HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-05-01 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting May 1, 1995 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................75-435 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 1995 ..................75-435 1. Lease between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County Girl Scout Council, Inc. for property located at 1305..................................................75-435 2. Resolution 7505 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council-Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 7351 to Amend the Management Benefit Program..................75-435 3. Ordinance 4273 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Library Division of the Community Services Department in Recognition of Receipt of Funds from the Public Library Fund of the State Library.............................75-436 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................75-436 4a. (Old Item No. 4) PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council adoption of the 1995-2000 Consolidated Plan describing Palo Alto's affordable housing and community development needs...............75-436 4b. (Old Item No. 4) PUBLIC HEARING: The Finance Committee recommends: 1) Approval of the funding allocations, as recommended by staff and the Citizens Advisory Committee in Attachment B, be included in the 1995-96 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program................75-438 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board, and Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Text Change for Transfer of Develop-ment Rights (TDR) Program.............................75-442
05/01/95 75-433
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Option to Lease between the City of Palo Alto and Community Skating, Inc. for the Property Located at 3005 Middlefield Road..............................75-462 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m...........75-471
05/01/95 75-434
05/01/95 75-435
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Kniss ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, Palo Alto Recreation Foundation, spoke regarding "Palo Alto's Black and White Ball." Wayne Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, spoke regarding "Roses and Thorns." Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding working with the media (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Scott Wilson, 509 Hale Street, spoke regarding the traffic circle. Alan Hirsch, 2539 Ross Road, spoke regarding the future of CalTrain, specifically BART to San Francisco. Irvin Dawid, 3886 LaDonna, spoke regarding BART. David Gobuty, 2533 Webster Street, spoke regarding repairs on the 2500 block of Webster Street. Marlene Prendergast, 540 Cowper Street, Executive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, spoke regarding the closing of the acquisition of the Arastradero Park Apartments. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 1995 MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Minutes of February 21, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 6-0-1, Schneider "abstaining," Fazzino, Kniss absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 3. 1. Lease between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County Girl Scout Council, Inc. for property located at 1305 Middlefield Road 2. Resolution 7505 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Manage-ment and Confidential Personnel and Council-Appointed Officers
05/01/95 75-436
Adopted by Resolution No. 7351 to Amend the Management Benefit Program" 3. Ordinance 4273 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Library Division of the Community Services Department in Recognition of Receipt of Funds from the Public Library Fund of the State Library" MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to bring Item No. 7 forward for the purpose of a continuance. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to continue Item No. 7, Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Relocation of the Mitchell Park Dog Run, to a date to be determined by staff. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. Mayor Simitian announced that Agenda Item No. 4 would be divided into two public hearings and would become Item Nos. 4a and 4b. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4a. (Old Item No. 4) PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council adoption of the 1995-2000 Consolidated Plan describing Palo Alto's affordable housing and community development needs. Community Development Block Grant Coordinator Suzanne Richards said Council was being asked to review and adopt the newly required Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Plan (the Plan) which replaced the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). The Plan incorporated the Non-Housing Community Development Plan. The document also contained and was the application for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the next year which represented a change in process. The Plan before Council was a draft and had been reviewed by both the Planning Commission and the Human Relations Commission (HRC). Both Commissions approved the Plan and recommended Council approval. A 30-day public review period as well as a public needs assessment had taken place in October 1994. The Plan was a five-year strategic plan which related and linked identifiable community needs to the available federal and local resources to meet those
05/01/95 75-437
needs. The purpose of the Plan was to achieve the objectives of the federal formula grant programs of providing decent housing, suitable living environments, and expanding economic opportunities for low-income individuals. The Plan was developed by HUD prior to the November election. Since that time, major programmatic changes had occurred at HUD, and significant funding reductions could be proposed by Congress. The overall mission of the federal government as it related to housing and community development activities would be decided over the next few months. The Plan might or might not be changed again for the next year. Resources would be diminishing. The Senate had passed a recision bill which was in a conference committee and could affect funding for the next year. Planning Commissioner Anthony Carrasco said the Planning Commission found the staff report (CMR:230:95) concise and easy to read and recommended approval to Council. Vice Mayor Wheeler said Council had been worried about the potential recision, and one project which was already in process had squeaked through that week. The staff report referred to other projects which had not yet received Council approval, and she asked whether any were at risk. Ms. Richards said it was a too soon to tell what would happen but believed some projects would be affected. Staff had expected to apply for HUD funding for the new housing project for the developmentally disabled, but funding was uncertain at that time. Tax credits were also up in the air. The City was fortunate that the Arastradero Park project had gone through, and she credited the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) for its time and effort on the project. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether tax credits would affect the Single Room Occupancy (SRO) proposal. Ms. Richards said yes. Council Member Huber confirmed the Plan was for five years and asked whether changes might be necessary as a result of changes to the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). Ms. Richards said the Plan should be brought into line with Comp Plan changes if the changes affected the document. Basically, the Plan was a one-year action plan. The Plan would return to Council every year with the CDBG allocations. Any changes could be made at that time. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed.
05/01/95 75-438
MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Wheeler, to direct the City Manager, or her designee, to execute and submit to the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) the Consolidated Plan for the period July 1, 1995, to June 30, 2000. Vice Mayor Wheeler concurred with comments contained in the April 4, 1995, Finance Committee Meeting minutes and found the document very useful. She commended staff for its work. Council Member Schneider agreed with Vice Mayor Wheeler. For those who believed Palo Alto was nothing but a wealthy community without diversity would be surprised at the diversity in the community and the lack of services for the young, the homeless, and the disabled. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. 4b. (Old Item No. 4) PUBLIC HEARING: The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council: 1) Approval of the funding allocations, as recommended by staff and the Citizens Advisory Committee in Attachment B, be included in the 1995-96 Communi-ty Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; 2) Staff be authorized to submit to the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by the May 15, 1995, deadline, the proposed 1995-96 CDBG Program; and 3) The City Manager, on behalf of the City, be authorized to execute the HUD applica-tion and any other necessary documents concerning the applica-tion. Further, to increase Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing's allocation from $14,000 to $16,275, removed from the City's administrative allocation. Vice Mayor Wheeler said she would not participate in the item because a source of income to her, the Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC), was an applicant for funds. Community Development Block Grant Coordinator Suzanne Richards described the Fiscal Year 1995-96 Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) funding allocations. She thanked the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for the time spent in reviewing applications and developing the program for next year. Twenty-nine proposals had been received representing over $2 million in requests. The amount of funds to be allocated was $822,000 from the federal government and $150,000 in program income, mostly from the Housing Improvement Program. She thanked the agencies who submitted proposals. There were many wonderful agencies serving the many needs of the community. Projects were reviewed to ensure conformance with the Plan and other criteria including the urgency of the application, the effect of a delay in funding, the project's readiness, financial feasibility of the project, the number of low-income residents served, whether the request increased the services provided or the clients served, whether services were duplicated, the past performance of the agency and anticipated capacity for carrying out the project, and availability of alternative funding.
05/01/95 75-439
The CAC and staff made recommendations which were presented to the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee recommended approval of those recommendations to Council with an increase to MidPeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing (MCFH) of $2,275, bringing the amount recommended up to the level that MCFH received in the current year. In order to do that, the proposed amount of the City's administration of the program would be reduced by the same amount, from $180,000 to $177,725. A loan program with the Women Entrepreneurs Program of the YWCA, a new economic program, was being recommended for funding, HUD had been pushing economic development as a way to move people out of poverty into self-sufficiency. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Karen Csejtey, 4161 Alma Street, urged Council to approve CDBG funding for the Women Entrepreneurs Program loan fund. There were 40 to 50 women business owners at the MidPeninsula YWCA who attended a monthly support group meeting. There was another large group of women in the community who had not had an opportunity to start a business. National statistics and local statistics showed that eight out of ten people living in poverty in the country were women and their children. More options were needed so the women could become responsible for their own economic self-sufficiency. The program offered a number of services that helped women start, run, and grow their own businesses. The loan fund would offer training and support to underemployed, unemployed, and low-income women. The program was a new adventure for all which needed to be expanded. Vera Goupille, 437 Webster, Chief Executive Officer of Lytton Gardens, was appreciative of the difficult task before staff and the CAC. She was disappointed, however, that the Lytton Health Care Center request for a second patient elevator had not been awarded. The skilled nursing facility had not received a CDBG grant. Its mission was to help seniors remain in the community in which they had lived most of their lives to be near friends and family. Over half of the patients were on Medi-Cal, and the center was the only facility in Palo Alto which accepted Medi-Cal patients directly from the hospital. The facility had 9 patients who were 100 years old, the oldest of whom was 109, and the additional elevator was very much needed. When paramedics responded to 9-1-1 calls, they were delayed while waiting for the one elevator that served all four floors. She hoped Lytton IV, a HUD facility for low-income seniors, would be completed that week. The 50 seniors who were moving in averaged an income of less than $10,000 a year, 8 of whom were living in their cars. Kevin Conlin, 3271 Bryant Street, thanked all those who had helped Community Association for Rehabilitation (CAR) through the lengthy process including CAR's staff, the CAC, City staff, and the Finance Committee. The proposal did directly address both safety and
05/01/95 75-440
accessibility for the disabled. He urged Council to approve the proposal. Donna DiMinico, representing Long Term Care Ombudsman Program Catholic Charities, 2625 Zanker Road, thanked Council for its support of the program which handled complaint investigation and advocacy for the frail elderly living in Palo Alto's six nursing facilities and nine residential care facilities. Increases in requests for the witnessing of durable powers of attorney for health care had occurred. The documents identified a surrogate decision maker for those no longer able to do so. Stanford Hospital had opened a nursing facility which resulted in more requests. Other issues involved Casa Olga, an intermediate care facility, and improper eviction and discharge planning for residents. It was critical for Palo Alto to continue supporting the program. She thanked CAC and the Finance Committee for their recommendations and anticipated the Ombudsman Program would receive funding next year from all 13 cities in Santa Clara County with long-term facilities. Olaf Lidums, Executive Director, Urban Ministry, thanked Suzanne Richards and David Martin for their help and accessibility throughout the process. The three had looked at the Heritage Museum, an ideal location for an afternoon multiple service center, which, unfortunately, was only available by lease. He appreciated Council Member Schneider's comments regarding the lack of services. No matter how much was being done, there was so much more not being done. A site was needed for a multiple service center. He expressed appreciation for support of the grant and that the recovery program had been included. He was disappointed that the garden project had not met support with the economic development funds. The project was worthwhile as homeless people earned money working the garden and trying to market it into an entrepreneurial venture. He hoped the garden would be considered next year. He underscored the lack of low-cost housing and shelter housing for homeless people. The success of the Urban Ministry was related to volunteer support and the support of the homeless people themselves. He appreciated all areas of support and sought new ideas to serve the very poor and homeless. Barry Del Buono, Executive Director, Emergency Housing Consortium, thanked the City for its past support. The City had funded $50,000 toward a capital project for a regional shelter for the homeless. He had appeared before the Finance Committee to request phase 2 funding for the project. Unfortunately, funding was not recommended. The shelter was located in San Jose and would soon be underway as the necessary clearances were forthcoming. Other cities had responded, and the project was nearing its capital expense goals. Emergency services would be provided to 85 unduplicated Palo Altan homeless people, which translated into $78,380. Palo Alto had contributed $50,000, and he hoped Council would approve an additional $28,380. The shelter would be replacing services provided by armories scheduled to close in 1997.
