HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-06 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting December 6, 1999 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................89-215 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................89-215 1. Residential Parking Permit Feasibility Study..........89-215 2. Approval of Authority for Staff to Expend FY 1999-00 Storm Drainage Funds for the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program..........................89-215 3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Municipal Resource Consultants for Consulting Services Related to Sales and Property Tax Revenue Reporting ($30,000) and Revenue Recovery Efforts for Sales Tax Revenues........................89-215 4. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with Sidley & Austin, in Accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.07089-216 5. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with Richards, Watson & Gershon, in Accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.070..............................................89-216
7. Approval of a Resolution Amending the City of Palo Alto=s Non-Insured Dental Plan Contract to Provide for the Reimbursement
of ΑRoutine Dental Exam and Prophylaxis≅ Twice in any Calendar Year..................................................89-216 8. Approval of a Resolution Amending Section 601 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations to Provide for an Increase in the Number of Days an Employee May Use for Illness in the Immediate Family from Five Days to Six Days...........89-216
9. Ordinance 4600 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to
El Camino Park≅ .......................................89-216
12/06/99 89-213
12/06/99 89-214
10. Ordinance 4601 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.08.130 [City Auditor] to Specify Revised Duties for the City
Auditor≅ .............................................89-216 11. Conference with Real Property Negotiator..............89-217 12. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation............................................89-217 13. Public Hearing: The City Council will review the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan and the adequacy of the associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)89-217 14. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........89-229 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m............89-229
12/06/99 89-215
12/06/99 89-216
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Susan Richardson, Sheridan Avenue, spoke regarding Ash Street and Grant Avenue flooding. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding millennium politics. Linda Jolley, 3757 Haven Avenue, Menlo Park, spoke regarding leaf blowers in Palo Alto. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of October 18, 1999, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Schneider Αabstaining.≅ CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 10. 1. Residential Parking Permit Feasibility Study - Refer to the Planning Commission 2. Approval of Authority for Staff to Expend FY 1999-00 Storm Drainage Funds for the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Approval of Revised Memorandum of Agreement for Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
Resolution No. 7909 entitled ΑResolution of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto to Reapply for Reissuance of its Municipal Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit≅ 3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Municipal Resource Consultants for Consulting Services Related to Sales and Property Tax Revenue Reporting ($30,000) and Revenue Recovery Efforts for Sales Tax Revenues
12/06/99 89-217
Resolution 7910 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Examination of Sales and Use
Tax Records≅ 4. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with Sidley & Austin, in Accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.070 5. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with Richards, Watson & Gershon, in Accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.070
6. Resolution 7911 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution No. 7898 Submitting to the Electors the Question of Approval or Rejection of Ordinance No. 4571 Concerning Historic Preservation, Calling a Special Election for Tuesday, March 7, 2000, and Requesting
Consolidation of the Election≅
7. Approval of a Resolution Amending the City of Palo Alto=s Non-Insured Dental Plan Contract to Provide for the Reimbursement
of ΑRoutine Dental Exam and Prophylaxis≅ Twice in any Calendar Year
Resolution 7912 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 10 of the City of Palo Alto
Employees= Dental Plan≅ 8. Approval of a Resolution Amending Section 601 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations to Provide for an Increase in the Number of Days an Employee May Use for Illness in the Immediate Family from Five Days to Six Days
Resolution 7913 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 601 of the Merit System
Rules and Regulations≅
9. Ordinance 4600 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to
El Camino Park≅ (1st Reading 11/22/99, PASSED 8-0, Schneider
absent)
10. Ordinance 4601 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.08.130 [City Auditor] to Specify Revised Duties for the City
Auditor≅ (1st Reading 11/22/99, PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent) MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 1 - 8. 12/06/99 89-218
MOTION PASSED 8-0, for Item Nos. 9 - 10, Schneider Αabstaining.≅ CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 11. Conference with Real Property Negotiator Authority: Government Code section 54956.8 Property: Up to approximately 2.04 acres located within the boundaries of Waverley and Ramona Streets and Homer and
Channing Avenues, including the ΑRoth≅ Building located at 300 Homer Avenue. Potential Negotiating Parties: Palo Alto Medical Foundation and SummerHill Homes Subject of Potential Negotiation: Price and terms of payment MOTION: Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue Item No. 11 to 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 7, 1999. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 12. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation on one matter. Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1) arising out
of Brassinga v. City of Mountain View. (Gov. Code, ∋ 54956.9(b)(3)(B).) Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1) & (b)(3)(B). PUBLIC HEARINGS 13. Public Hearing: The City Council will review the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan and the adequacy of the associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The City Council will consider directing staff on the preparation of a resolution with appropriate findings for the FEIR and an implementing ordinance to adopt the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. The City Council will also review the SummerHill Homes proposal within the Plan area in order to consider whether to endorse that plan and direct the preparation of a development Agreement with SummerHill Homes. The City Council will also consider direction on City participation in the implementation of the Plan including the acquisition of parkland, land for an affordable housing site, a financing package and direction to staff on a possible Budget Amendment Ordinance. Council Members Ojakian, Mossar, Huber would not participate in the
12/06/99 89-219
meeting due to a conflict of interest.
