Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-09-21 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTO CITYCOUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU- FREOUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting September 21/ 1987 ITEM Oral Communications PAGE 58.270 Approval of =Les of August 24, 1987 58-271 58-271 1. Appointments to the Mid -Peninsula Access Corporation Consent C 1e : dai 58-271 2. Contra -at with Davey Tree Surgery for Line 58.271 Clearing 3. Contract with Empire Tractor and Equipment 58-271 Company for Equipment Repair Services 4. Contract with County of Santa Clara Proba- 58-271 tion Department Work Furlough Program for, Maintenance Services 5. Amendment to Agreement with Stanford Uni- versity for Use of Refuse Disposal Area Aryl Rep Stanford's t Recycling Pro- gram 6. Report from Council Legislative Committee re SB 1037 (Torres) and ACA 51 ( Johnson) 7. Report from Council Legislative Committee reResolution Opposing the Elimination of the Hetch Hetchy Water Supply System, 58-271 58-272 58-272 Agenda Changes Additions, and Deletions 58-272 ITEM P A G E G. ruBLIC HEARING; Planning Commission and Architecture Review Board Recommendation re Application of B. H. Bocook, Architect, Inc., for a Zone Change from RM-2 and CN to PC for a Proposed 122 -unit Residential. Care Facility for the Elderly, for Prop- perty Located at 4047, 4075, and 4085 El Camino Way 58-273 Recess to a Closed Session re Possible Litiga- 58-290 tion - 9:44 p.m. -- 10:00 p.m. Items to be Considered After 11:00 p.m. 58-297 9. Planning Commission Recommendation re Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the PF Dis- trict to Include Youth Clubs as a Condi- tional Use (Continued) 10. Planning Commission Recommendation re Amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance to Eliminate the Requirement for a Preliminary Parcel Map for Merging Single -Family Resi- dential Properties 11. Planning Commission Recommendation re Approval of the Application of Thomas J . Rees for a Nonconforming Use Exception to Allow Continued Commercial Use Beyond September 11, 1998, for Property Located at 470 Olive Avenue (Continued) 58-306 12. Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board, Planning ;Commission, and Visual Arts Jury Recommendation re the Urban Design Work. Proposal and Budget Amendment Ordinance `(Continued) 13. Request of Harold Hohbach for the City to 58-307 Vacate the 2700 Block of Ash Street for Development of the Palo Alto Gateway Park Project 14. Sanitary Sewer Collection System Rehabili- tation Project Basin 807, Exception Permit to City Noise Standards 58-310 58-268 9/21/87 ITEM PAGE 15. Ordinance Amending Chapter 6.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Strengthen and Clarify Procedures Concerning Dangerous Animals (Continued) 16. Consideration of Memorandum of Under- standing - Landfill Capacity 17. Request of Council Member Ellen Fletcher re Regional Workshop on Reducing Hazardous Wastes 18. Report of Vice Mayor Jack Sutorius re Northern California Power Agency Annual Meeting in Santa Clara on September 24 and 25, 1987 58-310 58-311 58-311 Adjournment at 12;20 a.m. 58.311 58-269 9/21/87 Regular Meeting Monday, September 2.1, 1987 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:38 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley{ Mayor Woolley announced a Closed Session to discuss possible litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) would be held at some point during or after the meeting. Mayor Woolley announced the Special Meeting of the Finance and Pubic Works Committee which was scheduled for Tuesday, September 22, 1987, in the Council Conference Room, had been canceled. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Barbara White, 755 Ramona Street, Manager of the Chamber of Commercer presented the new official Chamber of Commerce street map to the Council and said full wall maps were available in the office. She thanked the Planning Department, and particularly Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber, for helping put together the street map side of the map to ensure accuracy. 2. Ben Bailey, 171 Everett Street, spoke regarding police activities and asked that a copy of the citizen com- plaint summaries be sent to the Urban Ministry. Complaints should be decided by a neutral third party. 3. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, read a letter to Ken Schreiber (on file in the City Clerk's office) which said that Palo Alto had a unique opportunity to fill the position of Zoning Administrator with someone who was sensitive to the needs of Palo Alto residents, concerned with environmental issues, and understood the cumulative effects of his or her decisions. 4. Harrison Otis, 2721 Midtown Court, spoke on. the Arastra property.. On visiting the property, he found all the pictures shown him were the truth. It was beautiful property, and he was often asked when the City was going to open up the property for the people's use. There was a good barn area. Everything put into recre'tion was utilized. Palo Alto had wonderful Park Rangees. He suggested putting some of the bigger fire equipment that was getting old up there. OTOP Mayor Woolley said the park was officially opened up to the residents of Palo Alto in the summer of 1986. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 24 1987 Council Member Renzel had the following correction: ge 58-215, sixth paragraph, tenth line, the word "and" should read "had." Council Member Klein had the following correction: Page 58-`10, third paragraph, fourth line from the bottom, insert the word "not" after "he did." lOTIOMs Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Minutes of August 24, 1987, as corrected. MOTION$ PASSED unanimously, Bechtel _"not participating.' 1. APPOINTMENTS TO THE MID -PENINSULA ACCESS CORPORATION ( 1141-02) MOTION: Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Klein, to con- tinuo the item to the September 28, 1987 City Covoci1 Meeting. MOTION PASSED unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Sutoriva moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Consent Calendar. 2., THREE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH DAVEY TREE SURGERY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $475,000 PER YEAR FOR LINE CLEARING (CMR:459:7) (1101) 3. CONTRACT WITH EMPIRE TRACTaLAILIATIDAENT COMPANY FOR E UIPMENT REPAIR SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 0 000 CMR s 63s ( 03-01) 4. CONTRACT WITH COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PROBATION DEPARTMENT WORK FURLO A!! l T,.OF , 00 C tR: s ) MAINTENANCE SERVICES IN THE 5. AMENDMENT NO, 8 TO.. CONTACT NO. 4039 WITH STANFORD JNIVERSI,T •R USE OF REP' DISPOSAL AREA AND REPORT ON STANFORD'S RECYCLING PROGR.AA (CMR:46 '1) A1420)' 58-271 9/21/87 CONSENT CALENDAR CONT'D 6. REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE RE SB 1037 ( TORRES } AND ACA 51 JOHNSON CMR: 46 : 7 } (7 . �-06 ) The Council Legislative Committee recommends unanimously that the Council 1) reaffirm its opposition to SB 1037 and urge the Governor to veto SB 1037 and 2) oppose ACA 51 and direct the Mayor to communicate the City's position to our legislators and others as appropriate. 7. REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE RE RESOLUTION 6647 entitled °RESOLUTIO; OF THE;_, COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF: PALO ALTO OPPOSING THE ELIMINATION OF THE HETCH HETCHY WATER SUPPLY" (CMR:4“:!) (702.-061/701-04) MOTION PASSED unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Cobb, to con- tinue Item 9, Planning Commission recommendation re zoning ordinance amendment to the Public Facilities (PF) District to include youth club as as conditional use, to a date and time to be determined by staff. Council Member Cobb was happy to support the motion. Repre- sentatives of the Greenaneadow Association were very concerned they had ! not had an opportunity to have their neighborhood become aware of the issues involved and have a chance to consider the matter. He believed their attitude was not necessarily one of opposition but one of not knowing what • would be happening to their neighborhood. In the pro- cess of continuing the item, he hoped the City would ensure appropriate contact was made with the neighborhood so they could have a full understanding of the situation. Mayor Woolley said that was certainly the intention. The problem arose because the item was being handled both from the Manager's Office and the Planning Department, and the two did not get connected. NOTION PASSED unanimously. NOTION: Vice layer Su for i as moved, -secon d by Cobb, to add Item 1$, re September 23-24 lierthern California Wirer; Agency Annual Hestia, to be bold September 23-24 in Santa Clara. NOTION PASS= una.ia .oly. 58-212 9/21/87 8. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB) RECOMMENDATION RE THE APPLICATION OF B. H. BOCOOKL ARCHITECT INC. FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM RM-2 LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AN CN jNEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL'. TO PC (pLANNED COMMUNITY) FOR A PROPOSED 122 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY FOR .PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4047 4075 AND 4085 EL CAMINO WAY (CMR: 59:7) 300) Planning Commissioner Patricia Cullen said the Planning Commission had two lengthy meetings regarding the rezoning and the project itself. They approved the PC zoning in con- cept at the first meeting and continued the project for further refinement. The Planning Commission found that there .was a definite public benefit. Specifically, the project was a special residential care facility; secondly, no general zone in the City provided the flexibility needed to build such a facility; and, thirdly, that it was consis- tent with the Comprehensive Plan,, particularly the housing element and the addition to that element to provide for moderate -income persons within the community. The ,project itself went through extensive reworking. The Planning Commission had two main concerns. Oie was the parking pro- vided, and the Planning Commission resolved that concern and were satisfied 55 spaces, given the nature of the residents, were sufficient. The second concern was how the RM-2 por- tion of the project impacted the single-family residential neighborhood. In the reworking the RM-3 zone was reduced to two stories and, because of the layout of the building, there were actually only several paints at which it was even within 20 to 40 feet of that single-family residential zone. Thirdly, in regard to the below market rate (BMR) component, the Planning Commission felt very strongly that units were much more valuable than the in -lieu payment proposed, but because of the experimental nature of the facility, they felt they did not want to tie the facility to a specific BMR component that would go :on for a long time. They proposed, an innovative and experimental way of handling the BMR com- ponent; to take the in -lieu payment, earmark it, and use the interest from it to subsidize or buy down the housing por- tion of any nutber of units from two to four. Since they made the proposal, staff worked with the developer and fleshed it out with a great deal of cane, and she was happy to see that was done. It was also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that they wished to scatter units throughout the City,. 40th the Palo Alto = Housing Corporation (PAHC) and staff agreed to support the BMR component. 