HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-21 City Council Summary Minutes07/21/03 1
Special Meeting
July 21, 2003
1. Conference with Labor Negotiator....................................................2
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. ................................2
1. Joint Meeting with City Council and the Human Relations Commission ..2
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ................................2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.......................................................................3
1. Appointment of Candidates to the Utilities Advisory Commission..........4
2. Approval of Resolution Designating the Months of July and September
as Block Party Months and Suspending the Associated Permit
Application Fees............................................................................6
3. Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Submittal of an Application to
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for Funds from the
Transportation Fund For Clean Air Fund For Traffic Signal Retiming......6
4. Public Hearing: The City Council will consider the South of Forest Area
(SOFA) 2 Coordinated Area Plan including properties in the boundaries
of Forest Avenue, Ramona Street, Addison Avenue and Alma Street, of
issues raised during meetings with the South of Forest Area, Phase 2
("SOFA 2") property owners and Working Group and to request for
confirmation or modification of the Planning and Transportation
Commission's recommendations for the SOFA 2 Coordinated Area Plan.8\\
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:03 p.m. ..............................25
07/21/03 2
Special Meeting
July 21, 2003
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar,
ABSENT: Freeman, Ojakian
CLOSED SESSION
1. Conference with Labor Negotiator
Agency Negotiator: City Council Ad Hoc Personnel Committee (Judy
Kleinberg, Dena, Mossar, Nancy Lytle, Vic Ojakian)
Unrepresented Employees: City Attorney Ariel Calonne, City Auditor
Sharon Erickson, City Clerk Donna Rogers, City Manager Frank Benest
Authority: Government Code section 54957.6
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor
negotiations as described in Agenda Item No. 1.
Mayor Mossar announced that no reportable action was taken on
Agenda Item Nos. 1.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Conference Room at 6:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar,
Ojakian,
ABSENT: Freeman
SPECIAL MEETING
1. Joint Meeting with City Council and the Human Relations Commission
No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
07/21/03 3
Regular Meeting
July 21, 2003
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar,
Ojakian
ABSENT: Freeman
Council Member Ojakian requested the City Council meeting be dedicated in
memory of Salvatore “Sal” Fazzino, long-time Palo Alto resident and father
of former Mayor Gary Fazzino. Sal Fazzino was involved with the Menlo Park
Italian-American Social Club and was a president of the Amici Club. Gary
Fazzino said his father was an avid follower of local politics with “Harry
Truman-like common sense.”
City Clerk Donna Rogers said due to the fact the Agenda at the location in
Carlsbad was not posted 72 hours prior to that evening's meeting, Council
Member Freeman would not be able to participate.
Council Member Kishimoto said she was aware Council Member Freeman
wanted to vote for her choice of candidates to the Utilities Advisory
Commission (UAC) and participate in the SOFA discussion.
Mayor Mossar said legally the agenda was not posted in the location where
Council Member Freeman was physically present and, therefore, would not
be able to participate.
Vice Mayor Beecham said there were seven members of the Council who
could participate in the SOFA discussion. With Council Member Freeman's
absence, six members remained who were able to participate. Ultimately,
there needed to be five "yes" votes in order to pass the ordinance. He
believed there should be a discussion of the ramifications of Council Member
Freeman not participating. In regard to the Consent Calendar, he did not
believe her absence was significant. He was willing to move forward with
the appointment of candidates to the UAC, noting that eight of the Council
Members were present.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government.
John Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, spoke regarding general comments.
07/21/03 4
Louis Calabro, 297 El Camino Real, spoke regarding representation on the
Human Relations Commission.
Bunny Good, P.O. Box 824, Menlo Park, spoke regarding Gambling Dancing
Hamster Maverick.
Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, spoke regarding bus shelter ads.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding the Brown Act.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Appointment of Candidates to the Utilities Advisory Commission
John Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, said the currently constituted Utilities
Advisory Commission (UAC) consisted primarily of business people. There
was a movement in the City for fiber optics. He believed one of the
appointees was someone who had technical expertise in that area and could
perhaps help City staff with the successful design, completion, and
marketing of fiber optics.
City Clerk Donna Rogers reported on the first round of votes for the Utilities
Advisory Commission:
VOTING FOR ELIZABETH DAHLEN: Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton,
Ojakian
VOTING FOR DEXTER DAWES: Beecham, Burch Kishimoto
Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton,
Mossar, Ojakian
VOTING FOR RAMARAO DIGUMARTHI:
VOTING FOR MARY DIMIT:
VOTING FOR KENDALL DINWIDDIE:
VOTING FOR CLAUDE EZRAN:
VOTING FOR GENEVIEVE GERARD:
VOTING FOR PAUL JEFFREY HOEL:
VOTING FOR MARILYN KELLER:
VOTING FOR JEANETTE KENNEDY:
VOTING FOR SHELLEY KILDAY:
07/21/03 5
VOTING FOR WALTER LOEWENSTEIN:
VOTING FOR JOHN MELTON: Beecham, Burch, Mossar
VOTING FOR STEVE MULLEN:
VOTING FOR ELSBETH NEWFIELD:
VOTING FOR DICK ROSENBAUM: Beecham, Burch, Kishimoto,
Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton,
Mossar, Ojakian
VOTING FOR JERRY SCHARF: Kishimoto
VOTING FOR PAUL VADOPALAS:
Council Member Kishimoto read a statement on behalf of Council Member
Freeman, which said, "While choosing the next Utilities Advisory
Commissioner, I hope you all take balance into consideration. It appears the
current UAC mix is substantially weighed toward brilliant business minds.
Balancing the attributes with those having outstanding technical acumen
would offer another valuable dimension for Council decision-making.
Elizabeth Dahlen, Jeff Hoel, Jerry Scharf, and Walter Loewenstein all seem to
offer technical expertise. From scouring the UAC minutes, I would like to
express my appreciation for Dexter Dawes' thoughtful and regular questions,
and Dick Rosenbaum's multiple-year knowledge base and fiscal
responsibility. Good luck in appointing from this field of superior candidates".
