HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 172-06of Pa|o Al o
City 1Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
MARCH 20, 2006
2460 HIGH STREET [05PLN-00363]:
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 172:06
REQUEST BY CITY OF PALO
ALTO REAL ESTATE DIVISION FOR CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF
CITY-INITIATED ZONING CHANGE OF A PORTION OF THE HIGH
STREET CITY SURPLUS PROPERTY FROM PF (PUBLIC FACILITIES)
TO RMD (TWO UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL). ZONE
DISTRICT: PF.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and Planning and Transportation Commission recommend the City Council approve the
ordinance for the zoning classification change of a portion of 2460 High Street (parcel number
132-17-081) from the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district to the Two-Unit Multiple-Family
Residence District (RMD) zone pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.98.040.
The parcel is surplus City property. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designation of the
subject site is Multifamily Residential; therefore the proposed zone change is consistent with the
land use designation and a Comprehensive Plan amendment is not required. (Attachment A:
Adopting Ordinance & Attachment B: Location Map).
BACKGROUND
The 5,413 square foot portion of Parcel 132-17-081 is located on High Street adjacent to the
Alma Street-to-Oregon Expressway on-ramp and 2476/2496 High Street. The parcel is owned
by the City of Palo Alto and is remnant land left from the development of the Oregon!Alma
Street interchange. Surrounding land uses are predominantly multifamily (RM-15 & RM-30),
with some vacant county property and roadways. The parcel is currently vacant. The remaining
portion of the parcel, not designated as City surplus property, would remain zoned PF. This
remaining portion contains some City Utilities facilities. This area might be needed in the future
for widening of the adjacent on-ramp to Oregon Expressway.
On September 19, 2005, the City Council declared a portion (approximately 5,400 square feet) of
the subject parcel as surplus property and directed staff to process the application to change the
zoning classification of at 2460 High Street (Parcel # 132-17-081) from Public Facilities (PF) to
Two Unit Multiple Family Residence (RMD) (CMR 366:05 included in Attachment F). Funds
from the sale of this City surplus property would be used to help fund an affordable housing
project on a larger site.
CMR: 172:06 Page 1 of 3
There is no development proposal at this time for the subject parcel. The zoning change does not
entitle a development to occur, and any proposal would be subject to all applicable development
standards and review processes. Additional discussion of the existing and proposed zoning
district development standards, surrounding land uses and designations; and consistency with
Comprehensive Plan policies can be found in the Commission staff report. (Attachment C)
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
At the Planning and Transportation Commission public hearing on February 8, 2006, the
Commission recommended (6-0-0-1) the City Council approve the zoning classification change
on the subject portion of parcel number 132-17-081, 2460 High Street, from PF to RMD. The
Commission further recommended that the City Council direct staff to provide sufficient
landscaping to act as a buffer between the property and the eastbound Oregon Expressway
onramp. (Attachment D: Excerpt of 2/8/06 Commission minutes)
One resident speaking toward the item at Commission expressed concern about the safety of any
future development from east bound on-ramp traffic onto Oregon Expressway, noting damage to
the existing guardrail. The resident, following the Commission meeting, submitted a
clarification to his comments, noting that upon further inspection the guardrail damage was not
in the location mentioned. Instead the damage and noted accidents had occurred on the
westbound ramps and tunnel area, and therefore not adjacent to the proposed rezoning area.
(Attachment E: emall and comment letters received)
In its motion and discussion, the Commission indicated that the property just to the west of the
subject parcel that is owned by the County (Attachment B), could be suitably landscaped to act
as a buffer between this parcel and the roadway for safety and visual reasons and that ideally the
landscaping would be established prior to any development of the subject parcel.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The proposed zoning classification change on the High Street City Surplus Property does not
have an economic impact to the City’s General Fund. If the zoning change is approved by City
Council, City staff will return to Council with a Request for Bid Proposals, including a staff
recommendation of a minimum bid for the High Street parcel based on an appraisal of its market
value as a multiple family residential lot. The net sale proceeds from the sale would be deposited
in the Residential Housing Fund to be used for affordable housing projects.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This proposed zoning change does not represent any change to existing City policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The zoning change is consistent with the underlying Comprehensive Plan designation of
Multiple Family Residence, and was analyzed as such in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan Final Environmental Impact Report certified by the City on July 20, 1998. An Addendum
to the Comprehensive Plan Update EIR was completed when the Housing Element was adopted
on December 2, 2002.
CMR: 172:06 Page 2 of 3
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
/STEVE EM’,
Directo~Planning ,and C,~mi~nvironment
EMILY I~RRISON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Adopting Ordinance for portion of 2460 High Street zoning classification change
B.Site Location Map
C.Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, February 8, 2006
D.Planning and Transportation Commission excerpt verbatim minutes, February 8, 2006
September 19, 2005 City Manager’s Report 366:05
COURTESY COPIES:
Bill Fellman, Real Estate Division
Ruth Huston
CMR: 172:06 Page 3 of 3
NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PAL0
ALTO TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF
2460 HIGH STREET (DESIGNATED SURPLUS PROPERTY)
FROM PF (PUBLIC FACILITIES)TO RMD (TWO UNIT
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENCE DISTRICT)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i. The City Council finds as follows:
A. On September 19, 2005, the Council approved the
staff recommendation to declare a portion of 2460 High Street
surplus property and directed staff to process the application
to change the zoning district from PF to RMD.