05/01/95 75-441
Secondly, the shelter would be year-round and provide an assessment center to make certain needs were being met and permanent solutions for homelessness were found. Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing closed. Mayor Simitian recalled the $50,000 funding recommendation was allocate to Emergency Housing Consortium when he served on the Finance Committee. At that time, Palo Alto was one of less than 15 cities in the County contributing an amount which was relatively healthy given its size compared to other cities. He asked what the other 14 cities' phase 1 support had been. Mr. Del Buono said two members of the board of directors, Bill Zaner and John Northway, had urged him to parlay Palo Alto's gift and the results had been significant. Santa Clara County had provided $41,000 last year and $150,000 the current year. Other cities contributing to the shelter were Los Gatos, $5,000/$5,000; Milpitas, $5,000/$8,000; Mountain View, $50,000/$55,000; San Jose CDBG, $650,000/$150,000; San Jose Redevelopment Agency, $1.5 million; City of Santa Clara, $100,000/$100,000; Saratoga, $25,000/$10,000; and Sunnyvale, $50,000. Thanks to Palo Alto, the results had been impressive. Council Member Andersen asked what had brought about the recommendation to the Finance Committee to reduce the funds for the MCFH. Helen Tao, Member, Citizens Advisory Committee, said CAC had not received timely reports from MCFH, and reports had not been clear when CAC did evaluations. CAC had difficulty distinguishing between a case or consultation or how much time each took. Because other organizations were always on time and followed the process, CAC believed MCFH needed a clear message its methods of doing business were not acceptable to CAC. Council Member Andersen asked whether the entire CAC supported the recommendation or whether a small number of people on CAC were strongly speaking to make the reduction. Ms. Tao said it was the recommendation of the entire CAC. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum for the Finance Committee moved to: 1) Approve the Negative Declaration for the 1995-96 CDBG Program, finding that the CDBG Program will have no significant environmental effect for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), except for the Housing Development Fund, which will require environmental review as the projects are identified; 2) Authorize and direct staff to carry out any further required environmental assessments and certifications for each project under both CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to the commitment of any funds for each project; 3) Adopt the Resolution establishing funding allocations for the 1995-96 CDBG
05/01/95 75-442
Program; and 4) Authorize and direct the City Manager, or her designee, to execute and submit the 1995-96 CDBG Program applica-tion and other documentation necessary to file the application with HUD, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the applica-tion. Resolution 7506 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 1995-1996" Council Member Schneider said on the evening the Finance Committee met, she had viewed the recommendation to reduce funding to MCFH as a punitive measure. Since that time, it had been brought to her attention that significant lapses had occurred on the part of the administration of MCFH. She had been assured, however, by MCFH that future reporting would occur on time and rules would be followed. She was confident better communication between staff and MCFH would occur. Council Member McCown recalled there had been at least three years when CAC had recommended a reduced amount of funding for MCFH because of concerns with administrative items. Previous Councils also had not desired to be punitive, but the expectation had been that the type of problem would not be repeated. There had been more occasions than she would like to see where the types of problems described had occurred. She expected that next year's process would not include any criticism of reporting or the ability of MCFH to meet the criteria that were set forth in the CDBG grant. The issue was serious, and she hoped it would be the last occasion to hear of that type of problem. Council Member Huber concurred with both Council Member Schneider and Council Member McCown. He believed that CAC was not trying to be punitive but rather was trying to send a clear message. MCFH did excellent work, and the comments that evening were a strong message to the organization to follow the same rules as everyone else. Council Member Andersen asked for the item to be separated for the purposes of voting. He wanted to cast a negative vote on that portion of the recommendation which indicated funds from the General Fund would be used to restore MCFH funding to its previous level. He wanted to be clear that, in the future, MCFH needed to have reports in on time and that substantive information be included. In addition, sufficient written documentation regarding surveys and consultations and the exploration of creative ways to educate the public about its services were needed. He would vote entirely in support of the CAC's recommendations with regard to the other organizations' requesting additional assistance, recognizing the only way to have a zero sum was to take funds from other organizations or the General Fund, neither of which he was prepared to do.
05/01/95 75-443
AMENDMENT: Council Member Andersen moved to delete the additional sum of $2,275 appropriated to MidPeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing (MCFH). AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MOTION PASSED 6-0, Wheeler "not participating," Fazzino, Kniss absent. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board, and Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Text Change for Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program. Council Member Schneider said she would not participate on the item because of a potential conflict of interest. Senior Planner Virginia Warheit said the item involved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to change the existing Transfer Development Rights (TDR) Program. The proposed change to the Comp Plan was that the review process for transferring development rights to a non-historic receiver site be changed from the Planned Community (PC) zone process to review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The proposed zoning ordinance text change would implement the TDR Program. The TDR Program provided that all or part of the floor area bonus for seismic upgrade and historic preservation for historic category 1 and 2 buildings located in the Downtown zone district could be transferred to other non-historic sites also located in the Downtown zone or sold to a third party for transfer at a later time. Planning Commissioner Anthony Carrasco said the Planning Commission's comments were incorporated into the ordinance that 1) the ARB not have the right to decrease the square footage that was transferred; and 2) the rights were to be vested at the time of ARB approval and the donor site had been achieved. Architectural Review Board Member David Ross said a number of questions had been raised during the ARB review, and a list had been given to Council. Generally, the ARB enthusiastically supported the TDR Program. Mayor Simitian briefly described each item and said he would return to each item for Council Member questions or comments. The list was not exhaustive, but the items had been identified in earlier discussions. The first few items required Council direction to staff before staff would take any action: 1) For question 1, "Should the 15,000- or 25,000-square-foot project size limits apply to the TDR program" there had been some suggestion during the
05/01/95 75-444
debate that the caps might be lifted. 2) For question 2, "Should the 150-foot residential buffer apply to the TDR program?" staff's approach, absent direction from Council, was to leave the 150-foot buffer in place. 3) For question 3, "Can/should previously completed projects be able to receive the bonus square footage retroactively?" he asked if the TDR process would apply to projects that had already been completed but were not eligible for TDR because it was not in place. 4) For question 4, "Should the right to transfer development rights vest upon completion of the project or upon receipt of the building permit?" it was both what the Council policy direction would be and what the proposed ordinance would do. 5) For question 5, "Should the TDR program be expanded to include PF, PC, and residentially zoned properties within the area generally zoned CD?" the question was also a policy direction from Council. 6) For question 6, "Was it Council's intention to expand the TDR program to include seismic upgrades of nonhistoric buildings?" he said at the December 12, 1994, Council Meeting, Council had directed staff to consider the use of the TDR Program not only for sites with historic and seismic issues but also for sites with simply seismic upgrade needs. Staff had drawn a different inference from the discussion, and Council needed to consider the implication of including seismic-only buildings. Additional environmental work would be needed before staff could return for Council action. 7) For question 7, "Should building owners be required to complete both seismic and historic upgrades to receive bonuses for buildings that are in both categories?" the building official had recommended the item which was both a policy question and a substantive question about what was being proposed, and whether or not the proposed ordinance required both seismic and historic work to be done not only for the TDR but also for the double bonus on site. 80 For question 8, "What is the difference between historic preservation and historic rehabilitation?" the proposed ordinance involved a change in language with a new "term of art," and Council needed to know what that might mean as a practical matter. He asked if there was a tangible consequence to the use of the particular words. 9) For question 9, "The current TDR program does not allow bonus square footage beyond a 3.0 floor area ratio (FAR). Should sending sites be able to transfer bonus square footage above a 3.0 FAR?" sites existed that had not been eligible to participate in the program because the TDR process was not in place. The question was whether or not sites could use the program if they were going to send but not use the additional bonus on site. The questions had resulted from discussion with staff and Council Member McCown's assistance working through the process. He asked whether Council Members had questions or comments on Item 1, "Should the 15,000- or 25,000-square-foot project size limits apply to the TDR program?" Council Member McCown asked for clarification on what the proposal was that underlaid the question which had been raised by Chop Keenan at the ARB and the Historic Resources Board (HRB) meetings. The current program existed in the Downtown area to basically
05/01/95 75-445
discourage parcel merger and the ability to construct new buildings larger than 25,000 square feet. She questioned whether the proposal meant the rules would still generally apply for new construction or whether the proposal meant to take it out of the regulations for any development Downtown. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the proposal in the Council motion of December 12, 1994, directed staff to develop a program consistent with existing City policies and regulations. The 15,000- or 25,000-square-foot project size limits were adopted as part of the Downtown Study in 1986 and had been City policy since that time. There was no recommendation to change the policy. Any receiver site would have to function within the 15,000- or 25,000-square-foot project size limits. Council Member McCown said perhaps the question could best be answered by Mr. Keenan. She understood him to say with regard to receiver sites that the bonus square footage and transfer to them should not to be limited. The implication of that was that no Downtown site should be limited by the restrictions any longer. Mayor Simitian said Mr. Keenan would respond during the public testimony portion of the meeting. He asked whether Council Members had questions or comments on Item 2, "Should the 150-foot residential buffer apply to the TDR program?" Council Member Rosenbaum questioned whether Item 2 was in the current ordinance or whether it was proposed only in connection with TDR and asked what the buffer was supposed to accomplish. Mr. Schreiber said the 150-foot buffer had also been adopted in the 1986 Downtown Study and was the continuation of existing policy. A concern arose in the Downtown Study regarding the impact of larger non-residential development in close proximity to residential development. The purpose of the buffer was to reduce the possibility that the transfer process would effectively facilitate a larger building next to a single-family home around the Downtown. It was consistent with the overall thrust of the Downtown Study to reduce the impact of larger projects both within the Downtown commercial and those projects on the residential areas. Council Member Rosenbaum asked how development within 150 square feet was limited relative to development that was not within 150 square feet of a residential site. Mr. Schreiber said the program was one which related directly to the TDR Program. There were setback and daylight plane requirements for commercial development which was adjacent to residential, but that was the only factor where the 150-foot distance was used.
