Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-01-28 City Council Summary MinutesRegular Meeting January 28, 1991 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:37 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Cobb, Kniss, Fazzino, Levy, McCown, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, P. O. Box 213, spoke regarding peace officers' priorities and the crime problem. Michael Tiemann, 854 University Avenue, spoke regarding Palo Alto peace officers' actions outside the boundaries of professional courtesy with regard to an employee of his company. James E. O'Brien, 101 Alma Street, spoke regarding petition by residents of 101 Alma concerning traffic situation on Alma. Chris Roden, representing Board of Directors of 101 Alma Street, spoke regarding suggestions to reduce speed on Alma and increase visibility for residents of 101 Alma. Howard H. Smith, 3267 Emerson Street, spoke regarding parking as a source of revenue, including a fee for overnight parking. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic and national responsibility. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Consent Calendar Items 1 - 4. Action 1. Preventive Maintenance Services for Storm Pumping Stations - Rejection of Bid (1073) (CMR:128:1) 2. ORDINANCE 4010 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION TO THE VISUAL ARTS PROGRAM IN THE ARTS AND CULTURE DIVISION AND INCREASE CLASS REGISTRA- TION REVENUES" (1303) (CMR:123:1) 3. Animal Services Division Donations - Expenditure of Funds (1051) (CMR:126:1)4. 4. RESOLUTION 6961 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION 65-273 1/28/91 TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 10,300-SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE USE AS PART OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT WHERE A 5,000-SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE USE WOULD OTHERWISE BE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3981 EL CAMINO REAL AND SUSTAINING THE APPEAL THEREOF" (300) MOTION PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission policy recommendations regarding the Palo Alto Medical Foundation's Draft Specific Plan (1031) (CMR:131:1) Mayor Sutorius said the process began several years ago with informal, fact finding discussions with appropriate staff represen- tatives in the City. After receiving an application from the applicant, an initial study determined that an environmental impact report (EIR) would be required. There had been considerable effort on the part of the applicant, staff, and consultants before the formal hearing process and neighborhood participation as the EIR and the tentative Specific Plan were being constructed. The Planning Commission evaluated the second draft EIR, and recommen- dations, with staff-associated observations and extensive public communications, were brought before the Council. Unless Council determined at the conclusion of the public hearing that no project would proceed, development of recommendations on the policies to guide the development of the Specific Plan, including any recommen- dations with respect to necessary Comprehensive Plan amendments would continue. The next step would be a series of implementation approaches, including planned community zoning changes, and a specific site and design review incorporating Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission recommendations which would ulti- mately return to the Council. Council Member Levy said he had visited the facilities and talked to proponents and opponents of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). He queried how much residential land might be rezoned by the Planning Commission's recommendation and how much land would be rezoned residential. Assistant Planning Official George Zimmerman said the west block would be entirely rezoned from multiple-family residential to planned community (PC) and the Urgent Care site would be rezoned from multiple-family residential to either R-1 or R-2 and redesig- nated on the Comprehensive Plan to single family. Council Member Levy clarified PAMF was not grandfathered into the present uses. He queried if that restricted them from modern- ization or from enlargement. Mr. Zimmerman said because PAMF was not grandfathered, they were restricted them from enlargement. 65-274 1/28/91 Council Member Levy queried if institutional usage on half of the west block was grandfathered in and whether it would remain as long as the use remained. Mr. Zimmerman said that was correct. Under the Planning Commis- sion's recommendation, the clinic-owned portion of the north block would be retained in clinic services and presumedly rezoned to PC. Member Levy said PAMF was a non-profit organization and did not pay any property taxes. He queried if PAMF would continue to pay fees in lieu of taxes. Mayor Sutorius said yes, and the last payment under the annual payment schedule was received on July 1, 1990. Council Member Levy queried what that meant for the future. Mayor Sutorius said the agreement established the purposes, the conditions, and any exemptions or changes relating to any situation where the tax-exempt status of PAMF or any of its parcels might change, in which case the reduction in the fee process would be dollar for dollar. If tax-exempt status was removed, then a tax dollar was assigned and the fee would be reduced by one dollar. Council Member Renzel queried if the Council, as part of the process, could remove grandfathering of non-residential uses and residential properties. Director of Planning and Community Environment Kenneth Schreiber believed it was possible; and while specifics would have to be looked at, he did not see any procedural impediment. Council Member Andersen queried the number of physicians in 1970, 1980, and 1990 employed at PAMF; and if the proposal as modified was approved, the number of physicians anticipated by 2000 or 2010. Council Member Cobb queried the appropriate areas of litigation and protection for the immediate neighborhood. He was interested in focusing thought on restricting the development on the main and west blocks, the potential use of the earth space on Bryant Street, and preventing further impact on the neighborhood. If the project was to continue moving forward, he was interested in how a policy decision and direction could be crafted to the Planning Commission which would