HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-29 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting February 29, 1996 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider aspects of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the forthcoming Draft Comprehensive Plan and Planning Commission recommendations for the Plan..........................78-285 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m............78-298
02/29/96 78-284
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 7:12 p.m.), Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: McCown, Schneider, Simitian UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider aspects of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the forthcoming Draft Comprehensive Plan and Planning Commission recommendations for the Plan, including: (continued from 2/21/96 - Public Hearing Closed)
∃ Creation of new land use categories including Village Residen-tial, Mixed Use, and Commercial Hotel.
∃ Evaluation in the Draft Plan of the following changes to the Land Use Plan Map: A. Changing the land use designation of the 26-acre former Children's Hospital site at 700 Sand Hill Road from Major Institution/Special Facilities to Multiple-Family Residential; B. Incorporating the Sand Hill corridor road network proposed by Stanford University (i.e., extension and widening of Sand Hill Road, widening of Quarry Road, creation of Vineyard Lane, creation of Stockfarm Road); C. Changing the land use designation of approximately 5.5 acres of vacant land located along Quarry Road between Hoover Pavilion and El Camino Real from Open Space/Controlled Development to a Mixed Use (residential and commercial land use category; D. Changing the land use designation of sites on the north side of El Camino Real from 1795 to 1885 El Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial to Multiple-Family Residen-tial; E. Changing the land use designation of the vacant parcels at the northwest corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road from Multiple-Family Residential to Multiple-Family Residential with a Commercial Hotel overlay; F. Changing the land use designation of the Maybell Avenue property at the rear of 4170 El Camino Real from Multiple-Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial; G. Changing the land use designation of 491-493 Charleston Road and 4201-4207 El Camino Real (primarily the Rickey's Hyatt site) from Service Commercial Hotel to either Multiple-Family or Village Residential with a Commercial overlay and a policy to retain the existing landscape
02/29/96 78-285
combining overlay zone along Wilkie Way and Charleston Road; H. Changing the land use designation of 4216-71 El Camino Real/431 Dinah's Court from Service Commercial and Multiple-Family Residential to Commercial Hotel; I. Changing the land use designation of 231 Grant Avenue (Santa Clara County Mental Health Building and parking lot) from Major Institution/Special Facilities to Multiple-Family Residential; and J. Changing the land use designation of approximately five acres of land at 3880 Middlefield Road (Spangler School) from Major Institution/Special Facilities to Village Residential and/or Multiple-Family Residential. Mayor Wheeler announced that the Council would continue its review of the Land Use Plan Element of the Draft Comprehensive Plan that evening. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the staff report (CMR:154:96) identified two areas of recommenda-tions from the Planning Commission. The first related to potential new land use classification. The second related to ten Land Use Map changes. Staff recommended that Council start by looking at the land use classifications, since all the classifications would come up in discussion of specific sites. For Agenda Item No. 1E, the consultant would not be available that evening for the massing model information on Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. Staff recommended an alternative meeting date for Council to receive that information. Mayor Wheeler clarified staff suggested putting off Item No. 1E until Council received information on the massing model study. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to direct staff to approve incorporation into the Draft Comprehensive Plan three new land use classifications: Village Residential, Mixed Use, and Commercial Hotel in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. MOTION PASSED 5-0, Andersen, McCown, Schneider, Simitian absent. Mr. Schreiber said on the particular site of 700 Sand Hill Road, the graphic was somewhat inaccurate in that there was a streamside open space area along the creek that was not being affected by the change. Also, on either end of the site, there were the Ronald McDonald House and the Children's Health Council which were not being affected. The plan process was very preliminary, and staff would clean up the graphic in the work done after the process. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Planning Commission and staff recommendations regarding
02/29/96 78-286
Site No. 1: Designate the 26-acre former Children's Hospital site at 700 Sand Hill Road from Major Institution/Special Facilities to Multiple-Family Residential in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. MOTION PASSED 6-0, McCown, Schneider, Simitian absent. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Planning Commission and staff recommendations regarding Site No. 2: Incorporate the proposed Stock Farm Road, Vineyard Lane, and modified Quarry Road in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. MOTION PASSED 6-0, McCown, Schneider, Simitian absent. Council Member Fazzino believed changing designation of Site No. 15, the vacant land at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Quarry Road, was a bad idea two years before and would still be a bad idea in five years. The land was part and parcel of the Arboretum and was one of the most precious open space areas in Stanford or Palo Alto. The land was first brought forth as a possible alternative to increase density on Sand Hill Road as far as the Sand Hill Road project housing was concerned. That offer was rejected, and yet it was brought back to the Council for consideration under the current Comprehensive Plan discussions. He believed it was a classic example of trying to show housing wherever a potential site could be identified. The site was far more important to the City, to Stanford, and to future generations as open space. He was very concerned that if Council approved the recommended designation, there would be pressure in future years to continue moving into the Arboretum and destroying even more open space in the name of adding housing. He encouraged Council to reject the proposal. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to reject the proposal to study the redesignation of Site No. 15: the vacant land at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Quarry Road. Council Member Kniss believed that type of open space land in an urban setting should be preserved. The land had a certain amount of romance and value as being a lovely, open parcel. Council Member Andersen opposed the motion. He appreciated the desire to maintain open space, and he certainly did not differ with the interest in maintaining the Arboretum. However, he did not see how over a 20-year period Council could determine that the property along El Camino Real within a mile of a major mass transit connection should continue to be exclusively open space. There could be a mingling of housing and use that would not in any way seriously compromise the value of the open space area. He believed that the site could have limited use and limited housing. With the increased pressure of providing housing in the community, Site No. 15 made sense. There were many areas where he did not want housing, but that site was not one of them.
