HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-29 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting September 29, 1997 1. Study Session re Council Priorities 1998-2000.........84-357 1. Presentation of the Savvy Award.......................84-359 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................84-359 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................84-361 2. Final Subdivision Map re 4277 Miranda Avenue(Tract 8989)84-362 3. Ordinance 4450 entitled "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 a Portion of Property Collectively Known as >Charleston
Meadows Tract 840' from R-1 to R-1(S)≅ ................84-362 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission for a 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan....................................84-362 5. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........84-375 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.............84-375
09/29/97 84-356
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:25 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Andersen, McCown SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Study Session re Council Priorities 1998-2000 Synopsis of Study Session re Selection of Council Priorities for Fiscal Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 Mayor Huber reviewed the process for selecting annual Council priorities and noted that Vice Mayor Andersen and Council Member McCown chose not to participate in the process due to the fact they would not be serving on the Council during Fiscal Years 1998-2000. Faith Bell, 536 Emerson, Palo Alto, expressed her disappointment
that homelessness issues were rated low in the Council=s scoring of priorities and spoke in favor of the request by the Human Relations Commission that the Council consider the report by the Homelessness Task Force as a priority. Joe Baldwin, 280 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, noted that the Council assigned most points to issues already established as City priorities and spoke in favor of giving higher priority to meeting the basic needs of the homeless in the community. Mayor Huber noted that the initial scoring indicated that two issues, Traffic Management/Safety and the Infrastructure Plan, clearly received the highest number of votes. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan also scored highly. The issues were from
the previous year=s priorities, and discussion ensued on the new emphasis that would be placed on those priorities for 1998-2000. In the case of Traffic Management and Safety, the emphasis would be on traffic safety, especially in the Downtown area. For the Comprehensive Plan, due to be completed in 1997-98, the emphasis for 1998-2000 would be on implementation. Other suggested priorities were also discussed, especially Issues Related to Homelessness and Services for the Needy. It was noted that the City had initiated many excellent programs for the homeless and needy and that even if it were not selected as a priority for 1998-2000, Council would continue to address the issues. The list of suggested priorities presented to Council included many significant issues, and even though Council could not select them all, it would not diminish their importance. It was emphasized that many of the
09/29/97 84-357
issues were covered in the Comprehensive Plan, and they would be addressed through implementation of the Plan. The Council reached consensus that the following three priorities should be selected for FY 1998-99 and FY 1999-2000: Traffic Management and Safety, the Infrastructure Plan, and Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Huber thanked the boards and commissions and those present at the study session for their participation in the Council priority selection process. The study session concluded with a request that staff refine the scope of the priorities to reflect the comments made by the Council and return to Council for formal approval. No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
09/29/97 84-358
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Presentation of the Savvy Award Mayor Huber announced that the City of Palo Alto had been awarded two top honors by the national City-County Communications and Marketing Association (3CMA). The highest 3CMA honor in the
category of ΑMost Creative Program with Least Dollars Spent,≅ the
Savvy Award, went to Palo Alto=s Community Services Department for its Snowman and Sleigh Rides event. Presented by Recreation Special Events last November, the free outdoor event featured
sleigh rides, entertainment, a children=s play area, and snowboarding for teens. Taking into account the amount of sponsorship dollars raised, the event cost the City only the hours of staff time expended. The Savvy Award in the video category was
awarded to the Palo Alto Fire Department for its ΑMeeting the
Challenge≅ video which provided a snapshot of the diverse workforce and multiple services the Fire Department provided to the citizens of Palo Alto. The video was used both to inform citizens and help with recruitment. The video was aired on the local TV network system and shown at local high schools. Susan Churcher and Tony Spitaleri, the City of Palo Alto staff responsible for the winning programs, were honored at the national conference of 3CMA in early September in Tacoma, Washington. No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding the photos of the competition that UCD and the Sacramento area had. Thea Burr, 439 Emerson Street #4, spoke regarding alternate housing idea for homeless people willing to help themselves. Joe Kyles spoke regarding the bridge eviction. Nil Unerdem, San Juan Street, Stanford, spoke regarding the bridge eviction. Leah Weiss, Box 10674, Stanford, spoke regarding the bridge
09/29/97 84-359
eviction. Gregory Walton, P. O. Box 12531, Stanford, spoke regarding the bridge eviction. Sylvia Olveda, P. O. Box 14815, Stanford, spoke regarding the bridge eviction. Shannon Frank, Campus Drive, Stanford, spoke regarding the bridge eviction. Jim Dinkey, 3380 Cork Oak Way, spoke regarding ramp metering. Margaret Ash, 164 Hamilton Avenue, spoke regarding homelessness creek eviction. Bjorn Johnson, 539 Cowell Lane, Stanford, spoke regarding the bridge eviction.
