HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-14 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting July 14, 1997
1. Resolution 7698 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to
the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Albi, France≅84-3
2. Resolution 7699 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Joni Corley Upon
Her Retirement≅ .........................................84-3 3. Selection of Candidates for Planning Commission.........84-4 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..........................................84-4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES..........................................84-5 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction for Phase VII Gas Main Replacement Project.84-5 6. Ordinances Regarding Stanford Sand Hill Corridor Projects84-5 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS.....................84-8 5. Application for Approval of a Final Subdivision Map to Consolidate a 9.2-acre Property Owned by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Into a Single Parcel, with Associated Requests for Approvals of Related Agreements and of Modifications to Housing and Plan Checking Fees for Property Located at 795 El Camino Real.............................................84-8 6A. (Old Item No. 9) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application for a Preliminary Parcel Map to subdivide a 21,000-square-foot vacant parcel and an 8,200 square-foot parcel with an existing single-family home into three single family parcels of 8,250, 12,669 and 8,280 square feet, with exceptions for minimum lot width in the R-1 Zone District for property located at 679/681 Driscoll.......84-8 6B. (Old Item No. 10) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.40.035 of Chapter 2.40 [Municipal Elections] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Permit Preparation of Impartial Summaries of Those Ballot Measures
7/14/97 84-1
which Exceed Fifty Pages in Length, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately....................84-11 7. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation.....84-13 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Request for approval to rezone a property located at 390 Lytton Avenue from CD-C(P) to a PC District to construct an 18,921 square-foot, three-story office building (continued from 5/19/97)..........................................84-13 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.............84-45
7/14/97 84-2
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:07 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:25 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Resolution 7698 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to
the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Albi, France≅ MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to adopt the Resolution. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent.
2. Resolution 7699 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Joni Corley Upon
Her Retirement≅ MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Resolution. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss absent. Police Chief Chris Durkin said emergency dispatchers were the unsung heroes who performed remarkable tasks on a daily basis.
They were dedicated people who handled 31,000 Α911" calls every year and literally made life and death decisions. The dispatchers were also the lifeline for the police officers and firefighters.
During Joni Corley=s 28 years in the Communications Center, she always displayed incredible compassion and handled the calls with the utmost of professionalism. He was proud of the service the Communications Center provided, but it could not happen without employees like Ms. Corley. The Resolution spoke of many of Ms.
Corley=s accomplishments and accommodations. She was one of Palo
Alto=s finest chief dispatchers who truly cared about the City, its citizens, and the public safety personnel. Also, she was instrumental in the handling of one of the calls regarding the attack of NASA scientist, Dr. Bert Kay, which she handled professionally and correctly. He thanked Ms. Corley on behalf of the Police Department. Fire Chief Ruben Grijalva said he had been in the business of both police and fire for over 23 years and had not known anyone more professional and competent than Joni Corley. Beyond competence, Ms. Corley brought with her a compassion for her coworkers and for
7/14/97 84-3
the citizens= of Palo Alto. He had witnessed on many occasions the service she had provided, and there was no one who better dealt with citizens needs than Ms. Corley. He was also very thankful and grateful to her personally for her compassion in handling an incident involving a member of his family. He presented Joni with a plaque on behalf of the Fire Department. Joni Corley thanked the City of Palo Alto for all of the opportunities afforded her over the years. The secret to the service the City boasted about and provided to its citizens was the employees, and she asked that the City take very good care of its employees. Mayor Huber thanked Joni Corley for the fine service she had given the City over the years. 3. Selection of Candidates for Planning Commission RESULTS OF THE VOTING FOR INTERVIEWS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING FOR BEECHAM: Andersen, Eakins, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR MIDOLO: Andersen, Eakins, Huber, McCown, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR SCHARFF: Andersen, Eakins, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR SCHINK: Andersen, Eakins, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Bern Beecham, Michael Midolo, Gregory H. Scharff, and Jonathan Schink received four or more votes and would be interviewed on Monday, July 28, 1997. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS T. J. Watt, Homeless, spoke regarding need for referral to get resume help in English language tapes to develop employment talent.
Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, (letter on file in the Clerk=s Office) spoke regarding fair play. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding history. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding the parking ordinance on in-lieu fees. Sophia Dhrymes, 483 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding City zoning. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
7/14/97 84-4
MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of April 7, 1997, and the Minutes of April 8, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 4 and 6 with Item No. 5 removed by staff for continuance to the July 21, 1997, City Council meeting. 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and West Valley Construction for Phase VII Gas Main Replacement Project 6. Ordinances Regarding Stanford Sand Hill Corridor Projects
Ordinance 4426 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 600 Sand Hill Road and a Portion of 1000 Sand Hill Road from PF to PC and from RM-30 to PC,
Respectively (Stanford West Senior Housing)≅
Ordinance 4427 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 Zone Classification of Property Located at 600, 700 and 1000 Sand Hill Road from RM-30 to PF and from PF to RM-30"
Ordinance 4428 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.43.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Community Commercial District Site Development Regulations), Relating to the Allowable Floor Area of the
Stanford Shopping Center≅
Ordinance 4429 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 Zone Classification of Property Located at 180 El Camino Real from
CC to CC(L) (Stanford Shopping Center)≅
Ordinance 4430 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 20.08.020 (The Setback Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Change the Setback Line Along
a Portion of Sand Hill Road≅
7/14/97 84-5
Ordinance 4431 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Conditionally Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) by Prezoning as RM-40 a Portion of a New Parcel to be Created by the Realignment of Pasteur Drive and by Prezoning as PF(L) an Area of Land
that Will Become Part of Pasteur Drive≅
Ordinance 4432 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) to Change the Zone Classification of a Portion of a New Parcel to be Created by the Realignment of Pasteur Drive at Sand Hill Road from PF(L) to RM-40"
Ordinance 4433 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving a Development Agreement Between the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University and
the City of Palo Alto≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. (Please see the following Certified Shorthand Reporter=s transcript for actual wording of Consent Calendar items related to Stanford Sand Hill Corridor projects.)
7/14/97 84-6
7/14/97 84-7
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 5 was continued to the Monday, July 21, 1997, City Council Meeting: 5. Application for Approval of a Final Subdivision Map to Consolidate a 9.2-acre Property Owned by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Into a Single Parcel, with Associated Requests for Approvals of Related Agreements and of Modifications to Housing and Plan Checking Fees for Property Located at 795 El Camino Real MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to bring Item Nos. 9 and 10 forward to become Item Nos. 6A and 6B, respectively. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. 6A. (Old Item No. 9) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application for a Preliminary Parcel Map to subdivide a 21,000-square-foot vacant parcel and an 8,200 square-foot parcel with an existing single-family home into three single family parcels of 8,250, 12,669 and 8,280 square feet, with exceptions for minimum lot width in the R-1 Zone District for property located at 679/681 Driscoll Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Peter A. Kline, representing the proponent, 550 Marion Avenue, said the proponent concurred with the staff recommendation and invited
Council=s approval of the application. Council Member Wheeler said the application continued a neighborhood lotting pattern. She was glad everything worked out which made everyone involved happy and that the new lots were in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Eakins, approval of Planning Commission and staff recommendation to approve the preliminary parcel map with exceptions, based on the following findings. This recommendation is based on a revised site plan that has been agreed upon by all affected parties in the neighborhood. The subdivision requires exceptions on all three parcels for a 45-foot, a 42-foot, and a 37-foot wide lot, respectively, in which 60 feet was the minimum required in the R-1 zone district. This approval is subject to the following conditions, including a staff recommended condition to require the subdivider to install improvements in the public right-of-way. Recommended Findings for Approval FINDINGS FOR PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP
7/14/97 84-8
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, in that the project would be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance design
requirement (PAMC Section 21.20.130) which states Αside lot lines as far as practicable, shall be at right angles to
straight streets or radial to curved streets.≅ The proposed map would be consistent with the regular lotting pattern on Maybell Avenue, in which side lot lines were at 90-degree angles to the street. A consistent pattern of development, especially adjacent properties, is an important element in the creation of a desirable neighborhood. The resulting front yard setback would be reflective of the existing houses on Driscoll Court and would preserve the cul-de-sac pattern; the project would be consistent with Housing Element, Policy 1 (Maintain the general low-density character of existing single-family areas) in that the proposed single-family lots maintain the low-density character of the neighborhood because each lot would exceed the 6,000-square-foot minimum lot size in the R-1 zone district, and the project would be consistent with Housing Element, Policy 3 (Protect and enhance those
qualities which make Palo Alto=s neighborhoods especially
desirable) in that the applicant=s proposed subdivision design would protect and enhance the quality of the Driscoll Court neighborhood; 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed single-family lots would be 8,250, 12,699 and 8,280 square feet, respectively, all of which would exceed the 6,000-square-foot minimum lot size in the R-1 zone district; 3. The design of the new lot pattern and two new single-family homes will not cause significant environmental impacts; all three lots would be consistent with the development pattern in that the proposed lots will result in driveways with adequate access to Driscoll Court, which would be in character with Driscoll Court houses, and consistent with Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Policy 3; 4. The design of the new lot pattern and the proposed development will not result in serious public health problems, would not be detrimental to the existing pattern of the neighborhood and would result in development of single-family homes that would be consistent with the adjacent cul-de-sac development and with the pattern along Maybell Avenue; 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 the resulting lots would have frontage on a public street for vehicular access and utility service.
