Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-09-21 City Council Summary MinutesCITY / couna Minutes c;Tv PALO ALTO Speciel'Meeting September 21, 1976 ITEM PAGE Comprehensive Plan 2 S I . 2 8 0 9/21/76 September 21, 1976 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto meton this date at 7:50 P.M. in a Special Meeting adjourned from September 15, 1976, with Mayor Norton presiding. PRESENT: Beaters, Serwald, Carey (arrived 8:20 P.M.), Clay, Comstock, Horton, Sher ABSENT: Eyerly, Witherspoon COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Mayor Norton said this special meeting is dedicated to completion of the Comprehensive Plan public hearing and commencment of Council decisions on the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilman Sher said Stanford University is his employer. He has review- ed with the City Attorney the communication received from the University to determine whether there are any possible conflicts of interest in his participating in motions that might be made in regard to those matters. The City Attorney's office points out that, while all the regulations have not been forthcoming from Sacramento, the general test for a con- flict of interest is whether it is reasonably foreseeable that the de- cision in question will have a material financial effect on a source of income over $250, as 'well as whether these decisions would have amateri- al effect on the University. The City Attorney advises that some of the item probably would have en effect end that Mr. Sher ahoald not parti- cipate in motions or decisions in regard to items 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 16 of the August 31st letter from Mr. Augsburger of Stanford University, That leaves him free to participate on items 2, 3, 4, a, 13, 15 and 17. Bert Wilson said he has operated the Flamingo Motor Lodge at 3398 El Camino for the past 13 years. It's a high quality motel with well main- tained grounds and buildings that have been carefully developed over a period of 20 years. It is completely compatible to nearby residential areas. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a residential land use on the rear of our property. If that is done, it is not possible to have a high quality motel operation an the remaining half. To our knowl ed$e a this is the only proposed line that divides an existing business. We request that the residential zone start at our present property line and our pro- perty be designated commercial. Robert Augeburger, Vice President for Business 6 ?inane, Stanford Uni- versity, said he is here to respond to ,questions to their written mater- ial relative to designation of Stanford lands an the land use asp. The previously submitted material reflects two major concerns. First is the failure of the land use asp to recognize Stanford University end its land in Palo Alto as a L aique pert Of or neighbor of the city and as be- icg a very special institutional category: For example, the tendency in the Plan is to categorize lends by their use, whether single -family -resi- dential on Stanford land or elsewhere in Palo Alto, or industrial park whether on Stanford land or elsewhere in Pilo Alto, wherea. Stanford's view Ls that the University's lands are highly restricted end unique facilities and developments that ultimately will revert to the University and in which the University has a highly controlled interest. The second area of concern is the open apace designation of those lends which the 241 9/21/76 University considers as academic reserve. The University believes this creates an unrealistic expectation on the part of the citizenry that those lands will always remain in open apace, end it may influence zon- ing in the county which would preclude legitimate uses of those lands for academic -related purposes. The University has not.intention of any intensive development for academic or other purposes for most of those lands; however, we believe it necessary to reserve the right to do so should the need or opportunity arise at some time in the future. Councilman Beahrs said a large portion of Stanford land is currently scheduled to be Open Spece..Controlled Development which is defined in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Maybe that's not as restrictive as you fear. There will probably be a half dozen plans end elections before this becomes a critical issue. Mr. Augaburger said Stanford requests that land in the lower foothills be designated Major Institution/Open Space. The expectation is that the bulk of that land will remain in open space for a significant period of time but Stanford needs to protect the rightto utilize it for academic purposes. If any zoning that might emanate from the county, of if at some time the land should be annexed to the city of Palo Alto, that would place serious constraints on their use and that would be a denial of what Stanford University is all about. Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said in regard to the E1 Camino study, he would quote Mr. Knox's comments at the Finance & Public Wor{a meting on May 20, 1976, regarding the Planning Department budget. 'Each year in this process, I try to point out to the Council that se much as we try to predict our worn program for the coming year, there are always new assignments that cause unexpected additional work for us, A few of the projects that required a significant amount of staff time during the present fiscal year are..." and he lists eight of them including the San Francisquito Creek trail plan, long terms versus interim improvements on the Page Mill/Fl Camino interchange, removal of Park foulevard barriers. Mr. Knox later discusses the impact on the department of cutting staff both in terms of getting a fast response and the work load. If the El Cam no study is done by a consultant, there will have to be sac* outside funding. Several Couucila mbera have been generally opposed to employing consultants. The merchants spent $35,000 for a study he doesn't think a lot of. The idea Of a study should be deferred until the staff is able to give it adequate attention, which means after the Plan itself is adopted and the workload has dropped sufficiently to give this a thor- ough examination. Janet main, 4146 El Camino Real and 391 Curtner, asked that the highway frontage between. Los Robles and Maybe l l on she south side of El Camino as veil as the Townhouse Motel property be zoned commercial and the land use nap should be attended. Commercial property is much more valuable than residential. Under amortisation, mil businesses would have to find a- nother location within time limits determined by the city. The presently undeveloped Main property could not be sold as coaamorcial. Who could object to an attractive business building with pleasant landscaping on that property. It would be subject to city restrictions and approval. A commercial strip would bring more revenue to the city. She didn't understand the discrimination focused against this short strip of two blocks without consideration of the owners and tenants involved. Ions Brennan, 41.44 Wilkie Way, speaking on behalf of the Charleston - Meadows Association, said they urge adoption of the laud use plan as pro- ed B 1 Casino is a d isas to r to v is itors . It looks hanky - toak and not like the rest of beautiful Palo Alto. 282 9/21/76 Robert England, 3768 La Donna Avenue, Acting President, Barron Park Asso- ciation, reinforced the Association's position as to adoption of the Com- prehensive Plan as it stands. They oppose item No. 6 of Stanford's let- ter to have the present land use designation of the former S.P. right-of- way changed from public perk to single-family residential, The Associa- tion has spent many years working on the planning of that park, and it would only be proper to so des%gnate that for continued use as a park. He noted, in ccmmenting on the Lest Council meeting, that members of the Association, and the community at large, to the best of his knowledge, have not engaged in any partisan politics. It has been quite corm for people in this community, out of concern for their area, to turn out in the hundreds. Previous Council's have complimented us on our concerns. We don't need outside influences to have us stand and fight for what we think is best for our area. Councilman Beahrs said he had the impression that people in Barron Park are not insistent that some of the rather severe changes required in this Plan be instituted. Mr. England said certain aspects of that plan disturb them somewhat. They have proposed adoption as it is rather than have this opened up again to years of debate and such severe modifications that it wouldn't be recognizable. Vice Mayor Clay asked him to elaborate on what things about the land use plan disturbed him. Mr. England said one concern regards the density of lands now proposed in multiple -family adjacent to single-family on the west side of Goebel Lane. This greatly disturbs Verdosa residents who back up to this pro- perty. The Association urges Council to designate those multiple -family lands at the low end of the density scale, -comparable to single-family density, to protect the residents without completely revising the Plan. Vice Mayor Clay asked if he reeteived a questionnaire distributed by con- sultant Woollett in the El Camino area. Hr. England said he had to go out and find a copy. He hasn't been able to find any of their residents who acknowledge receipt of that question- naire. He's concerned about the results and doesn't think it indicates the desires of the people in their community. Vice Mayor Clay said he has with him the 120 that were returned. Councilman Sher asked if it would meet their concern if in the land use element under the description of multiple -family residential, the sen- tence that says "Densities will range from 10 to 45 units per acre," have added to it language to the effect that next to single-family resi- dential the density should be low consistent with the adjacent sirsgl.- family use. Mr. England said, to the beat of his knowledge, that would be acceptable to them. Councilman 19erwald said during discussions several members of the Associa- tion have spoken out rather strongly in dismay about the temerity of the commercial land owners in cowing is with a plan at this late dote. It is usually assumed that's just human -nature, but here the attitude seems fairly firm. With that background, if the Council approves essentially the present plan, do you think the present Barron Park Association posture would oppose the city's pursuing a detailed design plan and, in an anal review, considering the input of the El Casino commercial property steers? 