HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-12-02 City Council Summary Minutes12/02/02 1
Special Meeting
December 2, 2002
1. Study Session re Sustainability Indicators ........................................3
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m. ................................3
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................................................4
1. Selection of Candidates to the Parks and Recreation Commission.........4
2. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Renaming
the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard as the Ellen Fletcher Bicycle
Boulevard ....................................................................................5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES .........................................................................6
3. Ordinance 4772 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-03 to Provide An
Appropriation of $36,332 as Payment to North American Title
Company to Provide Title Insurance in Conjunction with the Purchase
of Portions of Cubberley Property at 4000 Middlefield Road and the
Terman Property at 655 Arastradero Road”.......................................9
4. Resolution 8230 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending and Restating the City's Deferred Compensation Plan
and Trust (Retirement Plan) for Part-Time/Temporary/Seasonal
Employees; and Approving and Authorizing Execution of a Trust
Agreement for the Plan”.................................................................9
5. Sublease of a Portion of the Cubberley Community Center by the
Jewish Community Center; Approval of Related Budget Amendment
Ordinance in the Amount of $37,000 (Item to be continued at the
request of staff).........................................................................9
6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and TruGreen LandCare in the
Amount of $300,000 for the 2002-2003 Tree Maintenance Project .......9
12/02/02 2
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and SCT in the Amount of
$123,669 for Software Maintenance and Support of Banner Software
Modules.......................................................................................9
8. Approval of the Continuation of the Fiber to the Home Trial ................9
9. Planning and Transportation Commission Review and Comment on the
Proposed Santa Clara County District Text Revisions for the Stanford
Open Space/Field Research (OS/F) Zoning District to Implement the
2000 Stanford Community Plan.......................................................9
10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will hold a Public Hearing
pursuant to Government Code Section 30061, Title 3, Division 3,
relating to the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund, to
consider the Police Chief’s request for funding frontline law
enforcement programs ..................................................................10
11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the revised
Draft Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan which incorporates
changes based on state review and limited staff revisions, including
modifications to the Housing Sites Inventory (Continued from 11/12/02
- Public Testimony closed)................................................................11
11A. Colleagues Memo from Mayor Ojakian and Council Member Kishimoto
re Proposed Changes to the Santa Clara County Cities Association
(SCCCA) Bylaws ...........................................................................38
11B. Colleagues Memo from Vice Mayor Mossar and Council Member
Beecham re Opening the Record of the October 30, 2002 Closed
Session .......................................................................................38
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS .......................38
12. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation............................39
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. ..............................39
12/02/02 3
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Conference Room at 6:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle (arrived
at 6:40 p.m.), Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
SPECIAL MEETING
1. Study Session re Sustainability Indicators
Staff presented the draft of a Sustainability Inventory that would be used for
the coming year to direct activities for the City organization that related to
sustainability. It was not intended to include the community but only the
City. The inventory included 13 categories, such as energy, water, air
quality, and economic vitality. For each category, there was an explanation
of what the category encompassed, such as goals and indicators of progress
in achieving the goals. The inventory was based on the adopted
Comprehensive Plan. The Council had some suggestions as to what
indicators might be included in future versions of the inventory, but in
general the comments focused on the Council’s support for and pride in the
accomplishments the staff had made in pursuing sustainability.
No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m.
12/02/02 4
Regular Meeting
December 2, 2002
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton,
Mossar, Ojakian
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Barbara Gross, 520 Cowper Street, spoke regarding the establishment of a
Business Improvement District for the core Downtown district.
Sunny Dykwel, 480 Gary Court, spoke regarding the formation of a Business
Improvement District for Downtown Palo Alto.
Stephanie Wansek, 823 Cowper Street, spoke regarding the creation of a
Business Improvement District for Downtown Palo Alto.
Mayor Ojakian asked that the City Manager look into the matter of a
Business Improvement District.
City Manager Benest said staff anticipated it would bring the issue to the
Council in early 2003 for consideration.
Howell Lovell, 124 Fern, spoke regarding Canopy Annual Report and
invitation.
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding Holiday House tour.
Beth Broderson, 455 Hale Street, spoke regarding Children’s Theatre.
Winter Dellenbach, 859 La Para Avenue, spoke regarding Council issues.
Dorothy Bender, 591 Military Way, spoke regarding Council Member
Morton’s letter.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Selection of Candidates to the Parks and Recreation Commission
MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to interview all of
the applicants.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
12/02/02 5
2. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Renaming
the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard as the Ellen Fletcher Bicycle
Boulevard
MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to adopt the
resolution.
Resolution 8229 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Approving Renaming the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard as the
Ellen Fletcher Bicycle Boulevard”
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
Mayor Ojakian said the Palo Alto Bicycle Committee brought up the idea of
renaming the Boulevard in Ellen Fletcher’s name. Ms. Fletcher was valuable
in the community in setting Palo Alto in the forefront of what could be done
with bicycles in the community.
Council Member Kishimoto said Ms. Fletcher was an inspiration and provided
dedication and vision to the City and the larger, regional community. Ms.
Fletcher made the community visibility better. Palo Alto needed to become a
leading edge and a 21st Century model community where significant
percentages of people chose to ride bikes rather than drive cars.
Council Member Kleinberg congratulated Ms. Fletcher for her values. Ms.
Fletcher represented a bridge between the past and the future in terms of
the best that Palo Alto was and the best it could be. Ms. Fletcher’s
perseverance and dedication to bicycles as an alternative mode of
transportation pointed to the future. Heroes were needed in the community,
and Ms. Fletcher was a hero.
Council Member Morton hoped the Council would see another boulevard
parallel El Camino Real at Park Boulevard, in order to have a way to get
north to south that did not require cars.
Council Member Freeman said riding bikes in Palo Alto promoted alternative
transportation for people, safety, better air quality, neighborliness, and
good, solid family togetherness. Seeing families riding bikes throughout Palo
Alto was wonderful. Ms. Fletcher’s vision and continued activism was
appreciated.
Council Member Burch thanked Ms. Fletcher.
Ellen Fletcher said she was overwhelmed and speechless. The Bicycle
Boulevard carried bicyclists who were timid and afraid to ride in traffic, who
12/02/02 6
used the boulevard as a throughway rather than Alma Street, and students
and families. The boulevard was also a benefit to people in wheelchairs. The
City staff, Council, and bicycle supporters were thanked for their efforts and
support of the project.
Paul Goldstein, 1024 Emerson Street, Bicycle Advisory Committee Chair, was
delighted that the City of Palo Alto named the Bryant Street Bicycle
Boulevard in honor of Ellen Fletcher. Ms. Fletcher was deserving of the
honor. The concept of a bicycle boulevard was breathtakingly simple and
cost-effective. An ordinary residential street was made into a bicycle
boulevard by reorienting stop signs to give the boulevard right-of-way and
installing street closure every few blocks to discourage speeding automobiles
and through traffic. A testimony to the Boulevard’s effectiveness was the
high volume of bicyclists who were seen using Bryant Street each day.
Constructing additional bicycle boulevards was something to look forward to.
The elegant simplicity of the Bicycle Boulevard was much like Ellen Fletcher.
Ms. Fletcher often found simple, practical ways to make bicycling safer, more
attractive, and convenient. Ms. Fletcher was usually identified with bicycling
but also had a long record of community service, including three terms on
the City Council. The Ellen Fletcher Bicycle Boulevard was a fitting tribute to
his dear friend and fellow bicyclist.
John Ciccarelli, 2065 Yale Street, said a “fletcher” was someone who
attached feathers to an arrow to let the arrow fly straight. Ms. Fletcher’s aim
was always true, and she was an inspiration to cyclists and community
activists throughout the Bay Area and the country.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Burch, to approve
the minutes of October 7, 2002, as corrected, and the minutes of October
15, 2002, as submitted.