SECOND ROUND OF VOTING FOR THE UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
VOTING FOR ELIZABETH DAHLEN: Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle,
Morton, Ojakian
VOTING FOR DEXTER DAWES:
VOTING FOR RAMARAO DIGUMARTHI:
VOTING FOR MARY DIMIT:
VOTING FOR KENDALL DINWIDDIE:
VOTING FOR CLAUDE EZRAN:
VOTING FOR GENEVIEVE GERARD:
VOTING FOR PAUL JEFFREY HOEL:
VOTING FOR MARILYN KELLER:
07/21/03 6
VOTING FOR JEANETTE KENNEDY:
VOTING FOR SHELLEY KILDAY:
VOTING FOR WALTER LOEWENSTEIN:
VOTING FOR JOHN MELTON: Beecham, Burch, Mossar
VOTING FOR STEVE MULLEN:
VOTING FOR ELSBETH NEWFIELD:
VOTING FOR DICK ROSENBAUM:
VOTING FOR JERRY SCHARF:
VOTING FOR PAUL VADOPALAS:
City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Dexter Dawes and Dick Rosenbaum
(with 8 votes) were appointed on the first ballot, and Elizabeth Dahlen (with
5 votes) was appointed on the second ballot to three-year terms ending June
30, 2006.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Morton, to approve
Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 and 3.
LEGISLATIVE
2. Approval of Resolution Designating the Months of July and September
as Block Party Months and Suspending the Associated Permit
Application Fees
Resolution 8323 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Designating the Months of July and September as Block Party
Months and Suspending the Associated Permit Application Fees”
3. Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Submittal of an Application to
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for Funds from the
Transportation Fund For Clean Air Fund For Traffic Signal Retiming
Resolution 8324 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Authorizing the Submittal of an Application to the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District for Funds From the Transportation Fund
for Clean Air Fund for the Timing of Traffic Signals in Palo Alto”
07/21/03 7
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Freeman absent.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
Mayor Mossar noted that staff needed to report back to Council on two
service reductions made as part of the 2003-05 budget: reduction in service
hours (Sundays) at the Baylands; and Individual Review mediation services.
Vice Mayor Beecham said the SOFA 2 item required a majority vote to send
directions back to staff. As the Council moved forward on an ordinance to
implement the plan, five votes were needed of the seven who could
participate. There were only six present that evening with Council Member
Freeman absence. He asked his colleagues whether they believed it was an
obligation to the public to proceed forward, or more equitable and efficient
to continue the matter to a date when Council Member Freeman could
participate.
Council Member Lytle said it was important to get participation from the
seven Council Members who could participate in the item. She suggested
going forward with staff's presentation and the public hearing. Deliberations
could be saved for a time when the item would be renoticed and put back on
the Council Agenda, perhaps at a special meeting.
Council Member Burch said whenever a Council Member went out-of-town,
there was always the possibility of not being able to participate by
teleconference. If the item was critical enough whereby a Council Member
had to participate, then he felt the person should be present in the Council
Chamber. The Council had a responsibility to a lot of people to move the
item along.
Council Member Ojakian said the best approach that evening was to hear
from staff, open the hearing to the public for testimony, and then close the
public hearing and have Council Members ask questions. When the Council
got down to the point of approving an ordinance, he believed his colleagues
needed to be of a similar mindset, and that might not be a possibility that
evening due to Council Member Freeman's absence.
Council Member Kleinberg concurred with the comments of Council Member
Ojakian. She wanted Council Member Freeman to have the opportunity to be
part of the discussion.
Council Member Kishimoto said it was important to have Council Member
Freeman's participation, and she had every intention of participating via
telephone.
Vice Mayor Beecham said he wanted to ensure when the process was
finalized, there was the best possible chance that five Council Members
07/21/03 8
would vote for an ordinance to move forward. To do that, Council Member
Freeman's participation was needed at some time in the process.
4. Public Hearing: The City Council will consider the South of Forest Area
(SOFA) 2 Coordinated Area Plan including properties in the boundaries
of Forest Avenue, Ramona Street, Addison Avenue and Alma Street, of
issues raised during meetings with the South of Forest Area, Phase 2
("SOFA 2") property owners and Working Group and to request for
confirmation or modification of the Planning and Transportation
Commission's recommendations for the SOFA 2 Coordinated Area Plan
Council Member Morton would not participate in the item due to a conflict of
interest because he has two clients within the SOFA Plan area.
Mayor Mossar would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest
because she owned property in the SOFA Plan area.
City Auditor Sharon Erickson stated she had a conflict of interest with the
item because her husband’s employer was formerly located in the SOFA Plan
area.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Furth said staff was asking for Council's
direction on a number of points that evening. Staff had not presented a
revised ordinance to the Council. There was an ordinance in the series of
documents presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission
(P&TC), but there had been substantial discussion since then, and direction
was being asked for on a number of points. Once the Council gave direction
to staff, the documents already prepared would need to be rewritten and
revised. Staff recommended the hearing be continued to the time when
those final documents were ready for the public to review and comment on.
Vice Mayor Beecham clarified the intent of the Council was not to have
discussion or take action on direction to staff. The staff would not have any
direction from the Council that evening.
Council Member Kishimoto said she understood the Council would not be
asked to pass an ordinance related to the item. She asked whether that had
changed.
Ms. Furth said no. Originally, staff had hoped to get direction from the
Council on seven particular policy issues. It was the Council's preference to
continue the item because all seven of the participating Council Members
were not present. The deliberations after that evening's discussion would be
continued; however, the public hearing would not. Following that, when staff
received direction from the Council, they would need to rewrite the
documents in light of the instructions given, and would then notice the item
for another hearing.
07/21/03 9
Vice Mayor Beecham said at the second hearing, staff would return with a
proposed ordinance.
