Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10101974CITY COUNCIL rir{ures ITEM Special. Additional Feting of October 10, 1974 California Avenue Area ©ffatreet Parking Project No. 71-63 1040 Ease Meadow Circle - Vacation of Sewer Easement Special Meeting of October 10, 1974 The Planning Commission, by a vote of 6 in favor (one absent), advises that the Commission has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Impact Report and recommends the planning options as recorded in its minutes of August 14, 197' and August 20, 1974 4 1 1 10/10/74 CITY Or- pf i0 fiLTO Special Meeting October 10, 1974 r PAGE 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 3 4 1 3 4 1 3 Thursday, October 10, 1974 Special Add_itional Mee,tin& of October 10, 1974 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 7:15 p.m, in a special additional meeting called by Mayor Byron D. Sher for the purpose of considering two emergency items, originally scheduled for action at the regular meeting of October 7, 1974. Present: Beehrs, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher Absent: Berweld, Clay, Comstock, Norton California Avenue Area Offatreet ar&in, F'ro ect o. -3rtCHR:S53: +) MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson introduces the following resolution and moved, duly seconded, its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 5009 entit. ed "RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEFR' S REPORT - CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA OFFSTREET PARKING PROJECT NO. 71-63" The resolution was adopted on a unanimous vote. MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 5010 entitled "RESOLUTION APPOINTING TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING PROTESTS IN RELATION TO PROPOSED ACQUISITIONS AND LOROVEMENTS, AND DIRECTING NOTICE CALI- FORNIA AVENUE AREA OFPSTR s ' PARKING PROJECT NO. 71-63" The resolution was adopted on a unanimous vote. MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Sher, its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 5011 entitled "RESOLUTION DE$CRIBLNG PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, DIRECTING TILING OF BOUNDARY MAP AND THE RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA 0PFSTSJ.,T PAUL PROJECT NO. 71-63" The resolution was adopted on a unaaiama vote, 4 l 2 10/10/74 1040 East Meadow Circle Vacation o Sewer Easelaent MOTION: Vice Mayor Henderson introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Fearson, its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 5012 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE VACATION OF AN EASEMENT AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON" The resolution was adopted on a unanimous vote. A.d our�nt MOTION: Councilman Beahrs ,moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the special additional meeting be adjourned. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. The special additional meeting was adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Ixecial Meetth of October 10 1974 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 7:30 p.m. in a continued special meeting re the Comprehen.sive Plan with Mayor Sher presiding. Present: Beahrs, Serwald, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher (Comstock arrived at 7:39 p.m.; Clay arrived at 9:45 p.m.) Absent: Norton ,fig„ pl.3nxinsc Commission. b a vote of 6 o absent advises that the Commission his reviewed the Com re ens ve Plan Im act Re ort and reco nds t om` lanni•_ option$ as recaroe in its nutet t 20 1974 gat 1 1974 and Au: s Mayor Sher noted that at the last meeting on the Comprehensive Plan, on October 1, 1974, that Option Sets 7, 8 and 9 were concluded. Following the order the Planning Commission followed, the options to be handled would be Set No. 5, "Parks" and also sets No. 1, 2 and 3, related primarily to the quantity of housing and preservation of housing quality. The next scheduled special meeting on this matter would be October 15, 1974, for consideration of Option Sets No. 4 and 6. Mr. Naphtaii Knox, Director of Planning, introduced to the Council Assistant Planning Director Kenneth Schreiber. Along with elide projections, Mr. Schreiber addressed the Council regarding the Planning Commission's views on Option Set No. 5, "Parks." "On the screen are the options as listed in the Impact Report, and the modified option 5 (c) as adopted by the Planning Commission. 413 10/10/74 - "Also displaye d on the wall is a large map showing the location of existing city parks and public schools. Schools are shown because they presently provide recreational facilities, and because many of the reorganization plans being considered at this time by the school district call for the closure of from five to twelve schools with specific sites not yet determined. The map will hell) us keep in mind the location of school sites that might be importaet to retain as park and recreation areas. "The thrust of the Planning Commission's discussion and action in recommending option 5 (c) is toward maintaining the present park system and adding only selectively to the system where unique opportunities present themselves. The kinds of oppor- tunities that might present themselves are listed within the option., "A major assumption used in preparation, of the impact Report and iv. the August 12th staff report to 'the Commission is that the city is committed to Greer Park as a third district park, and that a district park facility went of Alma would be a fourth district park. I would point out that the Council is committed to acquisition of fifteen acres, and the staff is presently studying facility needs, drainage solutions, park concepts, and development costs. The concept of a fourth district park was contained in option 5 (b), which was rejected by the Planning Commission. The Impact Rvpor.t and staff presentation stressed the advantages that a district park would have if such a facility were located within the Stanford Industrial Park. First, it would serve to reduce traffic generation during week days in the industrial Park by precluding the construction of planned facilities for approximately 800 workers, Second and more important, it would provide a district park accessible to the 15,000 people who live west of Alma. "The arguments against such a facility that were raised during public and Commission discussion were that (1) children going to such a facility would have to cross major traffic arteries (but that is true for most district parks); (2) the park would be too far removed from the areas it would purport to serve; (3) there is a greater need for a larger number of smeller parks; (4) the owners and lessees of the land would be opeosed to the use of the land for a park; and (5) the cost of acquiring the land would be prohibitively expensive. Never- theless, up until the point of discussion of parks at the' conclusion of the Commission meeting of August 14th, the staff had thought that there was general agreemeut that a fourth district park was desirable. This was noted in the staff report of August 12th the Planning Commission, with the suggestion that option 5 (b) be endorsed. Decisions regarding specific locations could be left to the plan -design phase. "Sinc+e the Planning Commission made ite decision with regard to parka on August 14th, the Council has received a September 17th report on the SMS Citizen Survey. This report was addressed to the Finance and Public Works Committee from George Barbour, Project Director of the Service Management System, The Council has else received in October 1st memo from the City Manager, summarizing park information from the citizen survey. In brief, based on their surrey, the SMS team has concluded that a district park west of Alma should have a high priority. "The Chamber of Commerce supports option 5 (c) as proposed by the .planning Commission. The Chamber has also expressed oppos tion to the concept of a district park located it Stanford Industrial Park. 414 10/10/74 "The University and Crescent Park Association has indicated their support for adding park facilities as proposed in option 5 (c) as well as supporting purchase of a district park west of Alma as proposed in option 5 (b). "In a letter from the College Terrace Residents Association, James Culpepper asks that option 5 (c), if approved by the Council, be prefaced with the following sentence: 'Reserve for recreational use a 20 -acre parcel of the remaining undeveloped land between Alma Street and Foothill Expressway.' "The wording . of hia statement would allow exploration of large sites in the vicinity, and Staff commends to Council considera- tion of Mr. Culpepper's suggested revision to 5 (c), or similar wording, such as using the word 'identify' in lieu of the word 'reserve,' but recotmends not limiting the search for 20 -acre sites to the area east of Foothill Expressway. The present 1963 plan shows a proposed district park at the south corner of Foothill Expressway and Page Mill Road, just across the expressway from the Page Mill Hill office complex. "In summary, several different departments within the staff and some members of the public believe that there is a need for a 20 -acre district park facility west of Alma Street. Staff tends to look upon that park as being quite similar in its eventual development to the facilities now at Rinoonada Park. This kind of district park is not equated with a special facility like Foothills Park, nor is it believed that a number of mini -parks can substitute for the functions of'a•larger district park. The staff stresses the imbalance in the location and extent of development of existing park facilities, and urges Council commitment, in principle, to a district park located west of Alma Street, The Planning Commission, on the other hand, wants to emphasize the addition of`e number of smaller park facilities. The concept of more small parks is supported by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation which has written the Council suggesting the addition of an option 5 (d): 'Purchase land for small public parks wherever possible and appropriate in conjunction with su',sidized housing.' "We believe that the Council can opt for bcth a 20eacre district park and for the addition of smaller parks as well, by edoptirbg language similar to Mr. Cuipepper's but'less limiting. With that kind of guidance, the staff would identify a large number of potential park sites during the plan making phase, and hopefully, could come up with a draft plan that would accom- modate both kinds of parks," Ma. Axle Steinberg, Vice C airwonan of the Planning Commission, said the Commission did endorse option 5 (c), "Selectively add park facilities where and se needed." She added thin didn't r4ecesserily exclude a fourth district park; but the Commission did specifically reject the idea of purchasing land in the industrial park for such a park. They believed that rather than a conventional park west of Alma, steak as Mitchell or Rinconada, there might be opportunities to recognize the different kinda of configuration and make use of natural assets such as creek beds and flood plains, The general area west of Alma is divided into four neighborhoods separated by two major traffic barriers. Different recreation facilities may be required in each `of the four areas because they have different kinde of populations. An example of that would be a need for different kini:s of facilities for older people in some of those arts o -- '*�+. a four neighborhoods were described as two west of El Camino -- one being College Terrace and the second located. across Page Hill -- and the two others would be this side of El Cassino, separated by Page Mill. k 1 5 10/10/74 Mr. Schreiber said they had added to the recommended 5 (c) as a possible revision, "(e.g., pools, tennis courts, linear parks along streams and flood plains, surplus school sites, and parks that can act as buffers for residential areas, etc., but not necessarily full-blown parks)." Countil.mag Beahrs inquired about the population trends, the school properties, and the possible annexationof Barron Park. Mrs. Steinberg replied that the Commission had talked about all those things. Part of their recommendation Was to consider surplus school sites, particularly the recreation areas of the school sites. They didn't specifically talk about Barron Park except to note that it had a five to ten acre perk of its own. Population figures referred to were those given in the Impact Report regarding the trend toward an older population that could require different kinds of park facilities. Mr. Schreiber said he had referred to 15,000 people west of Alma which would be the present population of the incorporated areas of the city plus the Barron Park area (from the 1910 census). The total city population, with Barron Park included, was just under 60,000. Councilman. Comstock referred to statements in the Impact Report that at the time the options were developed, the city had not taken the firm policy steps it has now about Greer Park. As the Commission says in its report, they have preserved the semantics of the IR options, and seem to be talking about a fourth district park to be located on the other side of Alma. He said Barron Park annexation or non --annexation would affect how the plan focuses on (1) the need for a district park, and (2) where it is going to be. Mr. George Sipel, City ManagOr, ans.tered that his feeling on that would be that they should forpurposes of the plan study assume that Barron Park ultimately will come into the city. That should be the assumption. If it doesn't, perhaps there are some modifications, such as scaling down of a park, when and lithe city gets to the point of acquisition and development. Councilman,C mstock said this was a powerful assumption because it determines a such different distribution in total population service area than was being talked about. Vice Mayor Henderson inquired about the size of the park in Barron Park and the possibilities for its expansion. Mrs. Steinberg replied that it was a ten -acre park, a very beautiful park, and that there was open land around it. Mr. Knox