HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-17 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting November 17, 1997 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................85-154 1. The Policy and Services Committee recommends Council approval of the staff recommendation to approve the telecommunications policy statements and adoption of the policies........85-155 3. The Policy and Services Committee recommends that Council direct staff to enter into negotiations with the Jewish Community Center regarding a possible extension of the lease for the former Terman School site, incorporating the public review process as proposed by staff...................85-156 4. The Finance Committee recommends Council adoption of the staff recommendations for the 1998-99 Budget Guidelines.....85-156
5. Payment for Palo Alto=s Share of San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program....................................85-156
6. Resolution 7718 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting a Hearing for Objections to their Proposed Destruction or
Removal≅ ..............................................85-156 7. 1997-98 Tree Planting Project.........................85-156 8. Rejection of the Single Bid Received for Golf Course Sand Purchase..............................................85-156 9. Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in the Court of Appeal Case of Milagra Ridge Partners, Ltd. v. City of Pacifica...........................................85-156 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................85-156 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application for a Zone Change from Service Commercial (CS) to Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the demolition of three
11/17/97 85-152
existing warehouse and commercial buildings and construction of a 194-room five-story hotel complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements for property located at 675 El Camino Real (Holiday Inn)......................85-157 11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider Single-Story Overlay Zoning for Tract 709 of the Blossom Park Neighborhood..........................................85-184 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a City Council Initiated Zoning Text Amendment request to amend Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to add the definition
of ΑCarports,≅ to amend the definition of ΑGross Floor Area≅ 85-186 13. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, as recommended by the Architectural Review Board, to deny a minor change to a Planned Community Ordinance (PC4243) for an existing residential building located at 216 Everett Avenue.........................85-196 13A. (Old Item No. 2) Policy and Services Committee re Stop Sign Intersection System Update and Recommendation to Install Stop Signs at Hale Street at Hamilton Avenue...............85-205 14. Recommendation to Revise Proposed Long-Term Council Chambers Improvements, Council Chambers Refurbishing, CIP 1962585-206 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........85-209 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m............85-209
11/17/97 85-153
11/17/97 85-154
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Eakins (arrived at 7:13 p.m.), Fazzino (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:13 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding the motive behind the City's Comprehensive Plan. Beth Bunnenberg, 2351 Ramona Street, expressed appreciation to the City regarding the Palo Alto Historical Association's budget and assistance which had been given. Robert A. Morgan, 1150 Byron Street, expressed gratitude regarding recent Measures M and O which had provided a forum for free speech. Victor Frost, Telephone Pole #1139, Post Office Box 213, spoke regarding homelessness advocacy, encouraging assistance through positive changes. Brian Boyle, 7678 Rainbow Drive, Cupertino, spoke in opposition to the City's flying of the United Nations flag in front of City Hall. Jesse Arias, Special Forces Association, 850 East Empire Street, San Jose, spoke in opposition to the City's display of the United Nations Flag in the Plaza. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding an editorial which had appeared in the Palo Alto Weekly on Proposition O votes. Margaret Cooley, Palo Alto Community Network, 1330 Harker Street, expressed appreciation for the effort City staff had put into the development of guidelines for the City's telecommunication system. Michael Midolo, 362 Channing Avenue, spoke regarding the reference to barking dogs in the Comprehensive Plan (letter on file in City Clerk's Office). CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-9, with Item No. 2 removed to become Item No. 13A. 1. The Policy and Services Committee recommends Council approval
11/17/97 85-155
of the staff recommendation to approve the telecommunications policy statements and adoption of the policies and to direct
staff to prepare any necessary revisions to the City=s governing documents for Council review and approval: 1) General - It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to facilitate the competitive delivery of conventional and advanced telecommunications services throughout Palo Alto in an environmentally sound manner, while ensuring cost recovery and enhancement of revenues derived from the use of the City's assets; 2) Siting and Installation of New Telecommunications Facilities - The City is the owner of the public right-of-way over which it had control and the regulatory body for the development of facilities within its jurisdictional boundaries. It is the policy of the City to regulate the location and manner of construction, manage the safe, orderly, and efficient use of Palo Alto's public right-of-way, and facilitate timely installation of telecommunications infrastructure in an environmentally sound manner; 3) User of Utilities Infrastructures - The City allows the use of Utilities infrastructure and Utilities-owned or -leased facilities to promote the delivery of telecommunications services provided that any telecommunications use does not impinge upon the City's ability to provide safe and reliable electric, gas, water, wastewater, and storm drainage services and does not interfere with the City's planned use of the facility or property; and 4) Use of City Facilities and Property - The City owns and leases property and facilities, in addition to Utilities facilities, that could be used to support the deployment of affordable telecommunications services while limiting the potential adverse impacts associated with the development of the necessary infrastructure. It is the policy of the City to encourage qualified outside parties to use designated City-owned or -leased property and facilities for siting telecommunications infrastructure that is compatible with the primary use of the property, and in a manner that is consistent with the City real estate policy, zoning, legal, environmental, and other requirements as necessary. 3. The Policy and Services Committee recommends that Council direct staff to enter into negotiations with the Jewish Community Center regarding a possible extension of the lease for the former Terman School site, incorporating the public review process as proposed by staff. 4. The Finance Committee recommends Council adoption of the staff recommendations for the 1998-99 Budget Guidelines with following amendments: 1) clarify the phases of implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) include a guideline regarding
11/17/97 85-156
augmentation of the infrastructure reserve as revenues permit; and 3) change the budget guideline requiring acquisition and development of the Los Altos Treatment Plant site to be contingent upon negotiations and Council approval.
5. Payment for Palo Alto=s Share of San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program
6. Resolution 7718 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting a Hearing for Objections to their Proposed Destruction or
Removal≅ 7. 1997-98 Tree Planting Project Recommendation to Rescind Award of Contract to Niccoli Landscaping dba The Village Gardener for 1997-98 Tree Planting Project Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Davey Tree Expert Company for 1997-98 Tree Planting Project 8. Rejection of the Single Bid Received for Golf Course Sand Purchase 9. Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in the Court of Appeal Case of Milagra Ridge Partners, Ltd. v. City of Pacifica MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to remove Item No. 2 from the Consent Calendar. MOTION PASSED 9-0. City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 2 would become Item No. 13A. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application for a Zone Change from Service Commercial (CS) to Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the demolition of three existing warehouse and commercial buildings and construction
11/17/97 85-157
of a 194-room five-story hotel complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements for property located at 675 El Camino Real (Holiday Inn).
