HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-20 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting March 20, 1996 1. Study Session re Presentation of Massing Model Study Prepared by Hill-Glazier Architects to Identify the Design Alternatives for a Hotel with Conferencing Facilities on the 6.2-Acre Site Located at the Northwest Intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real by Hill-Glazier Architects................78-438 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Update - Consideration of Policy and Programs Related to School Impact Fees (continued from 2/20/96 - Public Testimony Closed)...............78-438 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Update - Land Use Plan Map (continued from 2/29/96 - Public Testimony Closed)....78-447 4. Consideration of Options Available to the City Council for Proceeding with a Land Use Change and Zoning Entitlements to Accommodate Hotel Development at 2650-2780 El Camino Real78-450 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m............78-450
3/20/96 78-437 78-437
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:42 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:45 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Simitian SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Study Session re Presentation of Massing Model Study Prepared by Hill-Glazier Architects to Identify the Design Alternatives for a Hotel with Conferencing Facilities on the 6.2-Acre Site Located at the Northwest Intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real by Hill-Glazier Architects Synopsis re Mass Modeling Study Manager of Economic Resources Planning Carol Jansen introduced John Hill and Scott Lee of Hill-Glazier Architects, the consultants who prepared the Massing Model Study. The study, which was authorized by Council a year earlier, gave a view of potential development scenarios for the former Mayfield School site located on the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real near Stanford University. The site was studied in terms of a hotel with conferencing facilities, with a relationship between the hotel room count and the conferencing facilities. Variable setbacks and heights, building massing, and parking arrangements were also considered. The Massing Model Study was not a development proposal, and it included a direction from Council to consider a 50-foot height limit in one of the scenarios. Hill-Glazier Architects explained the four scenarios of the Massing Model Study. The staff report (CMR:181:96) was referenced, and a video was presented. A question-and-answer period ensued, and at the end of the study session, members of the public made comments. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Update - Consideration of Policy and Programs Related to School Impact Fees (continued from 2/20/96 - Public Testimony Closed) Julie Jerome, Palo Alto Unified School District Board of Education
Member, said one of Palo Alto Unified School District=s (PAUSD) interest in the Comprehensive Plan was the impact on enrollment of land use, zoning, and other development decisions, particularly the impact of a development of already crowded school buildings. Because the PAUSD was a basic aid school district, enrollment did not automatically bring an increase in income on a per student basis. Enrollment growth and changes in state funding over the past few years had reduced the operating income available per
3/20/96 78-438 78-438
student by nearly 3 percent. The recently passed general obligation bond was intended to renovate and expand schools to house the current number of students. Growth of at least 1,400 in grades K-12 was projected within the next 10 years. PAUSD would need more classrooms to maintain the high quality instructional programs that attracted affluent parents to Palo Alto. It was in
everyone=s mutual interest to maintain the education programs at school facilities. The PAUSD Board of Education had three very specific requests of the Council as the Comprehensive Plan was reviewed: 1) to ensure that the City and PAUSD had every incentive opportunity and institutionalized requirement to work closely together in the present and in the future; 2) to seize the once-in-a-generation opportunity to incorporate specific provisions that could help the PAUSD address development related school enrollment impacts. The City had a unique opportunity to require PAUSD impact mitigations for development. The PAUSD understood that if some
enabling language were not in the Comprehensive Plan, the City=s ability to assist the PAUSD was limited even if the City wanted to assist. It might be more prudent to incorporate some enabling provisions at the present time than to attempt to modify the Comprehensive Plan at some future date; and 3) to simplify for applicants the number of agencies to interact with for project approval by incorporating the collection of potential PAUSD impact
fees into the City=s permit payment process if the PAUSD Board imposed such fees. By working together, both agencies benefited and better served the public by reducing the overall bureaucracy. The proposal was an extension of the efforts the City had already made to simplify the burden for project developers, and the PAUSD could and would pay the City for the service. The PAUSD appreciated the consideration that Council had already given on its proposals, particularly the components the Council endorsed. Council Member Rosenbaum said the PAUSD had the right to require an impact fee. The PAUSD considered it last summer, and for a variety of reasons, the PAUSD did not adopt it. He clarified the PAUSD was asking the City not approve a developer project until the PAUSD and the developer reached an agreement, which was something over and above what the PAUSD was allowed by state law. Walter Freeman, Business Manager of the Palo Alto Unified School District, said the PAUSD was asking the Council to consider assisting PAUSD within the Comprehensive Plan, particularly in the area of those projects that might need legislative action at some future date. Whether the PAUSD would ever need that assistance from the City was unknown, but it would be helpful to have it in place. It was not uncommon for school districts that were experiencing significantly higher growth than Palo Alto to have impact fees and other types of mitigations in the $6 to $8 range, well beyond the statutory maximum that school districts could impose through board action. The PAUSD was suggesting the language to cover situations when developments caused extremely rapid growth in which unusual numbers or expenses related to facilities would be
3/20/96 78-439 78-439
incurred. The PAUSD Board could and would be the only legislative body to impose the statutory developer fee; no other agency had
permission. PAUSD=s interest in the legislative act language proposed was separate from the statutory developer fee authorization which already existed. The PAUSD was attempting to address both in the one provision. Council Member Rosenbaum said regardless of whether or not it took legislative action for a zoning change, the PAUSD was entitled to enact an impact fee. For a variety of reasons, the PAUSD chose not to do that last summer. He asked what specifically beyond what the PAUSD could do was it asking the City to do. James Brown, Superintendent of the Palo Alto Unified School District, said the decision regarding developer fees last summer was to postpone that decision pending further information as a result of a major demographics study that the PAUSD would conduct in the Fall of 1995. The PAUSD wanted to determine what the fall enrollment would be and to do a more in-depth study of enrollment projections over the next few years. Information from that study was provided to the consultant who prepared a report to the Board of Education concerning the developer fee issue. The consultant returned with an updated recommendation, which caused the Board of Education to again consider the issue of developer fees. He expected the issue to return to the Board of Education when the final report was received from the consultant. The fee was a very serious step, and the PAUSD wanted to be sure of all the information available before doing it. The PAUSD did have the ability under law to provide the fees, and there was a statutory limit at which those could be provided for commercial and residential property; however, there likely would be two scenarios. 1) The PAUSD could choose not to implement the fee and go the mitigation route, which was what the PAUSD had been doing for the last few months and which required negotiation or discussion with individual developers. If the PAUSD chose to go that route, it was important that the PAUSD had support in the Comprehensive Plan for those types of efforts. 2) The PAUSD could move to levy the fees, and then some major growth might occur that might require additional funding; the PAUSD was asking for City support for additional mitigation measures should they prove necessary in those circumstances. The PAUSD understood that unless some framework for it was established within the Comprehensive Plan, actions in the future would be very limited. Therefore, PAUSD believed that it was important in the context of the discussion of the Comprehensive Plan to have City support. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified when PAUSD spoke of additional mitigation, that meant a fee per square foot in excess of what the PAUSD was allowed to do by state law. Mr. Brown said that was one possible form of additional mitigation. There was a variety of mitigation measures possible, such as
3/20/96 78-440 78-440
property transactions and transportation arrangements. They were flexible and subject to negotiation. Council Member Andersen asked how much the PAUSD was allowed to imposed under current legislation. Mr. Freeman said the statutory maximum, which changed every two years, was $1.84 per square foot residential and $0.30 per square foot commercial and industrial. Mayor Wheeler asked whether that was imposed on new construction or significant additions to existing construction. Mr. Freeman could not remember all the statutory exemptions, but statutes stated that any residential expansion or new construction 500 square feet or under was automatically exempt. Other kinds of public use projects and those accomplished by city, county, and federal agencies were exempt. Senior housing projects were in the commercial/industrial category. There were other types of specific provisions. Council Member Andersen clarified if the Council put into the Comprehensive Plan the language proposed by the PAUSD, the $1.84 would be imposed by PAUSD's policymakers and then it was the City Council's decision as to whether or not to go beyond that. Mr. Freeman said that was partly correct. Only the PAUSD was authorized to impose the statutory amounts. For example, if a new housing project required a new $8 million school and the statutory fees applicable to that housing project did not generate that amount of money, then some mitigations beyond the statutory caps would be negotiable between the developer and the PAUSD. The Council was being asked to consider language in the Comprehensive Plan that would help the PAUSD maximize the opportunity to make sure those mitigations were completely addressed. Council Member Andersen clarified if the language were in place, the PAUSD would have more leverage with the developer. The City would not be involved except that the City would be the potential threat to address mitigations. Mr. Freeman said that was an accurate description. The language was an assistance to the PAUSD in mitigating the impact on schools. Council Member Andersen clarified that it went beyond the $1.84. Mr. Freeman said that was correct. The Council's specific actions would be when mitigations went beyond the statutory authority that the PAUSD might impose.
3/20/96 78-441 78-441
Council Member Andersen clarified it would be unlikely that the Council would take formal action, and the language would give the PAUSD leverage to work with developers more effectively. Mr. Freeman said that was correct. However, in 12 years before another a new Comprehensive Plan was developed, it was difficult to project. That was the reason why the PAUSD was asking for the City's assistance. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the PAUSD was asking the City to be the enforcer if the PAUSD needed more money on a mitigation. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said PAUSD's proposed language would make a project inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan unless it carried a mitigation agreement approved by the PAUSD. Council Member McCown clarified that staff proposed to substitute PAUSD's Policy CD-1.D, "Recognizing the importance of the schools to the social and economic vitality of the City, continue and enhance City efforts to assist Palo Alto Unified School District in anticipating, managing, and mitigating development-related school enrollment impacts. Prior to the approval of development projects which require legislative acts, including general plan amendments, zoning, rezoning or annexation, the proponents of each project shall mitigate the impact on schools as evidenced by a signed mitigation agreement acceptable to the developers and Palo Alto Unified School District and approved by the City. Prior to the approval of development projects for which legislative acts are not required, collect from developers school impact fees that might be approved and imposed by the District," with "Recognizing the importance of the schools to the social and economic vitality of the City, continue and enhance City efforts to assist the Palo Alto Unified School District in anticipating and addressing development-related school enrollment impacts. The City should encourage the School District to implement appropriate school impact fees" and a new Policy CD-1.E, "Prior to the approval of development projects which require legislative acts, including general plan amendments, zoning and rezoning, the City should consider the project's impact on schools." Mr. Calonne said Policy CD-1.E was a restatement of the City's existing obligation under the environmental law that stated the City had to identify and consider the impacts. What was in question at the present time was whether the City had to do something under the environmental law. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the objective of staff's suggested wording was to avoid a situation in which the City would be compelled to recommend denial of a project for inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan based on the failure of an applicant and the PAUSD to reach a mitigation
3/20/96 78-442 78-442
agreement. The PAUSD's proposed wording would likely lead the City into that potential situation. Mr. Calonne did not intend to imply there was a legal question about the PAUSD's recommendation. It was enforceable. Mayor Wheeler clarified it was a policy choice for Council. Mr. Calonne said yes. Mr. Freeman said the PAUSD recognized that what it asked Council to do was forceful language. Council Member Kniss clarified the PAUSD was asking Council to use
the language in such a way as to say Αno≅ to a developer if the developer did not meet what the PAUSD requested. Mr. Brown said yes. They were development projects which required legislative action. In the proposed language, the project could not be approved unless an agreement had been reached between the PAUSD and the developer. Council Member Kniss asked what benefit the City would receive. Mr. Brown said in terms of projected growth, schools were as an essential part of the infrastructure of the community as many of the other traditional things. Schools contributed a great deal to the quality of the community, but they did not have the funds available to expand school facilities without some additional means of support. There were schools that could be reopened, but there was a cost attached to that. Sometimes the cost was considerably less if space were added to existing school sites rather than reopening another school. The nexus between the need for fees and mitigation measures and student enrollment was clearly established in reports. The PAUSD's ability to provide good schools was an important effort. Council Member Kniss clarified the community reached a point where not only the schools were overcrowded but also it was difficult to reopen schools because of cost involved. PAUSD was indicating that additional children could not be accommodated without additional
money in the PAUSD=s budget. She clarified that more houses could mean opening another school and that the PAUSD needed assistance from the City to accommodate the growth. Mr. Brown said the PAUSD could shift general funds, but the PAUSD preferred not to do that because it would involve reducing programs, services, and compensation. Vice Mayor Huber said if the Council did nothing in the Comprehensive Plan, when the Council legislatively acted, he asked
3/20/96 78-443 78-443
if Council could, irrespective of the Comprehensive Plan, impose addition fees if the Council found that was a necessary mitigation. Mr. Calonne said that was possible under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He referred to page 5 of his report dated January 25, 1996, which said that in the case of Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of University of California, identifying and considering were sufficient under CEQA. The court turned on what it viewed as a small impact caused by the UC project. The court identified an instance in which there might be physical changes requiring mitigation: "An example might be a fivefold increase in student enrollment. Such a large increase would likely necessitate the construction of additional classrooms. That is not
the case here." A possible outcome under the CEQA analysis was that the courts identified a new set of strategic problems for a school district trying to make the case that physical changes to the environment would be caused by the additional student enrollment caused by a project. For large projects, there was significant vulnerability to a city that ignored school impacts in the face of threatened legal challenge from the school district. For small projects, identify and consider would be enough. Council Member Rosenbaum remembered Council Member Simitian had talked about how complex the issue was and how establishing the nexus might prove to be difficult in a community which at one time housed 13,000 students. He asked if the City Attorney could comment on that potential difficulty. Mr. Calonne said the school fees were very unpopular with residential home builders. He agreed that it was complex, and historically it had been litigious. However, the City would not run into major challenges because the City was probably not facing too many large-scale residential projects. Council Member McCown preferred the alternative language submitted by staff. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the staff recommendations for new Policy CD-1.D, "Recognizing the importance of the schools to the social and economic vitality of the City, continue and enhance City efforts to assist the Palo Alto Unified School District in anticipating and addressing development-related school enrollment impacts. The City should encourage the School District to implement appropriate school impact fees."; Policy CD-1.E, "Prior to the approval of development projects which require legislative acts, including general plan amendments, zoning and rezoning, the City should consider the project's impact on schools."; and Program CD-1.D1, "To improve the forecasting of school enrollments, provide regular status reports to Palo Alto Unified School District on potential and approved development projects."
3/20/96 78-444 78-444
Council Member Schneider was uncomfortable with the language since it was proposed last summer. It was strong language; she was much more comfortable with staff's recommended language. The idea went beyond what the City should take on as a responsibility. Council Member Andersen supported the motion. He believed it was more leverage than what he would associate with. He did not think it would be easy to justify an impact fee when there were empty classrooms being rented. Council Member Kniss did not support the motion. She believed those empty classrooms were being rented that related to schooling or involvement with children. Given the difficulties with school financing in recent years, she saw the proposed language as the ability for the PAUSD and the City to come together on that need. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the last sentence in Policy CD-1.D and asked whether the City really wanted to encourage the PAUSD to implement appropriate school impact fees or whether it was the PAUSD's business. Council Member McCown understood the intent of staff's recommendation was to indicate a statement of policy support that the PAUSD should implement appropriate school impact fees and that the City supported it. Council Member Rosenbaum asked why Council should not be silent on the subject and leave it to the PAUSD. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to revise staff recommendation for new Policy CD-1.D to read, "Recognizing the importance of the schools to the social and economic vitality of the City, continue and enhance City efforts to assist the Palo Alto Unified School District in anticipating and addressing development-related school enrollment impacts. The City should encourage the School District to implement appropriate school impact fees." Mayor Wheeler supported the motion. She had been part of the community that had suffered through the school closure era. That was the era when the City supported the PAUSD by taking very bold action and sending a significant sum of money to the PAUSD in order to preserve the closed school facilities in the event that there should be increased enrollment. It would be distressing for people who continued to pay to keep surplus school sites available to find that the City was adding to the cost of remodeling homes or constructing new facilities in order to enable the PAUSD to ignore the physical assets the City had been preserving and to construct new ones instead. MOTION PASSED 6-1, Kniss "no," Fazzino, Simitian absent.
3/20/96 78-445 78-445
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Update - Land Use Plan Map (continued from 2/29/96 - Public Testimony Closed) A. 3880 Middlefield Road (Spangler School Site) James Brown, Superintendent of the Palo Alto Unified School District, clarified that a question or comment was raised by the Council concerning the interest of Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) in the Spangler School Site. Mayor Wheeler said the recommendation from the Planning Commission was that the Council look at the site for potential redesignation to residential land use because there had been speculation that use of the Spangler School as a school might not continue into the next 15-year horizon of the Comprehensive Plan. Because PAUSD's enrollment was in a growth mode, thought was given as to whether the City might want to designate land use on that site which would preserve or enhance the ability to continue it as a school facility and whether the PAUSD had any interest in being the user. Mr. Brown said yes. There were some discussions concerning the attractiveness of the Spangler School for use by the PAUSD either on a purchase or lease basis, anticipating that the enrollment might continue to increase. There were some discussions with both the Santa Clara County Office of Education and Santa Clara County (the County). The Office of Education owned the building and the County owned the land. The figures that were discussed were well beyond what PAUSD would be able to pay. At that point, discussions stopped. However, the PAUSD had not lost interest in that particular site. The Board of Education had not been involved in the discussions; it was at the staff level. Staff discussed the Spangler School's proximity to Fairmeadow Elementary School, to Jane Lathrop Stanford (JLS) Middle School, to a library, and to the old Ohlone School, which was under discussion as a possible site if the PAUSD had to open an additional elementary school. In addition PAUSD's own adult education program had been leasing some of the rooms at the Spangler School Site for a period of time, and that was a very important location for some adult education classes. The PAUSD did not have a definite plan involving the Spangler School Site. However, if the timing and circumstances were right, and the right money came up, even as part of a land swap, the PAUSD would continue to have an interest in that property as a land use designation that would allow it to stay in a school-related capacity. Council Member McCown clarified that given Mr. Brown's comments, the Planning Commission did not have that perspective when it made the recommendation regarding the Spangler School Site, and she asked whether staff suggested it would be appropriate for the Council to not make any changes.
3/20/96 78-446 78-446
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said staff and the Planning Commission did not have that perspective. Given the interest of the PAUSD in the site, the simplest way would be to leave it as Major Institution/Special Facilities. That would not stop the County from approaching the City with a Comprehensive Plan change if the County wanted to sell the site and pursue that option. The best action was to leave the current designation. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, that Site No. 19, 3880 Middlefield Road (Spangler School Site), be retained at the current Comprehensive Plan designation of Major Institution/Special Facilities. Council Member Andersen said in 1969 a PAUSD member was anxious to show him the land in which the entire area was designated for nonprofit, educational, and community activities. It was an indicator of the commitment the community had to the kinds of public and community services that area represented. He believed it was totally consistent with the City's history to maintain that area. If the County did not wish to continue using the Spangler School Site, it could become another school site for the PAUSD. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Simitian absent. B. 2650-2780 El Camino Real (vacant site at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real) Council Member McCown said the potential Comprehensive Plan action was interrelated with Item No. 4 on the Council Agenda. There was not a staff report for Item No. 4; there was a reference to future options. She suggested continuing the items so that the questions which came up during the study session could be given to staff for response. Then Council would have the Comprehensive Plan continued item and more information that would cover Item No. 4 in terms of what options people wanted to propose to Council with respect to the specifics of proceeding with some hotel development. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to continue the item to a future City Council Meeting. Council Member McCown said one specific question she asked at the study session, in light of the information from the massing model study, was how any of the potential hotel uses compared with what the potential mass of a conforming residential project would be. Council Member Andersen wanted clarification in which Scenario C could be more flexible with regard to some of the potential restraints the City might put on, which might make sense from a floor area ratio (FAR) perspective, that allowed having some of the impacts on that area lessened rather than having the amount of mass if there were no flexibility in the structuring. He was also interested in the economic and structural feasibility, whether or
3/20/96 78-447 78-447
not the City went with the current height limit, of doing the undergrounding that would allow for less of that mass to give more flexibility for the conferencing and some of the structural questions that were raised. He asked whether that could be resolved if portions went underground and how that would work. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Council received different estimates of the traffic impact of the hotel, which Council might want to resolve before spending much time and money doing anything else. An empty lot might be the best that could be done. He wanted staff to address the issue of obtaining believable data as to the traffic impact of the hotel. Council Member Kniss requested a massing model, made of sugar cubes or blocks or something high tech, that could be moved around. Mayor Wheeler said Council did not want staff to spend money. Sugar cubes or Styrofoam blocks worked because a model was difficult to see two-dimensionally. She believed Council had a good idea, based on the consultant's information, of the room count, the meeting facilities, the number of hotels in the jurisdiction, and the usage of the larger hotels. She questioned the traffic information that was received. She had attended meetings at Rickey's Hyatt both at lunch time and right after regular work time and knew that the traffic impacts were significant around those times of day. The hotel was being proposed at an intersection which also had very heavy traffic impacts at the noon hour and peak afternoon periods. She wanted more specificity with regard to traffic given the specific product in the specific city. Council Member Kniss requested a tabled feedback on the hotels she asked about so that in addition to the massing model, there was also a sense of what existed. She thought that normally there were 50 to 60 rooms per acre. It helped to know what else was in the area and to take a look at that in relation to surrounding buildings to know exactly what Council was discussing. Council Member McCown said several people mentioned possible ways of proceeding and how that related to the Comprehensive Plan process. If information were to be brought back to Council of the alternative ways of proceeding coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan process, etc., with respect to pursuing the idea, she needed to understand how that would relate to the bigger area being dealt with including the Cal/Ventura Area which was an area identified for special study. She did not believe there was a way to deal with them independently. Council Member Schneider said there seemed to be pressure to move the idea very rapidly not only from the people who spoke but also from staff members. The time was evidently optimal for hotel
3/20/96 78-448 78-448
financing. She wanted some idea from the consultants what kind of window they were talking about. Council Member Andersen wanted more clarification on how the fast track process as proposed by the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce would be carried out, what that would consist of, and how that would transpire. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Simitian absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 4. Consideration of Options Available to the City Council for Proceeding with a Land Use Change and Zoning Entitlements to Accommodate Hotel Development at 2650-2780 El Camino Real MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to continue the item to a future City Council Meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Simitian absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
3/20/96 78-449 78-449
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.
3/20/96 78-450 78-450