Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-05-14 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTEt Regular Me ng Monday, May 14, 1984 ITEM CITY OF Pill (_0 ALTO PAGE Oral Communications 4 5 1 4 Approval of Minutes of April 9, 1984 4 5 1 4 Consent Calendar_ 4 5 1 4 Peferral 4 5 1 4 Action 4 5 1 4 Item 01, Foothill Park Erosion Prnject Phase 4 5 1 4 I - Authorization for Change Order Item 02, Ordinance re Civic Center Combining District Regulations Item #3, Ordinance re Zone Classification of Property Known as 390 Page P1111 Road Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #4, PUBLIC HEARING: Adopting 1984-85 Community Development Block Grant Program Item #5, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning 4 5 1 5 Commission Recommendations re Zoning Ordinance Changes Item 06. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning 4 5 1 9 Commission Recommendation re Draft 1985 -?O00 Housing Element Amendment to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Recess from 9:17 p.m. to 9:35 p.m. Request to Bring Forward Item #10, Instru- ment Approach to Palo Alto Airport Item #10, Request of Councilmember Fletcher re "Instrument Approach" to Palo Alto Airport Item #7, 'Report' from .Council Legis1&tive Committee.re Age Discrimi-nation in Housing Item 98, Report from Council Legislature ComMittee re S8 1547 (Greene) Preempt Local Design, Approval, and Inspection of: Essential Services Buildings Item 09, Report from Coun01.. Legislative Co itte re. SCR74; (Foran) Ate lutiOn Cal l i,ng -- ; for 'Metropolitan Transpor's-tfon Commission Study of Mass Transit Ser,v1_ce. in - the San Jose/San, Francisco Corridor. Item #1°1, Request of Councilmember- SOtorius,, re City Council Meeting of.. May 29, 1984 Adjourhment at -I1:-4 4 5 1 4 4 5 1 4 4 5 1 5 4 5 1 5_- 4 5 2 8 4 5 4 0 4.5 4 0 4 5 4 2 4' 5 4 2 4 5 4 3 Regular Meeting Monday May 14, ,1984 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at 7:40 p.m, PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb (arrived 7:46 p.m.), Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, Witherspoon, Woolley JOINT MEETING WITH ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARJ Maycr Klein announced that a special joint meeting was held with the Architectural Review Board in the Council Conference Room at' 6:30 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 1984 Counci l member Sutorius submitted the following correction: Page 4410, paragraph 2, line 2, word "no," should be "yes." MOTION: Counc i 1 .ember Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the minutes of April 9, 1984, as corrected, MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved seconded by Levy, approval of Consent Calendar Items 1-3. Referral None Action ITEM ,#1 FOOTHILL PARK EROSION PROJECT PHASE I - AUTHORIZATION FOR , �t i - �'m.`... Staff recommends that Council authorize a change order to the contract with Keyco Engineering Corporation in the amount of $5,000 to complete the Phase,I contract. ITEM #2, ORDINANCE RE CIVIC CENTER COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. ORDINANCE 3531 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF TIT-trirTrunto ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING. CODE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 18.79 CIVIC CENTER COMBINIld DISTRICT IC REGULATIONS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 20`.0R (SETBACK LINES) TO ADD A SPECIAL SETBACK IM THE CIVIC CENTER AREA (1st Reading 4/3©/84, PASSED 9-0) ITEM #3, ORDINANCE RE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS ORDINANCE 3532 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL • OF TWCTrirmerlilto ALTO AMENDING SECTION 11,00.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE` ZONING RAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY.. KNOWN AS 390 PAGE MILL ROAD FROM CN TO RN -5' (1st Reading 1/30/84, PASSED 9-0) MOTION PASSE unanimously, se iii?T lei ii PASSED Cobb ii �l �r lit■ AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Councilmember Sutorius added Item #11, re May 29 City Council meeting. 1 1 ITEM #4, PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTING 1984-85 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City Planner Glenn Miller said action by the Council would enable staff to. file an official application with the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the 1984-&5 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open, and having no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Councilmember Woolley movA, seconded by Sutorius, approval of the resolution. RESOLUTION 6253 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF ALO ALTO APPROVING THE USE OF 1984-85 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. ITEM #5, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS RE Councilmember- Renzel asked regarding residential care homes for the nonambulatory, how the line was drawn between those who could not hear, those who used a cane or walker, and those who were bedridden the latter of which required more employees, and might change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Miller- clarified that "ambulatory" meant "able to walk," and was the criterion applied, Councilmember Renzel said the amendment would permit nonambula- tory care, bat did not distinguish between technically ri inambula-- tory and bedridden. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said those who were ambulatory were presently not restricted by the ordinance, and there was no change for those in the nonambulatory category. Councilmember Renzel said the staff report defined "residential care home" as the us.e of a dwelling unit for the care of up to Si;:: ambulatory patients. Mr, Chalmers Smith, a Palo Alto attorney, requested the definition be changed to allow the housing of non - ambulatory patients, but in order to be considered ambulatory, the Fire Department required a person to be able to evacuate a building within seven minutes without assistance She was con- cerned about the impacts of a. bedridden nonambulatory person, where one-to-one -care was required. Mr. Brown said the Fire Code would be most restrictive regarding ambulatory versus nonambulatory. If in -patient medical supervision was required on a continual basis,•the home would be reclassified as a convalescent hospital which was not permitted in the R--1 district. Councilmember Renzel clarified the distinction that bedridden was housed in. a convalescent hospital. She asked at what point the classification occurred, and the basis for enforcement. If some- one bought a property and developed a facility, then added a round-the-clock nursing facility, would the use permit be revoked. Mr, Miller said a use periait wars issued for a residential care home, and if the facility no longer fell within the category due to in -patient medical care, the use permit would be revoked and the operation discontinued. Councilmember Renzel asked how long it took to abate non- conforming uses. City Attorney Diane Leo said it depended on the use. First there was a notice of noncompliance, and a hearing. The City would probably obtain an injunction from the court and not pursue the criminal remedy in such a situation. She estimated it would take 30 to 90 days, depending on the Civil Calendar. Councilmember Renzel was concerned that the neighborhood not become a parking lot while the City waited for a court date. Ms. Lee said the City would obtain an injunction and since there would not be much discovery, the matter would be heard immedi- ately. Councilmember .Renzel referred to changing the second story construction above the first floor where the setbacks were substandard, and asked if it meant that with a four -foot setback, one could build 16 feet high and four feet away from the property line, and then go pup one on one. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said one could build from the side setback as ling as it complied with the daylight plane. Councilmember Renzel was concerned about seeing 16 -foot buildings, eight feet apart. Mr. Brown said it was a possibility. Councilmember Renzel referred to item 7, Maximum Side Yard Setbacks in the IM District and asked whether it should read "Minimum Side Yard" when adjacent to RE, R-1; R-2 or RM zones. The zoning was fairly restrictive adjacent to other residential zones. Mr. Freeland said a minimum was listed as 20 feet, and the same sentence continued "but not less than SO feet." Councilmember Renzel asked whether it was intended to read it was normally 20 feet, but when abutting those zones, it should be 50 feet. Mr. Brown said if that was the case, it would probably be in the special requirement section at the end of the ordinance section, which dealt with situations where zoning abutted a residential district, It was located under site development regulations Councilmember Renzel asked if the old zoning ordinances had a minimum setback adjacent to residential zones. Mr. Brown said no. Councilmember Bechtel believed the change in item 2, Use Category of "Credit Union," would cause more problems than if it were left status quo. She asked if the change was proposed .in response to a request, or whether it was a staff idea. Mr. Freeland said the idea arose in connection •with staff's recon- sideration of parking requirements for financial institutions. Credit unions were in an entirely different use category than all other financial institutions for no good reason. The change was in .the interest of tidiness, and it would not impose a hardship on an existing operation unless it wanted to expand because some would have to apply for an additional use permit. 4 5 1 6 5/14/84 Councilmember Bechtel believed it was another bureaucratic regula- tion. The staff report mentioned six credit union, --one in City Hall, Syntex, and the Co-op, and she asked if the other three were company unions. Mr. Freeland said the Co-op Credit Union was available to the community, but basically was not associated with a business or governmental institution. The others were a part of a particular company or an institution. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open, and receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing dosed. Mayor Klein suggested Council proceed on the items in the order listed on the reverse of the face page of the staff report. A vote would be taken on all items in one motion, and changes should be in the form of amendments. MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Sutorius, approval of the zoning and subdivision ordinance changes as contained in CMR:275:4. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE O ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING DEFINI- TIONS OF DAT CARE CENTER, DAT CARE HOME, FINANCIAL SER- VICE, GENERAL BUSINESS OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME, SETBACK LINE AND REGARDING YARD ENCROACHMENTS IN THE R-1 DISTRICT, MAXIMUM SETBACKS IN THE LM DISTRICT, PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND NOTICING REQUIREMENTS" Item I, Definition of "Day Care Center" and "D y Gare Hanes': Councilmember Renzel said the previous ordinance defined day care centers as a conditional use, and staff defined the conditions The new proposal essentially relied on current licensing proce- dures t:; provide the conditions under which day care centers were a permitted use, and she asked if previously, staff applied their own conditions to conditional use permits such as hours of operation, parking requirements etc. Mr. Brown said yes. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved to refer to the Planning Commission whether any criterion should be set in the zoning ordi- nance for day care centers as a permitted use within the guide- lines of State law, AMENDMENT DIED for lack of a second. Item 2, Use Category of "Credit Union" Councilmember Bechtel said the issue was being needlessly compli- cated, The City's credit union was a simple operation.. Credit unions in manufacturir,.buildings might also be simple, and rather than change the definition of' all credit unions, a use permit might be required when it was open to the general public such as. the Co-op Credit union, which was similar to another kind of financial institution. In-house credit unions,- would not be included, and she asked whether a definition was necessary to distinguish between in-house credit unions and those open to the general publ ie. Mr. Freeland said the matter was not of great import and he had no: problem if Council preferred to leave it out. It might be com- plicated to differentiate between sizes, eend ehe added that the "closet" operation in City Hall was not the City of Palo Alto Employees' Credit Union main office, which was on Elwell Court in the San Antonio Bayshore industrial area. t/ 4)8 AMFWINENTt Colanei lme her Rechtel Category of "Credit Union." mnv!