7/14/97 84-9
FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION TO MINIMUM WIDTH REQUIREMENTS 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, because the site is adjacent to an existing improved cul-de-sac, Driscoll Court, and the cul-de-sac configuration requires side lot lines radiating from the street and creates lot widths less than the required 60 feet. 2. The exception for minimum width is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner, in that the applicant has applied for the exception in order to create lots which are consistent with the neighborhood pattern and yield single-family homes that are consistent with the size and scale of existing single-family homes in the neighborhood. A three-lot subdivision would result in net lot sizes of 8,250, 12,699 and 8,280 square feet, respectively, with allowable floor area of 3,225 square feet for lot 1 and 4,650 square feet for lot 2, which is in scale with existing homes in the neighborhood. Lot 3 has an existing single-family home on the property. 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 design of the parcel map provides adequate and safe access to Driscoll Court and the proposed street frontage for each lot would supply adequate access for vehicles and utilities to the future single-family homes. 4. The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law, in that the proposed subdivision would comply with the density requirement set forth in the Single-Family land use designation, and would provide lots of ample size and shape to construct two homes consistent with the existing neighborhood development pattern. Additionally, with the condition prohibiting removal of existing trees on-site, the project will provide better tree protection than the existing parcel without such a condition. Council Member Eakins was happy to see agreement among the parties involved. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. 6B. (Old Item No. 10) Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.40.035 of Chapter 2.40 [Municipal Elections] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Permit Preparation of Impartial Summaries of Those Ballot Measures which Exceed Fifty Pages in Length, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately
7/14/97 84-10
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said on June 30, 1997, staff tried to
outline a way to avoid the City=s expense of publishing and mailing the complete text of the Sand Hill Road development approvals estimated to be several hundred pages with publishing and mailing costs of approximately $250,000 from the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters. After reviewing the matter, he concluded that the simplest means to solve the problem was to amend the ordinance that called for publishing the full text of the ordinance which was put forth before the voters. The ordinance before the Council did
that by saying ΑWhen a proposed ballot measure would exceed 50 single-spaced pages, the City Clerk would refer the matter to the
City Attorney for preparation of an impartial summary.≅ The ordinance did not specify how long the summary needed to be. His assumption would be less than 50 single-spaced pages which was the objective of the ordinance. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, felt the proposal was a bad idea for the reasons stated in his letter dated June 14, 1997 (on file
in the City Clerk=s Office.) He asked what the difference was between the proposed impartial summary and the impartial analysis allowed by the Elections Code which had been used in the past for all ballot measures. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. Vice Mayor Andersen asked what the difference was between an impartial summary and the impartial analysis. Mr. Calonne said the impartial analysis was limited in length to 500 words which was very brief. He had taken seriously various editorial comments on the legalities necessary to use in the 500 words summarizing several hundred pages. The impartial summary would be longer than 500 words. It would be long enough to cover the subject and short enough to be understood and to convey the gist of the measure to the voters. The basic difference was the impartial summary would be significantly longer than 500 words and would describe each relevant term of the development agreement that would be before the voters. Council Member McCown clarified that the language would apply in the future whenever the City enacted an ordinance that was longer than 50 pages in length, if the voters wanted to referend an ordinance or the Council wanted to put something on the ballot. Mr. Calonne said yes. It was anything longer than 50 single-spaced pages whether it was a City Council measure or a measure via initiative.
7/14/97 84-11
Council Member McCown clarified that the information in the City
Attorney=s Report dated July 10, 1997, was that given the particular length of the Stanford Sand Hill Corridor Projects ordinances, the publication costs if the full text were printed and distributed would be in excess of $200,000 which would be borne by the City of Palo Alto. Mr. Calonne believed the number was $260,000 versus approximately $40,000. The ballot pamphlet would notify any voter that he or she
could call the City Clerk=s Office to have a copy of the full text mailed. It would add some additional cost, but it modeled the Elections Code and assured anyone the opportunity to study the entire measure. City Clerk Gloria Young said a more exact cost was $265,000. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to adopt the Ordinance.
Ordinance 4434 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.40.035 of Chapter 2.40 [Municipal Elections] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Permit Preparation of Impartial Summaries of Those Ballot Measures which Exceed Fifty Pages in Length, and Declaring the
Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 7. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Michael P. Campbell, Marina Zago v. City of Palo Alto, City Council of Palo Alto, Lanie Wheeler, Joseph Huber, Gary Fazzino, Liz Kniss, Jean McCown, Ron Andersen, Dick Rosenbaum, Micki Schneider, Sandy Eakins, June Fleming, Kenneth R. Schreiber, Fred Herman, Barbara A. Judy, Caroline Willis, SCC# CV767084 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Request for approval to rezone a property located at 390 Lytton Avenue from CD-C(P) to a PC District to construct an 18,921 square-foot, three-story office building (continued from 5/19/97)
7/14/97 84-12
Council Member Schneider said she would not participate in the item because of a conflict of interest as a result of the location of her business. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the proposal was to construct an 18,900-square-foot building at the southwest corner of Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street. It would be a three-story office building. Fifty of the required parking spaces would be located on-site in an underground garage with two levels. Twenty-three of the required parking spaces would be paid for as an in-lieu fee, and there would be an additional in-lieu fee for one parking space that would be lost from Lot F. The parking garage for the project would be accessed across Lot F which was on the left side of the site. The Planned Community (PC) Zone was applied for because the project was 8,400 square feet over the maximum square footage allowed in the Downtown Zoning District. The public benefits proposed as part of the project were: 1) a ten-foot wide public use area between Lot F and Lytton Avenue for public access; 2) a $75,000 contribution to a Downtown North Traffic Incirculation Study; 3) installation of a new bus stop, sign, and trash receptacle on Lytton Avenue; 4) repair of existing tree wells along Waverley Street between University and Lytton Avenues and the planting of six new street trees off site; and 7) the inclusion of public art in the main entryway to the building. Both the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board reviewed the project and recommended approval. The Public Art Commission recommended the public art component and approval. There had been some minor changes to the ordinance which were summarized in the staff report (CMR:326:97.) Those changes included a minimum payment for the access easement across Lot F to be $106,900, recordation of the sidewalks prior to the occupancy of the building, and the continued contribution into the Parking Assessment District and any future assessment districts that might be created in that area. For example, it would be as if the project had not supplied the 50 on-site and 23 in-lieu parking spaces. The applicant agreed to remain part of the assessment district and any future assessment districts. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the trees mentioned as off-site. He thought the garage was modified so the trees would be on-site, and the off-site trees were in part to replace trees that would be difficult to plant because the garage would be under the sidewalk. Ms. Grote said those were different trees. There had been much discussion about the trees over the parking garage which had been resolved. Several trees were required as part of the project in the public right-of-way adjacent to the site, but those were not the trees that would be part of the public benefit. The six trees off-site would be in other locations Downtown.
