Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-21 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting February 21, 1995 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 75-90 1. Joint Funding Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS) for Inshore Monitoring Program 75-90 2. Payment to Aquatic Habitat Institute for Palo Alto's Share of the San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program ................................................ 75-90 3. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Geoff Brosseau for the Commercial Facilities Water Pollution Prevention Program ........................... 75-90 4. Application for Approval of a Final Map to Subdivide a 33,571 Square-Foot Parcel into Eight Air Space Condominium Units at 4146 El Camino Real (Tract No. 8445) .................................................. 75-90 6. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council acceptance of the 1993-94 Management Letter ............ 75-90 7. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council the approval of the staff recommendation to retain the surplus in the City's Miscellaneous Employee Asset Account with the Public Employees Retirement System .... 75-90 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS .................... 75-90 7A. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litigation ............................................. 75-91 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Architectural Review Board upholding the decision to approve a proposal for one A-frame sign for O'Connell's Eire House in the public right-of-way four feet away from Centennial Walk and adjacent to the curb along Bryant Street in front of 520 Bryant Street (continued from January 23, 1995) ................................. 75-91 9. Ordinance Amending Section 18.49.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (CD District Regulations), Relating to Remodeling of Historic Buildings (continued from 02/21/95 75-88 February 13, 1995) ..................................... 75-91 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission and the Archi-tectural Review Board recommend to the City Council consideration of an application to rezone the property located at 330 Emerson Street from RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence) District to a PC (Planned Community) District to construct four low-income units and related site improvements (Times Tribune site) .......................................... 75-95 11. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that Council maintain the existing conditions of use permit 73-UP-36 for property located at 260 California (The Edge), and require an additional review of the use permit by the Zoning Administrator in September 1996 .. 75-109 12. Resolution Scheduling the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 1995 .................................... 75-111 ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned to Closed Session at 9:40 p.m. ........................... 75-112 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned in memory of Al Werry and Past Vice Mayor Roy Clay's wife, Virginia Clay at 10:00 p.m. .................................... 75-112 02/21/95 75-89 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Kniss (arrived at 7:12 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Huber, Schneider ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding urban design or "more cement--more parking lots" and no "trees." CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 4, 6, and 7. 1. Joint Funding Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS) for Inshore Monitoring Program 2. Payment to Aquatic Habitat Institute for Palo Alto's Share of the San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program 3. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Geoff Brosseau for the Commercial Facilities Water Pollution Prevention Program 4. Application for Approval of a Final Map to Subdivide a 33,571 Square-Foot Parcel into Eight Air Space Condominium Units at 4146 El Camino Real (Tract No. 8445) 6. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council accep-tance of the 1993-94 Management Letter 7. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council the approval of the staff recommendation to retain the surplus in the City's Miscellaneous Employee Asset Account with the Public Employees Retirement System MOTION PASSED 6-0 for Item Nos. 1 - 4, 6, and 7, Fazzino, Huber, Schneider absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 5, Application for Approval of Phases I and II of Final Subdivision Maps for Property Located at 245 Lytton Avenue, the Former Times-Tribune site (Tract Nos. 8694 and 8695), had been removed by staff. CLOSED SESSION The item might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 7A. Conference with City Attorney--Potential/Anticipated Litiga- 02/21/95 75-90 tion Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation Authority: Government Code ∋54956(b)(1) arising out of the San Francisco Symphony's demand to cease use of the phrase "black & white ball." (Gov. Code, ∋54956.9(b)(1) & (b)(3)(C). Public Comment None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Architectural Review Board upholding the decision to approve a proposal for one A-frame sign for O'Connell's Eire House in the public right-of-way four feet away from Centennial Walk and adjacent to the curb along Bryant Street in front of 520 Bryant Street (continued from January 23, 1995) MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, to continue the public hearing to the Monday, March 27, 1995, City Council Meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Schneider absent. 9. Ordinance Amending Section 18.49.060 of the Palo Alto Munici-pal Code (CD District Regulations), Relating to Remodeling of Historic Buildings (continued from February 13, 1995) Faith Bell, 536 Emerson Street, was disturbed about the Ordinance change not the least of which was that the decision was being made without the benefit of a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). She questioned on what standard would the interiors of historic buildings be reviewed; the wording of the Ordinance was very vague on the issue. She asked if the U. S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards would be used, and if not, what standards would be used. The Ordinance contained no clear statement of a local standard with regard to interiors, and it was very important because City review of historic buildings was subject to a public review period. She said the public needed a standard against which to review the City's decisions, otherwise the public review process itself was meaningless. She encouraged the Council to set some standards and presented the Council with additional petitions which totaled approximately 6,787 signatures (on file in the City Clerk's Office). Dennis Backlund, 488 University Avenue No. 503, said he operated Adele's Antiques, 231 Hamilton Avenue. He referred to the Draft EIR (DEIR) which covered Keenan's Varsity project because it contained the modified proposal for the Varsity Theater (the Varsity) which Mr. Keenan said flowed directly from the potential ordinance that would be voted on. He said based on the Ordinance, the interior of the Varsity would be preserved almost entirely 02/21/95 75-91 regardless of the usage that occurred. He said that the achieve-ment was the outcome of the collaborated effort of many forces. He said he spoke on behalf of the twenty members of the Save the Varsity Committee (the Committee). He said the Ordinance was involved with combining square footage incentives for seismic and historic upgrades in certain Commercial District (CD) buildings. He had raised