HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-13 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting February 13, 1995 1. Closed Session re Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 ............ 75-71 1. Appointments to the Historic Resources Board ........... 75-72 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ......................................... 75-73 2. Utilities Organizational Review - Refer to Utilities Advisory Commission .................................... 75-73 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Cabletron Systems, Inc. for Design, Installation and Maintenance of Local Area Networks at Three Remote Facilities ...... 75-73 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Stephen Nunes Lighting for Lighting Upgrade at Webster/Cowper and Lot Q Parking Garages .............................. 75-74 5. Approval of Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction Company, Inc. for Southgate Utilities Project (Electric Underground Utility District No. 35, Water Main Replacement Project - Phase VIIIB, and Gas Main Replacement Project - Phase IV) .... 75-74 6. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C4052704 between the City of Palo Alto and Deloitte & Touche for Additional Expenses for Audit Report of State Grant Expenditures .. 75-74 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ................... 75-74 8. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation ............................................. 75-74 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee ..................................... 75-74 RECESS TO A CLOSED SESSION: 9:05 P.M. - 9:55 P.M. .......... 75-86 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ......... 75-86 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m. ........... 75-87
02/13/95 75-70
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Human Resources/Council Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss, McCown ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Closed Session for the Purpose of a Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Employee Organization: International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Susan Ryerson, Jim McGee, Lalo Perez) Mayor Simitian announced that City Council took no disclosable or reportable action regarding Agenda Item No. 1 during the Closed Session that evening. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:43 p.m.
02/13/95 75-71
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:03), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointments to the Historic Resources Board RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR BALDWIN: VOTING FOR BARBEE: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR BERNSTEIN: VOTING FOR KOHLER: VOTING FOR LIPPERT: VOTING FOR RICHMAN: Assistant City Clerk Kathi Hamilton announced that Ann Barbee received nine votes and was appointed on the first ballot. RESULTS OF THE SECOND ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR BALDWIN: VOTING FOR BARBEE: VOTING FOR BERNSTEIN: Andersen, Rosenbaum VOTING FOR KOHLER: Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Schneider VOTING FOR LIPPERT: Simitian VOTING FOR RICHMAN: McCown, Wheeler Assistant City Clerk Kathi Hamilton announced that none of the candidates received five or more votes on the second round of voting and another round of ballots was in order. RESULTS OF THE THIRD ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR BALDWIN: VOTING FOR BARBEE: VOTING FOR BERNSTEIN: Andersen, Rosenbaum VOTING FOR KOHLER: Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Schneider
02/13/95 75-72
VOTING FOR LIPPERT: Simitian VOTING FOR RICHMAN: McCown, Wheeler Assistant City Clerk Kathi Hamilton announced that none of the candidates received five or more votes on the third round of voting and another round of ballots was in order. RESULTS OF THE FOURTH ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR BALDWIN: VOTING FOR BARBEE: VOTING FOR BERNSTEIN: VOTING FOR KOHLER: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Schnei-der, Wheeler VOTING FOR LIPPERT: Simitian VOTING FOR RICHMAN: McCown, Rosenbaum Assistant City Clerk Kathi Hamilton announced that Roger Kohler received six votes and was appointed on the fourth ballot. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ken E. Schwartz, homeless, spoke regarding the train underpass. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Avenue, spoke regarding civic responsi-bility (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, spoke regarding the newsletter "Environmental Forum." CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 6. Refer 2. Utilities Organizational Review - Refer to Utilities Advisory Commission Action 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Cabletron Systems, Inc. for Design, Installation and Maintenance of Local Area Networks at Three Remote Facilities; change orders not to exceed $6,000. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. 4044918 between the City of Palo Alto and Lewis & Tibbitts, Inc. to Install Conduit for the Local Area Networks
02/13/95 75-73