►d to delete Item 2, AMENDMENT DIED for lack of a second. Item 3, Patient Limitations in Residential Care Homes Councilmember Renzel asked if currently there was a limitation on the number of employees in residential homes. Mr. Brown said the City set no maximum, and minimum requirements were set by'the State. Councilmember Renzel said it was a potential problem but if it became wide -scale, she presumed the City could modify the ordinance. The item discussed groups of six and did not discuss large facilities. She would not make an amendment. 1222=13=11. IIttem 6, Vertical Additions above Existing Noncomplying Single f a mTI a n c e b�6�1®�YlIRiY I.�� �- P Councilmember Renzel said she believed the daylight plane was gen- erous, but predicated on the minimum six foot side yard, which allowed a certain amount of open space between properties. Prop- erties closer than that would change the character of a neighbor- hood if they could go up as high as 16 feet, four inches from the property .line. The current daylight plane was predicated on wider setbacks, and if the City wanted to permit vertical additions closer than the normal setback, it should have a lesser daylight plane or start at a lower level to preserve an amount of space people expected in neighborhoods_ AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved to delete Item 6 Vertical Additions above Existing Noncomplying Single Family Residences. AMENDMENT DIED for lack of a second. Item 7 Maximum Side Yard Setbacks in the 1.M District AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved regarding maximum side yard setbacks in the LM District to include a temporary minimum side yard setback of 50 feet when the side abuts an RE, R-1 or R-2 zone. Councilmember Renzel said if it were found that such protection was unnecessary, Council could consider its deletion. There were special protections for residential zones abutting all nonresiden- tial zones, and if there was no other special protection from the LM zone, it should be built in. AMENDMENT DIED for lack of a second. Councilmember Renzel asked if there was any other special require- ment for adjoining R-1 zones_ Mr. Brown said no. The requirement was when an LM District abutted a residential district, a minimum setback of 20 feet -of landscaping to act as a buffer was -required. There was also a height limitation of 25_ feet .where it abutted single family residences. Councilmember Renzel suggested the motion be -divided,-or that Councilmembers be able to register "no" votes on particular ele- ments. Mayor Klein said that was the purpose of going through the items point by point. Councilmember Renzel`s position was on record,. and so he saw no point to dividing the question. 4 5 1 _8 5/14/84 Counci lmember• Renzel askew• to be recorded as opposing the change to the daylight plane.within nonconforming setbacks. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel voting "no," regarding the change to the dayligNt plane within nonconforming setbacks. ITEM #6, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSIa RECOMMENDATION RE irrnMrirrlynnnir-L City Planner, Glenn Miller said the resolution attached to the staff report should be entitled Exhibit "A." The Municipal Code required that any changes or amendments to the document approved by the Planning Commission be referred back to the Planning Commission, and the Council should --adopt the Housing Element, with Any changes it desired. Those items would be referred to the Planning Commission and then returned. to the Council. If the State requested changes which required an amendment to the Rousing Element, such items would also be referred to the Planning Commission and returned to the City Council. The State•contacted staff by telephone and was positive about the Housing Element, but staff would feel more comfortable upon receipt of written confir- mation from the State, which was promised for that evening. . ....... Vice Mayor Levy asked whether the Mayor intended to itemize the matter or whether random questions were in order. Mayor Klein said questions would be first. He did not expect to go through the document in detail, but to discuss those items Councilmembers wanted to bring te their colleagues' attention. Vice Mayor Levy asked if the document contained a specific state- ment about Palo Alto's population. There were statements about its apparent growth, and he asked if a policy statement. was contained in the housing section that Palo Alto should not grow beyond a certain number of housing units. Mr. Miller said there were no specific numbers. There was a new fourth objective of the Comprehensive Plan . ., passed by the Planning Commiss4_on, that Palo Alto should attempt to increase the housing supply in order to lessen the jobs -housing imbalance in the City, which in no event should be allowed to worsen. It was a philo- sophical statement, and gave only projections in terms of a number or a goal.. Vice Mayor Levy asked whether it was appropriate to have a spe- cific statement of the Council's intent that the housing units not exceed a certain number. Mr. Miller said the Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) numbers passed by the Council were included, but they gave a minimum number of housing units. Vice Mayor Levy asked if there was any legal or other reason why there should not be a philosophical policy statement about the size, Mr. Miller did not think there was any legal reason to preclude such a statement. The Council was required by State law to include any projections provided by ABAG or make its changes in those ABAG numbers known, and back them up with reasons. Vice Mayor -Levy said Council could then make a statement that it be?ieved the ABAG numbers represented the maximum growth for the City. Mr. Freeland said that could be done. He envisioned a conflict with the State at some point in the future because it normally required that an effort be made to satisfy -a certain housing objective. Phrhaps in 20 years, Palo Alto would be, at its fixed limit but still receive directives from the State to do more 4 5 1 9 5/14/84 Virg Mayor levy said he was crncerned by a number of statements in the Housing Element that additions could only occur in various places, and believed an overall statement was appropriate. Page 18 had a footnote to the chart that only "high income" households could afford certain things, and there were definitions for other types of households. He asked for definition of "high income." Mr. Miller said there was no specific definition, but the Comprehensive Plan stated that above 150 percent of the County median was considered "high income." "Middle income" was considered 120 to 150 percent. Vice Mayor Levy pointed out a disparity between page 23 and the footnote on page 18. According to the figures on page 23, many of the figures shown on page 18 were affordable to moderate and middle income families. Mr. Miller said that was true if the interest rates were favorable and the family size was such to accommodate them. Vice Mayor Levy was thinking of current interest rates for a family of four or five. Mr. Miller said some households below the 150 percent level met some of those qualifications, but the table was not changed from the previous Housing Element. Incomes had increased since 1980, and it should be adjusted, and the language changed Vice Mayor Levy said page 28, stated that "these older homes were usually less expensive per square foot." He realized the language was carried over, and from its context it appeared to refer• to rentals. Mr. Miller believed that was true. Vice Mayor Levy suggested the language be clarified. Mr. Miller said it could be clarified. It could a.so be said that new condominium 'housing on the ownership side was perhaps more expensive than the older housing in the downtoten area and should be looked at in more detail. Vice Mayor Levy said on page 33, at the end of paragraph 2, it stated that over 350 subsidized jobs were provided annually, and he asked for clarification that it meant 350 subsidized services were performed. Initially he interpreted it as meaning the City subsidized 350 employment jobs. Mr. Miller said it referred to services provided --each service was called a "job." Vice Mayor Levy asked for comment on the paragraph being added to the middle of page 35, that in 1980 over 35 percent of the total households paid over 25 percent of their monthly income to housing, and conversely, 65 percent of total households paid less than 25 percent. He believed it meant housing in Palo Alto was exceedingly affordable to most people who lived there, but was apparently not the intention. Mr. Miller said it was a case where he responded directly\ to the State requirement to include the exact number of households which paid over 25 percent of monthly income for housing. The whole paragraph included data exactly as required by the State. Vice Mayor Levy said Palo .Alto was usually °considered too "expen- sive and i f present owners did not start to buy or rent 15 or 20 ►ears ago they could not afford to live in the' City. The data seemed to indicate other factors were not explored in terms of -the community's affordability to most of its residents, and he asked for comment. 4 5 2 0 5/14/84 Mr. Miller said staff had impressions about the difficulty of affording housing in Palo Alto. The State's major interest in the Housing Element was to see low and moderate income bracket house- holds, both those living and those working in the community, addressed, and staff looked at it from that standpoint. Vice Mayor Levy said regarding the City's Below Market Rate (3MR) Program, its policy was t.o require one BMR for each 10 units under construction. For a project of 14 units, the City would require one BMR unit and in -lieu payments for the four other units, giving a total of 0.4. He asked if in -lieu payments were required if nine unit, were constructed. Mr. Miller said in -lieu payments were not triggered unless the development was for 10 or more units. Vice Mayor Levy clarified the City would have to add a new concept. in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan if it wanted every developer, regardless of the development size, to contribute to the BMR program. Mr. Miller said that was correct. He clarified the possibility that the BMR unit program could be triggered for developments of less than 10 units udder other programs in the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Levy said page 45, paragraph 1, stated the BMR unit could be provided elsewhere in the City. He understood that to mean a developer could buy a unit elsewhere in the City and pro- vide it as the BMR unit. Mr. Miller said it was subject to staff or City Council approval of the unit in regard to size, condition, etc. It was really of lesser priority. Vice Mayor Levy asked if a developer could buy an inexpensive unit elsewhere in the City that would already qualify as a BMR unit in terms of its market rents. Assuming it was in satisfactory condi- tion, the unit could be donated to the City, with no net increase in the BMR units available in the City. Mr. Miller said it was a possibility. Vice Mayor Levy asked since limited equity -housing co-ops were considered for inclusion in the Housing El, =gent, how it specifi- cally guaranteed a limited equity housing co-op to provide satisfactorily tow prices and proper lower to middle income tenants. By the nature of program 12, he asked about the implied commitments of City resources. Mr. Miller said nothing was implied of .a dis•ect City resource before an actual project came forth. Staff believed cooperative housing could be a tool to provide long -tern, affordable housing, and the City's in -lieu housing fund might be appropriate to finance the land for such a project. The Council would evaluate the matter to'see whether its long-term benefits justified the expenditure of . in -lieu housing funds-. It was a possibility, but there were currently no applications in front ofe the City for cooperative housing. Although not a new concept nation-wide, it was innovative on the Peninsula. In terms of ensuring that copperative housing was maintained, -there were two different types of cooperatives. Many market rate cooperatives were on the East Coast., anal limited equity cooperatives were governed by State law, and the equity was controlled over time. The overall development could increase, and- the charges for_ new tenants or owners,.