HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-18 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting November 18, 1996 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................80-456 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996..................80-456 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and SCS Field Services, Inc. for Landfill Environmental Control Systems Maintenance80-457
2. Resolution 7633 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting a Hearing for Objections to Their Proposed Destruction or
Removal≅ ..............................................80-457 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................80-457 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission and Historic Resources Board recommend to the City Council consideration of an application for a tentative parcel map with exceptions to the required minimum lot depth to allow a lot line adjustment between two single-family properties for the purpose of providing greater protection for a portion of an existing historic wall for property located at 2174 Waverley/100 Waverley Oaks.........................................80-457 3. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and Historic Resources Board recommendations re Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Urban Design Element, Program 6a) and Zoning Ordinance Text Changes (amending Section 18.49.060 and adding Chapter 18.87) to revise the floor area bonus program in the CD (Commercial Downtown) District and implement a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program for seismic and historic property and upgrades...80-462 5. Request for Approval to Complete Traffic and Engineering Surveys to Consider the Establishment of Radar Enforceable Speed Limits and Status Report on Related Strategies..80-480 6. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........80-488 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued)............................80-488
11/18/96 80-454
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. in memory of Margo Zaharias..............................................80-489
11/18/96 80-455
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:13 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wheeler announced that a reception had taken place in the lobby commemorating the 100th birthday of the Water Utility. Alayne Greenwald, 532 Channing Avenue, read a letter from Karen Holman, President, Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, regarding the Juana
Briones House (letter on file in the City Clerk=s Office). Jeanne McDonnald, 1501 Portola, spoke regarding the Juana Briones House. Scott Wilson, 509 Hale Street, spoke regarding traffic in Palo Alto. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding fair play
(letter on file in the City Clerk=s Office). Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding the Comprehensive Plan Draft EIR schedule. Kent Mitchell, Attorney, 550 Hamilton Avenue No. 230, spoke regarding the Greenacres settlement and a request to place it on an agenda. Sarah Tsien, 866 Tolman Drive, Stanford, spoke regarding a selective purchasing ordinance for Burma. Kevin Ng, 718 East Meadow, spoke regarding a selective purchasing ordinance for Burma. T.J. Watt, no address, spoke regarding Stanford Shopping Center and parking. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding design review and residential development. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of September 30, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR
11/18/96 80-456
MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2. 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and SCS Field Services, Inc. for Landfill Environmental Control Systems Maintenance
2. Resolution 7633 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting a Hearing for Objections to Their Proposed Destruction or
Removal≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to bring Item No. 4 forward to be heard before Item No. 3. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission and Historic Resources Board recommend to the City Council consideration of an application for a tentative parcel map with exceptions to the required minimum lot depth to allow a lot line adjustment between two single-family properties for the purpose of providing greater protection for a portion of an existing historic wall for property located at 2174 Waverley/100 Waverley Oaks. A variance is requested to allow an existing rear yard setback to be reduced to 6 feet where a 20-foot setback is normally required. Mayor Wheeler said Item 4 was quasi-judicial and subject to Council's disclosure policy. Historic Resources Board Member Carol Murden, said the Historic Resources Board (HRB) strongly supported Item 4, as delineated in the staff report (CMR:469:96). Planning Commissioner Victor Ojakian said the staff report (CMR:469:96) reflected the Planning Commission's support of Item 4. Council Member Kniss disclosed a visit to the site. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Monty Anderson, 941 Emerson Street, architect for the project, said 100 Waverley Oaks was a Category 1 historic structure and 1 of only 12 buildings in the City on the National Historic Register. The At one time, the two properties had been one property which was subdivided with an entry gate to the Waverley Oaks property and a stone wall along the entrance driveway of the property. The property line between the two properties had been drawn in a manner
11/18/96 80-457
which fell in the middle of the Waverley Oaks driveway. When the owners of 2174 Waverley came forward with home plans, the stone wall was shown to be demolished. The property line also bisected the entry gate. A transfer of property had been developed between the two property owners which removed the shared-access agreement and was always the cause of problems between property owners as far as maintenance, etc. The property line was re-drawn so the stone wall and entry gate would forever be part of the Waverley Oaks driveway and would fall under the jurisdiction set forward for any Category 1 structure. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the tentative parcel map with exceptions to lot depth and a variance for reduced rear yard setback, based on the following findings and modified conditions: FINDINGS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, in that the project complies with Urban Design, Policy 2 and Program 2 by
identifying the historic wall=s importance as a contextual element for the historic house located at 100 Waverley Oaks. The retention of the wall maintains the residential character of the site and the unique Waverley Oaks cul-de-sac, which is characterized by an elegant wall encircling the cul-de-sac and an exceptional arched gate which is integral to the subject historic wall. Additionally, the lot line adjustment encourages preservation of the historic wall by assuring that there is a clear connection between the wall and the house located at 100 Waverley Oaks, which is listed as a Category 1 historic structure on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory and on the National Register of Historic Places; 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the lot line adjustment respects the existing development pattern by moving the lot line to correspond with the historic wall and existing access easement; 3. The design of the new lot pattern and building additions will not cause significant environmental impacts, in that the reason for the lot line adjustment is to preserve a historic wall that is a contextual element for a site currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places; 4. The design of the new lot pattern and the proposed development will not result in serious public health problems in that the lot line adjustment does not result in an additional number of
11/18/96 80-458
lots or increase in the density of housing units in the area; and 5. The design of the new lot pattern will not conflict with public easements for access through the use of the property in that both lots will continue to have access to a public street and the existing driveway serving 100 Waverley Oaks will be incorporated into the property, therefore eliminating the need for the existing 7-foot-wide access easement. Additionally, the parcel map is conditioned to require the recordation of a 10-foot-wide public utility easement for each lot within the Waverley Oaks private road to reflect the existing utility locations. EXCEPTION FOR REDUCED LOT DEPTH 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, in that the existing historic wall is separated from the historic Pedro de Lamos house by a lot line. It is more appropriate for purposes of historic preservation to adjust the lot line and combine the historic elements on one site than it would be to relocate the position of the wall itself; 2. The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner, in that the lot line adjustment provides greater protection for the structurally sound portion of the historic wall, and allows the owners of 2174 Waverley Street the full use and enjoyment of their property without separation by wall or restriction by easement; 3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated, in that the reduced lot depth does not adversely affect the buildability of 2174 Waverley Street, and will not impact the existing pattern of development in the area; and 4. The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law, in that the lot line adjustment complies with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and will further Comprehensive Plan policy to protect and preserve historic elements in Palo Alto. VARIANCE 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the Pedro de Lamos Hacienda at 100 Waverley Oaks is a landmark status historic residence, and the subject
11/18/96 80-459
wall is one of the defining elements of the historic site. The house being constructed at 2174 Waverley Street is located the minimum distance from the rear property line, without respect to the historic wall but conforming to the zoning regulations. A shift in that rear property line to reunite the historic wall on 2174 Waverley Street with the historic house at 100 Waverley Oaks would result in a rear yard encroachment at 2174 Waverley Street; 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that the rear yard encroachment is the result of a lot line adjustment which is needed to provide greater protection for the structurally sound portion of the historic wall, and which allows the owners of 2174 Waverley Street the full use and enjoyment of their property without separation by wall or restriction by easement; and 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the relative distance between the homes would not change as a result of the lot line adjustment. The existing historic driveway provides a wide buffer between the two properties; therefore, the rear yard encroachment would not have a negative impact on privacy between the properties. Additionally, the encroachment does not
significantly reduce the property=s private outdoor living area, which is located in the north and northeast portions of the site. MODIFIED CONDITIONS (Modifications in Italics) 1. A parcel map shall be filed with the Planning Division within four years of the approval of the tentative parcel map. 2. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the legal descriptions of the subject lots shall be amended to reflect the approved lot line adjustment and removal of the existing 7-foot-wide access easement along the west property line of 2174 Waverley Street. Removal of the access easement shall in no way affect the existing 1-foot-wide non-access strip along the Waverley Oaks frontage of 2174 Waverley Street. 3. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the legal descriptions of each lot shall be amended to reflect dedication of a 10-foot-wide public utility easement along the north property line, within the Waverley Oaks private road. The required easements shall be shown on the face of the parcel map to be recorded.
