Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-01-22 City Council Summary MinutesRegular Meeting January 22, 1991 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:37 p.m. Mayor Sutorius convened the meeting with a moment of silence for the safe return of our military forces and concern for the families during the Gulf War. PRESENT: Andersen, Cobb, Fazzino, Kniss, Levy, McCown, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Trina Lovercheck, 1070 McGregor Way, spoke regarding Council priorities and was pleased that some of the Human Relations Commission's goals and objectives were included, and encouraged Council to adopt a priority regarding human services (read letter into the record which is on file in the City Clerk's Office). Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding praise for Ellen Fletcher's taking the side of humanity with respect to the Gulf War and no response to his questions to the City Council on the Palo Alto Harbor (read letter into the record which is on file in the City Clerk's Office). Dr. Nancy Jewell Cross spoke regarding Clean Air Transport Systems with regard to Council Priorities and suggested the Council add a priority regarding regional transportation systems. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 1990 MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Fazzino, approval of the Minutes of December 10, 1990, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve Consent Calendar Items 1 through 4. Action 1. Final Map for Property at 728 Layne Court (300) (CMR:113:1) 65-235 01/22/91 2. Finance and Public Works Committee Recommends to the City Council re the Incorporation of Air Rights into the Real Property Asset Management Policy that it approve and amend the Real Property Asset Management Policy to read as follows: "The Real Property Asset Management Policy recognizes all real property, including air rights owned by the City, as assets in terms of evaluating revenue potential prior to sale, lease, or granting of rights"; and Further, that the Council reaffirm, as amended by the Policy and Procedures Committee, guidelines for Air Rights Develop- ment over Assessment District Parking Lots (901) (CMR:565:0) 3. RESOLUTION 6959 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DESIGNATING THE GOLDEN TRIANGLE COMMUTER NETWORK AS THE AGENCY AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND ORDINANCE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO; AND CHANGING THE IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF SAID ORDINANCE FOR CATEGORY 1 EMPLOYERS FROM JANUARY 15 TO JANUARY 31, 1991" (1160-01) (CMR:115:1) 4. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 2.09 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED POSITIONS" (701-01) MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Upon motion duly made and seconded, Items 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 would be considered prior to Item 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Review of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) of AB 939 (1420) (CMR:120:1) Deputy Director, Public Works Operations Michael H. Miller, said the preliminary draft of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) of AB 939 required one informational meeting and two public hearings. The informational meeting was held on Friday, December 14, 1990, in the Council Chambers. Staff received the preliminary draft of the SRRE at the end of December, revisions by staff were incorporated, and copies of the revised draft were distributed to the local task force, adjoining cities, Santa Clara County, the Waste Management Board, and interested parties in Palo Alto. Copies of the draft SRRE were on file in the City Clerk's Office. Many changes would be made to the draft and a final draft would be 65-236 01/22/91 available 30 days prior to the next public hearing and available in libraries and other facilities. The final public hearing was scheduled in May. Legislation was currently being proposed by the California League of Cities to extend the deadline date by six months from July 1, 1991 to January, 1992. Until that legislation passed, staff would be working under the July 1, 1991 deadline. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Irvin Dawid, 161 Bryant Street, was a member of the War on Waste (WOW) Committee, but spoke on his own behalf. He was concerned about high density polyethelyn (HDPE) containers (milk bottles). He referred the staff report (CMR:120:91), the ES-2 Landfill Summary Waste Composition results under "plastic total" for residential polystyrene, PET and HDPE containers. According to a flyer, produced by the Plastic Container Industry, the percent of total bottle redemption value indicated that HDPE tonnage would be much higher than the PET because HDPE had zero redemption value versus four to five cents. He suggested innovation policies similar to Peninsula Creamery's recycle bottle structure where the buyer paid 50 cents for the reusable container and when it was returned, the buyer received the 50 cents back. The public believed the HDPE was being recycled and placed into the landfill. He referred to the seasonal Christmas tree pick-up and polystyrene pick-up, which motivated the public to recycle, and suggested focusing on another time of the year when a lot of waste was created, e.g., when Pacific Bell updated phone books. He suggested charging companies like Pacific Bell since the City ended up picking up all the costs. The City could investigate some innovative ways to promote recycling. Richard Gruen, P.O. Box 2351, was concerned about having just received the SRRE report that day and not having had enough time to digest it. City staff referred to errors contained in the report which would be corrected. He suggested the report be closely scrutinized to ensure the numbers and facts were accurate. He had several questions on the report and desired the opportunity to meet with Mike Miller, members of the War on Waste Committee, and some of the consultants. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Woolley agreed with Mr. Gruen in terms of the SRRE report requiring a lot of clean-up, and there was time for that. She referred to page ES-7 of the Executive Summary, the second sentence of the second to last paragraph, which stated, "currently, the City's compost program diverted about 6.3 percent of the total solid wastestream from the City's landfill." She queried the residential, industrial/commercial contribution, and City contribu- tion. She also queried the residential total of compost generated 65-237 01/22/91 minus what was diverted from the landfill and what ended up going into the landfill. She believed it would be helpful to have all the information for all the items being studied and for it to be in one place. Council Member Cobb referred to the recycling summary on page ES-6, and said some of the items referred to the improvements of .2 or .3 percent and others 10 or 12 percent. He queried whether the investment of time and money being put into the different diver- sions were expected to be proportional to the kind of gain the City could expect. John Glaub, Group Manager, EMCON Associates, the consulting firm preparing the SRRE of AB 929 said the cost of programs versus the diversion generated as a result thereof was one of the balancing parameters they were trying to deal with. Palo Alto had aggressive recycling programs in place for a relatively long period of time compared to other communities around the nation, and its estimated diversion rate was conservatively about 16.4 percent. The goal was to address the minimum required by AB 939 and the short-term goal for 1995 was readily met by a variety of programs to be imple- mented. Balanced with the effort to meet the goals in the timetable set was also an understanding of what the community wanted in its solid waste management practices. The apartment and multiple dwelling recycling program was included as a recommended alternative although overall rates in the big picture were on the low side. Council Member Cobb believed it was fairly easy to get programs in place for large companies such as Hewlett Packard where a signifi- cant impact could be made on the whole area. He owned a small business in a multi-tenant office building where there was no place provided for any kind of recycling activity whatsoever. He hoped there could be some equitable way to provide small offices with the ability to recycle. Mr. Glaub agreed with Council Member Cobb, and said his suggestion would be part of the recommended alternatives under the categories established/add collection programs for businesses. Council Member Levy was struck by the reference that Mr. Dawid made to the Pacific Bell phone books, and believed it was opportunity to develop a program to encourage recycling. Council Member Andersen said while the Peninsula Conservation Center (PCC) currently collected magazines with a high clay content, he would like their collection included as part of the pick-up program. He would also like to see a stronger effort in coordinating the recycling program with some of the efforts being 65-238 01/22/91 carried within the school system. There was interest and enthu- siasm among some of the young people. Mayor Sutorius asked Mr. Miller to comment on the success of the post-Christmas polystyrene pick-up effort. Mr. Miller said the post-Christmas polystyrene curbside pick-up occurred the first week following Christmas. Participation was probably in the 10 to 20 percent range. The drop-off bins at the Recycling Center were filling fairly fast. There was about one month remaining in the three-month pilot program. Staff would then return to Council with some numbers and quantities in terms of the success of the program. No Action Taken. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation to Uphold the Decision of the Decision of the Zoning Administrator and Approve a Conditional Use Permit for Property Located at 3981 El Camino Real (300) (CMR:122:1) Planning Commissioner Bill Glazier said the Planning Commission did not believe there was any clear cut "right" answer. While the Commission voted 3 to 1, to support the Zoning Administrator's decision to grant the conditional use permit, the Commission restated its support for retail uses along the El Camino and the limitation on large office uses which came out of the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study. The Commission did not intend nor did it believe the recommendation set a precedent for other developments either in the immediately adjacent area or along the entire stretch of El Camino in south Palo Alto. There were many problems incorporating retail into the development on the particu- lar site. The positive outcomes of improved housing supply and aesthetic appeal on El Camino led the Commission to conclude the Zoning Administrator's decision was appropriate. Council Member Woolley asked about the compatibility of the retail and the housing in the particular configuration. Zoning Administrator Nancy Lytle recommended that any retail component of the project not be required with the proposed design. The design was based on the office proposal. With retail, there could be a desire to better buffer the two uses and provide some parking and a different presence along El Camino for retail uses. Council Member Woolley referred to the pre-planning process where a wall along El Camino was encouraged to preclude parking in the front of the retail. 65-239 01/22/91 Ms. Lytle said there was an encouragement to create a sense of place along the particular portion of El Camino by bringing the urban wall out close to the sidewalk. Council Member Woolley clarified no parking was allowed on El Camino itself in front of the subject property. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Woolley queried whether the situation was common along El Camino from Page Mill south where the two lots immediately to the north were very long, deep and narrow. Ms. Lytle did not believe the parcel configuration was particularly unique, but its situation at the intersection and on the corner and adjacent to a flood control channel created a uniqueness about the site. The exceptional extraordinary circumstances had to do primarily with the location of the property at the corner and its relationship to the El Camino Way Island and the intersection with El Camino Real, the urban planning goals of the Architectural Review Board to create a better sense of place at the intersection, and the narrow configuration of the property allowing for one primary entrance to the site. Council Member Woolley asked whether there would be increased square footage for housing or more housing units if retail space was limited to 5,000 square feet. Ms. Lytle said the retail requirement for parking would reduce the amount of space both in the parking area and elsewhere in the project for residential units so there would be a trade-down in the number of units allowable. Council Member Kniss asked whether the two adjacent pieces of property would qualify as having the same needs if they were separately developed in the same way. Ms. Lytle said neither property was located on a corner nor adjacent to the El Camino Way Island development. Council Member Kniss asked if parking for those properties could be on El Camino. Ms. Lytle believed it would be easier to have parking on El Camino. Holding the street presence down that block face would not be as critical as it was at the corner. Council Member Kniss said it appeared there would be little parking in front of the two properties, especially with the driveway. 65-240 01/22/91 Mr. Glazier believed the two properties north of the property in question would probably have some flexibility in placing the driveway either on the north or south side, and perhaps the ability to have two separate driveways; one to support the retail and the other to support the housing. The limited retail frontage was not necessarily attractive for retail tenants. In regard to no front parking, if the tenant was a traffic intensive use, the traffic situation might be unpleasant given the property directly abutted onto El Camino Way and only one access route would serve both retail and housing. The Planning Commission believed it would be difficult to effectively support and maintain a retail presence given the constraints of the lot. Council Member Cobb asked about having the one office incursion in the middle of a series of other kinds of uses, either housing or commercial. Ms. Lytle said the context of the application was also part of the persuasive argument for approving the use permit for office. The lack of the phenomena in the area indicated a possible wisdom in a healthy mix of uses. It took some daytime population to add vitality to the adjacent neighborhood, and that issue was addressed in the Zoning Administrator's findings. The lack of that type of use was more reason to look favorably upon the application. Council Member Cobb asked whether it would be necessary to calculate how much office, housing, and retail was needed to balance the economics of the area or whether a particular use would make a difference. Ms. Lytle said no calculations had been made. The argument was based on general knowledge of what existed and projects in the pipeline. Council Member Renzel believed the Glass Slipper provided a nice sense of place. She asked if there was a setback in the CN zone. Ms. Lytle believed there was a CN setback, and there was a special ten-foot buffer along the El Camino Way island. That was CS district. Council Member Renzel queried whether the Architectural Review Board (ARB) would have the same conclusion regarding a strong sense of presence with respect to the next properties along the line, or whether they would see some zoning that more properly reflected the residential uses that were in the rear. Ms Lytle reiterated the corner was a special consideration, and it would not necessarily be reflected down the block face in future decisions. 65-241 01/22/91 Council Member Renzel asked if the design feature of building right out to the street would suggest that all the properties down the line would have to do the same thing. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said no. The ARB referred to the particular corner in the relationship to El Camino Way. Buildings with the design quality of the Glass Slipper would be fairly high on staff's list of upgrading, although it was not necessarily the type of place with which they wanted to identify. Staff welcomed the proposed application and would welcome similar applications for some of the adjacent sites. While not every site was appropriate for retail, where appropriate, it was strongly encouraged. Given the lack of on-street parking, one access, the location at El Camino Way, staff believed upgrading of El Camino could best be done by working with the applicants in terms of how the application was submitted rather than trying to redesign it to create parking immediately adjacent to the street off the same entry as the residential units. The design factor was an important policy issue in terms of the particular application. Council Member Renzel asked if there was a mixed use bonus on the property, or whether the same or a greater number of housing units would be allowed if there were no office or commercial component to the project. Ms. Lytle said there would be a greater number of smaller units but no more square footage. Council Member Renzel clarified the portion devoted to office building in the front was square footage that could not be used for housing even though more units could be built. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. The proposed units were already relatively small, and he doubted they could get more units. The amount of square footage devoted to housing had already been divided fairly tightly. Council Member McCown recalled many projects recently constructed, under construction, or pending construction on the El Camino Way island included some amount of office components. She asked for a summary of the total new office construction in the El Camino Way area. Ms. Lytle knew of two office projects already approved on the El Camino Way island: One was a 3,500 square foot office project in front of the old A&W property, and the other was a mixed-use project designed by Michael Lyzwa on which she believed was not more than 5,000 square feet. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. 65-242 01/22/91 Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, Palo Alto, represented the Barron Park Association (BPA), which opposed the office use. Retail along El Camino had been a goal of the neighborhood associations in the area since the mid-1970's although they had acceded to loss of retail because of the need for housing in the community. CS zoned property was not supposed to be neighborhood-serving, and those currently existing in the area were because when the zoning map was drawn in 1978 they were already there, and staff had not wanted to create non-conforming uses for the motels. It could have worked out differently if the area had been neighborhood-commercial. If the proposed mix of retail was changed, the applicants would lose seven units, and a maximum loss of two units if they went for 5,000 feet of retail, and 5,300 square feet of offices. The existing zoning ordinance required a 25-foot setback for the project unless a variance was granted so the parking as proposed would require a variance. He opposed having the building up to the street. He was concerned the jobs/housing balance would be exacerbated by offices at the subject location. Council was being asked to approve or disapprove a variance. If Council wanted good urban design, it had an ARB. Two of the findings in the staff report related to design. Council was being asked to determine whether an office use on the site was appropriate. While BPA opposed an office use, it believed retail was viable. The question was whether parking needed to directly in front of the building to make viable retail, and he did not believe it did. He had read in the San Jose Mercury that Palo Alto had 568,000 square feet of vacant office space just in buildings of more than 10,000 square feet. El Camino should be upgraded, and it should have a good design presence without office structures. Rob Steinberg, 1130 Bryant Street, represented the applicant. The original intent when the design and development of the project began was to provide the maximum number of residential units at a sales price below what could be typically found in Palo Alto. The goal was not to development a retail complex or an office building. They began with a homeowners' meeting to which six different individual and homeowner groups were invited, and no one attended. They decided to work with the City Planning Department staff, Traffic Division, and ARB on how to proceed with the design. The first site analysis reflected a typical retail design with the building set back, a convenient parking lot in front, and housing beyond. Staff and the ARB said that was not what they were looking for on that portion of El Camino. They preferred a building at the corner to anchor the major intersection. Another alternative with the driveway on one side to take advantage of the open space along the creek was also not acceptable because of difficult traffic at that intersection. The only acceptable place for a driveway was as far away from the intersection as possible, and that was the present design. The site was unique in that the entry drive could 65-243 01/22/91 be no further than 135 feet away from a major contorted inter- section. Typically, the Traffic Division wanted driveways a minimum of 150 feet from an intersection. There could also be only one shared front door for the office, retail or 38 housing units. The site was problematic for retail in that it was presently zoned CS which zone was created to maintain areas that would accommodate Citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhoods, or pedestrian-oriented shopping areas. The site dimensions and the driveway configurations did not accommodate a mix of residential and commercial. The site was restricted, the compatibility of uses was incorrect, and if they provided conven- tional retail, they would need to reduce the number of residential units by 20 percent. Extensive retail would require 75 percent of the floor area to be used for display, and he would not want to share the only access to his home with such uses. He supported retail along El Camino but believed retail experts would agree individual neighborhoods could only accommodate so much specialized retail. There were other general business office uses that could be supportive of the island and neighborhood without competition, e.g., real estate offices, insurance offices, investment counseling, a tailor, a seamstress, a travel agent. Neighbors reviewing the Jacobs Court development indicated the traffic at the intersection was already a nightmare, and retail would add to it. He hoped Council would support applicants' request. Council Member Cobb asked what would happen if Council held the site to the 5,000 square foot office limit. Mr. Steinberg could not speak definitively for their clients, but did not believe there would be any additional housing. The housing was modest in terms of square footage. They were providing one- bedroom, one-story units at 800 square feet and two-story, two- bedroom at 1,200 square feet. If the project proceeded, it would proceed with 5,000 square feet of office, if the economics permitted, the applicants would probably reduce the retail to the minimal amount or none at all because he did not believe any amount would be successful. Upgrading El Camino with empty new buildings would not serve the intent of the City. Council Member Cobb clarified that if the 5,000 square-foot limitation was imposed, the applicants' inclination would be to build the 5,000 square foot of office; and, because they could not really increase the housing, the likely economic impact would be to drive up the price of the housing that was there. Mr. Steinberg said that was correct. George Smith, 390 Maclane Street, read a letter from John Douglas, 360 Maclane