HomeMy WebLinkAbout0121.091_01~,
" "~.' , ,~' ...
January 24, 1991
HOHORABLE CITI COUNCIL
~al0 Alto, Ci'iforpj~
Palo Alto ~dtcal foundation Proposed Spec!f!c Plan;
OptioD? go Child C,re and Housing pg11cit}
Members of t~e Council:
~Qrt in Brief
This report provfdes information that individual City Counctl Members
requested It the January 14, 1991 joint study session with tne Planning
C~issfon regarding:
I. How i PalQ Alto ~d1cal FOUndation child care contribution can be
addressed fn term~ of:
a} Possible reductions of other mitigations for the proposed Medical
fOlJndatian project, e.g. J mitfgatfons on the loss of rental
housing, and
bJ The relatlonsh1p of c~ild care to the proposed Medical Foundation
Spec~f1c Plan project;
Z. The basts for determining the loss of rental housing fmpacts, a~d
3. Opt fans avail~ble to the City in modifyfng or reducing the level of
mitigation for the loss of rental ho~s~ng ~r fli.inat1ng tnis required
mitigation altogether.
Child Catt
ThE questions t~at Council Members raised on the P~10 Alto Medical
Found~tion's contribution for a child care f;c1]i:1 refer to t~e Me4ical
Foundation's verbal agreement .itn t~e Palo Alto Cnild Care Task Fo~e to
provide the l!,500-square-foot, Medital Foundation-owned, surface parking lot
at the northwest corner of Channfng and Aamona for a child care facility. The
agreement was reached in late NoveDber/early December 1990 after the close of
the public comment period on the Revised Draft Environmental rmpact Report
(O£IR), and immediately prior to the Planning Commission public ~ear1~g on
OIR:lll:91
o
potent1al p~lfcy recommendations for the Medicil founjat1on's prapos!d
sp.ectnc Plan.
Prior to that time~ the PaTa ATtD (~i1d Care Task force reviewed the origin~'
O£lA in earTi ]990. aTon9 with other advisory boards aMd (o~1ttees. lhe
Chtld Care Task force indfcated in i letter to t~e Planning Comm1ssfQn an May
], 1990 that It was requesting donation of a parcel of land by the Medical
Fo~ndatfon to be used for i th11d care facility. Oiscussions between tne
Child tare ~ask Force and the Medical Foundation resumed du.fng September
1990. v~en th! ~evis4d OfIR was befng reviewed by the publf~ and by t~e same
adviso,y committees and bo~rd5, ~ncl~din9 the Child (are TiSk F~rc~, tnat
reyie~ed the original D[r~.
The agreement reached 19 December 1990, between the Medical Foundation and thE
Cb11d Care Task F~rce~ refers to tne Medical foundation's offer of the
aforeeantioned Char.ning/Ramcna surf~ce parking lot. However, at the present
time, t~ere is no for.al agreement with the Medical foundation regardfng ~se
of the Channing/Ramona site for i child care factlity. In addition, no plans
have been prepared nor has funding been obti1ned for a possible child care
fac1Tit, it thiS site.
Relation of CnDd Care Contribyt1qn to Housina l1itlgatjon
Councll Members rifsed the question, on Jan~ar~ 14, )991, as to whether
the City could credit the value of the Medicll roundation's contribution
of the C~anningjRamona site fro. the 5848,120 mltigatton recomaended in
the Revised DfIR for tne loss of 14 rental housing units. After further
review t staff reaffT~ the response given at the January ]4, 1991 study
sessfon that th~ voluntary cQntrib~tion of a sfte for I ~hild caTe
facllfty cannot m~tigate the impact of the rental hoUSf~ loss
identified iB the Draft El~ because there fs n~ reasonable relationship,
or -nexus.-betwee~ the lmpacts identified i. t~e rt~ and the need for
chlld ca~ facilities. As a res~lt, while City Cguncll and 8€mbers of
the coaaunity can ~ubljcly acknowledge and express appreciation to the
Medical Foundation for this contrtbut'on. this contribution cannot be
conSidered by the Cit~ to offset the m'tlgatlor. recommended for the loss
of rental 11ousing' (see subsequent discussion on hO'llsfng mitigation).