added information regarding population, and said there are roughly 34,000 in the corporate limits of Palo Alto. The addition of Barron Park would mean 58,000. The idea put forth by the SKS is that four district parks would each serve roughly 15,000. Councilman Bervald asked how much weight did staff and Planning Comeiszioi give to the Stanford open spaces, which were not marked on the nap dis- played, and also the baylands usable open apexes. He liked the Commission's recommendation 5 (c) because they seem to be saying perhaps there are other_ kinds of areas that ought to be considered as "parks." A number of Palo Alto students and a=dults use Stanford's fieldsfor baseball, rugby, soccer and other kinds of activities. A map should be developed that would show open spaces, including private open spaces, such as the little Green Meadow Park In the area of Charleston, Middlefield, San Antonio and Alma. 416 10/10/74 Mayor. Sher said there is a distinction between "parks" and "open spaces." There is an Open Space Element which was adopted by Council in April, 1972, and which was revised in April, 1973. That map does show all of these open spaces and is an approved part of the Compre- hensive Plan. If there are shy actions taken with regard to parks that are specifically recreational facilities that are added within the city limits, they could include a revision to the Open Space Element. Councilman Irerwald observed that perhaps "parks" should be redefined. For example, Mitchell Park is heavily used, but so is Cubberley's school grounds. Perhaps school go'snda should be considered more as parks and perhaps add in the schools open area park --like facilities. That would maximize the use of that space. There is indoor apace which we don't use. Mayor Sher invited comments from the public on option. set 5. Mr. Tone Myers, 2250 AmherstStreet, College Terrace Residents Association, spoke in support of Impact Report Option 5 (b). He said residents west of Alcoa need a district park, too. Staff's asap graphically illustrates this need. It can be seen, with three district parks in Palo Alto, that only the area east of Alma is really well nerved. For example, one must always wait to play tennis in the two College Terrace tennis courts. The wait is usually lengthy enough to discourage the attempt. Any swimming facilities are a long drive away, The Little League, trying for a needed play field was just turned down in ah attempt to convert a portion of the Excondido School play field because there was not sufficient room. There simply are not the facilities on the west side that there are on the east. He said that he believe a site in the industrial park would be both innovative and successful for the west of Alma district park. The Planning Commission cannot be blamed for failing to recommend an option 5(b). He went on to say that residents were so stunned by the 1990 traffic projections that most of their comments about the Impact Report to the Commission were concerned with thistraffic, and perhaps the importance of parks was slighted then, but the residents are now back to tell Council of their importance. Mr. Myers continued that one objection to the industrial park site was its supposed isolation from neighborhoods, but it is much closer and much more convenient than any other alternative. It is convenient for Evergreen Park; it is convenient for College Terrace; it is convenient for the Califc r is Avenue high-rise apartment district; it is convenient for the Chestnut - Wilton area; and it is *iao convenient from Barron Park --e- also, It is much closer than Greer, Mitchell or Rincona4a . Its isolation is actually an advantage. He said he believed it was Mr.. Knox who talked about the different feelings the residents just adjacent to the park, in connection with Esther Clark Park, had about converting it to a district park and the feelings of the residents who were slightly re- ooeed from the park. The difference was that the, residents slightly removed from Esther Clark Park were quite anxious to have it a district perk while those right adjacent to the park were not. He said the reason is fairly obvious, in that a district park brings in traffic from all over the City, and is likely to have night baseball ar tends, and therefore the people right next to the park don't like it. The same argumentee do not apply to the industrial park site because it would be isolated enough from the neighborhoods for t'he traffic and night games without the objections of the immediate residents, He went on to say that it has been mentioned as an objection that the site is owned by one corporation under lease to another (the Hanover and Page Mill site). This it true, but similar circumstances have not deterred similar public agencies purau!.rg the legal and necessary actions for the public good. The preceedentaabound. An industrial park site for the needed park could 417 10/10/74 be innovative and successful. It would serve a demonstrated residential need. It would also return to the 25,000 workers there some of the monies which Palo Alto receives from their labors, It could provide services, for example, for eating lunch, and although there is lots of greenery in the industrial park, the College Terrace parks are well populated with industrial park people who cover over to eat lunch. He thought that there was a psychological advantage in getting away from the place where you work for a break. He vent on to say that people could jog after work or at lunch, or perhaps play a game of tennis,aud the awing shift could, in an attempt toaroid some of the traffic come perhaps an hour early to use the park. But even more important, it would provide a poesable place for day care facilities for working mothers. It could be much more extensive than the College Terrace Library facilities which are now under construction. He concluded by saying that this district park ie needed. Me. Leslie Sidl, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, 401 Laurel Avenue, Palo Alto, said the League supports option 5(c) that urges that surplus school sites be studied as possible housing sites under the land bank program of option 4 (f). She said they wish to speak to the po.esi.biltty of linear parks along the flood plains. Mr. Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, stated that he lives adjacent to the Barron, rk area and is fanil.far with the park situation there in Bowles Park. He wished to speak in favor of option 3(b). He felt that the City needs another regional park west of Alma. He stated that the Barron Park area in general and the area west of Alma is a relatively low-cost housing area, with a number of young families and young ?:hildren there, He felt that the park facf Iities that the area has right now do nor have the major recreational facilities that r. regional park should, and in the case of the other two existing parks, what they do have. The Barron Park area has a very small pastoral type park. It does not have any indoor facilities. The Bowies Park is primarily a children's playground. There are no real active facilities. He felt,in response to Councilman Berwaid's comment, that a school site is not equivalent to a park. Dual purpose facilities usually end up being something like a flying fish -- it's not a very good fish, and it's not a very good bird. Ass.far as condemning land for park use, he recommended a statement wade by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that the highest possible use for which a taxing body can exercise the Tight of eminent domain would be to take land for park use. In terms of the benefit to the citizen* in general, he could not think of anything we could do with out money that would be more useft.tl than to create a better recreational community and one in which the people in general could enjoy. He alsospoke in favor of 5(c) which is to obtain scattered park sites. Mr. Moss, in reply to a question from Councilman Rosenbaum, said the dis- trict type facility his children went to et Mitchell Park that they couldn't find at the schools or the parka in his area were the recreation room, the library, teen room, ping pang tables, the picnic facilities and the indoor -type facilities. If it would be tennis, they could walk down and use Gunn tennis courts and the children usually get on those courts If they don't have to be there at a articular time and are willing to go at an odd hour such as 6:00 is the evening or realy on Saturday or Sunday morning. In that respect, the schools do serve some park uses. Ms. Barbara Hopkins, 1040 West Meadow Circle, spoke on behalf of the West Bay Residents Association Park CceaAittee. She felt, that a fourth district park should be considered separately on its own merits, and stated that she has been concerned about a proposal that is being written up by Mr. Sipel which suggests that the land be acquired for the fourth 4 1 8 10/10/74 district park with money that might be used for development of Greer district park. She referred specifically to the September 17th report on the citizen survey. In that report it states that an additional option might be to devote most of the soon -to -be -acquired land around Greer to less costly development such as open space, grass and trees and use any additional developmental funds to acquire some recreational space and facilities west of Alma if the need is substantiated. Mrs. Ropktns stated that she dos not feel that Greer Park should be down- graded by the plans for the fourth district park. City Manager George Sipel answered that the suggestion made is quite clear. Perhaps a reflection on what the exiating staff assignment is and where the Greer Park project stands would be helpful. His under- standing is that the funds have been appropriated for acquisition its the Greer Park area; that there is a staff directive frota the Council to acquire roughly fifteen acres in that area; that there is also a staff assignment to look into the costs of development in light of some low lying conditions in that area with the possibility that if those development costs were too high, conceivably they would not buy as much park land or perhaps the character of development might be less intensive than otherwise might be. The other part is to develop a conceptual plan of the area which is currently underway. Thirdly, they have been asked to develop a needs assessment for the types of recreational and park uses that might be installed in the park and conceivably that would result in perhaps less than full develop-2tent along the lines of Mitchell Park or Rinconada Park. The intent of the memo in September was to relate that staff assignment on Greer Park with some of the information they had received out cf the citizens survey attd then co relate that as part of the Comprehensive Plan study. Mr. Sipel continued that it was nice to talk about having two additional district narks but when it is considered that the costs are likely to be $2 million each or thereabouts, and continuing maintenance costs of $50 to 475 thousand a year, there was a need to think twice as to whether two are needed, and if they are, whether they reed to be developed itt the same way that some of the other district parks are developed. That is what they were trying to do, ih an indirect way with some of,the material given to Council over the last tieo months. Mr. Sipel continued that it is one thing to talk about something that is in a plan and another thing to do it. This should be looked at as a long-term program and as soon as there is talk about a fourth district park, peoples expectations are perhaps increased and then it becomes difficult to slow things down. This might be what has happened on the third district park. Mentioning costs was designed to slow expectations a little bit and perhaps give another side to the total practical problem of the availability of funds. There is no doubt that there is money available for the third district park for acquisition. There are not funds yet appropriated for the development of that perk. there has been no money a/located for the fourth district park and while there are substantial reserves, perhaps there will be higher priority itess that will require those funds. Councilman Rosenbaum said with regard to the option set, he approved of the last two that the staff hed prepared. With regard to the potential fourth district park, he shared certain reservations. He was not aware that Barton Park already had a park of that size. When this ten acres would be combined with Gunn High School and the Terman Junior High School right in that area, you do come up with quite a fair amount of land. On the other hand he did not want to preclude looking at potential sites. 