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 675-695 El Camino Real/31 Wells Avenue From CS-Service Commercial to PC-Planned
Community≅ Contract Planner Chandler Lee said the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the project contained in the staff report (CMR:471:97). Two changes had been volunteered by the applicant in reference to the public benefit program, described on page 3 of the staff report: 1) a $20,000 contribution to the improvement of the existing pedestrian tunnel on the south side of University Avenue; and 2) an increase from $110,000 to $150,000 for the Homer Avenue tunnel or other pedestrian improvements in the area. With the conditions and findings in the staff report, staff recommended approval. Architectural Review Board (ARB) Chairperson Robert Peterson said the ARB had considered two or three important issues during its review of the project, one of which was its context between the existing Holiday Inn and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) project. The ARB considered the project appropriate in density and height in relationship to neighbors, and it defined a street face which related to the neighbors. The location itself seemed appropriate, with a good pedestrian relationship to Downtown and Town & Country Village. The ARB considered the building very handsome in proportions and materials, with good street presence, and a sensitive relationship of the interior circulation in spaces toward inner courtyards. The project could stand on its own if separated from the Holiday Inn. In summary, the project was well-designed, correctly located, and respectful of its neighbors. Planning Commissioner Bernard Beecham said the Planning Commission had agreed with the ARB that the proposed project was an appropriate use, design, and size for the site. The Planning Commission had also spoken at some length about the public benefit issues. Although quite large in terms of floor area ratio (FAR), the location presented no great negative impacts because of the surrounding land use and transportation issues particular to the location. The Planning Commission had recommended exclusion of consideration of a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) as a public benefit. No great detail of discussion had occurred regarding the rationale. His own rationale would be a poor analogy to a parcel
11/17/97 85-158
which had an RM-15 housing zone and a developer wanted RM-30 or RM-40 because the benefit was more housing. Other considerations might warrant a greater density of housing; however, more housing might not be the appropriate benefit. The other public benefits included a public meeting space, public art, dedication of the street frontage, and several significant contributions toward improving pedestrian access between Downtown, Holiday Inn, and the PAMF, which seemed appropriate and related to the project. The Planning Commission had given a great deal of consideration to and had found that the public benefits were adequate. Council Member Fazzino asked about the relationship between the $50,000 amount with which the Planning Commission had started its and the $150,000 at the conclusion of their meeting and what the benefits to the project were. Mr. Beecham said there was probably no direct relationship between the amounts. One public speaker had complained that the Planning Commission had not secured sufficient financial benefit for the project relative to another one which had gone in Downtown. The Planning Commission's point was that there was no measurement to make on that basis. Discussions regarding the upper limit of a contribution toward enhancing the pedestrian access was reasonable for discussion and might have been consideration for the fact that even though the project was well-suited for the site, it was rather large and possibly should have more support for the application. Council Member Fazzino asked Director of Planning and Community Services, Ken Schreiber whether a direct relationship existed between the $150,000 and identified improvements, e.g., the pedestrian tunnel, improvements to the CalTrain tunnels. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the $150,000 should be separated from the public benefit offer of $20,000 toward improving the CalTrain tunnel. The $150,000 which had started at $50,000 had no direct relationship to the tunnel in terms of the impact of the project. The tunnel, if pursued, would be a very costly public improvement for which the $150,000 represented a relatively small percentage. Council Member Kniss was puzzled by the FAR allowance in conjunction with expansion into Sheridan. A member of the community reading through the Planning Commission's minutes might consider the actions as "zoning for sale." She asked whether the zoning was rational for the area and whether zoning should be the issue considered rather than the financial loops the applicant had to jump through for Council approval.
11/17/97 85-159
Mr. Schreiber said staff's first analysis of any Planned Community (PC) zone application was always whether the proposal was a rational use of the land in the area. Staff had concluded that the proposed hotel for the location, considering the existing hotel on one side and the PAMF on the other, was a logical use. The size was appropriate in terms of the PAMF building, and it could be supported as a general planning policy. The public benefit package from staff's standpoint had begun with the five-foot dedication on Wells, which had lost importance. Staff had been able to obtain a widening of Wells with the PAMF project because of the clear nexus of the public right-of-way being relinquished. The current project had no nexus on which to base a requirement for a widening of Wells on the proposed hotel site. The provision of land had been, from staff's perspective, a very important public benefit which would not have been accomplished short of purchasing or condemning the land. In the 1980s, Council had considered the TOT a valid public benefit for a hotel which had been factored into staff's minds as part of the package. Hotels were very unusual in the square footage requirements and the extent to which it exceeded the City's zoning. The remaining public benefits, e.g., the tunnel and pedestrian improvements, were low on the list after the right-of-way and TOT. Unless staff had concluded the land was appropriate, the greatest public benefit package would not have mattered. Council Member Kniss looked forward to more conversation with her colleagues to determine whether Council had obtained what it had desired in the way of FARs on certain pieces of property. If not, she asked what would occur in 1998. Council Member McCown asked about the City's zoning history. During one particular period of time, the Urban Lane area had been under special study. The CS zoning on the sites in question had been consistent with the understanding that a CS level of use at 0.4 was not expected. The area was then to undergo further study; however, the subsequent study had not been conducted. Mr. Schreiber said in the early 1980s, the City had conducted a study of the area, which had strong opposition from property owners not the Holiday Inn at the time. The land use study had not led to any changes. In the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study (Citywide Study) adopted in 1989, the area had again been designated as a study area. No follow-up or study of the area had been conducted because after a number of years, the PAMF began to acquire properties which had changed the dynamics dramatically. Staff had viewed the property as a changed area which had been not only likely but also desirable for change, given the collection of land uses existing on the area.
11/17/97 85-160
Council Member McCown thought leaving the CS zoning in place on the parcel in question, since it was a 0.4 FAR, had been viewed as the minimal level to leave in place for the potential further study which had not occurred. Mr. Schreiber said no effort had been made at the end of the Citywide Study in 1989 to reduce the intensity of zoning below the CS zone. The only change to the area had been a cap on the Town & Country Village in an effort to preserve and retain the shopping center. The area had been seen as very likely to change. The CS had been seen as minimal and had also been what led staff to support the PAMF's proposal for rezoning to public facilities which had led to the 1:1 FAR for the adjacent PAMF site. Council Member McCown asked whether any existing City standard zone designation could be applied to the property to allow the level of development proposed. Mr. Schreiber replied no. No zone would even come close. Council Member Wheeler recalled the reason for restudying the area was the general feeling it was an under-utilized area. There had always been interest in designing something to make better use, likely more intensive, of the land, particularly since it was on a major thoroughfare and would not impinge on residential neighborhoods. The description of Wells Drive indicated a number of street trees would be planted. She had been surprised at the choice of the liquidambar. Mr. Lee said the applicant had originally proposed liquidambar but the Planning Arborist and the City Arborist had recommended changing the trees to maple. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Planning Commission had gone out of its way to recommend removal of the TOT as a public benefit, which staff had reinstated, presumably because Council in the 1980s had indicated it was a public benefit,. He personally would not consider the TOT a public benefit and asked whether it made any difference to list TOT as a public benefit or not. Mr. Schreiber said the TOT was associated with hotels. Hotel uses often would not fit within existing City zoning, and the Zoning Ordinance sometimes pushed hotel uses toward a PC zone. The decision as to whether or not to recognize the TOT for the unusual land use was Council's. The 1989 precedent had caused staff to include the TOT in its recommendation to Council. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Council had specifically asked in
11/17/97 85-161
1993 whether the original public benefits were sufficient to carry through the relatively minor amendments in the Holiday Inn action. At the time, he had indicated the public benefits were sufficient so Council had taken the TOT benefit finding out of the amendment package. The policy question before Council, which would legally guide the City in using the ordinance, was whether the revenue generation potential from land use should be considered a public benefit. In 1989, Council had found it so but in 1993 had avoided a direct statement to the contrary and removed the finding as unnecessary. Council Member Rosenbaum asked why staff had considered the increase in the FAR, for the proposed addition compared with the existing FAR, at clearly two to three times the density appropriate, and why something more in line with the existing building had not been proposed. Mr. Schreiber said the existing Holiday Inn had been developed at a different time and was a different style of hotel. The proposal was on a relatively small site and was a very compact development, as distinguished from the existing Holiday Inn, which was more spread out in nature. Given the size of the parcel, its location, and the PAMF project, staff considered the overall mass and bulk of the proposal acceptable. The proposal was taller than the existing Holiday Inn, with which staff was comfortable given site constraints and the evolving context of the area. It also related to the quality of the design and comments of the ARB. Council Member Schneider recalled a site study in the late 1980s when the proposed site was the only one for which redevelopment funds could potentially be applied. She asked what happened between April 1997, when the traffic study had concluded that the project would not create a significant traffic impact, and the comment in the following paragraph, "based on further information and study, City staff has conducted further analysis that revealed that further mitigation was required to reduce traffic impacts." Mr. Schreiber said the original traffic study had assumed installation of improvements at El Camino Real and Embarcadero would be made by the PAMF. Given the timing of the project, staff had first concluded it would be better not to assume, since the improvements were not date certain. The City had indicated to the PAMF that while it was requiring the PAMF to pay 100 percent of the cost of the left-turn lane if, and when, other developments came along that added to the left-turn volume, the City would try to achieve some proportionality between the PAMF and other developments. Sand Hill Road corridor addressed the intersection in a different way with a different set of improvements on Galvez.