05/01/95 75-446
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the existing Comp Plan language that established the TDR Program had a flat 150-foot buffer requirement in it and was not in the zoning. Council Member Rosenbaum confirmed that independent of TDR, there was no limitation within 150 square feet but was a carryover from the program which had never been used. Vice Mayor Wheeler said those who spoke in favor of rescinding the 150-foot buffer indicated that they believed there were sufficient restrictions in the code that would protect residential properties from overdevelopment immediately next door. She asked what the restrictions were between residential and commercial zones. Ms. Warheit said one of the restrictions with the 150-foot buffer that would not be there if the buffer were to go away was that the floor area ratio (FAR) Downtown was 1.0; but under the TDR Program, sites could become as large as 3.0. The possibility of having larger buildings within the 150 feet could become a reality than at the present time because of the limit. Vice Mayor Wheeler confirmed that setbacks and daylight planes would preclude buildings that immediately abutted against residential zoning from becoming that large. Ms. Warheit said the ultimate size would not be limited. The FAR could still be 3.0, but the side directly adjacent to the residential zone would require certain setbacks, etc. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the same could be accomplished with a 4-story or 5-story building that set back as with a 3-story building stacked one on top of the other. Mr. Schreiber said perhaps. However, if that much mass were put on a parcel in close proximity or adjacent to a residential zone, there was little to be done to effectively mask and shield the residential site from the impacts. With some contentious projects of the mid-1980s, shifting the mass around on the site was not viewed by adjacent homeowners as addressing their concerns about the impact of a 3-to-1 FAR across the street or across the backyard. Mr. Calonne said the basic concept throughout the ordinance was to make a conscious trade in favor of certainty and simplicity in the application and review process in exchange for the loss of site-by- site customization ability on the part of the decision makers. Mayor Simitian clarified the law was designed to allow easy transfer, but protections were built in against easy transfer having unintended adverse consequences.
05/01/95 75-447
Mr. Calonne said yes, but the cost of easy transfer and a streamlined process was somewhat of a loss of case-by-case flexibility to meet exceptional circumstances. Council Member Andersen asked if there had been any discussion in 1986 regarding the 150 feet and whether there was something special about that number as opposed to 100 feet. Mr. Schreiber did not recall any discussion about the magic of 150 feet. The decision makers in the process which included several Council Members were sensitive to the impacts of large-scale, non-residential development in close proximity to single-family. The general sense was that 150 feet was large enough to minimize the possibility, if not totally negate the possibility, of those types of impacts coming back to haunt the transfer situation. Council Member Andersen asked what the implications would be for a reduced amount of 125 feet or 100 feet. Mr. Schreiber said the closer receiving sites could be to residential sites with the greater the likelihood that at some point in time nearby residents would feel significantly impacted by the mass of a project. A transparency was available that showed parcels affected by the 150 feet. Maps could be prepared which showed 125 feet and 100 feet. Council would need to assess what level of setback and what level of potential impact were comfortable. Council Member Rosenbaum said the City Attorney had indicated the effort was to balance certainty of approval with the lack of ability to have discretionary approval on certain sites. He asked whether it was anticipated that someone could make use of a TDR within the 150-foot buffer of a residential property if one came in for a Planned Community (PC) approval. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Mayor Simitian confirmed the TDR right would not have to be simultaneous with the PC as it was currently because the TDR right would already be in place to use if there were a PC. Mr. Schreiber said that would be his interpretation. Mayor Simitian asked for questions on Item 3, "Can/should previously completed projects be able to receive the bonus square footage retroactively?" Council Member Andersen asked how many sites would be impacted by applying bonus square footage retroactively. Ms. Warheit said there were two buildings at 521 Ramona Street and 401 Florence that were both seismic and historic. The building at
05/01/95 75-448
401 Florence took a 25 percent bonus. Unless the granting of double bonuses was also retroactive, it had already received the allowed bonus. The building at 521 Ramona had not added usable floor area. Mr. Calonne said he did not want to preempt a policy discussion on the point should it happen, but from a "canned" standpoint, he believed it would be difficult to craft it legally. Mayor Simitian asked for questions on Item 4, "Should the right to transfer development rights vest upon completion of the project or upon receipt of the building permit?" Mr. Calonne said the ordinance before Council was responsive to the Planning Commission's direction on the point. The question framed by the Planning Commission was not whether the right to transfer the development rights should vest at building permit or completion of the project, but whether or not the City could create some means proving to a lender or others than upon completion of the project they would be entitled to that transfer right. The ordinance that came from the Planning Commission established the certificate of eligibility which became a certification from the City that upon completion of the project as proposed, the right would vest. Mayor Simitian confirmed that in the City Attorney's view, the difference was not what the rights were or when they vested but what was done by the City to make it clear to a third party that the rights in fact existed. Mr. Carrasco said the City Attorney's comments were an accurate representation of what the Planning Commission discussed. Mayor Simitian asked for questions on Item 5, "Should the TDR program be expanded to include PF, PC, and residentially zoned properties within the area generally zoned CD?" Council Member Huber questioned what the rationale had been for not allowing a transfer anywhere within a CD when the Downtown Study was done. Mr. Schreiber could not recall any specific rationale. Mr. Ross understood the FAR bonus program was originally put in place to relieve CD restrictions under certain conditions. Mayor Simitian said in other words, there was no need to give relief to CD conditions for PF or PC where those conditions did not pertain. There was no need for relief, and so no relief was given. He asked what the impacts would be if PF and PC were included in residentially zoned properties.
05/01/95 75-449
Ms. Warheit said in terms of public facilities, the only buildings which would be a potential sender site were the Senior Center and the Post Office. Mayor Simitian asked about residentially zoned properties. Mr. Schreiber said there were no residentially zoned properties totally encompassed within the lands that were zoned CD. There were three areas in the Downtown where there were residential properties that had Downtown commercial zoning on three sides. The interpretation included those properties. Staff did not believe there were any sender sites in those areas but did include six to eight potential receiver sites for residential development. Mayor Simitian asked for questions on Item 6, "Was it Council's intention to expand the TDR program to include seismic upgrades of nonhistoric buildings?" He asked how many buildings involved only seismic upgrades. Ms. Warheit said there were 30. Mayor Simitian said if staff were to look at the possibility of the TDR process applying to seismic upgrades only, staff had indicated additional environmental assessments would be necessary. He asked what the time line would be. Mr. Schreiber said the answer would relate to how many items Council wanted staff to pursue. Assuming that the list was reasonably extensive and included that particular item, staff would try to return to Council before the Council's vacation in August. Council Member Huber said more important to him than the number of buildings was how much total square footage was involved because no additional parking was included. Mr. Schreiber said staff had not calculated the total square footage for the 30 seismic only sites but could calculate the rest. Mayor Simitian asked what caps applied which would protect against Council Member Huber's concern. Mr. Schreiber said there was an overall Downtown development cap of 350,000 square feet. In 9 years, 45,000 square feet had been used. Mayor Simitian questioned if there was a second cap that dealt with the amount of square footage that could be used for unparked space. Mr. Schreiber said he did not recall the amount of the cap, but a subtotal of the amount could be used. The overall parking shortfall in the downtown was capped at 1,600 spaces. To the
05/01/95 75-450
extent new parking was provided, that number had been reduced and would be reduced further in the future. Mayor Simitian confirmed there was a limit on the total square footage and a limit on what was in effect a parking shortfall. Mayor Simian asked for questions on Item 7, "Should building owners be required to complete both seismic and historic upgrades to receive bonuses for buildings that are in both categories?" The ordinance language seemed to clearly indicate that in order to get credit for historic preservation work, not only historic work but also seismic upgrade work had to be done. He questioned whether that was in the TDR Program or whether it was for work done on site and space added on site. He understood from the minutes that the building official indicated having to do both to receive credit applied only to the TDR process and not to using the bonus on site. He asked staff for clarification of what the intent was in terms of the use of the bonus. Chief Building Official Fred Herman said seismic upgrade required a tremendous amount of work with the building. When going through the ARB and the HRB process, historic preservation had always become an issue. It seemed logical that with seismic upgrades, historic preservation also took place as part of the approval process. If just historic preservation were being done, there was always a question of how much was required to qualify for the historic credit of 25 percent. Mayor Simitian said currently, someone who only wanted to do historic preservation and wanted to use the bonus on site was allowed to do so without regard to any TDR process. He questioned if it were staff's intent to change that policy. Mr. Herman said no. The point was that preserving the building should also include preserving it structurally as well as historically. Mayor Simitian confirmed the existing program said if historic preservation work was done on a site, a 25 percent bonus was included and could be used on site. Mr. Herman said that was correct. Mayor Simitian asked whether staff intended to change that rule so if the bonus were to be used on site, the seismic upgrade as well as the historic preservation had to be done. Mr. Herman said yes. Mayor Simitian confirmed that staff had come forward with a policy change not only to the TDR Program but also to the existing ordinance for bonus allocation and allowance.