Council Member Burch was concerned about setting a precedent. In the
minutes of October 7, 2002, page 94-470, Council Member Kishimoto asked
how many properties would be affected. A separate page was distributed
which included verbatim discussion. Including verbatim minutes within the
summary minutes concerned him as setting a precedent.
Mayor Ojakian reminded the Council that following the prior meeting, the
City Clerk sent to the Council the rules regarding minutes.
Council Member Lytle said when the item was discussed at the prior
meeting, the Council added to the motion a request that the City Clerk
maintain the video for an indefinite amount of time.
12/02/02 7
City Clerk Donna Rogers responded that tapes were kept for six months, but
she would keep that specific meeting tape for a longer period of time.
Vice Mayor Mossar shared Council Member Burch’s concern. The minutes
were supposed to be sense minutes. The City Clerk’s office was asked about
the length of time necessary to make changes to the October 7, 2002,
meeting. Among three staff people, approximately four and one half hours
were spent on the corrections.
Council Member Kishimoto asked that corrections be made to the minutes of
October 7, 2002, because she was liaison to the South of Forest Area (SOFA)
Working Group.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the Mayor or City Clerk wanted to
present to the public what sense minutes meant.
Ms. Rogers explained that sense minutes were between verbatim and action
minutes. Action minutes included only the motion; verbatim minutes were
every word spoken. The City Clerk’s staff tried to summarize the essence of
the points being made.
Council Member Freeman said verbatim minutes were requested when there
was a particularly sensitive issue that needed to be in the record. Vice Mayor
Mossar set the precedent earlier in the year.
Vice Mayor Mossar had no recollection of ever requesting verbatim
comments placed in the record and asked her colleague to make the
information off line available to her.
Council Member Freeman said she would do that.
Council Member Morton asked whether the Council would approve only
sense minutes unless the Council instructed the City Clerk to prepare
verbatim minutes.
Ms. Rogers said she would only do sense minutes unless she received
direction from a majority of the Council telling her not to.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Burch, to approve
Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 and 4 and 6 - 9, with Item No. 5 being
removed by staff.
12/02/02 8
Vice Mayor Mossar would not participate in Item No. 8 due to a conflict of
interest because of family investment interest in AT&T.
Council Member Kleinberg would not participate in Item No. 9 due to a
potential conflict of interest because her husband’s former law firm
represented Stanford in land use matters.
Vice Mayor Mossar would not participate in Item No. 9 due to a conflict of
interest because her husband was employed by Stanford University.
Council Member Freeman referred to Item No. 7 and asked whether the
actual recommendation in the staff report matched the resolution as far as
timeframe for renewal was concerned.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne noted on Item No. 7, paragraph 2 should read:
“Authorize the city manager or his designee to terminate on six months
notice unless the vendor is responsive to city needs and quality of the
vendor work is acceptable during the first year of the contract, which will
determine the city’s willingness to renew the contract.”
Council Member Kishimoto would not participate in Item No. 8 due to a
conflict of interest because of stock holdings in AT&T. The staff and Planning
and Transportation Commission (P&TC) were congratulated for a fine job
done on analyzing the County proposal for hillside open space zoning.
Denise Dade, Legislative Representative for Committee for Green Foothills,
had done an outstanding analysis, which helped the City and the citizens.
Ms. Dade was leaving the Committee for Green Foothills.
Council Member Lytle echoed comments made by Ms. Kishimoto. The
question was asked whether Palo Alto was able to review the matter once it
went to the County Planning Commission.
Council Member Morton would not participate in Item No. 8 due to a conflict
of interest because of stock holdings in AT&T. With regard to Item No. 9, the
community had an intent interest in how the matter was handled at the
County level.
Mayor Ojakian reported that the County’s meeting was on Thursday,
December 5, 2002.
Mr. Benest said staff attendance was coordinated through Lisa Grote.
LEGISLATIVE
12/02/02 9
3. Ordinance 4772 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-03 to Provide An
Appropriation of $36,332 as Payment to North American Title
Company to Provide Title Insurance in Conjunction with the Purchase
of Portions of Cubberley Property at 4000 Middlefield Road and the
Terman Property at 655 Arastradero Road”
4. Resolution 8230 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending and Restating the City's Deferred Compensation Plan
and Trust (Retirement Plan) for Part-Time/Temporary/Seasonal
Employees; and Approving and Authorizing Execution of a Trust
Agreement for the Plan”
Resolution 8231 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Appointing City Manager and Director of Administrative Services
as City Administrators of the Deferred Compensation Plan and Trust
(Retirement Plan) for Part-Time/Temporary/Seasonal Employees”
5. Sublease of a Portion of the Cubberley Community Center by the
Jewish Community Center; Approval of Related Budget Amendment
Ordinance in the Amount of $37,000 (Item to be continued at the request
of staff)
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget
for the Fiscal Year 2002-03 to Provide an Appropriation of $37,000 to
the Jewish Community Center for Refurbishing Costs at the Cubberley
Community Center
ADMINISTRATIVE
6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and TruGreen LandCare in the
Amount of $300,000 for the 2002-2003 Tree Maintenance Project
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and SCT in the Amount of
$123,669 for Software Maintenance and Support of Banner Software
Modules
8. Approval of the Continuation of the Fiber to the Home Trial
9. Planning and Transportation Commission Review and Comment on the
Proposed Santa Clara County District Text Revisions for the Stanford
Open Space/Field Research (OS/F) Zoning District to Implement the
2000 Stanford Community Plan
MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7.
12/02/02 10
MOTION PASSED 6-0 for Item No. 8, Kishimoto, Morton, Mossar “not
participating.”
MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item No. 9, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating.”
PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will hold a Public Hearing
pursuant to Government Code Section 30061, Title 3, Division 3,
relating to the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund, to
consider the Police Chief’s request for funding frontline law
enforcement programs
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve
the following staff recommendation: 1) adopt the Budget Amendment
Ordinance in the amount of $120,172 amending the fiscal year 2002-2003
budget to appropriate funds received by the City from the State of California
and allocated by Santa Clara County for the continuation of the Citizens
Options for Public Safety (COPS) program and amending the City’s Table of
Organization dropping a Police Sergeant position and adding a Police Captain
position; and 2) approve a transfer from the Supplemental Law Enforcement
Service Fund to the general Fund in the amount of $95,480 for salary and
benefit expenses associated with the new Police Captain position.
Ordinance 4773 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-03 to Accept Grant
Funding in the Amount of $120,072 in the Supplemental Law
Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF), to Transfer $95,480 from SLESF
to the General Fund, and to Add 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent Police
Captain and Drop 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent Police Sergeant in the
Police Department”
Council Member Freeman asked for clarification on a statement that
discussed “not intermingling General Fund dollars with the SLESF dollars.”
Mayor Ojakian said State money had to be earmarked for the type of police
programs that were in the grant.
Assistant Police Chief Lynn Johnson said intermingling was if the funds were
used for something that was already being done. The COPS funds were over
and above what was included in the normal operating budget.
Council Member Freeman clarified the money had to go into the General
Fund in order to pay a salary.
12/02/02 11
Ms. Johnson said that was correct.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the revised
Draft Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan which incorporates
changes based on state review and limited staff revisions, including
modifications to the Housing Sites Inventory (Continued from 11/12/02
- Public Testimony closed)
Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth recalled at the last meeting that
several Council Members asked whether it was possible to segregate the
Housing Sites Inventory, which was one part of the large Housing Element,
in order to allow individuals with a conflict to particular sites in the inventory
to participate in the decision. Staff looked into that and found it was possible
to separate out the Housing Element deliberation into two phases. The first
phase was a discussion of the Housing Sites Inventory and adoption of the
Housing Sites Inventory by members of the Council who did not have a
conflict. Following that, the entire Council could return and deliberate the
balance of the Housing Element without reopening the discussion of the
Housing Sites Inventory and vote on the entire element, which would include
the Inventory.
