HomeMy WebLinkAbout030419741
CITY
COUNCIL
MINUTES
March 4, 1974
The City Counci/ of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 7:30 p.m.
in a regular meeting with Vice Mayor Pearson presiding.
Present: Berwald, Clay, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum,
Sher
Absent: Beahrs, Comstock
Minutes of February 11 1974
Councilman Henderson referred to page 144, fourth paragraph from the
bottom, sixth line, and requested that the words "because of the prox-
imity of" be added after the words "elderly people." He then referred
to page 158, sixth paragraph, first sentence, and requested that the
word "were" be deleted and the word "was" be inserted.
Councilman Sher referred to page 167, the ia::t paragraph before the vote,
and requested that the words "against this motion" be corrected to read
"abstain on this motion."
MOTION: Vice Mayor Pearson roved, seconded by Henderson, that the minutes
of Fehruary 11 be approved as corrected.
The motion passed on a unanimous vote.
Proposed Sign Ordinance Revision (CMR:197:4)
Councilman Sher spoke for the Policy and Procedures Committee. He stated
that the background of this matter is reviewed in the staff report of
2/28/74, and the consideration of signs in the committee was the outgrowth
of a recommendation that Council received from the Architectural Review
Board relating to roof signs and to the general question of reduction of
size of signs in Palo Alto. At the meeting of 10/5/73, Council acted on
the roof sign matter and amended the sign ordinance to prohibit roof
signs, but referred to committee the question of how long existing roof
signs should be permitted and what the amortization period should be.
The question of reduction in size of signs in the city was also referred
to the committee, He stated that the staff report is an excellent analy-
sis of the background of what happened in the committee and also the op-
tions that are open to Council. Preaent at the committee meeting was
only orte individual who was connected with the sign industry, Mr. Carl
Heyhann, director of communications for the California Electric Sign See p. 315
Association, and members of the committee did hear from his regarding
industry's point of view on some of the matters being considered.
Unfortunately,- there were not present at the committee meeting any sign
owners or representatives of the local business community whn would be
2 1 3
3/4/74
concerned with these changes in the sign ordinance; therefore, several
committee members felt that any proposals made that night should be
publicized and made known to the members of the business community so
they could comment on theca. Subsequently Council has received communi-
cations from several businesses end from the Chamber of Commerce, some
of which suggest a delay while this question is further considered by
the business community in consultation with staff.
MOTION: Councilman Sher, in behalf of the Policy and Procedures Com-
mittee, moved approval of the recommendations as follows:
1. That amortization of existing prohibited roof signs should
be in accordance with the existing provisions of the sign
ordinance (which permits a five-year amortization period
dating from last November).
2. That the permissible limits of signs in the ordinance be
reduced by one third, and sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the
ordinance be adopted.
3. That Council request the City Attorney's office to draft
language to correct that se'tion of the code with regard
to existing signs to state that the replacement of a sign
face with a new message will be considered a new sign and
must be conforming.
4. That there be an amortization period of ten years for exist-
ing signs made nonconforming.
Councilman Sher stated that during the discussion, the four items would
be considered separately and suggested that staff now make their comments.
Director of Planning Knox introduced Mr. Philip Vogt representing the
Architectural Review Board, which board was one of the prime movers in
bringing to the Policy and Procedures Committee and Council a request
for modifications in the sign ordinance. He explained the Architectural
Review Board has been in operation since aboutthe first of last July,
and roughly half of all applications that cane to the Review Board were
for signs, and from the board's vantage point, they could see that sign
problems had arisen which related primarily to size. They were quite
capable of dealing with problems concerning color, location, or design
of signs but needed some additional implementing tools when it came to
sign size. The staff report recommends five alternatives on page h
amounting to a combination of the four separate actions which Councilman
Sher presented. Mr. Knox said each action Councilman Sher described
would take a different number of votes for passage. Item B on page 2,
which is the passing of sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of he draft ordinance,
would require five votes. The other three items which are directions
to staff would require a simple majority of those present. He said that
the five alternatives summarized on page 6 were various combinations of
the four separate parts which Councilman Sher presented.
Mr. Knox added that there were two items not in the staff report which
he wanted to bring to Council's attention. One is that staff felt they
were derelict in not telling Council how many roof signs there are, and
the estimate is two hundred. These signs were made kionconforming and
are no longer allowed in accordance with the action that was taken last
214
3/4/74
year, and the remaining action recommended with regard to roof signs is
to advise staff to send notices to owners of roof signs so they will know
of their nonconformity and will be able to plan for their removal. The
second item not in the staff report is that signs in P -C zones are not
affected, since in a planned community zone the size is set by the
Planning Commission and approved by the Council. Finally, Mr. Knox Granted
to make clear that the size of existing signs is not being reduced but
the allowable maximum size as set forth in tables in the sign ordinance.
Because the allowable maximum size will be reduced, some: signs would be-
come nonconforming if the one-third reduction went through, and some
would not.
Loin Atchison, Associate Planner, assisted Mr. Knox in presenting a slide
show dealing with sign problems. Mr. Knox said the slides being shown
had been shown to the Policy and Procedures Committee in a brieferver-
sion and also to the Chamber of Commerce at a meeting held at the Chamber's
request. Mr. Knox commented on the slides shown indicating those which
were attractive or garish, and those which might now be considered non-
conforming. He indicated the Union Bank as an image of what Palo Alto
might look like, especially in the downtown area as beautification goes
into its first phase, its being a handsome building with a small and
handsome sign. Downtown Palo Alto, Inc, had prepared a set of guide-
lines, and he read a few pages from their booklet which dealt with sighs.
One of the recommendations of this booklet is that signs be pe,?p14 oriented
at the pedestrian level and that they be small. A further recommendation
was signs should not clutter a building's facade, and external lighting
was stated to be a good thing.
Mr. Knox showed a slide of Stevens Creek Boulevard indicating his hope
that El Camino would not become like that street. Some slides were
shown of signs or. El Camino which would become nonconforming and some
which would continue to be allowable. Mr, Knox commented that one obvious;
conclusion is that you do not have to have a large sign to run a success-
ful restaurant or other business. He pointed out that the formula for
a wall sign is different from the formula for a free-standing sign.
Examples of signs were shown which were small and elegant, and examples
of signs were shown which would be nonconforming, either because they
were roof signs or because they were oversized.
Mr. Knox pointed out that staff tried to select slides that would give
an honest overview of the situation in downtown Palo Alto and El Camino
Real, particularly with regard to the one-third reduction. Secondly,
some of the letters that have come in from the business community sug-
gested staff perform necessary field work and research to ascertain the
scope of the problem of nonconformity and to advise all affected sign
owners prior to any action, all of which should be accomplished in a
ninety -day period during which time this matter would be set over for
Council consideration later. The Policy and Procedures recommendation
was to reduce allowable sign size, but it provided for a ten -yeah
amortization period during which time the Building Inspection Department
would check out each and every sign, measure it, and advise the owner
whether or not it conforms. Staff feels that the kind of week involved
for four thousand signs could be stretched out easily over the ten-year
period and that many signs would be taken care of by an attrition pro-
cess where a business changed or there was a change in sign face. If
the business community's recommendations were accepted for staff to do
2 1 5
3/4/74
this work during the ninety -day period, staff would have to telescope in
that short amount of time what would normally be accomplished in three
or four years, and this would aggravate the staff load. He concluded
this would be a fantastically impossible job unless a team of people
were hired specifically to do the work.
Mr. Knox said that if the ninety -day delay is voted, he would hope it
would be made clear to staff what would be required of them during that
period. He indicated his willingness to meet with the Chamber of Com-
merce and any other business groups. If Council feels some research
should be undertaken during the ninety -day period to determine the
extent of the nonconformity problem, then staff would hope that the
business community would volunteer their services to provide needed
information individually or in teams. Staff believes no further research
is needed. Mr. Knox summarized that there are approximately four thou-
sand signs; the nonconformity problem would apply to fifty to seventy-
five percent of those signs, which means two to three thousand would be
nonconforming or one to two thousand would remain conforming. The owners
of two to three thousand signs would face a ten-year amortization period,
and staff believes that one half or more of those signs would not see
the final years of the amortization period but would be replaced during
some remodeling of the place of business.
See p. 316
Councilman Sher said he understood from the slide presentation that the
i Stop sign was, nonconforming because of the art work; yet the Baby News
facade was considered conforming. He questioned the difference.
Mr. Knox said the difference was subtle. The mural in the case of Baby
',dews could stand by itself without the sign, but in the case of F Stop,
the facade is all painted and dune in the sane medium, style, and
colors, with the result that it appears to be one sign. This is a matter
of judgment, and the building official who is responsible for making
that jtdgment states that the F Stop sign was a oonconfon ing one,
because its entire face was considered to be a sign. In terms of what
is happening around the country with signs, there is a unanimity of
opinion among architectural review boards that a facade such as the F
Stop is considered one sign. Mr. Knox said he would have difficulty in
determining whether the mural at Baby News is or is not a sign.
Councilman Clay said in any case it would be difficult to do anything
about the mural on the front of the Baby News Store. He asked if any
data had been gathered en the number of nonconforming signs such as a
twenty- or twenty-five percent reduction.
Mr. Knox said no data had been gathered, and staff depended on the
building official who processes permits for an estimate of the number
of signs which might be nonconforming. He explained that in terms of
the size of the signs now, there are a number of signs which, although
they are not built to the maximum allowable, would become nonconforming.
If the percentage reduction were reduced to twenty or twenty-five
percent, there is no question that fewer signs would be made nonconforming.
Couneilran Clay referred to two slides, one showing a bank and one
showing a drive-in restaurant, which are two radically different types
of business in nature, the banking business being largely a scheduled
one, and the restaurant being for the most part a drop -in type, He
216
3/4/74
questioned if any consideration had been given in the ordinance for
different types of businesses, assuming that one type of business might
need or desire one kind of advertising and some other business another
kind of advertising.
Mr. Knox replied that at the meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, an
interesting recommendation was made that perhaps there are differences
between El Camino and downtown from the standpoint that El Camino
businesses were trying to attract a driver out/of a car, whereas the
downtown people were attracting pedestrians: This means a difference
in scale, and it was suggested that it �y be possible for El Camino
to have larger signs than would be acceptable in downtown Palo Alto.
Mr. Knox felt hat if large sign sizes were allowed, the businesses that
do not vie for drive-in traffic would also have to put up large signs
just to be visible, The problem is that once several very large signs
are put up at the roadway, even conservative banks feel they must do
the same which would eventually lead to a Stevens Creek Boulevard kind
of result.
Councilman Clay said he was thinking that the ordinance could provide
for the design or size of a sign depending upon the business operation.
Councilman Berwald asked in =view of the fact that the Policy and Pro-
cedures Coc ittee meeting took place on January 29, and the letter
went out to the business community on February 4, if staff felt that
were a fair and equitable procedure for the city to follow in recom-
mending changes in ordinances affecting so many people, who apparently
were not able to voice their opinion at the committee meeting.
Mr. Ka3x replied that he felt the procedure was fair. The members of
the Policy and Procedures Committee brought to the staff's attention
the need to advertise a matter of this sort that members of the commun-
ity could be present at the Council meeting. He pointed out that this
item was not a new one, having been acted upon by the Council. It
was publicized in the newspaper as a result of Council action, anc the
meeting of the. Policy and Procedures Committee with regard to this
matter was also carried in the newspaper. Staff promptly sent a letter
after admonition by the Policy and Procedures Committee to each of the
affected business groups, and then received an immediate reply from
the Chamber of Commerce and subsequently met with them.
