HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-11 City Council Summary Minutes
October 11, 2005
Special Meeting
1. Joint Meeting with City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission ...................................................................................384
2. Vote and Appointment of Candidates to the Architectural Review Board 384
3. Vote and Appointment of Candidates to the Utilities Advisory
Commission ...................................................................................385
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................385
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ..........................................................................386
4. Resolution 8559 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Approving the Long-Term Power Purchase Agreement (Shiloh
Wind Power Project) with Shiloh Wind Project, LLC for the Purchase of
Electricity Generated by a Wind Electric Generating Facility” ................386
5. Ordinance 4880 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Establishing the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian and
Bicyclist Impact Fee and Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code Title
16 (Building Regulations) by Adding Chapter 16.59 -- Charleston
Arastrdero Corridor Pedestrian and Bicyclist Impact Fee” ....................386
6. Ordinance 4881 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Updating the R-1 Zone District Regulations of Title 18 [Zoning] of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Amending Section 18.04.030 of
Chapter 18.04 [Definitions] and Table 3 (Summary of Gross Floor Area
for Low Density Residential Districts) of Chapter 18.12 [R-1 Single-
Family Residence District Regulations]” .............................................386
7. Report of Williamson Act Contracts Within the City of Palo Alto ............386
8. Approval of a Contract with Del Conte’s Landscaping, Inc. in the
Amount of $232,865 for Construction of El Camino Median Island
Improvements Phase II – Capital Improvement Program Project PE-
01013 ...........................................................................................386
10/11/05 99-382
9. Public Hearing: Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Update: .............387
10. Public Hearing: Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Update: ..............395
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ........................402
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. ...............................403
10/11/05 99-383
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Conference Room at 6:01 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg,
Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
PRESENT: Bialson, Burt, Cassel, Garber, Holman, Lippert, Sandas
STUDY SESSION
1. Joint Meeting with City Council and Planning and Transportation
Commission
No action required
RECESS: 7:00 p.m., with meeting reconvening in the Council
Chambers at 7:10 p.m.
Mayor Jim Burch reported on the relationship between Palo Alto and Kenner,
Louisiana. He said Senior Auditor Renata Falk traveled to Kenner and
presented the resolution from Palo Alto. Mayor Capitano of Kenner,
Louisiana was deeply touched and appreciated that Palo Alto employees had
contributed $13,850 to the fund. He also reported on the California Cities
Katrina Aid and Relief Effort (KARE) Project. The project encouraged staff to
help other California cities connect with cities in the Gulf Coast region. To
date, KARE had connected six other California cities with cities in Louisiana
or Mississippi.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Vote and Appointment of Candidates to the Architectural Review Board
FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
VOTING FOR STAN FIELD: Freeman, Kishimoto, Morton
VOTING FOR LORI HSU: Cordell
VOTING FOR GRACE LEE: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Freeman,
Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Morton,
Mossar, Ojakian
VOTING FOR SASSAN PEDRAMRAZI:
CLARE MALONE PRICHARD: Beecham, Burch, Kleinberg,
Mossar, Ojakian
10/11/05 99-384
Assistant City Clerk Deanna Riding announced that Grace Lee was appointed
with nine votes and Clare Malone Prichard was appointed with five votes on the
first ballot.
3. Vote and Appointment of Candidates to the Utilities Advisory
Commission
FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR THE UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
VOTING FOR WILLIA CONLON:
VOTING FOR EDGAR DeMAO: Beecham, Morton, Mossar
VOTING FOR RAMARAO DIGUMARTHI:
VOTING FOR MARILYN KELLER: Burch, Cordell, Freeman,
Kishimoto, Ojakian
VOTING FOR WALTER LOWENSTEIN:
VOTING FOR MATI MERILO:
Assistant City Clerk Deanna Riding announced that Marilyn Keller was appointed
with five votes on the first ballot.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Rita Morgin, 600 Channing Avenue, spoke regarding the horrendous garden
fee increase for the community gardeners.
John K. Abraham 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding the Police
Demographics Report.
Mike Abkin, 177B Everett Avenue, spoke regarding the Department of Peace
resolution and current legislation.
Victoria Colligain, 1160 South California Avenue, spoke regarding the
Congressional passage of legislation to establish a Department of Peace.
Samina Faheem, 120 Park Avenue, spoke regarding the Department of
Peace and the earthquake in Pakistan.
Norman Carroll, 425 High Street, spoke regarding City Meetings being held
at the same time.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, spoke regarding development.
10/11/05 99-385
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve
the minutes of September 12, 2005.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor Kleinberg stated she would vote “no” on Item No. 6.