Ms. Furth said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Beecham asked whether a special meeting on the SOFA item
could be held before Council went on vacation.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said staff had previously agendized a
continued discussion of the budget issues for the July 28, 2003, Council
meeting. That meeting date could be used to finish the discussion of the
SOFA item and could hold over discussions on the budget until after the
break.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Stephen Emslie said in
October 2002, the Council directed staff to prepare a 3-D massing model to
be presented to the various boards and commissions for their review and
comment. The Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Historic Resources
Board (HRB), and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) had
an opportunity to review the model and provide their comments. During the
P&TC's review, concerns emerged from several property owners, which
prompted the P&TC to request staff to conduct outreach to the affected
group. The P&TC also requested staff to return to the Working Group for an
additional meeting that brought them up-to-date on the version of the plan.
Several distinct messages came from the outreach. The South of Forest
Avenue (SOFA) 2 area had enjoyed considerable success as a district without
City land use intervention. Most of the buildings had retained viable
economic uses while still maintaining their original character and scale. The
property owners were interested in preserving land use under the present
CD-S zoning, which applied to the majority of the SOFA 2 area. Any
acceptable changes involved adding incentives to encourage the "zoning-
plus" concept of housing. Subsequent to the outreach, staff identified areas
where there was apparent consensus. They included the vision statement,
the compatibility standards, the Historic Preservation policies, and the
streetscape and design guidelines. There were also areas where there was
distinct disagreement. Staff found it more efficient and productive to present
a series of policy proposals that would spark a discussion with the Council to
guide City staff in the implementation of an ordinance that would meet the
objectives of the community. Those objectives included: 1) using parking
ratios to remove disincentives for the addition of retail; 2) maintaining and
converting existing office use for the life of the plan; 3) a bonus floor area
for housing, which served to replace the Planned Community (PC) process;
4) the retention of the PC process for very limited instances; 5) development
of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to provide economic
incentives for the preservation of historic resources, seismic safety, and
open space; and 6) clarification of non-conforming uses that flexibility would
exist to rearrange non-conforming square footage, provided it did not
07/21/03 10
exceed the non-conforming level, and to allow the possibility of additional
housing to non-conforming uses. The policy proposals were presented to the
P&TC for action and recommendation. A majority of the P&TC supported a
recommendation. Essential to the successful conclusion of the SOFA 2
process, was the Council's guidance to staff on the key issues that were
outlined in the staff report (CMR:365:03), plus any other issues the Council
brought forth. With that approach, staff could outline specific language,
which was responsive to Council's concerns as well as those of the
community. The process has been replete with a variety of opinions,
concerns, and stakeholder interest. Direction from the Council would enable
staff to be as responsive as possible to the diversity of opinion's involved in
the SOFA 2 planning process.
Allison Kendall, FTB Urban Design, reviewed the assumptions used in
preparing the massing model. She said in order to prepare the massing
model, assumptions were made about which sites, within the SOFA area,
were likely to redevelop. As an example, it was assumed the existing historic
resources were too complex a variable and were eliminated. A recently
approved development proposal on High Street at Emerson Street was also
eliminated. Sites were identified where the current Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
was less than .4, as well as those sites where the Bay Area Economics
Feasibility Study (BAEFS) indicated there was economic feasibility for
redevelopment based on a combination of the lot configuration and the value
of the existing building.
Council Member Lytle said the assumption that 800 High Street was
approved was incorrect.
Ms. Kendall said there was no assumption it was approved. On the contrary,
the projects that were approved were not included. Those were project sites
where there was development potential or a project in the works.
Council Member Lytle questioned whether the modeled project was
according to present day allowable zoning.
Ms. Kendall said staff used the development standards proposed by the
Working Group at the time, which was a FAR of 1.15 with the current
standard zoning ordinance parking requirements or, alternatively, the
commission recommendation, which had the potential to go to 1.5 or 2.0
depending on the site.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the FAR on the first model was 1.15.
Ms. Kendall said yes.
Council Member Lytle asked about the allowable zoning of the present
model.
07/21/03 11
Ms. Kendall said it was 2.0, which corresponded to the commission's
standards.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the High Street project was 2.3.
Ms. Kendall said it was higher than that initially. The proposal was adapted
to reduce it.
Council Member Lytle asked whether there was a model to show what was
currently there. Why was it assumed those historic buildings would be
preserved when the other one was not.
Ms. Kendall said staff made certain assumptions while using the
development scenario that had been worked through in order to
approximate a project of that scale.
Council Member Lytle asked whether there was anything in the
recommendations that would protect buildings, as indicated in the model.
There was a set of goals and objectives, but nothing that required
maintaining historic buildings.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct. The findings had been enhanced, but there
was nothing to prevent it all together.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether there was development being
discussed at the east corner parking lot of Channing Avenue at High Street.
Ms. Kendall said there was an approved project at that location, which had
not yet been developed.
Council Member Ojakian requested the FAR for the project.
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said it was within the existing CD-S zoning
of 1.0, and was a mixed-used project.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether there was anything similar to the
proposed project in the SOFA 2 area.
Ms. Kendall said she did not believe there were any new developments. The
project on Channing Avenue at High Street was going through final approval
at the time the SOFA 2 model was put together.
Ms. Grote said other remodeling projects were occurring, but they did not
add any additional square footage.
07/21/03 12
Council Member Ojakian clarified there were no currently-approved projects
or those in the "pipeline" that added square footage to a lot.
Ms. Grote said that was correct. The California Craft and Floral site had a
proposal preliminarily discussed that had not been submitted.
Council Member Kishimoto clarified the difference between the Working
Group model and the P&TC model applied to those sites that went from 90
housing units up to 120 housing units.
Ms. Kendall said that was basically the difference. The assumption was they
would be equally likely to develop under the two scenarios. Under the 1.15
FAR there would be fewer sites to be redeveloped. The housing yield would
likely be less.