Councilman Berwald stated he felt strongly about this matter long before
he saw the Chamber of Commerce letter and the other communications. The
minutes indicate that when Councilman Beahrs asked staff what the
rationale was for the one-third reduction, the response was made that
it was rather arbitrary. He wanted to say respectfully but firmly to
the staff that he felt this was an improper procedure, was inadequate,
and did not follow the procedure that Council uses in almost every other
activity. When there is a project on child tare, there is a task force;
when we have a project on Webster !louse, there is a Webster House
Committee, etc., but when there is a protect which affects several
hundred businesses in downtown, there is no task force. He said that
he had made these kinds of comments before to staff, and this matter
was not ignored in the Policy and Procedures Committee, since Council-
man Sher made similar comments and was surprised about the small
number of business people in attendance. Councilman Berwald continued
2 1 7
3/4/74
that he would like to see a very tough sign ordinance, but an equitable
one. In his letter regarding the sign ordinance, Councilman Berwald
stated that this sort of action on the part of Council should take a
completely different tack than that taken so far, and it should include
a committee such as was done in Lafayette very successfully. He had
made the suggestion that there be a task force composed of business
people, residents, and a cross section of the community.
Councilman Rosenbaum said he understood that in the minutes of the com-
mittee, Mr. Knox mentions that the sign ordinance needed to be revised
and would take a lot of staff effort and suggested that this was per-
haps an interim plan. He wanted to know what staff had .in mind.
Mr. Knox replied that he was thinking particularly about the remarks
wade by Mr. Berwald a few minutes ago.- Staff was advised by several
members of Council, and there may be some direction from Council to
staff, asking that staff look into the sign ordinance. This is some-
thing that would require a good deal of time and should be done quite
thoroughly. There are some loopholes in the sign ordinance and some
problems that have been brought to staff's attention by the Architectural
Review Board. The loopholes can be plugged without a great deal of diffi-
culty without spending a lot of money, and witho;'t revising the entire
sign ordinance. Revising the entire ordinance would take some time and
effort. the Architectural Review Board was the genesis of this recom-
mendation and was the group that felt something had to be done early in
order to assist then: in the objectives that were set forward for that
review hoard. Council has already taken two steps to assist the in
great measure. One was giving theta the discretion of disallowing one
sign where a combination of signs was allowed, and the other was raking
it illegal to have roof signs. They actually did not request the roof
sign item, but that came up during Council discussion. One of their
requests was disallowing one kind of sign, and the other request was
to reduce all sign sizes by one third,
Councilman Rosenbaum asked if Mr. Knox were suggesting that this would
be an interim provision and that sometime in the future staff would do
a more thorough revision of the sign ordinance.
Mr. Knox replied that he had been reluctant to use words such as "interim
provision," because to some people something that lasts one or two years
does nor. appear to be interim. Staff has not requested a full-blown
revision of the sign ordinance, and no funding has been provided; so he
had tried to stay away from words such as interits
Councilman Sher stated that one of the reasons for a request for a delay
in acting on these proposals was to allow individual sign owners to
figure the impact on their own situation and to decide if their signs
had become nonconforming. He said Mr. Knox had pointed out the burden
that would be on staff in this matter, and he wondered if it would be
possible for staff to prepare some kind of simple statement of how the
individual property owner could make his own determination_ regarding
his sign; or perhaps the owners could provide the dimensions to staff
to make it a simple matter to determine whether a sign were nonconforming.
Mr. Knox said it would be easy for staff to make up a formula so that
a sign owner could measure his sign in order to determine its conform-
ity or nonconformity. This kind of form could perhaps be distributed
2 1 8
3/4/74
fr
1
through the Chamber of Commerce to its members, Downtown Palo Alto, Inc.,
and other groups.
Councilman Sher commented that any statement about individual signs would
depend upon the calculations of the owners being accurate, but staff
could make a simple determination of whether or not the sign would be
conforming.
Mr. Knox replied that staff could either give them a formula or ask
them for the dimensions.
Robert A. Green, 3968 Middlefield Road, stated that he is a State Farm
Insurance Agent with an office in Charleston Center. In his present
location, he was unable to place a roof sign because of the ordinance,
or to place a sign on the wall between his office and the adjoining
office, and for five years had desired some outside sign. He pointed
out that in Charleston Center, the California Canadian Bank had put up
three new signs, and the liquor store there had recently gotten a new
sign. Therefore, ire got the idea that he could get an outside conform-
ing sign; so he got permission through the city for an outside sign
flush with the outside window space. The cost of this sign was $738,
and it was installed in November. He stated that the out -of --pocket
cost was a concern to hip if the sign would have to be redesigned.
Gene foiomei, 725 University Avenue, president of the Chamber of Com-
merce, stated that at the meeting between the Chamber of Commerce and
staff several questions were asked that were never answered, one of
which was how many signs would be affected. He gathered from the slide
presentation that there is still a figure of between two and three
thousand signs. They had asked if there were any monetary value placed
on replacing sighs and would there be any just compensation for out-of-
pocket costs of replacing signs, to which the staff replied negatively.
He felt that the niin problem was the arbitrary one-third reduction,
and the Chamber was interested in knowing how this figure came about.
Amortization of a sign over a period of ten years does not in many cases
reflect the life of a sign, which could well be twenty or thirty years.
Therefore, a ten-year a ortizaeion could in fact case a monetary hard-
ship on a particular business. He mentioned that Imperial Motel has a
new sign being designed which was passed and approved by the Archi-
tectural Review Board, but it now develops that when that sign is
installed, it will be nonconforming. Another case is Lutz Ford whose
new dealership is not in business yet, and apparently their new sign
is nonconforming. Mr. Tolomei said that ninety days was a suggestion
but that it would be perfectly acceptable if staff took six months or
a year to look at the situation. If a lot of changes would be made in
signs because of businesses changing owners, then perhaps there is no
rush in this natter anyway.
Vice Mayor Pearson asked how Mr. Tolomei felt about the suggestion that
the Chamber might assist in sending out some forms that might be
devised.
Mr. Tolomei replied that they would be happy to assist but pointed out
that not all of the businesses in Palo Alto were members of the
Chamber of Coronae rce .
219
3/4/74
Mr. J. B. Russ, 1478 Truman, Los Altos, representing Bullock's Department
Store, stated that an important point to him was that Council was asking
why they wanted a ninety -day delay, when it was difficult for the
Chamber to see any great urgency when the sign ordinance has been revised
five times in the past six years. He said the Council regularly looks
at the environmental impact of its actions but in this case has failed
to look at the economical impact. The cost of signs is going up roughly
six to eight percent a year. Mr. Russ felt that the staff had not taken
note of the comments at the meeting with the Chamber oi= Commerce with
regard to different kinds of signs being needed for different kinds of
businesses. He felt that the very least that should come out of any
action would be a grandfather clause which would protect those businesses
which have spent their money to attract customers. He commented that
perhaps the Great Western sign was conforming, because the sign is on
a five -story building. Mr. Russ said the staff is concerned about the
workload caused by this examination, and yet it is something brought
about by their own recommendations. It was his feeling that staff did
not pay much attention to the Chamber's suggestion that El Camino was
a different situation from downtown Falo Alto. He felt a one-third
reduction was hardly in order, and he recommended that the economic
impact should be measured.
Dick Kluzek, 725 University Avenue, Chamber of Cor n erce, wished to make
the following points: 1) The policy and Procedures Committee meeting
took place in January, and the business community was not there because
they were not invited or particularly told of the proposals that were
to be discussed, especially the one-third arbitrary reduction. 2) What
is wrong with the existing ordinance that has been amended five times
in six years? 3) The staff is aggravated and the business community
disrupted when asked to change at a tremendous total cost some two to
three thousand signs,
Crystal Gamiage, Downtown Palo Alto, Inc., stated that she appreciated
staff's showing pages from their downtown beautification design which
was prepared primarily to assist downtown businesses, but they had not
presumed to draw up guidelines for the entire community of Palo Alto.
She felt that the guidelines downtown businesses were trying to impose
on themselves should not necessarily be imposed on other sections that
have other needs. Mrs. Damage said when the guidelines were drawn up,
they had some idea of what was going to happen on University Avenue
with beautification, and that the difference in trees will make a dif-
ference in signing. Downtown Palo Alto's board took the position of
hoping action on the sign ordinance would be delayed for the simple
reason there are several improvements going on right now in downtown
Palo Alto. For example,, the bicycle shop has a very good sign that
wog:^ld become nonconforming, and they have been in business only two
months. The bicycle shop has permits out for two other signs but is
not sure what to do because of the possibility of a change in the ordin-
ance, Mrs. Gamage said additional time would be needed to see what the
impact wcnild be. She commented that several other businesses are
raking improvements to be finished over the next six months, and they
have signs being designed which may not conform sometime in the future
if changes in the ordinance are going to be made.
Harry Kimball, representing Rickey's/Cabana, made a plea for more time
and more consideration of the business community. He said he sat in on
2 2 0
3/4/74
the sign ordinance studies in 1968 at which time some rather severe
cuts were made. He stated that his organization moved their sign back
to a free-standing sigr, and built an extra addition on at a cost of about
$15,000, and the sign would be worth much more than that today. He
reminded Council that his businesses were on a street where the speed
limit was thirty-five miles an hour, and probably the biggest complaint
they get is that people cannot find them. He mentioned that the sign
for the Holiday Inn eras extremely inadequate for a hotel of that size
and in that location, and that this must be a hardship on the Inn. He
requested continuance to allow time for the business community to get
together with the Planning Director and get the benefit of his experi-
ence, the benefit of the experience of others, and that of the Council.
Jerry Verssen, 550 Hamilton Avenue, member of the Chamber of Commerce,
stated that the Chamber is concerned abou the number of signs involved
and also about the notice being given to the individual owners regardi;tg
their signs. Councilman Berwald's comments about a task force with the
Chamber were extremely welcome, but he hoped the city would pick up the
tab for postage. Mr. Knox and Councilman Rosenbaum used the words
"interim approach," but his feeling that the right word was piecemeal.
He said that the Chamber of Commerce would be veryunhappy with a
piecemeal approach to something that would have: such a strong impact
on the community. }{e pointed out that different businesses required
different kinds of signs, Tome being able to get along with simple signs
and others needing distintive signs to do the business necessary to
stay in Palo Alto.
tor. Carl Heymann, California Electric Sign Association, said he was one
of the individuals rah, attended the Policy and Procedures Committee
sheeting when the sign ordinance was under discussion. He noted that
it is the association's intention to assist every city in California to
beautify and to have signs that are well designed and pleasing to the
eye, but they had not been able to get to first base in Palo Alto; how-
ever, they wanted to offer their services. It was his opinion that Palo
Alto did have good signs and had made great strides in having signs that
are pleasing to the eye, but that the city wanted to now further reduce,
cut back, restrict, and prohibit signs. He felt that the word "prohibit"
when used in conjunction with something subjective such as aesthetics
was a very good case for the courts, because the question comes up,
"what is prohibition on aesthetics" and "what is aesthetics." Mr.
Heymann said the association would have preferred to hear words such as
limitations, allowable, or under design review. The association felt
that it was unfortunate they were speaking at such a late time, the
lateness meaning that they were making an appeal. It was his opinion
that there were certain selfish motivations for going into such a
restrictive new sign ordinance and proposing the changes involved, and
this opinion was meant respectfully, but truthfully. Such motives put
a stranglehold on the business community and the economy of the city.
Finally, he stated that several people had mentioned the words "just
compensation" which are legal words and have merit in the courts.
This has been proven in other cities, and it would he preferable to not
have to prove it in California. The association asked for adoption of
a reasonable sign ordinance, an opportunity to work together, and a
eight for each business to display signs for identification purposes
and advertising.
2 2 1
3/4/74
Mr. Philip Vogt, member of the Architectural Review Board, said that
the word "arbitrary" had been used oeveral times during the discussion.