11/17/97 85-162
The proposed project clearly impacted left-turn movement, so City staff had revisited the issue and found the need for mitigation. The same logic applied to the Page Mill/El Camino intersection where certain improvements had been indicated. The proposed project's impact was much lower at that intersection. If opportunities arose, efforts would be made to bring equity to different development applications. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open.
Clement Chen, 831 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, appeared on behalf of the Holiday Inn on El Camino as well as the property at 675 and 695 El Camino Real. The proposal had been for expansion of the Holiday Inn simply because Palo Alto needed hotel rooms. Thousands of reservation requests were turned away every month. The need for additional hotel rooms in Palo Alto had been demonstrated in September when President Clinton had been turned away when he brought his daughter to Stanford University. The Holiday Inn would be converted from a Holiday Inn to a Sheridan, since the hotel operated under a franchise agreement whereby royalties were paid in exchange for the reservation system and the use of the name. The expansion involved a change in the name and an upgrade to landscaping and the back entrance facing University Circle. The land on which the existing Holiday Inn sat was owned by Stanford University, leased to the City, and subleased to the hotel. By the end of the City's lease, Stanford University might ask for a return of the lands, a possibility which had been factored into the design phase to allow for a stand-alone hotel. The expansion filled in the gap between two major developments, the Holiday Inn and the PAMF, and would complete the development of a previously "junky" area in Urban Lane. The proposed use for the land, given its proximity to the existing hotel, PAMF, Downtown, and Stanford University, was excellent. The expansion would include 190 guest rooms and very limited public space. A small cocktail lounge would overlook the pool on the ground floor, a restaurant would be located on the second floor, and only 2,800 square feet of meeting space had been included. The hotel would not be designed as a convention or conference hotel. The guest rooms were located in five buildings connected by a central corridor. The buildings were four stories along Wells Avenue, stepping up to five stories in the center. The proposal was within the same 50-foot design guidelines as the PAMF. Upon completion, the total FAR of the project from University Circle to Wells Avenue would be 0.95, which would compare well with the PAMF's FAR of 0.9. The scale of development from University Circle to Encina was consistent. The project was constrained by the different land ownership of the existing hotel and the expansion. The expansion
11/17/97 85-163
would serve a higher priced clientele and designed like a boutique hotel. The new building was not a clone of the existing hotel but but would have the same human feel. The project provided a public benefit of needed hotel rooms which served friends, families, and businesses in Palo Alto. The hotel supported the Black & White Ball, Chili Cook-off, Snowmen and Sleigh Rides, Asian Pacific Film Festival, toys for the Children's Hospital, Addison Elementary School silent auction, Urban Ministry, etc. As a public benefits, the project would generate approximately $1 million every year in TOT. One year of TOT was sufficient to cover half the City's parks and facilities budget. Two years of TOT would fund a bright, airy, pedestrian/bicycle friendly tunnel from the PAMF to Downtown. The TOT was a result of the selected use as a hotel. If an office building had been proposed, no TOT would have been seen. The magnitude of the contribution was substantially different from a retail project. As Mr. Calonne and Mr. Schreiber indicated, Council had debated and found the TOT a public benefit. Wells Avenue would be improved. Land was being voluntarily used to incorporate the vision of Public Works and Transportation to provide two lanes of traffic, one lane of parking, a five-foot landscaped strip, and a five-foot sidewalk. Five feet of the proposed land would be seeded by the developer at $106,000. Upgraded paving would be installed on the sidewalk, street trees would be provided, and the grading and drainage would be improved on Wells Avenue. Meeting spaces would be provided for nonprofit groups once per month at no charge, a value of $6,000 per year. Public art would face El Camino Real, and $20,000 would be contributed for capital improvements to the existing University Avenue tunnels. The Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce hoped to rehabilitate the train station. If the plans came together, the north side pedestrian tunnels would be improved; however, nothing had been planned for the south side pedestrian tunnels. The $20,000 would provide lighting and ventilation to the existing bicycle and pedestrian tunnels on the hotel side of University Avenue. The developer had originally proposed a $50,000 contribution for the tunnel linking the PAMF with Downtown, a figure which had been deemed appropriate since the tunnel was on the PAMF property, distant from the hotel, and connected to Homer as opposed to University Avenue. On a pro rata basis, a $110,000 figure was proper arithmetic after discussions with the Planning Commission, so the figure had been increased to $150,000. The proposed project generated tremendous public benefits and had no negative impacts. The traffic impacts were mild from the nature of the hotel use. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the developer had ever considered providing shuttle service, in addition to the currently provided shuttle service within a five-mile radius, to major
11/17/97 85-164
airports serving the hotel, and if so, she asked about its success. Mr. Chen said the shuttle service within a five-mile radius would continue to be offered with the expansion to Downtown stores and restaurants, Stanford University, Stanford Shopping Center, and Stanford Research Park. Airport shuttle service was sufficiently covered by Super Shuttle and was used by many guests. The hotel was not close enough to an airport to make the service economical. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the analysis would remain the same even with double the number of rooms. Mr. Chen replied yes. The problem was the distance to the airport and the amount of time required per trip. Barbara Gross, Chairperson, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, spoke in support of the proposed project for the Holiday Inn expansion and considered the expansion a benefit to Palo Alto. Hotel accommodations were vital to the City. The proposal was ideally located and provided substantial public benefits. The TOT could pay for the entire library circulation budget for one year or keep the Cubberley Community Center open and maintained for one year. Council was urged to approve the proposed expansion. Tim Steele, 1043 Parkinson Avenue, spoke in support of the proposed expansion of the Holiday Inn because: 1) the City needed additional hotel rooms; 2) the current improvements on the Wells site were less than attractive for which the Chen project would be a tremendous improvement; and 3) of aesthetics, land use applications, and the minimal traffic impacts. Council was strongly encouraged to approve the project. Tony Carrasco, 4216 Darlington Court, Chairperson, Government Action Council, Chamber of Commerce, said the proposed hotel expansion was important to the City. Long commutes from hotels in other areas would be reduced. The proposal was an appropriate land use and was close to Stanford University, Stanford Shopping Center, and an existing hotel. The TOT was considered a public benefit, and improvements to the tunnels were important. Council was urged to approve the project. Irv Brenner, 250 Byron Street, agreed with the need for hotel space in Palo Alto but suggested alternative methods for meeting the need. The public benefit component should be proportional to the amount by which the current zoning was exceeded. The TOT should not be considered a public benefit since other taxes were not and, if not a public benefit, meant the developer had only offered $350,000 in public benefits for the additional 105,000 square feet
11/17/97 85-165
above what was allowable. Approval of the project should be based on a fair compensation for the enormity of the zoning benefits, or the project should be scaled down. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the Citywide Study in 1989 had identified four study areas intended as multiple-family residential housing, of which the Urban Lane site was one. The TOT was considered a payment by the customer rather than an expense to the applicant. The current project had been omitted from traffic studies for the Sand Hill corridor projects. The site had also identified spot zoning through the PC benefit zone district where excuses had been made into benefits for zoning. The site was an example of how traffic projections had been conducted piecemeal and previous public benefits disappeared. Mary Cardoza, President and CEO, Cardoza Travel Services, 550 Hamilton Avenue, spoke in favor of the proposed project because of the severe shortage of hotel rooms in the area, particularly in the proposed location, because of traffic and parking congestion. More hotel rooms would bring in additional spending to Palo Alto. Council was urged to approve the project. Mr. Chen responded to the comment about a concentrated location of hotel rooms which, from a land use standpoint, was better than spreading rooms throughout the City. "Public benefit" addressed how the community benefitted. The existing CS zoning failed to apply to the uses at the location; therefore, Mr. Brenner's comment about proportionality was irrelevant. Council Member Wheeler had mentioned a few months before that the issue was not one of the number of square feet but the use of the building. People using hotel rooms generated very low peak-hour traffic relative to other uses. The project would generate less peak-hour trips than a retail project complying with existing CS zoning. People doing business in Palo Alto would be accommodated and would no longer cause traffic increases in and out of the City during peak hours. Because of its proximity to transportation, employees of the hotel would not contribute as much as traffic engineers suggested. A survey of three-quarters of current hotel employees indicated 59 percent used some alternate form of transportation, 33 percent used public transportation, 12 percent carpooled, and the remainder either bicycled or walked to work. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the staff recommendation to: 1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that the