Council Member Kishimoto said obviously other housing incentive policies
were not included except for those six or seven redevelopment sites, such as
the bonus Floor Area plan.
Ms. Kendall said those were new ideas of implementing a concept that was
similar in its final results in terms of FAR.
Council Member Kishimoto said it could be a question of staff's opinion on
what the redevelopment potential or incentive would be under those new
proposed programs. She thought the P&TC version of the plan gave greater
protection to the historic resources. She asked for clarification of what the
new historic policies and regulations were.
Mr. Emslie said when the item was referred back to the boards and
commissions, the Council directed the HRB to review the findings. They
crafted language that tightened up the findings but did not preclude
demolition.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether staff had used the same first floor
retail assumptions in coming up with 90 or 120 housing units, and what
were they.
Ms. Kendall said staff assumed a fairly limited amount of ground floor retail
in those locations where it was likely to occur, such as the corridor area of
Homer Avenue. Projects were eliminated at locations that did not have that
type of potential. Staff modeled what a developer, looking at the regulations,
would likely do to get a project that made economic sense.
Ms. Grote said the balance of the staff report focused on the seven policy
areas mentioned earlier and required direction or comments from the
Council. She emphasized there were no current recommendations in the plan
intended to disrupt existing businesses or business patterns in the area. The
07/21/03 13
present Citywide ordinance that protected specific ground floor uses from
conversion to office was in place in the SOFA 2 area, with the intention of
reevaluating it as part of the Coordinated Area Planning effort. Staff
expected the ordinance would be significantly modified or potentially
eliminated from the SOFA 2 area as policies that addressed those conditions
were analyzed and responded to. The first policy issue to be considered was
Office Uses. The recommendation presently allowed existing office uses to
remain; however, they could be replaced with other types of office, such as
a professional or general business. That was also true for existing non-
conforming office uses. Both uses were consistent with CD-S zoning. The
remaining question the P&TC considered was whether or not the Homer
Avenue/Emerson Street (Homer/Emerson) Corridor should be treated
differently than the rest of the SOFA area, i.e., limited in its availability to
convert to office use. Staff was aware of the policy in the Comprehensive
Plan (Comp Plan) that suggested drawing boundaries for zoning districts at
the back of lots rather than down the middle of the street. In the instant
case, staff wanted to respond to the existing condition in the field where
there were two buildings on two parcels, which would be physically difficult
to convert to retail or other types of personal service uses. She said staff
had recommended to the Council a limitation whereby the zoning boundary
would not extend across Channing Avenue, but rather end there. Staff had
also considered that office use would be a more subtle and gradual transition
into the residential uses that existed along the remainder of Emerson Street.
The P&TC recommended that facades for all new buildings were pedestrian-
oriented and could easily be converted to retail use. The P&TC did not make
a recommendation on whether or not ground floor housing should be
protected from office conversion in the two areas along Homer Avenue and
portions of Emerson Street. The second policy issue to be considered was
parking. The P&TC recommended the need for a blended or uniform rate for
parking for all permitted uses in the district, which equated to one space for
every 250 square feet. It would include restaurants up to 1,500 square feet.
For those establishments over 1,500 square feet, the existing parking
requirements found in Section 18.83 of the Zoning Ordinance would apply.
The disincentive would be removed for converting an existing use to retail. It
would also allow uses to convert in and amongst the permitted uses without
being required to add an incremental increase in parking. There was
discussion about allowing exemptions for certain types of housing proposals
when a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program was approved
through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). There was also discussion about an
exception of up to two units of housing if the combined residential units did
not exceed 2,500 square feet. The third policy issue to be considered was
the Bonus Floor Area (BFA) program. The BFA was a new program that
would allow additional floor area in the RT-35 from 1.15 up to 1.5 and in the
RT-50 from 1.5 up to 2.0 in the SOFA area. The BFA program required one
or more special provisions, such as additional Below Market Rate (BMR)
housing, substantial public parking, childcare facilities, or below market
rental rates of meeting space for community and non-profit services. The
07/21/03 14
BFA program would be administered through a CUP process rather than
through a PC process. Projects were eligible for PC zoning and could be
developed under the BFA program if it was a fully affordable housing project.
Development standards such as height and daylight planes would apply. The
P&TC had recommended direction from the Council on residential densities
and average unit size. They also recommended the Comp Plan be used as
the maximum densities allowed, which related to the Transit Oriented Design
(TOD) densities that reached up to 50 units per acre. In addition, the P&TC
recommended average unit size be included in the plan; however, they were
not in favor of the 1,250 square-foot average, but rather the size should be
based on staff's survey of the area. It was determined the average unit sizes
in and around the SOFA 2 area was approximately 1,250 square feet. Staff
recommended there be a Transfer Development Rights (TDR) program,
which was a continuation and amplification of the existing TDR. Presently,
bonuses were allowed for seismic upgrades and historic rehabilitation. Staff
recommended with agreement from the P&TC, that the square footage could
be transferred to other sites within the SOFA 2 area. The square footage
could also be transferred out of the SOFA 2 area into the Downtown area,
which was the only other place that presently had a TDR program. She said
the square footage could not be transferred into the SOFA 2 area. In
addition, the TDR square footage could only be used for housing and could
not exceed the 1.5 FAR in an RT-35 zone, or a 2.0 FAR in the RT-50 zone.
The only exception applied to a historic building that already exceeded the
FAR, in which that square footage could be used on site in order to continue
the incentive to rehabilitate historic buildings. The P&TC also agreed the TDR
program should be considered for expansion so it could be used for public
open space. Staff had asked for policy guidance on the Non-Complying
Facilities (NCF), which involved those facilities presently over the allowed
FAR. Staff recommended that NCF be allowed to redevelop without losing
the amount of square footage they currently had and be allowed to
redevelop outside or differently than the existing building footprint, thereby
making their buildings more pedestrian-oriented. Those "grandfathered
buildings" could be enlarged up to the maximum FAR's of 1.15 in the RT-35
and up to 2.0 in the RT-50, if that square footage was only used for housing.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Patrick Burt said the P&TC would
have preferred the ability to address the various issues over the course of
two meetings; however, the time schedule did not allow it. On issues where
the P&TC was not able to arrive at a consensus, they elected to recommend
alternatives to the Council for their consideration. As the Council went
through the varying issues, he would make himself available to answer
questions on the reasoning and discussion that existed among the
commission members.
