guidelines given them, which was to use
Program 18, negotiate the number of units and be as consistent as
possible in obtaining equivalent sums for in -lieu payments.
Vice -Mayor Sher then questioned Mr. Goldsmith, regarding his
suggestion that the figure was too lcw, whether he implied criticism
of the approach taken or of this particular application .
Mr. Goldsmith replied he did not imply any criticism. He thought
that, as the B.M.R. has evolved, the units .being built have become
progressively Bore expensive. In the beginning, units were selling
at $60,000, which they could purchase for 535,000, with the developer
contributing about 525,000. Today, units were probably selling at
$200,000 to $300,000, with developers contributing only about
$50,000.
Vice -Mayor Sher wondered if Mr. Goldsmith was referring to the
possibility of much larger profits being involved. Mr. Goldsmith
answered that he assumed so, but no one really knew what the profits
were - there were many factors involved - but he would not be
surprised at a profit of 25%.
In Vice -Mayor Sher's opinion there seemed something wrong with
continuing with an old formula evolved for a situation where market..
rate unit prices were $60,0QO, with a below -market rate of 535,000,
and applying the same approach in dealing with Oarket rate "unit
prices in the range .of $250,000. The other -option of taking a, unit
without land costs had become i+aprectical, and the figure was so high
as to prohibit obtaining financing to the below -Market unit. Me
asked if the present project could be reconsidered. He concurred
with Mr. Goldsmith's opinion that this issue should be studied for
the ,future because_of t Ft change in conditions; the extreme gap
between market and below -market rates demanded reconsideration of the
subject.
Mr. Knox answered they were facing a 30 -day time clock with this
subdivision, as with others. They were forced to take some action
then if they wished a below -market rate payment, unless the developer
would agree to a continuance, or unless . a different figure ,were
negotiated.
3 2 g
10120/80
Mayor Henderson asked what would happen if this were not acceptable
to them. Mr. Knox explained that, if no action were taken, the
development would be approved without conditions on October 24th,
meaning without any below -market payment, that being one of the
conditions.
Vice -Mayor Sher wished to verify his understanding that the units
would sell for over $200,000, and the figure without land costs would
be about $130,000. Mr. Goldsmith replied that the cost of that
particular unit, smaller than the others., would be $132,000 without
any land. The land, computed at 1/12th, would add $25,000, totaling
$157,000; however, the cost of the land acquisition could be $44,000
if computed a'a 7.2% of the total floor space. He stressed the
difficulty of determining exact costs, because of the many factors
involved.
Vice -Mayor Sher asked about possible equity, or taking as in -lieu
payment the difference between the market price and the property
without land costs.
Mr. Knox explained that the figures given them by the developers
were: $216,000 market price, with no agreement yet on the
below -market rate price, and the hard costs within the $150,000 to
$160,000 range. The difference would be roughly $60,000.
Vice -Mayor Sher said it seemed to him it would be undercutting their
policy if they opted for a payment which might turn out to be too
low, However, he did not know how to pursue this matter further,
because of all the uncertainties pointed out and the necessity of
having to decide that evening.
Mr. Knox said as he understood Mr. Goldsmiths suggestions, they
should be studying an over-all revision to the general formula, not
en a case -to -case basis.
Mayor Henderson commented that the revision to the formula (which had
not been set by the Council to begin with) should proceed very
quickly, considering the rapid escalation of housing prices.
Mr. Goldsmith agreed, and said they were working on it, but were
waiting for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, -which will contain
this section. It was difficult to work out a formula which would be
fair to all parties.
Mayor Henderson said he felt they were forced to accept the offer,
but again urged fast revision of the formula.
Councilmember £yerly asked for information regarding the driveways of
the B$R units. The code. called for l5 -foot driveways. The Planning
Commission recommendation approved a 10 -foot driveway on the Hamilton
Avenue side, but a 15 -foot driveway on Middlefield Road. He also
asked about parking on the property.
Mr. Schreiber replied that a 10 -foot driveway on the Hamilton Avenue
side had been approved by the Zoning Administration in August.
Regarding parking, there were 23 parking spaces, plus excess bicycle
parking.
Counc i ime ber Eyerly _gave as his observation that a i0 -foot driveway
was not enough for Hamilton Avenue; he thought there would be
difficulty moving out into traffic, without obstructing traffic going
towards the SP railroad tracks. He wondered about the driveway on
the Middlefield side, which carried such heavy traffic.
3 3 0
10/20/80
Mr. Schreiber explained that the driveway on the Middlefield was 15
feet, one-way. The Building Code prescribes 15-20 feet widths for
driveways for two-way traffic. After review, the Director of
Transportation felt one-way would be sufficient in this case and
preferred the one-way entrance from Middlefield, with the exit from
Hamilton.
1
Counci lmember Eyerlty asked if the existing building on Hamilton
would allow for more than a 10 -foot driveway, and Mr. Schreiber
answered that part of the existing structure would have to be
removed. The l0 -foot driveway had been there and functioning for
quite a length of time. He added that surrounding property onwners
with 250 feet had been notified of the variance in the driveway, and
there had been no opposition.
Cduncilmember Eyerly responded that the driveway might have been
adequate for the property as a single family residence, but there
would be a considerable increase in the amount of use with the
property as a 12 -unit condominium.
Mr. Schreiber explained that the property had been the Church of
Scientology site, and as such had carried _a considerable amount of
traffic at times.
Counci lorember Brenner asked, with regard to the in -lieu payment, if
it would be possible to acv ept the project as presented, and then
negotiate their interests later with the developer, which would be
12 -years' rental on a unit worth S130,(300, for ;n -lieu payment after
the fact.
Mr. Knox gave the staff's position that the in -lieu payment was not
in question, but the Planning Commission recommendation was for a
12 -year rental agreement.
Counci lmember Brenner verified that Council could approve the in -lieu
payment, or the Planning Commission recomrnendatin of a 8MR 12 -year
rental agreement, or even purchase at the BMR price-ofS132,DDD.
Mayor Henderson, acknowledging Council's dissatisfaction with the
amount of the proposed in -lieu payment, called for a motion.
MOTION: Counci lmeaaber Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve
Planning Commission recommendation with amendment that fin-liee
payments be .in lieu of, the 8MR Agreement.
Councilmember Fauzino wished it noted he was voting .approval with
extreme reluctance; he still •believed in -lieu payments were an
corrected incredible "top -out." It was far easier for a developer to hand over
See Pg027 very little for our housing needs; he really ;felt .a better formula
12122/8 could be devised. He felt very uncomfortableat being, in essense,
forced to vote approval simply because they could do nothing else.
He recognized negotiations took place at the eleventh hour, but he
felt they were presented with a °fait accoMple," which was not a
responsible way for making policy. decisions. However, he would
reluctantly support the item.
MOTION PASSED on a.unenimous vote, Witherspoon_. absent.
DOWNTOWN PARKII# MANAUMEHT PLAN (DPMP) (CMR X138 :O )
TheFinanceend Public Works Committee transmits the staff report on
Downtown Parking Management Plan to Council without recommendation,
3 3 1
10/20/80
on a unanimous vote, Councilmember Brenner absent. (Continued from
October 6, 1980.)
Mayor Henderson said technically he would have to turn to the
Committee Chairman of the Finance and Public Works Committee,
Vice -Mayor Sher, who would report on what the Committee did and give
them a suggestion on how "they might get out of this."
Vice -Mayor Sher wished to start out by saying this is a very
difficult problem - the question of parking in the downtown area, the
shortage of parking spaces and the pressure :on the residential
neighborhood adjacent to the downtown area that is taking the
pressure of this overflow all -day parking. The staff really took a
very serious look at that, and carne up with some innovative and (to
many people) startling, recummecrdations which were designed to deal
with it. The situation they had found themselves in at the Finance
Committee was that there really was no constituency for the
recommendations the staff proposed. Some of the more dramatic
proposals in the staff plan included:
Parking fees for spaces that 'would be designated for parkers on what
are now residential streets - the downtown business people who were
at the meeting did not like that because of the fee part, and many of
the residents aid not like it because it would,be_turning their
residential streets into parking lots. They heard from both of those
groups.
The idea about outlying parking lots with shuttle bases in order to
relieve the pressure on the downtown area was also not well received
by the downtown business interests because of the fear of lack of
convenience - people had to use their cars more than once a day, in
and Gut, the fear that the buses might run during the rush hours in
the morning and evening, but would not be there when you needed to
get back to your car during the day, etc, etc.
nonetheless, the problem remains. Part of the frustration of all of
this was that there are studies which show that many of the employees
downtown who drive their cars live very close to the downtown area,
and might, if a way could be found, be persuaded to walk or use
bicycles or take,the bus. That would alleviate the problem. In any_
event, in view of the way this came up at the Finance' meeting, there
really did not see to be - any substantial support for the more
dramatic, creative recommendations of the staff, so the Committee was
returning it to the Council without recommendation. Since that time,
vice -Mayor Sher noted, the Staff has prepared a°supplemental report
which outlines a number -of other options which might be tried to deal
with the problem or alleviate it, whichwere not formally considered,
although he thought maybe some of those arose out .of some -of the
formal and informal discussions at,the Committee meeting. He thought
he would prefer to ,let Staff present those rather than dealing with
them in committee, but there was no Committee recommendation to the
Council, and therefore he would- not be making any motion on behalf of
the Committee. -
Mayor Henderson said We e came as no surprise, and then called on Mr.
Knox.
Mr. Knox said this had been advertised as a Public hearing with
respect to the Comprehensive Plan. If Council was ready for a staff
report, he wished Joan Thompsonof the Transportation Department to
present that aspect, and they could decide after that presentation
whether they wished to open a Public Hearing on the Comprehensive
Plan,
3 3 2
10120/84
Joan Thompson said she would basically like the Council to address
two items at that meeting:
1. The packing related section of the Comprehensive Plan, on
pages 19F and 196, copies of which had been handed out to
Councilmembers.
2. The Downtown Parking Management Plan.
The draft of the Comprehensive Plan (Page 19F) includes Policy 9,
which states: "Minimize the need for additional long term parking."