The board is made up of five members who felt that the size of signs
could very well be reduced in the city of Palo Alto. During their dis-
cussion, the members talked about what percentage of reduction should
occur, and the consensus was that one-third reduction would be right.
Mr. Vogt said his remarks were perhaps gratuitous, since the Palo Alto
Times had already announced that the proposition would be delayed for
ninety days. The position of the Architectural Review Board in the matter
of signs has been one of aesthetics, and this is a subjective opinion
which is incapa.�ie of being defined in a logical or numerical system;
so there is dependency upon the five members of the Architectural Review
Board to determine what is good or bad taste. There is no defense, there-
fore, for the attitude of the board other than to say their opinion is
a well -considered one and a consensus of five persons. Mr. Vogt noted
that members of the business community had made strong points about the
economic problems of reducing sign areas. It was Mr. Vogt's opinion
that Stevens Creek Boulevard was a good case in point that the business
with the biggest sign is going to crowd out all the others, and this is
a kind of sign warfare which is detremental to all business. This atti-
tude makes the whole street look garish, and a lot of little businesses
get squeezed out by those who can afford to, or have enough room to,
provide a huge sign to the maximum of the law. He felt that the demon-
stration tonight showed that tasteful signing could be accomplished at
a lot less than the maximum legally allowed, and yet the comu,titive
pressure is to always go to the maximum. He concluded that the board
felt justified in their position of requesting 3 one-third reduction,
and he realized he had not spoken to whether :his matter should be
passed now or delayed, since that was Council's business, but he wanted
to express the attitude of the board.
Mr. Knox commented that from the very beginning staff had stated that
the figure for reduction in signs might well be arbitrary, and that is
covered on page four of their report and also in the minutes. One thing
not mentioned in the minutes is that the existing timetables in the
ordinance itself are arbitrary, and the one-third reduction is no more
or less arbitrary than was the original sign ordinance. He said Mr.
Ruse mentioned the fact that the staff was bringing the workload on
itself by its own recommendation, and, in fact, this recommendation
had its genesis in the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Knox said he
knew that Council understood that when staff was asked to research an
item or to work in conjunction with one of the boards such as the Archi-
tectural Review Board, or the Planning; Commission, for instance, it
tires to get the data within the means available to them. He wanted to
be sure that the public understood that this particular recommendation
came from the Architectural. Review Board and not from the staff. Mr.
Knox rioted that Mr. Russ had taken staff somewhat to task about the
Union Bank Building sign saying that it didn't compare with signs along
El Camino, but a comparison was made at the end of the demonstration
with the First National Bank sign which is the same kind of sign, facility,
and the very same street, but it is a considerably larger sign, with a
di..ferent color scheme, and in his cpiaion, couaiderably more garish.
The question of what is wrong with the present sign size was raised,
and the fact is that the ARB has not been able to obtain signs of the
size which they feel is appropriate, and they do not have the authority
to insist on a smaller sign. In the minutes of the meeting of the Policy
222
3/4/74
and Procedures Committee meeting on page 12, Councilman Beahrs asked
what powers were vested in the Review Board, and the reply was that
the Review Board is an advisory board and has to deal within the limits
of the sign ordinance. For example, if they felt a seventy-foot sign
would be appropriate, they still had to allow a one -hundred -foot sign
if that were the maximum allowable under the ordinance. Councilmen
Beahrs and Sher questioned why they could not be given the authority
to limit sign size, and the reply was that it would be difficult to
give then such power, because the charter gives committees only advisory
status. This means that the ARA cannot insist that a sign be smaller
than the maximum even when their aesthetic ,judgment is that it should
be smaller. To obtain this end, a change would have to be made in the
ordinance to lower the limits so that the board would have another tool
to work with in getting smaller signs. Finally, Mr. Knox said he would
have no idea what selfish motives Mr. Heymann had referred to.
Vice Mayor Pearson noted that the first part of the motion deals with
the roof signs which Council has already declared to be nonconforming,
and in committee the roof signs were given a five-year period of amorti-
zation. She stated that Council had passed the ordinance making then
nonconforming and that Council could now pass that motion making a five-
year amortization period for those roof signs which would complete that
section of the code. The other three parts of the motion could either
be passed and accept the Policy and Procedures Committee recommendation,
or be continued for a period and allow the business community to get
involved. She reiterated that it was her hope that at least the first
part could be passed, since action had been taken on that already.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilman Norton moved, seconded by Berwald,
approval of the stair's fourth alternative, namely, to approve recom-
mendations (a) and (c) and postpone decision on (b) and (d) for 120
days to allow further study of the matter by the staff in cooperation
with the business community, as recommended in the Chamber of Commerce
letter; and that the city advise owners of roof signs that those signs
became nonconforming on November 28, 1973; and that staff clarify the
clause in Section 16,20.280 which is recommendation (c) regarding modi-
fications to existing nonconforming signs upon change of ownership of
a business.
Councilman Henderson asked Councilman Norton if he would expect staff
to do the job of preparing an inventory of 4,000 signs in that period.
Councilman Norton replied that he sees staff doing what the recommenda-
tion states, which is to negotiate without any view to assuming any
particular conclusions as to the results of those negotiations.
Councilman Clay stated that since economic considerations as well as
aesthetic ones were being looked at, and since a good bit of input
could be expected over the 90- or 120 -day period, that it makes sense
to send the whole thing back and make a final decision at that time.
Councilman Sher said `xe was basically inagreement with Councilman
Norton's motion but that he had a few items to clear up. With regard
to Councilman Clay's comment on proposal (a) of the committee, which
he understood the substitute motion contemplates approving, that would
let stand the existing amortization period for nonconforming signs,
2 2 3
3/4/74
and roof signs are and have been since last November nonconforming. It
seems fair that the period of amortization be confirmed in this manner
and that the owners be given notice. Therefore, this clears up an
acticn that has already been taken, and item (a) should go forward. He
also felt that item (c) should go forward which is an attempt to clear
up a questionable aspect of the existing sign ordinance with respect
to when a nonconforming sign has to be brought into conformance with
the sign ordinance. Councilman Sher questioned why Councilman Norton
added thirty days to the ninety -day suggested period of delay.
Councilman Sher said he understood the substitute motion to say that
during the study period, the action should be in conformance with the
Chamber of Commerce letter and that letter does suggest staff action
along the lines of ascertaining the number of nonconforming signs.
AMENDMENT TO SUBSTIT'U'TE MOTION: Councilman Sher moved, seconded by
Norton, to amend the substitute motion to continue items (b) and (d)
for ninety days and request that staff cooperate with the business com-
munity in assessing the impact of the proposed changes on the business
community, and respond to inquiries Crom individual sign owners about
whether eheir signs would become nonconforming, the response to be
based on figures supplied by the sign owners, but without any require-
ment that staff take the initiative in determining which signs are
nr nconfoeming.
Councilman. Norton asked staff if they understood the directives in
Councilman Sher's comments, and whether there would be much staff time
involved in that.
Mr. Kncx replied that his understanding was that staff should cooperate
with the business community, assess the impact on the business community,
and respond to inquiries from individual members of the community with
respect to their signs. He felt that either the 90 or 120 days would be
satisfactory. Mr. Knox could not estimate how much time would be
involved, since it was not only his staff time, but also that of Mrs.
Atchison in working with the building official, and there may be some
involvement of the City Attorney's office as well.
Mr. Sipel guessed that it would take a couple of person weeks to do it
from the building inspection standpoint and certainly that much from
the Planning Department, so that roughly a full month of staff time
would be required over a 90- or 120 -day period.
Vice Mayor Pearson noted that Council had before it a motion which is
she fourth alternative on page six of the staff report that Council
approve (a) which is the five-year moratorium on roof signs, and (c)
bringing about modifications of existing nonconforming signs, and
postponing any decision on (b) and (d) dealing with the size of the
signs and the length of the moratorium which had been recommended to
be ten years, and includes directions to staff to cooperate with the
business community, assist in determining the impact on the community,
and develop some forma to be sent out to help an individual to determine
whether his reign is conforming or not.
Councilman i erwald asked if he understand that the meaning of (c) is
that a onconforaaing-sign becomes subject to change immediately if a
business is sold without benefit of the five-year amortization period.
City Attorney Booth replied affirmatively,
224
3/4/74
Councilman Berwald said he felt this would be unfair in that if a
business does not change hands, the sign has a five-year amortization
period, but if a new person comes in a buys a business including the
unamortized part of the sign, he would have to provide a conforming
sign immediately. In his opinion this was discrimination against
classes of business people, those who are new business people being
discriminated against.
City Attorney Booth said this would be so if the name of the business
were changed, but that many businesses change hands without changing
the name of the business in which case the five-year amortization period
would apply. If the face of the sign were changed, then the size would
have to be reduced, or a roof sign removed. He pointed out that one
of the things about nonconforming uses, whether it he signs or other-
wise, is that you should always be at least moving towards a situation
of complete conformity in all respects, and in this particular case,
the change of sign facing is an opportunity to bring one more into
conformity.
Councilman Berwald said he seconded the motion, and he would support
it, but the phrase just discussed bothers him, and it was his hope that
the staff and the business community would feet free to discuss this
even though it had been passed by Council.
Councilman Henderson commented he did not want staff or the Architectural
Review Board to think that his support of the continuance meant he was
backing away from the commiv.tee's recommendations, but that he was open
to suggestions and modifications. rte referred to the comments made with
regard to urgency and said Mr. Vogt pointed out, and he agreed, that what
was happening on El Camino was a good reason for the feeling of urgency.
He added that with the growth of franchises, the owners are trying to
outdo one another in the matter of signs, and he emphatically disagrees
with the person who said these signs are all pleasing to the eye. Coun-
cilman Henderson said when he was a candidate LA 1971, he heard over
and over the concern of citizens about the garishness of El Camino Rea./.
He promised to do something about the problem and had been eagerly await-
ing the opportunity to do so. His opinion was that it would be an ad-
vantage to Palo Alto to have an attractive, inviting city in which busi-
nesses are adequately identified and where people do not react negatively
to a Hollywood, Los Angeles, or Stevens Creek Boulevard kind of appear-
ance. He felt that a ten-year amortization period was adeluate and
noted that according to a listing of signs given to Council by staff,
the highest cast sign was $3,000 and that amortized over a ten-year
period is not unfair. He was sorry to see that the signs would have to
be up for a ten-year period, but he would support that long an amortiza-
tion period. Therefore, he was willing to continue for 120 days, assum-
ing there was a good reason for doing so and felt it was worthwhile
having the additional input, but that he would not delay for delay's
sake and supportcontinuance for six months or a year,
Councilman Clay stated that the questions raised by Councilman Berwald
were part of the reason why he would oppose the motion --not so much
that he opposed the ammortization period, but rather that this was
piecemeal planning. Since Council was apparently going to agree to
send this back for a period of, time, why not take into consideration
all of the input that weight be received, which may include suggestions
which would be acceptable for changing the amortization plan? He
2 2 5
3/4/74
summed up that he saw no reason to take those two recommendations out
of context of the entire proposal.
The substitute motion passed on the following vote:
AYES: Berwald, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher
NOES: Clay
MOTION: Councilman Norton moved, seconded by Pearson, that at the end
of the 120 -day period, staff outline for Council the problem areas and
the kinds of changes in the existing sign ordinance which might be made
by a comprehensive revision later on,
Councilman Norton stated his reason was simply that he did not like
piecemeal changes in the ordinance, and if it appears that the kinds of
changes Mr. Knox had alluded to should all take place at one time, then
it may be found that whatever the study recommendation is should be
further postponed until this comprehensive revision takes place. On the
other hand, if a comprehensive revision may never be required based on
the outline staff provides, then it would be appropriate to proceed at
that time. He wanted to know what kind of changes Mr. Knox had in mind,
because he didn't understand that at the present time.