7/14/97 84-13
Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the appraisals for the access easement. He clarified that the applicant had agreed to pay a minimum of $106,000. The ordinance went into much detail about what would happen if a City-sponsored appraisal came in 10 percent over $67,000 and there would then be a third appraisal. It did not seem necessary if the applicant had previously agreed to pay a minimum of $106,000. Ms. Grote said the $106,900 was meant to be a minimum. The procedure in the ordinance would be the procedure followed with the agreement of the minimum $106,900. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified $67,000 was the base appraisal presented by the applicant, and if the City were to get an appraisal of $90,000 from the applicant and the applicant decided to pay the minimum of $106,000, the City would insist on a third appraisal. Ms. Grote said the City would not need a third appraisal at that point. Council Member Rosenbaum said the language in the ordinance did not read that way.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Council Member Rosenbaum=s interpretation was correct. The ordinance was written in a mandatory voice. If Council Member Rosenbaum wished to add that discretion, he suggested it be discussed with the applicant at the time the applicant testified. If the number were $67,000, anything in excess of an amount in the mid-$70,000's would be subject to confirmation by a third appraiser. Vice Mayor Andersen asked what the basis was as to how the Council should act in approving a PC Zone and what the actual purpose was of a PC Zone. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the purpose of the PC Zone was to allow for a development (use, size, set of limitations, etc.) that went beyond or was different from the basic districts in the Zoning Ordinance. In evaluating a PC Zone, there was an assumption in the underlying, enabling legislation that the PC Zone was providing benefits. There was a tradeoff between something beyond what the Zoning Ordinance allowed and the benefits derived from the project. He suggested that the starting point for Council Members and staff be the relationship of
the project=s benefits and its proposed deviation from the existing zoning regulations and whether there was a sense of balance between them. There were other findings that needed to be made in terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). It was the sense of tradeoff between whatever was being asked for outside of the Zoning Ordinance and the benefits being provided.
7/14/97 84-14
Mr. Calonne said the process Mr. Schreiber described was acceptable provided a first step occurred which was a determination that something about development of the site provided benefit. If there were a connection between the site and the benefit being provided, the zoning became arbitrary. The threshold was there needed to be something special about the development in relation to the site to justify it. From there, the flexibility on the benefits was up to the Council. The Council made the initial determination and then
had the freedom to move onto the Αbalancing≅ described by Mr. Schreiber. Vice Mayor Andersen referred to page 14 of Attachment 5 of the staff report (CMR:325:97), Proposed Public Benefits. He asked why of the nine proposed public benefits, staff did not consider three
to be of public benefit: Α1) two poor quality street trees on Waverley Street would be replaced with new street trees and an existing 12-inch Camphor tree on Lytton Avenue would be replaced with 6 new street trees; 7) on-site parking is being provided at a cost of up to $475,000 more than in-lieu parking fees; and 8) the City would be paid for providing the proposed access easement
across Lot F plus one in-lieu parking space.≅ Ms. Grote said those items would not qualify because they would be expected as part of a development whether or not it was a PC Zone. They were not public benefits which were over and above what was ordinarily expected. Council Member Wheeler said one component, which had much discussion at the Planning Commission level, was the restriction on use that had been imposed as a condition by the Planning Commission approval. The major restriction was there would not be a restaurant use which would be an intense use of the site. She referred to the list of allowable uses and said the retail use did not permit a restaurant. She clarified that there was a specific
use Αeating and drinking establishment≅ which permitted a restaurant. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Kniss said the Downtown Urban Design Guide (the Guide) was being used appropriately. She referred to the Staff
Response on page 9, ΑHowever, the Downtown Urban Design Guide
encourages a taller building...to anchor the corner,≅ which had been used in a number of locations throughout the City. She felt it related to what direction the City was headed in the Downtown
for the past ten years. She asked for staff=s opinion. Mr. Schreiber said the process of the Guide struggled with many issues. One issue was how to treat corner locations versus mid-block locations. The conclusion reached for any number of corners in the Downtown area was that a building with more mass or height
7/14/97 84-15
than would be expected under the Zoning Ordinance would be appropriate for the design characteristics of the particular area. The Guide called out particular locations, and 390 Lytton Avenue was one of those locations. It related to a building across the street and how that area was perceived from a design standpoint, the overall importance of that corner along Lytton Avenue, and trying to create a reasonably clearly defined building edge along Lytton Avenue. Also, the sense of concern about the corner was in part triggered by the bleakness of the existing parking lot which presently was a very unattractive location. The idea of creating an architectural statement there might have been in response to the existing situation and the need for something different, which was a small building dominated by a parking lot in a location that was of reasonable importance in the Downtown. Council Member Kniss asked for some examples of the Guide items that had been incorporated and made a difference.
Planning Commissioner Jonathan Schink said Mr. Schreiber=s description was excellent in terms of describing architecturally why it was better to have a larger building anchoring the corner than what could have been accomplished through traditional zoning. One important Downtown influence regarding the project was accessing the parking from the back parking lot. One struggle in having a large building on the corner and providing parking was how to accomplish that without destroying the pedestrian walkways that had been created for the Downtown. An asset to the project was that it brought access to the parking through the City parking lot which he wished could be done with all the proposed new buildings. Mr. Schreiber said an example of a fairly recent building was 499 University Avenue. It was a PC Zone involving additional square footage and substantial height at the location and was clearly identified in the Guide. In terms of preservation, the retention of the Varsity Theatre as an architectural statement was called out in the Guide as well as the desire for adding more vitality to that end of the Downtown where the reuse was met. During the development of the Guide, the interaction between the committee for the project and real world development included interesting discussion that led to the 250 University Avenue/Ramona Plaza project. The discussion of cutting the alley through to University Avenue and the building having more mass on the corner, etc., significantly came from the Urban Design Committee meetings. Warren Thoits developed a building at 156 University Avenue which included a plaza on the corner. The Urban Design Committee debated corner treatments, height, and bulk versus plazas, and there were places where a plaza could serve an important purpose. There did not have to be height and bulk on every corner. That building was significantly influenced by the Guide process. Council Member Kniss felt it was important to reflect back on all the different pieces that fit together in the Downtown, and the
7/14/97 84-16
Guide was worth looking at again after such a long period of time. Vice Mayor Andersen did not recall in the Comp Plan deliberations whether there had been discussions regarding rezoning some corners in the Downtown to accommodate the urban design. He asked whether there had been any recommendation considered to get the City out of the PC game by changing the zoning to accommodate that type of urban design. Mr. Schreiber said the Downtown Study undertaken in 1984 and 1985 and adopted in 1986 contained a variety of substantial down zoning elements. One element of the Downtown Study was the expectation that PC Zones would be used to provide additional development in certain locations and amenities that would benefit the Downtown.