Staff recommends that Council:
J. Delete the details of the Downtown Management Plan in the
text as shown on the handout sheet, where the big "X" is in
the overhead.
2. Replace Program 23, which initially stated: "Implement the
Downtown Management Parking Plan' with Program 29 that was
originally in the Comprehensive Plan, before this draft was
written. Program 29 would still give the Council the
latitude to implement a Downtown Parking Management Plan,
but would eliminate the specifics from the Comprehensive
Plan. Program 29 states: °The City should regulate parking
on streets in and next to business districts." There is
some text following that which states: "On -street parking
in business districts should be devoted primarily to
short-term shopping use rather than long-term parking,
which discourages customers. Adjacent to business
districts, extensive longterm daytime parking adversely
affects the residential areas and should be prevented
through regulations. Putting Program 29 back into the
Comprehensive Plan would give the Council the latitude to
implement a downtown parking management plan, but would
eliminate the specifics of a downtown parking management
plan from the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the more
general progr'•am, Program 29, refers to all the commercial
areas, not just the downtown. Finally, by putting Program
29 back into the Comprehensive Plan, it ties in more
directly with the other parking programs that follow in the
text of the revised edition.
If the issues could be separated, the second part of .the discussion
should focus on the details of the Downtown Parking Management Plan.
Specifically, they (the Traffic Department) wished the Council to
make a policy decision on the Mid -Range Actions of the Downtown
Management Parking Plan. The Mid -Range Actions, as adopted by the
Council in 1978, include a parking permit system on residential
streets. A shuttle service from park and ride lots, and alternate
mode programs. Staff requested rt decision that evening as to whether
Council wished to implement the mid -range actions as adopted in 1978,
or instead to implement one or more of the alternate actions
presented the Staff Report CMR 438:0 dated October 2, 1980.
Mayor Henderson said he would propose they attempt to deal with the
Comprehensive Plan change first. He thought, because this was new
information, they shouldopen the discussion to the public, for
anyone wishing to speak on the Comprehensive Plan changes being
suggested. He called on Ned Gallagher and explained to him that they
would be discussing the proposal just presented ,on changing the
Comprehensive Plan, which eliminates the details of the Downtown
Parking Management Plan but still has a program stating the City
should regulate parking on streets and next to business districts.
Mr. Gallagher would be given the opportunity to speak to that; rthen
the discussion would turn to the specifics of what could be put in
downtown,
Ned Gallagher, 440 Melville, Palo Alto, said he was confused because
he had been trying to follow the description of what was being
endeavored in changing the Comprehensive Plan. He did not have the
written material in front of him; he had tried to look at the copy on
the board, bet was unable to have the time to absorb and understand
what was being .done, but perhaps he could grasp that as the meeting
went on.
Mayor Henderson asked Mr. Gallagher if he wished to speak at that
time on his ideas on the whole downtown situation, or would he rather
until Cumpre ensive Plan part would be dealt with.
Mr. Gallagher replied he thought perhaps the present would be a
better time. His remarks were directed more at the Parking
Management Plan and not Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor,Henderson said that, since they would be talking about removing
the details of the Downtown Parking Management Plan, he thought it
would be fine for Mr. Gallagher to go ahead and make his
presentation, and they would consider it also when they got into
those .details.
1r. Gallagher stated the views of the Downtown Palo Alto,
Incorporated, concerning the Downtown Parking Management Plan could
be best summarized by his reading to the Council their statements on
that subject to the City Manager and to the Finance and Public Works
Committee. The first was a letter dated July 8, 1980:
"Dear Mr. Zaner:
"This letter is written to you to convey the comments and
observations of the Board of Directors of the Downtown Palo Alto,
Incorporated, regarding the Downtown Parking Management Plan. The
Board feels the plan has merit in its endeavor to solve a
long-standing problem, and will support that endeavor in every way it
can. At this point in time, however, it appears that the Plan's
principal weakness is communications with all the people who will be
affected.
'In addition, there should be an assesse sent of all the 'elements' of
the Plan on all the people that will be affected. The Plan and its
impact then needs ,wide and repeated dissemination to employers as
well as employees, and to local residents as well as to the public in
general. Unless this is accomplished, even if an extended period of
time is required, the r :sit may be misunderstanding and
constroversy. Perhaps a. leaf from the Assessment District process
that requires: (1) individual communications to those affected, (2)
newspaper announcements of 'the Plan and its impact or cost and (3) a
notification of the tine and place of a Public Hearing, would delay
the-misundertta riding that"otherwise may result.
°Taere are other reservations concerning some details of the Plan
that need .not be mentioned here, but .which upon discussion maybe
improved upon. Without epprovine Or disapproving the Plan at this
time (this was a letter of July 8, 1980), we look upon this phase as
a process of analysis and refinement; at the anal .of which an improved.
and workable Plan meet evolve. To that -.endeavor, we offer our
considered effort.*
Mr. Gallagher then explained that the secoed statement was one made
before the Finance and Public Works Committee on September 2, 1989:
334
10/20/80
"Downtown Palo Alto, Incorporated's opinion of the Downtown
Management Parking Plan is essentially unchanged from that expressed
in our letter of July 8th to the City Manager, which stated in
essense that we neither approved nor disapproved of the Plan at that
time. We are now concerned, however, about the impact of the Plan
upon those people who will prepare the brunt of the peoposed
disincentive: One impact, for example, is upon low -salaried
employees whose limited take-home pay will be further reduced by
on -street parking fees. This will hove a further impact on
businesses that are already experiencing great difficulty in
attracting entry-level employees to work in their firms in downtown
Palo Alto.
"In addition, we would express great reservations about a Plans that
addresses itself to 'elements and purposes' without a detailed
analysis of its impact upon all the people concerned. And this, in
spite of the diligent efforts of the Staff to reach out and
conmunicate with the people concerned. For example, the July 17th
Staff Report addresses few, if any, of the numerous objections to the
P1tr that were brought up at Public Meetings. These objections were
verbally.answered.es best could be at those Public Meetings, while
the Program itself is principally justified in a cost -revenue
analysis prepared by the consultant and labeled Attachment 'A' to the
Report.
"In summary, we believe that the widespread objections to the Plan
and the nature of the disincentives which could easily be construed
as punitive by those who pay, suggest a strong note of caution in
going forward with a Plan that states. The tl.M.T,U, Grant monies
would provide the City with time to research and experiment
(experiment underlined) with the various element: of a parking
pricing alternative mode program, and the flexibility to develop an
effective, self-sustaining program.
"In conclusion, should your discussion tonight include a
consideration .of parking structures as a possible solution to the
downtown parking problem, F would like to dispel any notion that we
favor any structure that might be in any way unattractive to the
downtown area. • We are- quite sensitive to the attractiveness of
downtown Palo Alto, because it is obviously in our best interests to
do so and to maintain andenhance the downtown business environment.
.Our interest, therefore, in any parking structure, is that it not
even be visible from the street, and we invite your attention to that
possibility by the use of Parking Lot 'J', that is behind the Varsity
Theater and it entirely surrounded on four sides by adjacent
buildings, Such use is coleoatible, in our view, with the coming -up
Comprehensive Plan that has the in 'selected .locations' or
' underground' .not fully -visible from the street .°
David Midlo, 420 -James Road, Palo Alto, is an employer in downtown
Palo Alto. Up until this time, he bass -had one employee. - Just
recently, che had to move to Mountain Views because-they could not
find a "condominitemeunder $125,000 in Palo Alto, so she will be
driving to work •now. He cannot get her a -permit .to park; she will
Obviously have to park ite the street -un►t i 1 a permit becomes -
available, He thought It eras . a good idea to remove these items tn.:der
the Plan; he eels all -in favor of it., One problem was with either
Nuarber. ,2.3 err 24, sugusthng that "the avat 2eble space ; in the
residential --amass be ° reserved -for .short -tors parking only.". He :felt
there ,was a problem here; this gas : gOo_d .for his bus loess , but he was
also eh employer ' apd felt he- does represeet the -other employers
downtown. They need .longeteraa- parking, and they cannot get permits.
Mr. Midlo then asked when It Was going to happen. ,The Plan was.
obviously •not: gsing ;to be accepted;'- there was no ' reco g endation from
tha Committee. _-He . felt -brat son etime,-,somewhere, .somehow, the City
-3 3 3;
10/20/10
must stop having studies done and build a parking garage. He
recalled Ned Gallagher's suggestion for the Parking Lot "d" that is
an enclosed area. He thought, again, an architect could be found to
make a structure that would be acceptable to the City Council, but it
had to be done sometime, and a decision had to be made. He felt the
time was now.
Joe Huber, 451 Lincoln Avenue; Palo Alto, was thereto speak on
behalf of the University Park Association, which is an area bounded
by Middlefield, Alma, Embarcadero North . The University Park
Association is the only major R-1 designated area within the massive
proposed Parking Plan; in fact, it is the only R-1 area of any
significance in the proposed plan. They had tried in the past to
create what they think is a pleasant residential area. In so doing
they had come .before the City Council and Planning Commission on a
number of occasions. They had encouraged the City to extend the R-1
areas, and the Council did. .They had supported the Professorville
Historic District, -and Council did. They had asked that the growth
of nonconforming uses in their area be limited, and Council did.
Council now had before them a plan of immense magnitude, this being
the Parking Permit Alternative Mode Plan, which would have a
tremendous impact on their neighborhood, a plan which would turn
their particular streets into one with a large parking area or
parking lot, something other R-1 areas do not now have nor are they
asked to provide. Their neighborhood was not now significantly
impacted by commuter parking, with the possible exception of the Palo
Alto Medical Clinic area, which was a local impact they felt capable
of local solution. The Plan was supposedly designed to reduce
parking intrusions in the neighborhood. Since they did not now have
significant intrusions, they failed to see how a plan bringing in
automobiles could be of benefit to them or the City. The Plan was
proposing to be to them one of oeerkill3 one filled with the prospect
of federal funds. They were convinced there must be a less intrusive
solution to the problem that could be implemented before undertaking
one of such magnitude. The University Park Association, at a general
meeting held just after they first heard of the proposal, unanimously
voted its opposition to that Alternative Plan. He was there at that
meeting to carry that message to the Council and ask that they lend
their support to them, oppose the Plan, and seek more minimal
solutions to what is obviously a problem.