Historic Resources Board Member, Beth Bunnenberg, said a summary of the
actions of the HRB and the motions on SOFA 2 were made after careful
consideration of the massing model. The massing model clearly showed the
07/21/03 15
number of historic buildings in the area, most of which consisted of one and
two-story buildings. She said the PC designation and the increased FAR
allowances could dwarf the smaller buildings with very large structures. The
HRB voted in support of the Working Group's recommendations, which
included no PC zoning for SOFA 2 and a lower FAR, thereby producing a
more compatible scale for the historic Homer Avenue corridor. The HRB also
approved the historic resources and potential resources list. The list
appeared appropriate since that area of town had received extensive
studying.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the HRB considered the economic
pressure on the historic buildings and what, if anything, was there to
prevent the smaller buildings from having consolidated ownership and being
redeveloped.
Ms. Bunnenberg said the HRB did not discuss it in any detail, but she
believed it was clear in every situation as there were huge economic
pressures. One thing that worked well was providing incentives. It was a
hope for owners of historic properties.
Drew Maran, Architectural Review Board (ARB), said the ARB reviewed the
massing model and SOFA 2 plan and supported the P&TC's recommendation
for increased height and density. They also supported maintaining the PC as
it was currently being used. The ARB was opposed to the joint ARB/HRB
Board as a method of review. There were no "one size fits all" solutions to
even a small area like SOFA. The people who were most skillful in
understanding the long-term impacts that existed in SOFA 2 were the
Planning Department and the experts and consultants they hired. There was
a strong feeling from the ARB of a serious lack of attention to the input from
the specialists and experts, who were trained and hired to come up with
long-term solutions. When the consultant's were asked what they would
propose for the new SOFA 2, their answers were slightly different than what
was being given by everyone else. It was important to look at the
recommendations from those persons, who had worked hard to study the
history of urban planning, where it had left us today, and look at different
possibilities and methods of solving those problems for the future.
Council Member Ojakian noted many of comments made that evening were
contained in Enclosures A through H.
Ms. Grote commented on Council Member Ojakian's earlier questions about
the project being developed at 901 High Street (Channing Avenue at High
Street). She said TDR was included in that project. There had been a historic
building across the street from the proposed project that transferred its
development potential as a result of a historic rehabilitation to 901 High
Street. Staff did not count the project into the FAR, but there was additional
square footage on that property. The square footage; however, was counted
07/21/03 16
as part of the overall Downtown Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) of 350,000
square feet.
Vice Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing open at 8:47 p.m.
Harold Justman, 828 Ramona Street, said the SOFA 2 surrounded his home
on three sides and 800 High Street was visible from his backyard. To
maximize the benefit of 800 High Street, he suggested rezoning the Alma
Substation to a FAR of 2.0.
Heather Trossman, 769 Garland Drive, Chair of Government Action Council,
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce (Board), said the Board urged the Council
against the adoption of the proposed SOFA 2 CAP. They recommended the
existing CD-S zoning and the proposed RT-35 and RT-50 zoning be retained
for the neighborhood. Proposed "plus provisions" could be added by means
of the Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) to encourage the development of
BMR and Market Rate housing. The CD-S zoning designation had served the
SOFA 2 neighborhood well for more than 15 years, successfully promoting
retail business retention, historical preservation, mass and scale
preservation, housing development and small community service office uses.
The Board believed that adding the "plus" features to the existing zoning
designations through the ZOU would build on its success, and was a better
course of action rather than adopting the CAP. A CAP was an untested
zoning concept in Palo Alto, which would be difficult to modify in the future.
Audrey Sullivan Jacob, Director of Government Relations, Palo Alto Chamber
of Commerce (Board), said the Board agreed with the P&TC's
recommendations on the seven policy areas. They had exceptions to the
recommendations in office uses, PC zoning, and residential density and unit
size limits. For office uses, they were opposed to the restriction of street
facing ground floor office space on the Homer/Channing Corridor unless it
was a ground floor dependent office use. They opposed the restriction of PC
zoning exclusively to rental housing, exclusively affordable housing, or social
service uses. It was unfair to restrict the opportunity for PC zoning flexibility
for appropriate commercial or mixed-use developments. For residential
density and unit size limits, they believed that instead of regulating market
rate residential size, that smaller unit sizes be encouraged by means of
development incentives. In theory, neighborhood zoning was a positive idea.
The SOFA 2 Working Group approached their task to preserve the vitality,
texture, and feel of the neighborhood for the future. In actuality, the SOFA 2
CAP process had dragged out over a five-year period, during which time
more than $1 million dollars of City funds had been spent on staff time. The
Board urged the Council to prevent the contentious and expensive process
from occurring again in the SOFA 2 area or any other neighborhood in Palo
Alto. Citywide zoning needed to be as simple and predictable as possible
while allowing maximum flexibility for creative design solutions in changing
market cycles.
07/21/03 17
Sunny Dykwel, 480 Gary Court, Council for the Real Estate Community, Palo
Alto Chamber of Commerce, said the BFA program was a positive step, but
needed to be simplified. The difficulty of regulations could lead to more
challenges just to get the additional FAR. She urged the Council to act on the
SOFA 2 CAP.
Hartmut Meez, 718 Emerson Street, asked the Council to reject the
restrictions proposed for the Homer/Emerson Corridor. It would be a great
hardship on his family and would hurt the neighborhood he had been a part
of for over three decades. His business, Palo Alto Speedometer, was a 2500-
square-foot auto repair shop that served the community well. He had hoped
to convert the property in the not too distant future to a small professional
office. The restriction at Emerson Street, to make such a conversion, would
make it impossible causing a burden to his family. If the Council was in favor
of the restrictions, he asked them to exclude auto repair shops, because
they were a shrinking business.