Street, who was concerned the proposed bridge to connect Wilkie Way with the proposed development would change the 65-244 01/22/91 character of their neighborhood by providing direct access to El Camino, and that people who could not find parking space at the new development would park on their street. Recent developments on El Camino Way had already increased parking along Wilkie Way. Maclane was a major bicycle thoroughfare to El Camino. The bridge might also provide a get-away route for suspects fleeing police in the relatively-high crime stretch of El Camino. While he understood the need for access to the complex by emergency vehicles, there were alternatives to the proposed bridge. The complex could be redesigned similarly to the Jacobs Court development to enable a fire engine to turn around in the central courtyard. He believed the mix should be retail combined with residences rather than office space. Roger Kohler, 4291 Wilkie Way, owned Kohler Associates Architects in Palo Alto, had spent the last 18 months working with single- family homeowners trying to conform to the zoning ordinance. If Council approved the proposal, it would be difficult to explain approval of a variance for twice the amount of office area on El Camino. Many homeowners in Palo Alto were struggling to remodel their new homes and conform to the regulations and had given up on a studio or an extra bedroom or a two car garage. The proposal seemed excessive, and he disagreed with staff's assertion that retail generated more traffic than offices. The traffic on Charleston every evening was backed up to El Camino going east towards Bayshore, and those people were originating from offices not Stanford Shopping Center. Mr. Schreiber clarified the action before the Council was an appeal of a use permit, not a variance. Shirley Wilson, 509 Hale Street, was a member of the ARB and Urban Design Committee. There were always sites which did not fit what the zoning prescribed. There was a ground floor retail requirement in the downtown area which ran all the way up to the underpass, and for many years, the City watched the retail from High Street to the underpass and found it had not functioned well. The Urban Design Committee concluded it would be more beneficial to have the buildings full of people who would be walking into town and participating in the viable retail core than to keep forcing retail where it did not seem to work. The proposed site had similar problems. It was referred to as a "corner" frequently but it was an odd configuration, would be difficult to access from a retail standpoint, and it was not attractive to the retail shopper. The office use there served well to frame what activity would develop in the island and it would be valuable to enclose the existing office use and make a good presence on the corner. She supported the office use and housing as designed. 65-245 01/22/91 Council Member Andersen asked if consideration was given to the bridge access, the effects of traffic flow going across the creek, and the possibility of additional traffic in the residential area. Ms. Wilson was at the Planning Commission when Jacobs Court and the subject site were considered and the conditions were similar. She was initially surprised at the neighbors' reaction against new housing but the evidence presented about vandalism and crime showed it to be a real concern. The neighborhood deserved some protec- tion. She believed improved tenancy and people being there 24 hours a day would help improve the sociological climate. Jean Olmsted, 240 W. Charleston, supported the appeal. The decision was whether to build 5,000 or 10,300 square feet of office space. She believed if retail served the people in the area, it might be more successful than unneeded office space. The findings did not seem to justify more office space. Intensity of use and parking problems were lesser problems with the smaller amount of office space. The 5,000 square foot office space limit was established to avoid building unneeded office space. She urged the Council not to approve the larger amount of office space. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, represented herself and David Jeong, 4056 Park Boulevard, who found nothing in the findings to justify approval of the extra 5,000 square feet. The threat to housing was not a persuasive argument either; the investors knew what they were getting into. A significant number of Planning Commissioners were not at the Planning Commission meeting, and she did not believe the recommendations sufficiently represented the Planning Commission's input. She cautioned the Council not to be influenced by the design of a particular project since it was subject to change, and was concerned about redevelopment of commercial frontage up and down the El Camino. Office use forced up rents, took away essential retail space, and forced existing retail out because of the rising rents. There would end up being wall-to-wall offices along El Camino if the restrictions on its development were not upheld. The City paid $300,000 to a consul- tant for a Citywide study, and the most important note was the need to reduce employment potential in order to catch up with the jobs/housing imbalance. She did not understand why it was not possible to have 5,000 square feet of offices and 5,000 square feet of retail. A business such as a coffee and pastry shop would succeed. She urged the Council to uphold the 5,000 square foot limit. Mr. Moss believed 44 units could be accommodated on the site and the price of the housing would be whatever the market would bear, and whether the applicant built more or less commercial would not have a significant impact on the actual cost people were expected to pay. In terms of all retail, all offices, or a mixture, if the 65-246 01/22/91 developer wished to build 10,000 square feet of commercial, a clear choice was that no more than 5,000 square feet could be offices. If he chose not to build retail, the developer had a legal right to put in only 5,000 square feet of offices, which would allow a better site plan and possibly more housing. The trend in condominiums was to larger units. He saw no justification for allowing the conditional use permit for an all-office 10,000 square foot building. Council was not obliged to give the developer everything he requested; it had the discretion to decide. He urged Council to reject the use permit, and uphold the appeal. Mr. Steinberg said City policies were sometimes in conflict with one another. One policy was to encourage retail along El Camino and another was to encourage affordable housing. The subject project was not an office park but a housing development. They had 40,000 square feet of residential and 5,000 to 10,000 square feet of office or retail. They tried to balance the housing with the City goals of anchoring the corner, to have a street wall, to not exacerbate parking on that difficult corner, and to develop a use compatible with the residential. While there were many sites along El Camino where retail would be viable, the subject site was not one of them. He agreed with Ms. Wilson. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Andersen, the Planning Commission recommendation to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to approve the 10,300 square feet of commer- cial office space, where 5,000 square feet would normally be the maximum permitted, based on the following findings as revised by the Planning Commission: Findings: 1. The proposed use of the proposed location will not be detri- mental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, in that, first, for this specific site, office use is more compatible with residential uses because of unique driveway limitations and second, for this specific site, there is a strong urban design desire for a street wall design. 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, in that the lower parking requirements for office use will allow more housing units to be built on the site, consistent with Policy 14 of the Housing Element which calls for providing incentives to add residential units to commercial developments. The 65-247 01/22/91 increased number of housing units will result in more BMR units, supporting Program 13 of the Housing Element. In addition, the office use will add a daytime population to help support the nearby neighborhood retail area on the El Camino way triangle and will result in an upgrading of the appearance of El Camino Real, as promoted by Program 22 of the Urban Design Element. Conditions: 1. The facade of the proposed office building in referenced plans for the Use Permit shall be redesigned; and the final design of the project shall be approved by the Architectural Review Board, the Planning Commission and the City Council through the Site and Design process. Council Member Woolley agreed with first finding and did not believe supporting the motion would be a precedent-setting decision by the Council. Not only was there only one access, it was very sudden, and it was better to have regular rather than occasional users enter that driveway. While the decision could spill over to the next two lots, in the total picture of south El Camino, she did not believe Council was setting a precedent. Chez Louis was a different situation because access would be easier to arrange on a corner property. Regarding the second finding, the use definitely supported Policy 14 of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage housing and also Program 13 to encourage Below-Market-Rate (BMR) units, of which the project would provide four. Council Member Andersen associated with Council Member Woolley. He believed the corner would be dangerous for retail, and there was a serious question in terms of the possibility for success of a retail establishment. Council Member Levy said while the findings were used to allow 10,000 square feet, he did not see that they endorsed 10,000 square feet. The findings could apply equally for 5,000 square feet, and he queried what unique circumstances required Council to move to the 10,000 feet level. Mr. Schreiber clarified Council did not have to make a finding of uniqueness for a use permit. The required findings were that the proposed use at the location would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements, etc., and that the project would be located and conducted in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In terms of the use permit application, it was important to consider site planning, the driveway, the relationship of uses to the driveway, the desire to have a wall along El Camino Real, and the sense of physical presence. 