Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-02-04 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting February 4, 1991 ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 65-312 Consent Calendar 65-312 1. Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.09 of the 65-312 Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Conflict of Interest Code for Designated Employees 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Policy 65-312 Recommendations re Palo Alto Medical Founda- tion's Draft Specific Plan Adjournment at 12:15 a.m. 65-335 65-311 02/04/91 Regular Meeting February 4, 1991 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Cobb, Fazzino, Kniss, Levy (arrived at 7:37 p.m.), Renzel (arrived at 7:36 p.m.), Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: McCown ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, P. O. Box 213, complimented the community but spoke to the injustices and discrimination. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding misguided elected officials. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Woolley, to approve Consent Calendar Item l. Action 1. ORDINANCE 4011 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 2.09 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED POSITIONS" (1st Reading 1/22/91, Passed 9-0) (716) MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Kniss, to postpone the study session regarding the selection of Council Priorities to another evening. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission policy recommendations re the Palo Alto Medical Foundation's Draft Specific Plan (continued from January 28 and 29, 1991) (1031) (CMR:109:91) 65-312 02/04/91 Mayor Sutorius referred to page 9 of the Staff Report (CMR:109:91) and said the actions included an introductory initial project endorsement with a number of mitigations and conditions, and the category of assurances of project provisions would contain a 65-313 02/04/91 development agreement or similar mechanism. At the conclusion of all other pending actions, Council would have the opportunity to reaffirm or modify their actions. Action was taken on the project size, project cap. The category of project location and height would now be addressed. In the process, there was a main motion, followed by a substitute motion, and a series of amendments which were acted upon and incorporated with the pending substitute motion, and the meeting was adjourned without concluding the category. Mr. Zaner said after the conversation with a representative from PAMF, he suggested Council follow a two-step process. The first one related to PAMF's concern regarding discussions on housing mitigation. Council might be well served if prior to the delibera- tions they asked a representative from the PAMF to speak and clarify their concerns. The second step related to the eight items, and he suggested the Council withdraw all motions from the floor and rediscuss those items. He suggested the Council hear from Dr. Robert Jamplis. Mayor Sutorius invited Dr. Jamplis to convey to the Council his conversation with Mr. Zaner. Robert Jamplis, M.D., President of the PAMF, said PAMF opposed the housing mitigations proposed on the project. The reason was that the building would be done with philanthropic funding and it was unfair to ask donors to build 14 houses. PAMF wanted a compromise, and had offered to sell the land on the north block to the City, and the funds from the sale would build the facilities on the north block which were now on the main and west blocks. The City would have the land which was important as indicated by Lou Goldsmith from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC). After proposing the compromise, PAMF discovered the 43 parking spaces on the north block would need to be used by the PAMF and the plan would not be possible. The Council, the neighbors, and the PAMF were all looking for open space, an attractive campus with walks, land- scaping, etc., and it seemed impossible to put everying on the north block into the main and west blocks and still maintain the open character, campus-like project that everyone envisioned. The land was more valuable than PAMF thought it was, and possibly the City might not be able to come up with the money to buy it. PAMF still make the offer but needed to find some place for 43 parking spaces and it was too expensive to build the 43 spaces underground. SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED From January 29, 1991 withdrawn by Council Member Cobb with the consent of Sutorius as the Seconder. MOTION From January 29, 1991 withdrawn by Council Member Woolley with the consent of Kniss as the Seconder. 65-314 02/04/91 Project Location and Height MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Sutorius, to endorse, as a policy, the Medical Foundation's proposed project, with the following elements: 1. Development of the entire west block, including two subterra- nean levels of parking, for Medical Foundation uses; 2. Retention of existing Medical Foundation facilities and surface parking on the north block during Phase 1. Direct staff to work with the Medical Foundation and return to Council in three weeks with a proposal addressing the housing mitigation; 3. Relocation of Blake Wilbur (Urgent Care) and redevelopment of that site into housing; 4. Remodeling and possible expansion of the Lee building, remodeling of the Roth building, and new construction on west side of block to accommodate other relocated Medical Founda- tion facilities. Consideration of small scale ancillary buildings on east side of Lee building to the extent that surface parking is not substantially displaced; 5. Construction of a two-level subterranean garage on the west side of the main block paralleling Bryant Street and extending from Channing to a point roughly midway between Homer and Channing with a two-level connection under Bryant Street to the west block garage; 6. Retention of a significant amount of surface parking on the main block, and consideration of a small two level parking office parking structure adjacent to the Lee Building in order to permit replacing the Channing/Waverley parking lot with housing and/or reduce massing and provide for some open space; 7. Retention of Sports Medicine and Education buildings; use of President's Office to be determined; 8. The maximum building height would be 35 feet except for the Research building which would have a maximum height of 45 feet, and for the Lee building which would have a maximum height of 58 feet, if the fourth floor addition is feasible, and a maximum height of 45 feet for additions within a 50-foot perimeter of the existing footprint; 65-315 02/04/91 As Corrected 03/18/91 9. Consideration of the use of City air rights over Bryant Street to permit construction of a pedestrian bridge