<:_;was controlled over time. He was not an expert on the law, but it. had affordability factors built fn. -They were discussin) limited equity. 4 5 2 1 5/14/84 Vice Mayor Levy asked if limited equity cn-operatives were limited to low and middle income families by their nature or whether a group of higher income people could put together a limited housing cooperative. Mr. Miller did not believe the law held it to low and middle income families, and he deferred to Denny Petrosian, President of Cooperative Housing, for response. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue said she believed nothing in the law held limited equity cooperatives to low and moderate income occupants. Cooperative housing in Palo Alto limited its activity to promoting limited equity cooperatives to low and moderate loeu:ne people, but language could be added to say "shall encourage limited equity housing cooperatives for the low and moderate income populous." Vice Mayor Levy asked how residents were selected and if there were guarantees for conformance to the same essential guidelines for the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC). Ms. Petrosian said yes. She envisioned working with the PAHC to set up guidelines to conform to County, HUD, or any other regulations that .were appropriate to denote low and moderate incomes. The selection would also be based on .interest in living in a limited equity cooperative. Vice Mayor Levy said page 48, discussed the study of surplus school sites to determine the possibility of more affordable housing, and he asked if it was a possibility without representing some kind of discrimination. Mr. Miller said the criterion was that surplus school sites repre- sented one of the last remaining sources of land in the City. The Planning Commission wanted to ensure that surplus school sites, as they became available, were et least looked at in terms of `pro- viding affordable housing_ The price would not be different, unless it came under State law from what a private owner would pay for use of the property if the School District sold it. Councilmemoer Sutorius said the report stated in 1980, Palo Alto had 2:,750 housing units. The current version of th i{. Comprehensive Plan said in 1975, Palo Alto had 23,800 housing units, and he asked if, _du'ing a five or six year period there was a negative 50 housing units. Mr. Miller said the figure cited in the existing Comprehensive Plan came from a special' housing census. He did not want to ques- tion the figure, but was confident about the 1980 figure, which came from the 1980 census. Between 1.970 and 1980 the housing development showed a 5 percent increase of only 1,147 units which ;night have occurred during the early part of that decade, with the later part having more demolitions than new housing. He did not have specific figures, and believed there might be a slight error in the 1975 special census. Councilmember Sutorius referred to the 930 apartments for married students at .Stanford, which was shown as 1,450 in the current Comprehensive Plan, and asked whether it was a clarification. Mr. Miller said that data was recently generated by :the Housing Office at Stanford and he was -confident about it. Councilrnember Sutorius referred to page 71, which related to the .ABAG numbers for total .housing units and those that should come in at particular income levels, and asked if programs listed under the existing category --Housing Improvement Loan Program, Shared Housing Matches, Section 8 Existing or Voucher Recipients and the Rental Housing Acquisition Program --could be properly credited against the /WAG numbers and income level when accomplished. 4 5 2 2 5/14/64 Mr. Miller said the Housing Improvement Loans Program would not, ands. Section 8 and the Rental Housing Acquisition Program were in a gray area. The numbers spoke to an increase in affordable housing - units, not necessarily by building new units, but by adding units to the housing stock which met certain income criteria. The shared Housing Match was also in a gray area, and he could not give a definitive answer, It was not staff's intent to include them, and the items under new construction were those that most directly met ADAG numbers. Councilmember Sutorius said if the gray areas could be made black or .preferably white, then the Shared Housing Matches predicted at 3I0, the Rental Housing Acquisition and Section 8 Existing or Voucher Recipient, each predicted at 30, would be a significant contribution towards achieving the goals and objectives they absorbed via State law and ABAG numbers. Mr, Miller agreed. The Shared Housing Program pointed up the dif- ficulty _in strictly using such numbers. Shared Housing repre- sented natchee that might exist'for three months, three years, or six years. There was a definitional problem of what constituted an increase when looking at programs that might not add to the housing stock for low to moderate income more than temporarily. Councilmember Sutorius said staff cautioned against possible addi- tions and deletions, and he believed staff might want to consider its recommendaton if logically on page 30, there was an addition of the Neighborhood Transition Combining District (T) and the RMO, as applied currently on College Terrace. Examples of the most recent actions lent themselves to support such policies and the associated programs, He believed the RMD was cited by Councilmember Woolley at a February Council meeting as appropri- ate and he agreed. Councilmember Witherspoon asked for clarification -regarding staff's statement that there were possible situations where less than 10 units would be required to provide BMR or in -lieu payments. Page 41 discussed projects that required demolition of existing rental housing, and she asked for clarification where one of four situations had to be satisfied, One was that the number of rental units to be provided be equal to the number of existing rental units. It was not clear for how long the developer had to provide those units, and if he could rent there for one year, then sell them. Mr. Miller believed the rental units would have to^be provided on a permanent basis in a situation where there was no condominium map so they could not be converted. He asked if she referred to the possibility of being torn down at a future period of time. Councilmember Witherspoon said she spoke of the developer keeping two units and renting them for a year to satisfy City require- ments, and then selling them: Mr. _Freeland said rental units, once established, could only -be converted to sales units through a condominium conversion process, which was' the peOtectlon. Once the new units were established as rentals, they_would have the same status as any other rentals and were likely to remain as such. Councilmember Witherspoon asked who would own .them. Mr. Freeland said the property owner would own the units. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified that the property owner would have to retain ownershipor sell them as units, Mr. Freeland said the property owner could sell the whole parcel, but the units would remain rentals unless subdivided through a condominium conversion. /t4384 Counc i lmember W I therspooh said she did not understand how it worked. She asked about the situation where someone applied for a subdivision map for eight condominium units and considered replacing one rental unit and giving the City two If the person subdivided the whole property and gave two rental units to satisfy the City, and the others were sold to individuals, how would the City assure the units stayed on the rental market because an owner ,could not be required to hold unwanted rental units. Mr. Freeland said his answer did not envision a mixed type of project, Staff had not faced that situation, and assumed a deed restriction of some sort would be required. Councilmember Witherspoon believed if it was to be the City's policy, someone.might ask tomorrow for instructions in terms of implementation, and the City should know its course of action. Where people were required to satisfy one of the four situations in order to demolish existing rental housing, another possibility was to negotiate an in --lied payment or somehow satisfy the City's BMR requirement. Page 45 provided the formula for in -lieu payments based on sales price, and she asked for clarification that to build eight condominium units, one would be required by the City to pay three percent of the actual sales price of each unit as the in -lieu payment. Mr. Miller said that was the intent. Councilmember Cobb said page 43 at the end of Program 11 stated "that for each BMR unit provided, the developer shall be permitted " to build one additional market rate unit u}, to a ,,,umaximum unit increase of the allowable zoning of 15 percent and consistent with all other zoning requirements:" He clarified that "consistent with all other zoning requirements" allowed more density, but parking requirements, height limitations and setbacks etc. were not allowed to be overridden. If a property had other inherent limitations, those still applied, and he was particularly con- cerned about the parking issue. Mr. Miller said it was a major discussion at earlier stages, and the language was included to ensure clarity. Councilmember Cobb said page 49 under Program 16 stated "zoning for affordability is a new concept...which would establish flex- ible zoning density levels for specific sites allowing a greater number of total housing units depending on the number of lower cost units provided by the developer." It appeared to do the same o type c t -p- f thing without the limitation that it be consistent with all other zoning requirements, and he believed it was a necessary - addition. Mr. Miller said absent an actual case history he believed it would come in under a PC for such projects where there would be flexible zoning. Under a PC, all the requirements would be set up front. Councilmember Cobb said if the appii.cation wsd made for a PC, the City could set the requirements as it went along, but if it was an unforeseen situation and came in under existing zoning, the City would be.in a situation of not being able to observe existing parking, etc. Mr, Miller believed the existinga zoning would be the maximum zoning level and it Would have to comply with all other zoning requirements. Councilmember Cobb said the language regarding the la surplus school sites stated "each of _these sites should be e`aluated_ :o , deterrine, an appropriate affordable housing component before. rezoning." Me understood that meant there would be..an of ordable housing component before At was rezoned: and hei imagined . - 4 5 .2 4 5/14/84 situations where affordable housing_ might he appropriate nn some sites. and other sites where it did not work except in the context of the BMR program because of the attempt to do things to preserve open space, He believed the statement was extraordinarily strong and might conflict with other requirements in the Comprehensive Plan to preserve open space and recreational uses. Mr. Miller said the satisfaction of a BMR requirement was an affordable housing component to the project. He was insure about the possibility of school sites not having any BMR requirements. Councilmember Cobb interpreted the language to go beyond the BMR requirement. Page 57, Program 26, said "consider more development of residential units on air space over selected public and private parking lots." The description paragraph in talking about the project currently under way stated "the City will evaluate this project to determine how successful the air rights concept is in its application." He interpreted the second part to mean if it worked, the City would consider more and he read the program to say the City would consider more. The program was not mentioned in the old Comprehensive Plan :and he asked if it was new. Me. Miller said the -air rights concept was mentioned and was adjusted to consider the possibility of more if the first project was considered a success. When- the language first went to the - Planning Commission, .it said to "pursue" more and .was changed to "consider" to not be tied in. Councilmember Renzel believed by its nature, limited equity coop- eratives would somewhat- retard the rate of increase in the prices of the housing. A suggestion was made about restricting the pro- gram to limited equity cooperatives which dealt. with low and mod- erate income units. She preferred the text to later consider City involvement only -when it received lower