The notion passed on a unanimous vote.
Sto Sign �tSE�YQ: Review oft Goa15 and I�Wpact {C_iR:192:4)
�� auroorr®eM ItlI�O�Y.tlltl i6:'SlIY111Y 1�'3.CF�.lnTi®{11 _
Mr. Noguchi, Traffic Engineer, stated that the stop sAgn system was
brought before Council, because considerable concern had been rasied
from time to time, and particularly because of present fuel conditions,
regarding the use and abuae of stop signs in Palo Alto. It was staff's
feeling that this matter should be reviewed by Council, particularly
in context with the plan that was established over ten years ago. On
the October 11 staff report, it was indicated that there were some
disturbing features about the guard and go system and that staff had
received complaints about the application of the stop signs, which
staff felt was consistent with Council policy. His recommendation was
that the whole matter of the stop sign system be referred to the Policy
and Procedures Committee for complete discussion and review.
MOTION: Councilman Norton moved, seconded by Berwald, approval of the
recommendation of staff that Council refer the stop sign system to
tae Policy and Procedures Committee for complete discussion and review.
Councilman Henderson stated that he was willing to have Ow stop sign
subject reviewed in committee but wanted to go on record as being a
firm supporter of the guard and go system. It seemed that this matter
was brought up by another specific question about stop Signs which
crakes it worthwhile, but it was his hope that the city would stay with
the guard and go system.
Vice Mayor Pearson counted that the request regarding a specific
stop sign would be considered within the normal six-month period and
asked Mr. Noguchi if this were correct.
226
3/4/74
Mr. Noguchi replied affirmatively and said the recent correspondence
regarding a stop sign request would be considered in the next three
months in the stop sign updating process.
Co•u c!lman Norton commented that he hoped among the considerations,
the committee would take into account the possibility of yield signs
instead of full stop signs in the guard and go system. He felt that
particularly with the energy crisis, this might make good sense.
The referral motion passed on a unanimous vote.
Byron, Street Traffic Study (OM:191:4)
Mr. Noguchi explained that this matter is a carry over from something
that started in 1973, and from the staff viewpoint, it dates back to
1972. The residents of Byron Street petitioned staff to give some con-
sideration to the traffic safety matters on Byron Street, and staff
requested due to workload and the extent of the problem involved that
the examination be delayed for some time. After assessing problems in
the entire neighborhood, staff found that the scale of the problem was
large and would take much longer than originally predicted and there-
fore recommended that some immediate action be taken tonight to resolve
those problems on Byron Street.
Sandy Sloan, 221 Byron Street, spoke for the majority of residents in
the first three blocks of Byron. She recalled that in 1972 the residents
of Byron Street first expressed concern that theca residential street
was being used as a thoroughfare for commuters. Too many cars were
traveling too fast on Byron, and also a large number of busses and
trucks were using this street as an alternative to Middlefield Road.
Originally the petition was for installing stop signs, but at a neighbor-
hood meeting it was determined that something much stronger was needed;
so Mr. Noguchi was asked if he would block off Byron Street at Palo
Alto Avenue. She said the residents still desire such a barrier, but
they are happy that Mr. Noguchi is recommending some action now; so
they are in favor of trying the additional stop signs and the return
of Byron to a two-way street.
Ruth Kampmann, 131 Byron Street, said that she has observed this problem
for four years, being a resident of the first blank where she sees the
initial impact. She explained the problem was one of traffic coning
into Palo Alto, up Willow, down Middlefield, gaining momentum at a very
dangerous intersection at Palo Alto, Woodland, and Middlefield, coming
on to Palo Alto right on to Byron which is one way, and then proceeding
to Hawthorne. With the present solution, there would be a atop sign,
and she was in favor of this ameliorative, but did not feel this was
a solution. Her feeling was that a stop sign at the corner of Byron
and Palo Alto would not be obeyed, because at that point drivers do
not stay in their lanes, cowing out of the proper lane on Palo Alto Avenue
on to Byron. Her feeling was that a barrier such as a bump should be
constructed to keep drivers in their proper lanes before they made a
left onto Byron so that with this new proposal oncoming collisions would
be avoided with two-way traffic, and pedestrian traffic could aaiely
cross the street. Her summary was that the residents were in favor of
Mr. Noguchi's proposal and would like to see it enacted as soon as
possible, but did not feel it was a final solution.
2 2 7
3/4/74
Councilman Henderson stated that he was really disappointed that it
has taken staff over a year to respond to the residents of this area
and to the Council directive. He felt that the type of suggestions
being made could probably hive been done in a week or a month. Further,
he did not feel this was the best and ultimate decision, but that Byron
Street should be barricaded and be made a two -gray street again, and
closing it would get the commute traffic over on Middlefield where it
belonged. He asked staff why there was no mention of the possibility
of closing Byron Street to through traffic.
Mr. Nc;guchi said the closing of Byron Street would be considered in
the larger scale study of the entire neighborhood. Staff's feeling
was that a street closure had an impact on a much broader area than
just the street that would be blocked off, in that traffic using that
street would then have to go through other areas. At the same time,
they were dealing with some of the other identified problems in the area
of Everett Avenue such as employee parking, as well as the traffic that
dust traverse the area to reach those parking spaces. Staff's position
was that the entire area needed a comprehensive study rather than Byron
Street alone and in that context would look at the possibility of bar-
riers at that time.
Councilman Henderson agreed that the entire area needed a study, but
he felt that closing off the street would be a zinor inconvenience to
the people who live on that street in getting to any pait of the north
section of Palo Alto. He stated that he would support the recommenda-
tions made, but he hoped that the barrier possibility would continue to
receive attention. Councilman Henderson said he was concerned about the
statement in the staff report that the extension of Willow Road from
Arboretum Road to El Camino Real would further compound the problem and
said he did not feel Council would support Willow Road coming across and
connecting with Alma; so he did not see why the extL.;lion of Willow Road
would have anything to do with the Byron Street problem.
Mr. Noguchi replied that about a year ago, staff was givee the assignment
to study the situation. At that time concern was raised about the exten-
sion of Willow Road to El Camino Real and opposite Alma Street. In that
context, Council had asked for some review of the problem that might
develop in the neighborhood under discussion in terns of additional
infiltration. In that context, staff has indicated that there could
be an effect on the neighborhood by virtue of the connection of Willow
Road to Alma Street.
See p. 316
Councilman Henderson recalled that several members of Council commented
they would in no way support the extension of Willos Road on to Alma,
thus jamming downtown Palo Alto more thoroughly. He asked if Byron
became two-way and drivers are still open to come swinging off Palo
Alto Avenue, how that road would be divided to prevent head-on collisions.
Mr, Noguchi stated that staff researched other streets in the city, the
one nearest Byron being Holton Avenue, which is also a thirty -foot -wide
street with parking on both sides, and there were no accidents found
on that street. Staff felt that because of the narrowness of the street
the motorists drive very carefully for obvious reasons, and it also dis-
courages traffic which has no origin or destination on that street.
2 2 S
3/4/74
Councilman Henderson said he was really talking about the swing from
Middlefield onto Palo Alto Avenue and then the quick left onto Byron.
Mr. Noguchi responded that staff's recommendation was that a three-way
stop be placed at that specific location, right at Byron and Palo Alto
Avenue. Their vies, was that with proper enforcement, this king of
cutting across would be minimized.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Pearson introduced the following resolution and
moved,- seconded by Henderson, its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 4885 ENTITLED "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING, RESOLUTION 2971 TO RESCIND THE
DESIGNATION OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF BYRON STREET AS A ONE-WAY
STREET AND AMENDING RESOLUTION 4291 CHANGING THE CITYWIDE STOP
INTERSECTION SYSTEM AND MAP TO REFLECT THE ADDITION OF CERTAIN
STOP INTERSECTIONS ALONG A PORTION OF BYRON STREET"
The resol;stion was adopted on a unanimous vote.
(Council recessed from 9:30-9:47 p.m.)
Palo Alto Youth Soccer Team Visit to
Redondo Beacn
Councilman Berwald noted that Mr. Ron Olmstead, the Regional Commissioner
for the American Youth Soccer Organization, was present, and soccer is
one of the most rapidly growing sports in the United States. Last week
the team from Palo Alto played the team from Redondo Beach, and the Palo
Alto team lost but did receive a very nice plaque from Redondo Beach
presented by Mayor William F. Czuleger for their participation in the
American Youth Soccer Organization. On behalf of the Mayor and the
Council, Councilman Berwald congratulated Mr. Olmstead and his tear for
their wonderful sportsmanship and representation. Councilman Berwald
said he would ask the Mayor to send an appropriate letter to the Mayor
of Redondo Beach thanking hire for the award, and that he would keep the
plaque for display for the time being.
Wall at 777 San Antonio: Recueet of Alpha.
Vice Mayor Pearson noted that the only two questions at issue here were
whether the wall should be masonry or wooden and the height of the fence.
Mr. Busty stated that this matter was referred by Council to the Planning
Commission with the latent that the commission would resolve the details
with regard to architectural features. Jt the request of the applicant,
matters with regard to the fence were continued so that final plans
could be brought in with soma decisions to be made with regard to the
location of the fence, when it should be put in, and other aspects of
the fence. The tatters of length and location of the fence have been
resolved. In the process of discussing this at the Planning Commission,
the developer felt that a decision was made to provide a very expensive
2 2 9
3/4/74
fence; so he was proposing a six-foot wood fence instead of a seven -
foot masonry fence which had been recommended. Mr. Knox said this
matter was before Council, because the Planning Commission is an advisory
body, and under the charter Council is the only body able to make the
final determinations. The City Attorney felt this matter should be
heard by Council and that Council should make a definite decision one
way or another:
Mr. Jvhn L. Griffin, executive vice president, Alpha Land Company, stated
that last spring Council directed the Planning Commission to approve tha
details of landscaping, trellises, etc. for Alpha's project on the Beall
property. In July the company submitted to the Planning Commission the
details that were requested including the trellises, landscaping, the
masonry wall on San Antonio Road, and the details in construction require-
ments of a six-foot wooden fence on the perimeter of the property. How-
ever, at his insistence the Planning Commission agreed to put over for
six months the determination of the location of the fence, the purpose
on his part being to do a better job than was normally done on perimeter
fencing on a project. Mr. Griffin pointed out that along this some 1,100
feet of fence, there were 500 or 600 feet of very highly developed land-
scaped areas. Many of the fences have vines growing all over them; many
of the trees are fifteen to twenty feet high, and many shrubs are as
thick and solid as any fence. The Alpha Company agreed that where a
fence was required, they would be happy to put a fence, but where foliage
could be substituted, it would be far more desirable from the point of
view of the people living along the road behind the developr:eat and for -
the 140 families who would live ir, the project. Mr. Griffin said there
was no discussion ae to whether the fence would be anything but a six-
foot wooden fence. The only determination was where it would be.
However, it developed that the neighbors wanted an eight -foot masonry
wall, and the company resisted this severely at the Planning Commission
meeting. The company did not feel that this was fair or right, since
they understood that- the six-foot wooden fence had already been deter-
mined. Mr. Griffin appealed to Council to overturn the decision of the
Planning Commission and restore Alpha's original landscaping details
that were submitted to the commission in July of 1973. Although only
required to fence that portion of the property being developed now, Mr.
Griffin said his company had agreed to fence the entire 1,100 feet but
did not feel there was anything to be gained by a large, ugly seven -
foot wall. He pointed out there was twenty feet of havey landscaping
between the roadway and the wall, and the ma.,�onry wall on San Antonio
would break the sound and traffic noises. 4r. Griffin added he had met
with Mr. T. Cody, Planning Commissioner, and Mr. Cody was in agreement
with his feelings on the matter.
