Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-09-15 City Council Summary Minutescity couNcft. MINUTES ITEM € omprehensive Plan ON/ Or PALO ,quo Special MeetSns September 15, 1916 PACZ 2 4 2 9/15/76 September 15, 1976 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 1:45 P.M. in a special meeting with Mayor Norton presiding. Present: Berwaid, Carey (arrived 8:16 P.M.), Clay, Comstock, Norton, Sher, Witherspoon ICInrreoted See pry. 339 Absent: None Mayor Norton said this is one in a series of special meetings devoted to review of the Planning Commission's recommendation with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. All elements have been covered except Land Use. To- night the public will be heard on the Land Use Element. The Council's decision making will probably necessitate a later meeting. Sam Sparck, 4099 Laguna Way, said he wished to concentrate his remarks to those portions of the land use section that bear on the south El Camino area, specifically both sides of El Cash►o from Varian south to Arastra- dero. In the housing section, there is a paragraph that allowable density will be highest next to downtown coameeci.al areas and lower next to single family areas. Consideration should be given to application of this ap- proach to the south El. Camino area where there are multi -family areas shown adjacent to single family areas. The Plan should note that where the size of the parcel, when developed, would allow its a density gradi- ent would apply so that the lowest density on the parcel would be adja- cent to single family areas. Under the employment section, there is men- tion of the areas of El Camino frontage shown as multi -family housing and neighborhood commercial. The point of interest is that neighborhood co rcial is supposedly an area that would serve the mediate neigh- borhood as opposed to a wider area. To put the matter of this El Camino commercial strip into perspective, he quoted from a consultant's master plan report dated June 1950 prepared for the Planning Commission and a Preliminary General Plan dated December 1962. Those documents contain she interesting comments that bear on El Camino and show how this prcblen has come up in the past. What we're seeing now is not sore th ing new, but a continuing °situation. Mr. Spseek said the 1950 document, on page 15, says: "El Camino Real, the original state highway, is fast becoming a shoe -string ugly business dis- trict dedicated to traffic." Page 34: "Shoe -string business districts as found along El Camino Real, for example, cannot, without re -adjust- ment ent of property lines and heavy improvement Costs be relied upon for adequate service to the community." Under Highway Business Districts: "Business enterprises steung out along a high-speed heavy -volume traffic artery like Bayshore or El Camino have an uncertain future." Page 35: "The plain truth is that direct frontage on the modern high speed arteri- al is good for neither business nor residential purpoaeee...The most advan- tageous ultimate scheme far the transportation of El Camino through Palo Alto is give no further encouragement to the development of business frontage." In the 1962 document, the following statements appear: "The El Camino strip has continued to develop mainly with highway oriented businesses, such as motels, aeesteurants, and gas stations." Then it men- tion* principles that should be followed to provide attractive visible business areas: "Attractive shopping areas eritb adequate properly desig- nated and landscaped off-street parking should be provided at comvenient locations. Shopping facilities should be grouped in compact cenzers so 2 4 9/15/76 located as to provide ready access to the residential areas. They should not be strung out along major traffic streets." The report then, similar to what this master plan does, defines a neighborhood center, a district center, and a regional center, each differing in the kinds of services. On page 37: ',Widening of El Casino wilt eliminate much of the parking pro- vided in front of businesses, Careful study of the strip should be fol- lowed by a precise plan to assure ample off-street parking in the future. In addition, the revision of zoning and permitted uses will help avoid scattering of all kinds of retail outlets along the street without any grouping of logical sites. As indicated by the city's economic and real estate consultants, there is a definite reason and need for strip -type commercial developments. It' is therefore suggested that strip develop- ment might best be controlled rather than prevented or eliminated. It is recommended that major portions of El Camino be retained for various types of commercial use but with appropriate safeguards to avoid the un- desirable physical aspects...". So, the provisioona of the current master plan are not new and radical, but in keeping with past views and recom- mendations. What are the provisions of the master plan land use map? The presence of neighborhood commercial uses as shown on the map on the west side of El Camino, Kendall to Los Robles, and on the east aide from Wilton to Curtner and Los Robles to Maybell. The second point is the maintenance of residential usage behind the commercial zone with the depth of the co rcial areas not increased at the expense of residential. Lastly, the fact that residential usage is shown fronting on P1 Camino on the west side in the stretch from Los Robles to Maybell. Mr. Sparck said he supports these features completely and urged the Council to let them stand in the master plan as stated. Mfr. Sparck continued that the plans quoted from indicate the limited role of the south El Camino co+ ercial strip in overall commercial and busi- ness activities of Pala Alto. It wasn't thriving in 1950 and it isn't thriving now. The prevalence of vacant land and the nature of many of the establishments there desssonstrats that area is not a prime commercial center, end it makes tie claims regarding high valuation for frontage land in that area seem somewhat false and inflated. In 1950, the south El Camino strip was on the fringe of Palo Alto, almost out in the country, and now the city has grown up around it, and El Canineis a major city gateway, s transition zone to s residential area, and s major traffic arterial. It's uses should be commensurate with these. Pain Alto has many shopping opportunities available. There is no need for further ser- vice or regional commercial establishments. There already exists Stan- ford Shopping Center, San Antonio, Mayfield Mall, Old Mill, Town e§ Coun- try, University Avenue, California Avenue, Midtown, Charleston end Alma centers. Mr. Sparck said he doesn't need another auto repair or massage center nearby, but would like to be able to bicycle or walk to an ice cream par- lor, shoe repair store, barbershop, variety store, bakery, deliceteasen, branch bank, candy store, branch library. He urged Council support of the land use that will encoerage these kinds of establishments iu this area. The south end of Palo Alto is amply supplied with businesses. it could, however, use more dwellings which are An short supply in the mid - peninsula. In the Southgate area of El Camino near Churchill, there are d.sireble residences on El Camino frontage; as El Camino goes through Atherton, residences likewise front on El Gino; on Foothill Express::amy frontage, $100,000 homes have been and are being built there end they are being sold quickly. Me entire residential stretch of Alma in Palo Alto has both single and multiple family dwellings fronting on a major artsri- el and a railroad. The vacancy rate is very low and these are considered desirable. The St Canine property Owner's plan states frontage oa arts ri- els is mot goad for residential purposes, but the examples Just given show that residences fronting anarterials exist and are considered 244 9115/76 desirable. If you take the sane residence, it's more desirable if it's in the woods on one acre or on an 8,000 square foot lot in a residential area; but so what, the better land is not available, and this frontage is. If the capacity to support new commercial establishments is limited here, then why not have the remaining frontage be residential. It's vi- able and the city needs it. Hr. Sparck urged the Council's support of the definition of the neighborhood commercial use as stated, the presence of neighborhood commercial on Et Camino as shown on the map, no commer- cial encroachment on the existing residential areas behind the commercial areas, and the residential usage on El Camino frontage as shown on the map. William Robinson, 4164 Wilkie bray, speaking for meubers of the Charleston - Meadows Association, approximately 350 dwellings or 800 citizens bounded by EICamiuo, Alan, West Meadow and Adobe Creek, said the five following statements represent the overwh: lasing majority opinion of their members: (1) Residents and homecweerss believe that the guidelines recommended in the land use section of the Comprehensive Flan are good guidelines and should be approved by the Council ssaaw as recommended by the Commission, especially regarding the El Camino and El Camino Way portion; (2) We wish to emphasize the important features of the recommended land use relative to El Camino and El Camino Way; in other words, residential and neighborhood comercial as presently outlined on the map; (3) We want neighborhood conraercial activities which reflect the interests and needs of the people who live in neighborhoods along and adjacent to El Camino and El Camino Way; (4) The investment of each homeowner in Palo Alto is as important and valuable as that of any person with a cozy,ercial lot and should receive every bit of consideration in the evolution of a fair, balanced and equitable plan. We believe the recommended Land Use Plan from the Planning Commission provides guidelines to achieve such goals; (5) The level and extent of service commercial zoning proposed by sever- al El Camino commercial