Relation pf Ch'ld Care Contribution to Medical Foundatinn'$
Fro posed Specific Plan
At tne conclusion of the JanuaT~ 28 J l~~l p~b11c hearing, the City
Council will consider policies on the Proposed Medical Foundation
Specif1c Plan t~at were recoa.ended by the Planning Commission. rf the
Cfty Council responds affirmativel, to the issue of whetner a Specific
Pian should be prepared. It will take actien descrjbed in i report to
(oune11 on January 10, 1991 (CMR:l09:91) directing tho Planning
Commission to 1, recomme~d appropriate COIprehenstve Plan ~ndments, 2)
~vi~ the Ffnal [nvironmentll Impact Report and 3J recommend a fin~l
C'IR:131:91
P ~ \CItR\Opt ions
1/24/91
Page 2
/
..... -'
Speciflt Plan for the Medica' Foundation prajact consistent with
pollcle. Idtntlfled by the City Council.
As staff noted above. at this ti~e no specific thild care fac1Tfty ~as
been defined or prDposed. If the Council wishes to 1r.corpo~~te the
~h;ld care site into t~e propos~d Specific Pian, stiff suggests that
Council conclude that the final Specific flan contain a po11cy
recommendfng that the Comprehensive Plan and zoning for th~
Channing/Ramona site be retained in a res1dentia' designation (i,e.,
Single-Family Residential land use des1g~atf~n and R-2 zon1n9)~ a'lDWi~g
c~ild eare facllitfes with,appro~al of a conditional use permit. Thus,
the Specific Plan c~uld acknowledge the potential use of this site for a
ch1ld care facility with the understanding that the specific chfld care
proposal has not bfen developed and, when developed t would be subject to
City review and action separate from the Specifi~ Plan. To 90 further
and incorporate a detailed child tare center concept into the proposed
Specific Plan would require aod1fftation of the Spectfic ;lan',
environmental documents. Under CEQA, such I MOdification would quite
like1, require recirculatfon of the Otaft EIR. R&circ~lltion would add,
starting from the time a specific child care proposal was subeitted to
the tity, I mfcimum of three months to the Specifit Plan preparatio~
process. WhlTe the Council certainly bas the authority to mat! the
child Cire addition. stiff would remain c~ncerned that the resultfng
del~ would be burdenso.e to the Medica' foundation and cumbers~ for
the City.
Medlcil foundatfon Planned Community <PCI Zone Change
If a Specific PTan is ultimately appr~ved for the Medical Foundation's
proposal after a Hnal EJR is certified as complete and approprhte
Comprehensive Plan amendMents are approvsd. tnen a PC zone change f~r
the Medica' foundation project would be processed consistent with the
opproyed Specific Plan. A proposal for a ~hild care focility would
require a separate &n~ironmental issessment Ind consideration of a
conditional use permft app1icatfon by the Zoning Administrator. A child
care prcposal for the Channlng/Ra~na Site could be processed by the
Cfty prfor to, at the same tfme, or after the Medical foundat1on PC zone
change, depending Dn when I ~h1ld care faciliti proposal is developed.
Staff believes that the sequen'lng in acknowledging and revfewing a
proposal for I cniTd care facility it the Channing/R~na site, that was
described fa tne previous paragraphs, fs tbe lOst appropriate way to
proc~ with such a project because:
1. No Ca-prehensfve Plan or zoning change would be required for the
site;
2. The process allows the Child Care Task Forct sufficient ti~ to
develop physical a~d financial plans for I chiid care fa,ilfty;
and
OIR: 131 : 91
P,\OIR\Options
I/Z4/9j
Poge 3
•
/
o
3. It desJgn~t's .n approprflte ti~ fOT env1ronmental ~~aluat1on
when a chlid cart faciltty proposal has been deffn!d.