Director of Planning & Community Environment Ed Gawf said the 13-point policy framework the Council adopted two years before was instrumental in initiating the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) Study. The SOFA CAP was a new approach to regulating and planning for developments within the City and was intended as a comprehensive look at an area in a period of transition, with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) relocating from its present location to El Camino Real. The intention was to examine the 50-acre area along with other land use areas in transition and change to determine the most desirable use. The area under consideration ran from Alma Street to Kipling Street to Forest Avenue to Addison Avenue. After the Council adopted the 13-point policy framework, a Working Group (WG) was appointed consisting of residents and others interested in the area to provide a vision of what the area should be. The WG worked for two years and did an outstanding job. The WG Draft Plan, endorsed by the WG in June 1999, contained a vision for SOFA including a neighborhood park, development regulations for attached multiple family units and detached units, affordable housing, childcare, and a traffic calming system for Channing and Homer Avenues. The vision included an implementation element, on which staff worked to make the CAP a reality. The driving points staff used in developing implementation of the SOFA CAP included ensuring the bold vision was implemented and ensuring the plan fit the neighborhood. Staff was approached by PAMF and SummerHill Homes (SHH) with a proposal to implement Phase I of the plan, including the dedication of 1.5 acres of land to the City, 14 detached
single-family lots, 27 attached multiple family units on Block ΑA,≅
66 Attached Multiple Family (AMF) units on Block ΑB,≅ and mixed uses of office and residential along Homer Avenue between Ramona
and Bryant Streets. The City=s involvement in the SOFA CAP, via its Capital Improvements Program (CIP), included acquisition of 2.41 acres for park and public facilities and acquisition of 1.23 acres for affordable housing, 1.6 acres of which was to be dedicated by SHH. The two issues before the Council included adoption of the SOFA CAP, regardless of whether or not SHH continued to participate. Because staff realized too much work was attempted at one time, the WG divided the work into two phases. According to the WG, Phase I split the area between the attached multiple family units, detached units, and the mixed use area. Staff recommended including all the PAMF property in Phase I. The Council was not asked to take action on Phase II; only Phase I. The second more significant difference was between the staff
recommendation and the WG CAP regarding the park. The Council=s direction was to pursue opportunities for public facilities in the
area, including parks and open spaces. The WG took the Council=s direction to heart and considered the park an important aspect of
12/06/99 89-220
the development. In the final analysis, the WG recommended a 2.5-acre park located along Waverley Street and retention of Scott Park at .4 an acre unless the City needed to sell the park in order to
acquire a larger site. The WG plan divided Block ΑB≅ into AMF in the western portion and the north/eastern portion for the 2.5-acre park. Staff thought two acres was an appropriate size for a park because studies showed that size was sufficient. Part of the plan was to be able to acquire the land proactively. The size was similar to Johnson Park, which was appropriate for a neighborhood. Staff proposed acquisition of a two-acre park along Waverley Street or, if the Roth building was acquired as a public facility, acquire a 2.41-acre park and public facility paralleling Homer Street. Scott Park could be placed on the ballot for voter approval for sale to finance the acquisition. The SHH proposal
committed to implementing either recommendation. From staff=s perspective, either option was good. The key was whether or not the City should acquire the Roth building, creating a combination park and public facility in one area. The third issue was
affordable housing. The Council=s direction was to provide a significant quantity of new housing with a variety of housing types, especially affordable housing. The WG designated at least one acre or more of affordable housing of at least 30 units located
on Block ΑB.≅ Staff recommended 1.23 acres of land on the research
building block, or Block ΑC,≅ with at least 40 units or more per acre. The SHH proposal agreed with staff. The WG designated AMF
on Block ΑB≅ of approximately two acres, yielding 48 to 80 units on the remainder of the land in addition to the Roth building and use
