Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-01-29 City Council Summary Minutes Adjourned Meeting of January 28, 1991, to January 29, 1991 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:39 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Cobb, Fazzino (arrived at 7:46 p.m.), Kniss, Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: McCown Mayor Sutorius indicated that Council Member McCown would not be participating in the meeting because of a conflict of interest. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission policy recommendations re the Palo Alto Medical Foundation's Draft Specific Plan (Continued from 1/28/91) (1031) (CMR:131:1) Council Member Andersen asked how many physicians the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) had in 1970, 1980, and 1990 and the projections for 2000 and 2010. Dr. David Druker, Executive Director, Palo Alto Medical Clinic (PAMC), said in 1975, there were 118 physicians at the main center; in 1980, there were 123; in 1985 there were 133; and there were presently 139 total physicians. While figures for 1970 were not available, John Johnson who was the Executive Administrator at the time, recalled approximately 90 physicians at the main center in 1963. The total number of physicians employed by the PAMC was 160 because 21 additional physicians were off-site. PAMF consistently projected growth at the downtown site at approximately 50 addi- tional physicians. The 45,000-square foot expansion level would not significantly impact the physician count at the site. Council Member Andersen asked how many physicians currently on staff were involved in patient care and research. Dr. Druker said all physicians were involved in patient care except Dr. Remington who had a combined appointment at both the Research Institute and the PAMC. Council Member Andersen asked how much space was utilized per medical doctor. Dr. Druker said the average was about 1,200 square feet per doctor. Some clinics had as much as 1,500; some a little less. 65-291 1/29/91 Council Member Andersen asked how the projections for 50 additional physicians were arrived at with 45,000, 35,000 or 65,000 square feet if the space utilized was 1,200 square feet per doctor. Dr. Druker clarified if 20,000 square feet of space was moved to a different site, it gave them 65,000 square feet, which was a little over 1,200 square feet per doctor. Mayor Sutorius asked for clarification regarding the need for "relief" from housing mitigations. Dr. Robert Jamplis, President of the PAMF, said the housing mitigation was difficult because the funds used to build the facility would come from philanthropic dollars. While everyone understood that parking and landscaping were part of constructing a building, it would be difficult to ask for money to be used for housing. The PAMF was asked by the Planning Commission and City staff not only to give square footage for housing mitigation of about $135,000 with 45,000 square feet, but also to add 14 units which amounted to $848,800 dollars, for a total of about $1 million. The PAMF did not believe that could be done in good faith. The PAMF was willing to sell their land on the north block for fair market value to the City. With respect to the child care center, while it would be easiest to provide money, the PAMF was cognizant of the fact that without land a child care center could not be built. The PAMF had the land and could raise the money to build the center. The PAMF believed it could give up the land on the north block, make a transfer which could be negotiated with the City and the Council, and eliminate the housing mitigations and substitute the land which was important to the City, allowing the PAMF to realize enough money from the transaction to replace the facilities presently on the north block, on the west or main blocks. The City could then take over and realize any dollar accumulation and appreciation of the land from 1991 until the PAMF moved out. He believed the figures to be more than the present housing mitigation. Mayor Sutorius believed if the Council wanted to pursue such a concept, it should identify a process and a time frame for such negotiations to occur. Council Member Renzel asked if one of the properties on the north site was a Category 2 historic structure and what kinds of problems that could present. Assistant Planning Official George Zimmerman said the Psychiatry Building was a Category 4 Historic Structure. Structures were rated from Categories 1 and 2 which were considered significant, to 3 and 4 which were considered contributory. 65-292 1/29/91 Council Member Levy asked if PAMF proposed to develop the one acre of land. Dr. Jamplis said yes. Council Member Levy asked for an estimate of the value today of an acre of land in Downtown Palo Alto. Mayor Sutorius recalled that in the materials Mr. Goldsmith shared with the Council he indicated a range of $1.5 to $2.0 million. Council Member Cobb was concerned about coming up with the most neighborhood-friendly design possible. If the project was restricted to the main and west blocks, he queried if the archi- tects would be able to achieve a highly neighborhood-friendly design. John Northway, Stoecker and Northway Architects, said the objec- tives of the project were to straighten out the medical circulation problems that existed within the PAMF and to get some additional square footage for more physicians and to design a complex worthy of the PAMF and the neighborhood. Phase I was the west block including the north block; Phase II was remodeling and replacement of outdated structures; and Phase III was additional medical facilities on the existing parking lot. In terms of circulation, the Lee building would always be the primary care center. The problem with the Planning Commission's recommendation was by eliminating the north block, which had potential to become housing, square footage would have to be transferred to either the main block or the west block. The west block was to accommodate only about 31,000 additional square feet and, if Council granted 45,000 square feet, there would be an additional burden placed on the west block in terms of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and