Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-09 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting October 9, 2001 1. Joint Annual Meeting with Assemblyman Joe Simitian..........474 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m..................474 1. Review and Discussion of Proposed Revision to the Housing Element of Comprehensive Plan...............................475 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................497 2. Resolution xxxx entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers and Rescinding Resolution Nos. 8000, 8027, 8060, and 8073....................................................498 3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and ASAP Software in the Annual Amount of $176,580 for a 3-year Microsoft Enterprise Agreement........................................498 4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Accela, Inc., in the Amount of $150,000 for Accela Automation/ VelocityHall Web-Based Permitting Applications...........................498 5. Increase in the Expenditure Limit of the Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration Agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for the Palo Alto Shuttle Project.....................................................498 6. Second Year Performance Review of Palo Alto Sanitation (PASCO)/Waste Management....................................498 7. Status Report and Request for Council Direction on 2000 San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Proposed Southern Dumbarton Bridge Connection through the Palo Alto Baylands............498 AT 10:50 P.M. THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED TO A SPECIAL MEETING AS THE PALO ALTO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND RECONVENED AT 11:05 P.M. AS THE CITY COUNCIL..............................................500 COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS...................500 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m..................501 10/09/01 92-473 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:45 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Lytle, Mossar arrived at 6:00 p.m., Ojakian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Kleinberg SPECIAL MEETING 1. Joint Annual Meeting with Assemblyman Joe Simitian A. Assessment of State Budget Situation (Simitian) B. Resources • Water -- Hetch-Hetchy System (Eakins) C. Environment/Safety • San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Agreement (Eakins, Mossar, Staff) • Storm Drain Infrastructure Improvements (Staff) • Mandatory Minimum Penalties for Wastewater Discharges (Staff) • California Mercury Reduction Act (Staff) D. Community Services • Children's Theatre Project Funding; Community Theatre’s Sound and Light System (Ojakian, staff) • Proposition 14 -- Funding for Mitchell Park Joint Library Services Project (Ojakian) E. Transportation • Intermodal Transit Center (Eakins, Staff) No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. 10/09/01 92-474 Regular Meeting October 9, 2001 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian (arrived at 8:00 p.m.), Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Kleinberg REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 1. Review and Discussion of Proposed Revision to the Housing Element of Comprehensive Plan City Manager Frank Benest said Palo Alto had a long tradition of supporting affordable housing as promoted in the Comprehensive Plan’s (Comp Plan) policies and programs. Staff was directed to draft a Housing Element Update (HEU) to take the City to the next level in its efforts to preserve existing housing and promote new housing production. Adopting and implementing a strong HEU was critical because it was legally mandated from the State, and most importantly, the right thing to do for the Palo Alto community. Promoting the preservation and production of affordable housing would help determine the future of Palo Alto; addressing key challenges such as reducing traffic congestion, air quality problems, and the stress on families and communities related to long commutes. Advance Planning Manager, Julie Caporgno said the Housing Element consisted of the Housing Element Technical document, and Chapter 4 (Housing) of the Comp Plan. Under State law, the City was required to update its Housing Element every five years to ensure that the housing policies properly addressed changing conditions and existing and projected housing needs. The Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) updated its regional housing need determination in the year 2000 and identified 1,397 units as Palo Alto’s fair share of regional housing needs. The allocation of housing units to individual cities was based on a variety of factors that included market demand, employment opportunities, land availability, commuting patterns, type and tenure of housing need, loss of affordable units in assisted development, and special needs housing. ABAG also determined each jurisdiction’s housing 10/09/01 92-475 needs by income category using the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definitions. Palo Alto had already met the above moderate goal; however during the past two years limited units had been developed under the very low-, low-, or moderate-income categories. In order to achieve the 616 housing units identified for unmet needs, the City would have had to produce approximately 5,000 units before the year 2000 based upon the Below-Market-Rate (BMR) program. The purpose of the HEU was to reinforce and supplement current policies adopted in 1998 through the Comp Plan process, identify additional opportunities to meet Palo Alto’s housing challenge, and respond to the State mandated process. The City had been updating the HEU for the past eight months, and the process involved considerable community outreach with input from an eight-member Ad-Hoc Technical Advisory Committee. The committee, representing various housing advocates and public interests, met three times at various junctures in the preparation of the revised HEU. A 13-member Focus Group, representing developers, real estate interests, and other building industry professionals, was also convened to provide information as to the practicality of possible policy and program recommendations. One public forum, sponsored by the Human Relations Commission (HRC), was held in February 2000 to discuss ways to accommodate affordable housing. In August of the same year, the City held another public forum specifically on the HEU. In addition to public participation the City posted, on the Planning Department’s website, materials generated throughout the element review process along with interactive email, in order to further facilitate public comments and concerns