interests cannot protect against increased traf- fic, increased out-of-town guest services, increased services related solely to the automobile, and increased adult playground activities. Robert England, 3758 La Donna, Acting President, Barron Park Association, said our community has spent years moving to this point and hundreds of people have been involved in various aspects of the plan before the Coun- cil. Our association strongly supports the land uses shown in our area. To complete and clarify our previous presentations, we wish to add: There are individual concerns regarding the ultimate density of housing uses near existing recidentiaal sections. Goebel Lane is an example. We expect Council to respond to those concerns at the appropriate time. The suggested solution for those t affected is to utilize the provi- sions stated on page 59 under Malti-Family Residential. Density should be keyed to existing land uses; therefore, if density is kept at the low end of the scale comparable to existing single family density with slightly higher allowed sway from those areas, the overall units per acre will still be satisfied. We appreciate and strongly support the inclusion of neighborhood commercial adjacent to our residential section where presently shown, not shunted off to acme other location. The busi- ness encouraged will be compatible with our section of the community end be truly part of and serve our areas. They will be within easy walking distance of our elderly and children end those of us in between. It will turn the present amass around. We have been in touch with other neighborhood associations in our area --Ventura, Loma Vista and Charles- ton --and all have participated in development of the format before you. With all of these groups in agreement, something stmt be right. In ad- dition, these concepts are consistent with the Barron Park General Plan which tows reviewed and supported in principle by this city prior to our annexation. ti on. Now is the time to move forward sad finalise this plan. Do 245 9/15/76 not enter into endless debates and countless proposals invariably keyed to the worst existing element. We urge you to nail this land use desig- nation down tonight so we can finally dove toward related decisions that will bring our city something to cheer about. Joe Weiler, 3980 El Camino Real, said they own 6.5 acres on El Camino bounded on the south by Los Robles, on the west by Townhouse apartments, on the north by motorcycle sales and repair and apartments, and four resi- dential backyards at the rear. Fair and proper zoning for ours and other EL Camino properties is service commercial. Many of our neighbors with similar parcels have developments like Ricky's, Dinah's, El Rancho, Flamingo, Cabana, and so forth. We have continued to improve, develop and upgrade our property over more than 40 years of ownership. In its development, we joined with the developers of Eneina-Grande tract to establish the Los Encines Sanitary District which supported the sanitary sewer system for Barron Park and the surrounding area. We have seen El Camino develop from a two-lane road to a six -lane divided thoroughfare and the land developed in the same proportion. These times we were com- pelled to contribute frontage land to highway development. The owners of property bordering El Camino have all paid e fair share for the high- way development through a special assessment disttict. All this enlarged highway development with curbs, sidewalks, and center divided planter strips has supported additional beautification,but mainly has provided for a large increase in auto traffic which provides convenience to people, particularly from San Mateo and Sante Clara ouanties, who commute to Stanford Industrial Park, Stanford Medical Center, Stanford and VA hospi- tals, Palo Alto industrial areas, the chopping thoroughfare to Stanford Shopping Center, Town & Country Shopping Center, and San Antonio shopping areas. The El Camino Res/ is further established as auto -oriented by the large number of outstanding motels and hotels and distinctive restaurants, which contribute sales, state and property taxes of over $600,000 annually to the city. The El Camino property should be properly toned to attract and enjoy their fair share of this flowing traffic. To further indicate this area of El Camino as a public thoroughfare, public transportation runs along the corridor at 15 minute intervals during the day with five stops along the route in close proximity to the five traffic signals. Pedestrian walk buttons at lights allow easy and safe crossings. The residential areas behind El Camino's service commercial area have been developed almost 100, without any major objection. Their traffic is com- posed mainly of the people living there, their relatives and friends. There have been no through cross streets except Arestrsdero Road. Zoning in the county, prior to Palo Alto annexation proceedings, was CM and C -T commercial secured through proper and legal measures with the assistance of a legal firm and granted and recorded on May 6, 1957, by unsr*imous vote of the County Board of Supervisors. We and many of the property owners involved in the Council's decision have their lie labors and sav- ings invested and their future at stake. Our property has a service sta- tion and supermarket on El Camino at a depth of 240 feet and the balance of the acreage is in mobile home park with a laundromat. We plan to con- tinue our present operation, but hope that sometime we might look to a more realistic use of our land which might reflect our tea base, and that we will not be penalized by down -zoning that would prohibit our development of the land to some good commercial enterprise. We strongly recommend consideration for the best development of this property, by returning the service commercial zoning. We also approve of the Morgan Woollett El. Camino Real study. Roger Shaft, 674 Florelea Drive, said the Planning Commission has worked very herd to prepare the Land Use Plan, and many members of the community have also worked very hard and made tremendous contributions. This Land Use Plan reflects what is intended to be best for Palo Alto. Any other plan supported by individual firms would not benefit Palo Alto. NO plan, 246 9%15/76 however, is perfect, and this one is no exception. He endorsed this Plan with the following amendment: The area west of Goebel Lane and a portion of the Thain and Silva properties should be single family since these areas abut and enter into a well -established single family dwelling area. The Thain and Silva- properties can be used for a planned community with multifamily designation along El Camino and single family for the area that enters the existing single family rrea. Vote to change the desig- nation of the properties mentioned from multi -family to single family and then adopt the Land 'lee Plan without further delay. Janet Thain, 4146 E1 Camino Real and 391 Curtner Avenue, spoke for her brother and herself, She said their 10 acre property -is the site of their old home purchased by their parents in 1907. The highway frontage was zoned commercial in 1929. The State Highway Commission acquired s 100 foot right-of-way that cut the land into two pieces. Since then, they have faced three sizable assessments, the last for $56,000 to cover the El Camino widening in 1968. The land award was only $13,000, and the property was reduced in size by 10 feet on each side of El Camino. Every property owner and tenant along the south side of El Camino between Los Robles and Maybell wants this highway frontage zoned service commer- cial. According to the Land Use Map, these two blacks have, for some reason, been singled out for residential zoning. We have paid commer- cial rate taxes for years and always assumed that we had a commercial property investment. We have been forced to become realistic and can't afford our open space any longer. We have been faced with constantly increasing taxes, The most recent decision will add another 13 cents. The widening assessment won't be paid up until 1983. We new urgently need funds to meet these obligations on the remainder of the property. In 1975, a "for sale" sign was placed on Lot 1, Maybell Tract. We were distressed that a moratorium was declared on Barron Park soon after and our property has been tied up ever since. According to the Land Use Map, all of our highway frontage on the south is to be downzoned to residen- tial despite the fact that Lot 2 of the Maybell Tract had been annexed to Palo Alto as commercial property in October 1965. Now a new retori um is being proposed which would tie up our property for another two years which could mean a total of four years of continual frustration for us. Senior citizens can't look that far ahead with very much assurance. We =ant to keep the portion en which our old home stands for as many years as we may have left.