density. A worse situation than the present one might be created because patients would have to cross Bryant Street. He was concerned it would be too dense to be neighborhood-friendly. Council Member Cobb clarified Mr. Northway was arguing against restricting development to the west and main blocks. Mr. Northway believed they should look at the gross square footage allowed on the two-block area, and then work with the neighborhood group to determine the best distribution. Council Member Cobb asked if there was value in terms of achieving a better design to allowing some use of the space over Bryant Street for a walkway. Mr. Northway believed there was. One of the problems with having a lot of space on the west block was patients needed to get from the 65-293 1/29/91 main block to the west block. In considering circulation for medical space, one had to assume circulation occurring on the worst stormy day of the winter. Council Member Cobb asked if there was value in terms of design in allowing some flexibility in the area of building height. Mr. Northway believed there was some value to having medical facilities concentrated, and also it was easier to go vertical than horizontal. If it was feasible to add another story to the building and also keep the practice going, the option would be worthy of exploration. The preference would be for Council not to preclude areas that could be interesting to explore. Council Member Cobb asked if there was value in looking at the space over the main block parking area. Mr. Northway believed there was value in having that kind of flexibility. Council Member Cobb asked if there were any areas Mr. Northway would change in looking at the Planning Commission recommendation, to the end of achieving greater flexibility to accomplish the better design. Mr. Northway referred to the staff report (CMR:109:91), and in the area "Project Location and Height," page 3, item 4, it would probably be necessary to relocate some of the expansion space on the main block so they might need to do more than remodel the main buildings. Also, included in the item was the reconstruction of the space from the Roth 2 Building and the Radiology Building. In Item 4 there should be the possibility of having more square footage on the main block than just the renovations and reconstruc- tion. In Item 5, they should have the option of looking at what might happen to the Lee parking lot in terms of grouping additional square footage. In Item 7, there was a lot of enthusiasm at the neighborhood meetings for adding onto the Lee building to the same height of the Lee building, which was 44 feet. A fair amount of square footage could be obtained by adding 20-foot bays without having to go the extra height. Council Member Cobb clarified the architects would welcome the process of working with people, including the neighborhood, in doing the specific plan. Mr. Northway said absolutely. He was impressed the previous evening that the response of the neighbors was very much what the architects were feeling. The more ideas included, the better the solution. 65-294 1/29/91 Council Member Kniss understood Mr. Northway went through a long process with the neighborhood previously. The subject project altered considerably the density and configuration, and she asked how that would alter what the architects could do in that particu- lar area, and could they get the same campus feel, open space and greenery in an area of the neighborhood that was troubled and dominated by parking, cars, and in some cases not a totally kempt look. Mr. Northway said there would be less square footage to place onto the site. The architects developed a model which was very helpful in showing people different ideas and running different scenarios. He was confident they could achieve a lot of what people talked about. Council Member Kniss asked whether the architects were comfortable dealing with the 45,000 square feet, given the configuration the Planning Commission came up with. Mr. Northway believed so. The architects flexibility to use the entire two blocks and keep the economics in balance. The archi- tects were not going to move so far into the Lee parking lot that they had to build more underground parking than justified by the square footage. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the City was not use to dealing with a specific planning process which was different from the normal planned community zone process. The Specific Plan would contain guidelines for design and for mass and bulk, but would not contain the detailed design. After adoption of the Specific Plan, the architects would undertake a design development process, which was where the process would involve the neighbors. The next Planning Commission action would be the Specific Plan which would be before design development. Council Member Levy asked for clarification about the possible treatments of the main block of the surface parking area, and whether the architects envisioned the flexibility to do some undergrounding there. Mr. Northway said two things would be pulling at the project: the economics and to do a complete design on the two-block area. They might be able to do some underground parking where the Lee building area was and not in other places. There would have to be balance. He preferred to not underground more than 630 cars. The architects would have to work with the design to have some mixture of surface and underground. Many of the neighbors opposed large areas of surface parking and it was one of the design criteria to be addressed. 