Catherine O=Brien, 639 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding the creek eviction. Patrick Hilton spoke regarding the bridge eviction. Tomas Moran, Alger Drive, spoke regarding the bridge eviction. Joe Baldwin, 280 Waverley Place, spoke regarding the bridge eviction. Cary-Andrew Crittenden, Halford Avenue, Santa Clara, spoke regarding the bridge eviction. Vice Mayor Andersen said one of the points raised under Oral Communications was availability of housing in San Mateo County at the end of November, and he asked whether staff made contact with any organization in San Mateo County that would confirm such availability and whether there was any priority for those who might be in an evicted state as of October 6, 1997. City Manager June Fleming said the eviction was not initiated by the City of Palo Alto. The City was called in to assist basis. It was eminent in early August, and the City asked for two delays so that staff could make every effort possible to talk to other agencies and bring representatives of other agencies in to speak with persons who might be impacted in both Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether there was specific housing
09/29/97 84-360
available at the end of November as suggested by one of the speakers. If not, he wanted more details as to what that availability might be and whether or not the people would be affected might have access to that housing. Ms. Fleming said all the information staff had was distributed. Some people did not want to avail themselves of the opportunities. Because the City staff did not have the expertise, other people were brought in, and everything that was available was shared and discussed with the impacted persons. Vice Mayor Andersen asked when the issue of the restrooms in the Downtown would be agendized. Ms. Fleming said part of the Downtown issues would be brought to the Council in the near future. If there were a specific resolution of the discussions, it would be forwarded to the Council as soon as possible which might or might not be prior to the end of the calendar year. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of July 21, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of July 28, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Andersen Αabstaining.≅ CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 and 3. 2. Final Subdivision Map re 4277 Miranda Avenue(Tract 8989) 3. Ordinance 4450 entitled "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 a Portion of Property Collectively Known as >Charleston
Meadows Tract 840' from R-1 to R-1(S)≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 2 and 3.
09/29/97 84-361
UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission for a 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, including goals, policies and programs for six elements (Land Use and Community Design, Transportation, Housing, Natural Environment, Community Services and Facilities and Business and Economics); creation of new land use designation categories and street classifications; a modified Land Use and Circulation Map; and a Governance chapter which is not an element. The Final Environmental Impact Report analyzes potential environmental effects and impacts of the new Comprehensive Plan, mitigation measures for reducing environmental impacts and responses to comments received during public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. (continued from 9/23/97) Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, submitted a letter concerning the noise issues of the Comprehensive Plan. He had a few minor technical complaints regarding the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and proposed some changes to Noise, pages N-23 and N-24, under the Natural Environment Element of the Draft Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). Nonette Hanko, Director of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, submitted a letter dated September 23, 1997, which supported the Plan and the efforts made to further improve the original document. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Open Space District) supported the Planning Commission recommendations regarding specific proposed policies under the Land Use and Community Design and Open Space/Controlled Development
Elements of the Plan and proposed adoption of Santa Clara County=s 60- to 120-acre zoning regulations for Palo Alto and Stanford hillsides. Council Member McCown referred to specifics regarding foothill zoning regulations and asked whether the Open Space District was comfortable with the language proposed in the Plan.