4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Stephen Nunes Lighting for Lighting Upgrade at Webster/Cowper and Lot Q Parking Garages; change orders not to exceed $3,000. 5. Approval of Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction Company, Inc. for Southgate Utilities Project (Electric Underground Utility District No. 35, Water Main Replacement Project - Phase VIIIB, and Gas Main Replace-ment Project - Phase IV); change orders not to exceed $344,700. Specific Agreement between and among Pacific Bell, Cable Cooperation of Palo Alto, Inc. and the City of Palo Alto Joint Participation Installation of Underground Facilities System Underground Utility District No. 35 6. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C4052704 between the City of Palo Alto and Deloitte & Touche for Additional Expenses for Audit Report of State Grant Expenditures MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 2 - 6. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue Agenda Item No. 7, Ordinance Amending Section 18.49.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (CD District Regula-tions), Relating to Remodeling of Historic Buildings, to the City Council Meeting of February 21, 1995, and to take public comment at that time. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Schneider "not participating." CLOSED SESSION 8. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litiga-tion Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation
Authority: Government Code ∋54956(b)(1) arising out of the San Francisco Symphony's demand to cease use of the phrase
"black & white ball." (Gov. Code, ∋54956.9(b)(1) & (b)(3)(C). Public Comment None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto's future. The policies and
02/13/95 75-74
programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transportation, and Naturalu Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direc-tion for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update Mayor Simitian reminded everyone comments from the public and questions from Council Members concerning the Housing Section had been heard at the previous meeting. He indicated Council Member Kniss and he had not had an opportunity to ask questions and would be doing so that evening. Additional materials had been provided by staff in the Council packet. Since much of the Housing Section of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) was built on the notion there was a significant jobs/housing imbalance, he asked for clarification on the issue, to what extent it was still a significant issue, and if Mr. Schreiber believed that not much could be done about it. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said he had not intended to indicate the City should not be doing a number of things regarding the provision of housing in Palo Alto. The corporate limits of the city were artificial boundaries in terms of where people lived and worked. Within any urban or metropolitan area, concentrations of jobs and concentrations of housing were not necessarily linked with municipal or other governmental limits. The jobs/housing imbalance discussed in Palo Alto over the years, 2.7, 2.8, or 2.9 jobs per housing unit, was based on the corporate limit framework. Second, within urban areas, considerable research had been done regarding the relationship of jobs and housing with commute patterns and travel distances. The research showed that urban areas did develop an overall balance in terms of jobs and housing which related significantly to commute patterns. While there was anecdotal evidence to support progressively longer commutes, analysis of travel patterns and research using census data, survey work, etc., did not find commutes becoming inherently longer. In fact, in the Bay Area, commutes were not significantly longer than in 1950 or 1960. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) projected that by the year 2010, the typical commute in the Bay Area would be shorter than it was today. He said the problem in Palo Alto was a loss of employment from 1990 which ABAG predicted would be somewhat less by the year 2000 and again in the year 2010. The reason was related to the fact that little housing was being built in the broader, Midpeninsula Area and a significant part of the increase in employment during the 1970s and first half of the 1980s was based on increased numbers of jobs per household which had leveled off. The result was not enough labor supply within the typical commuting area that would serve Palo Alto. The assumption had been no matter how much square footage had been built in Palo Alto, it would fill up with employees. The reality was there was not enough housing and labor within reasonable commute of Palo Alto. He said it was important to recognize that housing was extremely important and would be a continuing high planning priority in Palo Alto. Housing would provide some additional
02/13/95 75-75