- The rest of our highway frontage is unimproved. We need to sell Chat, Our real estate agency has during the past IA years received numerous inquiries regarding purchase of our highway fron- tage for commercial use. The present uncertainty discourages prospective buyers and has made it impossible to sell. An added concern is the pro- posed sttsly of El Camino at a cost of 51.5,000 payable by the El. Camino property owners. We have been taxed and assessed beyond endurance. It's unfortunate that these problems have been forced on two retired senior citizens, one a semi -invalid with very restricted activities. We hope you can understand the urgency of our situation and our mediate need to sell. We request zoning of our highway frontage on the south side of El Camino as service commercial, There would remain several acres behind this frontage for housing developsent. Sarah Layman Thomas, 4121 Verdosa Drive, asked that the east side of Goebel Lane, which was zoned in the county for single family dwellings, remain single family primarily because the land abuts existing single family uses. Mayor Norton's letter to me mentioned the unique quality of Barron Park and preservation of that special identity. Our neighbors have agreed to have a quiet time between 12 and 3 p.m. end there would be no Loud noises. This is a special kind of identity and quality that should be preserved in our area --having residential and neighborhood commercial areas support that. 2 4 7 9/15/76 John Mitchell, 41.45 Verdosa Drive, said he agrees very strongly with the Barron Park Association president, We need to pay attention to the Goebel Lane area and that which backs on Flor:ales Street because that private property, now single family and primarily single story, joins immediately to the area proposed for multi -family. Whether it stays multi -family as planned or whether it's changed to single family, the Architectural Review Board and the Planning Commission ought to make sure there is cooperation in planning new developments so that the new buildings don't look down into the neighbors' backyards. The street immediately next to any single family area is the logical transition zone from single to multi -family, rather than someone's backyard. John Thomas, 4121 Verdosa Drive, commended the Council for the oppor- cunities to speak at these hearings. That willingness to hear citizen concerns goes a long way to dispel the notion that elected officials don't care about our needs. He supported the speakera who have given a number of valid reasons for supporting the Commission's Land Use Map. He urged that the Council consider single family uses for Barran Park areas immediately adjacent to R -1 zoning, specifically Goebel Lane, sec- tions of Thai.n property immediately adjacent to single family property on Florralea Drive, Georgia Avenue, end Baker Avenue. The western part of Goebel Lens currently has single family usage. It backs up on Verdosa, a completely single family street, Mayor Norton's letter to Barron Park residents on November 12, 19775, stated that the city supports in privelple the desire of Barron Park to preserve and enhance Barron Park as a residential community made up predominantly of single family hotaea by keeping the present R-1 zoning intact, and he referred to the Council's cation of May 11, 1973. Mr. Thomas urged the Council to up- hold the spirit of that letter and the Council's motion in establishing the configuration of the Land Use Map. John Traynor, 30 Churchill Avenue, representing the Traynor and Silver properties, 4171 to 4189 El Camino Real, said the Council has received background information relative to the land use at this corner, but he would like to emphasize certain points at this tine. The properties are Located on two major arterials and have both exceptional visual exposure and ease of access. Our properties are totally isolated from the neigh- borhood to the rear and commercial uses on our properties could not pos- sibly increase traffic through to that residential area. Perhaps this is why we have had no complaints from our neighbors to the rear ever since Eichler built that tract 26 years ago. We have operated es ser- vice commercial for over 42 years. When we were taken into the city 22 years ago, at our request, all of our properties were zoned C -3-S by the city and all of our past,. present and future plans hinge upon the continuation of such zoning. We will be damaged severely if we are not allowed to use our property commercially. The land use map in the June 1975 first draft of the Comprehensive Plan prepared by city staff and consultants showed ed the entire corner, including all of our property, as service commercial, and up until February of this year, all of our C -3-S property continued to be shown as service commercial. Suddenly and un- expectedly on February 11, 1976, the major portion of our property was arbitrarily downgraded to residential leaving a thin strip of service commercial along the highway. To the best of our knowledge;' cure was the only commerc fa l lye- cooed commercially -used property downgraded in this Penner outside of the recently annexed Barron Park area except for about three parcels at the Westerly corner of Maybell Avenue which were downgraded subsequently. On June 9th, the Planning Commission caste with- in one vote of designating our whole corner service commercial to correct this inequity. We have spent years and considerable effort and -money to assemble this large choice property so it could be developed as a single attractive commercial d.Ietopaent at the appropriate time. We therre- forrre request that the entire corner, including all of Traynor and Silver 248 9/13/76 properties, be designated service commercial at this time. We support the proposed El Camino Real/Palo Alto Plana. Valerie Michaud, 3980 El Camino Real, residing at the trailer park, said we are all low-income people. Her rent is only $60 a month. As a full- time student, she has gathered many honors in school because she doesn't have to go out to get extra work to pay higher rent. This area is fantastic. You can go out and leave your door open without worrying about anyone stealing. It's a beautiful area. A lot of people would make some money if it were service commercial. It depends on what we are after. Please consider the human factor in rezoning. ;4elvin Levine, 4127 El Camino Real, owner of the MW Drive -In, said he recently received a permit to upgrade his drive-in and in putting on a new mansard roof to hide the old equipment. He will upgrade with trees and shrubs and intends to make this property an asset to El Camino Real. The change of zoning to neighborhood commercial puts his entire invest- ment in jeopardy. The Building Department will give no assurance that he can repair any fire damage. Four years ago, he bought a business on a commercial street and assumed it would remain that way. It's only. fair that you zone this property service commercial and allow him to continue to earn his livelihood without fear of losing his entire investment. Wade Schroeder, owner of property at 3916 El Camino, said he strongly favored the major goal of beautification, and upgrading of the El Camino strip frontage, and we ts to participate, but feels a plan will be adopted that will prevent him from doing so. His small muffler shop needs improvement, but the threat of being outlawed prohibits major improvement. He understood he would have a few years to continue the business before it must close down if non -conforming, and with that condition, he could not improve the property. Please seek some solution in which existing businssees may stay on the condition that they bring the property up to standards that you judge will contribute to the improvement of the total area. Erik thristeneen, 4164 El Camino Real, owner of the Townhouse Motel at 510 Mayb;ell Avenie just off El Camino, said this is a well-built motel located on a commercially zoned piece of property. We have owned and operated this for 9-112 years and we work hard. We have been accepted as s member of AAA, added a new wing five years ago, and have been rewarded with a very nice clientele of mostly business people visiting Palo Alto's ieduetrieese and the University mid visitors to the Veterans Hospital. We are an important service to Palo Alto because we host many people visiting the city. We collect several thousand dollars in transient tax for the city. All the motels on El Camino in Palo Alto are very high valued today and therefore we pay a high property tax. We strongly oppose the proposed land use and rezoning of near property to 041U -family residential. This is our livelihood and we want to keep that area as it is now. When we retire we want to be able to sell our business as a motel. Morgan Woollett, 1766 Willow Road, said be is the planning consultant that assisted business people along El Casino Real to prepare a plan consistent with their needs and problems. The report recommendations reecognite the same kinds of things being discussed tonight in terms of the need for neighborhood commercial establishments sod the desire to be able to walk to shop. The plan question. the economic feasibility of providing 20 acres of this kind of activity in the locations that are shown in the Planning Commission's proposed plan. The El Camino Vial/Palo Alto plan recommend* a general overall commercial area as 2 4 9► 9/15!76 the beat way to achieve economic health and aesthetic compatibility of the functions on both sides of El Camino Real in that area. In place of zoning, it offers a series of incentivee to encourage the private market- place to bring the kind of uses which our analysis indicates are needed along El Camino Real, but not in such a large volume as the Planning Commission's proposal. The incentive areas include existing alle)vaye behind the commercial uses and also where there is an apparent parking problem. The details of a parking district would be worked out by a committee. Other neighborhood commercial incentive areas are the entry point of two lajor arterials feeding in from the neighborhoods to El Camino Real -- West Meadow on the east and Los Robles on the west. Out residential survey indicated that large numbers of people currently cote to and from their bueinesess utilizing, El Camino Real and travel on these in large numbers, the idea here being tc provide accessibility to these areas off El Cw.tino Real and thereby easing parking congestion. These areas are also more accessible by larger numbers of people and therefore could be supported as neighborhood centers. The owners of the mailer property trailer park inform us that the park has a limited econonic feasibility and they need to look at other uses. Starting at the northernmost part of the district, the rear portion of the Flamingo Motel property as well as the rear properties of the El Rancho Motel should be retained in commercial zoning because of their present utiliza- tion, and specific design. The frontage properties from Vista to Meybell are shown on our nap as per the previous County zoning with the exception of the rear multi -family area, and in this case we followed the designa- tion° recommended by the Planning Commission. Six houses on McKellar Street hove been shown as multi -family waking a continuous frontage along that street back of the commercial property. The north corner of Charleston Road is considered to have ideal characteristics for regional commercial activity, it being on a major intersection and across the street from E.i.ckeys which is already functioning in a very ideal way. This area has been aesemeebled by one owner over a long period of tine in the hope of developing this into a very fine continuous operation. The naming Commission proposal here restricted commercial use to the front area with a depth of only approximately 100 feet. This kind of action would proliferate the problem of shallow commercial properties which have problems of coverage mid providing buffering and parking all on one shallow lot. With access at the present time back from the intersection both along El Camino Real and also along Charleston, this parcel could function very well without adding to any congestion that night occur at the intersection. The vacant property at the rear of Country inn which is at the southern -most point of the study area is shown on our plan . Mo be commercial.