HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-04 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting November 4, 1996 1. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation............................................80-387 1. Interviews for Architectural Review Board.............80-388 1. Appointment to Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors.............................................80-389 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................80-389 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1996..................80-390 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and A & A Construction for Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance, Exterior Route Improvements..........................................80-390 3. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. S7088872 with Skyhawks Sports Academy to Increase Compensation Authority for Operating Summer Sport Camp Programs............................80-390
4. Ordinance 4384 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing an Historic Demolition Moratorium
Exception for Residences on the City=s Historic Inventory Which Are Currently Subject to a Moratorium Under Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.................80-390
5. Ordinance 4385 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.90.055 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Allow Home Improvement Exceptions
for Tree Protection≅ ..................................80-390 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................80-390
11/04/96 80-385
10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the Arastradero Management Plan and a Request for Proposals for a Stewardship of the City-owned Arastradero Preserve and the
Hewlett-Mullen Property herein referred to as ΑPreserve.80-391 6. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation............................................80-391 7. Conference with City Attorney--Significant Exposure to Litigation............................................80-391
8. Mayor Wheeler=s Response to Letter from City of Menlo Park re Sand Hill Road Projects (continued from 10/28/96).....80-391 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend to the City Council approval of an application to rezone the property located at 901-909 Alma Street................................................80-397
11. Ordinance 4386 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Preservation of a
Below Market Rate Unit at 922 Bautista Court≅ .........80-411 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m............80-412
11/04/96 80-386
11/04/96 80-387
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Human Resources/Council Conference Room at 5:34 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum (arrived at 5:36 p.m.), Schneider (arrived at 5:36 p.m.), Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Simitian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation Subject: Potential Initiation of Litigation on One Separate Matter Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(c) The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving potential initiation of litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 1. Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 1. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
11/04/96 80-388
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:34 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 6:36 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Simitian SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Architectural Review Board ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m.
11/04/96 80-389
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Regular Meeting on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:48 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum (arrived at 7:49 p.m.), Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointment to Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors Council Member Simitian indicated that he had not participated in the interview process for the candidates and would abstain from voting. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR SANCHEZ: Andersen, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR WEINBERGER: Assistant City Clerk Kathi Hamilton announced that Annajo Sanchez had received seven votes and was appointed on the first ballot. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bob MacElroy, Forest Avenue, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Civic League. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth, spoke regarding honesty in government
(letter on file in the City Clerk=s Office). T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding the method and motive for parking lot survey. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding the Architectural Review Board and trees. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding time line for the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Michael H. Wollenweber, Green Street, spoke regarding linear acceleration. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of September 24, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent.
11/04/96 80-390
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 5. 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and A & A Construction for Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance, Exterior Route Improvements; change orders not to exceed $25,000. 3. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. S7088872 with Skyhawks Sports Academy to Increase Compensation Authority for Operating Summer Sport Camp Programs
4. Ordinance 4384 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing an Historic Demolition Moratorium
Exception for Residences on the City=s Historic Inventory Which Are Currently Subject to a Moratorium Under Chapter
16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code≅ (1st Reading 10/21/96,
PASSED 6-2, Huber, Wheeler Αno,≅ Simitian absent)
5. Ordinance 4385 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.90.055 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Allow Home Improvement Exceptions
for Tree Protection≅ (1st Reading 10/21/96, PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent) MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 2 and 3, Fazzino absent. MOTION PASSED 5-2-1 for Item No. 4, Simitian Αabstaining,≅ Huber,
Wheeler Αno,≅ Fazzino absent. MOTION PASSED 7-0-1 for Item No. 5, Simitian Αabstaining,≅ Fazzino absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to bring Item No. 10 forward for the purpose of opening the public hearing. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the Arastradero Management Plan and a Request for Proposals for a Stewardship of the City-owned Arastradero Preserve and the
Hewlett-Mullen Property herein referred to as ΑPreserve.≅ Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to continue Item No. 10 to the Regular City Council Meeting of November 12, 1996.
