Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-01-16 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTEs Regular Meeting January 16, 1978 ITEM Minutes of December 5, 1977 Oral Communications Nancy Jewell Cross, 1902 Palo Alto Way, Merlo Park Announcement of Executive Session Consent Calendar - Action Items Resolution re Sand Bill Road (Formerly Willow Road) Improvement Project 4130 and 4146 El Camino Real and Assessor's Parcel 137-24-8 Which Fronts on Maybell Avenue - Tentative Condominium. Subdivision Map - Application of Grant and Bridges r - OF PALO ALTO PAGE 5 1 5 5 1 5 5 1 6 5 1 6 5 1 6 5 1 7 Request to Bring Items 5, 5a, 6, and 7 Forward on the Agenda 5 1 7 Status report - Ieprovement of Parking Lot S (Old Safeway Lot) 5 1 7 Project 75-63 Revision to Commercial Electric Rates :o Include Power -Factor 5 1 9 480 Marion Ague -- Preliminary Parcel Map - Appeal of Wiliam 5 2 0 D. 4339 El Cain 'Beal -- Change of District Property From C -3--S To P -C Application of C&C Compan7 Public Rearing; Planning Commiaeion Re tip re ; Draft Zoning Ordinance Text Bequest or Couneilmember Eyerly re sip Ordivarms Oral Communications Adjournment to &emotive Session Adjournment 5 2 3 529 5 3 5 5 3 6 5 3 d 5 3 6 Regular Meeting . January 16, 1978 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 7:35 p.m. in a regular meting with Vice Mayor Brenner presiding. PRESENT: Brenner, Carey, Clay (arrived 7:45 p.m.), Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Witherspoon ABSENT: Sher OF DEC>M:IDER S 1977 Councilmember Witherspoon said that oaa page 420, third paragraph from the bottom, the last sentence should read, "She understood that only 50 percent of the amount the State weight, provide the first year would be collectable the second year." Covncilmember Henderson said line, after the weed "speed" on streets where trucks were Coucrcilmeober Fletcher said lime, the word "Southland," that on page 421, fifth paragraph, fourth and before the comma, add "and were allowed supposed to be banned,". that on page 427, last paragraph, ninth should be changed to "Gi11ig, ". MOTION: Counci1mmber Witherspoon moved, seconded by Fazzino, that Council approve the minutes of Deccrher 5, 1977, as corrected. The motion passed on a unanimous vote, Mayor Sher and Cow; ii a nher Clay absent. ORAL C 11CAT1ONS 1. Ds. Nancy Jewell Croes, 1902 Pala Alto Way, Menlo Park, representing the_Coemittee for Safe and Sensible San Fr'anciaquits; Creek Routing, recalled that at a recent meet- ing, Councileenber Fletcher asked staff about the time necessary to prepare a supplemental envireumental impact report. Countlimember Fletcher was responded to on the basis that the bond counsel had written a letter to the City Council Taxying in substance that a vironmenta1 challenges were outlawed by the statute of limitations. However, Dr. Cross felt that the bond counsel had not ioveettgated the necessity of an environmental tal impact report. Dee Cross referred to ree t City Council minutes and 'read the following: "Council r Witherspoon raised the question About Item 011, the Cements Drive Acton.. Ht. Therloak1 saidi ' that he : van sure soma proceedural. requirements would have to be met, end there would have'to be ,tee environmental assessment. Mr. Pe ololki said the general answer would be there certainly woad not be an adverse impact la wing the Campus Drive Exton/oh, ,and that there mold be soma b mefit. 'iafor MOrton pointed rest t eaet .t would be a private road and a part of Stamforea General Pte. City Attorney Booth replied tkat Caupus Drive was essentially a private project, and that it might, therefore, be exempt from an En. The Jerre Serre‘wasi ounty road and would reqUirs Vie, would -include Campus Drive tranacandeatially. Dr. Crosse expressed concern that there has never been an emvirommentali ct report on that part of the Willow Improve- ment Project. She said . the Paso Alto City ateff has speat aappr te.y 200 Jars over the papt year updates the Palo Alto Municipal Co.. so- , that it would be consiatemt with the 1972 decision ni }the California Reprise Cwt is "Friers Miasea vs. Board of Supervisors! in Mono City. The vision .ft 1 1 141W71 stated that Environmental Assessments and lmeact Reports were required no less from a private than a public project. She was raising these two matters because she saw the justified concerns by the City Council, in relation to environmental matters, seem to be stated in vague, or not well -supported rulings about the law. She felt any short sighted actions of the City Council could be voided by a Court. She noted that after reviewing the contract signed in July 19:3, between the City of Palo Alto and the Bond Counsel, she found that the Bond Counsel was in a position of financial interest in promoting a decision_ for the assessment district, and in having the project as big as possible in money value. She has also investigated the Political Reform Act of 1974, and she pointed out that the decision of participation relates to Public Officials. She quoted from Government Code 82042defining— Public Officials: "Public Official means every officer,-. loyee or consuleee of a state or local government agency." She asked th.,4ity Council, in its discussions with the Fair Political Practices Commission, to consider the matter of financial interest in relation to this matter of the City's Consultant, Public Works Director, and the City Attorney. She also quoted Government Cele Section 87100, regarding Conflict oZ Interest: "No public official at any level of state or local government shall participt to in making, or in o ny way attempt to use, their official position to influence a goverment decision in which he knave, or has reeson to know, that he has a financial thterest." She asked the City Council to explore the matter with the Fair Political. Practices Commission, and to obtain Statements of Economic Interest from the Bond Counsel, Director of Public Works, and the City Attorney. ANdN0tNCEti NT OF E'I C TIVE SESSION Vice Mayor Brenner said there would be as. Executive Session regarding litigation at 10:30 p.n., that would last approximately one hour. comer CALENDAR Counciirember Fezzi.no asked that Item 1, regarding Revision to Commercial Electric Rates to Include Purer -Factor, be removed for purposes of referral. The following items remained on the Consent Calendar: Referral Items Action Its RR4OCUTION VO.,5509 entitled "'RESOLUTION OF TER COUNCIL OF�'TVS �CIT1Y�;OF PALO ALTO f`Af �.T4G F0 � PROPOSALS TO F�:. aL r DAMAGES POR FAILURE 1O ,6RZ WORK iiIT1IIN TUE TINE SPECIFIRD" 5 1 b 1/1611$ 6130 4146 EL CAMINO REAL. AND TI'Ss C�IVM SUBDIVISION MAP LI N G ES The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the application of Grant i Bridges for a Tentative Condominium Subdivision Map (65 units) for property known as 4130 and el46 El Camino Real and Assessor's Parcel 137-24-8 which fronts on Haybell Avenue (232-7704), and that the naming of a new street be referred to the Finance and Public Wcrks Committee. MOTION: Councilnember Fazzino moved, seconded by Henderson, that Council approve the Consent Calendar. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed on a unanimous vote, Vice Mayor Brenner voting "no," Councilme er Carey abstaining on the Resolution re Sand Rill Road (formerly Willow Road) Improvement Project, and Mayor Sher absent. BF,QIiEST TO BR iG z Ti? 5 3a 6 , Atha 7 ray rYn�.�. w nee FO1~. .PD OR T AGENDA Countilmember Henderson coved, seconded by Witherspoon, to bring Item 5 (Status Report _, I.mprot a nt of Parking Lot S, Old Safeway Lot, Project 75-63); 5-a (Revision to Commercial Electric Rates to Include Power -Factor); 6 (Planning Commission recommendation re 480 Marion Avenue); and 7 (Recommendation of the Planning Commission re 43a, El Camino Real) forward on the agenda for discussion at this time. MOTION PASSED: The motion passers on a unanimous vote, Sher absent. TATUS RLP T - IMPROVEMENT Ole PARKIi!iG Lmm , • -, ::rr' 13:8) Acting City Manager Charles R. Walker recalled that this item had beee put on the Cou oil agenda at the meeting of January 9 under Mew Business, and the Council had asked for a one -week delay in the project pending further coasidsration. He reported that staff achieved that delay at a ahem of cost. The staff report provided information as to the statue of the project and the basis for staff's recommendation that the project proceed as scheduled. 