- Although it is on all sides surrounded by residential, the frontage property, about 250 feet wide, is a commercial estebliehxeent , and the only access to that property would be thiouah the commercial area which is not desirable for residential. The need of the El Casino Reel Association is to have as soon as possible a clear designation of where the commercial area is going to be so they can know how to plan for their properties. Antonio Roder, 3875 Magnolia Drive, said discussion regarding "downgrading" te residential properties serer a very poor use of that word. It would be to the contrary, since it is the highest level of property one could have. Other people have made his points this evening but here's a short story. Someone; is *elling a carload of sardines at a penny a can. A mare agrees that is a very good deal and he buys the sardines and opens the cans, and one can after another is rotten. He finds the seller and asks what kind of bed deal have you given me, The seller says, "Whet did you expect? Sardines for a any a can are not for eating; they are for buying and selling." That residential land is for living, and not for buying and selling. 250 9115176 Steve Fylroie, 415 Fernando Avenue, said one of our basic problems is that we are trying to use sledge hammers and broad axes to attack a problem which needs a pen knife. Our Planning Commission chose to apply a few land use designations to some very large areas. Many of our problems have to do with specific parcels which should be addressed in the individ- ual zoning asap. Another problem has to do with words. Many of the El Camino types of uses are acceptable to a large number of residents, but there are objections to the design aspects. Moat of these residents fear the large possible slumber of uses that would become available under the full service commercial designation, so they have dropped onto the word "neighborhood" which unfortunately in our zoning ordinance has a much narrower definition than their interpretation of the word. Some have pointed out other highway areas that have residences, but most of these have been made suitable residential areas by enclosing the highway in a canyon, which is also unattractive, or they have been large parcels which cll se much flexibility in site placement, which these are not. We have reached the point in Palo Alto where we have run out of land. Some uses need the feature of access to our arterials and we have no place else to disperse these in Palo Alto. From the point of view of some of these small auto -related businesses, as you increase the size, the amount of co unity support diminishes. Much has been expressed about the possi- bility of more varied neighborhood services and the question arises in the plan regarding the lack of economic information. The new report from the El Camino Association addresses this somewhat, but their figures are suspect because of the source of funding for the report. You have a let- ter in your packet from Jane Grubgeld addressing the same problem, the lack of economic information. A possible solution is that the remaining areas now shown as neighorhood commercial be given a new designation of neighborhood commercial/limited service commercial with the uses under service commercial to be dofined by joint action between the business owners and operators and the residents during the proposed six months moratorium. Also included should be the suggestion for allowing the P -C zone as a way out for hardship cases and also, during the short term, resident control over the design aspects of the uses. During this mora- torium, the question of acceptable service commercial uses should be ex- plored and a mach tighter zoning ordinance be developed to define such uses as addressed in the plan, as well as development of a new zone as neighborhood commercial with assent service commercial aspects. In addi- tion, these ordinances should have, as he believes3 ttse Pleoning Department has mentioned, the idea of performance control for the design aspects. We have the problem of people who have improved and are successfully operating commercial property which may be ince etible with the plan, and if we totally downsone these people, they are etude with a Waited lifetime and no possibility of improving and upgrading their property. An exception clause should be inserted dealing with these properties to provide that the present use, with a couple of exceptions having to do with adultentertainment, can continue in their present structure or be upgraded in case of lees or damage. If a new structure was built on that property or combinations of that property, it would have to meet the standards of the new zone. Samuel Elster, 3744 Laguna Cakes Places said he's a member of the Derrecn Park Association Board, and supports the land use portion of the Compre- hensive Plan, particularly designating residential uses on or near the El Camino. The El Camino strip between Matedero on the north and Maybe l l on the south is predominantly a ree ident is l comisunity t end such land uses should he thus oriented; that is, limited neighborhood commercial, multi -family and single-family units, partidulaarly near existing R -I properties. Terry Stone, 3618 Louis Read, said she Yves s good ways from the El BSI 9/IS!7b. Camino strip and doesn't have any connection with businesses on the strip, but when she moved here nine years ago she inquired as to what were the good and bad neighborhoods ira Palo Alto. She was told, and found it to be true, that there really were no bad neighborhoods. She is proud to live in a city of which that is said. But that status is in. jeopardy, and it's a concern that affects all of us in Palo Alto, not just those who adjoin El Camino. The Council should remember the whole city in their considerations and adopt a plan that will promote the well-being of the entire city. Donald Ganachow, 177 Bryant Street, said he's the owner of the property on the west side of Goebel. A good many people say they like the present arrangement, and there is a need for it. It is an enjoyable circumstance to be the owner of property that is desirable for renters. In the event that property is designated R -1, one of those houses is going to have to be eliminated In regard to the comment about two story structures, he didn't believe there are any deed restrictions on properties on llerdoss that prevent a -two-story addition on any of those houses. Mr. Gensehow asked the Council to consider that his property has been there for quite a number of years, it has been a very acceptable use, and he's not ask- ing for any greater multiple family density, but only asking to continue this use and provide some more houses. He cannot rebuild or replace this house. It would have to be removed. That isn't in line with the idea of fostering a few more houses in Palo Alto.. David Jeong, 4056 Park Boulevard, President, Ventura'Neighborhood Associ- ation, said a group of 8,400 residents cannot have a unanimous opinion. Our association has independent thinkers. This is good. It forces us to closely examine issues from all sides, and after careful scrutiny, we can reinforce, amend, or abandon original positions. The overwhelming majority of our Association favors neighborhood commercial zoning along El Camino Real. We realize El Camino can support a limited amount of neighborhood commercial businesses. We therefore prefer that these busi- nesses be contiguous to generate pedestrian traffic. The neighborhood type businesses that have failed in this area have been widely separated. Don't give us one -zone service coomercial zoning under a new name. Break up the zoning so that neighborhood businesses can be viable. How fair is it to merchants enticed to open neighborhood type businesses in area thus zones and then to allow tire, brake and motorcycle repair shops to be interspersed in between? We stand with the Barron Park and Charleston - Meadow Associatins and strongly recommend that' the present Land Use Map be accepted without modification. Robert Mesa, 4010 Orme Street, said he would like to enlarge slightly on his September 12th letter to the Council. Re had tried to define neigh- borhood commercial, what uses would be compatible for people in the area, and what would be most Objectionable and should be prevented ar •removed. In the El Camino Studys existing land use map, the trailer park is prey gently listed as "local specialty", which is the same thing as the veter- inarian, the florist, the golf shop, and a number of other businesses. It's a residential use. The proposed use, to make that cc meerci,al3 would displace