58-273 9/21/87 9/21/87 Council Member Cobb asked how the mass, bulk, and square footage of the project as currently proposed under the PC compared with what could be built under the existing zoning with no aggregation of lots. Planning Administrator Toby Kramer said the analysis was done in the original staff • report sent to the Planning Commission in May. The RM-2 portion of the site was approximately 40,000 square feet. At a 35 percent coverage, and a three-story height limit, they would be allowed 421400 square feet. The proposr_l was 42,700 square feet for that portion of the site. Under the CN portion, the lot was around 33/900 square feet. The floor area ratio (FAR) allowed was 1:1, which would allow 33,900 square feet on that part of it. The total together of the two allowed amounts would be 76,300 square feet more or less. The proj- ect proposed was 811200 square feet, so it was over the maximum of they went strictly by applying the coverage in floor . area. The Planning Commission considered the matter and determined that the RM--2 portion of the site should be within the maximum FAR and coverage otherwise permitted, but they did not impose that condition on the CN portion of the site. Council Member Cobb asked for a comparison with regard to height and setbacks. Ms. Kramer said the project met all of the setback require- ments for both the RM-2 and the CN portion. The tricky part was what was considered front, side, and rear yard. The front yard was determined as the narrowest portion of the site facing the street, so the front yard as measured according to the Zoning Ordinance was Test Meadow even though the project was oriented towards El Camino Real, and the front setback was 20 feet. The side setback was the portion along Wilke Way rear yards, and that minimum of ten feet was met. Working within the daylight plane under the RM-2 portion, it again met the requirements for height and setback. The rear portion of the property abutted the com- mercial, and that was a 20 --feet setback; however, there were really no structures in that portion of the site. Council Member Cobb clarified the front yard/side yard situ- ation would obtain whether or not the PC was granted or the existing zoning remained in place. Ms. Kramer said that was correct. Council Member ,evy said the zoning was put in place in 1978 and one of its •purposes was to create a transition between the residential and the commercial. He asked for a contrast of the existing toning with the zoning prior to 1978. Ms. Kramer determined from the archives that the portion of the site that was now RM-2 was formally R-5. The portion that was now CN was formally C -3-S. The R-5 portion of the site would have allowed 29 units. The height limit was 50 feet then versus 35 feet now. The setbacks for front yards would have been 10 feet versus 20 feet now. The rear yard setback would have been 20 feet, which was the same. The side yard setback would have been six feet for the first two stories, plus an additional three feet for a third stories; therefore, at the three-story portion they would have to be set back a minimum of nine feet. On the project, the rear (or side yard as it was measured) was ten feet back from the side yard. The site coverage would have been 45 percent in the R-5 portion, which would have been about twice as much building area as presently allowed under the RM-2 and which was proposed for the project. Under the C -3-•S portion of the site, there was a 50 -foot height limit and very little in terms of setbacks. Adjacent to single family, there was a requirement of a 15 -foot rear yard setback and an 8 -foot side yard setback. There was no building coverage, minimum lot area, or other parameters at that time. Council Member Levy asked the kinds of uses currently per- mitted in the CN zone. Ms. Kramer said the CN was a Neighborhood Commercial zone and allowed the basic retail commercial uses, i.e., eating and drinking establishments, animal care, daycare, lodging, personal services, medical and professional, and general business offices. Council Member Levy asked about the preceding uses allowed before the change. 1s. Kramer said the C-3 included all the typical retail uses allowed under a C-2 district and in addition, without a use permit, gasoline service stational garage repair, automobile sales, dry cleaners, bus terminals, creameries, and any general retail/commercial use were. permitted. Council Member Levy referred to" the setback from the single family homes on Wilkie and said the PC zone called' for a 1O -foot setback and he queried whether the current zoning also required a 10 -foot setback. Ms. Kramer said current zoning required . a six --foot setback but the daylight plane would guide the height and the set- back from that point. The project met the daylight plane requirement. At 10 -foot at a 45 degree angle it would have to comply in terms of the maximum height for the building. 59-275. 9/21/87 Council Member Levy clarified an alternative project could be as close as six feet but if it went to the same height levels, it would have to be set back at least as far. Council Member: Renzel asked whether the lots were looked at as three parcels. Ms. Kramer said it was done by zone not by individual par- cels. Council Member Renzel asked whether calculation by indi- vidual parcels would result in a slightly smaller square footage. Ms. Kramer said it would have to be because each parcel would have to meet the setback requirements. It would be calculated completely differently. The front yard would be determined in a different place. Ms. Cullen said the density would not change per se but because of the site planning constraints there would be less density on the projects Council Member Renzel said along El Camino in a variety of places the City had difficulty with grade separations because properties had to drain to the street. She queried whether there would be the necessity for a grade separation on the subject property. The natural grade went toward Wilkie .Jay and in order to grade to a public street, she assumed something would have to be done and she queried the numbers. Ms. Kramer understood there was only a two -foot drainage difference between the rear and the front and it would not pose a problem with the grade separation. Even on the fin- ished floor, the way the property was designed and graded, it would only result in a two -foot differential. Council Member Renzel clarified there would be a two -foot differential at the boundary so that a six-foot fence for the neighbor would only really be four feet. Ms. Kramer deferred to the architect for response. Council Member Renzel referred to discussions and the need for the particular residential care, yet the most authentic report was from the Senior Coordinating Council where it discussed perceived need rather than a survey of actual need. She asked whether a survey was done " in terms of ~ how much people were willing or . able to pay for such care. 58-276 9/21/87 Ms. Kramer said the City had not conducted a survey but talked to a variety of groups, i.e., the Baker Registry which was responsible for •helping to place elderly people into such places, the people on the Lytton Gardens waiting list, and the Senior Coordinating Council.. There was said to be a ,shortage of such housing in Palo Alto. There were many wt.hr units throughout the County but not in the immediate area and not of the particular type. Many of the units available were built under Section 8 and Public Financing in the past and required people to be at a lower income level to get into certain types of elderly housing. She had not seen any surveys which documented how much of a need existed or wF&at people were willing to pay. Council Member Klein said the Planning Commission wanted the proposed project to stay within the lot coverage limitations of the RM-2 zone but did not place a similar limitation on the portion which was CN. He asked whether the Planning Commission discussed why the same limitations were not placed on the CN portion. Ms. Cullen said the CN portion was adjacent to El Camino Way and had a different type of neighborhood context than the RM-2. If the project could be built under the CN zone, there would not be an application for a PC zone. Because the nature of the facility required a certain number of units to make the project work, the CN zone was not appro- priate zoning with its requirements for the facility. The RM-2 portion was adjacent to the single family homes. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) minutes reflected a concern that the little 7C0 square foot overage lopped off some amenities within the project; namely, a sitting area and they wanted it back. Council Member Klein said a variety of letters referred to the problem of exhaust from the underground garage being directed back towards the houses on Wilkie Way. He queried the magnitude of the problem and a proposed solution. Chief Planaing Official Carol Jansen said the problem was noted and would be reviewed when the project returned to the ARB with the final drawings. She had not seen any plans which indicated the exact location for venting the under- ground garage. Mayor Woolley declared the Public Hearing open. Bill Reller, 664 Gilman Streit, said the Hillsdale Group. would manage the facility. He purchased the first of the involved parcels two years ago. Since then, there had been 58-277 9/21/87 a total of 10 meetings, two of which were with the ARB, two with the Planning Commission and six with the neighbors. The results were to reduce the project to 122 units. From an operating standpoint, it would be difficult to have less units. Most of the operating expenses were fixed and there was not much of a difference between 100 and 122 units but it was critical in terms of income and they did not want to add more pressure in terms of the monthly charges. He was excited about the final product. The staff report (CMR:459:7) referred to three major items, ii.e., development design relating to the R-1, parking, and the BMR component. Regarding the development design, "The Charleston Rag" said the RM-2 and CN zoning was intended to provide a barrier of multiple family housing between the single family homes in the commercial areas. As pointed out, the zoning on the property was downzoned considerably in 1978 to the present restrictions. In all cases, with the exception of the mass of the buildings, the proposed project complied with every setback, height, coverage factor and all parameters dealing with the buildings themselves. John 3erwa1d, 261 Creekside Drive, spoke as an individual of the need for low income residential care facilities in .South County and the need for lower and upper income residential care facilities in the North County. Everyone had a respon- sibility for the care of seniors. He urged that Council approve the innovative project proposed by a private indi- vidual. He was pleased to observe the support provided by the City of Palo Alto staff, Planning Commission and ARB in recomending approval of the project. He followed the pro- ceedings because he was interested in seniors and was a director of the Senior Coordinating Council. He knew the recommendations for approval were made after careful consid- eration and with the best interests of the adjoining neigh- bors, public and future senior residents in mind. Signifi- cant changes in reduction in size of the project were suc- cessfully negotiated. He believed the project was attrac- tive, necessary and as nonintrusive a facility on the adjoining properties as possible and it still retained the needed facilities and amenities. The developer contacted the immediate neighbors at the outset and tried to meet their objections. He believed the developer and the City's representatives prepared an important and urgently -needed proposal for the senior population of the area. If the state and national demographic assessments were correct, there wouldbe a burgeoning of the senior population and a aimiliar increase in the need for a senior residential care facilities. Bill Bocook, El Camino Way, referred to the first drawing reviewed last Spring by the ARB. The ARB strongly recom- mended they take a good long look at the basic design con- cept. The building was turned 45 degrees which created greater setbacks for all the residences as well as all the sides. They got maximum sunlight exposure, a .parking entrance and a separation between the visitor parking, ser- vice, and the underground parking. He complimented staff and the ARB for their work. The exhaust in the garage would not terminate at the ground but would go all the way to the roof where there would be a four -foot screen. In most cases, the problems arose where the exhaust and noise were at grade level rather than up on the roof. It was a small garage and there would not be that much exhaust. The kitchen and the dining room exhaust would also go to the roof and would not out the side. In terms of drainage, t►a site grading plan proposed a number of catch basins at the perimeter. The front to back drop was about one and one- half to two feet. Presently, there were about 12 inches between the parking lot grade and the residences Grade in the back about which they could;do nothing. They planned to build a seven -foot fence which would be seven feet from the residence side and six feet from the project's side. There would be a bulk head at the bottom and the grade would slope back towards the buildings and there would be catch basins to collect th.e water and all of it would go to West Meadow, which was also where the catch basins and thestorm water from the garage went. The Planning Commission requested they return to the ARB with the following concerns: how they related to the R-1 _ residences; how the visitors would park; about the balcony designs; and to ensure whatever area they had was within the RM-2 maximum zoning area. As a result, they eliminated six units --three, three -floor units and three two -floor units. Council Member Cobb queried reducing the height, at least of the corners close to the R-1 neighborhood. Mr. Roller said they preferred not1.to eliminate those two units. They looked for somewhere t put the units and con- cluded they just could not put them anywhere_ else. The first direction from the Planning Commission did not say anything about not putting the units they right have to eliminate from the RM-2 portion into ;the commercial portion. In that vase, they did their calculations on the FARs and found they ha to drop , six units, If they wanted to force the issue, they could have worked out something on another six units but it would have not been good for the project. It was a tough decision from the standpoint of reducing the income represented by the two units in relation to the fact they could not offset the expenses. 