'Also provided was a status report on the Downtown Perking Feasibility study, and the letter from Downtown Palo Alto, Inc., recomlma ding that the project proceed. Council r Carey asked if staff had discussed with the contractor coats involved If the contract were terminated at this tine. Mr. Walker responded this had been dtac:aseed with the contractor, and the term for tsrmtnatirg the project were set forth in the letter erteched to the' staff report. The contractor has estimated his coetractual costs over the estimated perm of the contract es 82,000; and, in addition, Power-Andereon, Inc. claim it hae iecur*ed coats of about 424,900 and expects that donee would be reimbursed by the City. Wr. Walker stated . there mere, some lei requirements SW to the procedure by which the City would cancel the cOntrsct, including a public hearing since this is an Assessment District project. Councilseeber Carey asked if the public bearing were.just a procedural eattsr or if it would creep a pin:bleu. Mr. Welker noted that Bond Counsel's exact words pertaining to this were included is Itr. Pawloski's letter to are, Brow 4 Ridley, Loc., nerd he quoted: "If it could be 517 1/16/74 accomplished at all, it could only be after a public hearing based en full notice, an identification and awareness of the financial consequences of such action and who would be financirally responsible." Councilmember Carey wished to put the procedure in context and noted there was nothing unusual about a public hearing. With respect to Mr. Powers' letter indicating that a $24,000 cost had been incurred, those costs had to do with lighting fixtures, benches, trellises, etc. Councilmember Carey asked if there had been any analysis as to what value the City would get for paying that amount. Mr. Walker replied that the City would awn those things listed in the letter from Mrs Powers, but staff had not made an assessment of the value of the items to the City. It seemed to Councilmember Carey that if the City were to ultimately continue with the improvement of the lot, most, if not all, of the items would still have value; and he asked if that were a fair conclusion. Mr. Walker felt it was safe to assume that some of the items would have application; but some of them might not, particularly if a lot built under a structure were talked about as opposed to the lot that was currently under construction. Councilmember Carey understood that; but he noted that if the conclusion of the Downtown Parking Feasibility Study is to put 4multi-level facility on the lot and to go ahead ay.d complete the project, $93,000 would be lost. Zen Pawloaki, Director of Public Works, pointed out there h:d been a similar experience with the Cambridge Avenue parking garage. A surface lot had been built first, and later a structure was built above it. In that case the lot had not been torn up, and he did not :expect that would have to be done in this case. Councilmember Carey agreed that would be the case if the lot went up as opposed to the possibility of it going down, at least in part. If part of a multi -level structure were below ground, then the City would lose everything put in by this present contract. Mr. ?awloskl said he assumed the structure would be above ground. Councilmeeber Carey said that could be the case; but what bothered him was the report on the Downtown Parking Feasibility Study indicts there is sufficient demand new for.* parking structure, and One of the logical pieces for sueh a structure was this site. 8e expressed surprise that the city was putting in $93,000 worth of improvements when the study was going on, and it would not be too long until a report was in on the Feasibility -Study. Councilmember Carey restated his January 9 comment that be could not eecall having voted to spend $93,003 en the SafewayLot, because he knew the study Was going on. A look at the December 5 agenda explained what action he had taken, and his feeling was he had done the wrong thing. Councilmember lmeaber Carey pointed out that this item was on the Consent Calendar identified only as UniversityeAvenue Off -Street Perking Project No. 75- 63 - Approval of bid: for Lot g, and there was no dollar sea t indicated. ;be explained that when such an item is on the to $sent Calendar, it is easily sad by Councallsembessthat the money involved is a smell amomt. Councilmember Carey hoped that in the future projects involving sech an amount would state the dollar figure or else not be placed on the Consent Calendar. Be felt this was the gala ti t. es to bow the item slipped by the Council when it knew there vas a Feasibility Study being conducted. Councilmember Carey was mat reassured by hearing SIb 1/16/76 that if a decision were made to construct an above -ground level cf parking, most or all of the $93,000 would be saved; and he asked if he understood that correctly. Mr. Pawloeki stated that in going up with the structure, the paving, etc. could be retained; and everything that will have been done on the surface parking lot will not have to be demolished. Councilmember Carey noted the alternative would be to stop now and absorb about $26,000; and that would not be a total loss since $24,000 represented fixutures, eta:., which could be salvaged. MOTION: Councilmember Carey moved that the contract for Project 75-63 be cancelled. The motion failed for lack of a second. Councilmember Carey stressed his concern for having matters of this level of expense clearly stated on the agenda. Vice Mayor Brenner asked Councilmember Carey if he realized he had abstained on the item when it was before Council. Councilmemeber Carey explained he did that because he was in the Aissess- rs nt District. He added he would not vote on the item, but he would raise the question of proceeding with that level of expenditure when a study was being done on the maim issue. Councilmember Henderson stated that although the item was on the Consent Calendar, there was a staff report which explained the matter concerning the Safeway Lot and included the dollar amount. Councilmember Clay said he wo motion if it had not beau for recommending that the project address itself to the kind of Calendar; and in his opinion, be a Consent Calendar item. uld have seconded Councilmember Carey ` s the letter from Downtown Palo Alto, Inc. proceed. At some point, Council needed to things which were placed on the Consent a $93,000 contractual agreement should not REVISION TO COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC Chit :102 : 8) Councilmember F zzino said that in removing tail item from the Consent Cal ndar, he hopsd to avoid the kind of problem that had developed over the University Avenue iesue. He erpreeesed some concern that the buisneee community had not bad the opportunity to. respond to the staff 3roeosal concerning the der factor clause. A number of issue; had been raised, and there bed been no debate heard. Councilmember Pazzino stated he was not in a position at this meeting to analyze the wetter, and be wanted everyone to have the chance to study the report and hear discussion. It further concerned him that this subject was put on the Consent Calendar on January 16, 1978 an4 would become effective February 1, 1978, wbeu a major penelty was involved regarding electric rates. REFERRAL NOTION: Councilmember Pazeino moved, seconded by Clay, that the matter be referred to the nuance and Public Works Committee for discussion. i ichard E lu ek, Vice President and der of the Palo Alto Chi er of scarce, said be had b.ion chagrined to aeaurn of thie item en the Consent Wender. Over the past few years, the Chamber has had an active Energy Problems Task Force working closely with the City staff 5 1 9. il16/7$ on matters such ae utility rates and conservation; yet, this proposal had not been seen. Mr. Kluzek asked that copies of the report be referred to the Chamber of Commerce and other interested business groups so they may study it and make comments to the Finance 9nd Public Works Committee. Councilmember Carey asked if staff had some urgent reason why they wanted the revision implemented February 1. Mr. Walker responded there was no urgency factor, and the item could well be referred to the Committee for deliberation. Be suggested the it be on the Committee's agendi in February, after the report had been publicized with the business community. MOTION PASSED: The referral motion passed on a unanimous vote, Sher absent. 480 MARION AVENUE PRELIMINARY PAIL MAP MIL OF WILLIAM D. COX Vice Mayor Brenner stated that the Planning Commission recommended by a vote of four in favor, one opposed, denial or the appeal of William D. Cox, Jr. from the decision of the Director of Planning to deny a preliminary parcel map at 480 Marion Avenue, the item having been continued from the Council meeting of December 12, 1977. Anne Steinberg, Chairman of the Planning Commission, stated that the Commission recommended denial : ale lot split which would create two sub -standard lots and remove two units of moderately priced housing from the !outing stock. MOTION; Councilmember Henderson moved, seconded 'sy Fletcher, that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be upheld. Councilmember Fazzino referred to the November 23, 1977 staff report, and noted that of 29 adjacent lots to the subject parcel, 19 are 6000 square feet or over in size. He asked how much more than 6000 square feet in size the adjacent parcels were. Naphtali Knox, Director of Planning and Community Environment, responded that he could not answer that question without really checking Leto the file. Councilmember caber Fassino asked what kind of building cou..4 be put on the property if the Council upheld the decision of the Plaening union, and the developer decided to cull the property'. Mt. :Knox replied the property was R-1 zoned, so that a single-family residence could replace the present housing. Councilmember Tessin asked what the present rental. rate of than property WW1. Mr. Knox stated the property was currently vacant, and noted that the developer, 1t. Cox, was present to give the - City Couecil more information. Me. William D. Cox, Jr., 1701 Bryant Street, Palo .lto, stated the houses rented for $300.00 per m,:it. Re seamed the reasons for the Planning sion denying the preliminary parcel seep et 480 Marion Avenue, was became the property of the twu lots had been substandard. Re noted that a cordig to the pictures passed - out to the Couacilmembers, at leest 502 of the lots were a:bstandard. All of the lots marked in "red" do not mast the City's •tsnderds for a lot in the R-i, 6000 