one of the only sources of low income housing in Palo Alto. How many people from the trailer court are aware that the merchants associa- tion is trying to wipe them out? Those people would have no place to go. That would be a very serious loss- to the city. Some of those people have been there for 20 and 30 years. Mr. Moss said people have spoken about the incompatibility of residential along busy streets. There are hundreds of examples of residence; along busy streets all over the county and the country. Anyone who says resi- dential is incompatible with El Camino ought to go to the corner of Park 2 5 2 9/15/76 and El Camino and walk north knocking on every door of the single-family homes telling them to get out because they can't possibly exist. The El Camino plan's existing basic design feature map lists "notable land- scaping" along Los Rob lea on the McElroy property. The city staff's environmental impact statement described the existing landscaping along McElroy as weeds, sickly trees, broken cement, and generally unaigntly. The uses the Planning Commission laid out for us --neighborhood commer- cial and residential --along El Csmi.ao are excellent. If there is a neighborhood shopping center, it shouldn't replace the trailer court and take out low cost housing. The logical place for a neighborhood commer- cial center is on the corner of Araetradero, Charleston and northerly toward East Meadow. That area is now partially vacant with sore auto uses. The area is large enough and has good enough access. Commercial along 1.03 Robles would add more cars to a street which presently carries over 5,400 cars a day and can't handle that load. Neighborhood commer- cial is necessary, the parking district is necessary, and properties along the northerly edge should be consolidated. Some of those short lots should be traded off for property rights in a general development with parking lots and neighborhood commercial put in that area stretching down toward the All-Aeerican Market. As to the comment that some of the stores have failed, you could put two identical businesses in the same location and one of the entrepreneurs could go broke and one could make a fantas- tic success of it. People in the past have not had the incentive nor the neighborhood support. There are a lot of businesses we need there and would like to have. We would give them our support if they located there. L!icretta Van Zandt, 340 Wilton Avenue, said neighbors and residents were sent a survey and asked to check the type of neighborhood business they would like. Many of us did that and returned them. This would make a lot of aging homeowner residents very happy because they could walk to the neighborhood businesses. Take a cloee look at this for us. Joyce Anderson, 3881 Magnolia Drive, said when Walter Bliss presented his El Casino study to the Planning Commission he made the statement that the Barron Park/El Camino study area was either a second class neigh- borhood or treated like one. A resident quickly clarified that this is a first class residential area. Barron Park is a naturally balanced socio•econoxic community. We are what the city has spent thousands of dollars to attain. The pre -annexation studies showed that Barron Park is more like the whole of the city than any area within the city boundaries. Many people think of Barron Park as drive-in restaurants, repair garages, cars parked on the sidewalk, massage parlors, garish signs and lights, and the incredible traffic problem. Mrs. Anderson discussed slides of what is behind the commercial strip--Bol Park= the S.P. right of way bike/ pedestrian pathway; Barron Park school; middle sized, big and little homes; 16 bridges across creeks; and apartment buildings. In response to those who have said people do not want to live on El Camino, these slides show that people do. In Burlingame: single family hoses on the El Camino 16 feet from the curb to the fence; more homes with an El Camino divider strip or frontage road; an apartment house; the whole of El Camino in Burlingame is housing except for two very small corners on one aide only. In Atherton: both sides single family right up on the El Camino and several new houses. In Menlo Park: a row of apartments on El Cimino 15 feet from the curb with owner -occupied townhouse* behind. Sunnyvale: apartments on the El Camino with landscaped area, guest park- ing and apartments. People will and do live on the El Canine as they do next to Bayshore, Foothill Expressway and Highway 280. Someone will say the traffic is heavier in Palo Alto, but CALTIIAWS says the daily south El Casino traffic count is 35,500, El Camino at Southgate is 43,4004 in front of that Sunnyvale apartment it's 40.000, and at the apartment in Menlo Park it's 30,300, sad in Burlingame it was 24,400. On the south Al Camino, we're right in the middle. 253 9/15/76 James Bechtold, 4181 Verdosa Drive, said he lives in back of the Thain property. We're all very concerned about the mess on El Cassino: It's been that way for a long time. Commercial property owners have been allowed to develop as they wish and we have good evidence of what they have come up with. The Comprehensive Plan is not a blueprint, and while he's not entirely in favor of all of it, it should be adopted as it is, and then the little picky issues settled later. Family resi- dences along El Camino are what we need to break up the bodge podge. Mrs. Jane Movik, 663 Los Robles Avenue, said abet lived there for 30 years. There are posted plans for beautification of El Camino's busi- ness strip. Mr. Weiler cold me that, he had no plans whatsoever for changing the mobile park into anything but what it is, but Mr. Woollett showed that whole area as business. We don't need a shopping center there. Los Robles takes care of all the cars in Barron Park, It's dif- ficult getting out of a driveway now, but with the condominium and a shopping center, there is going to be a traffic Jam clear back to Campana. Where will the elderly go? Denny Petrosian, 443 Venture Avenue, said she sees the following as crit{ear factors in ccnstdeting the El Camino north of Charleson:, Trade routes preceded everything and eventually houses are built along theca. Like everything else, they have no divine rights to remain unchanged. This particular section of El Canino has evolved over the years into an area that is predominantly residential. That is critical factor No. 1. Critical Factor No. 2: Since abandonment of Alma Expressway, El. Cassino has has become a heavy traffic carrier, and everything possible must be done to reduce this traffic impact. Come down and cross our "alledgedly" safe intersections. Business customer trips must be kept as low as possible and pedestrian trips from adjacent neighborhoods must be encouraged. Critical factor No. 3: Palo Alto has a glut of commercial apace right now, especially on El Camino. It is not sufficiently in demand to pre- vent massage parlors, etc., from filling in. In order to stimulate the viability of existing areas, there should be a cut -back of commercial much as a plant is pruned for its own health and survival. Critical factor No. 4: El Canino lacks a distinct personality or character. It lacks an observable commitment from the city for its success. It's ambi- guous character cannot create a healthy commercial district. A ddinitive land use choice must be made. Service commercial is ?'anything goes" commercial and it does not constitute choice but the failure of choice which the El Camino reflects today. Ms. Petrosian said her critical -actor No. 5 is: Service commercial land use specifically invites commercial development incompatible with the El Camino neighborhood. The Ventura Neighborhood Association's pre- sentation to the Planning Commission on May 4th said "it Is particuts ly unjust that our families, with the fevet resources of any neighborhood in Palo Alto, must nevertheless bear the greatest burden of defense against unwanted development." Our elderly have been present st every Planning Commission meeting on the El Camino to get the kinds of businesses they need and deserve. Service commercial land use as a dominant land Use for this particular section of El Camino will perpetuate the long- standing injustice suffered by OUT neighborhoods in past decision -making, and will condemn our neighborhood and this Council to weekly battles over each new development. Critical factor No. 6: The word "neighborhood" must appear es the dominant land use designation to identify its resi- dential character and to convey to developers the appropriate e;cp sta- tions for development. Critical factor No. 8: The shopping center on the Weiler property will create a traffic bottleneck and deprive large numbers of elderly and families of services within easy scanting distance, particularly those living from Pernaado to Ventura. lkaminesses now on the strip, such as the drugstore, attract adequate auto trips to supplement 2 5 4 9/15/76 their walk-in business. Their location is known and their clientele is established. It is not ciear whether relocation would be beneficial or adverse. The absence of the Alma Plaza drugstore may prove that there are too many shopping centers in Palo Alto. Critical factor No. 8: The existing pattern of desirable businesses locating within equitable walking distance of both sides of El Camino deserves preserving and strengthening. Ms. Petrosian said everything reasonable points to neighborhood commer- cial as a dominant land use in this area in precisely the configuration shown on the Land Use Map as adopted by the Planning Commission with mufti -family residential on El Camino and just behind El Camino on Charleston. Property owners can expect at least as great an economic return from residential development as from commercial, and with less risk. It is not down.zoning to put residential on a property. Some condominium developers are sold out before their units are finished. An impressive number of neighborhood and compatible