65-295 1/29/91 Council Member Levy referenced the University African Methodist Episcopal Zion (AME) Church, and asked if the church could be saved and used. Mr. Northway said the PAMF had no function for the building. The PAMF offered the building to the congregation and to the child care organization and both refused. In order to keep the building at its current location, it would have to be moved while the parking hole was dug, and then moved back. Council Member Woolley clarified, based on Dr. Jamplis' earlier remarks concerning the north block, when Mr. Northway referred to "the site," he was referring to placing all the ultimate PAMF building functions on the west and main blocks. Mr. Northway said that was correct assuming Council went forward with the housing offer. There were 43 parking spaces on the north block. Council Member Renzel asked about the timing of the planned South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) study. Mr. Zimmerman said a meeting would occur within the next three weeks with the Planning Commission Chair and the members of the subcommittee. Only two meetings were anticipated before the sub- committee identified the key issues, appropriate strategies, and priorities to recommend to the Planning Commission which would then be forwarded to the Council. Council Member Renzel queried the timing of working toward a Specific Plan for the PAMF. Mr. Schreiber said the schedule as discussed with the consultant would have the Specific Plan developed relatively quickly after Council provided the policy direction. Staff envisioned February and March to develop the Specific Plan and by the end of April, if not sooner, staff would return to the Planning Commission for review in April and May. The objective would be to return to Council with the Specific Plan before the end of the summer. Council Member Renzel asked how long the SOFA study would take. Mr. Schreiber said the Council assignment to the Planning Commis- sion was to identify preferred land use policies for the SOFA area and report back to the Council. It would then be up to the Council to identify what actions, e.g., additional studies or implementa- tion actions were desired. Alternatives for the SOFA study could range from a relatively in depth and time consuming process to a relatively simply modification of the underlying zone. It was 65-296 1/29/91 impossible to provide a sense of where the policy issues would go. If the desire was for a relatively complex set of changes for the SOFA area, then the process would almost certainly lag behind the Specific Plan schedule. Council Member Renzel was concerned about how the City approached the Specific Plan which had elements which required changes to the Comprehensive Plan, e.g., land use map changes if it were to be in conformance to the other elements of the plan, such as transporta- tion, housing, and a number of mitigation measures. In viewing the area, was there an opportunity to answer it as an element and its impacts in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. She queried whether SOFA could use the Specific Plan as a means to compensate an intensification and whether there was a possibility for convergence. Mr. Schreiber clarified the PAMF's Specific Plan could be used to the extent it preceded the SOFA discussion. The areas could be approached as distinct, and staff believed there were overlaps and interface issues but neither PAMF nor SOFA were dependent upon each other. Decisions on the PAMF could impact SOFA to the extent medical office-related uses may change in terms of their status in SOFA. Council Member Renzel said it would have to be considered in cumulative impacts. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member Renzel queried whether 180,000 round trips per year would have a cumulative impact on the neighborhood. She was uneasy about the Specific Plan while still facing the Comprehensive Plan and SOFA plan and not having a way to merge them in a logical planning text. Mr. Schreiber said using the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff had not found a significant transportation impact from the PAMF project. While patient numbers in aggregate could be large, there was not much impact spread over a year. Council Member Renzel queried PAMF's desire to deal with the research facility first and then medical facilities since there was an urgent need to improve the delivery of health care, and whether the sequencing was set or whether it was possible the PAMF might first deal with the health-delivery portion in the research area. Mr. Northway said the process was set in motion when the PAMF believed it might get less than 65,000 square feet, and now was determining what needed to stay on the campus and what could be moved off. The research institute was an integral part of PAMF; 65-297 1/29/91 but if the reduced square footage turned into a reality, the medical would have high priority. Council Member Renzel queried if the 50 additional doctors would utilize part of the research area. Mr. Northway said the research area did not generate as many trips as the medical areas. The building of the research institute was an important part of the project and donors had specifically given money for the project and were promised it would happen in the early stages of building projects. Council Member Cobb said it was a difficult decision. People lives were at stake at every level and Council's decision needed to serve the entire community and respect the neighbors. He would continue to work toward achieving the highest level of neighborhood protection and neighborhood friendly situation that could possibly be created. If and when the Specific Plan returned to the Council, if it was not one which treated the neighborhood with the greatest of care and consideration, he would not support it. He commended the work of the staff and the Planning Commission to that point. Initial Project Endorsement MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Kniss, to endorse, subject to revision before making any referral to the Planning Commission as a policy, that a proposed Palo Alto Medical Founda- tion project, described in staff report (CMR:109.1) under Project Size and Project Location and Height, be given conceptual approval at this policy phase of the public review, provided that appro- priate mitigations and conditions identified in the Revised DEIR or required by Council that respond to the project's impacts as well as to the legitimate concerns of the adjacent neighborhood are addressed. Council Member Cobb believed the PAMF had been an important part of the community for a long time, and it was part of what made the City unique and extraordinary. The City needed to enable the PAMF to continue to play the role it played in the past, but it needed to be done in an extraordinarily sensitive manner to the neighbor- hood. He believed that could be achieved if everyone worked together. Council Member Kniss echoed the agonizing nature of the decisions Council had to make. Hopefully, the compromise would enable everyone to get something they wanted to get. She hoped the campus feel to the clinic prevailed so the neighbors could be proud to have it in their neighborhood. 