as a private office. Staff=s proposal was for 2.9 acres to be designed AMF, which was within the density range of the WG, at 63 to 105 units. Staff also suggested the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Historic Resources Board (HRB) conduct the review. SHH proposed either a park site or multiple family units at the low-end of the 30 to 50-unit range with the floor area ratio (FAR) at 1.68 to 1, and a request to transfer the density from the dedicated parkland to the location. The height was 45 feet to 55 feet, or 10 feet higher. The WG plan and staff agreed on a provision for an exception to height based on design. SHH also considered a public access through the project. The mixed use on Homer Avenue between Ramona and Bryant Streets was another issue. The WG designated half the block for AMF and half for mixed-use concept, which would be considered further in Phase II. The FAR was 1.5 to 1, height 35 to 45 feet. The staff recommendation included the mixed-use designation in Phase I, since staff wanted to make the conditional use within the AMF zone, for instance under certain circumstances, a mixed use was permissible. The SHH proposal stayed within the FAR of AMF, relocated the two historic structures on the site to within the PAMF area, and built two stories of office with a third level residential for a mixed use. The next issue was circulation, dealing with Homer and Channing Avenues as one-way and two-way streets. The WG recommended that both streets be changed to two-way streets, a change with which the
12/06/99 89-221
Channing House and Whole Foods had concerns. Staff modified the suggestion slightly by considering the whole issue of traffic calming on the two streets, which might include two-way street systems. Other techniques might be used to calm traffic. SHH had no opinion. Historic preservation was another important directive from the Council to staff and the WG. The WG thought structures should be subject to the Palo Alto Historic Preservation Ordinance. Staff modified the recommendation slightly with more specificity, e.g., the SOFA plan should retain all potentially eligible National Register properties or structures maintained under the Secretary of the Interior standards and restored either on site or off sight, a recommendation with which the SHH proposal was consistent. The City Council was asked to provide staff with direction on the implementation ordinance or SOFA plan which included land use patterns and policies and the SHH proposal. Staff wanted the opportunity to work more with the WG and Planning staff to refine
what was happening on Block ΑB,≅ especially the multiple-family structure. A Planning Commission meeting was originally scheduled to consider the issue and development agreement on December 15, 1999, but was canceled because staff wanted to sort out the remaining issues. The issue would return to the Planning Commission in January 2000, then to the Council. Larry Hasset, representing the Working Group, spoke regarding the December 2, 1999, meeting between the WG, SHH, and staff, the purpose of which was to provide an opportunity for the WG to
discuss City staff=s proposed revisions to the WG=s June, 1999 plan and for SHH to present its proposal. Considerable discussion between the WG and testimony from several members of the public occurred during the course of the meeting. The issues were centered on three basic categories: 1) timing of the process; 2) adoption of the SOFA CAP; and 3) implementation of Phase I of the CAP. A number of WG members indicated the review period for considering the staff recommended changes and analysis of the SHH proposal was too compressed. A longer review time was proposed whereby the CAP would go to the Council for final review in January 2000, which was a more favorable timeline. In addition, the WG recommended that the design review process for any projects within the CAP include review by both the ARB and HRB with final consideration by the Council. Upon adoption of the SOFA CAP, the WG sought additional time to review the CAP, as revised by staff. The review could be conducted prior to Council action in January 2000 so the WG could formulate comments and recommendations. The WG believed it was important that the CAP, as revised by staff, be
consistent with the WG=s vision for the plan. The SOFA CAP should
not be reliant on SHH=s proposal and should stand on its own, regardless of the entity implementing the plan. Regarding implementation of Phase I of the CAP, although the WG was not given much time to review all aspects of the SHH proposal, it appeared
that with the exception of Block ΑB,≅ the main PMF block, the
proposal was generally consistent with the WG=s CAP. The areas of
12/06/99 89-222
difference along Homer Avenue where the mixed-use area was