Council Member Cordell stated she would not participate on Item No. 5 due to a conflict of interest because she owned property within 500 feet of the
area, and that she would vote no on Item No. 6.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Beecham, to
approve Item Nos. 4-8 on the Consent Calendar.
LEGISLATIVE
4. Resolution 8559 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Approving the Long-Term Power Purchase Agreement (Shiloh
Wind Power Project) with Shiloh Wind Project, LLC for the Purchase of
Electricity Generated by a Wind Electric Generating Facility”
5. Ordinance 4880 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Establishing the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian and
Bicyclist Impact Fee and Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code Title
16 (Building Regulations) by Adding Chapter 16.59 -- Charleston
Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian and Bicyclist Impact Fee” (1st Reading
09/26/2005, Passed 7-0, Kleinberg absent, Cordell not participating)
6. Ordinance 4881 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Updating the R-1 Zone District Regulations of Title 18 [Zoning] of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Amending Section 18.04.030 of
Chapter 18.04 [Definitions] and Table 3 (Summary of Gross Floor Area
for Low Density Residential Districts) of Chapter 18.12 [R-1 Single-
Family Residence District Regulations]” (1st Reading 09/26/2005, 7-1, Passed Cordell
no, Kleinberg absent) ADMINISTRATIVE
7. Report of Williamson Act Contracts Within the City of Palo Alto
8. Approval of a Contract with Del Conte’s Landscaping, Inc. in the
Amount of $232,865 for Construction of El Camino Median Island
Improvements Phase II – Capital Improvement Program Project PE-
01013
10/11/05 99-386
MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 4, 7 and 8.
MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item No. 5, Cordell not participating.
MOTION PASSED 7-2 for Item No. 6, Cordell, Kleinberg no.
Mayor Burch reported Palo Alto Green was presently at 13 percent of the
population and was on its way to becoming number one in the country with
a total of 15 percent. He thanked the residents for all they had done in the
pursuit of renewable resources.
Council Member Cordell said she understood the Palo Alto Hills Golf and
Country Club (PAHGCC) was erroneously included in the Williamson Act
contracts. She asked whether there were any benefits or monies that
accrued improperly to the PAHGCC and, if so, what would be done.
City Attorney Gary Baum said although the PAHGCC was listed and entered
into the Williamson Act contract, they never benefitted from the contract,
which should have included a reduction in property taxes. Staff did not want
to cancel the contract as it required a penalty to be paid by PAHGCC; instead
staff would move to not renew the contract.
Council Member Freeman commented the Palo Alto Green yard sign was
helpful.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Council Member Cordell stated she would not participate in Item No. 9 due
to a conflict of interest because she was employed by Stanford University.
Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate in Item No. 9 due
to a conflict of interest because her husband was employed by Stanford
University.
Council Member Mossar asked whether those not participating in Item No. 9
would have the benefit of staff’s presentation for Item No. 10, which was
being presented simultaneously.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie said staff
anticipated two separate presentations.
City Attorney Gary Baum said staff would prefer to hold the conflicted item
until the end; however, it was not allowed under Section 18709 of the
Political Reform Act.
9. Public Hearing: Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Update:
10/11/05 99-387
Adoption of Portions of a New Chapter 18.20 of the Zoning Ordinance
to Provide Regulations for the Medical Office and Medical Research
District [MOR], Research Park [RP] and Research Sub-district [RP(5)],
and Related Definitions in Chapter 18.04; Modifications to Section
5.20.120 of the Municipal Code Regarding Recycling; Modifications to
Chapter 18.08 Regarding Zoning Districts; and Deletion of Current
Chapters 18.37, 18.55, 18.57, 18.60, and 18.63 of the Zoning
Ordinance (Title 18).
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie said the
recommendation was for Council to adopt portions of a new Chapter 18.20
of the Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU). Should the Council wish to enact
anything different than the P&TC’s recommendation, including staff’s
alternative recommendation, it would require an amendment to the draft
ordinance.