283 9/21/74 Mr. England said not at all; it is hoped that the Council would remain open to all Viewpoints. Councilman Berwald asked if they would be reluctant to join in a group composed of residential end commercial interests on El Camino to carry out such a planning study. Mr, England said they would be very happy to engage in such studies but strongly oppose using the Woollett plan as a cornerstone for any such study. We would then have to undertake a cites study of our own and that is beyond our means. Councilman Berwald said he meant receiving it as input only. Mr. England acid many are alarmed by the proposal on the trailer court and he has alerted people there to the proposal. Councilman Berwald asked if the Association wanted that area, if for any reason abandoned, to be R-1 or low income housing, Mr. England said they would advocate some form of houaing,hope.fully reasonable housing at the low end of the density scale. He confirmed Mr. Berwald's understanding that he waa not talking about just R-1 den- sities. Harold Jewett, 713 Flozales Drive, who lives adjacent to the Silva pro- perty, said he strongly opposes rezoning that from Rel to multiple - family, and would like to go to court if they do. Donald Ganachow, 177 Bryant Street, property owner of the section west of Goebel Lane, said the R -I and R -3-G zoning proposed and accepted for the Yarkin property on the other side of Vista Avenue limits it to a height of 14 feet at a 20 foot setback. In an R-1 zoning with some minor restric- tions you can build within 14 feet of the property line to a height of 35 feet without any variance or special applications whatsoever. Also, the Barron Park area has not as yet had a flood plain zone proposed for it, and it has not yet been surveyed to determine what areas would be in that zone. Taking this into consideration and given a height limitation of 15 feet at 21 feet from the property line and a 35$.low coverage limit, it is very difficult to make a feasible project or do. ablithing without a lot of res is tance . In buying a house, one looks at the neighborhood. The price offered takes the neighborhood into consideration. In considering the Comprehensive Plan, give some consideration to the fact that people accepted the surroundings before they bought their houses. Give us multiple -family so that ww'6an do something with'thb:property and have reasonably priced units. Denny Petrol ian, 443 Ventura Avenue, - sppaking for the Venture Neighbor- hood Association, said the property owners' questionnaire was distributed in our neighborhood without our blessing. The Association feels the re- sults are not representative of our neighborhood especially in regard to the proposal for a shopping center on the WeOler property. We second Mr. England's comment that he did not want tae! IJoollett study mode a cornerstone of any design undertaking. Robert Debs, 3145 Flowers Lane agreed with Mr. England and other speakers that the Plan should be adopted before a special study and before the next - election. There have been deliberate attempts to bypass or evade the plan- ning proem by evading the Planning Commission. The law forced on this Council by petition initiative says that in adopting any or alt parts or amendments or additions to the Comprehensive Plan the leegielative body shall not make any change until it goes back'to the Planning Commission 2 8 4 9/21/76 with a report on that change. Mr. Debs assumed that the El Camino study committee would report to the Planning Commission. He hoped it does not become a deliberate attempt to bypass the Commission set up to do long range planning. Mayor Norton said the staff has sssideously advised us from the outset of this procedure that whatever the Council does is going back to the Planning Commission for a 40 day deliberetioa period. Council Reahrs said let's assume the Planning Commission says they don't buy it and they send us something else, and the Council says change it. Where do you stop this yo-yo performance? Mr. Doba said the law is that the Council has the ultimate word end the ultimate decision and, as the elected repreaentativea, the Council's decision has to be it. After the Planning Commission has their review, then the Council gets the Plan back end can do what you want to with it. Howard Smith, 720 La Para Avenue, said he didn't return the merchants' questionnaire because the questions were highly slanted. The question- naire was not an adequate or well planned way of getting information un- less one wanted to tell the people who answered what kind of information one wanted back. Councilman Comstock said the staff report (CMR.:444:6) dated September 20 euggesta a new program 21: "Allow existing apartment buildings in single-- family areas to continue and to be replaced in the event of destruction." That addresses itself to both the University Avenue and the El Camino areas. Did the Commission discuss this? The Commission's recommenda- tion proposes change of use for some properties. For example, some people have referred to property currently used as a motel which might ultimate- ly be designated as partly residential and partly commercial. What does the staff or Commission contemplate happening in this regard? Planning Commission Chairman Steinberg paid the Commission had quite a lot of discussion about this, not specifically in relation to downtown, but generally. In the Commission minutes of February 11, Assistant City Attorney Green said that the General Plan is intended to reflect the city's planning and the desire for long term uses in the development of the land. In other words, we are not saying that we must change right away but through long term gradual change. We did not discuss the proposal dis- cussed last week to put some of these uses into P -C's. We talked about amortisation periods which might extend in a residentiAl none from 15 to 40 years. This would be done during the zoning process. Director of Planning and Community Environment Knox discussed an illus- tration of the downtown area to point out the problem when existing mul- tiple family zones are cut back as is the case in several multiple -family aroma throughout the city. On the map are a number of parcels shaded in black. Therm would be more dense than would be allowed under the pro- posed land use designation. In proposed single-family areas, nearly all of the black square represent apartment buildings. We're faced with this kind of alternative around the downtown, on El Casino, and in midtown areas as well. If the Man proposes" to reduce the multiple -family zoned areas eventually, then it must also reduce the multiple -family lead use designation on the map. If that is done, some of those existing *pert- inent buildings will wind up in single-family areas. Mr. Knox said it would be appropriate to use Councilman Carey's sugges- tion to provide a P -C zone for individual parcels, but unless the land were designated for multiple -family in the Comprehensive Plan, it would be very difficult to substantiate a multiple -family P -C zone in the future. Then we would have to designate the area as multiple -family on 265 9/21/76 this plan in order to be able to preserve the the existing multiple - family uses. The staff's new program 21, steaming from Mr. Berweld's suggestion, would allow existing apartment buildings in single-family areas to continue in their present use and to be replaced in the event of destruction; without saying it in so many words, this would insure that they would not become -nonconforming. If they became nonconforming, they would have insurance problems, and they would not be able to be re- built, certainly in the event of major destruction. in summing up, Mr. Knox said there are two alternatives, One is not to have any nonconforming uses and leave the multiple -family designations as they are in the 1963 Plan. Around downtown, the multiple -family areas would go entirely to the creek and up to Middlefield and, on the south side of downtown, they would go about a half block past Addison Avenue. The other alternative is to pull back the multiple -family area and allow those few apartment buildings that have been built in the proposed single- family cone to remain there preserving the existing character of those areas, Mr. Knox said his understanding of the Planning Commission's die - moutons for the last year or so is that preservation of existing charac- ter without further encr3acimeent• of these multiple -family uses would be' not only tolerable, but desirable. Council moan Comstock asked if, on certain parcels suggested for leas inten- sive use, are we talking about amortization. The ultimate action is re- zoning, and possibly rezoning with a long term amortigetion period. Mr. Knox said he hesitated to use the word amortization because it has some complex legal implications related to the code. Nonconformity and amortization are different questions. Amortization allows a certain period of time before removal of the building. Under nonconformity, if nothing happens to the building, it can remain indefinitely. Councilman Comstock asked the outcome if Council adepts the Planning Commission's recommendation along El Camino. What happens to those pro- perties? What are some different approaches available to them? Mayor Norton summarized three possibilities including creation of non- conforming uses which legally have the effect of leaving those uses in- definitely unless a certain portion of the building is destroyed, in which case, it would have to be rebuilt in accordance with the new or then existing coning. The second alternative world be to create a cone in which the status would not be nonconforming but would be permitted to exist and to rebuild even if destroyed. That is kind of a grandfather clause for uses which would otherwise be rendered nonconforming. A third possibility would be to rezone it and then to put on a so -culled amorti- sation period of up to 40 years after which the use would have to termi- nate. Councilman Sher confirmed with Mr. Knox that the approach in the Septem- ber 20th staff report would result in Mr. Norton's second alternative of making nonconforming the apartments in the area around downtown proposed for single family. Mr. Knot replied to Mr. Sher that the black squares in the proposed multiple -family areas are commercial or office facilities which would be nonconforming if the multiple -family designation were created. However, most of those uses have been covered in Councilmen Byerly*s motion to prevent further encroachment of offices in multiple -family cones. That program, which has been approved by the Council, would sllbw existing offices to remain and be rebuilt. Discussion in the meeting clarifies that the intent is not only to peroit offices to remain in formerly resi- dential buildings, but since those projarties hove alV* dy been used for • 286 9/21/76 offices, if someone wanted to rer'ove the residential buildings and re- place theca with office, that would generally be okay. There was one caveat. In some cases, offices are only acceptable because they are in residential buildings which preserved the character of an area. In those cases, a new office building might not be okay. The discussion is being incorporated by the staff in the text associated with that program so that will be clear in the Plan. Councilman Sher confirmed with Mir. Knox that, when that is done, all of those black designations in the proposed multiplezfa ily area will be re- moved because they won't be nonconforming. Councilman Sher confined with Mr. Knox that if there were to be any areas around El Camino designated multiple -family and there were existing office uses, the Eyerly motion would apply to them. Councilman Sher said, if there was a desire to use this approach for other existing uses that would be inconsistent with the land time plan, a new program would be needed to describe the existing uses and the proposed land use designation that they are intended to be allowed in. Mr. Knox agreed that the:writing'of analogous prOgramis is one,poasi6itity. Another possibility wcnjld be to look at the definition of the land use categories