HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-04 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting February 4, 2002
1. Joint Meeting with the Planning and Transportation Commission ................................................. 328
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. ................. 328
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ............................................. 329
1. Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan .................. 329
2. Appointment of Candidates to the Library Advisory Commission ................................................. 337
2A. (Old Item No.7) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider if an application by Mehmood
Taqui on behalf of Oak Shadows LLC for review and rezoning of a 4,938 square-foot parcel from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to PC (Planned Community) to
construct a 4,370 square-foot, three-story building to contain two residential units (2,511 square feet)
including a below market rate unit, retail area (511 square feet) and office area (1,191 square feet) for property located at 2051 El Camino Real should be
denied or whether it should be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board for review ...................... 338
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ............................................. 344
3. Resolution 8125 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for
Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association Management Personnel and Rescinding Resolution No. 8011 ............... 345
4. Amendment No. 1 to Existing Contract No. C135651 Between the City of Palo Alto and Planergy International in the Amount of $140,000 for the Emergency Rental of a 5-Megawatt Backup Diesel Generator .................................................. 345
02/04/02 93-326
5. Council Approval of Disposition and Development Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto, Palo Alto
Housing Corporation, and Oak Court Apartments, L.P., including a Budget Amendment Ordinance to fund a development subsidy loan ($1,960,000) and certain property holding and clearing costs ($143,000) ............. 345
6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Del Conte’s
Landscaping, Inc., in the Amount of $164,190 for Bol Park Facilities and Irrigation Improvements ................ 345
8. Mayor Ojakian and Vice Mayor Mossar re Consideration
of a Resolution in Support of Proposition 40, the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood
Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002, and Proposition 42, the Transportation Congestion Improvement Act ............................................ 346
9. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation ........ 346
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 1 .............................. 346
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. ................ 355
02/04/02 93-327
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Ojakian ABSENT: Mossar
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PRESENT: Burt, Cassel, Griffin, Holman, Packer, Schmidt
ABSENT: Bialson SPECIAL MEETING
1. Joint Meeting with the Planning and Transportation Commission No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
02/04/02 93-328
Regular Meeting February 4, 2002
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth, spoke regarding municipal politics.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding City Council procedural rules. Gloria Brown, 1766 Fulton Street, spoke regarding Safeway
parking lot. REPORT OF OFFICIALS 1. Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan
City Manager Frank Benest said the Housing Element Update
(HEU) was crucial for the future of Palo Alto and wanted to underscore the importance of moving it forward. Promoting the preservation and production of housing, especially
affordable housing, would help determine the future direction of Palo Alto. The proposed Housing Element
strengthened the policies of the existing Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and balanced housing production with service demands. In addition, the Housing Element responded to the State requirement that all cities provide their “fair share” of housing for the region. There was no single
program to meet the City’s housing need and all housing programs could be seen as part of an integrated strategy to produce affordable housing. Further, each program served to support and reinforce the key provisions and goals of the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) related to transportation,
land use, and housing.
Advance Planning Manager Julie Caporgno, said the purpose of the HEU was fourfold: 1) it addressed the housing needs in Palo Alto through the application of various policies
02/04/02 93-329
and programs to meet Palo Alto’s housing challenge; 2) reinforced and supplemented plans and policies consistent
with the 1998 Comp Plan; 3) supported the City’s existing integrated Comp Plan strategy for housing, land use, and transportation; and 4) responded to the State mandate of providing Palo Alto’s “fair share” of regional housing units. Palo Alto’s regional allocation was 1,397 units to
be developed between 1999 and 2006. The City had already built 781 of the 1,397 units primarily with the Stanford West project. There was an unmet need of 616 units of very
low, low, and moderate-income housing. The State required the City to demonstrate that sufficient land had been
provided to accommodate the housing need. City staff had three meetings with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of representatives from various groups interested in providing housing, particularly affordable housing in Palo Alto. The groups included the League of Women Voters,
the Human Relations Commission (HRC), Peninsula Inter-faith Action (PIA), the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), and the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). A focus group of experts from the housing and building industry convened as well. Three community forums were held
over the preceding nine months to generate input from area residents. The P&TC discussed the draft HEU in early
October 2001, and generally endorsed the draft proposed by staff with some changes. Those changes were addressed in the document sent to the Council later that month. The
current Housing Element in the Comp Plan had a variety of policies and programs that established a strategy for
pursuing an array of housing opportunities for the City. Chief among them was increased density around commercial areas near transit centers, allowing for small lot single-
family development, redesignating vacant and under utilized land for housing, encouraging mixed-use development, and
discouraging conversion of residential lands to non-residential uses. The proposed policies and programs that were included in the draft Housing Element built upon the existing Comp Plan policy and included increased BMR requirement by five percent. Staff scaled back the Housing
Site Inventory (HSI) from a two-tier inventory consisting of over 60 sites with the potential for approximately 4,000 units, to a single list of 21 sites with the potential for
approximately 1,100 units. Staff was requesting authorization from Council to forward the draft HEU to the
State for review and comment for a 60-day period. Staff would evaluate any proposed changes recommended by the State, address those in the revised Housing Element that
02/04/02 93-330
would go to the P&TC for a public hearing and recommendations, and then to the City Council for adoption.