11/17/97 85-166
proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts if certain conditions of approval are imposed; and 2. Introduce the ordinance rezoning the site from the CS (Service Commercial) to the PC (Planned Community) district and approving the proposed construction of a new 194-room, five-story hotel complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements based on the findings listed in the ordinance and the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit 1. A final site plan shall be prepared and approved by the Planning Division which reflects any modifications by the ARB, Planning Commission and City Council. The revised site plan shall include a 5 foot right-of-way dedication along the entire Wells Avenue frontage for the construction of a sidewalk. The applicant shall install the sidewalk per City specifications and shall construct a new street profile on the northern half of Wells Avenue to conform with the PAMF project. The site plan shall include the mitigation measures recommended in the Noise Study conducted by ESA Associates (May 7, 1997) which indicates that the building facade facing El Camino Real should be acoustically designed to reduce indoor noise by at least 18 dBA (page 2). The loading zone should be relocated to Wells Avenue at least 120 feet east of El Camino Real provided that it will be shared with other users. The front drop off zone should be expanded from 54 to 60 feet, if possible. The entry and exit driveways should be narrowed from 20 feet to 15 feet to minimize exposure to pedestrians. The location and number of bicycle racks need to be clarified on the plans and be consistent with that shown on the project summary sheet. The applicant will be responsible for its proportionate share of the cost of: 1) the second southbound left-turn lane at the ECR/Embarcadero intersection, which is approximately 12.8 percent ($64,000) and 2) the addition of various right and left-turn lanes at the El Camino Real/Page Mill Road intersection which is approximately 2.5 percent ($57,500) but will depend on the actual cost of the improvements. The project shall include two 64-gallon containers each for newspapers, mixed paper and white paper; three 64 gallon containers for plastic and glass; three 64 gallon containers for aluminum and tin cans; and one four cubic yard container for cardboard. The Utilities Division will require sewer and water mains larger than those sized for
11/17/97 85-167
the adjacent PAMF project to accommodate the proposed hotel. The color and texture of proposed concrete sidewalks shall conform to Public Works standards for special sidewalk treatment. The public art proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Art Commission prior to subsequent review by the ARB. A statement of the circumstances of the
tree removal and intent of replacement on the applicant=s property, inclusive of all expenses and ongoing maintenance, shall be sent to the owner of the tree and written approval established. A certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant to prepare tree protection plans for the two oak trees located near the drive up entry and near the front of the project. The black maple street trees shall be 24-inch box. The applicant shall be required to submit to the Planning Division a mitigation monitoring report indicating compliance with all the mitigations contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Utilities Electric 2. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. Public Works Operations 3. PAMC Sec. 8-04-070 shall apply to all public trees to be retained. 4. All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved tree inventory or landscape plan shall be protected during construction. The following tree protection measures shall be approved by the City Arborist and included in construction/demolition plans and contracts. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the developer or project arborist verifying that the tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit issuance unless otherwise approved. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the
11/17/97 85-168
ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the drip line of the trees. If the sidewalk will be blocked by the above, the entire planting strip may be fenced off to allow pedestrian traffic to use the sidewalk. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department's standard specification detail #505). b. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. c. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. d. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 5. A certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant to prepare and submit tree protection plans. The plans shall identify the trees to be protected and include measures for their protection during construction. The certified arborist shall inspect the tree protection measures and shall certify that the PAMC Sec. 8-04-015 have been installed prior to demolition, grading, or building permit issuance. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 6. 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. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit Utilities Electric 7. This project requires a padmount transformer. The applicant shall provide an easement for installing the padmounted equipment and associated substructure. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Planning Department and the Architectural
11/17/97 85-169
Review Board. The final site plan shall be submitted to the Utilities Department for establishing the location and dimensions of the required easement. Fire Department 8. The applicant shall submit final plans for review and approval by the Fire Department that include the following: (a) automatic sprinkler system is required (NFPA-13R modified). Plans and permits required on underground fire service line and automatic sprinkler system b) wet standpipe system is required, c) Floor control values, d) elevator gurney access is required to be large enough to accommodate a gurney 24" by 82" and emergency personnel, e) illuminated exit signs and emergency lighting and low level signage, f) one-hour rated corridors, g) unit smoke detectors and occupant maximum signs for public areas, h) Portable fire extinguisher, and h) net suppression system for cooking appliances. Planning/Zoning 9. The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features. 10. Final landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plan table areas out to the curb must be submitted to and approved by the Utility Marketing Services Division. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations, a grading plan, and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for each project. These plans should be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include: a. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including private and public street trees. b. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. c. Irrigation schedule and plan. d. Fence locations. e. Lighting plan with photometric data. The existing lighting plan shall be revised to reduce illumination so as not to exceed 1.5 footcandles. All lighting must be shielded in a manner to prevent visibility of the light
11/17/97 85-170
source, eliminate glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the development. The lighting plan, photometrics and specification sheets should be revised to meet these guidelines and submitted to Planning staff for review and approval. f. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 11. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate ARB application. 12. The project shall include an enclosed trash and recycling area which complies with the design guidelines adopted by the ARB and approved by the City Council pursuant to Section 16.48.070 (PAMC). The final site plan shall include an enclosed trash and recycling area with a roof. The trash/recycling facilities shall be approved by the City of Palo Alto Recycling Division prior to issuance of a building permit. Public Works Engineering 13. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. 14. 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. 15. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for the proposed construction which will impact the use of the sidewalk, street, alley or on property in which the City holds an interest. 16. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto's Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto.