The City=s practice was to have PC Zones used in locations in which the additional design features came from the Guide. The tradeoff for the additional square footage and building size that had occurred at various locations related back to the amenities that were desired in the Downtown Study of the mid-1980s. The Downtown Study was immediately followed by a Downtown Amenities Committee and its report led to the Guide. There had been a direct connection among the original Downtown Study, the Amenities Report, the Guide, and the expectation that PC Zones would be an important implementation tool to achieve the types of improvements and benefits that people desired in the Downtown, as opposed to only having the underlying zoning allow substantial additional development in various locations. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether there had been any development in the Downtown area in the past six or seven years that had not been a PC. Ms. Grote said yes. There was 424 University Avenue, which was a new building that replaced an existing structure. There was also 171 University Avenue, which would be a replacement of an existing structure. Vice Mayor Andersen clarified that those developments could be done within the existing zoning and be consistent with the Urban Design Guide. Ms. Grote said yes. Many of the projects incorporated pedestrian features which were called for in the Urban Design Guide. Council Member Eakins was interested in the 350,000-square-foot cap for the Downtown. She asked whether the parking assessment district could be shown with an explanation of the different zones. Mr. Schreiber explained the different zones and referred to the map to illustrate the Downtown area which he referred to as the Downtown Study. A development cap of 350,000 square feet was selected because it constituted 10 percent of the existing
7/14/97 84-17
development in the area in 1985. There had been substantial down zoning in the area. Because much development had been seen in Downtown Palo Alto, the 350,000 square feet was the development level which was anticipated at the time if the trends of the early 1980s had continued to be devoured rapidly. That had not happened for a number of reasons. Once down zoned closer to the square footage on the site, there was much incentive to save existing sites which lessened economic incentive to redevelop. Also, the market had changed. The demand for office space was linked more to the provision to parking than it would have been in 1980-81. Since the 350,000-square-foot limit was selected in May 1986, the Planning Department had approved approximately 58,000 square feet of the 350,000 square feet. Council Member Eakins asked about the parking assessment district with regard to the blended rate and if it were working as anticipated. Mr. Schreiber said the Downtown Study strongly encouraged retail uses and eating and drinking establishments on the ground floor, especially in the assessment district. In the early 1980s, offices were driving out retail. Since that time, the economics had changed, e.g., Crocker Bank on the corner of University Avenue and Bryant Street, a large office building that took up the ground floor, was seen as a significant and negative trend in the Downtown area. It was negative in terms of the retail environment. The blended rate was designed and had served the City well to facilitate sites moving back and forth among a variety of uses. The problem of putting in a restaurant or other retail establishments, which under previous zoning and in other areas still had a higher parking requirement than an office, was if the office parking spaces were not there. It was hard under the zoning rules to get that use onto the site along with the extra cost of providing additional parking. The Downtown Study wanted to require parking for development and to facilitate being used by a variety of uses over time without involving convoluted, bureaucratic procedures. The success of Downtown Palo Alto over the past few years had been achieved in part by the ability of the private sector to change uses, and the blended rate facilitated that change of use over time. The bottom line was it had served the City well and would continue to do so because the Downtown area could react to changing market and use conditions. There were many current uses Downtown that no one in 1986 had envisioned but in part were able to exist because of the ability to switch uses on sites without getting caught up in other requirements. Council Member McCown asked what the requirements were for eating and drinking establishments outside the assessment district. Mr. Schreiber replied that outside the California Avenue Assessment District, eating and drinking establishments had a parking requirement of 1 space per 60 square feet for the eating/public
7/14/97 84-18
areas and 1 space per 200 square feet for all other areas. If someone wanted to build a restaurant on El Camino Real, substantial parking would have to be provided. For a non-restaurant use on El Camino Real which someone wanted to convert to restaurant use, it would be a major problem and, in many cases, might not be physically possible. Going from an office use at 1 per 200 square feet to a restaurant use, given the site size, would not be possible at 1 per 60 square feet. It related back to the blended rate issue. Council Member McCown asked if the site were developed under the existing CD-C(P) Zoning District rules, what a conforming project would be, e.g., size of the building, how the parking requirements would be handled. She understood parking would not have to be built, but an in-lieu fee would be paid. She referred to page 9 of the staff report (CMR:256:97). Ms. Grote said under the CD-C(P) Zoning District, a building with floor area of approximately 10,500 square feet, a 1:1 floor area ratio (FAR), the maximum height was 50 feet. The requirement would be 39 parking spaces, either on-site or could be paid as an in-lieu fee. Council McCown clarified that under the existing zoning, there would be no requirement if the in-lieu fees were paid to build any spaces on the site. Ms. Grote said that was correct. Council Member McCown clarified whether it was a function of being in the assessment district or part of the 1986 Downtown Study. She recalled a policy discussion about sites under 10,000 square feet and the likely inability of a site that small ever being able to provide on-site parking. Mr. Schreiber said the concept of in-lieu was one of the points called out by the Council in adopting the 1986 Downtown Study. It applied to sites of less than 10,000 square feet and, as Mr. Schink had indicated, related to both the physical difficulty of providing the parking on the site and the undesirability of having the surface parking lot and curb cuts that went with surface parking. Using underground parking on a site of that size or smaller was an engineering and financial challenge because of the constraints of the small site size. The proposed parcel was right at that edge; beyond the 10,000 square feet, the in-lieu provisions would not apply. Council Member McCown asked, of the development seen since the Downtown Study and the imposition of the 350,000-square-foot cap on redevelopment or new development Downtown, how many projects had provided private on-site parking as opposed to utilizing either the in-lieu approach or the entitlement under the assessment district.
7/14/97 84-19
Mr. Schreiber said most of the projects since 1986 had not provided on-site parking. Through August 1996, 538 parking spaces were provided, but there were three sites that constituted the majority of those spaces: 250 University Avenue with 131 spaces, 520 Webster Street with 163 spaces, and 245 Lytton Avenue with 149 spaces. After that there were many projects with 0 spaces and a few with 5, 11, 16, etc. Council Member Wheeler referred to the chart on page 9 of the staff report (CMR:256:97) with respect to the 39 spaces required for the conforming 10,500-square-foot building. She understood from
staff=s previous discussion that the reason for the 39 spaces was that in the Downtown Assessment District, there was a blended rate. If the 10,500-square-foot conforming building were used as a restaurant and not located within the parking assessment district, she asked what the required number of parking spaces would be for the 10,500-square-foot restaurant. Ms. Grote said it would depend on how the space was divided between service area and seating area. It would be 1 space per every 60 square feet for the seating area and 1 space for every 200 square feet for the service area. Mr. Schreiber said if the space were divided in half between the public service area and the kitchen and other related nonpublic areas, the parking requirement might be in the range of 100 to 110 spaces. There was a number of exemptions from parking for access and handicap facilities, etc., which were part of the 10,500 square feet. Once those figures were subtracted, the 39 spaces surfaced instead of 42 spaces. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. John Northway, Stoecker & Northway Architects, Inc., 437 Lytton Avenue, said when working in the Downtown, there was an underlying network of demands made by a variety of constituents, and in order to put a project together, everyone had to be satisfied in a satisfactory manner. There were many urban design issues brought up that were covered in the staff report (CMR:256:97) and the architectural review areas. The project was a three-story building setback on three of its four sides which provided many amenities. Much effort was put into the open space and pedestrian features by covering only 62 percent of the site and leaving space around the building for pedestrian circulation and breathing room to the buildings around the site. The FAR was 1:93 which was consistent with Lytton Avenue and other like projects. The tree canopy benefit was pushed up from five to eight on-site trees, and six off-site trees which was a major effort and caused much expense.
Because of the site=s size, in order to make parking work, it was necessary to go underneath the sidewalk to the curb line which worked well in making the parking reasonably efficient, especially
7/14/97 84-20
with the access from the back in order to get 50 cars in two levels underneath. It caused a problem in terms of the structure and the street trees when two different constituents intersecting demands became a conflict. Additional street trees were not a simple task but were an important benefit to the Downtown. The public art benefit had been suggested by the Planning Commission and Council Member Eakins to be highly integrated into the building. The suggestion was followed, and the art was integrated into a freeze which surrounded the archway into the main entry and depicted the
history of the automobile which depicted Leonard Ely=s history. In
addressing all the constituents= involved including the Comp Plan, the Urban Design Guidelines, parking requirements, tree requirements, and art requirements, he felt there could not be a better project put on that particular corner. James Baer, Premier Properties, 172 University Avenue, said he wanted to address the public hearing process and parking and traffic efforts of the project. The public benefits list and the traffic sheet which were most important and included the most data were provided after the May 19, 1997, City Council meeting. Copies were provided to the leadership of Downtown North Neighborhood Association (DNNA) which included language changes but not content changes. The project had its first meeting with Planning staff on February 8, 1995, and proceeded through several public hearings of
which there had been participation from DNNA. DNNA=s issues included parking, restaurant use, and providing a traffic study and funds to assist with traffic improvements for the neighborhood. Rather than taking the Planning Commission recommendation for $75,000 to be used for sidewalk improvements in the Lytton/Waverley/Florence area, the benefit was revisited, and three sources of funds were looked at: shifting the $75,000 in sidewalk improvements, seeing whether the access easement across Lot F funds could be made available, and the possibility of whether to shift some of the in-lieu funds given that a parking structure on Lot S/L was already in the process. At one of the Planning Commission hearings, it was determined that in-lieu was inappropriate by ordinance, Lot F access easement funds would be for Council determination, and the $75,000 earmarked for civic improvements would be used for traffic mitigation. He apologized to the Council and the Downtown North neighborhood for his shortsighted outreach. He did not bring current and start interactions with the broad base of Downtown North as the project proceeded. With respect to pages 4 and 5, Section 4(f)(i), of the ordinance, staff agreed it would be reasonable for the parking Lot F access easement to occur
