Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-02 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting April 2, 2001 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator..............................486 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m...................486 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval, after review and recommendation by the Architectural Review Board/Historic Review Board, of an application by SummerHill Homes to allow construction of a 36-unit, three-story condominium complex, subterranean parking garage, and related site improvements located at 325 Channing Avenue ..............................................487 1. Appointments to Human Relations Commission ...................488 CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 6...............................489 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................518 APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................518 2. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Maze and Associates in the Amount of $132,800 for 2000-01 City Mandated Financials and GASB 34 ..............................518 3. Authorize Signature of the City Manager or Director of Utilities for the Energy Star License Agreement Regarding Participation in the Energy Star Program Created by the Environment Protection Agency and Department of Energy to Promote Energy Conservation and to Reduce Pollution for an Annual Cost of $5,000 ........................................518 4. The Policy and Services Committee recommends that City Council direct staff to come up with a vision statement, guiding principles, and an implementation plan for a Proposed City Sustainability Policy. ..................................519 5. Conference with City Attorney—Existing Litigation ............519 5A. Conference with Labor Negotiator .............................519 04/02/01 91-484 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to the Road Development Agreement Modifying a Portion of Special Condition Area B on the Stanford University Campus that would Allow for Future Development of Faculty, Staff or Student Housing Consistent with the Recently-Approved Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit .......................................519 8. Request for Council Direction to Seek Land for Affordable Housing ......................................................522 9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ...............525 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:35 a.m. in memory of Maurice Benetua, who taught in the Palo Alto Unified School District for 27 years ........................................525 04/02/01 91-485 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:05 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Lytle (arrived at 6:40 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino CLOSED SESSION 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designees pursuant to the Merit Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Charles Perl and Scott Bradshaw) Represented Employee Organization: Services Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 715 Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Labor Negotiations as described in Agenda Item No. 1. Mayor Eakins announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 1. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. 04/02/01 91-486 Regular Meeting April 2, 2001 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 8:43 p.m.), Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Beecham, that Item No.6 be discussed as the first item of the agenda. Vice Mayor Ojakian stated he would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because his wife was employed by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Ojakian “not participating.” PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval, after review and recommendation by the Architectural Review Board/Historic Review Board, of an application by SummerHill Homes to allow construction of a 36-unit, three-story condominium complex, subterranean parking garage, and related site improvements located at 325 Channing Avenue PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval, after review and recommendation by the Architectural Review Board/Historic Review Board, of an application by SummerHill Homes to allow construction of a 30-unit, four-story condominium complex, subterranean parking garage, and related site improvements located at 777 Bryant Street. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval, after review and recommendation by the Architectural Review Board/Historic Review Board, of an application by SummerHill Homes to allow construction of a 10 detached single family homes and 10 accessory units, surface parking, and related site improvements located at 300 Homer Avenue. Mayor Eakins announced no new speaker cards would be taken after 7:45 p.m. 04/02/01 91-487 Ed Gawf said the item was an appeal of three projects within the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA CAP). With each appeal, 10 to 12 issues were raised. The issues fell into three broad categories. The first category was the process, and the question was whether or not the process was correct and complete. Staff recognized that initially the combined Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources Board (ARB/HRB) review was difficult. Staff felt both perspectives were important. A comment was made about late approvals. Under normal ARB approvals, three days were required to approve a project. There was no requirement in the SOFA CAP. A third party architect was employed to review the project and advise staff. The second category was policies. Comments were made that there were limitations due to the ARB/HRB review. There were limitations because the issue was reviewed by the Council prior to going to the ARB/HRB for review and limitations due to the requirements of the Development Agreement and the direction of the SOFA Plan. Latitude existed to make sure the projects were the best for the locations within the community. The major category was design issues. The question was whether the design review addressed the quality of architecture and minor exceptions. Staff would review all the proposed exceptions and compare those exceptions with the ones reviewed by the Council the prior year. Mayor Eakins announced that the City Council would address Item No. 1 and then continue the discussion of Item No. 6. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointments to Human Relations Commission FIRST ROUND OF VOTING Alexander Edelstein: Lytle Ann Ozer: Kenneth Russell: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler Linda Slone: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler George Vizvary: City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Kenneth Russell received seven votes and Linda Slone received eight votes and were appointed on the first ballot. 04/02/01 91-488 CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 6 Assistant Planning Official John Lusardi said the process was unique but not different than what was typical of the ARB and HRB review processes. The process was clearly defined during the Council’s deliberation with respect to the Development Agreement and the SOFA CAP. Ordinance 4624, which adopted the SOFA CAP, identified the review procedures and policies for the joint ARB/HRB review of the projects, specifically identified what blocks would be reviewed by the ARB/HRB, and what blocks would be reviewed by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Three ARB and HRB members who currently served on the Boards were appointed by the Director of Planning and Community Environment to create the combined ARB/HRB which was stipulated by the SOFA CAP and Development Agreement. The ARB/HRB governing documents for review were the SOFA CAP and Development Agreement. Part of the review process included discussion of what the SOFA CAP and Development Agreement provided for. The Board’s review was delivery of a design in concept that the Council set forth in its deliberations in March and April 2000. Staff provided a packet of information to the Council which included the City Manager Reports, minutes from the Council meetings, and exhibits from the Development Agreement. The process was extensive. The ARB/HRB held study sessions and preliminary review of each project. Project review meetings and revisions were conducted during normal Board hours and business procedures. Recommendations were made to the Director of Planning and Community Environment with findings for the SOFA CAP, and the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision was granted. Each ARB or HRB project was subject to the appeal process. The three projects went through separate review processes including preliminary review and study sessions with respect to the SOFA CAP and Development Agreement. Mention was made about discord between the ARB and HRB members over the projects but was actually a dynamic discussion about context, style, and design. The issue of policies was raised by the appellants. Staff used two overriding policies in the context of the review and discussion of the projects. The first policy was the Council identifying substantial residential development as a key goal of the plan and that the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) campus provided an opportunity to provide substantial housing development. The housing policy of the SOFA CAP described providing up to 300 or more new housing units throughout the planned area, with residential being the predominant use for the former PAMF sites. The projects before the Council were a part of the development review process and implementation of both the SOFA CAP and Development Agreement. The Development Agreement called for 30-34 condominium units on Block A, 36 condominium units on Block B with 10 single-family 04/02/01 91-489 houses and carriage units and a two-acre park for open space, and up to 45 residential units for affordable housing on Block C. Blocks D, E, and F provided single-family homes. The appellants raised policies specific to the three projects. The first policy was the issue of the PAMF SOFA policy framework, which was to promote high quality design and construction that preserved and continued the existing character of the area including scale of the development. The high quality and design issue was addressed by the ARB/HRB specifically through the SOFA CAP, the DHS and AMS standards in the design guidelines. The scale and character of the building was a key issue to the appellants’ issues. The issue of scale, as presented by the appellants, presented an inherent conflict between what was the scale of the existing area and the scale and mass of the proposed projects. The scale and mass of the proposed project conformed to the development standards in the Development Agreement as well as the development standards in the SOFA CAP. Addressing scale and mass of the projects was the charge of the ARB/HRB through articulation, fenestration, landscape and streetscape design, preservation of historic oak trees, and compatible architecture and design. The SOFA CAP and Development Agreement addressed the visual interest and variety of compatible land uses. The Comprehensive Plan policy of maintaining physical qualities of the City was an overarching consideration incorporated in all parts of the Plan. The ARB/HRB recommended approval of the three projects, and the Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the projects based on their being consistent with the SOFA CAP. Development standards and design guidelines were contained in the SOFA CAP to ensure the physical qualities of the project. The design review by the ARB, which focused on design, and the design review by the HRB, which focused on context, was part of maintaining the physical qualities. Urban design was a major issue with respect to maintaining physical qualities. The appellants raised the issue of the housing policy in the SOFA CAP. The policy