Councilman Berwald asked if the costs of the two kiuds of fences given
in the minutes of the Planning Commission were correct, approximately
$5,000 for the wooden fence and $19,000 for the masonry one. Mr.
Griffin replied affirmatively.
Councilman Berwald asked if there were something at less cost that
would be as soundproof as masonry. ?fir. Griffin replied that the wooden
fence could be made higher and that the heavy shrubbery alone is a good
sound barrier. He pointed out that according to the architect, Mr.
Cody, the masonry wall on Son Antonio knocks the sound up into the nir
and is sound protection for the residents.
2 3 0
3/4/74
Councilman Sher asked if the original suggestion was for a masonry
wall on continuous footings, and if so, is that what the bid cost was
for. Mr. Griffin replied that the $19,000 figi're is fee s -seven -foot
masonry w:.11 made in eight -foot panels, and this was the coniition of
the Planning Commission that he was appealing.
Councilman Henderson asked if it were true that there would be a drive-
way running along within twenty feel of the fence. Mr. Griffin replied
affirmatively and said that it was down about two feet from the bottom
of the fence; so there would be eight feet from the top of the driveway
to the top of the fence, and the closest point that the driveway gets is
twenty feet, and most places it is further.
Mr. R. A. Boudrias, 478 E. Charleston Road, representing Charleston
Gardens Association, stated that last year on March 26, April 9, and
October 9, they asked Council to consider their need for adequate zone
buffering in the neighborhood when Council first considered the P -C
zoning of the Beall property, and they mentioned there was a need for
an adequate sound and sight barrier along that boundary line. The Plan-
ning Commission considered it on July 11, December 19, 1973, and again
this year on January 30 and February 13. He said an important fact to
be pointed out was that after listening to the association's request
for an eight -foot wall because of the problem to the neighborhood by
this high -density development, the Planning Commission requested Alpha
Land Company to return with alternate solutions to the problems dis-
cussed. then the commission reconsidered the matter on January 30,
the developer did not have the plans requested by the commission, and
in the meantime Commissioner Cody conferred with Mr. Griffin, and his
individual recommendations constituted questionable conduct for a
commissioner. He said Mrs. Gordon suggested the possibility of a pre-
cast concrete fence of the type proposed by Alpha for its San Antonio
frontage, which fence would require only periodic fence holes rather
than a continuous concrete footing. Mr. Boudrias stated that Mr.
Griffin's claim that the commission approved the fence on July 11, 1973,
is false, and a review of those minutes makes that fact clear. Approval
of the fence was specifically withheld at the developer's request. The
questions before Council are: Are the problems substantial? Is the
fence the neighbors request good planning? Is it reasonable to require
a developer to provide such a fence? He pointed out that there would be
noise from the roadway which runs along just twenty feet from the fence,
and the traffic will exist at all hours of the day and night. He said
that the need for a sound barrier was immediate, serious, and would
continue in the future, which is why a solid wall was being requested.
Mr. Griffin spoke in favor of an eight -foot fence rather than a seven -
foot one with regard to privacy and also security. Mr. Boudrias said
that the Uniform Building Code prevented eight -foot walls in the United
States, while the Japanese who are highly sensitive to aesthetics and
have had long experience with dealing with overcrowded conditions and
the need for privacy, used such walls. He then presented some examples
of garden fences, eight feet high, which tn his amnion were very
attractive. Mr. Boudrias felt the developer had some responsibility
in return for good planning and good development and said Hz . Griffin's
concern would end when the last units were sold, but the neighborhood
would live with the problems for decades. In sing up, he indicated
that the cost of the masonry fence was a very tiny percentage of the
total cost of the $4,S00,000 project,
231
3/4/74
Councilman Henderson asked Mr. Boudrias if his argument was for the
eight -foot fence rather thanithe recommendation of the Planning Com-
mission. Mr. Boudrias replied affirmatively.
Mr. Knox explained that Mr. Griffin called him sometime just prior to
the January 30 meeting of the Planning Commission and asked if a member
of the Planning Commission and a member of the staff could go out and
walk the fence line with him. He }naked Mr. Glanville if he would do that
and asked Mrs. Gordon if she were available to go along. Since Mrs.
Gordon was not available, Mr. Cody was asked to go along, and the three
persons, Mr. Cody, Mr. Glanville, and Mr. Griffin, walked the fence
line. There waa no collusion or anything at all of that sort. Indeed,
most Planning Commissioners go out and look at sites in advance whether
the concern is a wall or one of rezoning.
Mr. Glenn O'Dell, 4102 Sutherland Drive, stated that the remarks made
by Mr. Boudrias covered what he felt needed to be said.
Councilman Henderson said he had no doubt that the masonry wall would
give better protection to the adjacent residents than a wooden fence
or native shrubbery and pointed out that this was what the residents
wanted and what the Planning Commission recommended. It was his feel-
ing that in approving the project, a substantial impact was caused on
the neighborhood, and these people should receive all the protection
possible. Councilman Henderson did not believe that a difference of
815,000 would have significant fiscal impact on the project itself,
but the results of the additionalexpenditure would have a very posi-
tive effect on the neighborhood.
MOTION: Councilman Henderson moved, seconded by Pearson, that the
recommendation of the Planning Commission be upheld by Council.
AMENDMENT: Councilman Henderson moved that the recommended height
of seven feet be changed to eight feet.
The amendment failed for lack of a second.
Councilman Clay asked if there were a pedestrian walkway from Montrose
to the site. Mr. Knox replied there was not a walkway specifically
from the site, but in the interim there was a pedestrian walkway to
Sutherland Avenue.
Councilman Clay noted that school children who live in the project
would therefore be able to get to Creendell and Cubberley Schools
without difficulty. Mr. Knox concurred and said the developer in the
interim period until the south half of the site is developed is to
provide the asphalt walkway to Sutherland. After the south half of
the site is developed, the pathway would be incorporated so that the
residents would not in any way be blocked in getting to Sutherland.
Councilman Clay said that the seven -foot wall would not provide the
barrier that the residents were looking for, and he wondered if a six-
foot wooden fence with fast-growing shrubbery woui.dn't be a better
solution to that particular problem. He stated ttist he was also
thinking about the aesthetics of the project and the isolation of the
residents of the project from the rest of the community.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilman Clay moved that another alternative to
this problem be looked at, perhaps specifically the alternative of
a six-foot wooden fence with fast-growing shrubbery and trees such
as sycamore,
2 3 2
3/4/74
The substitute motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Norton asked if there were any graphic indication of what
the masonry wall would look like. Council was provided with a bro-
chure showing pictures of the finished masonr.e wall. Mr. Knox said
the Planning Commission recommended the masonry fence be as shown on
the back of the brochure, same color, same adobe wall texture, same
kind of wooden posts.
Councilman Norton asked how much existing shrubbery would have to be
displaced by the proposed wall. Mr. Griffin replied that in a fair
number of places, the shrubbery goes four to six feet into his company's
property, and that would have to he cut back to the property line.
Councilman Norton asked if the proposed wall would replace existing
individual fences or would it parallel them. Mr. Knox said it would
presumably replace fences that were there in a fair variety. Mr. Griffin
noted that the wall would be constructed on Alpha's property so that the
fences on other property would not be disturbed but would be paralleled.
He added that the fence would be built far enough away so no one else's
fences or shrubbery would be disturbed.
Mr. Knox indicate'' that the Planning Commission acted on the assumption
that once the new fence was installed, property owners would remove
their present fences, and the owners requested that the texture be cast
into the fence on both sides.
Councilman Berwald asked if the property line had been sufficiently
surveyed so that it is known that existing fences are not on Alpha's
property line. Mr. Griffin replied that the surveying had been done,
and the fence would be built on Alpha's property. Councilman Berwald
pointed out then that if the neighbors removed their fences, they would
have access to a portion of Alpha's property. Mr. Griffin replied that
he was aware of this, and it did not disturb him.
Councilman Berwald stated that he would support the motion for several
reasons: Established Council policy is to minimize encroachments of
non R -I uses on R -I property, and that should be supported. On the
other hand, what:is being proposed is highly arbitrary, and he knew of
no precedent for a seven -foot fence. Apparently, though, this is what
the residents in the R -I art;a wanted, and he felt it would make an
attractive separation and would do more than a wooden fence. He stated
that he did not like referring to property owners in invidious ways.
It should be recognized that the residents certainly are sincere in
their efforts, and also Mr. Griffin is providing a good deal for the
community in creating much -needed housing and reserving space for low/
moderate income housing for the city. Councilman Berwald felt this -
'as an example of how, despite the good intentions of the developer,
his efforts just didn't seem to satisfy the nefghbore, and he hoped
)1r. Griffin would take it that way and not as a personal affront.
The motion pissed on a unanimous vote.
Use Permits fcr: New Construction (Q R:17$:4)
Hr. Knox said that the staff report is a response to a motion from
Council recommending that when revision of the zoning ordinance is
2 3 3
3/4/74
undertaken, provision be made for all those permits involving new con-
struction to be approved by Council. Staff found that of eleven appli-
cations in the last twenty months, only four have been appealed, and
in two of these the decision of the zoning administrator was upheld.
It was staff's conclusion that the system seemed to be working, and
there was no reason to burden Council with hearing these matters.
Concerns of the applicant or to the resident could be brought on an
appeal basis to Council. Staff therefore recommended that Council,
by motion action, accept the staff report as satisfactory response
to the direction that was given earlier.
Councilman Rosenbaum stated his appreciation to staff for listening to
all of these uea permit applications. He said it was clear that the
only times there is trouble is when the use permit application is in
a residential zone.
MOTION: Councilman Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Henderson, that the
new zoning ordinance contain a provision calling for Planning Commission
and Council approval of use permits in residential zones when substan-
tial new construction is involved.
Councilman Clay recalled that in the Montessori School situation, the
use permit came to Couneii as a result of being denied. by the Planning
Commission, but there was still a question of its having gone to the
Architectural Review Board, His basic concern was the order in which
things were done. He stated that when Council gets use permits, whether
they are residential or nonresidential.. there is still another act to
follow, which would be review by the Architectural Review Board. That
board would then recommend denial or approval. He wished to see some
refinement of this process so that when Council is in the act of approv-
ing; the whole: picture is before them.
Mr. Knox explained that any matter where new construction: is involved
must go before the Architectural Review Board unless it is a singly
developed single-family residence. As a result of that requirement,
whenever the zoning administrator grants a use permit, he adds as a
condition that the Architectural Review Board must review the new con-
struction. In some cases he :,pelts out specific concerns he has, and
in the Montessori School situation, the zoning administrator talked
about the visual and noise buffers and specified any of the same
requirements found is Councilman Berwald's motion which referred the
matter back to the ARB and to the Planning Commission. He explained
that where there is no appeal, and in the normal course of a use per-
mit application, the use permit would be approved subject to review
by the Architectural Review Board. If there is an appeal, it doesn't
behoove the ARB to review the matter until they know what the disposi-
tion of the appeal will be. If it is going to be turned down by the
Planning Commission and the Council, then the ARB should not spend a
great deal of time going over detailed drawings, etc. In the case of
the Montessori School, staff came through the appeal process with the
Planning Commission and City Council and felt it was properly handled.
Council referred the matter back to the Planning Commission and the
Architectural Review Board for further review.
Councilman Clay said he suspected that the majority of appeals that
cam to Council suggested the same procedure that was experienced with
Montessori. He stated that he would go along with Councilman Rosenbaum's
motion.