on page 59 and determine whether that kind of proposal could be incorporated in some of those definitions. Councilman Sher said that means, for example, if the Cattery is regarded as a permissible use, the definition of neighborhood commercial could be expanded to allow catter,iea. Mr. Knox said correct, and it was pointed out at an earlier meeting that there is a discrepancy in that neighborhood'commercial is referred to in two different ways. On page .59 of the Plan there is a definition of neighborhood commercial and the Plan map utilizes that definition. There is also a reference to neighborhood commercial in Employment Program 5, page L9, that refers to a different neighborhood commercial specifically in relation to El Camino. The neighborhood commercial that would be ap- plied to El Casino is the one which would have some limited acceptable service commercial added to it. It would have to be studied in the future as to what is acceptable. That neighbcrheod limited service commer- cial category is not now defined on page 59. Councilman Sher said the categories the Planning Commission has recommend- ed are neighborhood commercial and service commercial. At some future date there may be a zoning recommendation which is something different that would combine those two on particular parcels of property, but there is no suggestion now from the Planning Commission for a land use designation with the combination. Mr. Knox replied that was correct. Mr. Dohs said the Loma Vista/Middlefield area in which he lives has non- residential saes that are being amortised out. We have fought for that area. Mayor Norton said there Ls no suggestion to change anything in that area. MOTION CARRIED: Mayor Norton moved, seconded by Comstock, to close the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried 6 to 0 (Councilmembers Eyerly Witherspoon arm Carey absent). 287 9/21/76 Councilman Berwald said his question on September 15th .pas about the future of existing apartment buildings in areas which are now zoned multiple -family and which are designated single-family. He interest in asking that question was the desirability he saw in a certain diversity in residential zones. The Housing Corporation and the Planning Comnis- aion have telked about how nice it would be if we could get some low/ moderate income housing and some duplexes in an R -1 zone where people could split the cost of a home, Re is also concerned about deter.idration over time because of an amortisation regulation which discourages improve- ment. This goes for' both residential and commercial, whether it's an apartment house or a motel. If it's nonconforming, that means that that property in its present use cannot be sold if somebody hes to sell for some economic reason. Unless buildings are disharmonious with their sur- roundings, they should be allowed. Can we be selective in looking at that map in applying Program 21 to allow existint buildings to continue and to be replaced in the event of destruction? Can we be selective in order to take cognizance of those non -R-1 uses that are totally and grossly offensive to adjacent residential uses, and require that they be brought up to a level to protect adjacent uses? Mr. Knox said he thought they could be selective depending an the kind of ordinance mechanism that is eventually used. If you don't want to be selective, we could create an R-1 zone that covered most of those parcels and allowed existing multiple -family dwellings )et didn't allow new ones. This could work in much the same way that the R-4 zone allows existing offices, but doesn't allow conversion of residentially used sites to of- fices. That would blanket most of them in and the zone line could be drawn in somewhat selectively. If the mechanism to support this program were to revise the nonconformity descriptions and paragraphs in the code, that would then apply to all of them and it would not be selective. Councilman Berwald said the revised nonconformity regulations could probably insist upon any replacement or any modification being less dense or removing some of the offensive situations. Mr. Knox said that's something we could atudy. Staff thought it impor- tant to bring up this new program now, even though it's a housing program, because it will affect Council's decisions -On .how the .lines ire drawn -en the map, This program Could be put in the land use element by adding it to a definition of single-family. Staff has been working on the basis of trying to minimize the number of nonconforming parcels. There's no problem with P -C zones. Councilman Berwald said he assumed we can be similarly selective`in the cons ercial areas, specifically El Camino. If that is true, can we avoid approving a land use plan that would create a number of nonconforming uses when and Uwe we have completed the El Camino design study that we have talked about after approval of the land use nap? Mr. Knox said there is a difference in intent in talking about allowing offices around downtown and in allowing multiple -family dwellings in single-family areas around downtown as opposed to allowing commercial uses in what might become tt+siltiple-family zones along El Cassino between Los Robles and Haybell. The plan for the area around the downtown is to preserve its character, to prevent further construction of offices in multiple family zones, and to prevent further construction of multiple - family dwellings in single-family zones, but it's to allow those that are there to exist. Mt. Knox believed the intent along El Camino, as he's heard it expressed, is to not preserve what's there but to change the character of the area. That would not require the sane kind of tool. On E1 Camino you would ueht to come up with a new zone that allows specific uses foin4 to be acceptsb;.e and a: size the other uses on a 288 9/21/76 set schedule. That is the way to foster change in that area. People have said a medical equipment facility on El Camino is okay. They have said a furniture store is okay. Those uses are not allowed in neighbor- hood commercial. If you create either a new neighborhbod commercial " lend use designation or indicate that a new neighborhood commercial zone is to be designated as in Employment Program 5, then we can get specific about which of those El Camino uses would be allowed in the new zone or the new designation. Councilman Berwald said Let's take a small motel, well maintained and well landscaped, with a new addition on it, and before _a design study, we pass a land use plan that makes this nonconforming. It'doeen,Rt seem to be in line with justice. Until that design study is made, he said he is going to think more than twice about taking any piece of property and, in one fell swoop, making it nonconforming. There may be some pro- perties so grossly disharmonious to an area theyehouidi be got rid of, but we ought to be selective. That's where we're getting into problems. Mx. Knox said the selection of the designation, let's say multiple -family along El Camino, will have different effects on different properties. If the motel at the corner of Maybell and El Camino is designated as multiple - family on the plan map, it does not become nonconforming until the rezoning occurs, and the rezoning undoubtedly will not occur unless there is an initiative of the Plat ing Commission to bring all zones into conformity with the plan, or finless the zoning ordinance is completed and the new zones are prepared. What happens to the Townhouse Motel then is that they can't build on an addition because we would not be able to find that that addition is in conformity with the master plan, but on the other hand their existing motel would not become nonconforming because they are in a P -C zone: The Alfinito property, which is in an R-1 zone be- cause it came in with Barron Park, is in a different situation. That is nonconforming right now. Another situation occurs, for instance, on the vacant Thain property in which a portion is zoned C-3. The City Attorney would have to review this and Mr. Knox said he didn't have an answer as to what could be allowed on a piece of vacant property zoned C-3 but which is designated multiple -family on the plan map. Councilman Carey said that from a general lend use policy standpoint, he doesn't agree that a Comprehensitre Placi change in land use designation has no effect on the property until the Planning Commission rezones that property. Setting a policy for an area and then conforming the land use map to the policy starts a passe that leads to either modification of the existing zoning or new zoning. Mr. Carey,said he's also very uncom- fortable with the concept of amortization periods. That has a substantial effect on the value of improved real property. We can take a 30 -year amortization on buildings for tax purposes, but the fact is that those buildings exist far longer than 30 years --60 and 70 years is not uncommon. lo give a building with a true life of 50 or 60 years a L5 -year amortisa- tion has a significant effect on value. We need to distinguish between the amortization of uses and the amortization of buildings. If, for example, on El Camin° there is a building which is occupied by a tenant whose use is incompatible, it's one thing to amortize out that particular use and leave the owner free to re -rent the building for compatible re- tail rises. It's another thing to take an apartment house and say that use mast be amortized because, if the goal is to obtain detached single- family, you are amortizing the building. We need to make that distinc- tion. In the former case, it's fair and equitable, but in the tatter case, you are taking the building away. Further, a distinction should be made between improved and unimproved property. The change in isad use designation and zoning, in his opinion, does not have nearly the disas- trous effect an the owner of unimproved land as a change with respect to improved property. We have before us at least three pieces of improved 2 8 9 9/21/76 property which, if we follow the recommendation, will become nonconform- ing --the dental building on Middlefield and University, the Tachibana apartments on Waverley, the Townhouse Motel on El Camino and Maybell. Unless we find some means to preserve the right of the owner to continue that use literally forever, what is proposed involves a detrimental ef- fect on that property owner. In soiree cases, the limitation on use be- cause of the building's nature may be so incompatible with the surround- ing area that the use ought to be amortized and the building got rid of, but that situation didn't fit the examples he's cited. The Waverley apartment lot is narrow and extremely deep. It would be very difficult to use that site for R -I. It's a first rate apartment building and it's compatible with the neighborhood. If we're going to talk amortization, we're going to have to go through property by property and make those distinctions. The desire to not have what amounts to spot zoning is understandable, as well as the staff and the Planning Commission trying to get fairly contiguous land use boundaries. If we were starting a brand new city, it would be easy and logical to do, but that is not the case here. Polo Alto is essentially developed, so it's extremely diffi- cult, if not impossible, to end up with a Comprehensive Plan land use map that does not, in effect, eliminate what is commonly known as spot zoning. We are