proposed, was supportable. Regarding Block ΑB,≅ the WG had significant discussions on development, particularly the proposed FAR of 1.5 to 1, including the AMF land-use designation, and the 1.6 to 1 FAR in the SHH plan. Many WG members were surprised at the design implications of the 1.5 to 1 FAR. The resultant large-
scale, three- and four-story proposal by SHH for Block ΑB≅ was not anticipated. Smaller, more individualized developments were anticipated, providing the variety of architecture and interest characterized in the existing neighborhood. However, a contingent
of WG members believed the AMF land use was placed on Block ΑB≅ with the expectation that residential development would reach a FAR of 1.5 to 1 and would be three stories in height. The WG supported further exploration of the acquisition of the Roth Building, since its inclusion in a neighborhood park was positive. However, issues for the provision of publicly acceptable parking in the facility of the planned area were of concern given the number of public and quasi-public uses in the immediate area, for instance, neither the Williams House or St. Aquinas Church included parking. Finally, the WG was interested in having a few members of the group continue working with nearby residents, the Planning Department, and SHH to determine whether an agreement could be reached on development
issues on Block ΑB.≅ David Jury, 795 El Camino Real, representing the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, thanked the community at large, the Council, commissions, staff, and the many donors who made the PAMF move a reality. PAMF entered into an agreement with SHH because it felt
SHH was the right developer for the property and was a Αclass act≅ when it came to developers. SHH would produce what the City wanted, would enjoy, and would treasure for many years. The WG was thanked for the hundreds of hours spent in listening to information, debating, etc. The PAMF urged support of the CAP and the SHH plan. Rick Denman, representing SummerHill Homes, said SHH was a locally owned and operated development company with a history as an in-fill developer, the hallmark of which was the ability to develop within the context of an individual site. SHH took the time to ensure projects were compatible with existing neighborhoods. As a problem solver, SHH worked with staff, elected officials, and constituents. SHH considered itself a guest in the community and appreciated the time and courtesy extended by both staff and
neighborhood groups. During SHH=s first meeting with Mr. Gawf, the
City=s priorities were delineated. The priorities included a park, affordable housing, historic preservation, childcare, preserve single-family character, and a community program. Ten buildings in the area would be preserved, including the Psychiatry building, the
Roth Building, the French laundry, four houses on Block ΑC,≅ and two buildings on Channing Avenue. The issues of the park, preservation, and childcare were under control. Single family
12/06/99 89-223
units were proposed east of Waverley Street, in Block ΑF,≅ along with the relocation of two historic houses around which seven units would be built. The multi-family element encompassed 27
condominium units on Block ΑA,≅ 66 town homes and condominiums on
Block ΑB,≅ and 30 to 50 units of affordable housing on Block ΑC.≅
Two issues surrounding Block ΑB≅ were the location of the Roth Building and the concentration of residential within a very confined area. SHH suggested an alternative configuration from the WG proposal, changing the orientation of the park from between Homer and Channing Avenues to between Waverley and Bryant Streets. If the Council moved forward with acquisition of the Roth Building, the change in configuration was more conducive to a park. From a mass perspective, the change allowed SHH to stretch out the concentration of mass over a more linear perspective. The ultimate issue would reduce massing along both the park and Channing Avenue. The change also allowed better access to the park from the affordable housing program. SHH was creating a 55-foot wide public use which allowed visual and physical access. The usability and friendliness of the park was enhanced. The focus of questions were
about what Block ΑB≅ would actually become. The WG plan called for
multi-family housing on the Block ΑB≅ with a cubist orientation. SHH questioned the issues of multi-family use and height. Reducing the scale of the buildings to two-story units surrounding the entire block would bring the block into better context with the neighborhood. The tradeoff was the need for a four-story unit. Limited areas of four-story units enhanced the design for the multi-family housing. The third element involved square footage. The WG plan called for a 1.5 FAR but SHH sought 1.68 FAR, partly because of the contribution SHH was making in additional dedication on the park and the affordable housing. Mayor Fazzino announced speaker cards would only be accepted during the current meeting. Mayor Fazzino opened the public hearing. Tony von Ruden, 468 Channing Avenue, was concerned about the change