have the greatest flexibility to the people developing the Specific Plan and have a creative and protective design for surrounding neighborhoods. Council Member Woolley wanted the public to address priorities in terms of the preservation of the older buildings and the use of space. Assuming a definite parameter for the project was ulti- mately determined, she queried whether the public would most like to see the space used as single-story buildings so that most of the 65-275 1/28/91 space was built upon, multi-story buildings with landscaping, or surface or underground parking. Vice Mayor Fazzino was interested in the requirements that could be made with respect to both start and completion of construction and whether the City could take any action with respect to direct or indirect financing of the construction. He was interested in any plans PAMF had with regard to development of other sites in the downtown area, regardless of what happened with the subject proposal, and the whole issue of traffic and parking and what mitigations the neighborhood felt were absolutely essential in order for parking and traffic issues to be addressed. He queried if any negotiations were going on between PAMF and Stanford. Mayor Sutorius said the outcome should be beneficial to the community and with the least impact upon the immediate neighbor- hood. He would like to see PAMF's primary activities confined to the west and main blocks. The City could not control the building at Waverley Street and Channing Avenue which was occupied by the president. In order to provide for an aesthetic, functionally effective site design for the west and north blocks, he encouraged support of an air space opportunity for an all-weather covered bridge between the two facilities which would improve safety. The design would be enhanced if the height limit of 44 feet was increased to a maximum of 58 feet to allow one additional floor on the lead building. The north block should be cleared of clinic and foundation space requirements so the City could be in control of both areas and their use compatibility. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Robert Jamplis, M.D., President of the PAMF, 300 Homer Avenue, said when the project started three and one-half years ago, it was to develop a long-range plan which would benefit the neighbors, PAMF patients, and the City. After a year of talking to the neighbors, they came up with a Specific Plan to contract off 9 blocks to 2-l/4 blocks and cross Channing Avenue, move everything, and leave the neighborhood south of Channing Avenue; to provide adequate parking during all phases of the project; conform to the neighborhood and be a source of pride for everyone; and continue practicing medicine. PAMF was a large multi-specialty group practice with sophisticated technology acquired to give the patients the best of care. PAMF had no plans of moving elsewhere. However, the EIR mandated that they look at other sites. PAMF talked with Stanford and Maximart and looked at property owned by Hewlett Packard at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real and the site at University Avenue and Bayshore Road. PAMF was a long way from any deals but hoped Stanford would be a viable alternative. He emphasized the need for the Specific Plan as the realities of moving were small; and regardless, a site would always be main- tained in downtown Palo Alto as either an urgent care or primary care presence 65-276 1/28/91 Gordon Russel, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the PAMF, 300 Homer Street, said the PAMF held its charter as a not-for-profit organization and consisted of the clinic, the Palo Alto Research Institute, and the Health Education Division. The mission of the PAMF was to maintain the quality and the cost of care and the research in the same way it had for 60 years. PAMF was affected by the reductions in the reimbursement rates, especially regarding care of the elderly and the disadvantaged, and were trying to cast a three-year budget which considered what portion of care the federal government might provide. A major difficulty was the inadequacy of the facilities, including the clinic and the research institute, which needed upgrading to compete in the world of research and to maintain the standard of excellence. To solve the facilities problem, they had to rely on the financial aspect, help from friends, from patients, and from the trustees as donors to the clinic and to the PAMF, and they needed a workable agreement with the City. Specifically, PAMF needed 240,000 square feet of land and an additional 45,000 square feet of floor space at minimum, relief from any cap on employment to operate and plan judicially, and relief from any requirement for the mitigation as proposed. PAMF requested approval of the Specific Plan and support as the plan went forward, employing sensitivity and care for the environ- ment and for the neighbors. The PAMF was committed to providing the highest quality of health care and the most outstanding level of health care research and health education available anywhere in the western United States. David Druker, M.D., Executive Director of the Palo Alto Clinic, said Stanford was not a viable alternative for relocating. He wanted to focus on the affect the shortage of space was having on access to health care at the Palo Alto Clinic, and 35,000 square feet of expansion was not enough to fix the problem. While PAMF had the best doctors, nurses, and support staff in the world, patients could not get into the system to see their doctors. Primary care access, e.g., the general internist and pediatricians, had full schedules with long waiting times for appointments. PAMF needed to hire more primary care physicians to provide better access but did not have space available for them. There was a critical shortage of space at the Urgent Care Center where five physicians practiced out of six examination rooms, and at least ten rooms were needed. The Department of Radiology had one office for six positions. The Department of Dermatology had waiting times from four to six weeks for appointments. The newest physician practiced in a converted closet. PAMF had been chronically short of space for years, but the problem had gotten more acute, and the City needed to think about the future of health care in Palo Alto since PAMF took care of over 40 percent of the