B. The Planning and Transportation Commission
("Commission"), after a duly noticed public hearing on
February 8, 2006, has recommended that the City Council of the
City of Palo Alto (~Council") rezone a portion of parcel number
132-17-081 known as 2460 High Street (designated surplus
property) from the Public Facilities (PF) zone to the Two-Unit
Multiple-Family Residence District (RMD) zone pursuant to the
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.98.040.
C.The Council has received the facts presented at
the public hearing, including public testimony and reports and
recommendations from the director of planning and community
environment or other appropriate city staff.
D.The Council finds that rezoning the parcel to the
RMD zone is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
designation of the parcel as Multiple Family Residential, and
was analyzed as such in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report certified by the City on July
20, 1998. An Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Update EIR was
completed when the Housing Element was adopted- on December 2,
2002.
E. The Council has held a duly noticed public
hearing on the matter on March 20, 2006 and has reviewed all
060314 syn 0120095
NOT YET APPROVED
other relevant information, including staff reports, and all
testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of
the City of Palo Alto to place 2460 High Street, a 5,413 square
foot portion of Parcel 132-17-081, within the Two-Unit Multiple-
Family Residence District (RMD) zone.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective upon the
thirty-first (31st) day after its passage and adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sr. Deputy City y Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
060314 syn 0120095
Legend
2460 High St
The Cily of
Pato Alto
2460 High St
Location Map
Attachment B
This map is a product of the
City of Pa!o Alto GIS
100
Legend
2460 High St
The City of
Palo Alto
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
2460 High St
Location Map
ATTACHMENT C
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Susan Mickelsen,
Planner
DEPARTMENT:Planning and
Community Environment
February 8, 2006
2460 High Street [05PLN-00363]: Request for Planning and
Transportation Commission review and recommendation with City
Council adoption of City-initiated rezoning of a portion of the "High
Street City Surplus Property" from PF (PuNic Facilities) to RMD (Two
Unit Multifamily Residential). Zone District: PF. Environmental
Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
Section 15301.
RECOM_MENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) review and
recommend to the City Council approval for a zoning classification change of a portion of parcel
number 132-17-081; 2460 High Street (designated city surplus property) from the Public
Facilities (PF) zoning district to the Two-Unit Multiple-Family Residence District (RMD) zone
pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.98.040. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
designation of the subject site is Multifamily Residential; therefore the proposed zone change is
consistent with the land use designation and a Comprehensive Plan amendment is not required.
For your reference, Location/Zoning and Designated Land Use Maps are attached to this staff
report (Attachments A and B, respectively).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a City Council initiated, following Finance Committee recommendation,
rezoning of a portion of parcel 132-17-081; 2460 High Street, of approximately 5400 square feet,
from public facilities to two-unit multiple-family residential to provide for housing on this
surplus City property. Based on the site size and under the proposed RMD zoning district, up to
two units (under the same ownership) could be constructed on this site. There is no development
proposal at this time for the subject parcel.
Background
On September 19, 2005, the City Council approved the staff and Finance Committee
recommendation to declare the subject parcel portion surplus property and directed staff to
process the application to change the zoning district from PF to RIVID (CMR 366:05 included in
2460 High Street Rezoning Page 1
Attachment C). For the City Council action, City Real Estate staff had evaluated the possible
uses of the site, including alternatives which might increase opportunities for housing. Staff
explored, without success, the potential purchase of adjacent parcels (owned by the County).
The small size parcel would only accommodate one to two units, therefore staff recommended
and City Council approved declaring the property surplus, changing the zoning, and selling the
property. Funds from the sale of this property will be used to offset the costs of an affordable
housing project on a larger site, such as the potential redevelopment of the Alma Substation
property.
Proiect Site
The 5,413 square foot portion of Parcel 132-17-081 is located on High Street adjacent to the
Alma Street-to-Oregon Expressway on-ramp and 2476/2496 High Street. The parcel is owned
by the City of Palo Alto and is remnant land left from the development of the Oregon/Alma
Street interchange. The parcel is currently Vacant, with landscaping and is irregular in shape.
The remaining portion of the parcel, not designated as city surplus property, would remain zoned
PF. This remaining portion contains some City Utilities facilities and might be needed in the
future for widening of the adjacent on-ramp to Oregon Expressway.
The site is bounded by the uses and land use designations summarized in the table below (see
Attachments A and B for the zoning and land use map).
Location Existing Uses Comprehensive Plan Zoning
Remaining vacant portion of Multiple-family Public Facilities (PF)
North parcel, High Street, RM-30 Residential Medium Density Multiple-family
properties (RM-30)
RM-15 properties, Colorado Multiple-family Low Density Multiple-familySouthAvenueResidential(RM- ! 5)
East High Street, tLM-30 properties Multiple-family Medium Density Multiple-family
Residential (RM-30)
On-ramp to Oregon Expressway,
West County vacant ROW, City Utility Multiple-family PuNic Facilities (PF)
Station, Alma Street Residential
Subject Vacant site Multiple-family Public Facilities (PF)Site Residential
As presented to City Council in September 2005, due to the parcel’s 5,413 square feet size,
rezoning the parcel to RM-15 (Low Density Multiple Family Residential) or RM-30 (Medium
Density Multiple Family Residential) would only allow development of one residential unit.