not spot zoning, because it is not that we are changing a permitted use to something different from the surrounding area. The converse is taw. We are allowing an existing use to continue because it's already there, end that is the distinction. One of the effects of trying to achieve the ultimate goal of land uses that are contiguous without spot zoning in Palo Alto would be a substa►itial reduction in the housing stock. Development of detached Riq housing and eliminstios of high density apartments ir.nredominantly single-family residential areas is diametrically opposed to a concept of additional housing at below market prices, With respect to the R -3-P area. Mr. Carey said we have office uses in structures that appear to be residential, and because they appear to be that way, they tend to be compatible with the neighborhood. If one burned down and somebody put up en office that looked like an office, that might not be acceptable. That's why last week he suggested co-- eideriag s P -C zone where these so-called nonconforming uses can exist. This would allow us to maintain control of setbacks, architecture, height, and so on. To do otherwise would get into the amortization and rebuild- ing probl.a that now exist. Councilmen Aeahra said it occurs to him that in struggling to have equity and thus creating exceptions, we might destroy the integrity of the Plan and the zoning philosophy of the community, As Hr. Debs said earlier, the Loma Verde people are firmly on notice that they are to be amortized. Night we destroy the integrity of that situation to the point that they can come back and say they want equal treatment with other non-residential areas? Mr. Knox said in the Lose Verde situation it's clear in the code that that is a special amortization area. That would not be modified by any- thing we are doing on the Plen. If you were to say that multiple -family areas would allow exias t ing commercial uses that exist as of the date of this Plan, then you might be setting up some kind of dilemma about Loma Verde, but you ere not doing that. You are talking about allowing offices. In the Loma Verde situation, those are not office buildings; they are com- mercial and light industrial uses. The St -3.P and R-4 zones allow offices for doctors and dentists. If the dental building on University Avenue falls in the category of dentists's offices, then allowing offices that exist as of this date to continue in multiple-fearily zones would permit them as well as all of the other office uses. 2 9 0 9/21/36 MOTION: Mayor Norton moved, seconded by Comstock, that the Land Use Map anu Chapter 8 as presented by the Planning Commission be approved. That motion will entertain amendments after the recess. (Recess: 9:30 P.M. to 9:52 P.M.) Councilman Carey said it seems the Council should not take up individual nonconforming properties on s piece -by -piece basis and try to woke judg- ments as to whether they should receive treatment different from the over- all land use map;, It should be the Planning Commission's responsibility to reaiew those parcels and properties after the adoption of the land use map. AMENDMENT TO TEE MUTTON: Councilman Carey moved, seconded by Berwald, that a paragraph under "Implementation of the Plan Map" provide that where the improved properties are not in conformance with the land use asap, the Planning Commission review those properties and make a recom- mendation to the Council applying the following standards: (I) Where the improvement is capable of being used by mere than one use and the current use is eubatantially incompatible with the surrounding area, that an amortization period be considered to ultimately eliminate that use and to provide for alternate uses compatible with the area. (2) Where the improvement does not lend itself to more than one use, that a determination be made as to whether that improvement and that use is grossly incompatible with the surrounding area and, if so, an amorti- zation period be applied to that property, and if not, that a recom- mendation he made that the land use map be changed with respect to that property to conform with the existing ule. Then either a P-C,(or other type of zoning which will result in city review of any modifications or replacement of the improvement) will be made. Councilman Carey said he primarily had in mind the R -3-P where we may want to preserve the R-1 exterior look even though' the use may be dif- ferent. If a use is incompatible with the neighborhood, then you look at amortization. If, for example, a retail building is being used for a muffler shop, the Planning Commission may determine that use is incom- patible with the surrounding area and they would then determine whether that improvement Ls capable of taking an alternate use, and if so, they amortize the use but retain the building and look at compatible alternate uses that. would be allowable. to the other hand, if it's an apartment building, it can only be used for apartments, and therefore the use and the building would be looked at to determine whether it is grossly out of place with the surrounding area. if it isn't, it should be allowed to continue. The Planning Commission should look at every individ al parcel -- those spots on the Planning Department's nap --and came back to us. The Council would then be able to deal with the land use map in just a broad brush sense tonight. Mayor Norton confirmed with Mr. Carey that none of this motion applies on vacant land. Councilman Sher asked, if the Planning Commission follows the procedure and comes back to Council with a recommendation, and if the Council does not accept it and changes it, does that have to go back to the Planning Commission under the 40 -day procedure. We're giving them a further di- rection to do something that they have not already done, and when it comes back o Council, we will be looking at it for the first time. In the second part of the motion regarding an improved building that does not lend itself to more than one use, it was suggested the Commission do two things, one of which related to,irhe lard use map and one of which related to zoning, and the zoning is not part of the Land use process. 291 9/21/76 Mr. Knox said this process would fit under "Iuap',ementation of the Plan Map" in one of two ways. One way would be to include this kind of language under "Implementation of the Plan Map" so that this process would not take place within the upcoming 40 -day referral period to the Planning Commission, but would take place within -some -longer period of time (which the Council could specify) after Ngopt<.on of the Plan. That would give the Planning Commission the time they would need to look at such things as amortization. The land use map probably needu's be changed in all cases, but assuming that there are some circumstances where the land use map would be changed, the staff and Co niasion would need at least six to twelve months to look at all those parcels and comp back with recommendations. Councilman Carey said that's a good point, it might be impossible to do this in 40 days, and if so, he assumed Council would adopt a land use map this year, and these would be changes in the land use map next year as part of the annual review procesi. Councilman Carey responded to Mr. Sher's question that parking lots are improved property. He responded to another question that if a building is capable of more than one use and the current use is compatible, the goal would be to confine the use to that which is compatible; that it, the change in land use designation should not result in allowing future uses which would be incompatible with the neighborhood. Mk. Knox said the motion would then be that (I) where improved proper- ties are not in conformarwat with the land use map, the Planning Commis- sion would review the properties over some specified period of time and make recommendations to the City Council applying two sets of standards: First, where the improvement is capable of more than one use and the cur- rent use is incompatible, that use will be amortized, and an amortization period will be established. If the use is compatible, then the use of that building would be donfined to either the present use or to another compatible use. Second, where the improvement is not capable of more than one use, it would be determined if the use is incompatible, and if so, the building and the use would be amortized. If the use is compatible, then the land use map would be changed to conform with the existing use. Any reference to a zoning procedure would be dropped from the motion. AMENDMENT &ESTAT D, Councilman Carey agreed to the revised wording as provided and summarized by Mr. Kaoz. Mr. Knot responded toea quiatf 'Wt t 3b rslShno'iirObede gith'doing.'this on a parcel -by -parcel approach. Such an approach would be in conformance with the overall policy and intent of the plan. Senior Asaatant City Attorney Norek-Tsketa said she didn't sea say parti- cular legal problem with the motion as stated, although as the Commission starts looking at particular properties, we may find some problesees. Councilman man Comstock said the motion seems to have several advantages both for us and for people who have expressed concern to ,u. beaer a number of weeks. It sets in process as orderly way of shoving people who ere concerned about specific prodirties to deal with those concerns. We then cocee to grips with the general thrust of the land use map and the Plan, the Commission goes through their 40eday process digesting and responding to how we have dealt with the overall plan. and following that, a process goes into motion which begtna to take up these kinds of coosiderstions and all the Commission, staff, neighborhoods and property owners to start dealing with these properties. Some may come forward sooner than others because individuals may have development plans or questions, but the process that operates is one that many pso;le have worked with, is understood and will allow everyone to proceed. There is a lot of informa- tion, knowledge and understanding the. Commission, staff, neighbors and property owners can bring to bean in those kinds of forums. There is no way all of us can anticipate on a lot -by -lot basis all the issues that are involved. There may be properties where the best thing is to put a P -C on it and this motion in no way forecloses that as one of a number of alternative solutions, Councilman Berwald asked if this motiol encompasses the one staff recom- mended in the September 20 memorandum? Mr. Knox said the Carey motion will allow unit deal withicbccmercial and office properties. It's going to be a tremendous job and require a lot of staff effort and a long period of time to look at all of the uses inconsistent with the plan map. If the Council adopted the motion staff recommended, that,would, in a way, blanket in the existing apartment buildings, and if you wanted to include the trailer court, you could do that, too. That would cut the number of ouch uses by more than half and would simplify the task of the Planning Commission and the staff. It would be desirable to have both the Carey motion and the motion in the memo. They would be compatible and both would be needed. Councilman Beahra said this motion puts the problem back on the track but he didn't see that the motion accommodates the problem of parcels where the plan map proposes a split between two uses. The integrity