8e was very dubious about the Stanford Industrial Park site. The land is expensive and removed from Barron Park. It seemed obvious that moat of the popv1ation in that area was on the south side of the indus- trial park and therefore, it did not seen appropriate to put the park in the industrial park area. In addition, the comment was made that: there was a bead for some indoor type recreational facilities that cities can provide rather ttan just large pieces of laud. 419 1©/10/74 MOTION: Councilman Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Pearson, option 5(b), to identify sites west of Alma for a district park. Vice Mayor Henderson felt the Council was losing sight of their purpose which 1s to develop a new General Plan, They should not be debating specific sites for a particular park. Rather, he felt, they should set policy with the specifics coming later. Option 5(c) as suggested by the Planning Commission is completely open. Vice Mayor Henderson stated that this could be neighborhood or district parks, and did not feel deciding on specific. park locations at that point was appropriate. When the time is right for a fourth district park, option 5(c) is a green lighc to go ahead. Councilman Rosenbaum clarified his intent by saying they could identify sites during the development of the plan; at some point they would have to make a decision if they chose to but that would not happen now. Planning Director Naphtali Knox said this was precisely the case. Perha e a word like "reserve" would be better substituted by a word like "identify" which would be the process we would use in the plan making process. He thought that was better thar the word "add" which has a certain finality to it. Mayor Sher asked Mr. Knox if he did not read it as a final co7Imitment to simply look around for sites. By taking this action, Council is not saying "there shall be a district park west of Alma." Mr. Knox replied that if 5(b) were passed, they would look at the map and rind all the sites that are appropriate for a district park. They would not then be limited to twenty -acre parcels, and there might be -five, ten, fifteen or thirty -acre parcels. The staff would be in the process of bringing other sites that may come up under option 5(c) as it is even- tually moved to the Planning Commission in the draft plan later this year. Afterwards, they would decide which of these sites they like and they would then forward a plan to Council for•their approval. He and staff would take it as very strong Council policy indication that they wanted them to look for sites west of Alma but that it was not a final decision in the sense that they do have other parts of the process ;:o go through. If staff finds in identifying park sites that they are not the appropriate size or that they cannot find one, Council may get a recom- mendation from the Commission that they have reviewed the sites identified by staff and the Commission does not like any of them. Councilman Rosenbaum agreed with that explanation„ Vice Mayor Henderson stated that by the time the General Plan cues back to Council there will be a site selection for the district park, He questioned the aged to be that positivi about a specific district park when there was 5(c) which says, " ... as the need arises, ...or If Barron Park is annexed." Yet tonight it is being said, "we want a district park and want to determine it immediately." Councilwoman Pearson said that Council was giving policy directions. It should be remembered that the General Plan when it comes Council would not be something to be adopted in total. It would be a working document, and would be constantly changing even after its adoption. General Plans are what you would really like to have. They are what is aspired to, and hopefully attained. The Council was saying the park may never materialize but that they do need one. They did want to see it in the General Plan, though, and staff should locate same sites in that area. She suggested locating them by areas rather than parcels. She also stated that Stanford is not public land and it should be remembered that Stanford people get first priority on any of its facilities, tennis courts, swimming pool,, playing fields, etc: This is the way it should be and whenever they want to close it off to people in Polo Alto, they have every right to. 4 2 O 10/10/74 Councilwoman Pearson felt that the fact that there is open land at Stanford is great but unfortunately, there is not the freedom of use that there is in a public park. Councilman Berwald # tated that Stanford lands could be considered in some degree ss open space and that the Council could work more closely with Stauford to develop uses for the City. El Camino Park is not Palo Alto land.either yet we use it. He reiterated that the vote would be whether or not they want a district park west of Alma and wondered if one district park would not serve that area as well as two half -district parks or four quarter district parka. Councilman Berwald continued that in using the map Page Mill seems to be a rather fortidable barrier between College Terrace residents and Barron Park residents; both might best be served by a fairly sizable addition to Bowies Park or some other area. This would mean redefining what is meant as a district park. .Would this mean twenty acres or more, he aaked7 If so, that would mean five district parks in the City if the Council wants all the people served. Councilman Berwald asked Ma. Anne Steinberg to comment on the direction of 5(c) and asked whether it was aimed towards setting up more conveniently located recreation areas for both Barron Park and College Terrace or towards one eventual district park there. Planning Commission Vice Chirwotian Steinberg replied that the subject had been discussed greatly. Their option did not exclude another district park if it were proved thAtthere was a need for it there. However, the Commission thought that some of the terrain on that side of El Canino could be used for different types of parks, and hoped to have some kind of imaginative use of the land there. Also, ilhey hoped that different facilities might be offered in different areas to suit different kinds of populations. Councilman Ben/aid was 3n agreement, and suggested if 5(b) did not pass that words be added to 5(c), as follows, "and lecluding necessary park lands and facilities to serve adequately the people generally west of Alma and particularly west of El Camino." He could also support a motion which would read,- "Add a fourth, or equivalent district park to serve the areas generally west of Alma." This was the kind of motion he would like to sere -- one that would recognize the.need for park lands and facilities for that area but also generally support the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilman Comstock said it seemed clear to him in the Planning Commission recommendations that they were contemplating no district park. He felt it was necessary for Council to pass 5(b) if they wished some sort of district park west of Alma. • He was prepared to support 5(b) and(c), and (d) as requested by the Housing Corporation. Councilman Beahrs confessed to a degree of ambivalence on the whole question. He accepted Councilman Rosenbaum's thinking on not placing a district park in the midst of the industrial Park. But Councilman beaters' concern was over the fact that there are an many inponderablea. There seed to be the assumption that the Foothill litigation would be won; certainly, this could have atremendous impact on the problem. There also is the energy crisis which could worsen to the point that gasoline would be more expensive. Councilman Beahrs continued that problems of this character can all have their effect within twenty years and can sake 3 huge difference as to what can or should be done He felt that, concerning the state of affairs and the unknotms j _ he was prepared to support the Planning Commission's position entirely. k 2 I 10/10/74 Mayor Sher said it seemed best to deal with the concept of the district parks separately, since the intention of the Planning Commission in 5(b) was apparently not to cover district parks, so he was prepared to vote for 5(b), but would like to have the same kind of qualifying language that appears in 5(c) added to it. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Berwald, that an amendment be added to the end of the present motion, as follows: "to be acquired if and when the need is demonstreted." Mayor Sher said, in support of the amendment, that it does not do anything to the direction to the staff to go out and identify sites, but it makes it clear to wait and see what happens on Barron Park and what the population figures will be. The amendment to the motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Berwald, Henderson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Comstock, Pearson ABSTAIN: Beahrs ABSENT: Clay, Norton The motioa to accept option 5(b), as amended, passed on the following vote: AYES: Beahrs, Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: Berwald ABSENT: Clay, Norton MOTION: Councilman Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Comstock, 5(c), to "Selectively add park facilities where and as needed (e.g., pools, tennis courts, linear parks along streams and flood plains, surplus school sites, and parks that can act as buffers for residential areas, etc., but not necessarily full-blown parks) ." Councilwoman Pearson suggested adding another policy to the motion. After the words, "surplus school sites," she asked that the words, "and mini -parks or open spaces," be added. She also asked to delete the word "can" so that the motion would read, "that act as buffers for residential areas ..." She said this would mean that mini -parks and open space would be included and make it even broader. Councilman Rosenbaum said he would incorporate this change into the motion, and his second agreed. MOTION RESTATED: Option 5(c) is accepted, as follows: "Selectively add park facilities• where and as needed (e.g., pools, tennis courts, linear parks along stream* and flood plains, surplus school sites, and mini -parka or open spaces, and parks that act as buffers for residential areas, etc., but not necessarily full-blown parks)." Councilman Berwald felt that parts of existing schools may be used for park sites, especially if there is a declining enrollment. He continued that the declining eaarollment will probably open up additional areas on the sites of the Palo Alto Unified School: District. Perhaps this was what was meant by "surplus school property," though he was talking about existing schools being redesigned so that certain portions of e campus Could be used for the park plan. 4 2 2 10/10/74 The motion to accept 5(c) passed on a unanimous vote. AYES: Beahrs, Berwald, Comatock,}ienderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher NOES: None ABSENT: Clay, Morton MOTION: Councilman Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Comstock, that 5(d) be accepted as per the Palo Alto Housing Corporation recommendation, as fellows: "Purchase land for small public parks where possible and appronriate in conjunction with subsidized housing." Vice Mayor Henderson thought. -thb had been covered in 5(c) and questioned setting a specific policythat might be used to excess. It had also been spoken about in the Frenchman's Terrace situation and there were problems of isolation. He continued that there could be land banking funds used to help promote a particular project and then they could put additional money in for a park. Mrs. Steinberg pointed out that it vas in the Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The motion to accept 5(d) failed en a vote of three to four: AYES; Comstock, Pearson, Rosenbaum NOES: Beshrg, Berwald, Henderson, Sher ABSENT: Clay, Norton Mayor Sher directed the Counell's attention to Option Set No. 1, and asked Planning Directca )(VOX to make his presentation. Mr. Knox presented his remarks, as folJows: "The next four option sets taken up by the Planning Commission relate to population, housing, and neighborhool character. Option Set No. 1 relates primarily to the quantity of housing; Option Set No. 2 and 3 relate to the preservation of housing quality; and Option Set No.4 relates to the composition of the community -- income levels, age, family size, and the prop+oration between owners and renters. "The slide displayed shows Option Set No. 1 -- Population as covered in the Impact Report, and as recommended by the Planning Commission. None of the options tested in Set No. 1 will have any significant effect on the number or kind of duelling units in Pale Alto, or on our critical feictora. "Options 1(s) and 1(c) were not recommended by the Commission, and there vas little discussion by the public or the Commission with regard to either of these particular options. Note that 1(a), (b), aead (c) are all linked: (1) n*intaeins density limits -- zoning -- at current levels; (b) allows some tampering; (c) calla for reductions. There is no option that calls for increasing densities per se, but option (d) would increase population by rezoning to increase the supply of residential land. 4 2 3 10/10/74 "Option 1(b) is described on pages 24 and 25 of the Impact Report. The idea behind option 1(b) is to selectively adjust the allowable densities around both the University Avenue and the California Avenue Business Districts to provide for higher densities immediately adjacent to the commercial cores. Presumably, this would mean more people living closer to stores and therefore adding to the vitality of the business districts; it also would mean having more people living closer to major transportation arteries,making any present or proposed trans- portation systems more viable; and it presumably would produce the kind of around -the -clock vitality that Jane Jacobs wrote about thirteen years ago. "At the same time that densities are raised closest to the core shopping streets, under option 1(b), densities also would be lowered closest to the surrounding R-1 areas; allowing for a smoother transition between the R-1 and the higher densities. "One of the conditions of option (b) waEa (2) that the achievable holding capacity iu option 1(a) would not be exceeded. That means that the incaeases in density should be balanced by the decreases in densities, and the total number of dwelling units that would result should be no different than would result in the base case forecast. "The Impact Report contains an example of how tbie option: could be carried out. R-5:1.--9 zoning (48 dwelling units per zere) was applied to areas currently zoned for multi -family use within one block of commercial zones; R-2 zoning (21 dwelling units per acre) to areas currently zoned for multi --family use within one block of single family zones; and R-3 toning (29 dwelling units per acre)to areas currently zoned for multi -family use but which are mare than one block from both commercial and single-family zones. This new zoning pattern would result in a net decrease of 325 units from the total that could be built under present zoning in this downtown area investigated. This is one of many examples that could have been developed for option 1(b). If staff were so invtructed, they probably could get closer to the zero change in the number of units that was the original intent of option 1(b). in preparing the draft plan, this exercise would be gone through also forthe California Avenue area. "Again looking at option set #1, it can be noted that the planning Commission has added a third provision that such density increase would be used only for additional low/moderate income housing. Mr. Elayney has since suggested that, in practice, this would require a blanket rezoning to reduce the density, and then provision of a low/moderate income density bonus which would allow the density to become increasingly higher in the areas closest to University and to California Avenues. "The Palo Alto Rousing Corporation wants to add at the end of the first condition, the words, "except where such increase would be in character with and acceptable to the neighborhood." They give the Foothill Green duplexes as an example of a situation where density limits could be increased in an R -I zone and yet the visual result would be totally in character vi'Fh and acceptable to the neighborhood. 