Ms. Hanko said yes. The summary of the Planning Commission=s recommendations and the language proposed was adequate. Barbara Gross, Chair, Board of Directors, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, congratulated the Council and staff for their hard work on crafting the Plan. It was an ambitious project and important to the people of Palo Alto. She referred to the comments
09/29/97 84-362
on the Plan submitted on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce (Chamber), which was the result of extensive review and discussion of a special subcommittee that studied the Plan in detail. Comments and themes were noted on the document that were both specific and philosophical in nature. The Chamber urged the Council to consider its comments and hoped the document would help
make the Council=s review of the Plan easier. Susan Frank, President, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the special subcommittee worked diligently for months
preparing the Chamber=s document. The Chamber hoped the Council did what was intended by the document so as the Council went
through the Plan, it would be reminded of the Chamber=s comments throughout. The Chamber was thrilled to see the Business and Economics Element included in the Plan. It was a big step for the Chamber and the community and was well needed. Also, there was a lack of mention in the Plan about the importance of hotels, not necessarily the creation of new hotels but reinvestment in redevelopment of properties. There was suggested language the Chamber hoped the Council might consider incorporating into the Business and Economics Element. Lee Wieder, Member, Government Action Council, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the Plan tended to overburden land use planning and implementation with more steps, process, design guidelines, and planning. He felt there was much more cleanup that could be done, and his comments were meant in a positive sense. The Plan seemed to be setting the stage for micro-managing business mix, particularly in the Business and Economics Element. He
referred to the Chamber=s comments with regard to Programs L-7 and L-8 and Policies L-21 and L-53 under the Land Use and Community Design Element as examples. The Chamber agreed with the Planning
Commission=s comments. He also mentioned the Chamber=s concern with neighborhood retail and Policy B-26 under the Business and Economics Element, which did not include a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Shelley Doran, representing the Ronald McDonald House, 520 Sand Hill Road, said action that could be taken on the Plan would rezone land into open space and would take away the ability to expand the Ronald McDonald House (the House) at Stanford, which was located between Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real. She mentioned some facts about the expansion and the House that the Council might not be aware of. She submitted a letter dated September 29, 1997,
which would bring to the Council=s attention some of the history of what was happening with the project. The House had a significant financial investment since the 1992 expansion, and there was a
09/29/97 84-363
tremendous need for expansion at the current time with the merger of the Stanford Hospital. The House urged the Council to review its preliminary plans and what the House was expecting out of the expansion and to give some feedback before the Council took action on the Plan. Honey Meir-Levi, Executive Director, Ronald McDonald House, 520 Sand Hill Road, said the House currently served 24 families with children who had life-threatening illnesses and urgently needed medical care. Some families did not have a roof over their heads while their children were being treated. Also, the community did not have enough hotel rooms for the families. A child with a life-threatening illness could bankrupt a middle-class family. For that reason, the House asked for only $10 per night, and no family was turned away because of an inability to pay. As hospital/health care evolved, fewer ill children and more desperately ill children were going to the hospital, which made the need for the House much more extreme. The information packet submitted was about what the House did and the community it worked with. The House asked the Council to take an opportunity to look at a very small piece of the land between the House and El Camino Real. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, supported Mr. Abraham with respect to the noise problem. The City was deviating drastically from the previous Comprehensive Plan, which was more of an attempt to reduce the noise rather than to allow the noise levels to rise. The standard of noise was being doubled. The intensity of sound was being increased ten times in the Plan, and the Noise Ordinance would need to be revised to reflect that. The decibels allowed in the Plan would disrupt all types of normal listening activities and might cause subtle effects such as distraction, annoyance, stress, and tension, which would be exacerbated with infants and small children. She urged the Council to reconsider the direction it was going and return to a more stringent noise requirement. Cathie Lehrberg, President, Crescent Park Neighborhood Association, 1085 University Avenue, said at the previous Council meeting about the Plan, there was a discussion about nimbyness versus regional responsibilities. There was little reason for nimbyness if there were adequate mitigation for change. Unfortunately, changes were being experienced for which there was little or no mitigation without massive transit improvements and use of electric cars. A sustainable community was needed without living in a hermetically sealed, triple-paned environment which went back to quality of life. She appreciated the massive amount of work that went into the Plan but felt that the community could not keep up. She reminded the Council that Program T-37 under the Transportation Element was included due to neighborhood activism. The Crescent Park Neighborhood Association requested funding and action in the