65-248 01/22/91 Mr. Glazier said given there were some Urban Design aspects in the desire to create a wall along El Camino, the Planning Commission believed if the applicant scaled the office use back to 5,000 square feet, it might be somewhat more difficult to create the same Urban Design aspect or feel. Council Member Levy would be interested in what his colleagues had to say. If Council found the site was a special situation that allowed 10,000 square feet of office use, he would query why almost every site on El Camino was not similarly suitable. The first finding indicated the proposed use at the location would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, which could probably be said in that negative way for almost any other site. As they looked at El Camino during the study several years ago, Council decided limiting the size of offices to 5,000 square feet was a worthwhile City policy in terms of reducing employment development and the resulting traffic. While he concurred it was a good architectural design and developed a presence on El Camino, the density involved by allowing double the office square footage concerned him because Council would be hard pressed to know whether the decision would be a precedent for the two adjoining sites. Council Member Renzel believed the CS zoning recognized the existing use, and no one anticipated the redevelopment that had gone on in the City or they might have designated the property differently. She agreed with Council Member Levy there was no justification for doubling the office size. There were plenty of walls along El Camino because of the many widenings, and the buildings were right against the sidewalk, which she did not find aesthetically appealing. While much was said about the dangerous intersection, it was a closely-controlled intersection and what was true of Jacobs Court was not necessarily true for the subject site. The big issue was whether to have 5,000 or 10,300 square feet of office, and whether the developers chose to do retail with any surplus was their choice. The housing price would be what the market would bear and would not affect how office building might affect the developers' economics. Office space was limited in the commercial zones to avoid the competition with a number of retail uses the Council wanted to see in Palo Alto. To say other space could be used for office instead of retail negated the particular benefit of having an office limitation. Council knew the problems of the Citywide study and the peak period traffic engendered by offices. The Council should uphold the appeal, and she opposed the motion. Council Member McCown joined with Council Member Renzel on the issue and opposed the motion. The point of the 5,000 square foot office limitation when it was adopted was to achieve a positive goal for the community to look to a balance of office and retail in 65-249 01/22/91 certain zones in certain parts of the community. The conditional use process was to allow for those situations where the limitation would not achieve that positive goal or when some other goal could be better achieved by permitting more than the 5,000 square foot limitation. While Council did not want an absolute blanket rule subject only to the variance approach, she was not persuaded the City would have a more positive situation by permitting more office than the limitation. There were difficult siting issues, but other projects on strangely-shaped sites went forward under the existing zoning and came up with concepts and approaches for mixed uses. While she was impressed by the applicants' genuine interest in having housing be the dominant focus of the project, she believed it could be accomplished within the zoning and without the necessity of 10,300 square feet of office. The CS zone also allowed all of the CN uses so there was a broad range of potential users of square footage. She believed the appeal was well stated and the applicants should stay with the provisions of the zoning. Council Member Cobb believed the decision was a close call. He commended the applicant for attempting to bring down the cost of housing which would occur if they got more yield out of the property. If Council did not support the motion, the applicant would probably build 5,000 square feet of office space, there would be no retail, and the cost of housing would go up proportionately. The basic issues were the intensity of use and the cost of housing. Council Member Kniss said there was no question the corner was a difficult one. The real issue was whether the findings justified the result, and she could not determine that the 10,300 square feet of office use was what was really meant by the particular criteria. She could support the 5,000 square foot limitation. She appre- ciated Mr. Steinberg's comments, and the need for housing in the $200,000 to $250,000 range, was something Council had repeatedly mentioned. The issue was the policy and what precedent was being set. While she hoped the project went forward, she did not feel Council had been presented with persuasive arguments that would allow her to support the motion. Vice Mayor Fazzino agreed the issue was a difficult one, but would support the motion. He viewed the development as primarily a housing project with some office. Palo Alto had not had tremendous success with mixed-use projects, and given the opportunities with the subject project, it was important to make trade-offs. Council struggled to place more housing along El Camino Real, and he was delighted with the affordability of the housing in question compared to most in the community. He did not want to lose any of the more affordable housing to a tremendous uncertainty over retail on the site. The particular site was not right for neighborhood retail uses which were far more appropriate along either side of El 65-250 01/22/91 Camino Way, on El Camino immediately adjacent to the Ventura neighborhood or to Barron Park on the other side. The property was unique in terms of the narrow frontage, the intersection parking and traffic problems. The site was much different from other sites the Council would be considering in the months ahead. City Attorney Ariel Calonne clarified the Conditional Use Permit requirement was not a justification hurdle Council needed to get past. The conditional use permit process was to allow the City to enhance a situation if the opportunity presented itself and was a different approach from a variance approach. Mayor Sutorius understood the issue was a weighty one. While he was not fond of the 5,000 square foot office limitation, he appreciated its purpose, and questioned how to do the extensive retail services, or the allowable general business services on that site in conjunction with housing. Arguments by the applicants had been persuasive in that regard. It came down to the point articulated by Council Members McCown and Renzel on the 5,000 square foot limitation and whether there was a justification for saying that 10,000 was inappropriate under the circumstances. He believed the argument as far as the "presence" could be accom- plished with or without the full 10,000 square feet. The impact on the housing was difficult to define; therefore, he did not see a need to go the full 10,000 square feet and would not support the motion. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Andersen, Woolley, Fazzino voting "aye." MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by McCown, to uphold the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision and direct the City Attorney to return with the final wording for the findings at the January 28, 1991, City Council meeting based upon the following concepts: 1. The 5,000 square feet allows ample space for the urban corner design; 2. There is no compelling reason to add additional office space since retail and other uses are allowed on the site; and 3. There is no overriding goal in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan that supports the use permit. Council Member McCown believed there was an overriding goal in the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the balance and the desire to not have office uses force out retail uses. For that reason she did not find the subject project satisfied the second finding. 65-251 01/22/91 Council Member Levy asked if it was necessary to have findings to simply move ahead without a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the zoning of the City. Mr. Calonne believed Council did need findings to sustain the appeal. Staff would return with written findings on the Consent Calendar for confirmation at the next meeting. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re Application for major site and design review for property located at 3981 El Camino Real (300) CANCELED REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 9. Finance & Public Works Committee re Issues and Options Related to Redevelopment (267) (CMR:573:0) MOTION: Council Member Fazzino for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved that the City continue to proceed with special area studies identified at the conclusion of the Citywide Study, beginning in the fall of 1991 with a study of the CS Urban Lane Area to be followed by a study of the LM East Meadow Circle Area. Council Member Renzel understood the action was to do special studies in lieu of redevelopment as the action in the redevelop- ment. Vice Mayor Fazzino clarified the action was to do special studies which represented their actions in redevelopment. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 10. Finance & Public Works Committee re Land Use Revenue Analysis (211) (CMR:571:0) MOTION: Council Member Fazzino for the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee moved that the Council direct staff to initiate a consultant selection process for Land Use Revenue Analysis and return to the Council with a selected consultant and a budget amendment to proceed with the study; further, that a tiered approach be given to the study and that the analysis first be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the resulting recommenda- tions from the Planning Commission be presented to the Council at the same time as the consultant's study. 65-252 01/22/91 Vice Mayor Fazzino said Council Member McCown's amendment at the F&PW Committee meeting to have the Planning Commission review the work of the consultant to assure absolute and total consistency with the Comprehensive Plan was excellent. The item was a critical aspect of the Council's 1990 economic vitality goal and the intent was for Council to have adequate information regarding the economic impact of projects in the City, to act smarter economically, and to support tax revenue generating uses without the need for additional square footage or greater impacts on the City. Council Member Renzel asked why going above the 65,000 square foot expansion cap was in the motion if it was to be absolutely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Fazzino said nobody proposed to change the 65,000 cap. He suggested the consultant be allowed to do the work, return to the Council, and Council could debate the merits of the evaluation at that time. That evening Council was simply approving the selection of a consultant and to assure the product of that work went to the Planning Commission to assure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Renzel queried spending money to study something the Council knew was inconsistent. William Spangler, 471 Carolina Lane, opposed spending the money to seemingly loosen zoning that should not be loosened. If the Council decided to move ahead, he suggested the consultant study the park across from Stanford Shopping Center which cost the City $500,000 a year to lease, with a view to rezoning. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, was concerned about the study but was somewhat mollified that the intent was not to consider increasing density or changing any zoning, and he was curious about achieving increased revenue without changes. If the Council wanted more revenue, it should enact a business license tax the same as 99.5 percent of the other jurisdictions in California. In terms of the study area, it was hard to justify studying El Camino because of the large, deep lots when the biggest problem they had along El Camino was that the commercial zone in most areas was too shallow. There were a few large lots, most notably the Elks Club but that was recently rezoned for housing. It might be valuable to talk to existing businesses and find out what the City could do to make them feel more welcome in Palo Alto and provide better levels of service. While he did not necessarily support the study, if it occurred, El Camino should be removed as a study area. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, was pleased that Council Member Renzel opened discussion of the 65,000 square foot cap issue. The core of Comprehensive Plan was the jobs/housing 65-253 01/22/91 imbalance and she urged Council to eliminate Stanford Shopping Center from the study. She believed there was more concern in the community about the study than was represented by the few people before Council that evening. She urged that consultant costs be held to a certain amount and there be some indication of what to expect from any discoveries regarding increased revenue possibili- ties from the land use. City Manager Bill Zaner urged the Council to leave the scope of the study exactly as it appeared. It was broad enough to get Council the information they were looking for. Once the study was com- pleted, Council could evaluate whether to do anything with it. Should the consultant find that $25,000 was insufficient to do the work requested, staff would know up front and could return to Council to determine whether to narrow the scope at that time. Council Member Cobb supported the motion. It was an important study, and his only concern was that Council get enough information to know what they were dealing with in terms of the economic equation, for the small consulting fee of $25,000. While there were many people in Palo Alto who were concerned about the study, the City had to deal with a $100,000,000 sales tax revenue shortfall, not to mention the $500,000 burden imposed by the State, which would make for significant cuts. While he talked to many businesses and a lot of ideas were exchanged, Council needed to have some hard numbers to know what they were talking about before they went into the tough decisions that lay ahead. AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, to delete the provision to examine the current growth cap of 65,000 additional square feet from the consultant study. Council Member Levy proposed the amendment for reasons of effi- ciency and to ensure they got the most out of the study. He agreed with Council Member Cobb there was much to study for $25,000. They were asking an economist to look at all of El Camino Real, the California business district, the three neighborhood shopping centers, Urban Lane, and Town and Country. The least Council could do was eliminate the area that did not have to be studied. If they wanted to find out the potential effects of removing the 65,000 square foot expansion cap at Stanford Shopping Center, they simply needed to ask the people who ran Stanford Shopping Center who knew much more about it than any outside economist. Mayor Sutorius opposed the amendment. The wiser course would be to support the main motion which encompassed the F&PW Committee discussion. As pointed out by the City Manager, if the study could not be done for $25,000, the matter would return for Council for further discussion. While he agreed with Council Member Levy that Stanford would be most forthcoming with information regarding the 65-254 01/22/91 65,000 square foot cap, if information came exclusively from Stanford, it could be subject to suspicion or challenge. They needed the professional support. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Renzel and Levy voting "aye." Council Member Renzel referred to the description of a "business relations report" as opposed to a "zoning report." The study was labeled a Land Use Revenue Analysis and virtually everyone in favor of it spoke to looking at the results and deciding whether to do anything with the zoning. If the City wanted fiscal zoning, there were all kinds of things it could do to make it more economic for somebody to move into the City, but it would not necessarily be good City planning. Council should remember zoning was an enablement, not a mandate. Regardless of whether the zoning ordinance said something could be done would not necessarily make it happen. She believed the report would tell Council what it already knew about the sites, and the real question was whether they wanted to change or adhere to a plan that was beneficial to the City. She was not anxious to revisit all their tough battles of the Citywide study, the Comprehensive Plan various revisions, the Downtown Study, California Avenue study, etc. Clearly, if Council wanted to achieve certain purposes, the narrower the zone, the more the zoning became a mandate versus an enablement. To study land use revenue under the guise of business relations as opposed to a real step towards fiscalization of the zoning was a mistake. She would not support the motion. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Renzel "no." RECESS: 10:30 p.m. to 10:40 p.m. RESOLUTIONS 11. Resolution Authorizing a Claim with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Allocation of Transportation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 1991-92 (412-05) (CMR:119:1) Council Member Renzel asked if the County would have money for the fence at the airport in 1992 so they could get the problem taken care of. Senior Planner, Transportation, Gayle Likens said yes based on information from the County. MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve staff recommendation to adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to file a claim for allocation of Transportation Develop- 65-255 01/22/91 ment Act funds in Fiscal Year 1991-92 for pedestrian/bicycle projects in the following priority order: a) Alma/Meadow Intersection Improvements ($77,000); b) Alma/Charleston Inter- section Improvements ($70,000); and c) Airport Levee Trail Improvements ($60,000). RESOLUTION 6960 entitled " RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A CLAIM WITH THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-92" MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 12. Ordinance Amendment Chapter 2.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Contracts for the Preparation of Environ- mental Assessments and Other Studies Necessary to Process Applications for Private Development Projects (1401) (CMR:509:0) MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Fazzino to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Amend the consultant selection policy to exempt environmental and other special consultant services deemed necessary for review of private development projects and funded wholly by private developers, from the Finance and Public Works Committee selection process; and 2. Adopt the ordinance amending Title 2 (Administrative Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to allow the City Manager or his designee to approve contracts exceeding $25,000 for environmental and other special consultant services deemed necessary for review of private development projects and funded wholly by private developers. ORDINANCE 4009 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 2.30 (CONTRACTS AND PURCHASING PROCEDURES) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO CONTRACTS FOR THE PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER STUDIES NECESSARY TO PROCESS APPLICATIONS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (1st Reading 12/10/90, Passed 8-0, Renzel absent) MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 65-256 01/22/91 13. Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program (1440-01) (CMR:124:1) MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by McCown to approve staff recommendation to direct staff to: 1. Send a letter to the County endorsing the program; but stating that the City will not participate in the County program until the first year costs per participant are known; and 2. Compare the costs of the County's first year program to Palo Alto's monthly program and return to Council with that information and a recommendation after July 1992. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendations re Comments to the County of Santa Clara on a Draft EIR and recommendations on an application by Stanford University for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of three parcels near Quarry and Arboretum Roads (232) (CMR:121:1) Council Members Cobb and Andersen were unable to participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. Planning Commissioner Bill Glazier said the staff report (CMR:121:1) identified the comments made on the Draft EIR as well as the Planning Commission recommendations which were reasonably similar to those proposed by staff. Although the Planning Commission recommendation passed by a vote of 4-2, there was some frustration regarding the piecemeal analysis to the situation when they would have preferred an overall presentation on the part of the Medical Center in terms of a long-term assessment of needs and goals, so the Planning Commission could have assessed where to put housing and office development. While concern was raised about the rectangle site not necessarily being perfect for housing, in the absence of any other proposal, the Planning Commission proposed and recommended the rectangle site be zoned residential. Vice Mayor Fazzino referred to the concerns about the appropriate- ness of the rectangle site for housing and asked if consideration was given to alternative ways in which Stanford could meet the obligation without placing housing on the particular site. Mr. Glazier said the Planning Commission did not have a detailed discussion of what other alternatives might exist nor did the Commissioners have the knowledge of Stanford's longer-term plans in order to assess what other alternative sources of housing there might be. The Commission understood the City made a commitment to 65-257 01/22/91 support the rezoning of the property for the Psychiatric Center, and given a substantial amount of development could have been built as a result, it seemed appropriate to lock Stanford into providing some form of housing if they were to build beyond the 175,000 square feet scheduled for the Psychiatric Center. Council Member Renzel understood the item was a general land use change. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said that was correct. The EIR started out to be on a specific development proposal. The development proposal was withdrawn about 80 percent through the EIR process. The EIR was on a general plan change, but it was more specific in terms of development issues than would normally be the case. Council Member Renzel referred to the proposed change on the triangle site and asked if basically any medical use could go in there. Mr. Schreiber clarified any academically-related medical use could go in there as unincorporated land controlled by Santa Clara County. Council Member Renzel understood all the examples in the report for purposes of determining the impacts were generic and not specific, and no anticipated Psychiatric Hospital was expected to be built there in the near future. Mr. Schreiber deferred to the Stanford representatives for elaboration but said as of the Planning Commission meeting, there was no indication of a separate, stand-alone Psychiatric Hospital. Council Member Renzel asked what staff would recommend if the property was part of the City of Palo Alto, and they were deter- mining how to zone the site or designate it on the land use map. Mr. Schreiber said there was no dispute about the Campus Drive site, but both the rectangle and the triangle had twice been recommended by staff as multiple-family residential. Council Member Levy said proposed development of the triangle site at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1:1 would result in 640,000 square feet of development, which was far more than Stanford indicated they proposed to build based on their plans for the next ten years. He asked if there was any way of recommending a smaller FAR and what might be appropriate if Council approved development as a medical center. 65-258 01/22/91 Mr. Schreiber said the Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance did not have FARs. There was no floor area maximum for the site other than a combination of site coverage and height regulations. In initially working with Santa Clara on the scope of the EIR, the question arose as to what would be the reasonable maximum level of development rather than a proposal. They looked at the adjacent PF zoned areas in Palo Alto with a 1:1 FAR for Medical Center-related uses. Staff advised Santa Clara County that a 1:1 FAR represented the reasonable maximum development of the site. Staff had not looked at what could be a lower FAR. There was PF-zoned property in the area that had a .5 FAR which would be one alternative. The Hoover Pavilion site was a .25 FAR, which could be an alternative. Finally, the specific development levels would be set through a Use Permit process by Santa Clara County, so when development came in on the site, it would be subject to a separate Use Permit process which the City would then review and comment on to the Santa Clara County Planning Commission. Council Member McCown referred to Page 8 of the December 7, 1990, staff report to the Planning Commission and the figures for the demand for new housing units. She understood the difference between using the 1:1 FAR and the 1.8 FAR but queried the other range from 572 to 1691 in terms of how the numbers were arrived at. Senior Planner Sarah Cheney said the numbers were based on the possible density on the site going from either 20 to 30 units per acre. Council Member McCown noted the comment that the only housing mitigations identified in the Draft EIR were not true mitigations, but were basically statements about future studies and plan updates. Two sites were mentioned in the General Use Permit, and she clarified most of the housing mitigation discussed in the General Use Permit was related to future feasibility studies. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member McCown clarified the Ryan Lab Site was intended for 26 faculty units. Mr. Schreiber said the site was under construction and there were 400 beds of student housing, half of which was under construction or would be in the near future. Vice Mayor Fazzino hypothesized if Council pursued the possibility of requiring housing at a site at a location other than the rectangle, whether it would be possible to create a baseline for housing, factoring in all of Stanford's known housing plans over the next few years, and then beyond that baseline requiring 65-259 01/22/91 location of units under the subject and other proposals in the future. Mr. Schreiber believed the baseline could be established in a reasonably firm way. The guideline would be the geographic scope. If Council went in that direction, he recommended looking at sites on Stanford lands in the broadest sense, which would include the former Mayfield School site, Arastradero, and the Research Park which was designated for housing, as well as potential sites in San Mateo County. Council Member Kniss sensed the Planning Commissioners would have preferred something more comprehensive to have been before them. She asked how that could have been accomplished, why it was not accomplished, and what they could do toward that end. Mr. Glazier said that was correct. It made sense for the Commis- sion to approve some limit on development and then some housing requirement, and then let Stanford, with its knowledge of what its needs were and how the medical complex would evolve, take it from there. Mr. Schreiber noted staff did have a fairly good grasp of Stanford- related developments in the sense that a Santa Clara Use Permit was approved one and one-half years ago outlining a potential list of projects over the next 10 or more years. The present EIR was really a land use change more than a specific project. The problem was that because of a variety of academic, financial and policy reasons, the mix and timing of those projects could vary substan- tially, so the City did not really know how fast Stanford West would move along. Campus-related development had been signifi- cantly impacted by the earthquake. While on one hand, staff had a relatively good list of potential projects, on the other hand, within a short time frame, there was not a good understanding of what was likely to come forward. Council Member Kniss was looking for some sort of cohesion as to how the medical aspect would develop, especially given that the hospital moved itself physically into a totally new building. She found it frustrating they were talking about new square footage and not discussing what was already on the campus. Mr. Schreiber said last fall when Council approved the 851 Welch Road zone change, it referred to the Planning Commission the issue of Medical Center-related uses and development patterns in the area. City staff met with Stanford staff twice prior to prepara- tion of the staff report in order to find a way to incorporate into the Planning Commission's December discussion the overall issue of what the Medical Center was likely to experience in terms of changes. The problem was Palo Alto and Stanford staff was unable 65-260 01/22/91 to nail down a sense of specific developments likely to occur within a reasonable time frame. Therefore, the staff report essentially concluded for the Welch Road parcels, the development assumption was the existing floor area ratio rather than some higher number, even though Stanford indicated an interest in a higher number in connection with potential absorption of Welch Road sites into the larger Medical Center. Council Member Renzel asked if the properties under discussion had been subdivided off and were actual parcel lines. Mr. Schreiber said no as was the case with almost all Stanford lands. Council Member Renzel asked how one computed development regula- tions. Mr. Schreiber said the framework was the area that was zoned a particular zoning classification, and/or was subject to a particu- lar Use Permit. In the instant case, the Use Permit issued by Santa Clara County would establish the specific setbacks and other regulations because it would be issued in conjunction with a set of development plans. There was no separate parcel to establish those. Council Member Renzel clarified the parcel became whatever the development plan said it was. Mr. Schreiber said essentially that was correct. Most of the 8,000+ acres of Stanford land was one parcel. Council Member Renzel asked how the County dealt with Golden Triangle guidelines without specific parcels and if the future was relatively unknown with respect to those things not included in the development plan for a specific parcel, or whether the County was applying and Golden Triangle guidelines to Stanford or in the unincorporated area. Mr. Schreiber was uncertain precisely how the County would apply Golden Triangle standards. If he was the one who worked it out for Santa Clara County, it would be important to remember the Golden Triangle floor area limits policies were averages. They were not site-specific, so there could be higher or lower floor area ratios. Looking at the entire campus and related areas, the existing floor area ratios were probably below the Golden Triangle limit. The second consideration was the strong commitments within the Use Permit to increasing the transportation and land management program to keep the number of drivers at the current level and absorb the increased employment in alternatives to single-occupant automo- biles. Given that commitment and the flexible nature of the lands 65-261 01/22/91 involved, he believed a finding would be made that the broader campus area, even with additional development, was consistent with the Golden Triangle effort. Council Member Renzel agreed that might be true, but queried if that would not be the same as Palo Alto having Property A being developed and Property B as a vacant lot. While adding them together would still be below the Golden Triangle guidelines, she queried what measurement would be used if Property B came in with a development application. Mr. Schreiber said Palo Alto looked at all nonresidential parcels, the total square footage, and the total amount of site area. They were well below the .35 Golden Triangle floor area ratio for those parcels and, in fact, were below even before the reduced square footage brought about through the Citywide Study. Council Member Renzel said the City did not penalize one property owner by allowing the density to be shifted to someone else's property. Equitability occurred by putting the same FAR on all the properties. She understood there were slight differences in some areas, but in terms of new development, people were not allowed to exceed the Golden Triangle guidelines. Mr. Schreiber said Stanford Research Park had a .4 FAR, not the .35 of the Golden Triangle process; and downtown had a 1:1 FAR. The City also had areas with lower actual FARs, and the bottom line was the actual amount of development. Taking all the properties and the actual uses covered under the Golden Triangle policy, they were in the range of .3 FAR, or a little below that. Council Member Renzel queried if Stanford was not subdivided and it was developed to a 1:1 FAR until they got to the last parcel, which might be fairly large, how they could do anything on the parcel and comply with the Golden Triangle. Mr. Schreiber said a lot of land, such as the Arboretum, had no development, many other portions of the campus had relatively low- density development, and some portions were 1:1 or higher. When they were averaged together, they would not be in violation of the Golden Triangle standards because of the amount of land involved, and the amount of land not developed or developed with very low levels. Council Member Renzel understood what Mr. Schreiber was saying about the present but did not agree with the philosophy. She referred to the EIR discussion of square footages and understood Stanford had almost 641,000 square feet. She read the current Medical Center had about 241 square feet per employee, and when that number was divided into the 641,000 square feet, she came up 65-262 01/22/91 with something like 2,300 employees instead of the 560 projected for the huge number of square feet. She asked how the 560 was arrived at and whether that was what they were projecting at De Monet, for example. Alicia Guerra, David J. Powers & Associates, consultant, said those numbers were obtained from the Medical Center Region Plan. Council Member Renzel was correct the numbers were based on a certain number of employees per square feet. The numbers also included charter hospital estimates for the Psychiatry Center Hospital. Mayor Sutorius queried the rationale for setting 175,000 gross square feet as the cut-off in the final recommendation worked out during the Planning Commission meeting. He queried what was so magic about the 154,000 square feet and the 22,000 square feet which was how they arrived at the 175,000 square feet. The development boundaries were not fixed. There were likelihoods of certain things occurring, but he did not see the scenario that suggested 175,000 square feet was necessarily the next thing that was going to happen; or if it happened involving that particular kind of use, that it might be somewhere else within that triangle. Mr. Schreiber clarified the rationale for the 175,000 square feet was tied to the use permit process and was essentially the square footage on the area included in the Santa Clara County Use Permit process and EIR. The Santa Clara County Use Permit did not cover the site, but it was an assumed amount of development that was studied in the process. Since that amount of square footage was studied in a separate process and was subject to various mitigati- ons through Santa Clara County, any additional housing mitigation should focus on additional square footage beyond that which the County already recognized in its overall Use Permit process. While it was not specifically approved for the site, it recognized that square footage was somewhere in the planning stages. Absent the Psychiatric Hospital, there was no specific development that totaled that amount of square footage; and given the testimony at the Planning Commission meeting, it might be a long time before the site reached that level of development. Mayor Sutorius hoped the applicant could elaborate on whether Stanford was looking at anything with those numbers in the future. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Phil Williams, Director of Planning, Stanford University, clarified the purpose of the project was to change the County land use designation to University Lands Campus to allow the implementation of their plans for the Medical Center. The project did not include any specific building projects but would allow the application for those projects in the future. When such projects were proposed, 65-263 01/22/91 Palo Alto would review each one, environmental assessments would be required, and appropriate mitigations would be prescribed. It premature to discuss such mitigations in the absence of projects. Stanford's long-range plans for the Medical Center were described in the 1988 Region Plan and in the County General Use Permit, which were public record. Those plans were the basis for the EIR the Council was studying. Also, Stanford's part of the plan proposed by Council Member McCown in the action on the 851 Welch Road rezoning to establish the FAR capacity required in the center, was well underway. All the plans supported the long-term wisdom of reserving both the triangle and the rectangle parcels for future Medical Center uses. He corrected the impression recorded in the December 12, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. It was asserted by a Commissioner that the sites used to have tree cover, and that Stanford cut down the trees. On reviewing photographs from the present going back to 1916, the same trees had been on the sites during the whole period, although they had grown. In fact, the sites were not only bare but cultivated fields during part of the period. The Land Use designation requested would allow housing in addition to medical uses. Specifying housing on the rectangle site to the exclusion of other uses as recommended by the Planning Commission seemed to require either that the County condition the General Plan amendment, or that they develop a new County Land Use designation which did not now exist. Stanford did not believe it was useful to raise those issues at that time. Stanford continued to agree with the need for housing, and over the past 30 years, their added housing kept pace with faculty and student growth. Stanford had future plans and current construction was underway to add over 1,300 units of housing on the campus and in the Stanford West area which were not tied to any specific project. Stanford was also aware of the Council's desire to tie the housing more closely to specific projects, but to specify housing at that point on the rectangle site years in advance of development, seemed premature and could risk the kind of problem the Council had been dealing with Downtown with the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. Since Stanford built housing as they could without specific ties to projects, a policy which created an incentive to hold back on housing until they could count it would not be in Stanford's interests, nor the Council's, and it was difficult to negotiate thoughtful policies in that form. Therefore, Stanford requested the Council's recommendation to the County might be to urge a means be developed to create a beneficial housing policy; perhaps a small working group or another idea Council, but that tacking a site- specific or number-specific provision on the General Plan amendment was premature and would be done in the absence of a well-considered policy. Council Member McCown queried Stanford's completing the analysis on the Medical Center area first, and then proceeding with the General Plan approach on those sites. 65-264 01/22/91 Mr. Williams said there were several parts to the answer. One was the process of applying for the General Plan amendment began a year and one-half ago when Stanford had a specific project in mind, and once the EIR was 80 percent or more complete, it seemed prudent to complete it and the General Plan amendment process before it became outdated and they had to start all over. While Stanford had lost the ability to build the hospital, it found ways to finance the Medical School, Clinic, and faculty office parts of the project and wanted to move ahead as soon as possible in conjunction with hiring a new department head for the Psychiatric Department. It wanted to have the General Plan amendment in place so later that spring it could proceed with the one project. Having needed the General Plan amendment for one project, it seemed "piecemeal" to deal with part of the site and better to go ahead with the project to deal with the whole site comprehensively. Council Member Levy asked what an appropriate FAR would be as a cap for using the sites spoken to, given Stanford's planning projecting out to the year 2,000. Mr. Williams said the answer depended partly on how long the cap would be for. For instance, the thresholds in their County General Use Permit took them to a certain level of growth estimated to be by the year 2,000. In the plans Stanford was doing in response to the capacity study, for example, they found if they took the projects described in the plan and the current thinking about those same projects, and located them ideally, functionally in the Medical Center area, it looked like in the existing Palo Alto PF zone in the Medical Center, they might add about 230,000 square feet. In the Welch Road inboard parcels, if they could reacquire them all and develop them for the things that should be there, they would add about 320,000 square feet, and that would leave about 250,000 square feet for the Quarry parcels based on the plans they knew of presently, or the needs they could describe for the next 20 years. Looking at the question that way, Stanford might develop the Quarry parcels over a 20-year period to no more than a .35 or .5 FAR. If during the period where Stanford needed those facili- ties and could find the financing to build them, they could not reacquire all the Welch Road parcels, and that put more pressure on the triangle and the rectangle parcels. For that reason, Stanford wanted to be open-ended. The overall FAR Stanford would need within the Welch Road area, the existing Medical Center, and the Quarry parcels, would be less than a FAR of 1:1. Because the triangle parcel was narrow and had a curious geometry, the amount of development was not likely to be over a .5 FAR if they had parking and the other needed things on that site. Stanford guessed it was not likely it would be able to develop the triangle to a FAR of l:1, which put more pressure on the other parcels. 65-265 01/22/91 Council Member Renzel said the Use Permit included some of Stanford's expansion, and showed 2.1 million square feet of potential expansion over the whole campus. In the subject report, at the worst case, 641,000 square feet were proposed on the triangle site and about 200,000 square feet on the rectangle site. She queried the large increase over the 2.1 million square feet Council was assured would be the ultimate development. Mr. Williams clarified the 2.1 million square feet of development was assured to the year 2000 as indicated in the Use Permit. It was true the Medical Center Region Plan which went out to the year 2010 went past the Use Permit by an amount. All the projects developed in the Medical Center Region Plan were the ones described in the square footages he provided which totaled about 650,000 square feet in all the Medical Center area. Council Member Renzel clarified the three numbers given totaled 8,000 square feet. She asked if it was correct that precise locations and details were not yet decided for the various facili- ties in the Medical Center Region Plan. Mr. Williams said that was correct. Stanford was currently working on those numbers which was why he was able to identify the numbers within certain areas, like inboard of Welch Road, the existing PF parcel, etc. Stanford was presently focusing on a plan which located those facilities under ideal locations and then back-up it up in case they could not reacquire the Welch Road parcels when needed. The back-up would be the triangle and rectangle parcels. Council Member Renzel asked if the inboard Welch Road parcels were vacant, and whether Stanford would be considering anything on the triangle. Mr. Williams said the triangle development could be about 250,000 square feet, which primarily included the Psychiatric Building and the possibility of a future Psychiatric Hospital if they outgrew the facilities presently arranged for in the existing hospital. Council Member Renzel asked the size of the hospital portion of the current Medical Center. Mr. Williams said about 1.8 million square feet. Council Member McCown understood the project, which was a piece of the Psychiatric Hospital concept, was the 60,000 square foot project. She asked if that was close to being brought forward. Mr. Williams said Stanford had hired a consultant to refine the program and narrow down the square footage required for the uses described, and would hire an architect in the spring, if things 65-266 01/22/91 went well. He estimated it would actually submit for a specific Use Permit on that building before the end of 1991. Council Member McCown referenced the preliminary numbers and asked about the timing in regard to the City's request to look at the overall FAR cap. Mr. Williams could not be specific. He believed the basic work was three-fourths done and estimated a month to six weeks. Council Member Kniss presumed the 1.8 million square feet in the Medical Center complex was from stem to stern, except for the Children's Hospital. Mr. Williams said it included the Children's Hospital. Council Member Kniss queried adding square footage when she could not imagine there was not something available in the old hospital. Mr. Williams said the old hospital was packed full. There was space in the East or West Pavilion presently empty for construction and re-outfitting with modern beds including 40 psychiatric. That process was underway and the wing would then be full, and that was part of moving inpatient care out of the current Hoover Pavilion into that space. Other space within the Medical School complex had to be vacated for seismic upgrades, and Stanford was building more Medical School facilities in the future to accommodate that. Council Member Kniss understood many hospital facilities were joining together or even going out of business, and it seemed unusual not to have any of those problems in the community. Mr. Williams said Stanford Hospital was growing and more beds were being filled. Also, there were many ancillary facilities to a Medical School besides the actual patient beds. Most of the square footage was in research, teaching, and other kinds of facilities. Mayor Sutorius queried the figure of 250,000 square feet on Quarry. Mr. Williams clarified the round number included all the facilities in the plan and the Psychiatric Medical Building, a Psychiatric Hospital, and an allowance of 100,000 square feet for additional clinical facilities. Stanford believed 250,000 square feet would be a maximum development there. Mayor Sutorius was trying to reconcile the 250,000 square feet to the 325,000 square feet. Mr. Williams said the difference might be the Medical School Academic building which Stanford no longer intended to put there. 65-267 01/22/91 Mr. Schreiber said what might have happened was the 1:1 FAR was the base and space was allocated backward starting with the Psychiatric Center and Hospital, and then other areas ended up with numbers not related to specific projects. Ms. Guerra referred to Table 4, page 14, of the EIR, which gave a breakdown of the footprint square footage and the gross square footage proposed for the old Psychiatry Center. The correct number of 154,525 square feet included the hospital at 67,875 square feet, the hospital addition at 22,525 square feet which was incorrectly added to get to the 177,777 square feet; and then the Academic Building which was roughly 64,000 square feet. The total square footage for the Psychiatry Center was 154,524. Mr. Williams said the triangle was the site on which Stanford had projected facilities that were in their program for the next 20 years. Beyond that, Stanford needed some reserve and considered the rectangle to be it even though a specific flag post had not been planted. Ms. Guerra responded to a previous question of Council Member Renzel, and said for the joint venture facility that would have gone in for the Psychiatry Center, the charter projections had a total population of 578 employees with various estimates for inpatients, outpatients, visitors, and students for a total of 911 people for the Psychiatry Center, and that was based on the type of facility they ran. What Stanford projected was based on a square footage of one employee per 274 square feet and resulted in a total number of employees on the triangle site of 1,185 jobs including the Psychiatry Center use. Mr. Williams clarified the 274 square feet per employee was based on the uses of similar facilities in the Medical Center; the office and clinic kinds of activities, not the Medical Center as a whole. If that number was applied to the almost 2 million square feet of the whole Medical Center, there would be 8,000 employees and that was not the case. Council Member Renzel asked how many employees there were in the Medical Center. Mr. Williams believed it was in the 4,000 to 5,000 range counting all three shifts, including faculty, employees in the Medical School, and the staff in the hospital. The number had fluctuated up and was now back down. Mayor Sutorius asked Mr. Williams's for his recommendation. 