11/18/96 80-460
4. The owner of the property known as 100 Waverley Oaks shall preserve that portion of the historic wall identified to remain as shown on the project plans, and shall not modify or remove any portion of the wall except that portion identified to be demolished on the project plans, without the prior approval of the Historic Resources Board. 5. The portion of the wall to be removed, as identified on the project plans, shall not be removed prior to City Council approval of the tentative parcel map. 6. The design of the proposed 7-foot-high fence, to be located adjacent to the property line separating the subject lots, shall be reviewed by the Historic Resources Board, prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Council Member Schneider thanked the property owners for having worked out the differences on their own. MOTION PASSED 9-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and Historic Resources Board recommendations re Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Urban Design Element, Program 6a) and Zoning Ordinance Text Changes (amending Section 18.49.060 and adding Chapter 18.87) to revise the floor area bonus program in the CD (Commercial Downtown) District and implement a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program for seismic and historic property and upgrades. Council Member Schneider announced she would not be participating in the item due to a possible conflict of interest. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the issue before Council was complex in terms of its various aspects and nuances.
Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said on December 12, 1994, Council had directed staff to develop a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to become more streamlined and usable while maintaining the existing program's project-size limits and the required distance of 150 feet from residentially zoned property. On May 1, 1995, staff had returned to Council with a revised and streamlined TDR Program which addressed historic Category 1 and 2 properties as center sites consistent with the current TDR Program
11/18/96 80-461
and Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). Council had, at the time, moved to continue the item, primarily to expand to allow transfers of floor area from seismic upgrade projects on qualified seismic non-historic center sites as well as historic center sites. The TDR Program would require: 1) a Comp Plan amendment to the existing TDR Urban Design Element Program 6a; 2) zoning ordinance text changes allowing the floor area granted for seismic or historic rehabilitation of buildings in the Downtown be transferred to eligible non-historic receiver sites Downtown; and 3) a revised floor area ratio (FAR) bonus program in the Commercial Downtown (CD) District. Maps were used to describe the districts in question, designating eligible and ineligible receiver and sender sites. To establish a policy framework, the existing TDR Program and Urban Design Element had been applied only to historic, not seismic, properties. The process for transferring FAR through the PC zone change process was fairly complex and involved an initial review with the Planning Commission, ARB, Planning Commission again, and finally to Council for approval. Receiver sites were limited to a 0.5:1 additional FAR over what was allowed and had to be at least 150 feet from residentially zoned property. The existing policy framework in the FAR bonus provisions was contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Current CD regulations provided for bonus FAR of 2,500 square feet or 25 percent of the existing building, whichever was greater and could be granted for historic preservation of historic Category 1 and 2 buildings and qualified seismic rehabilitation for seismic Category 1, 2, and 3 buildings. Double bonuses, equivalent to 5,000 square feet or 50 percent of existing building, whichever was greater, could be granted to buildings which underwent both historic and seismic rehabilitation pursuant to Ordinance 4261 which had been adopted by Council in December 1994. Parking was not required for bonus square footage under the current FAR bonus provisions. The proposed provisions to the TDR Program and density bonus program would: 1) Provide incentives through a streamlined process. The process contained in the ordinance before Council was an ARB process rather than a PC zone process and eliminated the necessity for Planning Commission and Council review. Council would only review the projects on appeal. 2) Expand the TDR Program to allow non-historic, seismic 1, 2 or 3 TDR rights. 3) Require that both the seismic and historic upgrades be accomplished for buildings shown on the map which qualified for both categories. 4) Establish a new FAR at receiver sites. The proposal from the Planning Commission would have increased maximum FAR allowable for receiver sites within the Downtown assessment district from the 0.5:1 FAR contained in the Comp Plan to a 1:1 FAR or a 10,000-square-foot limit. Receiver properties outside the parking assessment district in the remainder of the CD district, primarily the South of Forest Area (SOFA) and the small commercial area north of Lytton, would still be limited by the 0.5:1 FAR above existing. Additionally, a 5,000-square-foot maximum had been established per project transfer. The 150-foot residential buffer was proposed to be modified in a minor way. The buffer was currently a distance requirement only. Under the
11/18/96 80-462
proposed program, a provision had been added which allowed property located both across the street and one parcel away from a residential district to qualify as a receiver site. Both staff and the Planning Commission considered the provision and change consistent with the intent of the 150-foot residential buffer. 5) Provide for certification and transfer of development bonuses. 6) Not bestow transferred rights retroactively. At its May 1, 1995, meeting, Council had directed staff to develop an ordinance which would not bestow rights retroactively. Based on testimony at the recent hearings, the Planning Commission had recommended the TDR Program be revised to allow seismic and historic projects currently going through the building permit process or had an open building permit prior to finalization after May 1, 1995, to be eligible as TDR center sites. Since Council's action on May 1, 1995, had been not to apply TDR retroactively, the draft ordinance had not contained the provisions. In summary, according to the various resolutions, ordinances, and memos before Council, the Comp Plan resolution would modify the approval process, make a minor modification to the 150-foot buffer requirement, and establish new project size limits. The proposed TDR ordinance would implement the Comp Plan program for both historic preservation and seismic safety. Terms would be defined, i.e., certification, receiver site, sender site, and transferrable development rights. A procedure for transfer of development rights had been provided and explained. Sites within PC zones could be transferred. In the proposed revisions to the existing FAR bonus program, a definition of historic rehabilitation was defined, which was consistent with Council's actions on December 12, 1994 in adopting Ordinance 4261, and the term "historic rehabilitation" had been used consistently throughout the ordinance. The last time Council had reviewed the TDR Program, an inconsistency in the use of terms had been found. Seismic and historic rehabilitation would be required for properties qualifying in both categories. Rehabilitation work had to be included in the project; the current program and ordinance had failed to explicitly require rehabilitation in order to obtain the rights. A recordkeeping process would be established which allowed staff to track where the rights had come and gone. The TDR could be sold to another party or held for the future. The TDR could be transferred to use on receiver sites which met the eligible receiver sites' requirements, i.e., not historic, site located 150 feet from the residentially zoned property, or one parcel and one street away subject to receiver size limits. The application for ARB review was made, and the applicant would need to evidence he/she had the TDR statement of the owner of the TDR. Once the ARB approved the project, the TDR both from the sender site and receiver property would be recorded with the Santa Clara County Recorder and copied to the City for project funds. Once it took place, the permit would be issued.