of these parcels should be preserved for economic viability. Councilman Carey agreed and said that at the proper time he planned to speak to that issue, namely, to the extent possible we ought to follow lot lines on our land use conclusions. That is another issue. He's trye ing to deal with the land use map in the broadest context to the greatest benefit to the city without getting deraiLed into wtarrjrirg about specific properties which may well result in a revised land use map. MOTION CARRIED: The motion carried or. a vote of 7 to 0 (Councilmembere Eyerly and Witherspoon absent). Councilman Berwald said he has consulted with staff on his proposed • motion and understands it would allow appropriate apartment houses to continue with selective future zoning or ordinance changes. It would also lead to a possible later ameudment to the plan map to change the trailer courts from multiple-faeaily, as now proposed, to singieefaemily. . That is the reason he has included trailer courts. AMENDMENT '1'0 THE MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Norton, Program 21 to generally allow existing apartment buildings and trailer courts to continue in single-family designated areas and to be replaced in the event of destruction. Mr. Knox auugested that be an added sentence under the definition of single-family residential on page 59 rather than as a separate housing program. That will allow dealing with it tonight since we're dealing with land use .end n:ot housing. Councilman Comstock said he sensed a little incompatibility between the philosophical thrust of this motion and the one just passed. The one passed had a certain number of conditions or caveats in it, It wasn't just a blanket. There were some criteria, involved. If we Shrink the map the way Mr. Knox talked about, we might say there are apartment houses that should roman and there are some a*t ihoutdd't, and we ought to allow some latitude for making ciseilar judgments for incompatSbility. • eV 2 9 3 9/21/76 Is there anything in the motion offered which would not allow this same sort of judgment process to operate, or something that wouldn't allow it to operate? Would Mr. Berwald be amenable to making distinctions in the motion? Councilman Berwald said yes; *would stipulate that )0dgment process as an understanding. He usedhthe word generally, and the explanatory text would include the various .:onditions in the Carey motion, particu- larly regarding apartment buildings that are not compatible or, for instance, those which are an eyesore. Those conditions are not excluded. Mr. Knox said the Carey motion speaks to all uses. By jasding this motion, Council would allow staff to look a little bit differently at the multiple -family apartment buildings that exist in single-family zones. That language implicitly allows that, and you would not have to duplicate that language, but stating „generally allow existing apart- ment building in single-family areas to continue" undertthe eingle- family residential designation allows the Planning Commission and staff to deal with this aver a period of time, toelook at zoning aspects, and to make a kind of selective review of the multi -family buildings. The language in the staff report says allow --not generally allow. Then you would be allowing multiple -family dwellings. The word generally gives the flexibility needed to be selective in determining which of these multiple -family buildings would be appropriate in the single-family areas, and which ones would not. Councilman Comstock said he's not satisfied with that answer. Some apartment buildings are as big an effront to the adjoining residential areas as are some commercial buildings to adjoining multiple -family areas. He understood the motion intended to convey the same sort of selection process referred to in Carey's motion. Councilman Berwald said that is his express intention, and he would suggest to staff that when they implement this direction they put words in the text which will allow existing apartment buildings and trailer courts that are not incompatible. Councilman Sher said the Planning Commission proposal for the trailer court cear El Camino is to zone that area multiple -family, so it would not be covered by this motion which takes about trailer courts and aingta-family, assuming that the land use map, as recommended by the Planning Commission, were adopted. That worries him a little. Further, a question wad raised by one apartment house property owner during the intermission about the warding of this language allowing the buildings to be replaced in the event of destruction. The question was, whet hap- pens if the building has served its useful life, and the property owner wants to construct another apartment building of the same type and di- mensions. Is that excluded? That question is not answered by the warding of the motion. Mt. Knox said he understands there is a desire to maintain the trailer court. If that is designated as multiple -family on the plan map --and it Ls now soned g-1 having come in through Barron Park annexation --and if the owners of the trailer court wish to build an apartmant.building, they can cosm to the City Council and request a multiple -family zoning based on an approved multiple -family tend use designation, wipe out the trailer court, and build en apartmtnt, building. One way to preserve the trailer court is to change the land use map to designate the trail- er court as single family and change the definition of single-family, as Mr. 3ervaald is suggesting, to allow existing trailer courts to re- main Lu single-family areas. Language could be reworded to whatever 294 9/21/76 Council's desire is in regard to apartment buildings in single-family zones. If the building is worn out and becomes obsolescent and should be replaced only by single-family if it's in a single-family area so es to gradually change a spotty area back to single-family, you could state that by saying that building; that are obsolescent or deteriorating may not be replaced. That would also have the effect of seeing that the property owners would maintain those buildings. If on the other hand, you want the opportunity to have those multiple -family dwellings replaced by multiple -family dwellings again in the future, you should leave the lan- guage as it stands. Councilman Berwald said the intent is to keel, the apartment houses in good condition and nom allow them to deteriorate. On the other hand, we'd like to see them revert to R--1 when they have served their useful- ness. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Norton, to request staff to come up with language in the text that apartment property be maintained and that improvements would be allowed through- put tee building's reasonable lifetime. Councilman Carey said in a sense it's a duplication of the motion just passed which includes apartments. Why a separate direction to the Plan- ning Commission? The criteria set up in his motion to determine whether or not the structure or the use was incompatible to the neighborhood should be equally applicable to apartments. Mrs. Steinberg .said she realizes it will be an additional workload for the Planning Department, but Mk. Carey's cation probably covers it, and the Planning Commission will be able to judge whether an apartment use is compatible with the neighborhood or not. MOTION FAILED: The motion failed on a vote of 3 to 4 (Councilmember°s Clay, Norton: and Berwald in favor; Sher, Carey, Beahra and Comstock op- posed; Eyerly sod Witherspoon absent). MOTION: Vice Mayor Clay moved, seconded by Beahrs, that any zoning be done such that zone designations generally follow property lines. That does under Implementation of the Plan Map. Vice Mayor Clay said he would include common ownership. For example, the Palo Alto Medical Research Foundation has both an Rat and R-4 sone through the same building. Ha said he is also thinking about the parcels of laud comprised of more than one lot. Consideration should be given to having the same sonedeeignation given to the total parcel of land, assuming it is under one ownership. Mayor Norton said there are situations where land is currently split between residential and commercial coning, and there's no reason to up - zone the entire parcel to commercial. He suggested addition of language to except lands previously in a more restrictive zone. Vice Mayor Clay said he didn't went to get into more specifics. Councilman Comstook said this motion is premature, and perhaps not re- quired. We can all think of specific properties where the map presents an apparent problem. Remember that the mop is not the atoning change, but an indication of an intent to plan. Zoning changes on these parcels will include review under the recently passed motion. When individual properties that are split by two land use designations come before the Commission sad Council, they can be dealt with on a case -by -case basis. If we give blanket direction, we will run into the problem of a forced cho ice . 295 9/21/76 Councilman deahrs said he was confident of the Planning Commission's wisdom to dispose of this problem, but they are entitled to an expres- sion of Council's policy preference. He's as concerned for the future as he is for existing situations. You can't do much planning for develop- ment or improvements by restricting people to splintered properties. Useful land areas have to be assembled before planning is going to im- prove El Camino, for example. We should indicate to the general public and the Planning COMMiasion that we ere favorably disposed to people • . accumulating useful areas of land so something can be done. Councilman Sher said the motion speaks to the zoning process. If the land use designation cuts through a property in one ownership, that should be ignored when it comes tine to putOng a zoning designation on it, according to this motion. The question hasn't been addressed as to whether it should be the Less intense or more intense zone. The motion doesn't speak to the problem of people acquiring property because if people start acquiring adjacent parcels in a different zone, they would have to come in for a zone change. Mayor Norton asked Mr. Clay if he would be willing to add "provided that such a policy will not result in a more intensive use than the exist- ing designation." Vice Mayor Clay repeated that he didn't want to get that specific. It is a policy statement that gives ge,'eral direction to the planning staff and the Planning Commission to avoid having to deal with a large nuMber of individual parcels on a parcel -by -parcel basis. Large parcels com- prised of more than one legal lot tend to give greater opportunity for effective planning irrespective of the land use designations that they may have now. The Norton amendment presupposes that there is a land use designation prior to the implementation of the land use tap. Mayor Norton asked if he's talking about present zoning. Vice Mayor Clay said his point is that present zoning may not be the zoning that ends up if the land use plan map is implemented. Mr. Knox said he has a problem with this motion if it doesn't say both land use and zoning designations, If you don't handle the land use now and you tell us that in the future zoning designations are to generally follow property lines and recd nize common ownership, then we're going to be faced with a situation in which the land use map may be adopted with the back part of a property designated multiple -family because iti. present zone is R-5 and the front part of the property is designated service. com- mercial because its present zone is C-3. If you want to correct that, it would be more appropriate to bay land use and zoning designations. ADDITION TO THE MOTION: Vice. Mayor Clay said he would accept the staff suggestion. The second concurred. Councilman Sher said it eeesa that on properties like that you ought to decide which way you went the designation to go --the front or the back parcel. Mayor Norton said he would vote against the motion, not because he dis- agrees with the spirit, but he didn't want to make more intensive uses than exist now. The motion might do that. MOTION FAILED: The motion failed 2 to 4 (Caunc i laireabe rs lefts and Clay in favor; Eerwald, Sher, Norton and Comstock opposed; Carey abstaining; and Eyerly and Witherspoon absent) . 