labor supply. A significant amount of future housing was likely to come from housing built in the Sand Hill Road corridor by Stanford University. Research showed housing built by a private employer had positive benefits in terms of jobs/housing and air quality relationships. A natural linkage occurred between the housing and jobs even when the housing was not restricted to employees. Third, the introduction of more housing in Palo Alto had positive benefits in the broader regional and subregional perspective. The CalTrain corridor and the need to develop concentrations of jobs, employment, and housing close to train stations presented Palo Alto the opportunity to provide additional housing close to University and California Avenues train stations. Finally, increased numbers of people living in Palo Alto would tend to spend money in Palo Alto which would help the local economy. Housing was extremely important. Becoming overly concerned with the specific numerical ratio of the jobs/housing imbalance would not solve the problem and might act as a diversion from pursuing additional housing development in the City. Mayor Simitian asked the City Attorney for clarification of his previous counsel regarding the greater limits of discretion on the Council regarding the Housing Section and the limits of discretion on what actions Council might take in putting the Housing Section together. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the legal issue was simply that planned housing densities were virtually an entitlement at least as state law was structured. The second concern was to identify that Housing Sections were the most technical piece of General Plan law. He said the concern had been highlighted in the Planning and Economic Resources staff reports (CMR:139:95, CMR:142:95, CMR:488:95) which spoke of the need to work with the state Housing and Community Development (HCD) people to try to do novel things. Mayor Simitian said he raised the issue because he believed the City Attorney brought up the issue of limited discretion as a matter of concern for Council as his client. Mayor Simitian viewed the limited discretion as being beneficial in two regards: 1) there was value in having a Plan which said what it meant. If there were less "wiggle" room in the Housing Section once created, there would be value to would-be project applicants and members of the public when dealing with the City; and 2) given the difficulty in creating additional housing, anything the state could do to strengthen the City's hand and limit its discretion might be viewed as a plus rather than a minus. He wanted to be sure that the City Attorney's comments were simply a lawyer's caution to his client about discretion and not a suggestion that somehow having clarity or specificity built into the Housing Section was a bad thing. Council Member Kniss asked if staff had talked with other communities in the area regarding the proposed amnesty program. Chief Building Official Fred Herman said Los Altos, in the early 1960s, and San Mateo, in the early 1980s, were two communities
02/13/95 75-76
which had adopted such ordinances. Los Altos had been more successful than San Mateo only because lots tended to be larger and San Mateo had 50-foot lots which made on-site parking diffi-cult. Council Member Kniss clarified San Mateo required on-site parking. Mr. Herman said yes, as did Los Altos. Council Member Kniss clarified the amnesty program was being recommended by at least one body, but there were many particulars which needed to be worked out including parking. Mr. Herman said yes. Council Member Huber said one of the cornerstones of the Housing policy was building near transit such as had occurred on Califor-nia Avenue. He asked how many people in the condominium units actually used public transit. Mr. Schreiber said there was no specific survey information. One study had been done in the Bay Area which indicated a clear benefit of having housing close to transit. However, the findings showed the benefit significantly increased as there were more and more clusters of housing and employment along the line. Palo Alto could facilitate greater use of transit in the Peninsula by providing housing opportunities close to train stations. Council Member Fazzino was interested in knowing if other communities had taken actions to address other aspects of second unit impacts on neighborhoods such as noise, pets, etc. Mr. Herman said he had not heard of any. Parking, the problem of codes, substandard housing, lack of heating, sanitation, what to do with those who did not apply for the program, etc., were the aspects addressed. Los Altos had been more successful than San Mateo. Council Member Fazzino clarified the number of people could not be regulated. Mr. Herman said that was correct because family was defined in California law; no limit. Council Member Fazzino noted he had considerable difficulty with the paragraph on top of page 2 of the staff report (CMR:139:95) and asked for a concise summary of what was meant by the set of statements beginning with "(generalized rules that allow considerable latitude...)." Mr. Schreiber said at least one parenthesis was missing. One issue was the extent to which the City should control the specif-ics of future development; how precise should the zoning rules be. Another critical point was the extent of the review process. To what extent should housing go through more difficult, longer, discretionary processes. In looking at housing issues as a set of
02/13/95 75-77