The City had been out of compliance with State requirements since December 31, 2001; therefore, it was important that the Housing Element be adopted soon. Although there were no penalties for non-compliance, the City would not be eligible to apply for housing programs funded by the State
until the Housing Element was in compliance. Without the certified Housing Element, the City would be exposed to potential litigation if there were a legal challenge.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Michael Griffin,
said the P&TC had voted unanimously in favor of the proposed HEU. The report was progressive without being excessive, and represented a proactive response to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) requirement to develop a doable housing plan. The City would not be able
to build 616 affordable housing units without a plan, and the P&TC believed the Housing Element had put Palo Alto on the road to getting there. Carlin Otto, 231 Whitclem Court, requested that the Housing
Site Inventory that related to Hyatt Rickey’s be amended so that the number of developing acres and the potential
dwelling units agreed. She supported affordable housing in Palo Alto, but suggested that the Council should find other ways of achieving that without having to adding five to six
high cost units for every element of low cost units.
Walt Lundin, 418 E. Charleston Road, supported the proposed Housing Element.
Mayor Ojakian announced that at 9:00 p.m. the Council would determine what other agenda items to discuss that evening.
Bob Gillespie, 384 Whitclem Drive, commented that affordable housing was more along the lines of portable apartments; from the cinder block hotel to the luxury condominium-style apartment. People would prefer to live in
a house, and if the only way they would be able to do that was to live outside of Palo Alto and commute in, then they would do so.
Jeff Rensch, Peninsula Inter-faith Action (PIA) Member, 741
Chimalus, encouraged the Council to approve the draft Housing Element. PIA held a community forum in May of 2001, with former Mayor Sandy Eakins and City Manager Frank
02/04/02 93-331
Benest. The platform included increased development impact fees, increased BMR percentage, and the support of careful
land use changes. PIA was delighted to find many of their shared ideas in the draft HEU that was presented in October 2001. Howard Belfer, President, Greenacres I Homeowners
Association, 4275 Los Palos Avenue, objected to the removal of P&TC and City Council oversight of mixed-use projects. There needed to be more accountability then what the draft
report called for. The Association was not in favor of eliminating some of the previous policies, such as
maintaining the general low-density character of single-family areas and using the zoning ordinance to maintain high quality neighborhoods. Whatever type of housing being developed should be fair, equitable, and distributed evenly throughout the City.
Edie Keating, 3511 Waverley Street, said Palo Alto was close to being “built-out” and the Housing Element could only address what was left to be developed. The BMR percentage increase would help create affordable housing,
provide a limit to the size of units as well as their minimum densities. The HEU moved the City closer to a more
inclusive community and supported the draft proposal. Mayor Ojakian announced that speaker cards would no longer
be accepted after 8:15 p.m.
Irene Sampson, League of Women Voters, 3992 Bibbits Drive, said the League strongly supported the revised Housing Element draft and urged the Council to approve the
recommendation to forward the draft to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review. The League
had supported the preservation, rehabilitation, and construction of affordable housing developments in Palo Alto for many years and agreed that it should be available for all segments of the community. Affordable living units had been achieved in all areas of the City, however, the
number of units was not overwhelming. For the period 1990-98, 630 residential units were built in Palo Alto, while only 270 of those units were affordable to very low, low,
or moderate-income households.
Patricia Saffir, 2719 Bryant Street, supported the Housing Element as it was presented in October 2001. It stated strongly Palo Alto’s commitment to provide a “fair-share”
02/04/02 93-332
of the areas housing needs. In retrospect, she praised the Council for their belief that it was possible to further
modify the document that would encourage the low- and moderate-income housing without fostering additional housing for above-average income persons. She urged Council to adopt the newer version of the Housing Element.
Janet Owens, 850 Webster Street, #421, supported the Housing Element for its encouragement to not allow residential land to be changed to job-producing, increased
minimum housing density range, and conversion of non-residential land to residential.
Deborah Ju, 371 Whitclem Drive, urged the Council to reject portions of the Housing Element that she had raised in her previous letter. The Comp Plan, which the Housing Element was a part of, addressed the values, priorities, and
visions of Palo Alto. Affordable housing and preserving the quality of life in Palo Alto were important priorities in the Comp Plan; however, there was not a single policy in the proposed HEU directed toward that goal. The Housing Element allowed more development than required by ABAG, and
by overstating the potential growth in the housing inventory the City might fall to increased targets in the
future. The proposed Housing Element decreased flexibility by raising mandatory minimum densities. Flexibility should be preserved in order to approve higher densities where
appropriate and the lowest densities where it was necessary to protect existing residential neighborhoods. There was a
subtle but critical change in the revised HSI related to Hyatt Rickey’s designation. In previous versions of the HSI, Hyatt showed a potential yield of 200-300 units for
approximately 15.98 acres. The revised draft added the word ‘portion’, which could grant Hyatt the right to use only
part of the land for those 200-300 housing units. She urged the Council to have the word portion eliminated. Doug Moran, President, Barron Park Association (BPA), 790 Matadero Avenue, said 10 of the 21 sites identified in the
HSI were in the El Camino Real (ECR) corridor from Page Mill Road southward. Over the years, the ECR corridor was considered the low cost place for development and
additional traffic, with each one not making a huge difference. Eventually, those small increments added up and
the ECR corridor was saturated with traffic. The BPA’s concern was that the move to provide housing had not taken into consideration neighborhood-serving retail and the
02/04/02 93-333
traffic capacity along El Camino Real. The previous Comp Plan produced conflicts where housing eliminated
neighborhood-serving retail or the potential for it, which created traffic congestion and long trips for services. He urged the Council to take a more comprehensive look at the proposal before developing such a massive amount of housing on the ECR corridor.