stated “housing types in the Plan area should include a range of densities and should be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles, and incomes.” That policy needed to be put in the context of the SOFA CAP and Development Agreement which resulted in a range of housing types and development of 66 condominiums, 22 single-family homes, 17 carriage units, and 45 multiple-family affordable housing units. That addressed the range of densities suitable for various ages and fulfilled the policy. The ARB/HRB found the projects were compatible with the policy. The appellants raised four major design issues. The first issue was the lofts permitted at the fourth floor level on Block B. The Development Agreement exhibit D-6 addressed that “there shall be no fourth floor units” on that site. Staff reports (CMR: 192:00) of March 27, 2000, and 04/02/01 91-490 (CMR: 218:00) of April 10, 2000, explicitly indicated there would be no fourth floor units. The staff reports indicated fourth floor lofts could be included as part of the architectural dormers which was included in the project. The project was reduced by the developer in height from the January proposal to the maximum height allowed under the AMF standards. The second issue was with Block A AMF, four stories allowed under exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances were design issues. The fourth floor units were designed to reduce the amount of height and scale adjacent to the building next door and across the street from the Roth Building. The ARB/HRB reviewed the visual impact of the fourth floor units. The fourth floor units fulfilled the Development Agreement and specifically the staff report (CMR:192:00) of March 27, 2000, which called for four fourth floor units. The full FAR calculations of Blocks A and B was an issue raised by the appellant. The issue was how the stairways and minor elements of the building were measured for the purposes of calculating FAR. Projects were reviewed by staff through plan check and building review, and staff would calculate the square footage. The development was designed by an architect who was familiar with the Zoning Code, the AMF standards, and the Building Code. The last issue raised by the appellant was the minor exceptions in the project, including the expanded private open space for the DHS houses. Block A had an exception for an increased height of three feet, which was a design issue reviewed by the ARB/HRB for visual impact and did not increase the floor area of the project. On Block B, the dormer and gable intrusions were minor exceptions that were allowed in the project and recommended by the ARB/HRB as part of their design review. On Block B, three houses on the mews were moved forward in order to create greater private open spaces for the houses in the back, which was a direct recommendation by the ARB/HRB. The issue of expanded below-grade patios was raised by the appellants. The project was addressed and reviewed as a single project with ten houses. The ARB/HRB’s direction was to orient the houses in such a way that the private open space for each house was increased to its maximum potential. Staff followed models of existing projects that were already done in the City, such as the Times Tribune project where the private open space of one unit was allowed to cross through easements to the property line of another property. The direction of the ARB/HRB during the review was that the project be redefined as zero lot lines, that is, moving the house to one property line in order to open private space on the other side. That would have violated the DHS standards as far as setbacks with respect to property lines. Staff instead decided to follow the model of existing projects in allowing the private open space to extend into the adjoining property through easements. When the expansion of the private open space into the 04/02/01 91-491 adjoining property was made, the increased below-grade patios with extensive landscaping was a natural expansion. The ARB/HRB’s direction was to increase the private open space in the extension of the below-grade patios. Mr. Gawf said staff worked hard during the prior year to extract the highest quality from SummerHill Homes on the projects. Many meetings were held to understand what was needed in the neighborhood. The overall purpose was to create a quality project consistent with City Council direction. Staff recommended the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of the proposed project. Staff believed the project complied with the goals, policies, and development standards of the SOFA CAP and also complied with the development review process. The minor design exceptions were recommended by the ARB/HRB. The one exception was with the DHS expanded patio issue. If the Council wished, it could remand that issue back to the Planning staff for more detail. Bob Peterson, ARB Member, said the joint ARB/HRB was an opportunity to get two boards who were experienced with compatibility and familiar with Palo Alto to review the projects. The ARB/HRB worked together comfortably and found there was a difference of opinion of what compatibility was. The design team and developer were responsive to the ARB/HRB’s suggestions and recommendations, particularly in the issue of site design. The ARB/HRB found that keeping up with the existing zoning requirements would create small outdoor areas. Staff was encouraged to be flexible so that regulations would not preclude good design solutions. The developer was creative and responsive in those issues and with the modifications with the landscaping issues and quality of details and materials on the buildings. The majority of the members of the ARB/HRB supported the location, density, and site planning of all three of the projects. The ARB/HRB was guided by the SOFA CAP, Development Agreement, and collective design experience. The important issues were the landscaping, site plan, and urban design. The ARB/HRB were driven by the understanding and desire to have more housing in Palo Alto. Council Member Wheeler stated she met with the appellants. Council Members Mossar and Beecham stated they had several conversations with members of the neighborhood, including the appellants. Council Member Burch stated he met with the appellants and the architects. 04/02/01 91-492 Council Member Lytle stated she met on February 11, 2001, with two of the appellants. Council Members Mossar, Wheeler, and Burch watched a video that was presented to the Council. Steve Reyna, appellant, said three individual appeals were filed, and he anticipated he would have three separate ten-minute presentations. A single ten-minute presentation was not sufficient, and he requested additional time. Council Member Beecham said most of the Council Members had gone over in detail what was submitted to the Council. Mr. Reyna believed some new information would be presented. Mayor Eakins said in the spirit of compromise, and recognizing that the neighborhood felt underseiged for decades, the appellant was given 20 minutes. Mr. Reyna said he and his wife appealed the projects because they felt there was a conflicted review process. The result did not satisfy the SOFA CAP, including neighborhood compatibility. There were numerous violations of the design standards, including daylight plane setbacks and floor area ration (FAR) violations. The community and City deserved better than what was proposed. A better product and process was needed. The issues in the appeals had citywide implications. The neighborhood always supported housing density. The issue at hand was compatibility. The SOFA CAP required neighborhood compatibility. Chapter 2, Overview Design Guidelines “required that the scale, bulk, and mass of the buildings and their architectural components be consistent with existing structures in the neighborhood.” In the housing policies, a key component of the plan was its insistence that all development in the area be developed with a scale and architecture, including each of the allowed housing types, designed to engage pedestrians and be compatible with the surrounding development. The developer interpreted the maximum FAR as an entitlement. All the conditions of the CAP needed to be satisfied prior to approval of any project within the area. The ARB/HRB had an ineligible member, and the votes, as a result, were invalid. The ARB/HRB was a combined board consisting of representatives from the ARB and the HRB. Since the SOFA CAP did not specify how the Board members were appointed or what their terms were to be, the underlying Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) applied. For the ARB members, the ARB terms in Section 16.48 applied. As such, Mr. Peterson’s term ended on October 10, 2000, with the appointment of his replacement, and was therefore not an active ARB member. The 04/02/01 91-493 first vote was taken on October 19, 2000, for the Block B AMF, also known as 325 Channing Avenue. One of the fundamental principles of the SOFA CAP was compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Compatibility guidelines were not issued by staff to the Board members until March 8, 2001. Compatibility was described as a required basic policy finding in order to recommend a project. The ARB/HRB did not have the benefit of that information. He referred to statements made by various ARB/HRB members to indicate how they felt about the review. Board Member Bellomo did not support the case and was only able to review details. He also had issue with lack of compatibility. Board Member Murden wanted to see a smaller project. Board Member Peterson felt the project was not compatible with the neighborhood. Board Member Makinen did not like the height and mass of the project and would have preferred to see a project one story less in height. Issues relating to the Block B AMF included excesses in FAR. According to the PAMC, the second and fourth floor contained numerous stairwells that were not counted. The fourth floor lofts were identified on the plans as 500 square feet but were greater than 500 square feet, and the basic living space was greater than 500 square feet. Approximately 4,800 square feet of uncounted FAR existed. The SOFA CAP was explicit, both for AMF and DHS, and no exceptions were allowed. The change would be substantial and not likely to be handled by plan check and the Building Department. The project had to be redesigned and go through another ARB/HRB review. Violations to the daylight planes existed and architectural solutions were not sought. A requirement existed for a finding that the enhancement was achieved by exception in a manner not otherwise achievable by strict application of the standard. The building could be reduced rather than given additional exceptions. The staff report (CMR:184:01) indicated the reduction could result in loss of housing. The units were large, up to 2,400 square feet, and there was much opportunity for conformance and compatibility with the neighborhood. Many units on the third floor had living rooms 17 feet in height. There was room for the development to move toward more compatible buildings. The question existed as to how much of the park was for the public. Drawings of the project showed five unit entrances onto the park. The building was within ten feet of the park, and porches extended to within four feet of the park. Steps off one of the porches came within two and one-half feet of the park. He questioned the circulation for the formal entrances facing into the park. The likelihood existed that public park would be given away to private development. Regarding Block A AMF, 777 Bryant Street, references were made to specific allowance to four stories. The Development Agreement did not reference allowing four stories for Block A. Four story buildings in the SOFA CAP were allowed only under exceptional 04/02/01 91-494 circumstances to achieve compatibility. Violations of building height existed. The project consisted of a 48-foot tall building where the standard AMF was 45 feet. The building was already oversized, and he questioned why additional height