Vice -Mayor Sher asked Mr. Huber his reaction to the proposed change
in the Comprehensive Plan, which he may not have had a chat(ce to
stuffy, but which basically suggests that the last sentence in the
text under this new program, - the program says the City should
regulate parking on the streets in and next to business districts.
The text under that says, 'Adjacent to business distracts, extensive
long --terse on -street daytime parking adversely affects the residential
areas acrd should be prevented through regulation.' That would be a
general statement - the regulations of coarse would be to come. .
However, there was a report : from Staff that . talks about some options,
one of which for example would be to limit commuter parking to one
side of the block, reserving the other side to .resieents in those
areas adjacent to. the .commercial area. Vice -Mayor Sher asked Mr.
Huber for his reactions, because this was something explored by the
Finance Committee. Obviously, .tho se -people parking there now, who
will be displaced, are goings to move; further out, Considering Mr.
Huber's assertion that his neighborhood was not now receiving that
kind of commute traffic, all -day employee -traffic, dice -Mayor Sher
wondered what his reaction would ue to this Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Huber replied he suspected, first of all, ha would have to know
what is meant by "adjacent.° The Plan as proposed seemed to make
'adjacent* an area of 100-150 blocks, which is of course rather
immense, He said he understood the problems, and: was somewhat
3 3 6
10/20/80
1
1
troubled by the supposition that people will simply move out that
far. He rather doubted that .would be the case. He knew from his
friends who live in the downtown area, that they have a problem that
seems soluble, no !utter which way you go. The two-hour parking plan
simply lets them change colors on their cars, but otherwise they
still have their cars. He suspected for them the change may be of
some benefit. It seemed to hiss one had to decide philosophically
which way to go. There was a very easy way to prevent parking in
their area - that would be to ban it. That is the simple solution,
he supposed, except for residents. So then, they come down to
something in between. He frankly did not -know what the effect would
be; he might find himself there a year hence screaming at all those
cars that moved out into the area. That was quite possible.
However, he for one preferred, and he knew the people in the
neighborhood did, something of less magnitude, a 'let's try it and
see" kind of thing -- it could be assigning alternative sides of the
street - but it would be better to see what happens. Maybe it would
not move out; if it did not, then perhaps the problem will have been
solved.
Mayor Henderson said he would think, then, that they had no problem
with the Comprehensive Plan statement -.the general statement. They
seemed to be comfortable with that; it was the implementing of the
details that interested them.
Vice -Mayor Sher said it seemed to him that the Staff recommendation
was about as well as they could do in the Comprehensive Plan context.
It states the pol icy they did want to address eventually. If they
could find a way of solving the problem of parking on a residential
street in and next to the business districts they did not have a
solution yet - but the program allows a great deal of latitude for
trying to implement it as they tackle the specifics. He. thought they
were not going to do much better, and therefore would make the
following motion:
MOTION: Vice -Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Fletcher, to approve
staff recommendations for change in Comprehensive Plan (Program 23)
with accompanying text.
Councilmember Eyerly told City Attorney Abrams his assistant had
advised him, at the Finance Committee meeting, that he could
participate, although being a member of the Downtown Assessment
District, as ,long as the meeting did not get into a discussion of :the
Assessment 'District and talked only of :the Downtown Parking Plan., He
asked if that still held e so :far he had not heard any discussion of
the Assessment District. City Attorney Abrams replied that the
financial impact would be unforseeable now,
Counc i lmember Eyerly had some comments. They did have on file a
letter of September 4th from the -.Palo Alto Medical -Clinic, which:
would prefer to try explcrinD: other avenues with the staff rather
than enacting a plan as originally. presented. The staff
recommendations for the change in the Comprehensive Plan caused an
initial question. He.understood that the -new suggestion had not. been
reviewed by time Planning Commission: He -wished to knows if this was
necessary before being submitted to the Council,- in view of the fact
that it is a change in the Comprehensive Plan.
Director of Planning Naphtali Knox, replied -they had advertised -for a
Public Hearing and Council could consider the staff's
recommendations there, but since.that .'ten was different from what
the Planning Cotemissiion sent for, it would have to go back to the
Planning Commission, along with a member of other items to be.
considered. _
Councilrember Eyerly confirmed that their input would then come back
to Council with their recommendations. The suggestion of Program 23
seemed to him written loosely enough so that he could live with it,
but he questioned the immediate actions and the mid -range actions
that the staff is recommending being taken out, as to whether maybe
they should not be in there. The ones he was particularly concerned
about taking out of the text in the Comprehensive Plan would be under
the mid -range actions, Number 3 -dot, "Build a new parking structure
if it is appropriate, using money from the Transportation Account and
other funding sources," and the Number 4 -dot, °Provide one or more
commuter park and ride lots near .E1 Camino or the 8ayshore Freeway or
both . He questioned whether the staff thought, in taking them out,
that they were no longer feasible, or whether they were still within
the objectives of Program 23 they recommended, or what the story was.
Planning Cirdctor Knox answered that their recommendation for taking
them out was so Council would have latitude to evolve a plan without
its being locked into the Comprehensive Plan. They felt that in that
sense all of those actions, immediate actions which have already been
taken, the whole package of mid -range actions, and the 1ongerange
actions: as well come out. They were not suggesting that they favor
one over another, or that all four are needed, or that anyone could
stand alone and do the job. They were suggesting none of those
things, just that they have the freedom and flexibility to do what
needed to be done downtown outside of having to re -do the
Comprehensive Plan so painfully.
Counc i lmember Eyerly said he could live with that, as long as they
had not closed therm out of their minds.
Mayor Henderson said they are re -suggested in the Staff Report. of
October 2nd: where two actions that the Council might want to
consider included the one mentioned by Counc# lmember Eyerly about
building a parking structure.
Counci lmermber Brenner said it seemed to her that the staff had solved
its dilemma rather well by returning from the specific to the general
in terms of the Comprehensive Plan. If they listed any of the
specifics in the mediate action, mid -range, long-range, .then they
would be excluding the others in a conspicuous manner. By speaking
generally, the possibility of any of theta would still be included.
Mayor Henderson congratulated the staff on that point. He thought
they had found a way for them to grove on and at least, if they
cooperated on the rest of i t , get the Comprehensive Plan done within
a reasonable time; therefore he would support the notion to change
the Comprehensive Plan, and that was to add Program 23 as was
suggested by Staff - all of the recommendations that the Staff had
presented to there. They were deleting the crossed -out portion.
•
Ccuncilmember Renzel had a question: At the time they came to that
section of the Comprehensive Plan, they: sort of jumped over a lot of
things that had to do with parking, which included some of the things
on the left-hand side of Page 19F. She wanted to be sure they were
now ° only dealing with the right-hand column of 19F, and those
recommendations of deleting that x-ed out area end adding a Program
23.
Mayor Henderson said that, actually parking% started at the bottom
of the left-hand side, so they were otaly talking about parking. They
were not dealing with that part up "above: which they had already
passed.in the discussion. He thought they were ready to vote.
MOTION PASSED on a unanimous vote, Witherspoon absent.
33$
to ,otee
0
Councilmember Eyerly said there was one other thing that Mayor
Henderson would have to advise him about purseinq at that time. He
had strong feelings that the parking of City employees beneath the
City Hall should be given Staff input for development of a plan to
remove that, to include investigation of the use of the Baylands
Athletic Center and the Municipal Center for employee parking, and
the use of busing to get those employees up here to work. He then
asked Mayor Henderson if he should continue (answer was apparently
°yes`), because it seemed to him this was in context with the parking
problem and there had been some short discussion of it at the Finance
Committee. The Downtown Parking Plan had a lot of thrust for getting
the employees to park outside of the core area and to use buses to
bring them into the downtown area to work. He thought that was a
good plan, but it seemed to him it behooved.the City, and the City
Council, to set the policy that the Staff will try to activate that
for City employees, so that then they could go to the private sector
and say they had accomplished this within the city and maybe
encourage more of that. If there was any support for that, he could
have. a motion available:
MOTION: Counci lraember Eyerly coved, seconded by Levy, that Staff be
directed to develop a plan for freeing City use of spaces at City
Hall for City employee parking, and to include investigation of the
use of the Baylands Athletic Center and Municipal Center for employee
auto parking, with a busing arrangement for transporation to City
Hall.
Councilmember Fletcher said she would prefer to talk ?bout this in
context with the'whole Downtown Parking Management Plan. She was not
willing, at that point, to support the motion, because, as well as
reducing the shortage of parking downtown and the congestion
downtown, she would also like to reduce the automohiie trips. She
repeated that she would rather speak of it in the larger context of
the Downtown Parking Management Plan and whatever arrangements are
made there.
Mayor Henderson said he thought they were really into that - it could
be a phase of discussion of the Downtown -Parking Management Plan. He
-did not know who might be picking up on what alternatives given by
the Staff, but he thought that could be included in any such
discussion.
Bice -Mayor Sher had a little hesitation about giving Staff that one
assignment. out .of .a such . bigger problem, particularly since it also
conflicts shuttle -busing, which was an aspect of some of the other
recommendations that were made. To lay on a shuttle bus for a very
limited percentage of the total problem of the parking downtown
seemed to him to be bating off -just a small piece of the problem.
They had talked, at the Finance Committee . meeting, about the need for
the City to provide a model for the private sector, and that they
could not expectthat kind of outlyingpark with shuttle buses to be
done by' the private sector, ' tf the. City were nut prepared to examine
i t : as well. However, to make that an exclusive) ss i gnment , outside
of the context of the whole Plan, which in his view now he thought
they had to take the two Staff recommendations and send them back to
the Finance -and Public Works Committee for review; and he would
prefer to see the. point Counc#lmember Eyerly's motion addresses be
part of that rather than separated off from. 3t. :He did not know how
to accomplish that: - maybe with' a substitute notices. It has been
suggested that 'a `substitutemotion mould'be: .