Lane Liroff, Wilkie Way, said he lived at the center of the inventory of proposed housing. The HSI listed approximately
500 new residences within two blocks of his house, which would have an impact on the quality of life in South Palo
Alto. Various neighborhood associations in the area had asked the Council to study the proposed housing carefully, because it would unfairly affect the existing residences more directly. He urged the Council to take a step back and examine the draft HEU carefully before making the decision
to proceed forward. Anthony Klein, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, supported the creation of additional housing in Palo Alto that was affordable and attainable. He believed the value of
creating the additional housing more than offsets the potential impacts. The City and the community should work
together to accomplish the goal of having the vibrant and successful community the citizens’ want.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the City was out of compliance because staff chose not to conduct public
hearings on the proposed HEU before the P&TC and the City Council on amendments to the Comp Plan before sending the document to the State.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Bonnie Packer, 768
Stone Lane, thanked the staff for doing an excellent job of addressing the concerns that the City Council raised in October 2001. Although the Housing Element spoke of increased density in single-family neighborhoods, it also stated that it would need to be compatible and not overly
impact traffic in the area. She encouraged the Council to recommend that the HEU be forwarded to the State.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, opposed the HEU because the number of jobs in Palo Alto was unknown and to build
housing for those jobs would be permanent and an additional cost to the City. Palo Alto was known nationwide as having the highest housing costs in the country. Therefore, it
02/04/02 93-334
would be impossible to build any number of housing units and call them affordable. Single-family lots cost between
$4 and $5 million an acre. Staff’s figures for saving jobs were based on last year’s projections. Half of those jobs did not currently exist. He urged the Council to say no. Shiloh Ballard, Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, 226
Airport Parkway #190, San Jose, supported increased densities along transit corridors, because having employees commute from Tracy, California was not a healthy and
sustainable community.
Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, said that Palo Alto should maintain economic, social, racial, and ethnic diversity. If more of the people who worked in Palo Alto could afford to live in Palo Alto, the community would have social, environmental, and security benefits. She supported
the increase in supply of affordable housing for very low, low, and moderate-income households. Lee Wieder, 637 Middlefield Road, expressed concern with the quality of life issues and the larger social issues as
well. He read the vision statement of the Housing Element, which stated, “Palo Alto will aggressively pursue a variety
of housing opportunities that enhanced the character, diversity, and vitality of the City. The City is committed to increasing the development of affordable and market-rate
housing.” How the vision statement was implemented would be a challenge, but he did not want the City to lose sight of
it. Betsy Allyn, 4186 Willmar Drive, expressed concern about
increased housing along El Camino Real and Arastradero Road. The area from Barron Park to Adobe Creek seemed to be
the most severely and negatively impacted by increased traffic flowing east and west to Highway 280, Stanford University, Foothill Boulevard and El Camino Real. It was also a major elementary, junior high and high school artery for public and private schools. She believed the City
needed to look at the whole area together instead of doing it piecemeal.
Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, expressed concern about how well HEU had been revised since the October 2001 meeting.
She supported increased density for affordable housing, but stressed that the increase needed to be carefully planned and limited.
02/04/02 93-335
William Byron Webster, 480 E. O’Keefe, #307, East Palo Alto, endorsed the desire to move ahead on the proposed
HEU. David Schrem, 381 Oxford Street, said the best way to address the jobs/housing imbalance was for the City to stop building nonresidential floor space and convert some of the
vacant buildings to housing. That would maintain the carrying capacity of Palo Alto.
Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, #126, said if the City was not able to provide housing in Palo Alto people would still
come, but in their cars. That would put a strain on the infrastructure. In order for the City to be sustainable, the community needed to look beyond the present generation and into future generations. If housing were not added to the present neighborhoods, market forces would cause them
to change. Peggy Kraft, 3886 Mumford Place, expressed concern that high-density housing would greatly affect her neighborhood in South Palo Alto. Her neighborhood was zoned for single-
family homes and should remain that way.
LaDoris H. Cordell, Wilkie Way, said the proposed HSI was not diversifying all of Palo Alto, but rather South Palo Alto. To promote the HEU as a diversification of the entire
City was untrue. She queried if those on the P&TC who unanimously approved the plan, lived in South Palo Alto and
would be impacted by the proposed plan. Mayor Ojakian directed the Council to look at the agenda at
9:15 p.m. The Council could either continue the discussion of the Housing Element to later that evening or to another
date. Vice Mayor Mossar stated that she would like to hear Item 7 that evening.
Council Member Morton said he would like the Housing Element discussion to continue as well as hear Item 7.