02/29/96 78-287
MOTION PASSED 5-1, Andersen "no," McCown, Schneider, Simitian absent. Council Member Fazzino said Site No. 23, 1795-1885 El Camino Real, was ideal for housing. It was an area that had confused him. Council had been talking about Multiple-Family Residential for the site for years, and yet Foster Freeze remained. He asked the current future use of the site. Mr. Schreiber said there were four parcels in the area; three were vacant, and one was the Foster Freeze site. The Foster Freeze building did not have inherently much financial value and was not a large structure that would linger on for a long time if there were a good housing alternative. Council Member Fazzino questioned whether there was a house at 1845 El Camino Real, next door to Foster Freeze. He had seen people enter a driveway from El Camino Real. Mr. Schreiber believed the house was at 1830 Ash Street, which might be behind the 1845 El Camino Real parcel. Council Member Fazzino was delighted with the recommended designa-tion of Multiple-Family Residential and asked whether there had been any changes or developments which might allow for the development of Multiple-Family Residential in the future. Mr. Schreiber said staff was not aware of any. Council Member Fazzino clarified the City had not heard any objec-tions from the property owners. Mr. Schreiber said there was an objection at the Planning Commis-sion meeting from the Shell Oil Company which owned the service station site. Vice Mayor Huber clarified part of Site No. 23 was part of Park Avenue. Mr. Schreiber said the street right-of-way carried with it the zoning of adjacent parcels. Staff was not proposing to close Park Avenue. Mayor Wheeler said the development and zoning along El Camino Real had been discussed. She believed that when Council looked at the more shallow parcels, the thinking was that those parcels lent themselves more easily to commercial rather than residential development because it would be difficult on those parcels to buffer residential development from the noise and traffic of El Camino Real. She asked whether the thinking had shifted or whether something had convinced the City to change its mind.
02/29/96 78-288
Mr. Schreiber said he would not want to carry Site No. 23 as a precedent for other parts of El Camino Real. The Planning Commission was concerned about the size and depth of the parcels and the potential parking problems. What convinced staff was that three out of the four lots were vacant and that there was a very different feel of that site in terms of El Camino Real. There were more trees; there was green across the street and by Escondido Village behind it. Down in the commercial strip, there were buildings and commercial sites on both sides. There were residen-tial areas along El Camino Real which functioned effectively in Palo Alto and in other cities. Staff's believed Site No. 23 was similar to those areas than to the areas thought of as the El Camino Real strip. Council Member Andersen asked if there were underground parking or an exemption, how much land would actually be available under a Multiple-Family Residential designation. Mr. Schreiber said staff had not attempted to design housing projects for the site. The Planning Commission was concerned about the size of the site in terms of potential conflicts with parking. There were other areas along El Camino Real which had similar size and smaller parcels. They were developed under previous zoning, but there was an indication that housing with reasonable parking could be on those sites. That left some flexibility, but the sense was that flexibility was appropriate for Site No. 23, given the El Camino Real frontage. In working out a specific design, housing and enough parking could be accommodated. Council Member Andersen asked, if the designation were Multiple-Family Residential rather than RM-15 on the site, whether there would be more housing. Mr. Schreiber said there was a distinguishment between the Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning. Whether the site would eventually be zoned RM-15, such as some parcels immediately behind it, or RM-30, such as right across on Ash Street, was a question that would have to be resolved in the future. That would then lead to the question of how much bulk could be on those sites and what zone made the most sense. When dealing with smaller parcels, the difference between RM-15 and RM-30 could be very minimal because there could be similar densities with either zone. Council Member Andersen said there was potential for the site to become a rental unit rather than condominiums or townhouses; if there were some way in which parking or some exemption to parking could be allowed and if that drove parking into the neighborhood, the City would not want that. He asked whether that was some of the thinking behind the recommendation.