Αprior to occupancy≅ rather than Αprior to building permit≅ and was important for getting the underground portion started, which was the most disruptive for truck traffic and excavation underway. Barbara Newton, 216 Everett Avenue, said in the 1980s, significant attention was paid to growth and the future of the community. Many citizen groups were formed to study the issue, and in the late
7/14/97 84-21
1980s those groups were successful in getting the Council to pass a 1:1 FAR which was still in effect. Developers realized a way to circumvent the existing FAR was to apply for a PC zoning designation which was what the developer of 390 Lytton Avenue was doing. Sometimes the PCs had served positive purposes such as senior housing and middle income housing. In more than one case, the developers who had been granted PC status, moved forward with projects that did not comply with the original proposals. The 390 Lytton project did not serve any significant public purpose. It was an oversized office building more than 8,000 square feet or 80 percent larger than the existing FAR limit with insufficient parking by 23 spaces. The developer offered the neighborhood a public benefit in the form of funds to be used for a traffic study, but many of the neighbors felt the funds should rightfully come from the City, not from a developer whose project was unwanted. Downtown North had been experiencing parking stress since the inception of the successful color zone parking system. She invited the Council Members to walk in her neighborhood to see the situation firsthand. Currently, there was no room for residents to park, and there would be no room for the additional cars the
project would spill into Downtown North=s streets. The neighborhood was about to experience additional parking and traffic
problems which would be created by the arrival of Lulu=s and Zibibbo which would bring hundreds of extra cars to her neighborhood. There was also the possibility of passage of the Sand Hill Road Corridor projects, the effects of which were incalculable. She asked the Council to consider the existing situation in her neighborhood and the collective impact of all the anticipated future problems before it approved the project. Her neighbors strongly supported her. Dena Mossar, Member of the Downtown Parking Committee, 1024 Emerson Street, said the Downtown Parking Committee (Parking Committee) had discussed and continued to discuss issues and explore solutions to the parking problems in the greater Downtown area. The Parking Committee was pleased that the developer listened to its concerns about the in-lieu parking fees on the 390 Lytton project and, as a
result of the Parking Committee=s concerns, agreed to increase the in-lieu payment by $4,000 per space. She reminded the Council that the 13-point parking plan offered a matrix of solutions that had to be considered as a package and any one item in and of itself was not adequate to address community concerns. The Parking Committee looked forward to working with the community to continue to find reasonable solutions to the very real parking problems. Susan Frank, President and CEO, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) concurred with the Planning Commission and staff recommendations. A letter was
sent to the Council on May 19, 1997 (on file in the City Clerk=s
Office) which expressed the Chamber=s enthusiastic support. The standards of the PC process had been met which provided significant
7/14/97 84-22
public benefits. The project met and exceeded the parking requirements with regard to existing and future parking assessments. The project fully supported new parking structures, of which the Council supported preliminarily, and it reduced parking impacts compared with an alternative project developed under the existing zoning. There were larger issues facing the Downtown which had been identified and were being worked on by the Council, City staff, the Chamber, neighborhood groups, etc., and the Chamber hoped the project would not be used as a lightning rod
for those larger issues. She urged the Council=s support. Judith Wasserman, Co-chair, Public Art Commission, said the proposal was passed unanimously by the Public Art Commission (PAC) which was excited by a number of aspects. The concept was in keeping with the building and the owner, and it had an intriguing historical twist to it. The PAC was also impressed with the quality of the execution of the artist, Scott Donohue. The art was not in the lobby of the building but on the archway at the entrance. It was a successful concept in urban public art in that although it was part of the building and integrated into the architecture, it was clearly a work of art and would be intriguing to pedestrians. Irv Brenner, 280 Byron Street, said the neighbors were disturbed by how the PC process had been implemented for recent projects in and around the neighborhood. The neighbors were justifiably skeptical of a review process by which every project built in the Downtown North area including those built on Lytton Avenue asked for and received zoning changes or variances. As a result, traffic had increased proportionately. Historically, the long-range impacts of PC rezoning to accommodate an oversized, nonconforming project often had a far more negative impact than the public benefits provided by such rezoning. Examples included a housing project across from the Lytton IV project in which the public benefit was beautifying and lighting an alleyway, and 499 University Avenue in which an in-lieu fee was paid so no on-site parking was required and a rental unit cited as the public benefit evaporated as soon as the project was approved. The list went on, but in short the 390 Lytton project had been a virtual giveaway while neighborhoods were forced to endure the increasing traffic and noise burden. Most public benefits added a fraction to project costs, when rezonings returned millions to the property owner over time. The citizens looked to the Council for fairness and protection of the quality of life, not for the enrichment of commercial property owners. The architect had said that where the project was restricted to existing zoning, a parking space might not be provided which was 39
parking spaces lost. Since the architect=s proposal already had a 23 space deficit, a conforming project cost only 16 more spaces than the proposed one. If the project conformed, a traffic study, 16 parking spaces, a handful of trees, a bench, a garbage can, and an art project would be lost. Those were amenities his neighborhood would gladly do without in contrast to increased traffic, noise pollution, and the blight of an out of scale
7/14/97 84-23
building for perpetuity. The neighbors would rather have a conforming restaurant or office or retail than see in place zoning work. There were situations in which PC zoning was called for, but 390 Lytton Avenue was not one of them. The property could not be developed in a planning vacuum because it sat at an intersection in
which traffic and parking from Lulu=s, 7-Eleven, etc., made it a very busy corner. The current zoning should apply. He was awed by the proposal of a project that doubled the traffic to the site by increasing the square footage and funded a study to figure out what should be done about it. In addition, it supported an art project which chronicled the evolution of the automobile. The property owner was so sure of the compliance that he put up a billboard
months prior to the review process which read ΑAvailable soon for lease, three-story, 18,000-square-foot building for office,
restaurant or commercial.≅ Dan Lorimer, President, Downtown North Neighborhood Association,
465 Hawthorne Street (letter on file in the Clerk=s Office),
encouraged the Council to support Jim Baer=s proposed allocation of public benefit and easement access funds for a traffic study and mitigations in Downtown North. On May 19, 1997, when 390 Lytton Avenue was on the agenda, approximately 120 Downtown North residents stood to show support for the traffic study and mitigations. The project itself was not widely supported by Downtown North residents, largely due to the rules under which it was developed, and neither he nor DNNA supported the project on April 9, 1997. It was unlikely that any project which was not completely self-parked in terms of employees and customers would receive such support. DNNA resolved to oppose the project because it was larger than the site FAR and had in-lieu parking. Much of the complex discussion related to FARs, PC Zones, and compatibility with existing buildings could be eliminated if a two-story limit and a 30-foot height limit were adopted. If the project went forward, the easement funds should be aggregated with the public benefits fund so as to provide enough money to finance a significant portion of the traffic mitigations. DNNA was seeking a commitment from the Council to solve the traffic problems. Allocating funds from projects adjacent to Downtown North recognized and helped to offset the negative effects of the developments. DNNA did not begrudge the merchants and commercial property owners their success, but it was time for the Council to make a commitment to protect Downtown North from all the traffic that success engendered. If the development project were to be approved, DNNA urged the Council to give its approval to the allocation of both the public benefit funds and the easement access fees as proposed. Roger Craig, Member of Downtown North Neighborhood Association, 101 Waverley Street, had appealed to the Council at the previous meeting of his repugnance of PC zoning to circumvent the need for variances. The zoning regulations were a covenant between the
7/14/97 84-24
neighbors and the City. He felt it was the Council=s duty to protect him from encroachment on those rules for unreasonable purposes. He reminded the Council of the support he had received from the Downtown North at the previous meeting. He urged the Council to do everything possible to prevent PC zoning to circumvent zoning ordinances that the people fought so long and hard to get, especially the FAR. Alison Pratt Shelling, 1046 Harker Avenue, asked the Council to seriously consider limiting the development with due respect to Mr. Baer and Mr. Ely, who had provided many benefits to Palo Alto. She had previously lived in that neighborhood, and she urged the Council to think about the people that did. She also reminded everyone that trees not only were part of the beautification of the planet but also provided oxygen in order to live, and the engineering feat which the owner was trying to accomplish with the on-site street trees was very important. Sally Ann Rudd, 204 Cowper Street, said the public benefits attached to the project, namely the traffic study, were desperately needed. On the other hand, the project was bad and one of a string of projects that were bad for the neighborhood. On May 19, 1997, over 120 Downtown North residents attended the Council meeting to demonstrate the importance of a traffic study. Downtown North badly needed a traffic study as a first step toward introducing significant traffic mitigations into the neighborhood. The neighborhood concerns were traffic, parking, and overdevelopment of Lytton Avenue. The 390 Lytton project was bad because it was not fully self-parked. Although, the developer intended to provide 50 parking spaces underground, 23 in-lieu spaces would have to be purchased to accommodate the employees. Twenty-three spaces equated to a full city block of nose-to-tail parked cars. A week prior, there had been discussions about building parking lots to accommodate about 900 of the 1,400 all day parkers who were already in the neighborhoods. She strongly objected to planning regulations which allowed cars to be added to the streets. The provision of adequate parking at the time of construction should be a requirement of all new development. The building was too large for the site. A three-story monolith was much too large for the small parcel. It was surrounded by one-story buildings. It would not only look odd but also would overshadow surrounding properties and become an invitation for further overdevelopment of Lytton Avenue. She was concerned with the current trend to build tall buildings in the Downtown area. Buildings of more than two stories were out of proportion to the residential area which were contiguous to the mainly commercial Lytton Avenue area. She was disappointed that the Planning Commission was not taking a line against the building up trend which if left unchecked would result in boring streets consisting entirely of office buildings and in the long-term a significantly less attractive Downtown North residential area. She urged the Council to adopt the following measures: 1) recognizing that the project as currently proposed