Since the site is surrounded by primarily two-story multiple family developments staff felt a two-
unit multiple family development would be appropriate and consistent with the underlying
Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Under the Two Unit Multiple Family Residential
(RMD) zoning district, either one or two units would be permitted, provided that if two units are
developed, both are under the same ownership. Such a development would be compatible with
2460 High Street Rezoning Page 2
the existing multifamily and public facilities development in the vicinity. There is no
development proposal at this time for the subject parcel. The rezoning does not entitle a
development to occur, and any proposal would be subject to all applicable development
standards and review processes.
Two Unit Multiple-Family Residence (RlVID) Zoning District Regmlations
The zoning ordinance two unit multiple family residential district (RMD) allows up to two
residential units to be developed under the same ownership in areas designated for multiple
family use in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Maximum densities in the RMD district are 17
dwelling units per acre. The RMD district has the following development standards:
¯The minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet
¯The minimum lot size to permit two units is 5,000 square feet.
¯The maximum building height is 35 feet.
¯The required setbacks are 20’ front, 6’ sides, and 20’ rear.
¯Dayligcht plane requirements (18.10.040) are applicable for the side and rear.
¯Maximum site coverage is 40%.
¯Maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5 to 1. (Approximate 2,700 sffor the subject site).
¯The minimum usable open space requirement is 450 square feet per unit.
¯The minimum off-street parking requirement is (for a two unit development) 3 spaces,
two of which must be covered.
Procedural Background
The process for a city-initiated zone change is outlined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code under
Section 18.98. The steps are summarized as follows:
¯City Council or PTC direction toward staffto process rezoning application (City Council
direction occurred on September 19, 2005);
¯The item is scheduled for a regular or special meeting of the PTC; and
¯If recommended for approval by the PTC, an ordinance would be drafted for the City
Council’s final action that contains findings in support of the requested zone change.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed change in land use must be consistent with the plans and policies of the City of
Palo Alto. The subject parcel is designated in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as Multifamily
residential. Therefore the proposed zone change is consistent with this designation and a change
in this designation is not required. ,
The Comprehensive Plan defines the Multiple Family Residential designation as follows:
"Multiple Family Residential: The permitted number of housing units wil! vary by area,
depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and publie transit, distance to
shopping, and environmental problems. Net densities will range from 8 to 40 units and 8
to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single
family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted by zoning may be
allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are
available, and the net effect will be compatible with the overall Comprehensive Plan."
2460 High Street Rezoning Page 3
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Policies
Staffbelieves that the proposed zone change complies with the Comprehensive Plan policies and
programs, particularly the updated Housing Element’s policies and programs for increased
housing density for sites.
Comprehensive Plan Policies
¯ Policy H-2: Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and
diversity in appropriate locations. Emphasize and encourage the development
of affordable and attainable housing ;
¯ Program H-3:Encourage the conversion of non-residential lands to residential use to both
increase the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing, and decrease
the potential for the creation of new jobs that exacerbate the need for new
housing. Land use and development applications that propose the conversion
of non-residential land to residential or mixed use development will be given
preferential or priority processing to encourage such conversion;
¯ Policy H-3:Continue to support the re-designation of suitable vacant or under-utilized
lands for housing or mixed uses containing housing;
¯ Program H-46: Support and expand the City’s Housing Development Fund or successor
program; and
¯ Policy L-48:Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The proposed zone change on the "High Street City Surplus Property" does not have an
economic impact to the City’s General Fund. If the zoning change is approved by Council, City
staff will then return to Council with the Request for Bid Proposals, with a likely staff
recommendation of a minimum bid for the High Street parcel based on an appraisal of its market
value as a multiple family residential lot. The net sale proceeds from the sale would be deposited
in the Residential Housing Fund to be used to offset the costs of affordable housing projects,
such as the potential AIma Street Substation property redevelopment.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed zone change is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed zone change does not change the
vacant use of the land and is consistent with the underlying Comprehensive Plan land use
designation of multifamily residential. The zoning change of the parcel does not entitle future
development on the parcel and such potential development is subject to additional environmental
and development review.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:Site Location Map with surrounding zoning shown
Attachment B:Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
Attachment C:City Manager’s Report 366:05, September 19, 2005
2460 High Street Rezoning Page 4
COURTESY COPIES
Bill Fellman, City Real Estate Department
Don Larkin, City Attorney
Prepared By:Susan Mickelsen, Planner
Manager Review: John Lusardi, Planning Manager
~I~N LUS .~LD’I~, PLANNING MANAGER
2460 High Street Rezoning Page 5
?F
Legend
~!~{~.’ High st cib,, cat (63)
City o!"
Palo Alto ATTAC>Z~.,ENT A
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto G1S
2747
/
Proposed High Street
Property To
Attachment B
High2460 Street
Parcel # 132-17-081
Attachment D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22,
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
February 8, 2006
EXCERPT
2460 Hi.oh Street (05PLN-00000-00363)*: Request for Planning and Transportation
Commission recommendation to proceed with a City-initiated comprehensive plan amendment
and rezoning of a portion of the "High Street City Surplus Property" from PF (Public Facilities)
to RMD (Two Unit Multifamily Residential). Zone District: PF. Environmental Assessment:
Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Section ! 5301.
Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: The Staff who wrote the report is on her way
down from the fifth floor, I don’t think she anticipated the speed at which managed to get
through the first two items. Bill Fellman is here representing the City’s interest. So perhaps to
use the time wisely we could hear from Bill.
Chair Burt: Bi!l, would you like to present any of your information at this time and then we will
loop back to Planning Staff.