regarding housing issues. The HEU focused on identifying potential solutions in response to the community issues and concerns regarding housing needs. The primary challenge that faced Palo Alto involved implementing strategies to encourage increased housing production, particularly to enable more affordable housing and identify suitable sites for housing. Various strategies were identified that addressed the issues raised through the public outreach process. The Housing Site Inventory (HSI) provided a long-term mechanism to identify suitable housing sites beyond the 1999-2006 timeframe of the housing element to enable the City to address housing needs on an ongoing basis and into the future. As the result of the 1998 Comp Plan adoption, a series of policy changes was approved as part of the housing element to increase the supply of housing. Many of those policies and programs were to be implemented through the Zoning 10/09/01 92-476 Ordinance Update (ZOU) process presently under way. Several new policies had been identified as part of the HEU process that would also be implemented through the zoning process. Those included allowing housing on sites planned or zoned for public facilities use, limiting the conversion of residential lands to non-residential uses, restricting the loss of residential development potential due to lot combining, and permitting duplexes to be built to satisfy BMR requirements in single-family subdivisions as well as preserving rental cottages and other small detached single- family dwellings or duplexes. At the recent P&TC meeting, suggestions were made for additional revisions to incorporate within the HEU that included: 1) consideration of allowing ancillary residential uses on church sites; 2) restricting reduced parking requirements to transit-oriented developments; 3) limiting the size of individual units to encourage the production of more affordable housing; and requiring site and design review for mixed-use projects. The purpose of the meeting that evening was for the City Council to endorse the direction of the HEU as proposed and provide comments to staff of revisions to the housing element. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Beecham, to sever the housing inventory discussion from that evening’s meeting. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Ojakian absent. Planning and Transportation Commissioner Bonnie Packer, disclosed she had a conflict of interest due to her family’s relationship with Stanford University. In addition, neither the P&TC nor the Technical Advisory Committee, of which she was a member, discussed the exclusion or inclusion of the housing site inventory. The P&TC unanimously approved the recommendation that the Council endorse the direction of the Housing Element Technical document, and Chapter 4 (Housing) of the Comp Plan. The combination of strategies mentioned by Ms. Caporgno could effectively increase the housing supply. The housing element that was being reviewed came in the midst of the ZOU, wherein the community was able to see policies and programs become realities. Myllicent Hamilton, 4014 Ben Lomond, expressed concern that an increase in the minimum density would mean an increase in traffic. The HEU had not taken into consideration 10/09/01 92-477 increased traffic and increased school corridors. She believed the Technical Advisory Committee was made up of people who were advocates of denser housing, whereas the Focus Group consisted of developers and architects. However, there was no representation from the residential community nor single-family homeowners that made up the majority of Palo Alto. She urged the Council to include the latter group in the HEU. Deborah Ju, 371 Whiteclem Drive, said it was important for the Palo Alto to create new housing, especially affordable housing, but the City should be cautious not to build beyond livable limits. There should be better ways to provide affordable housing instead of the current system that required large volumes of market priced units to attain each affordable unit created. The City should study how many families it would be able to provide schools, libraries, parks, soccer fields, and basketball courts for. She urged the Council to oppose the authorization of sending the HEU to the State in its current form. Mayor Eakins asked the City Manager whether plans had been made for an additional committee regarding the HEU. Mr. Benest said staff was ready to engage additional people and would be happy to meet with any group. He also noted that most of the people on the current committees lived in owner-occupied homes. In addition, two widely promoted community forums were held and input from those forums was passed along to the committee members. Mayor Eakins asked whether interested parties should contact Ms. Caporgno. Mr. Benest said yes. Ms. Ju said that would be great. Diana Steeples, Member Palo Alto League of Women Voters (League), 3198 Ramona Street, supported the revised housing element. The League’s position on housing, with particular emphasis on the needs of low- and moderate-income residents, had been adopted over time following extensive studies at the local and state level of the League. The proposed increase in the BMR program, the increase for in-lieu fees for non-residential development, and the goal of 10/09/01 92-478 increasing the supply of land for housing merit the support of the League. Patricia Saffir, 2719 Bryant Street, agreed with the City Manager that Palo Alto needed a strong housing element and supported the firm and positive tone of the housing element as proposed. She urged the Council to endorse the HEU as proposed. Jane Glauz, Affiliated with Peninsula Interfaith Action (PIA), 152 Ely Place, was appreciative of the community involvement on the updates of the housing element. She supported the recommendations for increasing the BMR program and for providing a range of densities. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, opposed the housing element because everything that was proposed in the update had been tried previously and failed. He believed it was impossible to implement affordable housing in the City that was internationally recognized as having the highest housing prices in the United States. Janet Owens, 850 Webster Street, Apartment #421, supported the proposed HEU. She suggested increasing the amount of housing mitigation fees placed on new development of commercial and industrial facilities, whereby bringing them in line with fees recently adopted by neighboring cities. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, Apartment #126, said when developers want to build additional new housing, policies should not stymie that. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, opposed the proposed HEU. He believed there was a violation of the Brown Act because the Council Agenda listed the topic item as review and discussion. There was nothing stating action would to be taken that evening. Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, supported the proposed HEU that strengthened existing programs in the previous housing element. The update was based on the reality of the scarcity and high cost of available land in the City. She referred to an ancillary unit in her neighborhood that was removed for speculative purposes. She found that was happening throughout the City. The only hope for housing of very low-, low-, and moderate-income residents was through subsidized housing that required revenue sources. The HEU 10/09/01 92-479 would increase the level of funding with current programs and noted the opportunity for new revenue sources such as the Redevelopment Agency. To maintain Palo Alto as a desirable, livable, and diverse city sufficient affordable housing was essential. She urged the Council to endorse the HEU that evening and the zoning ordinance that would soon follow. Council Member Burch asked whether the home with an ancillary unit was torn down and another home built. Ms. Probst clarified that the ancillary unit of the home was rented until the house sold. The new owners amalgamated the unit into the house to make it a larger single-family home. Council Member Mossar disclosed she would not participate in any discussions related to Stanford University because that her husband worked for Stanford. Also, none of her comments would be directed to properties owned by Stanford University. Council Member Mossar asked what types of consideration had been done to evaluate feasibility and the impact of reducing jobs or getting to some no net increase of jobs in the community. Ms. Caporgno said no considerations were done to address that issue. Staff had looked at the provisions of housing in accordance with the requirements set by the state. Council Member Mossar asked whether consideration of mixed- use development came into play in consideration of the impact of additional jobs. Ms. Caporgno said the mixed-use zoning district would be addressed in the ZOU. Council Member Mossar asked whether a new California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis would be done instead of using the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) from the Comp Plan. Ms. Caporgno said staff would tier-off the mitigated negative declaration using the Comp Plan. 10/09/01 92-480 Mayor Eakins asked for an explanation of tiering off the mitigated declaration. Ms. Caporgno said staff would use the Comp Plan EIR as the base document and then look at any new impacts that would result from the revised housing element. That was with the understanding there would not be any new significant unmitigated impacts resulting from it. Council Member Mossar asked whether other departments would have the opportunity to think through what the impacts were for their programs and facilities. Ms. Caporgno said subsequent environmental review would be conducted during each phase of the project. Council Member Mossar referred to Program H-3 (Attachment A) of CMR:379:01 and asked for clarification of the underlined portion of Bullet No. 4. Ms. Caporgno said many of the existing homes in Palo Alto were built on two, three, or four lots. Staff was aware of that when a home was rebuilt or substantially remodeled and the building department required those lots to be merged. The housing element had not intended to interfere with that process. Housing Consultant Mike Flores said Palo Alto had previous experience with lots being combined and units being lost. The program would allow two sub-standard lots to be combined to form one standard lot. Council Member Mossar referred to Program H-7 (Attachment A) of CMR:379:01 and asked whether language could be added stating housing was a public benefit. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said that was one option. The other concept would involve a different review and application process than the planned community was presently. Council Member Mossar said the current language removed the requirement for public benefit. Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said that would be another approach to the concept. 10/09/01 92-481 Mayor Eakins asked what was wrong with using that approach and why was it not recommended. Ms. Grote said staff anticipated a different type of review process than the planned community zone that required two P&TC hearings, an Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearing and a City Council hearing. The process that accompanied the planned development would not require that series of steps in the review. Mayor Eakins asked whether the process would be simpler. Ms. Grote said yes. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the planned community zone was presently without standards. Council Member Mossar referred to Policy H-10 (Attachment A) of CMR:379:01 and asked whether staff had discussed any illegal non-conforming rental cottages in the City. Mr. Calonne said there was no amortization or amnesty program. Council Member Mossar clarified she wanted to know if staff had discussed the living units that existed illegally throughout Palo Alto that were presently part of the housing stock. Ms. Grote said there were no discussions on any illegal non-conforming rental cottages. Council Member Mossar referred to page 6 of 7 (Attachment A) of CMR:379:01 and asked what the additional ten feet of height density would provide. Mr. Flores said the additional ten feet would buy another floor of units. Council Member Mossar asked if the current 50-foot height limit was an action taken by Council or a vote from the community. Ms. Caporgno said the 50-foot height limit was an action taken by Council. 