296 9/21/76 AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION; Councilman Sher moved, seconded by Berwald, the addition of language in the section, Definition of Land Use and Roadway Categories, under the Multiple -family Residential, the last sentence of_the first paragraph, after "Densities will range from 10 to 45 units per acre", that"next to Single-family residential areas, the density should be on the lower end of the multiple -family scale consis- tent with adjacent single family residential use." Councilman Berwald asked if the motion would accept the same sort of language for neighborhood commercial, regional comanuni 4y commercial, ser- vice commercial, research office park, light industrial. In other words, intensification of uce should be reduced adjacent to residential without regard to whether the adjoining areas are multiple -family or industrial or commercial. Where light industrial is close to apartments, there should be some planting, screening, noise abatement, and avoiding of shadows over living areas, and so on. Mr. Knox said he saw no problems with that. It's appropriate for the land use element. That would mean that in establishing the zoning cate- gories that come later, the Planning Commission would be choosing lower density multiple -family zones to be placed adjacent to single family areas and they would be choosing lower density industrial zones to be placed adjacent to multiple -family areas, for example. Councilman Berwald said a very intense use ought to be placed as far away on the lot as possible if it's next to a residential zone. There ought to be a kited of interface or transitional screening and planting. It doesn't include an already existing use where someone builds a resi- dential area next door. There's not much you can do about that. Councilman Sher said that doesn't mean automatically changing the zone next to it. Next to a single-family residential, you might have multiple - family of 20 units per acre. On that parcel, you could keep the lowest density next to R-1 and move higher as you move away from the R-1 so the overall density on that parcel could still work out to be 20 units per acre. Councilman Carey said he has some trouble with "lower end of the scale" without distinguishing between R-1 and Lytton Garden for example. If you say densities will range from 10 to 43 units per acre, the exact density then shall be determined by and be compatible with the adjacent land uses, the goal being that the multiple -family residential land den- sity shall be usiad se a transitional zone from high intensity uses to low intensity uses,. Councilman Comstock said he hoped they don't stop at that ,tint because putting multi/At-family re* identlal between R-1 and commercial may be a lousy buffer if the multiple -family residential that abuts the R-1 is six stories. He understood the motion contemplates not only judicious use of zoning but a great deal of care in the use of heights and set- backs. Next to Lytton Gardens, we wouldn't want to put a five story commercial building with a blank cement wall for people to look at. He's assuming the motion contemplates and staff understands that we are talk- ing about a variety of techniques, not just density. MOTION CARRIED: The motion carried on a vote of 7 to 0 (Councilmeembers Ryerly and Witherspoon absent), Mayor Norton said some of Stanford's requests are rather specific. No. 1 is Stanford's request for a new category designation of Major Institution/' Multi -Family Residential, the retiomi a being to show that some lands have a unique character in that they are institutionally oriented and limited. x97 9/21/76 Frenchman's Terrace occupants woUldIe, in first priority, Stanford sta€fe secondly employees in the offices or plants located on leased Stanford land; and then -the general public. The partial purpose of the housing is institution -related. The land use is not ih the same category for example as that of Oak Creek Apartments where no sped fications on oca cupancies exist. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Councilmen Berwald moved, seconded by Norton, that the Frenchmen's Terrace area be designated Major Institution/Multiple- Family Residential. Mayor Norton replied to Councilman 5her's question that no Council action is being changed as it relates to the HUD grant application on French msn'a Terrace. Mr. Knox agreed with the Mayor that the P -C for a 225 unit development on Peter Coutts Hill with s certain proportion of low and moderate in- come housing and certain priorities for Stanford -affiliated people would not in any way change with this designation. MOTION CARRIED: The motion carried 7 to 0 (Councilmembers Eyerly and Witherspoon absent) . Councilman Berwald suggested that the plan text acknowledge that the designation is for development meeting the low/moderate housing objectives of thre prezoning. Page 3 of the staff letter of Septembers 13 says stlff doesn't object to the change but suggeetathat the plan text acknowledge the criteria that was used in the prezoning. Does the Council wish to change the text in context of action we have just taken? Mayor Norton said nothing in their, presentation suggests they want to emphasize that. There is no hint that in the area across Willow Road they are going to put in low/moderate income housing. Councilman Berwald said, since there are some questions about density for the adjacent area, he's not gotug to make that motion. He assumed Stan- ford would come back to make any changes from the prezoned approved plan. This would require public hearings and environmental impact analysis. ADDITION TO THE POTION: Councilman Berwald included Mr. Knox's sugges- tion to define Major Institution/Mul.tiple*Fsamaity Residential "Multiple family areas where the occupancy of the units is significantly or totally limited to individuals and/or families affiliated with the institution". MOTI( iC RIE➢: The motion carried 7 to 0 (Councilrsembers Eyerly and Witherspoon absent) . ANT TO THE MOTION CARRIED: Mayer Norton moved, seconded by Serwald, that Escondido Village be redesignated Major Institution/44,044 Facilities. The motion carried 7 to 0 (Councilmembers Eeerly and Witherspoon absent) . Mayor Horton said Stanford also requests that the Open Space designation be tedrevn to exclude the athletic facilities and to coincide with Area A of the county's "Lee" zoning policy. Mr. Knox said staff agrees with only part of the requested change. Stan- ford is proposing to shrink the Open Spar+ce...Controlled Development area so all that's left in open space conforms with the designation of Ara. A. This would change to Major Institution/Special Facilities` the urea °adjs- cent to Palm Drive between Arboretum aa4 awpus Drive. From the staff view, that should remain arboretum sun space. The City Attorney feel 298 9/21/76 that since the southerly portion of the proposed change is basically stadium and athletic facilities, it would be appropriate to designate those as Major lnstitution/Speciel Facilities, but that if we venture further northward and take the area from Galvez to Quarry Road and from Arboretum to Campus Drive and take that forested area which includes the mausoleum and designate that as Major Institution/Special Facilities, and not as Open Space...Controlled Development, then we are perhaps venturing too far into a change of the Open Space Element. Our advice is to com- promise here and change the athletic facilities area which is described on page 4 of the September 13th staff memo, Vic6, Mayor Clay requested for clarity that the motion parts be voted on separately --the Stanford section and the staff recommendation. Mayer Norton agreed to vote for the staff's recommendation first. If that fails, we will vote on the other. MOTION CARRIED: Mayor Floc ton moved, seconded by Beshrs, to move the staff recommendation to change from Open Space....Controlled Development to Major Institution/Special Facilities, the area adjacent to Galvez Street and Campus Drive including the Stadium, Maple's Pavilion, DeGuerre pools and other athletic facilities, while retaining the Arboretum area west of Calves in the Open Space...Controlled Development category*. They motion carried on a vote of 4 to 2 (Cour,cilmembera Carey, Norton, Comstock and Berwatd in favor; Beahrs and Clay opposed; Sher not parti- cipating; and Fyerly and Witherspoon absent). During discussion, Mr. Knox pointed out that the definition of Major Institution/Multiple Family Residential did not carry any density with it the way that designation does on page 59. You could instruct us to put the Major Institution/Multiple-Family Residential category under Multiple -Family Residential in the text on page 59. )TI( DIED: Councilman Berwald moved the staff statement. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION CARRIED: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Norton, the September 2nd staff report suggestion that on page 59, the definition of School District Lands be revised to read "properties owned or leased by or to public school districts and used for educ ed, recreational, or other non-commercial, non -industrial purposes." The motion carried on a vote of 7 to 0 (Cot cilm tubers Eyerly and Witherspoon absent) . Councilmen Lierwa1d asked staff to cent on the difference between Major Institution/Open Space and Open Space (Controlled Development. That re- lates to Stanford's request No. 17. Mr. Knox said the staff memorandum said that Stanford`s items No. 1, 7, 8, 9, l0, Ii, 12, 14, 16 and 17 all related to and would revise the Open Space Element and,, with the sole exception of item No. 1, we strongly recommend that those changes not be approved.. Council has now dealt with No. I. Councilman 9.rvatd said it seems to him ft merely recognizes that a pri- vats nom -profit educational institution controls that open spade, and it seems to be even more strict in some ways then.the present designation which is controlled development. Mr. KOOK said Mac. Augsburg''. may have misspoken tonight when he said they were proposing the category of Major Institution/Open Space for Ares 10, which extends as far as Araa tradero Road. In their August 31st letter, Stanford applied that t�9s,or Institution/fin Space category only 299 9/21/76 eo Area 17. Other areas, including No. 10, they called Major Institution/ Special Facilities which would give them all of the flexibility from the land use designation standpoint that they have on the main academic; campus. The effect of adopting the request Stanford is making would be to take this large area west of Juniper° Serra Boulevard in the foothills and say that,ae far :as this City Council is concerned, Stanford can develop that in the same way they developed the min camps. That's different from the City Council's present policy in the Open Space Element which says that everything west of Juniper° Serra Boulevard is Open Spacer. Controlled Development on which eo a uses are allowed provided that the major open space characteristics and amenities are retained. It's for that reason staff strongly recommends against changing that, Councilman Berweld said the new category on Item 17 of Stanford's memoran- dum doesn't change it in that way. it changes it to Major Institution/ Open Space. It recognises the fact that Stanford is voluntarily keeping that under open space and there's no plans to develop. Mr. Knox said he saw no problem with adding in half of Area No. 1 which the Council just approved and Area 17 and calling them, Major' Institistisn/ Open Space instead of Open Space: -.