65-298 1/29/91 Mayor Sutorius queried whether Council Member Cobb minor modifica- tion to the Planning Commission recommendation presented any problem. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said no. He reiterated Council's action was preliminary at that point. The Specific Plan document would return to the Planning Commission and then return to the Council. Council's most significant action would be certification of the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). That action together with appropriate mitigations findings would occur before any final approval could occur. All of Council's statements that evening were qualified to the extent the EIR had not yet been considered. Council Member Renzel clarified the policy question would be revisited at the end of the motions. Mayor Sutorius said yes. Council Member Renzel said with the proviso that the policy question would be revisited, she would support the general motion. She also reserved her right to oppose the Specific Plan if it did not accomplish anything positive for the neighborhood. If she was uncomfortable with the subsequent actions that evening, she might not support the policy question. While the specific plan process did offer the opportunity to get a better development, she was concerned about receiving adequate benefits to offset what she considered to be major changes to the Comprehensive Plan direction. Council Member Levy was somewhat troubled by the nature of Council's action because it seemed to be endorsing the project before it had one; however, conceptually, he would like to endorse the policy. Many speakers spoke to the pitfalls of "incre- mentalism," and much of it was in the subject neighborhood. Council needed to look at the total picture and how to bring everything back into balance, e.g., traffic, parking, the outreach of the PAMC, improving its ability to serve the public, and enhancing the residential community. He supported the policy of stopping the incremental outreach and coming together with a total special project. Vice Mayor Fazzino believed it would be more appropriate to get a policy on the table and then move through the mitigations. He supported the motion and believed generally specific plan develop- ment agreements were outstanding tools to address the challenges facing the neighborhood with respect to expansion of the PAMC. It was important for the PAMC to remain in Palo Alto, and the City should accommodate that to the extent recommended by the Planning Commission. Simultaneously with the specific plan, the City had an opportunity to control growth in the downtown area. It was 65-299 1/29/91 essential to tie growth between the PAMC, Alma and the SOFA area to the expansion plans of the PAMC. It was also critical to establish tough mitigation measures with regard to parking, traffic, noise and construction schedules. He concurred with Council Member Levy regarding "incrementalism," and the specific plan offered the opportunity to avoid those problems. Council needed to adopt a general policy that evening without designing the project. The neighbors, PAMC, and the Planning Commission should be allowed to take Council's policy direction in broad concept and develop an acceptable project. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." Assurances of Project Provisions MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Fazzino, to endorse, as a policy, that the PAMF and the City enter into a development agreement or other appropriate mechanism that assures all provisions, conditions and benefits of the project, as defined in both the Specific Plan and the PC Planned Community zone change, are met by the PAMF. Council Member Renzel was concerned about the use of a development agreement because they tended to offer much more to the applicant than to the City. She preferred for staff to be directed to return to Council with a recommendation on how the City could achieve the goals of the specific plan in more or less the same time frame as the project's benefits were granted to the PAMF SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fazzino, that staff be directed to return to Council with a recommendation on how to achieve the goals of the Specific Plan. Vice Mayor Fazzino queried whether it would be possible to construct simple language to be included in the motion to address the concerns in the substitute motion. While most agreed that a development agreement could work in most cases, Council wanted to be assured that all provisions of a Specific Plan were satisfac- torily met. Mr. Schreiber said staff proposed the use of a development agreement essentially for the reasons identified by Mayor Sutorius. Staff believed it would provide a more precise mechanism for tying various conditions or phasing issues, etc., together. Mr. Calonne suggested including the words "or other appropriate mechanisms" after the word "agreement" in the main motion would accomplish the goals of the substitute motion. In addition to the policy recommendations, he was also looking for a direction aimed at the City Manager and City Attorney to go forward with the 65-300 1/29/91 process of implementing the particular policy. It was not one which was necessary to wait on. LANGUAGE "OR OTHER APPROPRIATE MECHANISM" AFTER THE WORD "AGREE-MENT" INCORPORATED INTO THE MAIN MOTION BY MAKER AND SECOND SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITHDRAWN MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." Project Size MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Woolley, to endorse, as a policy, a specific plan project that would result in a maximum net increase of 45,000 square feet of floor area, provided there is no parking deficit. Council Member Cobb said the