population. It was not just a PAMF problem but a Palo Alto problem as well. The number of primary care physicians in Palo Alto in private practices had dwindled in the last several years due to the cost of housing and the changing reimbursement policy by government and insurance companies which made it virtually impossible for solo practitioners to survive. There was no question the trend toward primary care 65-277 1/28/91 physicians joining group practices, like PAMF and Kaiser, would accelerate. Big organizations would continue to provide an increased amount of that type of care. To continue to care for the citizens of Palo Alto and particularly for the growing number of MediCare patients, PAMF needed more space for primary care physicians and 35,000 square feet was not enough. John Northway, 437 Lytton Avenue, consulting architect, reiterated that no project would be designed until after the Specific Plan and EIR were finalized. The 65,000 square feet requested in the original Specific Plan was not an negotiated number and was developed after working with the medical staff. If the plan was reduced to 45,000 square feet, the 20,000 square feet would have to be found in other locations. PAMF was currently considering what non-patient oriented facilities could be moved off campus. Regarding the housing mitigation, on page 109 of the draft EIR, there was a clear statement that the amount of land available for housing after the Specific Plan was executed would be greater than what currently existed for housing usage. The west block area currently occupied by PAMF was a conforming use and 33,750 square feet was the amount of land currently available for housing use. Tony Rossman, 380 Hayes Street, San Francisco, said several legal issues arose in the study session which had been addressed in written communication. PAMF offered to make available a lot for a child care facility at the corner of Channing Avenue and Ramona Street. While the Child Care Task Force wanted the site, it was not in a position to prepare a specific design any more than PAMF was ready to incorporate it into the Specific Plan. The environ- mental documentation on a child care facility would take place when a facility was proposed. The Council could record as part of the Specific Plan and final EIR that PAMF was making the site avail- able. Regarding the housing mitigation, the sum was so great it rendered the project financially infeasible. The proposed $848,000 mitigation was simply unprecedented and not authorized or called for in any of the planning documents or zoning ordinances of the City. The record contained a proposal that PAMF transfer the north block to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, which might be a good idea and eventuate from dialogue between the applicant and the Council, but the transfer had to be at fair market value. If PAMF made the transfer, it would still incur the costs of building on the main block or west block, and the facilities transferred on the north block would not be a free transaction for PAMF. PAMF needed to know whether the Council believed the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The notion that the Plan might be inconsistent originated with a letter that Sandy Sloan wrote to Senior Assistant City Attorney Susan Case last March during the early stages of environmental review. PAMF believed the Compre- hensive Plan was not inflexible with respect to employment growth and traffic increases but needed to know if the Council agreed so PAMF could prepare the final documents accordingly. Regarding the status of the older houses on Bryant Street were available to any 65-278 1/28/91 non-profit or profit corporation willing to move them. PAMF was willing to cooperate in the preservation of the houses. Judith Kemper, 326 Addison Avenue, queried the short- and long-term environmental impacts on the adjacent neighborhood from construc- tion, noise, dust, and dirt. While she believed service providers should move into residential areas so the traffic and transpor- tation would not be necessary, the EIR estimated an increase of 2,000 round trips a day for 65,000 square feet or 8 additional cars in the neighborhood every minute which the City could not absorb. Services needed to be spread to residential pockets. The dif- ference between the 45,000- and 35,000-square foot plan was the number of parking places required. She supported the lesser square footage so the trees along Bryant Street could be retained even though parking would be reduced. The trees were important and the older home character should be preserved. The downtown area was excellent for pedestrian-type activities. She encouraged the Council to limit the expansion to 35,000 square feet and not rezone any properties in the first phase and include the planning of the expansion with the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) plan. Jeanne Moulton, 319 Addison Avenue, did not support the expansion. She feared PAMF would not contain its growth and requested Council follow the recommendations of both the Planning Commission and staff and urged the establishment of firm restrictions on em- ployees, clients, parking, noise, and waste disposal. Employment and patient caps could be enforced by auditing clinic records, and fines could be levied if employees exceeded a certain level. Parking should be restricted on site and in surrounding neighbor- hoods. PAMF should be regulated according to the standards on noise and environmental pollutants for residential areas. PAMF generated industrial noises and produced industrial waste--an industrial plant in the middle of a residential neighborhood. She objected to project phasing, and phase one should be limited to remodeling with additional facilities to the main block. The west block should not be rezoned residential until the effects of phase one were known. She preferred the expansion take place on the main block and the parking on the north end of the project. She thought traffic should be diverted away from Addison Avenue, block through traffic on Addison Avenue, as envisioned in the Comprehen- sive Plan, and direct traffic northward. She thought 45,000 square feet was a bargaining position and 32,500 square feet would be a good compromise. She supported the development agreement and enforceable plan to monitor mitigation, but decisions were being made without