Historic Resources Board Member Dennis Backlund said the HRB had moved to approve the proposed TDR Program on June 19, 1996, with an
11/18/96 80-463
amendment which differed from the recommendation of the Planning Commission and staff. The HRB's recommended amendment would revise the proposed TDR Program to allow sites with historic Category 1 and 2 buildings and had currently exceeded the maximum permitted FAR to obtain floor area bonuses and transfer of the floor area. The HRB understood the carefully considered position of the Planning Commission and staff, a position which had arisen from the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the ARB, and the HRB that nonhistoric buildings in seismic danger be allowed to participate in the TDR Program. There was a danger with the substantial extra square footage as proposed that the square footage for sale would be devalued, thus undermining the incentive program. An even greater danger would occur if buildings above a 3:1 FAR were allowed to participate in the program. On the other hand, the HRB had noted Senior Planner Virginia Warheit's statement at the ARB hearing of April 6, 1995, when she said, "The current TDR Program was developed specifically to protect historic buildings." The intention behind the HRB's vote to allow maxed-out historic landmarks to transfer square footage was to balance the desire to seismically protect all major landmarks in Palo Alto with staff's position that sender sites should not be allowed to transfer bonus square footage above the maximum allowable FAR of 3:1 Downtown. To obtain the balance, the HRB had voted to recommend that maxed-out landmarks be allowed to transfer a limited amount of square footage. Currently, the President Apartments at 480 University Avenue was the only building of historic Category 2 qualified for the recommendation. The HRB had proposed the formula to obtain the limited transfer of square footage, i.e., the site square footage of 9,425 multiplied by three equaled 28,275 at the President, and a double bonus 50 percent of the figure to be transferred off-site as a development right was approximately 14,000 square feet in the case of the President. The 14,000 square feet was a substantial reduction from the 27,000 square feet the President would be allowed if 50 percent of its actual square footage were transferred, which was something the HRB would not support. Only historic maxed-out buildings could transfer square footage, according to the formula just described, because the HRB thought the TDR Program had been devised to seismically protect significant historic buildings as an intrinsic public benefit. Of course, the seismic protection of all buildings Downtown produced the public benefit of safety and security. However, the protection of historic landmarks produced a double public benefit of public safety and the securing of the historic image of the City, an essential goal of the Comp Plan and the Preservation Ordinance. By its vote, the HRB had cautioned against a situation in which a valuable addition to the TDR Program, including nonhistoric buildings, resulted in the overthrow of the original purpose of the TDR Program, which was to protect major historic buildings, specifically large buildings with large rehabilitation price tags requiring rignificant incentives.
11/18/96 80-464
Architectural Review Board Member David Ross said the ARB had enthusiastically supported the new TDR programs primarily as a means of incentivizing historical rehabilitation and improving public safety. The original goal of the seismic FAR bonus program had been to increase public safety, to which the changes in the TDR were an additional incentive. The proposed ordinance's substantial differences had been eloquently pointed out by Mr. Backlund. From a public safety standpoint, the improvement of a large building might have a more significant public safety impact than a smaller building, particularly a residential building. Although the process was an ARB process, all normal ARB conditions would still need to be met for project approval. In the case of a receiver site with significant square footage, serious consideration would be given. The Downtown cap would still govern the additional square footage which could be added in the program. Planning Commissioner Victor Ojakian, said Ms. Lytle's presentation and the staff report (CMR:470:96) were an accurate reflection of the Planning Commission's discussion on the issue. In discussions, all three bodies had tacitly suggested that an incentive, rather than punitive, program was the right avenue. Staff had suggested retroactivity would not be part of the ordinance. The Planning Commission in both the subcommittee and general meeting had viewed retroactivity from two perspectives. One had been a Good Samaritan approach, i.e., people had fixed up buildings prior to the ordinance and should be rewarded for having done the right thing. Other Commissioners had viewed from the perspective that a City process had begun; somewhere in the process people had assumed an ordinance would be in place in which case advantage could be taken they assumed the two would come together and proceeded with projects. Retroactivity to May 1995 would then be appropriate. Council Member Simitian asked why the process had taken so long. Mr. Schreiber said the process began with Council's referral to staff in May 1995. Then staff ran into a problem of contracting and budgeting, as well as competing work assignments, which led into Fall 1995. The process was delayed in the City Attorney's Office through the use of outside counsel. The project work began in early 1996, was presented to the Planning Commission in June 1996, and was continued at the request of Jim Baer. The project then returned to the Planning Commission in September. Council Member Simitian said following the May 1995 meeting, a work program for the Planning Department had been presented to Council which contained the TDR process. The TDR Program had not been given high priority on the Planning Department's program, and Council had specifically pulled the item from the bottom of the list to place at the top of the priority list. Mr. Schreiber thought Council Member Simitian was correct.