PAMF made it clear that the 45,000 square feet was a necessary element in making it a successful project. The project cap would assure that level was not increased. Council Member Renzel opposed the motion. She believed the Planning Commission recommendation of 35,000 square feet was the most she could accept. The use was very intense and the possi- bility that patient care would replace research facilities would change the traffic impacts to some degree which concerned her. Council should accept the Planning Commission recommendation. Much of the space occupied by the PAMF was on residential land and although the City proposed to impose mitigations, the 45,000 square feet was a different maximum than contained in the Comprehensive Plan for the area. She was concerned about consolidating more facilities to two blocks and adding significantly to the density and leaving the same density on the other 11 blocks. Council Member Kniss was persuaded by the architect that the 45,000 square feet could fit well within the neighborhood and would allow the necessary flexibility to achieve the campus feel. She would, therefore, support the motion. Vice Mayor Fazzino believed it was important for Council to recognize the tough decisions it would have to make regarding the allowable development in the SOFA area. He preferred to commit to the PAMC the entire area between Waverley and Alma Streets, and when Council considered the SOFA area, it could reduce the potential for development in that area in light of the decision to support the 45,000 square feet for the PAMF. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Renzel "no," McCown "not participating." 65-301 1/29/91 Project Cap MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Woolley, to endorse as a policy, prohibition of any future PAMF expansion, beyond the specified project size and sites approved in a Specific Plan, from all residentially-zoned areas and from CD-S and CD-N zoned sites south of Forest Avenue. In addition, as a policy, establishment of an employment cap on the number of physicians the details of which will be worked out in the Final Specific Plan. Council Member Cobb referred to the first part of the motion and believed the neighborhood needed specific, clear language to under- stand both the terms of the physical real estate and numbers of square feet on the real estate was a cap and was built into the process. Vice Mayor Fazzino endorsed the comments with respect to the first part of the motion. With regard to the employment cap, he did not believe it addressed the impacts. It was more reasonable to approach the issue of transportation and the number of cars on the site. Council was already advised it would be nearly impossible to implement the employment cap. While Council would feel great about establishing an employment cap, it did not address the real issue of transportation and parking. He encouraged defeat of the motion. Council Member Levy believed counting the number of people who worked at a site was more important in determining the impacts than the square footage allowed. The subject use was more complicated than the industrial park uses which did not have many visitors. He was not sure the physician cap was the right proxy for the intensity of use but recognized staff had a difficult time developing a measurable tool and the motion was a good start. He endorsed the direction of Council and hoped the concept would be used more widely as a way of getting to the intensity of various uses in the community. Council Member Renzel said the doctors involved in patient care saw an average of 10 patients each, which represented a significant number of trips. While she believed the limit of additional doctors should be less than 50, she would support the motion as a way to get a handle on future traffic. Council Member Andersen originally suggested the physician process rather than patient cap or automobile cap because it was easier to administer, and allowed the PAMF to make the long-term projections it needed. It also provided an indication to the neighborhood as to capacities. He was somewhat disappointed the PAMF intended to put as many physicians in the facility as possible and move the research out. From a traffic generation perspective, if research was relocated, it clearly increased traffic generation. There was 65-302 1/29/91 a three to one difference in trip generation between research and a medical doctor, and he encouraged the PAMF to reconsider locating as much of the research as possible in the main facility. The square footage was not as much the issue as traffic. While he agreed with Vice Mayor Fazzino in that an intrusion into the marketplace by some governmental entity with regard to the employment cap had administrative hassles, in the subject instance, he believed it was clean and simple, and could be honored without difficulty. He supported the motion. Vice Mayor Fazzino said the presence of an employee was not the issue, and it was inappropriate for the City to tell the PAMC how to administer health care. The number of trips could be controlled as could the percentage of single passenger trips, which was what Council should focus on. Council Member Woolley associated with the comments of Council Member Andersen. While she understood the PAMF did not want to go through the process again, some mechanism to indicate when the limits were being approached could be of benefit to the neighbor- hood, PAMF, and the City. She would be interested in staff possibly returning after giving consideration to whether the cap at 50 physicians was the right number; how workable the cap was; and how effective would it be. Mayor Sutorius said a solid Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program existed at the PAMF and they were among the leaders in the downtown area in promoting the TDM program for other employers as well. He was confident that good TDM practices would continue and be amplified as appropriate. The physician cap was presented by the PAMF not the City. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating" SECOND PART OF MOTION REGARDING EMPLOYMENT CAP ON NUMBER OF PHYSICIANS PASSED 6-2, Fazzino, Kniss "no," McCown "not participating." RECESS FROM 9:35 p.m. to 9:55 p.m. Project Location and Height Council Member Renzel said while a fair amount of guidance had been given in terms of what Council wanted to see, it seemed it would be beneficial to Council and the PAMF to be flexible about phasing and what happened on each block. She preferred more underground parking being designated for employees and surface parking for patients 65-303 1/29/91 Council Member Cobb agreed. It was important for Council to provide appropriate guidelines with as much flexibility as possible to the PAMF so the architects and designers could return with the best possible plan. Guidelines might be to contain the project to the main and west blocks. Council should avoid writing specific language. Mayor Sutorius asked what kind of guidance would be beneficial for staff, the Planning Commission, and the PAMF. Mr. Schreiber understood Council's desire for design and creative flexibility but Council needed to comment on the west block and the fundamental issue of whether it should include half housing and half PAMF. The staff and Planning Commission recommendation was for it to include all PAMF. The north block related back to the housing discussion. The issues on the main block related to the desire for flexibility for some additional square footage which could be a new building or an expanded, higher, bigger Lee building. The surface parking lots emerged as a significant issue during the Planning Commission process. There was a fundamental design issue in terms of buildings versus parking lots and in terms of surface parking versus underground parking. The Commission and staff concurred there were values to surface parking and it would be good to hear Council's reactions. There was also the height issue. Council Member Andersen endorsed flexibility on the part of the design and was personally comfortable exploring the advantages of increasing the height to provide a more efficient and appropriately designed facility from the neighborhood's point of view. He was comfortable with utilizing the north block for housing, and was pleased with the direction of the PAMF in that regard. He encouraged the use of the main block for open space in that the campus concept required use of the space in a more creative way. He was not enthusiastic about considering a parking lot as an open space facility. He also would like to see as many of the existing structures as possible retained in the relocation process. He had not heard any creative solution to the AME Zion Church, and would like to see it utilized in a day care center if possible. Council Member Levy agreed with giving the PAMF flexibility in working with the main block although the neighborhood clearly showed a preference for surface parking. Under Item No. 6, he suggested language such as "retention of significant surface parking on the main block" but would give the PAMF more flexibility in that regard. He agreed with Council Member Cobb that Council should not write the specifications. 65-304 1/29/91 Council Member Kniss supported flexibility in the planning. The underground parking should be designated for employees since patients did not want to park underground. MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Kniss, that the Palo Alto Medical Foundation proposed project be confined to the west and main blocks; that an additional floor in the Lee building be given consideration; and that Council is flexible in terms of surface parking. Council Member Renzel concurred with the thrust of the motion. In terms of the flexibility regarding surface parking, the neighbors were concerned about losing surface parking because patients would not use the underground parking. She concurred and expected that any parking plan would have to include some surface parking for patients. She was unwilling to say all the parking had to be surface on the main parking lot. She preferred that some of the outlying parking lots be drawn into the two blocks. If the City was to end up with a "campus" feel, things would need to go up rather than out and there would need to be generous setbacks and open space. Even though parking lots were not beautiful open space, they were open space. She preferred the urgent care facilities be relocated early so the housing on the west block might be more readily moved to the site, which would be the best thing for the neighborhood. She was concerned about identifying phases in Item No. 4 in terms of the flexibility issue. Mr. Schreiber said the City hired a consultant to draft the Specific Plan even though the PAMF would pay for it. Direction would have to be given to the consultant in terms of what should go in the draft Specific Plan. Unless directed otherwise, he would intend to give the consultant the Planning Commission recommenda- tions as modified by Council. The eight items listed in the report (CMR:109:91) represented a year's worth of work by the Planning Commission, and wording was carefully drafted. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Sutorius, to approve the Planning Commission recommendations 1-8, with the language in Item 2 revised: 1. West block development, as proposed in the Draft Specific Plan, including two subterranean levels of parking; 2. The project will be restricted to the west and main block and that the north block be pursued for housing purposes. 