of Block ΑB≅ from single-family homes to Αmonster≅ structures, particularly at a time when single-family homes were in such demand in the area. Sensitivity to Victorian and historic bungalows was lacking, and he objected to boxy stucco-type houses. The two-way street on Channing Avenue was of concern since it ran straight to Embarcadero Road and could increase traffic. Carina Rossner, 1022 Webster Street, supported the first proposal for a park and said parks that were conducive to children was important. The park proposal for the long strip would make it difficult to keep track of children. Important features of a park were exposed areas and easy access. Fran Laurence, 850 Webster Street #1000, said the traffic on
12/06/99 89-224
Channing and Homer Avenues created a dangerous situation to residents of Channing House with a two-way street. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) cited one-way streets were safer and more convenient for drivers and pedestrians. The parking garage at Channing House exited from a curved driveway and required a difficult negotiation maneuver if Homer Avenue became a two-way street. Traffic could be calmed by other methods such as additions. Joette Farrand, 724 Bryant Street, opposed having the Planning Commission consider a development agreement prior to Council approval of the SOFA plan. The timing of the proposal was questioned. As a strong advocate for the park and in support of low-income housing and historic preservation, the most important consideration was preservation of the Victorian houses and avoidance of high density AMF or 30 to 50 units per acre. Barbara McCormick, 724 Bryant Street, opposed the changes proposed to the SOFA neighborhood because of the resultant change to the ambiance. Greater housing densities meant the need for a larger park and more attention to traffic issues. David Bubonik, 420 Homer Avenue, spoke in favor of the park and below-market-rate (BMR) housing on the main block as seen in the original plan. The 2.5-acre concept was an acceptable compromise to a more desirable 4-acre park. The price SHH asked for its contribution of .75 acres was too high and would bring massive buildings out of character with the neighborhood. Tina Peak, 160 Palo Alto Avenue, supported a visionary approach to SOFA, particularly with regard to the lack of park space and community facilities. The City was encouraged to make the entire main block a 4-acre City park. The public benefit should offset the changes in the Downtown area, suggesting a portion of revenues from already approved downtown development should go toward the purchase of the block. Norman Dishotsky, M.D., 828 Bryant Street, supported continuing the existing non-conforming use as described in the staff report (CMR:427:99). As plans for the multiple-use building and Channing BMR housing took shape, concern was expressed about the height of the building and the setbacks. Concern was also expressed about whether access to the Channing House could be maintained during construction. Mary E. Van Patten, 905 Van Auben Circle, representing her church, supported affordable housing and the SOFA plan as presented in June. The area between Ramona and Bryant Streets was not appropriate for affordable housing because of the historic homes and protected trees that would have to be removed. Nancy Samelson, 35 Pearce Mitchell Place, Stanford, supported
12/06/99 89-225
affordable housing without which the population of Palo Alto would soon become nothing but the very rich. Marlene Prendergast, 725 Alma Street, Executive Director of Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) and member of the WG, said the BMR contribution should be in land and of a size and configuration to make a family housing project work for as many units as practical. Support was given to the dedication of land; however, an affordable housing project should be sited on the main clinic block adjacent to the new park. The staff recommendation to create a 1.23-acre parcel through land dedication and land acquisition could work only if the historic structures did not remain on the site. The policy issue of the historic structures should be decided up front with the plan, similar to the suggestion in the staff report