connecting the main and west buildings; and 10. At the conclusion of each phase there will be no parking deficit. Council Member Woolley said the items preserved the integrity of the Planning Commissions recommendations as contained in the staff report (CMR:109:91) and only Items 2 and 6 were significantly different from the recommendations. The Council was trying to provide more flexibility in the design. The Council expressed concern for the parking lot at the corner of Channing Avenue and Waverley Street being an intrusion into the neighborhood which needed to be eliminated. She emphasized the elements allowed more flexibility at the design stage which would be followed by a Planning Commission process and public hearings. Planning Commissioner William Glazier appreciated the specificity of the recommendations as well as the detail. He had indicated the need for specific direction on the issues of phasing of construc- tion, surface and underground parking, the Urgent Care site and peripherals. Planning Commissioner Ellen Christensen did not have a problem with the motion as long as the additions in the memo were phrased as considerations and not in the form of requirements. Council Member Andersen requested Item 2 be considered at the outset rather than taking Item 1 first. He believed there was a linkage that needed to be considered and much of what that might imply would be easier if he could see that as the first item. He was disappointed the whole issue of housing mitigation could not be linked together. He supported Council Member Woolley's motion. AMENDMENT: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Renzel, to amend Item 2 to include the Planning Commission recommendation under Housing Impacts and Mitigations that endorses, as a policy, reaffirmation of the mitigation recommended in the Revised DEIR for the loss of existing rental housing unless the Palo Alto Medical Foundation offers a suitable alternative mitigation." Council Member Renzel concurred with Council Member Andersen since the City was losing the residential zoning and low cost rental units. The Comprehensive Plan did not have specific wording with respect to the replacement of residential use with commercial use but the use change would impact residential zoning as well as rental units. Mayor Sutorius referred to page 11 of the staff report (CMR:109:91), under Housing Impacts and Mitigation, where it recom- mended endorsing, as a policy, reaffirmation of the mitigation recommended in the revised DEIR for the loss of existing rental housing unless the PAMF pro-offered a suitable alternative mitiga- tion. Vice Mayor Fazzino queried other formulas that might represent an appropriate mitigation based on other housing policies contained in the City ordinances. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the Comprehensive Plan did not specifically address the loss of residential land into non-residential use other than to discourage it. A variety of ways to approach the mitigation process were looked at staff identified in the report (CMR:109:91) examples of several other ways to approach the mitigation loss. Staff recom- mended mitigating the loss of l00 percent of the rental units and noted the housing at the below-market-rate (BMR) provisions in the Comprehensive Plan as well as the housing mitigation ordinance provisions on employment addressed mitigating l0 percent of the impact. There was precedent for a 20 percent BMR requirement mitigation factor involved in the redevelopment of multi-family land and the loss of rental units. There was a rational argument based on City policies for the l0 percent and the 20 percent. Vice Mayor Fazzino opposed the amendment because it was too specific and too excessive. The $848,000 was far too much mitigation because the City did not have a specific housing policy to support the proposal before the Council, the formula could be legally indefensible, neighbors did not want more density on the site whether it be housing or otherwise. Child care was firmly accepted as a significant public benefit and it needed to be factored into the equation. When child care was studied as part of the EIR, it was rejected. Council could factor in the issue of child care, and any such benefit should be deducted from the exces- sive amount of housing mitigation suggested. As the project developed, the City should appreciate and understand the kind of public benefit received from child care. Mr. Zaner said there were other ways to deal with the housing mitigation. The cash payment of $848,000 was not an unreasonable position. Council Member Cobb queried Council Member Andersen whether there were two mitigations to be considered: 1) the $848,000 which had to do with replacing housing loss; and 2) the square footage number of $150,000 which dealt with job growth. The total mitigation before the Council was not $848,000 but $l million. Council Member Andersen said that was correct. 65-317 02/04/91 As Corrected 03/18/91 Council Member Cobb said the PAMF would benefit by finding a way to mitigate the cost and not be out-of-pocket dollars. He queried the trade off because it seemed to restrict the City and not offer any flexibility. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the $848,000 was based on l00 percent replacement. Council Member Cobb clarified the $848,000 was not locked in and he queried whether the phrase substantial replacement had to be ad- dressed. Mr. Calonne said the end result of the pro-offer of the mitigation might have several components, i.e., cash, land, and other extradordinary benefits which would address the housing mitigation. Council Member Cobb said if the real numbers for real housing replacement were looked at, the number of housing units measured was not large. The big issue was providing as much protection to the neighborhood as possible. There was a resource available to the PAMF to protect the neighborhood, provide housing, child care, and anything else they might choose to do as part of the project. The motion focused in the wrong place if it got locked up and had to come up with l00 percent replacement or its equivalent. Council Member Levy recommended language to endorse as a policy mitigation at the approximate levels recommended in the revised DEIR and direct staff to work with PAMF and return to Council. They were not directing staff to look for a dollar payment but asking staff to work on mitigation with PAMF and look for mitiga- tion that would be in the $848,000 level. Council Member Kniss wanted to see child care included in the mitigation. After the proposal was returned to Council, she might support the $848,000. She opposed the amendment but supported the main motion. Council Member Renzel said at a prior meeting it was asked if child care could be substituted as housing mitigation and was