424 10/10/74 "Our viewpoint, in retrospect, is that option 1(b) has been mis- construed, and the proposed modifications both by the Commissions end by the Housing Corporation, while well intentioned, make the otpfon overly complex. The original intention was simply to test whether there would be any impact if densities were selectively increased in some places and then equally reduced in other areas in order to promote vitality around the business districts and to smooth the transition at the edge of R-1 neighborhoods. Option 1(b), in our view, should not get mixed up in the question of llaw/mode rate , i.ncorae housing, nor should it get mixed up in the possibility of increasing the densities in R-1 zones. The staff, therefore, recommends that the Council simply adopt option lib) as it was originally put forth in the Impact Report. Council's adopting it in that form would permit staff to bring to the Planning Commission a draft comprehensive plan that would revise permitted densities in line with the objectives that were spelled out earlier. "The objective Of option 1(d) was to add to the supply of residen- tial land. In order to measure impact, the severe largest vacant non-residential parcels were looked at. These are identified on the map on page 29 of the impact report. Taking the parcels one at a time, Parcel One i3 Stanford -owned on Willow Road. Stanford recently recommended construction of housing units :,n the parcel. It is currently zoned R-4, which does, however, p€retit construction of processional offices. It would rake sense to restrict the zoning strictly to residential use. "Parcel Two is ].eased by Hewlett-Packard. They reconfirmed their plans for eventual use of the site for their corporate headquar- ters, and they and others have questioned the desirability of locating housing within an industrial area. "Parcel Three is Stanford owned, and while it is adjacent to residential areas in Los Altos Fills and could be eminently usable for one --acre home sites, the future use of that parcel for industrial purposes was part of an agreement that reaulted in Stanford's granting the city long-term epetf space easements for the top and west flanks of Coyote Hill, and it would be bad faith at this point for the city or the public to suggest rezoning that land for residential purposes. "Parcel Four is leased from Stanford by Syntex. Syntex notes that any rezoning would force them to double the intensity of development on the already developed portion of their land which now has only a 10% coverage. The result would be an overall increase in intensity of use and traffic generation on the triangle, even though such a rezoning would add to the supply of residential land. "No one has spoken to us about Parcel Five. We know from exper- ience with "The Greenhouse," which is approximately one-half mile north on San Antonio Road, that multi -family housing can be successfully developed along commercial stretches of San Antonio Road. We also know from experience with Palo Alto Gardens, that we would likely hear from Mountain View residents with respect to any subsidized residential development that might be proposed. ';Parcel Six is eurrcuuded almost entirely by industrial develop- ment, anti a strong and cogent argument has ,been made by its owners that it could not be an appropriate place for residential development. 4 2 5 10/10,74 "Farcel Sever, is adjacent to the noise and pollution of Bayshore Freeway. Representatives of the West Bayahore Residents Associa- tion have argued strongly in favor of continuing industrial development in that area, because the large buildings would help to buffer the adjacent residential areas from the noise of the f re eway . "In summary, the staff believes the question o:€ rezoning these parcels in order to add to the supply of residential land has become moot, and that Council should reject option 1(d), in either its original or its modified form. We would like to note, however, that during discussion of this option some representa- tions have been made by Stanford and various industries, that their level of industrial development, in terms of coverage or floor area, is well below allowable maximums. "Options 1(e) and 1(f) have been added by the Planning Commission to encourage housing use on present non -residentially zoned land and to tie any permitted increases in employment and commercial use to the provision of such residential units as well as to some provision of transit. Option 6(d) really says the sane thing: 'Require any building expansion in non-residential areas to be balanced by transportation and housing development.' "Stanford opposes 1(e) as far ss encouraging housing usage on the Industrial Park land. And, Syntex notes the lack of any backup impact data for the option. Syntex points to the same lack of data with regard to the impact of option 1(f), but Stanford apparently would go along with option'1(f) provided that any increases in the supply of residential units would also be tied to provision of community services such as schools, parks, churches and libraries. "The Chamber of co erce opposes 1(e) if the intent is to focus on the industrial parcels identified in optitmn 1(d). The Chamber would support 1(e) if the focus is on mixed uses elsewhere in the community, as in commercial areas near existing public facilities. The Chamber has expressed strong opposition to any option that makes non --residential expansion dependent on housing and transportation improvements. "Although this option set relates to population, we should briefly discuss the inter --relationship with non-residential ex- pansion potential and proposed constraints on it. 1 "We discussed option 6(d) briefly at our meeting of September 23rd. At that time, it was said that the staff would like to be directed to study the potential fortying increases in employment to the provision of transit, but hot to the provision of housing. It is thought the tie to transit is as workable one,but cannot see how the tie to housing can be made to work. To be more specific, the tie to transit can be made this way: The traffic situation is observed as 'bad'. Roadways are congested. The issuance of permits for any development which would worsen the traffic situation could be denied. If shifts are made to transit which thus improves the traffic situation, then growth of employment or of commercial activity can be allowed so long as the present traffic level's are not exceeded. 4 2 6 10/10/74 "The same statement cannot be made with regard to the worsening of the housing situation in respect to increases in employment. The housing problem in our view is considerably more complex and considerably more regional in nature, and we find it difficult to analyze; nevertheless, I will try briefly to explain our reasoning. Many people have focused on the ratio of jobs per household. We seem to have the highest ratio of jobs per household of any city in the San Francisco Bay Area, yet there is no evidence that the statistic by itself has any meaning. "It happens that the political boundaries of Palo Alto are drawn in a way that._given the city's adjacency to Stanford and earlier decir.ions to develop the industrial park, the shopping center, and the medical center, a high ratio of gobs to households has been produced. "The question is -- what is the importance of that figure and how do we deal with it? Well, for one thing, that figure means we Get a lot of traffic at peak hours. For another, it means we derive considerable tax revenue. Assuming for the moment, though, that we don't like the ratio of jobs to households, how do we deal with it? "From our discussions on this subject in recent Commission meetings, it seems clear to us that it is not the objective of the City to provide housing for all those people who work in Palo Alto. Clearly it would be physically impossible to add even 20,000 dwelling units in Palo Alto to house just half of the 40,000 who work here now, but who do not live here. And, we certainly have no intention of considering the'exclusion from ?alp Alto of those 13,000 families who live in Palo Alto, but whose wage earner works outside of Palo Alto. "Instead, it seem: to us that the objective should be to examine the joerneyr-to--cork pattern to see what can be done to reduce the number of vehicles that are used in transporting people between home and workplace; and that is just what we are in the process of doing jointly with Stanford and our surrounding communities in the Palo Alto -Menlo Park transportation project. "Finally, I call your attention to a suggested option 1(g) recomren4ed by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation: 'Encourage developments of three and four -bedroom unite in order to provide housing more suitable to families.' Staff has no quarrel with that; it's the kind of policy statement that can fit well in the housing element of the plan. In fact,"the staff, at the urging of the Planning Commission, has successfully motivated developers in that direction. With further Council direction, perhaps staff can look into intenttvea or programs that would be drafted into the housing element to further encourage dwelling units of three and four badrooas. Ms, Anne Steinberg, Vice Chairwomen of the Planning Conniasion, then spoke regarding Option Set No. 1. She stated that the Commission does not recommend 1(e). The recommended option 1(b) in the hei?* that they would be able to concentrate high density around the periphery of the downtown California Avenue areas, and at the same tine reduce density of tntlti- family developments adjoining single-family housing. They had hoped thin will achieve the affect of bringing some life to our downtown areas so they don't become abaadansd places after office hours. There is also the hope that it sight encourage a nix of commercial and residential. This would concentrate the increased population in the areas where there is likely to be the beat kind of transportation facilities. She stated 4 2 7 10/10/74 that the additiop made was, "for provision of additional low/moderate income housing." It was added because the Commission felt that they did not want to add more high -cost housing in these areas -- they are the kiod of areas where the elderly and people with small families and lower income could live. She stated that it was not the Commission's intention to encourage a lot of expensive condominiums in that area. The comments of Mr, Blayney about this requiring a blanket rezoning were not available to the Commission at the time they made the recom- fendation. Mr. Knox had pointed that out. The Commission recommended 1(d), "Add to the supply of residential land by selectively rezoning currently vacant lands zoned for non-residential uses." The practice here is twofold, she stated. They wanted to reduce the amount of land available for industrial expansion and provide more land for housing. Hopefully, this would reduce pressure can housing in Palo Alto. It might also produce some lower priced housing. Certainly, it would discourage further de,erioration of the job -housing ratio. It might also provide housing near Jobs eliminating some cf the traffic and pollution hazards. The Commission had also hoped to emphasize the value and desirability of combining non-residential and residential projects and including use of alt rights. 1(e) does not really need very : such explanation. It just really indicates that some ways of achieving these kinds of th=ugs ought to be studied. Mrs. Steinberg stated that under 1(d), "selectively rezoning," the Commission pur- posely did not select any areas of land or point out any particular parcels. This is something they hoped to do in the design part of the plan or later on. Also, she continued, thr:y really were considering not rezoning entire areas but maybe just rezoning parts of the areas of some vacant land --- there could be housing quite close to industrial areas. The landscaping around some industrial areas is very beautiful, and they thought it couldbe a most desirable area in which to have some housing. In regard co 1(f), Mrs. Steinberg stated that this was an effort to concentrate the increase of residential units close to employment, shopping and transportation. Residential development should have a positive relationship to industrial and couaaercial uses and also to tranapo rtation. Mr. Knox added that Council members had received on October 1st a letter from Mr. Dale De pson, Palo Alto Board of Relators, commenting on option sets 1, 2, 3 and 4. He also introduced Dr. Claude Gruen, conaultant,to the Council. Counciiman Comstock referred to 1(d) and 1(b) . He said 1(d) very specifically states "vacant lands" and he took it 4:o mean precisely that and although the asap showed large parcels, 1(d) evidently addresses itself to any vacant ]ands; for example, smaller parcels in University Avenue area. Regarding 1(b) Council has talked about mixed uses. He continued that 1(b) tees to suggest a way to get to that on an exchange basis. He asked if that would also apply to vacant parcels in the commercial district around University, for example. Mr. Knox replied that there was a good deal of discussion in the Commission about the mixing of residential and non-residential uses. The problem was that there is currently a zone which allows residential to be built in commercial and industrial areas, but no one is doing that. He stated that it is difficult to encourage people to do so. That realization led to much of the discussion on 1(d). The Commission felt that perhaps they did not have to rezone those parcels; all they want to do is get some housing built on the industrial land, The Commission would like the staff to look into how to get housing 4 2 8 10/10/74 built on vacant industrial lands and on the industrial parking lots. Mr. Knox thought the mixing of residential and commercial uses already is recognized by staff and Commission as a clear policy of the Councii by virtue of their action on the zoning ordinance. As they look at all of the options, they have that clearly 1.n mind. Councilman Comstock responded that there seemed to be support for 1(b) from the Commission and the Chamber of Commerce, and he wanted to make sure that If 1(b) passed and 1(d) was not approved, that that kind of policy described would still be understood in the study process. His understanding, secondly, was that there are •ome parcels to date, in the area of University Avenue, with "M' zoning on them; also in the California Avenue area. He questioned if consultants and Commission could come back and say, in that area as well as "C" zones, etc., with approval of 1(b), not only do we have a permissive zone which is not being too widely used for mixed housing, we might change the zoning, even ia areas that are now, for example, just "C: without waiting for people to do it on a request basis. Or it might be recommended that that is whit would be done as a result of the plan. He asked if that would be a possible outcome following approval. of 1(b) . 