square feet district. S. 2 0 1/16/73 Mr. Cox said the two lots he was proposing were only about 2% sma?.ler than the required size in the area. This had been compensated ft, by the fact that a home had been designed which would cover just 25% of the lot rather than the allowable 35%, He reported that in all other respects, the houses co►formed to the zoning ordinance. Presently on the property is a duplex, composed of two one -bedroom structures. This building needs major interior renovation, and the foundation is in severe need of repair. Mr: Cox pointed out that the duplex is set back eight feet from Cowper Street, any he understood the zoning ordinance required sixteen feet. Further, the rest of the homes in the area are R-1. Mr. Cox concluded his remarks by saying it ;could be in the best interest of the City and the neighborhood to approve his subdivision. He submitted a petition signed by sixty-eight people in the neighborhood supporting his project. Councilmember Clay asked if the present houses were vacant. Mr. Cox responded they had been vacant for three or four months. Councilmembe. Clay asked the selling price of the new houses. Mr. Cox thought they Would cost 130 to 140 thousand dollars. Councilmember Eyerly risked if it were correct that the zoaing in that area wee R-1 and this duplex was nonconforming. Mr. Cox replied affirmatively. Gouncilrre her Eyerly stated he would oppose the Henderson motion; and if it is defeated, he would move to rverse the decision of • .he Planning Commission. He said he had viewed the property, and it is in a decrepit condition; and no doubt the neighbors would appreciate the upgrading of their ueighborhood by the construction of two new homes. Coimcilro'her Eyerly stressed that the duplex was badly run down. He had noticed that at the Planning Commission meeting there had not been very much discussion about the matter. Two residents spoke against the project, one of whom lived in the house immediately adjuvent to the property. Commissioner Gordon commented at the meeting that she did not know about the condition of the duelez, which indicated she had not seen the area; and Councilmember Eyerly felt that anyone on Council who saw the situation would be sympathetic to the lot split. The two lots would each- +ve`5,531 square feet, when the normal minimum would be 6,000. Considering the large nurber of below standard size lots in the area, Councilmember Eyerly found that to be acceptable considering there would be two new hoses upgrading the neighborhood. Ha also submitted that the amount of work necessary to bring the duplex into .a livable condition would raise the rental factor to such a point that it would not be lou rent housing. Couneilmember Fletcher asked how deficient the lot wan for having two structures on it. Mr. no responded the lots would be approximately 5,500 and 5, 700 feet, so there would be a deficiency of about 800 square moils sr Fletcher was not in favor of setting * precedent of lot splitting in R-1 e without more substantial evidence of need. She said she veld suupport the motion. Councilmember Carey asked if during deliberations any consMoretion had beep given to the fact that the lot under discussion was the largest one is the immaJiate area. For instance, the iota on the other three corners were mumestielly half the sin. of this one. Mr. Faros replied that he and Mrs. Steinberg vera not present at the Planning Commission meeting where thin subject was discuss d, and so they were relying upon the minutes of that meting. From what cc.uld be determined from mites, the discuision war -short; and the comparison of lot s#.aaa was evidently not brought up. 521 1/1073 It seemed to Councilmember Carey this was important, since the lot was not being reduced to two lots which would be substantially below the surrounding lot sizes. There were a number of lots on Colorado and Kipling which were approximately 5,300 square feet; and the lots on Cowper past the adjacent lot to the property in question appeared to be about 6,400 square feet.- Councilmember Carey noted that once again Council was fazing the inexorable conflict of suppling the housing needs of the community and holding densities. Certainly if granting a lot split meant creating low income housing, there would be some appeal; but Councilmember Carey reminded Council of the issue of job/housing imbalance, and that imbalance is not confined to those who need low income housing. Some people who work in Palo Alto want to live in Palo Alto, but they are living in Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Los Gatos and Saratoga and are commuting. If advances are to be made with the jvb/housing imbalance, a lot such as this one could be split and rot adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. Councilmember Carey felt the lot split should be approved. Councilmember Henderson granted this was a marginal situation. Whenever possible, he said he supported variances which resulted in more housing and were not detrimental to the neighborhood nor opposed by immediate neighbors. The Planning Commission decision was made on a four to one vote, and it seemee the only advantage to the proposal was to put in expensive hr,usi.ng for the financial benefit of the new property owner. The project would replace two lower income units with two very expensive units on a t ner lot that will be crowded, and there would be a detrimental effect on the immediate ueighc,)rs. Further, Count..?meMber Henderson pointed out the two lots are considerably below L:ini.mun lot size. The fact that the present structure is an eyesore does not mean replacement is required, but apparently no e.frt had been made to keep the property in good condition so the existing units could be rented ---which would be a viable alternative. Councilmember Henderson stated he ould'continue to sriport th niug `Co aiSsion's denial of the appeal. Vice Mayor Fsrec.ner stated that as she looked at the neighborhood, she could see quite a number of lots which could be subject to the sane kind of a variance, The City had been trying to protect some other neighborhoods tram beginning what would be a rash of lot splits. She did feel that the fact that this lot was a corner one had wave bearing on the problem in that a corner lot substandard in width, if it fuifilla the requirement of a 16 foot side yard, would not `lave mach land left. Vice Mayor Brenner stressed that the pictures shown had no bearing on the motion before Council since all that was being asked for was a lot split. The developer a dd not be bound to a 25Z coverage, which Mr. Cox said the picture had gears designed for. Vices Mayor Brenner said she would uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission. mono, PAILS: The Henderson motion to uphold the recommendation of the naming Coasaission failed on tbs follaving vote: AYES: Brenner, Fletcher, Readeraon MOO: Carey, Clay, Eyerly, Paazino, Witheercpoon ASSEMT: Sher Since it appeared that Council might amt to take some opposite action, Mr. Knox painted out that the resolution not peered by tho Planning Commission bad in Section 2 a condition which be and the City Attorney would like : to recommend be changed. That condition states that nil existing building setbacks on Carper Street and Marion Avenue shall be maintained. Ht. Knox said he and Mr. booth would like that sondiU .on to read: "So variances shall be granted for any future building* on these parch." 522 1/161711 Councilmember Carey asked what lot coverage could be expected with that change. Mr. Knox thought a lot coverage of 25% would take place on the corner and more than that on the interior lot. If the lots are split, the lot on Marion Avenue would have a street side yard setback, which is sixteen feet. Councilmember Carey said the coverage of the lot would not exceed 25%, then. Mr. Knox agreed and assumed two houses could he built on the lots without any variances required for height, yard or setback. Councilmember Carey wanted to knew if the suggested amendment to the resolution would accomplish :.hat Mr. Knox had explained. Mr. Knox confirmed that it would. MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Clay, its adoption with the contingency that no variances will be granted on the two lots: RESOLUTION NO. 5510 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAID ALTO APPROVING THE MISCELLANEOUS DIVISION OF LAND AT 480 MARION AVENUE AND GRANTING EXCEPTIONS" ;LION PASSED: The motion to adopt the resolution with the contingency passed on the following vote: AYES: Carey, Clay, Eyerly, Fazzino, Witherspoon NOES: Brenner, Fletcher, Henderson ABSENT: Sher 4339 EL CAN1NO RpI, i+ PROPERTY FROM C -3-S TO P -C Councilmember Carey said C&C did not stand for Cornish and Carey; however an employee of Cornish and Carey sold the land in question to CSC Company, and he would suit participatein the discussion or the votiug concerning this item. Anne Steinberg, Chairman of the Planing Commission, stated that the ComeLaalon recommends approval of this application for a change in eons from C -3-S to P -C on a vote of 3 in favor, 2 opposed, 2 Comaiseiomere absen . Sire reported that the Commission was divided on the issue of the bulk of the central condominium building. Tro of the Commissionere found the size of the building to be unacceptable and concluded that the only way to reduce the hulk and to afford better setbacks from the street was to reduce the number of unito. Other Comm asioners, although agreeing that the building was bulkier and occupied more space than they liked, believed it to be a physical sol.utioo for a difficult rite. In addition to a public street, the development provides multi -family housing on El Gino in . e eaPsiaaace with the Land Use Misp and than Comprehensive Pleat programs to encourage residential development in commercial end indsastti a areas. Mrs. Steinberg continued that the development would provide single family and dup1es Lousing adjacent to au K-1 area, and it provides four units of below market rate housing; at reasonable prices Further, the below market rate units are the mph sought after two and three -bedroom unite. Mrs. ' Steinberg added that COesisaiemar Carpenter, although absent from the November 30 Ming., had approved the plan as presented at tbe September meeting. 