05/01/95 75-451
Mr. Herman said that was correct. Mayor Simitian confirmed the ordinance language imposed not only doing both to satisfy one requirement on TDRs but also doing both in the existing program to satisfy one requirement of on-site use. Mr. Calonne said yes. Mr. Herman said in a Downtown CD, every building covered 100 percent of the site. Using as an example an historic site entitled to a 25 percent bonus, in order to add square footage such as in the case of 401 Florence, it would have to be a second story, thus adding new loads to the existing structure which meant upgrading the existing structure. In the case of 401 Florence, it was a matter of practicality and useability that required upgrading the existing structure. He believed it met the intent of the Council direction at the time. Mayor Simitian asked for questions on Item 8, "What is the difference between historic preservation and historic rehabilitation?" Staff had developed a new legal term of "term of art" which was necessary to receive the 25 percent bonus. He asked what it meant and whether it applied to folks who wanted to use the bonus on site which meant it did not just apply to the TDR but also to the existing ordinance. Ms. Warheit said when staff wrote the proposed change to the ordinance, staff had realized there was a need to clarify the terms as they were used interchangeably in various City documents. Staff returned to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation which had been adopted by Council as the standards for reviewing historic buildings. The document's introduction contained a summary of what the terms meant. Rehabilitation was defined as "the process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration which makes possible an efficient, contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, or cultural values." The standards were distinct from other standards the Secretary of the Interior had for restoration, stabilizing, etc., which could be done to historic buildings. The Standards for Rehabilitation were the ones the Secretary of the Interior proposed for use and were needed for requirements such as tax credits. Mayor Simitian asked what term "rehabilitation" was replacing. Ms. Warheit said preservation and/or restoration. Mayor Simitian asked what would demonstrate that rehabilitation rather than preservation or restoration had taken place.
05/01/95 75-452
Ms. Warheit said the standards as laid out in the document would be used by someone making the determination. Mr. Calonne said the applicable standard in the ordinance was the same and was the Secretary's standards as applied to the exterior with the sole exception of the double bonus case where the Council included interior protection language. The new term rehabilitation or the definition effected the decision-making standard. Mayor Simitian clarified the decision-making standard was whether or not the work had in fact met the threshold required to qualify for the bonus. Mr. Calonne said yes. Mayor Simitian clarified the use of the term rehabilitation effected no change at all on what someone needed to do to qualify for the 25 percent historic bonus. Mr. Calonne said it removed a misleading quality of preservation in that rehabilitation referred to contemporary uses of the structure. Mayor Simitian asked for questions on Item 9, "The current TDR program does not allow bonus square footage beyond a 3.0 floor area ratio (FAR). Should sending sites be able to transfer bonus square footage above a 3.0 FAR?" He understood since 3.0 was the absolute cap and in the past people were expected to use the bonus on site, the buildings were not allowed to use a bonus because there was no place to put it on site. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Mayor Simitian said the question raised during the discussion was whether or not someone should qualify for the bonus if he or she would be able to participate in the TDR Program and use it off site. Mr. Schreiber said the existing policy and existing program did not have a bonus for those sites. Item 9 represented a change in policy. Mayor Simitian clarified whether the change would allow someone with a 3.0 FAR to be a receiver site. Mr. Schreiber said no. The 3.0 FAR maximum size would still be in effect. If a site qualified for a bonus, it could transfer off site. Council Member Huber questioned whether any of the 30 buildings which qualified for seismic rehabilitation was at or close to the 3.0 FAR.
05/01/95 75-453
Mr. Schreiber said there were probably some; however, staff would need to research it. Council Member Rosenbaum questioned the rationale of the limitation on an increase of 0.50 in the FAR. Many buildings in the CD zone were single story and already had a FAR of 1. It made more economic sense if square footage were being added to a building that an entire second floor be added rather than half a second story. Mr. Schreiber said the 0.50 limit was part of the existing Comp Plan TDR Program and went back to the concern in the Downtown Study regarding size of projects. The limit was included to act as an additional "dampener" for the potential of having out-of-scale projects. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the limit would be pertinent with a small receiver property. Mr. Schreiber said staff had not extensively analyzed potential impacts of going above the 0.50 limit. He understood Council's direction had been to work within existing policies. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified there had been an existing policy in the previous TDR. Mr. Schreiber said yes. The existing TDR Program in the Comp Plan had a maximum increase on receiver sites of 0.50 FAR. Ms. Warheit said of the 132,000 square feet that could potentially be added by buildings that were seismic or historic or both, approximately half were attributable to those buildings which were just seismic. Mayor Simitian clarified all of the buildings, seismic, historic, or historic and seismic, had the potential for adding 135,000 square feet from the 25 or 50 percent which could be added. Ms. Warheit said yes. Council Member Huber said, hypothetically, if the entire 135,000 square feet were transferred, all would be without benefit of a single additional parking space. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member Huber clarified the standard was to add 4 spaces per 1,000 feet. A deficit of 540 spaces would result with the addition of 135,000 square feet. Mr. Schreiber said yes.
05/01/95 75-454
Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open. Wayne Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, addressed three issues: parking, precedent, and process. He questioned Item 5 regarding transfers to PF and PC zones. He understood the existing code required a PC zone process be used to transfer development rights. He did not believe any applications or developments had been processed that way; therefore, there was no precedent to know whether it would or would not work. He had experience with parking assessment districts and was aware of parking requirements. He estimated that the 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet referred to by Council Member Huber would be worth $50,000. The fiscal impact could be considerable. The draft ordinance before Council, under the regulations on page 1 stated, "more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the ARB and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment." He described two unfavorable experiences he had had with the ARB involving an application for a new church and the Mayfield Apartments at 345 Sheriden Avenue. He did not believe the ARB should be given the power to transfer development rights. Phyllis Munsey, 520 Ramona Street, requested that the proposed ordinance be made retroactive as discussed in Item 3. When the ordinance for seismic rehabilitation was first adopted, she had complied and upgraded the building at 520 Ramona. Ten years later, the process was to become more lucrative. She did not believe it fair to penalize someone who had been one of the first people to go through the process. Chop Keenan, Developer, Keenan Land Development, 700 Emerson Street, was opposed to the 25,000-foot cap referred to in Item 1. His sentiments were reflected in a letter to the Planning Commission. Rather than referring to the 25,000-foot cap in the proposed ordinance, he recommended referring to whatever cap was in place pursuant to the cap ordinance. A year from now, the cap might be 50,000 feet; and instead of amending the proposed ordinance, only the cap ordinance would need to be amended. With regard to the 150-foot buffer program, he believed there was interface protection between residential and commercial zones, 400 Hamilton Avenue being a good example. The reason it was four stories at the corner was that there was no residential site adjacent to it. Farther down Hamilton Avenue where the building was adjacent to a residential site, a height limit and daylight plane were in effect. The 150-buffer was an unnecessary protection, particularly limiting the receiver site. He said that the same theoretical arithmetic regarding the amount of possible square footage that could be built under the ordinance had been used to talk about the 350,000-foot cap and other downzoning limitations; and although it was a good question, he cautioned getting "hung up" on the theoretical. He supported Items 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and believed the limitation on an increase of 0.50 in the FAR on receiver sites should be extended beyond the 0.50. The
05/01/95 75-455
entire keynote of the TDR Program was whether funds could be generated for buildings that had extraordinary costs for seismic and historic retrofit in order to move them out of the risk position. Previous incentives had not been adequate to address the outsized costs. The double FAR bonus did address that and was excellent for those buildings that could not use it on site. The TDR was a great idea, and staff should be commended. Council Member McCown clarified that Mr. Keenan's intent regarding the 25,000-square-foot cap was that the wording in the ordinance should be more generic; so if at some point in the future there were a different cap, that ordinance would not have to be amended. Vice Mayor Wheeler said Mr. Keenan had sometimes appeared before Council regarding parking issues. If each site in all three categories decided to take advantage of the program, there would be a considerable parking deficit. She asked for his opinion on the issue. Mr. Keenan said he would have a difficult time going to the parking assessment district and saying a new $6 million parking structure was needed on lots S & L and would be consumed by TDR efforts. The question was a tricky one. The intent was to get at least one, perhaps two, parking structures to lower the parking deficit and take pressure off the neighborhoods. He believed he was taking that leap of faith that said the theoretical numbers would not be achieved. Personally, he would like to see all of it happen. If Palo Alto lost most of its historic buildings such as what had occurred in Santa Cruz during the Loma Prieta earthquake, there would be many unhappy Palo Altans. Council Member Andersen suggested those in the assessment district who were able to take advantage of the bonus could pay more. Mr. Keenan believed the assessments would then be going in the opposite direction and would suggest leaving the status quo because the 25 percent would be a better deal. The incentives would evaporate. Council Member Andersen questioned whether it would depend upon the percentages. Mr. Keenan said the in-lieu ordinance called out $19,000 per space, or $80 per square foot of cost that would accrue if the full parking complement were met. Council Member Huber asked what a realistic TDR buildout would be. Mr. Keenan said speculatively, if one quarter were built out, the ordinance would be successful.