234
3/4/74
Councilman Norton did not agree that this was a necessary change in
the zoning ordinance. Procedure for both use permits and variances
traditionally is that upon application, all the property owners within
300 feet of the boundaries in question are notified by mail and have
the opportunity to hear and be heard. At the first hearing held by
the zoning administrator, they have a right to appeal that to the
Planning Commission which in turn will make a recommendation to Council,
and he felt what was being talked about was notice and opportunity to
be heard which has always been provided. He would rather not have
Council impose on the commission and itself an arbitrary requirement
for a hearing in every case, even where the applicant is not interested
enough to file an appeal. He summed up that it would be his tendency
to rely on the present procedure.
Air. Knox responded that Councilman Norton was correct in his statements
except in the matter of the distance, which is within. 250 feet of the
boundaries in question, and there is notice given to all property owners
within the vicinity.
Councilman Sher asked Councilman Rosenbaum if the intention was to
include bringing the use permit to the Planning Commission and the
City Council in the new zoning ordinance. Councilman Rosenbaum answered
affirmatively. Councilman Sher stated that since the Planning Commission
would have under consideration the subject of a new zoning ordinance, and
since this notion contemplates havin; the Planning Commission consider
these use permits in residential zones, he felt the action was appro-
priate.
MOTION TO -REFER: Councilman Sher moved, seconded by Eerwald, that
the Rosenbaum motion be referred to the Planning Commission,
Councilman Henderson pointed out that if a person wants to appeal a
decision, he has to pay $1O0, whereas this would eliminate that; there-
fore, he was in support of Councilman P.osenbaum's motion.
Councilman Norton said the filing fee was completely separate from
the question of whether Council has to mandatorily hear every variance
application. He hoped that the $100 fee would be reviewed, because
that seemed high.
The motion to refer passed en the following vote:
AYES: Serwald, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher
NOES: Clay
Re ort of the City Clerk re Petition to
eren Ordinance No. 27 4
City Clerk Ann Tanner reported that a petition to referend Ordinance
No. 2764 was submitted on February 21, and after checking by the
Registrar of Voters, the petition was found to contain 2,300 valid
and 871 insufficient signatures. The charter states that to qualify
for referendum, a petition must be signed by six percent of the regis-
tered voters at the last general municipal election. There were
2 3 5
3/4/74
See p.
316
33,236 registered voters in Palo Alto at the time of the 1973 general
election. Therefore, the petition needed approximately 2,000 sufficient
signatures to qualify. She said the petition was certified as being
sufficient on February 27. Chapter 6, Section 3 of the Charter calls
for the Clerk to submit the qualified petition to the Council without
delay and for the Council to reconsider the ordinance the petition seeks
to referend. Council has received the petition, and Ordinance No. 2764
appears on the agenda for reconsideration. If Council wished to repeal
Ordinance 2764, an ordinance requiring five votes and two readings which
would accomplish this had been prepared by the City Attorney, and this
ordinance is also before Council for consideration.- Alternatively, if
the Council wished to call a special election and put the question to
the electorate, a resolution calling for the special election and request-
ing board of Supervisors to consolidate said election with the June pri-
mary had also been prepared and appears on the agenda for Council's
action.
Councilman Henderson stated that he was ready to respond to the petition-
ers by rescinding the ordinance that created the Rehab zones, but in
doing so he wanted to make clear where that leaves the city in his mind.
He stated that unfortunately this Council had already done so ouch dam-
age to the overall Fire Zone I program proposals that he no longer had
much basis for supporting the ordinance in question and almost voted
against it for that very reason. He said that after all these years
and meetings, including many public meetings, staff time, Planning Com-
mission time, committee time, and Council time, there is now no real.
Rehab program. He recognized the straitjacket that the property owners
bore in not being able for all these years to work on residential struc-
tures in Fire Zone 1 without bringing their structures up to commercial
build;ng codes. He added that Council also recognized the desire of
Palo Altans not to extend the commercial area into existing residential
areas, but rather to preserve present housing near the downtown comrer-
cial section. Since work on homes in Fire Zone 1 was prohibited, these
homes have deteriorated to the point of being unsafe and often unsani-
tary. If these houses are to be saved and the lower -income people are
to remain, there must be a program that requires rehabilitation up to
the minimum health and safety standards. Because the city had penalized
the property owners in the past, the city should provide assistance
through lo -interest loans. In exchange there should be controls so
that rent increases cover only the additional cost to the owners plus
reasonable profit margins. Councilman Henderson continued that this
means property owners would have more valuable properties with incomes
at or above present levels, and lower,-iecoeee tenants could still afford
the rents. As further protection in preserving the existing structures
and retaining low/moderate income housing, any demolition followed by
repiaeereent with new housing should carry a requirement for a percentage
of low./moderate income units. The Council has voted down the low/moderate
income requirement on replacement housing, and repealing the ordinance
eliminates the heart of the Rehab program, This leaves a sandatory code
enforcement program that seems to almost guarantee widespread demolition
and the rebuilding of new apartments, a.il renting at market rates.
Councilman Henderson asked what would happen now to Council policy of
providing housing for all economic levels, and what would happen to
the low-income senior citizen tenants. He said it is incumbent upon
those persons eho have destroyed the program to comae up with a new pro-
gram or a new policy, Me added there was no evidence to predict success
if the matter were to be handled on a voluntary heals, and a new program
was needed quickly.
236
3/4/74
MOTION: Councilman Henderson introduced the following ordinance and
moved, seconded by Berwald, its approval for first reading:
"ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2764"
Councilman Henderson asked staff if this could be declared an emergency
ordinance so that it would be unnecessary to go through the second
reading. City Attorney Booth responded that six votes would be required
out of the seven Council members present.
Councilman Henderson asked if it would be necessary to move that this
be considered an emergency ordinance. City Attorney Booth responded
that would be the preferred procedure. Councilman Henderson decided
to leave the motion as made.
Ruth Morales, 3611 Bryant Street, reported on behalf of the sponsoring
committee of the Public Opinion Hearing regarding Fire Zone l .and the
rehabilitations ordinance, She stated that over fifty persons attended
the workshop. She wished to report the following consensus: A) The
Referendum Petition should not be construed as a voice against rehabili-
tation or against low/moderate income housing. B) No one at the meet-
ing supported Ordinance No. 2764, and a special election on this ordinance
would not lessen the middle. C) There is a clear consensus behind the
necessity of an adequate rehabilitation program. D) Ordinance :Zo. 2764
represents a Council compromise that will not work. There is a mandate
against the gutted ordinance, not against the goals of rehabilitation.
E) It is up to Council to pick up the pieces and produce an ordinance
and program that will work. F) Values that a future rehabilitation
ordinance must encompass are provision of sufficient rehabilitation to
preserve the housing stock, diversity of income and life styles, mixed
residential and mixed commercial usage of land, balance between large,
new housing structures and older housing stock and smaller buildings,
recognition of the city role in aiding those who are hurt by the mora-
torium and downzoting, while discouraging those interests which ere
essentially speculative in nature; availability of lour -interest loans
and the rehabilitation program where it is needed, rather than being
restricted to limited areas; rent limitation; inclusion of lows/yoderate
income housing in new construction; recognition that people who live
and work in Palo Alto deserve higher consideration; spirit of city
cooperation with property owners and residents; possible incentives
for cooperative housing efforts. Finally, this group intends to work
for such an ordinance in cooperation with other community groups and
the Council.
Councilman Clay stated that he would support the motion, but the reason-
ing still confused him. Time was wasted because the ordinance was not
a good one in the firat place. He said in order to get a positive pro --
gram going, it was necessary to define those persons for whom the City
will provide low/moderate income housing, He stated that he had raised
this question before, and at no time had he received an answer as to
whom the target group was. He felt such things as age, income level,
family status, employment status, present residence should all be
specified in order to define the target group. He summed up that the
most positive action that could be taken would be to make this necessary
definition.
237
3/4/74
MOTION: Councilman Henderson introduced the following ordinance and
moved, seconded by Berwald, its approval for first reading:
"ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2764"
Councilman Hende-son asked staff if this could be declared an emergency
ordinance so that it would be unnecessary to go through the second
reading. City Attorney Booth responded that six votes would be required
out of the seven Council members present.
Councilman Henderson asked if it would be necessary to move that this
be considered an emergency ordinance. City Attorney Booth responded
that would be the preferred procedure. Councilman Henderson decided
to leave the motion as made.
Ruth Morales, 3611 Bryant Street, reported on behalf of the sponsoring
committee of the Public Opinion Hearing regarding Fire Zone I and the
rehabilitation ordinance. She stated that over fifty persons attended
the workshop. She wished to report the following consensus: A) The
Referendum Petition should not be construed as a voice against rehabili-
tation or against low/moderate income housing. B) No one at the meet-
ing supported Ordinance Ne. 2764, and a special election on this ordinance
would not lessen the middle. C) here is a clear consensus behind the
necessity of an adequate rehabilitation program. D) Ordinance No. 2764
represents a Council conpromis►7 that will not work. There is a mandate
against the gutted ordinance, not against the goals of rehabilitation.
E) It is up to Council to pick up the pieces and produce an ordinance
and program that will work. F) Values that a future rehabilitation
ordinance must encompass are provision of sufficient rehabilitation to
preserve the housing stock, diversity of income and life styles, mixed
residential and mixed commercial usage of land, balance between large,
new housing structures and older housing stock and smaller buildings,
recognition of the city role in aiding those who are hurt by the mora-
torium and downzoning, while discouraging those interests which are
essentially speculative in nature; availability of low -interest loans
and the rehabilitation program where it is needed, rather than being
restricted to limited areas; rent limitation; inclusion of low/moderate
income housing in new construction; recognition that people who live
and work in Palo Alto deserve higher consideration; spirit of city
cooperation with property owners and residents; possible incentives
for cooperative housing efforts. Finally, this group intends to work
for such an ordinance in cooperation with other community groups and
the Council.
Councilman Clay stated that he would support the motion, but the reason-
ing still confused him. Time was wasted because the ordinance was not
a good one in the first place. He said in order to get a positive pro-
gram going, it was necessary to define those persone for what the City
will provide low/moderate income housing. He stated that he had raised
this question before, and at no time had he received an answer as to
Whom the target group was. He felt such things as age, income level,
family statue, employment status, present residence should all be
specified in order to define the target group. He summed up that the
most positive action that could be taken would be to make this necessary
definition.
237
3/4/74
Sharon Wagner, 1555 Alma Street, said she was speaking both as a citizen
and as a teacher at Cubberley High School, where she attempts to teach
students something about city government. She stated that the question
that underlies rehabilitation io what are the proper uses of city tax
money. At the Planning Commission meeting several weeks ago, there
were charges that there were too many social programs going on. She
said it seemed to her that nobody had defined what a social program was,
and the proper use of tax monies is anything the Council defines that
is. In her opinion, it is a proper use of public money to spend it
for low/moderate income housing. One of the questions she faces in
the classroom is what is the obligation of a city to help people, par-
ticularly the elderly, remain in a community. She also wanted to point
out that it appeared that people who owned property in a community
somehow have more brownie points than people who are tenants. The
real question is not tenants and house owners, but one of people who
are involved in the community. The idea that people who own houses
have more rights than people who do not is a question that needs to
be examined when an ordinance is being considered. She continued that
another important fact is there are no more federal funds for subsidized
housing, and if anybody is going to do something about housing, it will
have to be done on the local level. She stated there seemed to be two
aiternativ-s at present, to either go out and pave and paint every piece
of property or to build up wards because of the density problem. There
seers to be the fear of creatlng a ghetto; yet there are high --density
cities such as London, Paris, and Amsterdam which are never thought of
as ghettoes. She said that if we could not say to young people that
regardla.ss of their age and status financially, there was a place for
them in our community, then there was something the ratter with America.
She felt that ii each person in the room couldn't say that he would not
mind being young and poor, or old and poor, in our society, then there
are real problems in housing. She said she supports Councilman Hender-
son's statement that some kind of ordinance must be developed to en-
compass these problems.