,Mr. Bill Fellman: I don’t really have too much to add from what is in addition to the report,
which you have read. There was an understanding that there was some concern on the Planning
Commission about possibility of making it a mini-park and we did look into that in a prior Staff
Report that is not attached to this report. I just want to let you know that we did look into it but
because of the nature of the closeness of the additional park, Bowden Park, the park-field people
felt that it was too small even to have it as a mini-park. That ~vas one of the issues that I kno~v
that had been raised earlier. I ~vill turn it over to Susan.
Ms. Susan Mickelson, Planner: Sorry. I will just briefly go over what was contained in your
Staff Report. In September 2005 the City Finance Committee review and recommendation to the
City Council who approved it was the designation of this property at 2460 High Street as surplus
property and initiate a zoning change from the PF (Public Facilities) to the RMD which is two
unit multifamily residential district. If the proposed zoning change is ultimately approved by
Council City Staff would then review its sale and the funds would as directed by the Finance
Committee and Council offset the cost of affordable housing projects within the City.
At your places was an aerial map provided of the general area. If you look at that you can see
that it is in the 2400 block of High Street near the onramp to Oregon Expressway off of Alma. It
is remnant land leftover from the development of that Oregon Expressway onramp. The parcel is
currently vacant and surrounded by multifamily uses and road right-of-way. The proposed
zoning change would apply to around a 5,000 square foot portion of that parcel and that is
provided in crosshatch on your aerial. It is also on the wall for the public if they are interested as
well.
I just ~vanted to note that the zoning district of RMD would allow up to two residential units on
this size of a parcel and it in general does further the City’s goal to increase housing
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
opportunities throughout the City. The underlying Comp Plan designation of this parcel is
multifamily residential therefore a Comp Plan amendment is not required with this zoning
changed. The proposed zoning is consistent with this designation.
Staff recommends that Commission review and recommend to City Council approval of this
zoning classification change for the portion of parcel 13217081 which is also referred to as 2460
High Street or the High Street Surplus Property from the Public Facilities to the RMD or two
unit multifamily residential district. As you know Bill is here if you have any questions as well.
Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have questions of Staff prior to opening the
hearing to the public? Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: Yes, I have a question with regard to its proximity to the Southern
Pacific Rail Line there. Would there be any kind of performance standards that would go along
with the property that would be inclined to require additional soundproofing or sound attenuation
in the building itself?.
Ms. Mickelson: Well, when a development was proposed they would have to meet the external
goals of the City Comp Plan. The internal are requirements through the state that they would
need to meet.
Commissioner Lippert: Does anyone else have anything to say about that with regard to STC
ratings or constructions methods that might be employed to ensure that as affordable housing
units that they are not living next to the L as in .....
Mr. Emslie: There may be nothing more to add but the STC ratings would be applied at the time
of construction plans being approved and they would be checked for compliance with the
requirement for interior standards. Exterior standards are ~tidelines under Palo Alto Comp Plan
policy they are not requirements.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
Chair Burt: Dan.
Commissioner Garber: Do I understand correctly that the City is the current o~vner of this
property?
Ms. Mickelson: That is correct.
Commissioner Garber: There are no traffic or parking issues with changing the zoning
specifically along High Street?
Ms. Mickelson: High Street is a court development with multifamily. Any further development
would undergo its own review for transportation and then as well there is a potential of two units
that would be developed under the same ownership.
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
.3--
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Oarber: Thank you.
Chair Burt: Okay, at this time we have one card from a member of the public. It is Preston
Carter. Mr. Carter, you have up to five minutes to speak.
Mr. Preston Carter, Palo Alto: I am not really prepared to comment in a formal way. I am a
resident about a block away on the 2400 block of Emerson and I have lived there for 15 years or
so. I guess I am concerned about t~vo things. I am wondering if those have been considered.
The first is in that particular cul-de-sac on High there are a lot of people who already have to
park their cars on the street so it looks like the conversion of this lot to a residence would make it
an even more difficult parking situation there for those who already live there and possibly for
the people who live in the ne~v unit. Secondly, I think that is kind of a dangerous place to put a
house. I think the best evidence I could offer for that assertion would be to suggest that you go
look at the guardrail along side that onramp and see how many times that guardrail has been
damaged by cars who go through that onramp at a high rate of speed. It seems to me in my
memory about once a year there is some kind of crash that we hear late at night. Somebody is
driving through there too fast. So overall it just strikes me as a marNnal piece of property for
erecting residences and the living conditions for the residents there would be substandard in my
opinion. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. So at this time I would like to close the public hearing. One thing I
would like to ask Staff to give us a little bit ofbackgound on the history of this parcel. Why it is
vacant?
Mr. Fellman: The parcel is vacant because it was a remnant of the onramp onto Page Mill when
Alma was widened, or Oregon Expressway actually, it is Oregon Expressway in that location. It
was a larger parcel and in the old subdivisions all the parcels were the same size and High Street
went through to the other side of Oregon Expressway. So it is just leftover from the onramps
and off ramps of Alma Street.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have questions or comments? Lee and then
Karen.
Commissioner Lippert: Can you give me an idea as to the size or what the depth of the buffer is
that abuts the onramp there?
Mr. Fellman: The buffer strip that you are talking about is owned by Santa Clara County and it
is 20 feet.
Commissioner Lippert: Santa Clara County would not be inclined to widen or move that
onramp?