was granted into a neighborhood without any comparison. Exceptions were granted rather than finding alternative solutions that led to conformance with the existing neighborhood. One of the finding requirements was that achievement be done by granting exception rather than through strict application of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Reducing the building met the requirement. Staff raised the issue that living units might be lost. Individual units could be reduced in size. Emergency vehicle access was provided on the Williams Driveway. He questioned why another property took on the encumbrance. Mayor Eakins clarified the Williams driveway issue belonged in the Planning and Community Environment Director’s hearing and was not applicable to the appeal. Mr. Gawf said the issue was addressed in a map that went before the Council approximately six weeks prior. The appellant attempted to indicate that the Williams property allowed additional intensity on Block A. Mr. Reyna said that was correct. He was aware that the Council voted for a revocable license on the driveway. If the license was truly revocable, 777 Bryant Street did not have its own options but would be on the Williams driveway or on 737 Bryant Street. An encumbrance would have to be enacted on 737 Bryant Street to protect the revocability. The FAR exceeded the maximum allowed and would be repeated for each development. Block A AMF had a mechanical room on the fourth floor with two stairways not counted in the gross floor area. That resulted in approximately 900 square feet of uncounted FAR, exceeding the maximum allowed. Block B DHS, 300 Homer Street, had a new grade established. All the patios were in excess of the 200 square foot maximum as restricted by code, and the patios extended into the side setback in addition to having more than 50 percent of the building perimeters at the new lower grade. The basement FAR was counted and height was measured from the level of the sunken patio. He did not have an issue with the cross easement but took issue with the violation of code. If the sunken patios were removed, the result would be a substantial change in the assumptions under which the ARB/HRB issued their recommendation. That type of change should force the project back into ARB/HRB review. The granny units were small, were less likely to be rentable, and would not contribute to the available housing pull as was the intent. The Working Group and neighborhood were behind the SOFA CAP and housing density and believed they would 04/02/01 91-495 get a compatible design. The difference between what they thought they were getting and what they got led to considerable, repeated, and consistent outcry. The projects did not keep face with what the neighborhood thought it was getting. Rick Wurzelbacher, SummerHill Homes, said SummerHill worked diligently to deliver designs that matched the guidance given by the Council the prior February and March. In a series of highly productive meetings and very specific in outcome, SummerHill took the discussion seriously and used them for the basis of their design proposals. Throughout the process, they were reluctant to depart significantly from the discussions. He and Bob Peterson spent much time discussing historic compatibility and whether using a more modernistic or current expression of architecture was appropriate. The buildings were designed in the styles that were demonstrated to the Council the prior year. The specific development programs as mentioned by staff were recorded in the Development Agreement and in some instances were more specifically elaborated on by the motions made by the Council during the approval process. Ten public hearings were held during a period of nine months. Specific attention needed to be paid to the policies and guidelines in the SOFA CAP. SummerHill worked diligently with staff to make sure nothing was left out of the development standards. Much discussion centered on environmentally sensitive design. SummerHill committed to utilize environmental consultants to promote the sustainability of the materials used in the projects and discussed solar control and the orientation of the projects to sunlight. Compromising the design programs would have been inconsistent with the commitments made the prior year. The condominium at the corner of Homer Avenue and Bryant Street contained a fourth floor element which was discussed at the Council hearings the year prior. The height of the building was sufficient to have the central element of the building which faced Homer Avenue work at four stories with the flanking elements on either side against the Williams House and 737 Bryant Street which had three stories. The building had roof line variety, added emphasis at the center element, and allowed for the utilization of some of the available floor area without encroaching further into the courtyards or private garden to the rear of the structure. The tranquility of the garden would be preserved. To further diminish the height of the building would have a serious impact on the interior use of space. The exterior architecture would suffer if the building were reconfigured into three stories. The Block B condominium at the corner of Channing Avenue and Bryant Street had 36 condominiums on the first two floors and third floor units included loft/bedrooms that would otherwise be attic space on a fourth floor. The fourth floor spaces were bedrooms with windows that protruded in dormers. The dormer elements were 04/02/01 91-496 consistent with the section diagram that staff presented. SummerHill believed they were an agreed upon element of the design. The fourth floor space in a steeply pitched arts and crafts building became attic space. The attic space, whether roof trusses or loft bedrooms, did not significantly impact the massing of the building. The roofline eave was at 35 feet with a maximum height of 45 feet pursuant to the CAP guidelines. The reason for the minor exception was that the guidelines allowed a 20 percent of the facing façade to have dormers or other architectural elements that penetrated the daylight plane. The project had 40 percent which meant an increase to an allowance rather than an entire exception. The Council asked that accessory units be included on all ten Block B DHS lots. He recalled Council Members were disappointed in the compromise from AMF to DHS on that portion of the property and were interested in maintaining unit count and the variety of housing that the accessory units offered to the entire mix across the project. The accessory units were identified at the time as being elements over garage space on a private drive in the center of the project. The units were limited to 400 feet in size due to roof elements and contained full service kitchens, bathrooms, and room for bed, sofa, entertainment unit, and table for two. The site plan on the Block B DHS underwent the most scrutiny of the three projects because the original site plan was continued by the ARB/HRB who asked that ways be looked at to improve the usability of private yard space, hence the reliance on sunken gardens and accessing basement living areas below the main house. The sunken garden area provided benefits to lighting the spaces below. The exceptions relevant to setback on the mews and along Channing Avenue were necessitated to achieve maneuverability of vehicles and landscape within the shared driveway. The setback variation along the pedestrian mews was an idea that the ARB/HRB suggested in order to loosen up the site plan. The original design was a straight private drive with 26 feet between garages. The modified design introduced a serpentine curve which threw the garages out of alignment and created more visual interest. Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing open. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said Mr. Peterson was not an appropriate member of the committee that reviewed the projects. He attended ARB meetings where the discussion was explicit that whoever was appointed would have to be replaced if they left the ARB. The Development Agreement provided a maximum allowable square footage, not an entitlement for the maximum. The incentive of floor area in the detached houses on small lots for providing a carriage house on the lots had the intent of providing the additional square footage up to 750 square feet or 04/02/01 91-497 the carriage house. The intent was not for the main house to be entitled to more square footage simply because it provided a second unit on the lot. The issues discussed in the appeals were the same issues that were discussed in the applications that were before the Director of Planning and Community Environment which he had already decided upon. Issues should have been decided administratively by the Planning Division before the applications were deemed complete. The applicants were being asked to file an appeal or court case in order to get something done that should have been completed prior to the hearings being held. The public was entitled to have the Planning Technicians see that the numbers were correct. Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Street, said the project would undermine the public confidence and trust of the City and City Council. The people of Palo Alto did not want more housing, density, people, and traffic. There was not much opposition to the project due to the issue of addressing jobs/housing imbalance and providing more affordable housing. The current project did not address the goals in good faith. If the Council tried to provide for more dwelling units to address the jobs/housing imbalance, the Council should look for more modest sized units. Granny units should be big enough to be livable. The park was not positioned properly and would feel more like a private courtyard to the housing. Neighborhood compatibility was important because the neighborhood opened their arms to the larger goals to be addressed. The height and mass was too different from the neighborhood. The driveway of the museum should be translated into open space for the housing next door in order to relieve the feeling of compactness and mass as much as possible. The City codes were relaxed because of the larger goal and the specifications were substantially exceeded. Deborah Ju, 371 Whitglen Drive, supported the appeals of the of the neighborhood residents. The City’s regulations concerning FAR and daylight plane were to protect the privacy of neighbors. The Zoning Code and Comp Plan had many provisions that required new development be compatible in size and scale with its neighbors. The residents needed to know that the regulations would be enforced. Ann Ozer, 1850 Bryant Street, said many people who lived in apartments and saw their rents raised during the prior years, looked forward to a place like SummerHill where they could purchase a home and walk into the downtown to dine and shop. Many seniors were looking forward to buying a condo in the Downtown area. 04/02/01 91-498 Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, said the Director of Planning and Community Environment accepted Bob Peterson’s volunteer offer to serve on the ARB/HRB, but there was no basis in the PAMC and thus the votes were rendered invalid. The information from the staff indicated that “if you find the minor exceptions to be major, here are the findings that justify those.” They were the same as minor exceptions and should go back to staff. She was unclear how the findings could be the same for minor or major. Major exceptions needed to go back to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PT&C). In the absence of a definition and scope of compatibility, that should be cause enough to send the project back to the PT&C for reconsideration. The projects included approximately 17,000 square feet of FAR violations. The grade issues were brought up at the November 2, 2001, ARB/HRB meeting by Roger Kohler who specifically asked staff whether the units were legal. Staff responded yes, but the units were not legal. If the Development Agreement and CAP were interpreted as the applicant contended, all subsequent reviews were meaningless. The neighborhood was misled, and the applicant referred to what was decided a year prior. The hiring of an architect to give advice to staff subsequent to the ARB/HRB review seemed to make a mockery of the ARB/HRB review and was an expenditure of public funds with no benefit. The architect was the son of the Clinic’s representative to the SOFA Working Group, which appeared to be a potential conflict of interest. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, Apt. 701, respected the efforts and dedication of the Council. The SOFA Working Group met for a year, and from the meetings they thought they were not going to get large houses in their neighborhood. Large houses took more of their fair share of light, air, open space, and energy. People did not want to be colonized in a stable, carriage house, or garage. The Council had to take a severe look at what it had. There were many good things about the SummerHill project. The granny units made a nice apartment. She urged the Council to reject the project and go back to the promise to the Working Group that there would be no large houses. David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, said when he first heard about the condominiums, the prices were $800,000 to $1 million. He presented a picture of a condominium on Block B which faced the park. The units were guest quarters rather than granny or rental units. The condominium was on the zoning that the neighbors asked the Working Group to accommodate the affordable housing project which could have included approximately 60 units with the bulk and crowding relief by the park. That was not acceptable to SummerHill, and the affordable housing was moved to a less buildable spot. SummerHill consistently drew the park as an adjunct serving their project rather than a gift to the City. When the Council began the process, policy frameworks were 04/02/01 91-499 produced that called for compatibility, character, scale, and massing with the neighborhood. The proposed project was incompatible with massing but was defended by staff through the ARB/HRB hearings as an entitlement. He questioned why SummerHill would not transfer the entitlement to the granny units and build those to the 750-square-foot maximum that was permitted. Edie Keating understood a property owner’s desire to have a bigger house and a developers desire to make a project bigger to make it more desirable and pricey. FARs, daylight plane rules, setbacks, and height limits placed limits on projects. For every square foot that the units became bigger, the pool of people who could afford them diminished. The units needed to stay within the rules in order to be more affordable. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, did not understand why the D, E, and F Blocks were not brought to the Council because the CAP process stated “only singly developed homes are exempt.” That was to relieve the individual family developer from the bureaucracy. The south end of the block would be taken up with the 3-4 story condominiums. Anything that could be done to maximize sunlight on the park would be appreciated by the neighborhood. The neighborhood asked several times for two AMF zonings, with one being lower density, closer to the park and the other neighborhood single-family homes. The neighbors were told the FAR was maximum and subject to meaningful and significant review at the ARB/HRB level. The neighbors agreed to the flexibility and hoped the Council would uphold the appeals. Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, said allowing public land to be used by private developers was a disturbing part of the SOFA developments. The Council should ask staff to look into the rest of the agreement to see whether there were other examples beside the three she pointed out in the past. The Council should reverse the plan while it was still on paper. More explicit notice of the use of public lands by private developers was needed in the future. The driveway next to the Williams House at 777 Bryant Street was a bad deal for the City. The space the developer gained was worth multiples of the couple thousand dollars that a driveway was worth. The principle was more important than the quid pro quo in the current case. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, was concerned with issues of process and staff decisions. She supported the appeal. What constituted compatibility depended on a person’s point of view. Neighborhood compatibility was something that the neighbors should help decide. Most of the residential neighbors she spoke with did not feel the project was compatible. The staff’s granting of exceptions was of concern. Other solutions could be 04/02/01 91-500 found that met development standards. The relaxed standards were created to allow for more housing, and the developer used the relaxed standards to create larger housing units. The Council needed to send direction to staff to enable them to faithfully implement the Council’s intentions. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PAST) President, said the PAST Board was concerned about the interpretation of compatibility of size, massing, and character with the neighborhood. The buildings, as proposed, would have a dwarfing affect on the surrounding historic structures, particularly the Williams House. The future use of the driveway of the Williams House was a concern as well as the risk to the valuable garden resources on the property. Large trucks might cause damage to the irreplaceable garden materials. The zonings were new regulations, developed as part of the SOFA process. For the zonings to be set aside with exceptions, that indicated the buildings were not cooperating with the zoning or the staff did not do a good job of writing the zoning. The DHS zoning was designed for the location. Housing built in a new zoning ordinance should be able to meet the ordinance. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said the use of public land to subsidize private development was a concern. That happened when the City allowed the Williams driveway to be the emergency access for 777 Bryant. A tradeoff with a landscape reserve on site was needed; otherwise emergency access should be made off the other property. The orientation of the park was a disappointment. A four-story massive condominium ten feet from a long, narrow park was not appropriate and lost the feel of a public park. Laws provided for variances and exceptions, and the new zones allowed for such things as well as the language “variations.” The daylight plane and setback encroachments were allowed under the “variations”, which was not defined but should be less than an exception or variance. A series of mistakes sabotaged the SOFA CAP process, but the Council could correct some of the mistakes. Open space and compatibility in the neighborhood were lost. Tom Ashton, Bryant Street, reviewed the FAR aspects of the project and measured the precise areas to be counted in the FAR. FAR violations were found on the three projects. The FAR requirements in the SOFA CAP, Section 1.3.g.5 for DHS housing allowed a FAR of .45 to .65; Section 3.4.c.2. for AMF housing allowed an FAR of 1.5. Another relevant aspect of the SOFA CAP zoning was the indication that “No exceptions may be granted to these standards for structures constructed after adoption or the effective date of the ordinance.” That meant there was no allowance over the maximum FAR ever allowed. Block B AMF had 04/02/01 91-501 4,800 square feet over the FAR; Block A AMF had 898 square feet over the FAR; and Block DHS had 10,429 square feet over the FAR. The actual violations had to do with stairwells, public areas, elevators, and the sunken grades. He recommended to the Council that the projects return to the ARB/HRB because the large FAR overages impacted the other aspects of the project such as massing and other design standards. Council Member Beecham asked whether Mr. Ashton had information from the City or applicant that showed the applicant’s calculations. Mr. Ashton said he did not. He reviewed the plans which showed the total square footage by units. The public areas, elevators, and internal stairwells were blocked off in the plans and had no numbers for square footage. Leannah Hunt, 245 Lytton Avenue, said the SOFA Working Group was a new concept and the charge was very broad. Many meetings were held to address the scope of housing and commercial needs. Approval of the project alienated many people who thought they had made a good contribution. Housing was desperately needed in the community. Staff attempted to work diligently to help the property owner to arrive at a plan that met many needs. The staff’s integrity was trusted to interpret the Council’s policy direction. She was dismayed when SummerHill first came to the Government Relations Committee of the Association of Realtors and suggested the units would all be two bedroom. She would have preferred 1 or 3 bedroom units. SummerHill stated that parking was the primary concern. For future references, any other proposed projects needed to be reviewed for single-story condominiums and freeing up housing. The Planning Department needed to encourage the development of more single-story condominiums. Mr. Reyna said the heart of the neighborhood was being redeveloped. The SOFA Working Group put together a plan to fit the neighborhood. Where the developer was allowed to build at the maximum, an issue was that every zoning regulation that SummerHill violated was accepted and exceptions were granted. FAR trumped everything, including process. The issue with the sunken patios was that they were a violation. In terms of trying to get maximum open space between the DHS homes on Block B, the idea of cross easements was innovative. Since the developer was not reducing the FAR, the only option was to try to get space between the homes in some type of creative way. The only setback violations created as a direct result of the ARB/HRB was the front setback violations onto the public mews. The side daylight plane and side setbacks were in existence prior to ARB/HRB 04/02/01 91-502 direction. He questioned how the new homes got a plethora of exceptions. The net result was the reality of special treatment. SummerHill should receive the same treatment as all other residents. Andy Faber, SummerHill Homes Attorney, said he participated in the negotiation of the Development Agreement. Much of the appellants’ points and public testimony were not fair game because they raised issues of policy, size, and scope of the project that were appropriate the prior year. One year prior the Council adopted the SOFA CAP and the Development Agreement and found specifically that the project, the Development Agreement, the SOFA CAP, and the Comprehensive Plan were all consistent internally. The Development Agreement was a two-way street. The Developer agreed to many things that would not normally happen such as an acre of land for a park, donating a BMR site, shared parking, and extensive historical preservation of houses including moving houses. In return, the City agreed to things it would not normally do such as, according to the Development Agreement, “not to prevent development of the property for the uses and to the maximum density or intensity of development that is contemplated.” There was an obligation on the City to approve a project at a certain size and scale. That was extensively debated and decided on a year prior. He urged the Council to look at the central issue which was specific design elements that were on appeal and overall were minor in relation to the overall scope of the project. Rick Wurzelbacher, SummerHill Homes, said the Planning and Community Environment Director approved the projects and stood behind his action. A mistake would be made to undue the advice of the ARB/HRB and Planning and Community Environment Director. SummerHill performed in good faith, submitted plans to a lengthy public process, moved historic homes, demolished undesirable vacant structures, and did its part to deliver the programs as contemplated. The goals of a new park, neighborhood preservation, and affordable housing were all predicated on the development of the project. Mayor Eakins declared the public testimony closed. RECESS FROM 9:25 P.M. TO 9:45 P.M. Council Member Mossar asked for a response to the concern that Mr. Peterson served on the ARB/HRB inappropriately. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the area plan compelled the director to create a combined ARB/HRB review body. When the time came for the transition on the ARB, staff was asked whether Mr. Peterson could be reappointed. The SOFA CAP gave the Director of 04/02/01 91-503 Planning and Community Environment authority to create the combined body and did not constrain him to appoint sitting members of the ARB or HRB. There was no illegal issue. Council Member Lytle said when the SOFA CAP described a combined ARB/HRB, the assumption was the membership would be defined as in the PAMC which was a Council appointed body rather than a body appointed by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Mr. Calonne said the ARB and HRB were Council appointed bodies, but the SOFA CAP specifically called on the Director to establish the entity. He viewed that as giving the Director authority to suggest the appointment of Mr. Peterson after his term had expired. Mr. Gawf said he was concerned with continuity when Mr. Peterson’s tenure was up on the ARB, which was shortly before the first project went to the ARB/HRB for final action. He felt continuity was important and asked Mr. Peterson to continue to serve through the first round of reviews and approvals. Mr. Calonne said what the staff did was legally justifiable and legally defensible. The staff’s action was correct and did not necessarily rule out the Council from precluding otherwise. Council Member Beecham said the biggest process question raised by the appellants was whether and how well the ARB could review the issues before them. The crux of the questions was whether or not the Council obligated itself to enable the applicant to build the maximum FAR on the two condo units in particular. He asked whether there was an option of reducing the amount of square footage that could be put on those two units. Mr. Calonne said the Development Agreement guaranteed the right to build a structure of a maximum size. The expression of FAR or square feet could be argued about. While the Development Agreement guaranteed a certain size of project, it did not say there was only one way to achieve it. Without discussing whether a specific size was required, the Council had the authority to tell SummerHill that it was worried about the exception and ask whether size requirements could be met doing the project differently. Council Member Beecham clarified a size was guaranteed to the developer. Mr. Calonne said yes. 04/02/01 91-504 Council Member Mossar asked Mr. Peterson if he felt the ARB/HRB was able to discuss the project and make suggestions and whether the suggestions were listened to and that changes were brought before the ARB/HRB as a result of his suggestions. Mr. Peterson said yes. Council Member Mossar clarified Mr. Peterson felt there was a review between the ARB/HRB process and the developer and that the ARB/HRB process changed the projects from what the developer originally presented. Mr. Peterson said that was correct. All members had different points of view and wanted more change in specific areas. Council Member Mossar understood there were differences of opinion. Council Member Wheeler said a quote from Mr. Peterson stated his discomfort at being able to see the neighborhood compatibility issues because of the material presented to him. She had the same difficulty and asked whether Mr. Peterson was ever presented with materials that gave him the broader context against which to measure the particular project, such as a three dimensional model or drawings that included the wider area other than only the individual buildings. Mr. Peterson said the ARB/HRB saw the materials such as brick and stone. In terms of overall context, the ARB/HRB pressed hard to do that but he did not think they received as wide a view as he would have liked. A three-dimensional model would have been helpful. Mr. Gawf recalled there was a three-dimensional model. Council Member Wheeler said she would like to have seen a three-dimensional model. An assertion was made by a member of the public that the FAR calculations were not done correctly. The Director of Planning and Community Environment indicated to the Council that prior to the pulling of a building permit, the City would reconfirm the FAR calculations. If Mr. Ashton was right in his calculations, 5,000 square feet of FAR would cause significant redesign. Mr. Gawf said there was a large massing model seen by the Council the prior year and was also presented to the ARB/HRB. With regard to FAR calculations, staff always looked at the FAR and calculations and did a final check as part of the building permit process. If a building were designed larger than what was 04/02/01 91-505 allowed, the building had to be corrected. Staff did the final calculations when it had the construction plans, and the plans had to meet the City codes or be adjusted. Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said staff did a FAR calculation as part of the review process. Plans could be changed through the review process and could be altered between the initial review and issuance of a building permit. The change was usually insignificant. Staff did a plan check on the proposed project, and it appeared most of the stairwells and elevator shafts were included. Staff measured FAR from exterior wall to exterior wall. The loft spaces with a stairway going to the loft would result in the stairwell counted twice; on the ground floor and in the loft area. The possibility existed that the small amount of FAR was not counted on the second floor in the loft area, which would equal approximately 100-125 square feet within the interior of the unit. Council Member Lytle understood the total size of the projects was part of the Development Agreement. She asked whether the unit sizes were part of the Development Agreement and whether the exceptions that were appealed were part of the Development Agreement. Mr. Calonne did not believe there was anything that guaranteed a particular unit size. As to the exceptions, the Council was not at a place where it could conclude that the exceptions were necessary to obtain the square footage the developer was entitled to. If the Council had concerns about the exceptions, he suggested articulating those. Council Member Lytle said a comment was made that it would be necessary to have an encumbrance at 737 Bryant Street if the Council were to exercise its right to the revocable license across the Williams property. Mr. Gawf said SummerHill Homes originally came to the City to ask to use the Williams driveway as their secondary access. Staff told them they could not use the driveway. SummerHill proceeded to find alternative secondary access through 737 Bryant Street. Staff decided to go with a revocable license. Council Member Lytle clarified the City’s granting the right over public land did not result in SummerHill gaining space on its private property to construct more building. Mr. Gawf said that was correct. 04/02/01 91-506 Council Member Lytle said the SummerHill attorney made a statement that where there was conflict between the SOFA CAP and the Development Agreement and any stricter provision the Council might want to impose, such as denial to certain exceptions to daylight plane, the Council would have no right to do that. She understood the Council had the right to deny exceptions as long as they did not end up in the total reduction of floor area. Mr. Calonne said that was correct, and he did not believe that SummerHill’s counsel disagreed. Council Member Burch heard from Mr. Ashton and others that there was significant difference in the FAR. Ms. Grote said there was little difference. He questioned how the issue would be resolved. Council Member Mossar said several concerns were raised about the City allowing the use of public land to support private development. She questioned how cities dealt with such issues, for example, it appeared that private driveways regularly traveled over public land. Mr. Calonne said the nature of the right or interest that was discussed had to be looked at. Encroachments into a daylight plane that would protect the park parcel were being characterized as a use of City property. That depended on the staff deciding that the daylight plane rules established a property right for adjoining property owners. The PAMC requirements for daylight planes or setbacks did not create property rights benefiting the immediate neighbors. If that were the case, any exception processes would, by definition, take away from the bundle of legal rights of adjoining property owners. The argument was fair, but not accurate legally, to say that encroachments into the daylight planes or setbacks that benefited the park parcel were a use of public property. Council Member Mossar asked about sidewalks on the back of the Block B condos. Mr. Calonne said the concern was privatizing the space and how the City would explain paying more than $100 per square foot for land and then let someone use it for free. The space was adjacent to the private properties. Planning staff indicated to the Council it was not configured in a way that would be privatized. That issue was vigorously debated internally. Council Member Mossar clarified cities did allow private use of public land in situations where there was a public benefit and would not harm the City. 04/02/01 91-507 Mr. Calonne said the City was obligated to allow access across the boundary between the parkland and the AMF and DHS parcels. Mr. Gawf said with regard to the condominium on Block B and its relationship to the park, staff made sure all the units had internal access as well as access through the park. Staff asked the landscape firm to look at the project from a park/city/public standpoint. Staff worked hard to make sure the project was a public park and a private development. Council Member Burch asked to have the question as to the difference in FAR resolved. Mr. Gawf said the application consisted of three projects, and the major difference was with regard to the single-family homes. The extended sunken patio areas could cause the basement area count as FAR. The rules were different going from multiple- family structures versus single-family structures. Council Member Burch said a major amount of difference could reflect major redesign. He questioned whether that would have to go back to the ARB/HRB. Mr. Gawf said yes. Staff did not believe the changes in FAR would cause that to occur. The critical issue was how staff treated the sunken patio for the DHS properties. Council Member Burch said when the Council voted to remove a floor on the building, the developer came back asking to use loft space. Two bedrooms and a bath was not a loft. Mr. Gawf said much of the discussion on the fourth floor involved a fourth level of separate units. The developer committed to not having a fourth level of units and incorporated what was done on the upper level as part of the attic space. Council Member Burch clarified when the Council asked to have one floor removed, the height of the building was not lowered. Mr. Gawf thought there was a reduction in the height of the building. Mr. Lusardi said the height was reduced at the direction of the Council to meet the maximum AMF height which was 45 feet. The Council directed the developer to remove any fourth floor units that had separate access and separate balconies. Council Member Burch said the Council asked that the fourth floor be removed as a way to reduce the massing of the building. 