SUBSTITUTE MOTION:- Vice -Mayor Sher'Moved, seconded by Faxxina, to
refer the staff report dated October =2; 1480, with the various new
options beck to the Finance and; :iblic Works Committee, and include
the subject of .investigating the possibility Of; Boylands: Athletic
Center and Municipal -Center for employee parking and use of busing as
suggested by Councilmember Eyerly.
339
10/20/80
Councilmember Brenner said she could support the motion on the floor;
however, the problem she had with the original motion and that she
would have with sending it to the Finance Committee as is, was that
she thought it essentially iiscrininates against public employees.
She thought downtown employees include City Hall employees and that
they should really all be handled as a unit. She thought it was
really unfair to City employees to insist that they become examples.
Mayor Henderson said that, on the other hand, he could see some merit
to what Counc i lmernber Eyerly was saying, because if we were going to
give directions like this, we should be setting some example, and the
City maybe comes first,
Counci llrsember Brenner answered that she thought the City should be
included, bat to single the out in this way was contrary to
Mayor Henderson interjected that he would also be concerned at that
time not knowing what their union agreements are, and so forth. He
thought sending it back was about all they could do on the volume of
material, when their whole approach to the subject must be
considered.
Counci lmember Levy supported the motion that was on the floor, for
bringing this back to the Finence Committee. He wished to comment,
however, on Councilraer her Eyer ly's motion. What would concern him
was having : program that took the whole city and involved everybody.
What would much prefer to do if it were possible was to break down
a proggrao into some kind of a test unit, and he thought the City
Hall, with its several hundred employees, represented quite a good
test unit. It was a unit which not only involved a reasonable number
of people at various pay scales, but it was one over which they had
close control. If they had a program that failed, it would be true
that they would have failed with their own employees, which he did
not like to do, but at least they would have failed with only a small
part of the total employment of the downtown area, rather than
disrupting the whole downtown comtunity.
Counci lmember Fletcher said she was sorry, but she missed the reason
behind why it was going back to the Finance Committee, but she felt
that they did not know how to cope with it before, and she did not
know if they would -know how to cope with it next time. She had been
hoping to meet it head-on, and she would .like to, in passing, mention
her opposition to Councilmember Eyerly's motion.- not that she was
against the shuttle bus service per se, but she did not think these
things could be taken out of context, and she was going to suggest
that a few methods could be used, or at least explored, for a : tet e l
program far how to alleviate the parking and the congestion problems
downtown. In her teavel s and attendance at various conferences, she
had come to realize that taking one part of a problem and dealing
with it is not sufficient, beat one must have a comprehensive -plan.
Since she was not on the Finance Committees she aright just briefly
mention a couple of things that she scanted to bring out.
Mayor Henderson interrupted here to remind Counci Member Fletcher
that she was invited to the .Committee .meetings, and that he would not
want to 'get into too much detail then. The feeling was that they had
been presented with a lot of new alternatives without too much
opportunity to discuss_ those.rn have p w 1 d:s,cussions.
Counc i lmember Sher' s suggestion was to go back to the Committee
meetings. They would be starting over again, but with a little more
direction than they had before. They thought they had a specific
stiff-recor+ endations that aright fly; it obviously did not, -so they
had to _start over and see what woulJ, He_told Counci lmeraber Fletcher
he was sure her input would be very welcome at the Committee.
3 4 0
10120180
1
1
Councilmember Fletcher agreed, but wished to ask a short question. In
the original staff report they had, there was talk of an U.M.T.U.
Grant, and that it had to be submitted by August 1st. Now of course
that dale was long gone, and she wondered what was the status of the
possibility of getting a grant past the deadline,
Tom Higgins, Consultant, replied that he thought the prospects were
not as good as they once were, simply because the recent allocation
to the U.M.T.U. Program that Congress had made was not as great as
last year's allocation. It would have helped, of course, to have had
the application in earlier. However, he knew that the Director of
Service and Methods Demonstration Program continued to be interested
in the concept of the park and pricing approach with shuttle
alternative, or other types of alternative modes, and he thought they
were still entertaining their proposal seriously. That was his
latest information
Vice -Mayor Sher said he had thought it was implicit, but he
guessed they needed to make it explicit, because the staff started
off by saying they wanted soave direction ,on that point - but they
were not pursuing the U.M.T.U. Grant at that time. The original
staff report talked about certain things that had to be part of the
kind of graat application that had any chance of success, including
creating auto disincentives through parking -pricing mechanisms. etc
Really, as he understood the presentation at the Finance Committee,
the whole shuttle aspect seemed to be an essential feature if there
was to be any chance of getting the grant fro the Urban Mass Transit
Authority. So he thought that, in sending back to the Finance
Committee - which was the Substitute Motion v those new suggestions
of staff which he thought fell short of what was not well received,
particularly when they looked at it before, that there was no
suggestion that they were necessarily goi °'j to go after that grant.
In fact, the suggestion was otherwise.
Councilmeraber~ Fazzlno said perhaps there would be no U.M.T.i. after
the November elections. Those who were cynical about that issue
might assume they were ducking it again by sending it back to the
Finance Com mittee, and he supposed a strong case could be made for
that; but at the same time, he thought it important to remember that
the Comm ittee got so caught up with the emotions surrounding the
major recommendation of that issue, they had very little chance of
getting to the other substitute recommendations and -alternatives Corrected
which would be acceptable to the neighborhood group and the downtown See pg.
business associations. Su he did think it would be appropriate for 527
the Committee to really get into a full-scale comprehensive 12/22/80
discussion of the issue next time around, which was why he was voting
for the motion.
Councilmsember Fletcher had another quick question - whether staff
could came up with a date forFinance Committee, or was it .premature,
because they had the ear of maybe a'tew people who might tike to
attend the Finance Cow ittee meeting.
Mr. Knox replied that they were going to have to look at the Finance
Committee schedule and what the other subjects were and also think
t!bout what they would bring back to Council. His understanding of
the meesagethey got before, and were getting again, was that the
problem was not perceived to be big enough to really have a big
comprehensive plan,, Downtown Management Parking plan,_ to attack it.
He thought Counc i 1r emmwber Sher was correct in saying - and again this
was his understanding e that without a parking -pricing mechanism,
which would wean paying for permits, we'were not going to get
anywhere with .U.M.T.U. He would like it to be cOea.r, both for the
staff and if the Council wanted it to be clear for themselves if they
could make it clear to the staff, that they were not to pursue a
3'4 1
10/20/80
grant, but to look rather at the pieces of the puzzle that seemed to
have some favor, that they could put together. It would be something
less than a Comprehensive Plan, but it would not be just a one-shot
affair, and they would not just look at City Hall - they would look
at the Clinic, they would look at City Hall, they would look at
whatever they could do with parking in the Saylands. They Would try
to put together those things that are accessible, and come back. He
thought they needed a couple months' time to do it.
Mayor Henderson noted the lights were going on agai . He "stressed
the point that they really had to get moving on that issue - they had
hours to go yet. As he understood the Motion, they had referred the
staff report of October 2nd, with the various alternatives, to the
Committee to initiate discussion. He did not think there was
anything they could do about,the U.M.T.U. Grant at that point -.they
were not going after it, and he would hope they could vote on the
substitute motion immediately.
Counc i lmaember Fletcher said she was not in agreement that . they would
have to rdle out applying for an U.M.T.U. Grant. They had lost the
last ene, but, depending on what plan they come up with, it was going
to be discussed in the Planning Committee, and she did not see why at
that point they had to rule it out. The other thing was, she did not
think that the motion inferred that the staff had to come up with new
recommendations. She thought it was purely the recommendations which
came in the October 2nd Staff Report which the Committee was going to
be discussing.
Mayor Henderson thought that was what was just clarified. That was
what was going to Committee. If something developed out of that on
new U.M.T.U. grant application - fine, but at that point they could
not go on and apply for it, because they would not know what they
were applying for specifically. They could not go on at the moment
applying for a grant. He then announced they had a subs-taut/74'5170n
then to refer the matter back to the Finance and Public Works
Committee.
SU3STITUTE MOTION to refer the matter back to the Finance and Public
Works Committee passed on a unanimous vote, Witherspoon absent.
RECESS: Recess was called for 9:50 to 10.00
R.m.
a
PUBLIC HEARING:
'.i ,..: . LAN . LAND USE MAP
rrsiunr..�r■.iwr-r�r.�Irlar.����.0rrr�i'�ArI.lYrwf
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends a change. of
Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Open Space Plan Map designation from
Open Space Controlled Development to Publicly -owned Conservation Land
for property located in the upper foothills owned by Midpefinsula
Regional Open Space District.
Mayor Henderson opened the Public is Hearing. Th4're being no on to'
speak to the item, Mayor Henderson closed the',Pub l is .Hearing.
MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval
of the Resolution:
RESOLUTION 5844 entitled "I ES0LUrion.OF THE COUNCIL
rerrITPALO ALTO AMENDING THE 'PALO -ALTO
.COMPREPIENS1VE PLAN LAN USE NAP ADD .THE OPEN SPACE
PLAN MAP."
MOTION PASSED on a unanimous vote, Witherspoon absent.
3 4 2
10/20/80
O
i
UNIVERSITY LANDS
SArtria LCIIta utUATY GENERAL PLAN
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of County
General Plan re University !ands.
City Attorney Abrams wished to make some preliminary comments
regarding conflict of interest. After reminding Council that it was
staff policy to evaluate these situations on a case by case basis, he
gave it as the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that staff, that
is, Mr. Knox, could be permitted to participate in this item. It was
staff opinion that this was a County Plan, that it did not involve a
City decision -making responsibility within the meaning of the
political reformat. Consequently, the position of staff with respect
to this item was not as it would be in a normal City action.
Additionally, an evaluation of this matter indicated quite clearly
that there was no relationship between the dollars earned by Mr.
Knox's wife and her employment with Stanford University at- .the
Medical School and the decision placed before the Council. There
would he no impact to either decrease or increase that salary,
regardless of what action the City Council might take. Lastly, it
was quite questionable and extremely difficult to evaluate what the
financial impact might be upon Stanford on this matter. With
respect to the Council members, however, they had come to a different
conclusion for certain significant reasons. Council's relationship
with the County Board of Supervisors with respect to a County
Comprehensive Plan was different from that of the staff - there was a
relationship there between elected officials which did not exist with
respect to city staff. Staff would continue, as in the past, to look
critically and conservatively in determining Coun ci lnember conflicts,
cognizant of the fact that the Council Boas the decision maker for the
City of Palo Alto and held the trust provided to it by the
electorate. They would continue to attempt to avoid the appearance
of conflict, even where a technical legal conflict did not exist.