objections to wording of the Ordinance and referred to the City Council Action Agenda dated December 12, 1994, and noted that the document read that the on-site use of the second 25 percent Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards with respect to both the interior and exterior of the project. He said that statement was very clear, however, it was not reflected in the Ordinance. The Ordinance was not as clear as the statement in the Action Agenda. The Ordinance described the first 25 percent FAR for seismic, the second 25 percent FAR for historic, and it noted that exterior building modifications would be on exteriors for the second 25 percent FAR for historic use. He said that the accumulated use read that the use of the square footage should not be otherwise inconsistent with historic preservation and he questioned the use of the word "otherwise," -- did it apply to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards of Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Reha-bilitating Historic Buildings or would a local standard be written and included in the Ordinance. Also, he referred to Section (b)(3)(C) which indicated that the floor area bonus could be a single or cumulative transfer. He asked whether a single transfer meant that it did not have an interior review or if the applicant received the cumulative square footage and then chose to sell one-half, that the interior would still be reviewed. Vic Lovell, 885 Sherman Avenue, Menlo Park, said as previously stated he shared the concerns expressed that there did not seem to any criteria in the Ordinance for the interior review. The new ordinance was an enormous improvement over the old one. He supported the comments made by Mayor Simitian at the December 12, 1994, City Council meeting, either the Ordinance was about the Varsity or it was about many other buildings in the area. If the Ordinance were about the Varsity, then the decision should be made when the EIR was considered; but if it were a general policy as Mayor Simitian had stated, then the City wanted people to do seismic upgrades and historically preservation, and therefore, incentives should be offered to do so. He referred to the Revised Table 1 attached to the staff report (CMR:138:95) and noted that the four properties with Footnote A indicated that the properties had already been seismically repaired and had received a 25 percent floor area bonus. He asked whether those properties would receive an additional bonus to do something that had already been done if the Ordinance passed. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said a year ago Chop Keenan asked the City Council to combine the historic and seismic bonuses so that he could build more square footage at the Varsity and convert it to a bookstore and to streamline the Transfer Development Right (TDR) process so that he could perhaps buy the rights from the property on Bryant Street. In response to Mr. Keenan's request a number of people had reviewed the documents that had been before 02/21/95 75-92 the Council during the past year and concluded that the proposed ordinance before the Council generally benefited only one property owner and one property which was located at 456 University Avenue. He said the EIR of the proposed ordinance could be combined with the EIR for the Varsity redevelopment project. Also he said there was evidence that no properties had taken advantage of the existing transfer rights because of the requirement of the Planned Community (PC) zoning ordinance on the receiving site and the present ordinance did not change that at all and it was scheduled to return to the Council. That was another reason to combine the environmental reviews. In addition, there was a letter dated June 23, 1994, from Carol Mullen, the owner of the property at 205 Hamilton Avenue which said "As it now stands the proposed revision of the Ordinance is a practical advantage to only one of the nine buildings, the one belonging to Chop Keenan." He referred to Mr. Keenan's own testimony that in his rehabilitation of the building at 529 Alma Street because of economic consideration it was not feasible to use all of the square footage he could have used. In response to Mr. Keenan's request two groups had been formed to try and save the Varsity as a theater, and the Committee and the other group had submitted a petition signed by nearly 7,000 people (on file in the City Clerk's Office). He said the solution for Mr. Keenan and the Committee was for someone to find creative financing to purchase the Varsity at fair value. He said that by continuing the Ordinance both for environmental reasons and to get the EIR back and the TDR in draft, the City would provide the Committee with the opportunity to seek the creative financing techniques. Council Member McCown asked staff what standards applied to the interiors. City Attorney Ariel Calonne referred to the December 12, 1994, City Council Action Agenda and the Ordinance that was before the Council that evening. There was a difference between what was in the Action Agenda and the Ordinance. The Action Agenda was prepared the morning after the meeting based on notes and recollection. He said in drafting the actual ordinance the tapes were reviewed and in reviewing the tapes it became clear that the Council was looking for more discretion than what was provided for under the U. S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The proposed ordinance provided the Council with broader discretion. Council Member McCown said her memory was consistent with the proposed ordinance language; however, the Council reserved the right to make any changes. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked if there were buildings in addition to the nine that were specifically referred to in the Ordinance that fell into Seismic Categories I, II, and III to which the Ordinance might apply to in the future. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said yes, there were many other buildings that were in the seismic categories. The Seismic Category I referred to unreinforced 02/21/95 75-93 masonry. He said occasionally there were buildings that from outward appearance did not appear to be in the Seismic Category I. The discoveries occurred during a construction project in terms of when and how a building was built. Council Member Andersen referred to the proposed ordinance Section (b)(3)(B) "....The applicant for use of a cumulative floor area bonus shall have the burden of demonstrating the facts necessary to support the findings required for Council approval." He asked if that statement meant the application would be reviewed by the Historic Resources Board, Architectural Review Board, and Planning Commission. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Under the Council's Rules and Procedure, the applicant bore the burden of showing the facts in all cases. He responded to the issues raised by the speakers. With respect to Mr. Backlund's issue that the Ordinance's language related to interior preservation as to the second 25 percent floor area bonus having no criterion to guide the Council's judgment, he said the cumulative floor area bonus would not be inconsistent with historic preservation which meant that the Council had the full range of issues that might arise under historic preservation to use to reach its determination. In other words, the Council was more empowered as opposed to using the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Another issue related to the wording in the Ordinance Section (b)(3)(B) "...on-site use of the cumulative floor area bonus..." and what that meant. He said that meant the City was not parceling away only the second 25 percent floor area for the purpose of historic preservation review; but if an applicant wanted the second 25 percent, the project in its totality had to meet the historic preservation standard as outlined in the Ordinance. Finally, the other issue related to the meaning of the word "...on-site use of the cumulative floor area bonus would not otherwise" be referred to in the Ordinance Section (b)(3)(B), and the word "otherwise" meant "in any manner." He said if the connotation did not work for the Council, it could be rewritten. Mayor Simitian said he understood the word "otherwise" was in reference to the fact that even if the project notwithstanding met the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards that it might still be inconsistent with historic preservation. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the mitigated negative declaration and introduce the Ordinance allowing seismic and historic preservation floor area incentives to be combined. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.49.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (CD District Regulations), Relating to Remodeling of Historic Buildings" Council Member McCown appreciated the concerns raised by the 02/21/95 75-94 speakers that evening. The reason the matter came before the Council was because of the issue surrounding the Varsity Theatre. She spoke on behalf of the previous Councils that were involved in the creation of the regulations during the era of the Downtown Study and had evaluated the issue on the merits of whether, based on what was learned over time in the application of the bonuses, it was an appropriate change. She believed it was separate from the situation of the Varsity Theatre. The way the Ordinance had been crafted through Mayor Simitian's leadership last December 1994 was appropriately controlled and would give the Council the techniques and devices needed to encourage a positive change to achieve the preservation of those special buildings. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether a building that had already taken advantage of the 25 percent bonus would be eligible for a second 25 percent bonus. Mr. Calonne said yes. Mayor Simitian asked whether the eligibility applied to someone who had already done both the seismic and historic work and had gotten credit for only 25 percent or whether it applied to someone who had done the seismic or historic and still had the other part of the process left to do and then requested the second 25 percent bonus. Mr. Calonne said his response applied to the latter scenario. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the implication of the Ordinance was that the exterior and interior requirements would have to be met even though 25 percent had already been done. The Ordinance language referred to a combination of the two which suggested that 50 percent would be asked for all at once. Mr. Calonne said the same burden would be met if the process were done in one or two steps. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Schneider absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board recommend to the City Council consideration of an application to rezone the property located at 330 Emerson Street from RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence) District to a PC (Planned Communi-ty) District to construct four low-income units and related site improvements (Times Tribune site). Contract Project Planner Robert Schubert said the project was developed to satisfy the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) require-ments for the residential portions of the Times Tribune project at 245 Lytton Avenue. The agreement between the developer and the City required that the building include four one-bedroom units with at least 625 square feet of floor area in each unit. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) would purchase the land with 02/21/95 75-95 the completed building for $150,000 and operate the project as affordable rental housing. The project was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on January 5, 1995, and continued to January 19, 1995, because there was a split vote on the project. The applicant submitted revised plans and on January 19, 1995, the ARB recommended approval of the project with a 3:2 vote. On January 25, 1995, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the project with the same design which was recommended by the ARB. The Planning Commission also recommended revising Condition No. 3 to prohibit a padmount transformer in front of the project which was a condition recommended by the Utilities Engineering Division. Staff shared the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the visual impact of placing a padmount transformer in the front yard but it did not support modification of Condition No. 3. Staff recommended that the Council adopt the Ordinance rezoning the site from RM-30 to a Planned Community (PC) district and approve the proposed side yard setback and daylight plane variances. Planning Commissioner Victor Ojakian said the staff report (CMR:147:95) did not emphasize the Planning Commission's preference to have actual units as opposed to in-lieu payments on the BMR which was approved by the Council. He said no one at the Planning Commission meetings spoke in opposition to the project. He emphasized that most of the Commissioners preferred not to have the padmount transformer placed in the front yard which was contrary to the direction of recent designs for a more aesthetic approach in the City. Architectural Review Board Vice Chairperson Cheryl Piha said the difference in the roof form that was proposed by the applicant was the main issue that provided a split vote of the ARB. In the final presentation made to the ARB, the applicant presented two options in model form. It was an aesthetic contextual issue, and three members favored one scheme, two members favored an alternate scheme. The alternate scheme that was less desirable from the ARB in the 3:2 vote had a flatter slope to it and the massing was simplified. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked which was the recommended scheme. The documents and drawings provided were not clear. Mr. Schubert said the ARB approved Scheme A elevations and Scheme B floor plans. Mayor Simitian clarified the Council had received Sheets A.1 (a perspective sketch for 330 Emerson), A1.1 (Site Plan for 330 Emerson, carport side elevation), A1.1 (Site Plan Scheme B), carport side elevation, A2.1 (first floor plans, Scheme B for 330 Emerson), A2.2 (second floor plan, Scheme B), A3.1 (elevations for Scheme B), A3.2 (elevations for Scheme B), and a landscape design plan. He asked what materials were the recommended project. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said all of the materials the Council had received were the recommended set. She said the carport option chosen was from Sheet A1.1 and the carport side 02/21/95 75-96 elevation, A1.1 (Site Plan, Scheme B) was not being used. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the design of housing units was on Scheme B. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member McCown asked whether there were any creative options that could be used for the padmount transformer. The Planning Commission asked whether a 3,000-square-foot building needed a big transformer. Electrical Engineering Manager Mike Beanland said even though it was a 3,000-square-foot building, the need for transformer capacity was based upon the estimated usage in the facility. The electric service to the building would be 400 amp service. A typical service in Palo Alto was a 200 amp service. The size of the service was required because there were four kitchens in the dwelling units. Any application with a 400 amp residential class service would require a site on the property to locate a transformer regardless of the square footage of the building. It was based upon the estimated actual usage. Several alternatives were considered. In the past, practice had been to install transformers and vaults underground. Staff had gained through its experience in the previous years with power outages and explosions that it might not be the best solution. Transformers placed in vaults underground had a short life expectancy compared to equipment that was above ground. It was more difficult and expensive to install and maintain. Palo Alto was one of the few remaining utilities in the Nation that still installed underground transformers. The City currently had two suppliers of transformers that could be used in submersible applications in the United States. The majority of utilities used padmount transformers. In the future, the area around 300 Emerson was scheduled to be undergrounded. Because the project was being developed at that time, it gave staff an opportunity to integrate a transformer in a new project, to provide landscaping, and to work with the property owner on placement of the transformer to minimize the visual impact. When the underground district was created, there would be padmounted transformers in the neighborhood. Staff had worked with the ARB for several years to develop some guidelines and had begun work with the new City architect to develop landscape and siting guidelines for padmount transformers. Padmount transformers could not be underground in the future. The particular project and the opportunities presented would be an opportunity to integrate a padmount transformer with the project with the necessary landscaping as part of the City's long-term planning. Council Member McCown said the Planning Commission and the ARB had discussed alternative locations on the project site. She asked whether staff had looked at the issue again after questions were raised and whether alternate locations were considered that were less visible. Mr. Beanland said staff looked at the parcel very carefully; but 02/21/95 75-97 due to its high density development, there was no practical location in the rear of the property because of the parking facility and the access requirement needed by staff. There was no side yard clearance because of the minimal setbacks and a driveway on the other side. He referred to A.1(perspective sketch) and said the padmount transformer would be located behind the green shrubbery. Staff recommended in its proposal to the ARB that a site be selected and a landscape plan be developed which would be brought back to the ARB for consideration. Staff encouraged landscaping on all padmount transformers in order to mitigate the appearance. When the City put in a transformer on retrofit applications, the City paid for the cost of landscaping in order to mitigate the presence of the transformer. Council Member Kniss referred to Ms. Chiapella's comments regarding trees and asked whether bushes or trees would be planted on the site as replacements. Ms. Lytle said the City street tree at the front of the property would be preserved. Trees that might be considered a shrub that could be grown to tree form would be preserved or replaced. The replacement was usually for something comparable. Council Member Kniss said the street tree did not look vigorous. The proposed plans indicated that all of the trees would be removed on the property. Ms. Lytle said the street tree would be preserved and protected. Council Member Kniss asked whether the staff considered the preservation of the trees when a project was proposed. Ms. Lytle said the City had a landscape architect that assisted with the projects, and staff considered the arborist's evaluation of the property before the environmental review was completed, assessed the trees that would be removed and the space requirements of the root of the trees in addition to the type of tree, looked at mitigation for the trees that would be removed, and encouraged preservation of the trees. The ARB also evaluated the landscape plan for the project. Council Member Kniss said the Tree Task Force was not happy about the condition of the trees around the community. City Manager June Fleming said the language clearly stated that the trees should be replaced on a 2:1 basis with new 15-gallon trees. Staff needed to make certain the replacements were trees and not shrubs. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified that any future applications submitted to the Council for a multifamily housing development would have a padmount transformer on the property. Mr. Beanland said that was correct. The City had been installing padmount transformers on multifamily developments for approximately 30 years and would continue to do so. 02/21/95 75-98 Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified the City did not care whether the transformer was visible from the street or not if it had the requisite driveway width or vehicular access so it could be hidden on most applications. Mr. Beanland said that was correct. Staff worked with developers to find the best possible siting of the transformer. The placement was specific to the parcel and the type of development proposed. There were few choices with some sites due to the constraints of the site and the size of the development intended. Ms. Fleming assured the Council that staff was sensitive to the issue and had an appreciation for the aesthetic value of the community. Staff only required accessibility and worked very hard to make certain that the transformers would either camouflaged, landscaped, or put out of sight. Vice Mayor Wheeler referred to Attachment 13, Development Program Statement, and she asked who prepared the Development Program Statement (the Statement) and where it fit into the Planned Community (PC) application. Mr. Beanland said it was submitted by the applicant at the beginning of the process and was part of the project description. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether the Statement was part of the decision-making process and whether any part of it was incorporated into the Ordinance. There were several illusions in the Statement to potential City policies and programs that had not come under preliminary discussion by the City Council. She urged caution if the Statement played a major role in the decision making of the PC Ordinance. The adopted City policies and programs that related to the provision of housing in the community should be used and not just something the Council had not even addressed in draft form. Ms. Lytle said staff was extremely knowledgeable about Council's concern. The City was in a period of looking ahead at proposed policy recommendations, but the staff was careful that it used the existing Comprehensive Plan when preparing ordinances and applica-tions that were presented to the Council. The Statement was a reflection of the applicant's support of program objectives that were coincidentally being recommended as well by the CPAC and the Planning Commission to the Council. The Executive Summary of the staff report (CMR:147:95) listed the current Comprehensive Plan Programs and Policies and not pending programs and policies. Staff did not discuss pending policy. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the staff report referred to housing for low-income renters in one place and in another place referred to housing for very low-income renters. She said the groups were distinct, and she asked which group was applicable and the income requirements of that group. Ms. Lytle did not know the requirements for low- and very low- 02/21/95 75-99 income thresholds. The minutes indicated that the project would be below the 50 percent Santa Clara County median income. Mr. Calonne said the Development Program Statement was a required part of the application and the Council approved the application so it was arguably within the scope of what was being approved. He referred to pages 6 and 7 of the telecopy, Attachment 13, Development Program Statement, dated December 19, 1994, and suggested everything be deleted from "In addition, the proposed uses are absolutely consistent with the Housing and Community Design goals of Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan Update..." up to Paragraph 4.b. Uses Proposed Within the PC District. He said page 2, Section 3, of the Ordinance referred to the plans that had been submitted and he was uncertain about the references to which plan. He wanted the staff to review Section 3 of the Ordinance and give a better detail of the sheets that were applicable. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Scott Ward, Mozart Development Company, 1068 East Meadow Circle, encouraged the Council to support the staff, Planning Commission, and ARB recommendations to approve the project. Mozart Development Company (the Company) enjoyed the challenge of building BMR units, and it had taken the initiative with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) to finalize a deal that was in the best interests of both the PAHC and the Company. The Council's approval of the project would send an important message to other developers of the priority that should be assigned to building the homes as opposed to paying the in-lieu fee. The measure of the Company's commitment was evidenced by the fact that a PC zoning had to be approved in order to accomplish the project. He understood meeting the public benefit test was in the best economic interest of the City to take advantage of the opportunity. The apartment project would have substantial value to the City. The market value when considered in light of the income that would be flowing to the Company, i.e., the fee paid by the PAHC, represented considerably more value than would otherwise be achieved by payment of an in-lieu fee. The street tree would be preserved. He said Attachment 13 was an advocacy document, and the Company took advantage of the opportunity to make a statement. The median income of Santa Clara County for households of four was $59,000 which should help determine what the income limitation would be for the occupants of the units. He was pleased, after some effort with the ARB, to have the proposal before the Council. Council Member McCown said the applicant had done an extraordinary job in light of the magnitude of the project being four units on a small site. She said some of the supporters described the project as "fresh and neat," then as "quirky," and the ARB Chairperson Julie Maser made the comment "that you don't experiment on the poor, they don't deserve it." There was strong reaction by the ARB members to the design concept. She asked how the project would work in the neighborhood and the people who would live in the units. Mr. Ward said in the course of seeking approvals for the larger 02/21/95 75-100 project on the Times Tribune site, Planning Commissioners and ARB members admonished the applicant for not subjecting the project to a preliminary review before the ARB and that the design was too conservative, not fresh and innovative enough. The Company responded to that critique and brought the project before the ARB for preliminary review and retained an architect who produced fresh and innovative design that some people considered "quirky." He said Downtown North was not a monolithic neighborhood but an eclectic neighborhood. There was room for a building of that type in the neighborhood. It was a simple building that was typical of the older, larger craftsman homes built in the 1920s. The building was different because it had a standing seam metal roof and bright red front doors. The architect had the view that lower income people wanted to live in higher quality environments as did higher income people. The ARB was presented with information that represented different schools of thought on the design, and the decision was left to the judgment of the ARB. The second version of the building was more conventional and modified only the elevations and retained the floor plans. Council Member Andersen said the Council had had discussions during the update of the Housing Section of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the marketing of rental housing in the community. Only BMRs had been done in that area. He asked whether a project could be developed with the City's current zoning procedures on a market-based basis. He asked what it would take to be able to do a profit-check without the subsidies that came with that kind of project. Mr. Ward thought it would not be achievable at that density without the subsidies. Higher density would be necessary to defray significant land bases. The building type would be expensive to build, e.g., structured parking, additional structure above the parking. Council Member Andersen asked whether Mr. Ward's company would ever build market rate rental housing in Palo Alto. Mr. Ward said no. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, referred to Section 3.(ii) on page 3 of the proposed Ordinance and said it was better to put in one strong 24-inch boxed tree rather than to have the 2 to 1 replacements with new small trees. One good tree was worth more than all the 15-gallon replacements. She noted the staff's changes in the statistics, and she said the original material that went to ARB showed that the building would blend in with the houses, but the building had been brought forward and the houses now sat behind the building. The carport now needed to be moved six feet forward to allow for drainage. She asked whether there would be landscaping behind the carport. The project should state whether there would be shrubs or trees. The minutes of the ARB were not included in the packet, but she did not recall the requirement of a shrub in place of the trees. Council Member Kniss asked whether staff could answer Ms. 02/21/95 75-101 Chiapella's questions. Ms. Lytle said Site Plan Elevation A1.1 or A1.1b showed the alignment of the main building with the other building faces along that block face. The front elevation was in two planes so the plans were difficult to read. There was a broader setback for half of the building and a narrower setback for the other half of the building. The building aligned very nicely with the adjacent properties on the block. The issue was not to move the carport six feet but to move it forward about six inches so that a rain gutter could be accommodated to prevent the drainage of rain onto the property to the rear. It might even be possible to design the roof so that the six inches would not be necessary. The driveway was eight feet, and the landscape species could either grow into a tree or a shrub. Staff did not agree that it was better to have one large box specimen rather than several small box specimens. The arguments favored planting smaller trees because the trees adapted and grew to the size of the large box specimen in a short period of time. There would be more trees throughout the community in the long term. Staff agreed that the tree's survival needed to be assured. The Council could change the species if it preferred. Council Member Kniss said the Council preferred any type of tree that worked best for the area rather than a type of bush. Mr. Calonne said the proposed Ordinance indicated that the existing trees should not be removed as the plans showed but to save the trees if possible. If not possible, the trees would be replaced with the same type of existing trees on a 2 to 1 basis. Ms. Lytle said Ms. Chiapella referred to other trees that were proposed on the plan that were part of the landscaping proposal. There was no condition regarding those trees. The ARB approved the landscape plan and the proposed species. Mr. Ward said the porch element of the building was within 13 feet of the right-of-way. Specifically, only one portion was forward of the other portion, and even at the portion closest to the right-of-way, the building face was setback 20 feet. It was about a 7-foot porch. The 2-story building wall was consistent with a 2-story, 20-foot setback similar to the rest of the block. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member McCown asked for clarification of the specific description of the correct set of plans. Ms. Lytle said the correct set of plans was Sheets A1.1(carport only), A1.1b(main building), A2.1b, A2.2b, A3.1, and A3.2. The Council was provided with only the approved plans. Council Member McCown clarified there were two sheets that had the same plan reference number of A1.1(Site Plan) and A1.1(Site Plan, Scheme B). The carport that would be used was referenced on Sheet A1.1(site plan) which had a sloping roof line. On A1.1(Site Plan, 02/21/95 75-102 Scheme B), the layout of the building was the layout being recommended and flat roof carport would not be used. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to introduce the Ordinance rezoning the property from RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple Family Residence) District to PC (Planned Community District), to construct four low-income residential units as shown on Sheets A.1, A1.1 (carport only), A1.1B (main building only), A2.1B, A2.2B, A3.1, and A3.2 of the plans; and approve a 4.5-foot side yard setback variance, a side yard daylight plane variance for the main building, and a side yard and rear yard daylight plane variance for a proposed carport with the following findings for the setback and daylight plane variances: Variance Findings - 330 Emerson 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary conditions applicable to the property involved that do not generally apply to property in the same district in that the site a) has an area of approximately 5,625 square feet, compared to a minimum site area of 8,000 square feet in the RM-30 District; and b) has an a width of 50 feet, compared to a minimum width of 70 feet in the RM-30 District. 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship, because in order to provide access to the parking at the rear of the site, it is necessary to offset the building to one side of the lot or the other. The floor area and FAR of the project is similar to the adjacent homes. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the floor area and FAR of the project are similar to the adjacent homes. The building and carport have been sited to conform with the traditional patterns in the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed encroachments into the required daylight planes by the building and carport are minor. The portion of the adjacent lot that is affected by the setback and daylight plane encroachments of the main building is used as a driveway to a garage located at the rear of the property. The carport daylight plane protrusions are not problematic because there is an existing cottage on the adjacent property to the south. The cottage has zero setback from the property line and has no windows facing the proposed carport. Development Program Statement (revised) 4a. Necessity of the application/compliance with required determinations 02/21/95 75-103 The primary goals of the proposed development are as follows: 1. To create a high quality living environment for the four very low-income households which will occupy the proposed units; 2. To develop a valuable asset for the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC); 3. To create a high quality building that respects adjacent structures and uses and that fits within the eclectic design character of the Downtown North neighborhood; 4. To further the policies of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan designed to encourage the development of new housing, especially for low-, moderate-, and middle-income households; 5. To preserve a comparable existing residential use on a lot adjacent to the subject property; and 6. To provide housing opportunities for lower income service workers who are employed in the Downtown area. 4a.1. Application of district regulations not sufficiently flexible Designating the subject property as a PC (Planned Community) District is necessary because neither the existing RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence) District nor any of the other residential districts in the Zoning Ordinance permit the type of housing that is best suited to accomplish the objectives specified above. The proposed project does not comply with the following site development regulations for the RM-30 District: 1. Site area - 5,625 square feet versus 8,500 square feet minimum. 2. Site width - 50-foot versus 70-foot minimum. 3. Front yard - 13 feet versus 20-foot minimum. 4. Side and rear yards - 5.5-foot interior side yard versus 10-foot minimum. 5. Daylight plane - the main building encroaches into the daylight plane along the northerly property line and the carport encroaches into the daylight plane along the southerly property line. 6. Residential density - 30.98 versus 29.0 maximum. Moreover, while there are provisions to vary from site 02/21/95 75-104 development regulations, there is no provision to vary from residential density restrictions. Therefore, while the proposed project accomplishes the objectives specified above, it is not permissible within the confines of the RM-30 District ordinance requirements. 4a.2. Public benefits not attainable by applications of district regulations The proposed development will provide several important public benefits not attainable by application of the development standards specified in the general districts or combining districts. This project is being developed to meet the Housing Element Program 13 Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement for the residential component of the 245 Lytton/305-337 Emerson Street (former Peninsula Times Tribune) project. The Peninsula Times Tribune project has 17 primary dwelling units plus 4 second dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed 4 unit BMR project represents a 20 percent Program 13 requirement for the Peninsula Times Tribune. By ordinance, the Peninsula Times Tribune project is subject to only a 10 percent Program 13 requirement. In addition, the proposed BMR units are very low-income rental units. Because of the deep subsidy required to produce this type of unit, it is one of the most difficult types of lower income units to develop and, as a result, this type of units is typically developed only by non-profit housing development groups. Finally, the proposed BMR units will add to the diversity of lower income housing stock in the City and to the diversity of the housing stock in the Downtown North neighborhood. 