Baets for Mitigatlpo
Housing studies and the (cmprehens1ve PTan Housing Element identif> the
deficiency of low cost housfng in Palo Alto a~d have cited that ~ost
lo.er-cost housing in Pile Alto is rental hous1n~. As I res~lt, the
City has approved ordinances ,e.g., the Condo~fD;um Conversion
Ordinance) and CORtPrehenshe PhD Housing E:1gent pOI icies and pro9rams
that address the need t~ preserve the existing supply of rental ho~s~ng
and. if possible, expand tnat inventory. Specifically, Housing Element
policies and programs addressing tbese needs are:
1. Housing Element Policy '6 which reads ·Ma1nta;o at lfast the
present number of ~ultipTe-famil1 rental units whiTe werking to
increase the o~erall supply of rental housing,·
~. Housing Element Progra~ 19 which reads -For any residential
deveTQP~nt in multiple-family zones w~fch causes the loss of
rentll houslr.g units, s~bdivlsfon ~pproval (;ncludi~ c~ndomfnium
maps} ~~ be granted 1f any two of the following tnre~
Circumstances are ~t.
o Tne preject will result in i sfgn1ftcant net gain to the
City housing supplY {defined as 100 peN:t-nt IIt'Cre ,!Dits than
those p~Yiousl1 existing on the site) and coaply .nt~ t~e
c; ty EIMR progrH j
o The nuaber of rental units to be provided b~ the project is
at least equal to the nurober of existing rental units;
" Hot less than 20 percent of the units ,prol.-ided Ire BHA
units-
3. Housing Element Program '10 which reads: ~The City ~hou'd
discourage con.erston of lands deslgnated as res1dent~a' to
nonresidential uses.-
In dete~ining the i~act of the PQtential loss of the 14 rental housing
units an the West Block, the Revised DElR on the ~edical Foundition
Proposed Specific Plan stated that the 1~pact of I nonresidentlal
project displacing relatf~ely ~ffordable rental units on tne West Bloct
was • significant iopact that required .itigation. The Revised DErR
recommended as an appropriate mitigation that tne Medical Foundation be
requfred tD pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to the rep'ac~nt value of
the number of rental units remo~€d froe land zoned for multiplE-family
O!R:13l:91
P:\OIR\Dptions
1/24/91
Page 4
•
housing. The identiffed MJt1gatfon fee was based on the 'ity~s ~~rrant
mit1gatfon f~e set forth in the Housing M1t1gatlon Ordinance, wnich
establish., • fe. of 560,580 per unit or $848,120 for the 14 rental
~n~t$ tnat would be displaced. The Pila Alto Housi~g Corporation. in
Its review of the Revised D£IR. generally c~ncurred witn t~is ~mpact
finding. In addition, it suggested considerltion of ; Medical
Foundation in-lieu land donation is an alternative ~itigation to the
$848.120 fee reconmended' for the loss of rer.tal housing. Details of the
Housing Corporatfon proposal are contained in i letter to the Pla~nf~g
Ccmm!ssfon on October 30, 1990. They !'S~ were summariled i~ t~e
Nove~er 30, 1990 $t~ff report to the Plinning Commfss~~n ~n possible
Medical Foundation p~Ticy recommendat1on~. As deti11ed be1ow. the
Co~ncil ~as autho~it1 to (O~$fder ot~er methods for mitigating the
iapact, provfded there fs substantial 2vidence to (onclude that the
impact I. mitigated to insignificance.
Options for Mitigation
At the outset, it fs important to note that the Hedical Foundation has agreed
with the Revised CErR'. recommended mitigation for the proposed project's
jobs/housfng i.ollince impact ~hereby, under the C1ty~$ Housing Mitigation
Ordinance, the Medical Foundation WQuld be Tequ1"red to provide low-1ncome
housing units or pay an i~-lieu fee to the City's housing fund, which
currently would ~nt to $2.94 per new square foot of development (a 65,000-
square-foot preject would require Il91,I00 a. ooted i, the DEIR). While tho
Pl.nning Commission did not speclfical'y identify this recommended milig.tion
in its pD11~ recommendation5~ the proposed mitigation would be contained i~
the Fioal EIR and Specifio Plan if the Clty Council agrees to proceed and
direct t~e P1anning Commission to r@vfew and make recommendations on a Final
fiR and Specific Plan for the Med1cal Foundation's pr~posed project.
lIDwever, the impact and recommended .1tfgation (i.e .• paYQent of 5848,120 or
provision of housing units) for the loss of rental housing units on the
multtple-f.-tly loned West Block has generated substantial diSCUSSion,
including ~.stjons r.fsed by Coonoi1 Kembers at t~. January 14, 1991 Joint
City Council/Planning C ... lsslon Study Session.