clarified that it was a housing loss problem and could not be mitigated with child care. The amendment was setting a level for an appropriate mitigation. Council Member Andersen was concerned the staff would not have the support without the amendment and the PAMF would have to come up with a satisfactory mitigation. There was a figure comparable to what the Council had in mind. Council Member Woolley agreed with Council Member Andersen and reminded the Council the Human Relations Commission's (HRC) letter noted that the difficulties brought to the HRC related to housing. The Comprehensive Plan addressed the housing problem and a clear message must be sent that Council expected l00 percent mitigation. Mayor Sutorius supported the amendment. He believed both the staff and PAMF were capable and should proceed. Vice Mayor Fazzino applauded Council Members Woolley and Andersen for their consistency in support of housing. While he believed child care was as much a public benefit as affordable housing, he did not believe the amendment before the Council accepted that principle. If the City were to get $400,000 or $500,000 worth of child care benefits, it should be factored into the equation. The amendment clearly stated the $848,000 was acceptable for housing alone. He recognized the need for PAMF to provide housing mitigation which could be accomplished with child care, but believed there needed to be a more open-ended motion to allow the staff to negotiate something acceptable to the PAMF and the neighborhood. He pointed out the possibility of extending the construction timetable and creating a greater burden in the neighborhood. Council Member Renzel said replacing six, $l,000 per month rental units with 18, $365,000 townhouses would not solve the job/housing problem. Mr. Calonne referred to the role of child care and housing mitigation and the recommendation on page 3 of the staff report (CMR:131:91). Staff did not view child care as a trade off against housing but could be independently recognized and used as a project benefit in the event an override was necessary. Council Member Kniss asked for elaboration on the public benefit versus the housing mitigation. Mr. Calonne said child care did not set off the housing mitigation obligations in the Comprehensive Plan, however, Council could consider the important benefit of the child care provisions when, and if at the time of the final project approval, a statement of overriding considerations was necessary to justify any unmitigated environment impacts. Child care had a role but not as a direct trade off against housing mitigations. Council Member Levy requested the word "pro-offer" be changed to "offer." AMENDMENT PASSED 5-3, Cobb, Kniss, Fazzino "no," McCown "not participating." Council Member Levy was concerned Council should not specify what would occur during the phases. The policy Council needed to set 65-319 02/04/91 As Corrected 03/18/91 was that phases be designed to minimize impacts on the neighborhood and as stated in Amendment No. 10, the phases should be designed such that there were no parking deficit at the conclusion of each phase. Council Member Renzel believed all impacts or losses should be mitigated during the same phase. She asked if the impacts could be mitigated by phases. Mr. Schreiber said staff shared the concern and would attempt to obtain mitigations as the impacts were experienced. It might not be feasible with housing construction, but the phase could be modified to be a longer period. Council Member Renzel asked if staff would be waiting to negotiate the development agreement subsequent to the second Council hearing on the issue. Mr. Schreiber said the intent was the development agreement would follow both the Specific Plan and the Planned Community (P-C) zone change. Without the P-C zone change, there was no authorization to build. Mr. Calonne said staff would begin immediately to work on the terms of the development agreement, however, the document would not return to the Council until the project was specific enough to have the agreement be meaningful. Council Member Renzel queried whether she should make a motion to ensure certain mitigation measures because she did not want to foreclose the opportunity to have the discussion. Mr. Schreiber did not believe a motion was necessary at that time because the concerns would be addressed with or without the motion when the item returned to the Council. Council Member Renzel referred to a scenario where the PAMF was placed into a time line and produced buildings on the west block and then felt a need to move elsewhere, and queried whether Council could restrict the PAMF's rights to sell or lease the buildings to other parties. Mr. Calonne said yes. He suggested during the process staff keep that issue in mind for the appropriate communication to the Council. Council Member Cobb referred to Item No. 2 which indicated retention of the facilities in the north block during Phase I. That suggested to him that during Phase II the facilities would not be retained. Further, the recommendation indicated staff would work with the PAMF to accomplish certain housing mitigations. He was concered about the mitigations occurring on the north block because he did not believe that was what the City wanted. He suggested the phrase "during Phase I" be eliminated. Leaving the north block alone might be beneficial to the neighborhood because there would be a lot less construction and there was physical space in existing PAMF facilities which could relieve the pressures for square footage on the main and west blocks which would reduce the amount of mass on those blocks. If housing was built on the north block, there would be underground parking, more trucks, etc. AMENDMENT: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, to amend the motion to revise Item No. 2 to delete the phrase "during Phase 1." Council Member Woolley said Council Member Cobb was correct as to why the phrase "during Phase I" was a part of Item No. 2. If the language was deleted, Council would be limiting staff's negotiations with the PAMF with respect to housing mitigations on the north block, and she did not want to send that message. Mayor Sutorius said the inclusion of Phase I took into account situations which involved the parking deficit or services that were already intended to move to the main or west block and the language offered that latitude. Commissioner Christensen said the Planning Commission recom- mendation did not specify Phase I but there was language that allowed flexibility. AMENDMENT FAILED 2-6, Cobb, Levy "aye," McCown "not participating." Mr. Zaner said the PAMF representatives requested the time period be changed to four weeks instead of three. MAKER AND SECOND OF MOTION INCORPORATED INTO ITEM NO. 2 that the time period for return to the Council be changed from three weeks to four weeks. Council Member Renzel referred to the language "small scale ancillary buildings" in Item No. 4, and said the buildings would be well within the zoning allowed. Item No. 6 was strictly intended to deal with parking which needed to be clear. Commissioner Christensen was comfortable as long as the word "Consideration" was included in the amendment. Council Member Kniss asked Mr. Northway to comment on Items 4 and 6. 