(CMR:427:99). The PAHC=s first choice was to keep the prior plan with affordable housing on the main block and acquire the site through dedication and acquisition with the Housing Reserve Fund. The BMR Reduction Alternatives mentioned on page 30 of the staff report were not real alternatives, given the study of the site. The BMR requirement should be kept in mind as something legally required with any development proposal and a distinct source of revenue to acquire land. Earl F. Schmidt, 201 Homer Avenue, said the public notice of the current meeting, which contained no reference to the plan to use the PAMF property. Virtually all properties were identified for discussion and action as part of historic properties in Palo Alto. Staff discussed the structures as potentially eligible for the National Register. The City Attorney was challenged regarding the legality of notices to residents during a time when the Historic Preservation Ordinance was held up by citizen action until an election two or three months in the future. That election would
determine any action to identify or specifically reserve the City=s right to any of the properties at the corner of Homer Avenue and Emerson Street. Taking action at the current meeting was out of order. Mayor Fazzino asked Mr. Gawf or City Attorney Ariel Calonne to prepare a response to the issues raised by Mr. Schmidt. Paul Kelleher, 426 Homer Avenue, opposed the SHH project as being too large and intrusive. The City Council was asked to send both the SHH and the SOFA plan back for considerable downsizing prior to entering any development agreement. The SHH proposal failed to comply with two key principles or protections that induced neighbors like himself to support the original SOFA plan. The first principle was a gradual density gradient from the single-family areas along Waverley Street and Channing Avenue to more intense development at Alma Street, and the second principle was elimination of commercial and office uses west of Ramona Street. The exceptions were turned into the overall basis for almost the entire parcel. The City Council never formally established the
12/06/99 89-226
appropriate development density of the parcels, and the City should not be bound by the commercial requirements of SHH. Full build-out to an FAR ratio of 1.5 was too much for the area. The land for the park should be purchased at fair market value based on a reasonable underlying development density in the absence of a park. The donation of .85 acres to the City as proposed by SHH was apparently contingent on relaxation of certain zoning requirements that would otherwise be necessary. Reverend Kenneth Collier, 578 Kelly Way, asked whether the Council wanted Palo Alto to be an economically gated community or a place where it was possible for the people who made the community, like teachers and principals, to live in Palo Alto. The Council was urged to bring the BMR proposal back to 1.5 acres.
Dan Cunningham, 845 Waverley Street, was concerned about staff=s recommended change to the location of the park and single-family homes and suggested the scale of the buildings be kept down to preserve the neighborhood. He supported a park in the neighborhood. The architecture of the buildings should be compatible with the historic nature of the existing homes. Reverend Jeff Vamos, 1140 Cowper Street, Peninsula Interface Action (PIA), supported affordable housing. He expressed concern about the values used to make decisions, particularly regarding the use of land and housing. Priority should be given to affordable housing because of the value of economic diversity in the community. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: 9:15 P.M. TO 9:35 P.M. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving potential/anticipated litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 12. Mayor Fazzino announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 12. Beth Bunnenberg, 2351 Ramona Street, supported the 2.5-acre park as an asset to the community. Attention was drawn to the need for parking at the Museum of American Heritage, and caution given concerning the recommendation to attached multiple-family housing next to the museum. The City was encouraged to seek a more sensitive design to protect the historic feeling. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, questioned whether the changes in the plan were adequately studied and whether the EIR process required further review. The original proposal was for single-family market-rate housing, but the multiple-family BMR housing might
change the PAMF=s rate of return. The original idea was to give FAR entitlement on the multiple-family housing in an amount substantially greater than current zoning to promote a public
12/06/99 89-227
benefit for the subsidized or affordable housing. An increased FAR was supported for the public benefit of affordable housing, but the amount of increase was a decision for the Council. The FAR in commercial and multiple-family areas required an independent analysis to ensure the same rate of return for the land.