Mayor Ojakian was pleased that staff contacted the Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC) for clarification.
Ms. Furth said the issue was raised in other cities in the context of
comprehensive plans.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the entire inventory list would be
voted on as one item or whether individual items could be voted on.
Ms. Furth said the inventory list was a unit as a whole. Separation was
between the element as a whole and the inventory as a whole.
City Manager Frank Benest emphasized the City had a long tradition of
supporting affordable housing. The City had a Below Market Rate (BMR)
program since the 1970s. The BMR program, the first in the State, produced
over 250 units of owner-occupied and rental units. The City required housing
fees since the 1970s to offset demands on housing stock from new
commercial development. Through funding from housing fees, the City
assisted in the development of over 1,350 affordable rental units and over
25 different projects from throughout the City. The Housing Element update
supported the long tradition. Staff recommended the Council (1) Approve
12/02/02 12
the CEQA addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR; (2) Amend the
Comprehensive Plan by adopting the Housing Element, including the Housing
Sites Inventory; and (3) Direct staff to forward the Housing Element to the
State for final review and comment.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie found
comments from previous meetings resided into three primary areas: (1)
elements consistency with other Comprehensive Plan elements; (2) why the
Housing Sites Inventory utilized minimum yields: and (3) issues related to
impacts of traffic. The Housing Element built on existing housing, land use,
and transportation elements in a variety of ways. Large projects needed to
undergo evaluation by the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC),
the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and City Council. The Housing
Element promoted creation of affordable housing and encouraged mixed-use
developments in order to address needs for neighborhood-serving retail and
other community building uses such as neighborhood retail. Land for
multiple-family housing was conserved at the expense of job producing uses.
Because the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) had a great deal of policies
that dealt with the need for reducing dependency on the automobile by
promoting transit-oriented development, staff felt the Housing Element
complemented the Comp Plan in a substantial way. The Housing Element
provided for a modest increment to the density on two of the seven
transportation corridors, which were El Camino Real and San Antonio Road.
The proposed rezoning in the Housing Element was consistent with the
Comp Plan land use designations. The second issue had to do with the
housing inventory numbers. Questions were raised that concerned the use of
low-end numbers. The State provided guidance in the form of legislation,
which said, “minimum levels in the housing element must be achieved when
approving development.” Staff modified the Housing Sites Inventory to
provide the minimum number of units for each of the sites identified. The
third issue dealt with how housing could be built without increasing traffic
congestion. Staff believed the sites were in appropriate locations along
major transportation arterials. Staff was preparing a citywide transportation
study that evaluated creating a mitigation program and implementation of
the program through an impact fee. The movement was to take job
producing land uses and move those into housing categories, thereby
bringing the City into better balance with its housing/jobs imbalance.
Safeguards built into the Housing Element included Policy H-5, which
addressed the need to provide compatibility with neighborhoods. Impact
fees would serve to supplement the current impact fees. A broader impact
fee for transportation would supplement the park and community facilities.
Any project needed to go through extensive review through the ARB, P&TC,
and the City Council.
12/02/02 13
Mr. Benest said staff believed the Housing Element was a reasoned approach
and a balanced plan. The Housing Element enhanced the vision of the 1998
Comp Plan, addressed the State Mandate while retaining City flexibility,
improved the jobs/housing balance through job reduction and housing
production, preserved existing neighborhoods, resulted in minimum adverse
impacts, and provided geographically balanced housing sites inventory. Staff
recommended adoption.
Council Member Lytle said the agenda item was treated as two separate
items. The first item was the Housing Site Inventory and those Council
Members who needed to recuse themselves needed to do so.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the Council was required to do the
Environmental Determination prior to taking action on the content of the
Housing Element.
Ms. Furth said the Council needed to do the Environmental Determination
prior to adopting the Housing Element.
Council Member Lytle asked whether there was a way to reorder the agenda
items in order to get questions asked.
Mayor Ojakian said general questions had to be asked during discussion of
the Housing Element issue.
Ms. Furth said those Council Members who did not have a conflict could ask
any questions during the deliberation of the Housing Sites Inventory.
BY CONSENSUS OF THE CITY COUNCIL to bifurcate the Housing Sites
Inventory portion of the item from the Housing Element.
Council Member Beecham would not participate in the Housing Sites
Inventory part of the item due to conflict of interest because a client owned
property within 500 feet of 800 High Street.
Council Member Freeman would not participate in the Housing Sites
Inventory portion of the item due to a conflict of interest because her
husband and she owned property within 500 feet of 2701 El Camino Real
proposed for rezoning.
Council Member Morton would not participate in the Housing Sites Inventory
portion of the item due to a conflict of interest because he had clients with
interests in the properties.
Mr. Benest said staff was clear that the dwelling unit yields were minimal.
12/02/02 14
Mr. Emslie said staff clarified the amount of acreage that was attributed to
housing.
Mr. Benest said the major change was adding information about the pending
number of units and the acreage devoted to housing on a mixed-use project.
Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether it was typical for staff to make changes to
a work product that was previously reviewed by a commission.
Mr. Benest said generally speaking, if the staff were clear, he had no
problem with the practice.
Mayor Ojakian said the Council was voting on a housing inventory site list
based on the recommendation of staff.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne wanted to lay out the legal standard. Questions
were asked earlier about whether changes not seen by the P&TC needed to
be referred back to the P&TC. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
incorporated the 1955 version of State Law, which said, “legislative bodies
shall not make any change or addition until the proposed change or addition
has been referred to the Planning Commission.” That language was
interpreted over the years to mean what State Law currently said, which was
“substantial modification not previously considered by the Planning
Commission.” The Attorney’s Office staff met with the Planning staff and
asked whether the changes were substantial or on matters that were given
any substantial attention by the P&TC. The Attorney’s Office staff was
assured that the changes were neither substantial nor in areas that were
controversial in front of the P&TC. His recommendation was that the
inventory did not need to be referred back to the P&TC.
Council Member Kishimoto referred to site #5-28, the Opportunity Center,
and asked about the point raised at the P&TC meeting that it might want to
reduce the massing or number of units.
Mr. Emslie said the Opportunity Center plan had gone through its first P&TC
hearing and ARB review hearing. Both groups were positive in terms of the
architecture and massing. Staff felt the units that were accounted for in the
Housing Site Inventory were appropriate for the site.
Council Member Kishimoto asked about the height on the building.
Mr. Emslie said the building was at 50 feet.
Council Member Kishimoto referred to site #5-31, 901-925 High Street, and
recalled that 901-928 went to the ARB proposing 12 residential units and
12/02/02 15
12,000 square feet of commercial space. The property was mentioned as
being 1.82 acres, and the current information indicated .46 acres.
Mr. Emslie responded that the .46 was the correct acreage.
Council Member Kishimoto asked how was the Council to know that state law
did not restrict the Council’s ability to have some discretionary review.
Mr. Emslie said if the Council wanted to retain that discretion, the Council’s
option was to lower the units. The project conformed to all the zoning
requirements. Staff believed the project was appropriate.
Mr. Benest stressed the Council needed overage on the mandate in order to
allow flexibility. If the Council felt strongly about reducing the project, staff
suggested substituting another site.
Mayor Ojakian said an option was that sites could be made up elsewhere.
Mr. Emslie said the Council might have to go back and amend the element in
order to make up the sites.
Mr. Calonne said the element had to be amended in order to add units to
make a later tradeoff.
Ms. Furth said the point was to make it clear in the document that there
were enough sites.
Mr. Benest said the City was in a good position as long as the other sites
were producing.
Council Member Lytle understood there was flexibility for the Council to
move units to other sites. There was a back up list of sites, including some
that she felt were more suitable. Mr. Emslie’s presentation addressed the
zoning minimums. Some of the sites were public facility sites that the
Council had not determined as surplus. The question was asked about what
the Dutra Bill said regarding rezoning actions and whether the Council had
the same flexibility described by staff on those to move units.