neighborhood input. Elliott Bolter, 286 Walter Hays Drive, had been a patient at PAMF for 40 years. The campus plan addressed neighborhood concerns, and the consolidation plan of two and a quarter blocks as opposed to nine blocks made sense. Since two acres of land would be available for residential development, the extra residential mitigation plan request of $848,000 was unfair, especially in view of the accepted $3.00 per square foot housing mitigation. He requested Council approve the plan, grant 35,000 square feet of new 65-279 1/28/91 building, limit the housing mitigation to $3.00 per square foot on the new building, revoke the $848,000 mitigation, and eliminate any employment cap. Bishop Marvin Stuart, 850 Webster Street, No. 507, corrected a previous statement in that most of the residents at Lytton 1 and 2 were on MediCal not Medicare. He was impressed by the care given low-income patients. Bill McGlashan, 1019 Waverley Street, said the issue was incremen- talism and the need for a Comprehensive Plan. Everyone wanted PAMF to continue to be successful, and he urged Council to begin the satellite expansion now and not turn Palo Alto incrementally into an undesirable place to live. Robert Morgan, 1150 Byron Street, said while PAMF did an excellent job of providing health care, 78 percent of the patients came from outside Palo Alto. PAMF was a large regional health business, and its aspirations to become much larger would be at the expense of inflicting Palo Alto with a greater jobs/housing imbalance and traffic congestion. Studies concerning the future of the area listed traffic congestion as the number one problem. Seventy- eight percent of PAMF's patients would be better served if there were satellite locations in the patients' own cities. Cherilyn Widell, 738 Guinda Street, a member of the Board of Trustees of the California Preservation Foundation, noted the letters from the executive director of the California Preservation Foundation and Kathy Burns, Executive Director of the Western Regional Office of National Trust for Historic Preservation (on file in the City Clerk's Office), which offered assistance and financial resources for the rehabilitation and preservation of properties as indicated in the environmental report. She spoke on behalf of the University African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Zion Church, which received minimal consideration through the process. The congregation made an appeal to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) to save the church and to work with the congregation and the black community for suggestions and ideas for use. The recommen- dation in the EIR was to save the tree next to the church and install a placque documenting the church's history in the offices of PAMF. She believed the token gesture was unacceptable and trivialized the contribution of a large number of black Palo Altans. She urged consideration of the report submitted by Ken Alsman on February 25, 1990, the presentation of the AME Zion before the Palo Alto HRB on November 22, 1989, and the offer of assistance by both the California Preservation Foundation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation dated January 28, 1991. William Clark, 501 Portola Road, Portola Valley, joined the PAMF as physician number 26 in 1947 and served on the City Council between 1967 and 1973. In 1949 serious consideration was given to moving to the Greer horse pasture at the corner of Embarcadero Road and Newell Road to build an integrated clinic and hospital, which would 65-280 1/28/91 have solved the traffic flow problems. A few years later the clinic bought and later sold 20+ acres where Hewlett Packard was built at Alma Street and San Antonio Road. While the decisions not to relocate the entire facility to one of those sites might seem like opportunities lost, decisions were not made on hindsight. PAMF had long accepted its responsibility as an important resource serving the health care needs of Palo Alto and the area between San Carlos and Sunnyvale. PAMF had not expanded, the population had. To adjust to the 21st century changes and technology in health care distribution systems, facility modernization and modest space expansion were absolutely essential. He hoped the Council would agree to upgrading a vital community health service resource with the least impact on the neighborhood and within the broadest, not the most restrictive, guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. RECESS: 9:40 P.M. TO 9:52 P.M. Michael Price, 840 Kipling Street, believed PAMF should remodel but not expand because expansion would stress the neighborhood. It was not just a neighborhood issue since most of the patients lived outside the neighborhood. Elizabeth Kittas, 343 Shasta Drive, said the Board of the Palo Alto Stanford Heritage had followed the development of PAMF's plan, and some board members had participated in the process. They applauded PAMF's commitment to restore the Roth Building and its murals, the continued commitment to the psychiatric-clinic building, and the retention of houses on their sites as residences. They were concerned about the Planning Commission and staff recommendation to dismiss those properties of historic interest incapable of further contributions. Six houses from the Professorville area were proposed for demolition to make way for new housing, which no matter how sensibly designed, could not contribute as much to the character of the Professorville area. The AME Zion Church was the first black congregation on the Peninsula. Members of the church included families living in Palo Alto over l00 years. Its retention would provide suitable recognition of the contributions of that group and could become part of the west block campus plan. As a non-profit foundation, PAMF was eligible for certain preser- vation grants and loans, and the mandatory use of the state historic building code would allow greater flexibility in preserv- ing historic integrity. It was premature to allow those buildings, which were a part of the City's history, to be destroyed when suitable alternatives for their continued viability might be found. Ken Alsman, 1057 Ramona Street, supported the preservation and also the PAMF expansion. He did not support the Planning Commission's recommendation. PAMF had done everything incremen- tally over the past few years, and the proposal