3 2 3 1/lifts MGTION: Councilmember Henderson introduced the following ordinance and moved, seconded by Fazzino, its approval for first reading: ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.04.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONING 'CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS 4339 E', CAMINO REAL FROM C-3-5 TO P -C, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS Janet Owens, Vice President of Midpeninsule Citizens for Fair Housing, made the following statement: "MCFH urges your support for this multi- family development. We find it meets several goals of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and also, recommendations in the'County Housing Task Force Report. It provides multi -family housing adjacent to a single- family neighborhood, while protecting that neighborhood from the immediate impact of higher density. It will provide medium density residential development on land that is now zoned commercially, that is, substituting housing for jobs. That is helping to redress the imbalance between these in the current zoning. It provides for four below market price units, which are suitable for families with children at surprisingly low prices. It increases residential density along a m.jox transportation corridor, which will help to make mass transit economically feasible. It is hard to imagine that one development could achieve so many goals simultaneously. With the specific provision, ; erked out by the developer and the City, we see this as an example of beneficial results based on carefully considered trade-offs," Mrs. Omens stated thee MCFH felt the Council should adopt procedures similar to those used by the Plannieg Commission to encourage the provision of below market price housing. The :?leaning Commission has adopted and followed the policy of considering such items at the beginning of their agenda, Mrs. Owens noted that such action by the Council this evening could have saved the developers (If they have two people present) about two and one-half man hours, a small but highly significant saving within the City's discretion. She said this would partially implement Rcusiag Program No. 19 of the Comprehensive Plan, and MCFH thought it would be appropriate for the Ceuacil to consider doing this. Larry Klein, 321 Lytton Avenue, representing CISC Company, said this vas the culmination of almost a year's work on behalf of the applicant, Since the project was rejected in Nay, the applicant _has worked with the neighborhood, the Planning Commission, and the Architectural Review Board to develop a project acceptable to the City of Palo Alto. Mr. Klein stated the project now meets.the environmental concerns of the neighbors and provides some low to moderate inco a housing, 'as X11. To his Umcmledge,:there atee dli - ghbors 'erased to the project; and . 'WO. Klein said .he was proud of that. Speaking to the ordinance, Mr. Klein referred first to Condition No. 10 on Page 2 dealing with: a proposed bicycle path easement, and said the applicant would like to have the easement subject to a further condition. It WAS Mr. Eleinie understanding that at present there is nu easement for tae City tc have a bicycle path across the perking lot of El Camino Bowling Alley from -Hiller Avenue, thus the proposed bicycle path easement is really an a a. eat to mere. He iupresaed concerns about ssf; ty if the easement is granted and there is io particular use for it, since the easement would open up an the parking lot. The suggestion to the City was that the developer provides for some knock -out panels on they fence which would go along the property line; and if and when the City obtains a bicycle path easement =roes the bowling alley p.tking lot, the panels could be removed; and the easement could be in effect. 524 1/16/7$ Secondly, Mr. Klein spoke to the development schedule listed on Page 3; particularly, Item C-1. That item states that construction shall start no later than twelve months from the date of Council approval of the P -C ordinance. Me. Klein said that ordinarily, the applicants would have no objection to that; but there are some extenuating circumstances in this case. He explained that the ownership of the property w.i complex. If the ordinance is approved tonight, the next step would be for the present owner of the land to ask for a three-way lot split. While no problems were anticipated, it is time consuming; and that, plus the time needed for ARE review of landscaping plans and development of final plans for the building Department creates a concern about meeting the twelve month schedule. Mr. Klein requested that the twelve- month condition be chanted to eighteen months. Councilmember Fazzino asked if there were any problems with having construction started within eighteen months. Mr. Knox responded there would be no problem with eighteen months, and it was a matter which could be settled according to the discretion of Council. Counciiaember Fazzino referred to No. 7 which stated that the area in front of Ceaano's Liquor Store, Manpower, Inc. and the In -Step shall be de:aigned to exclude any automobile parking and to include five bicycle parking spaces which shall be covered, He wanted to know the reason for excluding all automobile parking from the area, adding that there were two or three spaces there at. present. Mr. Knox responded that the parking spaces in front of the In -Step and the liquor store are not satisfactory from. the standpoint of safety, since drivers who park their cars there have to back out on to El Camino., With this project, a public road will be added at the intersection of El Camino and Los Altos which will create additional txaffiz from these forty-nine units around that corner. Since the developer hcs some control over all of these properties, Mr. Knox said he felt an appropriate condition for safety at the intersection and for the development would be to have the parking moved. He added that the developers indicated thmy would not object to a restriction on this parking. Councilme bee Fazzino asked if Mr. Knox was talking about the proprietors of the shops. Mr. Knox replied he was talking about the property owners. Councilmember Fazzino expressed appreciation to the developer for taking major measures to meliorate the problems with the neighbors and produce what he considered to be an outstanding proposal. He said he was excited about the amount of housing that was going to be located near Hl Camino .Peal since that would help the City achieve its Comprehensive Plan 'objectives. ire Casten, 114 Monroe thrive, expressed concern that the developer wee planning to construct a four-story building just fifteen feet sway from fourteen large trees, since such proximity could be harmful. Another concern he had was for parking spate. Mr. Casten said the businesses located there required some parking spaces; and he feared that if spaces were not provided, then shoppers would use his lot next door. Mt. Casten called the developer's attention to the fact that he was expecting to, expend his business; and if au easement were granted through his parkins lot, he would not be able to do that. He explained that he owned the Fiesta Imes bowling alley, and his motel wee the one housed in Motel 6. Vice Mayor Brenner asked if thought had been given to protecting the trees. Chairman Sigrid L. Rupp of the £rbtteetural Review Board said this matter was looked at along with the rest of the site plans. She reported that just a minor portion of the building was actually within fifteen feet of that particular property line. Ma. Rupp stated the trees were not native* old trees; but they are fairly young ones planted say 1/16/7$ directly on the property line. She said the feeling of the Board was that the trees would survive, and it would be in the developer's interest to maintain them because they screen a rather bare parking lot from the people living in the development. Councilmember Fletcher pointed out that there was a small park to the back of the property and a very well used bicycle/pedestrian bridge. She said the whole unity of Monroe Park and Silva Avenue is in the Los Altos/Mountain View School District, and the children who live there must cross El Camino Real at Los Altos Avenue. This cannot be done without traveling along El Camino, which is quite a hazard. Hope- fully, the bicycle path would solve that problem; and the residents of that development would be able to reach libraries and other facilities without having to use El Camino. Councilmember Fletcher asked if there were some reason why the duplexes had three -car garages. W. Knox expalfned that the duplexes were two and three -bedroom ones, and the