11/04/96 80-391
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. CLOSED SESSION The items might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 6. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation Subject: Potential Initiation of Litigation Matters Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(c) 7. Conference with City Attorney--Significant Exposure to Litigation Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) Public Comment None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. Mayor Wheeler=s Response to Letter from City of Menlo Park re Sand Hill Road Projects (continued from 10/28/96) Mayor Wheeler said City Manager June Fleming provided a letter to
the Council (on file in the City Clerk=s Office) to give the Council some idea of how to approach a response and a potential meeting or series of meetings with the Menlo Park City Council. It was also suggested that since the Council had not had a formal presentation of the plans and proposals for the Sand Hill projects, the Council await formal presentation of those plans scheduled to happen at a study session during the November 25, 1996, City Council meeting. If the Council were interested in meeting with the Menlo Park City Council subsequent to that date, the Council needed to work with Menlo Park to determine a mutually agreeable place and time to hold such joint meetings. Council Member McCown referred to a new letter from the City of
Menlo Park dated October 29, 1996 (on file in the City Clerk=s Office) and clarified the letter had to do with a request from Menlo Park with respect to the recirculation of the DEIR, the letter was not up for discussion that evening, and the Council was only focusing on the prior request from Menlo Park with regard to meeting. City Manager June Fleming said that was correct. The letter was placed before Council Members that evening because it was received
11/04/96 80-392
over the weekend; however, it was not a subject for decision making that evening. Bob Burmeister, Mayor of the City of Menlo Park, 1860 Oakdell Drive, Menlo Park, referred to his letter dated September 11, 1996
(on file in the City Clerk=s Office) which was self-explanatory. Two major points set forth in the letter were to determine: 1) whether or not the City of Palo Alto would consider meeting with the City of Menlo Park and 2) the format for such a meeting. He was pleased to have reviewed the memorandum from City Manager Fleming to the City Council regarding a possible format which led him to believe that the Palo Alto City Council would agree to meet with Menlo Park residents at which time the format could be discussed. He was heartened by one of the purposes set forth in the memo which was that a joint session would provide the Menlo Park Council and staff an additional opportunity to become fully oriented about the projects. He assured the Palo Alto Council there were many people in Menlo Park, including some of its Council Members, who believed such a meeting would be beneficial and would serve to enlighten both the Menlo Park Council Members and the Palo Alto City Council on the issues and how those issues impacted Menlo Park. Menlo Park would be happy to have a joint open forum study session. That evening was the first meeting. The second meeting
might be discussions between Palo Alto=s and Menlo Park=s respective City Managers regarding where, when, etc. He noted that November 25, 1996, was the earliest possible date for the third meeting. He urged the Palo Alto Council to select a date for the joint study session as soon as possible after the November 25, 1996, as the Menlo Park City Council was receiving a lot of feedback regarding timing on those issues. He thanked the Council for its consideration and looked forward to discussing issues that were related not only to the pros and cons of the DEIR but also to
discussion of the Menlo Park and Palo Alto citizens= concerns regarding the entire project and the impacts the project might have. Council Member Simitian asked Mr. Burmeister what the sense of urgency was behind the need to meet. The same issue had been going on for 20 years, and he was genuinely puzzled with the anxiety with respect to the urgency of timing for a meeting. Mr. Burmeister believed it might be good for opening lines of communications if the Palo Alto City Council heard what some Menlo Park citizens perceived as issues regarding the plan prior to January 10, 1997, so to discuss the pros and cons not only of a lengthy document but also of the entire plan and where there were concerns to the City of Menlo Park. Council Member Simitian clarified that the sense of urgency was driven by the current timing for the consideration of the DEIR. Mr. Burmeister said he had heard from at least two Menlo Park Council Members, in addition to the many people who came to the
11/04/96 80-393
Council meetings to speak, about some urgency to at least show that Palo Alto and Menlo Park could actually sit down and discuss things in an open forum. Hopefully, something positive might come from that. People were frustrated, believed there should be more education or publicity, and felt left out of the process. John Shaffer, representing Mid Peninsula Action for Tomorrow (MPACT), 1840 Camino De Los Robles, Menlo Park, said there was substantial public concern. As Council Member Simitian had commented, it had been a 20-year historical project for the City of Palo Alto. There were many newcomers to the dialogue, and for the past 3 years, community dialogue had been invited by Stanford on the subject. The project being proposed by Stanford University was undoubtedly the biggest project that had come down the pike in the 22 years he had lived in the area. At the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board (ARB) sessions in both Menlo Park and Palo Alto, it had been communicated, whether or not intended, that
the decision had already been made. Palo Alto=s City staff had diligently put in thousands of hours over the past 20 years in evaluating whether or not the Sand Hill Corridor should be opened to four lanes of traffic. It would be a temporary fix and a regional impact. There were probably complications in the process that would interfere with the free-flow dialogue with the public, other cities, and the Counties of San Mateo and Santa Clara on what
Stanford=s long-range plans were. There was no discussion of those plans in the DEIR. The region needed to consider what Stanford projected over the next 20 to 50 years, as informed public citizens or Council Members passed judgment on the projects. A beginning point would be a dialogue between Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Palo Alto and Menlo Park shared a common boundary, a common problem, a creek, and a corridor. He proposed a joint study session be aimed toward a joint Council session, to occur before the publishing of a final EIR. It was the pressure of a final EIR that was driving the sense of urgency being experienced. He submitted a proposal on
behalf of MPACT (on file in the City Clerk=s Office) for a public values forum which could be hosted by Stanford at the University. All interested parties could attend, and the establishment of the fundamental issues could be addressed. Dan Dippery, MPACT, 455 Santa Rita Avenue, Menlo Park, said that MPACT was an organization concerned about the quality of life.