Planning Consultant Curtis Williams said the Council previously reviewed and
discussed preliminary recommendations of the P&TC. Although they
accepted many of the modifications, they directed staff to address several
issues in conjunction with moving forward with the changes to: 1) delete
provisions limiting office use in the Research Park (RP) district, and instead
require monitoring of office use in the RP, with a report to Council if
substantial increases in office use occurred in the future; 2) delete the
phrase “within a medical office” from the definition of “medical research”; 3)
provide for a 150-foot setback adjacent to residential zones for increased height to 40 feet to accommodate interstitial space for biotech users in the
RP and Research Office; 4) return with added provisions for mixed-use and
residential uses, and for performance standards regarding noise, lighting,
and access for those zones; and 5) review provisions for “medical office” and
“medical research” uses in the Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR)
district to provide incentives to retain medical offices but without providing a
disincentive for maintaining research uses. The P&TC’s recommendation for
residential and mixed-use development would eliminate the allowance for
single-family and two-family uses, but continue to allow multi-family
residential use at the RM-30 densities as presently prescribed. The P&TC
also recommended adding a buffer area of 150 feet within any R-1 or other
lower density zones adjacent to the RP zone, and would be limited to the
RM-15 density and standards. Staff recommended that Conditional Use
Permits (CUPs) be required for all multi-family residential uses in the various
districts. They believed the added level of review would provide for further
protection of those areas that were important for support of the City’s
economic base. Staff and the P&TC differed in their recommendation for
Medical Office and MOR uses. Staff felt the MOR could exist as a separate
use and suggested the Medical Office use be a conditional use in the MOR
zone. Performance criteria was important in protecting residential areas from
neighboring industrial uses, and the existing Chapter (18.64) of the Zoning
Ordinance would remain in place to address lighting, visual noise, and site
10/11/05 99-388
access issues. Staff suggested developing a separate chapter of the ZOU to
replace the existing one to include upgrades with additional standards for
sustainability and pedestrian access. Staff recommended the Council adopt
the ordinance to approve specific sections of the new Chapter 18.20 in the
ZOU for the Medical Office and MOR, RP, and Research Park-5 (RP-5) zoning
districts west of El Camino Real (Stanford lands).
Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Pat Burt said the P&TC did
not have an opportunity to review CUPs on residential development as well
as Medical Office in the prescribed areas. The P&TC looked carefully at
Council’s review of the restrictions on MOR within the Medical Office use area
and recognized that Medical Office use of private independent practitioners in and around Welsh Road was a valuable community resource. The P&TC
saw it as a policy objective in an attempt to retain those medical
practitioners. The staff and P&TC looked for possible incentives to achieve
the Council’s directive, but none were found. After careful consideration, the
P&TC voted unanimously to stand by their previous recommendation, and for
the Council to reconsider the matter. With regard to performance criteria,
the P&TC adopted support for the recommendation with the caveat the
development standards, particularly for increased height and equipment
accommodations, may be revisited if the present standards did not
adequately address noise and visual impacts of the equipment.
Mayor Burch declared the Public Hearing open at 7:20 p.m.
Jim Baer, 172 University Avenue, said the City should align its 25-year policy
of support for appropriate levels of housing within infrastructure capacity.
Craig Foster, 600 Deer Valley Road, San Rafael, CA 94903, expressed
opposition to the definition change of Medical Office Research (MOR). The
downside of the proposal presented by the P&TC may require his business to
find other tenants.
Planning and Transportation Commission Member Lee Lippert said although
staff had time to submit their recommendations regarding CUPs to the P&TC
for discussion it had not been done. He asked the Council to consider
sending the item to the P&TC for further discussion.
Sheri Furman, 3094 Greer Road, requested that Council prohibit R-1 and R-2
in the zones mentioned in Item Nos. 9 and 10, and prohibit multi-family in
the General Manufacturing (GM) zone but require the CUP for multi-family in
all other areas.
Edie Keating, 3553 Alma Street, #5, believed the City needed housing and
opportunities which were appropriate for housing, such as vacant offices.
10/11/05 99-389
Bonnie Packer, 768 Stone Lane, asked the Council to return the item to the
P&TC for further consideration.
Nancy Tierney, 1412 Howard Avenue, said to restrict medical research to a
medical office setting would curtail or eliminate the research programs and
the resulting benefits to patients and the community at large.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, expressed support for staff’s recommendation
of a CUP for housing in the industrial area.
Bernadette Soubirou, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, San Mateo, expressed
support for staff’s recommendation on the additional height allowance for
the biotech building for interstitial space.
Jean Snider, Stanford Management Company, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo
Park, said Stanford, as the steward of the Research Park (RP), expressed
support for staff’s recommendation. Maintaining a balance of uses in the RP
was vital to its success.
Annette Glanckopf, 2747 Bryant Street, said she supported the P&TC’s
recommendation to prohibit R-1 single-family and R-2 two-family uses in the
MOR and RP districts. She also supported multi-family use in the same areas
with a CUP.
Fred Balin, 2385 Columbia Street, believed the Council should engage with an independent consultant to determine appropriate threshold levels on
California Avenue and neighboring streets, monitor traffic counts as new
development occurred, and report early warnings as traffic levels near
thresholds.
Bud Mission, Roche Palo Alto, 3431 Hillview Avenue, expressed his
companies’ support for the current ZOU as proposed, and urged the
Council’s final adoption.