Chop Keenan, 700 Emerson Avenue, said the SOFA 2 area had existing
property investments based on versatile zoning. It was an eclectic use and
the size of the area told people that the existing zoning was ideal which
allowed for various lot sizes, building types, bay depths, and the distinct lack
of parking. Parking was the principle impediment to successful retail. The
SOFA 2 area could not have retail without customers and urged the Council
to create incentives for increased housing.
Simon Cintz, 880/884 Emerson Avenue, said the SOFA debate was, in large
part, a debate between concepts versus realities. The real issue before the
Council was whether or not the City would buy the concept that the
Homer/Emerson Corridor was a retail center that required special protection
or would they acknowledge the reality it was already a successful mixed-use
area. Mixed-use was Palo Alto's strength, not weakness. He urged the
Council to recognize the reality that the SOFA 2 neighborhood was already a
Palo Alto success story.
Tom Lynch, 470 Claremont Way, Menlo Park, said he owned property at 885
Emerson Street for the past 25 years. Its use for most of those years was an
automotive shop. Approximately two years prior, he upgraded the property
and leased the space for office use. The SOFA 2 area should not be
restricted in its ability to lease to the best tenant.
Tom Harrington, 735-745 Emerson Street, said he owned property in the
SOFA area that had been in continuous use as an office building for the past
20 years. It would be difficult and expensive to convert the present office
space to retail uses, because parking was already scarce and tenants would
not lease the space. The CD-S zoning worked well for the SOFA 2 area.
07/21/03 18
Ben Cintz, 1045 Alma Street, said he enjoyed the eclectic character of the
SOFA 2 area. He had seen property go through improvements, and the uses
change. What was unique about the area was the varying number of uses by
individual owners, who wanted to continue owning their property and put it
to the best use possible. The vast majority of the people on the Working
Group voted to keep the CD-S zoning, while adding incentives to increase
the amount of housing, but did not vote in favor of anything that would
change the overall zoning of the properties in the SOFA 2 area.
James Cook, 1120 Palo Alto Avenue, urged the Council not to approve
Policy-H, with respect to the conversion of residential uses on ground floor to
offices.
Caroline Willis, 1120 Palo Alto Avenue, agreed with the comments of her
husband, James Cook.
Patrick Grey, 730 N. Pastoria Avenue, Sunnyvale, said there were many
details that would need to be worked out after the Council’s final direction.
Much of the implementation would be with new language. He hoped and
encouraged the City Council to allow the same public discussion and review
during that process. He did not support the special and selective treatment
of his neighbors on Homer/Emerson. An unreasonable burden was created
by restricting office to ground-floor dependent office definition, and not
allowing the owners the flexibility of the market place.
Jim Baer, 532 Channing Avenue, said the SOFA 2 area had had a lot of
success; however, there was a high amount of reaction to both the
substance and process that originated in other important policies, which
were only appropriate for other locations. Midtown was vehicular-dependent
and if retail were lost, people would need to get in their cars to replace that
retail. The need to create and maintain retail in Midtown and Piazza's Plaza
did not translate to the needs of SOFA 2, which was next to the most
successful retail-shopping district in suburban California.
M.E. Pratt, 1136 Waverley Street, said he owned property on Ramona
Street, which was directly across from Summerhill homes. Those homes
contained two units on a lot that was much smaller than his. The zoning law,
which related to the R-2 lots in Downtown Palo Alto were not big enough for
two units. One way to allow more housing in the Downtown area was to
convert some of the older homes to duplex housing, while maintaining their
historical character.
Richard Grey, 913 Emerson Street, said the SOFA 2 process was a classic
combat between people who believed there was a problem that had to be
fixed, and those who owned property and want to solve a problem that had
not been proven. SOFA 2 was a vibrant area that was too small to receive so
much attention. The previous zoning allowed flexibility and everything to
07/21/03 19
move forward. It was a shame the Council was not organized enough to
make a decision.
Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said when the Council talked about
changing the zoning and land use, nothing should be done to increase
incentives to tear down successful properties, remove historic buildings, and
replace them with projects, which were excessive in size, density, and mass.
Howard Takaoka, 908 Colorado Avenue, said the SOFA 2 area was a unique
and vital area of Palo Alto. It had changed and evolved with the community
and the times. The SOFA 2 Plan was seriously flawed with such things as
transition zones.
Cheri Ellison Carroll, 539 San Benito Avenue, Menlo Park, spoke on behalf of
her father, Buzz Ellison, who owned the property located at 705 Alma Street
for more than 70 years. She said her parents depended solely upon that
property investment for their income, and she was adamantly opposed to
restricting free enterprise.
Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, said one contentious issue surrounded
what was “affordable housing.” Staff defined it to include income levels up to
120 percent of the median income. In February 2003, the median income for
a family of four in Santa Clara County was $105,500. In order for a family of
four to apply for a two-bedroom unit, they would need to have an income of
$126,500. She did not believe the City would want to subsidize a family who
had that amount of income with BMR housing.
RECESS: 9:40 p.m. to 9:50 p.m.
Kerry Yarkin, 801/813 High Street, said she and her family were in support
of the zoning-plus concept of housing, but opposed the ground-floor office
restrictions mandated for the Homer/Emerson Corridor. It was a successful
mixed-use area similar to the rest of SOFA 2. She favored maintaining the
current CD-S zoning without punishing the property owners with further
restrictions on their property. She asked the Council to consider the severe
financial hardship that loyal business owners and families would face if
staff's proposal to mandate retail for the Homer/Emerson went through.