and moderate income housing because it would want to encourage limited equity coopera- tives in -any form in terms of zoning and not providing impedi- ments. She asked if her understandings were correct. Fis. Petrosian believed Councilmember Renzel's understandings were correct, and it would be appropriate to encourage limited equity cooperatives in general. Mr. Miller asked if there might be situations in limited equity cooperatives where it would be desirable for the financing of the project to have some middle income in order to help subsidize the loan, and whether the City be precluded by including such a state- ment. Ms. Petrosian said it was possible with a limited equity coopera- tive, the same as it would be for other kinds of subsidized housing developments. Mr. Miller s -aid in the City's low and moderate income projects, there was the need oftentimeSt for middle income titiecause the fed- eral subsidies were -not involved any more. He d d not believe City involvement -should be precluded in those cases. Ms. Petrosian said in that event it might be better to withdraw her earlier suggestion that language be added to specify low and moderate inedine to --th-e_ program, It was pretty much a self- regulating proposition. Councilmember Fletcher said the top of page 57 spoke about mixed uses encouraging residential uses in commercial area, and said "these gains would be made at the cost of some additional traffic congestion," and the end of the second to last paragraph on the next page said "this occupancy pattern could help employers recruit reduce travel costs: for employees and reduce commute;_. traffic." She believed it was a contradiction because mixed use by ,its nature reduced traffic congestion. Page 61, paragraph two, talked about utilities and lower rates for the various utilities, and the last statement said "it was equal for gas," She did not believe it was up-to-date because she believed the City was almost to the point where its gas rates would be slightly lower than PG&E's. Page 63 spoke about 3,000 solar installations being a goal for 1986, and she believed it might be useful to have how many were presently installed because the text lacked a point of reference. Mayor Klein said page 3, paragraph two, stated "...in no event should the jobs -housing imbalance be allowed to worsen," and to some degree the City was allowing the jobs -housing balance to worsen. He asked if the language was too strong and whether there were legal implications about having language the City could not live up to. Planning Commissioner Pat Cullen said the Commission debated the particular paragraph at length, and a couple of Commissioners wanted stronger language that the City would not allow additional development without additional housing being provided at the rate of the development, which others believed was unrealistic. The proposed language was a compromised statement indicating the City would not promote additional development without taking care that housing was also provided, but the Commission did not believe it was An the position to dictate the rate of development or housing. The statement was philosophical in nature and not meant to be taken literally. Mr. Freeland said it appeared to be a strong statement, and he imagined projects being challenged on the basis of adding jobs in a manner disproportionate to housing development in the City and being denied. City Attorney Diane Lee said the section was entitled "Palo Alto's Housing Objectives," and as such, the City was not substantially bound except in terns of the way it viewed another objective. For that reason, the fact that the statement was contained in the Comprehensi►ve Plan did not mean the City could legally disapprove a project which in some sense worsened the jobs -housing imbalance. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. Richard Roe, 720 Kendall Avenue, supported the document before the Council. He was pleased with the Planning Commission and staff recommendation, but after hearing all the comments, he would have preferred to not use the word "affordable" alone because the question was "affordable to whom." It seemed each time the term was used, clarification was needed as to whom it Was affordable. The Human Relations Commiss{on (HRC) was concerned that there be more housing affordable to low and moderate income families because there was plenty of housing affordable to others. Jeffrey Hook, 302 College, said the bulk of the 1980 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element was aimed ate providing low cost housing which the ordinary person could not afford. He wanted to live in a com- munity where there was low cost housing, but believed Palo Alto had expensive and unaffordable housing because of too 1ManY -jobs. The Bay Area had natural eapital in terms of its geography and benign climate, and for that reason, it created a housing demand. As long as the city allowed the ,fobs -housing imbalance to grow, BMR units were inconsequential. He recommended that Council set'a population ceiling or total resources converted. The City could accurately meter" the amount of electricity, gas and water•.. used, and by setting a firm limit on how much of those resources the City was allowed to use. a disincentive would be created f,or people to move to - Pa l o Alto and an- ,incentive to take their ,jobs, elsewhere. Those who believed Palo Alto reached its carrying capacity found the perspective of taking responsibility for the indefinite futureof the City's' resources. 1 1 1 Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said commencing with the last word on the first line of page 5 it read, "No market sate apartmerut5 were built since 1972." About a dozen were built in Palo Alto Square when the area was expanded with the Jacobs' office development; in the late 1970's, Naphtali Knox said there were approximately 15 or 20 market rate apartments scattered throughout the City; and 20 were currently under construction at Terman. Strictly speaking, the City should include all the cottages built under the cottage zone ordinance as market rate apartments because it was their use. He believed it would be fair to_ say less than 50 were built since 1972, but it was not fair to say ,none. Program 5 on page 32 referred to housing rehabilitation an single family areas, and he believed it should be expanded to say "in residential areas to encompass both single and multiple family housing He recognized that multiple family developments did not previously avail them- selves of rehabilitation money, but it might become more appropri-- ate in the future to do so. That should be a goal because most current standard housing was multiple family units. Program 11 on page 43 was previously discussed by several Councilrmembers, and he was concerned about the present wording. For about 10 years, it was City. policy to require 10 percent BMR units for projects above a certain size, and the way it was presently worded, if a developer came in and gave the City the existing 10 percent BMR units, he would get a bonus of one market rate unit for each BMR unit. It allowed a bonus for doing something that was presently required, and he did not believe that was tie intent. He believed it should be modified that for each BMR unit provided above the 10 percent required, the developer shall Joe permitted to build one additional market rate unit. He had some of the same concerns as Councilmember Cobb about Program 14, surplus school sites, and although unsure about the best wording for a modification, he sug- gested it he modified to say "evaluate the possibility of pro- viding affordable in preference to ;market rate housing" rather than to "study" the possibility. He believed the intent was to get across the concept that the City much preferred affordable housing than market rate housing and he preferred a development like Terman going into Crescent Park as opposed to a development like Crescent Park k going into the Cees' ent Park site. Program 16,. amounted to a floating zone and was open-ended. He envisioned a dev-eloper saying he wot!'J provide housing which was extremely affordable to people a,aith eo more -than 25 or 30 percent of the average income and se could therefore be allowed five or six times the normal densitymi He did not believe it was the City's intent to stack more low cost units together because to do so to any extent created an instant slum:. He suggested adding the sentence "the increase in .density shall not exceed 25 percent of that allowed by the existing zoning," which would provide a cap and tie affordability to zoning_ . He believed they were talking about land use in zoning and it should be emphasized. He requested that Program 20, Rental Housing Acquisition Program, be modified to require that when rental housing was purchased it only be done if at least one-third or one-half of the units after purchase resulted in being affordable to low and moderate income house- holds. He spoke of a situation where 16 units were purchased, and iri the process of -purchasing and changing hands, (new cost basis, new mortgage) many units became less affordable to those who lived there, and people were priced out of existing housing. He spoke from personal experience because a relative lived An those units and had her .rent raised significantly. She now lived _on the Housl ng: Corporation side and paid about 30 percent more than., hi s other relatives who 1 i ved on- the free market side, People could be hurt by acquisitions for low income or restricted housing. - penny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Aver'ue, believed the language on page 3, 1...irt-no event should the jobs -housing irmlyalance be allowed to worsen" was .crucial in the -.element and the.. heart of the entire Camprehen_sive _P1an. The concept of the „Comprehensive Plan was to reprove --the Jobs -housing imbalance as the` hub from which all other elements radiated. If the jobs. -housing imbalance worsened, it degraded the environment --existing `housing--_ stock was the: heart 4 5 2 7 5,`14`/84 of the housing problem because new housing would riot add much. Trying to find housing in Palo Alto was like applying tor a job -- the person who bid the highest got the house. If 10 people were in line for a house including one or more families, two or more single families who shared the house could afford to bid the rent up and get it. Families could not compete. She urged the language be retained, and -language be added that consideration be given to severely restric.ing employment -growth until the housing vacancy rate reached at least three percent. Harrison Otis, 909 N. California Avenue, said his family lived for 56 years in Palo Al to. In the 1940's, housing in Crescent Park for a six -bedroom home sold for $10,000. Six years ago on the advice of his attorney he started t� remadei, and conformed to all City requirements. Before he was done he put $100,000 into a house which originally cost him $16,500. Young people graduated with degrees from 'Stanford and San Jose State and walked into $23,000_a year jobs but it took about 10 years to develop a sizable income, and earn about $65,000 to get into any housing in Palo Alto. He worked with the Federal Reserve to try and reduce interest and worked to keep interest rates down. He wanted to see children grow up and be able to buy housing in Palo Alto, and it could not be done a'c present. Palo Alto needed monetary help to supply housing. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing closed. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:17 p.m. TO 9:35 p.m. Councilmember Bechtel congratulated staff and the Planning Commission on an excellent job and for the invaluable public input. Good convents were made and overall the City had a good housing element. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the resolution adopting the 1985-2000 Housing Element as part of the Palo Alto Comprehensive ve Plan. RESOLUTION_ entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE ..O ALTO A©PTING A 1985-2000 HOUSING ELEMENT AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN" AMENDMENT: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, on page 5, first line, to change the last word no to "few." AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously-. - AMENDMENT: Council saeiber Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, on - page 32, middle of page,._under Program 5, to substitute "residen- tial areas" for "single family area " Councilmember Renzel believed it was simpler to delete "areas" to "encourage housing rehabilitation by continuing the City-wide inspection and enforcement program" which would cover all housing. Councilmember Bechtel chose to retain the proposed amendment. AMENDMENT PASSED unini.oasly►. AMENDMENT Cosaci lmeeber Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, an Page -43• Progra* 11, line 3, to insert after the word "provided" "abovethe, 10 percent requirement Mr. Freeland said the amendment introduced -a substantive char -0. The language came from the Housing Corporation with ,the, philosophy that it .