Sidney Espinosa, Hewlett Packard, 3000 Hanover Street, said Hewlett
Packard (HP) strongly supported staff’s recommendation that Stanford
continue monitoring and enforcing office use within the RP, and the
expanded height limit to 40 feet.
Joy Ogawa, Yale Street, expressed concern about the proper use, handling,
and storage of biohazards and potential accidents.
Robert Wheatley, 701 Welch Road, concurred with the comments of Craig
Foster. He said limiting Medical Office uses would be detrimental to him as a
landowner. He suggested Council maintain the current research and office
uses.
10/11/05 99-390
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Avenue, expressed support for the height
recommendation with the caveat that the height increase not be solely for
profit for the developer and the landowner.
Betsy Allyn supported the recommendation to make housing a CUP in the
MOR and RP districts. She believed the item should return to the P&TC for
further discussion.
Mayor Burch declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:15 p.m.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Ojakian, to
approve the staff and Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC)
recommendation to adopt the Ordinance to approve specific sections of the
new Chapter 18.20 in the Zoning Ordinance for the Medical Office and
Medical Research (MOR), Research Park (RP) and Research Park-5) zoning
districts west of El Camino Real (Stanford lands), encompassing revisions to
the current office, research and manufacturing zoning districts (Chapters
18.37, 18.55, 18.57, 18.60, and 18.63) and related definitions in Chapter
18.04 (Attachment A of CMR:391:05)
and
approve the staff recommendation regarding the definition of “medical
research” and review of automatic teller machines that would require two
additional provisions as follows: 1) Conditional Use Permits for all multi-
family residential developments in the MOR, RP and RP(5) Districts, and 2)
Conditional Use Permits for medical office use in the RP and RP(5) Districts.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Updating the Office, Research, and Manufacturing Districts of
Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Amending
Chapters 18.04 [Definitions], Repealing Chapters 18.37 [Office
Research District Regulations], 18.55 [GM General Manufacturing
District Regulations], 18.57 [General Manufacturing Combining District
(B) Regulations], 18.60 [Limited Industrial/Research Park District
Regulations] and 18.63 [Limited Industrial Site Combining District (3,
5) Regulations]in its Entirety and Enacting Portions of a New Chapter
18.20 [Office Research, and Manufacturing Districts]”
Council Member Beecham said he recalled the Comprehensive Plan (Comp
Plan) denoted the effects of housing with regard to the most appropriate
sites for high-density residential housing. At that time, high-density housing
throughout the various General Manufacturing (GM), Limited Manufacturing
(LM) and RP sites was not discussed. He favored the requirement of a CUP
for high-density housing. He believed there were compelling reasons why
independent research was useful for the MOR. It was Council’s intent to help
preserve and maintain Medical Offices.
10/11/05 99-391
Council Member Ojakian said the idea behind the CUP was a way to regulate
and modulate high-density housing. Council previously directed staff to not
allow any housing over 35 feet within a 150 foot setback.
Council Member Morton asked whether staff had concerns about the
definitions of hazardous materials.
Mr. Emslie said no. The definition came from the City’s own Hazardous
Mitigation Plan (HMP) and was an adopted regulation.
Council Member Morton said while he was an advocate for housing, he did
not believe it should be in the midst of the Stanford Research Park (SRP)
although there was a need. He expressed support for the motion.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the P&TC reviewed the CUP issue.
Mr. Emslie said while it was proposed in the May 4, 2004 staff report, the
P&TC never received the staff recommendation that CUPs be required in the
aforementioned zones.
Council Member Freeman asked why that had not happened.
Mr. Emslie said the ordinance required the P&TC to have considered the
topics before they were brought to the Council. In the spirit of moving the
project along and having several housing proposals to consider, staff wanted to be responsive to a dynamic and changing environment.
Council Member Freeman said she visited a biotech company on Hansen Way
in the SRP, and questioned the present height of the building.
Mr. Emslie said under the current standards the height limit would be 35
feet.
Council Member Freeman asked whether there were other biotech
companies presently in the SRP.
Mr. Emslie said yes.
Mr. Burt said the P&TC reviewed the merging trends in the research arena.
Input from the development community and the SRP indicated that in order
to facilitate emerging biotech trends the need arose for greater interstitial
space.
Council Member Freeman said she wanted to see medical offices remain, but
realized office research was needed. She suggested discussions with building
owners regarding a percentage of a building being reserved for medical
offices.
10/11/05 99-392
City Attorney Gary Baum said it would be problematic to do so without a
rational basis for the division.
Mr. Emslie said the concern was similar to that of establishing an office cap.
It would be difficult to categorize uses, and would consume a great deal of
effort and discussion among the parties.
Council Member Freeman asked how staff would measure whether all the
office space was gone. Could there be an annual review of office space
provided to Council by the owners.