11/18/96 80-465
Council Member Simitian clarified the delays had taken place even though Council had taken formal, specific action to move the item from the bottom of the list to the top of the list. Ms. Lytle replied yes. Council Member Simitian asked whether staff had a reaction to the HRB's recommendation regarding the possibility of incorporating a Class 1 and 2 historic structure even when a 3:1 or more FAR existed. Ms. Lytle said 480 University Avenue was the only property involved in the recommendation and staff had no strong recommendation one way or the other. Council Member Simitian thought a larger number of buildings might have been involved but was only relevant to Class 1 and 2. Ms. Lytle replied yes. A much larger potential transfer, even with the 50 percent limit, existed if the entire list were considered. However, Class 1 and 2 narrowed the possibilities to the one property. Council Member Simitian said the background which had not been presented by staff went back to the original discussion about why the City was going toward the approach and the issue of how the previous ordinance had or had not worked. People had not been induced to do what the City hoped, i.e., provide the protection of seismic safety or historic rehabilitation. Because Council had wanted more done, the desire for a change to the TDR Program had been expressed. The materials sounded as though everyone was worried that if the process were put in place for larger structures, it might work. The City might get what it wanted, but it was of concern, which seemed ironic. He asked whether the fear was too much development activity. Ms. Lytle said the objective was to stimulate a successful TDR program without stimulating an over-successful amount of development Downtown. Staff wanted to avoid a too-successful program. Clearly, the program had never been used, with only one PC zone change which transferred historic rights that had not even been within the policy for TDR programs. The City had failed to encourage the use of TDR through its current mechanisms and needed to increase incentives in order to get the program to function. The question became how much incentive Downtown needed in terms of development activity. Council Member Simitian said two public policy issues existed-- historic preservation and public safety. Clearly, the historic preservation policy issues were only relevant with historic sites. He asked whether there were greater public safety concerns about buildings which were also historic because of being older and
11/18/96 80-466
incorporating fewer seismic safety protections, i.e., whether there would be less concern if the newer, non-historic structures were left out of the program. Mr. Schreiber said when staff had approached seismic safety issues, two factors of importance had been involved: 1) the age and condition of the structure; and 2) the size of the structure. Giving the President Apartments greater incentives for seismic retrofit and upgrading was advantageous because of the number of people in the structure versus many of the smaller structures where even during the daytime hours far fewer people were involved. If a choice had to be made between the public safety aspect versus historic, the public safety aspect would be chosen because of its more fundamental role for a local government. Council Member Simitian asked whether the City was more worried about old buildings than new buildings as far as public safety was concerned. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. Council Member Simitian asked whether the rationalization of public safety could be used in upgrading the one building and not the other seven. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. Council Member Simitian asked whether the HRB recommendation, in effect, would limit the bonus to 50 percent of the 50 percent, i.e., ordinarily a 25 percent bonus would be given for historic rehabilitation and a 25 percent bonus for seismic safety equaling, a 50 percent bonus. In Mr. Backlund's comments, it appeared a 50 percent reduction of the 50 percent bonus would be given. Mr. Backlund thought Council Member Simitian was correct. The HRB had recommended taking the 50 percent double bonus of the square footage, if the building were a 3:1 FAR, not 50 percent of actual square footage which would be bigger than buildings could currently be built. In the case of the President, the ground site area was multiplied by three, and 50 percent of the figure was subtracted. The same formula was recommended for other large buildings which became Category 1 or 2. Council Member Simitian asked his colleagues to comment on the desirability of taking the same approach to other large non-historic buildings Downtown, which was a major issue if the system left out seven of the largest buildings Downtown. Council Member McCown asked about the Planning Commission's recommendation to increase the project size limits for receiver sites from the 0.5:1 in the existing ordinance to 1:1. Staff had
taken the concept through the boards= and commissions= maintaining
11/18/96 80-467
the 0.5:1. The Planning Commission's minutes appeared to indicate an economic usability issue if limited in such a manner. No thorough analysis had been provided. With 165 potential sites able to use the square footage Downtown, she questioned the facts which indicated the City had to increase the project size limits on the receiver end up to 1:1 in order for the program to work. Mr. Ojakian said the assessment district contained 133 sites. When the issue had initially been brought before the Planning Commission, several matters could not be concluded during its June meeting. Therefore, a subcommittee of three Commissioners had been established to discuss some of the critical issues, one of which had been the issue Council Member McCown had raised. The subcommittee had concluded that within the Assessment District, the City should move from a 0.5:1 FAR to a 1:1 FAR because the TDR Program had not been utilized and would be a strong stimulant to moving historic rehabilitation and the seismic changes forward. The Planning Commission had not discussed the issue at length in September, partially because of the level of its reliance on the subcommittee's decision. Council Member McCown understood in broad concept the notion that if there were more available to use, more people would take advantage. However, the result of the Downtown Study had been a 350,000-square-foot cap. Council had literally examined Downtown building by building to determine the potential of upgrading buildings. No facts in the records suggested that using 0.5:1 or 0.75:1 as opposed to 1:1 would result in lack of success. Sensitivity was for the huge market on the receiver end, about which the City would not fully understand the implications, which had previously been the caution. The facts had not appeared to support a level of use at the receiver end the City would be satisfied with if expanded in the way recommended. Mr. Ojakian said the 350,000-square-foot cap was nowhere near being utilized. Within the cap, the TDR Program had not been utilized. In reality, very little activity had occurred Downtown, i.e., seismic upgrading or historic rehabilitation of buildings. The idea was to jumpstart such activity. A mechanism was suggested by which Council could determine how the program was working. Mr. Ross responded to Council Member Simitian's comments. The building at 480 University Avenue currently had a FAR of about 6:1 which had led to the seemingly arcane calculation which could be applied to other buildings which had already exceeded the 3:1 FAR by a large margin. Mayor Wheeler asked whether part of the rationalization for the increased 1:1 FAR was related to the aesthetics of the additional square footage.
11/18/96 80-468
Mr. Ojakian was not sure the issue of aesthetics had been addressed. The increase in FAR had been viewed more globally and because of concern about having general activity and upgrading seismically and rehabilitating historically. Mr. Ross was unsure the aesthetics of receiver sites had been discussed. Part of the justification for the program was that many of the sender sites were not good candidates for additional square footage. Some sites were both receiver and sender sites. If the question were whether a 50 percent or 0.5:1 FAR addition to an existing 1:1 building would be able to look good, space added to the exterior of the envelope, not as a mezzanine, would be difficult to make appealing since it represented half of the existing footprint of the building. Vice Mayor Huber asked how many 150-foot limits were on the map. Ms. Lytle said only one site existed currently, which was 390 Lytton Avenue, but possible future sites with reconfiguration were possible. Vice Mayor Huber asked whether 390 Lytton Avenue was the only property affected by the proposal brought before Council. Ms. Lytle replied yes. Circumstances or boundary changes in the future with the same intent for buffering could change the figure. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the amount of potentially unparked space created as distinct from the 350,000-square-foot cap which already controlled in the total. The introduction to the environmental impact statement, Attachment 3 of the staff report (CMR:470:96), stated "...the existing TDR Program...currently allows 68,622 square feet of floor area to be transferred," and the change, presumably mainly due to allowing transfers for seismic improvement only, would increase the amount by 64,116 square feet. Therefore, the 64,000-square-foot figure had been used as the maximum possible of unparked space. At a ratio of four spaces per 1,000, the maximum was 150 cars. Since the TDR Program had never been used, it seemed more realistic to consider the entire 128,000 as possible for sender sites and, therefore, created something on the order of 500 unparked spaces. Mr. Schreiber said the environmental review reviewed the project. Since a program had already been in effect and accounted for the first part, it had not been included in the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The concern Council Member Rosenbaum had raised was valid. When the Downtown Study had been adopted in 1986, a balance had been attempted between encouraging and stimulating without an excessive encouragement of development and parking impact. Clearly, the 1986 effort erred on the side of not providing sufficient stimuli by which to bring the transfers about. The exceptions for seismic and historic upgrades had been used on a number of sites but had not been transfers. The