Richard Brand, 281 Addison Avenue, spoke in support of the WG=s plan and encouraged the Council not to rush into the SHH plan. Homer and Channing Avenues should remain one-way. The recommendations of staff and the WG were very close. The SHH plan would be better in Santa Barbara where the Mission style was more appropriate; the SHH plan was too dense and too high. The Bryant Street corridor would be negatively affected by moving historic
houses that were simply Αin the way.≅ Patricia Saffir, 2719 Bryant Street, League of Women Voters (LWV) of Palo Alto, supported quality, affordable housing in the SOFA area. The LWV supported the WG recommendations for land on the
southwest corner of Block ΑB≅ as a potential site. The City was encouraged to purchase the three residential buildings on Bryant Street. Removal of protected trees was acceptable only as a means of furthering other community goals such as affordable housing. Support was also given to diverse housing types, a neighborhood park, and a childcare center. Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, President of University South Neighborhoods Group (USNG), supported ensuring that the design of the development was compatible with the existing neighborhood. The major criticism of the plan was that density was greater than
envisioned and seemed to merely be Αzoning for sale.≅ The City was encouraged to purchase whatever land it could afford for the park without relying upon the developer, thus avoiding compromises. Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, Working Group member, said the problems the WG faced related to staff turnover and the absence of a long-term memory resulting in a loss of some of the long-term goals. A number of WG members were concerned about the language used for historic preservation, which failed to indicate how properties would be reviewed. The City was encouraged to work out a return of the AME Zion Church to its tradition of religious use. The WG relied not so much on the historic survey to identify historic properties but on properties identified by the WG and neighbors as worthy of saving, one of which was the fourplex at the northeast corner of Homer Avenue and Bryant Street, which the WG supported saving. The corner of Homer Avenue and Bryant Street had an unusually strong historic character and should be preserved not only for the area itself but also as a support for the Roth building. Although sensitive to the needs of Channing House and Whole Foods, Homer Avenue as a one-way street had seen many near accidents. More creativity in the plan was encouraged.
12/06/99 89-228
Yoriko Kishimoto, 275 Embarcadero, Working Group and University South Neighborhood Group member, agreed with many of the points in the SOFA CAP and SHH proposal. The SHH proposal actually helped the Council and neighborhoods see how zoning and design review translated into real life. Seeing AMF translated into one massive condominium complex was shocking to most neighbors. The proposal was too massive and too uniform in style. She agreed to AMF zoning to allow for affordable housing with the assurance that design review standards and process would prevent inappropriate building. The Council was urged to review the PAMF zoning, support a joint review by the HRB and ARB of any multi-family or commercial building, and direct SHH to work with the neighborhoods to redesign the housing. The funding for the park could come from future or past beneficiaries, and the City might consider including PAMF in the funding. Phase II included a greater number of housing units.
A non-profit ΑFriends of the Park≅ was suggested. Carol Kiparsky, 800 Cowper Street, supported using the entire PAMF parking lot as a park. A city that valued its trees and long-range environmental viewpoints should want to purchase the land for a park. The City was urged to find ways to ensure the development would remain consistent with the CAP plan of June 1999. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said the SOFA planning posed an opportunity to correct many failings of 1950 and 1960 planning that over-densified areas. The WG concept to move higher density housing toward Alma Street was good. The SHH should not drive such an important planning process. The entire SOFA area should primarily be given to housing. Policy H-8 on page 36 of the SOFA
CAP, ΑExpand the supply of affordable housing in this area by providing density bonuses for development of affordable housing. The development standards for AMF and MU districts allow a density bonus for projects that are for affordable, rental or senior
housing,≅ was questioned, assuming it did not include the already required affordable housing. He agreed with earlier speakers about the desire for a larger park. The City could afford to purchase the land for a park.