Mr. Emslie believed the Council had flexibility for the sites that needed to be
rezoned. Sites on the list that needed to be rezoned had to be done by the
end of 2003.
Council Member Kleinberg referred to a letter from John McGaraghan about
property at 657-663 Alma Street. Mr. McGaraghan stated that the owners,
being nonresidents of Palo Alto, did not have prior information about the
inclusion of their property on the inventory list. He requested the property
12/02/02 16
be removed from the inventory list or defer action on the item until the
Vecchioli Family had adequate time to address the Housing Element impact
on its proposed development of the property.
Ms. Furth said the notice of the Housing Element was appropriate. Prior to
any property being rezoned, a noticed public hearing with specific notice to
the concerned property owners would be sent out. At that time, property
owners could raise objections, and the Council could decide whether to
proceed with the rezoning or go ahead with the General Plan amendment to
take the property off the list.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified there was no question of interference
with property rights at the current point.
Mr. Emslie said at the outset of the creation of the housing site inventory,
notices were sent to all the property owners that were considered for the
housing inventory.
Council Member Kleinberg said a couple questions were raised about the
type of alternative transportation modalities that would be interpreted as
being appropriate for transit-oriented development. Someone suggested that
the only true transit that could qualify was rail transit. Adequate transit to
qualify for that type of development was questioned.
Mr. Emslie replied that for purposes of the Housing Element, the two
corridors, El Camino Real and San Antonio Road, were specifically identified
as appropriate for transit-oriented design and limited to only rail. Bus and
rapid transit were included.
Council Member Kleinberg said the City Attorney’s suggestion was to put
only the very minimum yield in the inventory list in order to avoid the
possibility of litigation arguing that the Council had not allowed enough of
the yield. The question was asked whether Palo Alto did what other similarly
situated cities, which were late on their Housing Element, in terms of using
only the minimum yield.
Mr. Emslie understood other cities, such as Cupertino and Sunnyvale, were
ahead of Palo Alto with having their Housing Elements approved.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether there would be a problem to
include one additional column as long as the list included the potential
dwelling unit yield at the minimums to add back in the ranges in order for
developers to know that the permissible ranges were and for the City to
know what the range of potential units could be.
12/02/02 17
Ms. Furth said there was no legal objection to doing what Council Member
Kleinberg suggested. Staff attempted to make clear how the City complied
with the Dutra Bill. The Dutra Bill said whenever a City removed a unit that
the State counted on to see that the City met its regional housing needs
assessment, certain steps were necessary. If a range were included, staff
was concerned that there could be unpleasant conversation about what the
City promised to do.
Council Member Kleinberg asked what the goal was the last time the City
made a commitment to the State to build houses.
Mr. Emslie said the City did not commit to build a specific number of units.
The purpose of the Housing Element was to remove impediments that were
barriers to creating the numbers.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified the point of the Housing Element was to
incentivize building of houses.
Mr. Emslie said the point was to incentivize and remove barriers.
Council Member Kleinberg said the last Housing Element was supposed to
incentivize and remove barriers to build housing. Her understanding was the
incentives did not work too well or there were too many barriers.
Mr. Emslie said a report card needed to be done on each Housing Element.
The goal in the last Housing Element was approximately 1,300 units.
Council Member Kleinberg was concerned if only the lowest minimum yield
was listed, builders might not be inspired and motivated to build what was
actually possible.
Council Member Burch noticed the new list of sites included the zoning for
the Opportunity Center was PC pending, and there were 90 units requested,
but 800 High Street showed PC pending 61 units requested with the
minimum dwelling unit yield at 26.
Mr. Emslie said the Opportunity Center’s application was reviewed, and staff
felt more comfortable keeping the number closer to what was proposed. The
project at 800 High Street had not progressed because of Council direction
to adopt SOFA II first.
Council Member Burch felt Council Member Kleinberg was worried that
people from the public would refer to the 26 units and question the need for
more. The Hyatt Rickey’s property had a big number in the pending
application but a smaller number when getting into the minimum dwelling
12/02/02 18
units. The old list proposed moving the zoning at 4146 El Camino Real from
RM-15 to RM-30, but currently was back to RM-15 in both places. The
number dropped from between 10 and 20 units in the original down to five.
Mr. Emslie explained that site selection criteria, surrounding impacts of
neighborhood compatibility were taken into account. Staff felt comfortable
that the City was over its housing goal by 200 units.
Council Member Burch said the housing goal was 616 units but, of those,
241 were very low income, 50 were low income, and 325 were moderate
income. In order to get 616 units, more than 818 units had to be built to
come out with the needed number.
Mr. Emslie said the State considered affordable housing at a certain density
range as on its face meeting affordable housing goals. For purposes of being
consistent with State policy and because Palo Alto proposed a significant
number of units at the higher density range, the units were viewed as being
acceptable at meeting the City’s efforts toward getting lower income units.
The City provided more of the higher density units.
Council Member Burch asked whether the City could encourage a developer
to build another Alma Place.
Mr. Emslie replied yes.
Mayor Ojakian said the inventory list provided what had to be done to meet
the State requirements.
Mr. Benest suggested adding that the numbers were only minimum yields;
the actual projects could produce higher yields.
Council Member Burch was concerned that the City was committed to build
affordable housing.
Mayor Ojakian explained that the Dutra Bill and Assembly Bill 2292 were the
same. The legislation was passed in September 2002 and took effect in
January 2003. The question was asked as to what inventory list the Dutra
Bill applied against if the Council did not pass the Housing Sites Inventory.
Ms. Furth explained if the Council did not adopt the Housing Element, the
City would be out of compliance with the requirement that it adopt a
Housing Element.
Mayor Ojakian asked whether there was anything under the Dutra Bill that
came back and reprimanded the City if nothing was done.
12/02/02 19
Ms. Furth said the Dutra Bill encouraged litigation that challenged cities that
failed to meet their requirements by requiring the cities to pay the legal fees
of the prevailing party. If Palo Alto did not have a certified Housing Element,
it was missing a presumption that the Comp Plan was consistent and had a
valid Housing Element. There were practical advantages to the City in having
a good, suitable Housing Element adopted, including the tough competition
for funds.
Mayor Ojakian said the Dutra Bill put the City into an interesting position.
The City was trying to meet what the minimum requirements were.
MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to approve
the Housing Sites Inventory.
Council Member Lytle clarified the City’s ability to achieve BMR numbers in
the past relied on the partnership with the nonprofit community where
housing projects were built at 100 percent below market rate and did not
relied on the construction of housing.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct, and the Housing Element supported the
partnership.
Council Member Lytle said the inventory helped direct the nonprofit
community and developers as much as it helped the for-profit developers.
Mr. Emslie agreed.
Council Member Lytle said when the last Housing Element was adopted; the
City was in a different market situation. The bottom had dropped out of
housing development financing due to complications such as condominium
lawsuits.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct, and there was little private financing.
Council Member Lytle said the market at the current time fell out completely
underneath office development but focused on housing. The idea of
incentivizing was less necessary during a bull housing market.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
Council Member Lytle clarified the City was not amending the land use
diagram with the Housing Element.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
12/02/02 20
Council Member Lytle supported the Housing Element based on answers to
previous questions about the ability to amend the land use diagram as the
City did discretionary review on individual projects and shifted the numbers
if that were necessary, which preserved the integrity of the discretionary
review process.
Vice Mayor Mossar said the Council discussed the Housing Element in
October 2001, and the message from the Council at that time was loud and
clear that affordable housing units were the goals. Staff was asked to return
with a Housing Element that generated affordable housing. Answers were
heard about meeting the requirements of the Dutra Bill and doing what had
to be done in order to comply with the law. The question was raised whether
the City was doing what it had to do in order to meet its obligations to the
region, to the environment, and to those who needed places to live. The City
had high, ethical, and moral obligations. Staff was asked whether it was
comfortable that the City would be able to meet a goal of 616 affordable
housing units.