was an opportunity to work together. He showed a slide presentation which illustrated several opportunities for incorporating housing on the west block, north block, and the Urgent Care site. Housing mitigation was not needed if housing was provided on site. He urged the Council to 65-281 1/28/91 provide a policy, solve the issue of how large, and then get together with a group consisting of representatives from the City, the neighborhood, and PAMF. Chop Keenan, 700 Emerson Street, supported the 45,000-square foot plan, with applicable and equitable conditions. The employment cap was an impractical condition. It was important to focus on how the housing mitigation was addressed. Other opportunities had greater equity than the $850,000. The parking change being proposed was excellent, and eliminating all the parking in the neighborhood was a positive, long-term solution. PAMF was the anchor tenant of downtown Palo Alto, with a $50 million payroll, which was vital to the commercial neighbors. As a member of the Palo Alto Child Care Task Force (PACCTF), he was grateful that PAMF would allow a long- term ground lease for a child care facility, which would be a benefit to the community as well as employees of PAMF. He urged support of the Specific Plan. Susan Corning, 119 Bryant Street, urged the approval of enough space for PAMF to remain in the downtown area and continue to change and develop as medicine changed and developed. She had confidence in the care at PAMF and appreciated that a physician was always available in the Urgent Care Center or in the main building in case of evening or weekend emergencies. She appreciated the affordable health plans for small business in the community. She believed PAMF was a special community resource, and the benefits far outweighed the inconvenience during the construction project. Mary Bartnikowski, 840 Kipling Street, said the issue was about being good neighbors, and working in the neighborhood did not constitute residency. She was opposed to 12 years of construction work in her neighborhood. People parked in front of their houses every day and high intensity lights were on until 9:30 p.m. She believed the expansion disregarded the environment and should not be approved. Lynn Selton, 418 Everett Avenue, lived within walking distance of PAMF and was a member of the PACCTF. She recommended the City devise a workable agreement with PAMF for the expansion plan which would create solutions for traffic, beauty, and neighborhood concern. She supported the expansion and long-term plan because PAMF was willing to participate in the child care facility and was concerned about the community and appreciated the excellent medical service provided. Dena Mossar, 1024 Emerson Street, said Palo Alto had changed and would continue to change. The change would be beneficial as long as responsibility was accepted for planning to ensure a positive outcome. A planned process change required preservation of historic buildings, neighborhood character, open space, and mitigation to bring Palo Alto in step with the needs of the region, i.e., day care, traffic reduction, improvement of jobs/housing imbalance, and affordable housing. The Council should insist that 65-282 1/28/91 PAMF deal with the preservation and restoration of older buildings, design compatibility in the existing neighborhood, open space, consolidation and protection of the historic neighborhood surround- ing PAMF properties, and improvement of parking and traffic. She urged the Council to establish policy guidelines to shape the planning and designate a city/neighborhood/foundation group to work out the details of the plan. Jim Burch, 420 Homer Avenue, also spoke on behalf of residents at 821 Waverley Street. He queried the statement regarding PAMF going from 9 blocks to 2-1/4 blocks. He did not believe parking would be pulled out of the neighborhood without traffic mitigation. Parking should be restricted to residents only. Palo Alto was unique, and thought must be given to what it would be like in the years to come. He was concerned about the change from a clinic to a foundation. He supported the clinic's continuing to offer excellent health care in a size and manner appropriate to the size of Palo Alto. A mega-facility and a world-class research and medical complex should not be in a residential area. Walter Bortz, 167 Bolivar Lane, Portola Valley, had been with PAMF 20 years and participated in the care of older people. PAMF had developed a number of programs which served older people who came from within one or two miles in Palo Alto. PAMF had outreach groups in Lytton Gardens and Stevenson House and had devised other opportunities for the well being of older people. More care of older people was being given at the Stanford emergency room because PAMF did not have the capacity to deliver the care. He estimated if PAMF were not constrained by space, it could significantly increase its present activities. He urged the Council to consider the PAMF expansion favorably. Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne Avenue, was concerned with neighborhoods in general. He believed the Comprehensive Plan was being ignored. Most people in favor of the expansion did not live next to PAMF. The quality of life for the people in the downtown area was borderline. PAMF should consider expansion in a satellite facility and remodeling of the present facility. Bill Peterson, 228 Fulton Street, urged a strict interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan. He saw the benefits to Palo Alto from PAMF as being marginal and the cost to the neighborhood was spectacular. A lot of time had been spent downzoning residential areas, and PAMF was proposing to set a trend in the opposite direction. The expansion was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and should be limited to remodeling of existing facilities. John Toor, 744 Waverley Street, first believed the expansion would be good because PAMF would be consolidated into a 2-1/4 block campus, the overall appearance upgraded, and the parking deficit addressed. The campus concept was a sham, and the neighborhood probably originally envisioned removal of the commercial buildings in the residential areas. PAMF was not planning to convert the 65-283 1/28/91 vacated buildings back to residential but leasing them to other commercial interests. Several outlying