11/17/97 85-171
17. The applicant shall submit a conceptual stormwater pollution control prevention plan (SWPP) to Public Works for review and approval. Transportation 18. Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance requirements of PAMC 18.83.080, applicable to project frontages where driveways are present, and in parking lots. Landscaping shall be specifically identified in the landscape plan as meeting these height requirements. 19. Bicycle parking shall be provided in the amount, type, and location specified in PAMC 18.83 and submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division prior to submittal of a Building Permit. Guest bicycle parking shall be Class III. Utilities Electric 20. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 21. The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.). 22. 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. 23. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 24. 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 responsibility includes the design and all the cost associated with the construction for the installation/upgrade of the
11/17/97 85-172
water and sewer mains and/or services. Planning/Zoning 25. This project is subject to a housing in-lieu fee based on $3.48 per square feet of new floor area (127,019 proposed minus 48,000 existing = 79,019 square feet). The fee as of April 1996 was $3.48 per square foot for a total fee of $274,986.12. One half the fee ($137,493) is payable at the time of building permit issuance and the remainder at building occupancy. The actual fee due will be based on the building square footage shown on the building permit plans. The fee is adjusted annually in the spring and the fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance is the fee required. This fee is not reimbursable. The fee shall be submitted to the Planning Division, Advanced Planning Section. Public Works Engineering 26. The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. 27. A portion of the proposed work is within the State of California or County of Santa Clara right-of-way. A permit must be obtained from the applicable agency. Evidence of permit approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 28. An underlying lot line exists on the property. The developer/applicant is required to apply for a Certificate of Compliance to remove the underlying lot line from this parcel. 29. A detailed site-specific soil report must be submitted which includes information on water-table and basement construction issues. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 30. The approved relocation of service, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person requesting the relocation. 31. A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. 32. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required to furnish customer's demand specified in the load
11/17/97 85-173
sheet presented with this project. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the Utilities Standard Detail. 33. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required to furnish customer's demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. 34. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required to furnish customer's demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. 35. An approved Reduce Pressure Principal Assembly (Backflow Preventor Device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Reduce Pressure Principal Assembly shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 36. An approved Check Valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Double Check Detector Check Valve shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the city connection and the assembly. 37. A new gas service line installation is required to furnish customer's demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. 38. A new sewer lateral installation is required. 39. The applicant shall install a new sewer manhole and install a new sewer lateral per Utilities requirements. During Construction Building Inspection 40. To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private
11/17/97 85-174
property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor's operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor's expense. Utilities Electric 41. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 42. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling. 43. Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. Planning/Zoning 44. All street trees shall receive monthly watering. A written log of each application shall be kept updated at the site construction office. The log shall be forwarded to the Planning Arborist before final sign off is approved. Police 45. All 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. Public Works Engineering 46. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 47. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP's with respect to the developer's construction activities on
11/17/97 85-175
private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP's with respect to the developer's construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. The applicant also will be required to paint a "No Dumping/Flows into the Bay" logo near all drainage inlets. 48. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 49. The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from CALTRANS for all utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way and an Encroachment Permit from Santa Clara County Department of Transportation for all utility work in the County Road right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW Engineering Department. 50. The applicant shall obtain a Construction Permit from Santa Clara County Valley Water District for the gas service line to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 51. The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new water service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 52. The applicant shall pay all costs associated with required improvements to on-site and off-site gas mains and services. All improvements to the gas system will be by the City of Palo Alto or their contractor. Prior to Finalization Planning/Zoning 53. The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to Planning Division, and call for inspection, that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and that irrigation has been tested for timing and function, and all plants including street trees are healthy. Public Works Engineering
11/17/97 85-176
54. All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. 55. The unused driveway located at El Camino Real shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. 56. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. After Construction Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 57. The customer shall give the City written notice of any material changes in size, character, or extent of the equipment or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before making any such change. 58. Project construction shall include installation of irrigation supply to all street trees. Details shall specify an in line loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the rootball at a point one-third of rootball diameter. All tree irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto (V-C)(o). INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER Approval of the Planning Commission recommendation regarding public benefit to remove the transient occupancy tax (TOT) from the list of public benefits set forth in the ordinance, based on a discomfort with establishing a direct link between City revenue and public benefit and a zone change approval. Council Member Schneider said the project was inherently a good one which related to the PC. The Planning Commission's minutes had mentioned that the qualities of the project stood alone and would be sufficient if it had not been that a greater FAR was sought. Unfortunately, the nature of the PC required extracting a price from the developer. The project would provide much needed hotel rooms in an area entirely appropriate for hotels. The property was narrow and sat along a well-traveled road. Construction of the PAMF would require even more hotel rooms. The location directly across from Stanford University as well as the transit station at University Circle made a hotel ideal. The design was consistent with the new PAMF, the Town & Country Village Shopping Center, and Stanford University. The Planning Commission had had a lengthy
11/17/97 85-177
discussion about the merits of the project and had found the project good regardless of the public benefit, with which she agreed. She further supported the notion that the TOT not be included as a public benefit since the raising of tax dollars was inherent in the use of the property as a hotel. Taxes would be collected by the hotel from customers and paid to the City during the normal course of business. Tax generation was not viewed as a public benefit for any other type of business and should not be considered a public benefit for the proposed project. The other proposed benefits could be supported because of the direct relation to public benefit. The dedication of the land for sidewalks on Wells Avenue, 18 new street trees, and a five-foot wide landscaped strip provided by the developer were all benefits. The hotel would also provide 20 years of monthly meeting space for nonprofits. The community lacked viable space, and the offer to nonprofits was a true public benefit. The applicant would also provide public art not only for the people using the hotel but also for passers-by. The other portion of the public benefit came from dollars contributed for projects benefitting pedestrian traffic, including a possible tunnel beneath the train tracks and the improvement to the University Avenue tunnel on the hotel side. As a further vote of confidence in the developer and the hotel, Holiday Inn's management had participated in the community over the years to a far greater degree than almost any other business entity in the community, e.g., long history of donations, participation in the public, and giving back to the community. She supported the proposed project. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion with the recommended change proposed by Council Member Wheeler. The hotel had come a long way since its approval in 1972. A great deal of concern had been expressed about the Holiday Inn when it had first come before the Palo Alto voters but had clearly been a real asset to the community. Mr. Chen and his father deserved a great deal of credit for being outstanding corporate citizens over the years. During the week following President Clinton's inability to find hotel space in Palo Alto, he had had a conversation at a dinner with one of the White House aides who had wanted to speak more about the lack of hotel space in the Palo Alto area than anything else. Additional hotel space was highly desirable in the community. Agreement was given to the Planning Commission's observation about the desirability of adding on to existing hotel space rather than building in other locations. A couple of hotel redevelopment proposals had come before the City in recent months. At the time, Vice Mayor Andersen had expressed his inability to support a hotel at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino Real. The City should build on existing sites and consider locations such as Page Mill and El Camino Real for housing as opposed to hotel space. The