Mr. Fellman: That is a possibility but it is my understanding this same question came up at the
Finance Committee and it is my understanding that the City’s policy is not to widen it.
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Just to follow up on that does the City have the ability to
landscape that buffer or would we have to ask the County to do that?
Mr. Fellman: I think the County would welcome it if we required it. The County wouldn’t do it.
We already landscape along Oregon Expressway on County land.
Commissioner Lippert: But that could be reinforced with appropriate plantings and measures to
ensure that if the guardrail were impacted then there would be adequate safety cushion there.
Mr. Fellman: The County would be responsible for the guardrail and any landscaping they
would most likely look to the City to take care of that.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: This is a question I brought with Staff previously. What we are doing
tonight is determining whether the rezoning of the property from PF to residential is satisfying
the Comprehensive Plan. The other piece of that is when the property is sold the fimds from the
sate of this are going to be put into a fund for residential development. I would appreciate some
Staff input on how much we can comment on that because there are Comp Plan references to
looking for or seeking any funding for fmancing open space acquisition and deve!opment and it
refers to both open space in the Foothills and in the residential neighborhoods. So essentially
what we are doing is we are losing some PF space and I am wondering how that is consistent
with the goals of retaining, while this isn’t developed as a park now, it is retaining some open
space if you will. So if Staff could comment on what our purview is about commenting on that,
losing a PF site is what we are doing essentially.
Mr. Emslie: Your purview is limited to advising the City Council on the appropriateness of the
zoning recommended by Staff. The City Council has pointed out earlier, has had discussion at
Finance Committee and the City Council as a whole where they have discussed the financial
aspects of the plan and what areas the money should be earmarked for. So to the extent that your
comments in the topic areas that you mentioned are limited to your land use recommendation
they could be transferred to the Council when they do get your recommendation for or against
the Staff recommendation.
Vice-Chair Holman: So just to be clear, as a tangent to our approval let’s assume of this change
we could also add comments whether it was a part of the motion or not but we could add our
comments about the use of the funds as far as being consistent with other Comp Plan policies
and goals.
Mr. Emslie: To the extent that they relate back to your recommendation on the zoning. There
needs to be a tie-in to your recommendation on the land use of this. There are many policies in
the Comp Plan not all of them relate directly to land use. Of course your whole record is
presented to Council so they would have the benefit of your full discussion but your actual
recommendation needs to be based on the zone change authority that the City’s ordinance gives
to the Planning Commission.
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Vice-Chair Holman: Understood and I will let those comments that are on the record suffice.
Chair Burt: Other Commissioners? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I know we haven’t gotten an appraisal yet but has there been any
discussion among Staff as to what sort of funds we could anticipate getting for this parcel that
would then be applied towards the City’s affordable housing?
Mr. Feltman: There was $450,000 in it and it was appraised.
Commissioner Bialson: And that is after we go through this zone change and have the lot on the
market you would expect to get about $450,000? Is that correct?
Mr. Fellman: The appraisal was last year so it could go either way I guess. Typically what a city
does is to set the figure slightly less in the hopes of getting .... our process is a written bid
followed by an oral bid. If there is a lot of interest in the property the City usually generates
more than what we estimate the value at.
Chair Burt: I had a question and a comment. First we had a member of the public who was
concerned about parking. While we recognize that we can’t use this project to mitigate existing
on-street parking deficits is it clearly the intention to have this project be fully parked when it is
developed?
Ms. Mickelson: Yes, it would have off-street parking requirements similar to RMD district.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Then my comment is along the lines of Commissioner Holman’s
concern. We have here a Public Facility, an undeveloped open space land, and the Council
Finance Committee had evaluated this as a potential funding source for an affordable housing or
to supplement City income to achieve an affordable housing objective. That is a very admirable
goal. The other thing that I would like to encourage the Council to take into consideration
whether ~vith this property or any other surplus properties within the City within the
Comprehensive Plan we have a recogr, ition that we have a park deficit. We have several
neighborhoods in the City that do not even have a pocket park where children can access it
without crossing major thoroughfares. So if this parcel were not a proper candidate for mini-
park or a pocket park I would hope that Council would consider in the future any surplus Public
Facility land to look at that as an opportunity to address very targeted deficit areas of mini-parks
in the City. There are only a few of those where we really don’t have any access for families and
children without crossing major thoroughfares. It not only hits those land use aspects in the
Comp Plan and within the natural environment aspects but frankly in terms of encouraging
pedestrian transportation as opposed to auto transportation, it hits transportation elements. So
there are a number of Comp Plan policies and progams that would support that kind of approach
and so that is just by way of a comment and not intended to be part of the motion.
Does anyone else have any other questions or comments before entertaining a motion?
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Cassel: Does Staff want to address the safety question that was raised by the
public? As I look at it it doesn’t appear that something would as a trajectory hit that area.
Clearly Lee brought up another solution to that. Do you want to comment on that?
Ms. Mickelson: I believe the commenter was speaking to the portion of the parcel that is not
being rezoned, the barrier along that edge. If you see along the proposed rezoning part of the
parcel there is that 20-foot County right-of-way kind of buffer and the guardrail starts within that
area but most of the guardrail is further down along the area that is going to remain vacant.
Chair Burt: Great. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Are we ready for a motion at this point? I saw Lee having something to
say.
Chair Burt: First a question from Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I don’t know if I was clear on that with regard to that landscape buffer. I
guess what I am asking is if it is within our purview to make a condition of the sale of the
property that that buffer be appropriately landscaped by whoever the purchaser is so that it
mitigates potential traffic impacts there.