04/02/01 91-508 Mayor Eakins said according to the minutes, the Council directed eliminating the penthouse units which reduced some of the bulk. Mr. Lusardi said the developer originally proposed a building height of 54 feet with the fourth floor unit. Reducing the building to 45 feet left a dormer space which became a part of the third floor units. Council Member Kleinberg said the 17-foot ceilings were spacious but was not required for living space. Other ways were designed by the architect to enhance the interior embellishments and livability of the units but from the exterior, the designs seemed to detract from the compatibility of the buildings. She questioned what could be done, in keeping with the agreements already made, that would keep the same number of units but possibly ask for redesign. Mr. Gawf said the Council did not have to grant the exception to the penetration of the daylight plane. The ARB/HRB struggled with the exceptions, questioning whether or not they were improvements to the building. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether Mr. Gawf meant compatibility with the neighborhood when talking about improving the building. Mr. Gawf said he meant the appearance and the compatibility. Council Member Beecham was surprised to hear that the extensions into the daylight plane were up to 40 percent whereas the guidelines specified up to 20 percent. He clarified it was the ARB/HRB’s recommendation for the higher degree of intrusion into the daylight plane. Mr. Peterson said the higher percent added additional articulation that made the building appear more interesting and less massive. Council Member Beecham asked whether the Council were to require the applicant to meet the 20 percent, the appearance of the building would be harmed. Mr. Peterson said that was correct. He recalled the 40 percent was an aide in helping the building be more interesting. Council Member Beecham said the staff report (CMR:185:01), page 12, indicated “The plans, as proposed, do exceed these standards and will need to be revised.” 04/02/01 91-509 Mr. Lusardi said the issue of the sunken patios was the nexus of the DHS standards to the Zoning Code. Staff’s interpretation was that the Zoning Code applied where the DHS standard was silent. With respect to the sunken patios, the Zoning Code indicated if a sunken patio was greater than 200 square feet or intruded into the setback, the grade at the level of the sunken patio would be measured. Staff said it should be revised. The ARB/HRB’s review was direct in the fact that they thought the sunken patios were only affective as private, open space in providing daylight if they were larger than 200 square feet. Council Member Beecham clarified Mr. Peterson recommended the sunken gardens be part of the design. Mr. Peterson said that was correct, and it was a great improvement in the site planning for the single units. Mr. Lusardi said the sunken patios would not be seen from the public or private street. Mayor Eakins said the Council did not have a visual of the sunken patio diagrams. Council Member Beecham asked how the Council reached the 48-foot height on Block A. Mr. Gawf recalled that the design went to 45 feet but the design of the underground parking pushed the height to 48 feet. Mr. Lusardi said the 48-foot height was pushed to the center of the project and would not be noticed from the street. Council Member Mossar found the presentation on the issue of sunken patios confusing. The confusion added to the feeling there was unspoken conspiracy going on. She had read the staff’s response to the appellants’ supplemental issue on page 12 of the staff report (CMR:185:01) relative to the Homer Avenue DHS project where staff indicated the project would have to be changed. She understood an exception could be granted but the staff recommendation was to not uphold the appeal and move forward with the project as approved by the ARB/HRB. If the Council were to decide that the patios needed to count toward the FAR, a drastic change would occur. Mr. Gawf said staff figured the project could be changed by reducing the size of the sunken patio area to 200 square feet or less, or the project be remanded back for an exception process. 04/02/01 91-510 Council Member Mossar clarified the staff recommendation was that more work needed to be done before the Council agreed the project was acceptable as presented. Mr. Gawf said the policy direction was whether the Council felt comfortable with the concept of the sunken patio area. Council Member Mossar asked whether staff indicated to the Council that because the SOFA CAP was silent on the issue of basements larger than 200 square feet, the existing Zoning Code prevailed. Mr. Gawf said if the sunken patio area was larger than 200 square feet, the Zoning Code applied. The option was to grant an exception or the size of the sunken patios be reduced. Mayor Eakins said the policy question was whether or not the citywide zoning should apply or the idea of the sunken patios was so good that an exception should be made. The issue was if the patios were too large, according to the citywide zoning, and triggered counting basements, the sizes of houses above-ground could be reduced, or the sunken patio could be reduced. Council Member Mossar said staff’s presentation was less than clear. Council Member Wheeler said staff seemed comfortable that the proposal complied with the letter of the CAP and Development Agreement as well as the spirit and intent as discussed by the SOFA Working Group and Council, who ultimately took action a year prior. Mr. Gawf said much of the DHS discussion occurred prior to him becoming Director of Planning and Community Environment. There was a maximum size to the carriage units of 750 square feet. He worked with accessory units of 400 square feet in size that worked well for single individuals. A double car garage of 400 square feet with a carriage unit above it would define the size of the carriage unit. The SOFA CAP was set up so that a bonus could be given if a carriage unit was done for the main house. Council Member Wheeler said the DHS zone designation was patterned after a similar development in the existing neighborhood surrounding the clinic. She asked whether there was a clue to the relative size of the existing secondary units in relation to the houses. 04/02/01 91-511 Mr. Gawf said staff looked at existing main houses and tried to make comparisons. The 400-square-foot units, if designed correctly, could be livable. Council Member Burch attended several ARB/HRB meetings and knew how hard the ARB/HRB worked with SummerHill to make the project work. The big problem was there was too much house on too small a lot. Mr. Lusardi presented a drawing that showed the property line between two houses and represented a light well for the basement which would be presented by the Zoning Code. The drawing conceptually represented a 200-square-foot or less below-grade patio. The proposal was to extend the below-grade patio to the next house. The issue was whether a 200-square-foot below-grade patio was useable when more private open space was available. The extension was a natural way to extend the private open space. MOTION: Council Member Beecham, seconded by Mayor Eakins, to support the staff recommendation to uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to deny the appeal, and to return sunken patios to staff to assess findings available to support and forward the findings to the Council; and to confirm the square footage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) issues. Council Member Beecham said major issues were brought up at the current meeting including daylight plane. The most significant issue was on the Block B condos where the rules clearly called for a 20 percent extension into the daylight plane. The applicant came in at 40 percent and staff indicated that was not visible. A basic issue was the FAR requirement which he understood from Mr. Calonne that the Council’s intent was to commit to the developer to build the condos and other items to the FAR limits. That was part of the arrangement where the City obtained land for affordable housing and the developer got a commitment to build to the limits. The sunken patios would be beneficial to the surrounding areas in that: (a) it allowed private space for the residents, and (b) what they did in the private space was not in the public domain. Regarding maximum height, the Council committed to four floors on Block A. Looking at the cross section drawings, he did not see how they could be substantially reduced. He did not support the 48 feet on Block A. The design guidelines for the CAP addressed the variety of units for the planned area overall. There was a sufficient variation in the size of units available. The size of granny units was a concern, noting the Council anticipated the year prior that they would be configured on top of the garages. The garages were approximately 400-square-feet which was slightly 04/02/01 91-512 under 10 percent of the lot size. The FAR benefit bonus for the granny units was a 10 percent bonus. The project matched what the Council directed, and the efforts by the ARB/HRB resulted in a reasonable design. Mayor Eakins said the staff response to the appellant was thorough and consistent. The Development Agreement was set in place one year prior, and many changes asked by the public at the current meeting would undue the Development Agreement. She agreed with asking for a relook at the sunken patios with a complete and clear description of the policy issues. She clarified the motion had the confirming calculations with respect to FAR. Council Member Beecham said that was correct. Council Member Lytle had difficulty supporting the motion and difficulty with each of the exceptions that pushed the allowable mass of the structures to the edges of the private property. The project was architecturally well designed but infringed and imposed inappropriately on the public park, sidewalks, mews, and surrounding neighborhood. The exceptions were not anticipated by the public who helped participate in crafting the setbacks and rules that would apply in the CAP. Public purpose justification for granting the exceptions was not heard. Findings in the exceptions provisions required public purpose justification for granting the exceptions. Two design professions generally participated in the development processes: (1) the architects who traditionally took on the role of advocating for the clients, for the private rights on the property, and for good building design; and (2) the planning profession where the planner’s role was to take on the advocacy of public interest, of context, of neighborhood issues, and advocacy for the space between the buildings. Issues resulted from removing around the edges of buildings room for access that pushed the need for circulation and access for private purposes out into the public realm or park space. Many speakers commented that the building mass infringed on privacy and circulation. She suggested an amendment to the motion that asked the developer to go back and consider the exceptions that had to deal with putting the massing out at the edges of the property in order to get the redesign to not infringe as much on the edges. She had difficulty with any exceptions that had to do with the variety of housing types in the projects and questioned whether there was support to amend the motion to require greater variety in the bedroom composition within the projects. Council Member Lytle said there were many procedural appeal issues that did not have much substance that she was willing to 04/02/01 91-513 accept the staff recommendation for. The issues of most concern were Appellant Concern No. 9 in the staff report (CMR:185:01), page 7, which had to do with the variety of unit sizes. Another issue was with the front yard setback exception in Appellant Concern No. 10 in the staff report (CMR:185:01) for 300 Homer Avenue. Council Member Beecham suggested Council Member Lytle make specific motions to amend. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to uphold portions of the appeal that had to do with exceptions to the housing type in the plan, variety of unit size, daylight plane on the public parkland, and design of access where it came within two feet of public property Block B (CMR:184:01), 325 Channing Avenue. Council Member Beecham asked what would be sent back for review. Council Member Lytle said she would send back for review the exceptions that were granted that allowed building outside the building envelope for daylight plane purposes or that put access to where a sidewalk for the building came within two feet of the park boundary and allow more diversity of sizes of units. Council Member Wheeler said the substitute motion reflected the concerns she had about Block B. The mix of housing sizes did not concern her as much as the daylight plane and access issues. The issue of housing types and sizes was relatively well addressed in the plans. She supported the substitute motion. The Council tried to take into account the current concerns not only of the neighborhood and SOFA Working Group, but also the legitimate needs of the developer. The Council was fair in its decisions to allow a 1.5 FAR on the property. Little justification was found for “going outside the box” that the Council agreed upon. A design could be addressed through a variation in the types and sizes of units within “the box.” Council Member Fazzino said the issues should have been resolved. The staff knew from the beginning that the issue was sensitive and concerns such as exceptions needed to be addressed very carefully. The Council was clear about the FAR. The housing type was not as important an issue. The number of exceptions raised by Council Members Lytle and Wheeler concerned him. He sensed general support for the staff recommendations aside from the exceptions. There were several significant process issues raised which he did not want to rehash. He asked the City Attorney what action the Council needed to take to accept the staff recommendation or opt in favor of the appellants. 04/02/01 91-514 Mr. Calonne suggested that if the Council went in the direction of doing something other than the staff recommendation, it should formulate the points of concern and the factual basis for those concerns and give staff a direction to bring back a form of decision. Council Member Beecham asked whether Council Member Lytle’s primary concerns were exceptions on daylight plane violations, setback, patio, and sidewalk intrusions. Council Member Lytle said that was correct on the first appeal; height on the second appeal; and mews infringements on the third appeal. She was not in favor of the exceptions and would like to see them redesigned without the exceptions. The access onto public land was a design issue and the variety of unit sizes was of concern. Council Member Mossar said the Council would be well served by not making a final decision, remanding the exceptions back to staff, asking for alternative designs that eliminated the exceptions, and bring the alternatives back to the Council. There was no alternative information and no compelling reason why the exceptions existed. More information was needed. A motion should be made that said the exceptions were troublesome, remand it back to staff for further work, and return to the Council with alternatives to using the exceptions. INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND THE SECONDER to remand exceptions back to staff asking for alternative designs eliminating exceptions which would be brought back to Council. Council Member Kleinberg found the staff concern about the parking implications compelling and was interested in stable housing. Setbacks, protection of the park and other issues were of concern. Council Member Burch supported the substitute motion. He did not feel the need to get the mix within the building. The mix spread over the total development and was a good mix. Council Member Beecham suggested if the maker of the substitute motion excluded the mix, the vote might be unanimous. Council Member Fazzino clarified that the maker of the motion accepted Council Member Mossar’s incorporation to remand the exceptions issues back to staff to look at alternatives. Mayor Eakins said yes. 04/02/01 91-515 Council Member Lytle was willing to vote on the unit mix separately of the exceptions issue. Mr. Calonne tried to focus on the nuance the Council tried to achieve by remanding as opposed to upholding the appeals and sending it back for redesign. If the Council tried to say that it might, in some circumstance, approve the exceptions, but would like to see some alternatives, staff would return with a written decision for the next available agenda. The Council could continue the appeal and ask staff to return with design alternatives, but if the Council wanted to initiate a process where the applicant would invest in redesign, he felt the need to talk to the applicant about how that would work. His preference was for the Council to uphold the appeals. If the Council did not want to do that, he would come back with a decision that remanded the project. Mayor Eakins asked whether the motion could be changed to continue the item with direction given by the City Attorney and as augmented by Council Member Mossar. That would leave flexibility and not require the applicant to redo things but to present alternatives. Council Member Lytle’s intent was to see that the redesign took place minus exceptions that infringed on public property. Her understanding of the substitute motion was to allow staff to get clear on the exceptions and present a more clear record. Mayor Eakins said when Council Member Lytle accepted Council Member Mossar’s incorporation, it was not what was intended, because Council Member Mossar was talking about alternatives and having choices. Council Member Mossar suggested the Council vote on Council Member Lytle’s substitute motion without her changes. She was looking for an expedient way to get the Council out of a detailed description. She was uncomfortable with some of the exceptions, in particular the DHS. Mayor Eakins clarified Council Member Lytle’s motion was to uphold the appeal and do away with the exceptions. Council Member Lytle said the motion was to approve the staff recommendation for all aspects of the appeal aside from the exceptions. Council Member Fazzino said Council Member Beecham’s motion was on the table which was to accept the staff recommendations. He 04/02/01 91-516 understood Council Member Beecham was willing to accept the Mossar/Lytle approach to exceptions. SUBSTITUTE MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to approve the portions of the appeal that had to do with exceptions to the zoning for the property and access infringements onto public park space, mews, height, and daylight plane for all three projects. Council Member Beecham clarified the height for Block A was 45 feet rather than 48 feet. Council Member Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Wheeler asked whether a separate motion would be made on the DHS for the patios. Council Member Lytle said the exception for underground subterranean patios would not be allowed. Council Member Kleinberg withdrew her second because she did not agree with the motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Wheeler, to accept the staff recommendations and uphold portions of the appeal that had to do with permitted exceptions with respect to zoning and the access infringements on public park space for all three properties including reduction in height. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion primarily to get the application back to staff to address the issues. City Manager Frank Benest said if the Council wanted to say the exceptions were bad and direct the applicant to do the work, spend the money, and return to the Council with designs that did not have the exceptions, that could be done. If the Council wanted staff to come back with alternatives, the Council should not vote for the motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 2-6, Lytle, Wheeler “yes”, Fazzino, Ojakian “not participating.” SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to continue the item to a date uncertain, and to remand the exceptions back to staff and direct staff to return to Council with alternative designs eliminating exceptions. 04/02/01 91-517 SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 8-0, Ojakian “not participating.” City Manager Benest said a time would be scheduled to do the necessary work and bring the item back to the Council. The Council and members of the public who spoke would be notified. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jackie Durant, 4250 El Camino Real, #B113, spoke regarding Below Market Rate housing problem. Alex Edelstein, 355 Santa Rita Avenue, stated that due to the late hour he gave up his time to speak. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding oral communications agenda order. David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding the South of Forest Area (SOFA) park and dedication by the City on Earth Day. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, spoke regarding Councils’ consideration on rescinding the ban of residential use in Midtown commercial area. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding the number of appeals. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve the Minutes of February 20, 2001, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Ojakian absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 4. 2. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Maze and Associates in the Amount of $132,800 for 2000-01 City Mandated Financials and GASB 34 3. Authorize Signature of the City Manager or Director of Utilities for the Energy Star License Agreement Regarding Participation in the Energy Star Program Created by the Environment Protection Agency and Department of Energy to Promote Energy Conservation and to Reduce Pollution for an Annual Cost of $5,000 04/02/01 91-518 Resolution 8044 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Star Program” 4. The Policy and Services Committee recommends that City Council direct staff to come up with a vision statement, guiding principles, and an implementation plan for a Proposed City Sustainability Policy. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Ojakian absent. City Manager Frank Benest requested that the two Closed Session Item Nos. 5 and 5A be continued to a Special Meeting on April 6, 2001, at 8:00 a.m. CLOSED SESSION 5. Conference with City Attorney—Existing Litigation Subject: Juana Briones House: Jaim Nulman and Avelyn Welczer v. City of Palo Alto, SCC #CV779831 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) 5A. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Council Ad Hoc Personnel Committee (Mayor Sandy Eakins, Vice Mayor Vic Ojakian, Council Members Bern Beecham and Jim Burch) Unrepresented Employee: City Manager Frank Benest Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to the Road Development Agreement Modifying a Portion of Special Condition Area B on the Stanford University Campus that would Allow for Future Development of Faculty, Staff or Student Housing Consistent with the Recently-Approved Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not participate in the item due to a potential conflict of interest because of her husband’s involvement in Stanford law matters. Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because her husband worked for the Stanford University. 04/02/01 91-519 Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the amendment would implement the trade of land discussed as part of the Stanford General User Permit (GUP). Thirteen acres were traded for thirteen acres and houses were allowed to be built on the exchanged property. Staff recommended deleting the summary insert to the Revision to Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Special Condition Area B and to use the designations in the Development Agreement legend language including identifying recreation and academic fields, associated support uses, special condition Area B boundary, and housing areas. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, said in order to accommodate the “swap,” Stanford’s GUP was altered to add 220 units of graduate student housing to Escondido Village. Because of the swap, the revised housing sites near the golf course were not able to accommodate all the housing originally proposed by Stanford for those sites. The 220 units were added to 1,175 new graduate student units already planned for Escondido Village under the GUP and up to 75 faculty staff housing units along Stanford Avenue. College Terrace had to bear the impact of a nearly 20 percent increase in the number of additional units. The City should have been aware of the impact on College Terrace. The residents of College Terrace were not really informed about the shifting of additional development to their doorstep as a result of the swap. Mayor Eakins asked whether there was consideration of the swap. City Manager Frank Benest said the properties were close to one another. Mayor Eakins clarified Ms. Ogawa said 220 additional units of housing were being put in Escondido Village as a result of the swap. Mr. Benest said he was not aware of that. Mr. Gawf said the Council was looking at moving 13 acres that were identified in the GUP for another similar size parcel. Mr. Larry Horton, Stanford, said the agreement had nothing to do with the additional housing in Escondido Village. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said Mr. Gawf pointed out there would be another change to the Amended Exhibit H-3. He and Richard Harris brought four changes to the document seen by the Council on March 12, 2001. The language in the original exhibit was unambiguous and should have been used. 04/02/01 91-520 Richard Harris, 1370 Masonic Avenue, San Francisco, Committee to Save the Stanford Golf Course, was in agreement with Mr. Borock and Mr. Horton to use the same legend language that the Council had in the original Exhibit H-3. The housing location moved 200 yards within the Area B and kept the housing off the golf course. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Burch, to approve the staff and Planning and Transportation Commission recommendations to: (1) consider the addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects, certified by the City Council on June 30, 1007; and (2) adopt an ordinance approving the proposed amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Regarding Stanford University Special Area B that would modify the portion of Special Condition Area B on the Stanford campus that can be developed for faculty, staff or student housing with staff changes. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the First Amendment to the Development Agreement Between the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University and the City of Palo Alto Dated August 14,1997 First Amendment to Development Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Council Member Lytle said a legal description was included in Exhibit A, First Amendment to Development Agreement. Attorney Sandy Skaggs said Exhibit A did not describe the areas discussed but was a repeat of Exhibit A to the Development Agreement which described the whole areas that were subject to the Development Agreement. The description was placed by Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynn Furth in an effort to be properly recorded against the proper property. Council Member Lytle clarified the only thing that described the new housing site was the air photo. Mr. Skaggs said the description was the map. Council Member Lytle clarified the map had no legal description to accompany it. Mr. Skaggs said that was correct. 04/02/01 91-521 Council Member Lytle questioned how the Council knew the property consisted of 13 acres. Mr. Skaggs said the property was measured. The idea was to identify the area with sufficient particularity. Council Member Lytle asked who made the measurements. Mr. Skaggs said the Stanford Planning Office made the measurements. MOTION FAILED 4-1, Lytle “no,” Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino, Ojakian absent. Council Member Lytle suggested continuing the item in order to get an accurate description of the area. MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Burch, to reconsider the motion. MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSED 5-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino, Ojakian absent. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved to continue the item in order to have a description of boundaries swapped specifically to housing. Council Member Wheeler asked whether someone had to do a survey and write up a legal description. Mr. Gawf said someone would have to survey the property, and his understanding was that Stanford would have to do it. The project had to go through the County process to develop the housing. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Burch, to continue the item to the next regular Council meeting of April 9, 2001. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 5-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino, Ojakian absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 8. Request for Council Direction to Seek Land for Affordable Housing City Manager Frank Benest said Palo Alto had a significant affordable housing challenge. Two of the Comprehensive Plan’s goals were to provide an adequate supply of housing and 04/02/01 91-522 sufficient housing opportunities for a diverse population including affordable housing. The biggest obstacles for most nonprofit developers were to assemble a site, given the current marketplace. Staff requested Council direction to identify potential sites with a focus on possible locations along the transportation corridors. Possible funding sources included existing as well as future housing development funds and Community Development Block Grant monies. The City was also a major contributor to the Santa Clara County Housing Trust Fund. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, thought staff identified a number of sites in staff’s application for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. He believed Rickey’s Hyatt House, which was on a transportation corridor, was on the list. The agenda item asked to give staff authority for something that had already been done. He questioned why that was necessary if, during the normal process of CDBG funds, sites were already identified in an application. Edie Keating said the community needed more affordable housing. The action taken by the Council was a first step toward acquiring land that would be dedicated for more affordable housing. Litsie Indergand, 336 Ely Place, favored affordable housing at all levels, from emergency shelters to transitional housing and low-income permanent housing. She supported the City Manager’s suggestion that the City seek land for affordable housing and asked the City to aggressively pursue the search for such land. The Opportunity Center was the only development for truly affordable housing. The City should gather any available funds in order to make a meaningful contribution to the Opportunity Center as well as finding land for additional affordable housing. Sally Probst, League of Women Voters, said the League enthusiastically endorsed the request of the City Manager that the Council direct staff to identify further sites. In addition, the Council should be concerned about acquiring the sites to be available. According to the Housing Element, 1,400 units were needed in the following five years. The only way to accomplish that was to find sites. Patricia J. Saffir, 2714 Bryant Street, supported the proposal. In the conservation world, a private foundation found a site, had ready money to purchase it, and held onto it until it could be turned over to a public group. The City would hold the land and turn it over to a private, nonprofit group to build low-income housing. The City had landbanked in the past. Lytton 04/02/01 91-523 Gardens was built on property that Palo Alto was able to hold onto until a group was able to put together a proposal. Karen Holman supported affordable housing but said there was a way to do it without having to buy land. That could be done by stopping the allowance of multiple homes being torn down for the construction of a single home. Lot combining caused lost housing. The Council was urged to take action. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, asked the Council to permit residential where it was not currently permitted and urged the Council to look at all property that was for sale. To pass up the opportunity to purchase property that owners were willing to sell was a mistake. Council Member Wheeler assumed when staff looked at potential affordable housing sites, it looked at properties that were currently zoned for either residential or commercial. Mr. Benest said that was correct. Council Member Wheeler said landbanking was stopped because the federal government said cities could no longer do that with CDBG funds because in order to afford land in Palo Alto, funds had to be held onto for a longer period of time. Mr. Benest said loans could be obtained on future CDBG funds. Rather than landbanking, the City would purchase land and turn it over to a qualified nonprofit housing developer to immediately move forward in developing affordable housing. Council Member Mossar was interested in more indepth conversation about the financing. Page 2 of the staff report (CMR:190:01) indicated “It is estimated that in the last three years, Palo Alto has added ten jobs for every new housing unit constructed.” Housing could be saved by not combining lots and not allowing cottages to be torn down. Affordable housing was important in the community, but the Council needed to rethink the way it looked at what was wanted for the community. Council Member Kleinberg said staff worked hard on the issue in conjunction with the Human Relations Commission (HRC). The HRC had an affordable housing/escalating rent forum. A number of task forces were working on that issue and would bring recommendations to the Council through the HRC. A multitude of strategies would be needed to succeed. Council Member Lytle said the funding sources listed in the staff report (CMR:190:01) did not look like they would compete 04/02/01 91-524 with other priorities that the Council set. She hoped the policy direction given was not to use funds the Council was trying to use to find ways to handle infrastructure priorities. Mr. Benest said staff talked about a variety of creative ways within the budget to generate financing plans but was not talking about General Fund monies. Council Member Lytle asked about reserves. Mr. Benest said staff would return with recommendations about its $22 million solution for the infrastructure problem. Part of that would be reserves. Once the new standard was set, money would not come out of General Fund reserves for affordable housing. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Beecham, to authorize the City Manager and staff to identify potential affordable housing sites for acquisition by the City. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Ojakian absent. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the Council had a letter from the Juana Briones Foundation suggesting a trade of parkland as a solution. A statement was made that the action did not require a vote of the people. The opposite was true. He asked that the City Attorney be asked to interpret in open session the charter provision for dedicated parkland that even for a trade, a vote of the people was required to remove parkland from dedication. COUNCIL MATTERS 9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Lytle liked the idea of the Council moving the main agenda item forward but noted that the Council’s policy to not go over a certain hour with items did not work. Council Member Wheeler acknowledged the passing of Maurice Benetua the past week and asked that the meeting be adjourned in his memory. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:35 a.m. in memory of Maurice Benetua, who taught in the Palo Alto Unified School District for 27 years. 04/02/01 91-525 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. 04/02/01 91-526