Therefore, with regard to Councilmember Sher's appointment with
Stanford, they woul# recommend that he disqualify himself because of
the direct relationship and direct discussion of Sanford land.
Director of Planning Naphtal i Knox read the following statement
"Council is reviewing tonight the Draft Santa Clara County General
Plan as it regards the treatment of Stanford University Lands.
There are two parts to the Planning Commission's recommendation. The
first deals with the definitions of °University Lands-Caaspes° and
°University Lands -Academic Reserve and Open Space -which appear in
the Cognty Draft General Plan in thr, Land Use pullout section under
the category -Major Educational andAnstitutional Uses. The second
aspect is the designetfon of thee4"eategories on Stanford University
Lands on the Land Use Map itself
"The Council will recognize that the comments 1 arcs about to make are
a few of the main points that .1 grade in a Weesentation to our Palo
Alto Planning Cooc-pission on October 8th, and in the subsequent
discussion. This review is primarily for the'>'enefit of members of
our audience and our radio audience.
°By way of background, a major objective has been to bring same . order
to the planning process where there are ci'reitly overlapping.
jurisdictions and interests. Efforts hove been made by City,
County, and Stanford University officials and staff to come :gyp with
oneor two land use designations which would fit within the plaani g
systems of all three entities. The public will benefit by her i ng a
simple, clear-cut set of lead use definitions. The present set of
definitions (that is,P one used by Stanford, one used by the County,
and another used by Palo Alto) create ambiguity. The emphasis; then
3 4 3.
10/20/8*
is to first adopt a system, and then to apply the system within a
planning process. In this case, the County is moving first. They
are updating their plan. They are creating these two university
lands categories. And they are designating specific areas on the
County Land Use Map as either University Lands/Campus or University
Lands/Academic Reserve and Open Space.
"As it stood on October 8th at the time the Planning Commission
considered,this matter, the language of these two university lands
definitions, having been redrafted by Stanford and County staffs with
Gerry'Steinberg, Enid Pearson, Betsy Bechtel, and Nancy. Alexander
present, .allowed no more and no less than is allowed under the
designations in Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan. That is, the
University/Lands designation related to our Comprehensive Plan
designation called Major Institutions/Special Facilities; and the
University Lands/Academic Reserve and Open Space definition related
to'our category called • Open Space/Controlled Development.
°The Open Space/Controlled development category is defined in Palo
Alto's Comprehensive Plan as 'land having all the characteristics of
open space, butUpon which some development can be allowed,
providing that the open space amenities are retained.' One possible
extension of that .land use designation, and we have done this where
we are dealing with lands within the Palo Alto city limits, is to
apply the OS zone which, among other things, 'promotes the reasonable
use of open space land, while at the same time preserving and
protecting its inherent open space characteristics.' Within the OS
zone, with a ose permit, educational, charitable, research, and
philanthropic institutions can be allowed. Somewhat paradoxically,
our Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance is less precise in its terminology
than are the university lands definitions which are before you
tonight for your recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors.
But in summary, development is permitted in both our Open
Space/Controlled Development land use category and in our OS zone,
with concern and restriction. Neither the Open Space/Controlled
Development classification nor the O5 zone limit the land to open
space forever. Both categories inherently recognize the right to
develop.
' As determined by LAFCO, Stanford is in Palo Alto's sphere of
influence, but Stanford's unincorporated lands are not under Palo
Alto's control. Palo Alto has influence over the plan ning,and
develople—` `"o what happens in the sp er'e of influence, but ehe
ultimate decision lies with the County Board of Supervisors.
' What Council will be doing tonight is setting important policy
within Palo Alto's sphere of influence. The County.recog►nizes, as
they have in many documents that both the County and the City have
interest in the sphere of influende, and the County is baiting for
the City of Palo Alto to state its position."
Mr. Knox ended his comments by offering to display for Council and
members_of the audience transparencies showing the language adopted
by the: Palo Alto Planning Commission, and the areas of Stanford -North
and Stanford -South and the Coyote Hill area.
1
Frederic'Nochols, Chairman of the Planning Commission read the Corrected
following statement: See Pg 21
12/22/80 III
°8e Corrissioners are uneasy about one of our changes to thewording
of allowable ,uses in the University Lands/Academic Reserve and Open
Space: that is* . Our recaramendet $on to change the lard use
designation for any development that includes housing to University
Lands/Campus" prior to allowing that cise.
3 4 4_
«4/20/80
"Our intent in the change of wording was -to make the point that
housing seemed inconsistent with Academic Reserve and Open Space use.
If a housing development were proposed, a strong case would have to
be made to remove the area of development from the open space
designation, and such a change of land use designation would require
a process leading to an amendment to the General_ Plan. However, we
see two potential conflicts with this recommendation:
'F1. Establishment of the "Campus" use within the "Academic
Reserve and Open Space' region of Stanford lands might tend to
encourage urbanization at the proposed project site, and thus'would
conflict with the intent of low intensity use.
•2. Development of a "Campus" project in the "C" zone west of
Junipero Serra Boulevard would lead.to ambiguity concerning which of
the review process agreements would be in effect.
'"We remain concerned about the existence and character of any housing
development in the Stanford. foothills. But, removal of the land from
the Academic Reserve and Open Space designation may not be the most
appropriate answer. If the Council agrees in principle with the
appropriateness of housing to some academic uses of the foothills, I
suggest that you consider leaving such developments in the Academic
Reserve and Open Space designation, but provide wording in the County
Plan that clearly defines the level of intensity that would be
allowed. This density might be defined as that consistent with the
housing density specified for the Open Space lands in the General
Plan of the jurisdiction that holds these lands in its sphere of
influence."
Mayor Henderson asked how the recommended land use title and
definition compared with existing designations under which the City
had been operating; if there were any significant changes in terms of
the designations and what could actually be done south of the
Junipero Serra Foothill Boulevard.
Mr. Knox said he did not know the answer with respect to what was
being proposed for University lands, as compared to what was called
for in the County Plan, and in turn the County zoning on that land.
Briefly, the University Lands/Academic Reserve and Open Space
category had been applied to the land south of Junipero Serra
Boulevard, and this was essentially what was designated in their
Comprehensive Plan for the foothills area as Open Space/Control led
Development
Nancy Alexander, Santa Clara County Planning Commissioner, .wished ° to
respond to Mayor liendersons query,. She stated that the only mousing
Palo Alto could build, under the jurisdiction of OS zoning, would be
the one unit per ten acres category. However, the only housing
allowed under County use, outside Of perhaps caretaker housing, was
whet, was designated as Low -Intensity Academic Use projects.
Counci lwember Renzel asked if It had been clearly stated whether or
not housing affiliated with the County's Low -Intensity Academic Use
was allowed.
County Planing Commissioner Nancy Alexander believed it was clearly
stated. The CS Agreement specifically exempted subdivision;
specif teal ly., building under 5,00€1 square feet of gross square area.
Housing was prohilatted. there.°at the present time without a use
permit.
$r. Knox disagreed with Commissioner Alexander's description of the
word *allow,.! His statement at the Planning Commission esgating and
in his opening remarks at: this meeting was that educational uses were
allowed with a use permit." If one considered the term "allow" to
mean only the allowable uses, and not those which could be considered
under the conditional use permit, then Commissioner Alexander's
statement was correct. However, he had been very careful to point
out that educational institutions would be allowed "with the use
permit" in the OS Zone as applied to this area. There was a
stipulation in the GS Zone that the intensity of those uses must be
no greater than allowed for residential zoning.
Commissioner Alexander clarified the present status: In the Plan
submitted by Stanford which the County had adopted, the bulk of the
land specified as Academic Reserve and Open Space had been designated
a "S," or low -intensity educational uses. It was her understanding
that those uses did not necessitate a use permit; however, they were
subject to ASA architectural and site review process. A use permit
would be required for any other uses; for instance, housing.
Counci lmember Renzel asked Commissioner Alexander how low -intensity
would be defined for housing requested under a use permit. She
wondered if it would be the seven units per acre mentioned in her
memorandum to the Council.
Commissioner Alexander replied this was an area which could be
subject to quite a bit of confusion, and she preferred to. address
this in her statement later, because she felt this was one of the
ber,ef its their new General Pl art 'offered over the existing General
Plan. She pointed out the campus area on the map, where low
density development was defined as seven dwelling units per gross
acre. There was at present no definition for low density housing
development in the Academic Reserve area; she would make 'that
suggestion in her presentation.
Mayor Henderson asked if there was anyone present from Stanford who
wished to present their concerns or viewpoints regarding the
recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Phil Williams, Director of Planning, Stanford University, stated his
opinion that most of the Planning Commission recommendations had
resulted in little substantive change to the intent of the County
Graft as submitted to the Paid Alto Planning Commission. Some of the
wordirg'may even have been clarified; for instance, in the area
providing that, "land could be added to the designated area camrus
and would require, if it were, a revision in the County General
Plan," Regarding the provision of housing in the Academic Reserve
and Open Space, he quoted the current CS agreement Stanford had with
the City and the County as providing that °no building over 5,000
square feet can be built in that area without a use permit," and in
addition to that, "no housing subdivision can be built in that area
without4 use permit." He felt the intent behind those words showed
rather clearly there was some distinction. between : housing . and other
academic uses; he thought it was primarily because earlier Plans had
indicated the possibility of housing subdivisions in the foothills.