09/29/97 84-364
budget that would be reviewed by the Council in May 1998. If the neighborhood could not be protected, she asked that it be enhanced. Assistant Planning Official Jim Gilliland said both September 29 and 30, 1997, had been advertised for public testimony and asked that the Public Hearing be kept open for those who did not speak. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the Planning Commission meeting the previous Wednesday evening regarding the hotel and the application of an overlay and asked what was meant by the statement
in the Planning Commission staff report ΑIf the Council approved a hotel overlay district, it would permit a hotel to be located on the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real following a Planned
Community (PC) hearing.≅ Mr. Gilliland was not familiar with the staff report but assumed it referred to the placement of the overlay, which would involve a public hearing. The Plan specifically did not put the hotel overlay on it, but he believed it was a recommendation that staff return to Council. Council Member Rosenbaum confirmed that staff recommended the Council take some action and asked whether the effect of that action would create an entitlement for a hotel or further action would be required. City Manager June Fleming said staff would check the exact language. Council Member Schneider said it had been mentioned with respect to expansion of the Ronald McDonald House that there was a small amount of land which would be zoned open space. She did not know the parameters for that area, but she was concerned that the City not take action that would prohibit the House from expanding. She asked at what point recommendations would be made, and whether it would be necessary for all Council Members interested in the issue to educate themselves between that evening and the next evening. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said after determining what the Plan did and whether that kind of expansion was encompassed within the Plan or whether a Plan amendment would be required in the existing Plan, the question for the Council would be whether the Council would want to pre-amend that by including it in the existing Plan or whether to avoid doing something that would preclude it. The exact context needed to be determined in order to give the Council a proper answer because they were different depending on whether the existing Plan presented a problem.
09/29/97 84-365
Ms. Fleming said without knowing the Plan, staff could not give any real advice, but staff could pursue what was suggested by the City Attorney. Council Member Schneider clarified that staff would return to the Council with explanations and advice by the next evening. Ms. Fleming said that Council would need to direct staff to do that, but it could not be done by the next evening, which was for the completion of the public hearing and the EIR and then the specific process of moving through the Plan which had a specific process. At that point, the Council could make a motion for staff direction. Council Member Schneider clarified it would be several weeks before that would happen. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. Mr. Gilliland said with regard to the hotel, the Planning Commission did not make a recommendation on whether or not the hotel overlay should be included. A fourth member had to participate because several members had conflicts of interest. The vote was 3-1, which was not a majority of the Commission; therefore there with no recommendation. Mayor Huber asked if the Council chose to do a hotel overlay zone, and did the Council have any control over it after or would it be zoned hotel and that would be it. Mr. Calonne said the Plan did not affect zoning. The City would need to create some kind of zoning, and he expected that the reference to a PC hearing was an assumption that a PC zoning process would be used to implement a Plan designation that allowed for hotel. Nothing in the Plan process resulted in conveying or denying any entitlement in the sense of a vested right to proceed. Council Member Rosenbaum asked if the Council applied the overlay to a specific piece of land, whether it would be done as part of the Plan process or whether the Council would merely be approving an overlay zone. Mr. Calonne said it was not a zone. Zoning would not be done within the Plan. As an example, the Council amended the Comprehensive Plan to require housing at 1050 Arastradero Road but did not change the zoning, which caused inconsistent zoning at the site until a few years before. If the Council proceeded with the hotel land use designation, zoning would still need to be
09/29/97 84-366
implemented for completion. Council Member Rosenbaum asked why the assumption would be made that the Council would implement that zone through a PC. Mr. Calonne was not making an assumption but speculating as to the reference to a PC hearing. Council Member McCown said in the plan in Table 7 on page 123 of the draft EIR, half a dozen major intersections were identified as already at Level of Service (LOS) E, would be at LOS E, or would be at LOS F without any available mitigations to that condition. She referred to White Page L-7 under the Land Use and Community Design Element, which imposed the amount of development set forth in the 1989 Land Use and Transportation Study, and asked what the process would be if the Council were to conclude that it wanted to look at the overall development caps and evaluate alternatives with the given EIR data. She asked whether the item would return to the Planning Commission for review and what