policy issues, rather than focusing on the details of specific zoning concepts, the critical questions were the extent to which the City wanted to have very specific, tight rules and the extent to which the City's review processes should be short and simple versus more complicated review processes. As staff tried to work with the issues of predictability and flexibility, property owners and neighbors wanted predictability. In the past, more and more specific rules were created to accomplish predictability. The problem was there were still no rules which were housing-product specific. If people expected townhouses to be built next door and a 3- or 4-story condominium were built, neighbors would be upset. Another step for the City to take was to designate particular zones for townhouses, etc., which was another level of tightness. To what extent the decision-making process should be discretionary, was another part, as was how much of the process should revolve around design concerns that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) traditionally dealt with in terms of site planning and location of building on the site and how much should involve the use and the appropriateness of the use which tended to get it out of the ARB process and into the Planning Commission and City Council process. There were trade offs in either case. From a policy perspective, Council should keep in mind how specific the City's rules should be and what type of review process was needed. Council Member McCown referred to a letter Council received from Herb Borock (on file in the City Clerk's office) which pointed out the current Housing Section as adopted by the City in 1990 and approved by the state HCD in 1991 and contained pieces he believed to be missing from the draft in front of Council that evening. She said staff had pointed out in another document current Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs omitted in Draft IV. She asked staff if there were sections of the approved Housing Section that had been omitted completely or significantly modified to elicit concern about the future approval of the Housing Section by HCD. Mr. Schreiber said in the staff comments on the larger sheets containing the CPAC, PC, and other board and commission recommendations, a couple of areas had been identified where either the PC dropped something the state required or there was a need for fitting something else in; however, the major substance was in the CPAC and PC recommendations. He assured Council that in assembling the Housing Section, when Council's review was complete, and something was found that the state still wanted in it, staff would come back to Council with the item(s) highlighted as something Council had not previously reviewed. Council Member McCown referred to the staff reports received in that week's packet (CMR:139:95, CMR:142:95) and commented on also having had difficulty grasping the concepts presented. The multi-family regulations in the view of staff, the ARB, developers, members of the public, etc., were not producing the types of housing opportunities and housing development desired. She had difficulty discerning from the staff reports what exactly in the current regulations was impeding housing development, market forces aside.
02/13/95 75-78
Council Member Andersen agreed with Council Member McCown and asked which approach would produce more housing. He said rental housing, in particular, was not showing up. He was interested in the concept of using commercial property for multi-family housing if property owners saw it as a benefit. He believed additional effort on the City's part to broaden the process was required. He wanted to hear the answer to Council Member McCown's question in the context of which policy or policies would allow for additional housing incentives which might bring about a greater amount of housing in the community. Assistant Planning Official Jim Gilliland said the zoning ordi-nance was very restrictive. In the RM-15, -30, and -40 zones (allowed density), the site development stipulations, parking requirements, and open space requirements all made it extremely difficult to build housing of the density that the zone would like to see. Recent projects under the RM-30 zone, which was up to 30 units per acre, actually built 12 to 14 units per acre. Mixed-use projects were not being done because the zoning ordinance required the commercial part to meet the commercial regulations and the residential part to meet the residential regulations. The residential regulations were so restrictive mixed use was difficult to do. Existing mixed use projects in the Downtown were built under the old regulations which only required commercial regulations. The ordinance was not flexible enough to recognize next year's product, whatever the latest product would be. The ordinance did not contain minimum densities. If rental housing were to be increased, a developer would be forced to build smaller units rather than larger ones. The product desired in Palo Alto was a single-family house, 1800 to 2400 square feet. If a minimum density were enforced, the unit size would be reduced to 800 to 1200 square feet which might produce some rental units. He believed, regarding the policy issue, what was needed in the Housing Section was enough flexibility to create the various types of ordinances which would allow for the development of housing. There were many tools to increase housing and to create zoning that would allow for housing. The current multi-family regulations were passed in 1986-1987 and fit very well into the product being built at that time, a townhouse. The regulations did not readily allow for other types of products. Economic Resources Planning Manager Carol Jansen responded to Council Member Andersen's question from a market standpoint. She said members of the housing development community reviewed the reports before Council that evening and commented on the reports. When there was a high level of unpredictability of what would ultimately be developed on a piece of property, there was a high risk factor. If the intent was to build stack condominiums on a piece of property, for example, and the end product was townhomes or single-family homes, the final product might be very different than the amount of money expended in terms of land value. As long as there was a highly discretionary review process for housing which allowed for all aspects of the discretionary review to ultimately come before bodies such as the Council, the process would be lengthy, time-consuming, and costly. The use of the