specialty shops have survived years in a wasteland of auto repair and open prostitution. This proves that a viable neighborhood commercial boulevard can be cre- ated along El Camino culminating in what could be a beautiful village shopping lane at El Camino Way, perfect for on and off transit stops and perfect as the edging for the Charleston residential area. The survival of these businesses and the possibility of future businesses being attracted does not point to inevitable stagnation. The case for stagna- tion has been spade by service commercial. Zoning alone won't bring in neighborhood commercial, but without definitive zoning, it won't come in at all. Any incentive less than a land use statement and subsequent zoning is not going to turn around an area like El Camino. Tax rebate should not be used to encourage neighborhood business. This amounts to a subsidy, and is not fair to neighborhood businesses who have estab- lished themselves without subsidy. Shall we cake aetroactive payments to those businesses? Why should the taxpayers pay for something that we can get through zoning? The Planning Commission and staff have completely discharged their responsibility on land use and have found the best solu- tion to the El Camino. They have bitten the bullet as far as adopting a definite statement for El Camino. We urge the Council to approval end accept their good work. Rudolph Alfinito, 25870 Westwind, Los Altos, owner of Rudotfo's property on El Camino at Los Robles, asked it their corner is suitable for low income housing. They have owned and operated that parcel for 20 years and paid commercial taxes. He is in full accord with upgrading the El Canino strip, but the commercial area there is adequate in sine. That commercial strip should be servicing that dense residential area on both sides. We took forward to developing that property into something to be proud of for the city. Gretchen Leland, 3704 Laguna Avenue, said she basically supports the El Camino portion as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. El Camino has two major problems --deterioration and traffic. The Comprehen- sive Plan land use designation is an honest attempt to address both of those concerns. The neighborhood commercial and xeeidasatial designationa provide for rejuvenation of the area and, at the same time, with some careful planning, will not overwhelm the area with additional traffic problems. The Comprehensive Plan is a compromise that was arrived at af- ter many hours of study and public input. It is not solely what resi- dents would have wanted nor is it solely what business would have wanted. Everyone has compromised in an effort to support the city in a coopera- tive and constructive way. Mayor Norton said that is all the cards of speakers on El Canino. :The Council needs to bold an Executive Session tonight. That could be held during the recess. Councilman Sher said that is a long time to make people wait around. He had some concern about separating the public input from the Council de- liberation's; on the other hand, he recognized the number of people who want to speak on other areas. If we're not going to reach a decision on El Camino, let's inform the public about our intentions. Mayor Norton said it seems apparent that the Council will not get to a decision -making process tonight on the Land Use Element. Councilman Berwald agreed With the concern about too much time between heating from the public and the decision; on the other hand, we need time to digest the public's views, it would seem appropriate to hear from everyone tonight. Councilman Comstock said the best thing we can do is indicate a date when we will vote on these things so that when people leave here they ate not going away with a chance of us voting and they will know when to come back and hear us deliberate and discuss these things. SENSE MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved a sense motion that the Council will not get to a deelaiou making process tonight and will recess for an Executive Session!:. Following the adjournment of the hearing tonight, there will be discussion of the date for the next meeting. Councilman Carey said he's prepared to vote on El Camino but felt the Council ought to hear from the entire comm unity on land use before making a decision. Be was concerned about taking up the Barron Park area as something unique and different from the rest of Palo Alto and giving it special treatment. In his opinion, somebody has been playing politics in Barron Park and Ventura. Those who are concerned about what this Coun- cil might do to the El Camino strip are worried beyond any reasonable means. MOTION: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Carey, that at the con- clusion of public testimony on this matter, the City Council will adjourn and schedule a meeting on Wednesday, September 22nd, to receive any fur- ther testimony and for the Council to debate, discuss and vote on the Land Use Element. MOTION DIVIDED, AMENDED, AND CARRIED: Mayor Norton divided the motion and requested the vote on the first part to indicate that Council will not make a decision on El Camino tonight. The motion carried unanimous- ly (Councilmemabers Beahrs end Eyerly► absent). The second pert of the motion to continue the agenda, amended to a date of Tuesday, September 21st, carried on a vote of 4 to 3 (Councilmemrbers Clay, Witherspoon, and Berwald opposed, end Councileembers Beahrs and Eyesly absent) . The Council recessed to E ecutive Session from 10:05 P.M. to 10:40 P.M. Mayor Norton turned to the cards from the public which appear to be di- rected to downtown issues. John Johnson, Executive Administrator, Palo Alto Clinic, 300 Romer Ave- nue, requested Council consideration of ;a consistent land use designation for their facilities. The main clinic block bounded by Waverley, Bryant, Chancing and Homer is currently Boned P -C. The Planning Commission has recommended the land use designation be Major Institution/Special Facili- ties. Wye think that's appropriate. The corner of Bryant and Homer has also been recommended for Major Institution/Special Facilities. The parcel at Charming between Waverley and Kipling is currently soned R-4. The Planning Commission recommends a land use designation of single family residential although the *toff recommended that it be Major lib 9/15/76 Institution/Special Facilities. This is an off-street parking lot required by the city for clinic operation and restricted to that purpose by deed covenant at the time of the P -C zoning on the major clinic block. The clinic requests Council consideration to include that in the Major Institution/Special Facilities designation. The lot at the corner of Charming and Bryant next to the convalescent hospital is a small parking lot currently zoned R-4. The Planning Commission recommends multi- family residential. The planning staff recommends that it also be in- cluded in the Major Institution/Special Facilities designation. We re- quest Council's consideration of that. This parking lot is also restric- ted to off-street parking use only. It was done by deed covenant as re- quired by the city at the time of the P -C atoning. The parcel located at the corner of Channin; and Bryant in the block bounded by Charming, Addi- son, Bryant and Ramona, holds the Blake C. Wilbur building and is cur- rently zoned R-4. The parking lot fronting on Bryant imzmned+ately adja- cent to it is zoned R-4. The parking lot on Ramona is zoned R-2. The Planning Commission recommends that the Wilbur building be put into a multi -family residential designation and that the parking lots on Bry- ant and Ramona be in a single family designation. We request Council's consideration of designating the building and the required parking, which was mandatory when the building was built several years back, as Major Institution/Special Facilities. That would be consistent and would put the clinic facilities in one zone over, which the city has control. We understand that to designate them in another land use cate- gory could change the zoning since the next step would be a zoning ordi- nance which could put some of those parking lots in a land use zone where they would no longer be a permitted use and would have to be amortized. In 1974 during our appearances before the Commission and Council, the clinic was asked to give consideration to other clinic ownerships in the area that might not be needed. We have studied the parcels on the block hounded by Kipling, Homer, Channing and Waverley, and have identified parcels to be sold in the very near future. In the block bounded by Addisdn, Channing, Bryant and Ramona, the clinic owns several parcels which will be sold as soon as existing lease agree- ments are not an obstacle, Dr. Hector appeared before you in the fall of 1974 and indicated that we were not planning expansion beyond what we had at the present time. Mr. Johnson said the clinic has played an important part in providing medical care to this community for the past 45 years. In 1972, an analysis of their zip code computer counts showed that 11,348 Palo Alto households were receiving medical care at the clinic. The Comprehensive Plan 1974 figures show 23,800 households in Palo Alto. There is quite s distinction between our service and that of, say, the Mayo Clinic. Our clinic was founded on the basis of providing primarily community care. This same zip code analyais showed that 807. of the patients coming to the clinic live within 10 miles of the clinic. Our referral practice is 207. or less of our patients. We hope we will be able to continue serving you. The city has been very fair with us in the last two years as we have come to you with programs for planned expansion to take care of our future needs. We request your consideration of these land use matters. Mayor Horton said, suppose we grant the clinic's request for Major Institution/Special Facilities designation on certain parcels with the understanding that they would comae in with a P -C. on those sane par- cels to tie down the present use or what the clinic says they are or_ ought to be-. The city would then'.be protected against unlimited ez- pension. of clinic uses on those parcels. Wasn't that one of the main concerns of the Planning Commission? 