Mr. Emslie said a 200-unit cushion was laudable. Policies were in place that
gave the City the luxury to exceed its goals.
Mr. Benest said the Council set up a Top Five Priority on affordable housing
and internally structured a multi-department team to shepherd the projects
along. The Housing Element would provide a framework for moving forward.
Vice Mayor Mossar supported the motion, particularly given that the record
showed that staff was committed to an obligation to produce real, on the
ground, successful, affordable housing.
Council Member Kleinberg suggested an amendment to include in the
inventory list, or as an addendum, a restitution of the density spread for
minimum to maximum.
Council Member Lytle would not accept as an amendment.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg, seconded by Burch, to
approve the Housing Sites Inventory and include in the inventory list or as
an addendum to the inventory list a recitation of the density spread from
minimum to maximum.
Council Member Kleinberg said the Council needed to set higher goals and
be realistic about producing over 600 affordable units. There was not a lot of
money flowing into nonprofit development. The Council was low-balling its
goals instead of putting what the potential range could be in order to
incentivize private investment in order to get the needed affordable housing.
12/02/02 21
Council Member Burch felt the motion gave the developer the idea there was
a range the Council looked at. There was an added advantage to show a
higher number.
Vice Mayor Mossar supported the substitute motion. Council Member Lytle
had said by stating a range of units, the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) analysis would not support the higher levels of housing. The
question was asked whether it was Council Member Lytle’s intention to say it
was only viable up to the 818 units and beyond that would not pass the
CEQA test.
Council Member Lytle said the list was flexible, but that the assumptions
made on population, traffic, park acreage needs, and other infrastructure
support that she read in the environmental determination were based on the
more minimum level.
Vice Mayor Mossar asked staff for a comment on the issue of CEQA and the
minimum versus a range of numbers.
Advanced Planning Manager Julie Caporgno said the range went to
approximately 1,000 units and would still come within the high estimate
under the Comp Plan.
Vice Mayor Mossar clarified the CEQA document evaluated the document
provided by staff and gave flexibility of 150 to 450 units.
Ms. Caporgno said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Mossar said the Council was told it could do anything it wanted.
The Council could review a proposal at any of the given sites and do a
different number. At that point, there was a different CEQA evaluation that
took precedence over the CEQA evaluation.
Ms. Caporgno said there was some flexibility in the CEQA document because
the Comp Plan EIR looked at 450 additional units. Staff looked at 290
additional units. Looking at the high end of the inventory sites, the City was
covered under the Comp Plan EIR.
Vice Mayor Mossar asked what happened if the City wanted to build 1,000
more housing units than what was listed.
Ms. Caporgno said the Council would have a consistency problem and would
not be able to use the Comp Plan EIR. Individual CEQA analysis would be
done for any site that was not on the inventory.
Ms. Furth said if the Council wished to add some additional text about the
12/02/02 22
serious and committed numbers that represented a minimum number of
units on the sites, the Council needed to make it clear that the numbers
were included to give an example of the ranges that might be appropriate on
the sites, subject to later analysis. She referred to the February 4, 2002,
version of the plan.
Council Member Burch added up the high numbers from all the earlier
documents, and the total came out to 1,246.
Mayor Ojakian clarified the Council’s hands were not tied when it came to a
project that was brought to the Council that had more units.
Ms. Furth said that was correct. There were other policies in the Comp Plan
that would push the Council in a certain direction on some of the sites.
Mayor Ojakian said he would not support the substitute motion.
Vice Mayor Mossar said adding up the numbers did not take the housing
yield past the tolerable limits for CEQA.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 3-3, Burch, Kleinberg, Mossar “yes,”
Beecham, Freeman, Morton “not participating.”
Council Member Burch suggested a friendly amendment to add the sentence
suggested by the City Manager.
Ms. Furth said the wording was, “New State Legislation, AB 2292 requires
compensating changes in the inventory if fewer units are permitted on a
site. A larger number of units may be approved on any site when consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and State Law.” Staff could add
stronger language.
Mayor Ojakian said Mr. Benest suggested adding language that said “these
are only minimum.”
Mr. Benest said, “Any individual site may be approved for a larger number of
units.”
Ms. Furth suggested, “The numbers were only minimums, and a
substantially larger number may be approved on a particular site.”
Mayor Ojakian said the number might be different based on individual
project review.
Mr. Benest suggested, “An individual site may be approved for more units.”
12/02/02 23
Council Member Lytle suggested adding language about how the Council
might need to shift sites.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by
Mossar, to retain the Housing Sites Inventory and add language in the
footnote that would indicate the number of units being presented are
minimum, and a larger number of units may be approved on the sites.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 4-2, Burch, Kleinberg, Mossar, Ojakian
“yes,” Beecham, Freeman, Morton “not participating.”
Ms. Furth pointed out that five votes were necessary to adopt the Housing
Sites Inventory.
Council Member Kishimoto said she did not know all the ramifications of the
Dutra Bill, but the Housing Element was a rigid, legal document that was
governed by State Law, which would open the City to potential lawsuits.
Changes, additions, and increases in density at a later date were supported.
Vice Mayor Mossar said it was important to take the obligation freely and
seriously. She did not have an intention of using the minimum densities as
her guideline for making land use decisions as the Housing Element moved
forward.
Council Member Kleinberg supported the motion with caution. The Council’s
responsibility was to build enough housing to provide BMR housing. Issues
raised about indicating the range of densities was a concern because the
Council was uncomfortable putting that into a legal document. The inventory
list had the numbers and goals. The Council needed to find a way to
encourage greater densities on some of the sites in order to get the type of
housing that was needed.
Council Member Lytle did not consider the list to be a limited and binding
list. The policies in the Land Use Map were more the expressions of the
Council’s commitment to housing. Meeting the requirements of State Law for
housing elements was a legal requirement. The approach taken of showing a
limited list and the minimum densities was the proper legal position. There
were sites not on the list that were suitable for housing and would yield
housing in the next five years. Additional sites shown in the Land Use Map
would be proposed for housing. Some of the sites not on the list were more
suitable for housing than those on the list.
Mayor Ojakian said the Council started out with two lists that yielded
approximately 4,200 units, which did not set well with the Council. The
Council instructed staff to come up with a smaller list. Affordable housing in
12/02/02 24
the community was important.
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Beecham, Freeman, Morton “not participating.”
RECESS: 9:50 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Mayor Ojakian announced the Closed Session item would not be discussed
that evening.
MOTION: Council Member Burch, seconded by Morton, to bring Item Nos.
11A and 11B forward to be heard before the conclusion of the Housing
Element item.
Council Member Beecham said Item 11A might go quickly, but Item 11B
needed more time. The Council needed to ensure that it finished the Housing
Element.
MOTION FAILED 2-7, Burch, Morton “yes.”
Vice Mayor Mossar asked staff to inform the Council what happened if the
Housing Element were not approved. A question was asked about comments
made by the Housing and Community Development (HCD) relative to traffic
standards.
Mr. Benest said staff believed there were three major consequences if the
Council did not move forward on the Housing Element. A certified Housing
Element by the State allowed the City to secure some fairly substantial,
affordable housing funding which would help move the City toward its Top
Five Priorities. The State passed Proposition 46 that provided $2.1 billion,
which would help the City deal with several critical projects including Oak
Court and the Opportunity Center. The City had a current application to HCD
for “help” funding, which provided dollars to preserve some of the existing
BMR condos that needed to be renovated. Staff anticipated some substantial
penalties if the City did not have a certified Housing Element. Staff wanted
to maintain local control of land use decisions, and without a certified
Housing Element, any individual could sue the City.