02/13/95 75-79
Planned Community (PC) zoning process for housing reflected it the most since that process still involved the component of public benefit. In the area of rental housing, the issues were more related to tax law changes, financing, and land values in the community. It was not possible in Palo Alto to buy a single-family home for the purpose of renting it and covering the costs. The same was true for rental housing in the multiple-family arena. Until subsidies for rental housing were found that did not presently exist, until tax law changed to provide advantages for owning rental housing in terms of accelerated appreciation that no longer existed, or until a lucky circumstance of a property owner coming forward with a rental housing project, the situation would not improve. She shared Mr. Gilliland's assessment that the problem with the mixed-use regulations was not being able to match up requirements for the commercial to the requirements of the residential. The result was being forced into a PC zone under the present regulations in order to build mixed-use housing projects. The financing market was also unpredictable and difficult for mixed-use projects. Separate financing was often needed for the commercial component rather than for the residential component and sometimes at higher interest rates. The residential had to be built out in order to cost recover the commercial. Mr. Schreiber said there were only three instances where rental housing projects had been developed since 1970 in Palo Alto, all with unusual circumstances. He agreed with Ms. Jansen that the combination of land value and financing simply did not work for rental housing. One project, the Harold Hohbach project, was being built for Mr. Hohbach's grandchildren. Mr. Hohbach had made the project work by zeroing out the land cost since he had owned the land for a long time. During the 1980s, there was a brief time when the tax code and bond financing came together and Lincoln Properties built Southwood Apartments. The third project was Stanford University's Welsh Road project built for medical school related staff. He did not hold out much hope for signifi-cant amounts of rental housing in Palo Alto because, fundamental-ly, the land values were too high to make it work. Council Member Andersen asked if there were policies that could be put in place to minimally increase rental housing in Palo Alto or did land costs make it impossible to be in the rental housing business. Mr. Schreiber said CPAC had addressed the issue with two specif-ics. First, the amnesty program would try to legitimize units as part of the rental stock. Second, CPAC wanted to allow second units, which would inherently be rental units, to be built in single-family neighborhoods in a more liberal fashion than was presently being done. One way would allow for second units on lots less than the current minimum size. The second way would recognize the possibility of existing single-family homes becoming duplexes. These methods would more effectively address the rental housing issue than changes in the multi-family regulations. Council Member McCown said there were conflicting policy directions and factors involved in the potential for change from
02/13/95 75-80
the existing rules. Although the current rules allowed for RM-30 and RM-40 zoning, projects were substantially less dense, 12 units per acre. At the same time, supposedly the market called for less units to be built. In the staff report (CMR:142:95) on the top of page 7 it said, "Inherent in the proposal is substantially lowered density for most housing product types and increased limits on those areas considered suitable for very high density housing projects. Unless the overall land area designated for housing increases substantially, projected hosing units could decrease." On one hand, the zones did not work because there was not as much density as desired; but, on the other hand, the product-type approach would actually produce lower units because small-lot, single-family or townhouse projects would be less dense. She questioned what the City was trying to accomplish and asked whether the focus was on policies which would create rental housing or whether more density was the goal. She did not believe the change in rules would result in more density unless more land was developed for housing. As Council began to go through the sections, she would need a better picture of what was to be accomplished and which device would be needed to accomplish it. She believed the current rules were restrictive but disagreed slightly with staff in that the rules did define the maximum. Projects sometimes came in under the maximum which were less dense. Other techniques being discussed were less clear