257 Chairman Steinberg said the Planning Commission suggested to the clinic in 1974 that they accumulate all these parcels and include the in the P -C, but they chose not to do so at that time. Mr. Johnson said he thought it would be locked upon favorably by the clinic. The deed covenants on those two parking lots require that only parking uses could be allowed. That was the reason for not including them in the P -C at that tL e. Mayor Norton asked if the Planning Commission would see any objection to giving the clinic their Major Institution/Special Facilities designa- tion if a P -C agreement is reached. Chairman Steinberg said no; the purposes as stated are what the Planning Commission sees as the uses on those lots --that they remain in parking. Larry Klein, 221 Lytton Avenue, speaking on behalf of the Palo Alto Medical Research Foundation, said the foundation has closely followed the progress of the Comprehensive Plan and the many hours of dedicated work which the staff, the Commission end the Council have put into it. The foundation, founded in 1949, entered the present facility in 1958 This research foundation to a non-profit tax-exempt organization with activities funded by federal grants, private agencies, and contributions from the general public. In the proposed Co prehenaive Plan, PAMRF has at issue parcels A, B and C on the displayed map. The city, in 1961, re- quested that PAMRF provide more parking than was available on the ori- ginal site. Parcel A was purchased and paved at the request of the city. That is used solely for parking. Lots B and C were acquired in 1964 when the church and adjacent hoese became available The house was condemned by the city and removed, and the area paved for additional parking which has been the use since 1964. The old church on lot B was determined by the city to be unfit for human occupancy and has been used by PAMRF as a a torage area. In the Comprehensive Plan, parcel A has been designated as dingle family residential, and parcels B and C are designated as multi- family residential. The foundation area was designated as Major Insti- tution/Special Facilities, and that's fine. Mr. Klein said that on June 2, 1976, we wrote the planning Commission re- questing that all four of the foundation's properties be included in the Major Institution/Special Facilities designation. The staff recommended to the Commission that parcels B end C be designated as we proposed, but that parcel A should continue to be designated as single family residen- tial. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of June 9, 1976, consider- ed these issues and, by a vote of 5 to 2, disagreed with the staff and retained the original land use designation --lots B and C as multi -family and lot A as single family. We understand that the land use designations are not zoning, but Ore are very concerned about the implications that the land use designations may have. If zoning is consistent with then, it eight set up a aitu'tion in which the present uses would be inconala- tent and incompatible with those designations which might require amorti- zation aver some period of time. The foundation is slaking the Council to view all this property as ae integrated ;whole. The whole prnject is contiguous except lot A is across the street from the main foundation building. All parcels are being used by the foundation for purposes di- rectly connected with the foundation's work. There is no stockpiling of lots here for some nebulous further expansion. The foundation does not have any plans for future expansion. None of these properties are being used for residential purposes, end none of them have been. used for real dential purposes for more than 12 years. It's impossible to believe that any of those parcels are ever going to be used for residential purposes again. 253 9/15/74 Mayor Norton asked, if the Council went along with quest for Major InstitutionfSpec.ial Facilities in all of that, would they then he willing to make a to indicate what they are presently using it for. the foundation's re - the Plan on some or P -C out of all of it Mr. Klein said the main buildings is R-4 and not P -C because it was built according to the zoning and no P -C was necessary. The question of putting it all in P -C was raised at the Planning Commission heating, end his response at that time was that the foundation hes no objection. We are concerned that it will cost money. The foundation is non-profit and would like to avoid expense of drawing plans of what presently is in existence. The foundation has no problem with the general idea that the uses should stay precisely as they are and that if there was going to be any change not presently foreseen such change would be required to come before this body for its approval. Guy Blase, attorney at 321 Lytton Avenue, said since 1960 he and his parnters have owned the office building at the corner of Channing and Waverley known as 400 Channing. They also own the duplex next door on Channing, the single family residence next door to that on Channing, and the single family residence next door to the building on Waverley. The area is now zoned R-4. The professional office building is a proper use in that zone. Under the land use plan, this property would he designated R.l and our office building would become a nonconforming use. Almost half of our block is something other than R-1 right now. Our building is more compatible with what exists in the neighborhood than to force it to be converted to R -I use. The occupants of our building put up with a parking lot across the street and are not too badly offended, but resi- dents on that corner would .itot be very happy living across the street from the parking lot and the acres of clinic parking kitty-corner from it. We suggest Council consider leaving R-4 on halt of our block so that our office building and the 18 unit apartment two doors down from us on Waverley would not become nonconforming. It's a rather attractive apartment house and a very substantial investment, and you could not ex- pect that building to be amortized. Our building started out as a resi- dence, but in 1949 it was remodeled and converted into an office building. It has been improved over the years with a substantial addition in 1969. It's an attractive place. We were not able to expand our offices into the residential area because we cannot convert residential property into commercial any more in Palo Alto, so when our firm outgrew that pleasant little building, we moved across town and rented our building to the clinic for use by anesthesiology and health education. In regard to our willingness to be zoned P -C, if we would not have to go through too much rigamarole and expense and if the P -C designation would permit us to use the building as it has been used for the past 20 years, that would be acceptable. George Varian, 327 Addison Avenue, said there are problems living next to a business the size of the clinic. Parking was net considered at the time the clinic expanded to its present site, end there is substantial on -street parking in our neighborhood from clinic personnel. Traffic is considerable on our residential streets. We don't mean to change what exist?, now; but we don't want to see any further inroads into our neigh- borhood of ccrs ercial business and heavy traffic uses. We don't want an increase in structures which are out of scale with our neighborhood. We don't object to those parking !.ots but if at some point parking is not needed they should be returned to residential use because they are in our residential neighborhood,, He therefore opposed any change in the designation of those parcels south of Channing. John Nichols. 911 Bryant Street. Administrator. Rillhaven Convalescent Mospite, said their skilled nursing facility with 68 bads is certified 259 9!15176 for Medicare and MediCal. The owners of the facility purchased it in May 1975 and we are still in the process of renovation and improving the environment there. In the past, people who cannot find placement in the Pala Altc area had to go as far as Gilroy and Marin. The con- valescent patienta,who are usually residents of Palo Alto, recdive phy- sical and other therapy at Hillhaven and radiation treatment at the Palo Alto clinic. Our facility enables patients to be near their fami- lies or near the specialized medical care at the clinic. This is in the best interest of the community. Hillhaven has no intention of ex- panding on the present zone, especially considering the present day building coats. We would not like to see Palo Alto lose its only skilled nursing facility due to unfavorable zoning, We understand that the multi -family designation could present us from major renovations. The M.a jor •Institution/Special Facilities designation would enable us to continue in providing a much needed community service. Jim Richardson, 353 Addison Avenue, submitted a petition signed by 88 people who approve the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the area bordered by Channing, Waverley, Alma and Embarcadero. It protects the historical quality and predominantly residential use of the neighbor- hood. At some time residential use will probably be more economically feasible than parking Iota, and this designation would allow it to return to residential use. Mayor Norton a+akwd Assistant City Attorney Green if he had an answer for Councilman Sher's earlier question regarding the covenant required by the city in regard to the clinic's parking lot on Charming between Waverley and Kiplin.g. Assistant City Attorney Green replied that the covenant document which Mr. Johnson provided is an agreement that runs with the land owned