05/01/95 75-456
Council Member Huber confirmed approximately 35,000 square feet as one quarter. Mr. Keenan said the constraint would be on the receiver side and was one reason he wanted the 25,000-foot project cap lifted. The more enterprising developers in town, such as James Baer, would be the market maker on the receiver side. James Baer, 532 Channing Avenue, said Mr. Schreiber had mentioned that 45,000 square feet had been added since 1986; 5,000 square feet had been approved during the moratorium. The CD monitoring report for September 1993 showed the net increase as 23,000 square feet, which included 22,000 eliminated square feet from the Times/Tribune building. Looking at the theoretical growth in the Downtown, which was the 350,000 anticipated square feet, the used 45,000 square feet was a good number because of eliminated basement footage. Looking at the increased vitality since the 1984 moratorium was put in place, much had been realized with relatively little square footage. The largest single additional square footage, 20,000 square feet, was 250 University Avenue. Premier Properties had done approximately $30 million of hard cost renovation work, not new construction, since 1986. The following buildings in seismic 1 or 2 categories had been worked on with no added bonus: 251 University Avenue, Fidelity Investment Building; 300 University Avenue, Walgreens; 180 University Avenue, Ross Store; 437 Emerson Street, The Barker Hotel; 529 Bryant Street, Pac Bell; and 250 University Avenue which did add square footage. The buildings where no square footage had been added had the potential to add 62,000 square feet and only added 3,000. There were 59,000 square feet of potential additional square footage on the books. Presumably, 180 University, Ross Store, could be upgraded to the 1973 code and receive the benefit of additional square footage. He complimented Chief Building Official Fred Herman for his intelligence and hard work in the early negotiations with developers in renovations about what the logical system was to create seismic strengthening of historic or non-historic but seismically deficient buildings. Developers still might not choose going to the 1973 code because by satisfying the 1973 code, it was possible to trip into the 1991 code which was vastly more expensive and complex. One threshold was established by the state, and based on what the City established as necessary to achieve bonuses for multi-story buildings, the 1991 code would need to be satisfied. He agreed with Mr. Keenan's answers to the questions raised. He believed the 0.50 limitation on FAR would be on receiver sites, not transfer sites. He suggested developers should work with staff to look at what the likely receiver sites were, looking at permanently preserved space, space that was not yet preserved and subject to development, and those spaces imminently threatened with development. A building which had just done a major renovation, 180 University Avenue for example, would not be a receiver site and would not go through a 1973 upgrade. If that type of analysis were done, particularly in the Downtown where the buildings were of such
05/01/95 75-457
high utility by virtue of the rent received, it would be difficult to casually put a tenant out of business and go through a major redevelopment to add minor incremental square footage. Fairly typical of the type of property Downtown was Swain's House of Music, a 6,000-square-foot parcel. To add 3,000 square feet, limited to a 0.50 FAR as a receiver, was not economically worth demolishing the building to build it to a 1991 code. Council Member Huber asked for staff's observations on the practicality, economically or otherwise, on Mr. Baer's and Mr. Keenan's comments. He was concerned there was a lot of square footage that could open up, and the comments suggested that was not realistic and why. Mr. Herman agreed with the comments based on past experience. The 25 percent bonus was to be an incentive for seismic upgrading of existing facilities but had not happened. He did not understand why. Mr. Schreiber said the ability to transfer the square footage off site created a new economic game. While it could not be used on site, it was expected to be transferred off site. Mr. Calonne said one of the problems might be conceptual. The total quantity of square footage was only one component of the overall growth picture. Rate sequence and timing were the classical statements of the other pieces. On further analysis, the concerns related less to the 350,000 square feet or the 132,000 square feet and more to the rate sequence and timing of those square feet. Council Member McCown asked what the next steps were procedurally. She questioned how much time some items might take for further staff work and what it would mean in terms of required environmental analysis, etc. Based upon the answer, she would be influenced as to what direction was given to staff versus acting on an ordinance that might not answer all the questions but moved the process along. She questioned whether the entire discussion needed to be continued before choosing any items for further review and additional information from staff. Mayor Simitian asked staff to comment on continuing the public hearing, directing staff to return with comments on all the items, as well as performing environmental assessment work on all the items. Mr. Schreiber hoped Council would narrow the list. Staff time was limited. He assumed Council was comfortable with the discussion on Item 1 to make the caps in the TDR Program consistent with the overall Downtown regulation caps and not to change the 15,000- or 25,000-square-foot project size limits in the CD zone which made the item inconsequential timewise. Item 2 would require a
05/01/95 75-458
significant time effort. Item 3 was a question for the City Attorney's office. Item 4 had been addressed in the ordinance and, therefore, was not a time issue. Item 5 was not a time issue. Item 6, the third category, seismic but not historic, added a significant number of buildings to the base. Items 7 and 8 were not problems. Item 9 would involve work if it were merged with Item 6. Item 10, the 0.50 FAR limit, would require significant staff time. He corrected a previous answer regarding the 150-foot limit and whether a site within 150 feet could become a receiver site through the PC zone. The Comp Plan Amendment would continue the wording in the Comp Plan that the receiver site would be at least 150 feet from residentially zoned properties. With that wording, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make a finding for a PC zone. Mayor Simitian asked how much time staff would need to gather the information on those items requiring a significant amount of time. Mr. Schreiber said staff would require outside assistance which had already been budgeted. He did not believe staff could return before Council's vacation but would be ready to return early in the fall. Council Member Andersen asked if the 1991 standard was used in terms of seismic upgrades. Mr. Herman said no. The reference for seismic upgrade was contained in the seismic identification program. For unreinforced masonry buildings, the Uniform Code for Building Conservation was used. The 1973 Uniform Building Code was used for other buildings, which was approximately 65 percent of the current code. Council Member Andersen asked whether there were differences within the two restrictions that would encourage the City to go to a higher standard. He asked if there was a motivation to use a higher standard to attain a higher degree of safety. Mr. Herman said the unreinforced masonry standard, brick-bearing wall buildings, were designed for life safety. After an earthquake, if the building had not collapsed and killed someone, it worked. However, the building could still have extensive damage and need to be demolished. The 1973 code required a much higher force level with detail. The problem with existing buildings was trying to meet the detail requirement of connections, etc., of current code. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked the City Attorney whether a Council strategy, as Council went forth with its discussion, to adopt the ordinance as it had been presented that night and direct staff to do further research would be a good strategy.
05/01/95 75-459
Mr. Calonne said the basic pros and cons really had to do with how the whole thing would go together when it was done and to what extent details became lost in a multi-step process. It was wiser to consider everything as one package after time for deliberation. However, he would be remiss if he did not mention a tremendous amount of effort from his office and the Planning Department had gone in to bringing the item before Council that night. It would be unfortunate to put aside that effort and not take some action. Because there were so many new issues involved in the TDR Program, he guaranteed 100 interpretive questions would result. Handling the whole package at one time would minimize that process. Council Member McCown asked whether it would be possible, if Council acted in a piecemeal fashion by adopting the ordinance that night and directing staff to look at selected items and return to Council, for someone to start operating under the first revised version of the ordinance while Council continued to look at possible additions to the ordinance. Mr. Herman said yes. Staff had already received phone calls on loans and refinances and had based appraisals as if the TDR Program were in place when, in fact, it was still a draft. If Council took action that night, he believed there would be phone calls the next day. Mayor Simitian said he was persuaded by the number of issues which had arisen and the complexity of the issues to take whatever time was necessary to do things right when the whole package was on the table at the same time. He imagined how many issues would need to be amended or corrected because of not understanding how the issues might affect the ordinance. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to continue the Public Hearing to a date to be determined by staff and request the staff to provide further analysis on the following questions as appropriate: 1) should the 15,000- or 25,000-square-foot project size limits apply to the TDR program? 2) should the 150-foot residential buffer apply to the TDR program? 3) can/should previously completed projects be able to receive the bonus square footage retroactively? 4) should the right to transfer development rights vest upon completion of the project or upon receipt of the building permit? 5) should the TDR program be expanded to include PF, PC, and residentially zoned properties within the area generally zoned CD? 6) was it Council's intention to expand the TDR program to include seismic upgrades of non-historic buildings? 7) should building owners be required to complete both seismic and historic upgrades to receive bonuses for buildings that are in both categories? 8) what is the difference between historic preservation and historic rehabilitation? 9) the current TDR program does not allow bonus square footage beyond a 3.0 FAR; should sending sites be able to transfer bonus square footage above a 3.0 FAR? and 10) should the 0.5 FAR limit on
05/01/95 75-460
receiving sites be modified? Further, to request staff to provide the analysis and potential modifications to the Ordinance and/or any environmental assessments necessary for all of the items listed above at the Council Meeting. Mr. Calonne asked Council for guidance on Item 3. If the question were, "Could the ordinance be applied retroactively?" the answer was no. If the question were, "Could an ordinance be written that would accomplish what was being sought by retroactivity?" the answer was probably. Mr. Schreiber sought Council guidance on Items 2 and 6. If the 150-foot residential buffer were not to be maintained, a significant amount of work would need to be done in terms of analysis. The expansion of the TDR Program to include seismic upgrade of non-historic buildings would have significant impacts on staff resources. Council Member McCown said perhaps the appropriate action might be for someone to offer an amendment to delete or clarify a particular item. Her intention had been to put all 10 items on the table for direction to staff. Council Member Andersen said based on staff's responses to questions on Item 3, the need for a lengthy analysis, and that Council had indicated sensitivity toward retroactivity, perhaps something could be incorporated into the motion which was indicative of what was in process. He was not ready to change the 150-foot residential buffer unless persuaded to do so. Vice Mayor Wheeler said she believed Items 2 and 6 were intertwined. A comment had been made before one of the advisory boards that if seismic buildings without a historic designation were included, it would be necessary, in order to create a sizable enough market area, to go into the 150-foot residential buffer. She supposed all the research could be done first and be returned to Council, and Council could debate the set of issues. However, she was not interested in amending the 150-foot residential buffer. She remembered from the Downtown Study that the 150-foot buffer was a very strongly debated issue among owners of residential properties bordering on the Downtown. Additionally, work had been done on an Urban Design Guideline document which indicated that when additional height and additional density were being sought in the Downtown district, they should be done toward the core of the district. If the area were spread out in which bigger, taller buildings were allowed to be constructed, it would be working in the opposite direction of the Urban Design Guidelines. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to delete Item No. 2, "should the 150-foot residential buffer apply to the TDR program?" from the motion.