Ms. Furth said it the City did not have a certified Housing Element, it was
vulnerable to an attack that said the City failed to adopt a General Plan, and
the Court could take a number of steps, ranging from stopping all
development in the City and taking away the decision=making authority
from the City. A letter from the HCD stated that cities, in looking at traffic
standards, needed to take into consideration the impact of any new
standards on housing and housing supply in the City. One of HCD’s concerns
was that the City not adopt traffic standards that had the unintended
12/02/02 25
consequence of wiping out the work done on the Housing Element.
Vice Mayor Mossar asked about legislation that gave local government the
authority to override traffic impacts when building housing.
Ms. Furth said development opportunity areas could be designated.
Mr. Emslie explained the Figueroa Bill, which was implemented and allowed
cities to exempt or override traffic impacts for infill development near
transit. The transit was defined as a one third mile radius from a transit
station or transit intermodal station.
Ms. Furth explained there was a several year window and, if a project was
not built within another window, the exemption was lost and the City had to
go back to complying with a regional Congestion Management Plan.
Council Member Morton asked whether the concept of a transit corridor was
an objectively or externally defined limit; could a transit corridor be 500 feet
or 2,500 feet.
Mr. Emslie understood the City made the determination to define the terms
for transit corridor.
Council Member Morton clarified if the City thought the transit corridor was
overreaching, it could be narrowed down.
Mr. Emslie said that was his understanding.
Ms. Furth said the Comp Plan had a provision in the Transportation Element
that said, for example, higher density housing was appropriate near transit
stations and on transportation corridors.
Mr. Benest said siting standards allowed the City to fine tune proposals.
Ms. Furth said a transit corridor was used as an option rather than a
mandate in the Housing Element. A transit corridor was defined as “a major
bus or rail route, and may also be used to describe land uses along the
route.”
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to 1)
approve the addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR for the Housing
Element; 2) adopt by resolution an amendment to the 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan incorporating the revised Chapter 4 – Housing Element
and Housing Element Technical Document including appendices and with the
revision to narrow the transit-oriented development radium to 1200 feet
12/02/02 26
from 2000 feet of the transit centers; 3) direct staff to forward the Housing
Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development.
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 1998-
2010 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by Adopting the 2002
Housing Element and Housing Element Technical Document
Mr. Benest said there were two train stations in Palo Alto. Staff proposed
modest, incremental density increases within 2,000 feet of the two transit or
train stations. In addition, staff selected two of seven transportation
corridors.
Council Member Morton was concerned with the 2,000 feet. He proposed
reducing the amount to 1,200 feet and fronting along the other corridors.
Mr. Benest clarified Council Member Morton suggested within 1,200 feet as
opposed to 2,000 feet of the two train stations.
Council Member Morton said that was correct.
Council Member Kishimoto noted she did not realize when she seconded the
motion that Council Member Morton had included a revision to narrow the
transit-oriented development radium to 1200 feet from 2000 feet of the
transit centers. She asked that the revision be separated from the motion.
Vice Mayor Mossar said the issue of transit-oriented development, transit
hubs, and transit corridors was key and the only way the City would build
housing. The notion to narrow the radius around train stations rather than
maximizing the radius around train stations was a great loss of opportunity.
The repeated degradation of El Camino Real as a transit corridor was
misplaced. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) system currently
operated several express service busses along El Camino Real into the
Research Park as well as 24-hour bus service on the Line 22, which was the
most heavily utilized transit operation in the entire VTA system. That
particular route was being converted over time to a bus rapid transit (BRT)
corridor. A great beauty of BRT was that it was not as expensive as light rail
or BART because existing streets were used. Decisions made in the past
defined the type of transit options the City had, and decisions made in the
future would define what type of transit options were in the community.
Transit could not be justified if there were not enough people to use it.
Mayor Ojakian said the Council should make clear how it was voting on the
items. There would be a motion around what City staff asked the Council to
approve and a separate motion had to do with the 1,200 feet.
12/02/02 27
Vice Mayor Mossar did not support the motion as stated.
Council Member Lytle supported Council Member Mossar’s concern about
limiting the transit-oriented development options. The area around the
transit centers was key in terms of finding suitable densities in the long run.
A concern was that the bus routes described as transit corridors with the
hope they would someday convert to bus rapid transit was a difficult leap to
make. There were opportunities for higher density but no assurance that the
entire corridor would someday convert to a high-density transit corridor. One
of three concerns included the issue of the Housing Sites Inventory and the
sites shown on the Comp Plan designation map. The City had little, vacant,
underutilized land. Some of the land identified on the inventory was probably
contaminated and was expensive to redevelop. The City upheld a 30-year
tradition of providing its share of the region’s affordable housing. The City
needed to continue to provide its share of regional housing and go beyond
that. The City had downzoned property and amortized commercial uses by
explaining to the community and developers where it would be done. The
Council anticipated a Zoning Ordinance update in the next year. The Zoning
Map would be amended to show where the policies applied, and then the
Comp Plan Land Use Map would be amended to reflect the zoning exercise.
Mr. Emslie anticipated the zoning code exercise would engender some
change to the Comp Plan.
Council Member Lytle said much of the tension would go away, both for the
development community and for the residents, once the Council answered
questions such as where the policies that were more aggressive would apply.
She suggested language for several of the policies that talked about
relieving the community of zoning controls, “At locations identified in the
Housing Sites Inventory to be identified in the upcoming Zoning Map and
Comprehensive Land Use Map amendments as part of the Zoning Ordinance
update. “That would be a universal openness for the Council to look at
additional opportunities and where to apply some of the policies such as the
transit corridor policy. Another concern was the 50-foot height limit, which
was always a significant growth management tool in Palo Alto. The 50-foot
height controlled scale intensity and location of infill development, as well as
protecting views of the foothills and baylands, and protects light. She
suggested language, “Continue to respect the 50-foot height limit as a
prominent growth management and development intensity control; however,
on a case by case basis, there may be instances where that can be exceeded
without compromising our other objectives.” A similar phrase about FAR and
parking might be added. A third concern had to do with the way the plan
read in terms of single-family. There were several programs and policies that
talked about increasing the density in the single-family neighborhoods, such
as duplexes and small lot residential development. There were appropriate
12/02/02 28
places for those things but converting single family to duplex or converting
standard subdivisions of 6,000 square feet to smaller lots was not what the
Council wanted to promote. Language was suggested that said, “through the
use of overlay zoning to help take an action to determine whether those
kinds of policies would be appropriate.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER 1) to add language at several Policy locations
identified in the Housing Sites Inventory and to be identified in the upcoming
Zoning Map and Comprehensive Land Use Map amendments as part of the
Zoning Ordinance Update; 2) to continue to respect the 50-foot height limit
as a prominent growth management and development intensity control.
However, on a case by case basis, there may be instances where that can be
exceeded without compromising our other objectives to include Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) and parking; and 3) through the use of overlay zoning to
implement policies for increasing density in single family neighborhood.
Mayor Ojakian noted when it came time to vote; the staff recommendation
and each suggested amendment would be voted on separately.
Council Member Kleinberg said the Council was told if there was a
substantial modification proposed that was not previously considered by the
P&TC that would have to go back to the P&TC.
Mr. Calonne said staff would analyze the motions.
Council Member Beecham said a simpler way to take action was to pose as
the basic motion the approval of the staff recommendation. Each Council
Member could pose their ideas as amendments.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by
Kleinberg, to: 1) approve the addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR for
the Housing Element; 2) adopt by resolution an amendment to the 1998-
2010 Comprehensive Plan incorporating the revised Chapter 4 – Housing
Element and Housing Element Technical Document including appendices;
and 3) direct staff to forward the Housing Element to the State Department
of Housing and Community Development.
Resolution 8232 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the 1998-2010 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by
Adopting the 2002 Housing Element and Housing Element Technical
Document”
12/02/02 29
Council Member Kishimoto called for a Point of Order because her
understanding was that the main motion was going to be separated for
purposes of voting.
Council Member Freeman clarified if the Council voted to accept the staff
recommendation and later made amendments that did not pass, she might
not want to support the staff recommendation.