He stressed that was not their intent; Stanford's intent, which was
in conformance with the CS Agreement and the City Plan regarding this
designation, was not for anything of a campus -type density. Their
plans were for nothing except individual, isolated uses and whatever
housing could be associated with that, for instance a ,caretaker=
house, or even the possibility of a "think-tank" of a few scholars in
residence. Any other proposal could require a _campus -type
development, a ,change to the campus, designation,and a 'revision in the
General Plan, etc. Stanford therefore felt that the original wording
as submitted to the Planning Commission was :;leer in that regards but
was not sure about later translations. He quoted: "In University
Lends/Academic Reserve -and Open Space, allowable uses, uses which are
compatible with the existing character of the laud and '-its resources,
3 4 6
10/20/80
0
0
1
Open Space and Low Intensity uses limited to instruction or research,
faculty, staff and .student housing and uses ancillary to the
allowable uses. All uses shall be subject to review and use
permit." It was Mr. Williams' opinion that this original language
was clear; it was the attempt by the Planning Commissioo to make a
distinction about housing which caused the confusion, by creating a
c-smpus designation and then countermanding it by specifying low
intensity.
City Attorney Abrams agreed with Mr. Williams about the CS Agreement.
He quoted: "The permit shall be amended provided that on the lands
contained in Area "C" no use shall be made under the permit which
shall result An construction of dwelling units pursuant to a housing
subdivision, nor of any building having more than 5,000 square feet
of gross floor area.* His question was whether, in Stanford's
opinion, a "building" meant something entirely contained in four
walls, or the broader sense of the word.
Mr. Williams' assumption was that the 5,000 square foot limit would
be the limit of the total square footage of a project for which an
application was being made, and that it would apply to housing as
well as to any other use. Another point he wished to make was that
the plan referred to by Commissioner Alexander as being approved by
the County was not the Flan now in process, but a 1962 Land Use Plan
which had been the basis of the use permit since then, and modified
by the CS Agreement of 1974.
Cou ;c i lmember Renzel asked if an amendment to the CS Agreement or a
tightening of language was necessary in order to ensure that the
meaning "project' was clearly included in the tern? "bull Ling."
City Attorney suggested that perhaps they wished to return to the
original lang age4 "All uses shall be subject to review and use
permit.'
Counci ?member Renzel verified that City Attorney Abrams was
suggesting the deletion of the underlying language which had been
added and the use permit' stand as the control. City Attorney
Abrams agreed, and said the language had been added to take into
account the CS Agreement.
Mr. Knox said the added language created a third category, causing
theconfusion. One category was the University Lands/Campus, having
an urban character, another was the University Lands/Academic Reserve
and Open Space. The third category was created by adding wording,
under "Allowable Uses," stating that a change could be made, but
instead of being urban in character, as it would be under University
Lands/Campus, it must be low intensity in character, as it originally
started out to be as Academic Reserve and Open Space. He agreed the
added language should be deleted or amended.
Mayor Henderson suggested the Council agree to returning to the
original definition of `allowable uses,' with the final sentence,
"Al! uses shall be subject to review and use permit."
Counci lmember Renzel said she did not see any problem with that, but
it seemed that the County and the City had different definitions of
"low intensity.". She suggested perhaps the Council should at least
recommend the County ,adopt a -low intensitydefinition similar to
their own, for the University Lands/Academic Reserve and Open Space
category. She stressed the 'importance of clarifying this issue, to
prevent confusion and ambiguity now and in the future..
3 4 )7
10/20/80.
Councilrnember Brenner asked a question regarding the amount of
control the Palo Alto City Council did actually have over "use
permits." She recalled that former discussion had stipulated these
could be placed on the Council Consent Calendar, simply at the
request of the Council. She felt there was a difference in the level
of control in following this procedure as opposed to review by staff,
and asked for a better description of that distinction.
Planning Director Knox responded that, under the procedures adopted
by the Palo Alto City Council in areas of "B" and "C," there were
rules for architectural and site approval, referrals from the County
on mine or land divisions, subdivisions, zone changes, use permits,
'tc.: "In the case of a referral for subdivision, zone change or a
use permit, and if a land use policy question is raised, the Director
of Planning may refer the matter to the Planning Commission. The
City Council has been previously informed that Planning Ccmniission
recommendations will not be forwarded to the Council, because of the
35 -day time constraint (imposed by County on their referrals). If
the Director of Planning determines no land use policy question is
raised then staff will review." In reference to all of the
applications in areas "A," "B," and "C," the °County may incorporate
recommendations from Palo Alto, if they are appropriate in the
judgement of the County." Mr. Knox said this was a summary of the
procedure for City of Palo Alto review of Stanford University
development applications to Santa Clara County, which was adopted by
Council.
Councilmember Brenner asked City Attorney Abrams if a simple request
by the Council would serve to place the use permits on the Consent
Calendar, not to be removed unless questioned. She felt this would
be a positive way for the Council to review the use permits.
City Attorney Abrams replied that the Council could of course change
the guidelines as quoted by Mr. Knox, and have the use permits
submitted to them directly.
Mayor Henderson called for comments from the audience.
John Papagni read statement from the Committee for Green Foothills,
located at 2235 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto. Although commending the
City of Palo Alto and Stanford on their continuing working dialogue,
the Committee felt this could not substitute for public airing and
review of Stanford's development policies, As the -largest private
land owner on the Mid -Peninsula, Stanford had a responsibility to the
best interests of the total community. Although appreciating the
special nature of Stanford's academic endeavors, the Committee did
not approve of .its being singled out for separate land use
applications a the regoireo eats for general plan zoning should be
equally applied. The Committee strongly recommended that the areas
in Stanford described by the City Planning Commission for their
scenic beauty, visual release, passive recreation, grazing and
wildlife values,* be redesignated as University Lands/Open Space, in
order to preserve their environmental integrity. This would be
compatible with the intent of the 1973 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
as stated on. Page 21 of the Open Space Element, where those areas are.
among some listed to be preserved as Open Space.
Nancy Alexander, Santa Clara Planning Commissioner, 753 Newell Road,
Palo Alto, read a.statement dated October 20, 1980, a copy of which
is on file in the Palo Alto City Clerk's Office. Her comments
revolved around two ideas (1) Some -features of the University Lands
section of the` County's General Plus as they differed from current
Piens,`and (2) Related reco endations made by the Palo Alto Planning
Commission.
Some of the significant changes in the proposed University lands
section of the County's General Plan are:
Recognition of a university's obligation to satisfy increases in
housing needs.
2. The addition of low intensity housing as allowable use in the
Academic Reserve/Open Space area (SW of Foothill Expressway).
3. A cooperative process (embracing University, Council and City)
for policy development for the Academic Reserve/Open Space area
which would focus on conservation and environmental concerns.
4. The requirement for a special area plan for the Academic
Reserve/Open Space area prior to consideration of a use permit.
Some additions and deletions recommended by the Palo Alto Planning
Commission, with related comments:
1. Addition of "traffic mitigation" - Deemed unnecessary because
placing housing near jobs will mitigate traffic and the
jobs/housing imbalance.
2. Addition of "after December 1900" - Already recommended,
therefore not an addition.
3. Deletion of °with iAteir respective housing needsR- Should remain,
because it relates housing to specific housing needs.
4. Replacement of °for expansion of lands withe with to add lands
to - Not a substantive change.
S. Replacement of °considered as a revision to the General Plan"
with "processed in accordane with General Plan amendment
procedures" - Not a substantive change.
G. Addition of "These lands are important for their scenic
beauty,...academic potential" Not a substantive change.
7. Deletion of (low intensity) "faculty, staff and student housing"
and addition of °While faculty, staff and student housing is
related to the use of lands for academic purposes within the
academic reserve/open space category, any such housing shall be
authorized only after the land use designation is changed to
'University Lands/Campus':. and shall be low density consistent
with the open space character of the lands." - Confusing and
probably net re lectin9tbe intent of the Palo Alto Planning
Commission, mainly because agreement on the meaning of "low
intensity° is _ needed. Language suggested for consideration by
the Council would be to the effect that Any housng in the
academic reserve/open space category would be low intensity with
the regulations as of December 1980 of the city within the sphere
of influence .it lies."
S. Replacement of "norma r ly" with "except as otherwise provided by
agreement or laws, Consistent with the intent of the original
language.
9. Addition of *A specific plan or similar plan" - May be
counterproductive because a.'specific plan is inflexible and could
in fact encourage development. A special area plan is
recommended.
Director of Planning Knox asked what was the source of the Appendix
an "Specific Plans."
3 4
10/20/80
Commissioner Alexander replied it was from the State General Plan
Guidelines of 1980.
Nan Weidman, 390 E. Charleston, Palo Alto, representing the Peninsula
Conservation Center, read from a statement addressed to the City
Council, received October 20, 1980, a copy of which is on file in the
City Clerk's Office. Some points of concern, specifically regarding
the University Lands/Academic Reserve and Open Space category were:
1. A statement of intent was lacking; the words, "These lands shall
be preserved at their present level of intensity," should be
added to the "Description" section,
2. They supported Commissioner Nichols' recommendation regarding
"Allowable Uses, and suggest this simply read: "Uses which are
compatible with the existing characterof the land and its
resources - open space and low -intensity uses limited to
.instruction and research. All uses shall be subject to review
and use permit, except as otherwise provided by agreement or
law."
3. Regarding the Development Policies Section, any proposed
development should be studied in conjunction with other proposed
and existing development.
There being ro other member of the public wishing to speak to the
issue, Mayor Henderson proposed making a motion, remarking that the
main problem seemed to be with the definition of "allowable uses" of
the University Lands/Academic Reserve and Open Space.
1
MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Eazzino to approve the
Planning Commission recommendation for (approval of the County
General Plan - University Lands, with the following amendment:
AMENDMENT: That paragraph regarding "Allowable Uses* read: "Uses
which are compatible with the existing character of the land and its
resources -- open space and low intensity uses limited to instruction
and research, faeulty, staff, and student housing, and uses ancillary
to the allowable uses. Any housing in this category would be low
density, retaining a maximum amo lart of open space and consistent With
the regelataons, as of December 1980, of the city caithin the sphere
of inflr ente in Which it lies. All uses shall be' subject to review
and use permit, except as otherwise provided by agreement 'or ‘ larw."
Counci lmember Renzel wished , to suggest Another amendment, regarding
a statement under the definition of University lands/Academic Reserve
and Open Space. She thought Mayor Henderson's comments parallelled
Corailssioner Alexander's suggestions there.