Council Member Beecham said he would also like to hear Item 7.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Beecham, to
stop discussion of Item No. 1 and move Item Nos. 2 and 7
02/04/02 93-336
forward for discussion, with Item No. 7 becoming Item No. 2A.
Council Member Freeman said it would be beneficial to set a timeframe by which the Council could return to the Housing Element for the persons in the audience.
Mayor Ojakian said he hoped to be able to return to the Housing Element sometime after 10 p.m. that evening.
Council Member Freeman clarified that by 10 p.m. there would be a decision of whether the Council would move
forward. Mayor Ojakian said that was correct. City Manager Benest asked whether the Consent Calendar
could be handled that evening. Mayor Ojakian said yes. He did not anticipate the Consent Calendar taking that long. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Morton, to continue the discussion of Item No. 1 until
10:15 p.m. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 3-6, Burch, Lytle, Morton “yes.”
MOTION PASSED 7-2, Burch, Morton “no.”
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Appointment of Candidates to the Library Advisory Commission
FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR THE LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMISSION
VOTING FOR DAN DOROSIN:
VOTING FOR GEORGE GIOUMOUSIS:
VOTING FOR SANDRA HIRSH: Beecham, Burch, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
VOTING FOR LENORE JONES: Beecham, Burch, Freeman,
Kishimoto, Kleinberg,
02/04/02 93-337
Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
VOTING FOR MARY JEAN PLACE: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
VOTING FOR SHELBY ANN VALENTINE: Freeman, Kishimoto, Lytle VOTING FOR THOMAS WYMAN: Beecham, Burch, Freeman,
Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar,
Ojakian
City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Sandra Hirsh with 7 votes, Lenore Jones with 9 votes, Mary Jean Place with 8 votes, and Thomas Wyman with 9 votes were appointed on the
first ballot. RECESS: 9:20 P.M. – 9:25 P.M. 2A. (Old Item No.7) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City
Council will consider if an application by Mehmood Taqui on behalf of Oak Shadows LLC for review and
rezoning of a 4,938 square-foot parcel from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to PC (Planned Community) to construct a 4,370 square-foot, three-story building to contain two residential units (2,511 square feet) including a below market rate unit, retail area (511
square feet) and office area (1,191 square feet) for property located at 2051 El Camino Real should be denied or whether it should be forwarded to the
Architectural Review Board for review under Section 18.68.065 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (continued
from 1/22/02)
Assistant Planning Official John Lusardi said the item before the Council was a project that was heard by the City Council in September 2001. It was then a review of a site
and design under the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zone District. It included variance and design enhancement exceptions along with the proposed mixed-use project. The City Council requested that the applicant address specific issues related to the proposal, such as the preservation
and maintenance of the oak trees on the site, an increase in the proposed retail space, and the reduction in the
five-bedroom unit. The applicant had addressed those
02/04/02 93-338
issues. The most significant change was the addition of another residential unit to the project that necessitated
converting the application to a Planned Community (PC) rezoning. The applicant had also proposed that the added residence be a Below-Market-Rate (BMR) unit to provide for public benefit of the project. The PC Zoning project included the following: 1) preservation of the oak trees
and the provision of a maintenance program; 2) reduction of one five-bedroom unit to a two-bedroom unit with mitigation of the privacy issue for adjoining residential properties;
3) the addition of a three bedroom BMR unit; 4) increased retail space by approximately 200 square feet; 5) reduced
office space by 119 square feet; and provided for neighborhood-serving uses in offices as part of the PC Zone allowed uses. Seven onsite-parking spaces would be provided. There was also an increase in the front yard setback to allow for a 10-foot sidewalk. The Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC) reviewed the PC zoning proposal in November 2001, and then forwarded the recommendation for denial to the City Council without further review from the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Staff would recommend that the Council refer the project
back to the ARB for final design review. That recommendation was based on the finding that the project’s
revised design and rezoning met the Council’s direction from the September 2001 review.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Michael Griffin, said the P&TC Commission found the project to be too large
for the site, out of the compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) regarding transitions between land uses, and the project was trying to do too much on a small lot.
There were also difficulties with the shared parking aspects of the project, as well as questions of the
viability of the retail space being only 511 square feet. In the final analysis, the public benefits did not seem to outweigh the potential detriments. Mayor Ojakian declared the Public Hearing open at 9:34 p.m.
Mehmood Taqui, Applicant, said he took the directives and suggestions from the September 2001 meeting, and made the
effort to incorporate all the guidelines given to him by the Council. He could not understand why the P&TC denied
the present project, when the previous proposal had been approved by the P&TC. The present envelope of the design was smaller than the one previously approved. By elevating
02/04/02 93-339
the deck in the rear of the property and reducing the dimensions in the front, he had met the guidelines for El
Camino Real by 12 feet. He reduced the office space from 1232 square feet to 1191 square feet, and increased the retail space, as suggested, from 311 square feet with a bathroom to 511 square feet without the bathroom. The BMR unit was reduced from five bedrooms to two bedrooms. The
second unit of three-bedrooms that was provided behind the office area would also become a BMR unit to prevent office space from being developed there in the future. He re-
addressed the health of the oak trees by appointing Mr. Ray Morneau, the consulting arborist, to conduct another study
and prepare the report that was provided to the Council and staff for review. In brief, the report reconfirmed that the construction of the building would not have detrimental effects on the health of the trees as soon as the required pruning was done. The safety and health of the trees was
also reviewed by City Arborist Dave Dockter. Mayor Ojakian noted that the item was a quasi-judicial matter and the Council needed to disclose any communications.