7/14/97 84-25
would have a negative effect on the Downtown North neighborhood by exacerbating the parking problem and increasing car trips through residential streets, use the funds for the Lot F easement for a traffic study and resulting mitigations; 2) abolish in-lieu parking because the Downtown North parking lot was already full and unable to accommodate more cars, and the provision of adequate parking at the time of construction should be a requirement of all new developments in the Downtown area; and 3) not allow further spot rezoning in the Downtown North neighborhood for the construction of tall office buildings when adjacent to residential areas. Tall buildings which overshadowed houses nearby made less attractive residential areas. The vibrant Downtown existed because there was an affluent residential area next door. There were many who cared about the neighborhood. The Council was urged to weigh carefully the effects on the people who lived nearby. Sophia Dhrymes, 483 Hawthorne Street, was overwhelmed during the past 25 years in addressing issues that stemmed from zoning. She was not against a three-story building if done with intelligence and dimensions suitable to a neighborhood. It was an economic, profitable building for Mr. Ely. Any project came down to money and a lifestyle, but neighbors needed to be respected. Her concern was the use and abuse of power in Palo Alto. Ken Allen, Partner, Townsend and Townsend and Crew, 3784 Grove Avenue, was a tenant at 379 Lytton Avenue which was directly across the street from the site in question. His firm, Townsend and Townsend and Crew, was the candidate tenant to occupy 390 Lytton Avenue and would be a favorable tenant who planned to be around a long time. The money to pay for the project would come from the rent which his firm would pay as a tenant. His firm would need to occupy both 379 and 390 Lytton Avenue, and the net impact increase in the area would be about 35 people. Adding 50 parking spaces would mean his firm could consolidate the people who were in crowded buildings in other areas of Palo Alto and enable them to occupy only two buildings adjacent to one another. In-lieu parking was the best solution to a difficult site problem, and there would be excess parking spaces. A smaller building could be built, but there would be no obligation under the current zoning to add parking spaces. The two-story limit was impractical because there were not many developers or tenants who could afford to build in Palo Alto under that limit, which might mean no development at all along that corridor. He pointed out that 379 Lytton Avenue was taller than the proposed site, and there would not be much of an impact on the skyline. His firm planned to be good tenants and not exacerbate the situation. He hoped the Council would consider the proposal favorably. Ted Herhold, Partner, Townsend and Townsend and Crew, 379 Lytton Avenue, said when he came to Palo Alto in 1967, it was a nice community but was presently an even better community. It was better because the City had allowed growth. Downtown Palo Alto in
7/14/97 84-26
1967 was not attractive and was not somewhere people visited. He left for a number of years and upon his return in 1993, found it to be a much better place to live in. It was still primarily residential and always would be, but business needed to be embraced and growth allowed. The proposal allowed for that and was a well thought out plan. It allowed for the type of growth and quality of life that was desired for Palo Alto. Townsend and Townsend and Crew had been very active in the community and the type of tenants that Palo Alto desired. He strongly urged the Council to consider the proposal favorably. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: 9:25 P.M. - 9:45 P.M. The City Council met in a Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 7. Mayor Huber announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 7. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, approval of the staff recommendation to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, PC (Planned Community) Ordinance and Architectural Review Board (ARB) findings and conditions of project
approval in the City Manager=s Report (CMR:256:97) for the May 19, 1997, meeting with the following revisions to the PC Ordinance and conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall pay a minimum of $106,995 to the City as compensation for the proposed access easement across parking Lot F (see Section 4(f)(I) in the PC Ordinance); 2. The subject property shall not receive credit for providing any on-site or in-lieu parking spaces for the determination of any existing or future downtown parking district assessments effective with the assessment period commencing on July 1, 1998 (see Section 4(f)(x) in the PC Ordinance); and 3. The applicant shall record the required sidewalk easements prior to occupancy of the building, rather than prior to the issuance of a building permit (see Section 4(f)(iii) in the PC Ordinance and Condition #22 in the ARB Conditions of 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 proposes a zone change to the Planned Community District, which includes the normal ARB process, these conditions have been
7/14/97 84-27
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 Issuance of Demolition Permit Planning/Zoning
1. The applicant shall submit an arborist=s report with standards for protecting the two existing street trees (10-inch Camphor and 8-inch Geijera) that are to remain during construction, particularly during the shoring and excavation for the proposed underground parking structure. The report shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Arborist and shall include recommendations for preconstruction care and pruning of the trees. 2. Protective construction fencing shall be installed at the drip lines of the two existing street trees that are to be preserved. The protective fencing shall be installed prior to any demolition or movement of construction equipment onto the site and shall remain in place and undisturbed until all construction is completed. The fencing shall be 6 foot high chain link material mounted on two-inch galvanized iron posts driven two feet into the ground. There shall be no excavation, including shoring, within 10 feet from the center of the 8-inch Geijera tree or within 7 feet of the 10-inch Camphor. The Planning Arborist shall have discretion to make minor adjustments to the specific requirements of this condition if warranted by field conditions and if it can be associated with the construction for the installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or services. Utilities Engineering (WGW) 3. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 4. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. The form is available at the Building Department. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed.
7/14/97 84-28
5. 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 manner which respects the building design and setback requirements. 6. 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.). 7. 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. 8. The applicant shall show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 9. 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. 10. 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 June 21, 1996, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit Planning/Zoning 11. 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. 12. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate application. 13. 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. Utilities Engineering
7/14/97 84-29
14. The project requires a padmount transformer. Electric primary shall be provided to the transformer. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the landscape plan and approved by the Utilities Engineering Division and the ARB. 15. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement (PUE) for the padmount transformer and primary trench. 16. All new electrical service shall be underground. 17. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. 18. The location of the electric panel switchboard shall be shown on the plan and approved by the ARB and Utilities Department. Secondary conduits shall be concrete enclosed if the main switchboard is located inside of the building. 19. All electrical substructures required from the service point to the switchgear shall be installed by the applicant to City standards. Public Works Engineering 20. 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. 21. Portions of the garage structure will be under the sidewalk in the public right-of-way. The building owner shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for this proposed encroachment. 22. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a sidewalk easement shall be recorded for the walkway between Lytton Avenue and City Parking Lot F. The applicant shall provide the required documents for the recordation. 23. The applicant shall submit a drainage plan for review and approval by the Public Works Department. The plan shall provide for the disposal of drainage from the roof, tree wells, site paved areas and the parking garage. 24. A Permit for Construction in the Public Street shall be obtained from the Public Works Department to address the impact of the public use of the sidewalk, street and City Parking lot. A logistics plan for demolition and construction activities shall be submitted with the associated building permit application and must be approved and incorporated into
7/14/97 84-30
the Permit for Construction in the Public Street. This submittal shall include the following: * sidewalk closure plan, including pedestrian protection/ detouring and parking space usage; * shoring requirements; * tree protection; * truck routes for hauling and delivery; * public relations plan; * construction employee parking; * dust abatement procedures; * stormwater system pollution prevention plan; * traffic control plans for any utility service lateral construction in the street; and * construction hours and days. This permit will require the issuance of a bond, with the amount to be determined by the scope of the work within the approved Building Permit, for potential restoration work in the public right-of-way and City parking lot. 25. A soils report will be required for the proposed project. In addition to addressing structural requirements for the building, this report shall also provide the highest projected water table level for the site. 26. The applicant shall obtain written approval from the City Arborist for any street tree removal, and any excavation work within 10 feet of a street tree. This written approval shall be available at the time of Building Permit application submission. 27. The applicant shall provide protection to the remaining street trees at the site to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist. 28. The design of the pavement for the sidewalk in both the right-of-way and potential sidewalk easement area shall conform to City standard colors and materials. 29. The applicant shall provide a plan showing an inventory of existing facilities in the City right-of-way, including adjacent curb and street striping, signs and parking lot facilities (striping, curbing and pavement). 30. The sidewalk from Lytton Avenue to City Parking Lot F shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 8 feet clear sidewalk in the pedestrian walkway. It shall be in conformance to Americans with Disabilities requirements for public sidewalks. A wheelchair ramp shall be installed at the interface of this walkway and the City parking lot.