3. Relocation of the Urgent Care facilities into the west block and redevelopment of the Urgent Care site into single-family housing; 65-305 1/29/91 4. Remodeling of main block buildings (Lee and Roth) consistent with Phase II as proposed in the Draft Specific Plan; 5. Construction during Phase II of a two-level subterranean garage on the west side of the main block paralleling Bryant Street and extending from Channing Avenue to a point roughly midway between Homer and Channing Avenues with a two-level connection under Bryant Street to the west block garage; 6. Retention of existing surface parking on a) main block; and b) Channing and Waverley parking lots; 7. Retention of Sports Medicine and Education buildings; use of President's Office to be determined; and 8. The maximum height would be 35 feet except for the Research Building which would have a maximum height of 45 feet. AMENDMENT: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Woolley, to amend Item 3 that relocation of the Urgent Care Facilities and redevelopment of Urgent Care site into single-family housing occur in Phase I of the project if feasible, deleting the reference to the west block. Council Member Renzel believed it would be beneficial from a land use planning and political perspective to get the relocation and redevelopment done first and it allowed flexibility for moving the older structures off of the west block which she favored. Council Member Cobb queried whether the modification in terms of phasing was feasible. Mr. Northway said the movement of the Urgent Care Center had always been in Phase I because it was a major benefit. Space just needed to be found or built to move it into. If the Urgent Care facility had to be built first, then the houses would have to be stored someplace. Council Member Woolley understood the movement of the Urgent Care center would always occur in Phase I. She seconded the amendment because it deleted the reference to the "west block" and she was not sure the City should tie the PAMF into having to move it to the west block." If it had to occur in Phase I, it might well have to go someplace on the main block. AMENDMENT PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." AMENDMENT: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Woolley, to amend Item 4 by deleting the reference to Phase II and adding at 65-306 1/29/91 the end, "which also includes reconstruction of Roth 2 and Radiology." Council Member Cobb said his amendment was in response to his question to Mr. Northway about how they would change the Planning Commission recommendation to achieve the necessary flexibility on the main block. AMENDMENT PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Kniss, to amend Item 6 to retain the existing surface parking on Channing and Waverley parking lot and to retain a significant amount of the surface parking on the main block. Council Member Levy said the purpose of the amendment was to provide flexibility on the main block of development. Council Member Cobb would not support the amendment because Council needed to provide the alternative for potential of two-level configuration and do what it could to try and eliminate the Channing and Waverley parking lot for the eventuality of housing. Mayor Sutorius and Council Members Woolley and Renzel agreed. AMENDMENT FAILED 2-6, Levy, Kniss "aye," McCown "not participat- ing." AMENDMENT: Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Kniss, to amend Item 8 by adding at the end, "and the Lee Building, which might have an additional story, making a building height up to a maximum of 58 feet." Council Member Levy was prepared to give the developer a good deal of flexibility but not to the level of providing 58 feet in height. It was a bad precedent and there was no need to go beyond the 50- foot height limitation generally imposed throughout the community. While he might be amenable to other language which provided the PAMF with flexibility, he would not support the 58-foot height limitation. AMENDMENT PASSED 6-2, Levy, Fazzino "no," McCown "not partici- pating." AMENDMENT: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Woolley, to amend Item 6, to provide the PAMF with the option to consider alternatives such as possible two-level configuration on the main block and to encourage the PAMF to find ways to convert the Channing and Waverley lots so the site might be used for housing. 65-307 1/29/91 Council Member Renzel preferred a double-decking underground with a surface park on top and below and return the corner of Channing and Waverley to residential zoning. She would support the motion. Council Member Levy opposed the amendment because the neighborhood favored the surface parking, did not want the construction noise involved in any other kind of development, and the patients would not use anything other than surface parking. He was not sure he agreed with the neighbors' conclusions but he heard the same thing so clearly from the neighborhood he was compelled to respect their judgment. Council Member Kniss associated with Council Member Levy. AMENDMENT FAILED 4-4, Fazzino, Kniss, Levy, Sutorius "no," McCown "not participating." AMENDMENT: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Andersen, to amend Item 6 that adequate surface parking be included for patients and as much of the parking designated for employees as possible be undergrounded on both the main and west block sites if feasible. Council Member Woolley queried whether the amendment would amount to more or less surface parking. Mr. Northway said it would be about the same. Approximately 630 cars would be undergrounded in the Planning Commission recommenda- tion, and it was probably a little more than the number of employees. Essentially the amendment conformed with the Planning Commission recommendation regarding parking. Council Member Renzel said the Planning Commission recommendation did not put any parking below the Lee building lot. If surface parking was left and there was also parking below, she queried they could draw in from the 43 spaces on the north block and the Waverley corner. Mr. Northway said yes. Council Member Renzel wanted to include that flexibility. Mr. Schreiber clarified the amendment wanted the Specific Plan to not have surface parking at Waverley and Channing if possible, which he believed was adequate direction. Council Member Renzel clarified that Items 5 and 6 would be amended so the parking plan continued to have the two levels in the earlier motion in the west block and on the main block flexibility be given to put a second level under the main block parking lot in order to pull in the parking that would be lost on the north block and 65-308 1/29/91 possibly the corner of Waverley and Channing. Her intent was to get rid of surface parking on the corner of Waverley and Channing. It was zoned residential, which was its likely use. If there was to be a "campus" on the west and north end of the main blocks, it should be done and not precluded