Tom Harrison, 232 Homer Avenue, said the history of the area was unique
because there were a lot of small business owners. Those same owners
typically owned their own buildings, fixed them up, and rented them out. He
urged the Council to leave the flexibility for commercial property. Parking
was one enemy of commercial property in the SOFA 2 area. The other
enemy was housing. The more housing that was built, the more difficult
parking became. He urged the Council to leave the SOFA 2 area alone. It
was a beautiful area and a great asset to Palo Alto.
07/21/03 20
Hal Luft, 1020 Ramona Street, said the staff proposal recognized the tension
between the historic aspects of the SOFA 2 area, the desire for additional
housing, the interest of existing property owners, and the public interest.
The notion of substituting the ground-floor dependent office for narrowly
defined retail offered substantially more flexibility than just retail. He
expressed concerns about the BFA program in terms of the details. How
quantifiable the benefits were to the developer were crucial.
Patricia Saffir, 2719 Bryant Street, said she liked the direction the SOFA 2
area was going, as it was ideal for housing. It was next to other housing and
had proximity to the Downtown area and transportation. The parking
exemptions for housing were justifiable and would work along with TDM
programs.
Carol Jansen, 575 Hawthorne Avenue, said she supported the density ranges
of the zones, as well as the creative solution for a CUP process with PTC
review. She did not agree with the special provisions to reach the added
density beyond the 20 percent BMR housing. The average unit size, as
proposed by City staff, was ill conceived is unprecedented. The City of
Berkeley and the League of California Cities had stated they were moving in
the opposite direction pushing for larger units in order to accommodate
families in transit-oriented developments.
Doug Ross, 909 Alma Street, stated the SOFA 2 area was substantially
developed and consisted of small parcel sizes with the majority being 10,000
square feet or less. The PC process was unpredictable, arduous, and time-
consuming, but it should be retained for projects with special and/or unique
circumstances for both conventional and affordable projects. Most of SOFA
2 was working well, but the housing component was needed and the project
provided an opportunity for more housing. For the SOFA CAP to work
effectively, a plan must be developed that was simple and straightforward.
He urged the Council to adopt the 20 percent BMR component, as it was the
only litmus test in the zoning designations for the staff proposed BFA
program.
Curt Peterson, 909 Alma Street, stated to add housing, the new plan must
be economically feasible and property owners must know how to obtain
entitlements to build the projects. The City commissioned study by Bay
Area Economics (BAE) demonstrated that with standard underground
parking a project must have a FAR greater than 2.0 to be feasible. History
has shown the current zoning would yield virtually no new housing in that
area. The only housing built in the last 15 years was the SRO property with
a FAR of nearly 4.0. The PC option should be retained for unique sites, but
the zoning must be modified to encourage housing. Staff was on the right
track with the simplified Bonus Floor Area Program, but the suggestion of
several special provisions would be as complicated as the PC process. The
Comp Plan stated each additional BMR unit would allow three additional
07/21/03 21
market rate units, which equated to increasing the BMR percentage from 15
to 20 percent. This would allow the 2.0 FAR in the transit-oriented areas
and the 1.5 FAR in the transition areas. Everyone would know what they
were getting and it would make it very simple.
Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, stated it was an area for housing, and she
agreed with the parking incentives, the BEA Program, the additional BMR
component, and projects eligible for PC zoning that might be developed
under the BFA program. She did not agree with a one-year amortization
clause.
John Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, urged elimination of the PC options. The
recent P&TC meeting with developers was held without notification, which
was clearly the responsibility of the City Council and should not have
occurred. Also, in 1965, park land was dedicated and could not be taken for
other purposes unless the public voted on the issue. Currently, there was a
conflict between the PAUSD and the City over the Terman School reopening.
Ole Christensen, 801 Alma Street, noted there had been changes in the
economy and setting rigid standards for SOFA 2 did not provide flexibility.
He recommended leaving everything as it was and let the marketplace
decide what should happen.
Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, said when developers made the biggest profit
by developing large, luxury housing projects, other neighborhood services
lost out, such as Palo Alto Hardware. Retail provided the vital sales tax
dollars needed by the City and was essential for the livable, walkable
neighborhood envisioned by the Comp Plan. She believed the zoning should
be left as it was because alternatives would be worse than the current
policies.
Janet Dafoe, 433 Kingsley Avenue, encouraged the Council not to approve
the rezoning, as the massing model was too big and dense. Assumptions
minimized the number of areas where the rezoning would allow projects.
Vice Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:27 p.m.
Council Member Kishimoto questioned interpretation of historic regulations
regarding the three findings developed to justify demolishing a historic
resource.
Ms. Grote responded that any modifications to existing historic buildings
would need to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
and would be reviewed by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) to assist in
making the determination, as well as a historic report. If there were a
proposal to remove a structure on the National or State historic resources
list, an Environmental Impact Report, (EIR) would most likely be provided.
There would also need to be a statement of overriding consideration that the
07/21/03 22
loss of a historic structure was somehow mitigated by the benefits of the
project.
Council Member Kishimoto confirmed the HRB’s review and Council’s
interpretation would determine if the benefits of the project overrode the
value of the historic structure.
Ms. Grote stated all projects would be subject to an Architectural Review
Board (ARB) review also.
Council Member Kishimoto, as liaison to the Working Group, stated the
ordinance noted the Working Group reported to Planning staff and the P&TC,
as well as directly to the City Council. To date, the Working Group had not
given a report to the Council. She proposed the Working Group present
their plan at the next meeting on the subject.
Vice Mayor Beecham stated although the public hearing had closed, the
subject was not quasi-judicial and technical information could be requested.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth advised the hearing could be
reopened and continued to the next meeting with the expectation that only
the Working Group would report at that time.
Council Member Kleinberg stated a number of people who spoke at that
evening’s meeting were on the Working Group and, therefore, she
questioned who would be speaking and how it would work.
Council Member Kishimoto advised someone would be asked to represent
the Working Group Plan, which would be an integrated vision for the area.