would happen if the Council concluded from the EIR that development levels in the community needed to be adjusted. Mr. Calonne clarified the question was that if Council concluded changes from LOS E to F were not acceptable and Council wanted to adjust land use densities to prevent that from happening in the frame of the Plan, how the Council would proceed. Council Member McCown said that was correct. She was concerned about the timing and asked whether that type of change needed to be returned to the Planning Commission. Mr. Calonne said yes. It was a major revision to the EIR. Procedurally, it could be done through staff effort and referral to the Planning Commission as a change with revisions to the EIR. It would not be added as a condition stating in a generic way that land uses adjusted downward accordingly to get to LOS E and would not be specific enough to satisfy the requirements for a plan. The Council would actually need to do the work before it could be acted upon. Council Member Wheeler made the same observation regarding the LOS changes. It was not clear whether those changes were tied to square footage in certain areas of the City or whether those changes would happen at those intersections despite any stricter limitation the Council was imposing or might impose. It was a possible discussion the Council might want to have before staff and the Planning Commission did a study. She did not expect an answer that evening, but she wanted some feedback when that discussion
09/29/97 84-367
took place. She referred to Table 2 on page 51 of the draft EIR,
Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Impact OS-1, ΑAdditional development will increase the demand for neighborhood parks of
which, according to Palo Alto=s adopted guidelines, the City
currently has a slight shortage,≅ and the last sentence of the
Mitigation Measure at the bottom of the page, ΑSuch review is
particularly applicable in the Green Meadow neighborhood,≅ and asked for an explanation. Senior Planner Brian Dolan recalled there was either an acreage or a distance shortage in that particular area with respect to neighborhood parks. There were radius and acreage standards, and that area did not have enough of one of those standards. Council Member Wheeler assumed that meant the Cubberley Community Center did not count as a park. Mr. Gilliland said Cubberley was not a park because it was not dedicated parkland. Council Member Wheeler said since 1969, the City had used the standard from the old Parks Plan which was to use not only City dedicated parklands but also school district lands to satisfy the condition of neighborhood park facilities. If the City did not do that, there would be a number of neighborhoods that would be deficient in park space. As it was currently configured, she did not think of the Greenmeadow neighborhood as being short in park-like lands. There were many other residential neighborhoods she considered to have less. In some areas between the publication of the draft EIR and the final EIR comments, there were several actions taken by the City which caused updates, most notably the approval of a version of the Sand Hill proposal. However, in some instances the final EIR reflected the Council action, and in other areas it did not seem to have been updated. She clarified those areas would be updated by staff and that Council would not have to be involved with that level of detail in order for that to happen.
Mr. Dolan said it was staff=s intent to make reference to the change in status whenever appropriate. If it were not done in an area that was appropriate, staff would take a look at it. Council Member Wheeler asked whether those changes were something she should feel were her obligation to advise staff of. She wanted the Council to look at the more global issues, but she also wanted an accurate document. Mr. Dolan said if Council found areas where updates had not been
09/29/97 84-368
made, staff would appreciate being advised. Ms. Fleming made it clear to the Council that staff noted of those the questions being raised that evening that would require research and would be brought back to the Council in written format. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether staff could supply the Council with comparative analysis that would show the existing
Comprehensive Plan=s noise expectations for review purposes. Also, at an earlier meeting, he expressed the need for some exchange with regard to the housing zoning on the El Camino Real/Page Mill Road site in order for him to feel comfortable with the overlay. He understood that Stanford had been considering that carefully. He asked where Stanford was at that point with that discussion. Susan Meaney, Stanford Management Company, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, said there was no definitive answer for the request for an alternative housing site. In the past, Stanford Management Company had shown through some of the sites made available for housing that there was a sincere desire by Stanford to create additional housing as evidenced by Sand Hill Road, the Hoover, the Pasteur, and the 1050 Arastradero Road sites. She understood the overlay would at least give Stanford that ability. It was a complex issue but one that Stanford wanted to continue to work on with the Council. Vice Mayor Andersen clarified that there was interest in possible exchange of space similar to that done with the Single Room Occupancy (SRO) or with other land sites on Stanford property. Ms. Meaney said those were all considerations that Stanford wanted to continue to work on. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether, in the overlay discussion, a condition could be put into the Plan that any change in that corner site would necessitate some exchange or creation of another site for housing before the overlay would go into effect.