There are three possible Councll policy directions regarding hot:sfng
~1tt9atiQn for t~e ~oss ~f ~ntal housing if Council agrees an proceeding with
Specific Plan preparation:
1. Require the Revised OEJR's recomnended hO'ljs1ng :n1tTgation ~r en
eQuivalent contribution;
2. Consider I reduction in the .iti9ati~n; or
3. Eliminate the mitigati~n with adoption of I statement of overriding
find1ngs (t.e., I stateaent that the fmpact cannot feasibly be mitigated
because of economic. technica1, soclal or other factors).
C!IR:131:91
P: \OIR\Opti ons
•
1/24/91
Page 5
•
I
-, .. -
Requfrlng the full m1ti9~tion or an altprnatlve may offer substantial
opportunities for the Medical Foundation to wc~k wit~ the Palo Alto Housing
Corporiltion in developing SOIT!1! concf:pt ... hereby the Medic-oil FOIJndilUor. couTd
offer land f~r develop~nt of below ~rket rate un1t5~ If Medical Foundation
facilities would be displaced by such a land contribution (~.q., North Block
flcilitiesl the Foundation could consider shift1~ su~h facilities to either
the West B oc..k or t~e west side of the I'tain STock. if r,o parking deficH
occurred. This ~ourse of action would be cons1stent wit~ the Plann~n9
Commission policy recommendations on beth housing and prQject location for the
proposed Specific Plan.
The .second policy Dpt~i!n avoJiLlIb1e for City Cot.ll1eH -collsider.tion fol"'
litigation of the loss of rental housi:"l9 IlfQ'Jld be to dl'rect the 1'1 anning
Commisston , is i poljcy, to reevaluate the mitigation and c~nsider red~cing
t~e-payaent reqiJired of th~ "editil Foundatfo". The staff/DfIR/Phnn1ng
(~mmlssio~ recommendation is to apply the fee to each rental un't 1ost. The
City could cor-sider sufffcfent mftfgation to be a fee applied to ~ lower
percentage gf th~ unfts. For example, the Rous1ng Mitjgat10n Ordf"an~e
!lethodology, Chapter 16.47 of the Mun'cipal Code, bases the per~squay-e-root
.1ttgation fee on satisfying 10 percent of the demand f~r 1ow~ to moderate·
income housing generated by typical n~ empTo~nt. Th~ JO perce~t figure was
deriyed ""'018 t~eo City"'s 8HR re(rw~rt!ment of 10 perc~nt of the IJnits h
specified new dev~Topqent~. Another example is the orfgfnal Housi~9 Program
19 in effett until June 1990, which allowed fer the loss of e~ist1ng rental
~Dus1ng with provision of 20 percent BHR units i~ t~e rep1ace~"t housing. In
the tvent that the (ouncil wishes tD pursu~ this policy option, it would be
valuable to provide gufdanc! to ~he staff and Planning Commission regarding
the ~pproprfite cilculat10n of the mitigation.
In e1the-r clse. the Council would have to make-J) 1 finding th~t t~e impact
would be reduced tD a l~ss than significant le~el by the lower ~'t1gatfon or
2} a finding tkat the-impact co~Td only be part;ll1y mitigated, co.pTete with
a statement of ollerrfdfng ccnsldeTit~ons. ne first finding would. in
essence, mean that the loss of some rental housing would not be conSidered
$ignffica~t and would not require .1tigation. The second finding means t~at
the D~fginal &mount of mitjgati~n proposed is infeasible~ but that a Tesser
amount would be f~asib]e. The lesser amou~t, in this instanc!~ would not
re-duce-the impact to less than significant, sO the statement or overriding
c~nsid~rat1ons would still be required. The C~unc,l should be aware t~at the
tjetermin.atfon .of ·feasibiTit)-must be supported by e~;dence in the EIR and
record. fn o~her words. the Co~ncil cannot choose not to mitigate un1ess
~1tigat;on is shown to be not capable of befng provided because of aconomic.
tEchnical, SOCial or otner factors.