MPACT=s definition of Αquality of life≅ was a balance between a vital economy and a healthy environment. MPACT members and other Midpeninsula neighbors affirmed and encouraged the City of Palo
Alto=s openness to meet with Menlo Park regarding the Sand Hill development proposals. MPACT believed a joint session of the two city councils should be convened at the earliest possible date to
address at least the nineteen questions included in MPACT=s letter
(on file in the City Clerk=s Office). It might be the last time the Midpeninsula region had any voice about its future development. To steamroll through such a massive package of projects with all of the known irreparable effects on the area without the knowledge
11/04/96 80-394
and consent of a completely informed public would be irresponsible civic stewardship. MPACT trusted the Council would choose a nobler course and take the time to meet and reach consensus with Menlo Park and the other neighbors in seeking a win/win solution regarding traffic flow while maintaining a vital economy and preserving the environment and quality of life. Peter Drekmeier, Director of Bay Area Action, 831 Sutter, said Bay Area Action had worked on the preservation and restoration of San Francisquito Creek over the past few years. Historically, the creek had been a line of division between San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, but a few years prior, several groups united and started
a process called Αa coordinated resources management and planning
process≅ which brought together the two counties, the five cities in the watersheds, Stanford University, and other interested
groups. He applauded the Council=s willingness to meet with Menlo Park and encouraged the Council to involve other interested parties such as environmental groups and neighborhood associations. He also encouraged the Council to do its best to take the project off the fast track because there were many issues which remained unanswered. He read from a summary of an Analysis of Economic Impact Report by Rob Chess dated October 2, 1996 (on file in the
City Clerk=s Office). He felt there was quite a discrepancy with the economic, traffic, and environmental impacts of the project. He asked to be involved in a joint session in order to ask his questions and make sure the project would not prove his concerns later at the cost of the quality of life in the community. Council Member McCown asked staff if study sessions were scheduled with the City of Menlo Park, how those could be used, and at what appropriate time they would fall in the process. The session should be more of a discussion rather than an interactive consideration of concerns which would be different from the formal public hearing process. She understood there were many people wanting to attend the sessions in order to provide their input into the process, but if such a session were held and the meeting included public participation, the two councils would not have a chance to then discuss Council-to-Council in that public context. She asked staff how the sessions could be structured in order to give the two Councils a chance to engage in a dialogue. City Attorney Ariel Calonne preferred the request be put in the form of a motion so staff could work with the Menlo Park Council to determine a process that would work. The study session format usually provided Oral Communications after the discussion, but he was hearing a request for a more back and forth approach. He thought the Council needed to go through a first phase of scoping and decide on what issues should be discussed. He was not sure that either Council would have the time or inclination to discuss the full range of issues that were likely to surface when the public was given an opportunity. He suggested that the Council think in terms of working from broad to narrow and then discussing
11/04/96 80-395
what might be suitable for further discussion. Stanford University also had a strong interest in being involved in some capacity. Council Member McCown said she would give some thought to what Mr. Calonne was suggesting as one possible way to put a motion on the floor. Council Member Simitian was perplexed by the anxiousness surrounding the request. There was no residency requirement for speaking at a meeting, and anyone wanting to attend open public meetings was welcome to do so. The Council frequently heard from people in neighboring communities, and the comments were quite helpful. The request from the City of Menlo Park was a good idea, and he was baffled that anyone thought there would be a problem. With regard to scope, he would look to Menlo Park to determine what
to discuss. He thought Council Member McCown=s comments regarding a Council-to-Council conversation would be the most productive for all of the concerned parties, and that it was possible within the constraints the City operated under. He encouraged the meetings with Menlo Park, but he thought people should not feel they could not speak at those meetings. He was baffled that there was a preconception of a fast track or in what direction the City was headed. He understood why the scope of the project raised some concerns, but he felt everyone should calm down and realize that the Council would work its way through the issue at a deliberative pace, hear from all concerned parties, and meet with a neighboring jurisdiction.