Mr. Emslie: I think Don may correct me but I do believe you could recommend that as a
condition. If the Commission were so inclined to do that we would ask that you condition the
project that landscaping be done prior to the sale of the property and not stipulate as to who
responsibility that was and maybe the City would choose to do that in order to enhance the
market value of that.
Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney: I think you could make that requirement. I am
not sure you could do that through the zoning process so that would be a separate action not
related because this is just purely a rezone and what you are asking is something beyond just a
rezone. You are actually asking to do something that would condition a future project that hasn’t
happened yet.
Chair Burt: So, Don, let me make sure I understand. Is there any action that we could take
tonight to reflect Commissioner Lippert’s concern?
Mr. Larkin: I think you could make the strong recommendation and I know it will be listened to.
Mr. Emslie: All your actions are recommendations but what you would do is recommend the
Council direct certain things to happen prior to the sale. I think that would be as good as any
condition you could put on the project.
Chair Burt: Should that be made subsequent to the motion?
Mr. Emslie: As a part of the motion.
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Burt: As a part of the motion, thank you. Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: Yes, follow up to that for clarification if I could, please. Staff suggested
that that landscaping be done prior to the sale of the property but when property is developed
landscaping usually suffers for the redevelopment. So could Staff clarify what was intended by
that or just clarify that for me, please? I am supportive of that notion but I am not quite sure how
practically that is going to work.
Mr. Emslie: It could happen any number of ways some sort of security could be put up. So I
think if you were to say your goal is to have this area suitably landscaped prior to anyone
building on it or soon thereafter then we will figure out the details. So I think if you just make a
recommendation that you would like to see it ultimately landscaped in conjunction with any
development that would be sufficient for us to figure out the means to do that.
Chair Burt: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I just want to point out where I see a potential hole in this. Generally,
the ARB is the governing body that dictates landscaping on properties. This is potentially being
zoned as two units. Two units wouldn’t come before ARB. If it were a single-family house it
would have IR review especially if it was two stories. In this case it doesn’t fall into ARB, it
doesn’t fall into IR review and what I am looking at here is the necessity to have some sort of
buffer between that onramp and the property that is well established before the development goes
Oil.
Chair Burt: Dan.
Commissioner Garber: So just to be clear, is the recommendation to landscape the area that is
actually owned by the County? Thank you.
Chair Burt: So could Staff comment on what Commissioner Lippert just raised, and would there
be a good practical mechanism to achieve the landscaped outcome that we are seeking?
Mr. Emslie: You don’t need to come up with that practical mechanism. You need to tell the
Council that as your recommendation you direct Staff that in this transaction that that buffer in
the County area be landscaped at the soonest possible time so as to not interfere with eventual
construction.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: Yes, I have one other question for the Staff. The Comprehensive Plan
policies that support in the Staff Report this change of zoning, the fourth one is Policy L-48,
which speaks of high-quality creative desig-n and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development public spaces. To me this one does not apply to this project because as
I view it there is no design work going on and there is no site planning going on. So would Staff
be amenable to removing that before this goes to Council or do you see it other~vise?
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
!8
19
20
21
22,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
4!
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Mickelson: The intent was just to imply that the zoning is compatible with the surrounding
area. Certainly, if you don’t think that Comp Plan is appropriate for that use we could take it out.
Chair Burt: So you are saying that the site planning component of L-48 is applicable. The high-
quality creative design may or may not be. Okay. As long as we are on the Comp Plan policies
Program H-3 is listed which speaks about encouraging conversion of nonresidential lands to
residential use. My reading of that program in the Comp Plan has always been that it was
referring to private land where we looking at converting commercial property to residential and
looking for opportunities to do so. I don’t think it speaks one way or the other on Public Facility
land. It doesn’t preclude it but I don’t think it was ever intended to endorse it either. I do think
you have ample support for the position that Staff has taken but I just want to make sure we are
not stretching the boundaries of what we cite in Comp Plan on applicable pro~ams or policies.
Do we have a motion?
MOTION
Commissioner Bialson: We do. I move that we proceed as recommended by Staff and would
Staff prefer that I read the ...you would. Okay. Then the motion is that we recommend to the
City Council approval for a zoning classification change of a portion of parcel number 132-17-
081, that is 2460 High Street from the Public Facility zoning district to the two unit multiple
family residence district zone pursuant to the Municipal Code Section 18.98.040. In addition to
making that recommendation it would also be part of my motion that we would direct Staff that
as soon as possible a part of this transaction maybe prior to this transaction the portion of the
County land which acts as a buffer between this parcel and the onramp onto Oregon Expressway
be suitably landscaped to create as much as possible an actual buffer. I think the word suitable
~vas used and I can’t recall any other. Do you see anything Lee? Any recommendation there as
to the language that we should use for the landscaping to be required? The intent is to try to
make it as mature as possible as quickly as possible and that is why we would ask for the
landscaping to be put in and the County approached even prior to the time this parcel is put on
the market. Is that correct?
SECOND
Commissioner Lippert: Second.
Chair Burt: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Bialson, second by Commissioner
Lippert. Does the maker wish to comment on the motion any further?
Commissioner Cassel: Pat, can I make a very small comment? I think we want to direct Council
to direct Staff, we can’t direct Staff.