58-279 9/21/87 Council Member Cobb sensed the developers were at their breakpoint in terms of the number of units, and that any fewer units put them in an uncomfortable economic range. He asked if they had a sense of how much the price range of what. the residents would pay would increase for every unit eliminated. Mr. Reller did not have that kind of specific cost trade-off analysis available, but an analogy was in reducing six units they increased the minimum allowance from $1,500 and $1,800 to $1,600 and $1,900, although he could not say that was a direct trade-off. Council Member Patitucci understood that resident preference for admittance to the project could not be implemented. He asked if there was a method that might work, or whether it was not feasible. Mr. /miler deferred to the City Attorney. He understood it was the Planning Commission's position that basically an enforcement priority provision could not be put into resi- dency requirements. Senior Assistant City Attorney Anthony Bennetti believed that was correct. Anything beyond the preference _provisions already in the BMR program would probably be violative of the Unruh Civil Rights Act in California. Council Member Patitucci asked if the developer could choose to implement residency requirements.., Mr. Bennetti believed the developer might be free to look into those kinds of things more as a preference than as a requirement. As long as it was not a. condition of the coning built into the City action, it certainly had a much better chance of being upheld. Council Member Patitucci said he was once a director of a stets housing finance agency who was making a loan to the PAHC, and they pushed a lot of red buttons in trying to get a preference. They were representing both state and ,federal funds and were able to work out a method by which the PAHC, without violating any laws, was able to implement a prefer- ence system. If that was the case with two or three levels of bureaucracy _involved, it certainly should be the case in the present instance with.a private developer and,, he assumed, private financing. He clarified the Council could not enforce that through their PC zone type regulation, but it certainly could be a possibility if the developer chose. 58-280 9/21/87 Mr. Bennetti said yes, he believed that was correct. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked if Mr. Bennetti alluded to the existing preference situation as it applied to. Lytton Gardens. Mr. Bennetti clarified the preference situation did not apply to Lytton Gardens per se but to all the City's BMR units. Vice Mayor Sutorius said with respect to Lytton Gardens, the preference was to their primary service area, described as San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Mr. Bennetti said yes, and there was an additional prefer- ence for parents of Palo Alto residents. Ms. Kramer clarified Lytton Gardens had a preference system equal to the service area of San Mateo through San Jose. If a Palo Alto resident had a parent who lived outside of the state, they were given the same amount of .preference so their parent could move to the facility. Vice Mayor Sutorius referenced the BMR application of the in -lieu payment being especially banked and the interest thereon being used to provide a subsidy, which was the sub- ject of an agreement between the applicant and the City and was going to be properly documented, and he . asked if it would be accurate to say that a preference consideration could be associated with that element. Mr. Bennetti said yes, he believed that eligible residents for those payments would be selected on .the same basis as other BMR participants, which would include the preference. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked if their thinking could possibly be stretched to indicate the project was analyzed and they received considerable- data on comparable facilities in Northern California; and very obviously, the subject facil- ity physically located in Palo Alto, would have a "lower- case" primary service area, and that it would not be unrea- sonable for preference to apply in that "lower-case" primary service area. He rioted he had not used the term `quota" nor a specific number but merely used the term "preference." He did not went to mislead in that regard. Mr. Reller said he would have no trouble withthat whatso- ever. It was plain commonsense. •If there was . tremendous pressure on people getting into the facility, they would be able to choose who they wanted, and his philosophical 58-281 9/21/87 feeling was he would like Palo Alto people to reside there. It would be a little inconsistent, with the community leaders present who felt as they did and came to speak in favor of the project, if they did not give a priority to people, or to the parents of people, who lived in Palo Alto. Mr. Bennetti said the concept of a primary service area seemed logical but the conflicting policies made it diffi- cult to make a call. Vice Mayor Sutorius referenced a comparison sheet in the brochure which showed units, parking, and ratios at a variety of facilities from South San Francisco to Palo Alto and Los Altos and the note at the bottom of the chart, "Residents under 'Hillsdale' management may not drive. Liability reasons," and he asked for an amplification. Buzz Folsom, Hillsdale Group, 2929 Campus Drive, San Mateo, said in order to discuss and understand the implications of the statement, they had to look at the licensing require- ments under Community Care and also the frailty of the type of resident who was virtually always served in the type of facility. Under the licensing requirements and the type of program offered, the operator provided a protected environ- ment, not only offering basic services such as meals, activ- ities, and sufficient personnel on site to serve the people, but also controlling and monitoring who went in and out and mixed with the residents so the residents would not be victimized in any way. It did not state in any of the regulations that they might not. have their residents drive; however, in order to protect themselves and in order to pro- vide all the services and the protected environment, the residents did not drive. In regard to the preference for Palo Alto residents, if Bill Railer wanted the Hillsdale Group to operate the facility that way, they could make a preference for Palo Alto\; residents; .however, they found in their experience of virtually all the facilities> they operated --11 in Northern California --that 90 percent of the residents came from within a five -mile radius, and another 5 percent of the remaining number could be taken from the families of the residents who lived close by. Vice Mayor Sutorius referenced a worst -case situation where the use did not succeed and, therefore, .a new use took over. He believed the situation was covered in the PC with the language that required whatever new use came in had to sup- port its own parking requirement, but even with that assur- ance, there were cenceerns on the part of some members of the public .that it physically could not happen. He asked how a changed use would handle the parking. 58-282 9/21/87 Mr. Reller said of the 122 units about one-third were studios of 370 square feet, and one -bedroom unit+ of 470 square feet. Hypothetically, if they wanted to convert the facility to a pure residential facility, they did a layout whereby they could take the 122 units and easily divide them in twn_ They also had a scheme whereby additional parking could be added to the facility both on surface and below grade for a total of 96 parking spaces. That was a one and one-half to one ratio, the requirement for a one -bedroom unit. They believed a conversion factor and a parking relationship of one and one-half to one were within the realm of reasonableness. Council Member Klein asked if the proponents made any spe- cial arrangements for deliveries and means of handling emergency vehicles. Mr. Bocook referred to a service area on the site plan and said emergency vehicles could use that area and the eleva- tor, or there was an entrance to the underground garage which was also accessible to an elevator. Is. Folsom said tLe Hillsdale Group operated Hillsdale Manor Retirement in San :Mateo ---a much larger facility --and oper- ated one kitchen and one central laundry for that facility. In many ways, the services would be very similar. At the larger facility, they found they only had two or three deliveries daily during the week becaue they bought at local firms. Council Member Klein said in terms of the traffic and safety analysis on El Camino Way, had staff talked to the school district and the PTA about how the facility would work with respect to kids getting to JLS and Gunn. Ms. Kramer said the Transportation Division reviewed the plan and traffic study and determined there was no impact from the project. A bike route was used frequently by stu- dents, and staff raised the issue .of stopping parking along that street --currently, there was parking and a bike lane. However, itwas determined there was no indication from the schools for safety issues in the area that the parking lane be removed at the time. Since it was City right-of-way, it could be removed at any time whether the project was approved or not. Staff had no dialogue directly from the ochooI or the PTA regarding the safety `issues on the street. Council. Member Levy asked what vacancy rate the Hillsdale Group experienced in the 11 facilities it operated in Northern California. Ms. Folsom clarified about three-quarters of the facilities were convalescent hospitals. Regarding vacancy rates in the retirement facilities, a facility in the Hayward area was at at approximately 80 percent occupancy after one year and continued to rent. They were at 96 percent at the facility in San Mateo. An independent retirement facility in Millbrae was close to 95 percent. They believed there was demand for the type of facility in Palo Alto and occupancy. would not be a big issue. Council Member Levy asked how many units were in each of the facilities. Ms. Folsom replied that Millbrae was 160 units; San Mateo was a 102 -bed residential care and intermediate care facil- ity and Hayward was a 96 -unit retirement facility. Council Member Levy asked the size of Lytton Gardens in com- parison to the proposed development. Ms. Kramer said Lytton Gardens total had 318 units; 216 were independent care and 50 were residential care. They had 102 parking spaces for residents and visitors; however, they determined that only two of the residential care facility residents used the parking lot. Most of the parking was from the independent living section. Council Member Renzel inquired the typical cost of the units in the Hayward, San Mateo, and Millbrae projects. Ms. FO1som said they were all, market -rate units. Hayward had a 10 percent low-income requirement that was Housing Authority subsidized. She believed there were 20 units in that particular facility; however, the rest of the units were very comparable. They charged $1,450 for a one -bedroom unit in Hayward with no personal care. In Millbrae, they charged $1,100 for a studio with one meal an.d no personal care, and the one -bedrooms were between $1,450 and $1,600. The residential care facility in San Mateo was anywhere from $1,450 a month for a very small studio to upwards of $1,700 a month, and included. meals. Council Member Renzel asked if the Hayward and Millbrae facilities were residential care. Ms. Folsom said no, they were independent living. Council Member Renzel clarified theywere not licensed under the State. The only facility spoken to licensed under the State was ..;San Mateo, and that also had convalescent bare. With a 96 percent occupancy rate, at any given time. with 100 beds four would be available. Ms. Folsom said sometimes they even had a waiting list. The facility in San Mateo was opened approximately 18 months ago, Millbrae was opened about 17 months ago, and the facil- ity fe Hayward was less than a year old, so they had not had too much of a luxury of a continued waiting list as yet. Council Member Renzel asked if the independent living units were considered comparable to residential care in terms of demand. Ms. Folsom said they were looking at ways to service the population of the facilities as it aged and were investigat- ing the possibility of turning part of the facilities into licensed facilities where they could offer residentiU?. care. As the residents stayed longer and longer, the need devel- oped. Council Member Renzel asked if any of the facilities• quali- fied for . SSI people. Ms. Folsom said no, they were market rate or, because of the financing for both Hayward and Millbrae there was a Section 8 component to the otherwise market rate projects. Mr. Roller commented that when they discussed costs of staying in a facility, it was important to compare apples with apples. .He pointed out there were only four residen- tial care facilities on the Peninsula --one was Lytton Gardens --and the Hillsdale Group was not managing any of the other three. The occupancy level after one'`. year was quite surprising to him when he first cot into the business, but he learned the facilities took a long time to fill up. One year or 18 months was normal, and they would expect it would take at least that period of time to fill