11/17/97 85-178
design had an excellent relationship with the current hotel. Mr. Schreiber's comment at the Planning Commission meeting that the hotel was a significantly lower traffic generator than other non-residential uses was significant. Most of the proposed public benefits were accepted; however, the issue of a pedestrian tunnel benefit was questioned. The concept of a connection to Downtown area was supported, but more discussion about the relationship between what was being received from the developer and the actual cost of the need for the tunnel should occur. As a result of the project, a number of major buildings would be located along El Camino Real, changing the nature to some degree. Concern was expressed about landscaping along El Camino Real. Public art should never compete with a tree. He hoped as much attention would be paid to south El Camino Real over the next few years as had been placed on north El Camino Real. The idea by Commissioner Schmidt of having the hotel offer bicycles to guests was an intriguing suggestion. Hotels in Portland, Oregon, offered bicycles. Given its access to Stanford University and the other wonderful parks and recreational lands in the area, the hotel was encouraged to consider the possibility of renting or allowing free access to bicycles to guests. He supported the proposal. Council Member Wheeler thought the hotel expansion would be a handsome addition to the community. Being extraordinarily well-designed, the hotel would serve not only its guests very well but also the Palo Alto community. The location for the facility could not be better. If additional hotel facilities were constructed anywhere in the community, the proposed site was ideal. The discussion at the Planning Commission regarding the public benefit had been one of the best discussions from the Planning Commission. She recalled discussions in 1988 when the Planning Commission on which she had sat had a similar discussion. The City should not make land use decisions based on fiscal returns or potential fiscal returns to the City. If such reasoning were taken and applied to other applications, many big-box retail stores would be constructed in the City for all the tax dollars which a Costco or Price Club would bring. If the office building had been a Hewlett Packard or other high-tech sales office, it would have brought in a great deal of sales tax dollars. Land use decisions had never been made on that basis. On the Finance Committee in 1988-89, the fiscal outlook for the City had not been positive. Employees had been laid off and severe cutbacks in levels of service had occurred at the time and had been a driving reason for that Council to make such a determination. However, she disagreed with the decision. Council Member Kniss supported the project. However, newspapers would be tempted to pick up on and attempt to get the public to somehow think a developer had managed to purchase more than had
11/17/97 85-179
been allowed at the site. The issue of PCs needed to be seriously considered over the next few years. Different decisions were made by other Councils because situations changed. Mayor Huber had stated earlier that evening that with all the wonderful building going on, another recession was probably due. The decision was very good, but Council should be aware that the issue had been examined carefully. The project had not been purchased by Council. Council Member Eakins asked about the hotel occupancy rate during the famous recession. City Manager, June Fleming said the rate would be difficult to extract from the revenue, but the TOT revenue in 1988 had been about $2.5 million. The latest financial report indicated the TOT was $5.1 million. Council Member Eakins expressed concern about making a decision based on the current need since the City was probably at the high point of a curve which might level out, dip, or continue climbing. The proposed building was appropriate for the site and an appropriate use for its location. She asked whether a FAR had been predicted for the hotel overlay zone which had been proposed. Mr. Schreiber replied no. An existing hotel overlay zoning had a 0.6 FAR, which was too low. The FAR for the proposed project would be higher. Council Member Eakins thought an earlier discussion had indicated CS zoning was a place-holder zoning because the City hoped the area was in flux, i.e., not a great deal of thought and land use planning had been behind it, but it was a place-holder. Mr. Schreiber said the CS zone had historical momentum, i.e., had been in place for a long time. Council Member Eakins agreed with her colleagues about the merits of the project and urged the applicant to work with the Public Art Commission (PAC) to invite competition for the public art. Both the trees and natural landscaping could work together, e.g., the median on California Avenue where the granite stones and the native plants worked together by an artist. Such a concept could enhance the building rather than having a piece of art in a location which looked as though a tree should exist. Council Member McCown said when the Holiday Inn expansion had come through the Planning Commission, the timing of which she and Mayor Huber had disagreed but had been the last thing she had done as a Planning Commissioner in 1987, the Planning Commission had
11/17/97 85-180
recommended the TOT not be considered a public benefit. The same division of policy advice had existed back in 1987, with which Council had respectfully disagreed. Council had been wrong at that time, and the current Council could correct the error. Whatever the economics had been at the time in the community, taxes for land use decisions had not been a wise path to travel. The Urban Lane area had been considered a change area, and while Mr. Borock's comments were correct that it had previously been considered for housing, the City had anticipated and expected to see new proposals to come forward in the area which would not be at a 0.4 FAR. Council had examined existing zoning Downtown during the same time frame of 2:1 and 3:1 FARs and had concluded it was not a wise continuing policy because of the significant parking and traffic problems foreseen in Downtown for which such level of development could not be handled, particularly in the assessment district. The proposed project was different and justified a higher FAR, providing 100 percent of its parking requirement on site and leaving the question of traffic. For the reasons analyzed in the staff report (CMR:471:97), the traffic impacts of the hotel use were benign and made it different from the level of development at the PAMF site, which was a lower FAR but probably had a higher traffic impact. Therefore, on its merits, the level of development and a FAR on the proposed site in excess of any zones could be justified. The public benefits were largely inherent in the project and the additional elements the project would provide. Vice Mayor Andersen supported the proposed project for many of the same reasons stated by his colleagues. The Planning Commission's discussion with regard to the TOT had been excellent, and he concurred with the recommendation. However, the struggle was not so much what was not an appropriate public benefit, but how to determine exactly what a public benefit was. The process questions were a challenge, and the issue was appropriate for a future Council to handle. Developers and the community needed to know exactly what the criteria for public benefit were. Clarity in the process was encouraged. When Council had initially discussed the Urban Lane area as a possible housing site, it had not anticipated being able to relocate the PAMF out of a residential area. Relocating the PAMF into the Urban Lane area had dramatically changed its dynamics. Council had done a commendable job. However, he had some concerns with regard to SRO, housing on Sand Hill, etc. Progress had been made in the area of increased housing availability as a result of actions which had been taken. Both Mr. Chen and the organization he represented had been excellent corporate citizens from which the City had greatly benefitted. Council Member Rosenbaum supported the project. The original Holiday Inn had been approved in November of 1971 with Clement Chen
11/17/97 85-181
II as developer. The project had been approved by a 5:4 vote. Then there was talk about recall. The Holiday Inn survived a referendum in June of 1972 by a 52 to 49 percent vote. The President at the time had been Richard Nixon, who had not had difficulty obtaining a hotel room. The hotel had been a family operation which he was pleased to support. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider Single-Story Overlay Zoning for Tract 709 of the Blossom Park Neighborhood. Contract Planner Chandler Lee said when the Planning Commission had reviewed the request, it had recommended deletion of the three lots at 4243, 4247, and 4255 Ruthelma Avenue since the middle lot was essentially surrounded by other two-story structures, making it only fair to delete the four homes from the single-story overlay. Of the 19 original lots, staff and the Planning Commission recommended 16 be included for the single-story overlay. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about a comment on page 25 of the Planning Commission's minutes about the guidelines referring to current deed restrictions. Mr. Lee said the intent of the guidelines had been to give stronger preference to neighborhoods and applications which currently had a deed restriction. The theory was that if a current contract existed among homeowners to limit the single-story overlay, the City would be more inclined to support it. Council Member Rosenbaum said when the issue had arisen during Comprehensive Plan discussions, there had been some uncertainty as to whether the guidelines referred to deed restrictions. Staff was encouraged to examine the issue during Comprehensive Plan review. Council Member Schneider asked about the requirements for removal of a single-story overlay zone and whether it had ever been requested, i.e., whether it was just the same process in reverse. Mr. Lee said Council Member Schneider was correct. Removal of a single-story overlay required rezoning back to original zoning. Council Member Schneider asked whether an individual homeowner could request removal from the overlay zone once in place. Mr. Lee said a homeowner could file an application. However, since the overlay was effectively codified as zoning, it was not preferred.