7/14/97 84-31
31. Any excavation of more than 100 cubic yards or any excavation deeper than 3 feet requires an approved Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the Building Inspection Division. 32. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. Fire 33. The applicant shall provide fire sprinklers throughout the structure. An underground fire service line and floor control valves are required. Sprinkler system alarm supervision is required for water flow and valve tamper. 34. Impacts of emergency response must be determined (paramedic response service demands). 35. Illuminated exit signs, emergency lighting, portable fire extinguishers and a knox box shall be provided. 36. Portable fire extinguishers shall be provided within the building. Public Works Operations/Recycling 37. The applicant shall submit a Solid Waste Management and Recycling Plan for review and approval to the Public Works Operations/Recycling Division. Transportation 38. The applicant shall pay an in-lieu parking fee (pursuant to Section 18.49.100(d) of the PAMC) for the 23 required parking spaces that are not provided on-site and the loss of public parking spaces in Lot F. Credit will be provided for two on-street parking spaces that would be created by closing the existing curb cuts providing access to the site from Waverley Street and Lytton Avenue. Thus, the applicant would be required to pay an in-lieu parking fee for one additional parking space (24 total spaces). 39. An improvement plan for proposed changes to Lot F shall be submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division and Public Works Engineering Division. The plan shall include the installation of appropriate signage, as determined by the Transportation Division. Planning/Zoning 40. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas out to the curb shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division, City Arborist and
7/14/97 84-32
Utility Marketing Services 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. A dedicated water meter for irrigation (only) is required. The landscape 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, 4 street trees along each street frontage. All new street trees shall be 36 inch box (minimum) unless a smaller size is specified by the Planning Arborist. With the exception of the existing 8-inch Geijera tree on Waverley Street, the planter strip openings for the street trees shall be 4 feet by 12 feet. The planter strip opening for the 8-inch Geijera tree shall be 4 feet by 5 feet (to allow direct access to the street for the trash containers). The new street trees shall be inspected by the Planning Arborist before they are planted. The Planning Arborist shall have discretion to make minor adjustments to the specific requirements of this condition if warranted by field conditions and if it can be demonstrated that the health of the landscaping is adequately protected. 41. To provide soil volume for the street trees, there shall be a minimum clearance of approximately 3.7 feet of uncompacted soil between the top of the sidewalk and the top of the proposed underground parking structure. The Planning Arborist shall have discretion to make minor adjustments to the specific requirements of this condition if warranted by field conditions and if it can be demonstrated that the health of the trees is adequately protected. 42. If required by the Planning Arborist, the new sidewalk around the street trees shall be self-supporting (non-bearing). The applicant shall submit a report by a horticulturist with recommendations regarding the adequacy of the proposed design of the wells for the street trees including the radius needed for the self-supporting (non-bearing) portions of the sidewalk around the trees; the type of soil for the tree wells; and any other factors pertinent to the health of the street trees. The Planning Arborist shall have discretion to make minor adjustments to the specific requirements of this condition if warranted by field conditions and if it can be demonstrated that the health of the trees is adequately protected. 43. The planting area for all street trees shall be designed to provide adequate soil volume, aeration, drainage and irrigation to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist.
7/14/97 84-33
During Construction Public Works Engineering 44. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 45. All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with the Public Works approved standards. 46. The applicant shall require the contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) 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 BMPs
with respect to the applicant=s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall
monitor BMPs 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 47. 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 48. Any utilities to be relocated due to this project shall be at
the applicant=s expense. 49. All new underground electrical services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 50. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling. 51. The contractor shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way.
7/14/97 84-34
52. 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 53. In accordance with applicable state and federal historic preservation regulations, should previously unidentified significant cultural resources be discovered during construction, the project sponsor is required to notify the City of Palo Alto Planning Division and cease work in the immediate area until such time that a qualified archaeologist can access the find and make mitigation recommendations, if warranted. The Coroner, upon recognizing the remains as being of Native American origin, is responsible to contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Commission has various powers and duties to provide for the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains, in addition to identification of a Native American Most Likely Descendant, who may be responsible to make recommendations as to the handling and reburial or disposition of any human remains. To achieve this goal, it is recommended that the construction personnel on the project be instructed as to the potential for discovery of cultural or human remains, and both the need for proper and timely reporting of such finds, and the consequences of failure thereof. Prior to Finalization Planning/Zoning 54. The applicant shall plant six new 36-inch box street trees at off-site locations along Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street. The new off-site street trees shall be planted in tree wells that are currently empty or shall replace existing street trees that are in poor condition at locations approved by the Planning Arborist. The applicant shall provide 4-foot by 4-foot planter areas (wells) for each of the new street trees. The Planning Arborist shall have discretion to make minor adjustments to the specific requirements of this condition if warranted by field conditions and if it can be demonstrated that the health of the trees is adequately protected. 55. The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to the Planning Division, and call for inspection, that the on-site and off-site landscaping, including the new street trees, have been installed in accordance with all aspects of the approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and tested for timing and function, and all plants, including street trees, are healthy.
7/14/97 84-35
Utilities Engineering 56. The applicant shall install a secondary box to tie to the secondary side of the transformer. 57. If service exceeds 1600 amperes, 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 390 Lytton Avenue from CD-
C(P) to PC≅ Council Member Rosenbaum was sympathetic to the position that the neighbors had advanced, but as Mr. Schreiber explained earlier, ten years prior the City decided to seriously down zone the Downtown area and set a limit of 350,000 square feet of additional space. It was fully anticipated at that time that since there were no empty lots, if there were new development in the Downtown, it would most likely exceed the FAR which would be accomplished through the PC ordinance. He said there were many arguments, but he felt the
project fell within the scope of the City=s policies. Times changed, and prior policies were subject to review. It might be that the parking situation was at a point in which what had been anticipated ten years prior could no longer be allowed in the future. Presently, he viewed the project as being within the rules and should move forward. Council Member Wheeler was on the Planning Commission during the Downtown Study and the Urban Design Study. She thought the City had taken a drastic step ten years prior in terms of reducing the zoning potential in the Downtown area by placing the 350,000-square-foot cap on future development in the Downtown area. As years had passed, only one-fifth of that 350,000 additional square feet had been developed. Other things had occurred in the Downtown that exacerbated the parking and traffic problems for the surrounding residential neighborhoods. What had evolved over time was not the amount of square footage constructed that dictated the number of employees, shoppers, or people who used a specific building but the use that was allowed to go into the building. The reason the 390 Lytton project as presented would be much kinder and gentler on its surrounding uses was that the Planning Commission imposed and the applicant agreed to substantial restrictions on the allowed uses in that building in perpetuity. If the regular CD-C(P) uses were permitted and a development with a normal CD-C(P) zoning were permitted on that property, it could generate the need for approximately 125 to 150 parking spaces to accommodate the needs of the people working or frequenting that development. Instead, there was a far reduced need for parking accommodations, even with the larger building. In addition to a reduced parking
7/14/97 84-36
requirement, the building would generate less traffic in general than a building constructed under the permitted zoning. If it were to be used as most conforming structures were in the Downtown, it would generate much more in the way of evening usage, i.e., a restaurant or entertainment venue instead of offices for a law firm. It was the evening use that was beginning to exacerbate greatly the parking in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. She was convinced there were some actions the Council needed to take in the future such as the traffic study. She was not prepared that evening to earmark the funds from the parking easement for implementation of any mitigations identified, but she was prepared to say that if the study resulted in feasible mitigations, she would commit herself to move ahead at an appropriate time with funding to implement those mitigations. Council Member McCown supported the motion. The extensive review and the commentary along with the staff recommendation touched on the core of the design and urban design qualities of the proposal, which justified the findings under a PC Zone. There were some issues that accompanied the down zoning of the Downtown to limit maximum additional development to 350,000 square feet. First, there was a 10 percent factor in addition to what had already existed. The thinking behind it was that a reasonable number be used as a cap because it would allow for some growth but more importantly would be available for the use of smaller parcels. There was a conscious effort, as a part of the regulations, to ensure that some of the 350,000-square-foot capacity would be usable by sites of 10,000 square feet and smaller. There was also an overall size limitation of 25,000 square feet with regard to how large any new building could be. The goal was to ensure that the 350,000 square feet would not be consumed by a small number of large buildings but instead would stay available over a period of years for smaller projects. Second, she had a concern that sites of 10,000 square feet and under, of which there were many Downtown, would have a difficult time parking. She understood that in-lieu parking had become controversial, but there was a countervailing balance that was needed as a mechanism to encourage appropriate redevelopment of smaller sites Downtown in order to have flexibility where on-site parking would not be required. She recalled extensive discussions on the issue and whether or not there would be too many unused parking spaces, which in turn drove the limitation on the parking deficit. It was a complex interweaving of different factors trying to encourage vitality, making the square footage available to smaller sites, and not to have desirable redevelopment be limited by the difficulty of smaller sites. She felt the project measured up to all the goals of the process and that it was appropriate to use a PC Zone. She did not think anyone could have envisioned a site that small successfully providing 50 parking spaces; it was a highly unusual situation. The in-lieu ordinance as part of the 13-point parking program needed to be reevaluated. The idea of a major restaurant such as Zibibbo going in the Downtown without parking was a far