4a.3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plans\compatibility with adjoining uses The proposed use is clearly consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan. The specific Comprehensive Plan policies and programs with which this proposal conforms are as follows: Housing Element Policy 2: Preserve older single-family homes and small apartment buildings Program 1: In areas adjacent to the Downtown shopping area, maintain single-family and duplex areas and have multiple-family housing close to shops and offices Policy 4: Maintain at least the present number of multiple-family rental units while work-ing to increase the overall supply of 02/21/95 75-105 rental housing. Policy 7: Encourage and foster the development of and existing housing units affordable to low-, moderate-, and middle-income households, with primary emphasis on the low- and moderate-income sectors. Program 13: In housing developments of three or more units, not less than 10 percent of the units should be provided at below market rates to low- and moder-ate-income families. Employment Element Policy 2: Encourage the construction of more hous-ing primarily on or near industrial and commercial site. Program 3: Establish procedures and incentives to encourage affordable hous-ing in commercial and industrial zones. Program 4: Assure that the Zoning Ordi-nance continues to deter encroachment of offices in multiple-family zones. Transportation Element Policy 2: Increase transit ridership. In addition, the proposed uses are absolutely consistent with the Housing and Community Design goals of Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan update. The Phase I goals and preliminary implementation measures advanced by the proposed projects are as follows: Sense of community, place and quality of life B3. Housing, community design and workplace op-tions will respect neighborhood concerns but meet citywide needs. Affordability and diversity B13. Provide affordable housing options distributed throughout the community to serve different populations in the city, such as senior, young families, and people with disabilities. B14. Increase the housing supply to meet Palo Alto's fair share of regional housing needs including housing for low/moderate income households and families. 02/21/95 75-106 Urban Village Concept B19. Enhance commercial areas and increase compatibility, interpendence and support between commercial areas and residential neighborhoods. B22. Support land use and zoning changes so that more people can live close to work. Built Environment B26. Promote quality design and diversity of architectural style. B27. Encourage alternatives to surface parking lots. Preliminary Implementation Measures 1. Use new and redeveloped housing to provide a variety of options. 3. Address the lack of low cost rental housing and low cost single-family housing. The subject property is bordered on the north and south by RM-30 uses. Most of the adjoining property is subdivided into 5,000 to 6,000 square foot lots improved with an older, larger single-family homes that have been converted into multiple-family rental dwellings. The proposed use is very consistent and compatible with existing uses. 4b. Uses proposed within the PC District As shown on the design plans, the primary type of permitted use in the District will be single-family residential. Other permitted uses will be as follows: 1. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses; 2. Home occupations, when accessory to permitted uses; and 3. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products for consumption by occupants of a site. 4c. Nature of uses proposed/characteristics warranting different regulations The proposed project is a new four-unit apartment building that will be owned and operated by the PAHC. The units are intended to be leased to and occupied by very low-income households. The proposed building is designed to be compati-ble with the massing and building from of the adjacent older homes which are also in multiple-family residential use. RM-30 Site Development Standards which must be varied to accom- 02/21/95 75-107 plish the proposed use are outlined in Section 4a.1. These differences are warranted by virtue of the need to create a project which will retain the existing multiple-family residential use of the Peninsula Times Tribune site and which will be available for occupancy by very low-income households. 4d. Characteristics of the proposed housing Each of the units in the proposed building is a 625-square-foot one bedroom, one bathroom unit. The project will include a four car carport, with one space reserved for each unit, located on the rear portion of the property. A common laundry room will be located at the rear of the building. 6. Development Schedule 6a. Construction Schedule Construction of the proposed project is expected to begin in the first quarter of 1995. The length of the construction period is projected to be approximately eight (8) months. It is projected that the units will be occupied in the last quarter of 1995. 6b. Phasing Program It is anticipated that the development will not require more than one year for completion and occupancy. Mayor Simitian asked what was the resolution of the padmount transformer. Council Member McCown clarified no change had been made to the original proposal which she understood meant that a padmounted transformer would have to be sited in the front and screened by landscaping. She said it was unfortunate when a developer was trying to build very low-income housing units that it needed the level of discussion heard that evening. She believed it was a very good project. Vice Mayor Wheeler suggested the motion include the City Attorney's suggested change that the Council specifically delete the language in Attachment 13. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to revise the language in the Development Program Statement (pages 6-7 of 8, Attachment 13 to CMR:147:95) as identified by the City Attorney. Vice Mayor Wheeler concurred with Council Member McCown's comments. The Council spent a lot of time on issues other than the central issue which was unfortunate but healthy because there was not a great debate about housing for low-income people. The larger issue of the project was extremely commendable. It was a rare opportunity for the City to provide four units of rental housing that would be available to persons of very low income. 02/21/95 75-108 The project was innovative. Even though the project required a City subsidy, she hoped the project and future projects would be successful and would be repeated again in the future. She commended the applicant, the PAHC, members of the Planning Commission and ARB, and staff for their efforts. Council Member Andersen concurred with the comments of Vice Mayor Wheeler and Council Member McCown. He had been frustrated by the level of detail discussed that evening. He hoped a project in the future would provide housing for moderate-income families that needed two- or three-bedroom units. Mayor Simitian was concerned about the Utilities Department's point of view on the placement of padmount transformers. He had never seen or heard anyone in the community indicate they liked a transformer. The Utilities Department's view was when in doubt make it easier for the Utilities Department. He hoped that the screening was up to the challenge. The City often saw the mitigation dollars for such a project go into a fund that did not produce any housing. The challenge of making housing happen was much greater than the challenge of putting the money into the fund. He was pleased that everyone who had a part in the process had managed to find a way to make housing happen. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 330 Emerson Street from RM-30 to PC" MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Schneider absent. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 11. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that Council maintain the existing conditions of use permit 73-UP-36 for property located at 260 California (The Edge), and require an additional review of the use permit by the Zoning Administrator in September 1996 City Attorney Ariel Calonne said if the Council wanted to require additional reviews, Council's action would be to move an amendment to the use permit to add a Condition No. 13 that specified the type of review and when it would happen. Mayor Simitian clarified the September 1996 review would require minor changes to the use permit. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Council Member McCown said the staff did not make any specific recommendation about an additional review time frame and the recommendation was initiated by the Planning Commission. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said that was correct. The Planning Commission added a condition that another one-year review 02/21/95 75-109 return to the Zoning Administrator. Duf Sundheim, 67 Tulip Street, said written correspondence had been submitted (on file in the City Clerk's Office) on the hearing. The Chief Planning Official could call a hearing formally or informally whenever she wanted. He wanted to avoid the unnecessary expense of having another hearing without a finding that there was a problem. Council Member McCown said absent an advanced schedule hearing date, what would be the criteria that the Zoning Administrator and/or City Attorney would use to determine whether or not a future hearing needed to occur. Mr. Calonne said the conditions of approval would enhance the authority that existed under the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). He recalled the dealings on LaCumbre and said the PAMC only allowed revocation of the use permit for violation of a condition or perhaps for health and safety nuisance-type violations. Absent that condition, the only action available would be to modify a use permit. The point of addition that as a condition of approval would enhance the range of authority that the City had on that type of use. His preference was to maintain that enhanced control through the addition of a Condition No. 13. He supported the Planning Commission's recommendation based on the value of having that additional legal authority spelled out in the use permit. Council Member McCown asked whether the authority in the use permit to hold a hearing would be based on some evidence. Mr. Calonne said no. The use permit gave authority to modify the permit without any basis for doing so. Mr. Sundheim would prefer that the City had some grounds for modifying the use permit. The language in the use permit gave the City the authority to modify without making some other findings. Council Member McCown understood Mr. Sundheim objected to the notion that the City would schedule September 1996 as another hearing date. Mr. Sundheim did not want the hearing date scheduled unless there was a reason to schedule the hearing. Mr. Calonne said his recommendation did not require that the Council set a date. The condition would authorize the Zoning Administrator to conduct the hearing for any reason. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to maintain the current conditions of the Use Permit 73-UP-36 as amended in 1993 and to require a Condition No. 13 to provide that the Zoning Administrator may notice and conduct a public hearing at anytime to review compliance with existing conditions of approval or to modify or revoke the Conditional Use Permit. Mayor Simitian said the Council had frequent occasions to discuss the issue of compatibility of various uses. Two very disparate uses that had the potential for great conflict and had been in 02/21/95 75-110 great conflict in terms of an after hours hard rock club in a residential neighborhood could be made to work if a commitment were made to make it work. He hoped that as the Council looked at other compatibility uses in the community in the future, the Council would not be driven by conventional notions about what had historically been deemed compatible but rather would draw from the experience of what could be compatible if there were a good faith effort to make things compatible and if the City made sure that the good faith effort had the force of law. More could be done if the Council would be open minded and make sure that conditions had real substance. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Schneider absent. RESOLUTIONS 12. Resolution Scheduling the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 1995 Mayor Simitian suggested that the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 1995 be scheduled from Tuesday, August 15 through Monday, September 4, 1995, and the Council would reconvene on Tuesday, September 5, 1995. The Council would have a meeting on August 7 and 14, 1995, skip August 21 and 28, 1995, and September 4, 1995, and reconvene on Tuesday, September 5, 1995. Council Member Kniss said the Council had previously only had one meeting in August. The staff had found the time advantageous and it had been well received by the Council to have four weeks instead of three weeks. Mayor Simitian said the history prior to the past year was typically that the City Council took three weeks off for vacation. Council Member Rosenbaum said for the past three years, the City Council had missed three meetings in August. He wanted to continue that practice. He suggested the vacation start on August 8, 1995, rather than August 15, 1995. Council Member Kniss supported Council Member Rosenbaum's sugges-tion. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Resolution Scheduling the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 1995 from Tuesday, August 8 through Monday, September 4, 1995, and the Council would reconvene on Tuesday, September 5, 1995. Council Member McCown said the Council would get all the business done more efficiently in fewer meetings. Council Member Andersen had a problem with reconvening on September 5, 1995, and preferred to have the Council reconvene on September 11, 1995, and miss only two meetings in August. Mayor Simitian asked for the staff's view regarding the impact of 02/21/95 75-111 four weeks rather than three weeks and the potential impact of reconvening a week later. City Manager June Fleming said the Council's vacation could be scheduled at its convenience, and staff would make adjustments. Council Member McCown said the public might be away from the City over the Labor Day weekend. Council Member Andersen's point might be more conducive to the public's awareness regarding the Council's potential action on an agenda and shifting the first meeting after the August break to September 11, 1995, might work better for the public. Council Member Kniss would support the latter time if it would help Council Member Andersen, people in the community, and would not interfere with the staff's schedule. Four weeks allowed the staff time to get caught up on its work. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Resolution Scheduling the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 1995 from Tuesday, August 15 through Sunday, September 10, 1995, and the Council would reconvene on Monday, September 11, 1995. Resolution 7485 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 1995" Council Member Rosenbaum said he had a spouse that was involved with the school system and could not be away the week after Labor Day. He could not make use of the schedule if he wanted to be away for three weeks and not miss a Council meeting. Council Member Kniss asked staff to consider a less controversial agenda for the August 14, 1995, City Council meeting. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Schneider absent. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned to Closed Session at 9:40 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving potential/anticipated litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 7A. Mayor Simitian announced that no action was taken on Agenda Item No. 7A. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned in memory of Al Werry and Past Vice Mayor Roy Clay's wife, Virginia Clay at 10:00 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor 02/21/95 75-112 NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (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 meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 02/21/95 75-113