Council Member Rosenbaum echoed Council Member Simitian=s comments. He would be happy to meet with the Menlo Park Council. He believed Palo Alto was not on the same footing as Menlo Park was as he had read that the Menlo Park Council had essentially made up its mind on where it stood on the project, whereas, the Palo Alto City Council had not. He encouraged meeting with and hearing Menlo
Park=s views. He agreed with Council Member McCown that if the public were permitted to speak at the session, Palo Alto would not get a chance to hear the Menlo Park Council. The public would have an opportunity to speak when Palo Alto had its public hearings. He supported arranging the session in a way that would be between the two Councils but open to the public. Council Member McCown said it was important that the session with the Menlo Park City Council precede the formal public hearing process in January. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to direct the City Manager to schedule a working study session with the City Council of Menlo Park and to work with the two staffs to determine an acceptable format, timing, and location with the timing to precede the formal public hearing process in Palo Alto.
11/04/96 80-396
Council Member Simitian agreed with Council Member McCown that the session not be driven by dates but driven by the desire to have the session prior to acting on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The concern was that the scope and quality of the EIR was a substantial issue that the two Councils needed to address jointly prior to moving forward. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend to the City Council approval of an application to rezone the property located at 901-909 Alma Street (Southeast Corner of Alma Street and Channing Avenue) from CD-S(P), [Commercial Downtown - Pedestrian Shopping Combining District] to a PC [Planned Community] District to construct a four-story, 15,683 square-foot mixed-use project with 23 parking spaces on the first level, 4 apartments on the second and third levels, and office use on the fourth level. (continued from 10/28/96) Contract Project Planner Robert Schubert said the project required Planned Community (PC) rezoning primarily because the Commercial Downtown (CD) District regulations did not address development requirements for a vertical integrated mixed-use project with above-grade parking. Under the existing zoning, the maximum floor area was 12,075 square feet compared to the proposed 15,683 square feet. The project exceeded the maximum floor area by approximately 3,600 square feet because it included 2,000 square feet of covered parking that was under the building but above-grade, which was counted as floor area. The project was also deficient in the required amount of open space. The existing zoning required 2,000 square feet of common useable open space compared to the proposed 1,786 square feet. The project complied with the maximum 50-foot height limit. Staff believed that the project, which was a gateway building including public art, street improvements, and repavement of a portion of the rear alley, fulfilled the public benefit requirement of the PC District. As noted in the staff report (CMR:443:96), both the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of the project, and the Public Art Commission (PAC) had recently approved the public art portion of the project. Planning Commissioner Owen Byrd said the Planning Commission was enthusiastic about the project and considered it well-designed. The height and massing were appropriate to the location. There was some concern about the pedestrian treatment along Alma Street. There was a desire that Alma Street be made as pedestrian-friendly as possible. It was also understood the orientation the applicant ultimately chose to take for the front of the building would be toward Channing Avenue. The public benefit package, especially the plaza and public art, made sense for the project. It was a good mixed use and provided Palo Alto with some housing stock and development appropriate to the location.