Fred Eyerly, 877 Sharon Court, stated that Council should do away with
the moratorium and put Fire Zone I back on the basis it held prior to
the moratorium. He said it had been fifteen years or so that those
houses couldn't have anything done to them regarding improvement; yet
they haven't all been knocked down. He said his comr:3ittee had nothing
against low/moderate income housing, but that Council needed to take
different action from what had been done to put it together for the
entire city. He felt Council needed to look at existing housing, what
is being proposed, and get an idea of the total cost of low/moderate
income housing. In other words, get a price tag, and present the ques-
tion to the voters. It was his feeling that whatever action Council
takes on large expensive programs, such ae low/moderate income housing,
it would not be successful unless taken to the voters.
Bob &udrias, 478 East Charleston Road, said a realistic view should
be taken of the overall housing situation in Palo Alto. Through
research, Hr. 8oudriaa came up with 972 subsidized dwellings in Palo
Alto, constituting 4.52 of the total housing stock. Adding to that
the Alpha Land project, there would be 5.22 subsidized housing. There
are also 39.i units that would be aaslsted in (terms of the Rehab
program which would bring the percentage up to 77.. The City needs
to determine how much subsidized housing it can support. He said
1
238
3/4/74
many of the people who support the concept of providing low/moderate
income housing are Stanford students. If Stanford is going to be
part of the City's housing policy, then Stanford housing had to be
considered in any deliberations of what qualifies as moderate -income
housing. If you include Stanford housing, then you come up with a
percentage of 20.5% subsidized housing. He stated that many of the
subsidized units already go to the elderly, and that since 25X of the
City's population is in the elderly bracket, Palo Alto cannot be
accused of driving the elderly elsewhere.
Harvey Nixon, 430 Kipling Street, said he was interested in getting
some information about the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. Specifically,
he wanted to report that it was his understanding that the Lytton
Gardens project was being held up because the architect had to plan
around one tree. His concern is why this project is not going forward,
and he would like to see a copy of the contract between the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation and the City Council..
Mr. Sipel suggested that Mr. Nixon get a copy of the contract from the
City Clerk's office.
Councilman Rosenbaum said he was not favorably disposed to people who
atterpt to use the low/moderate income issue to achieve other purposes,
and he felt that was what had happened. He stated that from co ents
made, there was a remarkable amount of confusion as to what was in
Ordinance No. 2764 thst was subject to referendum and just what sort
of an ordinance might b:_ considered in the future. He explained that
the referended ordinance said absolutely nothing about spending any
money, rent control, low -interest loans, but in fact was simply an addi-
tion to the zoning code. It is yet to be decided how to approach the
problems raised, especially by those people who attended the Saturday
morning meeting, and he said those questions are tough ones that have
never been discussed by the Council. He wished to maks it clear that
the ordinance that was referendud di not address any of those questions,
and they are yet to come before the Council. He felt it was reprehen-
sible for Mr. Boudrias to bring in Stanford housing and to speak of
that as part of the City's low-income housing stock. The other figure
of four or five percent law/moderate income housing is true provided
that certain units do get built. However, in Palo Alto the percentage
of people who qualify for low/moderate inch housing on the basis of
income —people who work in this city, people who work in industries
that provide the taxes that enable us to enjoy the unususl amenities
that we do have --is far in excess of four or five percent, and it is
not correct to say that Palo Alto has all the low/moderate income
housing that it needs.
Councilman Sher said it has been pointed out that if Ordinance No. 2764
in rescinded, the City will be left simply with the so-called Manda-
tory Rehabilitation Program in Fire Zone I, which is the one action
Council has taken. He recalled that he had tried to get a trial volun-
tary rehabilitation program so that these properties which the City
wants to save would not be torn down because the property owners are
pushed to an immediate decision, but that approach was not met with
approval. He said the general matter of a rehabilitation assistance
program is currently before the Finance and Public Works Committee,
and the committee would be addressing itself to and making recommenda-
tions to Council as to whether there should be a rehabilitation
2 3 9
3/4/74
assistance program for owners in the Fire Zone 1 area. Secondly, if
there is to be such a program, which property owners should be eligible
for assistance. Thirdly, if there is to be such a program, how big
should it be and how should it be financed. Fourthly, if there is to
be such e program, and particularly if city money is to be used, what
conditions if any on city assistance should be attached, particularly
in regard to requirements as far as rentals in properties that receive
assistance. Fifthly, who should be eligible for this program. Would
it be the elderly, those with a certain length of residence, etc.
Finally, the Council will have to decide whether the elements of the
recommended program should and can be presented to the voters in a
clear way so that the results would give some guidance to the Council
in regard to these matters.
Councilman Henderson responded to Mr. boudrias that when he spoke of
972 units presently completed or on the drawing board, about half of
thattotal would be Lytton Gardens and Frenchman's Terrace. The Gardens
would be the Hest real effort toward housing for senior citizens, and
Frenchman's Terrace stands as a Stanford staff priority stivation and
will not be all that helpful to Palo Alto residents and certainly not
to the elderly in the downtown area. if the elderly do constitute
25X of the population of Palo Alto, it should be noted that the city
has sixty units at Stevenson House and raybe a similar number at San
Antonio Gardens, and that's about it. Colorado Pars. and Arastradero
Park are family situation, and wail Lytton Gardens is built, Palo Alto
has nothing significant for the senior citizens. Ihe biggest concen-
tration of senior citizens is in the downtovn area, and these people
are in danger of displacement if something is not done. Stanford hous-
ing cannot be included in this tally. Stanford is not able to house
all of its students, and Palo Alto provides housing for something like
2,000 students; therefore it is completely out of order to say that
Stanford housing could be included. Our senior citizens and young
families certainly cannot take advantage of that.
Vine Mayor Pearson stated that the goals and aims given forth by the
committee which met on Saturday morning are ones which she has heard
reiterated many ties over the past six years. The sponsors of the
petition stated things in a letter which they felt Council should
address itself to, and she felt Mayor Comstock answered every one of
their statements very well. She said that much of it sounded as though
the group had not eves read the Fire Zone I report which was disappoint-
ing to her. Five yeas ago, five of the present Council spent many
agonizing hours d. . Council meetings, all of which were tremendously
emotional. These meetings were filled to capacity with hundreds of
Pala Alto residents giving magnificent presentations painting the des-
perate need to preserve the housing in Palo Alto and particularly in
Fire Zone 1. These people were responsible, middle income, middle-aged,
young, old, of all faiths and political convictions. They forced the
Council to recognize the need for retaining our housing and certainly
to attempt to build more housing to meet the needs of a rapidly dis-
appearing low/moderate income resident in the city of Pao Alto. She
was sorry to say that the sponsors of the referendum petition failed to
surface during any of these emotionally packed meetings. The Council
did respond to these people and started four long years ago on a study
to develop a particular package of rehabilitation and rejuvenation of
downtown Palo Alto. The Council deliberately chose the toughest area
in town, which is Fire Zone I, and the Council in authorizing staff to
2 4 0
3/4/74
develop the rehab package recognized that Fire Zone I was unique,
It had an anti -rehab ordinance which had stifled housing and caused
deliberate deterioration since 1956, and she said that 1956 ordinance
should not be rescinded until we have another program ready so that
we do not demolish those houses. This area has the largest conce►:-
tration of senior citizens in Santa Clara County, and a 1966 study of
that area and the present 1972-73 study reveals some shocking statistics.
She hoped that the proponents of the rehabilitation petition would be
prepared to remedy these situations. The Council in an attempt to
assure understanding of this cr.splex issue established through staff
some committees of citizens in the area to work out the details. She
felt that. Council and staff had made a sound effort to establish new
and imaginative programs and zones and financing that would encourage
the revitalization of the Fire Zone I area, while at the same time
preventing the hardships of those the city intended to assist. She
said she could not hide her disappointment. After the 1973 election
and the Council changed, she found that Council was unable to impress
new members with the uniqueness of Fire Zone I. Her unhappiness with
the Council action of removing the twenty percent requirement for low/
moderate units in new construction in proposed Rehab zones was expressed
in her first vote against establishing the rehab zones. Her fears were
that in removing this valid requirement, the City would be actually
forcing demolition. Vice Mayor Pearson said the Planning Commission
was stunned and in their subsequent actions urged reconsideration by U e
Council, and recently their reluctance to apply the zones emphasized
their concern. Now that the sponsors of the referendum have presented
their petition, she said she would vote to rescind the rehab ordinance_
which_she did not feel was effective without that requirement. She
stated she expected the referendum sponsors to be very quickly passing
another petition with their own proposals for rebabing tar preserving
of the houses without harming the present residents.
The ordinance to rescind Ordinance No. 2764 was approved for first
reading on a unanimous vote.
MOTION: Councilman Norton moved, seconded by gervald, that staff pre-
pare an ordinance which would delete existing C and M zone prcvisioas
that prevent or discourage rehabilitation or improvement of structures
in those zones and which would allow a mix of residential uses in those
zones.
Vice Mayor Pearson said she thought that consideration of this matter
was already before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Knox wished to ,clarify the motion. *1e said as he understood the
first part which relates to matters of rehabilitation, there is a direc-
tive from Council co staff to remove the 1956 amendment regarding
rehabilitation of Type V structures and that will be coming to Council
as a proposal to adopt the 1973 building code without the 1956 amend-
ment. He stated that the second matter covers what is in the second
half of the ordinance that has just been referended, that the people
who presented the petition did not speak to the question of allowing
residential uses as permitted use in the downtown area. That ordinance
not only included a creation of rehab zones, but it allowed residential
uees in commercial and M areas in the downtown ..real only without a
use permit. At present a use permit is required. Mr. Knox understood
2 4 1
3/4/74
that the motion asked staff to prepare a new ordinance providing an
embodiment of the latter half of the ordinance which has been under
discussion.
Councilman Norton said that was essentially the intent of the ordinance,
and that staff would fill in the holes that haven't been covered by the
motion.
Vice Mayor Pearson expressed her understanding of the motion being in
two parts. One to diroct the staff to prepare the ordinance that would
remove the 1956 restrictions on rehabilitation on Type V structures in
downtown Palo Alto, and two to draft an ordinance which would Allow a
mixed use of commercial and residential in Fire Zone 1. Then she ques-
tioned if Councilman Norton meant in only the C and M Zones. Mr. Knox
asked if Councilman Norton meant only in Fire Zone 1 downtown. Coun-
cilman Norton replied that he meant in all C and M zones.
Mr. Knox stated that the first part of the motion is an action that
was taken by Council affirmatively, and the staff is just about ready
to bring that action back, which is the new building code without the
1956 restriction on rehabilitation.
Vice Mayor Pearson asked Councilman Norton if he would like to withdraw
that part.
See p. 316
Councilman Rosenbaum referred to the second part of the notion with
regard to use permit limitation saying it was part of the ordinance which
has now been rescinded and technically cannot be considered for a year.
City Attorney Booth replied that the charter only applies to an ordinance
actually submitted to the electorate in that respect.
Councilman Rosenbaum asked the City Attorney if this meant that Council
could next month pass the entire rehab ordinance in the for of a new
ordinance. Mr. Booth replied that did not appear to be prohibited.
Councilman Rosenbaum asked if there were any problem then in considering
this use permit ordinance. Mr. Booth replied there was no problem.
Councilman Sher said it seemed the first part of the motion was redundant,
because the identical action was already taken in January, and he felt
that part of the motion was inappropriate. With regard to the second
part of the motion, he favored the substance of it, and he suspected it
was not that part of the rehab zone ordinance that the sponsors of the
referendum were seeking to attack or strike down, but he said it would
be bad faith on Council's part, having rescinded the ordinance, to take
a substantial part of the same ordinance a reenact it. He said he would
be more comfortable in supporting the motion if some representative of
the committee in the audience would come up and say they had not been
aiming at that portion of the rehab ordinance..