Janet Dafoe, 433 Kingsley Avenue, supported the USNG and WG=s goal of a walkable, open neighborhood. The Plan should be compatible with the neighborhood, utilize multiple architects, decrease the density from Alma Street, and minimize commercial and office development, preferring retail and residential-friendly rather than office space. The concept and compromises were acceptable in order to obtain affordable housing, as indicated in the June 1999 plan, but not the current SHH development, which failed to fit in with the area and was too monolithic. Human Relations Commissioner Wynn Hausser, 3705 Park Boulevard, supported the childcare and affordable housing elements of the plan. The Council was urged to maximize affordable housing in the
12/06/99 89-229
plan and indicated the HRC was interested in reviewing issues within its purview. Hannah Clayborn, Executive Director of Museum of American Heritage, 351 Homer Avenue, favored both plans, particularly with respect to enlarging the public program, making the museum more welcoming, and increasing the number of hours the museum was open. The restriction on the sensitive garden was necessary. The 2.5-acre site was preferable on Homer Avenue. Although over $700,000 was raised to restore the building, a park across the street would greatly benefit the museum. The success of the museum was contingent on its ability to hold larger events and preserve its parking alternatives. Pria Graves, President of Past Heritage (PAST), 2130 Yale Street,
said Past Heritage=s concern was that the SOFA CAP relied on the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance, a document not yet ratified by Palo Alto voters, rather than providing protection for the historic resources in the area. The CAP and SHH proposal might seriously compromise the historic character of the neighborhood. The SHH proposed reconfiguration of the French Laundry block on Homer Avenue had the capacity to do great damage to the integrity of the Homer Avenue corridor, and the development challenged the preservation of the neighborhood character with the dense AMF
development on Block ΑB,≅ suggesting RM-30 be used instead. The HRB should be included in review of both new construction and rehabilitation to assist in protecting the historic context. She
was concerned about the removal of the Heritage Oak if Block ΑB≅ were to be used for BMR housing. By involving too much of the area in a single proposal, the opportunities for bungalow courts or co-housing were lost. Janet Owens, 850 Webster Street #421, said the need for affordable housing was more critical than ever. The City was urged to search for funds earmarked for housing whenever possible. Shifting
affordable housing from Block ΑB≅ to ΑC≅ would reduce the number of units available. She opposed changing the streets from one-way to two-way. The Council was urged to carefully consider any changes. She agreed with other speakers concerning the sudden and high-speed process of the development. Mayor Fazzino announced that it was 10:30 p.m., and the public who had not spoken would be given an opportunity to speak at the next
evening=s meeting at 7 p.m. Because of the additional time required for the public hearing, the Council might need to use the December 13, 1999, meeting date for further deliberations on the issue and the December 20, 1999, meeting date for the parking garage issue. Council Member Rosenbaum said given the fact three of the six eligible Council Members would not be returning in 2000 and the
12/06/99 89-230
final decisions on the item could not be made by the current Council, the item should be continued until the following year after the close of the public hearing. The Council Members-elect had attended most of the current meeting. Mayor Fazzino said the final decision could be made the following evening. The business of government should continue regardless of
who was in office, and he had a problem with waiting for the Αnew≅
Council. The majority of Council Members= terms continued into the next year. At the very least, the public hearing should be allowed to continue, a discussion of the issues held, and staff provided with preliminary direction, recognizing the new Council would take the final action.
Council Member Rosenbaum shared Mayor Fazzino=s view based on the impressions prior to the public hearing about the degree to which everything had been worked out. He no longer shared that view. The issue became more complex than he expected. Mayor Fazzino said during the discussion and debate, if Council Member Rosenbaum thought the issue was complicated, he should send that message to the new Council. Mayor Fazzino announced the meeting would be continued to Tuesday, December 7, 1999, at 7 p.m. the following evening. MOTION: Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue Item No. 13, the Public Hearing, to 7 p.m., Tuesday, December 7, 1999. MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 14. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Fazzino announced a reception would be held on Monday, December 13, 1999, at 6 p.m. to welcome Oregon Senator Ron Wyden. Mayor Fazzino noted the Palo Alto shuttle service would begin operations on Saturday, December 11, 1999, with a ceremony on December 15, 1999, at 9 a.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
12/06/99 89-231
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.
12/06/99 89-232