11/04/96 80-397
Architectural Review Board Member David Ross said the ARB
unanimously approved the project. The ARB=s concern centered around the overall size of the project and its height. The ARB ultimately agreed that the design was a very good one, and the scale of the project overall was offset by the articulation of the building and its separation into modules which would be a good location to carry the height and mass. Council Member Simitian recalled a prior discussion regarding the
Αstorm project,≅ currently Cupertino National Bank, and the public art niche in which he kept pressing staff about with respect to the art that would be placed in the niche. After much debate, he was assured by staff that public art would be placed in the niche. He asked the status of the public art. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle replied that the public art for that niche was still in the approval process with the PAC and had
not yet gained the PAC=s endorsement. Once the process was approved by the PAC, it would eventually be placed in the niche. Since the days of that PC zone, the process utilized in dealing with PC applications in which art was a benefit had been revised. The project being dealt with that evening reflected the revised procedure. The art would be integrated with the project and was already approved by the PAC which was an improvement over how public art was handled as a benefit through PC zoning. Council Member Schneider referred to page 4 of the Ordinance under Below Market Rate (BMR) Requirements regarding the in-lieu fee the applicant was paying. The payment had been deemed to be $22,400, based on a calculated market value of each of the four units of $160,000, and she understood the units to be over 1,000 square feet each. She was not aware of anything in the Downtown area that was residential and could be purchased for $160,000 for over 1,000 square feet, and staff had advised her there were no rentals available. The only way the project could be compared would be to look at the project as if it were a 1,000-square-foot condominium in the Downtown area of which some currently existed. She asked what the comps were on condominium space in the Downtown area for 1,000 to 1,200 square feet per unit. Jim Gilliland said a condominium would cost significantly more than $160,000. Because the current project was rental units without a condominium map underneath, the appraised value was based on the rental value which was less than if it were a condominium project. When staff was going through negotiations, there had been appraisals on two different projects in the Downtown area that were smaller units and somewhat older which came to $142,500 per unit on one project and $142,000 on the other. Staff reached an agreement that the appraised value of rentals would be $160,000. An actual appraisal was not done. Council Member Schneider asked how old the comps were.
11/04/96 80-398
Mr. Gilliland said one was 330 Emerson Street which was a brand new building, but the difference was the sizes of the units which were 700 square feet rather than 1,000 square feet. The other was an older building that was built in the 1960s. Council Member Schneider said the figure did not seem realistic. There were other rentals in the Downtown significantly smaller that were getting more than what the rental units had been projected at. Mr. Gilliland said the $160,000 did not address the actual rent the owner would be getting for the units. Because it was part of a mixed-use project, staff could only deal with the four residential units, not the entire project. Council Member Simitian said staff should be able to determine the fair market rent and what the multiplier for rental properties was to determine the fair market value, entirely independent of the sale price of four units. Mr. Gilliland replied it could be done that way. Council Member Schneider wanted to make sure the City was getting the appropriate amount in the in-lieu payment. She wanted to see the figure recalculated. Council Member McCown wanted a clarification of the height. She referred to Attachment 6 of the staff report (CMR:443:96) under
Building Height, ΑThe building had been reduced in overall height from 55' - 0' to 53' - 6." She understood staff calculated height differently, but she believed it would be helpful for the community
to understand. She referred to ΑThe drawings and the model...≅ and asked whether there was a model. Mr. Schubert replied yes, the applicant did have a model. Council Member McCown said it would be helpful to point out on the model what the 48-foot height dimension was that the staff report referred to and what the 53-foot, 6-inch height dimension was that Attachment 6 referred to. Mr. Schubert pointed to the model and said the height limit in the CD District was 50 feet measured to the midpoint of the roof, and the project was approximately 48 feet to the midpoint of the roof.
The 532 feet was to the highest point of the roof. Council Member McCown clarified that given the slope of that particular roof, the difference between the midpoint and the peak was approximately five feet.
Mr. Schubert replied 52 feet.
11/04/96 80-399
Council Member McCown asked whether there was any input from surrounding property owners or business owners in terms of their response to the impact of the design on their properties. Ms. Lytle said staff received testimony in the first conceptual public hearing before the Planning Commission from Larry Hassett, the owner of Ace Hardware. He had had some concerns about the transition between the new building to his single-story hardware store on the opposite corner along Alma Street. The applicant
would address the transition to Mr. Hassett=s property in his presentation. Staff did not hear again from Mr. Hassett at either the second hearing before the ARB or the final Planning Commission hearing. Council Member McCown clarified there was no other input from any of the other parcels that neighbored the property. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Council Member Kniss said the height issue was addressed fairly substantially, but she asked staff to briefly address the height limit in that area. Mr. Schubert said the height limit was based upon the CD District regulations of which the maximum allowed height was 50 feet. The proposed project was 48 feet. Council Member Kniss asked whether she had seen the words
Αlive/work≅ in the staff report (CMR:443:96). Ms. Lytle said yes. When the applicant first brought in his
proposal, Αlive/work≅ was being considered as a component. The applicant withdrew that, and in the most updated description of the development statement, it was noted that was incorrect and would
be clarified in the applicant=s presentation. It was no longer being considered as part of the PC, and the Ordinance had no
reference to Αlive/work.≅ It was residential with office. Council Member Rosenbaum said the project seemed to be an extremely large and expensive building to get 44 square feet of office space and four one-bedroom apartments. He asked whether the project made sense economically and whether staff was concerned about the mass for little rentable space. Mr. Ross said the ARB had heard from the applicant that the project
was doable. From the ARB=s point of view, the massing of the project was evaluated against the economics but stood on its own merit as a design, which was a worthy one and good for that particular corner. If the project were approved and actually built, that would tell whether the applicant was able to follow through on the economics. There had been approved projects which were never completed.