new zoning ordinance recommends three spaces per duplex rather than fcur, which might be the case if there were two single family homes. So this was a reduction in the number of required parking spaces. In relation to the new zoning ordinance, Councilmember Fletcher pointed out that multiple -family housing would be required to provide Class 1 bicycle parking, which means bicycle lockers, or a check -in system with a guarded area for bicycles. In this particular case, she stressed that bicycle iucker8 were definitely called for. Couii'ilmember Fletcher noted that the alternative to p_- ivtng bicycle parking is to make it difficult for people to take care of their bicycles, and they would have to carry their bicycles up some stairs to'.keep them in their homeaa. She saw this as not much inducement for using modes of transportation other than the automobile. It was her suggestion that the two parking spaces l entified at& being dangerous be converted to bf vcle parking spaces and lockers placed on them; and if there is space available in other areas within the facility, that lockers be placed there Roger griffin, speaking for the designers of the project, stated that bicycle storage facilities had been considered in the design of the project. He said there were two parking spaces available which could accommodate forty bicycles, and there would be locks on the storage rooms. In addition, the bicycles could be individually secured inside the rooms. Councilmember rlete'^ee assumed "individually secured" ant chains, and those could be easily cut. Mr. Griffin said access to the storage roes weld be limited to the owners of the structures, so that only the occupants could get into the room; and secondarily, each occupant could, lock hie bicycle aspearately. Councilaember Fletcher stated preference for staying with the new proposals in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Griffin remarked that he was not totally familiar with the new regulation*, end he would review them in order to meet the s tanda►>b ds . AMENDMENT: Covsgci. r Fletcher moved, seconded by Henderson, that bicycle lockers be,provided in whatever space can be found, and elm two parking spare identified as not being suitable for automobiles be converted to bicycle parking storage. Vice Mayor Brenner pointed out that if a condition is added, it must be determined that the condition is a possible one. Mt. Klein said the deeve7.'opers were prepared to devote the apace at the opposite end of the garage from that area referred to in Councilmember lrleteher's motion. CounclIseaber Pletcher said the age at the other eased of the kuildieg see only aersisaliy secure. 526 1/16/78 Mr. Knox said this kind of facility had not been discussed with the developer because staff does cot try to apply laws which the Council has not had an opportunity to review, let alone pass; although it may be a good idea to have better bicycle parking for this facility. He referred to Page 183 of the new zoning ordinance, which describes the classes of bicycle facilities. Class 1 Is for long -tern parking of one-half hour or more, and it calls for lockers or check -in facilities for high security and protection from the weather. ;.ass 2 facilities are for short-term parking (less than one-half hour); and these require that the user be able to lock both the wheels and the frame, with the user providing his or her own lock. Mr. Knox said that sometimes Class 1 spaces are required. On Page 174 of the ordinance there is a schedule that sets forth the bicycle parking recuirements. In use category No. 22, multiple family residential use calls for one bicycle space per dwelling unit --and it calls for Class 1 space. Mr. Knox pointed out that in that schedule, other kinds of bicycle facilities are called for, and one of the more popular owes is "Class 2 -covered," w ich means tez!esed from the weather and a less secure locking mechanism. He explained that what Mr. Griffin was describing as being provided in the parking area under the building is a "Class 2 -covered facility." And what Councilaer Fletcher is asking for is a Class 1 facility. Obviously, Councilmember Fletcher wants a higher degree of security and does not feel it is adequate to have a locked room in which people can lock their bicycles with a chain. It is better to have either someone in charge of checking the bicycles ia, so someone entering the room cannot steal half -a -dozen bicycles at a time; or bicycle lockers should be provided. Lockers make access to the bicycles very difficult for the thief. Vice Mayor Brenner suggested that the motion be to make a more secure bicycle arrangement, the degree of the security being Class 1 rather than Class 2, and then leave it up to the developer and the ARB to work out how that should be done. Counciluember Fletcher agreed to the st:g ,estion. Vice Mayor Brenner clarified that the asetmdment is to provide a somewhat more secure bicycle locker system, and she did tot believe the greater quantity was suggested. Council has been told that what the developer proposes is considered to be Class 2, and wheat Councilms er Fletcher described was Class 1 security. She said that rather than argue details or design now, the motion has been changed simply to raise the degree of security of bicycle storage. Councilaaember Fletcher added that the motion included having the matter worked out between the ARBf the Planning Departaaent and the developer. Mr. Klein stated he found it difficult to speak ageinat adequate _ security since .be bad a bicycle stolen himself, but he was concerned about the cost. He feared that applying the Ciaes 1 standard, which had not even been enacted, would impose costs on the aepp1icants which might be quite disproportionate to the benefits beingeecferred upon the residents. Mr. Klein's desire vas to leave the bicycle safety as proposed 'kith a loc?-r on the roast and proper safeguards in the wall so that tenants can provide their own locks and thos have double security. Couneilmember Pazsino also expressed concern, about forcing mycelia to tomply with a lass not yet passed, but he seed with the goal CouuciImeaber Fiatcloer had in 'And. Be asked what costs would be involved for the suggested Class 1 bicycle security. Coemciiwember Pazeino recalled this issue was discussed four or five moths ago regarding the Wheatley project oa Deer Creek Road, 527 1/16/78 Mr. Knox responded that he did not kauw what the cost would be. Further, he said it was not clear to him whether 42 bicycle spaces were being discussed. Earlier, Mr. Knox had mentioned one bicycle space per unit, which is less than is required by the new zoning ordinance draft; and since there are (;2 units in this development, that would be 42 bicycle spaces times whatever the cost of the locker is. Mrs. Fletcher said lockers cost about $150 per bicycle: and that compares to a minimum of $1,500 for one automobile space. She suggested a combination of the two possibilities might work well, with a room for those bicycles which may not be too attractive to a thief and a few lockers here and there for the more valuable bicycles. AMENDMENT RESTATED: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Henderson that the security level for bicycles be improved. AMENDMENT PASSED: The amendment passed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Fazzina, Fletcher, Henderson, Witherspoon NOES: Clay, Eyerly NOT PARTICIPATING: Carey ABSENT: Sher Councilmember Henderson wished to make it clear that his motion to approve the ordinance for firbt reading included revisions recommended by the Palo Alto Housing Corporati.oa as follows: Section 253, Landscaping M1intc:nance- Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved P -C landscape design. The homeowner's association for the 42 unit condominium shell be responsible for maintenace and replace- ment of landscaping in the common area designated for the 42 -unit condowinium and in the public right-of-way of the new street, except in the planting strip in front of the five lot,. The owners of the five individual lots shall be responsible for maintenance and repla nt of landscaping in the front yards of five lots, including the planting strip is the public right-of-way, but nothing contained "aersin shall prohibit the owners from making changes which deviate from the P -C landscape design in these areas. Landscaping i taliatios, and maintenance in the rear yards of the five lots shall be at the discretion of the individual property owners; and Section 2C1, e t Schedule: Start of construction within six (6) months of City Council approval of the final subdivision map, but no later than eighteen (1$) months from the date of Council approval of the P -C ordinance. Couucilarember Henderson said be would like guidance on the bicycle path easement. He asked if that should be eliminated 'amid the developer relied upon to put in the breakaway fence panel that could be used later. Councilmemher Henderson further queried whether new wording was needed in No. 10 or if that section sho uld be eliminated. He also wondered if it scald be all right to dedicate the tatement but not have it opened up yet. After discussing this with the City Attorney; Mr. tam said it appeared to be all right just to leave the easement, and the fence could be built across the easement and opened up later. SFr. Green thought the easement could be requested at this time with apre.:ificattion in the ordinance that it may be fenced until such time as the City requests that it be opened. Councilmember amber Sanderson clarified that the motion would include just the other two cheeses. anod'. hi le second concurred. 