02/29/96 78-289
Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel said the Planning Commission recognized it might take a parking exemption, but the neighborhood was residential in general, so it seemed to fit. It was not a large number of units. The site was close to Stanford, the California Avenue area, and the high school. It could probably accommodate a few units with less parking. MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Planning Commission and staff recommendations regarding Site No. 23: Designate four parcels at 1795 to 1885 El Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial to Multiple-Family Residential with policy language acknowledging a need for parking flexibility in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. MOTION PASSED 6-0, McCown, Schneider, Simitian absent. MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Planning Commission and staff recommendations regarding Site No. 22: Designate the Maybell Avenue property at the rear of 4170 El Camino Real from Multiple-Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. MOTION PASSED 6-0, McCown, Schneider, Simitian absent. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Planning Commission recommendations regarding Site No. 14: Designate the site at 491-493 Charleston Road and 4201-4207 El Camino Real (primarily the Rickey's Hyatt site) from Service Commercial Hotel to Multiple-Family Residential with a Commercial Hotel overlay land use designation and a policy to retain the landscape overlay zoning along Wilkie Way and Charleston Road in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Kniss asked which designation was chosen. Mr. Schreiber said the concept behind the Planning Commission's action which staff concurred with was that both the Multiple-Family Residential and the Commercial Hotel would be permitted uses. Zoning would be constructed that would allow both those uses. The fundamental concern for staff and for the Planning Commission was the potential that could happen under the existing land use designation and existing zoning with a large amount of retail square footage that would generate a very large amount of traffic and have a series of ramifications. Ideally, from the neighborhood standpoint, Rickey's would stay for a long time. Staff's concern was that it might not be the most likely outcome in that location. If it were redeveloped, there would be more likely lower-density Multiple-Family Residential or Village Residential and a portion of the site devoted to a new hotel along the El Camino Real frontage near the corner of Charleston Road and El Camino Real. Council Member Kniss clarified it was meant to be a dual usage.
02/29/96 78-290
Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Kniss asked if it had to be dual usage. Mr. Schreiber said no. It could be all Multiple-Family Residential or all Commercial Hotel. However, all that space would not be used just for a hotel. Council Member Kniss asked how it would be designated in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Schreiber could not say that in 5- or 10-year projections for the Housing Element, the City could count on having an "x" number of units on the site. It would be one of the sites listed in another part of the Housing Element that would be under the category of potential additional housing sites. Council Member Kniss asked the number of dwelling units allowed on that site with a Village Residential designation. Mr. Schreiber said staff envisioned Village Residential as being in the range of 15 to a maximum of 20 units per acre. That was a type of density seen with some small lot Single Family Residential development, or some of the lower-density Multiple-Family Residen-tial development. There was a strong market for that type. That land use designation essentially spanned single family to multiple family and was meant to allow that type of single family or lower-density multiple family depending upon the site situation planning that went on. Council Member Kniss clarified there could be 200 to 300 homes on that site with a Village Residential designation. Mr. Schreiber said yes, with all 15 acres. Council Member Kniss did not want Site No. 14 in Village Residen-tial to the extent of having a very small amount of open space, especially if the same kind of situation would happen across the street. She asked what the Planning Commission's view was on Village Residential. It was a very popular usage, and without some green space or without some very careful planning, there would be much of what looked like "Monopoly" houses down a row. Ms. Cassel said the Planning Commission was concerned that it was currently a very large commercial site that needed to be changed. It was hard to know what would happen 5 or 10 years down the road. The site was large, so it would have to go through Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board (ARB) review. Planning Commissioner Sandy Eakins said when the Planning Commission looked at the site, it was aware there was an active use
on it. The site was not like the ΑCrossings≅ residential
02/29/96 78-291
development in Mountain View with the shopping center that had been abandoned. The Planning Commission also knew that a new zoning ordinance would have to be created which would spell out some concerns, such as Council Member Kniss's caution about having more green space or doing what was done at the Village Homes in Sacramento with little pockets of parking so that there was enough visitor parking. Also, the Commercial Hotel designation would still allow for some commercial use. If Council could envision a