11/18/96 80-469
effort would move farther toward stimulating activity. The decision in terms of whether too much or not enough response resulted from the TDR Program was an individual call and was as much a "gut" feeling as anything else. No one had any idea how the market would function once the program was up and running. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified neither staff nor the Planning Commission had recommended the inclusion of buildings with a FAR greater than 3:1 as sender sites. He asked whether the concern was the possibility of creating even more unparked space. Mr. Schreiber replied yes, that was partially the concern. Mr. Ojakian said parking would become an issue if the receiver sites all remained within the parking assessment district. The Planning Commission had discussed other areas of town as potential receiver sites. Council Member Rosenbaum asked where the 108 spaces mentioned in the environmental review as exempted were located. Mr. Schreiber said the 108 sites were where seismic upgrading had already occurred and the square footage had been used on-site. Such occurrences were either where an existing building had been upgraded and square footage added or where a seismically deficient building under the program had been demolished and replaced with a new building. Because of the way the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) was written, bonus square footage had been received and parking requirements would not have to be satisfied. Since completion of the environmental review, only one other project had been added to the list, so the total was 117 rpaces. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified if a building which had a seismic problem were knocked down and replaced, the property owner was entitled to the same bonus which would not have to be parked. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the explanation just given was contained in the PAMC. Mr. Schreiber said the CD ordinance had been administered as such since its adoption. Council Member Rosenbaum had been unable to find the explanation in the PAMC and asked whether it was administrative or actually stated. Mr. Schreiber said staff would seek the specific section in the PAMC. Council Member McCown asked why a recommendation had been given which allowed for more potential square footage for a receiver site
11/18/96 80-470
in the assessment district, which would not require parking provisions, and less footage to sites outside the assessment district which required parking, since the exact opposite would make more sense. Mr. Ojakian said the difference was in focus from a Commissioner's viewpoint. Certain Commissioners had wanted to create stimuli, with which he had agreed. However, he was also concerned about the difficulties in the Downtown area. Council Member Rosenbaum recalled concern in either the staff report or minutes about areas outside the assessment district close to residential areas where parking could never be made up, whereas in the assessment district, more garages could be built with less impact on surrounding residential neighborhoods. Council Member Andersen asked about the actual numbers in terms of a deficit in parking if the maximum potential the TDR Program could create were realized. Bob Schubert, Contract Project Planner, said the maximum deficit was 225 spaces and was currently at 117. Council Member Andersen asked whether a parking structure which was created in the future would be assessed or calculated in terms of an assessment district. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the new square footage would have to be evaluated by the engineers putting together the district. The issue of assessment districts was one to which the passage of Proposition 218 had made significant changes. Creating a parking benefit assessment would take majority support from the property owners. However, the tenants would be assessed for the square footage. Council Member Andersen clarified the TDR Program would not affect the establishment of an assessment district in terms of the calculations for all parking Council might propose be put into effect. Mr. Calonne replied yes, assuming an assessment district could be established. Council Member Andersen clarified the decision about an assessment district would clearly be on the property owners but was separate from the decisions Council currently faced. Mr. Calonne replied yes. The 225 spaces was a trigger which had bedn built into the plan. When the parking exemptions exceeded 225, Council would have to consider construction of a parking garage. The environmental assessment had indicated that although 130,000 square feet could be transferred, only half was related to the new change. The question which was not addressed was the
11/18/96 80-471
stimulation effect, i.e., whether the latent existing 60,000 or 70,000 square feet would become more real and activated by the program. Council Member Andersen asked about Council's options if the City reached the trigger point with the proposal in effect. Mr. Calonne said no mandatory moratorium or limitation related to parking on the 350,000 square feet; Council would have to initiate consideration of a parking garage, which had already been done. Council Member Andersen clarified the existing discussion Council had had was the option. Mr. Calonne said Council Member Andersen's interpretation from a legal standpoint was fairly accurate. Mr. Schreiber said the current parking deficit was approximately 1,535 spaces, which had begun at 1,600 in 1986 and had worked its way down and fluctuated around 1,500. Council Member Kniss asked for the total number of parking spaces Downtown so the deficit could be more clearly understood. Mr. Schreiber said staff would have to find the number. Council Member Kniss said the additional deficit of 265 would bring the City's total deficit to 1,865. Mr. Schreiber said the current range of parking spaces was between 5,000 to 6,000. Council Member Kniss said the figures would seem to indicate 25 percent of the vehicles would be circling, waiting for a parking place. Mr. Schreiber said the impact of the parking deficit was two-fold. Primarily, it was to push parking outside of the district into the adjacent residential and commercial areas. Secondly, there was
constriction on supply which led to people=s having to hunt for parking. The issue with the TDR Program was that the Downtown Study had initially recognized the need for some acknowledgment of the fact the deficit would be increased because of the various bonuses, etc. Council was faced with the decision of whether or not to accelerate the process. Historically, the seismic upgrades had seen zero impact in terms of the TDR. If the process were stimulated, the City would face the problem of not knowing the extent to which any particular action would work and create more of a parking deficit. Some in the private sector had indicated a workable, usable TDR program was extremely rare. Most were adopted and almost never used. Because of property owners with multiple parcels Downtown, Palo Alto might have more opportunities to use
11/18/96 80-472
the square footage within an individual's holdings, which might help make the program more usable Downtown. Council Member Kniss asked Ms. Lytle to address the last paragraph on page 17 of the staff report (CMR:470:96) which had made a case for retroactively providing for historic projects to December of 1994. Ms. Lytle said staff had received advice from the City Attorney's Office when the issue of retroactivity had been raised that a reasonable case could be made for providing retroactively for historic projects to the date of the December 12, 1994, ordinance for double bonuses as the only possible retroactivity to be justifiable. The ordinance contained language which allowed transferability of bonuses to historic preservation and might be a potential case for retroactivity. Council Member Simitian said the staff report (CMR:470:96) and the minutes indicated a great deal of time and effort had been spent trying to determine what Council had meant by its actions in May. He asked that from the materials if the vote Council had cast regarding retroactivity had not been forward-looking but looked back at a specific group of projects which had already performed certain work, whether the view of what was or was not allowable would be changed. The City Attorney's interpretation of Council's vote differed from his own when he had cast his vote. Mr. Calonne had viewed Council as making a comment about what it wanted to see
in terms of moving forward versus his opinion of Council=s voting on what it thought about projects which had occurred five to ten years prior. A determination needed to be made about what Council meant and whether anyone cared. Mr. Calonne said Council's May 1, 1995, action had been interpreted
as Council=s giving direction not to look at retroactivity or other means of accomplishing it during the ensuing period. Staff had taken longer than desired in returning to Council. Legally, some indication was sought that the incentive being provided actually encouraged a seismic retrofit. The problem was that unless Council gave some indication that projects in the pipeline would benefit frnm the program, the `dded square footage provided in the incentive to do the seismic retrofit was difficult. It just meant that the incentive rationale would not work; it did not mean that another way could not be found to address properties where there had already been an upgrade. The problem of retroactivity was to a degree one which could be viewed through other means. Council should not be hung up on the term "retroactivity" if it wanted to address projects which had been in the pipeline. Staff had not addressed retroactivity since May 1995 because it had taken Council's action as specifically removing the question from the mix.