10/09/01 92-482 Ms. Grote said the height limit was also reflected in the Zoning Ordinance, which made it part of the maximum height limit any many districts. Council Member Mossar referred to Policy H-33 (Attachment A) of CMR:379:01 and asked why the flexible development standards and creative architectural solutions did not mention compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and other residential units. Ms. Caporgno said staff’s intent was for the implementation of the policies to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Council Member Mossar referred to Program H-46 (Attachment A) of CMR:379:01 and asked whether staff had considered a mix of affordable and market-rate housing for seniors. Mr. Flores said the intention was to provide more housing for all types of senior citizens and not just focus on affordable housing. Council Member Mossar asked if there were other programs in combination with H-46 that would encourage the provision of affordable senior housing. Mr. Flores said yes. There was reduced parking, an increase in the BMR rate, and density increases for other BMR units that would provide more affordable units. Council Member Mossar asked whether it was staff’s opinion that Program H-46 included incentives for affordable housing. Mr. Flores said not specifically. Council Member Mossar asked whether staff had discussed the present Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS) Zoning for possible revision. Ms. Grote said staff had not addressed the DHS Zoning as part of the HEU. Mayor Eakins asked if staff expected to review the DHS Zoning as part of the ZOU. 10/09/01 92-483 Ms. Grote said the DHS Zoning was created specifically for the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Phase I, and was not anticipated to be reopened as part of the ZOU. Council Member Wheeler asked what was dictating the schedule for sending the HEU to the State. Ms. Caporgno said staff was to provide the housing element to the State for review. Staff made changes to the document based on the State’s review and was mandated to have the adopted HEU by December 31, 2001. Subsequent to the adoption of the HEU, the document would return to the State for a finding as to compliance with state law. Mr. Benest said the process was typical for most cities. Council Member Wheeler asked what was the permanency of submitting the HEU to the State at this point. Ms. Caporgno said there would be an opportunity for some change. The major issues that were addressed was providing sufficient land for housing, that policies had been incorporated that would encourage housing production, and that Palo Alto had demonstrated they would meet the State mandate. Council Member Mossar asked what the consequences would be if the City did not have the final plan adopted by December 31, 2001. Ms. Caporgno said the City would not have a plan that complied with state law, but currently there were no penalties attached to that. Legislation pending could possibly affect federal monies for transit projects. Mr. Calonne said applications for housing funding of various kinds had been facilitated because Palo Alto was one of the 20 percent of cities that had a certified housing element. There was no commitment made by the Council to send the proposed HEU to the State. Council Member Wheeler said the proposed policy changes spoke more for housing density than affordable housing. She asked how would staff speak more toward the issue of affordable housing than producing lots of housing units. 10/09/01 92-484 Ms. Caporgno said one of the program changes discussed was to increase the BMR component from the existing 10 percent to 15 percent or, in the case of larger projects, from 15 percent to 20 percent. In addition, the more units constructed, the lower the cost was to build them. The increase in the commercial-in-lieu fee would provide the City with the opportunity to have more monies to pursue housing prospects. Council Member Wheeler asked whether zoning on El Camino Real would be an area where increased density might be appropriate. The 1976 Comp Plan discussed a surgical look at the El Camino Real and the careful matching between the zoning along the El Camino Real face and the residential zones immediately adjacent to it. Ms. Caporgno said staff went out and looked at individual sites, in particular underutilized properties, but were also cognizant of the adjacent land uses where single-family residential development prevailed. Council Member Wheeler said there did not appear to be a link with the housing element policies and programs and the transportation element as enunciated in the HEU. Some of the areas proposed for increases in density along the El Camino Real corridor were in areas that had intersections that were at barely functioning levels. She asked whether staff took into account the level of service at the major intersections along the El Camino Real. Ms. Caporgno said staff had done some preliminary evaluation of the traffic, however the environmental review process was not complete. Council Member Wheeler asked whether staff had addressed any programs or policies for the continued affordability and viability of both BMR and subsidized units. Ms. Caporgno said that issue never came up in the context of the committee, however the topic could be added. Mr. Calonne clarified that there was no procedure spelled out as to what action to take if the Council decided to make changes after HCD comments. It was prudent to get another around of review at that point. 10/09/01 92-485 Ms. Caporgno said staff had incorporated a new Program H-20 into the HEU in which part of that element was the preservation of BMR rental units for very low and low-income tenants. Staff was to establish monitoring programs to ensure those units were preserved. Council Member Lytle asked whether staff felt it would be better to weaken the City’s position with the State reviewer on the housing element rather than bolster the element while going through the review process. Ms. Caporgno said the State was more in favor of adding policies rather than deleting them. Council Member Lytle asked whether any thought was given in the effort to update the housing element, to begin tracking the daytime population increase and look at ways to convert the demand for housing to housing. Mr. Flores said staff did look at some of those issues. The HSI converted some the commercial sites to residential uses as well as increasing the density. Palo Alto already had more than twice as many jobs as employed residents that needed to be addressed. Council Member Lytle said she would like to see a reduction in housing demand as the Council moved forward with the HEU. She asked how staff came up with the 2,000-foot distance for high-density transit designation and mixed use high-density, and were the sites reviewed before making the distance requirement. Ms. Caporgno said staff included the 2,000-foot radius because it was most commonly used; however it did not preclude anything outside the 2,000-foot radius. Staff felt it was an acceptable radius within a transit station to include the higher density. She referred to page 10 of 29 (Attachment C) of CMR:379:01 that stated there might be other sites that were not precisely within the 2,000-foot radius of a transit station but had good access to rail or major bus transit facilities. Council Member Lytle said the HEU raised the issue of relaxing the 50-foot height limit because it became an enormous growth limitation for Palo Alto. She asked whether the policy issue aired sufficiently with the community. 