Mayor Henderson assented, remarking he knew there were sore other
points to he brought up, but he wished to tatr*e,care of the. one large
problem area of the definition'of 11a1lowabie Uses.; 'He was otherwise
moving approval of the Planning Commission retormaendation es attached
to their -,letter of October 10, 1980.
1980.
Comsncilmeaber Menzel wished to make some amendments to further -the
motion, -but Mayor Henderson suggested voting on the the ei t i re
recolm.endation, with the *Allowable Uses" amendment, first, and then
studying ,other possible emendritnts.
Councilmember Renzel supported suggested amendment because of Its
clarity_and because it removed the present ambiguity.: She was
satisfied that it would thee. bring the Cite recmawtendatlon in
conformity with the Coranty Planning Commission plan.
e
MOTION PASSED on a unanimous vote, Sher not participating,
Witherspoon absent.
1
AMENDMENT. Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Brenner, that the
words, "with their respective housing needs," be added to Paragraph 3
render the University Lands/Campus definition, reading "Substantial
housing and traffic mitigation measures must be taken to balance
increases after December 1980 in student enrollment, faculty and
staff"
She explained this as following Commissioner Alexander's
recommendation that this would ensure relating housing to housing
needs; for example, providing "housing for 1,000 new students, not
housing for 1,000 faculty."
Mayor Henderson commented that an increase in student enrollment
would most likely cause a corresponding increase in faculty and
staff. He pointed out that Commissioner Alexander recommended
reproving 'traffic mitigation" from the same paragraph, but he was
inclined to leave it in.
Councilmember Fazzino's opinion was that the proposed amendment was
unnecessary language, not adding any new idea to the present
meanings
Mayor Henderson agreed, but said he was open to argument.
Councilmember Brenner thought, regarding "traffic mitigation," this
referred not only to the number of cars, but to possible awkward
situations.
AMENDMENT PASSED on the following vote, Sher not participating:
AYES: Brenner, Fletcher, Levy, Renzel
NOES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Henderson
ABSENT: Witherspoon
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Menzel moved, seconded by Brenner, to
delete the words "specific plan" and "or similar plan" from the 9th
paragraph, leaving the definition: 'A special area plan shall
normally be required...prior to consideration of a use permit."
Mayor Henderson commented that would be restoring the original
meaning.
AMENDMENT PASSED on a unanimous vote, Sher not participating,
Mith•rspooe absent.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED on .a unanimous y:bte, Sher not participating,
Witherspoon absent.
Planning Commissioner Knox displayed 'the: map explaining the
relationship between Stanford/North-Stanford/South and Coyute Hill.
The Land Use map showed the Academic Reserve and Open Space .category
applied to Stanford/North, but -Rot to • Coyote Hill or to
Stanford/South. The Planning Commission was recommending the
addition of Coyote Hill aid Stanford/South, 4$ well as the Arboretum,
as Academic Reserve and Open Space:
$s. H.anko 'representing the $*d4PenifS le .Regional Open Space
District on this item, expressed setisfaat$on with proposed changes.
3-1 _1
MOTION: Councllmember Renzel moved, seconded by Brenner, to approve
the Planning Commission recommendation regarding Council
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding "Land Use Plan
for Santa Clara County's draft map.
MOTION PASSED on a unanimous vote, Sher not participating,
Witherspoon absent.
4131 EL CAMINO REAL
rrerPTIMMIThrAMONFORMING USE TERMINATION
J%i T A .
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the
application of Janet A. Thain for property located at 4131 El Camino
Real for an exception from the nonconforming use termination
provisions.
Mayor Henderson recalled that this item had been removed from the
Consent Calendar at the request of members of the public. He
understood there was a desire for this item to be continued to a
future agenda and given a public hearing. The neighborhood
association near the property had not been given advance notice, and
he had been assured by the Planning staff that there was no problem
with a time limit.
Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment Kenneth
Schreiber suggested scheduling this item for the third Monday in
November, November 17, 1980.
MOTION; Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Levy, that this
item be continued to the Council meeting of Monday, November 17,
1980.
MOTION PASSE) on 6 unanimous vote, Witherspoon absent.
MITCHELL PARK RECREATION CENTER
warur-ruwirmr-7-rxwmt-TtRvicEs CMR:432.0
This item had been removed from the Consent Calendar at the request
of Councitmember Eyeriy, i; order to insure there would be sufficient
funds remaining, out of the budget item of $27,500 for one-time
maintenance activities, for future maintenance requirements at the
Michell Park Recreation Center. He had been assured by John Wear
there would be ample money, even after deducting the 517,305 required
for the painting services; as a back-up the carpet cleaning could be
handled in house.
MOTION: Councilwember Eyerly moved, seconded by Renzel, t1;3t Mayor
Henderson be authorized toapprovecontract with Stanford Painting
Company, on behalf of the City, in the amount of $17,303.00,
AGREEMENT OFFICE PAINTING
Stanford Painting Company
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon atsent .
3210 PAGE MILL ROAD
`s,TE AND alibi! ItV(EW OF TRAIL SYSTEM
ICT CMR:464:
•
The Planning Commission, by c. vote of 6-0, and the Architectural
Review Board, by a vote of 5-0, recommend approval of the ;application
of Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space District for Site and Design
Review of the trail system for proper,t,y located at 32100 Page Mill
Road.
Mayor Henderson asked if he was correct in his understanding that the
second part of the recommendation, regarding Parking Lot G, had been
removed from consideration.
Assistant Director of Planning a Community Environment Kenneth
Schreiber responded that was correct. The Open Space District had
requested it be withdrawn from consideration; the parking lot would
not be built where it would fall under PaIo.Alto`s j risdiction. The
application then was for a trail system, consisting partly of new
tr'ai l s, but mostly of existing roads and trails.
Mayor Henderson irked if tine ,Council could consider the related
parking in considering the trail network; in his view they were
interrelated.
City Attorney Abrams replied that they could not* as this issue was
not before Council. They could, of course, redesign some trails in
order to better relate them to parking, which would be outside of
Palo Alto's jurisdiction.
Councilmember Eyerly asked if the parking lot could be discussed
under New Busieess. City Attorney Abrams replied that Council could
discuss the i sue, but no action taken would have any effect on
location! etc.
Mayor Henderson asked if dissatisfaction with proprosed parking could
he the basis for rejecting the proposed trail system, and was told by
City Attorney Abrams it could.
Councilmember Renzel stated, regarding the parking lot, that the land
was located out of Palo Alto's jurisdication on a technicality, but
impacted Palo Alto, by becoming disturbed land, thus disturbing the
land at the base of Stephens Creek. She wondered if that could be a
basis for sending an objection to San Mateo County. She also
wondered if the fact that San Mateo County does not have Site and
Design Review requirements was a factor in choosing the location of
the parking lot.
Mr. Schreiber explained that Palo Alto was entitled to comment on any
environmental document, but could not impose its view on San Mateo
County.
Mayor Henderson then called on members of the public ..for their view.
John Papagni.,from the Committee for Green Foothills*, located at 2253
Park Boulevard, P.a1'o ,Ai to, read a statement, received .October 20,
1980,, as copy of whichis on fife in the City Clark's Officio from
that orgasixat10 . The statement recalled the Palo Alto City Coeecil
supporting, on -'November 17* 1975, a realignment of county boundary
lines, whi,th would place the proposed parking lot area, now located.
in San Mateo County., within Palo Alto's 3arisidicaatlon. The
Committee for Green Foothills recommended that rQa/-tgmeent be
isplee ehted before approval of a parking .lot, so that Palo Alto could
have full site .and design control of the loc tfon„ that the Cornell
l
di rsct 'staff to begin .tips process of realignmeeti and that Santa
Clara and Son Mateo Comities be requested to isomer Palo Alto's
adopted 200 foot WWII` along Page Mill . Road in processing any
development appliaations among that route.
Puratsha abl rides, 31570 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto* represent i rig ' a group
called *The Friend* of the Land,* and many resldeets of Page Mill
Real*:.ppohe. of th+e strolls emotions 'Involved around this issue. From
their viewpoints:- the 1p.s Space leistrrlct'barely purchased the land,
►efa?*doetroying a Weber Of homes sod buildings without obtalnieg
3.5 3
any kind of permission from the City of Palo Alto. He enumerated
some of their grievances with the Open Space District, mainly its
avoidance of numerous offers of discussion and negotiation. He
repeated what had been pointed out by Counci lmembers, that the
proposed parking lot, though technically located in San Mateo, would
impact Palo Alto. He suggested the Open Space District be encouraged
to meet with them; if it did, they could have a compromise plan ready
by next spring.
Marti Schneider, P. O. Box 343, Star.Rt f2, La Honda, informed t,;ouncii
that the proposed trails were not as portrayed on the trail
transparency map, and asked that the trail system not be approved
without an accurate trail map. He also asked Council not to take any
action before seeing results from some civil lawsuits pending before
the Appellate Court regarding "rights to possession of property.' He
cited California's Environmental Quality Act, the purpose of which
was to assure against the cumulative effect of several small
projects, ending in serious environmental impact, and urging the
Council to put off any decision regarding the proposed trail system,
until the entire Monte Bello project could be studied as a whole.
Steve Sessions, Land Manager of the Mid -Peninsula Open Space
District, had no further input on the proposed trail system, but was
there to answer any questions..
John Olmsted, 31570 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, a very close neighbor
of the Monte Bello Regional Open Space District, urged the Council to
check carefully before approving any trail systems. In his views
some very bad trail systems have been put in by the Park. System. He
felt that government checks and balances should come into play with
this kind of issue. He also asked about the proposed realignment (of
county lines).
Couricilmember Eyerly asked City Attorney Abrams if a motion could be
grade approving the Trail Plan contingent upon parking acceptable to
the City of Palo Alto. The answer being that it could not,
Councilmember Eyerly declared he could not accept a trail plan under
those conditions. He did not see why Palo Alto shouZd impact its
ground by approving a trail plan without any control over the
parking.