ΑResidential Suites≅ arrangement or some type of small hotel with retail that went along with it, that could add some variety and good additional land use on the very big site. Council Member Kniss said the Council had recently discussed the attempt by the neighbors to protect the landscape portion, and she was not sure how one protected the growth that currently existed especially if there were new construction there. Mr. Schreiber said the existing landscape overlay zone, the "L" zone, essentially prohibited paving without the issuance of a use permit. Driveways were not a permitted use, and staff had long been concerned that any redevelopment of the area or the Elks Lodge site next door could have a disastrous effect on Wilkie Way and that whole area with decimation of trees. Staff recommended a very strong policy message that those trees were to be maintained and retained in any future redevelopment of the L zone. There would not be driveways or parking lots, which effectively became a significant setback on one complete side of the property and another major trunk of another side. Mayor Wheeler supported the motion. The likelihood that the use would remain as it was in its current configuration over the next 20-year horizon was extremely slim. The method of construction, the layout of the facilities, and the amount of money that had not been invested to keep the property in first class condition had to be looked at to recognize that the likely scenario in the 20-year horizon was that there would be some change on the parcel. The impetus for suggesting a rather unique combination of land use scenarios was a well-founded fear of what keeping the current land use designation could result in. She would support moving forward with the study to redesignate the land use of Site No. 14 as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. Council Member Fazzino said Council would be committing itself to not having a Home Depot at the site. He preferred that the hotel stay. If that did not work, he believed the Multiple-Family Residential designation was a far more preferable use than retail, but at the same time it was very important to incorporate the buffer between whatever use was there and the neighborhood on Wilkie Way. He supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 6-0, McCown, Schneider, Simitian absent.
02/29/96 78-292
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Planning Commission and staff recommendations regarding Site No. 21: Designate the site at 4216-71 El Camino Real/431 Dinah's Court from Service Commercial and Multiple-Family Residen-tial to Commercial Hotel in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Andersen appreciated the logic of the decision, but he had some concern about the initial decision in an earlier occasion not to use that property for Multiple-Family Residential. He did not support the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-1, Andersen "no," McCown, Schneider, Simitian absent. Mayor Wheeler clarified the recommendation on Site No. 17, 231 Grant Avenue, was from the Planning Commission. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. The Planning Commission concurred with staff's well-reasoned argument to change the site to Multiple-Family Residential. After the Planning Commission took action, staff was working on the community facilities goals, policies, and programs. Discussions arose in terms of the value of that site, and staff had withdrawn its recommendation and currently recommended no change in the land use designation. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to retain the current land use designation of Major Institution/Special Facilities for Site No. 17: 231 Grant Avenue (Santa Clara County Mental Health Building and parking lot) in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Fazzino said many were concerned about the possible loss of Santa Clara County (the County) services in Palo Alto, particularly social services. There was no doubt that it was very difficult to find funding for the programs. At the very least, the City should allow for the continuation of current facilities. He feared that if the City allowed that facility to go, the County courthouse would follow in a couple of years. Council Member Kniss said the City had fought for a long period of time to keep County services in Palo Alto. She was very concerned that if the City redesignated the land use, it would become easier for the County to move south; the County was dealing with fewer and fewer dollars. As the City Manager would attest to, the City had done some lobbying to maintain even the level the City currently had. MOTION PASSED 6-0, McCown, Schneider, Simitian absent. Council Member Kniss had discussed with Marge Collins the issue of school overcrowding, even though there were schools to be opened. Another issue was that apparently there were some federal funds
02/29/96 78-293
forthcoming that had attached to them the desire to reduce class size to 20 or 22 students. The Spangler School Site, Site No. 19, 3880 Middlefield Road, was a very typical elementary school site. All the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) schools were being well used, and any time the PAUSD attempted to move any of the current users out, there would be a good deal of hue and cry about it. She was concerned about the rather different pathway developing for school enrollment and understood there was a lottery for kindergarten in three of schools for next year. She asked whether the Planning Commission had discussed whether or not it was a possible school site for the City. Ms. Cassel said she had an informal discussion with a PAUSD Board