32$ 1/16!7$ MaTION PASSES: The motion to approve the ordinance for first reading, as amended, passed on a unanimous vote, Carey not participating, Sher absent. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING C4!liIS rom 4lSMEND.A�IONS RE DRAFT ZONING ORbUNANG! TEXT Vice Mayor Brenner made the following statement: "The purpose for preparing a new zoning ordinance is to provide Palo Alto with a set of cite development and land use regulations consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. The steps remaining for the adoption of a new zoning ordinance are: The Council adopt a zoning ordinance text to become effective upon adoption of a new zoning map. Based on the e.opted zoning text and on the Comprehensive Plan, staff prepares a proposed City-wide zoning map. The Planning Commission reviews the zoning map, advertises, and holds hearings thereon. The Planning Commission recommends to Council adoption of the new zoning map. The Council may hold a public hearing, consider the Planning Commission recommendation, and enact the new zoning map (the text having been adopted earlier)." For clarification, Vice Mayor Brenner seid she understood the zoning ordinance text would not go back to the Planning Co mi iseion a Chairman of the Planning Commission Anne Steinberg agreed with that understanding. Introducing Cite subject to Council, firs. Steinberg said the Planning Commission was pleased to forward the draft of the new zoning ordinance to the City Council and to recommend adoption of its text. She stated that the Commission spent the whole of 1977 working on the ordinance, together with the staff and the consultant, Robert Glover of Jahn Blayney Associates More thaa twenty meetings were held, and each succeeding draft was debated in detail. Mars. Steinberg noted that the discussions were reflected in the lengthy einutes Council received over the past year. She reported 0 -ere was considerable public participation, and many of the recommendations mate by interested and, often, very well informed citizens were incorporated into the final draft. Corrected see page 731 Mrs. Steinberg explained that the zoning ordinance is a tool to implement the policies and programs of the Comprebensiea Plan. This is reflected,. among others, in new proposals for residential uses in conmercial and industrial areas, more flexible parking requirements (including parking for compact cars, deferred parking and parking variances) , and special attention being paid to bicycle parking in order to encourage a greater use of bicycles, Mrs. Steinberg pointed out that a new commercial zone, the neighborhood/commercial district, has been proposed in response to concerns of the community expressed during the hearingsonthe Comprehensive Flan. A new production/shopping combined district and other proposals will add vitality to the commercial l areas. Mrs. Steinberg remarked that the staff memorandum of December 22 points out some of the new positions, and a detailed comparison of pret nt and proposed zones is in the environ- mental amassment. Mrs. Steinberg pointed out that ea Coarcil sabers read the ordinance, they would become aware that the Commission had recomMended an Increase in the number of categories requiring conditional use permits; also, the. w ie of variances bad berm extended in response to requests from the public. Council needed te realise this may result in a need for extra panel in the Planning Department to handle the increased work load. Ws. Steinberg urged the expeditious adoption of the text so than work on the use zoning map could begin, since only when thexanfng map is finally adopted arW the intent of than Comprehensive Plan be carried out. 329 1/1'tle Mr. Knox, in response to questions he had received earlier, stressed that there is no zoning map at present. As soon as staff knows what Council approves at the final text of the ordinance, the 'auap will be prepared. He said some of the preliminaries required for the produc- tion of the zoning map were being done; for example, a.Ll of the multi -family developments in the community were being analyzed with regard to density. In this way, when staff begins to establish'. which of tha five multi -family zones will be applied to which areas, they will know the density and thereby apply an appropriate zone in order to have as good a correlation as possible as to what exists and what is proposed. Mr. Knox estimated that the map would be prepared within the next four to six weeks, based upon the -land use plan map of the Comprehensive Plan and upon whatever final text is adopted by the City Council. Mr. Knox added that when the map is ready, it will be transmitted to the Planning Cession; and as many public hearings as necessary will be held to allow for public input. When the nap is forwarded to Council, public hearings could again be held; and when Council adopts the map, both the map and the zoning ordinance text will be put into effect. Mr. Knwg continued that when Council had coepleted study of the text, is would want to adopt an ordina&ce approvii.g the text and making it effective upon the date of the adoption of the map, He said that he and Assistant City Attorney Lou Green would have the ordinance ready at the second or third zoning ordinance text meeting, so that such action could be taken. Richard Malzman, 509 Coleridge Avenue, referred to Chapter 18.94 (nonconforming uses and noncomplying facilities) and Chapter 18.95 (nonconforming use amortization combining district) . He said it was his understanding that a city could prescribe a period of time for the amortization of nonconforming properties and the removal of those properties from their aoncon. arming nee, but that period of time must be the usable life of the building. Mr. Malzman pointed out that the Schedule set forth in Section 18.94.070 fell far short of the usable life of buildings as determined for feral income tax purposes, and the cases in California have uniformly held that it was the internal revenue code amortization schedule which governs the amortization. He stated that most buildings must be cmartised over forty years for federal income tax purposes, and to make an few r tear down a building or terminate a nduconforming use before he has forty years utili Cation is nothing less than a "taking" by the City. Under the state and federal constitutions there would have to be just compensation for sip taking to be legal. Mr. Malzeau added that the problem uli h the schedule it 'compounded by the provisions of the n'onconformiug uie amortisation combining . district, which contains the erbitra y fiat that the Council will determine a period of ties, and all the properties under consideration 4111 terminate their nonconform ing use at that particular time. Mr. a+ n -spoke of the inequities in that one piece of property might be forty years- old and another, two months old. He believed that if the Council adopted there sections, they would be creating a malaise of potential litigation which would moll tip City for a number of years. - Mr. Tathibana spoke for himself and for his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Mitsuo Tarthibana of 925 ibaverley Street, on the subject of nonconforming multi- family uses. He said the sonins regulations pertinent to his remarks were Sections 12, 17, 21, 23, 25 and 29 of. Ci apter IS. His understanding of these Sections los that if en °finer replaced or modifies an existing apartment, the new wing regulations mould be applied. Hr. Tachibans strongly felt it was not the''2ntentioe of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Ilan end the Carey motion that the new toning regulatione will be applied such requirements as density, floor area, height, length,, setbacks, etc., but that the Plan end the motiosii:Imply that if the existing building is compatible with the surrounding _area, then its future use will be accomnodated and protected by the old zoning regulations. 53o 1/16/78 Cruncilmember Fazzino asked if staff intended to prepare a report responding to issues raised by the public. Mr. Knox responded that staff would prepare a report rather than respond to each speaker, which would be time consuming. He felt it was important to hear from any member of the public who wished to speak to Council, and then the staff would prepaire a written comprehensive response. Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, referred to page 14 of the zoning ordinance regarding the definition of height, and took issue with the definition as the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. He could foresee times when there would be arguments as to what the average height is or what the highest gable is. In Mr. Moss' opinion, it would be clearer if the height were talked of as being to the peak of the highest gable since that eliminated ambiguities. On page 14, lines 8 and 9 state that measurements are taken from the highest adjoin- ing sidewalk or ground surface within a 5 foot horizontal distance; yet the sketches on page 42 indicate that the grade would be the lowest point within 5 feet of the building. That needed to be clarified, and Mr. Moss suggested making the height above the natural grade, excluding walls, masonry, etc. There already had been one architect who offered to build a 10 foot high well 5 feet away from the building in order to eliminate the need of a 10 foot height variance, and Mr. Moss could see a number of possibilities for deciding the weight of a building. Secondly, Mr. Moss addressed himself to site coverage on page 45, where the building site coverage is given as 35 percent and covered patios and overhangs, tin additional 5 percent. He said this section as well as 18.17.050 (h), 18.21.050 (h), 18.13.050 (h), 18.25.050 (h), are all deficient in that they do not mention the amount of coverage of impervious material allowed for sidewalks, driveways, uncovered patios, or any combination of those. Therefore, Mr. Moss pointed out it would be possible to have 100 percent impervious surface on a lot in any of these zones. Speaking to page 100, Section 18.41.070, Mr. Moss noted that the residential density allowed in the CM district could be as many as thirty dwelling units per acre; and that would be in addition to the commercial uses on the site. He quoted from paragraph (2) : "for mixed reaidentl.aal and. non-residential use on any site, no usably: open space shall be required." in the case of this particular zone and all the commercial zones, Mg. Moss said an k -M-3 density could be allowed plus a commercial or industrial use without requiring any usable open space. This meant high density, and Mr. Moss felt such a residential development would be inferior to any other residential development in the City. He be7ioved that after a few years, such a deealopmant would look like a slum. He suggested limiting the density to that of L -M--1 or R -M -2 and requiring some usable open space . fiver there is a combination of residential and commercial. On page 115, Mr. Puss pointed to the see situation in a service/ccemeerciaal, except that the density was even higher in that 35 units per acre were allowed. He said the same did not apply in the 1.-104 trate because there is a floor area ratio of four -tenths and a requirement for setback, and that sort of approach was a good one. Mr. Mops reerred to page 144 (P -C), saying that in the discussion by the Planning Commission thee. wee as request at that there be minimum setbacks for lot coverage and height limitations on a P -C zone adjacent to residential propertie4, but that was not included in the published document. Staff dreidsd to include such a statement in a footnote, but it did not appear even in that form. Mr. Moss recommended a buffer provision, so that when a P -C abuts or is within 150 feet of any residential zone, that , porti an adjacent to such a sone shall have a minimum rear and side ya:d and a maximum height applicable to the residential sone . He stated he would like to see the P -'s in general limited to a 50 foot height, a maximum side coverage, and a maximum floor area ratio, 531 1/16/78 Turning to page 145, Mr. Moss recalled that the old ordinance had a reversion to R -I if anything was not performed on the P -C, and the new ordinance changes the reversion to the previous zone. He considered reversion to R-1 equitable and suggested it be retained. Section 18.99.020 on page 242 gave the definition of a minor change which is eligible for adminietreeive approval, and Mr. Moss requested that the word "substantially" be inserted on line 10 so that phrase would read "or project which is substantially inferior in bulk". And he desired a notificatie requirement similar to the one for variances, but perhaps not that elaborate. In this same section (b) (4) states that no application shall be d.'_verted for administfative approval if in the opinion of the Director of Planning and rdemunity Bnvironeent, the proposed change probably would be denied by tha City Council. Mr. Moss believed that would require a certain level of clairvoyance; and although he had a lot of respect for Mr. Knox, be did not think that kind of capability was in hid job description. In the original draft ordinance, there was a restriction to the effect that. Oa more than two such minor changes could be granted to any project id fa one year period; and that was removed. Mr. Moss understood that restriction was removed because there had been two for Webster Wood in a relatively shot time, but he did not consider that to be goo eneugh for i n . ng ► a p.. .�..�.� bs reason l...�lS/auk the restriction. A number of minor changes could eventually have a significant change on an overall project, so Mr. Moss suggested that wording be added to prevent mere than two minor changes occurring in airy twelve month period. Another point Mr. Moss made was that he &' jected in principle to having the City Council taken completely out of the review procedure, which was the effect of 18.99.070 on page 245, "Effect of Final Decision." He noted that both the public and the Council were taken out of the review procedure in this Chapter, Mr. Moss preferred that there be adequate opportunity for Council review of modifications and changes made by the Zoning Administrator or the Director of Planning. John Steinfeld, 3451 Greer wished to make a proposed amendment to conditional uses in an R-1 zone. Mr. Steinfeld, a minister, said there was a need for a femily-structured living aceoee odation for young persons who come into this area for the schools, both public and private. He felt that his own talents and those of his wife equipped them to function well in this kind of a situation, and a facility of this nature would fit. best into a large, older home in a family -oriented neighborhood. Mr. Steinfeld recommended adding the following to conditional uses in an R-i zone: "A lodging or boarding home to accommodate the 'nuclear family' defined on page 12, and no more than four to six additional persona provided that such lodging is provided in loco parentis, and further that such homes shall not operate within 1,000 feet of any other similar facility." Mr. Steinfeld explained this ant would implement the proposed extended family bone situation for a email group of students. Milo Gwosden, Attorney, representing Robert Caveilero , aid he had some questions which had not been satisfactorily answered by the Pleasing Commission and the Planning Director. He referred to page 61 of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically to what is known as "the Carey amendment". He rutted that his &seociate, Mr. Germino, attended the Planner; Commission meeting of November 16 and raised the issue of Mr. Cavallero `a property et the corner of Middlefield Road and Loma Verde Avenues which is presently a no conforming use of commercial property. Under the amortisation process established by the City, the use of the property is not to be in effect after 1983. As Mr. (isden read the implementation of the Plan map, there are ce rtsin mandatory thing* which the Planning Commission will do; but Mr. Germino had been told at the' ilanning Commission meeting that they had no intention of daternining which nonconforming properties were compatible. Mr. Gwosdea stated that 5 32 1/16/78 the language on page 81 was explicit: "The City will follow this procedu in dealing with improved properties that do not conform with the land use map.- The Planning Commission will review all such properties and will make a recommendation to the Council applying to standards." In his telephone conversation With Mr. Knox, Mr. Gwosden understood that no plan at this time has come forth from the Planning Commission to make a determination about which nonconforming properties are compatible -or incompatible; and he further understood that was something the Planning Commission was obligated to do. If no determination is wade as to the compatibility of his client's property (his position being that the use of the property was compatible), then Mr. Gwosden would be forced to take a legal approach to get a determination. Vice Mayor Brenner asked f representing. Mr. Gwo Middlefield Road. or the address ;_.f the property Mr. Gwosden was aden replied that the address was 3161 to 3193 Vice Mayor Brenner asked in what year the properties were placed on the amortization schedule. Mr. Gwosden thought the year was 1953. Councilmember Carey recalled that the purroze of -the amortization of these structa:nes was deficient parking, and he asked if that was correct. Vice Mayor Brenner said the property was rezoned to R -3-G, and Mr. Gwonden s'greed that was - -ea �....... ,.�.