05/01/95 75-461
Council Member Huber said the purpose of the Downtown Study centered around growth and the protection of residential areas around it. He believed the number was arbitrary, workable, and recognized by people in the City. It was not worth studying and should be kept. Mayor Simitian said he would vote against the amendment. The fact that staff said the item required a great deal of time to be understood fully meant an informed decision could not be made on the item that night. AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-1, Simitian "no," Schneider "not participating," Fazzino, Kniss absent. Council Member Rosenbaum questioned what action Council needed to take to apply Item 1, the 15,000- to 25,000-square-foot project size limits. Mayor Simitian said Council could direct staff to return with an analysis and recommendation with respect to whether or not a generic statement regarding a cap would be more appropriate. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the intent was not to "scrap" the 15,000- to 25,000-square-foot project size limit. Council Member McCown said it was her intention to adopt Mr. Schreiber's characterization of the issues which was not to reopen the 15,000- or 25,000-square-foot project size but was a potential wording change in the ordinance that would describe the concept of the cap more generically. AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to delete Item No. 3, "can/should previously completed projects be able to receive the bonus square footage retroactively?" from the motion. Council Member Rosenbaum said action had been taken earlier for the advantage of the owner of the building and did not believe Council should provide a retroactive benefit. Vice Mayor Wheeler looked at the issue as she looked at other zoning ordinances and did not believe Council should attempt to build in retroactivity into general zoning ordinances. Council Member Andersen was concerned that removal of the item at that time would effectively put it in place well down the road. All seismic upgrading could be stopped based on some of the changes until Council took action. Particularly in the transition period, opportunity for the analysis and ramifications needed to take place first, and then Council could take action.
05/01/95 75-462
AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-1, Andersen "no," Schneider "not participating," Fazzino, Kniss absent. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the intention of Item 4 was for the current ordinance. Mayor Simitian confirmed staff had indicated that the issue of vesting was really not one of substance but of how the process was handled and manifested that a right had vested. Staff would move ahead with the direction and would analyze how to put it into place. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. The language on page 4 and 5 of the ordinance could be clarified further. Council Member Rosenbaum asked for clarification on Item 5's intent. Mr. Schreiber said, for example, the City would not slow down on the Senior Center seismic rehabilitation project in order to position itself to obtain some theoretical development right in the future. There were no PC or residential sites that would be sender sites; therefore, he did not believe Item 5 amounted to much of anything. Council Member Rosenbaum said Item 5 should remain. Mayor Simitian thought that was an argument for deleting Item 5. Vice Mayor Wheeler said she thought there were many PF properties that could conceivably be a receiver site. The City was considering building structures on or over parking lots, for example. Mr. Schreiber said only if the City wished to get into the process of buying development rights. There was a Comprehensive Plan Program somewhere to continue to use PC zones to develop parking garages in PF zones. Mayor Simitian said there was obvious interest for discussion and agreed Item 5 should remain. Council Member Rosenbaum moved that the answer to Item 6 was yes. AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved that with respect to Item 6, "was it Council's intention to expand the TDR program to include seismic upgrades of non-historic buildings?" staff be directed to include the evaluation of seismic upgrades. Mayor Simitian asked whether Council needed to give direction to staff or simply ask staff to go back and look at it.
05/01/95 75-463
Mr. Schreiber said the clearer the direction to staff, the better. Mayor Simitian said Council was being asked what its intention was from the previous discussion, and one-third of the Council was not present to do so. Council Member McCown said staff still needed to evaluate and perform an environmental analysis, and she preferred not to make an absolute decision that night. She needed more information. Mayor Simitian said as the maker of the motion, that had been his intent. Council Member Rosenbaum did not believe it was important to determine the Council's previous intent. It was important to direct staff to analyze the impact of expanding the TDR Program to include seismic upgrades. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that with respect to Item 6, "was it Council's intention to expand the TDR program to include seismic upgrades of non-historic buildings?" staff be directed to explore the feasibility and ramifications of the item. Vice Mayor Wheeler had a mild objection but would not vote against the motion. She would have to be convinced, however, because of the potential downsides. She was mindful that no one wanted buildings falling down. Mayor Simitian reiterated his intent was that the issue should be looked at, and the December 12, 1994, Council minutes reflected that no attempt had been made to limit the use of the TDR process. The discussion preceding the motion had continued to speak OF all 53 buildings including historic, historic and seismic, and seismic only. If he had to choose between giving a bonus to something that was just historic work or something which was just seismic work and worrying about parking deficits, he would choose seismic safety over historic preservation. Life safety was clearly more important weighed against historic preservation. Opening the process up would not produce 135,000 square feet. Staff could recommend a cap or a sunset date to encourage people to do the work sooner rather than later. Having the ordinance expire in five years might encourage people to do seismic safety work before a big quake came along. He asked staff to research the parking deficit issue. Within the 350,000-foot limit, there was a sub-cap that dealt with the parking issue. Council Member Rosenbaum said staff had assured Council that with respect to Items 7 and 8, there were no problems to consider.