Council Members Lytle, Morton, Burch, Vice Mayor Mossar and
Mayor Ojakian disclosed that they had met with the applicant and the neighborhood.
Council Member Kleinberg disclosed that she met with applicant, the architect, the neighborhood, and received
telephone calls. Council Members Freeman and Kishimoto disclosed that they
had both met with the applicant and two neighbors.
Council Member Beecham disclosed that he met with the applicant. Council Member Freeman asked Architect Tony Carrasco whether the stairway that ascended to the office space
could be moved from its current side to somewhere else. Tony Carrasco, Architect for the Applicant, 120 Hamilton
Avenue, said because of the code requirements for mixed-use projects required the two stairways to remain half of the
diagonal of the building apart.
02/04/02 93-340
Council Member Freeman asked whether the building could be designed for an alleyway or parking for the group of
building tenants for the potential increase in retail space where the garage would be located. Mr. Carrasco said yes. It would be complicated in terms of how that would be done.
David Schrom, President of Evergreen Park (EP) Neighborhood Association, 381 Oxford Avenue, said that 138 neighborhood
residents signed a petition objecting to the prior incarnation of the proposed project. From the perspective
of the neighborhood, the one affordable unit was not an offsetting benefit for the costs that would be imposed upon the residents, such as additional commercial and non-residential development.
John Baca, 484 Oxford Avenue, opposed the project because of probable impacts to the EP neighborhood. The PC-3 finding that the project would be consistent and compatible with potential and existing uses on adjoining sites was not possible. One way for the applicant to develop the site was
to build three residential units, one of which would be the BMR unit. That would require six parking spaces and would
not impact the neighborhood. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said the project was
overbearing for the neighborhood. It was a three-story project in a neighborhood of one-story residences. Although
the ARB stated they wanted to see the development on that block of El Camino Real, she did not believe that CN zoning was appropriate in a neighborhood that was already
impacted.
Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, said the project did not fit into the CN zone. The rezone to PC was not consistent with the Comp Plan. The project did not support a PC zoning. Council Member Freeman asked whether there was any
significant depreciation in the amount of daylight going to the existing residences on the south side of the property with the development.
Mr. Lusardi said that by shifting the building toward the
north side and retaining the trees, the travel of the sun was such that there was no significant reduction of daylight into those adjoining projects. The canopy of the
02/04/02 93-341
oak trees provided as much shading from the sun as would the building.
Council Member Lytle asked how the project would affect the retail protection requirement, and whether the 500 square feet being proposed was a viable neighborhood-serving retail configuration on El Camino Real.
Ms. Grote said the project did comply with the retail preservation ordinance since it was previously a vacant
site and the new building would have retail on the ground floor.
Council Member Lytle clarified that the 500 square feet was a viable neighborhood-serving retail space. Ms. Grote said yes. Although it was small, it was still a
viable retail space. Council Member Lytle asked staff to clarify whether the project would create an impact on the jobs/housing imbalance.
Mr. Lusardi said that question was subjective to an
application of that size. Staff would conclude that it was pretty much a wash.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the project was subject to the placeholder impact fee.
Mr. Lusardi said yes. Council Member Lytle asked Mr. Taqui whether it was
economically justifiable to have a mixed-use project with ground floor retail and housing above it.
Mr. Taqui said that was not a pleasant economic solution for him. Council Member Lytle asked whether unpleasant meant an
unviable option. Mr. Taqui said it was still viable if he cut down his
profit margins. He would rather have the small office space for neighborhood-serving use. It would not be a general-
purpose office.
02/04/02 93-342
Council Member Morton asked how important it was that the site have parking when the bathroom was in the parking lot.
Mr. Lusardi said the bathroom was a requirement of the building code and it had to be accessible to the disabled. Council Member Morton asked whether the bathroom had to be
separated from the retail space. Mr. Lusardi said no. The original project had the bathroom
attached to the retail space, but in order to enlarge the space at the request of the Council, the bathroom had to be
moved. If the retail space were enlarged with the bathroom attached, the project would have further intruded into the oak trees area. Council Member Morton asked Mr. Lusardi whether he was
aware of any other project where the bathroom was separated from the usable space. Mr. Lusardi said it was not a convenient method but it served the building code and the retail use.
Council Member Morton clarified his concern was parking on
the site. Mayor Ojakian interjected that what was before the Council
was a recommendation to refer the Item to the ARB Board. Some of the issues being raised that evening would get
flushed out with the ARB. Council Member Morton said he was proposing to add the
additional questions to the ARB to be addressed.
Mayor Ojakian declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:05 p.m. Council Member Burch understood that Mr Taqui wanted to build something with mixed use and live in it himself. He
did not believe that sending the item back to the ARB was useful and moved to deny the project in its present form. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Kishimoto,
to deny the project and not refer the project back to the
Architectural Review Board.