4c. Knox replied that the issues of densities and the issues of mixture of fuses are resl.iy two different questions. In "Planning language," ti-'irlders?and that mixture of uses would be possible in the "M" zones acid in the "C'+ zones. The question raised in 1(d) is, what are the upper bulk or density li its? So, whether 1(4) is or is not accepted, a mixture of uses would be possible in the areas. He stated that the answer is dependent en h:u much of that mixture you will have. Would density of uses near the rc-1 areas be lowered so there would not be an abrupt charge'; He stated that there would be more in the commercial areas. Councilwoman Pearspn as cej, in regard to 1(b), if it were likely they right be thinking of an area that is north of University .Avenue -- between Alma and Middlefield --- for increasing or decreasing densities. Mr. Kncx responded that the particular area they looked at for the example in deterniaing what the impact would be Was all of the residential areas outside what is presently zoned commercial core. He illustrated by a map the areas in the example. The outside edge would have the .lowest zoning being adjacent to R--1; the band closest in would ire the highest zoning; and everything else would get the middle quality zoning. He stated that the north side of downtown is zoned R -5-L-9 in the areas west of Waverley and north of Lytton Street, and that permits 48 units per acre. The bulk of that area would he zoned downward to 29 dwelling units per acre; and the fringe area between Everett and Lytton would be left at 48 dwelling units per acre. He continued that on the other side of downtown along Forest Avenue the area is now zoned R-4 qhich has a density of 29 dwelling units per acre. There. the fringe would get an increase to 48 dwelling unite per acre closest to the commercial areas. Mr. Knox stated that one area wouli remain at the some densities. R-4 and R-3 are the same densities. The R-2 would remain R--2 with a density of 21, There would, therefore, be soon increases and some decreases. The rule they followed was if it were within one block of a commercial area they would zone it up to the maximum, and if it were within one block of an R-1 area they would zone it down to the minimum multi --family density, which is 21. Everything else gets something in the middle. On the map which resulted, the impact was that there was a decrease of 325 potential units. Mr. Knox continued that this was one approach toward looking at how to increase vitality around the downtown. 4 2 9 '10/10/14 Councilwoman Pearson said that in the area north of University Avenue, she would not like to see a blanket zoning. She felt there were houses in the area which are wonderful and worthy of preservation. Mrs. Pearson realized there were some just being used to the point of deterioration and in need of razing. She was looking for a way to preserve R -I in the area and also that when it would be enforced thepayment of higher taxes because they are in a higher zone. Dr. Gruen responded that they were getting into several of the other options as well; one being quality. He felt the intent of this was to try to at least permit density changes in order to move the density up to where it would, in fact, encourage mixed uses, and therefore, encourage a higher density around the core. Obviously, this is going to have all of the impacts that are talked about; and not only impacts in terms of specific buildings, but he thought they could expect to hear from property owners when the density goes the other way. He thought the purpose of this was to allow the Planning effort to step forward to this manner where it made sense from a design point of view. He thought they were sort of building a case where it probably would not make sense from a design point of view. He thought the option gives the Planning Department the ability to get into that. The reason he was responding was that it was because of these complexities that he felt very strongly with the staff that to throw into that option the additional requirement that they increase densities only when, in fact, it turns out to encourage the provision of low and moderate income housing makes an already difficult design job that much more nifficult: It would, in fact, hake it harder to dcal with just the kind of complexities that Mrs. Pearson related to. Councilwoman Pearson said her next question was in regard to 1(b) (3), "only sphere such density increase will provide for additional low/moderate income housing." The policy, which is to increase the low/moderate income housing in Palo Alto, gives bonuses for increased density. If that kind of increase is to be talked about in this area, then, she felt, this phrase should be talked about. Dr„ Gruen responded that they did not have to mix the use of density to take this kind of a design approach. At this point, they have another option which does allow bonuses for the purpose Councilwoman Pearson referred to. All that is being said in this particular option, though, is that you not try to do all these things at the same time and in the same area. Councilwoman Pearson verified that they were not going to rule out retention of some of the R -I houses in that area. There would have to be some way to create a policy where good houses would be recognized and preserved Mr. Knox commented that on the map they were referring to, that par- ticular area's density would be lowered in the R -5-I.--9 areas shown on the north side of downtown. So to the extent that the desntiy is lowered, there would be less of an incentive to remove single-family houses and build new houses there. It would be lowering from 48 dwelling units per acre permissible, to 29; it is not taking it down to 6 or 7 per acre, which is R -I. Councilwoman Pearson's next question related to 1(e),, "Study the possi- bility of encouraging housing usage of the presently non -residentially zoned vacant land.." If this were not adopted, where in the other options can consideration be given to placing housing over parking lots', such as downtown Palo Alto, and how could it be included in this particular option set? 4 3 d 10/10/74 L_ � Dr. Gruen felt his response would not be encouraging. Certainly, housing could be placed over parking lots, but when the =act is considered that the pad to be built, that is the parking structure itself, could turn out to he as expensive as the cost per unit of land for the house, it tended not to be a very effective way of producing cheap_ housing. He did not see it,as a solution, at least not iu the bay region for low or moderate income housing. Councilwoman Pearson said she was not only considering low/moderate income housing. There seemed to be innumerable ways to use parking lots other than for parking cars. She stated that the Council could go to the other extreme where it becomes a recreation area, i.e., tennis courts over the parking lots and say that there is a need for some high income people to live in the downtown area and put some elegant condo- miniums over them. Dr. Gruen did not feel that was precluded under the present regulations. Mr. Knox concurred. It is possible to purchase air rights. However, Mr. Gruen felt that it did not seem economically feasible for the next decade. There are other parcels that are close in that are available, and it would he done quite often if it were economical. Me. Frank Koch, Syntex Vice President, 1065 Greenwood Avenue, a ten-year Palo Alto resident, spoke to the Council and stated that it was not his intention tonight to repeat what they have already communicated in their letters and other contacts with the Planning Commission, the Council and city staff. They did want to convey, however, their continued concern over the inclusion of option 1(d) in the Comprehensive Plan. Their concern is that one of the seven parcels that are indicated for potential rezoning or elimination of commercial use is the Syntex parcel. He specifically spoke about the thirty-six acres at the corner of Foothill and Arastradero. He recognized that even if 1(d) is included in the Comprehensive Plan, it does not automatically lead to the implementation as this Syntex parcel is concerned. The difficulty, however, is that to potential of the option to exclude their commercial development is in itself very seriously disruptive to our orderly development of the Hillview site. Even if the Council were to approve the inclusion of 1(d), they would request that the Council consider exclusion of the Syntex parcel from any future implementation of that option. Mr. Koch showed a map of the master plan for the Syntex site, and noted that it shows about 102 building coverage for the 105 -acre triangle. Some buildings are up and some are future. Mr. Koch continued that the present density of the developed portion of this -site is about fourteen people per acre, which is possibly the lowest possible density one can get. He stated that they have invested about $275 million so far in the development of the site since they began their first builling in 1973, and this does not include $41 million which they paid to Stanford University for leasehold fees including $21 million for the 36 -acre parcel which they have not yet developed. They felt that option 1 id) definitely puts this investment in some jeopardy since we have always palnned to utilize this site. Mr. Koch stated that in connection with the discussion of the possibility of mixing housing with commercial development, he felt that if one starts at ground zero with that concept, that is one thing. If one tries to do it when you are 60% through the plan, it is an entirely different situation. Ile did feel that the practical effect of implementation of 1(d) would be to increase the density on both the developed and the undeveloped portions of that triangle. He pointed out that their disagreement with option 1(d) does not imply that they are unconcerned with the current and future problems of automobile traffic in the Stanford Industrial Park. Syntex feels it is rather unfortunate that their employees have no option other than the bicycle to commute to and from Syntex. They have organized car pools and are considering preferential parking for car pool participants, as well as having instituted a system of flexible working house to 4 3 1 10/10/74 fnconrage car pooling and to assist employees to avoid peak hours in traffic. Syntex is prepared to cooperate with the city, with Stanford and with others concerned with urban transportation to try to identify the civic transit needs of employees and possibly to come up with solutions. Mayor Sher commented on the letter received from Syntex dated September 13, 1974, which stated that the change in zoning would actually produce more intense activity and greater density as compared with the present use of the developed portion of their land. They rifer to the fact that the coverage.is 102 now as compared to the legal maximum of 20%. They have 600 feet of floor space for each employee, compared to 300 which is permissible, and 14 persons per acre as against the 50 to 75 persons which are often estimates for commercial development. Mayor Sher asked if Mr. Koch were contrasting persent use to what it would be if it were changed. Mr. Koch answered that the Syntex master plan shown was based on about 102 density of the entire site. Obviously, they did not anticipate that they wcu.d be in a position where they would have to consider ane density for one portion and another density for the other. They have not given any consideration to changing the density on the 36 --acre vacant parcel, They have not even filed a building permit to do anything involving that particular parcel. Their density is about half of that legally permitted in L -M-5. Me cannot say that 10% is all Syntex would ever have on that particular site. Based on the way the site is constructed, the open space, the parking requirements which make a limitation on the amount of building, the master plan shown was what they were planning. If they had wanted a more dense development they could have gone ahead to do that on the land currently leased from Stanford. Mayor Sher felt he understood that but :asked Mr. Koch if his argument for not changing the zoning in line with option 1(d) is based on those densityffgures suggesting that those densities compare favorably to what would be produced under a change. He continued that Mr. Knox had said Syntex and other lessees or property owners have also talked about the very favorable densities, that they now have as compared to what it might: to if it were rezoned, Manor. Sher thohght this was what they had to consider. He realized Syntex could not commit themselves, bot as Mr. Knox suggested in his introductory remarks, when Council considers 6(d), which deals with "Emplo}lent,"'he wished to come back to these statements that were made by Syntex, among others. Mr. Koch responded that the question of overall density in L_Mo5 zones was a question that would be applicable to the parcels zoned in that way. He did not think it appropriate to be discussing specific densities for their parcel or the City to be doing it on a parcel by parcel. basis. He did not feel that was the way the zoning laws were supposed to work. They certainly have are intention to develop that site in a very special way. There was no question that that was what, in fact, had happened. It was in complete conformity to the plan and the promise they made to the -City Council in 1967 when the Council approved the prezoning and annexation of the then 50 acres prior to their development of part of that piece. Councilman Comstock commented that they had received a letter from Hewlett-Packard September 26th which gave a breakdown of employees and where they cadre from. Summarizing, it stated that 172 of the employees at their Palo Alto facilities live north of Palo Alto; about 142 come from Palo Alto itself, and the repaimder come from points to the south. He asked Mr. -Koch if the break/hem in the Syntex work force followed similar lines. 