Mr. Harvey Nixon, 430 Kipling Street, said the Council wondered why the
petition was passed, and he could give two reasons: 1) You don't need
to downzone to rehab, and 2) the mandatory part was one reason that the
petitions were started.
1
2 4 2
3/4/74
Councilman Sher asked specifically if in those parts of the ordinance
trying to make residential units conforming use, in the commercial
zones there were any desires not to see that enacted.
Fred Eyerly, 877 Sharon Court, referred to a part of the petition which
reads "that ordinance would add R -2 -Rehab and R -3 -Rehab rehabilitation
districts to the municipal cede, said regulations with other Council
action would contemplate use of Palo Alto city money to be used to sub-
sidize certain families of low/moderate income within any area so
zoned." From that wording it was clear the proponents of the petition
we -e striking at the R -2 -Rehab and R -3 -Rehab. He asked Councilman
Norton with regard to the mixed zoning if he were thinking of combined
commercial and residential in the same building or next door to each
other.
Councilman Norton said he would not limit the staff in either respect,
and they might come back with something that would permit either or
both.
Councilman Sher asked Hr. Eyerly if he were qL+ite comfortable and happy
with Councilman Norton's motion and would supprt it. Air. Eyerly replied
affirmatively. Councilman Sher said that in that case, he could support
the potion.
Councilman Henderson asked Councilman Norton if the first part of the
motion would be simply to delete the commercial and manufacturing re-
strictions; in other words, any property eviler in the Fire Zone I area
could convert to commercial and manufacturing uses.
Councilman Norton replied that the motion speaks to improvements, not
to uses, and takes the ban off rehabilitation in the C and M zones,
although it could certainly include Fire Zone I.
Councilman Henderson asked if the property would still have to be
retained as a residence. Councilman Norton Said the motion did not
say anything like that, but just removes the ban on rehabilitation.
Councilman Henderson asked about the second part then and if he under-
stood correctly that a mix of residential and commercial would be
allowed in those zones. Councilman Norton responded affirmatively.
Councilman Henderson noted that this was already being discussed in the
Planning Commission, including all types of possible zoning situations,
and he didn't feel he could go off into a specific decision without
seeing the pros and cons of a►ll the deliberations in the corm1issiou so
that he was opposed to both parts of the :notion.
Councilman Norton said he did not feel that his motion precluded anything
the Planning Commission was doing, but he also did not feel it necessary
to wit and see what they do.
Councilman Berwaid said he couldn't believe what he was hearing —that
the people who passed the petition are accused of not understanding the
ordinance, and 2) the misinterpretations of Air. Norton's simple motion.
Page 2 of the Fire Zone study states the following: 'Nike Grigoni out-
lined several possible modification* in the +C--2 zone which would
243
3/4/74
encourage housing opportunities in the downtown area --I) eliminate the
use permit requirement for residential structures, 2) amend the building
code restrictions on alteration of wood frame structures in Fire Zone I
to allow rehabilitation of rtructuree for existing use, and 3) allow
more flexibility- in parking requirements." Councilman Berwald wished
to clarify in his own mind what one of the reasons for the referendum
was, and that was facing up to an ordin.ence that set up some rehab
zones which obviously were going to be applied to certain areas, and
when applied would downgrade those areas or downzone them and would
become an instrument for the funding of rehabilitation without a vote
of the people. He said he did support the petition and stayed out of
the controversy until this meeting so he could be open minded. He
thought Councilman Norton's motion was to have the staff prepare an
ordinance that would include points that Council may have been referred
individually before to the Planning Commission didn't lessen the need
to get that kind of a modification back. He sees the trend in Council-
man Norton's motion as one of providing incentive or possibilities to
property owners in the downtown area to build residential units. At
some appropriate time, he felt staff should be directed to review the
possible incentives to property owners to develop mixed uses in C and
M zones, and Fire Zone 1, and possibly throughout the city.
norm; TO CONTINUE: Councilman Sher moved, seconded by Henderson,
that the first part of the motion be continued until Council receives
the staff report that would delete the 1956 restrictions on rehabilita-
tion.
T'ne motion passed on the following vote:
AYES: Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher
NOES: Berwald, Clay, Norton
REFERRAL MOTION; Councilman Sher moved, seconded by Henderson, that
the subject of an ordinance which would allow :?. mix of residential
uses in C and 14 zones be referred to the Planning Commission.
The motion passed on the following vote;
AYES: Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher
NOES: Berwald, Clay, Norton
Resort of City Attorney re Governmental
MOTION: Councilman Norton introduced the following emergency
ordinance and moved, seconded by Henderson, its adoption:
ORDINANCE No. 2774 ENTITLED "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 2.10 TO TEIE
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING GUIDELINES PURSUANT
TO THE GOVERNMENTAL CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ACT, DECLAR-
ING TEE URGENCY THEREOF, AND PROVIDING FOR THE
IMMEDIATE EFFECT THEREOF"
$ 4 4
3/4/74
S
Councilman Sher wished to be sure that his own situation with Stanford
University did not constitute substantial conflict with the proper
exercise of, his Counciimanic duties and powers. City Attorney Booth
replied that Mr. Sher wnuid not have a substantial conflict, but matters
that came up in Council concerning Stanford could be looked at on an
individual case basis.
The ordinance was adopted on a unanimous vote.
MOTION: Councilman Norton introduced the following ordinance and
moved, seconded by Henderson, its approval for first reading:
"ORDINANCE OF fhiE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING
CHAPTER 2.11 To THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
THE DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS" (Second reading
3/18/74)
Mr. Booth reported that the governor signed the mandatory legislation
regarding the financial disclosure bill; however, it would not be in
effect until next January. Staff's recommendation is still to go ahead
and adopt this ordinance which has some of the provisions that Senator
Moscene put into his bill. Ir any event, the most significant portion
is the removal of the requirement that individuals who deal with a
large number of clients list each one and the mounts paid, which has
been a matter of dispute and considerable discussion throughout the
state. Mr. Booth apologized for the complexity of score of the forms
and explained there is not much choice in how such matters are handled,
but his office would be happy to give any help to Council members in
filling out the forms.
Councilman Berwald said the chairman of the Housing Corporation expressed
concern, because it is their understanding of their contract with the
city that if the city adopts a conflict of interest code that it will
automatically bring the Housing Corporation into the act, even though
their name is not specifically mentioned in the ordinance.
City Attorney Booth said he realized this had been a matter of con-
siderable concern and referred to Section 2.11.040 of the Financial
Interest Disclosure Section which staff directed particularly to apply
to meet conflict of interest of organizations such as PACDAB and the
Housing Corporation who have contractual obligations. They are being
excluded by this ordinance from meeting any of the financial disclosure
aspects of the law, although they would be covered by the conflict of
interest provisions, which is the: ordinance just passed.
Councilman Berwald asked if he understood that these groups would be
covered by that ordinance. City Attorney Booth replied that for cc:;T
flict of interest, yes; but for financial disclosure, no.
The ordinance was approved for first reading on a unanimous vote.
Report of the Transportation Commission on
Councilman Rosenbaum noted that he had given each Council member a
copy of the report prepared by the consultant working with the county
2 4 5
3/4/74
bus system, and that it was a request of the Transportation Commission
that this report be referred to all of the Planning Commissioners in
the county. He felt it was a good exposition of the argument that in
order to have effective transit, you must allow more intensive develop-
ment than is currently had.
MOTION: Councilman Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Norton, that the report
of the Transportation Commission on transportation and land use in Santa
Clara County be referred to the Planning Commission.
The motion passed on a unanimous vote.
• Letter from Grant Spaeth re PAMR Foundation
an ans, ng osea ss on ct on
® i�A lyilgClrRRrl—A�n c s�r.oemiorawairy eis+ar
Councilman Berwald stated that he had a letter from Grant Spaeth refer-
ring to the Pale- Alto Medical Research Foundation and the effect on the
organization of the Planning Commission's actin of a week ago Wednesday.
He felt that staff should respond, as he noted that the proposed zone
Ithe goes through the lab. This is a serious matter to the foundation,
since it wcuids make their activities become a nonconforming use.
Vice Mayor Pearson said that Mr. Spaeth or someone from his office made
a presentation, Before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Knox responded that the matter is coming before Council on March 11
under the matter of the Commission's recommendation of rezoning the
fringe areas of Fire Zone I. Staff has been in contact with Mr. Spaeth
by telephone and understands his concert. There are several alterna-
tives that can be token. Council can uphold the recomrrmen:iation of the
commission to rezone to R-2; the zone R-4 could be adopted; Council
could -edraw the zone boundaries, or Council could decide not to rezone
the area.
MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved, seconded by Norton, that staff be
asked to reaolve the problems raised by Grant Spaeth in his letter and
include their recommendations at the time the item comes before Council
on March 11.
Councilman Sher asked if the motion intended to simply have staff ack-
nowledge that Council has received the letter and to be prepared to
present alternatives when the matter is before Council next week.
Councilman Berwald responded affirmatively but elucidated that his
motion was simply to respond to the problems raised in the letter and
to come back with a recommendation as to how the matter can be resolved
at the same time that the Planning Commission comes before Council with
their action.
Councilman Henderson stated that each Council member has the letter,
is aware of the problem. Staff ham already responded, and if that
information is available next week, he would like to see what the
Planning Commission has to say, and there would be no problem coming to
a decision on that particular property.
246
3/4/74
Councilman Rosenbaum noted that he had made a motion several months ago
suggesting that the Planning Commission examine this question of allow-
ing existing uses in these new zones, and he wondered what had happened
in the meantime.
Mr. Knox replied that would show up in the minutes, and after discussion
with the City Attorney came to the conclusion that there would be two
alternatives. One would be to go the Rosenbaum route and provide a
way in the ordinance to assure that these commercial uses not become
nonconforming, and the other being to draw the boundary lines so as to
prevent these uses from being drawn Into residential zones. He said
staff had detailed information to show to Council at the next meeting.
Councilman Rosenbaum asked if Mr. Knox were saying that the commission
decided not to adopt hie suggestion that the staff draw up the boundary
lines so as to pretty much eliminate all of the existing commercial use.
Mr. Knox responded that staff advised commission that there were some
problems of equitability in terms of nonconformity.
Councilman Rosenbaum said that in other words staff drew up certain
lines which resolved most of the problems, but the Planning Commission,
among other things, put a line through the middle of the foundation
building, and this is the situation which: would face Council next week.
Mr. Knox replied affirmatively.
The motion passed on the following vote:
AYES: Berwa:d, Norton, Rosenbaum, Sher
.DOES: Henderson, Pearson
ABSTAIN: Clay
Remuest of Citizen for Traffic Sim
near Joedan
Councilman Rosenbaum stated that Council had received a letter for a
traffic signal at California and Jordan, perheps to work in parallel
with the existing one on the other part of North California, and he
wondered if staff were preparing some response to that request.
Mr. Sipes replied that he would be happy to take the letter and prepare
a response.
Dunbaarton Bridge
Vice Mayor Pearson reported that she had received a citizen request as
to whether or_ not the city of Palo, Alto would consider filing some sort
of lawsuit. No further discussion followed her comment.
247
3/4/74
Beckman Instruments and Lack of Noise
atement
Vice Mayor Pearson said she had received citizen complaints about the
noise from Beckman Instruments in the industrial park which should
have been abated on February 19.
Orel Communications
No one addressed Council under Oral Communications.
Executive Session
Council adjourned to Executive Session re Personnel at 12:05 a.m.
Adourninent
The meeting adjourned at 12:13 a.m.
ATTEST: APPROVE:
City Cleri
Mayor
2 4 8
3/4,74