Mr. Calonne said Αcondition≅ was not the correct word, but a policy could be established. In order to give an appropriate answer for Council action, he would need to look at the document and pull together a number of points. There were many internal consistency issues that staff needed to be cautious about when changes were being made. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether staff wanted to bring to the Council some suggestions in order to maintain consistency.
09/29/97 84-369
Mr. Calonne said it might be that Council should wrap up all of its questions into a motion, and staff could then return with a report. Council Member Kniss said one issue which had been raised a week
prior referenced that the zoning maps had to do with Council=s direction of establishing more single-family than multi-family units or areas. Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel said when it was suggested that the zoning map be looked at, the Planning Commission was surprised. It had not been addressed in a single issue or item but rather throughout. As an existing house came down, the new unit going up needed to fill two, 25-foot wide lots, etc. The only statistics she had were those showing that larger houses were being built and that the population was not increasing significantly. Council Member Kniss said she heard more and more about huge houses, and it was a real issue. She asked if the Planning Commission had any suggestions. Ms. Cassel said if an existing neighborhood character were to be maintained, it did not mean increasing the size of the lots. The character of the community currently was that there were many different size lots scattered throughout all of Palo Alto with small lots behind large lots and little houses mixed up with big houses. The small units were not noticed. Those were policies, not zoning. The maps were zoning maps, not policies. The Planning Commission tried to craft different kinds of policies which would help the Planning Commission act on a zoning map. The question was whether the City was moving in the right direction with those policies and whether there were enough policies to allow that type of grid pattern and current character to be maintained. Council Member Kniss referred to Goal H-1 on White Page H-6 under
the Housing Element, ΑMaintain a balance between community and
neighborhood needs as the supply of housing is increased,≅ and said if she understood the map correctly, the map and Goal H-1 were almost in direct conflict with each other. The Council could not head in the direction of the supply of affordable and market rate housing while looking at the map. She used as an example when two small houses were demolished and one very large house took their place. Ms. Cassel said not as many people were housed in those units. Many of the larger homes could house two or three of the families who were housed in that many square feet before.
09/29/97 84-370
Council Member Kniss felt the map revealed that that kind of diversity or multiplicity in housing could not be supported if the policy and zoning were not put together. Ms. Cassel hoped what was seen in the Plan was a series of tensions the Planning Commission tried to deal, such as noise, housing, and widening intersections. The Planning Commission tried to avoid the
word Αbalance≅ and dealt with some very optimum and difficult issues. The question was when to say
Αno,≅ when to start looking at the alternatives, and how that could be done in a political environment. Council Member Kniss said when the Council voted on its priorities earlier in the year, the Council said implementing the Plan would be the challenge. The question was how the Plan would be implemented and how the Council could move toward that goal. Currently, the Council was on two different tracks, and it was going to be a challenge. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the Land Use definitions on
White Page L-10, under ΑRegional/Community Commercial,≅ last
sentence, ΑNon-residential floor area ratios will range from .35 to
2.≅ He said for the Downtown area there was a floor area ratio (FAR) limit of 1. He asked whether the proposed Land Use definition had any effect on what was currently accepted for the core Downtown area. Mr. Gilliland said staff would have to review the Planning Commission minutes and return to Council with a response. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the Land Use definition of
ΑMixed Use≅ and said a couple of pages of the Planning Commission minutes showed a sizeable increase in the allowable FAR. On the other hand, he was not sure he was concerned whether it had to be applied individually to a piece of property, but when a mixed use designation was used with a FAR of 3, he thought of the Roxy Rapp project which was currently being considered and had aroused much of negative and some positive comments. It would clearly fit in under a mixed use designation with a FAR as high as 3. He asked whether he should be concerned if it meant that it would not apply unless a piece of land was designated to have the mixed use designation.