65-321 02/04/91 As Corrected 03/18/91 Mr. Northway said they did not pose any problems for the design phase. AMENDMENT: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Andersen, to amend Item No. 6 to insert the words "and/or combined" after the words "two level parking." Council Member Cobb believed it was important to have the parking lot on Channing and Waverley Streets converted to housing. One way to do so was to move the two-level parking to the main block. Commissioner Christensen emphasized the word "consideration" because she could not support a two-level parking structure. Council Member Cobb wanted to allow the architect as much flexi- bility as possible to explore other options. AMENDMENT PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." AMENDMENT: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Andersen, to amend Item 7 to start the process for removing the grandfather provision from the President's Office. Council Member Renzel believed when a Specific Plan was being pre- pared with the major benefit of consolidating all of the facili- ties, it made more sense to include the President's Office rather than leave it to be determined. Mr. Schreiber said the PAMF did not own the President's Office. The President's Office would not be part of the property PAMF would submit a Specific Plan application for. Council Member Renzel asked if as part of the Specific Plan process Council could determine the President's Office should be con- solidated and the grandfathering of the structure removed. Mr. Schreiber said it was an option and an amortization period would run for some time after which the use would need to be con- verted a conforming use. Council Member Levy concurred the grandfathering clause should be removed from the site so that it reverted to residential. Mayor Sutorius had some ambivalence as to whether the grandfather provision should be incorporated into the process at that time. AMENDMENT PASSED 6-2, Fazzino, Sutorius "no", McCown "not partici- pating". Council Member Fazzino did not support Item 8. He had serious concerns about a policy of supporting a change to the 50-foot height limit. He would entertain consideration of a variance to the 50-foot height limit if there was a specific project proposal before him. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Levy, to amend Item 8 to include that the Lee Building have a maximum height of 50 feet. Council Member Renzel was willing to support the language as con- tained main motion to allow the design flexibility because she hoped there would be airtight, ironclad agreements which said no additional square footage would be built in the particular area. The PAMF had a fixed amount of square footage for the two blocks. Council Member Cobb concurred with Council Member Renzel. Council Member Fazzino said Mr. Northway indicated he did not have a concern with the 50-feet height limit. If Council voted to approve increasing the maximum height limit above the 50-feet, it would be the first time since the height limit was passed in 1974 and would set a bad precedent. AMENDMENT FAILED 2-6, Fazzino, Levy "aye", McCown "not partici- pating". Council Member Cobb referred to Item 9 and believed there would be some benefits if a pedestrian bridge could be built attractively and well because it would alleviate foot traffic in the neighbor- hood. Council Member Renzel believed an air rights passage way over Bryant Street would create a constraining and very urban aspect to the area which she could not support. Council voted earlier to put a car connection between the two parking garages, and she believed a pedestrian connection could be easily incorporated into that design. Council Member Andersen asked whether the air rights had a value to the City. Mr. Zaner said yes. The air rights was valued similar to real property. Council Member Andersen felt the architect should have the flexi- bility to look at a pedestrian connection. Council Member Fazzino concurred with Council Member Renzel's com- ments. 65-323 02/04/91 As Corrected 03/18/91 Council Member Levy felt that a pedestrian bridge might be beneficial to the area. AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved, with respect to Item No. 10, that all construction shall be in phases to be approved at the Specific Plan stage and designed so that: 1) there will be minimal impacts on the neighborhood; and 2) there will be no parking deficit at the conclusion of each phase. AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND Council Member Renzel would support the motion at that stage but if the next stage was not acceptable, she would vote against the project. MOTION AS AMENDED DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF MOTION AS TO ITEM 1 PASSED 7-1, Renzel "no," McCown "not participating." SECOND PART OF MOTION AS TO ITEMS 2 AS AMENDED, 3, 4, 5, 6 AS AMENDED, 7 AS AMENDED, 10 PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." THIRD PART OF MOTION AS TO ITEM 8 PASSED 6-2, Fazzino, Levy "no," McCown "not participating." FOURTH PART OF MOTION AS TO ITEM 9 PASSED 6-2, Fazzino, Renzel "no," McCown "not participating." RECESS: 9:50 p.m. to 10:10 p.m. Phasing and Construction Period MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Cobb, to Endorse, as a policy, the proposed project's phasing, subject to Item No. 10 under Project Location and Height as follows: 1. Phase I: relocation of the Blake Wilbur (Urgent Care) facili- ties on the west or main block; development of the entire west block for Medical Foundation facilities including two levels of subterranean parking; and 2. Phase II: remodeling and possible expansion of the Lee building, remodeling of the Roth building, and new construc- tion on the west side of the block; subterranean parking on the main block along a portion of Bryant with a connection to the west block garage; and possible construction of ancillary buildings on the east side of the Lee building and a two-level parking garage adjacent to the Lee building. Council Member Woolley believed the phasing of the project was very important and the Planning Commission had done a very reasonable job. There was no guarantee the project would be done to absolute completion, and there was an obligation to the neighbors that during Phase I the parking deficit would be completed. Council Member Levy agreed phasing of the project was important, but believed the policy should not include the elements of the phases but rather be included in the Specific Plan. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded Renzel, that Items 1 and 2 be replaced with the following: That all construction shall be in phases to be approved at the Specific Plan stage and that the phases shall be designed to minimize impacts on the neighborhood; and that there will be no parking deficit at the conclusion of each stage. Council Member Renzel said when the project returned to Council, she would be looking at those issues as well as how the houses on Bryant Street were dealt with, and how the impacts of any indi- vidual phase were mitigated in that phase or accounted for in the airtight agreement for future phases. Mayor Cobb asked if the specificity in the original motion was to provide certain protection. Commissioner Christensen did not feel strongly either way. She understood the idea behind Phase I including the relocation of the Urgent Care because that allowed for the possibility of moving the houses off of the west block onto the Urgent Care site. The substitute motion would still allow the Planning Commission to consider the option. Planning Commissioner Bill Glazier said the PAMF stressed at the Planning Commission hearing relocation was the only logical way they could do it. Mr. Zimmerman said the original motion was consistent with the original Planning Commission motion which reflected the phasing as outlined by the PAMF, but it also tried to focus on impacts in relatively defined and limited areas. Council Member Andersen said the substitute motion did not refer to the PAMF's need to keep the building operating. He asked if the amendment could adversely affect the PAMF's planning with regard to a systemized manner of allowing the function to continue. Commissioner Christensen said Council Member Levy's substitute motion gave the PAMF the most flexibility as opposed to writing specific requirements into the phases. 65-325 02/04/91 As Corrected 03/18/91 Mayor Sutorius said many of the issues that the neighborhood, PAMF, and staff had worked on were quite balanced and recognized as des- cribed in the original motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 4-4, Fazzino, Kniss, Levy, Renzel "aye," McCown "not participating." MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." Neighborhood Protection Mayor Cobb said he and his colleagues were very concerned about neighborhood protection. MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Kniss, that the City Council strongly endorses, as a policy, that the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Specific Plan will place as a high priority protecting the neighborhood by buffering, mitigating parking and traffic, and using street tree landscape and other alternatives. Vice Mayor Fazzino asked whether the motion embraced all possible mitigations or whether some specific suggestions regarding ways in which the 45,000 square feet expansion created problems for the neighborhood needed to be explored. Council Member Cobb believed the broad policy statement needed to be made explicitly. He expected when the Specific Plan returned to the Council it would be user friendly to the neighborhood. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." Housing Relocation of West Block Housing MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel, that the Council endorse, as a policy, that all or most of the existing older residences on the west block be relocated within the Specific Plan area, if feasible. Council Member Woolley said the feasibility issues applied to whether the older residences were structurally sound enough to be moved and economically feasible to be rehabilitated. Council Member Cobb asked why the reference to single-family was dropped. Council Member Woolley said the staff report (CMR:109:91) referred to new single-family housing. Her motion spoke to moving the old residences on the west block and the houses would have to conform to the zoning. Commissioner Glazier said the Planning Commission's recommendation was based on a concern that to keep the older residences as a part of the Specific Plan areas, they would have to be stored on the surface parking lot of the main block until such time as the Urgent Care facilities could be built on the west block and then torn down. The storing of the houses on the parking lot would exacer- bate the parking deficit during the construction period. Council Member Woolley believed relocation of the Urgent Care facilities could either occur on the main or west blocks so that relocating to the main block could be step one, relocating the houses could be step two, and then dealing with the west block could be step three. That could be accomplished during Phase I. Mr. Schreiber asked if it was acceptable if the only way to preserve the houses was to store them for some period of time in the parking area which would exacerbate the parking deficit. Council Member Renzel said if the houses could be permanently moved to parking areas on the Urgent Care site and perhaps not landscaped that was a possibility. Council Member Kniss said storing the houses for any length of time would mean finding a location and also associated with that was the deterioration of the houses. Mr. Schreiber said the deterioration of the housing if stored for any length of time and the parking deficit exacerbation lead staff to recommend the houses not be relocated. If the houses were stored, the period would be several years and the damage to the buildings could be substantial. Commissioner Christensen was concerned about the words "if feasible" in the motion. She said two Council Members described "if feasible" in terms of the physical practicality of the houses themselves, and economic feasibility in terms of remodeling and restoring the houses. The Planning Commission had considered the feasibility but believed it was workable. She queried Council what impacts they were willing to accept in order for the process to work. LANGUAGE INCORPORATED INTO THE MAIN MOTION BY MAKER AND SECOND as follows: "In the event new single-family housing is placed on the site, it should be developed consistent with the style and scale of houses in the existing neighborhood." Council Member Woolley recognized the recommendation would not work unless the Urgent Care facility was moved first onto the main block, and that the Planning Commission had not considered it. 65-327 02/04/91 As Corrected 03/18/91 Commissioner Christensen said for the recommendation to work some of the existing buildings on the main block needed to be removed which was a medical issue from the PAMF's perspective or the buildings would have to go onto an area that was existing parking. Council Member Woolley said that was correct and she was