-Controlled Development. Staff's ob- jection is with changing the designation in the foothills from Open Space:.. Controlled Development to Major Institution/Special Facilities. MOTION: Councilman Be:rwald moved, seconded by Clay, to add s new category Major institution/Open Space, to be applied in Area 17 as requested in the Stanford letter, and half of No. 1 that was approved. Mr. Knox said staff would have to work out the definition based on com- ments just made plus the comments on page 6 of the Stanford memo which relate to "certain land use restrictions, preserves open space along El Camino frontage, and preserves the area's identity as academic land". Councilman Cstnatock said he failed to see the distinction between that and, for. example, Stanford's Area 3.0. All that land is owned by Stanford and very little of it is within the political jurisdiction of Palo Alto. We're saying that "were" it in Palo Alto's jurisdiction, there are cer- tain classifications we would want to establish. That is the distinction we're making with a separate definition here as opposed to lands on the other side of Juniper° Serra? Mr. Knox said Ltanford haas'indicattd that area near Et Camino will be a combination of institutional facilities and open space. West of Juniiper° Serra, Stanford was proposing to call it all Major Institution/Special Pacilitiea. As far as city control, the Comprehensive Plan introductory page 2 says "Adoption of this plan by City Council will not necessarily commit Santa Clara County to use the policies and prograaras in the unin- corporated areas. However, the city will use the plan as a basis for reviewing projects in the unincorporated ares". Santa Clare County will be revising their general plan and will be looking at our plan to bring theirs into coo lorrmsmcs. They will also be revising their coning. So what is adopted with respect to Stanford, even though it's outside the cite limits, will have au impact upon what the cows adopts for Stanford. Councilman Beaters said he is inclined to agree that the arguments in respect to Ares A should extend to the lends westerly of JuMper° Serra. Mayor Norton said, for the same reason, he is inclined to leave the area alone. Councilmen Sher said he will not particlpstb tbecauae he was advised not to participate on No. 1, which is incorporated in part hero. 300 9/21/76 MOTION FAILED: The motion failed 3 to 3 (Councilmembers Beahrs, ;lay and Berwald in favor; Carey, Norton and Comstock opposed; Sher not participating; and Eyerly and Witherspoon absent). Councilman Berwald said Stanford's request No. 3 proposes a change in designation of the Row student housing areas from $ ing le Family Resi- dential to Major Institution/Special Facilities since the area contains 15 buildings housing 40 to 50 students each, a structure containing aca- demic offices, two duplexes housing faculty, and only four single family residences. MOTION CARRIED: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Clay, to change "The Row" from Single Family to Major Institution/Sp#Waal Facilities. The motion carried 7 to 0 (Couocilaas bees Eyerly and Witherspoon absent) . MOTION CARRIED: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded •ly Clay, Stanford's item 4 to change the faculty/staff housing portion of campus from Single - Family to Major Institution/Single-Family Residential. The motion car- ried on a vote of 7 to 0 (Councilmemlers Eyerly and Witherspoon absent). MOTION CARRIED: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Beahrs, Stanford's item 13 which is that the Searavi.11e block occupied by faculty/staff housing have its land use designation changed from Major Institution! Special Facilities to Major Institution/Single Family -Residential. The motion carried on a vote of 7 to 0 (Councilmembers Eyerly and Wither- spoon absent) . Councilman Berwald said Stanford's item 6 to the single-family resi- dential zoned land lease to the county for Bol Park expansion. Stanford wants to preserve the residential designation. Is that one that staff suggests we do not change? Mr. Knox said that is correct. Mr. England talked about that earlier. That is shown as a strip of park on the present land use map. It's an extension of Bat Park all the way from the Varien property to the Ares- tradero/Foothill intersection. MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Clay, his earlier motion that Stanford's item 15 (Willow Road parcel) be changed from Multiple - Family Residential to Major Institution/Multiple-Family Residential. Stanford ceya they're going to develop that chiefly for student, faculty and staff housing. Mayor Norton said this is the first time he's heard that piece of pro- perty was going to be committed to this particular type of housing. Mrs. Steinberg said when the Commission was looking at this, it was not their understanding that the was was going to be reserved entirely for Stanford. Councilman Sher said he would not participate because if this develop- ment should go forward it would involve a lot of money for his employer. Councilman Comstock said the other changes we have :talked about were item* that Council had taken some action on and where the Council had jurisdictioeL The Planning Commission performed its function by indi- cating the nature of development that we ought to plan for and the in- tensity of it. We're being asked to prejudge another batch of complex issues which isn't appropriates. MOTION FAILED: The motion failed 3to 3 (Councils/embers Reeahrs, Clay 301 9/21/76 and Berwald in favor; Carey, Norton and Comstock opposed; Sher not participating; and Eyerly and Witherspoon absent). Mayor Norton returned to the motion before them to approve the Land Use Section of the Comprehensive Plan together with the Land Use mep as modified. Councilman Carey requested the City Clerk to show his non -participation with respect to the El Camino portion of the Land.Tine map. The article in the Palo Alto Times tonight omits several pertinent facts which might lead one to the ccnclusion that debate and discussion on his pert had occurred in previous meetings without consultation or the City Attorney's office or any ruling on whether or not there was conflict. Such is not the case, The City Attorney's office was fully informed throughout the entire debate on the Comprahenaive Plan of any cosiflicts he thought he had --even remotely. They were told several weeks ago that he owned no property on El Camino, the firm owns no property on El Camino, they repre- sent only two land ownees on El Camino who are attempting to sell pro- perty (one is the forme ly proposed Midad Muffler site and the other is property opposite Los Altos Avenue commonly known as the Ceaano property) . Those two contracts were disclosed to the City Attorney's office several weeks ago; and their ruling W33 that:, with respect to any specific land use decisions on those properties, Mr. Carey should abstain.; with respect to any question of a moratorium on El Camino he should abstain; and with respect to any vote on the band use map having to do with overall land use planning bn El Camino, there Wires no conflict. A vote on something other than the entire El Camino land use map would have to be handled on an ad hoc bash. Senior Assistant City Attorney Norek-Taketa confirmed Mr. Careya's state- ment. Councilman Carey said the statement in the Palo Alto Times that the State Fair Political Practices Commission has been caked to rule on this mat- ter didn't go far enough because it didn't give the results of that ruling. The City Attorney's conclusion and the State Commission's ruling agreed that Mr. Carey has no conflict in voting on the entire land use map as it reletea to El Camino because the motion before the Council re- lates to the general overall land use plan of El Camino and not to the specific properties. Also disclosed to the attorney and to the press was the fact thet there ham been offers to purchase the property opposite Los Altos Avenue, However, because of the omission in the Times article, Mac. Carey said he will abstain from any vote on the EL Camino strip, des- pite the rulings to the contrary. That is because he did not want to vote or take any action which could be in any way misinterpreted as having some preconceived bias or conflict,, however remote. Vice Mayor Clay asked what it means if Council approves the land use map before them with the specific parcels as shown, Mr. Knox said if the Council.do+esn't accept any particular parcels, those concerns should be raised tonight. You set adopting the Land use plan es it, was forwarded to you by the Planning Commission plus the changes made on the Stanford portion tonight with the enderetanding thee, after the Plan has been adopted by the Planning Cometssion,; the planning staff will look at improved parcels that would otherwise be- coeoea nonconforming, and we would, according to the Carey motion, find out in all zones whither the use was compatible or hot and whether the building was compatible or. not. After the Plan is adopted, the land use plan map would be adopted. In order for the Council to adopt any- thing different from what has been proposed b ' the Planning Comaefssion, pox 9/2*/7s they must change the map and send it back to the Planning Commission for their report within 40 days. In other words, if the Council adopts this map, sends it back to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commis- sion doesn't like those changes, the Council can still adopt what they sent back to them tonight, but the Council can't, after the. 40 day"aeview period, say there are a couple of more things they would like to change. If Council does that at that time, and they can do it, they then have to send it back to the Planning Commission for a second time. Vice Mayor Clay said that is the dilemma he discussed earlier when he stated his reservation* with regard to having zoning lines run through either single parcels or those parcels of land in common ownership. Some- one maid it was premature to enter into such discussions at this time, and he's now hear.in, that if the Council doesn't do it, they don't have anoth- er opportunity. Along the El Camino strip, he has serious reservations about the use of more than one zoning on commonly owned parcels of land. We haven't explored the moat effective use of some of the larger parcels. More