05/01/95 75-464
Mayor Simitian believed there was a policy question with Item 7 and asked staff to analyze what the policy implications were. He cautioned staff against using Council directives as the base for what staff would or would not do when staff had indicated it was prepared to go off in a different direction if it chose to. Council Member Rosenbaum said staff had asked for direction on Item 9 and asked for an analysis on whether there should be a FAR limit on a sending site. In addition, on Item 10, he asked staff to analyze the impact of allowing a FAR increase of more than 0.50. From his standpoint, for a small receiver site, a somewhat larger FAR would be allowed than for a large receiver site. Mayor Simitian confirmed that Items 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 remained on the list for further analysis by staff. Council Member Andersen asked the maker and seconder if the questions incorporated some assessment of the impact of the parking deficit. Council Member McCown understood that the Mayor had included the impact of parking deficits in his comments. The environmental analysis would comment on it as well. Mr. Calonne asked whether the Council had any specific instruction on returning the items to the Planning Commission before returning to Council. Council Member McCown was inclined not to give that direction because the ideas were coming out of a process which had included the ARB, HRB, and Planning Commission suggestions to Council. City Manager June Fleming agreed with Council Member McCown since the items grew out of issues that had been at the Planning Commission and were not new to it. Absent any direction from Council, staff would not refer the item to the Planning Commission. Mayor Simitian recommended to the maker and seconder of the motion that the item be returned to the Planning Commission. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the item be referred to the Planning Commission prior to Council deliberation. MOTION TO CONTINUE AS AMENDED PASSED 6-0, Schneider "not partici-pating," Kniss, Fazzino absent. RECESS: 10:20 P.M. - 10:30 P.M. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Option to Lease between the City of Palo Alto and Community Skating, Inc. for the Property Located at 3005 Middlefield Road
05/01/95 75-465
Senior Financial Analyst Janet Freeland said the item before Council that night transmitted the response of Community Skating, Inc. (CSI) to Council's direction of June 13, 1994, regarding the former Chuck Thompson facility located at 305 Middlefield Road and requested the award of an option to lease the site to CSI. On June 13, 1994, Council directed staff to proceed with Phase 1 of the CSI proposal with participation and assistance of the Palo Alto Tennis Club (PATC) to explore with CSI and PATC the development of the remainder of the site with low-intensity recreational uses that were compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, not including a swimming pool use, cost to the City, nor lighted tennis courts, and to return to Council with recommendations. Council had also adopted a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) establishing a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project to remove and backfill the pool. The pool was scheduled to be removed during the summer of 1995. In response to the Council's June 13, 1994, direction, CSI had proposed a two-phased development for the site. Phase 1, the upgrading and operation of the four existing tennis courts and completion of the landscaped parking lot, was consistent with the Phase 1 proposal approved by Council on June 13, 1994. Phase 2 included the addition of a fifth tennis court and possible rest rooms, snack bar, and special-event seating. Phase 2 was conceptu-al and would depend upon feasibility and additional City review and approval required during the option period. The proposed option to lease provided for a two-year option period in which CSI was required to obtain approval of its plans for the development and operation of the site including a Conditional Use Permit and to show evidence of sufficient finances prior to entering into the lease. Terms of the lease included a term of up to 15 years and a $100, one-time payment for rent. Nonmonetary consideration was the development and operation of a recreational tennis facility at no cost to the City. Mayor Simitian confirmed five votes of the Council were required to authorize the Mayor to execute the lease and declared the Public Hearing open. John Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, lived behind the tennis courts and was concerned about the potential of lighting the courts. Council had directed there be no lights on the tennis courts, and he wanted assurance the directive would be maintained in whatever option/lease might develop. The addition of lights would make a great deal of difference due to additional noise with late night tennis. He appreciated Council's decision and urged Council to maintain the restriction. Dianna Wiegner, 3069 Middlefield Road No. 701, was one of the first occupants of a condominium next door to the Winter Lodge. Hardly a year went by when residents had not appealed to Council for help from a new, worse situation. She implored Council not to allow any activity which would increase noise levels, specifically noise generated from a fifth tennis court which would force many
05/01/95 75-466
residents to move. Property values would greatly decrease because of the noise, making it difficult to sell their properties. In addition to noise, residents would be subjected to stray tennis balls hitting windows and buildings. She urged Council not to allow barbecue pits that would further pollute homes and the neighborhood. There were other locations more suitable for lighted courts, grandstands, and barbecue pits. She suggested tennis players from other cities should lobby their own cities for such facilities. She trusted Council would stand by its June 1994 decision and ensure there would be no Phase 2 to the project. Sheryl Keller, 642 Georgia Avenue, had been a member of the Executive Board of both Trust for Community Skating and Community Skating, Inc. for 14 years. The group operated the Winter Lodge and had submitted the proposal for development of the former Chuck Thompson Swim School and Tennis Club. Last year, Council had directed staff to work with CSI and PATC toward the development of a recreational facility at the Middlefield site. The whole community and particularly Midtown would benefit from the facility. The successful Winter Lodge model would be used to operate the program of recreational tennis and skill building for the community's tennis players. She pledged to work with the community and the PATC to build a first-class recreational facility at no cost to the City. The approval of the lease option brought to fruition the voter directive of the 1984 initiatives. The intent of parkland for parkland was to preserve the land for recreation. The staff recommendation was wholeheartedly endorsed. Jack Morton, founding member of Community Skating, Inc., 2343 Webster Street, expressed his appreciation for the work done by staff on the option to lease document. With Council approval, the next phase of a successful City/community partnership would begin to unfold. CSI, with the cooperation of PATC, would shortly provide a skill development tennis program. CSI would also appear before the Planning Commission and the ARB to work out final details of the design. CSI would continue to take concerns of the neighbors into consideration. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked Mr. Morton to comment on the financial implications and the practical implications of not proceeding with Phase 2, the construction of the fifth court. Mr. Morton said the tennis program itself was a deficit program and would not be self-sustaining. Emphasis would be at the introductory level with younger members of the community. The initial four-court renovation plus the cost of the parking lot would be a significant dollar investment. Phase 2 could not proceed until Phase 1 was funded. Time was needed to implement the funding. If CSI had to fund the project itself, the upgrade would take place over the next two or three years out of the revenues from the skating program. Phase 2 was conceptual and hypothetical,
05/01/95 75-467
and CSI would return to Council via the Planning Commission and the ARB with a proposal and final designs. Vice Mayor Wheeler recalled the motion had said to look at low-intensity recreational uses for the physical area where Phase 2 would be constructed and to work cooperatively with PATC. She asked whether CSI had examined any other low-intensity recreational opportunities other than a fifth tennis court and, if so, what activities were examined. Mr. Morton said barring a working definition of low intensity, with low intensity, came a low revenue return. It almost had to be open air, and open air meant more noise. In the original design presented to Council, an attempt was made to put a structure in the area so neighbors would be buffered from the summer activities. Low intensity in his mind might be sand court volleyball, croquet, etc. With staff's input, CSI tried to work out a process to go through the appropriate reviews. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified CSI had not precluded going in that direction. Mr. Morton said CSI wanted the option to return with a buffer structure and was an issue its board needed to work through. Until CSI obtained the lease, it was not willing to go any further with plans. Kay Carey, Immediate Past President, Palo Alto Tennis Club (PATC), 4160 Old Trace Road, said PATC strongly supported CSI's proposal. President M. J. Miller and Chuck Bradley, who had worked closely with CSI, were also present. Phase 1 allowed for four quality tennis courts. CSI had committed that PATC would be the preferred customers for tournament uses; and during the spring and fall seasons, the courts would be used for PATC league play. Almost 200 people played in the PATC league. CSI had also committed to a special rate for PATC. CSI was exploring with PATC going to Phase 2; adding a fifth court would make a big difference in a tennis center. Another important element was having an outdoor snack area with outdoor electricity and rest rooms where people could congregate during adult league and tournament play. Since the courts would not be lighted, there would be no adverse impact on neighbors. PATC strongly supported the idea of the youth tennis programs. David Bukhan, 3073 Middlefield Road No. 204, urged Council when making decisions on the future of the site to keep in mind that the noise problems created by the Winter Lodge continued to have severe negative impacts on the neighbors. The Winter Lodge had continued to ignore the problem and had not contacted neighbors in an effort to mitigate any problems. The impact on neighbors was not discussed in the current proposal evidenced by the fact the houses surrounding the site were not shown on any plans. Two items were especially disturbing for the neighbors: 1) the project's fifth
05/01/95 75-468
court would be within 10 or 15 yards from neighbors' windows and 2) the barbecue area would make the situation even worse by exposing them to smoke and fumes in addition to the noise. He questioned whether the barbecue was really a necessary part of tennis practice or play. He reminded Council that the Winter Lodge's original contract stated a sound wall would be constructed to protect neighbors. In reality, a five-foot wooden fence was installed which did not serve as a sound wall. He urged Council to protect the neighbors by specifically stating restrictions such as prohibiting barbecues and excluding the fifth court in the current proposal. Jeff Weber, 169 Byron Street, was a native Palo Altan, had learned to skate at the Winter Lodge, and was an avid tennis player and former member of PATC. He was opposed to awarding an option to lease the former Chuck Thompson facility to CSI without further study and public comment. The Winter Lodge in its present form did not meet the needs of the majority of Palo Alto ice skaters. The ice surface was too small, and the facility operated only six months of the year. The outdoor rink created a noise problem for the surrounding community. The Winter Lodge should be expanded and brought indoors or moved to a new site. An indoor facility would solve the noise problem and allow year-round ice skating. Recreational activities, especially for young people, were lacking in Palo Alto. Ice skating was on the rise while tennis was declining. There were 61 public tennis courts in Palo Alto. The City of Oakland was building twin ice rink facilities using a mixture of public and private funds. Funding for the Winter Lodge expansion, or the creation of an altogether new ice rink, would come from private sources with the City's providing the lease on the land. He questioned CSI's effort to restrict the size of the Winter Lodge when the land and private funds were available at its present site. He urged the City to support a larger, year-round indoor facility that would meet the needs of the growing community of skaters. The option to lease the land to CSI needed to be suspended until more of the Palo Alto community had input. Lila Boll, 1395 Woodland Avenue, Menlo Park, had frequented the Winter Lodge for the past six years. Her three daughters not only learned to skate but also learned to work cooperatively with teachers and students in presenting ice shows. The Winter Lodge offered a unique opportunity for children and adults to enjoy outdoor and indoor skating where all levels of skaters were accommodated. She was supportive of tennis and skating being offered to the community. Sam Sparck, 302 Poe Street, said the Winter Lodge had been approved in 1984 and had been successful both as a business enterprise and as a recreational asset to Palo Alto. The Winter Lodge had shown itself to be financially sound and well-managed. The facility was well-maintained and was responsive to the staff requirements and City regulations regarding compatible use of the site. There was
05/01/95 75-469
no other skating facility in the area. Skaters of all ages and various skill levels were served. With its history of responsibility and success, he urged Council to approve the plan for expansion of the Winter Lodge facilities. Jane Hayes, 718 Ellsworth Place, opposed any lighting of the tennis courts. Lights would be an incentive to operate at any time. Hours of operation should be limited from 10 a.m. to dusk. An event the past weekend had caused a traffic overflow and increased noise. She appreciated being a neighbor of the Winter Lodge as it was not too close to her property. The tennis courts were close and frequently used by City residents. The PATC was offering memberships to Palo Alto residents while putting non-residents on list. That led her to believe PATC had an interest in selling memberships to non-residents who would have less respect for the community. She did not understand why CSI was interested in a venture that would not be a money-maker. Memberships were available for less money at PATC, and she questioned whether residents of Palo Alto would spend $100 to join CSI's club. As a resident of Palo Alto, she did not believe she should pay the price for non-residents' pursuit of happiness in tennis. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, submitted a letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office) and said she used the tennis courts. However, she would not be able to use the courts in the future unless she was one of the lucky 100 people who would be allowed keys to use the 4 or 5 courts. She urged Council to reconsider providing free rent of $6.60 per year for private tennis courts as described by PATC which would benefit 100 tennis players who might not even live in Palo Alto. The proposal forecasted a potential loss of $9,500 per year to CSI. She asked whether it was fair for skaters to subsidize the private courts. The skaters would not be using the courts and would not have keys. There were many more skaters and people who used the rink than would be able to use the tennis courts. Subsidizing private courts on valuable City land was not fair. The courts were not for the public and certainly not for Midtowners. The potential for other activities would be lost, whether for community gardens or playgrounds for children. Palo Alto had many tennis courts desperately in need of repair and upgrade that supposedly were for children. The courts at Jane Lathrop Stanford were no longer useable even by the children who attended school there. Those children would not be able to use the courts on the Winter Lodge property. If PATC needed lighted courts, Cubberly would be an obvious choice. Cubberly had grandstands, had no housing next door, and had room for expansion. The plan made no economic sense as it provided no recreational benefit to area residents who were primarily renters. It was a special-interest proposal for 100 tennis players. She hoped to join PATC in order to have an opportunity to secure one of the 100 keys and asked how people were to be selected. The Winter Lodge should be required to live up to its parking and landscaping requirements, and the City should do its part.