Mr. Emslie said the Stanford Management Group had agreed to monitor
medical office conversions. They had a policy of not exceeding 25 percent of
office in the SRP to maintain the integrity of the park. Staff would not have a
problem monitoring other uses on an annual basis.
Council Member Freeman requested the maker of the motion to consider
that Council receive information on an annual basis of the split of medical
office versus research in the SRP.
MAKER OF MOTION refused to include statement “Receive information on
annual basis of split of medical office versus research in those areas to keep
an eye on what is going on.”
Council Member Freeman said she had hoped Stanford could continue the
necessary research but also protect some of the office space that could be
decimated.
Council Member Kishimoto noted the definition of medical office specifically
allowed for incidental medical or dental research within the office. The
Council’s role was to allocate land use to support services believed to be
required and desired by the community. She expressed opposition to the
motion as presented. She said Biosafety Level 4 involved dangerous viruses
such as Ebola and Small Pox and asked whether Level 4 could be sent to
Council instead of approval at the City Manager level.
Mr. Baum said he was not aware of any legal issues that would prevent such
a request.
Mr. Emslie said was not aware of any planning or practical issues either.
City Manager Frank Benest asked the Director of Planning and Community
Environment to relay to Council why the recommendation was made.
Mr. Emslie said it was part of the City’s HMP, and a current reference to the
existing plan and program.
10/11/05 99-393
Deputy Fire Chief Dan Firth agreed the current proposal of having the City
Manager, Fire Chief, and Police Chief review any proposed use of Level 4
materials was consistent with the HMP. There would need to be significant
technical support, but he did not see a problem with the Council being able
to make the same decision.
Mr. Benest said the Council would be notified, but he did not want to
politicize the nature of the situation and the mitigation in place.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether there were other Level 4 facilities
in the vicinity.
Mr. Firth said he was not aware of any.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the maker of the motion wanted
to incorporate that Biosafety Level 4 issues be sent to Council for approval.
Council Member Beecham said he was not familiar with the Level 4 issues
and what was in the HMP. He would prefer to have the Plan return to Council
for further discussion and review.
Council Member Kishimoto asked who was responsible in the event of a
hazardous leak or earthquake.
Mr. Firth said the responsibility of any release of hazardous material was on
the owner of the material.
Council Member Kishimoto asked who was responsible for inspection of those
materials.
Mr. Firth said the Fire Department had a Comprehensive Hazardous
Materials Inspection program and conducted many inspections yearly at a
majority of the facilities within the City. The department’s jurisdiction did not
extend to inspecting for Biosafety Levels 1, 2 or 3.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether those levels were left to the
Federal or State departments.
Mr. Firth said he believed the responsibility was on the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) and the National Institute of Health (NIH).
Council Member Kishimoto expressed support for the CUP and favored a ban
on housing in the GM zone. She also wanted to keep track of the spine issue.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg expressed support for the motion. She commended the
City’s Hazardous Material (Hazmat) Team who acted properly and swiftly
10/11/05 99-394
during the anthrax scares a few years prior. With regard to housing, there
needed to be more stability in the City’s policies. Although there seemed to
be enough market rate housing, there was a shortage of affordable housing
in the City. She favored Stanford continuing to monitor its own uses.
Biotechnology was an industry that would continue.
Mayor Burch expressed support for the motion.
Mr. Baum reminded Council that under Article 1, Section 7 of the City’s
Charter five affirmative votes were needed to pass the motion.
Mayor Burch concurred with his colleagues to continue to look for ways to
protect traffic in the College Terrace area.
MOTION PASSED 6-1, Kishimoto voting no, Cordell, Mossar, not
participating
RECESS: 9:30 a.m. to 9:40 p.m.
MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Freeman, to
request that staff agendize a discussion of the City permitting and inspection
polices on biohazardous materials.
MOTION PASSED 8-1, Morton no.
10. Public Hearing: Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Update:
Adoption of Portions of a New Chapter 18.20 of the Zoning Ordinance
to Provide Regulations for the Research Office and Limited
Manufacturing District [ROLM], the Research Office and Limited Manufacturing Sub-district-Embarcadero [ROLM-E], and the General
Manufacturing District [GM], and Related Definitions in Chapter 18.04.