the facility. While there was a demand, there was also the circumstance of somebody being dislodged from the environment they lived in for a long time, and it was a tough decision and took time, Mayor Woolley wanted to know in detail what residential care meant. Ms. Folsom said residential care was" also called community care, and it was licensed under the Department of Health and Welfare Community Care licensing. It was not licensed under the sage Office of Statewide Health Planning as the skilled nursing or nursing home license. Community care or residen- tial care licensing meant the operator provided a protected environment where all personal ae►rvices were provided, i.e., daily meals, linen and housekeeping, 24 -hour staffing, emer- gency response, and personal care attendants for bathing and 58-285 9/21/87 dressing. None of the residents could be bedridden. That was inappropriate and became a :killed nursing or nursing home criteria. It was a question of level of frailty, of health, and ability to live on their own while still needing the extra services. Council Member Bechtel said several neighbors in the area expressed concern about the traffic, particularly deliv- eries, and she asked for a comparison between the number of deliveries per day the liquor store and the other business establishments there at present received, and the projected deliveries for the residential care facility_ Ms. Kramer quoted the EIA prepared in the project noted the traffic study, "...concludes that the proposed project would generate an estimated 422 daily vehicle trips with 51 trips occurring during both a.m, and p.m. peaks. That would result in a slight increase in traffic which exists today but would result in a total decrease in traffic from prior usages, which included a restaurant." She said the retail uses had gone in and out over the years so there would be fluctuations in traffic based on that. Council Member Fletcher asked Ms. Folsom how the residents were selected, by a self-selection process or through crite- ria. It had been said the frail elderly did not drive, and she wondered how it was determine whether they fitted into that category. Some might say they were frail and yet when they got there they did drive. She asked where they drew the line and, if the vacancy rate was greater, did they make allowances and go to a more healthful group. ►is. Folsom said there was a definite reluctance by any per- son to make the decision to move into a residential care facility. It was very infrequent that someone was eager to live there if they did not need the services. If they had the ability to�:':,drive, do their marketing, and take care of their own transportation, they did not go to live in a resi- dential care facility. Council Member Fletcher clarified the experience was the residents did not drive, or a rule was made they did not drive. Ms. Folsom said their experience was the residents were too frail to drive. If there was a question, they were told they would not be able to drive while they lived in the facility. Council Member Patitucci understood the reason most people on the site would not be driving was because they were incapable of driving; yet they were not so restricted as to use walkers or wheelchairs otherwise they would not be able to live on the second or third floors. The people were mobile but not so mobile that they would have an automobile. He queried whether the people were mobile enough to spend a lot of time away from the site or did the site become the entire life experience for the time the elderly were there. Did the site offer enough experience, variety and open space to be a place where people spent virtually all of their time and how did it compare to other places in terms of amenities and the desirability of the site itself. Ms. Folsom said the program offered lectures, entertainment, and depending upon the desires of the residents, they tried to bring things in the residents otherwise could not get to. If residents could get out, they were taken via the van or buses to the events. She believed the program on -site would serve the needs and provide the stimulation. Council Member Patitucci queried whether the density of units per acre was equal to, greater than, or less than those typically managed at such a level of care. Ms. Folsom referred to the Hillsdale Manor facility in San Mateo and said it was a very intense use of a piece of prop- erty. The residents spent most of their time there. It was a much smaller piece of property and the use was much denser, but it worked. Mr. Reller said the only residential care facility in Palo Alto was the 50 units at Lytton Gardens. The residents did not attempt to cross University Avenue and few attempted to cross Webster Street. In terms of the proposed facility, there was a park one block away and he was sure it would be used for some of the programs. On a density basis, Lytton Gardens was a very dense facility.. Council Member Klein asked who could live on the second .and third floors of such a development. Ks. Folsom believed the issue of ambulatory versus non - ambulatory was answered by the local fire department. The State Fire Marshal established the minimum requirements and the local Fire Marshal had todeterminethe safety features and what level of ambulatory person could live on an upper floor. At Hillsdale Manor they had non -ambulatory people on the second floor and operated other facilities where non - ambulatory were permitted to live on higher floors. 58-287: 9/21/8` Council Member Klein asked whether a person using a walker would tic considered to be nor --ambulatory. Ms. Folsom said with the proposed safety features, a person who used a walker would be considered to be non -ambulatory and could possibly live on the second or third floor. Council Member Klein visited Channing House that day and noticed many people who used walkers also used the elevator to get to the upper floors. Council Member Renzel believed a truly non -ambulatory person convalescent escent cars*. - 1f assistance was required would uc its .....,:...________ _ to move about, one would be non -ambulatory in terms of the technicality but ambulatory in terms of being able to move about. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said the Hoover Park Neighborhood, supported the Charleston Meadows Association and believed the project was a good idea but too dense in that it set another trend for more dense development. Lucy Young, 318 Parkside Drive, said the site was overbuilt. She was concerned about parking and overcrowding. Dora Barrett, 4115 Park Boulevard, did not believe there was a shortage of the type of residential care facilities pro- posed in Santa Clara or San Mateo Counties. There were 335 licensed, residential care facilities in the two counties. She could not afford to spend $1,600 to $2,000 per month to live in such a facility. There was a need for such a facil- ityfor people in the lower income brackets. When a builder sought a PC zone, the builder received something for giving something back to the neighborhood. She failed to see what her neighborhood would gain. Margie W. Kelly, 733 Oregon Avenue, said she and her sister lived together and were both octogenarians. The time might come when they could no longer care for their house and gar- den. They supported the proposed project. She had a deposit on a residential care facility in Monterey but pre- ferred to stay in Palo Alto. She urged approval, William Cutler, 4114 Park Boulevard, said Mr. Relier gave. assurances that the project was economically viable yet claimed that 122 units was bare bones which could not be reduced further without risking going over the economic mar- gin., It suggested to him the project eight not be as viable as claimed. Mr. Reller also showed what he considered to be the worst case scenario alternative to his site and unless 58-288 9/21/87 they were also shown the best case of a project to be devel- oped under current zoning; there was no trade off. When a group of citizens and the city government arrived at a zoning agreement, he believed it constituted a public trust. The citizens depended upon the government to uphold such a trust as part of the social contract which was the founda- tion of an ordered society. When the government unilat- erally changed such an agreement over the objection of the citizens, he believed it was a violation of the public trust. If the Barron Park, Ventura and Charleston Meadows neighborhoods had waived their voice in establishing the current zoning, there would not be any basis for complaint. The present zoning was decided by a mutual agreement between the neighborhoods and the City as being in the best interests of the community and it included a promise of uses on the site which would be of specific benefit to the neigh- borhood. That being the case, he believed a moral, if not a legal, right was established for the people to demand, that changes in the zoning be made with their concurrence.` It damaged the _social fabric of the City if in one instance the City 'invited and accepted participation of a group of citi- zens in a process of an agreement and in a later instance unilaterally overturned the agreement despite the objections of the same citizens. He thought they had.a deal. Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, supported the project. When she needed a residential care facility for her mother- in-law, she did not have many choices, and was still con- tacted by many people soliciting her advice. Many of the elderly people helped to build Palo Alto and did not want to leave. There was a need. She was familiar with the cost of such a facility and compared with the alternatives she did not believe it was costly. In her case, her mother-in-law was unable to live alone and needed someone to live with her. It was not possible to hire a person to live in seven days a week and still be able to pay your _utilities, trans- portation and food for less than $2,000. When you look at the fact that ,the price included transportation, food, utilities, etc., it was not bad. She could not speak as a neighbor, but it appearedto be an attractive building and would have to be wall maintained to have cutomers. She did not want her community to nothave a place for the older people who built the town. John Mock, '736 Barron . Avenue, agreed with the positions of the Barron Park and Charleston Meadows Associations. He supported the concept of affordable housing in Palo Alto but as stated by Sam Sparck *I '-don't think this project should be evaluated strictly on merits or demerits of elderly housing the need for which is undisputed. Rather, that the 58-289 9/21/_87 impact on the community be a prime consideration for choice. The undesirable characteristics would quickly come to mind. It was very densey, very bulky, very obtrusive on its R-1 neighbors. The Comprehensive Plan singled out buffer areas at the edge of R-1 zones for special treatment, but the project was not that kind of special treatment." He dis- puted the environmental assessment finding 12(d), that the proposal would not result in increased traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicycles or pedestrians. He was concerned that most of the customers using the commercial areas paral- lel parked and would be going in and out of driveways, interfering with bicyclists and the traffic going in and out of the gas station across the street. He did not believe 55 parking spaces were enough for 122 units and 30 employees. Charging residents at additional fee for parking would ensure that some ended up on residential streets. The project assumption that at least 35 percent would not drive single -occupancy vehicles did not make sense. He was con- cerned about whether the facility would be viable. .Several letters indicated that monthly charges were significantly larger than other similar facilities in the area. He was concerned about Mr. Relier`s comment that the units were crucial. If that was true, he queried what would happen if the economic projections were wrong or a serious recession occurred. He was disturbed about how easily the project could be converted to a straight residential facilityand how out of scale the facility would be with the surrounding area. He urged the Council to address the issues and to explicitly state in the PC zone what other uses, if any, might be permitted and to consider seriously the reversion- ary clause proposed by the Barron Park Association. If the issues could not be addressed, he urged rejection of a PC zone. COUNCIL RECESSED TO , CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE LITIGATION IB TIL +i FROM 9 s44 p.m. TO 10:00 p.m._ Walter Bortz, M.D., 300- Homer Avenue, was a physician at Lytton III, and chaired the Palo Alto Task Force on the Aging. His day was spent largely in the care of older people and there was an urgent need for such a project. As one looked at the definitions of "aging" one searched out maintenance of autonomy, self -efficacy, and the idea of trying to keep people integral as they grew older. As a practicing physician, he saw how small in the life strategy of older persons wits the biologic element. More dominant were the of aer major life care iesuea and housing was