Mr. Gilliland said ΑMixed Use≅ as determined in the Plan did not currently apply to any zone in land in Palo Alto. He asked that it not be confused with zoning. At the present time, the Plan did not call for applying mixed use land use to any specific piece of
09/29/97 84-371
property. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified in using the Roxy Rapp project
as an example, it would not be better off with the ΑMixed Use Land
Use≅ definition than it would be under a PC, and in either case it would require some specific approval. Mr. Calonne said yes to the latter, but to say that it would be no better off was a judgment call. Council Member Rosenbaum was correct that it would require both Comprehensive Plan and Zoning actions. There was no land use designation or mapping that would support the mixed use designation. Identifying a designation in the Plan that accommodated the 3:1 FAR provided a policy argument, not legally binding, so the Council needed to decide whether or not it would be better off. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the suggestion was that a future City Council would in any way be bound to approve such a project because there was a land use designation with a FAR that was sufficiently high to accommodate the project. Mr. Calonne said it was a policy statement that was intended to send out an accurate signal to the community about what was being looked for. If it were not what the Council was looking for, he strongly urged the Council not to send that signal out. Council Member Rosenbaum said the increase in the FAR came about because of concern with properties on El Camino Real and the south part of Palo Alto. No one discussed the projects in the Downtown. It might be that a FAR that large was a good idea for a small plot of land on El Camino Real in South Palo Alto, but it might be a terrible idea in a plot of land one block from City Hall. He asked how the Council should deal with that concern.
Mr. Calonne said the language stated Αup to.≅ The language was arranged with a maximum and designed to be applied flexibly to different areas of Palo Alto, However, if there were specific geographic policies currently in mind, the Council should state those policies in the Plan document. He urged the Council to do so. Council Member Rosenbaum did not feel he had enough information to make those judgments throughout the City. He asked whether the
language Αup to 3" suggested that if a piece of land were found where the Council wanted to use that designation, the Council would
be free to use Α3" in one location and Α2" in another.
09/29/97 84-372
Ms. Cassel said that was the Planning Commission=s intent. It was also intended to be in a transit card or close to a public transit multimodal station rather than scattered throughout Palo Alto. Council Member Rosenbaum thought of the Roxy Rapp proposal because it would be sufficiently close to the multimodal and would meet the definition without necessarily being a project that the Council would look favorably upon. Ms. Cassel said the Planning Commission specifically did not discuss sites. Vice Mayor Andersen said there had been a comment made about housing for short-term stays in Palo Alto. He understood that Sunnyvale and other communities had zoning that allowed for residency for a specific period of time. He also understood there had been an attempt by the developer to build a facility in Palo Alto of that type, and even though the need was great, the zoning was very difficult. He suspected that the project did not move forward. He asked whether there was anything that would accommodate such a facility in the Plan recommendations. Mr. Gilliland said the question related to zoning, not the Plan. Under the current zoning, up to 30 days was a hotel category, and over 30 days was a multi-family category. In the particular case mentioned, the developer proposed a PC zone in order to accomplish what was wanted. Mr. Calonne said the 30 days was tied in with occupancy tax. Those were taxable stays, so the land use tracked the tax basis as well. Vice Mayor Andersen was interested in learning more about that type of zoning or policy statement. It was a short-term residency but not much more than two months and was specifically for accommodating those who had patients at medical facilities. Mr. Gilliland said staff believed those types of facilities were something currently desired, but it might not be appropriate ten years in the future. There was not the pressing need to develop a new ordinance to accommodate them when they could be accommodated under the existing PC Zone ordinance and defined as either hotel or multi-family. If at some time in the future those facilities were not the desirable land use, they could be easily converted. Council Member Eakins referred to the Natural Environment Element,
Policy N-2A, on Green Page N-4, ΑProtect sensitive plant species
resources from the impacts of development,≅ and asked whether there
09/29/97 84-373
could be an appendix to list all of the scientific names for the plants because common names changed. Mr. Gilliland said staff could address the issue. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to adjourn the item to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 30, 1997. MOTION TO ADJOURN PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 5. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Huber announced that Council Member Rosenbaum was appointed as Chair of the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) for 1998. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. in memory of Pat Yowell, who worked at the City of Palo Alto as the City Librarian for 24 years. 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.
09/29/97 84-374