05/01/95 75-470
Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member McCown asked for clarification on the limitation of access to the courts. The only reference was on a page which projected potential income and included an estimate of $10,000 revenue based on $100 per key and 100 keys. Ms. Freeland said that was the only place. Council Member McCown clarified the intent was to limit keys to 100. Mr. Morton said the intent was not to have any limitation. The number came out of discussions with neighboring communities as to how many people might permanently want keys. The keys were for access of non-public hours during daylight hours. Two hundred would be sold, if there were requests. Council Member McCown confirmed there was no restriction on the number and no requirement for membership in the PATC to purchase a key. Council Member Huber asked if the $100 was also a random figure. Mr. Morton said in communities that used the system, $100 seemed to be where the market was and was lower than some. Council Member Andersen questioned, given the skating rink's limitation in size, why consideration had been given for using the land to expand and build a covered facility. Mr. Morton said the City had done a study on community rinks, and there was a cost factor. The program was successful in large part because it was an outdoor facility and because it was a limited program during the winter months. Usage dropped off during the summer and higher costs resulted. Most larger rinks were not successful. The community rink in Stockton required extensive subsidization. To keep a year-round rink would be a tremendous burden. Council Member Andersen said CSI indicated it would not make money on the proposal before Council and questioned whether the snack bar or something else would make it cost effective. Mr. Morton said tennis itself would not make money. In order to make the project a Midtown recreation resource, CSI was willing to bear the burden. As a combined winter/summer program, the winter program would make enough money to fund the program and make the improvements.
05/01/95 75-471
Vice Mayor Wheeler recalled similar lessons were available through the City recreation programs when her children were growing up. She questioned whether the situation had changed or whether CSI had done a market analysis that suggested its lessons were different. Mr. Morton believed there would be a natural transfer from the winter program. CSI enjoyed a high reputation among the families who used the winter program. As a summer activity for younger children, CSI would be an accessible and safe area. Based on informal discussions with staff, the City's teaching programs were personnel intensive and expensive. Resources eliminated over the years through budget cuts led to a decline in those types of programs. CSI would not be in competition with the City but would be enhancing City programs. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked, given a worst-case scenario if the winter program was no longer able to subsidize an already constructed facility after a number of years had elapsed, in what position the City would be in in terms of its lease. Real Property Manager William Fellman said the City took the position with all of its tenants that if there were a problem, the City would listen to the problem and act accordingly. There was no termination clause in the proposal. Council Member Huber confirmed that Phase 2 was only conceptual in nature and a full review process to analyze such things as intensity uses in the neighborhood would be done. Ms. Freeland said yes. During the option period, the plans for both the development and the operation would be reviewed. The Conditional Use Permit process included the review by the zoning administrator, the ARB, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. Both Phase 1 and 2 would go through the same process, and environmental assessment work would also be done. Mayor Simitian clarified whether looking at Phase 2 through the process, Council was really approving the Phase 2 proposal absent some "problem" or some inconsistency with the ordinances or environmental problems, or whether the intent was to give Phase 2 a fresh look when it was known what Phase 2 really involved. Ms. Freeland said a condition of the option was that CSI needed to have its plans approved. CSI had indicated conceptually certain things to be considered during Phase 2. If those elements were not feasible or practical from either its point of view or the City's when more specific development of plans were completed and reviewed, then plans would be changed accordingly. Mayor Simitian said ordinarily when a property owner came before Council with an application, it was known as a quasi-judicial hearing. The property owner had some rights, Council reviewed the
05/01/95 75-472
application compared to the law, and Council ascertained whether the property owner met the requirement of the law. The answer determined whether Council approved the application or not. The proposal before Council was very different than Council making an independent determination of whether it either did or did not want a particular use on a particular site based on its legislative judgment about what was good for the community. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said one condition precedent of exercising the option to lease was the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. To the extent the land use control was there, it was retained. The option specifically only called for detailed plans on Phase 1; however, if there were no Phase 2 plans, a use permit would not be approved. Mayor Simitian asked whether Council was surrendering any discretion to approve or deny the proposal in Phase 2. Mr. Calonne said no. Whether Council ended up being the final arbiter depended on how the proposal worked through the process. There would be a Conditional Use Permit for Phase 2. Mayor Simitian clarified lighting was not included in the proposal. Ms. Freeland said Council had directed there be no lights. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to authorize the Mayor to execute the option to lease between the City of Palo Alto and Community Skating, Inc. (CSI) for development and operation of a tennis facility at 3005 Middlefield Road. Council Member McCown understood the option to lease intended in its language by staff to be consistent with the prior Council action prohibiting any lighted tennis courts. CSI would have a two-year period within which a variety of conditions needed to be satisfied before exercising the option to enter into the lease. One of the conditions was further development and refinement of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects. She believed if Council supported the action, it was conceptually supporting the direction outlined in the proposal. Therefore, if there was a strong belief that a fifth tennis court was absolutely out of the question, discussion needed to take place that night. One member of the public had suggested another site usage should be made. There had been an opportunity for proposers who wanted to use the site to come forward over a year ago. Council was responding to that Request for Proposal (RFP) process the City had put forward, the option to lease was the next step, and she urged Council to support it. Mr. Calonne said the Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Zoning Administrator. The Council was free to add as required conditions in the lease whatever specific development features
05/01/95 75-473
Council did or did not want. Another way to spell out lights or tennis courts would be to direct amendments to the lease. Mayor Simitian said it was troubling to hear the debate of the near neighbors and operators of the facility who took different views on how the facility had been operated. CSI contended everything had been done to operate a facility that was compatible with the neighborhood. The neighbors said CSI had not made the effort it should have to be an accommodating neighbor. The fact that the same discussion was taking place that night made him leery of a fifth tennis court and its close proximity to the neighbors. He was not optimistic when the item returned to Council that the same debate would not take place again. If the Zoning Administrator made the determination through the Conditional Use Permit process, and the decision was appealed, it would work its way to Council. Given the debate which had already occurred, he believed it was inevitable an appeal would happen, and Council would have to ultimately make the determination. In terms of Phase 2, he urged everyone to work more cooperatively. Council Member Andersen opposed the motion because the benefits received by the community of additional courts could be arrived at through alternative ways. The additional recreational area was also not of particular benefit to the Winter Lodge. The area was not dedicated to parkland; therefore, the City could use it in other ways. He was not convinced a reconciliation would take place between CSI and the neighbors. He was impressed by the generous nature of the neighbors in many instances, particularly those on Ellsworth. Phase 2 was of concern with respect to issues that had been raised. He recognized a great deal of effort had been expended, but he was not persuaded the direction was the right one to take. Vice Mayor Wheeler had concerns about the proposed Phase 2. The community had been clear during the debate about the desire to have the larger piece of property used for recreational purposes. In good faith, Council and CSI had gone in the direction to see that plan come to fruition. However, with respect to the fifth court and its location, she had walked the site and determined it was the worst possible location for a tennis court. If the Phase 2 proposal came back with a fifth court in that location, she would have a difficult time being in favor of it. CSI had said even with a fifth court, the facility would not generate money. She urged CSI in its future planning for Phase 2 to continue to work with the neighbors to determine a low-intensity recreational use for that corner of the property. Council Member Huber said the staff report indicated CSI's Phase 1 proposal was consistent with Council direction. Phase 2 was conceptual, and both would go through the process. Council had indicated that Phase 2 was to be of low intensity, and he did not consider what had been proposed as a done deal. He had serious
05/01/95 75-474
doubts regarding the Phase 2 proposal. He questioned whether the fees for using the courts could be reduced. The lower the number was, the more opportunity for it to truly be a usage for the community and accessible to everybody. Council Member Schneider supported the project and thought it was a wonderful example of City/community partnerships. Given the financial situation of the City, it was important to look for more opportunities for partnerships. The project was also a terrific enhancement for the Midtown area. She had the same concerns for Phase 2 and hoped that by approving the project, a private membership tennis association would not be created. Whatever was done, the neighbors should not be adversely affected. Mayor Simitian recalled a Council discussion regarding The Edge nightclub with respect to loud rock music until 4 a.m. and hundreds of young people all in close proximity to scores of multifamily units. Both sides found a way to make it work when they had to make it work. Solutions had been found for far more challenging situations than the proposal before Council that evening when the will was there on the part of all the folks involved. He encouraged those involved to work more cooperatively in the future. Mayor Simitian recalled a Council discussion regarding The Edge nightclub with respect to noise from loud rock music until 4 a.m. and hundreds of young people all in close proximity to scores of multi-family units. Both sides found a way to make it work when they had to make it work. Solutions had been found for far more challenging situations than the proposal before Council that evening when the will was there on the part of all the folks involved. He encouraged those involved to work more cooperatively in the future. MOTION PASSED 6-1, Andersen "no," Fazzino, Kniss absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
05/01/95 75-475
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.
05/01/95 75-476