promi- nent among them. While at Lytton Gardens, he saw the per- petual struggles between people in Lytton 1 and Lytton 1I, the independent and the residential care, trying to keep 58-290 9/21/87 people in independent living. They wanted people to main- tain their autonomy and independence. There came times when it was not functionally allowed. No one wanted to be dys- functional but when it occurred, the community must provide for it, which was the issue the project addressed. He and Lawrence Baker were in regular contact with people at Stanford and Lytton Gardens trying to find places in the community for those who needed it. He had persons regularly in Lytton Gardens and in Stanford who were unable to find local arrangments. He supported the project and urged approval. Tim -Gadus, 4080 Wilkie Way, seconded Mr. Cutler's comments and agreed that before a change in the public trust occur- red, serious consideration needed to be given to the concerns of the neighborhood. For the past 15 months, the neighborhood spent many hours with Mr. .feller trying to get him to understand their main concerns but he did not hear. Now the neighborhood had to bring their problem to their elected officials. The project was supposed to be the only facility which provided such care for senior citizens in Palo Alto. He understood Stanford and St. Patrick's Seminary in Menlo Park had similar proposals for senior housing. The majority of the structure was three stories in a single -story, single-family neighborhood. Mr. Reber, iri one of the neighborhood meetings, said it might have a flat roof but he was not going to build a stucco building with a flat roof that no one liked. He wanted his building to blend in with the community environment. The building was out of character with the variety of architectural styles in the neighborhood. It was boxy, flat roofed and more modern than anything else. It did not blend and was intrusive. He believed parking was inadequate given . the number of employees, vans, guests and the number .of residents who would own cars even though they were being asked to pay $100 more per month to own a car: While the building would have IQ -foot setbacks,the neighbors would have three stories 40 feet from their property lines, which he considered to be an invasion of privacy. The bulk of the building needed to be moved towards El Camino Way not towards single family homes. He urged no more than two stories, no closer than 20 feet to single family homes, and no more than 95 units,. 80 parking spaces with better delivery and emergency vehicle access. They did not want overflow onto, El Camino Way. As Mr. Roller suggested, it there were two delivery trucks at the same time, one could park on El Camino Way and dolly the materials into the loading dock. He was also concerned about those residents who did ,not receive notice. David Jeong, 4056 Park Boulevard, preferred to retain the. zoning because he also attended many of the 90 plus meetings which developed the neighborhood commercial (CN) zone and which went into the Comprehensive Plan. The CN zone was chosen because i t would be .a service to the neighbors near those zones. He was also concerned about the viability of the project and parking. He urged any approvals be in con- cept only and that some of the privacy behind the proposed buiding be restored and to reduce the density. Hal Hudson, 535 Everett, was a recent Executive Director of the Senior Center and supported the need for such a project, There was not sufficient opportunity for seniors in such an age group to find a place in Palo Alto. He was also on the Board of the Lytton Gardens project when they were planning their 50 units of residential care. Originally there were 236 independent living units and 50 or so sparking spaces. The underground parking area was never half tuli. He under- stood how the neighbors were reluctant to have the larger f- acility put near them but he believed it was almost inevit- able in Palo Alto. The changes would take place especially when one lived close to a commercial area. The upgrading of the use of commercial area was almost inevitable in Palo Alto. "The most disturbing thing about middle age is the fact that sooner or later you outgrow it." Milly Davis, 344 Tennessee, referred to the seniors who drove and said two-thirds of the units were the larger units and it was said that larger units tended to attract more able people and there mightbe more drivers than antici- pated. She referred to a new rule wherein seniors who lived on theaecond and third floors must not depend upon a walker or three --prong cane in order to get out of the building in case of a fire. Some of the residents would use a walker or cane as a balance which was okay. One of the worst features of changing the zoning was the truck traffic generated, i.e., moving vans, delivery trucks, food trucks, paramedics, fire trucks, etc Truck driving was a hazard because of the many bicyclists. She urged Council to consider something better and to look back at the intent of the zoning .on the. site at the time of the Comprehensive Plan.. At that time, the Rt4-2 zone had a restriction of a one foot rise in height every five feet from, the property line. The proposal would have resulted in a one and two-story development in the RM-2 zone. When the CN zone was first planned, it was to be 25 feet high„ with a two story restriction. She understood there was a last minute motion to allow a third story., At one point Council almost changed that regulation. She sug- gested the possibility of the .RM-1T, and to keep the building at two stories. Three stories was not compatible. 58-292 9/21/87 The Charleston Rack recently sent out a questionnaire regarding the project. Some preferred restrictions_ similar to that of the original zoning; Florence LaRiviere asked that Council consider integrity of the neighborhood as the highest priority. The project would not integrate seniors into the community. She queried why the zoning process could not search out sites for needed facilities rather than the hit-and-miss process of wherever there happened to be available land. Jean Olmsted, 240 W. Charleston, urged that the PC zone be denied. The PC zoning regulations stated, "the planned com- munity district is community intended for unified, compre- hensively planned developments which are of substantial public benefit and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan." She did not believe the project met any of those require- ments. Mr. Rel.ler mentioned the buffer concept and she believed it was important. The intent was not to have single family homes backing up on such a large building. The intent was to have something between, in terms of what should be built on the site, some believed a much reduced senior project would be acceptable but Mr. Relier said that was no.t economically viable. People were concerned about the changes in rules, i.e., lot mergers and PC zones. The change in the daylight plane regulations were not helpful. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, referred to the scale of maximum build out. It was actually about 53 percent lot coverage and would not be allowed under existing zoning. When the SCARE project was shown to the neighbors last fall, a significant majority preferred it to Mr. Relier's proposal at the time. The CM zone did have required setbacks. Approving projects based only on economics would mean that the Council and the Planning Commission abdicated their responsibility for ade- quate land use and zoning planning to that developer who was either the less economically efficient or the most greedy. That was not the way to do land use and zoning. It was more responsive to have compatible developments which fit. If reducing the number of units wade the project financially unviable, he suggested it be defeated. It was too large a project. Staff said a CN zone had an FAR of 1:1, and if one bui., in the CN zone then, they would only be allowed a .4:1 or 55,900 square feet total. The, proposed project was more then 25,000 square feet larger. Even with a 1:1 FAR, the project was about 5,000 square feet larger. The project should be reduced to no more than 76,000 square feet. In terms of traffic, if the project was converted to 64 units, it would be a 50 percent greater number of units in density than the existing zone allowed and there would be signifi- cantly more traffic. In terms of parking, there was no 58-293 9/21/87 parking along El Camino Way between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. to allow the children to get to school without getting killed. In the past four yearn, he witnessed two bicycle accidents on Meadow between Alma and El Camino Way. He pointed out that an elderly relative was accepted in Lytton Gardens II less than two months. Also, if a person became f,..; ridden, the would be evicted from the building. Change in use from the existing CN and RM-2 zones would have a significant adverse impact on City finances. The City would lose existing sales tex revenues and there would be far more calls for services. He suggested that no• market survey was ever made by the developer about how many people could truly afford the project in Palo Alto. He checked the census figures and inflated the incomes and he believed less than one-half of the seniors in Palo Alto could afford to live in such a project. Albert Hopkins, 4073 Wilkie Way, said his parents could not afford to live in the project. The project was too big and too tall. The traffic was horrendous, especially with kids going back and forth to school, and would get worse because next year every child east of El Camino Real would be going to junior high school at Gunn. The ..hange in Palo Alto was not inevitable. He would not want to be on a committee rep- resenting the City unless he had some sort of commitment to the community so they could stop some of the high buildings. He bel ievedt. a senior project was a good idea but was con- cerned that young people could not afford to live in Palo Alto. The subject corner was one of the worst in the com- munity for traffic and access to anything, and older people would not beable to cross El Camino in safety. The project would not assist the neighborhood in any way. If, in fact, the Council did approve the project, he asked it be scaled down further so .it was not such an impact upon .the neigh- bors. There would.. be little, if any, privacy. People were very upset at what would happen to their community. Reo Haynes, 1519 Byron Street, supported the project. She spent a year looking for a residential care facility for her mother. There was really nothing available in Palo Alto,,:. and she finally found Seven Oaks in Los Altos, and then her other moved to Lytton Gardens She did not understand why the people in the neighborhood would be upset. If she lived there, she would muchrather have a quiet senior center than a liquor store and motorcycle shop. None of the people at Seven Oaks owned cars, all of them were onwalkers, canes, or used the handrails. They were quiet. Shenever had a problem parking and never ra►n into any deliver y trucks. She hopod the neighbors would enjoy the seniors. They would not intrude and mostly had poor eyesight and could not see far.. Fran Wagstaff, 3524 Waverley Street, spoke in support of the project both as a neighbor and a housing professional. She worked as the Executive Director of the Mid -Peninsula Coalition Housing Fund, a nonprofit housing developer. Of the 900 units they developed and managed,. almost 400 were senior units. All_ their senior housing was low: income and subsidized, but they were aware there was a need for more than the facilities they provided. They were constantly confronted with seniors in the predicament of being moderate income and not. able to afford in-house personal care assist- ance, yet over-incomed to qualify for subsidized senior housing. Theyhad years of waiting lists for. subsidized senior housing and situations where seniors tried to divest themselves of assets just to get into subsidized senior housing because there was no alternative in terms of moderate -income senior housing. A lot of people continued to live in their facilities --which were all independent living --long beyond the point at which they should because there were no alternatives that offered a higher degree of care. They were certainly aware - there was a need for facil- ities for moderate -income seniors, which would be provided by the project. As a resident of the neighborhood, she believed a senior housing project on the particular site was probably one of the best uses to which the site could be put. It was presently a very unattractive block, and she knew from experience that the particular population would produce almost no traffic in terms of the residents them- selves. Their experience with totally independent senior housing was that in no instance had they had a project with more than a 50 percent car ratio to tenants, even in devel- opments sthat were poorly located in terms of shopping, etc. As the population aged, they got rid of theircars, and she anticipated the car ratio for the subject facility would be almost none, and basicially the parking requirement would apply to staff. The