Planning Consultant Curtis Williams said the item referred to the Research
Office and Limited Manufacturing District (ROLM), the Research Office and Limited Manufacturing Sub-district-Embarcadero (ROLM-E), and the General
Manufacturing (GM) District areas east of El Camino Real. The P&TC and
staff recommended against an increase in height for biotech and Research
and Development (R&D) in the ROLM because of visibility concerns and the
adjacency of the ROLM-E to the Baylands. Additional height was not needed
in the GM, as the limit was already 50 feet. The P&TC recommended that
single-family and two-family uses not be permitted in the GM and ROLM
districts but allowed for multi-family development pursuant to RM-30
densities and development standards, adding some language about
providing for compatible transitions from low-density residential zones. The
P&TC also voted to allow mixed-use (residential/non-residential)
development in the GM, ROLM, and ROLM-E zones, subject to current
10/11/05 99-395
allowable floor area ratios and density limitations (RM-15 or RM-30) for
residential uses in each zone, except in the GM area east of San Antonio and
north of Charleston Roads. In that area, mixed-use development would be
prohibited, because of the concentration of heavy industrial uses and the
intent to protect that area for industry. Staff recommended all multi-family
residential be conditional uses in the all of the zoning districts. The P&TC
recommended the allowance of stand-alone Medical Research in the ROLM
and ROLM-E zones, while staff recommended that medical office be a
conditional use for those same zones. The P&TC voted to recommend that
automatic teller machines (ATMs) exterior to a building only be allowed with
a conditional use permit, and would require review by the Architectural
Review Board (ARB). ATMs interior to a building would be a permitted use.
Staff believed ATMs were a permitted accessory use in all of the Office,
Research and Manufacturing districts, and staff level/ARB review was
adequate to address those issues. The existing performance criteria chapter
of the Zoning Ordinance would be retained while staff worked with the ARB
and the ZOU environmental consultant to update and refine those criteria.
Chapter 18.64 provided broad discretion to address lighting, noise, visual
and site access impacts from those land uses. Staff recommended the
Council adopt the ordinance to approve specific sections of a new Chapter
18.20 of the Zoning Ordinance for the GM, ROLM and ROLM-E districts east
of El Camino Real, encompassing revisions to the current office, research,
and manufacturing zoning districts.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie said the
second paragraph on Page 3 of the staff report (CMR:312:05) under the
heading Residential Uses and Mixed-Use spoke about the Fire Department‘s
concern regarding the H occupancy, and how it could apply to several
classes of hazardous materials storage, some of which were minimal (a few
gallons of paint or gasoline). Staff had subsequently clarified with Deputy
Fire Chief Dan Firth that the threshold was much higher.
Mayor Burch declared the Public Hearing open at 9:45 p.m.
Raminder Bajwa, 450 Olive Avenue, said he lived in an R-1 zone neighborhood and expressed concern about the one or two GM(B) overlay
businesses in his neighborhood being changed to GM. There was already an
established traffic issue.
Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said ATMs should be reviewed by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB). He did not see any justification to revise
the GM(B) zone to GM. It would increase building density, potential
employment levels, and traffic.
Joy Ogawa, Yale Street, expressed concern about changing the GM(B)
district to GM, because the GM(B) offered a land use mitigation measure.
10/11/05 99-396
Bruce Knoblock, 1032 Forest Avenue, clarified the lifting of the B overlay
from the GM zone did not necessarily increase density for multi-family
housing.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, said the Council should consider whether
they preferred to have more density or more units. She believed ATMs were
dangerous and hoped the Council would give some consideration to include
protective measures.
Mayor Burch declared the Public hearing closed at 10 p.m.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, to
approve the staff and Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC)
recommendation to adopt the Ordinance to approve specific sections of the
new Chapter 18.20 in the Zoning Ordinance for the GM, ROLM AND ROLM-E
districts east of El Camino Real, encompassing revisions to the current office,
research and manufacturing zoning districts (Chapters 18.37, 18.55, 18.57,
18.60, and 18.63) and related definitions in Chapter 18.04 (Attachment A of
CMR:312:05)
and
staff recommendation regarding the definition of “medical research” and
review of exterior automatic teller machines that would require two
additional provisions as follows: 1) Conditional Use Permits for all multi-
family residential developments in the GM, ROLM and ROLM-E Districts, and
2) Conditional Use Permits for medical office use in the ROLM and ROLM-E Districts. Exterior ATMs be permitted as an accessory use with staff level
/ARB review.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Updating the Office, Research, and Manufacturing Districts of
Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Enacting Portions
of a new Chapter 18.20 [Office Research, and Manufacturing Districts]”
Mr. Emslie said staff felt comfortable with both the separation of 150 feet
and a use permit, which worked in conjunction because they were limited in
the number of H occupancies.
Council Member Cordell asked whether the motion included the
recommendation that the zoning convert from the GM(B) to the GM.
Council Member Beecham said yes.
Council Member Mossar said she had supported the motion because of the
addition of the CUP. It was not a suitable site for housing, but the Council
would be able to review housing in that area. She had concerns about
housing in the ROLM-E area, because it was primarily an auto-oriented
district, and the City operated a sewage treatment plant in that location.