Council Member Beecham said the point of the process was that the Council
did not vote on the main motion until after voting on all the amendments.
Council Member Morton was concerned about the 2,000-foot circles impact
the neighborhoods. Something smaller than 2,000 feet was suggested, such
as 1,200 feet.
Ms. Furth said the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan set a 2,000-
foot radius as the circle within which suitable sites were looked for to locate
transit-oriented development, which was 50 unit per acre. The P&TC was in
a better position to comment on its efforts to add standards to the Housing
Element and, therefore, the General Plan. The Land Use Element had to be
amended in order to lower the 2,000 feet to 1,200 feet.
Council Member Morton withdrew his request to change the 2,000 feet to
1,200 feet.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Kishimoto, that
the following language be added to Goal H-1, page 6 of CMR:434:02: “The
policies and programs for implementing Goal H-1 shall be implemented at
locations identified in the Housing Site Inventory and identified in the
upcoming Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendments
as part of the Zoning Ordinance update.
Council Member Kleinberg asked in what way the amendment would de-limit
the ability to do the conversion in order to increase housing densities.
Mr. Emslie said the amendment did not prescribe a certain expectation in
terms of what the zoning might be; it basically quantified where the policies
would be attached to future housing sites.
Council Member Kleinberg asked why the language was not included.
Mr. Emslie said the language was staff’s attempt to make it clear there
would be criteria. The Zoning Code, the Zoning Code Map, the Comp Plan,
and the Housing Sites Inventory would indicate where the policy framework
was for the sites.
12/02/02 30
Council Member Lytle replaced the words, “wherever appropriate” in
Program H-1 and H-3.
Ms. Furth was unclear how program H-3 read.
Council Member Lytle said H-3 read, “Encourage the conversion of
nonresidential lands to residential use to both increase the supply of housing
to residential use at locations identified in the Housing Sites Inventory and
to be identified in the upcoming zoning map and Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map Amendments as part of the Zoning Ordinance update.” The purpose
was both to increase the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing,
and decrease the potential for the creation of new jobs that exacerbate.
Additional changes were in H-1, H-3, H-4, H-5, H-10, Policy H-3, Policy H-4,
Program H-16, and Program H-51.
Mr. Emslie said none of the land use policies could exist outside the Zoning
Code or the Housing Element. They had to be consistent with the zoning or
have a variance, Planned Community or rezoning. Policies came out of the
Zoning Code Update.
Mr. Ojakian asked whether the Housing Element had to be updated when the
Zoning Code was updated.
Mr. Emslie said no.
Council Member Kleinberg suggested adding an explanatory sentence at the
beginning to be more explicit.
Mr. Emslie said that could be done.
Ms. Furth suggested adding to Policy H-1, “These changes and
redesignations will be implemented through the zoning ordinance update.”
Council Member Lytle asked that the language include both “the zoning
ordinance and the land use map.”
Council Member Freeman asked for a friendly amendment to put the wording
in a more global location.
Mr. Emslie asked that the Council direct staff to fit the wording in to make
the most sense for readability.
Council Member Beecham supported the wording in Goal 1 or in Program H-
1.
12/02/02 31
Ms. Furth suggested, “The policies and programs for implementing this Goal
H-1 shall be implemented at locations identified in the Housing Sites
Inventory and to be identified in the upcoming Zoning Map and
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments as part of the Zoning
Ordinance update.
AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Freeman, on
page 10, first bullet under New Development Standards and Zoning Districts,
to insert the language “The 50-foot height limit will continue to be respected
except through specific site applications and on an exception basis.”
Mr. Benest said staff was not throwing out all the development standards for
housing. Staff suggested flexibility in terms of height, FAR, and other
development standards for 100 percent affordable housing.
AMENDMENT FAILED 3-5, Freeman, Kishimoto, Lytle “yes,” Morton
absent.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Freeman, to
insert language directing when there are changes in R-1 Districts, they are
to be done through overlay zones.
Council Member Lytle asked that the wording be placed universally.
Council Member Freeman suggested that the wording be placed in a
universal location rather than policy and program-by-program.
Vice Mayor Mossar would not support the motion, noting concern about not
adding density in residential neighborhoods.
Council Member Kishimoto said there were specific types of neighborhoods,
such as Eichler, which were less conducive to densification.
Ms. Furth said the Council had to decide on directives about considering zone
changes. The question was whether the Council wanted to establish a policy
at the current item that when zone changes were done, they were done
through overlay zones or whether the Council wanted to reserve the decision
for a later date.
AMENDMENT FAILED 3-6, Freeman, Kishimoto, Lytle, “yes.”
12/02/02 32
AMENDMENT: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, in
Program H-5, page 8, third line, delete the word “most” from “are most
conducive.”
AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, in
Program H-5, page 9, third bullet, to revise the wording from “allow a very
high residential density” to “allow a high or very high residential density”.
AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0.
Council Member Kleinberg referred to Program H-5, page 9, which talked
about being within 2,000 feet of an existing or planned rail transit station.
The paragraph also stated, “development at the high end of the density
range should only be permitted where it’s demonstrated.” She asked why
there was a reference to ranges, since there no longer were ranges.
Ms. Furth said the item referred to the General Land Use densities in the
Comp Plan.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Freeman, in
Program H-5, page 10, delete the first bullet “Permit higher densities under
R-1 zoning district to accommodate smaller lots for courtyard homes or
other similar types of housing” and replace with Program H-10.
Vice Mayor Mossar was concerned about relying on broad zoning tools when
in fact there would be opportunities on a case-by-case basis to add housing
units.
Council Member Beecham said his objective was to remove uncertainty in all
R-1 communities about whether there would be smaller lots.
Council Member Lytle said there were parts of the community that were
suburban, and it was difficult to retrofit a suburban area to urban standards.
Other parts of the community were more urban, and it was easier to do infill
redevelopment according to urban standards.
AMENDMENT FAILED 4-5, Beecham, Freeman, Kishimoto, Lytle “yes.”
AMENDMENT: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Kleinberg, on
page 10, first bullet under New Development Standards and Zoning Districts,
to clarify it is for the production of 100 percent affordable housing.
AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0.
12/02/02 33
AMENDMENT: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Morton, in
Program H-5, page 10, second bullet under New Development Standards
and Zoning Districts, change third line from “standards that provide the
maximum amount of housing” to “standards that allow the maximum
amount of housing.”
Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether changing “provide” to “allow” change the
intent of the bullet point.
Ms. Furth said the change in wording made it clear that the City did not build
housing.
AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Morton, to
delete Program H-8 on page 11.
Council Member Beecham said he could support second dwelling units that
were frequently occupied by members or relatives of the main household,
but in general he could not support second dwelling units within what
otherwise were basically single-family homes.
Ms. Furth said the State might have preempted the City on that.
Mayor Ojakian clarified recently passed State Law preempted Program H-8.
Ms. Furth said staff thought it might. There was a requirement for ministerial
review, but the City could not require a conditional use permit or variance on
second units.
AMENDMENT FAILED 2-7, Beecham, Morton “yes.”
AMENDMENT: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Morton, in
Policy H-12, Program H-32, page 22, first sentence, change the word
“necessary” to “feasible.”
Mayor Ojakian did not support the motion because there was a dire need to
make sure the Terman Apartments were preserved.
Council Member Burch agreed that the Terman Apartments needed to be
preserved.
Council Member Beecham was not willing to commit the City to buy the
Terman Apartments, if that was the way the wording was interpreted.
AMENDMENT FAILED 3-6, Beecham, Lytle, Morton “yes.”
12/02/02 34
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kishimoto, seconded by Freeman, in
Program H-3, page 7, add a sentence to the end of the paragraph, “When
considering conversions of non-residential land to residential uses, the city
will also keep in mind the importance of the goal to preserve neighborhood
retail services.”