proposed cost was really moderate to provide the type of facility with the services and staffing required. The discussion regarding cutting dewn the scale of the project did not take into consideration that when providing 24 -hour»& -day staffing, whether divided by 122 units or 94 units, the costs would be virtually identical, so it really impacted the amount of; rent they hard to charge and at some point that rent became infeasible in the market. Seniors made the best neighbors possible. They had a very similar project in :!lour*4ain View which was a three-story eenior development next to single-family houses, and they had virtually no complaints in the five years it had been there, and the relationship had been very good. She urged the Council to support the project Jean Ramacciotti, 959 Waverley Street, used to live at 4123 Wilkie Court. She knew the neighbors and: knew - they were 58--295 9/21/87 upset and believed they had not been heard by Mr. Reller. She appreciated the fact Mr. Reller was concerned about the seniors in Palo Alto and acknowledged there might be a need for the type of housing, but she believed there was a need for other kinds of, housing first, such as low-income housing that addressed the low-income families who would like to move into Palo Alto and bring more diversification tothe population. She also believed the massiveness of the proj- ect violated the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. She remembered the many meetings people in the neighborhood went to when they worried about encroachment by massive buildings close to Wilkie Way. In 1978 it was downzoned to protect the neighbors from over intrusion. They should maintain the original intent of the Comprehensive Plan. If Council had to approve the type of housing, she asked they make it a project the neighbors could live with. No massiveness, no three stories, nothing close to Wilkie Way, and no ugliness. Aestheticee were very important to Palo Al tans. She asked that nothing be built that interferred with views of the Foothills. She urged the Council not to upzone the property or it would be a downer for the neighborhood. John Erving, 420 Palm Street, said his mother was a prime candidate for the Reller project. He had not been able to find a facility for her. Her name was on the waiting list for the St. Patrick's project, but they had .to withdraw it because of the project's extended difficulties and her health condition, and he guessed the Stanford project was a long .way off. He assured the Council there was a community need, and implored them to design the project to the spe- cific needs for the assisted -care senior. By adding unnecessary costs, ironically they could legislate the change to apartments expressed that evening which, in turn, would generate the very traffic and parking requirements about which people were concerned. Many of the opponents might. not be aware of the relationship between density, costs, and are affordable price ultimately to the :seniors; all must be in balance in order to finance the project. It was interesting to note that while Mr. Reller .had been pro- cessing the project over the last year, interest rates had taken a noticeable hike. He suggested the Council get on with approving the project and doing everything it could to ensure it would come to pass. He recommend strongly that the Council add back the six units taken out by the Planning Commission and reduce the parking ratio to .2511 thereby discouraging the possibility of the protect being ultimately converted to apartments, and ensuring it remain for its intended use. In response to concerns about privacy, he would require the addition of bore _trees along the property lines. As to affordability, the Council might consider variiva mechanisms for providing financial aid to a certain 58-296 9/21/87 number of unite. One of things at issue was fear. It was understandable but unreasonable. He believed the ARB and Planning Commission proceedings were very sensitive to the community needs. If the gentleman's comment about "I thought we had a deal," was taken to the extreme, there would be no amendments to the Constitution which were adopted to meet the changing needs of society. ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED'AFTER 11:00 P.M. NOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Becbtel moved, seconded by Woolley to continue Items 11 and 12 to a date and time to be determined by staff. AMENDMENT: Council Me mbe r Levy moved to i nc l ude Item 10. ARENDNEi T DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND NOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED snaaaiwovslyA MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, to continue Item 15 to a date and time to be determined by staff. NOTION TO CONTINUE PASTED by • vete of 8-1, Sutorius voting "no. ° NOTION TO CONTINUE: Council . flsmbsr Patitueci wowed, seconded by Fletcher, to continme Item 13 to a date and time to be determined by staff. NOTION FAILED by a vote of 4-5, Levy, Cobb, Fletcher, Petitaaacci voting "alre.! RETURN TO ITEM 8, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION AND AnalITTETURAL REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE THE APPLICATION OF B. H. BOCOOK, ARCHITECT, INC.. , FOR ZONE CHANGE RM-2 AND CN TO PC, FOR A PROPOSED 122 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CARE FA I I POR THE ELDERLY FOR. PROPERTY LOCA ED AT , d07St D 4085 EL C&MINO NAY Council Member Bechtel had read over the voluminous amounts of information, met with some of the neighbors concerned about the project, and was very familiar with the area since she used to live in the Barron Park area. She believed it was a good project. It was very close to what could be built in the area close to the residential area and filled a very important need for the community. Seniors were quiet and certainly'' were quieter than liquor stores. 58-297 9/21/87 NOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by W.oll.y, to adopt staff recommendation to: 1) Adopt the recommendations of the Planning Commission to rezone the subject property to Planned Community based on the environmental, lead use, and Comprehensive Plan policy considerations and adopt the Ordinance with the findings and conditions; and 2) Biiect the City Attorney to prepare, and the City Manager to execute an agreement with the developer _ to implement co diti+sn in section 3 (b)2 of the Ordinance taking into consideration the parameters outlined in this report. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.�$.040 OF TOE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (TOE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOW AS 4047 EL CAMINO WAY FROM RN -2 AND CM TO PC* Council Member Fletcher said the decision was not easy because the project was on the bulky side, but it was a trade-off. She was in favor of the project because in talking about densities they were talking not only about bulk but about vehicle trips, and the project would generate many fewer vehicle trips than if the project were developed to its current zoning. Not to be impacted by additional traffic was one very visible benefit to the neighborhood. There would be some truck 'traffic which she would prefer. hot to have, but if the El Camino Way strip were developed to a vibrant neighborhood -commercial, ,.there would be considerably more truck traffic. It was mentioned that parallel parking would be safer for bicyclists than cars going in and but,of the driveway, and she said there were considerably more accidents of bicyclists being hit by car doors' opening, especially in a neighborhood -commercial type area, so she dic) not believe it would be a detriment. The project would definitely be a quiet use. In speaking to the density, it was not really comparable in qualitative . terms to compare number of units in the. type of development which was more persons per room with a houseful of people, which was also one unit but generated a great many vehicle trips. She was concerned about the BMR arrangement of subsidizing the ren- tal fees. While it was a great idea, she wondered What happened to people in financial need who reached the point when they could no longer stay in the facility for medical reasons. They were used to a City subsidy, and she asked. for staff comments because she had the feeling such : resi- dents would be, dependent on the City at that point for financial assistance. 58-298 9/21/87 Ms. Kramer said a number of facilities were assisted by the federal government, e.g., people on SSI were permitted to reside at Lytton Gardens. There could be a way... to arrange ahead .of time to reserve or to put people on a waiting list so if they did get to the point where they could no longer afford to be in the facility even with a subsidy, or if they became more infirmed, they could be moved into a facility like Lytton Gardens. Council Member Fletcher was reassured on that point. In regard to the ordinance, pages 4 and 5, where it said that the project must maintain- a ridesharing program or a list for the employees, the information to be given to all new employees should be an ongoing program rather than just pre- senting a new employee with a set of schedules. It was a little unrealistic tc expect car and van pooling with no more than 20 employees on site at one time. Those types of programs worked with a larger pool of potential ridesharers. Those factors should be kept in mind as the programs were implemented. Council Member Patitucci said the staff, the Planning Commission, the developer, and the _ community groups had . all worked hard to try to modify and create a project that would make it a tough decision for the Council. He could not sup- port the project as currently proposed. He was concerned about losing a it zoned for multi -family housing because there was a continuing need for affordable housing in the community. He was concerned about the loss of neighborhood -commercial. The particular area could use an upgrading of its neighborhood -commercial. It was now in an awkward area where one either had to cross railroad tracks on one busy street or El Camino to get to reasonable neighborhood -commercial. He was concerned about the density of ,the site itself from the standpoint of its being a place where people who did not have mobility would be asked to spend a large percentage of their time in a dense environ- ment. . He was concerned aboutthe desirability of the area as an area where their elderly citizens should reside. Frankly, the focusing of the development of projects for the elderly in the California Avenue area or in downtown was much more desirable. He was somewhat concerned about the parking and traffic problems and was very concerned about the BMR requirement. Although some attempt was made at an innovative approach, he did not believe the way in which .it had been handled applied. The BMR program was really.geared to more conventional forms of subsidized housing and not subsidies where there, was also care involved. The cost per unit was, tremendous, and to .apply a subsidy really got the City very little in terms of numbers of housing for the cost of administering a fairly complex program. Given all . those 58-299 9/21/87 concerns, they had unanimous recommendations from the Planning Commission, ARB, staff, and all the experts that they should go ahead with the project. The fundamental problem was not for the Council to fine tune the project in terms of parking spaces, etc. Fundamentally, he believed if the project scope was reduced by some reasonable amount, then the neighbors could live with the project, the project would continue to be economically feasible, and some of the concerns would not be as great,. &MEND E T: Council l4eaber Patitucci moved, seconded by Levy, to aid the motion to allow the following modifica- tions; 1) Reduce the square footage of the project by 5,000 square feet to 76,300 square feet; 2) Recommend the reduction of the 5,004 square feet occur oa the second &ad third floors of the proposed project, and that it occur along the Wilkie Way side; 3) Waive the 0NR requirement; and 4) Provide for a preference for Palo Alto residomts such as along the linos of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation requirements. Council Member Patitucci said all his concerns came down to asking what would be there if the development was not there. The 76,3Q0 square feet was the same square footage as the combined residential and commercial development. How that translated into units was a function of how the developer dealt with a readjustment of the design, but the reduction did lose the argument for the density problem. The ques- tions of whether it was a good site, what kind of parking, etc., were answered by a develeaper putting up his money to try to make the project appealing. He did not believe reducing the square footage by 6 percent would ruin the eco- nomic viability and it would gain a lot of community sup- port. He would really like to see the project go ahead. Regarding the HMR requirement, when the Council was approving a PC zone, they were saying there was an overall community benefit to changing the zoning from what it was. Taking out 5,000 square feet was somewhat of a penalty, and