10/11/05 99-397
Sometimes those odors were significant. She asked whether the intent of the
motion was to have interior ATMs receive staff/ARB review.
Council Member Beecham clarified it was exterior ATMS only.
Council Member Morton asked if his colleagues had anxieties about putting
housing in the ROLM-E or GM zone, why not prohibit housing in just those
areas.
Council Member Beecham said he was not prepared to review all zones to
prohibit housing in any particular one(s).
Council Member Morton said as development for housing came before the
Council, they would have the opportunity to look at excluding it from certain
zones.
Council Member Cordell asked for staff’s response to concerns raised by Ms.
Ogawa and Ms. Glanckopf regarding going from GM(B) to GM.
Mr. Wright said the GM(B) area was surrounded by Agilent, Fry’s Electronics
and other intense users. To take a narrow strip of land and try and restrict it
had marginal effects. Throughout the GM district, staff had tried to use CUP
requirements for administrative office, schools and others that were heavier
traffic generators. Much of the Park Boulevard (GM) area was within the
Comp Plan Transit-Oriented District (TOD). He clarified there was no increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for non-residential development going
from GM(B) to GM. It would remain at .5 FAR. The only increase would
involve a mixed-use development in which the residential portion could take
the total FAR up to 1.0.
Council Member Cordell asked whether the statement, “the proposed zone
elimination of the GM(B) combining district would allow additional floor area
adding up to approximately another entire Agilent headquarters building to
be built in this GM(B) zone area” was an accurate statement.
Mr. Wright said it was not accurate. Agilent was office space and the FAR
was .5 in that area. What could be built above and beyond that were
residential units.
Council Member Ojakian said the proposed mixed-use Hohback project was
rejected. He asked whether that project would be allowed today in the GM
zone.
Mr. Wright said the previous Hohback proposal would not be allowed even
today. The Hohbach project was over in density and FAR under the proposed
scenario or the existing GM(B).
10/11/05 99-398
Vice Mayor Kleinberg asked whether adoption of the RM-15 recommendation
would limit uses such as a hotel or multi-family development.
Mr. Wright said no. The uses would be defined by the ROLM district. A multi-
family development would require RM-15 standards.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg asked what size RM-15 restriction would be made in
the ROLM district.
Mr. Wright said the restrictions applied to the development standards and
not to the uses. Hotels were not governed by RM-15. Hotels would need to
be permitted under the ROLM if allowed. He referred to Table 2 in the
proposed ordinance under Services Uses. He said the only hotels allowed in
the various zones were in the Medical Office Research (MOR) district.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg questioned why a hotel would not be allowed in a
ROLM district.
Mr. Wright said it could be added if appropriate.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg asked whether the definition of mixed development
included a combination of owned and rented units, and some retail services.
Mr. Wright said yes. The retail portion would be counted as .5 FAR.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that hotels, as defined, be included in the ROLM
and ROLM-E District.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Morton, to
remove multi-family housing, as an allowed use in the GM Zone.
Council Member Kishimoto said there were a limited number of GM zones,
and it was intended for light manufacturing and low cost commercial
services. It was not a place to compete with housing.
Council Member Mossar said it was not clear to her whether the areas zoned
GM on East Bayshore Road were not potentially appropriate for housing
development.
Council Member Kleinberg said it was in a flood zone.
Council Member Mossar said she did not understand the rationale to prevent
conversion to housing in the area south of Oregon Expressway along Park
Blvd. She believed the CUP was a mechanism to decide whether housing was
appropriate in certain zones.
10/11/05 99-399
Council Member Kishimoto said if the Council wanted to remove the GM(B)
zone on Park Boulevard because it was close to transit, she would rather
wait for the TOD zoning. She believed the idea was to promote high-density
auto-oriented development. She would ask the Planning staff and the P&TC
to return with recommendations to rezone the district from GM(B) to LM
along East Bayshore Road.
Council Member Mossar said she could not support the amendment as it was
too broad.
Council Member Beecham said the original motion was to remove GM(B) in
all areas. A CUP would allow the Council to discuss housing in areas where
auto-oriented and/or transit-oriented zones existed.
Council Member Morton said a CUP process allowed some control; however,
some of the areas needed to be dealt with in order to preserve the
commercial uses. He believed high-density housing needed to be eliminated
in some of the prescribed areas in order to control the economic factors.
Council Member Ojakian said the difference between the GM and GM(B) zone
was the addition of housing at .5 FAR. It seemed the motion would turn the
GM zone into a GM(B) equivalent in terms of the extra square footage.