11/04/96 80-400
Mayor Wheeler declared the public hearing open. Doug Ross, Applicant, 2686 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, said after the first Planning Commission meeting, he met with Mr. Hassett and felt Mr. Hassett was reasonably satisfied with the project. He was committed to the BMR program as he was an advocate for the program. The project was not live/ work; it was just basic apartments. It did not really make economic sense. He had already bought the land. and his primary motivation was to have his offices in Palo Alto and his company occupying the office space. He showed the Council a model of the art which was a kinetic sculpture by artist Jerome Kirk. He had worked with the PAC and felt the art would work quite well. Council Member Kniss asked what size the sculpture would be and whether it would move with the wind. Mr. Ross, the applicant, said it would be between nine and ten feet tall and would move easily because it was balanced. Jeff Zimmerman, architect, 150 Green Street #309, San Francisco, said with regard to the massing, the model spoke for itself. It was not one building; it was a couple of buildings. It addressed several issues and anchored a prominent corner in Palo Alto which he felt was the gateway. The residential units were on Alma Street which was not as charming as Channing Street, and the City really opened up from Channing Street. Particular attention was paid to the massing, the placement of the public art, and the placement of the public park. He thanked staff for its input. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that the one-bedroom apartments were two stories and had a loft. He asked how the square footage of the units was estimated. Mr. Zimmerman said the square footage had been calculated on the drawings. The owner was trying to achieve loft-type units that would have a lot of volume but not much floor area. The original concept was to try to replicate some of the South of Market loft-type spaces, etc. Volume, not area, was what was being rented. The units were one-bedroom and comprised of the square footage calculated and documented on the drawings. Council Member Simitian said there was something in the packet that indicated the units averaged 1,200 to 1,250 square feet. Mayor Wheeler declared the public hearing closed. Council Member Simitian asked with regard to the BMR units and the value calculation, whether the units were in the 1,200-to 1,250-square-foot range and whether the average projected rents were around $1,450 over the course of the four units. He asked whether it was feasible for a 1,250-square-foot unit to rent for $1,450 in
11/04/96 80-401
the Downtown area or whether that figure should be different. In order to multiply out what the BMR calculations were, the income of the units needed to be known. If it were an income property, the value was derived from income. What was needed was the income on four rental units in that specific location at 1,250 square feet. He was not familiar with the current residential rates Downtown and asked whether $1.10 to $1.20 per square foot actually reflected the Downtown market. It seemed low to him. Mr. Gilliland did not have an answer. Council Member Simitian asked whether there was a way to make sure neither the applicant nor the City would be disadvantaged by the calculation if the Council decided to move the project along in the PC, but still having a concern with the BMR component. He asked whether the Council could build a condition of approval into the agreement with the applicant on the BMR component. If the rental rates were correct and looking at a multiplier of eight and one-half or nine times gross, the calculation would be in the ballpark. If the rental rates were incorrect and were $2,500 per month per unit, the figure was wrong. He wanted to make sure the calculation was correct. Mr. Gilliland said staff could reevaluate the numbers and return to the Council with a corrected calculation, if necessary, when the item returned for second reading. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by McCown, to approve the application as follows with direction that staff reevaluate the numbers and methodology used to calculate the Below Market Rate and return with the information and any recommended revisions at the second reading: 1. Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, if certain conditions of project approval are imposed; 2. Adoption of the ordinance including findings and conditions, rezoning the property at 901 Alma Street from CD-S(P) (Commercial Downtown - Pedestrian Combining District) to a PC (Planned Community) District, allowing the development of a 15,683-square-foot, four-story, mixed-use project with four apartment units and 4,425 square feet of office use; and 3. Approval of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) findings and conditions of project approval. CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL Most of the conditions listed below are standard conditions. These conditions would normally be applied to the project as part of the final ARB approval process. However, given that the project
11/04/96 80-402
proposes a zone change to the Planned Community District, which includes the normal ARB process, these conditions have been incorporated into this recommended action. Major and/or special conditions are proposed for incorporation into the PC Ordinance for this project. All mitigation measures identified in the mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Assessment are incorporated as conditions of project approval. Prior to Submittal for Building Permit Planning/Zoning 1. The ARB approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features. The plans submitted with the building permit application shall