buildings were omitted from the campus plan. The end result would have been a more campus-like atmosphere for PAMF employees but viewed from outside it would look the same. The parking deficit would be addressed by parking garages with the removal of the majority of the surface lots. Parking garages were convenient for employees but unfriendly to the occasional user, and parking on the streets would not be any easier. He suggested moving some of the facilities, leaving the clinic on site and expanding the primary care. From a business standpoint, there was a real need for remodeling and expansion, but as stated PAMF was a private business in a competitive environment. While the PAMF was non-profit, i.e., it did not pay property taxes, the physicians were in business to make a profit. He did not see the logic of rezoning an entire square block of residential space into commercial space to benefit one business. While he could live with the 35,000-square foot compromise, the Council needed to find a way to limit the physical and use-intensity growth in the subject area and the SOFA area. Helen Nusenbaum, 734 Waverley Street, served on a city task force, and believed if the Council was concerned with the visions of Palo Altans, the expansion would be rejected. If the damage was measured against the benefits, the public good justified only consolidation and remodel and not expansion. As a resident in the immediate neighborhood, she urged the Council to uphold the rights of individuals. The neighborhood should be protected and employ- ment levels should not run rampant. The spirit of the Comprehen- sive Plan should be upheld. While a significant benefit of the expansion was medical care, low-cost medical care would not be provided, and PAMF did not care for elderly residents without Medicare, take care of the homeless, or residents who could not pay the fees. Mary Sylvester, 135 Melville Avenue, represented PACCTF. In 1988, PACCTF created the Palo Alto Child Care Master Plan which iden- tified child care needs in Palo Alto and developed a plan for action to address those needs. A key point was the need for child care in downtown Palo Alto and the development of a center to serve residents and employees. In November 1990, PAMF agreed to donate land located at Channing Avenue and Ramona Street for the develop- ment of a child care facility on a long-term lease basis for $1.00 per year. PACCTF encouraged the Council to approve PAMF's revised expansion plans of 45,000 square feet. PACCTF was asked by the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee to return with a specific child care plan, and while the financing was available, the land was needed before the fund raising could begin. A unique public- private partnership could be created to serve the child care needs of the community. PACCTF appreciated PAMF's generous offer on behalf of the families and children of the community. Walter Eich, 481 San Antonio Road, had lived in Palo Alto 14 years and had benefitted five years ago from PAMF's concentration of 65-284 1/28/91 medical talent at a single location. The treatment of PAMF's requests seemed punitive as contrasted to the many commercial expansions in the City, e.g., the El Camino Way zoning. The City did not replace housing when the park north of Lytton Street was developed. The City had plans for a multi-million dollar expansion of Cubberley as a community center, which had attracted little support, and much opposition from residents. The ongoing contribu- tion of PAMF to citizens of Palo Alto did not seem to count as judged by the staff and Planning Commission's actions. Modern medicine required centralization. He urged approval of PAMF's expansion plans without the housing mitigation fee. Dick Dunbar, 326 Addison Avenue, urged the Council not to approve the plan or rezone the west block from residential to PC. Nothing in the Specific Plan for PAMF was supported by the Comprehensive Plan. PAMF was out of scale for the neighborhood and in a residential neighborhood. He urged the Council to treat the entire area as PC and not isolate the Specific Plan from other plans in the neighborhood. John Beahrs, 1830 Guinda Street, said the City derived its character from the accommodation of residential concern. Public safety, health, and welfare should receive the highest priority. His son had a serious accident 28 years ago and survived due to the efforts of PAMF. Without incrementalism, concentration, and close association of medical skills and talents, medical services in Palo Alto would seriously depreciate. He supported PAMF's plan. Jess Wilson, 318 Lincoln Avenue, thanked the Council for attending the neighborhood meetings. He was a member of the University Park Association which had not taken a position on PAMF's expansion. The residents, within the boundaries of the University Park Association, had spent a lot of time helping to design an accept- able plan and questioned the need for a research facility in the downtown area. A satisfactory solution to the parking and traffic had not been presented to date. The development of satellite health care givers, such as the Fremont satellite, would be an ideal solution to the crowding in the neighborhood. The proposed construction time of approximately eight years to twelve years was unsatisfactory. The preservation of structures that enhanced the neighborhood feel was important. Lou Goldsmith, Vice President, Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), said as consultant to the City, the PAHC participated in the housing aspects of PAMF's proposed project. At the City's request, PAHC reviewed the draft Specific Plan, draft EIR, and revised draft EIR, and an informal meeting with members of PAMF, City staff, and neighbors resulted in the formulation of a number of alternative plans. In keeping with the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, PAHC preferred the mitigation include a site suitable for a low-moderate income housing development rather than an equivalent in lieu cash payment and believed the north block property was the best site for such housing. The reduction of PAMF's expansion to 45,000 square feet appeared to make the release 65-285 1/28/91 of the north block more feasible. PAHC suggested the City and PAMF have an arrangement where the City could obtain an option for the land bank to buy the north block property from