-was bccosaing more difficult for the City to get : the: full 10 percent BMR units and was resorting to the 'deeper discount where the City took -.fewer -units and-in-lleuJees, It was believed that -some- relief in the present housing market might be necessary to get the BMR units in the first place 4.`5 2 8 S/14/84 1 Councilmember Renzel was concerned there was a point when the City went too far beyond its zoning regulations to make a functional and compatible community and provide "for sale" units which were priced too high anyway, and she was unwi l l l,ig to make the trade- off. She believed the City substantially watered down its BMR program over the years --20 percent to 10 to five percent with deeper discounts --and received less. She was concerned that next year the City would be asked to give two units for every one, and so far the City had 55 BMR units, and was bending further over to get fewer units which were too high priced and could not address the principal housing problem of rents. Councilmember Woolley said the projects produced by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) were of unquestionable quality and if the PAHC believed the change was necessary she supported its rec- ommendation and opposed the amendment. Councilmember Bechtel concurred that the PAHC projects were of unquestionable quality, and clarified her amendment that the City wanted BMR units, and as stated it the first sentence, not less than 10 percent of the units should be provided at below Market rates. She was concerned that the City get at least 10 percent because developers were opting for in -lieu payments instead of building housing, and it might ensure the City actually got units rather than money which was not usually enough. As she understood the report,: the City had more than 55 BMR units and many more were committed. Mayor Klein said the policy represented a modest change in the City s program. He clarified under the City's existing program, a developer who proposed an 1l -unit project would be required to provide one unit as a BMR. Under the new program, providing the one BMR unit would allow an additional unit to be built, and it would end up being a 12 -unit project because one was a BMR unit. Mr. Miller_ said that was correct. Under the existing program, a developer might only build nine units without the possibility of a density bonus. A number of developers could build 11 or 12 units, but built nine to avoid the BMR program. Mayor Klein clarified that a developer who could build 11 units under existing zoning could build 12, but could not build ,13 because it would be more than 15 percent above the maximum zoning density. Mr. Miller said it was correct if the developer met all other zoning requirements. Mayor Klein clarified that other applicable zoning requirements were sideyard setback, backyard setback , parking, daylight plane, and height restrictions. Mr. Miller said yes. Vice Mayor Levy clarified that elsewhere in the Housing Element. the City requested a 20. percent BMR contribution on five acres or more, Mr. Miller referred to page 46, Sites Larger than Five Acres and responded that developers who built on sites larger than .five acres were expected to provide more than 10 percent BMR or set aside land for assisted housing to be built by others. Vice Mayor Levy recalled numbers that were 15 or 20 percent. Mr. Miller said it was in the .existing Housing Element, and new guidelines were proposed by. the PAHC. Vice :Mayor Lenny .said the City was lowering. its BMR -requirement .from ten percent to nine percent., and developers were being_ ,14/8 1 1 1 given a density bonus. He believed it was generous particularly when on the larger sites, the City requested an increase nver the 10 percent. He opposed the concept and supported the amendment. Councilmember Sutorius opposed the amendment because of the PAHC's close involvement in the process over the entire period, and because it was a considered recommendation. The requirement that a development be consistent with all other zoning requirements in all cases was fair protection. The Planning Commission included two former members of the PAHC; and as a body was not noted for actions less than favorable towards the housing subject, and the matter was given fair consideration and passed. One of the ironies of the jobs -housing imbalance was that the City put burdens on those who provided the housing and looked with less intensity and certainty at those who provided the jobs. He believed Program 11 was appropriate and he did not support the amendment. Councilmember Bechtel clarified under the City's present rules, a 15 -unit project would not require two BMR units --only if more than 20 units were built. Mr. Miller said that was correct, but there would still be a .5. Councilmember Bechtel said she would oppose the amendment she moved. Councilmember Fletcher said during the last Council update of the Comprehensive Plan, she, attempted to include that anything under 10 in proportion to the size of the development would provide a BMR unit or in -lieu payments. She noticed many nine -unit condominium applications to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to avoid the BMR requirement. As long as it was within the zoning, she had no problem providing additional housing units, In the end the City wanted to reduce the jobs -housing imbalance, an.d she had no problem it some of the units were market rate. Many were rented, and she hoped the market would take care of things if the imbalance were reduced. Councilmember Renzel said she did not intend to impugn projects produced by the PAHC. The BMR program involved private projects, and marry were poorly designed at the City's regular density. If developers continued the_. pattern, the City would see continued poor designs and problems. It was easy to talk about getting one unit when the City was on the' fringe of a 9- versus 10 -unit project, but Stanford West was a much larger 1200 -unit project. The substantial increase in numbers and overall density in an area might be sensitive, and in terms of the bending and twisting done by the City over the years for the BMR program, 100 units were committed, and projects recently approved by the. Council would create a housing deficit that could not nearly be offset by the number of BMR units. She believed Council was dealing with the wrong end of the equation. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Levy and Renzel voting *aye." Councilmember Fletcher said page 42, Policy 7, referred to .spe- cifically encouraging developments for households with children, but there was no reference about how it might be accomplished. She believed it was appropriate to add that as much housing as possible, attractive to households with children be encouraged... Multi -family developments should provide open space areas suitable for childhood play. She said the "Greenhouse" had lawn areas and inner paths where children could ride their tricycles without traffic. The "Redwoods" did not have an inner pathway and there. was no place for children to play outside their units without being in the driveway or on El Camino. She did not intend to require playgrounds in all multi -family developments, but some space where children could.play. 82 AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, on page 43, to add Program 1DA to Policy 7, usi...zg language as follows: "To make multi -fully housing attractive for families with children, such housing should provide suitable open space areas for children's play." Councilmember Witherspoon asked if playing space for children was to be included in all multi --family projects. Councilmember Fletcher said yes, but it did not have to be spe- cifically a "playing area." It must be some space for children to play: outdoors. Councilmember Witherspoon agreed philosophically, but had problems applying it to all multi -family units especially those designated for seniors. She sal( it could be fine-tuned when the zoning ordinance returned. Mayor Klein asked how the amendment would apply to downtown areas where there was little space currently available. Councilmember Fletcher said most developments had some courtyard area and it could be a little concrete area where children could ride their tricycles. Vice Mayor Levy agreed with the concept but it was conceivable to have some projects where it could not be implemented. As a gen- eral concept, At was the right direction for the City because there were too many so-called multi -family projects ,which. were multi -adult projects and children were not welcomed or encouraged. He did not believe Council should rewrite whether 'something was a program or policy" --it should spell out a policy concept only because it would go to the Planning Commission before it returned to the Council. Councilmember Cobb said he supported the approach but observed - the particular program and policy flew in the face of the City's encouragement of small units in other area, and he believed it put the Council in direct conflict. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. AMENDMENT: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Witherspoon, on page 2, under the third objective, to add the words "In order to lessen the jobs -housing imbalance' after the word "Third" and delete the paragraph on page 3 starting with "Fourth." Mayor Klein believed Council got away from housing and focused on jobs which was another section of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. While he was concerned with the jobs -housing imbalance and preventing it from worsening, the. City's language went overboard. He did not believe Council could live up to the language that "in no event should the jobs -housing imbalance be allowed to worsen." It provided an argument that an eme ;over in the community could not add an employee without providing a housing 'unit for the par- ticular employee. The jobs equation was covered in a different section of the Comprehensive .Plan, and it was appropriate to delete all language in the paragraph after the word City in the middle of line 2. Councilmember Witherspoon agreed, but said the first line would be left under the fourth paragraph and it repeated the last line of paragraph 3. It might be better to strengthen the last sentence of paragraph 3 and delete the fourth point entirely. AMENDMENT RESTATED: ON PAGE 2, UNDER THE THIRD OBJECTIVE, ADD THE WORDS "IN ORDER TO LESSEN THE ,JOBS -HOUSING IMBALANCE" AFTER THE WORD "THIRD" AND. DELETE THE ENTIRE PARA6 APH. ON PAGE 3 STARTING WITR WORD "FOURTH." '4 5 3 1 5/.14/84 Councilmember Fletcher said the paragraph was important ,prancp its separated employment from the housing situation. She suggested adding after the word "City," "with a goal to eventually elimi- nate the jobs -housing imbalance. Ms. Lee said the amendment was to delete something, and putting it back was not germane. The appropriate procedure would be to wait until the vote was taken. Councilmember Renzel said it was short-sighted to not recognize that increased density in the City's housing zones to cope with the problems created in the nonresidential zones was making the whole town worse. Unless the Council put itself on the line and did something about the crux of the problem, diddling around with the housing zones would be in vain, and it was foolishness to delete the language. Councilmember Sutorius supported the amendment. Regarding the narratives and objectives of the employment section of the Comprehensive Plan, the concerns about negative aspects of the jobs -housing imbalance were strongly emphasized throughout the section, and he did not believe the deletion weakened the housing element. Councilmember Cobb suggested a comma at the end of the paragraph "Third" and inserting the following language: "and to lessen that imbalance to the extent possible." FOLLOWING LANGUAGE INCORPORATED INTO AMENDMENT: PAGE 3, LINE 2, ADD TO END OF FIRST PARAGRAPH °i..., AND TO LESSEN THAT IMBALANCE TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.' AMENDMENT RESTATED: TO DELETE PARAGRAPH 2, ON PAGE 3, COMMENCING W I TH WORD "FOURTH;" AND ADD AT THE END OF PARAGRAPH "THIRD," PAGE 3, LINE 2 "..., AJID TO LESSEN THAT IMBALANCE TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE." AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Fletcher and Renzel voting "no." AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved a new paragraph: 'Fourth, Palo Alto should recognize that its increases in housing supply could not keep up with present development patterns .and the jobs -housing imbalance will worsen.' Councilmember Renee] believed language such as "to the extent pos- sible" was ridiculous because if the. City did not keep up on a regular basis-, it could never improve. Vice Mayor Levy suggested language -to broaden the BMR contribution to apply to all residential developments Of all sizes not just those at the 10 -unit threshold: He asked if there was a problem with _requiring in -lieu payments for developments under 10 units and clarified that a 7 -unit development Woul'el. require in -lieu payments equivalent to seven -tenths of a unit. Mr. Miller said under the City's in -lieu payments proposed system, the payment would be three percent of the sales price of the seven units Staff would need to work with escrow and title companies, and it would depend on how many developments, of under 10 there were. He did not believe there would be many, but it might create a €oddest administrative problem. Economically the smaller the number of units in the development, the more of _a problem for the developer because the costs could not be spread 'over a greater number of units. -He deferred to Syria Seman for comment. 