to members of the community on what actually would result. Until the community was clear on what would result from the proposed devices, she would not be comfortable making some of the proposed changes. Council Member Schneider said the policy decisions that were addressed in both staff reports would have enormous consequences and impacts on the community. She questioned if Council was addressing the policy issues or whether enough information was available to make the necessary policy decisions as Council went through the draft document. Mr. Gilliland said the new staff reports (CMR:139:95 and CMR:142:95) were tools for implementation. The Goals, Policies, and Programs contained in CPAC's document allowed for what both staff reports referred to. Some of the Programs may need to change such as what Ms Jansen's staff report (CMR:142:95) recom-mended in the Planned Development Program (PD) which he believed had merit. There might be others needing modifications or additions. The overall Goals, Policies, and Programs as recommended by CPAC were consistent with the current Housing Section and would continue the current policies. The current policies encouraged more housing than had occurred, and the rules were standing in the way. After the Plan was completed, the rules needed to be reviewed in light of what Council adopted as policies. Council Member Schneider clarified Council would be advised as it went through the document so ordinances changes, for example, would be woven into the Plan. Mr. Gilliland said not until after the Plan was adopted, would the
02/13/95 75-81
zoning ordinances be reviewed. Mr. Calonne said from a process point legally, many of the programs under discussion were describing steps Council or succeeding Councils would take in the future to implement the policies. The discussions concerning zoning that told the form of the building or the maximums would take shape in the zoning. When the Plan proposals were looked at in total, massive revisions to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) would result, equal in scope to the Plan process itself. He believed that was the time the "rubber would meet the road." People would begin to recognize the impact on their property and property rights and the time friction would occur. As Council reached deeper into the process, Council might, procedurally, want to back up to more conceptual policy points of view. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the message she received from the staff reports was that current regulations were not flexible enough. Yet, the ultimate goal was to have flexible regulations that gave the neighbors of potential redevelopable properties and the owners of redevelopable properties some predictability. She had difficulty making the two concepts mesh. She could not discern which item or array of items would achieve the goal. She asked if there was one tool better than another that would achieve the goal or was the phrase self-cancelling. Mr. Gilliland said there was no one ideal tool. Each had advantages and negatives. Some required more up-front time to develop, and some were very quick-fixes in the end but took long approval processes. It was difficult to predict which one the community would think was the best. Mr. Calonne said there was a continuum between certainty and flexibility and there was no way to reconcile the two. The tablets of stone with the rules carved on them, for example, were very certain and very clear to the world what would happen but were very inflexible in the case of individual unfairness. Palo Alto's current spectrum was toward case-by-case flexibility which allowed for very fair individual decisions. The result was the public being happy but with no certainty of predictability in the process. The two were irreconcilable. Council, at some point, would have to pick a point on the continuum as to where the City should be. Council Member Kniss asked in looking back to the 1970s when the Plan was first drafted, how had the percentages changed regarding rentals versus owner-occupied housing compared to the present time. Mr. Schreiber said one would have to go back to the 1960s to find any substantial amount of private sector rental housing. All of the rule changes developed with the 1976 Plan did not have any notable impact because land values, financing considerations, etc., were in control. Council Member Kniss clarified nothing done at that time made a
02/13/95 75-82
difference in the current rental stock. Mr. Gilliland said not in building new rental housing. There were policies and programs contained in the document which definitely maintained the current stock of rental housing and prevented it from being redeveloped to for-sale housing or converted to condominiums. Council Member Kniss said a great deal of time was spent on housing needs and planning for housing; yet, she believed in 20 years there was not an enormous difference in how housing was provided in the City or Santa Clara County. Mr. Schreiber said in 1970, there was a jobs/housing problem in Santa Clara County. There was too much housing and not enough jobs. County-level task forces were formed to determine how to provide more jobs in Santa Clara County. The great boom of employment that took off in the early 1970s was preceded by recessions. Since that time, the growth in employment had far outstripped any effort to provide