02/04/02 93-343
Council Member Kishimoto said she was open to other uses for the site, such as residential over retail or all
residential. She agreed with the P&TC that the project was trying to do too much with a small lot. Council Member Beecham said the Council gave clear indications to the applicant at the previous meeting, what
he needed to do, such as separate the one large housing unit into two units, and add retail space. It would be breaking the faith of Council direction to deny the project
at that point. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the staff recommendation to refer the project to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for review pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters 18.68 and 16.48.
Vice Mayor Mossar said the project was a difficult one that caused a great deal of concern, interest, and focus among all parties. The applicant had met the criteria set out by the Council and assured the Council that the oak trees
would be safe. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 8-1, Kishimoto “no.” BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL it was determined that they
would complete the remainder of the regular Agenda first, and then return to the discussion of Item No. 1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Beecham, to
approve the Minutes of December 10 and 17, 2001, as
submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Morton would not participate in Item No. 5 due to a conflict of interest because he had been an
Auditor in the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3-6.
02/04/02 93-344
LEGISLATIVE
3. Resolution 8125 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association Management Personnel and Rescinding Resolution No. 8011”
Resolution 8126 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1801 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations Regarding the
Memorandum of Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association”
ADMINISTRATIVE 4. Amendment No. 1 to Existing Contract No. C135651 Between the City of Palo Alto and Planergy
International in the Amount of $140,000 for the Emergency Rental of a 5-Megawatt Backup Diesel Generator 5. Council Approval of Disposition and Development
Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, and Oak Court Apartments, L.P.,
including a Budget Amendment Ordinance to fund a development subsidy loan ($1,960,000) and certain property holding and clearing costs ($143,000)
Ordinance 4735 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-02 to Provide an Appropriation of $1,960,000 from the Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund for a Loan to
the Oak Court Affordable Housing Project and $143,000 from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund for Various
Expenses Related to City’s Option to Acquire the Housing Site” Disposition and Development Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, and
Oak Court Apartments, L.P. 6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Del Conte’s
Landscaping, Inc., in the Amount of $164,190 for Bol Park Facilities and Irrigation Improvements
MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 3, 4, and 6.
02/04/02 93-345
MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item No. 5, Morton “not
participating.”
COUNCIL MATTERS 8. Mayor Ojakian and Vice Mayor Mossar re Consideration of a Resolution in Support of Proposition 40, the
California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002, and Proposition 42, the Transportation Congestion
Improvement Act MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to direct staff to bring back a Resolution to the Council in February 2002 in support of Proposition 40, the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002, and Proposition 42, the
Transportation Congestion Improvement Act. These ballot measures will be placed on the March 5, 2002, State ballot.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said at the previous Santa Clara County Cities Association (SCCCA) meeting, a similar resolution on
Proposition 42 was passed and the strong suggestion was that each of the jurisdictions did the same.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
Mayor Ojakian announced that the Closed Session item would be removed from the agenda and continued to the February
11, 2002, City Council meeting. CLOSED SESSION
9. Conference with City Attorney - Existing Litigation
Subject: In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a California Corporation, Debtor, U.S. Bankruptcy Court case No.: 01-30923DM
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 1
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, to direct staff to
forward the revised draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review
02/04/02 93-346
and comment, beginning the State-mandated 60-day review period.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
City Manager Frank Benest clarified that the staff recommendation was not for approval of the Draft Housing Element in the present form, but to forward to the State
the document so that staff could begin to receive comments.
Mayor Ojakian asked whether the alterations or additions made that evening could still go to the State based on the motions made. Mr. Benest said staff was flexible.
Council Member Lytle asked why there was such an imbalance in the development of sites in and around the transit center hubs.
Advance Planning Manager Julie Caporgno said the sites identified in the HSI were those that were already planned and zoned for housing, so the Council would have to rezone those properties. The other sites that were identified involved potential developments in the Edgewood Plaza
Shopping Center, the 800 High Street Creamery site, the former craft and floral building, the Opportunity Center,
and the former Greenworld Nursery. Staff did not want to identify specific sites at the present time until the transit-oriented zoning was in place.
Council Member Lytle asked why staff had not diagramed the
Stanford housing identification jointly with the HSI. Ms. Caporgno said that involved additional studies that
would require extensive staff time to complete. Once the document was sent to the State to meet the mandated
timeline, the Council could direct staff to go back and do further analysis, add housing units, or even modify the list. There was nothing that precluded additional housing
from units being incorporated in the Plan.
Council Member Lytle clarified that Ms. Caporgnos’s first comment was that the list could be modified and her second comment was that the list could be expanded upon. She asked whether the list could be shifted to be more in conformance and compliance with the policies.
02/04/02 93-347
Ms. Caporgno said the list could either be expanded upon or
modified. The mandate was for the 616 units. Council Member Lytle clarified that the Council would not have to change any zoning or that the properties were already zoned. She understood that staff would need to rezone the Palo Alto Bowling Alley (Bol) to housing, which
would eliminate the use for commercial recreational purposes.