4 5 3 2 5/14/84 PAHC Executive Director, Sylvia Seman, cited a case in Santa Cruz a few years ago involving a BMR program where for fewer than four units, the City received a payment instead of a unit. She believed the City of Santa Cruz lost the case ---and that the BMR contribution waa considered a tax because there was no possibility to provide the unit --it could only be a BMR payment- During the last Comprehensive Plan update, discussion about reducing the BMR trigger to five units was rejected because of the ramifications of the Santa Cruz case. She said the PAHC preferred BMR units every- where possible, but its ability to work must be protected. Mr. Miller said much depended on the economic climate. There were times when there Was much profit in housing development, but during the past four or five years, over half the developments in downtown Palo Alto were foreclosed upon by the banks or in serious trouble with absorption rates. Staff strongly supported the PAHC and its proposal to keep the trigger at 10 units. Vice Mayor Levy hoped there might be a way to develop the concept. Page 46 discussed Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives and if City resources were involved in any way, he believed it should be stipulated that it was primarily for low and moderate income housing. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, on page 47, to add language to the last sentence of Program 12 text. Sentence would read as follows: "City support in the form of land acquisition and financing assistance should be considered for Limited Equity Cooperatives housing .whose occupancy is primarily people of low to moderate income and in keeping with other City policies." AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Vice Mayor Levy said the last paragraph of Program 11 on page 46, was considerably discussed by the Planning Commission, and he understood the paragraph to be a guideline that BMR units should be developed for rental housing developments. An a'rgument was made that the City encouraged construction of rental units in Palo Alto since none were built during the pa t 10 or- l2 years and a City BMR program might act as further discouragement despite the desired objective, and be in conflict with another objective to simply achieve rental housing. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayo, levy :moved, seconded by Witherspoon; on page 46, to delete last text paragraph under Program 11, and sub- stitute where appropriate in the Mousing Element with a statement "that Palo Alto should encourage construction of rental housing by removing impediments wherever possible." Planning Commissioner Pat Cullen said the item was heavily debated before the Commission, and she deferred to Sylvia Seman for com- ment. Ms. Seman said the PAHC strongly believed the construction of any new rental housing in Palo Alto would= be expensive and .for high income. people. It did not seep right to not have a BMR component on any new rental housing, and she deferred to the letter sub- mitted by the PAHC to the Planning Commission setting forth its position. Mr. Miller said the letter was not included in the packet but a key point was that if application was wade for an all rental housing development which provided rental rates affordable to the 8MR :target group, the rental rates would be close to current mar- ket rates. That was not to say there might not be a big differ- ence ` in : those two rates in five or ten years, but present BMR rates were not that different from market rental rates. 4 5 3 3 5/14/84 Ms. Sc mail said rental housing was included in Lhe original concept of the BMR program and was a strong point in establishing the initial program. It was carefully discussed by the PAHC, and believed crucial to apply to any newly constructed rental housing. Councilmember Witherspoon did not see the logic. No rental housing was built in the City, and rental housing, regardless'of the high price, was a bargain in today's housing market. Rental units did not keep track with inflation or landlord's costs, and she agreed with Vice Mayor :Levy that the City must remove all impediments to rental housing and hope the trend continued and its prices stayed well below the costs to own comparable housing in terms of high interest rates, etc. Councilmember Fletcher opposed the amendment because it provided no achievement mechanism. It was easy to encourage but without ideas for achievement, the statement was meaningless, Councilmember Bechtel opposed the amendment` AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 7-2, Levy, Witherspoon "aye.' voting AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Klein, second to last line on page 54, Policy 9, to change word 'unconventional" to 'innovative.' AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Vice Mayor Levy said regarding the word "low" on page 28, Policy 1, there was discussion about whether to retain the language to maintain the general low -density character of existing single- family areas." He agreed the word "low" caused -confusion, and the intent was to maintain the general density and character of existing single family areas. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, on page 28, Policy 1, line 1, delete the word 'low' and add the word "and" after 'density.' AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 4.5, Fletcher, Levy, Klein, voting "aye.' AMENDMENT: Counci i eember Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, 57, first line of Program 2, to delete the word "more.' Bechtel on page Councilmember Cobb believed the deletion would make the ,statement more consistent with the text. To 'consider more development suggested the City wanted to escalate the amount of development in terms of air rights, and it was not yet known whether an air rights project would work. To consider was one thing-, but to consider more implied something different. Councilmember Renzel suggested the language read "Continue to. consider development --of residential units on air space..." which would imply it was being done. • LANGUAGE INCORPORATED AND , AMENDMENT RESTATED: : ,ON PACE 57, FIRST LINE OF PRO_5RAM 26 TO READ: CONTINUE TO CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON AIR SPACE.. " AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously AMENDMENT: Councilmember Cobb moved,. seconded by Fletcher, on page 49, Program 16, to add a comma after. 'developer,' the last word of the text, and insert 'consistent with all other zoning requirements." tit4 8i Councilmember Cobb said if application was made for a PC, the Council could set its own rules, hut it ceold not foresee all ways in which developments might apply. If one made application and fell within existing zoning, he wanted assurances that adequate parking, setbacks, etc. were required, and he considered the amendment as a safety precaution. Councilmember Woolley said last Friday she saw the Village Homes Project in Davis, which was clustered. single family, detached housing. The houses varied in size from 800 square feet to the 2,000 square foot range. In terms of a relatively large project —not just two or three units --if the City required conformance with all regular zoning requirements, it precluded any sort of detached or undetached.housing. She belieeed the intent was to allow for an innovative, creative approach, an .she did not want; to impose those limits. Counciimember Fletcher said Councilmember Woolley broaght up a good point, and she withdrew her second to the amendme',tt. There might be• situations where Council wanted to bend the ru es, and if there was a variance process from the normal zoning requirements, she asked which process would be -used,. and whether Council would see it or whether it would go through the Zoning Administrator. It would not -automatically be approved because of the program in the Comprehensive Plan, COUPCILMEMBER FLETCIHER WITHDREW HER SECOND TO THE AMENDMENT, Mr. Freeland said in order to achieve any housing a lot of research would be necessary to define "flexible zoning:" and a new ordinance would be necessary. As originally articulates; at the Commission, he understood it had to do with less density rather than more. Some Commissioners did not mind working hard to sup- port high density, but desired to achieve affordable housing from it. There was the suggestion for fewer units if they were not going to be affordable. The entire issue would require additional study. Councilmember Fletcher preferred to keep it open and believed there''would be ample opportunity for input later especially when specific projects were proposed. Councilmember. Renzel said Council _must remember that once it set the rules, it did not control the applications. It was important to clarify the intent of Council rules and adding the language clarified that the overall intent ,was to find a way to make the number ref units a function of affordability, with overall site development remaining the same. It was her intent, and anything less would not guarantee getting .a beautiful project like the one in Davis, Council should lend support to 'pigs in a poke." COUNCILNEMBER COBB'S AMENDMENT SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR LEVY FOR PURPOSESOF DISCUSSION Vice Mayor Levy said it would take much work to arrive at a con- crete 'revision in the zoning ordinance, and Council was approving a concept The concept was a change in the zoning ordinance to apply in one or more zones and across those zones. A specific project could always make application as a PC. but the concept was a general overlay in the zoning ordinances and if adopted, he believed it was important to use the language suggested by Councilmember Cobb. Councilmember Cobb said if the concept viewed in Davis came to Palo Alto, a PC application would be the only zone in Palo Alto to allow that type of development, but the Council could write its own rules at the time: If an application came in under existing rules, it must be clear that the project must work within existing zoning laws unless specific changes were requested up front. 