The third pal icy option available far Council conSideration on this 5ubject
would be to endorse a policy eliminating the mitigation and direct staff it
tbe tfme the final ~IR is being reviewed to draft an appropriate stltement of
overriding consfderations. Sucb findings would have to inc1ude a statem~nt
CHR,I3I:91
P:\OIR\Optlons
1/24/91
Page 6
that the only possible mitigation is not feas1ble. and Identify benefits of
the pr':l'jec:t. documented 1n the record, tl'lilt override Ue environmental impacts
of the project.
T~e actual findings Ire not lega11, appropriate until 5~cb t;~ IS the C~uncjl
certffl~s a~ EJR and lppr~ves I project. Howe~er, 1n order to give staff ind
the Planning C~ission gyfdance on what pal fey direction should be taken, it
15 laportant for the Council to foc~s 0" the options and legal requirements
for each option.
Swnmarw ind Conclusion
As stated earl fer. I Medical roundatfon site contribution for i child care
filcility cannot be considered itS iI substitute for, or IS a reductiO!} of, t~e
housing aitigatlon recommended for t~e loss of rental ho~sfng. The
contribution tan and should be acknowledged b) the community. CEQA would
allow the Cou~c11 to consider such benefits fn i statement of cverriding
constderitfon as just1ffcatfon for allowing some impacts to occur without
complete mitigation. Nonetheless, to faCilitate I future ~hild care facility,
Counc:il can consider I polley fit t"e Final Specific Pl an ind iCiltfng that
not~ing would preclude the C1ty~ under existing loning and COP.prehensfve Plan
deSignations, fro. co~sidering a ch'1~ Cire facility p~opo$al, subject to
approval of a conditional use peTa~t. ~oweyerl no bInding requireAent for I
child care faciTfty can be ~ade u~til I specific proPG~al for such a facility
is submitted for City review and possible approval.
R~ardtn9 ~ou$ing .it1gat1ons for the 10$s of re"tal housing, t~e City Council
bas thYee pgT1cy options to cons1der:
1. Endorse the Phnning Coanission policy recoqendation for eHher oil
Hedfcal Foundation payment of S848,120 or ~ suitable alternative
mitigation tD be proffered by the Medical Foundation;
!. Direct the Planning C~issiGn~ as policy, to reevaluate the
~ttfgat1on and provide policy guidance as to ~at an appropriate
mit1gatlon p~nt would be, and to prepare appropriate findlngs
based upon t~e eVidence; OT
3. Endorse, IS policy, the eliai~ation of t~e housing mitigation and
the necessary ~reparlt1on ~f approprilte ffndings.
T~erefGr~, staff concludes that the Cit} Counci1 9 if it agrees to proceed with
I Ned1cIl Foundation SPEcific Plln, could direct the Plann1ng Commission to
1nclude fn t~e Specific Plan I polfcy recognizing that continuation of
appropriate land tise and zoning de$1gnations for the (hanning/Ranona parking
let sfte would allow I child care faci1ft! w1t~ a conditi~~al use perwit. In
CltR;lll:~1
p, \CMR\Options
1/24/91
Page 7
•
o
Icld1tion. Ute City Counen could provide dfrectlon to the staff ind ?larlnfng
CDRlfssion ~egard1ng the appropriate 3ftigatlon option for the loss of
~lt1p'e-fam111 rental housing on t~e West Block.
Respectfully ,uboltted,
( ,·1 _ ~if' '~l~~~
GEORGE zr ERMAH J
Assistant lann1n6 Officill
cc: Arc.ltectural Review Board
Hfstoric Resources Board
Palo Alto Nedlcal foundatfon
Pal~ Alto Housing Cor~orltfon
P.l0 Alto C~ild Care T.sk force
P.l0 Alto Blcycl. Adylsory C ... lttee
Urban De51gn Committee
University Park Neighborhood Assocl.tlon
Neighbors of the found.tlon
City of Nenlo Park, Director of Planning
Stoecker and Northway. Assoctates
Brady and ~soclates
Weste~ Wheelers Bicycle Club. Inc.
~1Kd ;eJc.kdf'l'
KENNEtH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
COf!I7run1 t,)' Envfrorlment
Persons tnat su~itted public correspondente
OIR:i31:91
P:\C~\Optlons
1/24/91
Page 8