show the maximum height of the building reduced by 12 feet,
from 55 feet to 532 feet, measured from grade to the top of the pitched roof. 2. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas out to the curb shall be submitted to and approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), City Arborist, Utility Marketing Services Division and Planning Division. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted. The plans should be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Landscape and irrigation plans shall take into consideration all elements included on: a) the City of Palo Alto Landscape Plan Checklist; and b) the Water Conservation Guidelines. The plan shall include a complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size and locations, an irrigation schedule and plan. The plans shall include the installation of, at minimum, 6 street trees along the Alma Street frontage and 5 street trees along the Channing Avenue frontage. These trees shall be planted at a minimum 24-inch box size, with the species, planting specifications and minimum dimensions for planter areas as determined by the City Arborist and the Planning Division. One additional street tree be provided on Alma Street near the intersection. The species of the proposed street tree along Alma Street shall be changed to Chestnut or an alternate street tree equally bold and large in scale. Along Channing Avenue, the landscape plan shall be revised to place all of the proposed street trees and landscaping within the right-of-way on the curbside of the sidewalk as evenly spaced and as close to the intersection as possible without obstructing views of the proposed public art located on the north wall of the lobby. 3. The plans shall be revised to show 8 additional bicycle parking spaces, for a total of 14 bicycle spaces in the project.
11/04/96 80-403
4. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate application. 5. Approved color chips to match the colors specified in the building permit drawings shall be attached to the cover sheet of the building permit set by the applicant. Public Works Operations/Recycling 6. The plans shall be revised to show adequate space for the recycling and garbage area, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Operations/Recycling Division. The space shall be large enough to accommodate an appropriately sized dumpster for garbage as well as carts for glass, cans, newspaper, white paper, mixed paper (64 gallon size) and a 2 cubic yard cardboard bin. Utilities Engineering 7. The project requires a padmount transformer. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the landscape plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the ARB. 8. All new electrical service shall be underground. 9. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. 10. The location of the electric panel switchboard shall be shown on the plan and approved by the ARB and Utilities Department. 11. All electrical substructures required from the service point to the switchgear shall be installed by the applicant to City standards. 12. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement (PUE) for the padmount transformer and associated underground primary and secondary system extension from the electrical vault adjacent to Channing Avenue. 13. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans which shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and that the utilities are screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements. Public Works Engineering 14. The applicant shall apply to the Real Estate Division for an easement abandonment of the existing 5-foot by 50-foot power pole easement.
11/04/96 80-404
15. The applicant is required to submit improvement plans showing: a) the installation of a curb ramp for the disabled at the corner of Alma Street and Channing Avenue; and b) repavement of the portion of the alley adjacent to the site. 16. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on-site and from adjacent properties. The plan should demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. Parking lots shall be sloped to drain into vegetated areas where possible with on-site drain inlets located therein. Roof water leaders should be directed to the permeable areas of the site. The project design should include permanent features as well as temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. The applicant may meet with Public Works Engineering to verify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water infiltration. 17. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. 18. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at a minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall
conform with the City of Palo Altos=s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. Utilities Engineering (WGW) 19. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. 20. The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto utilities. The applicant shall provide all information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.). 21. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right-of-way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts and any other required utilities. 22. The applicant shall show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply.