4 5 3 5 5/14/84 Councilmember Sutorius Said .Councilmember Cobb was correct about the Davis situation, which was d planned unit development and com- parable to the City's Planned Community (PC) zone. On the oppo- site side, Program 16 commenced with the word "consider new mul- tiple family zoning," and the opportunity for consideration need not be constrained by the proposed wording. It meant that staff in considering the application would have to return with somethin,I• exactly in conformance with all existing requirements, which limited flexibility and creativity of the- concept. He did- not read the wording as a commitment to .increase density in a negative manner on the community especially since -any application would go through the Planning Commission and City Council. before becoming part of City ordinances. He would not support the amendment. - He asked if every change made by the Council was considered substan- tive_ such that it would be returned to the Commission and make its way back to the Council. Ms. Lee said staff was constrained by the language incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) in 1955 .h; an initiative measure. The language made no exceptions for substantive vis-a- vis other kinds of amendments. She believed the State Planning i.aw changed since being adopted into the PAMC by initiative. Councilmember Sutorius clarified that even changes such as where Council changed from the word "no" to the word "few," would have to return to the Commission. Ms. Lee quoted "in adopting all, or any part of, or amendment or addition to a master or general plan..." Councilmember Sutorius hoped the balance of the Council session could concern itself with substantive changes because, at the present stage in the overall Comprehensive Plan process, the document did not require -finiting all phrases to a knat's eyebrow. Councilmember Renzel was also concerned with Program 16 on page 49, but since it was for consideration and Council would review it later, having it be consistent with all other zoning requirements was adequate. She supported the amendment. Councilmember Bechtel said Program 13 was the old Program. 7--A, but was not yet implemented. In terms of Councilmember Cobb's concerns, consideration of developments must ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, that traffic and public services would not be adversely impacted, and that the development would alot result in adverse off site parking impacts. The additional Program 16 -allowed the possibility of some flexibility, it did not say the City would necessarily approve everything, but it allowed comments. flexibility. She'`- concurred with Councilmember Wooliey's comments. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Renzel , Levy, Cobb voting *aye." Councilmember Cobb said regarding Program 14 on page 48, he realized it said "study" in the program, but he believed the signals the document sent to the public were important and it needed to be worded such as to send the correct signals. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, on page 48, Program 14, to modify second sentence of text to read "Each •f these sites should be evaluated before rezoning to determine if affordable housing beyond the 6yP requirement is appropriate.' Councilmember Cobb said the amendment would clarify the City's commitments elsewhere in the document to preserve the open space and recreational uses of its school sites. When it spoke to the developed part ofthe site carrying a subsidy to subsidize afford- able housing and carrying another subsidy to subsidize the retention of open space, there were limits to how much the development could do in that regard. There might be instances where the open space could not `e preserved without allowing a lot of market housing on the site, and he believed there should be no signal that the City would always -have the affordable housing com ponent when it might not be the case. Counci.1member Renzel preferred the language as proposed, and said consideration would be required about whether the City was pur- chasing any land under- the Naylor Act, and the language as stated was more affirmative in looking towards the City's school sites as potential places for affordable housing. The City ought to con- tinue its emphasis recognizing that part of the determination would be considerations of open space. Councilmember Cobb said the citizens desired that the City retain its surplus school sites, and its ability to continue to buy the open space was limited by its financial limitations. To achieve affordable housing, :there must be a subsidy, and to buy open space, a subsidy might also be required from the developed part of the land. The land could not do both or it would be developed to a density no one would accept. He believed Council sent the wrong signal with the sentence and needed to preserve flexibility to go in different direetions. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Fletcher, Renzel, Woolley voting "no." Councilmember Woolley said on page 28, Policy 2 regarding preser- vation of older single family homes and small apartment buildings she was advised by Mr. Miller that mention of the RMD zone was inadvertently omitted. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel, on page 28, add paragraph to bottom of text under Policy 2 to read: *The RMD zone was created to reverse this trend. It encourages a second dwelling unit to be built at the rear of an existing older unit in a multi -family zone. Otherwise, maximum development would result in the loss of the older house, possible loss of rental stock, and a changed neighborhood character,"' AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Woolley said th'e document often discussed families and she believed Council must clarify its meaning. The United States Census Bureau, according to Mr. Miller, defined "family" as being either "a married couple without children; a married couple with children; or a single parent with at least one child." She believed Council wanted to convey children, and three specific places in the document referred'to children in different ways. On page 2, the second objective spoke to families with children; page 37, top -of the page, second sentence, said "special attention should be given to housing for families;" and page 42, Policy 7, spoke to "especially those households with children." The docu- ment spoke to "families with children," "housing for families," and "households with children," and she believed the key in all three cases was "children." She believed the terra "households with children" was themost useful because it did not connote the traditional idea of a family and single parents were probably the most in need of low and moderate income housing. She did not want to preclude thinking about single parent families. AMENDMENT: Eouncf l meaber° .wool l ey moved, ,seconded by Levy, pn page 2, under the Second and third objectives, substitute the wording "households with children* for °farm l l es t and on page 37, at the top of the page, substitute the wording "households with children' for 'families." AMEND$ENT PASSED unanimously. 5/14/t _Councilmember Fletcher said the first sentence or the text of Program -8 on page 39, read "Most of the lower -cost housing in Palo Alto is rental housing." She heard from renters about the high rents being demanded and was struck that most households in the City were ownership houses where the mortgage was partially or completely paid off in some instances and the monthly costs were considerably less than with rental housing. The thrust of the program was to continue the adopted condominium conversion ordinance and the text supported the rationale for having restricted conversions. She said the median rental in Palo Alto was $425 in 1980, and it was probably much higher. Ir 1980, for those households with a mortgage, the median housing cost per month was $424; and in those households without mortgages --where mortgages were paid off in about 2800 households -.-the median cost per month was $107 per month; for a median combined housing cost of $306 which compared with the median rental of $363. It clearly showed the sentence that most of the lower cost housing in Palo Al ;,o was eo to ; housing was incorrect. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved a new first sentence of the text of Program 8 on page 39 as follows: "Although rental costs are high, a large sector of the population is forced to rent due to the high costs of capital investment and high interest rates in ownership housing." AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Councilmember Renzel said that since the Council was in the Comprehensive Plan peoeec , staff was not at liberty to willy- nilly change things for grammatical or -whatever reasons, and it had to be done now through the process. It was suggested that the table on page 18 might need to be updated. AMEN MEAT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, on page 18, to update table, "The Cost of Buying a House.* Mr. Miller said "high income" in the footnote should be corrected. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 8-0, Bechtel, not participating. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel gloved, seconded by Fletcher, on page 30, to add language to be determined by staff and Planning Commi ss t ore) to the text under Program 4 to acknowledge : two .zones which accomplish the goal of maintaining high duality neighbor- hoods.'" Mr. Miller said a paragraph one of the two items being referred to. LA C added about the RMD Lone which was Councilmember Renzel said that was correct, but it was under a different program which preserved the older single family homes. The amendment was intended to protect and enhance those qualities which made Palo Alto's' neist!herheeds desiratle. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote Of 8-1, Bechtel voting "no.' Councilmember Renzel said on page 33, Vice Mayor Levy referred to the statement in the center of the page that over 350 subsidized jobs were provided annually, and suggested the language "services are performed.": AMENDMENT: Coeeci liner ber Menzel moved, seconded by Levy, on page 33, to change last sentence of first full paragraph to read: Over 350 subsidized services are performed annually.* AMENDMENT, PASSED eeaiikeusiy. ' i Vice Mayor Levy said he agreed with the first sentence of the last paragraph of text for Policy 5 on page 38 but the second sentence read: "This might include changing the rules limiting second kitchens, thereby allowing some larger homes to be occupied by more than one family." Although it might turn out to be a good idea, he did not believe it should be endorsed by'having it as the one element specifically mentioned under the policy. AMENDMENT, Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, on page 38, Policy 5, to delete last sentence of text. Councilmember Bechtel believed the sentence should be retained because it was a key element to increase the supply of housing. The Council was not making a firm commitment, but rather sug- gesting that creative methods be explored. The sentence said it might include changing the rules, and was tentative eeough so as not to make a final decision. Councilmember Fletcher pointed out that the City encouraged shared housing and the sentence might make it more feasible. Councilmember Renzel said the amendment made it feasible to create duplexes out of every. single family home in town. She believed the Council must be careful when putting something down in, print because it might quickly escalate the price of large houses, and essentially changed single family homes into duplexes. The City went through careful discussion of cottage zones and was careful about how it proceeded, and with a stroke the City was adding a secont kitchen which essentially destroyed the whole single family concept. Most people in Palo Alto liked the idea of their single family neighborhoods, and the amendment opened a wedge and Council should have the details before putting it in. Councilmember Woolley opposed the amendment to delete the sentence and agreed with Councilmember Bechtel that it was an important area to explore. She agreed with Councilmember Renzel that the ramifications might be far reaching and the City would need to go slowly and set up strict rules about how it might work. A major~ concern would be parking and it might only work on large sites in the Crescent Park area or in the hills. It should be studied because it might be the best way to solve the housing problem by allowing a senior family to share their large home with another family. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 4-5, Renzel, Levy, Klein, Cobb voting "aye." Councilmember Soto; lus said regarding the term '=affordability," he spoke with staff and Human Relations Commissioner Roe during the break, and the last sentence on page 37 clarified how the term "affordable" was used in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Roe indicated concurrence with the reference and satisfaction that\ it was appropriately covered. Vice Mayor Levy praised the work of the Planning Commission to date and appreciated its discussion which illuminated the Housing Element, and staff whose work was also excellent. There were a number of economic concepts in e e housing element with which he did not particularly agree nor did he agree with a member of the public who spoke about the reasons for high prices in Palo Alto. He believed the essential reason for high prices in Palo Alto was because it was a desirable place to work --not because jobs were prevalent. By that standard, Richmond and Emeryville should be high priced, and Burlingame and Hillsborough should be low priced. Palo Alto developed a. balanced community with .many high quality services to its residents, and as a Councilmember_ he believed it was his duty to try and keep the attractiveness of the community high but hoped the housing ele_ment of ,the Comprehensive Plan introduced a number of elements to also provide the diversity being sought. 