housing to keep up with it. Each city had to approach the problem within its own context. From a planning standpoint, he thought of larger public or private sector redevelopment areas generally not close to single family. Since the late 1960s, Palo Alto had been dealing with a few smaller parcel exceptions most of which were located flat against single family or across the street from single family. The City had to fit in with the existing urban fabric. Within the context of fitting in, there had been a significant amount of housing built in Palo Alto during the last 20 to 25 years. A lot of effort had gone into generating those housing amounts. The City would have to continue to figure out how to fit housing into the existing urban fabric which was where the existing regulations ran into problems. Council Member Andersen said no additional rental housing had been provided in generations, but he understood the City had an increase in the number of rental units and that many people were converting R-1 properties to rentals. He asked whether the percentage of renters was known. He said because of the increased cost of housing, a considerable number of people would never be able to buy a house in Palo Alto so rental property was more important. It was a serious issue that the Council needed to address. The Council was neglecting its responsibility if it did not take the appropriate policy direction to address that kind of housing need in the community. He did not believe the Council should go through the CPAC proposal until the questions were resolved. He wanted a clearer picture of the alternatives that might be produced and suggested the item be postponed. Council could move onto the next section and then bring that section back after staff had provided more clarification on the issues raised. Council Member Huber asked whether it was realistic that the market in the community would ever produce sizeable numbers of rental or for sale units if a minimum number were not required. Ms. Jansen said it was not realistic to expect sizeable increases
02/13/95 75-83
in units even if the Council did require a minimum. A fundamental policy issue before the Council was the issue raised by Council Member McCown that if more realistic densities were considered, it would have to apply to much larger areas in order to accomplish the same kinds of housing ends as was previously intended. However, the intentions had not occurred, and the Council was back to the same place over and over again. Palo Alto was a build-out community with highly sensitive in-fill residential development on relatively small parcels with relatively few opportunities for rental or for sale. Mr. Huber said RM-30 sites could have 30 units per acre but were getting 13 or 14 units per acre. He asked whether the Council could require that 25 units be built. Ms. Jansen said yes, but the question was whether a 25-unit per acre project would meet community expectations for palatability. Mayor Simitian said RM-30 sites might produce 13 or 14 units if all of the existing regulations were applied. One of the existing regulations was the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) so an easy technical solution to the problem would be to allow the FAR to be doubled. He asked whether that was one of the major impediments to achieving a particular number of units on a site. Mr. Gilliland said FAR and parking were the two biggest impedi-ments, and the requirements for open space would be next. Mayor Simitian said the first part of the question was whether or not the Council was prepared to accommodate substantially more bulk on a particular site. Council Member Huber raised the question that if the FAR was not raised but the Council wanted a minimum of 20 to 25 units on RM-30 sites, the sites would have smaller units. He asked whether there would be a market for the smaller units if the Council required 25 smaller units for a project and then the project could not be developed because it did not conform to the zoning. Ms. Jansen said the market changed quickly. If minimum densities were adopted under present regulations with current FAR, it would impede development. Rental housing could not be done easily because of the high land value and not many people would get into the high risk factor of selling smaller condominium units in a market that would not absorb them. Council Member Kniss was troubled that if the Council started discussing higher density and how to get more rental units, it would have to deal with the traffic and parking problems and other inherent kinds of issues that went along with adding the density. The community would not happy if the Council changed the rules that changed the value of their property and their perception of traffic and parking problems. Mayor Simitian believed the Council was being too hard on itself in terms of the community's track record of generating additional housing. The track record for rental housing might not be all
02/13/95 75-84