Mr. Benest said there were other policies in the Comp Plan. The Housing
Element was part of a totality, and there were other policies that made it
clear that the Comp Plan supported neighborhood-serving retail.
Council Member Kishimoto said when there was a policy to convert
nonresidential lands; office would not convert because it was the highest
paying rent. The neighborhood retail and neighborhood commercial services
were lower value.
Council Member Freeman reminded the Council that the expectation was
that all the elements in the Plan were consistent with each other.
Vice Mayor Mossar said there might be occasions when the City did not have
productive retail, and it could be converted to housing. The Housing Element
should not preclude that.
Ms. Furth said the City had policies about promoting and preserving retail
service and if the Council was considering converting something, they would
take that into consideration. By saying the Council did not want to reduce
the land providing neighborhood retail services, the concern was that the
Council was stating, for example, not to convert any parking areas to
housing. If that were the intention, the Council needed to be clear. Wording
was suggested, “When considering conversions of non-residential land to
residential uses, the City will also keep in mind its important goal of
preserving neighborhood retail services.”
AMENDMENT FAILED: 4-5 Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle “yes.”
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Lytle, in
Program H-5, page 8, add a bullet “To ensure that high and very high
density housing is located in zones that encourage and allow neighborhood
services and retail.”
Vice Mayor Mossar understood very high densities would be appropriate on
Hamilton and Lytton Avenues.
Council Member Kishimoto said high and very high density should be located
in places that allow and encourage neighborhood retail and services.
12/02/02 35
Vice Mayor Mossar said another hurdle was created. There was a lot of
density on San Antonio Road.
Council Member Kleinberg asked if the wording would preclude some very
high and high-density housing where there was not any.
Council Member Kishimoto said the wording encouraged or allowed
neighborhood services. If there were no neighborhood commercial,
affordable housing should not be held up.
AMENDMENT FAILED 2-7, Kishimoto, Lytle “yes.”
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Mossar, in
Policy H-2, page 7, change the word “consider” to “identify and implement.”
AMENDMENT PASSED 5-4 Beecham, Freeman, Kishimoto, Ojakian “no.”
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Mossar, in
Program H-19, page 17, change the word “Consider” to “Eliminate.”
Council Member Kleinberg said the intent of the word change was to
demonstrate the Council’s firm commitment to make the Housing Element
happen.
Council Member Freeman understood the commitment issue but also realized
there were often unintended consequences that came up. Using language
that stated unequivocally eliminate did not allow any room for change.
Council Member Kleinberg said the explanatory paragraph said, “eliminating
the requirement would expedite project approval and remove an impediment
to housing production.”
Council Member Morton suggested adding, “review the requirement.”
Council Member Lytle agreed with the amendment because the site and
design review process was applied to mixed use because the City did not
have decent mixed-use regulations.
AMENDMENT PASSED 5-4, Freeman, Kishimoto, Morton, Ojakian “no.”
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Lytle, in
Policy H-14, page 26, change “The City should” to “The City will.”
AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0.
12/02/02 36
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Burch,
Program H-46, page 27, change beginning of sentence from “Consider” to
“Recommend that the RDA consider.”
Mr. Benest said the idea was good, but staff would not recommend it until
sometime in the future.
Council Member Lytle did not believe there was sufficient tax increment in
the projected future to support the vision at the current point in time.
AMENDMENT FAILED 2-7, Burch, Kleinberg “yes.”
Council Member Freeman said staff reworked the documents in a positive
way, which was appreciated. Letter E, on page 4 of the resolution discussed
required park acreage. She asked what the existing permanent
neighborhood parkland need, excluding high school and middle school
property. She asked what the acreage number of 1.3 percent of existing
need was equivalent to. Another question had to do with district versus
neighborhood parkland and whether both were required for two acres for
each 1,000 new individuals.
Mr. Emslie said the Comp Plan acknowledged the City had a deficit in
meeting its parklands. A program was not in place that was fully funded to
help meet the deficit by acquiring more parkland. There was a new park fee
that addressed some of the needs but did not help equalize the parkland
deficit. In considering major projects, staff looked for areas to acquire areas
of dedicated parkland within the project area.
Council Member Freeman asked whether it was possible to ask Planning staff
to identify areas that could be purchased or used for parkland.
Mr. Emslie said it was possible and something that Planning staff would do in
conjunction with Community Services to supplement its desire for additional
parkland.
Council Member Freeman asked how the Council could insert language that
ensured that the locations were identified and brought back, based on the
expected population increase.
Ms. Furth said the City was not in a position to identify privately-owned
property for acquisition by the City when it had no method for funding that
acquisition. The Community Services Department policy was clear that the
City did not meet the four-acre standard when the Comp Plan was adopted,
and the City did not anticipate meeting it. The proposal anticipated
approximately 660 people, that meant between two and three acres of park
12/02/02 37
land the City hoped to secure. One of the principle mechanisms to secure
property was the Coordinated Area Plan, which was the mechanism by which
the City added slightly less than two acres to the existing City. Much of that
parkland was near projects that were on the Site Inventory. Other areas
were identified for Coordinated Area Plans. Until the City accumulated
significant funds from impact fees, the ability to acquire that type of land
was dependent upon fairly large projects or Coordinated Area Plans that let
the Council pool a number of individual developments.
Council Member Freeman asked how plans could be developed for housing
without evaluating the dedicated parkland.
Mr. Benest said the Comp Plan recognized staff should strive toward that
goal. The community was built out. Through the redevelopment process,
open space was added.
Council Member Lytle was concerned the deficit was being added to without
a statement of overriding.
Council Member Furth said the statement, based on the addendum prepared
for the Council, was that the City continued to not meet its guidelines. The
proposed finding was that the existing need increased 1.3 percent and the
Council adopted the impact fees. The law provided that impact fees were a
suitable mitigation. The 1.3 percent increase in the deficit was not a
significant new problem.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Lytle, in
Section 4E of the Resolution, page 4, change the last sentence to read: “The
City Council finds and determines that the marginal increase in park
shortage arising from the exemption of affordable housing units is
significant, and if it were not, in anticipation of growing impact fees, will look
for potential park land to close the deficit.”
AMENDMENT FAILED 3-6, Freeman, Kishimoto, Lytle “yes.”
SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 9-0.
Council Member Kleinberg thanked the Council for working collegiately for
coming up with a Housing Element that would provide the necessary
housing.
Council Member Beecham said the Council worked well together.
12/02/02 38
Council Member Freeman supported the motion because it was the best the
Council could do at the time. There were opportunities to make further
changes in the future.
Council Member Lytle thanked the staff for the considerable work they did on
the Housing Element. A Saturday study session was a good idea for any
legislative items that went before the Council.
COUNCIL MATTERS
11A. Colleagues Memo from Mayor Ojakian and Council Member Kishimoto
re Proposed Changes to the Santa Clara County Cities Association
(SCCCA) Bylaws
MOTION: Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Kishimoto, that the Council
adopt the proposed changes to the Santa Clara County Cities Association
(SCCCA) bylaws.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Mossar absent.
11B. Colleagues Memo from Vice Mayor Mossar and Council Member
Beecham re Opening the Record of the October 30, 2002 Closed
Session
MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Beecham, to continue
Item No. 11B to a date uncertain before the end of the year.
MOTION PASSED 8-1, Lytle “no.”
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Freeman presented the City with a check in the amount of
$300 from the City of Niihari, Japan, for a tree in Eleanor Pardee Park. This
check was for the funding of the tree. She thanked the Mayor for ensuring
the Business Improvement District would be agendized.
Council Member Kleinberg announced an emergency preparedness
neighborhood mobilization meeting at the Unity Church on December 3,
2002, to launch Palo Alto REDI, Resources for Emergencies and Disasters
Initiative.
CLOSED SESSION
12. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation
12/02/02 39
Subject: In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a California
Corporation, Debtor, U.S. Bankruptcy Court case No.: 01-30923DM
Authority: Government Code 54956.9(a)
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.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.