Member about the County=s asking for a large amount of money for the site. Apparently, it was very expensive for one public body to buy or use another public body's land. Council Member Kniss was hearing a very different saga in the community from what had been heard 10 years before when she was on the PAUSD Board. She was concerned that if the City redesignated the site and it were developed as Village Residential, the City could actually find itself in an awkward situation with the schools. She did not feel comfortable that evening to redesignate, especially since the City had not had the discussion with the PAUSD. She asked if there were some way to hold it in abeyance until that discussion took place. Mr. Schreiber said staff suggested Council continue the item until the meeting when Council would discuss the school impact fees. There would be PAUSD representatives present, and there would be two subjects on the same agenda. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Andersen, to continue the item regarding Site No. 8, 3880 Middlefield Road (Spangler School), to a future City Council Meeting. City Manager June Fleming said staff would bring the items as one package with the hotel massing model study. Council Member Andersen tried to get a sense of the size of that lot for a public elementary school. Mr. Schreiber said it was about five acres which was very similar to other elementary schools. He referred to correspondence from the County on pages 10 and 11 of Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:154:96). Council had a very unusual situation in the dual ownership of the County Board of Supervisors and the County Board of Education. The County Board of Education owned the buildings, the County Board of Supervisors owned the land, and the County Office of Education had a long-term lease. It seemed like a negotiating position because the County was really not interested
02/29/96 78-294
in selling. It was a situation more complicated than just having the County as the owner. Vice Mayor Huber asked the staff to explain the philosophical difference between the Spangler School site and the Mental Health facility. Mr. Schreiber said if the Council wanted to retain it as a school, leaving it in a Public Facility (PF) zone in a Major Institu-tion/Special Facilities land use designation would do that. Vice Mayor Huber said the Spangler School site and the Mental Health facility were institutions with services the Council wanted to keep in Palo Alto. If the City left the existing designation in the Mental Health facility, he asked why the City should not then leave the existing designation for the Spangler School. Mr. Schreiber said the difference was that there were indications the County might be interested in terminating the Spangler facility. The use of the Spangler facility was not as critical a set of social services as the County Mental Health building on Grant Avenue. It was in essence a signal to the County that in the Spangler School case the City would be receptive if the County wished to dispose of the site; if the County did not, that was also acceptable. Vice Mayor Huber supported the motion, but he did not want to send a signal to the County other than to keep the school there. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Council would not gain a great deal of additional information when the Council discussed it with the PAUSD. The Council could keep the existing zoning that evening, but it did not hurt to listen to the PAUSD. The big problem, from PAUSD's perspective, was that the County believed the land was worth $6.4 million, and the County had an appraisal to that effect. He was willing to continue the item but suspected the decision would be to leave the designation the way it was. Council Member Andersen understood, when the initial zoning could have been commercial or residential, that there was a philosophical discussion in regard to the contiguous services of mental health and the Community Association for Retarded (CAR) center. One of the reasons he was interested in continuing the item was that he wanted to become more acquainted with some of the original thinking that went on in terms of that contiguous relationship and whether or not it was still valid. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 6-0, McCown, Schneider, Simitian absent. Mayor Wheeler said there were originally 24 sites that the Planning Commission reviewed, and the Planning Commission had made recommen-dations only on 10 sites. She asked if the Council were supposed
02/29/96 78-295
to determine whether it wished to set a public hearing on any of the remaining 14 sites. Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission had recommendations on all of them, but some of the recommendations related to area studies which already had been considered by the Council. About half the recommendations were to make no changes, and staff did not feel the need to notice all of those sites again and bring all the people back for another round of public hearings. However, if there were sites that the Council wished to pursue further, Council could do so. Mayor Wheeler asked if Council Members were interested in having public hearings on any of the other 14 sites listed on pages 7 through 9 of the staff report (CMR:154:96). Council Member Andersen referred to Item 12, Alma Plaza, on page 8 of the staff report (CMR:154:96) and asked whether it was specific to the shopping center itself or whether it was designating the area surrounding it. Mr. Schreiber said the issue came up when the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) identified Alma Plaza as a potential change area. The Planning Commission concluded to leave both the residential and commercial designations as currently existed. Assistant City Manager Bernard Strojny said the meeting for the massing model study would be set for Wednesday, March 20, 1996, at 7:30 p.m. Staff also hoped to invite representatives from the PAUSD to discuss the remaining issues on the school impact fees on that same date. Council Member Fazzino said Council had a couple of short meetings and asked if there were a way to combine it with a regular Monday night meeting. Mayor Wheeler said the rationale for March 20, 1996, was that the consultant involved was not available for a Monday evening. Future meetings could probably fit onto Monday evenings. She appreciated her colleagues' response to her request to meet in extra sessions. Ms. Fleming said upcoming issues, such as the color zone parking, response to the Arastra proposals, and the budget tended to take long discussions. To fold anything else with them was difficult, unless there was discipline around the amount of time spent per subject, which often was not an option for Council given the interest the public had. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None.
02/29/96 78-296
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:26 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.
02/29/96 78-297