65-268 01/22/91 Mr. Williams suggested Council recommend to the County that it certify the EIR and adopt the General Plan amendment to the designation "University Lands - Campus." Beyond that Council needed to determine what message it wanted to give to the County regarding its concerns about density and housing. It was appropri- ate for Council to recommend to the County the development of an overall housing policy that met the County's, City's, and Stanford's needs. He hoped Council would not recommend a site specific housing recommendation which would be just a piece of the picture and not in the context of an overall housing plan. Mayor Sutorius queried whether a logical way of approaching the flexibility Stanford desired would be for Council to go with what it had but modify the condition to tie the rectangle site to housing, continue with the 175,000 cut-off, and say something about the approval of a housing project on the rectangle, unless equivalent housing was previously approved and constructed as a formerly-identified substitute. Mr. Williams believed something like that could work. It was hard to know when to start counting. Stanford had been advised they would not be credited for what it had already done or planned, so he did not know how to start the process and did not want to get in a position of holding back. The 1,300 units presently on the drawing board could be looked at as almost the mitigation required for the whole 2,000 population increase by the year 2000. They needed to sit down and figure out the right approach. The EIR had Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, and one approach might be to recommend approval of the General Plan amendment and express a preference for Scenario 2. He expressed concern over making a site specific commitment now that they might all regret in 8 or 10 years. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Woolley, to approve Planning Commission recommendations deleting Recommendation A.1 and revising Recommendation A.2 and B.2: A. Recommend to Santa Clara County that the following mitigation measures be required as conditions of approval for the proposed General Plan Amendment: 1. A condition be placed in the text of the County General Plan Amendment which requires that approval beyond the first nonresidential project, not to exceed 175,000 square feet, on the Triangle site be tied to approval and construction of a housing project on the Rectangle site on Stanford University lands beyond those currently under consideration, including a direction to staff to return with a list of known housing programs and plans to provide a baseline; 65-269 01/22/91 2. The development permitted under the General Plan Amendment and future use permits be incorporated into the Transportation Demand Management Program required of Stanford for approval of the Stanford General Use Permit; and 3. Approval of development on the Triangle site be conditioned on the widening of Arboretum Road between Quarry Road and Palm Drive as identified at the top of page 76 of the Draft EIR, with additional measures described in Comment No. 9 (a) and (b) in Attachment A of Attachment II; and construction of the further widening of Quarry Road between Arboretum and Welch Roads as described on page 4 of the attached July 20, 1990 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment D of Attachment II). These conditions should be applied when driveways associated with development of the Triangle site directly impact the identified roadway segments. B. Recommend to the Santa Clara County Planning Commission the following changes to the Santa Clara County General Plan Land Use Map: 1. Change the triangle site from "University Lands - Study Area" and "University Lands - Academic Reserve and Open Space" to "University Lands - Campus;" 2. Change the rectangle site from "University Lands - Study Area" and "University Lands - Academic Reserve and Open Space"; and 3. Change the Campus Drive site from "University Lands - Study Area" to "University Lands - Academic Reserve and Open Space." Vice Mayor Fazzino believed any additional development in the Stanford area necessitated additional housing. At the same time, he concurred with statements made at the Planning Commission meeting about the horrendous nature of the site for housing right between a shopping center and the Medical Center. In light of the deliberations of the Council with respect to the Palo Alto Medical Clinic and all the problems and issues they addressed in buffer areas between commercial and residential, Council was asking for a tremendous number of problems by placing housing on the site. There were more appropriate areas on Stanford land in Santa Clara County and in Palo Alto for Stanford to meet the obligation. It was important for the Council to work with Stanford to identify other sites for the housing. 65-270 01/22/91 Council Member Woolley concurred with changes as proposed by Vice Mayor Fazzino regarding the Land Use maps, and suggested Council might also want to make the change to delete the second one on the top of page 6 and say "Triangle Site and Rectangle Site" for the first one, which would change them both to "University Lands - Campus." Mr. Schreiber said if that was the Council's desire, a separate motion should be made to refer back to the Planning Commission an amendment of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for the rectangle site. Those two sites needed to be consistent and Palo Alto's plan was presently housing. Council Member Woolley believed while everyone was eager to see housing in connection with further development, everyone was concerned about where it would go. Vice Mayor Fazzino's approach allowed more flexibility. While the housing had to be there, it did not have to be in the specific location, and the flexibility would lead to the best possible ultimate project not only for the University but also for Palo Alto. Council Member Renzel could not disagree more with the proposed amendment. For more than ten years, they had residential desig- nated on both the triangle and rectangle sites in the Comprehensive Plan. They were large sites equivalent to city blocks. Nobody said Stanford West, Welch and Pasteur, nor Menlo Park on the other side of the creek were inappropriate sites for housing, and they were all in the same general proximity to the same uses, the Medical Center and the shopping center. The motion said if they eliminated all the places Stanford had already proposed to build housing and the Council allowed those parcels to be used for nonresidential uses, they were requiring other open space that Stanford currently had and had not proposed for development either in the Use Permit, in the City's plan or in previously-announced projects to be added to development, further intensifying the amount of use in the area. Stanford had no specific plans for the sites at present. They were in the process of a specific plan for the Medical Center, and the Council was falling over themselves for something 20 years in the future that would be a big mistake to do right now. She queried where the maker of the motion could foresee Stanford could put housing not already proposed in its Use Permit. The Council should seriously consider its policy with respect to how much development should occur and whether it was going to force collateral development for development on the parcels, instead of saying part of the parcels should be housing within a balanced package. There was nothing wrong with housing on the site which was big enough to be buffered. The Clinic had problems because it was in the midst of an already developed area, and it had not been a good neighbor, and did not have adequate parking, etc. If the 65-271 01/22/91 project was planned properly, presumably it would not suffer from those same problems. There was no urgency for the Council to release what it had held for more than ten years as residentially- designated property in the City's Comprehensive Plan to be used for Medical Center uses. Council Member McCown did not agree the parcels were inappropriate for housing; however, the parcels fit better and were needed by the University for Medical Center uses. She was encouraged to hear that Stanford was trying to achieve a comprehensive look at its long-term needs for the whole area surrounding the Medical Center. She believed the Council was putting off a process they should be discussing then. The project was premature and was being pushed through for reasons that made no sense as a planning matter. It made more sense to complete Stanford's analysis for the Medical Center and then there might be a compelling case for use of the site. It would also give Council the opportunity to say the rectangle site should be reserved for housing use, and if the University could demonstrate an alternative site would serve that purpose better, then exchange it. Council needed to send the message, and she believed Stanford agreed in principle, that there needed to be a balance achieved and maintained between the amount of development going forward in job-generating use and the amount of development going forward in housing. She was concerned the project would not get at those issues in a way that would achieve the purposes of both Palo Alto and Stanford. The Planning Commission recommendation was the best compromise given the document before, and she preferred to see Council act on the Planning Commission recommendation. Council Member Levy agreed with Vice Mayor Fazzino's amendments in general, but it seemed premature to redesignate the rectangle site then to "campus" because, in fact, they were continuing the study of it in the context of the residential study recommended by the amendment. Presently, it was more appropriate to keep the rectangle site designated as study area. Given the needs of the University, there was no urgency that it be moved into a "campus" designation. If Council did that, it was in danger of the designation taking on a life of its own independent of the study. MAKER AND SECOND INCORPORATED LANGUAGE TO AMEND SECTION B(2) OF THE MOTION TO KEEP THE RECTANGLE SITE DESIGNATED AS STUDY AREA AMENDMENT: Council Member Renzel moved that only a portion of the triangle be redesignated to campus sufficient to allow the 64,000 square foot building. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND 65-272 01/22/91 Council Member Renzel opposed the motion. Clearly, when the matter went to the County, what the Council recommended was just one input and more likely than not it would get watered down further. Going in with a weak residential housing policy was a mistake. AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, to add "with a maximum FAR density of .5:1" to the end of Recommendation B.1. Council Member Levy did not want the 1:1 FAR burned into every- body's memory, and Stanford did not need more than .5 FAR at present. If Stanford needed more, it would have to make its case at that time. AMENDMENT PASSED 4-3, Fazzino, Sutorius, Woolley, "no," Andersen, Cobb "not participating." MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 6-1, Renzel voting "no," Andersen, Cobb absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 14. Mayor Sutorius re Council Vacation (701) Item continued to a future City Council meeting ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:19 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.200(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 two years from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 65-273 01/22/91 65-274 01/22/91