Council Member Burch stated the last Working Group meeting he attended
was actually the staff putting on a meeting for the Group following on the
earlier meeting staff had with the property owners. Approximately one
dozen Group members voted on what was favored and everything had been
exposed to Council for consideration.
Council Member Kishimoto advised she missed the last Working Group
meeting due to a Finance Committee meeting, but there had not been a
presentation on the larger, integrated vision and why it would serve the
goals of the plan better than something else.
Council Member Lytle supported hearing the presentation of the Working
Group because the CAP focused on the Group’s recommendation as a way of
allowing the local community to have more input on infill redevelopment in
their area. Also, business owners were not engaged sufficiently in the
process. She recommended a matrix when Council returned to final
deliberations, showing a comparison of all aspects of site development
07/21/03 23
parameters, as recommended by the Working Group, the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC) and staff for standard normal parking
requirements, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the setbacks, the RT-35 and RT-
50 against the Commercial Downtown Community (CDC), permit bonuses
etc. The matrix would enable a better understanding of where there was
consensus among the various recommendations.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified it was important to have the Working
Group explain their plan and she would also like to allow anyone on the
Working Group who had not spoken, to be allowed to speak, as there was
substantial disagreement on the recommendation.
Council Member Ojakian stated the Working Group membership changed
over time and, therefore, it was difficult to know whom to have from the
Working Group. The liaison to the group was Council Member Kishimoto
and, as such, she should express the recommendations of the Group.
Council Member Burch agreed with his colleague’s recommendation that
Council Member Kishimoto present the Working Group’s plan.
Vice Mayor Beecham asked Council Member Kishimoto if she would be willing
to make a five to ten minute presentation when the subject returned on the
unified recommendation from the Group.
Council Member Kishimoto agreed if it was acceptable to the Working Group.
Vice Mayor Beecham stated the vote of the Working Group was 6 – 5, and it
would be difficult to find someone to represent their collective opinion.
Council Member Lytle clarified she did not want any additional data, but she
would like a matrix of the data presented.
Mr. Emslie advised it would not be a problem to expand the matrix, which
was previously presented.
Council Member Ojakian referred to the buildings in the model, which are
supposedly historic.
Ms. Grote explained the massing model demonstrated the location of every
building on the local Historic Inventory or on the National or State Register.
Council Member Ojakian stated some buildings would fall under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements and some would
not.
Ms. Furth explained the model did not distinguish between National or
California register buildings, but both were subject to CEQA. Therefore, it
07/21/03 24
was the group of buildings that had already been established to be subject
to CEQA review or would have to be looked at because it appeared they
were historic resources.
Council Member Ojakian questioned if some of those buildings were eligible
for the historic registers, but had not as yet been approved to be on the list.
Ms. Furth noted there were two appendices: one listed those buildings
established by the City’s procedures as historic resources and one list did
not. Before a permit was issued that altered the historic character of the
building, it must go through the City process.
City Manager Frank Benest suggested that questions be taken and staff
would determine the answers to the questions.
Council Member Ojakian questioned the actual maximum number of housing
units that could be built in the area and for staff to further explain the
reasons for the recommendations made for the Homer/Emerson area. He
referred to the P&TC minutes on Page 54, which suggested three housing
units on the ground floor. He also questioned the potential number of
parking spaces available, what could be in the plan for Whole Foods to
move, something about the auto services, the 1,250 feet average unit size,
the process cost from beginning to end, what did it mean, if the CAP was not
approved by Council?
Council Member Lytle requested the maximum housing density be part of
the matrix.
Council Member Kleinberg asked for the definition of “affordable housing”
and an examination that compared the policy of affordable or attainable
housing geared to Palo Alto income levels, as opposed to a policy to have
people of low-income levels live in Palo Alto. The SOFA 2 vision referred to
increasing housing opportunities and currently the only kind of housing a
number of speakers had requested was for low-income individuals or for
“affordable housing.” Therefore, was the council trying to develop a policy
that encouraged a variety of housing or were they going to adopt a policy
that limited any other housing in the SOFA 2 area to only housing for low-
income individuals. Also, she would like information and a discussion on the
statement in the (CMR): that the “loss of development potential on
residential sites was to be discouraged,” as well as the need for “family-
sized” units. PC’s for 100 percent housing might have a need for an office
within the housing that was related to the housing, or a social service
organization related to the organization. Finally, it would be beneficial to
have an analysis of the retail assumptions for the recommendations that had
been made.
Ms. Harrison stated realistically it would be difficult to provide everything
requested by the next week’s meeting, but staff would do its best and try to
07/21/03 25
answer questions at the meeting rather than having to prepare them early
for the packet.
Council Member Burch questioned why it stated the PC zone would be
available only for 100 percent affordable housing because presently there
was only Alma Place, which was 100 percent affordable. Maintaining
flexibility was essential and must be assured.
Vice Mayor Beecham referred to Page 6 of 19 in the report, which dealt with
exemptions on housing units added to existing buildings. Was the intent to
keep an existing unit and build an additional unit on top or behind it or could
it be torn down. Also, what was a realistic, potential number of housing
units that could be built on that site: On Page 8 of 19 under Item D, a good
range of the kinds of businesses referred to as the “ground floor dependent
businesses” was requested. On Page 11 of 19, the report stated “market
rate rental housing would be eligible for a PC zone only if it qualifies as a
mixed-income tax exempt bond financing project.” He asked how difficult
would it be to qualify and would it be a realistic requirement.
Council Member Lytle questioned retail conversion office-friendly use and the
difference between the existing P-overlay and what was being proposed.
Vice Mayor Beecham stated the item would return to Council on July 28,
2003.
Ms. Harrison agreed but stated there would be many items that could not be
rescheduled that evening, which would mean a full agenda.
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Ojakian, to continue
the item to the July 28, 2003, City Council meeting.
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Morton, Mossar “not participating,” Freeman absent.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:03 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto
Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the
preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the
07/21/03 26
meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to
during regular office hours.
07/21/03 27