4 3 2 10/10/74 Mr. Koch answered that approximately 60% pf their employees ccme from south of Palo Alto. Syntex's assumption was that the bulk of those travel by 280 becau.ae the Syntex facility is very close to 280. This seemed to coincide to the data Hewlett-Packard had developed. Syntex is in the process of getting much more specific information from the employee population as to what traffic avenues they use. They feel this is something that is needed and would be helpful in examining various transit aleernatives. Since 1967, this has changed dramatically. The population base then was much more to the north. Mr. Paul Puech, Director of Land for People, stated that his organization was dedicated to a development of a just and humane land use policy. They have trouble accepting certain sections of option 1(b). Section (1) written in terms tending to eliminate any possibility of exception or variance. Mr. Puech continued that Lewis Mumford, one of the founders of modern day city planning, stated that a plan that is unable to adapt to the needs of the changing society is not a plan at all, but a mechanism doomed to failure. Mr. Puech requested that section (1) be amended to allow a selective adjustment or a variance as needed, subject to review of the community at large. He had heard that there is also an amendment by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation that would be somewhat in the realm of allowing the neighborhood to approve the variances, if it is amenable to the neighborhood at large. He stater that the organization also had trouble with section (2), and wished this section amended to allow for change. Mr. Puech seated that the city's subdistricts may change in population, size and composition. Zoning should be amenable to some change and not become more ironclad than it already is. Without the adoption of some kind of limit similar to what Land for People has presented, Mr. Puech stated that they could not support those sections o,= the options. They do support section (3), but wtuld amend it to include, "where the environment will not beaiversely affected." Land for People also accepts 1(d) as written. Palo Alto does not need an increase in employment, but more housing. He stated that San Francisco has an ordinance now requiring all city employees'to live within the city, and does not know what would happen if Palo' Alto took that same ordinance. +Would the city be able to house the city employees? Mr. Puech continued that the figures brought out also that there are two Jobs to every household or between two jobs and 2.5 jobs. It was also explained that this figure is not necessarily meaningful because of the many people who commute to their jobs and such. The position of Land for People is that since there are enough jobs available now, the city should change some of the zones that are not now zoned for residential uses to zones that include residential use. Finally, he stated that the organization is neutral on 1(e) and would like to have some more clarification on 1(f) before taking a position one it. Mr. Knox clarified condition (1) in option 9(b), "density limits will not be increased in any R -I zone," that they were talking about R-1 zones per se. The Commission always has the possibility of recommending O the Council rezoning of any area and there had been a number of planned co anity rezonings ,which had, in fact, raised denaities in specific areas. What the option indicated was that the R-1 zone as it is constructed would remain an lit -1 single family zone and that it would not be tampered with. Mr. William Ward, 1000 Welch Road, California Pacific Commercial Corporation, said that they were the owners of parcel number six that has been under consideration for some of the options. He said Council members had received a letter from Dick Madigan several days ago concerning thin position on that parcel. He wished to reinforce that position. He stated that the company feels that parcel number- six would 4 3 3 10/10/74 would be a very poor spot for residential developsn.nt because it is completely surrounded by industrial buildings. They do not think people would want to live there, nor do they believe a developer could be found who would want to build there. Mr. Ward stated that most of the working traffic in the area goes to Bayshore; 801 of that goes south. He felt, therefore, that there is very little impact on the traffic in Palo Alto. He also felt that there is an obligation to the people who have developed in the area now, and know four companies that are planning to expand in the near future. At the present, they do not know if there is going to be land available for them to expand or not, Mx. Ward requested that the Council omit parcel number six from any future planning. Mayor Sher assured Mr. Ward that no particular parcel is under consideration for rezoning at this point. (Councilman Clay arrived at the meeting at 9:45 p.m.) Ms. Joan Johnston, League of Women's Voters, 441 South California Avenue, stated the League supports the amended version of option 1(b). They felt it would allow selective increases in residential densities only if low to moderate income housing were included. They also supported 1(d) if se.ective rezoning of vacant land applies to parcel number one. The League applauded Stanford's recommendation that this parcel include some .low to moderate income housing. Ms. Johnston continued that - the League felt options 1(e) and (f) are unclear as they are now worded. They would support studying the possibility of encouraging housing usage in non -residentially zoned land, though the study should not be limited to only vacant land. The League urged that b:uch housing be located near commercial employment and transit centers. Mr. Jim Steele, 525 Center Drive, President of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, related to the Council the concerns that the Chamber of Commerce felt in regard to the General Plan and the result as a generality. He felt that if the information or data base provided Council is not broadly based and accurate, the fin,l deliberations and discussions will necessarily be skewed in the same direction as the background data is skewed. Further, with the data comes its inherent effect upon the public, and their overview and analysis and input into the process. Mr. Steele said that it was the Chamber's feeling that the steps taken so far could have a devastating bias built into the final stage. The Chamber felt that traffic is one of the greatest concerns in Palo Alto. Mr. Steele felt that the Willow Corridor is a possible answer. The Duluth Casey Report shows that with a Willow traffic corridor, traffic in 1990 is in most mates less than in 1970 on most all of the crosstown streets in Palo Alto. He felt that a study would show that the same result would happen for Menlo Park. Mr. Steele felt that by not including this as a possible study, what you have done is to bottle all the traffic into Palo Alto as far as the deiibera- tions are concerned and the projections that will come out from further study the worst and heaviest possible. He foresaw from this an unrealistic view of the world of 1990 which will lead to decisions with regard to housing, population and industrial, commercial optione which are overly restrictive and overly reactive. Also, Mr. Steele stated, the price of energy is going to affect traffic just as it already has. For this and other reasons, the traffic projections appeal to be inflated. He felt it was time to study the subject of a Willow Corridor, a corridor to be recognized by our community in benefits both in business and residential Mr. Steele stated that traffic, as it relates to housing and population, is certainly a major consideration because it is very mach part of the overall General Plan. He continued that on 1(b) the Chamber generally agrees with what is being said by the staff. They felt that Increased densities should be allowed to permit additional 4 3.4 10/10/74 low and moderate income housing without direct city subsidy. The Chamber opposed 1(d), however, for a number of reasons. The City's consultants and Planning staff have pointed out several times that rezoning of parcels in question: or even their outright acquisition for open space would have a negligible effect on the volume of traffic in the community in the future. The parcels are also inappropriate for housing locations in most cases, as they are far from stores, schools, parks, buses and bus lines and isolated by the commercial areas in which they would be. Mr. Steele continued that the availability of tiwj or parcels is a question as well. Current lessees of two major parcels, Syntex and Hewlett Packard, have reported that they have invested considerable time and money in anticipation of low de zsity "`research type park uses of their lease property. Those uses would generate less traffic than the multiple family r€eidences and would create traffic patterns which would have less impact on the city as a whole. Finally, he felt, the parcels represent ore of the finest assets that a city can possess. Very few pieces of land in this country can attract the responsible low density research based firms that have helped produce the revenues which enable Palo Alto to finance the many valuable public services at very low cost to the individual taxpayer. Conversely, Mr. Steele continued, many other areas in Palo Alto cannot attract research firms but are suitable for housing. It seemed to them the height of folly to consider using this prime land with unparalleled productive potential for housing when hc:using needs can be met more appropriately elsewhere in the co:ar_unity and area. The Chamber was concerned that the Planning Commission passed this option without any real discussion of the above points and without providing data to support its action. Councilman Comstock asked if the Council would be on very sound ground at that point to adopt a traffic option that made the assumption that there was a traffic corridor in the Willow Corridor that was a complete traffic facility, from Bayshote to .and Hill Nord, or something like that. Mr. Steele answered that in looking at the solutions for 1990, much can change. Whether or not the same obstacles will be in force this year or next year is open to question. The effects and the benefits of the Willow corridor should be a part of this General Plan discussion. He said that was pointed out by staff and consultants as a potential answer and was something that should be studied as to the effect it would l'sve on Palo Alto. Then they could deal with the advisability and how positive to be in pursuing that kind of option. Councils Comstoer. established that the Cher did not really quarrel ¶sith the options but that their position was that there needed to be included a Willow corridor study option. Councilwoman Pearson asked Mr. Steele if the Chamber had done any studies to determine where other sites might be where they could have housing. Mr. Steele answered they had not, that it was something staff and con- sultants certainly should look into and that this study should be an option. Ms. Janet Owens spoke as & member of the gxec;nttve Committee the Hid - Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, and urged the Council to endorse the Housing options which the Planning Commission harp accepted. She felt that the Commission had conducted extensive public hearings during the summer and very carefully and deliberately had selected for feasibility study the options they felt would contribute most significantly to expanding housing opportunities in Palo Alto. The Hid --Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing hoped to see the goals and policies contained to the housing plan in the interims policy statement kept firmly in mind. There is 4 3 S %, 10/10174 concern in the community, as evidenced by a statement of support circulated at the Planning Commission meeting at which the options were selected, that there continue to be housing in Palo Alto for a wide mix of people in support for housing policies whichwould encourage this diversity in population. Me. Owens recognized the difficulties Palo Alto will have in meeting these goals, because the City has always, been a desirable place in which to live and because of this the housing crisis which is hitting the entire nation is having an even greater impact in Palo Alto. However, since the Impact Report was issued and the process of option selection occurred, President Ford signed a Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 into law. This encouraging news may crake it possible for the City to meet the housing needs of its .tow and moderate income citizens more effectively. She felt that an awareness of the many ?.imitations in Palo Aitc's future growth can meet the development of the realistic housing element which can continue to set forth goals, objectives and programs to continue the diversity in age, income, racial tnix and life style that its residents value. Mr. Ed Tillson, a re1ident of Mello Fark, and an employee of Stanford University, stated that he would favor any measures which would limit Stan- ford's growth. The school has a large bureaucratic establishment to support, and ho did not feel that wa3 the spirit in whith the university was set up. Mr. Tiilson felt that the Council should support 1(d) and not support 1(b) because he d?d not think that the industrial expansion of Stanford sho sld be increased. Also, he supported 1(f) and opposed 1(e), because to would like to see planned growth. A recess was taken from 10:00 p.m. until 10:20 p.m. Mayor Sher read a brief statement sent in by Mr. Denson, President of the Palo Alto Board of Realtors. They support. 