there was a benefit to the community of having more elderly housing period; therefore, having the money spent somewhere else would not make any sense. He believed a preference for Palo Alto residents could be implemented without any great problem; they had done it in other places. The preference was a small thing but was a gesture that would, in addition, gain community support. Council Member Renzel believed the amendment was a step in the right direction and agreed with Council Member Patitucci that the project wait' just• too big. She lived next door to Rosedale Manor, one of the smaller residential -care homes in Palo Alto, so was familiar with howea smaller facility oper- ated. It was a very quiet use. InN the 15 to 16 years she lived there,, with 8 rooms available, they had only one per- son with a car. She was not concerned about people in a residential -care home driving. She was concerned that the vacancy time had increased in the five years the current operator had been there, despite the_ fact that it was a very well run, well managed, extremely good care facility at lower rates than proposed in the subject facility, and located in a good residential neighborhood where the elderly people could freely walk around. The increase in vacancy time suggested demand was not as high as perceived. When- ever a person needed that kind of -care, it was obviously urgent or getting close to being urgent, so there was a per- ception of desperation. The reality was that people needing that particular kind of care fell within a very narrow niche. They had gotten to the point where they absolutely had to leave their own independent living. Most people did not choose to be in that kind of care facility; they had to be there. As outlined in a report that the Seven Oaks made to Los Altos, they forgot to take their medicines, they neg- lected to eat, they were unable to take care of themselves. Those with Alzheimer's and other kind of problems began to wander. There were various problems that caused people to have to be in that kind of facility. That was a prerequi- site. They had to be old enough, they had to be rich enough, and they had to be not too _rich because otherwise they would go to Channing House or Sequoias, or some place a little more elegant, and they had to be not too sick and not too well. All those variables had to be present at the sane time. One would have expected as the community aged, that the situation next door to her, for instance, would have b.secome competitive rather than less. The real problem was there was a big need for people on SSI, and the project would not serve that need, nor did Rosedale Manor. Her big concern was they were approving a PC based on a very narrow niche in the continuum of senior housing needs. They were allowing a big density with a small .amount of parking, and there was not room for a mistake. If there was a misjudg- ment in the market, Council could see the project convert to independent living, to Stanford student housing, and .they did not know what kind of use people might come in for. Those uses would require more parking, and they would be more active uses. She personally felt that the use was fairly benign if, in fact, it continued as that use. She wee. Personally very skeptical based on her observations of the turnover rate and vacancy rate that the project would retain as a residential -care facility licensed by the state S8-301 9/21/87 and serving only Liiuse people. It was imperative not only to reduce the bulk of the building but also that some addi- tional parking be required at the present time in order to anticipate the possible change before it happened. She had been around long enough to know that one hoped things did not happen but when they did, one did not tear down build- ings and tended to bend a lot in order to accommodate what existed. She did not want to do that to the neighborhood and, if they gave up their neighborhood -commercial and family housing which had been anticipated, then the Council needed to be more serious about the physical facility that was built. She supported the amendment and intended to pro- pose another amendment regarding parking if it passed. Council Member Cobb gathered that Council Member Patitucei's idea in waiving the BMR requirement was to reduce the capi- tal cost to make it easier to scale back the project. Council Member Patitucci said that was partially the case, but it was also the case that he could not see how they would want to give with one hand, i.e., bend the zoning and the PC to come up with the kind of a development in a PC zone, and then take it back with the other. He saw the pub- lic benefit of that kind of housing and, therefore, did not want to "taxi' the developers the additional BMR require- ments. Council Member Cobb commented the quality of the Council's decision making would start to tail off rather rapidly at the late hour. He definitely liked the direction in which Council Member Patitucci was going in the sense of trying to keep a project that had a public benefit and, at the same time, deal with the questions of bulk and mass as they intruded upon the neighborhoods. He came in with the idea the neighborhood should not come out any worse off than with the existing zoning. Before the Council came to a final conclusion, he would be interested in knowing whether the particular square footage happened to be arbitrarily bad, or was in the right place. He was also interested in knowing the economic consequences with respect to the cost of the resultant housing. He wondered whether they should proceed without that information. Council Member Levy had the same questions as Council Member Cobb and would appreciate Mr. Relier's input to the effect as he saw it of reducing the total mass of the project by 6 percent„ Since the community areas were probably relatively fixed, he assumed that meant slightly more than 6 percent of the units would have to be reduced. He believed the project was reasonably well -scaled for part of the distance along Wilkie Way, but for the last two large units that went down 58-=302 9/21/87 to Meadow, there was no single -story aspect close to the lot line. He would like to kno ► the economic impact of reducing those two-story units right within ten feet of the lot line to one story. Mayor Woolley felt if the Council really warted to discuss changes they should ask the applicant to return with answers at another meeting. Council Member Levy said the Council could continue the dis- cussion at a future time, but he believed that was not the fairest thing to everybody who had already spent so many hours there that evening. It would be the better choice if they could reach a decision that evening. The other alter- native was to make a decision on Council Member Patitucci's amendment without the information, and he believed that was also a bad idea. Mr. Reller guessed that if the project were to be reduced pursuant to Council Member Patitucci's amendment of 5,000. square feet, that would be approximately 10 to 12 units --10 percent of the total. Obviously it would have to be studied. In regard to Council Member Levy's second ques- tion, there were 2 two-story elements pointing toward the El Cemino Way portion and reducing those to one story would entail two units. Council Member Levy asked whether reducing those two units down to one story was relatively feasible from a construc- tion standpoint. Mr. .Reller said yes. Council Member Levy commented his predilection would be to continue that evening and to move that the two points abut- ting Wilkie Way be reduced to one story, rather than to reduce the total project by 5,000 square feet. Council Member Klein believed the Council should call a halt to questions and make their decisions. If they wanteda lot more information from the developer, they should continue the -item to a subsequent meeting, He was also concerned the Council was taking on the role of a super Planning Commission, and they should not be getting into such preci- stun. He liked the general thrust of the amendment but could not support all four points; therefore, he would vote against the amendment unless it was divided. He was in favor of the request that the squaw footage be reduced to 76,300, the amount allowed under the present RM-2 and CN zones; and that the reduction be taken out of the second and third stories. He would say just the third story but would 58-303 9/21/87 rather leave that relatively minor point to the architect to work with, He had trouble with the other two points. In regard co preference to Palo Alto residents, he believed they were advised they could not legally do that. He believed it would happen anyway so, therefore, it was not of great concern one way or the other.. Of great concern, however, was the use of the BMR funds to serve as a "trade off" with the developer. He found it to be a very danger- ous, unwarranted, and un Ose precedent. He fully agreed the project had some public benefit but so had other projects the Council had approved and still required the BMR payment, He also noted he did not' like the Planning Commission's recommendation with regard to the BMR money. The BMR money should go into a general pot. They had not earmarked BMR money from specific projects in the past and, if they started drawing the lines, they would find themselves in a very difficult arena. His preference was to adopt an amend- ment along the lines suggested, but not quite the amendment present before the Council. Council Member Bechtel agreed with Council Member Klein that they were tinkering. She pointed out that it was a unani- mous Planning Commission and ARB recommendation. When they were attempting to reduce somewhat arbitrarily, they were. talking 10 to 13 units. Council. Member Patitucci proposed waiving the BMR requirement --which was approximately $200,000 --might make it more possible to keep the :price of the units lower. As the project proponents pointed out, the real issue was the ongoing, day -after -ray, year -after -year operating costs of the project, She did not believe waiving the BMR was sufficient and, in addition, she agreed with Council Member Klein very strongly that it was inappropriate to set such a precedent. The Council should not eliminate the requirement, even if there was a public benefit of pro- viding a senior residential care facility. She also dis- agreed with the portion concerning a preference for Palo Alto residents. Yes, she would like to do it; but no, their attorney advised against it. She would vote against the amendment. Vice Mayor Sutorius said toe Council heard the amendment amounted to a 10r- to .12 --unit reduction. The reduction could be significant in regard to effecting the economics; more- over, he understood the amendment was a 5,000 square foot reduction applied to the second and third floors adjacent to the residential area, They had an RM-2 zone square -footage calculation that the portion of the project on that RM-2 zone happened to exceed the allowance by 300 feet, and that, 300 feet got put back in by the ARB because they believed the sitting areas were very important. In fact, the sitting areas were interior to the site. He believed it was wrong to suddenly say by fiat 5,000 feet off the project out of the second and third stories in the RM-2 area. The Council did not have the vaguest idea what that did to the`construc- tion costs or design of the project, and it would be crimi- nal to make a final decision with such a total lack of awareness. It might be appropriate to find some way to reduce the project, but it was an extraordinarily inappro- priate- size of reduction, and an extraordinary way of being specific about where the reduction must be accommodated and having no awareness of its effects. He opposed the amend- ment if it was not divided. If it wee divided, he would oppose 1) and 2). He believed it would be wrong to waive the BMR. He was not opposed to the manner in which the BMR was innovatively suggested by Planning Commissioner Pat Cullen and endorsed by the Planning Commission. It was expressed as a three-year program. The principal would be `protected and the program would be evaluated at the end of the three years. If it was not judged to be successful, it would revert to a traditional BMR situation and the princi- pal "would go to the regular BMR account. He had no problem 4ith the preference to Palo Alto residents. He encouraged his colleagues to carefully consider the severity of the re- duction and the arbitrary discription of how the reduction_ must be imposed and to defeat that portion of the amend- ment. Council Member Cobb believed it was practical to continue Council's discussion without reopening the public hearing. He was interested in getting the trade off information to accCmplish the kinds of direr :ions cited by Council in terms of the removal of bulk from the Wilkie Way area, more to the front of the project and the economic impacts of scaling the project back. MOTIOI TO COMTISUZ M Cousic i 1 Member Cobb moved, seconded by Sutorius, to continue the item to a mutually agreed date between the developer 42104 staff, with the developer to pro- vide informative en the cost, and trade-offs for sealing the project back along the reoidential areas Council Member Cobb emphasized he was not suggesting a design study or new plans. Council Member Renzel said while she would be interested to know the cost trade-offs, she was more concerned about the design trade-offs with respect to the neighborhood which she believed ehbuld be Council's principal concern. 