11/18/96 80-473
Council Member Simitian questioned the specific issue which had arisen concerning the 520 Ramona Street property which had been before Council and made a case for retroactive application. Council had cast a vote and commented about what it thought of the 520 Ramona Street project and retroactivity for something which had occurred long before Council began conversations in December 1994. At the time, Council had been presented with facts about a person who had a completed job wanting to be involved in the program. Since that time, Council had received additional information which indicated the person not only had completed a job and wanted to be involved in the program but also thought Comprehensive Plan and ordinance language could be presented to justify inclusion for the property. He asked whether a particular comment had been issued in connection with the specific request. Mr. Calonne was not prepared to respond to Council Member Simitian's question concerning 520 Ramona Street. Council Member Simitian asked about the best way for 520 Ramona Street to make a case for inclusion retroactively. Mr. Calonne thought the letter appeared to indicate the people involved in 520 Ramona Street thought acceptance had already been received. If Council wanted to deal with the specific issue, staff could report back on the issue. Council Member Simitian asked whether staff could be sought for a response if Council wanted more than the applicant's view that such was the case. Mr. Calonne replied yes. Council's interpretation of what had occurred on May 1, 1995, was all that counted. Staff had been reading minutes and notes in an attempt to make sense of what had occurred. Council's interpretation was binding. Council Member Simitian asked whether staff's view was that if there were some change in the effective date, as distinguished from retroactivity, the PC process would be used for a TDR. Mr. Calonne said if Council Member Simitian thought the discussion on retroactivity in May 1995 only dealt with then completed projects, the next question for Council would be whether signals had been sent to the public that the process might be available to projects then in the pipeline. If so, retroactivity could be justified. If not, and Council still wanted to reward one of the alternative rationales the Planning Commission had offered for good behavior, there might be other methods. Retroactivity was not the lawful mechanism, and he offered to look into other ways of obtaining retroactivity. In May 1995, he had made the same offer, and Council had voted 5 to 1 not to do so. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open.
11/18/96 80-474
Phyllis Munsey, 2361 Santa Ana, spoke in support of allowing 520 Ramona Street to qualify for the TDR Program. When Council had passed the seismic rehabilitation ordinance mandating all unreinforced masonry buildings be evaluated by a structural engineer within five years, along with dircussions leading up to the ordinance for a period of about one year, the City had published a list of unreinforced buildings, with hers at the top of the list. In response to the obvious liability of owning a building mandated by the City as unsafe, she had incurred a $600,000 debt for seismic upgrade and historic maintenance. Planning Commissioner Jon Schink had referred to the issue as a fairness question. She encouraged Council to instruct staff to write the ordinance to accomplish retroactivity for property owners who had performed work in a timely manner as mandated by the original ordinance. Jim Baer, 532 Channing, spoke regarding property owners who had made radical upgrades to buildings since May 1, 1995, in response to Council's mandate as being deserving of inclusion in the TDR Program. Considerable testimony at the subcommittee meeting, May 1, 1995, hearing and June 26, 1996, Planning Commission meeting had addressed the issue of moving from a 0.5:1 to a 1:1, essentially indicating that in order to provide incentive to a receiver site with more, rather than less, than its current building mass was necessary. Council's desire to provide incentives for seismic upgrades subsequent to May 1, 1995, was contained in several sections of the minutes. Two projects subsequent to May 1, 1995, had modified behavior with the expectation the ordinance would return in Fall 1995. They were 403 and 340 University Avenue. Council Member McCown said if Council had adopted the ordinance on May 1, 1995, it would not have included provision for seismic upgrades. Under any circumstance, Council would have had to direct staff to move forward to evaluate seismic upgrades. Mr. Baer agreed. Council Member McCown said the ordinance before Council on May 1, 1995, had failed to address seismic issues. Council Member Simitian said the issue of seismic upgrades was not new but had been left out because of a misunderstanding about Council's direction in December 1994.
Council Member Andersen asked whether Council Member Rosenbaum=s motion, seconded by Wheeler, to delete Item 3 in the minutes of May 1, 1995, regarding the removal of retroactivity from the motion had been interpreted by Mr. Baer as removal of the item meant five people supported the position.
11/18/96 80-475
Mr. Baer replied no. The distinction was that the vote had been based on whether retroactivity would be considered for a property from 1986. Staff had specifically indicated two projects: 401 Florence, which had already taken advantage of its bonus, and 520 Ramona, which had not. Council had appeared to indicate it would not want to explore retroactivity for the property about which it had been informed but to speed the process to incentivize seismic upgrades for projects after May 1, 1995, not prior to May 1, 1995. John Hanna, 525 University Avenue, said the materials he had filed on November 6, 1996, contained ample evidence to support reliance
of Taxis at Lidicot=s in moving forward on seismic upgrades to which the City had heretofore not committed itself. Mr. Calonne had indicated the desire to find a basis upon which to support a May 1, 1995, date, whether called retroactivity, based on reliance, or whatever. Language had been suggested for the TDR ordinance, since the language in its current form required additional wording to "beef up" seismic provisions. The City had begun to lose sight of the goal initiated by the Loma Prieta earthquake as it turned its focus on traffic and parking. Council Member McCown asked whether the reference in Mr. Hanna's November 6, 1996, letter to a marked-up copy of the proposed ordinance was the same material previously given to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hanna said the materials had been modified and updated since that time. Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, spoke regarding the TDR Program and the problem with legitimizing and enabling large buildings and the resultant problems. The citizens of Palo Alto had long before made a determination about large buildings which continued such as the moratorium, Green Acres desire for smaller houses, and 525 University Avenue. She queried support of the TDR Program by the community. A successful TDR Program would increase the parking deficit. Council was asked to keep the community's prior determinations in mind in considering the TDR Program. Council Member Simitian understood the TDR Program vould not have the impact on the developable square footage but the TDR Program would impact whether or not developability would be at the site entitled to a bonus or whether or not it would be used at another location. Mr. Schreiber said Council Member Simitian was correct in his assumption. Council Member Simitian asked whether the current double-bonus system would merely move from one location to another but not create more square footage.
11/18/96 80-476
Mr. Schreiber replied yes, as long as the assumption was made that the space could be used on sites where it was generated. Concerns about historic preservation, compatibility with additional space of some sites, etc., were raised. Betty Meltzer, 1241 Dana Street, suggested Council consider the values Palo Alto citizens had affirmed over the past few years, especially as related to parking, the special ambiance of the Downtown area, maintenance of street trees, and respect for appropriate building mass in relation to other buildings directly contiguous. The values could be challenged by a building with an expansive FAR and a parking arrangement which undermined the root system of street trees. The TDR Program should not be a bridge to standards which contradicted the core values Palo Alto had derived after years of discussions. The TDR Program should guarantee consistent, predictable, and fair implementation to be an effective and appropriate tool. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said the TDR Program could erode the protection of residential neighborhoods as it related to parking, encouraging a public process, i.e., a PC, rather than merely at the ARB level to allow residents to voice concerns. Encouragement was given to retaining the 150-foot protection for residential. Residents should not be forced to pay for the parking need created by shoppers and employees. Roxy Rapp, 373 University Avenue, asked Council to consider, rather than allowing transfers within the parking district of up to 10,000 square feet while only 5,000 square feet could be transferred outside the parking district, allowing parking outside the parking district to allow transfers of up to 10,000 only if it could be parked. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding the effect Council's decision on the TDR Program would have on property values. The 225 additional deficit parking spaces were fiction, based on a political decision of 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The decision to move ahead with studies of parking structures, long before the 225 additional deficit was reached when the deficit had been decreased, was an indication the number was fiction. He agreed with Ms. Chiapella regarding the need for something like the PC zone requirement which currently existed to give the public an opportunity to participate. On the other hand, the current PC zone process was currently being ignored and led to the belief it would not make any difference. The 350,000-square- foot FAR limit established in 1986 was questioned in its ability to actually be produced through the TDR process or some other way which suggested trade-offs for Midtown. The requirements for seismic upgrades were questioned in connection with other cities not providing additional square footage as a trade-off. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed.