willing to accept the parking deficit in order to retain the houses. Council Member Kniss supported the motion but reiterated her concerns about the deterioration of the houses. Mayor Sutorius wanted the west block houses acquired for re-use; however, he recognized moving the houses resulted in some construc- tion impacts. The best solution would be to have a site prepared for the houses. The opportunity to do that would require the PAMF to determine if they wanted to be the developer of a subdivision process or put the property on the market. He was prepared to oppose the motion. Council Member Renzel commented the Blake Wilbur Building had urgent care on the first floor and other facilities on the second floor, and it might be possible that only the Urgent Care portion of the building needed to be located to the main facility which was not as much square footage as the current building was. She believed the Historic Resources Board would be delighted to see houses of that vintage incorporated on the Channing site. She supported the motion. Council Member Woolley urged Council to support the motion. The idea of putting Urgent Care on the main block where the surface parking was available appeared to be more attractive. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Sutorius "no," McCown "not participating." MOTION: Vice Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Woolley, that the Council consider the establishment of a neighborhood permit parking system based upon the significance of the expansion program on parking in that area. Vice Mayor Fazzino was concerned about the potential impact of the expansion with respect to the parking situation in the area, and although the Council was not in a position that evening to actually impose a solution that could address the problems, he wanted the Council to go on record in support of the concept of permit parking if the situation in the area did deteriorate over the next couple of years. He would not stop the permit parking and would consider the possibility of traffic barriers. Council Member Renzel would consider the permit system process in the future but believed it was premature to put the neighborhood through the rigorous permit system process at the current time. The last time the permit system came up was in conjunction with the Downtown parking. There were just as many neighbors who opposed the permit system as there were in support. The same situation would probably occur in the Clinic area. She hoped the PAMF's Specific Plan would deliver on its promises and the City would not have to deal with the permit system. Council Member Kniss supported the motion because it was extremely important to protect the neighborhood. Council Member Levy concurred with Council Member Renzel that the permit system was premature. Mayor Sutorius said last Monday night at 1:00 a.m., he traveled on Bryant Street between Homer Avenue and Embarcadero Road, and there were 66 cars and one moped parked on the street. On Ramona Street between Homer and Kingsley Avenues, there were 47 cars and one motorcycle parked on the street. On Addison Avenue between Ramona and Cowper Streets, there were 56 cars on the street. The lowest count was between Ramona and Bryant Streets with 11 cars on the street. There were some parking concerns to contend with but he believed the residents in the area used a good deal of the parking and he queried how much of the concern was exclusively attributable to the sleepers and other sources. He could not support the motion. Vice Mayor Fazzino felt Mayor Sutorius' comments would be addressed by the Citywide overnight parking issue. The motion referred to the 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. parking concerns. The Clinic project would result in a significant increase of the number of employees, more patients, and the project would result in far more pressure on neighborhood streets. The Planning Commission indicated if its recommendations were followed, there would not be a parking deficit, but in fact more cars would be parked on the street. He wanted Council to go on record that evening indicating to future Council's that they recognized the seriousness of the parking prob- lems in the area and were willing to support alternative measures to address the parking problem such as permit parking or barriers. MOTION FAILED 4-4, Cobb, Fazzino, Kniss, Woolley "aye," McCown "not participating." MOTION: Vice Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, that the Council endorse the creation of any alternative parking programs in the future which address an increase parking problems in the neigh- borhood. 65-329 02/04/91 As Corrected 03/18/91 Council Member Renzel was fascinated by the prognostications of how horrible the 45,000-square foot addition would impact the area. The project would impact the neighborhood. She occasionally parked her car in front of her home as did others, but it was a different circumstance when a lot of strangers parked in front of ones home, which was part of what the neighborhood was experiencing. She believed the motion was too broad. MOTION FAILED 2-6, Fazzino, Kniss "aye," McCown "not participat- ing." Parking and Tree Retention MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Sutorius, to approve staff recommendation (CMR:109:91) to endorse, as a policy, that parking for the recommended project be provided in a manner that includes preservation of the ficus trees, other landmark trees, and as many of the other trees on the project site as feasible. Council Member Cobb said his motion attempted to reflect neighbor- hood concerns with respect to protecting the street trees to the highest degree possible. Mayor Sutorius said the neighborhood and PAMF were concerned with respect to what the combination of the drought and freeze had done to the trees, and specifically the ficus tree, and asked whether a recommendation for an arborist was in order. Mr. Schreiber said it was so noted and a motion was not necessary. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." Parking Entries MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Sutorius, that the Council endorse, as a policy, that the west block garage parking entry be from Bryant Street and, when a parking structure is extended to a limited section on the main block, that there be a separate entry or entries for the main block. Council Member Woolley said if there was a parking structure, it might be of value to have an entry from the interior of the main block. It was a level of detail she did not feel comfortable with but it was in the staff report. The Planning Commission wrestled with the issue and wanted a specific recommendation on the subject. Commissioner Christensen said the motion was more general than the Planning Commission's recommendation, but she saw no problem with it. 65-330 02/04/91 Council Member Renzel believed the parking garage entry should not be on one of the one-way streets, but rather on Bryant because the 65-331 02/04/91 entry was from either direction. She objected to requiring a separate entry for the main block but would not mind permitting an entry from the main block if that was a part of the design of the project. She saw no reason why the main block underground parking could not be accessed through the connection proposed to go under Bryant Street which made good sense and allowed for a few more parking spaces. She preferred to minimize the number of street entries. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Woolley, that the Council approve the staff recommendation to endorse, as a policy, that the west block garage parking entry be from Bryant Street and if a parking structure is extended to a limited section on the main block, that the entry be from a project driveway connecting to Bryant Street. Further, adding language as follows: "Nothing in this action prohibits the inclusion of interior entry from the main block if there is no affect on surface parking." Council Member Andersen did not want to limit the Transportation Division's staff's efforts to find the best flow feasible. He asked about the impact on the bike lane on Bryant Street. Mr. Schreiber said the operating assumption was that Byrant Street would remain open and would continue to serve at least the existing bicycle function and could serve a greater bicycle function. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Kniss, that no action on policies regarding parking entrances be enter- tained. Council Member Levy said the reason for his motion was the level of detail discussed should be developed by the Architectural Review Board. Mayor Sutorius said Council was recommending policy directions for the Specific Plan and he believed there were reasons why the recom- mendations were being developed. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 5-3, Cobb, Renzel, Sutorius "no," McCown "not participating." Historic Mitigation MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Woolley, to approve the staff recommendation to endorse, as policy, that: 1. The ficus tree adjacent to the former A.M.E. Zion Church structure be retained; 65-332 02/04/91 2. A plaque be placed on the former A.M.E. Zion Church site noting its history and cultural contribution to Palo Alto; 3. The Medical Foundation underwrite a documentation of this church's history at this site; and 4. That this documentation be displayed in the Palo Alto Medical Foundation facilities. Council Member Andersen said if he could see an alternative that would allow the Council to provide a reasonable method by which the A.M.E. Zion Church could be retained, he would support it. Vice Mayor Fazzino relunctantly supported the motion. He strongly supported saving the A.M.E. Zion Church and incorporating it into the project but did not see much support for it. Council Member Renzel asked if the motion precluded any continued efforts to try to incorporate the building in the project or for some type of conversion to occur. Mr. Schreiber said if someone had a creative idea during the Specific Plan process staff would be receptive to it. Council Member Renzel suggested additional language be added to the motion that supported preserving the A.M.E. Zion Church. FOLLOWING LANGUAGE INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY MAKER AND SECOND "That if it is not possible to utilize or relocate the former A.M.E. Zion Church structure the following are the applicable policies." Council Member Levy really wanted to save the church, but respected the discussions and conclusions of the Planning Commission. He supported the language that Council Member Renzel suggested. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." Open Space Council Member Cobb was concerned about the language in the recom- mendation and asked for comment. Commissioner Christensen said the Planning Commission did not want to preclude other possibilities at that corner to just turning the existing parking lot into open space. Mr. Zimmerman said in Planning Commission recommendation tried to accommodate neighbors who suggested a tradeoff with a portion of 65-333 02/04/91 the convalescent hospital parking lot so it might be used an extension of Scott Street Park. Many neighbors believed the corner parking lot was not a viable extension of Scott Street Park. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Levy, to approve staff recommendation to endorse, as a policy, that open space opportunities be expanded near the southeast corner of Channing and Bryant Streets when the Medical Foundation surface corner parking lot is vacated. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." Bryant Street Open/Closed MOTION: Vice Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Sutorius, to approve staff recommendation to endorse, as a policy, that Bryant Street be kept open and that the block between Homer and Channing Avenues be enhanced by the design of special landscaping, pedestrian and pave- ment features. Council Member Andersen asked what impact the study on the one-way streets would have if indeed the street patterns were changed. Mr. Schreiber said there was no study underway with regard to Homer and Channing Avenues. The only study related to the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard concept. There had been discussion regarding eliminating the one-way streets. The PAMF's plans were reviewed assuming either the existing situation or converting the streets to two-way traffic. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." Child Care MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Fazzino, that Council endorse the policy that the final Specific Plan contain a policy recommending the Comprehensive Plan and zoning for the Channing/Ramona site be retained in a residential designation (i.e., Single-Family Residential land use designation and R-2 zoning), allowing child care facilities with approval of a conditional use permit. Council Member Renzel said everyone was supportive of child care. The motion was nonessential since the area was zoned residential and there was no recommendation before them to change it. MOTION TO TABLE: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Kniss, to table to motion. 65-334 02/04/91 MOTION TO TABLE FAILED 2-6, Kniss, Renzel "aye," McCown "not parti- cipating." Council Member Levy said Council Member Renzel was technically correct the motion had no specific impact, but it did reaffirm Council felt very positively towards child care with respect to the project. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Renzel "no," McCown "not participating." Traffic Impacts and Construction Time Table Vice Mayor Fazzino was concerned little attention was given to traffic impacts and he was very interested in the construction time table. In conjunction with the Golden Triangle Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinances, as a large employer, the PAMF would be required to reduce single passenger trips during the next few years, and he asked what goal the staff was looking at. Mr. Schreiber said the TDM ordinance the City adopted would apply to the PAMF and would start to impact them within the next six months. The TDM did not require a specific performance level, but it would require the PAMF to develop a program and reporting mechanism regarding the diversion of trips. Presently, staff did not feel there was impact associated with the project that warranted measures beyond the TDM. Vice Mayor Fazzino said it was appropriate for the Council to evaluate the implementation of the ordinances, the development of a Specific Plan, and then determine whether more stringent TDM programs would be appropriate. Mr. Schreiber agreed; in the EIR, staff evaluated worse case situa- tions which assumed low performance in those areas and did not find other than Homer Avenue/Bryant Street intersection, traffic situa- tions that warranted mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Vice Mayor Fazzino asked if there would be opportunities later on to evaluate ways in which the traffic could be funneled into the project from major arterials rather than through residential areas or whether it should be addressed at that time. Mr. Schreiber said the issue could be considered but he was not aware of any method that would allow for any reasonable funneling of traffic on just a few streets short of barriers and changing the traffic patterns in the neighborhood. He believed the wider dis- persal of the PAMF was better than trying to concentrate the traffic on just a few streets. 65-335 02/04/91 Vice Mayor Fazzino was willing to hold off on making motions but remauined concerned about the issue of traffic related problems associated with the project. He asked if an ironclad construction time table could be established as part of the development of the agreement which was tougher than the proposal before them. Mr. Schreiber said construction time tables could be established but he was not sure they could be ironclad. The Planning Commis- sion looked at the issue and did not recommend a construction time table because as the project unfolded in the Specific Plan process, more information would be available, and since the project went from three phases to two and the amount of underground parking on the main block was substantially reduced, the construction impacts would be more manageable. Vice Mayor Fazzino clarified there would be a point in a few months when the Council could evaluate the issue. Public Participation MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, that staff be directed to return to the Council in four weeks with a plan for a supplemental public participation process that includes the neighborhoods, staff, public and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Council Member Andersen was concerned the public hearing process really did not give the public an opportunity to brainstorm. He asked that staff provide the participants and Council with the International City Manager's Association paper entitled "Taking Charge--How Communities Are Planning Their Futures." Council Member Cobb said it was important that those people empowered to speak on behalf of the neighborhoods did so. He suggested taking a look at the overall processes to see if changes were in order. Council Member Levy asked staff to react to the motion. Mr. Zaner said staff would put together a public participation program which would be appropriate for the project and return to the Council with how the program would work. Council Member Levy said Palo Alto had more avenues for public participation than most cities. With respect to the neighborhood, there was no neighborhood. Adding another layer where the public would interface with the architect would be an amorphous situation. The process should remain as it was, but a special point should be made to communicate very strongly with the neighborhood for each 65-336 02/04/91 public meeting held and the meetings should be held at a time con- venient for the neighbors. MOTION TO TABLE: Council Member Levy moved to table the motion. MOTION TO TABLE FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MOTION PASSED 7-1, Levy "no," McCown "not participating." Project Exterior Construction Council Member Cobb referred to Vice Mayor Fazzino comments regarding construction time tables, and was concerned Council had not made a policy statement that the Specific Plan should make every possible effort to minimize construction impacts. MOTION: Vice Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Woolley, that Council endorse the policy, that the project exterior construction be scheduled so as to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." MOTION: Mayor Sutorius, seconded by Cobb, that the Council adopt the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Draft Specific Plan as amended. Council Member Renzel reiterated there were parts of the proposal she was not pleased with and some areas could pose problems in the next stage. While she reserved the right to vote against the project at that time, she would support it at that stage. Council Member Levy commended the Planning Commission, PAMF, staff and the neighborhood residents who participated in a very thorough and not an easy project. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." MOTION: Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Kniss, to direct the Planning Commission to recommend appropriate Comprehensive Plan amendments to respond to the policy recommendations endorsed by the City Council. Council Member Renzel would support the motion but expected the amendments would be the minimum Comprehensive Plan changes necessary and most narrowly defined to deal with the project. There were some major policy issues of job/housing imbalance and housing and traffic issues the Specific Plan would run afoul of if the Comprehensive Plan was not amended. She did not want to open up areas of the City that had been served well by the policies in place. 65-337 02/04/91 MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct the Planning Commission to prepare a Specific Plan consistent with the policy recommendations endorsed by the City Council, with a proviso that it is subject to further refinement at the conclusion of the four week period. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown "not participating." ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. 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. 65-338 02/04/91