Mr. Emslie said in the GM(B) there was a penalty for mixed-use and the
housing portion was limited. Removal of the GM(B) allowed mixed-use to remain at .5 FAR and able to add another .5 for a total of 1.0 FAR.
Council Member Ojakian said Council Member Kishimoto’s motion would not
allow for housing, which made GM(B) for most of the zone.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
Council Member Freeman asked for clarification on the GM and the GM(B).
Why would one want to change from GM(B) to GM, especially in conjunction
with a CUP.
Mr. Wright said the benefit of going to a GM zone was to allow a mixed-use
(residential) component to be added. It did not increase the non-residential,
but changed the uses of the non-residential to some extent. Staff attempted
to address that issue with the addition of use permit requirements for
administrative office and schools. Residential was allowed in the GM(B) zone,
but it would have to be strictly residential and could not exceed the .6 FAR
for RM-30.
Council Member Freeman asked for the appropriate use if the goal was to
have general manufacturing and not housing in those areas.
10/11/05 99-400
Mr. Emslie said the B overlay discouraged mixed-use housing. The removal
of the B provided the extra .5 FAR for more housing.
Planning and Transportation Commission Chair Pat Burt said neither the
P&TC nor staff had the opportunity to look at the rezoning of particular
areas; however, the P&TC did discuss that Fabian Way was a true and
functioning GM zone.
AMENDMENT PASSED 5-4, Mossar, Beecham, Burch, Kleinberg, no.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 7-2, Kleinberg, Mossar no.
City Manager Frank Benest said there was at least one existing housing
program in the GM(B) zone, which was at 195 Page Mill Road. Staff would
need to review it because the prohibition would apply to new projects.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Ojakian, the
currently filed application for 195 Page Mill Road would not be affected by
tonight’s action and would proceed under the prior zoning rules.
Council Member Freeman asked how far along in the process would the
application need to be, to be considered grandfathered in.
City Attorney Gary Baum said legally the Council was entitled to change the
underlining zoning for a project until both the building permit was issued and substantial funds had been expended by the developer based upon the
permit. However, past precedent in Palo Alto was more liberal and, if an
application was “in the pipeline”, generally new regulations would not be
applied.
Council Member Freeman asked what was meant by “in the pipeline”.
Mr. Baum said when an application was filed, and what stage the application
was in.
Mr. Benest said with regard to 195 Page Mill Road, an application had been
filed and substantial funds were spent.
Mr. Baum said legally it would apply, but because of past precedent it would
not apply because an application had been filed.
Mr. Emslie said staff had consistently defined “in the pipeline” as applications
in the City’s possession, such as the aforementioned application.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the applicant was aware it was a
GM(B) zone.
10/11/05 99-401
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
Council Member Ojakian asked when the performance criteria would return
to the Council.
Mr. Emslie said staff anticipated the performance criteria would come before
the P&TC in Fall 2005 and to the Council in Spring 2006.
Council Member Ojakian asked what needed to be completed on the ZOU.
Planner Manager John Lusardi said staff had worked with the ARB on
updating the existing standards plus adding standards for sustainability and
other areas not currently in the ordinance. The anticipated timeline for
completion of the ZOU was Spring 2006.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg asked what type of project was 195 Page Mill Road.
Mr. Emslie said it was a mixed-use project with R&D and ownership or rental
housing in the same building.
Mayor Burch asked whether a motion to reconsider had to come from the
prevailing party in a vote of 5-4.
Mr. Baum said that was correct.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Kishimoto requested a discussion take place at the October
24, 2005 Council Meeting of the new information that Motorola did not
intend to take back the Fiber equipment and what would be the potential
impacts to the Palo Alto FTTH trial.
Council Member Mossar stated she would not be able to participate in the
FTTH item since her husband’s family had holdings of telecommunications
stock.
Council Member Ojakian stated he would not be able to participate in the
FTTH item since he had holdings in telecommunications stock.
Council Member Morton said he would not be able to participate in the FTTH
item because his family had holdings in telecommunications stock.
BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, the Council requested a discussion at the October
24, 2005 Council Meeting of the new information that Motorola did not
10/11/05 99-402
intend to take back the Fiber equipment and what would be the potential
impacts to the Palo Alto FTTH trial.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg reported at the recent Annual California League of
Cities meeting a vote of neutrality was taken on Proposition 76, State
Spending and School Funding Limits.
BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, the Council requested the City Manager and Mayor
consider agendizing Proposition 76 for the next City Council meeting to
enable the Council to take a position.
Council Member Mossar invited her colleagues to attend the National League
of Cities Environmental Steering Committee events in Palo Alto on Thursday
or Friday of that week.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto
Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the
preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the
meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to
during regular office hours.
10/11/05 99-403