by the clinic and provides that the land will be used exclusively for park- ing purposes by the owners The covenant was executed by and between the owner and the city and runs to the benefit of the city. The agreement was executed to provide the necessary parking for the fourth story addi- tion which he understands has not been completed or started. Since that parcel was required to accommodate additional traffic from that addition, this document does not become effective until completion of construction of that addition. Apparently it would not be in effect at this time. If the fourth floor is constructed and the ` covenant went into effect, there is an exception clause that if the clinic provides alternate parking with- in a 500 foot radius, the provision of the covenant would become ineffec- tive and the parking restrictions would be released from this particular property on Channing. Councilman Sher asked whether, if the suggestion about the P -C were fol- lowed and the condition would be that these parcels be rezoned for park- ing, it would be possible to also have a condition that when they were no longer used for parking, they would be returned to residential use. Mr. Green said that could be done but he is not sure what is accomplished because if it were not used for parking now, it would be is violation of the zoning, The owner can apply for any zoning desired. The Council could not bird him nor say it would not entertain any application in the future._ It could be a condition that it could not be used for that pur- pose without applying for a change of P -C or some rezoning. He further replied to Councilman Sher that amortization of the nonconforming exist- ing use would be difficult without changing the ordinance. Vice Mayor Clay asked if the purpose of the Major Institution/Special Facilities designation is, to limit current institutions - to their present use and facoilitf4sa prohibit Other inattention& from L 'into that particular area, or other rationale. 260 9/15/76 Mr.Knox said he recalled that it was to limit Major Institution/Special Facilities to their present areas -and to provide a mechaniem for them to remain as conforming uses in the future. For example, the clinic and the foundation would have that designation which would allow subsequent zoning so that they could remain in business. He further replied to Mr. Clay that no analysis was made of future service needs. The plan can be revised annually, land use designations could be expanded or contracted as necessary. We were looking at what. the present facilities are. Mrs. Steinberg replied to Vice Mayor Clay's question that Hillhaven was not included in the Major Institution/Special Facilities designation since a convalescent home use is entirely suitable in the multi -family residen- tial zone and could be permitted with a use permit. Nestor Barrett, 1494 Hamilton Avenue, planning consultant, spoke on be- half of Mr. Tan's property in the general area of Middlefield Road, Everett Avenue and Byron Avenue. This property is zoned R -3-L-12 which permits 35 dwelling units per acre. The new Comprehensive Plan would change that high density status to single family dwelling creating a situ- ation which is not economically tenable. The present improvements on the property cannot be reasonably re -arranged and converted to sell at a competitive price with new single family dwellings. Moreover, there are other multiple dwellings in the sane general area. University Ave- nue is the principal commercial street of the city and it has generally been a policy to keep multiple housing clustered within a reasonable dis- tance of it. The Tan parcel is only two blocks from University Avenue whereas she city -owned parcel which has been desisnated for multiple family is four blocks away. We urge the Council to continue to allow Mr. Tan's high density multiple zoning when the Plan is adopted. Jim Williams, 943 Scott Street, strongly supported the current plan to :<eep single family residential in the area south of Charming and strong- ly opposed any change to commercial or major institution. Kazutake Tachibana, 590 Sand Hill Circle, Menlo Perk, speaking on behalf of his parents, said they own an 18 -unit apartment complex at 925 Waver - ley and also a parcel between Charming and Addison Street. The Comprehen- sive Plan would place this property in single family residential. The consequence of this decision and the resulting zoning would make the pro- perty nonconforming. Our existing apartment complex should be designated as multi -family residential as has been done to numerous existing apart- ment buildings adjacent to single family areas. This apartment complex has existed since 1963 and nonconformance would put eumerous restrictions on future renovation. The Planning commission designated quite a few existing apartment complexes adjacent to single family areas as multi- family residential and argues that these exceptions tend to be extensions of Larger multi -family areas or larger than one lot or adjacent to commer- cial areas and/or are located on major streets. Mt. Tachibana said their building and others in multi -family designation are comparable in size and that traffic is comparable at these points. In addition, in case of fire or earthquake, we would not be able to rebuild our building under the Planning Commission's Comprehensive Plan since it would be a non- conforming property. Hit parents derive their only income from this building. They Work very hard managing end cleaning the entire building. To live in fear of a sudden loss of their bysiness and income by such a disaster would be a terrible thing. We urge the Council to designate 925 Waverley as multi -family residential. Councilman Carey asked if the Planning Commission is recommending that these uses conform to the surrounding recommended sorting to preclude spot mooing in the middle, or was it decided these uses were incompatible with the neighborhood sad ought to be phased out ultimately. 261 9/13/76 Mrs. Steinberg said it is probably correct that the Commission looked at the neighborhcod and said this whole area should conform. Mr. Knox said he recalled that we were trying to shrink all of the multi- family zones around the downtown area. He explained a transparency that showed the proposed non-residential, multiple family, and single family areas around the downtown. The transparency also indicated parcels where the existing ese is more intense and thus is not consistent with the pro- posed land use map. Mr. Knox explained that in developing the plan map, staff and the Commission drew the boundary lines so that there would be es few inconsistent parcels as possible. The overall objective was to allow the mixture of single and multiple family to remain in this area but not allow further multi -family development. Councilman Carey said he agreed with the theoretical approach of shrink- ing the multiple family areas and trying to get contiguous areas without gerrymandering or spot zoning, but if a goal was to allow to remain those already existing uses that would end up being nonconforming, have we done that? The last speaker raised a very valid objection. If that 18 -unit apartment building ends up nonconforming with the future zoning that will be placed upon it, and if there's a fire that destroys a sub- stantial portion, he can't tebuild it --he's got to tear it down. As a result, we lose 18 units of housing, it's replaced by two units, and they lose their investment. If they want to sell it, they are going to have to disclose that it is nor onforming and that is going to affect its value substantially. Was any thought given instead to give them what amounts to spot zoning or at least a P -C designation so that they are not necessarily phased out or if there is substantial damage they don't necessarily have to be torn down? Mr. Knox said these could be handled in one of two methods. One would be to grant P -C zoning. If that were to be done, we would have to explain the land use categories in the Comprehensive Plan so that it would indi- cate in single family, for example, that some existing multiple family units that presently exist could continue to be allowed. Then we could give them P -C toning in the future. If the Plan text doesn't include this approach, we couldn't grant the multiple family P -C zoning because the P -C wouldn't be in conformity with the Plan. An alternative process is to change the nonconformity aspects of our code. Councilman Carey said some 30, 60 and 70 year old buildings are still usable and any amortization schedule with any meaningful time would be far less than the actual remaining life of the structure. He would like to know next time what tools we have to maintain the integrity of the proposed Comprehensive Plan designatiornsc and at the same time to allow those existing developed uses found nor to be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods to continue on some basis other than non- conforming. Petty Woodworth, 301 Addison Avenue, supported the Comprdm save Plan designation of residential land use south of Charming and was against expansion +;•f the clinic. Cars are parked in front of my house and people eat lunch in their parked cars in front of my house. Councilman Berweld aaid he was interested in hearing discussion on what the rules are nom about demolishing an 18 story apartment and replacing it with an R-1 single family residence. Aren't we forcing these proper- ary owners to do that? What will happen to these buildings? Will they continua to deteriorate until they have to be torn down? Will we not be reducing the quality of life in that area? 262 9/15/76 .antnttaxSAr MOTION CARRIED: Mayor Norton moved, seconded by Comstock, that the public hearing and consideration of the land use section of the Comprehensive Plan be continued to 7:30 P.M , Tuesday, September 21, 1976. The motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 12:00 midnight. APPROVE: ATTEST: