HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-04 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting August 4, 1997
1. Resolution 7702 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Oaxaca, Oaxaca,
Mexico≅ ...............................................84-119
1A. Resolution 7703 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Waldo Niemegeers, Exchange Student from
Enschede, the Netherlands≅ ............................84-119 2. Appointments to Planning Commission...................84-119 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................84-120 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................84-120 3. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to direct staff to initiate a process which includes the distribution of a revised Request for Proposals to potential vendors, evaluation of the responses, and selection of a vendor that would result in the acquisition and implementation of a Computer Aided Dispatch system with minimal modifications84-120 4. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to Council approval of the staff recommendation that Council direct staff to work with the residents to develop a plan for the installation of road bumps on the segment of Ross Road between Oregon Expressway and Colorado Avenue and return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance to fund the installation..........84-121 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Corporate and Commercial Services, Inc. for Fiscal Year 1997-98 Tree and Stump Removal.........................................84-121 6. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Dr. Kelly Jean Fergusson for Consulting Services for Quality Control Procedure Development and Implementation for the Geographic Information System.........................84-121
08/04/97 84-116
8. Ordinance 4438 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to
Municipal Golf Course≅ ................................84-121
9. Ordinance 4439 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.08.050 of Chapter 2.08 [Officers and Departments] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Authorize the City Manager to Prescribe and Enforce Regulations for the Public Use of City Buildings and Other
Facilities≅ ...........................................84-121
10. Ordinance 4440 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 2.04.370 and 2.04.380 of Chapter 2.40 [Council Organization and Procedure] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Council Salaries and Expense Allowances to be Effective January 1, 1998"...........84-121 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................84-121 11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a proposed subdivision of a 10.1 acre site into 14 single-family residential lots (western 3.24 acres) and one commercial parcel (eastern 6.82 acres) for the Cabaña Hotel facilities for property located at 4290 El Camino Real...........84-122 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the comments of the Planning Commission relating to the Ordinance Establishing Procedures for Preparation of Coordinated Area Plans.................................................84-144 12A. (Old Item No. 15.) PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan: Consideration and approval of tentative schedule and tasks, authorization for the Mayor to appoint a 12-member working group, and authorization for City Manager to negotiate consulting services agreement for coordination and oversight of preparation of the Plan............................84-144 13. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling a Special Election for Tuesday, November 4, 1997, for Submittal of an Initiative Measure to the Electorate and Ordering Consolidation of Said Election........................84-145 14. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling a Special Election for Tuesday, November 4, 1997, for Submittal of a Referendum Measure to the Electorate and Ordering Consolidation of Said Election........................84-151 16. November 4, 1997, Special Election - Ballot Arguments
Procedures for the MPACT Initiative and the City Council=s Referendum Concerning the Sand Hill Road Corridor.....84-154
08/04/97 84-117
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m............84-156
08/04/97 84-118
08/04/97 84-119
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Resolution 7702 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Oaxaca, Oaxaca,
Mexico≅ MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the Resolution. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent.
1A. Resolution 7703 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Waldo Niemegeers, Exchange Student from
Enschede, the Netherlands≅ MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to adopt the Resolution. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. 2. Appointments to Planning Commission Council Member Kniss would vote for the incumbents. However, Michael Midolo and H. Gregory Scharff were good candidates, and she hoped they would reapply. Council was fortunate to have candidates of that caliber. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING FOR BEECHAM: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Wheeler VOTING FOR MIDOLO: VOTING FOR SCHARFF: VOTING FOR SCHINK: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Wheeler
08/04/97 84-120
City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Bern Beecham and Jonathan Schink were unanimously appointed on the first ballot with Council Member Schneider absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic
responsibility (letter on file in the Clerk=s Office). Roger Mansell, 550 Santa Rita Avenue, spoke regarding senior citizens discount. Mike Midolo, 362 Channing Avenue, spoke regarding the Community
Development Block Grants and the funds needed for seniors= support. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Minutes of April 28, 1997, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Andersen Αnot participating,≅ Schneider absent. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Minutes of May 5, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3-6 and 8-10, with Item No. 7 removed by staff. 3. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to direct staff to initiate a process which includes the distribution of a revised Request for Proposals to potential vendors, evaluation of the responses, and selection of a vendor that would result in the acquisition and implementation of a Computer Aided Dispatch system with minimal modifications. 4. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to Council approval of the staff recommendation that Council direct staff to work with the residents to develop a plan for the installation of road bumps on the segment of Ross Road between Oregon Expressway and Colorado Avenue and return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance to fund the installation. 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Corporate and Commercial Services, Inc. for Fiscal Year 1997-98 Tree and Stump Removal
08/04/97 84-121
6. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Dr. Kelly Jean Fergusson for Consulting Services for Quality Control Procedure Development and Implementation for the Geographic Information System
8. Ordinance 4438 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to
Municipal Golf Course≅
9. Ordinance 4439 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.08.050 of Chapter 2.08 [Officers and Departments] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Authorize the City Manager to Prescribe and Enforce Regulations for the Public Use of City Buildings and Other
Facilities≅
10. Ordinance 4440 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 2.04.370 and 2.04.380 of Chapter 2.40 [Council Organization and Procedure] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Council Salaries and Expense Allowances to be Effective January 1, 1998" MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to move Item No. 15 ahead of Item No. 13. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 15 would become Item No. 12A. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a proposed subdivision of a 10.1 acre site into 14 single-family residential lots (western 3.24 acres) and one commercial parcel (eastern 6.82 acres) for the Cabaña Hotel facilities for property located at 4290 El Camino Real. Applications to be considered for this project include: 1) an amendment to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation (from Service Commercial to Single-Family Residential); 2) rezoning (from PC District to R-1 District) for the western 3.24 acres for single-family residential use; 3) rezoning of the eastern 6.82 acres to PC (Planned Community) District; 4) a Variance from the requirements of PAMC Sections 18.68.110(c) and 18.68.150(b), permitting an increase in the current hotel building height limits to 100 feet; 5) Architectural Review approval of modifications to the site plan and buildings
08/04/97 84-122
elevations for the Cabaña Hotel facilities; and 6) Tentative Subdivision Map approval for a 15-lot land division, which includes a request for conditional exception from PAMC Section 21.20.240(b)(2) to permit a 50-foot wide right-of-way width for a cul-de-sac extension of Glenbrook Drive, in-lieu of the required 60-foot right-of-way width. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for Property Located at 4290 El Camino Real Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Zone Classification of Certain Property Located at 4290 El Camino Real from PC-Planned Community District (Ord. No. 2006) to the R-1 (Single Family Residence) District Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 4290 El Camino Real from PC-Planned Community (Ord. No. 2006) to PC-Planned Community Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber referred to a letter dated July 28, 1997, from Tree Farm Project,
LLC (on file in the City Clerk=s Office). The letter raised an issue of transportation analysis and the reopening of the Hyatt Cabaña Hotel. However, the application before Council that evening was not the reopening of the Cabaña Hotel. The reopening of the Cabaña Hotel was part of an Architectural Review Board (ARB) minor change application that was approved the previous year. The Cabaña Hotel as a Planned Community (PC) Zone was a valid use at that site. No new major approval was needed. Regarding new traffic, the project was focused on the 14 single-family lots at the rear of the site. The size of the project did not trigger the need for any type of transportation analysis for the Congestion Management Agency (CMA). The analysis that was needed was included in the Environmental Assessment. The request for the 14 single-family lots resulted in a new PC Zone for the Cabaña Hotel, which was a matter of changing the lot size and landscaping. It was not a matter of the fundamental use of the site for the Cabaña Hotel. Contract Planner Paul Jensen said the staff report (CMR:351:97) addressed a number of policy and environmental issues. There were many significant issues. The first was on-site parking for the Cabaña Hotel. The project would result in a substantial reduction in the amount of present on-site parking and in what was required. The source of the proposed parking count was a report prepared by DKS Associates, traffic engineers who were hired by the project sponsor. Staff conducted its own independent study of similarly sized hotel facilities in the Midpeninsula area and found that the
08/04/97 84-123
reduced parking ratio was reasonable with some conditions that primarily required the implementation of a parking performance plan. The Planning Commission and ARB concurred and recommended additional safety conditions, which was a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to monitor employee parking and transit modes. The second major issue was access over the existing terminus of the Glenbrook Drive subdivision located west of the subject property. The terminus of the right-of-way was separated by the subject property by a one-foot strip of land. The ownership and status of the one-foot strip of land was in question and in litigation. During the review process, there was substantial progress to resolve the status of the one-foot strip, and the conditions of approval for the subdivision acknowledged that the subdivision could be approved with the resolution of the issue at the time of the final map. The third issue of concern was public access along Adobe Creek. The Comprehensive Plan encouraged public access for cyclists and pedestrians along creeks, but there was no plan in the project to propose such access. It was actually opposed by the neighboring residence. Staff, Planning Commission, and ARB reviewed and concluded that because of the location of existing Cabaña Hotel improvements in relation to the creek banks, a safe access along Adobe Creek was problematic. The fourth item of concern was public benefit. The project involved a PC District rezoning. There were proposed on-site and off-site physical improvements supported by the Planning Commission and the ARB. The last major concern was construction impacts and traffic. Palo Alto Redwoods and Greenacres residents raised concerns about the routing of traffic through their respective areas. The Planning Commission recommended several conditions to address that issue. One condition required that all construction traffic be routed through El Camino Real frontage for the first 18 months of construction. It was also recommended that construction be limited to six days for the Cabaña Hotel and the residential subdivision and that the Hotel construction hours be limited to the same hours imposed on residential development. Council Member Rosenbaum asked why staff felt that the Cabaña Hotel with its banquet facility would work with the greatly reduced number of parking spaces. Mr. Jensen said staff found most of the similar hotels in the Midpeninsula area had high occupancy and low vacancy rates. With regard to the banquet facilities, there were peak periods, but in most cases the hotels provided parking close to what was being recommended to Council. There were some additional concerns about the banquet and spillover parking, so the ordinance was set up in such a way that the banquet facilities were subject to a separate use permit, which gave the City ultimate control. Adjustments could be made at some point in the future. Council Member Rosenbaum asked how large the banquet facility was and how many people could be seated at dinner.
08/04/97 84-124
Mr. Jensen believed the main banquet room was 11,000 square feet with the occupancy of between 735 and 1,500 people. Council Member Rosenbaum asked how cars would fit on the property if there were an event attended by the community, not guests of the hotel, with two or three people per car. Mr. Jensen said the Cabaña Hotel had a valet service which parked and controlled the cars and was the primary measure. Council Member Rosenbaum asked how much additional parking the valet service would provide beyond the 284 proposed parking. Mr. Jensen said it was actually part of the total. Mr. Schreiber said one of the reasons staff did not recommend a pedestrian or bicycle connection to the Glenbrook Drive area was that there was no way to control effectively people's parking in the neighborhood. The PC zone was structured so that it would be incumbent on the Cabaña Hotel to find a way to make the use of the ballroom and the other meeting facilities work without having substantial off-site parking impacts, which meant that the Hotel might lease land or use other parking lots for valet service and shuttle buses. That was the reason for the condition that a use permit would be required after a year of operation. If there were substantial off-site parking problems, the use permit for the continued use of the meeting facilities could be severely restricted in terms of numbers of people and time of use. Council Member Rosenbaum recalled when the Cabaña Hotel closed, there were comments about lack of suitable meeting space in the community, which was part of the impetus for considering a hotel at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. He asked if it would be more important to ensure the continuation of large community facilities and required parking than to take the other point of view that if it did not work out, large affairs would not be allowed. Mr. Schreiber said staff did not find an example of a hotel that would have as much parking if the rear area were kept because the rear area doubled the parking to approximately 500 spaces. Other communities seemed to be able to have meeting and banquet facilities without having the 500 spaces. It would be ideal to see more than 250 spaces, but he did not know a way to create more parking and still create a viable housing option with the access needs. Staff believed the option to look at the banquet facilities in the future was appropriate. Council Member Rosenbaum said when he looked at the plans, it seemed there was an obvious way to have more parking. Having 10 houses instead of 14 might provide enough additional parking so
08/04/97 84-125
there would not be as much concern. He asked about that type of compromise. Mr. Schreiber said the applicant maintained that the viability of the housing area from a design and financial sense was dependent on having the street and a unified rear area. Council might pursue that question further with the applicant. Council Member Rosenbaum knew that Steve Player was representing the applicant and recalled that when Mr. Player was the President of the Chamber of Commerce, he and Susan Frank made a point about the need for additional meeting space and how some important meetings had to be held out of town because there was no longer any space in the City. He asked Mr. Player to address the issue when the time came to speak. Vice Mayor Andersen did not sense from the July 9, 1997, Planning Commission minutes and the staff report (CMR:351:97) that much consideration was given to underground parking. He asked whether or not underground parking was a viable alternative. Mr. Jensen said that point was raised initially by the project sponsor and was not discussed at the Planning Commission level. Staff was told by the project sponsor that the cost associated with structured parking was prohibitive. Vice Mayor Andersen said several meetings before, Council approved a project that had small square footage and had still worked out. He did not understand why there could not be a 200-room hotel without underground parking. Mr. Schreiber said the proposed reduced parking was clearly adequate for the hotel use. Parking became a concern with the banquet and meeting facilities because they were separate from the hotel use. Vice Mayor Andersen noticed that they went with Below Market Rate (BMR) payments and yet new housing was being put in. He asked why the proposal did not include one of the sites being used as a low- or moderate-income housing unit. Mr. Schreiber said the amount of time, effort, and money it took to develop a single lot with two BMR units was a very high expenditure. Vice Mayor Andersen asked how much BMR funding would be received. Mr. Schreiber said he needed to check the dollar amount. With 14 lots, the BMR was essentially 1.4 units. One parcel was the most to get as part of the BMR.
08/04/97 84-126
Vice Mayor Andersen clarified that even after the project was remodeled and completed, there would not be a change in the banquet rooms, and the same number of people would be accommodated. Mr. Jensen said that was correct. Vice Mayor Andersen asked what "gateway" landscaping was. Mr. Jensen said the gateway was the southeast corner of the subject property, which was at the City of Palo Alto limits. "Gateway" landscaping was a policy in the Comprehensive Plan to improve the appearance of the entry to Palo Alto. Landscaping included large trees and a small entry sign into the City. Vice Mayor Andersen asked about the median strip. Mr. Jensen said the median strip was a component of the public benefit proposal but was not part of the "gateway" landscaping. Vice Mayor Andersen asked what the dollar value of the two decorative street light fixtures was. Mr. Jensen said staff did not figure out the dollar value. Vice Mayor Andersen clarified that the dollar value could not be more than $10,000. Mr. Jensen did not know. Vice Mayor Andersen asked why Council was being asked to approve a 15-lot subdivision when there were only 14 lots in the project. Mr. Jensen said the 15th lot was the hotel parcel. Vice Mayor Andersen said Council consistently indicated that it was anxious to make the best use of available land for providing as many affordable units as possible. Previously, the subject property was considered for multi-family housing. The current proposal would provide 13 or 14 homes valued at $700,000 to $1,000,000. He asked what caused staff to shift away from multi-family to R-1 as a buffer to another R-1. Mr. Schreiber said with the current proposal, there was no effective public street access from a rear residential area out to El Camino Real. The previous housing proposal had access to El Camino Real through the residential proposal for the front of the site. Staff concluded that it was not realistic or good design to have a multi-family project at the rear of the site access only through the Glenbrook Drive and Greenacres neighborhood.
08/04/97 84-127
Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether part of the realism was the one-foot strip and what options the City had with regard to the one-foot strip. Mr. Schreiber said the one-foot strip was not part of it. It was a matter of adjacent land uses, access to them, the amount of traffic that was generated, impact on neighborhood streets, and the City's past history on small infill sites. For example, there were various multi-family proposals for the St. Mark's property. However, because of the surrounding single-family housing, the acceptable solution was to have a single-family infill site. Vice Mayor Andersen said it was not right next to a major artery. He did not know if they were the same. Mr. Schreiber said the problem was that by having the hotel in front and the need for hotel circulation, parking, etc., putting a road through to serve the housing from El Camino Real was not viewed as a good design or hotel parking solution. Vice Mayor Andersen asked what options there were with regard to the one-foot strip. Senior Assistant City Attorney Debra Cauble said staff proposed additional language for Tentative Map Conditions 12 and 15. However, the recommendations were inadvertently left out of the staff report (CMR:351:97). Staff could provide the wording to Council at the time of second reading if the project were approved. Part of the recommendations addressed the one-foot strip because the project included a subdivision of the property. Under the State Subdivision Map Act, if the City approved the subdivision or any other subdivision which involved access to Glenbrook Drive, the City had the authority and the duty to acquire that property through negotiation or condemnation if access remained an unresolved issue. Council Member Kniss clarified Hyatt Rickey's and the Holiday Inn were the only two facilities in Palo Alto that could accommodate a large number of people. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member Kniss asked how much parking might be available compared to what was currently available. Mr. Schreiber said the Holiday Inn did not really have the meeting facilities that were close to the size of what was being discussed that evening. Hyatt Rickey's had meeting facilities that could accommodate a large number of people. Mr. Jensen said Hyatt Rickey's was not looked at in the survey. Most of the facilities in the survey had conference facilities and
08/04/97 84-128
meeting rooms ranging from 8,000 to 15,000 square feet. Parking ratios ranged from 1 to 1.5 parking spaces per room, which was similar to the proposed project in terms of reduced parking. Council Member Kniss said Mr. Schreiber spoke of a use permit after a year of operation. The discussion was similar to the discussion on the Stanford Shopping Center in which a large amount of parking was needed for a short period of time. There could not be that many enormous events that occurred. She asked if it were possible to use other kinds of measures, such as Transportation Demand Management (TDM), to address the issue instead of asphalt or the usual method for parking cars. Mr. Schreiber said the effort was to put a threat out to the hotel operators that they would lose much of the use of that facility if there were a severe parking problem. It would be in the hotel operators' interest to think of combinations of valet parking, shuttle buses, and other creative measures. TDM programs seldom dealt with major special events and usually addressed linking employees to mass transit. The creative part would have to come from the hotel operators. Council Member Kniss hoped that would happen because frequently with use permits, one side argued one method and the other side argued another method. It behooved the management to make sure that a parking problem did not exist through creative or TDM programs. Given the kind of site and the amount of parking, it seemed there would be an answer. Mr. Schreiber said staff recognized the facilities would serve significant community needs. However, if the hotel were operated in a manner that caused off-site problems, staff recommended substantially scaling back the activity level of the facility. Council Member Fazzino said decisions had been made with respect to prohibiting construction on Sunday and ending construction at 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Of the 12- , 18- , or 24-month construction schedules, he asked why the Planning Commission selected 18 months and what the City needed to do, other than to add Sunday construction, to further reduce the schedule. Planning Commissioner Victor Ojakian said during the Planning Commission discussions, one of the main aspects of the construction was the removal and relocation of the asphalt from the back to the front of the lot, where the asphalt would be crushed. That would take approximately six months. The lots would not necessarily be built out immediately because lots could be sold individually and built out at the discretion of the owners. The Planning Commission chose the 18 months as a guess that after that period of time, most of the main activity would be done, and the construction period could be ended. The Planning Commission preferred the construction to happen quickly. He was glad to see in the staff report
08/04/97 84-129
(CMR:351:97) that the north road could be used by heavy trucks, which was much of the short-term work, and the south road could be used by lighter trucks. Council Member Fazzino asked whether Mr. Ojakian supported a stricter construction schedule and believed that construction was possible in 12 or 15 months. Mr. Ojakian said it depended on what part of the project was looked at. If the project moved forward and the subdivision for the homes were approved, the removal of the asphalt could be done in that period of time. It depended on how the marketplace worked, how quickly people bought the lots, and how soon they wanted to build. In the current market, many of those lots should be sold quickly. Council Member Fazzino understood the south access road would not tolerate the weight of trucks and other major vehicles. He believed that at the Planning Commission meeting, there was discussion about the possibility of use of vehicles other than trucks on the south access road. He asked to what degree the south access road could be used for construction purposes. Mr. Ojakian had raised the issue because residents of the Palo Alto Redwoods were concerned about large construction trucks rumbling past their windows and homes over a long extended period of time. One of the things to relieve the situation was to divert truck traffic to the south road. On page 5 of the staff report (CMR:351:97), staff did a good job of explaining how some of the truck traffic could be diverted. He felt that the truck traffic should not be diverted through the Glenbrook Drive area because of construction noise and safety issues. Council Member Wheeler said the length of time that the Planning Commission stipulated for the use of hotel property for access seemed to go beyond the time when the work in the back and front parking lots would be done and the new street and utility improvements would be in on the new part of Glenbrook Drive. She clarified the Planning Commission's decision was driven at that point by a safety issue, not an access issue. Mr. Ojakian said in some ways, that was correct. However, some of it was to stimulate the project, and both roads on the Hyatt site could be used. In the end, it would benefit the majority of the people who lived in the adjacent area. Council Member Wheeler said regarding the landscaping public benefit on El Camino Real, there were two median strips that enjoyed some frontage on the Hyatt Cabaña site. It was obvious that one was in need of encouragement, and the other was in need of much more. However, in the staff report (CMR:351:97), the improvement to that more barren median strip was not part of the public benefit because a portion of it was located in the City of
08/04/97 84-130
Los Altos. She did not see any positive or negative reaction from the City of Los Altos toward any suggestion that improvements be made in that median. She asked whether Los Altos was contacted during the process and what its reaction was. Mr. Jensen said the landscaping strip that was located in front of the Cabaña site within the center median of El Camino Real was initially considered for significant landscaping improvements. Staff found that part of the strip was in the City of Los Altos. Los Altos was contacted during the entire review process of the project. Moving further with discussing that median was dismissed when staff discovered that the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) did not want any trees within a certain clearance area of its culvert which ran underneath El Camino Real. The attention was then given to landscaping north of the intersection to the property; staff did not contact Los Altos because the landscaping improvement attention was given at the other location and because of SCVWD's response. Council Member Wheeler asked whether there was discussion on other treatments such as shrubs, ground cover, and flowers. Mr. Jensen said yes. Staff had a discussion with the project sponsor. One problem was getting an irrigation line to the center of the median. The City's Planning Arborist and Parks Department felt attending to the median strip north of the intersection was better than installing a new irrigation line and landscaping. Council Member Wheeler said the Planning Commission made some changes to the initial staff recommendation related to the four lots that backed directly onto the creek. The changes related to the prohibition of accessory buildings and swimming pools. The other recommendation was to remove a suggested condition regarding the retention of trees along the back portions of those lots. She did not sense any concern at the Planning Commission level about the stability of the creek bank and whether removing significant growth, which was known to be good for stabilizing creek banks, would in any way be injurious to the banks if the City did not keep some type of protection mechanism as a condition of the approval of those lots. Mr. Ojakian said for Lots 1 and 4, the Planning Commission put in a 20-foot setback. The Planning Commission did not approve the staff recommendation to have a tree easement because of two reasons: 1) the project applicant had suggested that there would be protection for the trees, and 2) several Commissioners felt that tree easements were not something they were subject to as homeowners and that making such an extraordinary action was not justified. If he were a homeowner with a fence on the back part of that lot, he would do everything necessary to keep the ground stable because it would be to his benefit.
08/04/97 84-131
Council Member Wheeler asked whether staff was supportive of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Jensen said the reason why the condition was initially set up was to ensure that the trees remained as a buffer and that if trees were to be removed, they would be replaced so that the buffer remained in perpetuity. Staff thought that could be accomplished through an easement or nondevelopment area and did not take into consideration at the time that people's interests would keep the trees. Mr. Schreiber said staff had residual concerns about the issue for both the lots that backed up to the creek and backed up to the houses that fronted the existing Greenacres neighborhood. It was possible that people would move in and decide they wanted to take down some trees to put in a swimming pool, etc., in the backyard. The issue was not a high priority on staff's level of concerns to disagree with the Planning Commission recommendation. Council Member Eakins asked whether there were any drawings for the new Palo Alto sign that would be placed on El Camino Real at the gateway improvements. Mr. Jensen said no because the sign was suggested near the end of the proposal for public benefit. The Public Works and Parks Departments had specifications for such signs. The condition was written so the sign would be in accordance with the City's specifications and consistent with other City entry signs. Council Member Eakins asked whether the item would be reviewed by the ARB and whether the Planning Department would have input. Mr. Jensen said yes. The condition was written that way. Council Member Eakins asked whether there was any information on how the house lots would be sold or developed. Mr. Jensen said it was a standard subdivision. He believed the project sponsor intended to hold the lots for production type development. It would be better for the project sponsor to answer Council Member Eakins' question. Mr. Ojakian said the Planning Commission looked at 14 or 15 different issues, of which Council addressed at least 6 or 7. The remaining issues were minor, and the Planning Commission felt in general that it was a good project. The reopening of the hotel and the addition to housing stock were items that the Planning Commission was very supportive of. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Steve Player, 1874 Guinda Street, spoke on behalf of the applicant. The Cabaña Hotel was an opportunity to bring back a needed asset
08/04/97 84-132
for the community. Enough had been said about the shortage of hotel rooms. In addition, the 14-lot subdivision was an outstanding way to add to the housing stock. The applicant accepted the Planning Commission and ARB's recommendations. The initial issue of the one-foot strip had been handled very well in Senior Assistant City Attorney Debra Cauble's report. The applicant, the attorney for the 14-lot subdivision, and the attorney for the neighborhood worked very hard at a solution to a problem that had been in existence for some time. In the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), the truck and construction traffic was for the construction of the Cabaña and major subdivision improvements, such as removal of asphalt. After that period of time, the traffic from the housing construction would not exit and enter through the Cabaña but would travel through the Glenbrook Court neighborhood. The applicant was willing to agree to an added condition of completion of the major subdivision improvements or 18 months, whichever occurred first. With regard to parking, it was a problem in the City with any event. The Cabaña would be marketed as a corporate commercial hotel to move toward businesses. Occasionally, there would be some events that would occur during non-peak hours. The nature of the hotel was changing from a "Doris Day" resort hotel to a more focused use. There were ways to increase the valet parking, and if needed, more parking sites and shuttle service would be provided. It was incumbent upon the operator and the owner to be good neighbors and attempt to deal with the parking. The parking ratio was 1.44 spaces per room. Rickey's was 1.31, and other numbers were approximately 1.25 for other hotels with similar uses. The applicant wanted to be a good neighbor and to listen to the concerns expressed by the Redwoods neighbors, the Glenbrook Court area neighbors, and Council in terms of making every effort to bring back and asset and provide a service that the community could be proud of. With regard to Council Member Wheeler's concern about the public benefit of landscaping, it was in the applicant's best interest to look at possible ways to help upgrade the landscaping after the bridge work was done. Linda Poncini, Carrasco & Associates, 120 Hamilton Avenue, said there were minor changes made to the building, such as added roof elements, redesign of the front parking lot, and added pedestrian walkway from El Camino Real to the entrance of the hotel. The large cypress trees would be retained, and the smaller cypress trees would be relocated. Infill trees of color and texture would add a variety to the front of the design of the building. Rough studies were done on underground parking, which would add 60 to 70 parking spaces and bring the ratio to 1.7 or 1.8 spaces per room. Underground parking was a more costly venture, but if it were necessary, it would be possible. Leo Missel, 4250 El Camino Real #139, had lived in the Redwoods for 13 years. Hyatt Cabaña was not a good neighbor. The hotel had trucks traveling all night and idling during the early morning
08/04/97 84-133
hours on the road that was adjacent to the Redwoods. The ballroom had very loud bands, emergency doors were kept open regularly, and the noise spilled out. Redwoods neighbors were exposed to noise, fumes, dust, and dirt. The south road was not inadequate. There was plenty of space. The hotel was using the road as storage for its construction materials. The road was no more narrow than the one adjacent to the Redwoods, and it could be widened. Improvement in that road not only would avoid the trucks at the Redwoods but also would be an asset to the hotel. The road could be a supplementary way to El Camino Real. He did not know who had done the study that found the south road inadequate, but it would be of great interest to have an outside source not paid by the contractor or by the hotel to see the feasibility. Work on the road could be done during the removal of the asphalt. Council Member Kniss asked when the Redwoods neighborhood was built. Mr. Missel said it was built in 1983. Harry I. Price, Attorney at Law, represented the 117 homeowners at the Palo Alto Redwoods. The Holiday Inn was in the parking survey, but Hyatt Rickey's was not. Valet parking did not add any net gain. The parking that would be removed represented 43 percent of the existing parking. Attachment 6 of the staff report (CMR:351:97) indicated that BMR payments were $245,000. The Palo Alto Redwoods was immediately adjacent to the Cabaña Hotel. The Council was asked to approve the Planning Commission recommendations to allow a 14-lot subdivision. In addition to parking and other concerns that Council raised, the Redwoods homeowners objected to where the construction traffic would take place, which was the north side of the Cabaña Hotel. Improvement to the south road should be required so that it could accommodate more. The use of the north road was an opportunity to use the path of least resistance. The developer, the hotel owner, and the west side neighbors agreed unilaterally that the disturbance of debris, dust, dirt, and disruption be placed closest to the Palo Alto Redwoods. The project looked nice once it was complete, but the disruption would have its most impressive impact on the Palo Alto Redwoods neighbors who were very close to the fence line on the north boundary. If the Council were to approve the proposal, one reasonable condition would be to require improvement of the south road as a sole access for construction traffic. Another would be to require construction traffic to move through the public right-of-way, which was Glenbrook Drive to Glenbrook Court. That would upset other neighbors. He did not know what hardship the Cabaña Hotel owners experienced to apply for a variance. It seemed to be a money-making proposal. Jack Schwarz, 4250 El Camino Real, said as a former and retired principal of a school, he was always concerned about the safety of the children. There were many safety hazards for children, but
08/04/97 84-134
building construction was not one. He went through the neighborhood behind the Cabaña Hotel and did not see many children playing there. He saw children getting in and out of cars to be taken somewhere or to be brought home. Therefore, to raise the safety issue as one of the reasons why the road in the back could not be prepared to accommodate the construction was not a valid one. Josephine Shuster, 4250 El Camino Real #B414, wondered where the parking lot for valet parking would be. Two owners at the Redwoods mentioned they could not sell their condominiums because of the impending construction. Other issues included the use of the ballroom and the 1.4 parking spaces per room. With ballroom activities, there would be many more people. The bicycle parking would also be cut back. She asked how the shared fencing would be repaired or replaced. There would be over 100 trees removed, which would increase the noise levels throughout the surrounding areas. The Council should not believe that the public benefits of gateway landscaping and entry signage outweighed the private burdens that the Palo Alto Redwoods neighbors would bear from the construction. The 18 months was a long time to listen to trucks. Nobody enjoyed constant noise and pollution. Some decks at the Redwoods were eight feet from the access road. The public benefits were minimal for all of Palo Alto compared to what the Redwoods neighbors would be dealing with. The property taxes that the Palo Alto Redwoods residents paid were equal to what the Cabaña Hotel contributed to the City. There were 117 voters who wanted to see Palo Alto develop with wonderful trees, planting, parking, and benefits to all the residents, not just to the profit of a few. Some Palo Alto Redwoods residents included a Ph.D. candidate at Stanford University who did a lot of work at home, a Ph.D. at Stanford and an assistant professor of education who worked at home 5 days per week, a physician at Stanford Hospital who worked night shift and slept during the day, a teacher of special education, and a widow who found peace and quiet at the Redwoods. Elaine Findley, 4250 El Camino Real #C226, reiterated the impact on the Palo Alto Redwoods. Of the whole complex, 40 units directly abutted the service road. The units were very close to the Cabaña and the large ballroom. The dust, dirt, and fumes from the construction vehicles would go into the complex. There would be an impact of the resale values of the condominiums for the next 18 months. The Redwoods residents were being asked to take an unfair burden on the construction site for the developer to make money. She asked what would make it less safe in 18 months. The south road should be improved. Floyd Kessler, 4272 Los Palos Avenue, had lived in the area for 39 years and had not seen the parking lot at the Cabaña more than half full no matter what the event was. It was lost space. There would be construction noise and inconvenience, heavy truck movement, and earth moving equipment. Many people would have their lives
08/04/97 84-135
disrupted, including the people of Greenacres. The area where the parking lot would be removed was adjacent to the homes on Los Palos Avenue and Suzanne Drive, which was not too close to the Redwoods. He was interested in not having the heavy construction trucks on Los Palos Avenue, Pomona Avenue, and Fairmede Avenue because of the children who rollerbladed, rode their bicycles, and played on the sidewalk. Currently, there were more children. The neighbors in the adjoining communities on Suzanne Drive and Arastradero Road used Los Palos Avenue for access to Terman Park. He was happy to see the development with 14 homes added to the community and hoped the project would be approved. Marion Hill, 4270 Pomona Avenue, had lived in Greenacres for 37 years. The Greenacres neighborhood was established in 1954 and annexed to the City in 1959. In 1961, the neighbors who were confronted by a 600-foot intrusion, namely the Cabaña Hotel, became activists. The neighbors stopped the opening of Glenbrook Drive so that there would be two entrances to the hotel. The neighbors stopped the placement of a helipad in the parking lot for VIPs. Palo Alto did not have a helicopter ordinance at the time, and the neighbors provided leadership to have one passed. The neighbors also stopped the setup of tennis courts with stands for celebrity tennis tournaments with no benefit to the neighborhood. The current rezoning addressed neighbors' concerns about access and maintaining the value of the Greenacres neighborhood. The service road passed the Redwoods and went along Suzanne. He drove on the service road, and found that trucks would pass the Redwoods in about 30 to 40 seconds and move on to Greenacres. Greenacres, Suzanne, and Redwoods neighborhoods would be exposed to the noise. The service road was built in 1961, and the Redwoods was built in 1983. Trucks had been traveling along that service road for years. It was up to the developer to provide the access. The current provisions and conditions should be retained at least for the 18 months. Susan Frank, President and CEO, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said with the strong economy, there was demand from outside and within the community for meeting and hotel space. There were community groups who continued to take their events outside of Palo Alto. Transient occupancy tax went to those communities, and Palo Alto received the traffic generated from corporate clients who traveled from their hotels outside of Palo Alto to meet at the Stanford Research Park, Downtown, and other locations. Any operator would be concerned about providing adequate onsite parking and did not want patrons walking long distances to hotel rooms or banquet facility. She was confident that the Cabaña ownership and operator would address parking concerns responsibly and with sensitivity to those who were affected. The Chamber felt the ownership group had been excellent corporate and community citizens, and the new operator would be as well. She attended a community group event at the Hyatt, which had donated the space. It was the fifth year that the Hyatt had donated that space, and
08/04/97 84-136
$15,000 was raised. The Holiday Inn and the Cabaña ownership already offered future space to community groups. She knew there would be disruption to many individuals, and she did not want to lessen that impact. However, it was not only about individuals profiting but also about the entire community benefiting from the project. There were hundreds of nonprofit organizations that needed that kind of space. On behalf of the over 800 member businesses, the Chamber hoped Council would approve the project. Anita Wolpman, 4250 El Camino Real #B217, was a resident of Palo Alto for 27 years and a homeowner at the Redwoods for 11 years. She chose the Redwoods because of its great beauty and peacefulness. She chose to live in Palo Alto because the City had a high regard for quality of life for its citizens. While there would be positive outcomes to the project, she wanted consideration to be made for the alternative route and the other road. She did not believe that issue was properly explored. Nora Raggio, 4250 El Camino Real #C326, said there were safety issues associated with traffic on the north side. Being exposed to 18 months of exhaust, asphalt fumes, and other particulates was a medical issue with potential lawsuits. The medical impact would be not only on the 117 families in the Palo Alto Redwoods but also on the children in the adjacent area. A minor issue was the environmental impact of asphalt and dirt on the hundreds of redwood trees. The issue of the south side should be considered in terms of safety. Howard Belfer, 4275 Los Palos Avenue, was concerned about the canceling of the easement requiring tree preservation both at the creekside and the west side of the lot. He urged Council to put the protection back into place. He was also concerned about the significant amount of construction traffic, which could last for several years because the development was not being done as a single development. If the south road could be made to accommodate significant amounts of construction traffic, it was a win-win situation. The south road, however, was more narrow and winding than the north road. He did not believe the safety issue should easily be dismissed. There were more than two dozen children who lived in the neighborhood, and other children passed through the neighborhood. He urged Council to look at every possible way of minimizing the impact of construction traffic on all the neighborhoods. Michael Maurier, 646 Fairmede Avenue, said for three years, the Greenacres neighborhood had been involved in interaction with the City and negotiation with the developers, which resulted in a solution. The Greenacres neighborhood's issue was Glenbrook Drive. Greenacres had plenty of through traffic, and safety was a major issue. He sympathized with the Redwoods neighbors. There was not much evidence of discussion between the Redwoods and the developers about access roads. He hoped Council would encourage Redwoods
08/04/97 84-137
residents and the developers to work out improvements to the south road or scheduling adjustments. The Greenacres neighborhood would shoulder a considerable amount of the burden over time for what could be a protracted construction cycle. Greenacres was concerned that the major bulk of the construction happened within the 18-month period and that there be no through access to Glenbrook Drive during that time. John MacMurray, 4238 Los Palos Avenue, was concerned about the safety because he saw children all the time in the neighborhood. Most of the construction would be bordering Suzanne Drive and Los Palo Avenue, not the Redwoods. He had not seen children or people on the service road along the Redwoods. He wanted to see all of the construction and building go through the Cabaña site. That might not be realistic with the schedule and the lots being sold as individual lots. He heard the developer's attorney talk about six months for just the grading and the subdivision. That was not acceptable to the Greenacres neighborhood. It was a matter of safety. Also, the service road existed when the Redwoods was built. Susan Christopher, 4250 Camino Real, #B415, lived at the Redwoods for seven years. She worked primarily at home. It was unfortunate that the project seemed to pit the Greenacres neighbors against the Redwoods neighbors. The major subdivision improvement came at everybody's expense. There was a way for the impact to be mitigated through the use of the south road. She urged Council to approve the needed upgrades for the south road in order to accommodate construction vehicles during that time. John Challos, 190 Mt. Honullan, Los Altos, said he was the project manager for the Tree Farm Project LLC which would be built on El Camino Real approximately 500 feet to the east of the Cabaña project. The City staff made an error because the law required a congestion traffic report be filed for the project, but that was not done. More than 100 traffic trips would be created per day. He hoped the City Council would approve the project subject to completion of a congestion traffic management report. It was Tree Farm's intention to file a lawsuit if the report were not completed. RECESS 9:30 P.M. - 9:45 P.M. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said if the ballroom held parties as large as 700 or 800 people, the onsite parking would not accommodate them. It was possible to accommodate with shuttle buses, etc., in order to avoid parking in the neighborhoods. Another way to address the issue was to have a landscape reserved where parking would be placed if necessary. Also, one of the parking lots in the front could be double decked. The second issue he was concerned with was the traffic for construction. Having trucks exit near the creek and keeping them away from the Redwoods
08/04/97 84-138
would help cut down on the noise, traffic, dust, and dirt. With the current housing market, the lots would be developed in a very short time. One way to figure in-lieu BMR payments was by the value of the development, and the other was by the land sale. The applicant opted for the land sale value, which was estimated to raise $245,000 for every seven lots. The City would have approximately $490,000 in in-lieu payments on the project, which was almost enough to be buy a teardown house in Palo Alto. He believed the project with a couple of modifications should move forward. Suzanne Cahn, 4250 El Camino Real, said for the 14 luxury homes, Greenacres and Redwoods neighbors' lives would be disturbed. Palo Alto should let the hotel make its improvements, keep the ballroom the way it was, and improve the parking lot with a few more trees. Marc M. Cohen, 4242 Pomona Avenue, was pleased with the current project compared with the earlier proposal. He was amused at the estimate of six months to demolish the asphalt because his experience was that a crew of three men with two jackhammers, a bulldozer, and a dump truck could remove about 1,000 square feet per day. There was 100,000 square feet on the 14-lot site, so that would be a maximum of 100 days for one crew. If the contractor were required to demolish in 35 working days, that meant the contractor provided three crews. It would be more acceptable to the neighborhood to have six jackhammers for two months than two jackhammers for six months. That was a reasonable and realistic time limit on the demolition. The major grading of the residential site could be accomplished in 30 to 45 days. There could be no two-way traffic on the north access road. It would be ideal to have two-way traffic on the south road, but there would be a problem with impinging on the riparian zone. The traffic would move with the entrance of empty vehicles on the north and the exit of loaded vehicles on the south. The dump trucks could be required to have tarps to minimize the amount of dust and gravel. He encouraged Council to retain the 18-month restriction of heavy traffic on Glenbrook Drive. Griff Derryberry, 4250 El Camino Real #A204, showed a slide presentation of the Redwoods area and its proximity to the service road and the project. The approach to Glenbrook Drive was significantly wider and might provide more access as an option. There was a petition signed by 79 people that was not in favor of the current proposal. Nina Bell, 4245 Los Palos Avenue, said the current proposal seemed to be the best. She appreciated the concerns of the Redwoods residents. However, everybody would be impacted. The Redwoods residents had not mentioned the fact that all the construction traffic for the homes would travel down the wide street. There were many children in that area. The concern of the resident who experienced noise at night during the original construction of the
08/04/97 84-139
Cabaña was addressed by the construction time limits. There should have been the realization that the north access road already existed and that something would eventually happen to the back lot. Douglas Lau, 925 Glenbrook Drive, had three children who would be walking to school. He expressed his concern for the safety of the children. Human life was more important compared to inconvenience. Tony Carrasco, Carrasco & Associates, said there had been discussion about the amount of detriment to either neighborhood. The total number of trucks required to remove and bring new infill material was 600, which meant 4 trucks or 8 trips per day over a one-year construction period. One residential unit in the Redwoods caused 10 trips per day. With one crew, it was about 20 trips per day total, which was equivalent to traffic from two Redwoods units and was not a huge disruption. Mitigations such as covering the trucks with tarps were possible. It was in the operator's best interest to optimize the use of the parking lot. There was an ability to provide 70 additional parking spaces by going underground if needed. The applicant was confident that it would not be needed. All discussions with Crown Plaza indicated that Crown Plaza ran 600 hotels and had not had parking deficiency or problems. Regarding the R-1 to R-1 buffer, the Glenbrook Court LLC did not want to be treated differently from any other house or lot in Palo Alto. The LLC planned and hoped that the first people who bought the lots would be as concerned as anyone about the trees in the backyard. The LLC proposed tree protection through the CC&Rs, and he hoped Council would not impose an easement. Mr. Player said everyone was interested that the project be done as expeditiously and with less disruption as possible not only to the neighbors but also to the guests who would be staying at the hotel during the construction period. There was a construction logistics report that was required by the staff conditions. There were already matters to mitigate construction impact, and it was in the best interest of each party that the heaviest portion of the construction be done as soon as possible. The applicant wished to be good neighbors and work with all the neighbors in coming up with a solution. No one actually opposed the project. What was being dealt with was an interim period of time during the construction. The project could be one that the community would be proud of. Council Member McCown said a construction logistics plan had to be prepared. She asked if it would be possible between the present time and September 8, 1997, for the applicant to bring a piece of the plan that described more precisely what the intended level of traffic was. On page 5 of the staff report (CMR:351:97), staff concluded that while the south access drive could not be used for loaded trucks because of the capacity of the road and its proximity to the creek, it could be used for empty large trucks and smaller vehicles. She was not sure whether the applicant accepted staff's conclusion and would make some use of the south side.
08/04/97 84-140
Mr. Player said a draft of the construction logistics plan would be submitted before the September 8, 1997, meeting. There was a letter from the Fire Department stating the south road was a one-way fire exit and could not be obstructed at any time. Vice Mayor Andersen understood there was still unfinished business with negotiations among staff, the applicant, and neighbors with regard to the one-foot strip. He asked if that would be resolved by September 8, 1997. Ms. Cauble understood a letter to Council from Kent Mitchell, counsel for the Greenacres neighborhood, said the neighbors were reluctant in writing to agree to anything until they saw what project might be approved by Council because their agreement to terms was based on a particular project. Vice Mayor Andersen said he discussed the BMR item with staff, and staff did not believe the $245,000 figure was correct. Mr. Carrasco said the $245,000 figure was not correct. The City Planning Department agreed that the lots would be appraised within one month of when staff was asked to do the appraisal, and 5 percent of that value would be part of the BMR payments. Council Member Rosenbaum said it was mentioned that data was available for Rickey's. It would be helpful to have that data before the September 8, 1997, meeting. Council Member Fazzino was interested in what the applicant would do about the south access road and whether there were any alternative ways to use the south road without creating any erosion or other problems associated with the creek. Council Member Eakins asked whether Council could have contact with the applicant or members of the community. Ms. Cauble said the project had a mixture of legislative and quasi-judicial acts. Most of the issues discussed related to the subdivision which was a quasi-judicial approval. Council's procedures regarding not having contacts after the close of the public hearing would apply to that portion of the project. Council Member Eakins was concerned about design standards for the houses and their compatibility with the Redwoods and existing houses in the neighborhood. She asked for preparation to discuss how the house units and lots would be sold. Council Member Kniss hoped to see the riparian aspect of the south road addressed because the creek was one area that the community was very sensitive about.
08/04/97 84-141
Council Member Wheeler was not sure the CC&Rs were the appropriate and effective way to deal with trees protection. She lived in an area that had CC&Rs and knew when a person decided to violate the CC&Rs, there was nothing that the City could do to help. People who were adversely impacted could do nothing to enforce the CC&Rs. The trees along the creek were of a citywide, regional concern. The trees along the back fences of the existing R-1 neighborhood were of interest to neighbors who were not included in the CC&Rs. She knew there was probably further negotiation to be done among the parties involved, but she wanted further clarity in terms of the time frame needed to construct the major improvements to the parking lot, the switching over of construction traffic to the newly improved Glenbrook Drive, etc., by September. She hoped that Council would be able to shorten the 18-month time frame. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to continue the Public Hearing to the Monday, September 8, 1997, City Council meeting for the purpose of asking questions. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the comments of the Planning Commission relating to the Ordinance Establishing Procedures for Preparation of Coordinated Area Plans. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 19.10 to Title 19 [Master Plan] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Procedures for Preparation of Coordinated Area Plans MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to continue the Public Hearing to the Monday, August 11, 1997, City Council meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 12A. (Old Item No. 15.) PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan: Consideration and approval of tentative schedule and tasks, authorization for the Mayor to appoint a 12-member working group, and authorization for City Manager to negotiate consulting services agreement for coordination and oversight of preparation of the Plan. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to Fund a Coordinated Area Plan for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Sites and Portions of the South of Forest Area (SOFA)
08/04/97 84-142
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to continue the item to the Monday, August 11, 1997, City Council meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. RESOLUTIONS 13. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling a Special Election for Tuesday, November 4, 1997, for Submittal of an Initiative Measure to the Electorate and Ordering Consolidation of Said Election City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council had the initiative text and the ballot question drafted by the City Attorney's Office. The item was Council's Resolution, and Council had the authority to edit or revise the ballot question. The ballot question could not be false, misleading, or inconsistent with other law, and it could not exceed 75 words in length. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said two weeks before, Council directed the City Attorney and the City Manager to report the effect of the initiative on planning and financial issues. Council was told that it would receive the report in the current agenda packet, but no report appeared. If Council received a confidential report, it should make the report public so that the public and Stanford University could be made aware of the City Attorney's analysis on whether the initiative's main purposes could be adopted by initiative. If not, then the initiative should be removed from the ballot. If Council did not receive the report, Council should direct that the report be included in all of the following week's agenda packets. When Council adopted the urgency ordinance that permitted the abbreviated version of the approved Stanford project to appear in the sample ballot, it also adopted new language that permitted the City Attorney to write language for the initiative ballot question. He thought that was inappropriate as part of an urgency ordinance and looked forward to what the initiative's proponents thought of the proposed language. Mr. Calonne said Mr. Borock was correct that the report was not in the packet, but it would be available by August 8, 1997. Regarding the ballot question and reference to the urgency ordinance, he clarified that the urgency ordinance did not amplify the duties the City Attorney's Office already had under the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and the Charter. Council Member McCown said the heading for the first measure was "City of Palo Alto Initiative Measure," and the heading for the second measure, Item No. 14, was "City of Palo Alto Referendum Measure." She asked if there were some wording that would be appropriate to include to clarify what the distinction was between the two measures, i.e., if one indicated that it was a City Council