58-305 9/21/87 Council, Member Cobb noted that Council Member . Renzel's con- cerns were included in the motion. Mr. Relies preferred that Council decide the question that evening. NOTION PASSED by a "no." vote of 7-2, Bechtel, Levy voting Mr. Zaner advised that there would be a renotification regarding when the matter would be agendized. 10. PLANNING COMMISSION .RECOMMENDATION RE AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ELIMINATE THE, REQUIREMENT FOR A PR ! IMI.NARY PARCEL MAP FOR MERGING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIA PROPERTIES $} NOTZONs Coil Member Reuel moved, seconded by Woolley, approval of the Planning COnnission reconmendatAen finding that the provisions of the draft ordinance and the mergers processed pa ssant to it will have no significant_ envi n- neatal effects and approve the ordinance for first toti4ing. ORDI ANCh FOR FIRST READ MG entitled 'ORDINANCE 'O TF UE OP PAW ALTO ARMING TITLE 21 (TOE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE) *ZAREIKG LOT LINE REMOVALS BETWEEN FOUR OR FEWER LOTS IN TUX * I AND 1-2 ZONES" Council Member Renzel believed the amendment to the subdivi- sion ordinance would expedite projects for people in neigh- bchoods where buildings were over lot _ lines. She also believed it would improve the City's subdivisions over the long haul. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, was concerned about an abuse of the ordinance. He suggested it only apply to F.-1 zOnir1g because it was easier to understand; that hearings be rou- tinely held where more than one structure was already pres- ent or where more than two lots were affected and where mote than one unit was likely to be involved. The intent was to ensure the public would automatically have the opportunity to speak to what might be a significant change in their neighborhood. He was concerned about the loss of value of saal1 rental units suitable for students and young families and lot mergers which might result in the Gonstruetion :of a structure out of scale with the surrounding neighborhoods. He suggested lot line removals_ continue to require public notice put that hearings only be held upon request. His concerns were about actual changes in use. 58-306 9/2-1/8 $O1IO PASSED unanimously, Pletcher absent. 13. REQUEST BY HAROLD HOHBACH FOR THE CITY TO VACATE THE 2700 BLOCK OF ASH STREET FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PALO ALTO GATEWAY PARK PROJECT ( 0U)__(CMR:458:71 Harold Hohbach, 200 Page Mill Road, believed the project represented a great opportunity for the City to do something with the prominent thoroughfare. Regarding the p.Lesent Mayfield project, he requested permission to not install a sidewalk on the Birch Street onramp up to the Ash Street Park and use the 10 -foot strip to plant redwood trees. He proposed to continue the; redwood avenue to El Camino but in order to do so Ash Street needed to be closed. Ash Street was a little used street and was . a dangerous intersection because people coming off Page Mill Road to turn right on Ash Street had to slow down in fast moving lanes of traffic which was difficult. Going on to Page Mill Road from Ash Street, a driver had to look carefully to the left -because traffic moved rapidly. iii most instances, the driver intended to go left on to El Camino which meant the driver had to cross two or three lines of fast-moving traffic to get to the left lane. He believed Palo Alto would benefit by putting in a public park. If he could improve that side of Page Mill Road, he could see that the other side of Page Mill would have to be developed. Vice Mayor Sutorius clarified that Mr. Hohbach was inter- ested in obtaining permission not to construct a sidewalk and to plant redwood trees. Mr. Hohbach said the decision needed to be made about whethertoclose Ash Street, If that could not be done, the other questions were academic. Michael Lyzwa, 193 Waverley Street, said the concept evolved from the presently being constructed Mayfield project. They wanted to close Ash Street and make it into a public park end continue the acoustical wall as shown in the major ele- vation with the redwood trees lining Page Mill Road and having a major water feature in the park itself. Many of the lots were zoned RM-5 and they wanted to continue the high density residential concept series of six buildings, four stories high and then be able to take the County Park and Ride transit parking lot, on the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino and put it in back of a two-story commer- bi,al building which would front E. Camino and which would be approxi ately 11,200 square feet. Virtually all of the parking was proposed to be subterranean except for a few handicapped parking spaces as well as visitor parking spaces 58-307 9/21/87 The park itself would be the highlight of a majok water feature with an aqueduct and a plaza area culminating in an amphitheatre concept facing on to Sheridan Avenue. He urged support. Gary Black, represented Barton Ashman Associates, 100 Park Center Plaza, #450, San Jose. They prepared the traffic impact report in terms of what would happen if Ash Street was closed. As pointed out in the staff report (CMR:458:7), their firm did not make a recommendation in terms of whether Ash street should be closed since that was a policy deci- sion. From a traffic engineering point of view, they did conclude that closing Ash Street would not present insur- mountable problems, and associated impacts could be miti- gated. One impact would be more traffic on Sheridan heading towards Birch. They opined that Sheridan could handle the increased traffic but some improvement might be necessary. City staff said a possible way to increase the capacity of Sheridan would be to move parking from one side and make it a wider street. He .did not believe 2600 cars would not be an unreasonable traffic volume for a Multi --family residen- tial neighborhood. He understood the area was zoned RM-5 which allowed fairly dense residential development. There would be more traffic on Birch from the cars which now used the one block of Ash off of Page Mill. Birch was a higher capacity street and from a dailytraffic and peak hour point of view it could handle the extra cars. The Birch/Sheridan intersection was a concern to City staff and after careful consideration, they believed improvements could be made to handle the traffic increase. Birch had better connections to Page Mill than Ash and some higher allow turns without impeding the flow on from the fact that the Ash closure would space, it would eliminate the profile ± Street. Because of the radius of the turned from Page Mill on to Ash Street, down considerably which impeded the flow concluded the impacts could be handled. speed ramps would Page Mill. Aside provide more park cf turns at Ash corner, when one they had to slow on Page Mill. He Anne Ercolani, 2040 Ash, said tte issue was a high density project proposed for the corner of El Camino and Oregon. The County still considered the intersection as a possible clover -leaf site du.e to their long-range projections of traffic. The staff report (CMR:458:7) pointed out that it seemedto be inappropriate for the RM density to be avail- able. She queried who would want to use a park in such a congested and noisy area. She urged that Council accept the staff recommendation to not vacate the street. Sipe further hoped Council would give Mr. Hohbach a negative sig- nal not to pursue the matter further. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, believed the project was totally out of touch with Palo Alto. He used Ash Street, Soon enough it would be necessary to have an overpass at Page Mill-. and El Camino and additional space would be needed to implement it. It was necessary to have a visible park and ride lot. Single occupancy vehicles would be less feas- ible in the not too distant future and an interior park and ride behind a commercial use would have untenable enforce- ment problems. It was also important to have a good bus stop --one better than what currently existed. RM-5 was an absurd zoning in Palo Alto and was devised when no one could see the potential for maximum build out. He urged opposit- ion to the proposed vacation. According to the staff report, the crucial parcels in the project were publicly owned and Mr. Hohbach only held an option on the remainder. It was a growth -inducing project and Council made a serious mistake in approving the enormous building which now existed on Page Mill Road. It would be a mistake to encourage another such development.`. MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the staff recommendation to not proceed to initiate a resolution of intent to vacate the Ash Street right-of- way. Council Member Patitucci supported the motion. He believed Council made a serious mistake when it approved the Mayfield project. Council discussed the project being constructed between Birch and Ash and how it jutted out on to Oregon Expressway in such a way that it was difficult to see what waa coming around the corner. Council also discussed trying to obtain some right-of-way and was told by staff that the County would not go along with it. He could not see pro- moting any type of additional development in the area. Council Member Levy supported the motion. The RM-5 zone was too dense anywhere in Palo Alto and he awaited the oppor- tunity to vote to eliminate it, which was why he would`, vote against vacating Ash Street at that time. The concept of a City park along Ash Streetwasa good idea since he did not ,believethe street itself wasused or needed that much. He did not particularly like the proposed design but with proper design it could be an interesting element. The idea of having Redwoodtrees along the stretch of Page Mill was good and he understood implementation would include some kind of walkway, sidewalk or meandering walkway such as in Johnson Park so they would not be eliminating the ability ,of pedestrians to traverse the area. The ideas were worth pur- suing but not at an RM-5 zoning. 58-309 9/21/87 Mayor Woolley agreed with Council Member Levy. She lived near, the area and occasionally used Ash Street. She also agreed with Council Member Patitucci that Council set up a difficult` entry on to Page Mill Road_,and the . solution some day might be to eliminate it. In terms of mass and projec- tion, she did not giant to give the wrong signal that Council would give by approving the closure at that time. Council Member Bechtel supported the motion. A park existed about two blocks away on Grant Avenue. She was concerned about the proposal to swap the land where the park and ride lot was presently located because the County spent a long time trying to clear the. commercial buildings in order to put the to there. The thought of putting more commercial on the busy corner was inappropriate. Council Member Cobb opposed the project when it went through and believed it was a monument to the fact that the RM--5 zone needed to be eliminated. MO1IOM PASSED unanimously.. 14. SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM REHABILITATION PROJECT BASIN 8073 EXCEPTION PERMIT TO CITY NOISE STANDARDS (1401.01/1071) Vice Mayor Sutorius asked if any reactions were received. City Manager Bill Zaner said none. MO ACTION TAMP 16. CONSIDERATION OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - LANDFILL CAPACITY 0 2-01) (CMR 14 8: ) City Manager Bill Zaner said the item was an attempt to coordinate activities with other cities in order to acquire without undue competition landfill capacity coming on line in San Jose. $OTIQU$ Cassell Member Levy moved, seconded by Sutorius, to adept tbe staff re on.tndetion to approve the Memorandum ►f Understanding and periit Palo Alto to join this effort. ROTIO ; mug naaaimouldy, 58-310 9/21/87 17. REQUEST OF COUNCIL MEMBER ELLEN FLETCHER RE REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON REDUCING HAZARDOUS WASTES (1 O-01) Manilas Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Reosel, that the City of Palo Alto co-sponsor the Regional Workshop an Reducing Uazardo s Wastes with the Local Government Commission. MOTION PASS= unanimously. Council Member Fletcher commented that all City Council Members and Palo Alto staff were invited to attend the work- shop without a fee, but registration forms were requi..red. 18. REPORT OF VICE MAYOR JACK SUTO.RIUS RE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY (NCPA) ANNUAL MEETING IN SANTA CL RA ARA A ON SEPTEMBER 24 AND Vice Mayor Sutorius said he left at Council places that eve- ning a press release (on file in the City Clerk's office) covering the NCPA annual, meeting to be held at the Santa Clara Convention Center with the full agenda. He strongly_ encouraged his colleagues to take advantage of the meeting. NO ACTION TAKEN ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12.10 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: Mayor 58-311 9/21187