10/09/01 92-486 Ms. Caporgno said the program allowed for up to 60 feet height in very limited circumstances. It was set up in conjunction with the density bonus program for BMR units, and the application of the policy was for suitable sites that met certain requirements. Council Member Mossar asked whether the 60-foot height limitation for suitable sites was a change from the previous housing element. Ms. Caporgno said yes. The document that showed the changes made by the Planning Department were incorporated in the full housing element text from Chapter 4 that was appended to the P&TC staff report. Council Member Lytle asked how did staff concluded that the City had surplus PF Zone property when the EIR for the Comp Plan assumed only 3,000 housing units of growth. Ms. Caporgno said staff did not conclude there was surplus PF property, but incorporated a policy in case surplus PF property came about. Council Member Lytle said demographic analysis conclusions was drawn from the projections in the population by looking at the 1970 census data and the 2000 census data that was believed to be inaccurate. She asked whether staff had any intent to do an updated demographic analysis to be able to project population. An accurate demographic similar to Cohort’s Survival Projection was missing, which would allow staff to predict where the population was headed. Ms. Caporgno said there was no plan connected to the HEU, however in subsequent months staff had planned to prepare a community profile. Council Member Lytle said the proposed HEU relied on standard zoning to solve complex issues in terms of in-fill redevelopment while the previous Comp Plan relied on form code to deal with some of the same concerns. She asked if there was any intent to illustrate what was being said so people could be comfortable with the flexibility that was referred to in standard zoning. Ms. Caporgno said the ZOU had incorporated addressing the form code process. 10/09/01 92-487 Council Member Lytle asked whether it was possible to add references to form code whenever the discussion of standard zoning occurred. Ms. Caporgno said that could be incorporated. Council Member Beecham asked what were the transit corridors besides El Camino Real and San Antonio Road. Ms. Caporgno said those were the two main transit corridors looked at for evaluating potential sites. Council Member Beecham said they were referenced as corridors, but not transit corridors. What were the transit corridors within 2,000-feet of housing sites. Mr. Flores said the objective of staff was not to create a comprehensive list, but to provide enough flexibility in the program to allow the community-at-large to decide what they considered a transit corridor. Council Member Beecham said his concern would be that the transit corridor was one major transit corridor. The Embarcadero, Alma Street, Oregon Expressway, and others could also be called transit corridors. He asked how broadly staff had defined the 2,000-foot range. Ms. Grote said transit corridors were defined by the frequency of transit services on particular streets and then did include the Embarcadero, Alma Street, Oregon Expressway, and Middlefield Road. The two transit corridors staff identified primarily were San Antonio Road and El Camino Real which were possible corridors for higher density. Council Member Beecham referred to Program H-6 (Attachment C) in CMR:379:01, and asked whether the language contained within could be interpreted as allowing second dwelling units throughout R-1. Ms. Caporgno said second dwelling units could be allowed under R-1, but other criteria would need to be met for second units. Council Member Beecham clarified if it was otherwise allowed, it could be provided by the City through the ministerial permit. 10/09/01 92-488 Ms. Caporgno said yes. Council Member Beecham asked how the Housing Opportunity Study (HOS) map would be tied into the HEU. Ms. Caporgno said the inventory was the critical component of the housing element for the State. She suggested forwarding to the State the present list, allow the Council in the ensuing two months to evaluate the sites, and then make any changes. Mr. Calonne said if the Council’s concern was possible conflicts on interest, those members should disqualify themselves and the remaining council members would vote. Council Member Beecham asked whether individual projects would be subject to having an EIR. Ms. Caporgno said individual projects would be subject to further EIR review. Small developments would likely be issued a negative declaration, whereas large developments, such as Hyatt Rickey’s would require an EIR. Council Member Beecham understood that Hyatt Rickey’s was covered by the existing EIR on the existing Comp Plan. Ms. Grote said there was an EIR being prepared for the Hyatt Rickey’s proposed project that was not covered in the Comp Plan. Council Member Beecham asked what were the principles behind whether a development was covered by the EIR. Ms. Grote said when staff looked at the specifics of the project being proposed, they found that it was different from what was covered in the EIR document for the Comp Plan. Ms. Caporgno added that the Hyatt Rickey’s project had prepared a project level EIR that was different from the EIR for the Comp Plan. Council Member Beecham asked how can staff could talk about correcting the housing-jobs imbalance when the talk was about adding more housing and not about jobs. 10/09/01 92-489 Mayor Eakins asked whether staff could address the rational for doing the housing element without addressing the other issues the community had. Mr. Flores said staff generally addressed the jobs issue in the Housing Element Technical Document. ABAG did project that a certain number of jobs would be created in Palo Alto during the period from 2000-2005; however, Palo Alto already had a jobs-housing imbalance that was so vast and significant there was a housing problem. One way to deal with the jobs-housing imbalance would be to find land that could be converted from non-residential to residential use. Council Member Beecham asked whether it stated how many housing units created would be affordable housing units. Mr. Flores referred to page 26 of 29 (Attachment C) on CMR:379:01 that indicated on the Quantified Affordable Housing Objectives Table the number of units Palo Alto anticipated building based on the resources available. The target number was 616 units over the next five years (2001-2006). Council Member Beecham asked whether the objective affordable housing units were City-built units. Mr. Flores said in some fashion, they would be City- assisted units. Council Member Beecham asked what the projection was for the other policies, such as preserving housing, encouraging housing, and second units. Mr. Flores said it would depend on the nature of the project. If all the units on the housing site inventory were built there would be between 200-250 units. Council Member Beecham asked what the benefit of the policies was. Mr. Flores said staff was looking to create a supply of housing that would allow private developers to build the housing Palo Alto needed. The strategy needed to do that involved identifying as many sites as possible and maximizing the density on those sites. 