HomeMy WebLinkAbout0194.091March 14 .. 1991
Honorable city Council
Palo Alto, California
pLO aLTO unrCA!, lOt1llDM'IQI' PROJECT
Kembera of the Council!
o 8
As you know, the housing mitigation measures and other conditions
related to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation project have generated
much controversy~ After several years of discussion, the matter
recently came to Council fo~ the purpose of establishing clear and
unambiguous quidelines for the Planninq Commission to usa as they
proceed with next steps. After much debate .. Council adopted such
quidelines s with the exception of two areas.
First, Council left open tbe question o~ so~e package of mitigation
aeasures that might be substituted for the rental housing mitiga
tion P&Y1Ient identified in the En./"ironmental Impact Report. A
substitute package bas been negotiated with the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation and will be before you on Karch 18 for considerationa
I believe this substitute package is an appropriate one and should
be adopted by CounciL As is the case with most negotiated
arranqements$ th6 elements of the package are carefully balanced a
An attempt to modify one or more of them will cause the package to
:fail. I urge you to resist any temptation to -fine tune-the
proposal.
Second, council instructed staff to develop a public partiCipation
process beyond that legally required by our ordinances. To that
end, staff bas presented alternatives in the report included in
this packet. The alternatives could apply to completion of the
Specific Plan and/or preparation of the. Planned community zone
change. All parties acknowledge tl'Je need to provide oppcrtunities
for those most directly affected to partiCipate in this ongoing
process. However$ that opportunity should not be allowed to
obstruct the very process it ts designed to serve4 Council should
make explicit that the ·policy guidelines· are established for the
SpeCific Plan and that the continuing public process is not
intended to reopen questions already settled.. At the same time$ it
should be recoqnized that the dl!sign details of the Planned
Community zone change contain many features of concern to the
co_unity that will not be addressed or resolved in the final
Specific Plan. Such a clear and unambiguous message regarding the
speci:tic Plan will assure that e.veryone plays by the same rules and
will 9ive the. Plal".ninq commission and staff clear policy direction.
I believe this can best be done by taking two steps:
CMR:l94:91
•
:',
.--;':~:-:::.:::;, "'.,".,,,~
',. ,
. ./~
paqe TWo
1. Council should acknowledge publicly that these
policy quidelines are intended to be used by staff
and the Planninq commission as an expression of the
Council's established policy on these matters.
2. cou.."lCl1 should state that the public process should
not be used to reopen the discussions of the last
two and one-half years. To that end, an expanded
public participation process is appropriate only
ror the Planned Co~unity zone change phase or the
proceedings. £mplic1t in ~~is conclusion 1s that
the Medical Foundation must accept the council
endorsed policy guidelines and not seek exceptions
or deviations during preparation of the specific
Plan, and the Planned Community zone change -will be
consistent with the Council adopted Specific Plan.
Xy recent personal participation in this matter leads me to believe
that fira Council direction, as suqqested above, is the only vay to
assure an outcome with Which everyone can live. If the project is
to DOve forward, and we are to move on to other pressinq matters,
we must avoid rehashinq more. than two years or debate.. I urge
council to adopt the recommendation in the staff report on this
sUbject, including public participation process alternative 4. and
the language noted in 1 and. 2 above ..
R~spectfuIIY ~itted.
ZANER
CMR:194:91
•