PAMF upon transfer of the north block activities to other space during the first phase of construction. The selling price for the north block site would presumedly be based on the appraised market value of the property at the time of the sale, reduced by the dollar equivalent of whatever the housing mitigation the City required. The problems would be the extent of the mitigation required and the equivalent dollar value to be placed thereon. In considering the project housing impacts, PAHC applied basic principles that could be applicable to future similar situations. The loss of rental housing impact fit with Program 9 of the Housing Element, and the conversion of residentially-zoned land to non-residential use came under Program 10 of the Housing Element, which discouraged conversion. PAHC related the impact to loss of below-market-rate (BMR) units the housing development would afford under the zoning. All impacts ascribed to PAMF's project could be satisfied by multi-family rental housing development on the north block containing a minimum of 27 units of which 16 units were BMR. The RM-30 zoning would permit up to 34 units, including the BMR bonus. PAHC had assumed the land cost for each BMR unit would be based on the dollar equivalent of BMR contributions under Chapter 16.47 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), which was currently over $60,000 per unit and escalated with the cost of the Consumer Priced Index. Because making the land parcel available would open the possibility of obtaining other subsidy funds to reduce the rentals on the non-BMR units, PAHC believed the $60,000 figure was fair and reasonable compensation for BMR units. Council Member Renzel queried whether Mr. Goldsmith referred to the BMR rental units or the standard BMR for sale units. Mr. Goldsmith said BMR's could be either. The minimum requirement under Program 9 called for replacement of at least the same number of rental units as those displaced, which would be 14, and required 20 percent to be BMR's. Katherine Barnett, 451 Alger Drive, said the Comprehensive Plan offered a planning guideline for the future of Palo Alto and guidance toward solving today's problems, such as the expansion of PAMF. As a nurse for 25 years, she knew health care was equated with change; but as a Palo Alto resident, she knew all of the changes were not beneficial, such as increased traffic. The Comprehensive Plan guidelines maintained the general low-density character of the existing single-family areas, slowed the employ- ment growth, maintained existing housing, and provided new housing for low-moderate-middle income households, and reduced the growth of auto traffic. The Council should vote "no" on plans that increased traffic in residential area. She urged the Council to adhere to the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan and remember PAMF was not requesting a variance but a total disregard of the 65-286 1/28/91 Comprehensive Plan. She urged the Council to endorse the 35,000 square feet PAMF expansion. Richard Rathbun, 575 Kellogg Avenue, appreciated the PAMF, but was concerned by the incremental change in the City over the last 50 years. He saw the expansion as an incremental degradation of the quality of life in Palo Alto. He urged the Council to vote against the expansion of PAMF. He would support the expansion if the facility could be upgraded without increasing traffic and be more aesthetic without risking the medical support of Palo Alto residents. Harold Luft, 1020 Ramona Street, agreed with the previous speakers' comments but realized PAMF was not going to be cleaned up without some expansion. The Council needed to set some goals, identify constraints, and bring flexibility into the process. PAMF needed an attractive, workable design which would benefit everyone, reduce the impact of traffic, consolidate the site, make sure there was housing for increased employment within current guidelines, minimize the construction time, maximize the open space, retain the older homes and trees which were part of the neighborhood, retain the University AME Zion Church if possible, and provide a day care facility. He suggested Bryant Street be kept open and 35,000- 45,000 square feet be an upper limit. The parking deficit had to be eliminated. The Council should consider as part of the SOFA study allowing PAMF to expand into the commercial zone at south Forest. The Council could consider redrawing lot lines or moving the existing lot lines on Bryant Street to the Urgent Care site. The proposal could be improved. It was important to maintain and develop trust among PAMF, the neighbors, and City staff. He believed the employment cap was necessary. Katherine Bagget, 850 Webster Street, No. 818, urged the Council to act with favor on PAMF's request for expansion. George Varian, 327 Addison Avenue, moved to Palo Alto 20 years ago to be able to walk to a store or bicycle to work. The SOFA neighborhood needed enough housing to support neighborhood-service businesses within walking distance. The Council needed to look at the character of the businesses and buildings in the neighborhood and those things which provided for pedestrian access. Medical services did not provide pedestrian access. The total amount of medical and research space needed to be budgeted. The Specific Plan should cover a plan for community use and not just a plan for PAMF's use. Janet Owens, 863 Moreno Avenue, said several years ago City officials and citizens evaluated the jobs/housing imbalance and designed policies to improve the situation. It was important that residential zoning be preserved. While PAMF provided valuable services to the community, shelter was an even more basic need. A precedent must not be set for non-residential use in housing areas. She believed it was possible to meet the health needs of the 65-287 1/28/91 community without exacerbating the housing problem. She urged everyone involved to protect the housing opportunities and a health clinic facility to serve Palo Alto. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, applauded the child care idea but providing a site did not build, staff, or operate a facility, and would not compensate for the increase in the jobs/housing imbalance created by the proposal. He urged the Council to retain the mitigation fee. Palo Alto had a shortfall of more than 1,600 housing units, and the expansion of PAMF would put pressure on other neighborhoods to intensify use and increase the housing density. As a tax-exempt organization, PAMF paid less than $35,000 in property tax last year. If expansion of PAMF removed other properties from the tax rolls, it exacerbated the City's financial situation. Regarding housing, he supported PAHC's suggestions. He urged the parking deficit be remedied before any expansion occurred; and while he preferred no net expansion, if expansion was approved, it should be minimal. Only an employment cap would control future growth. He suggested the AME Zion Church be retained as an administration or storage building. Administrative and non-direct health care services should be located off site. PAMF's Specific Plan violated Comprehensive Plan policies, and he urged the Council to reject the plan. John Mock, 2823 Alma Street, supported the Planning Commission's recommendations over the staff comments, although they did not go far enough to protect the community or integrity of the Comprehen- sive Plan. The discussion should be conducted with the benefit of the analysis and response to comments on the revised draft EIR. If the Council proceeded, even in terms of general policy, it would be acting without the decision-making information which an EIR specifically provided. The revised draft EIR was inadequate and failed to address offsite alternatives. It did consider the wholesale replacement of clinic offsite, which did not correspond with the proposed project. PAMF admitted it could do offsite expansion which was where the bulk of the expansion should occur. His extensive comments on details and related issues were discussed in the EIR. The Planning Commission recommended a 35,000-square foot increase and staff recommended not more than 45,000 square feet. The community was affected by new construction; therefore, new construction should be limited to 35,000 square feet. It was essential to have a limit on the impacts of the project. While patronage of PAMF could not be limited, something equivalent to an employment cap was needed. He supported an overhead pedestrian crossing, retaining the existing housing, and not replacing low- cost rental housing with condominiums. Housing mitigation payments could be spread over a number of years but not reduced. If PAMF wanted to have substantial expansion, the idea of making Palo Alto into satellite was excellent and disapproval of the plan might accomplish that. He was interested in whether the AME Zion Church could be used as part of the child care facility. He urged the Council defer action until all information had been received. 65-288 1/28/91 Jan Aarts, 561 Jackson Drive, had lived in the City for 32 years and was extremely pleased with the care at PAMF. PAMF was part of the quality of life in Palo Alto and helped Palo Alto retain its character. A limit on the number of employees could result in improper care for patients. He suggested a limit on the number of patients from outside the City. The mitigation fee of $848,000 was excessive. A reasonable expansion, consolidation, and modern- ization was needed to attract the best doctors and medical staff and maintain the quality of medical care expected by the citizens. Mark Alguard, M.D., 1020 Waverley Street, urged Council to uphold the Comprehensive Plan, which was the only way to defend the neighborhood from the impact of construction noise and increased traffic. PAMF had not been a good neighbor, and most of the construction to date had been unattractive. He welcomed the opportunity of the remodel and hoped Council would give con- sideration to the order in which the expansion occurred so that the quality of the neighborhood would come first. He was particularly concerned about the eight to twelve-year construction period and queried whether the neighborhood had been polled for its point of the view on the project. Mel Pratt, 1136 Waverley Street, had been a resident of the neighborhood all his life and complimented PAMF for working with the neighborhood on the project for so many years. PAMF had made many modifications based on neighborhood requests in terms of traffic, parking, and moving beyond Channing Avenue. He supported PAMF's plan as did many people in the neighborhood. It was important to keep the older housing and not start a redevelopment of the neighborhood. He was not opposed to keeping the urgent care building if some other use could be found. The parking lot was one of the more attractive lots in Palo Alto; and since he lived across the street from the lot, he was concerned about developing less attractive housing. The building could be used for a community meeting hall, museum or library for the Palo Alto Historical Association or as a Palo Alto history center. Pauline Parker, 430 Kingsley Avenue, respected the care received by her family at PAMF for the last 27 years. She supported the other speakers regarding the addition of even more staff after the expansion. It was the time to enforce the Comprehensive Plan so PAMF could honestly look at the alternatives. Jean Ramacciotti-Alonso, 959 Waverley Street, said the Comprehen- sive Plan represented the feeling of the entire city. The employment objective was to reduce employment potential and protect residential neighborhoods from through traffic. Objectives under the Urban Design were to retain the uniqueness and diversity of Palo Alto's neighborhoods, maintain the present scale of the City but modify those elements which by their massiveness were over- whelming and unacceptable, discourage massive single uses through limitations on height and density to protect surrounding uses and community values. While she was grateful the PAMF provided 65-289 1/28/91 excellent health care, the last sentence of the Urban Design stated that Palo Altans must remain keenly aware of the City's urban design character and what, if anything, threatened it. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed. Dr. Jamplis said PAMF would respond To Council Member Andersen's questions tomorrow night. MOTION: Mayor Sutorius moved, and it was duly seconded, that the Council continue the meeting of January 28, 1991, to January 29, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. to Tuesday, January 29, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 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. 65-290 1/28/91