11/17/97 85-182
Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Forrest Carroll, 4239 Ruthelma Avenue, thanked the Planning Commission and his neighbors for having provided moral support. A strong majority had supported the request. The existing overlay for the property directly behind his, the original deed dated 1950, had called for no more than one and one-half stories, although two two-story homes had been built since that time. The height limitation would hopefully provide affordable housing. Steve Jesky, 300 West Charleston Road, spoke in support of the single-story overlay with the inclusion of the three excluded lots. Zoning went with the land and should not reflect current ownership or housing status since the applicable house size would remain the same regardless of whether or not the single-story overlay was granted. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation to: 1. Approve the Negative Declaration finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; and 2. Introduce the ordinance rezoning 16 of the 19 lots in Tract 709 Blossom Park from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single Story Overlay District. Vice Mayor Andersen had been pleased to hear a homeowner voice a desire to keep housing prices down by minimizing the size.
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 a Portion of Property Collectively Known as
>Blossom Park Unit 1 Tract 709' from R-1 to R-1 (S)≅ Council Member Wheeler asked whether a homeowner would be allowed to replace a single-story structure if a natural disaster occurred which destroyed one of the two-story buildings or, because it had a two-story building, whether the homeowner would be allowed to replace that which had been lost. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said if a house were destroyed by a natural act, the homeowner would be able to rebuild according to
11/17/97 85-183
existing zoning. If a single-story overlay zone existed, the house would be built back to the single-story requirements. Council Member Wheeler agreed with the last speaker about neighbors who had entered into an agreement with each other and the difficulty in enforcing agreements among neighbors. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Council Member Wheeler moved that Council reinstate the three lots into the motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Eakins always supported such applications because neighborhoods had so much to worry about with the types of replacement housing which had been built all over town. Until the City had some single-family design guidelines to protect neighborhoods, she was in favor of overlay zones. City Attorney Ariel Calonne thought the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) would allow replacement in a residential district of the non-complying structure to the extent it was non-complying on the date the ordinance went into effect. MOTION PASSED 9-0. RECESS: 9:20 P.M. - 9:40 P.M. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a City Council Initiated Zoning Text Amendment request to amend Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to add the definition
of ΑCarports,≅ to amend the definition of ΑGross Floor Area≅ and to clarify that carports shall not be counted in the calculation of floor area ratio (FAR) provided at least two sides of the structure are completely open and that the side(s) facing the street(s) be open. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 18.04.030 and 18.88.020 and Adding Section 18.83.105 to Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Carports Assistant Planning Official James Gilliland said changes to the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance were not simple. Council's initial direction had been to prepare a simple, interim change. Staff had prepared an initial recommendation for Planning Commission review, and the Planning Commission had significantly modified the recommendation. Attached to the staff report (CMR:470:97) were the recommended ordinance changes. In reviewing the ordinance language and preparing the changes necessary to implement what the Planning
11/17/97 85-184
Commission had recommended, staff had made further recommendations defining carports with the same FAR as garages. The change was generally consistent with the Planning Commission's direction but had not included an exception for carports located to the rear of the lot. The staff recommended change had been presented to the Planning Commission the week before but had appeared as an information only item because of public hearing notification problems, etc. Planning Commission Chairperson Bernard Beecham said the minutes from the Planning Commission on the carport had not appeared as concise as other discussions, since it had been ad hoc. The Planning Commission agreed with Council's desire to fix the carport ordinance. The result had been virtual garages, which had not been the original intent, to encourage less bulk. The Planning Commission's objective had been primarily to: 1) discourage virtual garages, since that had not been the objective; 2) protect Eichlers, which was probably no longer an issue; and 3) encourage carports in the back of lots, primarily removing garages and garage doors from street scapes. In many parts of Palo Alto, garage doors were not seen predominantly in the front, so the incentive had been to place garages or carports to the rear of lots. Council was asked to provide encouragement through FAR exemptions for carports located in the rear of a lot. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether the Planning Commission was comfortable with the staff recommendation, as presented, with the exception of the 75-foot setback. Mr. Beecham replied yes. Vice Mayor Andersen asked about the timing of the ordinance change, if adopted, i.e., whether consideration had been given to the number of applications and community interest which would result. Mr. Gilliland said any ordinance change would impact staff unless some kind of City Attorney action was implemented which stopped applications. However, staff would not recommend such action. Some kind of date-certain adoption for applications for building permit review would undoubtedly result in a run on applications before that date. The date for submission of building permits was usually a good point in time, if a date had to be chosen. Council Member Eakins recalled something about garage doors having been installed on carports, which had not appeared in either the Planning Commission or staff recommendations. The letter from the three Planning Commissioners continued to allow garage doors. Mr. Gilliland said Council Member Eakins was correct. By counting
11/17/97 85-185
carports in the FAR, staff expected carports would not appear on most projects except rear-located carports under the Planning Commission's exception. In discussions with people at the counter, the Building Department, and developers, most people really wanted a garage, not a carport. The carport exception had been included to encourage openness rather than an enclosed garage. Carports were being used so much for cars as well as personal items that they had become in effect an enclosed area. The original purpose for not having counted carports as FARs had been abused consistently. Council Member Eakins asked Commissioner Beecham whether garage doors could still be installed on carports even if 75 feet back. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission had no objection to a garage door on a carport if 75 feet back. When the Planning Commission had considered a carport in the front, the presumption had been that one wall would probably be the house wall which would prohibit a garage door. Council Member Schneider clarified it was street scape protection, not bulk protection. Mr. Beecham replied yes. Council Member Rosenbaum thought there had been a great difference between what the Planning Commission had discussed and what staff had come up with regarding inclusion of the carport in the FAR. The Planning Commission had tried to define carport, and anything other than the definition would be considered a garage and be counted in square footage. Staff had not bothered with a definition and had chosen to make any carport count against square footage. Mr. Gilliland said Council Member Rosenbaum's assessment was correct. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the incentive to use carports rather than garages would be eliminated. Mr. Gilliland replied yes, except for the exception proposed by the Planning Commission. Council Member Rosenbaum thought the change was quite revolutionary and recalled the 1980s when the initial discussions had taken place. He asked for staff's reasoning for limits on Eichlers. Mr. Gilliland said staff had researched Eichler homes which, because single story and because of the lot size, ran into lot
11/17/97 85-186
coverage limitations much more quickly than FAR limitations, so it would not be an issue for Eichlers. Before it made a difference, the lot had to be over 12,000 square feet. Council Member Rosenbaum asked for an explanation. Mr. Gilliland said essentially, it was 0.35 with some eaves and other things to go up to 0.40. Using the FAR limitations, because of the size of the lot, went into a coverage issue before the FAR issue. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified someone with a single-story Eichler would not be inconvenienced by the fact that the carport was being counted as square footage. Mr. Gilliland replied yes. Council Member Kniss had interpreted Mr. Beecham's comments as "the mess versus the mass" issue in which he had been very frank about the fact carports contained the same things as garages. For the most part, even if there were not four walls, there was still a mess there. Although some people would use carports effectively, many would not. She asked whether the Planning Commission's desire had been to eliminate both problems. Mr. Gilliland said the proposal had been designed to address both problems; however, the problems might not be completely eliminated. Staff's intent was to eliminate the two problems. The counter people and building inspectors had been the main contributors. Council Member Kniss thought the staff's current proposal was a less onerous way to deal with the problems than with some of the prior proposals. Mr. Gilliland said the proposal was onerous in the fact that a carport would count as square footage, so it was possible to hinder someone from doing something internally in the house, which was the only negative. Council Member Kniss asked about carports which looked very much like garages without doors. Mr. Gilliland said such carports would become non-complying facilities and, because included in a FAR, could be enclosed as a garage. Council Member Kniss asked whether that had been the City's true goal in the first place.