1(a) and 1(c) and that single family homes in higher density continue because they are so sought after. Palo Alto could encourage this by methods used by other cities, by tax incentives and also utility cost incentives. Mr. Knox replied to an earlier question re overlay zones, that it was to provide for the possibility of low/moderate housing and overlay really means a suffix zone. This item will be gone into in further depth when staff has more data available. Vice Mayor Henderson, preliminary to motions re option set one, indicated he would say a few words to support each of the motiona as they came along. MOTION: Vice Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Comstock, option 1(b), "Allow selective adjustments (increases or decreases) in residential density limits provided 1) such limits will not be increased to any R -I zone unless they are in character with and acceptable to the neiChborhood, 2) the achievable holding capacity under the 1974 zoning will net be exceeded, and 3) any density increase will provide for inclusion of additonal low/moderate income housing. Vice Mayor Henderson also stated that the wording of the other options he would propose, would be as follows: 1(d), ".Add to the supply of housing by selectively rezoning currently vacant lands zoned for non-residential uses;" and 1(,e): "Encourage proposals for housing usage of lands presently non -residentially zoned;" and 1(g), as proposed by the Housing Corporation, 'Encourage developments of three- and four -bedroom units in order to provide housing more suitable to families. 4 3 6 10/10/74 , Referring to 1(b), Vice Mayor Henderson said 1(b) will allow selective increases or decreases in density, and this he felt was better than 1(c) which advocates a blanket reduction in density limits in all multi -family zones. Hewes concerned about some areas, such as north of University Avenue to the creek, as a very good example where reductions are needed if they are to keep a min of single and multi -family residences. There were similar problems north of the California Avneue commercial area, and on the eastern or El Camino side of College Terrace, and other. This option also allowed density increases but at the same time that it allows selective density increases it specifically protects R-1 areas. The third part of it establishes that any increase in density limits in any zone must include provision for low/moderate income housing. That portion as suggested by the Housing Corporation could be read as allowing only low/aod- erate income housing, so he changed the original words slightly because he knew that was not the intent, but rattier housing mixes. Councilman Rosenbaum questioned 1(h) (3) , and said he understood it was Mr. Knox's view that they take that out because it was being taken care of elsewhere. i Vice Mayor Henderson responded that those statements were made before he had made his presentation, and he intended to add that there would be possible discussion, of course, and perhaps some type of amendment to it. He felt it was a valid point for discussion. He was reluctant tc, take it out, because it is an overall basic policy. He did not want to see density increases for any other basic reason other thGt this. Vice Mayor Henderson realized there may be some type of exception they would want to Include. He said they could consider inclusion of some words related to specific individual development, which :eight protect what they both were desiring to protect. Councilman Comstock urged support for Vice Mayor He;nderson's modified 1(b). In focusing on 1(b) (3), the change eliminated any suxgestion that every bit of increase has got to be additional low/moderate income housing and was not sure that was the intention of the Commission to s aart with. The modified wording addressed itself to that point much more clearly, In option 1(b) (1), the Commission will he attempting to establish some level at which they might anticipate changes in zoning on a selective basis. Clearly any specific change ;n zoning density in an R -I zone would still require the variance process or rezoning process be exercised. Councilman Berwald requested an example of the exception for the R -1 zone in 1(b) (1). Vice Mayor Henderson responded that the recommendation from the Planning Commission was very strong in stating that "density limits will not be increased in any R-1 zone." The modification would permit development such as a flag lot if everybody around agreed with that. The housing Corporation gave the best example on the 690 Arastradero project, where inclusion of some low/moderate income housing did alter the R -I nature and yet was completely acceptable, So rather than just absolutely closing off any possibility in an R-1 zone, if the people will approve of something that is proposed, it could be allowed. Councilman Berwaid said that was a concern to him. Coupling that condi- tion with the addition of "only when such density increases will inc4de proportionate law/moderate income housing," was a double --edged sword that is aimed at the heart of the integrity of the R-1 zone. He felt this was the way it would be interpreted by future Counc.'.ls. He felt flag lots were another question. He wondered if they were considered "increasing densities," since a flag lot did not change the zone; it was still one lot/one house, and the lot has to beet the minimum re- quirements. When the exceptl.op is added, it is an open invitation to :4 3 7 10/10/74 place low/moderate income housing in any area. that is upgraded, any multiple gored area and in R-1 zones. Knowing community sentiment, he would, if anything, prefer 1(b) as it was recommended by the Planning Commission and would even eliminate subsection (3) of 1(b). Councilman Clay's queetion related to community acceptance, 1(b) (1), and referred to the Wilkie Way denial produced partly by community unacceptance. Ke asked if this wouldto one that woo1d have fallen under this provision. Vice Mayor Henderson said that adding these words was far more restrictive than the present situation. It is really saying we do not go in and put: in large low/moderate income housing projects without the acceptance of the neigh'jorhood. He considered that to be quite a step from where it was at the moment. He felt it had been their experience that they needed to have the acceptance and cooperation of the people in the immediate neighborhood. Councilman Clay then asked for clarification of ,low/moderate` and whether it was according to HUD regulations or to reletive market costs. Vice Mayor Henderson's response was that it was wiatever the Committee sets as definition. Councilman Clay said that a situation qualifying ;seder one definition would not necessarily do so under the other. Mr. Knox elaborated on 1(b). In the introduction he had said that this set dealt with the quantity of housing and all of those options try to get at quantity in some way. To ascertain whether they want to do anything to increase the amount of residential land or in other ways to increase the density to allow more housing in Palo Alto, they must raise the population total. He had pointed out that 1(a) maintained the density limits; 1(b) allowed tampering in certain ways; 1(c) cane out and said they would want to reduce density limits, i.e., lower population; 1(d) said they would want to add population and do it by rezoning some currently vacant land. He noted again that the major subject was quantity of housing. The assumption that the Planning staff made regarding condition number one under option 1(b), density limits would not be increased in any R-i zone," was that they would not be tampering with the R-1 zoning ordinance, but that the Commission was still free to recommend rezoning to the Council. The examples given by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation were the duplexes at Foothill, Green. Those duplexes were P -C rezonings. The Wilkie Way matter before the Planning Commission was a rezoning to P -C. All of those things would still be possible, but it was his under- standing that they were not going to change R-1 standards. In number three, they could only have that increase in density if all of the units were low/moderate income units. He.felt the proposed modified wording removed that problem. Councilman Comstock responded to Councilman Berwald's concern that 1(b) (3) was a strike at the integrity of the R-1 zone. He said what ice being proposed in '.(b) (1) and (2) particularly, is a fair reflection of Coun- cil's behavior up to now. They had always allowed exceptions in the R -- zones, carefully and selectively, with the interest in neighbors evalu- ated through public hearings and discussions. The one added element, wes an expression of interest and desire for the provisions of some increases in low/moderate income housing. This, to him, seemed to be in Tceeping with the policies they were subscribing to. It did not say what the total increase had to be but it sets an objective. 438 10/10/14 Mr. Knox responded to questions by Councilman Rosenbaum, and said they would be loo:eing at the zoning ordinance in its entirety and might be looking at new kinds of zones or new densities in those zones. They would also be looking at rezonings. On the map in the impact Report, they used existing zoning districts to accomplish 1(b). But it would be possible, as they go forward and begin to cork more closely with possible future new zones and new zone concepts, that they might want to look at different kinds of densities. Councilman Rosenbaum asked if it might be clearer if Mr. Knox spelled out exactly what was meant in 1(b). There seemed tobe two distinct ideas -- one would change the zone density. and the other would possibly change the zones that are actually applied to ;pieces of land. Mc. Knox said the notion behind 1(b) was to allow the staff and the Commission to consider on a design basis manipulating densities to provide a smoother transition at the R -1 edges and more density around the commercial cores. As they talked about it in language terms, which is difficult, they started putting conditions on it. And that was the way those conditions got placed. They have added to the complexity. He recalled that (2) was placed because in order to sec what happened if the overall population of the community was not allowed to change. That was just for the matter of testing the impact of that option. The Impact Report which indicates that the change can be held to zero. Mr. Knox stated that this is the data that they would need to help them ciake a decision. What is now needed is for Council to indicate whether they wanted to have lower densities at the edges of the -1 neighborhoods, and increased densities around downtown and around California Avenue. If the answer is yes, the motions should be reworded that way. If the answer were no, then Council should indicate they do not want any change in the den.sity,and thus had no concerns about where R--1 zone met the R-4 zone. Councilman Rosenbaum then pursued the wording of 1(b) (3) . He understood Mr. Knox that in some cases they would have to raise the densities, that is change the zone of some lands directly adjacent to the commercial area. If that were indeed the case, was that going to be in conflict with what option 1(b) (3) said? Mr. Knox responded that the proposed modification provided leeway itt the plan -making process. Council members had received it the packet a summary of three different studies staff bad made about the economic impact of for/moderate income housing. Discussion Of low/moderate income housing really belonged in option set 4. It cas obvious that Council wished it understood that even though they were talking about density increases, they were still interested in the provision of below -market priced housing. Councilman Berwald suggested amending the Henderson motion wording to, "Allow selective adjustments (increases or decreases) in residential density limits through redefinition of zones." This seemed necessary to him to increase or decrease the number of units allowed in a zone, provided, however, that a condition be added co that there shall be no change in the existing definition of R-1 zones. Vice Mayor Henderson said that when he was speaking of density limits he meant both the redefinition of a zone or any special zoning within an area that would increase the density. When rezoning was done next to the downtown area, for example, and density was increased._ That might be fine, so long as there was some provision for low/moderate income housing with that kind of overall change. He felt that saying the neighborhood could participate in it was more restrictive than present procedures. :4 3 9 10/10/74 Councilman Rosenbaum said the R-1 zone was an ordinance and it was at 6,000 feet and applied everywhere. He felt a clarification might be, "Rezoning of an R-1 zone will not occur unless ...." Councilman Berwald said "density limits" meant that there would be redefinition of zones. Therefore, he felt the Council should, after the word "limits," add "through redefinition of zones," and after (1), "there shall be no change in the existing definition of R-1 zones." Mayor Sher indicated that the language proposed in the Henderson motion came from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. He did not feel what Coun- cilman Berwald suggested carried out what they had in mind. The Housing Corporation intended there should be permissible increases in R--1 zones if neighborhoods agree. The Council in the past, has allowed exceptions and he did not feel they needed to make a change from existing procedures. He felt if they did not want to encroach on R-1 zones, they should say so, as the original option reflected. The original wording would not prevent Council from doing what it had done previously by way of recognizing variances or P -C zones. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Beahrs, that the words, "unlessthey are in character with and acceptable to the neighborhood," be deleted fro the motion. The :amendment passed on a unanimous vote. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilman, Berwald moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that after "(1) such limits," the words "through redefinition of zones or zoning changes," he added. Mayor Sher said he felt they had gotten away from what was a very limited planning option designed to give the possibility to the Planning Commission of recommending increases and decreases next to the coxrn rcial zones. it had nothing to do with protecting R-1 zones. The amendment failed on a 3 to 5 vote, as follows: AYES: Berwald, Clay, Rosenbaum NOES: Beahrs, Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Sher Mayor Sher said, regarding the Henderson modified 1(b) (3), that what was originally intended by the Planning Commission as 1(b) has been misconstrued. He felt that what. the Commission and the consultants were looking for was simply a device to trade densities -- to get a little bit higher next to commercial core areas and lover it text to the R-1 yenta. AMENS TO MOTION: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Beahrs, to delete subparagraph (3), without in any way making any kind of editorial or policy statement about low/ moderate inco oe houseing. The amendment passed on a vote of 6 to 2: AYES: Beaters, Berw 1d, Comstock, Pearson, Roeenbaaum,Sher NOES: Clay, Henderson Mayor Sher indicated that the train motion was then comparable to 1(b) as recommended by the Planning Commission, except for the change in language in the second part, 440 10/10/74 MOTION RESTATED: The motion as it now reads, is as follows: "Allow selectiae adjustments (increases or decreases) in residential density limits provided (1) such limits will not be increased in any R-1 zone; (2) the achievable holding capacity under 1974 zoning will not be exceeded." The motion passed unanimously. Vice Mayor Henderson indicated that he would not move 1(c) because he thought l(b) took care of that. MOTION: Vice mayor Henderson moved, duly seconded 1(d), as recommended by the Planning Commission: "Add to the supply of residential land by selectively rezoning currently vacant lands zoned for non-residential uses. Vice Mayor Henderson said the option had produced a lot of mail and phone calla but adding the word "selectively" should mitigate the fears. He was net thinking of denying Syntex, for example, the right to develop as originally proposed when it made its leasing arrangements from Stanford. Stanford has stated already its interest in possibly rezoning the vacant property north of Willow. Road for housing. That looked to be close to 25% of the total vacant land shown on the map on page 29 of the Impact Report. Scattered around in several locationsare small properties zoned for manufacturing that might be more suited to housing. Overall, he stated, there is an overabundance of industrially zoned land. But he certainly was not thinking of "railing" every undeveloped parcel at Stanford or anywhere else. He wished to state also that he intended to honor his co:r,itment to retain the industrial zoning to the south and east of Coyote Hill. He had stated his intention to protect Stanford's desire to develop on the other industrially zoned parcels around that hill. No one wo,ild be rezoning all the .vacant lands that are now 4oned for non-residential uses. Mr. Knox said option 1(d) had served its purpose. It was an option which they tested impact on, and the question of the proposed rezoning has become moot and therefore, he did not think there was any point in approving 1(d). Councilmen Beahrs said Mr. 1Cnox's explanation was an amplification of his earlier statements as he understood them. 1(d) now seemed a superfluous move, and Council should vote against it. Councilman Berwald said in that light he Would like to handle the content of option 1(d) in terms of 1(e) . He had a possible substitute' motion for 1(e), which would be to study the possibility of incentives to en- courage people to have multiple use of lands. The multiple use concept could be applied to urban lands. He did not want to build into the Comprehensive Plan the idea they were going to go out and select certain industrial and commercial areas for residential use. MOTION: Councilman Berwald moved to table I:he notion on 1(d). The motion to table failed for lack of a second. Planning Commission Vice Chairwoman Steinberg explained, in _regard to 1(d), that they had really wanted to explore how to :Hake it attractive for an industry to use part of its properties for reaidential zoning. She said one employer at Stanford Ludustrial Park, when he spoke at the Planning Commission meeting, spoke of the problems of recruiting employees because of the housing deficiencies in the area. Potential employees have to look for bowling further and further away. 65.62 of employees at Hewlett Packard come from the south county. With the high cost of gasoline and inadequate public transportation, the situation cannot improve. 4 4 1 . 10/10/74 Councilman Comstock called for the view graph of the University Avenue area. He wished to speak to the 1(d) motion. He would not suggest putting housing on some of the sites totally surrounded by industrial development. He was supporting the motion to the sense that it would provide in the study the possibility for various considerations. Mr. Knox said they understood City policy to be to mix uses in commercial and industrial areas. They would look for ways to promote a mixture of residential, industrial and commercial uses on a qualitative basis. The purpose, again, of option set one was to look at the prospects of adding to the residential supply of lead. Councilman Comstock asked if all the M-1 and M -1-S zones were rezoned or the plan suggested it be considered as R-2 or R-4, that would represent an increase in the housing supply. Some of it is vacant and some is not. He asked if the Commission and consultants were going to be free to look at it in that vein. Mr. Knox said they understood they were free to look at it because City policy calls for a mixture of uses. He pointed out that the area zoned adjacent to University amid Alma, which is M-1 and M --1-S, is a vigorous and vital part of Palo Alto. Mr. Knox wished to .show 1(e), which was slightly different from 1(f) . These were added by the Planning Commi- ssion to encourage housing use on present non -residentially zoned land and to tie any permitted increases in employment and co et•cial use to the provision of such residential uses as well as the provisic n of some. transit. In pointing out the differences, he said 1(e) says let us lcok at the possibility of encouraging housing usage on sari -residentially -oned land. He .said l(f) related more closely to 6(d) . l(f) says, "relate those increases in supply of residential units to commercial, employ- ment and transit." He would recommend that 1(f) be delayed for consid- eration until they talked about 6(d). 1(e), if it passed, would take care of Councilman Cot -stock's concerns. Councilwoman Pearson commented that zoning was the right of the legisla- tive body and not a guarantee to anybody who purchased the land that he is going to have that zoning forever. Whenever anyone buys land, he is speculating that the zoning is going to remain the same as long as he has it, and until he can develop it. She did not feel the City should be in the position of guaranteeing people that they have these rights of development. Mayor Sher felt 1(d) had an unfortunate history because it was talked about against the background of something everyone was now disclaiming. It was talked about against the background of a reap in the impact Report which showed parcels of land mostly in industrial areas and surrounded by industrial property. That was what produced the objections they have heard. The arguments then being made for it were in terms of non - residentially zoned land adjacent to residential lands. He noted that staff would prefer 1(d) not de adopted. At this point, Dr. Gruen said they should stop and lock at how they got into that particular option. They did look at what: Palo Alto was going to be in ten or twenty years. Vat they were talking about, :ender normal market conditions, was s very gradual increase in dwelling units, a slight decrease in population because of a change in household mix, and an overall increase in the income levels. One way of mitigating that was to try to encourage more housing. That was how they got into some of the options that they were then talking about. They looked very candidly at 1(d) to test whether it could help theta out, not to provide low and moderate income housing because that could not be done without a subdidy of some nature -- but to provide below market income housing. 44[ 10/10/74 They were talking about providing a little more housing stock so that at least the general increase will not be as fast as it would be if they did not augment that supply somewhat. It would not take care of the low and moderate, but it would help the general trend. He felt staff had found out that pimply taking the option which was already open to them of making those kinds of minor changes f.n the M-1 zone was not going to, in any significant way, alter the pattern of Palo Alto's housing stock in the next twenty years. Along this line, there should be a way of encouraging people who are building both industry and who have some land, to add to their mix, but he did not know exactly how that could be done. Mayor Sher asked him what his thinking was on adding the wording, "adjacent to currently zoned residential land," at the end of 1(d). Dr. Gruen said it was quite benign. It would not solve the problem, the motion to accept option 1(d), as recoumended by the Planning Commission, failed an a 4 to 4 vote. AYES: Comstock, Henderson, Pearson, Rosenbaum NOES: Beahrs, Serwald, Clay, Sher Vice Mayor Henderson, in reference to option 1(e), said he had changed some wording, removing the word "vacant" because it seemed too limiting. He did not like the word "study" in the General Plan, but was not yet ready, to specifically "encourage" housing over such as industrial company parking Jots. Thus, he entered the words, "encourage proposals," MOTION: Vice Mayor Henderson seconded by Perwaid, moved option 1(e), as follows: "Consider incentives and encourage proposals for housing usage of /and presently non -residentially zoned.": The motion passed unanimously. Vice Mayor Henderson said he could not accept 1(f) mainly because it did not appear practical or operable. MOTION: Vice Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Comstock, option 1(g), as proposed by the Housing Corporation: "Encourage development of three and four -bedroom units in order to provide' housing more suitable to families." The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Rosenbaum said he had another proposed option, which might take some time. He had been concerned about the area north of University in particular, and to some degree, south of University. His concern focused on trying to come up with some way to maintain the mix of apartments and single-family: homes that exist. Right now they had all apartment zoning, and gradually, it was expected that the single-Zamily homes would be replaced with apartments. There was no incentive to maintain those single- family homes. There is a concept called transfer of development rights in Which, in some way, an average density for an area would be established and then if somebody wanted to build above that density they could do that only by buying up development rights from somebody else who had property in the area. Somebody who had a single-family home and is happy to maintain that can eventually get some of the R-2 or R-5 market value out of his land by selling the development rights td somebody else who wants to take advantage of the higher density. Whet resulted would be some new apartments going up but some of the single-family homes being retained. He recognized there would be many questions and that they should set this item aside until next time. 4 4 3 10/10/74. Councilwoman Pearson asked staff to submit something in writing on this item. Mayor Sher noted the next meeting as October 15th, and suggested also October 22nd, even though it would follow a regular Monday night meeting. MOTION: Councilman Comstock :coved, seconded by'Hendereon, that October 22nd be designated for a meeting for further consideration of the Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed unanimously. d ' QurnztntP Councilman Comstock commended colleagues and staff for their application, to this difficult task. It had been very educational, and he had learned a great deal about the Plan and about the community, and what they could do fox it. He thanked them for spending the amount of time on it that it required. MOTION: Councilman Comstock moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unauiriously, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m, ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVE: Mayor ti 4 4 4 10/10/74