that the Council hoped for; but over the last 10 or 20 years, both the number of units that had been created and the number of affordable units that had been created both through the Below Market Rate (BMR) Ordinance and through the project specific approvals that the Council had granted was not inconsequential. It had importance to the individuals who lived in the units. The Council might not be able to solve the jobs/housing imbalance in the near future, but any incremental progress was good. That should be where the Council kept its focus. Mr. Schreiber said there were two sections in the staff reports that dealt with density. Many of the areas that the City hoped to have housing developed were either commercial areas or existing multiple-family lands in or near commercial areas that were close to single family. The best answer was a somewhat lower density and compatible product with the neighbors and the surrounding area. The product would be lower density and the traffic and other impacts would fit into the fabric of the community in those areas. There were some areas in Palo Alto where higher density urban-type housing was a realistic alternative, e.g., the Downtown and some, if not all, of the California Avenue area. The policy issue was how urban the Council would want Palo Alto to be. Palo Alto was a suburban community but was moving into a more urban form in certain parts of the community. If the Comprehensive Plan recognized that as valid and a project did not have to be a suburban housing product in an urban environment such as the Downtown or the area close to the California Avenue train station, sets of policies might work that dealt with lower and somewhat higher densities. Council Member Kniss clarified a site would be similar to the Times Tribune site. Mr. Schreiber said the Times Tribune site was an example of a multiple-family RM-30 site close to single family. The problem with the urban areas was it rapidly got close to single family. The housing proposed at the Times Tribune site was 16 to 17 units per acre with a much higher FAR, but the product type fit there. It was a medium-density product in terms of units per acre, and a product type that was very compatible with the neighborhood. Council Member Kniss asked if the project would be considered urban. Mr.Schreiber said yes. It was a style of urban housing, but when it was urban multiple-family, it meant two-, three-, or four-story structures that were the type of development in the late 1970s and early 1980s in the Downtown and California Avenue areas. It was urban family housing product versus a suburban detached single- family product. Mayor Simitian asked for Council Members' response to Council Member Andersen's recommendation to defer action until additional clarity had been received from staff on the larger issues that had been raised during the earlier discussions and the questions asked at the previous meeting. He suggested that approach not be taken
02/13/95 75-85
and to begin the process of moving through the Goals, Policies and Programs. The theoretical discussions would only become meaningful when the Council asked itself what were the Goals, Policies, and Programs being considered and what would be produced in real and tangible ways. Council Member McCown wanted to move forward through the Goals, Policies, and Programs. Council Member Rosenbaum encouraged the Council to continue with the section. He had asked earlier about what would be done with Ms. Jansen's report. He thought that if the policies were adopted, the implementation in terms of a zoning ordinance would follow and that would be the point at which the various issues would be described. The discussion that evening indicated the best way to proceed was to go through the policies, recognizing that the implementation would take a lot of thought. Council Member Kniss wanted to move forward with the section. Council Member Fazzino agreed. RECESS TO A CLOSED SESSION: 9:05 P.M. - 9:55 P.M. The City Council recessed to a Closed Session to discuss matters involving potential/anticipated litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 8. Mayor Simitian announced that City Council took no disclosable or reportable action regarding Agenda Item No. 8 during the Closed Session that evening. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 CONTINUED Council Member Andersen said comments had not been heard from CPAC that evening. Mayor Simitian suggested with consent of Council to continue the item to Saturday, February 25, 1995. Ms. Fleming said anyone that had been notified that the Natural Environment Section would be discussed on February 25, 1995, would be renotified of the change. Mayor Simitian said CPAC could make opening comments on February 25, 1995. If the section were completed that day, no new section would be taken up. Council Member Rosenbaum said the notice of the meeting on February 25, 1995, indicated it was scheduled from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. which was a little lengthy. The Council had informally indicated the meeting would end at 3:00 p.m. Mayor Simitian looked forward to a somewhat less lengthy meeting given the fact that two meetings had been held on the Housing Section.
02/13/95 75-86
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue Agenda Item No. 9 to the City Council meeting of Saturday, February 25, 1995. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Kniss referred to the City Manager's Report, Awards for Excellence in Budgeting, dated February 9, 1995, and she said the entire Council sent its congratulations to that department. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.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 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
02/13/95 75-87