7/14/97 84-37
greater problem than any of the issues surrounding the 390 Lytton project. There were issues which evolved from the project that should be on a priority list, either as a completion of the Comp Plan or as part of moving forward with the 13-point parking program. None of those reasons caused her to believe that the project was not fundamentally a positive and beneficial project for the Downtown. The project should move forward based on the rules and the design goals that were in place. Council Member Kniss supported the motion. It had been helpful to hear the history of the Downtown Design Study, the background to the down zoning, etc. She felt the height limit was significant
for Palo Alto=s size and activity level. She believed a precedence had been set in the past with regard to the Downtown Design Guidelines. She was unsure of those guidelines at the time, and looking back, people would be amazed at what had happened to the Downtown area over the past 10 to 15 years. People forgot how bleak the Downtown was in the 1970s. She found the public art to be compelling. It would be an intriguing piece of history; it was a most unusual design which would carry out the past that went along with the property. She asked, with regard to the traffic study, if the City had ever assessed the parking deficit in Downtown North and South areas in general as it related to residences. There was a requirement for a certain amount of parking when any new building went up, but many of the old buildings did not have sufficient parking. Mr. Schreiber said the relationship of off-street parking in the Downtown North or South neighborhoods and the amount of parking that would be required had not been previously assessed. When doing surveys to assess the overflow parking impact from the Downtown area, staff had used techniques that could factor out the residential parking. When Council saw the survey numbers regarding the amount of parking, it was a fairly accurate representation of the commercial parking impact. Council Member Kniss clarified it did not include residential. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Kniss asked whether something to that effect could be done by staff at some point. Mr. Schreiber said it would have to be discussed with Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway. It was something that had not been done during his many years with the City. Council Member Kniss said a member of the public had mentioned limiting the Downtown North area to two stories or 30 feet which was basically what that residential area was. She clarified there were many other parcels north of Lytton Avenue that could go up to 50 feet.
7/14/97 84-38
Mr. Schreiber said yes. Commercial properties within 150 feet of single-family zoned properties had a 35-foot height limit. Beyond the 150-foot limit, there was a 50-foot height limit. Council Member Kniss said as more of the Downtown area was developed, especially at the high cost in an area which was once considered very reasonable, very different kinds of problems had begun to surface. She felt some of those issues were surfacing that evening with regard to the 390 Lytton project. Palo Alto was presently a different kind of city with a different kind of Downtown. As the City moved forward over the next ten years, she felt there again would be a very different set of problems. She supported the project for those reasons and felt it would be a good anchor in that particular part of Downtown. Along with Council Member Wheeler, she preferred the 390 Lytton project to the large restaurant going in Downtown, and she seriously wondered where those cars would actually park. Vice Mayor Andersen supported the motion. He thought the project was a good one, but he had a problem with the public benefit. He felt the project had brought out some issues which the Council needed to give some serious consideration to. He questioned the in-lieu parking system which was in place because the project by its nature pointed out that in some respects the in-lieu parking was a disincentive to put parking in. It was easier to pay for it. He queried whether the threshold needed to be raised. It needed further discussion. He was not satisfied with how the in-lieu parking was working at the present time. He was also concerned with the process by which the public benefit approach to PCs was being used. He believed it was time for the Council to seriously consider the issue of the public benefit and how it was being carried out. The neighbors from Downtown North made some important points, and the Council needed to give those points some serious consideration. He did not find the traffic study to be an appropriate public benefit because it was really the responsibility of the City to do what the DNNA had requested. He looked forward to seeing the traffic study put in place and the mitigations it might suggest being carried out. It was time for Downtown North to get the consideration it deserved. Council Member Eakins said the Comp Plan process might be an appropriate time for the neighborhood and the Council to look at the Downtown North and South issues. She had met with Mr. Baer, Mr. Northway, and the Newtons regarding the project and felt she had been well educated in all the various points of view. Both parties did a fine job of bringing out the issues. For Downtown North, she agreed that parking on-site and in-lieu caused car trips. The requirements might theoretically keep the cars off the streets but still caused trips through town. The project was lightning rod for concern about what was happening in the Downtown with the increased activity and intensity of site development. The through traffic was not only project related traffic but also
7/14/97 84-39
commuter traffic. The streets were bearing too many cars. Parking was not the only way to control too many cars. More choices needed to be offered. What the Planning Commission did in prohibiting eating and drinking use in perpetuity was not a public benefit but a public protection. The complex set of issues including the context of the FAR limits, the caps, and the in-lieu parking took years to form. It had worked well, but Palo Alto had reached a limit which did not look to be 350,000 square feet but much less. Some reasons were the booming economy, changing uses, full employment, and crowded offices. The 390 Lytton project had become the lightning rod for all the issues. She found a basic connection between the site and the proposal; it satisfied some of the goals of the Downtown Urban Design Plan. The scale of the project was small and pedestrian friendly and in comparison to other projects, was a good one. She supported the motion. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to pages 4 and 5, Section 4(f)(i), of the ordinance and asked whether the easement would be obtained prior to issuance of the building permit for the project as stated or prior to a certificate of occupancy as requested by the applicant. Given the time required to obtain the easement due to the need for further appraisals, he felt the language should be
changed from Αbuilding permit≅ to Αcertificate of occupancy.≅ Section 4(f)(i) made reference to an appraisal that the applicant had secured in the amount of $67,000 which seemed to him to be moot. The second appraisal should be relative to the amount the applicant had already agreed to pay which was $106,995. He asked the City Attorney for language. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the ordinance would have to return for a second reading and it would be effective 31 days from that date. It would not be possible to do in August. The agreements would be in place, but he did not want to put the Planning or
Attorney=s staff in a position of being unfairly criticized about
delays that were not of staff=s doing. The change Council Member Rosenbaum was referring to would be easy to effect. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to revise Section (4)(f)(i) to delete the phrase Αis within ten percent (10%) of the appraisal prepared for applicant by Kurt L. Reitman, then the easement compensation shall be the amount
of the higher appraisal;≅ revise the following sentence to read ΑIf
the value as so determined exceeds $106,995, then City=s
independent appraiser...;≅ delete the last sentence in the section
beginning ΑThe easement shall be obtained prior...≅ and insert ΑThe easement shall be obtained either 1) before issuance of building permits for the project, or 2) before issuance of a certificate of occupancy provided that before issuance of building permits the applicant has paid the minimum compensation and entered into an agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney to secure full payment of the appraised value of the access easement. In no event
7/14/97 84-40
shall the compensation for the Lot F access easement be less than
$106,995;≅ and revise the first line of Section (4)(f)(iii) to
delete the words Αbuilding permit≅ and insert Αcertificate of
occupancy.≅ Mayor Huber supported the motion. He had been a citizen member of the 1986 Downtown Study and later, as a Planning Commissioner, served on the Urban Design Committee. He specifically remembered with regard to the Downtown proceeding with the in-lieu parking in order to save the small parcels, which could not be done without some other mechanism for providing parking other than on-site. The accumulation of parcels was discouraged so as not to end up with
large structures rather than small Αhometown≅ businesses. What was not anticipated was the evening use which no one had thought about in relation to cap limits. That was what needed to be looked at in terms of what was impacting the neighborhoods. With respect to the numbers of deficit parking, it was not much different currently from what it had been in 1986, but it felt different, which was probably due to evening use. He supported the project and was in strong support of using the funds to do a traffic study and any feasible mitigations resulting from that which would need to be put into place as soon as possible thereafter. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
7/14/97 84-41