4 5 3 9 5/14/84 Mayor Klein thanked Mr. Miller, Mr. Freeland, Pat Cullen and everyone involved for a terrific job on the housing element. Mayor Klein recapped amendments as follows: On page 5, Council changed the language from "no" rental units to "few" rental units; on page 32. a minor wording change from "single family" to "resi- dential" with regard to rehabilitation; on page 3, paragraph "Fourth" was deleted, and changes were made in paragraph 3; on page 47, language was adopted to apply the Limited Equity Housing Cooperative to low and moderate income programs only for City Sup- port; nn page 57, language was changed to continue to consider air rights housing; page 48, text of Program 14 was rewritten on page 28, a paragraph was added with regard to the RMD zone; on pages 37 and 2, language was changed from "families" to "households with children"; on page 18, Council authorized an update of the table; an page 30, language was added to .refer to the.'wo residential zones with staff to provide the language; and on pa4e 33, language was changed to refer to 350 subsidized "services" rather than "jobs" per annOm. Councilmember Renzel commented that staff -and• the Planning Commission did an excellent job, but she remained distressed that Council- did not include irn the Housing Element reference to the fact that everything would be worthless if the other end of the jobs -housing imbalance were not attacked . Housing demands far in excess of the housing being provided were being created daily, and the city would never catch up unless it did something about the -other end of the equation. She did not believe Palo Alto citizens were happy to have high density plastered everywhere both in nonresidential and residential zones in some vain attempt to make some sort of minor correction to a bad trend. Mr. Freeland clarified an amendment on page 42 regarding open space for children; and page 54, changing, the word unconven- tional° to "innovative." Mayor Klein said that was correct. Councilmember Bechtel clarified that referral to the Planning Commission of the amendments were part of the main motion. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. REQUEST TO BRING FORWARD ITEM #10, INSTRUMENT APPROACH TO PALO MOTION: Councllmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to consider Item 110, Instrument Approach to Palo Alto Airport, ahead of Item 17, Report. on Age Discrimination in Housing. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #10, REQUEST. OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE "INSTRUMENT irrerVITMIT'rrintlfIrtirTflf P TTi 9r\_ Counoilmember Fletcher said the City was notified by the com- manding officer of Moffett Field about an application for instru- ment approach capabilities at the Palo Alto Airport, It was evi- dently initiated by one or two aircraft flying instructors Who. desired to expand their bu"sinesses at the airport. ,There would be a hearing later in the month by the Federal Aviation Authority, and site wanted the City Council to reiterate its standing policy of not increasing activity at the Palo Alto Airport. MOTION: Coincf1member Fletcher moved, seconded by Fletcher, that the Palo Alto City Council go on record in opposition: to the institution of instrument approach landings or capabilities at the Palo Alto Airport. t / /8q Counci lmesnber Renzel said Council received d a lot of correspondence about noise from the airport, and instrument approaches would permit night use of the airport and would probably double the amount of complaints. 1 1 1 Louis Marincovich, 943 Moreno Avenue, said the issue of instru- ment approach" was related to the broader citizen complaints about noise and low flying aircraft in Palo Alto. He believed adding instrument approaches was untimely especially since the County was doing a study of the Palo Alto Airport to investigate whether aircraft w*re low and noisy. Any proposal to increase air traffic should be 'set aside until the County study was completed. The City. Attorney's office strongly emphasized that any airport study must be unbiased and independent and absent such, it was not prudent to consider an increase in Palo Alto's air traffic that instrument approaches would entail. He urged the City to closely monitor the County study and not consider expanding Palo Alto's air traffic until its completion, H. G. Holden, NAS Moffett Field, said Moffett Field opposed the proposed instrument approach into Palo Alto, and the FAA did one preliminary study and informally advised of the nature of the two approaches. Both would approach Palo Alto from almost due south, and San Jose was currently the only local airfield at the south end of San Francisco Bay to service instrument approaches for smaller civil aircraft, and it served San Carlos, Reed-.Hillview, Palo Alto, south county Morgan Hill and San Jose. The total num-- ber -.af annual operations for the six airfields was about 1.2 mil- lion operations and most were conducted in instrument equipped aircraft; that is, they could perform an instrument approach. He had no figures as to how many of those pilots were instrument rated, and if as few as two percent shifted their operations to Palo Alto and if it had an instrument approach, they were talking an increase of about 24,000 operations per year, or about 67 instrument approaches per day or night. The effect of the approaches at Palo Alto went beyond and it would tend to draw higher performance aircraft and probably more noise. There would be more touch and go practice in the airport traffic area; that is, instructors training people to fly instrument approaches. There would be more missed approaches; that is, approaches that failed for one reason or another and had to throttle away from the airfield. There would be erratic power usage during the approach in order for the pilot to remain within the parameters of the approach, and there would be increased safety problems in terms of mixing VFR traffic with 1P, traffic. 1FR traffic was instrtn!ent aircraft where pilots had their heads inside the cockpits moni tori ng the instruments ,-.and VFR was the current type of aircraft` Which operated around Palo Alto where pilots looked -out. There. would be marginally or newly qualified pilots with limited prac- tice attempting instrument approaches into Palo Alto under actual instrument conditions and there would probably be a significant increase in the workload of --Say Tracon; that is, the controllers for the Bay Terminal Radar Approach Area. The military was .not interested in seeing additional traffic' in the South Bay and were designated by the Naval Safety Center as the naval area .most apt to have a mid air collision primarily because of the mix of instrument rated and VFR traffic. _Another major objection to the proposal was that it would l-ead to increased delays from. nine to .thirty minutes in tactical ready alert launches and NASA launches Which were time cricial Them.. would also be' delays in approaching aircraft who would- be held in --holding. patterns longer -because of the difference in -air speed between the smaller air- craft which `would average in the neighborhood of 90'knots, and the tactical: aircraft which was something an the order of twice to three times that speed. Reasons for -.the proposal included per.. sitting more pilots to,he,instrument qualified and use Palo Alto, bet he u=rderstod Pao Alto -wanted to limit the number- of pilots Operating in the City. It- would allow lifeline flights into Palo Alto which -flights allowed victims :of accidents or .:illness or .organs to be sent -to Stanford Hospital. Currently,.those medical 4 5 4 1 5/14/84 services were performed by jet aircraft or helicopters and Moffett Field was used for the most part. Helicopter aircraft could actually go to Stanford if previously cleared, but jet aircraft could not, as yet land at Palo Alto The proposal was also made to allow local business aircraft to use the field, and most of the local major 'eusinesses had government contracts and could and did use Moffett Field. Given the opportunity and with an instrument approach to Palo Alto, the next step was to lengthen the runway and use jet aircraft. On May 23 1984 there would be a meeting at the Mitchell Park Community Center, 3800 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, to commence at 7:30 p.m. to discuss the topic CouncilmTeter Renzel asked if any problem was caused Moffett Field by Stanford's' use of the airfield for the delivery of organs, etc. Mr. Holden sa i .i no. Harrison Otis, 909 California Avenue, said the matter was dis- cussed a couple of years ago and it was agreed to take civilian aircraft out of Moffett Field in order. that it be maintained as a critical defense unit of the United Status. Palo Alto's runway was limited, and there was a certain density in. the area to which the Council had a responsibility. The safety at the Palo Alto Airport was. good, and there was a point to which its use must be limited. Councilmember Renzel said when the new parking apron was approved for the airport, Council was assured there would be no increase over the current 250,000 flights that used the airport each year. Many Counc i l members voted for added tie downs on that basis, and it was clear that the instrument approach would change the nature of the airport and add to its usage. She urged Council support of the motion. MOTION PASSED unanimously. _ITEM #7, REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE RE AGE DIS- u MOTION: Councilsember Fletcher moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Legislative Committee recommendation that Council go on record in support of AS 3909 (Davis); and oppose. SB 1553 (Boatwright). Councilmenber Fletcher said Richard Roe, Executive Director of Mid -Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing (MCFH), left a statement that Council should support the •committee's recommendation to support AB 3909 (Davis) and oppose SB 1553 (Boatright), and that it tutaliy agreed with the Council Legislative Committee on the. bills MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #8, REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE RE SS 1547 LOTION: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Legislative Committee recommendation that Council go on record in opposition to SS 1547 (Greene): which iioold preempt lOca1 design, approval and inspection of essential services buildings, MOTION PASSED unanimously. 1 ti SC1174 1 1 ITEM /9, DEPORT FROM. COUNCIL LECI SLAT VE COMMITTEE MOTION: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Legislative Commitee recommendation that Council go on record in support of 5CR74 (Foran/Alquist). MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #11, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEIIBER SUTORIUS RE CITY COUNCIL �/.Y� �I iRIR�I/yi�filY�1141�Af�i �r - Councilmember Sut,orius believed it was important for staff to have a full opportunity to share the pending situation and the value of an early decision about whether to have a Council meeting on May 29. He was reminded because that evening Council approved minutes of a previous meeting when a discussion occurred and Councilmember Fletcher pointed out the problems created by making premature or incorrect decisions about whether to have a meeting. He believed Council should not crimp staff by eliminating meetings and requiring them to jam up agendas. He was willing to meet on May 29, but preferred not to see the decision held in abeyance until next week because if Council decided next week that a meeting was necessary, staff had little time in terms of full preparation of the agenda and packet. City Manager 8i11 Zaner said the agenda list did not anticipate a greeting on May 29, and staff recommended the meeting be can- celled. MOTION: Councilmember cimember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to cancel the City Council meeting of May 29, 1984. MOTION PASSED unanimously. A03OURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:40 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 4 5 4 3 5/14/84