11/04/96 80-405
23. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing water and sewer mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibly includes the design and all of the costs associated with the construction for the installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or services. 24. The improvement plans as well as construction drawings for issuance of a building permit shall comply with or include all conditions recommended by the Utilities Engineering Division summarized in the memorandum from Jose Jovel, dated December 26, 1995, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit Public Works Engineering 25. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during construction. 26. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for a structure, awning, or other features constructed in the public right-of-way, easement or on property in which the City holds an interest. 27. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. Fire Department 28. The applicant shall provide fire sprinklers throughout the building, including the garages. An underground fire service line and floor control valves are required. Sprinkler system alarm supervision is required for water flow and valve tamper. 29. Impacts of emergency response must be determined (paramedic response service demands). 30. Illuminated exit signs, emergency lighting, portable fire extinguishers and a knox box shall be provided. 31. Portable fire extinguishers shall be provided within the building. 32. The applicant shall submit a Solid Waste Management and Recycling Plan for review and approval to the Public Works Operations/Recycling Division. Transportation Division
11/04/96 80-406
33. The property owner shall dedicate to the City a five (5) foot wide strip of land adjacent to the existing alley along the project frontage, to accommodate two-way traffic to and from the proposed driveway. Prior to occupancy of the project, the applicant shall improve the alley to a 20 foot width, from Channing Avenue to the proposed driveway. Due to existing power poles in the alley, the widening may require moving and/or undergrounding of the existing utilities, as determined by the Utilities Engineering Division. In addition, the improvement of the alley should include the installation of appropriate signage, as determined by the Transportation Division, in which the alley changes from one-way to two-way traffic. During Construction Public Works Engineering 34. The applicant is required to extend the storm drainage system on Channing Avenue approximately 140 feet. Drainage from the site shall be directed to this drainage line by direct connection to a new catch basin installed adjacent to the site. All intersections of existing utilities with the new storm drain line shall be potholed to determine the exact locations. 35. To reduce dust levels, exposed earth surfaces shall be watered as necessary. The contractor shall avoid overfilling of trucks to reduce spillage in the public right-of-way. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from
the contractor=s operations, either inside or outside of the
right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor=s expense. 36. The contractor shall contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. 37. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 38. All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with the Public Works approved standards. 39. The applicant shall require the contractor to incorporate best
management practices (BMP=s) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP=s
11/04/96 80-407
with respect to the applicant=s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall
monitor BMP=s with respect to the developer=s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, saw cut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. Police 40. All nonresidential construction activities shall be subject to
the requirements of the City=s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires among other things that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday Utilities Engineering 41. Any utilities to be relocated due to this project shall be at
the applicant=s expense. 42. The applicant shall make sure that the underground electric vaults along the project frontage remain accessible at all times. 43. The poles marked for relocation in the alley carry 69,000-volt circuits. Relocation of the poles shall be done by the City
at the applicant=s expense. 44. All new underground electrical services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 45. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling. 46. The contractor shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. 47. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to the Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Planning/Zoning 48. If during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction
11/04/96 80-408
shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to assess the find. The Santa Clara County Medical
Examiner=s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction will cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. The City shall be promptly informed and retain oversight responsibilities for the archaeologist and mitigation planning. Prior to Finalization Planning/Zoning 49. The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to the Planning Division, and call for inspection, that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and that irrigation has been tested for timing and function, and all plants including street trees are healthy. Utilities Engineering 50. If the service applied for is greater than 1,600 amps, the applicant shall install a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the service lateral and the service entrance conductors.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 901-909 Alma Street from
CD-S(P) to PC≅ Council Member Schneider believed that the project would be terrific for the Downtown and would set a good example for housing in the Downtown area. She hoped the project would be the beginning of similar projects because it was exactly what the Downtown area needed. She thought the applicant would be surprised at what the rents would be when the units were completed. She believed the units would rent in the $2,500-to $3,000-a-month range. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. RECESS TO A CLOSED SESSION AT 9:25 P.M. - 9:52 P.M. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving potential initiation of litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 6 and significant exposure to litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 7.
11/04/96 80-409
Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 6 and 7.
11. Ordinance 4386 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Preservation of a
Below Market Rate Unit at 922 Bautista Court≅ Council Member Andersen noticed the Housing In-Lieu Fund dropped down to $813, and he asked whether the City would be receiving future funds soon. Jim Gilliland said more funds would be added that evening, along with some additional funds coming in from the classic communities project, Middlefield, etc. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve a temporary loan of $100,000 in Commercial Housing In-Lieu Funds to the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund and adopt the Ordinance. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor 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.
11/04/96 80-410