because there could not be a second level of parking underground on the main block. Mayor Sutorius clarified extending flexibility did not assume the dollar number worked. Mr. Northway said as square footage was reduced, some benefits were lost. One of the benefits of increased square footage was more underground parking. Mr. Calonne said it would help if Council's action included guidance to the Planning Commission on how to exercise the flexibility. He suggested the flexibility granted on any of the items be limited to "if feasible" rather than "if possible." Mr. Schreiber said there were concepts: 1) Using the Waverley/ Channing parking lot for housing; and 2) Undergrounding parking on the main lot. He suggested the concepts be decoupled. It might be feasible to put the Waverley/Channing parking underground on some part of the project. The Planning Commission's recommendation to retain the surface parking on the main lot was the result of substantial public testimony and strong concerns regarding the impact of construction on the site. If there was a strong desire to underground the main lot, he suggested it be treated as a separate motion. Council Member Andersen recognized the concern about the impacts of construction noise. To force the PAMF to live with the surface parking level would severely hamper the design potential. He encouraged Council to support the amendment. Council Member Kniss would not support the amendment. The neighbors were dismayed by the underground parking concept and she also understood the expense outweighed the benefits. AMENDMENT FAILED 2-6, Andersen, Renzel "aye," McCown "not partici- pating." Council Member Levy believed Council's intent was to return the Channing/Waverley parking lot to its basic underlying zoning of residential. The problem appeared to be if the surface parking on Channing and Waverley were eliminated, there was no place for it to go. He queried what language might accomplish the desire to eliminate parking at Channing and Waverley while not reducing the total amount of parking on the project. 65-309 1/29/91 Mr. Schreiber said given Items 5 and 6, the feasible way would be to incorporate the Waverley/Channing parking in the underground structure under the west block and a portion of the main block. He deferred to Mr. Northway in terms of feasibility. Mr. Northway said most recent studies did not reflect enough space. AMENDMENT: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Andersen, to amend Item 6 to read: "Minimize surface parking to the extent feasible." Council Member Woolley disagreed that people said they wanted the surface parking retained. She heard Council being urged to locate all the development on the main block. While Council was also including the west block, to get the most "campus" like plan possible there might need to be some building where the current surface parking was for the main block. She referred to Council Member Cobb's comments where there would be two levels of parking and one would only be suppressed one-half level which would still allow some daylight and opening. If that were concealed in the center of the project there might be some flexibility. She wanted flexibility to explore every possible avenue. Council Member Cobb queried whether the amendment would accomplish the idea of some kind of two-level configuration on the main parking lot area to make better use of the physical space. Mr. Schreiber understood from the applicant that one of the offsetting factors of having 45,000 square feet rather than 65,000 square feet was not building the expensive underground parking garage structure on the main lot. Given the testimony at the Planning Commission public hearing, he doubted the feasibility on the part of the applicant given the costs. He doubted the amendment would lead to some significant change from the Planning Commission's recommendation in terms of surface parking. Mayor Sutorius had the same concerns about the ability to regain the Channing/Waverley parking lot for housing. It all went back to feasibility, and the concept of a one-half level depressed structure with a structure on it was appealing but the cost was prohibitive. Council Member Andersen was concerned about constraining the PAMF and the neighborhood by not allowing the use of the lot. From a planning perspective, the architects should be allowed to pursue the possibility. Council Member Woolley queried whether the architects had any need to use any of the main block surface parking. 65-310 1/29/91 Mr. Northway said unless he was banned from looking at groupings of buildings on the Lee parking lot, he intended to explore the feasibility. He did not understand the amendment to be a require- ment to put things underground. While the concept might not be feasible given the reduced square footage, he was committed to try and return those parking lots to housing. Council Member Woolley was concerned Item 6 said surface parking must be retained and that nothing could be put on that lot. Mr. Northway had more problem with the wording of Item 6 than he did with the amendment. Council Member Renzel said while she supported undergrounding some parking on the main lot, she did not support the amendment which put buildings on the main lot. She supported the motion to add another floor to the Lee building as a good way to put in space which was buffered from the neighbors and there was a large setback off Waverley. Council Member Kniss said with Mr. Northway's clarification, she would support the amendment. AMENDMENT PASSED 5-3, Fazzino, Levy, Renzel "no," McCown "not participating." MOTION TO ADJOURN: Vice Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Levy, to adjourn the item to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on Monday, February 4, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. MOTION TO ADJOURN PASSED 5-3, Andersen, Cobb, Kniss "no," McCown absent. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:25 p.m. to the regularly scheduled City Council Meeting on Monday, February 4, 1991, at 7:30 p.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 65-311 1/29/91 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. 65-312 1/29/91