�. correct. e :ir. Knox pointed out that Mr. Gwosden quoted a segment of the Comprehen- sive Plan which states the Planning Commission will review all such properties and talks about the Carey amendment. The text preceding that ,lescribes "all such properties", and it clearly does not include the Loma Verde/M,1s:?dlefield area. Mr. Knox quoted from the Plan: "Because the lard use plan map has been drawn to reflect new City housing policies, some areas now zoned for apartment use (erpeclally around downtown) are to be designated single family residential." Mr. Knox explained that the property under dtecussian is not an area presently zoned fan apart- ment ate. He quoted further: "And some areas, especially around down- town and along El Camino, where the present zoning allows offices or commercial uses will be designated multi -family residential." Mr. Gwosden's property is not now zoned for offices or coTercial uses. Mr. Knox said he would discuss this further with the City Attorney, but it was the intent of the discussion of the Plying Commission, and later the Council, to limit the Camay amendment to specific areas; ,end he felt quite certain the area of Middlefield and toms Verde was not included . iv that discussion. Mr. Knox added he would like to be able to respond in writing as to the handling of the Carey emmndment, the process the staff and Planning Commission limit through, the changes made in working on the Zoning Ordinance first, and what aspects of the Carey a ►1nt are taken care of by the Zoning Ordinance. he felt that everything except the matter mentioned by Mr. Xachibana was taken care of by the zoning ordinance text, and the matters of incompatibility have been discussed by the naming Commission in a generic :seam in terms of land use categorlea. Mr, Cwoeden said he was not certain this issue would be raised again before mil.; but there was rather substantial feedback from the city that thiaa particular neighborhood/commercial zone which is countenanced in the new Comprehensive Plan applies to property such as the Caveliero property. Mr. o adeea concluded by -saying the Cavallero property nerves many Wises ,which the Plan seeks to establish, and there was a great deal to b# said in favor of the more general interpretation which be read On gage 63 than the one from which Mr. Knox quoted. - William Abuse, 2450 El Canino Real, wished to drew Council's attention to a rather serious onisaeiou of a permitted use in the service/commercial Asa. Be sisals the area -he wee converned abet '.ese a seventeen acre parcel on El Camino from Portage Avenue to 1'*tk Boulevard, and that area iesignated as a future service/commercial area which does not. include 3 3 1/16/71 warehousing or distribution. Mr. Alhouse pointed out that this seventeen acre site is developed into about 250,000 square feet of buildings, 200,000 square feet of which are devoted exclusively to warehousing and distribution. He said the tenants now using those '-'iildings are also tenants of the Stanford Industrial Park. Mr. Alhouse was sure everyone would agree that warehousing created the lowest possible traffic flow. If this area were elimineted as a warehouse area, the only areas left would be the limited industrial/research district and the general manufacturing districts. And one of those areas is on San Antonio Road near the Philco plant, which would necessitate a lot of truck trips back and forth to the Industrial Park. Mr. Alhouse concluded his remarks by suggesting that if warehousing and distribution were not a permitted use, that a conditional use be applied to this particular area. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, felt the neighborhood and the service/commercial zones were receiving the right kind of balance in the new zoning ordinance for what was wanted on El Camino. She did not think it was the intent of the Planning Commission or the zoning ordinance to not protect residents of the City from particularly offensive and dangerous business operations. There was no time during the Planning Commission deliberations to take up this matter, but Mss. Petrosian hoped Council would be able to make some additions. Another matter she thought should be corrected was the absence of a nuisance clause at the end of the neighborhood and service/commercial zone sections. She asked why neighborhood/commercial and service/commercial zones were less deserving of protection against nuisance, hazard or offensive conditions than the limited industrial/research park zone. She pointee out that this latter zone has a nuisance clause protection in the new ordinance. Further, Ha. Petrosian did not think it was the intent of the Commission to allow the potential of the new zones, and particularly the neighborhood/ commercial zone, to be spoiled by the unfortunate placement of fast food services. She asked that a nuisance clause be added to all commercial zones incorporating the language "within 500 feet of a residential area" (page 111). On page 97, neighborhood/commercial zone, Ms. Petrosian asked that the following language be added under conditional uses: "A maximum of two take-out services shall be permitted within 1,000 feet of each other, each not less than 100 feet a?art from the other". Her suggested addition in the commercial/service zone (page 111) under conditional uses was: "Wherever service/commercial adjoins neighborhood/ commercial, the first take -oast service in the service commercial zone shall be no less than 1,000 feet from the last take-out service in the neighborhood/commercial zone." MA. Petrosian strongly supportsed Mr. Mesa's comments on the last section of the zoning ordinance dealing with administrative approval of ainor changes in projects, especially with regard to notifying the public that the changes are taking piece. She also agreed that on page 243, item (4) was inappropriate since Council should not be second guessed or have their decision anticipated. Ha. Petrosian was further disturbed about something in the xcieing crdis ace not being reviewable by Council; her feeling was, in fact, that everything in the ordinance should be reviewable by Council. Arthur, Fong, 1328 Parkinson Avenue, recalled 'tote bed been aommeconsidaegtioa given in the draft stages of the ordinance to t-oo emtheraip4s10, cottage in R-1 zonins; and it appeared to have been left oaf of the final draft. Some family members did like to have the kind of privacy afforded by a separate structure, whether they might be you .3 people, the elderly, or handicapped persons, and satin be near the rest of the family. Mt, Fong felt that as long as all the require sorts were met for site coverage, etc., there should be no a;eason why Council would not reconsider the inclusion of such structures. 534 1/16178 James Portland sdid that large houses in high density areas cannot be improved, and units cannot be added to the property. This means that single family homes surrounded by multi -family holes are unattractive to buyers, and eventually the house is torn down and replaced with four or more units. Mr. Portland suggested a use permit whereby an older home could be divided into a duplex rather than be razed or have one or two units added to the structure. He asked for a provision to permit older homes to be brought up to Code and made into duplexes or triplexes or sectioned off. William Thompson, 410 Wilton Avenue, said his interest in the zoning ordinance was primarily in the neighborhood and service/commercial zones; and he was very pleased with what had been done with regard to those zones by the Planning Commission. Re stated that he concurred with the remarks made by Mr. Moss and Ms. Petrosian. Melvin Pratt, 1136 Weeerley Street, said a large part of the downtown area where older hones are located has been removed from multiple dwelling zoning to single family residential; and he believed the understanding under the Comprehensive Plan Was. that existing uses would be allowed -to continua:. The existing use in some of those buildings is lodging, which he did not see mentio d in R•--1 zoning. Mr. Pratt thought that area ,should be very carefully looked at so it is not inrinfiP in R -1 when the sap is made, or the R-1 designation should be altered to allow lodging in some of the older homes. Da -444 ,hone. 4056 Park Boulevard, said a more succinct definition was needed in the ordiance with regard to height and grade so that the purpose of the law cannot be easily defeated. He agreed with other speakers that d nuiaence clause was needed for the neighborhood/ commercial zones. Mr. Jeong supported Mr. Moss's statexent that some restrictions were needed in the P -C zones, especially for those areas which adjoined R-1 and other low density residential areae. Lastly, Mr. Jeong felt thane should be a right to appeal the decisions of certain administrators. Cauncilma er Carey expressed concern about the staff's interpretation of the no cooforeing uses. He said that sometime he would like staff to report whether they i.nt+etpreted the text on page 61 to limit the nonconforming procedure to the example; namely, the downtown area. The text clearly states that was just an example, and Councile nber Carey thought the minutes would indicate this was meant to be City-wide. Sooner or later, Council would have to rise to grips with all nonconforming uses regardless of the location of the property. Councilman ber Carey explained he would like a short statement from staff as to how they handled this kind of situation and whet they nevi proposing with respect to compatibility -- whether or not it is limited geographically by use, where it is allowed, and bow staff wua planning to deal with it in relation to t1>r text. Vice Mayor Dreamer informed the public that Council would proceed with its deliberations of the coning ordinance as soon as possible, keeping in mind that some information was needed fro staff,. She estimated that there would be more discussion in approximately two weeks. Conncilmember truly said . els letter of January 10 concerned window coverage .y paper signs in commercial districts. He had the feeling that policing of the offense was difficult, and he recommended correcting Section 19.20.19+H to facilitate the procedure. 5.3 5 1/16%78 d MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, second assigned to give suggestions for an ordiaan sign issue (19.20.190) that will asks oaf direct. The staff report would include, that would grant the City inspectors ci MOTION PASSES: The motion passed on a ORAL. COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT TO DIVE SESSION Themmetieg adjourned to Execu ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1 ATTEST: AIME