Ms. Caporgno said the Palo Alto Bol was zoned for housing as noted in existing zoning RM-30 and RM-15, CS. The
proposed zoning would change to RM-30, RM-15. Council Member Lytle stated there was a grandfather provision to allow commercial recreation to stay at that location.
Ms. Caporgno said if the Council felt the Palo Alto Bol was an inappropriate site for the potential 30-55 housing units, the site could be eliminated or substituted.
Council Member Lytle said the chart showed that staff recommended removing the provision to allow the site to
remain as commercial recreation. Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said if the property was
rezoned, there would be a provision that existing non-conforming uses could remain, be repaired, and maintained.
Ms. Caporgno said if the Council wanted to retain the Palo Alto Bol as commercial recreation, then the property should
be eliminated from the list.
Council Member Beecham asked whether limitations would be placed on changes to the plan if the HE was forwarded to the State. Mr. Benest said he did not believe any limitations would be
set. City Attorney Calonne said that was correct. If the Council
had reservations about the proposed Housing Element Update (HEU), including specific sites designated as available for
residential use, which should be addressed that evening.
02/04/02 93-348
Council Member Beecham asked what were the ramifications of not submitting the HEU for another month or two.
Mr. Calonne said the main ramification was ineligibility for certain types of grant funding, which could be significant. The City was exposed to a heightened chance of litigation. The consequence would be the potential shut
down for other kinds of development. It was a risk, but the risk would be worse if the Council approval a plan it did not want to approve.
Council Member Beecham asked whether the potential
litigation could be muted by submitting the plan as it presently was. Mr. Calonne said yes. The remedy would be to prepare an adequate element. However, in terms of muting it, the City
would be exposed to attorney’s fees and the potential of a court order of moratorium on development activities. The consequences would be real and painful, but not severe. Council Member Beecham asked whether the funding risks or
delays involved substantial amounts of dollars.
Mr. Benest said there were presently three projects looking for funding. They included the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) and the Community Working Group.
Council Member Beecham asked whether the PAHC would be
delayed if the Council delayed sending the HEU by two months.
Mr. Benest said the delay would be longer than two months. If the Council approved the HE that evening and requested
the plan sent to the State, staff would then have 60 days to analyze the State’s comments and give notice. The P&TC would then have their hearing, allow time for staff to respond to P&TC’s comments, and be ready to present the revised plan to the Council. Afterwards the plan would
again be sent to the State, who might have additional comments. The process was lengthy.
Mr. Calonne said the Council seemed to be analytically looking for a series of criteria by which the housing sites
would be judged. The productive policy direction staff could work on for the next 60 days in order to accomplish that was for the Council to put that criterion in some type
02/04/02 93-349
of structured way. He requested the Council articulate principal criteria that they wished the staff to follow.
Council Member Freeman asked what the process was from beginning to the end. Mr. Benest reiterated that if the Council decided that
evening to forward the document to the State, the State would then have 60 days to review the document and provide comments. During those 60 days, the Council could direct
staff to do certain types of analysis. When comments returned from the State, staff would evaluate those
comments and bring forward a draft to the P&TC for a formal public hearing. That would allow for public input and the ability of the P&TC to make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council would then hold a formal public hearing. Information from that hearing, as well as, the
P&TC recommendations would be submitted to the State to get the certified HEU. It was possible that the State would say the HEU was still inadequate and return it again for further evaluation.
Council Member Freeman asked whether it was beneficial for the Council to handle any significant changes before
submitting the document to the State. Mr. Calonne said yes. If only to have that communication
with staff that evening.
Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether the HSI map was designed to give the Council a visual idea to get them thinking about the transit-oriented radius.
Ms. Caporgno said the map reflected the 2,000-foot radius,
which, in the land-use element of the Comp Plan, called for the transit-oriented residential to be up to 50-100 units per acre and within 2,000 feet of any transit station. Vice Mayor Mossar said the radius was not representational
of the downtown area. She asked when it would be an appropriate time for the Council to incorporate universal design ideas into the HEU to make sure there was some
housing stock that would be accessible to the disabled on all levels.
Ms. Caporgno said the State could incorporate that policy in the later stages of the development.
02/04/02 93-350
Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether universal design was part of the HEU as opposed to the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Caporgno said the universal design would be referred to the Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU). Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether there was a conditional use
permit in place that allowed staff to take a site designated for multi-family housing and allow other uses on the site.
Ms. Caporgno said a site that was designated for multi-
family residential use was allowed to incorporate other developments under the conditional use permit process. Ms. Grote said those developments might include schools, childcare centers, and other institutional uses that were
conditionally permitted for multiple-family zones. Vice Mayor Mossar asked Mr. Calonne whether the issue of conditional use permits was an issue that the Council should deal with that evening. She believed that issue
could effectively remove some of the housing sites from the realistic designation.
Mr. Calonne said no. The fact that a use permit could remove the sites from the HSI did not keep them off the
list of available sites.
Council Member Beecham asked whether the Council meeting would conclude at 11:00 p.m. that evening.
Mayor Ojakian said his intention was to continue the Council meeting a little past 11:00 p.m. that evening to
direct most of the questions to staff, and then possibly continue the item to a date certain. Council Member Lytle asked whether there was a policy in the document where public facility zoning could be shifted
to allow housing on those sites, and could that be done without creating significant impacts.