City Attorney Abrams interjected here to say that, in order for the
Council to deny the trail plan because the parking problem, they
would have to conclude the parking in its present location cannot
serge .the trail.
ryounclimember Renrei asked for any information regarding the proposed
realignment of county boundary lines
Director of Planning and Community Environment lapbtall Knox
responded that the proposal was made five years ago; ft was his
understanding that the project had been dropped. He did remember
there had been opposition from some governmental agency, either Santa.
Clara County LAFC°, or the Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space
District. Also, San Mateo County had not pursued the proposal, and
the final conclusion was that legislation at the state level was
needed for realignment of county boundaries. Due to the conflicting
interests Of the various districts, the 4111 was not carried to
Sacramento.
Assistant, Director of Planning and Community Environment Kenneth
Schreiber commentedat this, _.pof of .tkiat the reason for that assignment
was the primarily the problem with the number of lots iming split by
the sarong line. Ibis, ,y' - had feao4 a way .. for both Minims to /agent.
their parcel s9 which resolved -the teundary caleflicts at that titre.
1
Vice -Mayor Sher said he found the entire process painful; he agreed
with statement made by the Committee for Green Foothills that they,
the Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space District and the City should be
pursuing their common goals and interests in the foothills, instead
of acting at cross-purposes. It was his opinion that if the Open
Space District had not mentioned the parking lot, the trail system
would have been approved in a routine manner. However, the two
issues has been tied together; he felt there was much to say in the
Planning Commission's suggestion that perhaps additional parking was
not necessary. He thought there must be a way of making any
objections to the parking lot known to San Mateo County. He had not
heard any criticism of the trails themselves; as far as he could see
there were no real grounds for denying the application for the trail
system.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Levy, *o approve the
Planning Commission recommendation regarding trail system.
Caunci lmember Renael wanted to make a public statement of her
disappointment that the parties involved had been working at such
cross-purposes, because she felt it important to proceed with a trail
system up in the foothills for people to enjoy the wonderful land
that has come under public ownership. She would support the motion,
but somewhat reluctantly because of the problem with respect to
perking.
Councilmember Brenner stated she would oppose the motion, because a
trail presupposes a parkin, lot. She felt the trail system could be
designed to begin and end at logical parking lots - at areas which
had already been flattened and denuded, rather than to disturb a new,
rolling, lovely surface.
Mayor Henderson had been discussing with Vice -Mayor Sher the
possibility of either adding to the motion before the Council, or
making another one, a statement advising San Mateo County of Palo
Alto's concerns about the parking let. Vice -Mayor Sher agreed, and
made the following restated motion:
MOTIOM RESTATED: Vice -Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Levy, to approve
the Planning Cammi%sion recommendation regarding the trail system,
and ask staff to monitor any proposals by the Mid -Peninsula Regional
Open Space District, and request Mayor or the staff to : advise San
Mateo County about Palo Alto's concerns : about the location of the
parking lot.
MOTION PASSED on the following vote:
AYES: Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, enrol, Sher
NOES: Brenner, Eyer1y, Faziino
ABSENT: Witherspoon
They Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the change
of district of property located it 400 San Antonio Road from i.M
(Limited Industrial/ResearchPerk) to RM-3
Mayor MewdersOn explained that the basis for continuing this item was
to give the public an *tQportanity to speak to this issue. '
Leonard Ware was appearing on behalf of Mr. Rosenbaum and his family,
the owners of the property. He gave some of the background of this
item, explaining the property had originally been zoned LM, as
preferred by the owner for economic reasons, and rezoned for
residential to conform with the Comprehensive Plan. However, they
did not understand the Planning Commission recommendation for an RM-3
zoning, instead of an RM-4, as requested. He strongly urged Council
to approve an RM-4 zoning, and introduced the architect for the
project as the next speaker.
Goodwin Steinberg, Los Altos, architect for the project, displayed a
map showing the appearance of the site with an RM-4 density.
Adjacent residents had no objections; the RM-4 zoning would add 20
more units than the RM-3; the landscaping would be the sane; and he
felt th;s would be ideal for older members ofthe community.
Counci lmesber Fletcher asked Mr. Steinberg if the four stories shown
on the map was themaximum height allowed,
Mr. Steinberg replied that he had made a quick study, allowing for
104 units, just to demonstrate there would be no overcrowding of the
site.
Vice -Mayor Sher asked what was the height for four stories. Mr.
Steinberg thought the code allowed 50 feet for four stories, which
was the projected height of the proposal; three stores would be nine
feet less.
Councllmember Brenner asked for comments from Mr. Nichols, Chairman
of the Planning Commission.
Chairman of the Planning Commission Fred Nichol.. said the Commission
was initially concerned with the impact on the neighbors of the added
height of an Rh -4 over and RPM -3 zoning; in their opinion there would
be no substantial reduction in allowable units. The RM-3 restriction
applied only to the back of the lots so that the higher height would
only be on the street side.
Vice -Mayor Sher said he understood that the height limit for R$-4
was still 35 feet adjacent to residential. He could not therefore
follow 'the reasoning for changing the zoning for that half of the
parcel.
Chairman of the Planning Commission Nichols explained that they felt,
in deference to the neighbors, there would be little to be gained .in
toning for RM-4 so close to the midi they also tools into account
possible traffic and air flow impacts.
Mr. Mare stated that the objections voiced by the Mountain View
neighbors did not relate to property render discussion, but
exclusively to contiguous property. They had expressed no objections
to the conceptual design as demonstrated at that meeting.
Tom Hartley, Dell Avenues Mountain View, residing behind the property
in question, was representing -the eeigbborbood organization. He said
their initial coecerns, regarding direct traffic onto hell,. the fear
of loan-lncoarra hevsio9: owl theoverlooking heights of -the buildings,
had all been satisfied, They therefore had no -objections at all. -to
the proposed building, either .AMA -3 or RM-4.
Councilmember razzleo asked $r hoax about the chances for. 'MR _units
f ro'm t he property.
3 5 4
1900/80
1
Director of Manning and Community Environment Knox replied there
should be no problem in acquiring the 10% called for in Program 18,
10 BMR units with RM-4 zoning and 8 or 9 BMR units with RM-3 zoning.
Counci lrember €'azzine wondered if the cost involved would make
acquisition of actual units preferable to accepting in -lieu payment.
Mr. Knox agreed, adding that in his experience the difficulty with
BMR acquisition was with small, expensive -land projects, not with
large projects such as the property under discussion. Councllmember,
Fazzino said he would then move for changing the zoning to RM-4.
MOTION: Counci lmeeaber Fazzino moved, seconded by Henderson, that
zoning be changed from LM to RM-4„ and introduced the following
Ordinance for 1st reading:
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF Ti4E . CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18..08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL
CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF
PROPERTY KNOWN AS 400 SAN ANTONIO ROAD FROM LM TO
RM-4.
Councitwember Fazzino went on to comment that he •folt this was an
eminently reasonable request, the site was clearly suitable for
housings close to basic services, on a major transportation corridcr,
and he was excited at the prospect of acquiring some actual 8MR
units. He did not see any significant difference in the possible
quality of life between an RH-3 and an RM-4 zoning with that
particular project, rejection of which would cause him to seriously
question ther commitment to providing more dousing wherever po sibie
in Palo Alto,
Counvil,ee aber Renzel asked if the intent to provide BMR units was
part of the project. Mr. Ware replied that had not been focused on
in detail, but the .owner, Mr. Rosenbaum was positively inclined to
support the BMR concept.
Counci lmember Levy said he saw every reason to approve the project;
in effect it gave an PN-3 zoning to the back of the lot where it was
adjacent to single-family residences, and allowed the greater height
on San Antonio Road, which could comfortably handle the R44-4 zoning.
Counci lmeraber Brenner would support the motion; she thought the
restrictions on the RN -4 zoning was suitable for the property. She
expressed the hope that the project would reaterialize as pictured and
discussed.
Mayor Henderson informed Council of a letter received -from the
Kid -Peninsula Citizens for Fair Mousing supporting the RN -4 zoning.
He was i prgssgd with the quality of dealing with the neighbors,
recalling the difficulties along that line with the Palo Alto Gardens
Project.
Couaci lmeadaer Reszsl said she would support the motion, mainly
because of the possibility of acquiring some BMR units. She also
wished to point out that one of the major problems with the Palo Alto
Gardens Projects had bete with ,drainage; she urged an early
iivesttga tioe along these lints with the present project, to avoid
similar problems.
NOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent.
3 S 7
10/20/80
COUNCILMEMBER RENZEL
friAN�
�r.w. sw�ww rYrww.
Councilrember Renzel said there had been some correspondnece from
Lisle Day regarding the Cesano P.C. The staff had looked into it;
but she was very disturbed by the response that landscaping options
for individual homeowners in the rear of subject property allow them
to raise the grade, contrary to the P.C. permit which was issued.
She strongly disagreed with that; she was not sure how to pursue it,
but felt that Council should give very strong direction to staff that
when a P.C. Is approved with a grading plan, individual landscaping
plans are not allowed to change that grading plan. She reminded
Council this had been a major point of discussion with that
particular p_c.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Knox wished to
respond. He said there were two aspects to the issue: Some of the
units were to be BMR units, others were to be individual houses. It
was felt that even though the individual homes along the rear of that
property were part of a P.C. development, they should have the same
rights as other single family homes in Palo Alto; they should be able
to pursue landscaping changes and development of patios, etc., in
their yards without having to deal with any more regulations than any
other single family homeowner in Palo Alto. That was the basic
reason for the exemption. As for the other aspect, his recollection
was that the developer did try to obtain an easement to Monroe Drive
for the grading of the property. The neighbors resisted, with the
result that the property had to drain onto El Camino. The
difficulties with grading, etc., then all stemmed from the necessity
for the property to be higher in the back than in the front. He
could not see how problems like these could be legislated.
Counci lmember Repel responded the drainage problem had been
recognized in that particular problem, and a specific condition of
the - C had been worked out between Planning Commission, the
Council, the ARB; she did not think there had been any int nt that
the grade could be changed at the discretion of the homeowner. She
was very upset with how the situation had turned out, and felt the
matter should be reinvestigated.
ADJOURNMENT:
Councilmember Member Fazzino moved, secoded by Sher, that the meeting
be adjourned. The Council meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m.
AFFIRM:
350
10/20/80
APPROVE:
.J .