11/18/96 80-477
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to bring Item No. 5 forward for the purpose of a continuance to a date to be determined by staff. 5. Request for Approval to Complete Traffic and Engineering Surveys to Consider the Establishment of Radar Enforceable Speed Limits and Status Report on Related Strategies Council Member Andersen expressed concern about postponing the item too far into the future. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Schneider Αabsent.≅ RECESS 9:43 P.M. to 10:05 P.M. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 3 MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the following staff recommendation with additions: 1. Approve the Negative Declaration; 2. Adopt the Resolution amending the programs in the Comprehensive Plan which establish Transfer of Development Rights (TDR); 3. Approve the zoning ordinance revisions implementing a revised TDR Program and modifying the floor area bonus provisions in the Commercial Downtown (CD) District; and 4. Direct staff to return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance fee schedule amendment establishing cost-recovery fees to be charged to applicants requesting approval of TDRs. Further, a. Include Historic Category 1 and/or 2 over 3:1 FAR as sender sites only using the formula as described by a member of the Historic Resources Board; b. Direct staff and the Planning Commission to review a similar process for nonhistoric seismically deficient structures that exceed the 3:1 FAR with the receiver sites to be outside the Downtown; c. Allow additions of up to 10,000 square feet outside the parking assessment district if the excess square footage
can be Αparked≅; d. Use the Planning Commission recommendation of May 1, 1995, to be the entitlement date and limited to those
11/18/96 80-478
applications that use the Planned Community (PC) process; and e. Direct the City Attorney to review and report back to the Council on the arguments as presented by the owner of 520 Ramona Street.
Resolution 7634 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Program 6A and Text of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan Relating to Density Transfer≅
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.49.060 [CD District Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Adding
Chapter 18.87 Regarding Transferable Development Rights≅ Council Member Simitian spoke of the object lessons he had derived over the past four to five years. Neither Council nor the community was well-served in the Varsity Theatre and double-bonus issue when policy choices and local ordinances were confused with individual projdct applications. Policy choices, matters, and decisions should be kept separate from individual projects to provide a clearer and cleaner read of discussions. The concept of the TDR had been entered into by the City because of the desire to create a process which provided public safety through seismic improvements and the saving of historic structures through rehabilitation, as opposed to the process which had been in place for a decade without success. The system failed to provide incentives except additional square footage in buildings where square footage did not belong. People were being encouraged to squeeze additional square footage into historically sensitive structures. The goal of Council was not to create new entitlements or square footage or demands on parking but to take entitlements which had already been granted and allow more successful use in more appropriate locations. The issue of seismic and public safety had been skipped over. If the process worked, lives would have been saved, which was just as important as the historic discussion which had started the City down the path it had taken. The process had resulted in bringing the City to the right place in terms of a system which worked on both historic rehabilitation and seismic safety, providing protections against overuse or over-accumulation of square footage. The issue of retroactivity had been frustrating. All of the arguments which had been made were credible. The goal was to encourage senders to perform seismic and historic work, which was positive. However, the process issues were troublesome. The PC approach would allow Council to determine whether the public benefit and the benefits derived from historic rehabilitation and seismic safety were sufficient to make a strong case for extra square footage. The approach was more cautious than outright retroactivity but appropriate given the multiplicity of views on retroactivity.
11/18/96 80-479
Council Member Kniss thought the issue had come to bear because of Council's desire to save the Varsity Theatre. During late 1993 and 1994, Council had discussed how to establish a process in a way to preserve the landmark for the future. Council might have even erred on the side of providing too much in the way of bonuses and added inducements with the motion. The issue would be revisited if the proposed plan failed to meet the City's expectations. The bottom line was how to handle the issue most fairly with an issue which was untried, viewed differently by all, and probably needed to be tweaked even more, if an opportunity were given. Vice Mayor Huber thought Council was doing the right thing with regard to the larger buildings which were seismically important. The Downtown area was being overloaded with traffic and parking and would probably become worse. The 150-foot buffer, which had been implemented when Downtown was growing rapidly but was nowhere near where it was currently, provided a nice gap. Complaints from people on all sides had been heard. Council Member Simitian thought staff had returned with a fairly narrow exception, even given the future potential. Vice Mayor Huber thought retroactivity was inappropriate and would have made his opinion clear on May 1, 1995. Council had not wanted to deal with retroactivity in 1995 and should be separated from the motion. Council Member McCown thought the 150-foot buffer, per se, did not speak to traffic impacts at all but had been intended to deal with the relationships of structure, height, mass, etc. The fact residential was near a vibrant Downtown created a problem. The request to modify the buffer attempted to take into account design issues. Equating the 150-foot buffer with traffic and parking was probably unfair. She asked Council Member Simitian whether reference to the entitlement date of May 1, 1995, for projects in the process meant the projects would be able to use square footage available from a sender site which had been in process, provided the receiver site had been going through a PC process. Council Member Simitian replied yes. The function of both making sure the use was appropriate and more importantly that the community derived the public benefit, was in theory what the whole PC process was about because one could view the public benefit in terms of seismic and historic which had been produced from the sender sites to get back what the sender site did. The opportunity through the PC to review and reaffirm was given as opposed to allowing the applicant to go ahead and take it which Mr. Calonne's reference supported in terms of having more legislative flexibility and less need to rely on what Vice Mayor Huber had described as the "boot strap."
11/18/96 80-480
Council Member McCown agreed more with Vice Mayor Huber's comments. In May 1995, Council had been faced with two choices: 1) adopt an ordinance about which both staff and Council had raised a set of questions for which amendments would have been necessary or 2) wait until the entire package had been received. Council had voted to wait and not adopt anything at that point. Council had not held out any promise about the final outcome because the point was for Council to be able to evaluate the issue more thoroughly. Projects which had gone forward after May 1, 1995, wanted to roll back the ordinance to pick up the projects, for which she was not persuaded. People made decisions for many different reasons, and speculating on how the ordinance would come out in the end was a very difficult way to roll back the clock. Council Member Simitian's point about adopting the idea of some portion of the transferable square footage which would not require being parked while another portion would require being parked was questioned, e.g., whether the same concept could be applied to projects within the assessment district. A distinction could be made for some portion of square footage which could be received without a parking burden while another portion of the project would have to provide parking or pay into the assessment district. The same distinction of keeping a tighter cap on the amount of square footage not needing to be parked could be provided while allowing some other square footage in the mix, provided the receiver site could provide parking. Mr. Schreiber said the process could be set up as described by Council Member McCown, but he cautioned it would have a negative impact on the value of the square footage, i.e., anything which had to be parked had a negative value. If the idea were to create incentives for upgrading buildings, the change would be a negative. Council Member McCown was sufficiently concerned about unintended consequences of receiver sites that preference was given to staff's original recommendation for project size limits of 0.5:1 or some additional square footage in the mix without going to 1:1. Some of the second half of the Planning Commission's addition into the mix would need a parking requirement. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that properties within the assessment district that propose to add more than 5,000 square feet would need to provide parking for the amount of square footage exceeding 5,000 square feet. Council Member Rosenbaum asked Council Member Simitian about the statement that no additional parking burden would be created Downtown, which was generally true except for the aspect of the motion involving the President's Hotel. The President's Hotel had no development rights because of its FAR and clearly what was being proposed was something new. Council Member Simitian agreed with Council Member Rosenbaum. The
President=s Hotels was both historic and seismic and, therefore,
11/18/96 80-481
the most important, affected the most number of people in terms of
safety, and should be included. The President=s Hotels offered the greatest opportunity for a single major success.