Mr. Benest said staff understood the Council’s concern for the over demand on recreation, open space, and other
community service space not to allow housing on the land designated for public facilities.
02/04/02 93-351
Council Member Lytle asked whether it would still be allowed on school sites and anywhere there was not an open
space area or playground. Ms. Caporgno said staff attempted to allow housing units on Public Facility (PF) sites that were determined to be surplus by the Council.
Council Member Lytle clarified that it sounded as if staff’s intention was to make the PF sites applicable to
those lands that were declared surplus. If that was the case, there needed to be some word change in the how the
policy currently read. She asked whether there was a reason why mixed-use was pulled away from by the language that was added regarding traffic congestion and other standards that were not placed on the Hyatt Rickey’s site.
Ms. Caporgno said Hyatt Rickey’s was included because of impending zoning. There were a number of mixed-use sites along El Camino Real, particularly near transit, that the Council at the previous meeting indicated to staff had too much development and further comprehensive studying was
needed.
Council Member Lytle understood the direction to staff had to do with the 2,000-foot radius from El Camino Real, and not mixed-use along El Camino Real.
Council Member Burch asked Ms. Caporgno to comment on
Deborah Ju’s concern about the word ‘portion’ as it related to Hyatt Rickey’s ability to put all 200-300 housing units on just a portion of the property.
Ms. Caporgno said the HSI designated 200-300 housing units
on a portion of Hyatt Rickey’s property because of the assumption that the hotel would be retained. The list did not control the type of development that would go on those properties. That was controlled by rezoning.
Council Member Burch clarified that if the word ‘portion’ was not there, then the State might say the City could build much more housing on the site.
Ms. Caporgno said staff would report 200-300 housing units
on the site. The State had on file a portion of the Hyatt Rickey’s site for housing.
02/04/02 93-352
Ms. Grote said the 200–300 units were based on the entire 15.98 acres under the current zoning. The word ‘portion’
could just be removed and no one would say more housing could be built on the site. Three hundred housing units was the outer limit of what could be built under the existing zoning for that site.
Council Member Morton asked whether Policy-1, preserving the character of existing family areas, could be added to the HEU without being perceived as being anti-additional
housing.
Ms. Caporgno said yes. Council Member Morton as Mr. Calonne if Policy-1 would be added as an amendment in the adoption.
Mr. Benest said that would be not a problem. Council Member Morton asked whether the Stanford units should be included in the survey.
Mayor Ojakian clarified Council Member Morton’s question to be have the Stanford units been included or could they be
in the updated Housing Element. Ms. Caporgno said they were included in the current HEU but
were not listed in the HSI because they were not proposed to meet the present housing needs. The appendix chart that
listed the progress of Palo Alto to meet the fair share of the regions 1999-2006 housing needs did included the Stanford units.
Council Member Kishimoto asked what the development
standards were with higher densities to ensure the quality of life. Ms. Caporgno said the development standards to be applied to the transit-oriented residential zoning district would
be prepared during the ZOU process after staff had evaluated how high and where the high density developments would be located.
Mr. Calonne said in order to prevent the densities from
happening without the counter-offensive (new urbanism) policies, the Council should not approve the PC’s until the ZOU was in place.
02/04/02 93-353
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether there would be a
major impact on community services with the 1,397 housing units being proposed. Ms. Caporgno said staff had already accommodated some of the 1,397 housing units with community services. The
remaining units would have Environmental Review. In addition, staff had hoped that the proposed impact fees would be available to offset the service demands made by
those types of development.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether staff had designated the proportionate amount of land needed for community services and parkland at the same time the housing units were designated.
Ms. Caporgno said it was appropriately addressed in the land-use element that was integrated with the HEU. Mr. Calonne said the Council could create a program in the HEU to call for a study and designation of sufficient
parkland to match the number of units. That would be an implementation direction.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether staff had set any long-term vision of housing.
Ms. Caporgno said staff had no assigned numbers of units
from ABAG in 2006. The Comp Plan had the vision of where appropriate housing would occur through the horizon year of 2010. The State made the determination of the City’s goal
for the next HEU.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG} figures were generated by the number of jobs in the City. Ms. Caporgno said there were a variety of factors that went
into the ABAG determination. ABAG Representative, Alex Amoroso, said the State
determined the overall allocation for the region. ABAG developed the methodology to distribute that allocation to
all the jurisdictions. The factors for that methodology changed based on what Executive Board was in place at ABAG and their staff personnel. The State looked at the intent
02/04/02 93-354
of the community and the projected development for the State. If there were a great influx of people, the State
would tend to distribute that influx across the entire State and all the communities within it. Mayor Ojakian suggested that the item be continued to a date and time certain the following day, or hear the item
at another date uncertain. MOTION: Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Burch, to continue
the item to February 5, 2002, at 5:45 p.m.
Council Member Beecham asked about the week after the scheduled priority setting session. Emily Harrison said the tentative schedule was for discussion of the site plans for the Main Library/Art Center site.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded
by Morton, to continue the item to February 19, 2002. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 9-0.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance
with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are
made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date
of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
02/04/02 93-355