flexibility is needed at this point. Mr. Clay said he'd vote against the land use map even though generally in favor of it. We are being too rigid in adopting it as he now understands it. Councilman Beahrs said he's taken aback, too, because he understood from all the discussions and motions that there would be a revision of these split situations involving common ownership of a given parcel, particular- ly in the El Camino area. He couldn't buy this unless that is done. He didn't know how to accomplish it. There has already been too much splinter- ing on El Camino as it is, and that's one reason it is almost in a state of collapse. We have to have development on larger land areas. Two-bit 1890 lots are causing the trouble, and here we are nailing ourselves with the whole program. Mr. Knox said a motion still on the floor that is to be token up after the land use element deals with the El Camino study. It would be possible, after the conclusion of that study, however long it might take, to come back and make a revision to the plan. The study would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, sod the Planning Commission's recommendations would have to be taken into account, but there are ways, once a plan has bF adopted, of making amendments in view of changed conditioner. `here's no reason why it can't be amended more than once a year if it's at the conclusion of a new study which brings new information. Mayor Norton confirmed with Mr. Knox that the revised text would be coming back to the City Council before it is sent to the Planning Commission. Mow bong would that take? Mr. Knox said the Council will probably, at their September 27th meeting, wrap up the items and eteff could run text revisions through the editor of the original document and have it all back to the Council the last week or two in October. Councilman Comstock said if the map is adopted now we haven't answered the concerns about split properties, but there will be plenty of opportunities for these to be thrashed out. Mx. Carey's motion set the framework for that to happen. The alternatives are rather stark. Let's vote for this motion and retain the right to disagree on a parcel -by -parcel basis as these issues arise. If the El Camino question fails, we don't have the map and we don't really have a plan, and we will have to have another go at it and be held up. Councilman .eahrs said what you say doesn't work because we cannot some except in accordance with the mop. �yf 303 9/21176 Councilman Sher said it seems if the El Camino portion doesn't pass and there is a vacuum, maybe it is better to try to deal with the specific questions so that we can adopt a land use map which is a Comprehensive Plan for the whole city. There's been a lot of confusion between zoning and land use designations which split a parcel in common ownership. There is always the possibility of changing the land use designation to match whatever zoning is ultimately decided. It" hae''been pointed out again and again that this document is subject to review and the Code re- quires that it be reviewed periodically. The important thing is to tote the first step and show the general direction end get a land use map with- out any holes in it. Councilman Bey:wald said he's not happy with all of the designations on the land use map, particularly in the El Camino area, but he assumes that af- ter the design study there will be some adjustments that might cake every- body happy. For that reason and because this Plan to not cast in concrete, he would vote for the motion. Councilman Carey asked if the map colors are intended to be a precise depth or to simply give a general concept of frontgge use for some in- definable depth. 1r. Knox said it was intended to be specific. In the lower left corner of the map is a statement that this map generally illustrates the land use proposed by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The specific locations of boundaries between proposed uses are shown on the map with a scale of 1 inch to 500 feet in the Palo Alto Planning Department. That large map is posted on the wall of the Council Chambers, and that is the official land use plan map. You are adopting that large map which is parcel. - specific. In discussions with our consultant and the Planning Commission, staff had the choice of doing a 1463 type plan which was general and had curvilinear blobs of colors on the map: That gets you into trouble in two ways. Each person's definition of where the line ends is different. Secondly, although Palo Alto is a charter city and not necessarily ob- ligated to have zoning conform 100% to our land use plan, there is a lot of case law developing that indicates the wisdom of having the Comprehen- sive Ulan and the zoning map in very close synchronization. So we have elected to, in this process, make the land use plan very specific. In response to Councilman Carry's questions, Mr. Knox said that in most cases the map runs with the lot lines. On the El Camino area, there are some cases where the decision was made not to run with lot lines because of existing sutiations. There are city parcels and Stanford designations which may not run on the lot lines as well. Councilman Carey said the plan does follow lot lines on El Camino with a couple of obvious exceptions, so the only problem then is where a shallow parcel has another parcel behind it and maybe it ought to be deeper or wider. But if thatsituation exists and the property is improved and the use does not conform to the land use map, then our out is based on a specific case review. So therefore we are simply reduced down to total- ly unimproved property. Looking at it in the broad context, that is a pretty minimal problem. T e couple of exceptions we are probably going to be looking at in a year anvay. Vice Mayor Clay said he is prepared to take another 2 or 3 months to get a Plan that makes sense. As far as the rest of Palo Alto, excluding El Casino, he bai no problems with that. If we send this map to the Planning Commission as shown, they twill begin to dsatinete..that brown multiple - family residential sone; there isn't anything else they can do. He said he's going to vote against the El Camino portion. 304 9/21/76 Councilman Beahrs suggested the whole thing be sent back to the Plan- ning Commission to correct those particular uses that are creating the problem and bring it back to the Council in revised form in a week or two. Councilman Berwald asked if there will be any zoning along El Camino prior to the completion of the design study. Mx. Knox concurred with Mayor Norton's recollection that there would be none except vhet's allowed in the moratorium if it passes, which would be P.C. Councilman ferwald said that would resolve one of Mr. Clay's questions. Regarding his concern about zoning changing in the middle of the lot, could that be resolved by adopting a:;policy that any property where zoning bisects the property would be zoned P -C in the plant Mr. Knox said that is a possibility. In talking about the Traynor par- cel on Charleston and El Camino, staff was concerned that the parcel was being split into commercial and residential land use categories. If he recalled Planning Commissioner Brenner's comment correctly, it was to give en indication that a mined commercial -residential use was desired which would lead toward a Planned,COmmbnity z,7'r!e accommodating those two. What is proposed may have been in the mind of one or more of the Planning Commissioners. Our present zoning doesn't allow an empty P -C that would not have a:y designation. Our P -C requires a specific develop - meat plan. Many of the El Camino splits presently exist and nothing is going to change immediately, especially if a study and a moratorium is involved. MOTION CARRIED; Mayor Norton asked for a vote on the first part of the motion with respect to approving the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Section 8 text as modified as it relates to El Camino only. The motion carried 4 to 2 to 1 (Councilmembers Sher, Norton, Comstock and Berwald in favor; Beahrs and Clay opposed; Carey abstaining; end Eyerly and Witherspoon absent) . MOTION CARRIED: The notion to approve the Co preheneive Plan Land Use Map and Section 8 text as modified for the rest of Palo Alto carried 7 to 0 (Councilmembers Eyerly end Witherspoon absent). MOTION: Mayor Norton sued, seconded by Comstock, to direct staff to re- vise the text of the Plan as may be necessary to reflect the actions taken by the Council in ascending the policies and program, and also to change the tone of the Plan to more positively reflect the contributions made by the commercial and industrial sectors of the comity. In so modifying the text, staff would be expected to take into account both the written and oral remarks made by individual members of the Council during these deliberations. Staff would then circulate a draft of any revisions to individual Councilmembers; Councilmerabere would take three or four days to aubiait reactions back to the staff; and staff would then prepare a second revised draft text to be reviewed by the Council at an appropriate Council meeting. All of this would be accomplished within a one or two week period. Councilman Sher said "more positively reflect the contributions wade by the commercial sad business comity" suggests it is anti -business. Will Mrs. Steinberg say if she regards the Plan as an anti -business document. Mrs Steinberg said it was not into &ed to be an anti -business document. The Commission tried to deal with the impacts of employment. These 305 9/21/76 impacts were reflected in the policies proposed for transportation and employment and also in the effect that increased employment has on housing and on the parts of the Plan. That is what we intended, and that is what the language reflects. It tries to mitigate some of the impacts of increased employment in the city. 1 Councilman Beahrs said the Plan is excellent and fair excepting for the fact that is is minimal as far as the economic impact is concerned. There seems to be no consideration of that, and this is a matter of con- cern. Mrs. Steinberg said all along the Commission asked for cost benefits on all programs talked about and has been informed that it would be im- possible for us to have cost benefits because the cost to the city would be too great to request the staff or consultants for that work. Mayor Norton offered the motion without reference to the words "to more positively relec.t the contributions made by the commercial and indus- trial sectors". AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION FAILED: Councilman Sher moved, seconded by Comstock, the language with the above phrase deleted. The motion failed on a vote of 2 to 5 (Councilmembers Sher and Comstock in favor; Beahrs, Berwaid, Carey, Clay, Norton opposed; and Eyerly and Witherspoon absent). ORIGINAL MOTION PASSED: The original motion carried on a vote of S to 1 (Councilmembers Beahrs, Berwald, Carey, Clay and Norton in favor; Comstock opposed; Sher abstaining; and Eyerly and Witherspoon absent) . ADJOURNMENT MOTION CARRIED: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Norton, to adjourn to a meeting at 7:30 P.M., Monday, September 27, 1976. The motion carried on a vote of S to 2 (Councilmembers Seahrs and Berwald opposed; and Eyerly and Witherspoon absent). The meeting adjourned at 1:00 A.M. APPROVE: ATTEST: Mayor 3 0 6 9/21/76