08/04/97 84-143
approved ordinance and the other indicated it was an ordinance proposed by initiative. Mr. Calonne said that was possible. There was a 75 word limit, and with some modifications, Council could insert language that indicated authorship. For example, in Item No. 13, he would insert "proposed by initiative" after "Shall an ordinance..." Council Member McCown said it would be more clear if the language called out that distinction, and the voter could see which was the Council measure and which was the initiative. Mr. Calonne said it was Council's prerogative. Staff was not sure whether the phrases "City of Palo Alto Referendum Measure" and "City of Palo Alto Initiative Measure" would appear immediately ahead of the questions in the ballot pamphlet. In 1995, Measure R went to the voters with the heading "City of Palo Alto Initiative Measure" which was misleading because it was a citizen initiative. Having referendum on one and initiative on the other was an effort to give Santa Clara County (SCC) material to help distinguish the two. Council Member McCown said in reading the initiative measure, there were places where the words "allow," "authorize," and "required" were used. It seemed the initiative absolutely prohibited an extension wider than two lanes on Sand Hill Road. It was a critical idea in the initiative that it could not be anything other than two lanes. The language stated it would require a two-lane extension. Someone not knowing anything about the issue might not assume that precluded four lanes. She understood the initiative's intent was that the Comprehensive Plan would contain language precluding Sand Hill Road from ever being wider than two lanes. Council Member Fazzino asked Council Member McCown if she was referring to Sand Hill Road from Santa Cruz Avenue to El Camino Real or from Arboretum Road. Council Member McCown understood the initiative's intent was that Sand Hill Road could not be wider than two lanes anywhere. Council Member Fazzino said under Council's action, Council ruled out four lanes from Arboretum Road to El Camino Real. Council Member McCown believed that somewhere in the language describing the initiative measure, it needed to say something about being no wider than two lanes or that the Comprehensive Plan amendment would preclude the road from ever being wider than two lanes. Mr. Calonne believed it was perfectly appropriate that the Council suggest changes. The ballot question was a few words under the 75-word limit. He clarified the initiative permitted a third lane for
08/04/97 84-144
public vehicles, such as buses and ambulances. He suggested inserting "limiting Sand Hill Road to two lanes, with a third lane authorized for public vehicles; extension of Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real" after "...projects generating traffic on Sand Hill Road." He believed that would meet the word count. Vice Mayor Andersen referred to Item No. 14, the referendum measure, and asked whether there was a way to indicate that the cost of the infrastructure improvements was to be funded by Stanford. He also asked whether it was possible to include in the initiative who would pay for the proposed improvements. Mr. Calonne did not believe it would be inappropriate to indicate that one of the benefits of the development agreement was that Stanford would pay for certain improvements. When everything could not be included, the issue was what should be included. The choice he made was to reference only the dollar per year leases for childcare and El Camino Park. There were many other benefits listed in the summary that were not in the ballot question, and if Council felt it was important to indicate that Stanford was obligated to pay for the Sand Hill construction, Council could do that subject to the word limit. He found it vexing to meet the word limit and say everything that needed to be said. To the extent that the initiative required construction of a Sand Hill Road extension, it might not be an entirely fair statement because there was no one out there other than the City to pay for that extension. There was also no time frame in the Comprehensive Plan compelling the construction within a certain schedule. If that were the concern, there might be ways address it, subject to the word limit. Council Member Wheeler asked who determined the order in which the measures appeared on the ballot. City Clerk Gloria Young said the order was determined by the City Attorney. The initiative measure would appear first, and the referendum measure would appear second. The SCC Registrar of Voters designated the letters. Council Member Wheeler asked why the City Attorney determined the initiative measure would appear first. Mr. Calonne said SCC's action in certifying the signatures preceded Council's action in putting the referendum measure on the ballot. Council had not put the referendum measure on the ballot yet. Council Member Rosenbaum said the description of the initiative measure seemed to imply that the third lane was only with regard to the two-lane extension. However, he believed the intent was that the third lane would be for the entire road between Santa Cruz Avenue and El Camino Real.
08/04/97 84-145
Mr. Calonne said Council Member Rosenbaum's criticism of the language was correct. He had another version of the question that read "Shall an ordinance proposed by initiative be adopted amending the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to require: Transportation demand management programs for projects generating traffic on Sand Hill Road; limiting Sand Hill Road to lanes, with a third lane authorized for public vehicles; extension of Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real; efforts to redesignate as open space certain land adjacent to San Francisquito Creek currently designated for housing; and restrictions on Stanford Shopping Center expansion if traffic increases will occur on specified streets." The two-lane extension language was separated into two parts. The first part referred to a limitation on the width of the road, and the second part referred to the requirement for the extension. He passed out Exhibits A and A1, which were two revised versions of the initiative question. Exhibit B was a revised version of Council's referendum. Council Member Fazzino understood the development restrictions on certain Stanford lands adjacent to Sand Hill Road and Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties were all time specific or limited. If the City were being precise about both measures, he asked whether it would be appropriate and fair to mention that the development restrictions were time specific. Mr. Calonne said Council would have to delete the language about the lands being in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. He found the provision difficult to describe because there were many qualifications on Stanford's obligations with respect to the 139-acre parcel that was largely centered around the reservation for academic and housing uses. The phrase "development restrictions on certain Stanford lands" was ambiguous. Council Member Fazzino said Council specifically asked for development restrictions in perpetuity. Stanford came back with the Year 2021, and Council agreed. Mr. Calonne said the date was legitimate to include. Council Member Fazzino asked whether it would be appropriate to include a phrase such as "time specific." Mr. Calonne said it was Council's decision subject to the word limitation, and the word count on the referendum measure was a few words under the 75-word limit. Council could phrase it as "development restrictions until 2021 on certain Stanford lands adjacent to Sand Hill Road." Vice Mayor Andersen said getting clarity as to who was paying for the project should be a higher priority. He did not know what 2021 would mean to people.
08/04/97 84-146
Council Member Fazzino understood Vice Mayor Andersen's point. He suggested words such as "limited" or "time specific." Council Member Eakins asked whether "Sand Hill Road" was counted as one word. Mr. Calonne said geographical names were counted as one word. Council Member Eakins asked whether "City of Palo Alto" was one word. Mr. Calonne said yes. If a date were expressed as "8/4/97," it was counted as one word. If a date were expressed as "August 4, 1997," it was counted as two words. Council Member Kniss asked whether the words in Exhibit A1, "ordinance proposed by citizen initiative," would fit into the count. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Kniss said it would help to clarify precisely what the difference was between the two measures. Mayor Huber said simply read, the initiative compelled the extension of Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real. He was concerned because the initiative essentially said the Comprehensive Plan was telling the City of Palo Alto to spend millions of dollars to extend the road. The initiative did not say Stanford, the state, or anybody else. If the initiative passed, it would compel the City to follow the Comprehensive Plan and do that. He also read some language in the initiative that suggested otherwise. Mr. Calonne said in section 1G of the initiative, it said the effect of the initiative was to "require that Sand Hill Road be maintained at its current width of two lanes for private automobiles, authorize creation of a third lane for public vehicles (buses and ambulances), and allow for connecting Sand Hill to El Camino Real." However, in the amended Transportation Element on page 3 of the initiative, it said "To relieve congestion around Stanford Shopping Center, Sand Hill Road shall be extended to El Camino Real," which he believed was the reason it was accurate to characterize it as a mandatory requirement. Mayor Huber asked, if the initiative passed and it became part of the Comprehensive Plan, what section 1G in effect meant in terms of the actual language that would go into the Comprehensive Plan, which was a compulsion to extend. He asked whether there was an interpretive process. Mr. Calonne said no. The "shall" languages in the text amendment that became part of the Comprehensive Plan and the initiative then
08/04/97 84-147
required the Council to engage in an examination of whether other cleanups were needed to make other parts of the plan consistent with the initiative. The "shall" language was the language that would be in the Comprehensive Plan. The law did not require that it be done in a particular time frame. Where Council would get to that was with consistency required for future development projects. He imagined that if the initiative became the law, that language would come to bear when and if there was a Stanford proposal that related to Sand Hill Road. Mayor Huber asked whether the word "shall" had to be used when defining the question, since the initiative specifically said
"shall.≅ Mr. Calonne said the language would survive a challenge for accuracy with the words as written. He stood by the accuracy that the initiative would require extension of Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the Resolution as amended in Exhibit A1 prepared by the City Attorney.