10/09/01 92-490 Mayor Eakins asked whether non-government agencies or organizations would be likely to build more affordable units in Palo Alto if the policies that encouraged housing were put into place. Mr. Flores said yes. Mayor Eakins asked whether the word private meant non-government organizations in the non-profit sector. Mr. Flores clarified that the City depended upon the private sector to do the housing whether for profit or non- profit. One strategy was for the City to use their limited funds to leverage funds from other developers into creating more affordable housing. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether there was a way to bring the strategies and policies together with the inventory sites to see what effect the strategies had in terms of stimulating housing. Mr. Flores said his best guess involved combining certain policies such as identifying sites within 2,000-feet of transit that might be suitable for the transit corridor designation. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked how the number of potential units was determined from the HSI chart for Tier I and Tier II. Mr. Flores said the determination was independent from the strategies. Staff looked at sites on El Camino Real but used a density limit of 31-40 units per acres because that was all the zoning available. The ZOU would provide different zoning districts, such as mixed use or transit- oriented that might provide bigger numbers. The HSI provided a general idea of what could happen on the sites. Some of the sites were not presently zoned for residential use and would need to be rezoned. The rezoning of certain sites would increase the yield. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether there was a way to give the Council an idea of the possible impacts of the policies and strategies once it came back from the State. Mr. Flores said staff could only present an estimated range of the number of built units and the affordable number of those units. 10/09/01 92-491 Vice Mayor Ojakian asked what was the number of units staff anticipated providing to the State. Mr. Flores said staff was looking to provide 616 affordable housing units to the State. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked what the probability was of building Tier I housing. Mr. Flores said the probability was high. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked what the probability was of building Tier II housing. Mr. Flores said the probability was medium for some and low for others. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked at what point did staff stop and re-evaluate the program to see if it was doing what was expected. Mr. Flores said there was a policy in place to monitor what was done with housing production in order to adjust the list, if needed. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether cottages counted toward housing units. Mr. Flores said it would depend on what they rented for. If they fell into the affordable to very low-income households, then they were counted. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked what the threshold was of the seller for BMR units. Ms. Caporgno said the threshold was 10 units before staff required a unit to be produced. A housing-in-lieu fee was required of the developer for 3-10 units. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether staff looked at the concept proposed by the P&TC in which a lesser number was required before the BMR program would come in. Ms. Caporgno said staff considered dropping the number to over five units to require a unit of BMR, but felt it was too draconian. When it was proposed to the focus group, the responses were not very positive; however, staff did 10/09/01 92-492 incorporate anything over a fraction-of-a-half of a unit was considered a full unit. Council Member Burch clarified that ABAG determined the City needed to build a certain amount of units. Ms. Caporgno said yes. Council Member Burch asked what determined the adequate carrying capacity for Palo Alto. No one wanted to see the quality of life in Palo Alto to diminish just to meet the goals of the HEU. Ms. Furth said the Courts of various states held that local governments had used the zoning power to exclude people who were not wealthy. The compromise left the local cities with the local power to determine what the zoning would be. Fair share assignments were set and cities would figure out ways to meet it. Having cities draw up the documents made more housing happen. The fair share Palo Alto was assigned had to do with the kinds of jobs people had, what areas they lived in, and the total number of people. As it happened, Palo Alto only had an affordable housing directive from ABAG. If the City were wealthy enough, the City’s strategy could be to subsidize 500 units of affordable housing and that would be it. However, the City did not have the money to do that so they relied on the State’s code of zoning enough land for housing development to yield some affordable housing. The inventorying of sites produced a lot of important and useful information. Another issue raised was the serious jobs-housing imbalance, which should be addressed and should include those persons who fell into the above-moderate income category. Mr. Calonne said there was a 90-day period that ended in August of 2000 to dispute the numbers ABAG came up with. Presently the City was stuck with the numbers, but could move forward in an effort to have the regional allocations modified. Council Member Burch asked whether the City would have any control over how the it grew. Mr. Calonne said that information would be forthcoming, but was not within the scope of that evening’s discussion. 