Council Member Rosenbaum said clearly the President=s Hotels was not a development right with 14,000 square feet, 56 parking spaces, and a cost to the assessment district to build 56 parking spaces would be $1 million. He queried the reaction to an approach to Downtown property owners and the tenants in the assessment district
proposing seismic work on the President=s Hotels for which $1 million would be necessary to subsidize the process. Council Member Simitian said the exact same trade-off had been made on every other building qualifying for a bonus in the Downtown area. The issue was exactly the same but came into far sharper relief on a larger building. The double-bonus process had revealed the City's willingness to make the surrender in the interest of historic preservation and seismic public safety. It was ironic that at one of the most significant and important locations in the City, the TDR was not already in place, which was why he was interested in examining the other seven which, although not historic, were substantial in size. The $1 million had to be weighed against the cost of seismic safety and providing economic benefits to get certain costly activity underway. Council Member Rosenbaum said Council had decided a bonus would be allowed for buildings which were below a certain size, which had
led to discussions about transferring of rights. The President=s Hotels would not have been able to take advantage of the benefit, and unless Council had been speaking of development rights, nothing would be done. The Planning Commission had suggested establishing receiver sites outside of Downtown for the other large buildings and inclusion of the President's Hotel in the category. Council Member Simitian would not object to receiver sites outside Downtown for Category 1 or 2 structures but preferred not to discuss specific buildings in favor of staying with policy issues. Waiting for inclusion in the ordinance until return of the study was not desired. Inclusion in the list of possible receiver sites outside the Downtown area, even though included in the ordinance, could be included as a friendly amendment to the motion. Council Member Rosenbaum disagreed, wanting removal from the current ordinance. AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved to have staff and the Planning Commission review the potential for nonhistoric structures which exceeded 3:1 floor area ratio for application outside the Downtown area, but include both historic Category 1 and 2 and non-historic buildings. Buildings with a floor area ratio of greater than 3 should not be sender sites within the Downtown.
11/18/96 80-482
AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council Member Rosenbaum assumed Mr. Rapp, who requested to change the rules to allow 10,000 square feet outside the assessment district if 5,000 square feet were parked, had some project in mind. The other difference between properties within and without the assessment district was only being allowed to increase the FAR by 0.5 outside as compared with 1 inside. A 20,000-square-foot lot would be necessary to add 10,000 square feet while only increasing the FAR by 0.5. He asked why the proposal was a good idea. Council Member Simitian had only just heard the proposal that evening but understood the square footage could not be transferred unless it was within the limits of the FAR set forth separately. Sending 10,000 square feet, if parked, would not eliminate the FAR which existed outside the assessment area. The intention of the motion was not to say 10,000 square feet could be obtained regardless of the FAR limitations outside the Downtown assessment area. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether Mr. Rapp was interested in only allowing a FAR increase of 0.5. Mr. Rapp said a large project outside the parking district would go through a PC process. If it could be parked, he queried making it fair to develop up to 10,000 square feet to transfer instead of just 5,000 square feet. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified Mr. Rapp was not concerned about the FAR because of the PC process. Mr. Rapp replied yes. Council Member Andersen failed to see a PC process applied in the Midtown area. Mayor Wheeler thought the issue had arisen because of a colleague's memo which had been co-signed and presented by Council Member Simitian and her. Two interests had been brought together. She had been interested mainly in historic structures, and Council Member Simitian had eloquently presented his interest in seismic safety issues. The path had been torturous and lengthy. During the period since May 1995 and continuing to its recent history, the issue had grown "topsy." Someone had used a phrase, which Council Member McCown had reiterated, that "the Devil is in the details." If on May 1, 1995, she had seen the details as worked on by staff, massaged and changed through the three advisory boards and commissions, and had had the benefit of all the public comments received by the advisory boards and commissions and Council, she would vote against the ordinance and would desire a much smaller program. Some of the amendments which had been made to the motion
11/18/96 80-483
which were going to put some constraints and limits and bring things back to a manageable form, she might have reconsidered her position and vote for the ordinance. Mr. Calonne said the motion contained direction to staff to review the potential for a similar process which would apply to non-historic buildings exceeding the FAR for receiver sites outside the Downtown. Council needed to provide staff with a signal or direction. Council Member Simitian said nothing had been started about anything except given direction to staff. The concern about unintended consequences was understood; however, the issue under discussion was about a system which had not worked for ten years, still had not worked, and was still trying to be fixed after two years. He was not particularly worried the process would encumber the City with more success than it ever imagined possible. It was time to let the process work as it was designed to work to provide benefits to the community. Council Member Kniss was sympathetic with Mayor Wheeler's vote. The issue faced the throes of uncommon success in the Downtown area and more development a short distance away. Traffic and parking had become greater issues over the past six to eight months than ever before. The issue would be revisited. Council Member Andersen would not support the retroactive aspect of the motion and agreed with Vice Mayor Huber. The signal which had been given was clear enough. Council direction to staff was not an ordinance. Although at an earlier point he had been sympathetic with retroactivity, clear direction had not been given to suggest such would be the case. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING 1st PART OF MOTION to use May 1, 1995, as the entitlement date only for the Planned Community (PC) process. 1st PART OF MOTION FAILED 3-5, Fazzino, Kniss, Simitian Αyes,≅
Schneider Αnot participating.≅ 2nd PART OF MOTION to direct the City Attorney to review and report back to the Council on the arguments as presented by the owner of 520 Ramona Street. 2nd PART OF MOTION PASSED 6-2, Huber, Wheeler Αno,≅ Schneider Αnot
participating.≅ AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to reinstate the 150-foot buffer.
11/18/96 80-484
AMENDMENT FAILED 3-5, Huber, Kniss, Wheeler, Αyes,≅ Schneider Αnot
participating.≅ MAIN MOTION PASSED 7-1, Wheeler, Αno,≅ Schneider Αnot
participating.≅ COUNCIL MATTERS 6. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Andersen asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Margo Zaharias, a women who contributed a great deal to the youth and the community. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) Alex Rubin, 1102 Emerson Street, spoke regarding a selective purchasing ordinance for Burma. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. in memory of Margo Zaharias. 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.
11/18/96 80-485