Chair Burt: On the landscaping element. Yes, so if you would clarify it so that we are
requesting that Council direct Staff to have this strong landscaping buffer.
Commissioner Bialson: That is absolutely correct.
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Burt: That is accepted by the seconder.
Commissioner Bialson: My comments are hopefully going to be brief. We have raised some
issues with regard to always looking for an opportunity to have pocket parks or some other use
of the property but this particular parcel I think is suitable for just what Staff recommends. It
would be in line with the development on this dead-end street. I think it will Nve an opportunity
for there to be some reasonably priced residences brought into that area. A lot of those
properties along Alma Street provide some affordable or moderate housing elements in the City
of Palo Alto. I would look forward to this parcel being part of that.
Chair Burt: Commissioner Lippert, do you have any comments?
Commissioner Lippert: Yes, I heartily endorse the recommendation here. I think that there is an
incredible oppommity. Here we have a piece of, and I am going to use the word ’salvage,’ it is
really a piece of scrap land from the widening of Oregon Expressway. It has no meaningful
significance especially since there is a public facility and a park not terribly far away from it that
the neighborhood can and does make use of and it is in proximity to public transit. I see the
opportunity here as being seeds t bloom into not just two units of housing but perhaps even more
housing beyond that because what you have is the opportunity to sell the land, a developer
developing two units and the proceeds from the sale of the land going into affordable housing
and thereby paying for additional housing. So at a time when we really do need more housing in
this community, and the City also needs revenue, this is really a geat opportunity to sort of
shoehorn in two more units of housing that could potentially represent more than that.
Just one comment with regard to the buffer without getting specific I think there are some
opportunities there for terracing landscaping perhaps creating a series of stepped walls where
mature plantings could be placed and it would prevent traffic from skidding off the road and into
the backyard there.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Any other comments? Dan.
Commissioner Garber: I just would like to thank Lee for a good catch. I would second both
Commissioner Bialson and Commissioner Lippert’s comments. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: I want to also thank Commissioner Lippert for I think a very good
observation regarding that landscaping. I will support the motion with comments along the lines
of~vhat I stated earlier ~vhich is that while this property is obviously not appropriate for a pocket
park that ~ve are nevertheless given what the funds from the sale of this property are going for xve
are reducing our PF land in Palo Alto. There are Comp Plan policies as I suggested earlier that
refer to this in terms of park acquisition and open space acquisition which would of course be
zoned PF. So ~vith those comments and also ~vith the support of the comment that Chair Burt
made regarding Policy H-3 I also had indicated that I am not really sure that the conversion of
nonresidential lands was referring to other than commercial property. Then regarding Policy H-
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
48 my perception has been rightly or wrongly that site planning had to do with onsite planning
but perhaps there is a broader definition of that. So with the exception of the fact that I am
concerned that we are reducing our PF facilities in Palo Alto I will support the motion. I am
sorry ifI said H-48 at the beginning I meant L-48.
Chair Burt: Thank you.. At this time I would like to call the motion. Al! those in favor? Excuse
me.
Mr. Larkin: I think we need to restate the motion and I could take a stab at it.
Chair Burt: Please do.
Mr. Larkin: The motion was to recommend the City Council approval for a zoning classification
change of a portion of the parcel number 132-17-081, 2460 High Street from the Public Facilities
(PF) zoning district to the two unit multiple family residence district zone pursuant to Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.98.040 and further recommend that City Council direct Staff to
provide sufficient landscaping to act as a buffer between the property and the overpass to protect
against accidental damage from cars going off the road.
Commissioner Bialson: That captures some of the thoughts but I think maybe we were a little
wordier with respect to the landscaping being suitable and also being installed as quickly as
possible so that it could mature. I don’t think reference need be made to the cars veering off but
other than that it was fine.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Sandas absent)
Chair Burt: Okay, we will take a synthesis of those two descriptions of the motion if that is all
right. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That passes six to zero with Commissioner Sandas
absent.
Page 10
Attachment E
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: ADMhNISTRATIVE
SERVICES
DATE:SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 CMR: 366:05
SUBJECT:FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO DECLARE AS
SURPLUS PROPERTY A PARCEL ON HIGH STREET NEAR OREGON
EXPRESSWAY FROM FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF
FEBRUARY 15, 2005 AND JULY 19, 2005
RECOMMENDATION
The Finance Committee recommends that the Council:
1)Declare a portion of a City-owned parcel located on High Street near Oregon Expressway
to be surplus property;
2)Direct staff to process an application to change the zoning from Public Facility (PF) to
Two Unit Multiple Family District (RMD); and
3) Remm to Council for approval of the Request for Proposal (RFP) to dispose of the
property using an open bid procedure in accordance with the City policy for sale of
surplus property. Funds from the sale of the High Street property will be used to fund the
proposed redevelopment of the Alma Substation property for affordable housing,
COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On February 15, 2005, the Finance Committee considered the staff recommendation that Council
declare as surplus property a parcel on High Street near Oregon Expressway (CMR:1_4_9:05).
Committee discussion focused on alternatives which might increase opportunities for housing,
such as the purchase of adjacent properties for the purpose of combining them with the City-
owned parcel. The Committee voted unanimously to direct staff to have discussions with the
Santa Clara County Housing Authority and/or other local housing groups to explore the merit of
pursuing this type of alternative to the recommended proposal, and to return to the Finance
Committee with the results of the discussions. Staff reported back to the Committee that
discussions with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation and the Housing Authority of Santa Clara
County had determined the alternatives were not feasible for this site (CMP,.:317:02). On July 19,
2005, the Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve
the staff recommendation.