10/09/01 92-493 Council Member Lytle expressed concern with sending the HEU to the State without further work: 1) there should be a committee with a different perspective for review; 2) staff missed an opportunity to put in place policy for conversion from commercial to residential; 3) she was not in support of raising the 50-foot height limit and four-story limitation; 4) she was not in support of placing housing in children’s playgrounds and field space, however parking lots were fine; 5) substandard lots provided wonderful sources of modest and affordable housing; 6) a legalized amnesty program for cottages that could provide affordable housing; and 7) it was important that we get a handle on our population trends. Council Member Mossar was uncomfortable sending the HEU to the State. She expressed concerned about mixed-use development as a tool without any analysis of reduction or unacceptance of office in mixed-use development. She believed staff should revisit the DHS zoning that was found in the SOFA process. She wanted to see staff focus on tools that generate affordable housing, not on a general array of tools that produced market-rate housing. There was a fatal flaw in the lack of tie-in between housing and transportation in the HEU. The Shuttle service was a good experiment but without transit services east and west people would need to drive to meet the transit services presently flowing north and south. Palo Alto did not have in place an evaluation for job growth or ways to achieve job stability. She did not believe the community could afford the growth, infrastructure, and programmatic needs, which were needed if the City allowed a significant growth in the population. Affordability was the important issue, and she wanted to make sure what the Council endorsed worked from an impact and long-range sustainability perspective. Council Member Wheeler expressed concern in developing affordable housing not just housing units. If the HEU was sent forward it would need to be amended as follows: 1) delete the language in Program H-3 related to minimum densities in transit corridors; 2) delete the language related to 60-foot height limit; 3) delete the minimum density language; 4) keep the site and design process on mixed-use developments; 5) create a mixed-use zone that produced more housing units than jobs; 6) PF zoning would have to be designated very carefully and restricted to affordable housing; 7) new development standard 1 (page 2 10/09/01 92-494 of 7) the forgiveness items would only apply to affordable housing; 8) BMR preservation should be added as a program that actually spoke to actions taken by the City and the private sector to ensure long-term survival of the BMR program; 9) more information on El Camino Real regarding potential rezoning; and 10) concur that steps should be taken to convert commercially zoned properties to residential. Council Member Beecham agreed with the 50-foot height limit and zones on transportation corridors, but did not support housing along the transit corridors at the Embarcadero, Oregon Expressway, El Camino Real, Middlefield Road, etc. He suggested reducing the 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet or 500 feet, and then carefully reviewing what were the transit corridors. He expressed concern about the inventory sites that listed such structures as the Winter Lodge; St. Albert’s Church, and the Alma Plaza. Palo Alto’s growth rate over the past decade where 860 housing units were added yielded a .3 percent per year growth in housing units. Vice Mayor Ojakian said in order to stimulate affordable housing a larger project was sometimes necessary. He stated that some of the inventory sites were on transit corridors that were acceptable for building housing. He agreed with the 50-foot height limit, and thought that Palo Alto had sufficient parks and open space for the current population, but not with any significant increase in the population. He raised a concern about merging lots because there were some older homes in Palo Alto that were quite attractive and somewhat affordable. When those homes were torn down to build larger homes on lots that had hidden lot lines, changes were made that tore down two smaller homes with equal sized lots. Council Member Burch supported the 50-foot height limit and did not want to build a substantial amount of housing units just to obtain affordable units. Council Member Lytle said she would like to see the 2,000-foot transit corridor converted into something that specifically stated where those opportunities were in the community. She believed there was an opportunity to develop housing units beyond 2,000 feet of train stations but within the distance similar to that of other communities, such as the Crossings in San Jose. She clarified that the 10/09/01 92-495 demographic analysis she spoke of was something the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) would do anyway. Vice Mayor Ojakian said Council Member Lytle’s comment related to the recent City/School Liaison Committee meeting where it was agreed that the PAUSD’s demographer would do an analysis of the population. Council Member Beecham said he did not want the Council to do the demographic analysis. Mayor Eakins said the community had put off having discussions and wide debates about growth, the amount of growth, and where the growth should happen. She believed that in expanding the height limit by 10-feet for certain projects was a good thing, especially with production of smaller housing units. The approach of using BMR housing to generate enough money and enough units to accomplish affordable housing did not make the numbers work. She agreed that El Camino Real was a transit corridor and supported high-density housing. The two bus lines, the 22 and the 300, had ten-minute headway, and both went to the train stations. Adequate transit would never be produced in the low-density neighborhood because there was not enough population to support it. She asked if there were risks whether the Council did not endorse the HEU that evening. Ms. Grote said it meant staff would not meet the time deadline to have an approved housing element, but no penalties would be assessed. Staff could coordinate with the State to inform them the HEU was in process. Mayor Eakins asked whether staff could check into the penalties, if any. Ms. Grote said they would do that. Mr. Calonne said the City would lose the refutable presumption that the housing element was adequate, in addition to the danger of the housing element being attacked because of the new housing allocation numbers out there. One solution might include a multi-step process to fix the obvious resulting inadequacy. Mayor Eakins said staff could take the comments taken that evening, confer with the contacts at the State, and do the risk assessment. 10/09/01 92-496 Ms. Caporgno said staff could contact the State and let them know the HEU would be delayed, and relay any comments back to the Council. Mr. Calonne said he preferred that the Council work to develop a document they would be satisfied with as opposed to submitting something that troubled them. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Ojakian, to deny authorization for staff to forward the draft Housing Element documents to the state; to direct staff to review and revise the Housing Element documents with comments from the Council at the meeting that evening; and to bring the item back to Council for approval. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND THE SECONDER to add language “that a broader review of community non-housing advocates be taken into consideration.” MOTION PASSED: 7-0, Fazzino, Kleinberg absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding war and politics. Carol Kiparsky, 800 Cowper Street, spoke regarding anti-hatred community resolution. Ian Irwin, 800 Cowper, spoke regarding anti-hatred community resolution. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Eakins announced that Item Nos. 2 and 3 be removed from the agenda at the request of staff. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 4-6. LEGISLATIVE 2. Resolution xxxx entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council 10/09/01 92-497 Appointed Officers and Rescinding Resolution Nos. 8000, 8027, 8060, and 8073” Resolution xxxx entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Hourly Personnel and Rescinding Resolution No. 8001” Resolution xxxx entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1701 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations” ADMINISTRATIVE 3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and ASAP Software in the Annual Amount of $176,580 for a 3-year Microsoft Enterprise Agreement 4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Accela, Inc., in the Amount of $150,000 for Accela Automation/ VelocityHall Web-Based Permitting Applications 5. Increase in the Expenditure Limit of the Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration Agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for the Palo Alto Shuttle Project 6. Second Year Performance Review of Palo Alto Sanitation (PASCO)/Waste Management MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kleinberg absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 7. Status Report and Request for Council Direction on 2000 San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Proposed Southern Dumbarton Bridge Connection through the Palo Alto Baylands Chief Transportation Official Joe Kott said the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) looked at ways to improve commuting across the Bay – baywide North and South, and issued a report entitled “Conceptual Alternatives”. For Palo Alto’s part of the bay many of the alternatives were interesting and sensible. One interesting alternative was to create a ‘southern bypass’. The ‘southern bypass’ would take commuters from the foot of the 10/09/01 92-498 Dumbarton Bridge to Embarcadero Road’s interchange with Highway 101 and Oregon Expressway. The first phase would carry commuters to Pulgas Avenue in East Palo Alto, which would proceed down to East Bayshore for interchange to Highway 101 and Embarcadero Road. The alignment for the new road would have some major impact on sensitive Baylands, as well as the athletic complex, post office, and international school. There would be a considerable impact on the already overloaded interchange at Highway 101 and Embarcadero Road. The second phase was for MTC to go through the refinement of the ‘Conceptual Alternatives” and hopefully refine a way to go through the bypass road. Staff would appreciate some direction from Council in terms of following up with MTC. The next step was for the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to receive the report of refined analysis of the alternatives, followed by the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) taking up the same report. He expressed particular concern about potential impacts on the street system and the important interchange with Embarcadero Road and Highway 101. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the Conceptual Alternative study was in violation of California Streets and Highway Code section 409 because there was no active participant from Palo Alto representing the City’s interest. Having Mayor Eakins on the PAC Committee and a staff member on the TAC Committee did not constitute active involvement from Palo Alto. He was disappointed that the Bay Crossing study was not part of the agenda with Assemblyman Joe Simitian earlier that evening. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said she hoped the Council made clear they had not participated in the Bay Crossing study. The Dumbarton Bridge had a ten year projected capacity once it was built and it exceeded that capacity within two years of its opening. The reason was Palo Alto had all the jobs and the houses were being built in Union City and Fremont. The idea of comprehensive planning was to deal with local and regional land-use comprehensively and Palo Alto had been abysmal failures at it in terms of the jobs-housing imbalance. The HEU presented that evening did not show the seven-acre Page Mill Road/El Camino Real site, which was zoned for housing as a housing site that was underutilized. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said strong statements had previously been voiced about not going through the 10/09/01 92-499 Baylands, disturbing the environment, or disrupting traffic. He agreed with Mr. Borock and Ms. Renzel that, at the least, it was a violation of State law to propose it. He urged the Council to vote against any proposed bypass. Mayor Eakins said the Bay Crossing study showed up in a staff report to the PAC without prior contact with her or staff members. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Beecham, to direct staff to research and report back on the background of this matter, previous City actions, and the status of the City’s position on westerly or southern connections from the Dumbarton bridge to Highway 101. Further, to direct the Mayor to communicate the City’s objection of the project to state and local legislators. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kleinberg absent. RECESS: 10:47 p.m. to 10:50 p.m. AT 10:50 P.M. THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED TO A SPECIAL MEETING AS THE PALO ALTO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND RECONVENED AT 11:05 P.M. AS THE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Beecham presented a resolution from Senator Byron Sher in honor of Public Power Week. Council Member Mossar announced, as a Board Member of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), that the City had received a grant of approximately $25,000 to purchase a clean air vehicle. Council Member Burch mentioned that he was going to an Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) forum on Saturday, October 13, 2001, in Santa Clara. He commented that he would like to explore the issue of a hate-free zone. Mayor Eakins asked that Council Member Burch discuss the issue with Police Chief Dwyer. Council Member Burch complemented Mayor Eakins on the Olive Tree planting memorial that day. 10/09/01 92-500 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Vice Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 10/09/01 92-501