Resolution 7704 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling a Special Election for Tuesday, November 4, 1997, for Submittal of an Initiative Measure to
the Electorate and Ordering Consolidation of Said Election≅ Vice Mayor Andersen asked if the maker and seconder of the motion would consider adding words specifying no time frame was provided. Council Member McCown believed that would not work because there were 73 words. Mr. Calonne counted 74 words after adding the word "citizen." MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. 14. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling a Special Election for Tuesday, November 4, 1997, for Submittal of a Referendum Measure to the Electorate and Ordering Consolidation of Said Election Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said on page 3 of the ballot summary, other approved road work needed to be added, including a widened, four-lane Quarry Road that permitted the traffic to enter El Camino Real from Quarry Road, an extension of Stockfarm Road from Oak Road to Sand Hill Road, an extension of Palo Road from Hoover Pavilion to Quarry Road, a new two-lane Vineyard Road, and a realigned Pasteur Drive. There was the addition that Stanford had to construct the road improvements, but it said nothing about Stanford's constructing the housing or the Shopping Center 08/04/97 84-148
expansion. Staff told Council for a year that the excuse of building the extension was the additional floor area, housing, and Shopping Center. Page 14 contained misleading information about the financial effect of the change in the El Camino Park lease and the assignment of subleases to Stanford. The financial analysis assumed only a fraction of the actual annual growth rate in revenues from the subleases, which meant the change in the current lease would have a financial benefit to the City, but it would be a net financial loss. Page 15 referred to a schedule but did not say what the schedule was. The City Manager could change that schedule at Stanford's requests. Therefore, in effect, there was no schedule. Page 15 also referred to constructing the roads, not the housing or the Shopping Center. On page 20, each planning and zoning approval needed to be linked to a specific map. There were duplicate maps which led to the question of whether any maps were missing. Exhibit A which followed map 3 showed mitigated Sand Hill Road alignment but omitted the alignment of Palo Alto Avenue on the other side of El Camino Real. Map 3 was false because it showed the Sand Hill Road extension intersecting El Camino Real south of the Palo Alto Avenue intersection with El Camino Real, but they were directly in line with each other as they had been in every Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for the past 35 years. The seven maps had disclaimers that indicated possible errors, but the maps needed to be accurate because they were necessary parts of the ordinances, resolutions, tentative maps, and other approvals and entitlements. The corrections needed to be made in order to have an accurate ballot summary. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said he was required to do the ballot summary and was not in a position to edit it with the Council. The maps would be associated with the approvals when the document was published. The title of each resolution would precede the relevant map. The maps were directly out of the actions Council took and were the official documents. The planning disclaimer was designed to prevent third parties from trying to find liability and was not meant to suggest inaccuracy. The language on page 15 of the ballot summary was verbatim from the development agreement and required Stanford to comply with all project approvals, which meant building the other projects and constructing the road improvements. There was nothing that compelled Stanford from commencing the projects. The language about constructing the road improvements could be amplified to detail each of the streets. It became a matter of how much the City wanted to pay to publish and how valuable it would be to the people reading it. There was no way to summarize 600 pages in 20 pages without having to compromise something. Council Member Fazzino wanted language that indicated the development restrictions were time specific or limited. Mr. Calonne clarified the suggestion was to insert "until 2021" after "development restrictions."
08/04/97 84-149
Council Member Fazzino said yes. Mr. Calonne said page 20 of the ballot summary listed the various actions that Council took and said "the relevant maps are included below," which was intended to be a signal for publication that they would be headed by the list. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the Resolution as amended in Exhibit B prepared by the City Attorney.
Resolution 7705 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling a Special Election for Tuesday, November 4, 1997, for Submittal of a Referendum Measure to the
Electorate and Ordering Consolidation of Said Election≅ Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether there was space in the ballot question to include a phrase that indicated Stanford was paying for the infrastructure. "Stanford financed" would be two words. Mr. Calonne said adding "until 2021" brought the word count to 72 words. "Stanford financed" would fit in. He was cautious about the word "financed" because it suggested some terms that were not there. He suggested inserting "Stanford funded" or "at Stanford's expense" after "Arboretum Road." Vice Mayor Andersen agreed with inserting "at Stanford's expense" after "Arboretum Road." Council Member Wheeler said it made more sense to put the phrase after "to permit", and the list would follow. Putting it at the end made it seem it was just the road that Stanford was financing. Council Member Kniss suggested that Council allow the City Attorney to handle placing the phrase in the ballot question. Mr. Calonne said inserting "at Stanford's expense" after "to permit" or inserting "Stanford funded" before the road item were two solutions that met the word limit and were truthful. Council Member McCown said the distinction that it was not the City's expense was correct. However, she did not know for a fact that every aspect of the senior housing project was being paid for by Stanford. There might be a developer involved with Stanford. Council's decision on the development agreement was not affected. She was concerned about the breadth of saying all the projects were being paid for by Stanford. She knew the road project was being paid for by Stanford University, not by the City of Palo Alto, but Council did not want something on the ballot that was not accurate. Mr. Calonne believed it was only the public infrastructure that was a question.
08/04/97 84-150
Vice Mayor Andersen suggested inserting the phrase "at Stanford's expense" after "Arboretum Road." INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the phrase "at Stanford's expense" be inserted after "Arboretum Road" in the ballot question for the referendum measure. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 16. November 4, 1997, Special Election - Ballot Arguments
Procedures for the MPACT Initiative and the City Council=s Referendum Concerning the Sand Hill Road Corridor MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, not to take a position against the initiative; to authorize individual members of the City Council who may wish to author and sign written ballot arguments for or against the measure to use their titles as City Council Members, to direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis, and allow individual board and commission members to sign ballot arguments for or against the measures and use their respective titles. Council Member Rosenbaum recalled that four years before, Measures E and F pertained to making public what went on in closed session. One measure was a citizen initiative, and the other measure was a Council alternative. He clarified Council took a position in favor of one and opposition to the other. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Rosenbaum asked why the Council would not want to take a position against the initiative. Council Member Fazzino said throughout the process, a number of Council Members made it clear that Council would ultimately allow the voters to decide the issue. Council carefully evaluated the Stanford proposal and changed it dramatically. Council voted for a compromise and placed the measure on the ballot. It was currently up to the voters to decide what course of action to take. The action was extraordinary because he could not recall another time in the City's history when the Council consciously decided to have the voters take a stand on a major public policy issue. It was the most significant development proposal in over 20 years, which was the reason why Council placed it before the voters. Council needed to be sensitive to the fact that the voters needed to be allowed to decide which course of action they wished to take. He would be concerned about any involvement by the City Council.
08/04/97 84-151
Council Member Eakins said because of Council's unanimous vote that refuted the positions of the initiative, Council should take a position in opposition to the initiative. Council evaluated carefully and found fault with every one of the positions in the initiative. Council Member Fazzino's other argument was that Council turned its proposed ordinance into a referendum to let the public decide. However, not submitting a ballot argument about the initiative had nothing to do with letting the public vote on the referendum. Council Member McCown said Council put the referendum on the ballot and recommended it to the community. The initiative tried to achieve a different result from what Council recommended. It would be more clear to voters if Council went on record explaining what its position on the initiative was. Council did not support the proposals in the initiative when those proposals were individually brought to Council over the course of five months of hearings. Council should have a position on both the initiative and the referendum measures. Vice Mayor Andersen said it was a complex issue. He supported moving ahead as a Council in opposing the initiative. SECOND WITHDRAWN MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Eakins, that the City Council author and sign the ballot argument in opposition to the citizen initiative measure. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Fazzino Αno,≅ Schneider absent. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Andersen, that the City Council author and sign the ballot argument in support of the City Council adopted Ordinance. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. Mayor Huber announced that he and Council Members McCown and Wheeler would draft the arguments. City Clerk Gloria Young asked whether Council wished to allow board and commission members on either side of the issue to use their titles. Mayor Huber asked what the effect was if Council chose not to take action on the item. Ms. Young said in the past individual board and commission members were not allowed to use titles. The issue came up in the previous
08/04/97 84-152
election; therefore, she decided to bring the issue to Council. Council had taken action before as a legislative body. Mayor Huber clarified that if Council did not positively state board and commission members could use their titles, they could not. Ms. Young said that was correct. Mayor Huber said there was no motion, which meant that no board or commission member could use his or her title in support of or against either measure. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(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.
08/04/97 84-153