CMR: 366:05 Page 1 of 2
PREPARED BY:
WILLIAM W. FELLMAN
Manager, Real Property
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
CARL YEATS
Director, Administrative Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRIS ON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACItt~IENTS
Attachment A: CMR: 149:05
Attachment B: CMP,.:317:05
CIVIR:366:05 Page 2 of 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY ~L~NAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY lVIANAGER’S OFFICE
FEBRUARY 13, 2006 CMR: 149:06
APPOENTMENT OF EMERGENCY STANDBY COUNCIL lVIEMBERS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the selection of the 2006 Emergency Standby
Council.
BACKGROUND
Staff proposed a policy and procedure for appointing members to the City’s Emergency Standby
Council. This issue was reviewed at the Policy and Services Committee on three occasions in
2005. The Committee has made a number of recommendations which have been incorporated
into draft amendments to Section 2.!2.090 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The proposed
ordinance amendments are scheduled to be discussed at the March 14 Policy and Services
Committee meeting.
Following review by the Policy and Services Committee, revisions to the ordinance will be
forwarded to the City Council. The ordinance adoption process takes a minimum of 45 days.
Should Policy and Services recommend additional changes, the ordinance adoption could stretch
to two to three months. Thus, staff is recommending that the appointments be made at this time
in order to have the Emergency Standby Council in place immediately.
DISCUSSION
The Palo Alto Municipal Code (Section 2.12.090) grants the authority for the existence of an
Emergency Standby Council to "provide for the continuance of the legislative and executive
departments of the City in the event of a disaster." Per the methodology tentatively agreed upon
by members of the Policy and Services Committee, members of the Emergency Standby Council
were chosen in order of most recent departure from the City Council along with a stated interest
to serve.
The 2006 Emergency Standby Council shall be comprised of the following former Council
Members:
CMR:149:06 Page 1 of 2
¯Jim Burch
¯Hillary Freeman
¯Victor Ojakian
¯Gary Fazzino
¯Lanie Wheeler
¯Emily Renzel
¯Gail Woolley
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The selection of the Emergency Standby Council is consistent with existing City policy.
PREPARED BY:
Chris Mogensen, Assistant to the City Manager
CITY ,MANAGER APPROVAL:
Emily Harrison, Assistant City Manager
CMR: 149:06 Page 2 of 2
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNC~
ATTENTION:FENANCE CONEVIITTEE
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JULY 19, 2005 CMR: 317:05
RESULTS OF DIRECTION TO STAFF TO EXPLORE
ALTERNATE PROPOSALS TO THE RECOM~’V[ENDATION TO
DECLARE AS SURPLUS PROPERTY A PARCEL ON HIGH
STREET NEAR OREGON EXPRESSWAY
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee recommend to the City Council that it:
1)Declare a portion of a City-owned parcel located on High Street near Oregon Express~vay
to be surplus property;
2)Direct staff to process an application to change the zoning from Public Facility (PF) to
Two Unit Multiple Family District (RMD); and,
3) Return to Council for approval of the Request for Bid Proposal (RFBP) to dispose of the
property using an open bid procedure in accordance with the City policy for sale of
surplus property. Funds from the sale of the High Street property will be used to fund the
proposed redevelopment of the Alma Substation property for affordable housing.
BACKGROUNq)
On February 15, 2005, the Finance Committee considered the staff recommendation that Council
declare as surplus property a parcel on High Street near Oregon Expressway (see attached
CMR: 149:05). Committee discussion focused on alternatives which might increase opportunities
for housing, such as the purchase of adjacent properties for the purpose of combining them with
the City-owned parcel. The Committee voted unanimously to direct staff to have discussions
with the Santa Clara County Housing Authority and/or other local housing ~oups to explore the
merit of pursuing this type of alternative to the recommended proposal, and to return to the
Finance Committee with the results of the discussions.
DISCUSSION
In accordance with the Committee’s direction, staff asked the Palo Alto Housing Corporation
(PAHC) to explore the feasibility of purchasing adjacent properties for the purpose of combining
them with the City-owned parcel to create a larger parcel accommodating more housing. As
detailed in the attached e-mail from the Executive Director, PAHC has determined that the cost
of purchasing the properties at current market rate would be very expensive for properties that
C1MR: 317:05 Page 1 of 2
would eventually be demolished to have land for new construction. In addition, the location is
not desirable and the neighborhood amenities, which are required to win financing competitions,
are not present. PAHC is of the opinion that there are other opportunities that would be more
productive to pursue.
Staff also explored with the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County (HACSC) the feasibility
of combining the City and County parcels to develop an affordable housing project. HACSC has
concluded the proposal is not feasible for several reasons, including the size of the tot being too
small for an affordable housing project with enough units to permit economies of scale in
development, the shape of the lot being too narrow and fragmented for efficient design and site
plarming, and the lack of amenities within convenient walking distance (see attached HACSC e-
mai!).
PREPARED BY:
WILLIAM W. FELLMAN
Manager, Real Property
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
CARL YEATS
Director, Administrative Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACI-~MENTS
Attachment 1: CMR 149:05
Attachment 2: June 7, 2005 e-mail message from Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Attachment 3: June 30, 2005 e-mail message from SCC Housing Authority
CMR:317:05 Page 2 of 2