11/17/97 85-187
Mr. Gilliland said staff had initially desired to create openness without as much mass with carports; however, the plan had been so abused that the intent no longer existed. Council Member Schneider asked whether a carport in a house with a lot size larger than the typical Eichler, with two or three sides enclosed, storage along one side, and a front opening would become part of a FAR. Mr. Gilliland said yes, with the staff proposal. No matter how much of the carport was enclosed, if parking were covered, it would count toward the FAR. Council Member Schneider observed existing homes would suddenly increase the FAR substantially with a two-car carport. Mr. Gilliland replied yes. Council Member Schneider asked whether the homeowner would be prohibited from making an improvement on his or her home to add square footage because of the increased FAR from an existing carport. Mr. Gilliland replied yes. A staff survey of neighborhoods had revealed very rare instances of houses with carports except Eichlers. The actual use of a carport on houses up against FAR limits was fairly limited, but it was possible. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the staff proposal would affect a typical Council Member homeowner no differently from the general public. Council Member Schneider said she had been advised by the City Attorney not to participate because of a potential conflict of interest. Council Member McCown said she had been advised by the City Attorney not to participate because of a potential conflict of interest. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke in favor of the staff recommendation to count carports toward the FAR. However, he questioned the recommendation to exempt carports toward the rear of a lot since it would be difficult to determine when a garage door became attractive. The issue of illegally converted carports into garages, which under the current ordinance were not considered part
11/17/97 85-188
of the FAR, had not been addressed in the staff report but should be. At the very least, a financial penalty should be added to the normal building permit. Garage door designs should also be considered in the future. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said prior Councils had adopted FAR limits to control the overall mass of structures on a site. The current interpretation of the gross FAR definition had created the current situation in which the mass of structures on sites had been increased without applying for additional FAR. All covered parking should be counted toward the FAR; however, a new definition would be necessary in the PAMC. The definition of gross FAR could be changed to add "measure to the outside surface of exterior walls
plus any other covered parking." In accessory uses and facilities, the word "garages" could be replaced with "covered parking" to read "residential covered parking and parking facilities." With regard to existing carports which added mass without counting toward FAR, the change to the Zoning Code would create a non-complying facility. Builders of such houses should not be rewarded by being able to enclose with walls. Language should prohibit walls from being added to covered parking for structures built pursuant to current Ordinance 3905 if the house already had the maximum FAR or if adding the walls would increase the FAR or house size above maximum. He suggested the proposed ordinance go into effect immediately for all applications. Roger Kohler, 4291 Wilkie Way, spoke in favor of the Planning Commission's recommendations. One of the main objections to construction of new homes in older communities had been garages facing the street. Moving garages to the rear of the property was, therefore, desirable since it had a more settling street view than garages in front. The definition of a carport with two open walls had been abused by homeowners. The proposed ordinance should be of benefit, not a negative, to homeowners. Council was urged to approve the Planning Commission's recommendations. Council Member Rosenbaum asked how Mr. Kohler felt about staff's alternate recommendation. Mr. Kohler asked whether Council Member Rosenbaum had referred to carports and garages counting toward the FAR regardless of location on the lot. Council Member Rosenbaum replied yes. Mr. Kohler preferred the Planning Commission recommendations. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the pipeline. Mr. Kohler said one of his clients had been working with Barbara
11/17/97 85-189
Judy for several months, for which drawings had been submitted for compatibility review. The lots were very small, but garages and carports had been placed to the rear of the lot in an attempt to comply with historic standards of the compatibility review. Since time was being spent working with City staff with drawings submitted, he hoped it would be allowed to proceed. Not counting the carport was a benefit for small lots of 5,000 square feet. Mark Schuman, 4163 Abel Avenue, supported staff's alternate recommendation. Mr. Moss had characterized people who had converted carports to garages as "devils" in the community who had taken advantage of other members of the community. Behind each wall was a family confronted with a very difficult situation and a loophole which had been a law for some time. Mr. Moss had raised a political issue, but the issue involved people confronted with difficult situations. Council was urged to approve the alternate recommendations. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. Vice Mayor Andersen asked why staff had designated 75 feet for the distance to the rear of property. Mr. Gilliland said other provisions in the ordinance dealt with accessory structures located 75 feet back from the property line. Therefore, for consistency, staff had used the same number. Vice Mayor Andersen asked about the aesthetics of 75 feet. Mr. Gilliland said many lots in Palo Alto were between 100 and 120 feet deep, so 75 would put the carport at least three-quarters of the way back on the lot. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether homeowners could make carports into garages if Council proceeded with staff's alternate recommendation. Mr. Gilliland replied yes. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the staff recommendation to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), as follows with direction to the City Attorney to return at the first reading with amendments that address compatibility problems, pipeline issues, and a modified review process: Creation of a definition of a carport within Section
18.04.30, entitled ΑDefinitions≅ to read as follows:
11/17/97 85-190
(24.5) Carport means a portion of a principal
residential building or an accessory building to a residential use designed to be utilized for the shelter of one (1) or more motor vehicle which is open (unenclosed) at the vehicular entry side and has no more than two
(2) sides enclosed.
Amendment to Section 18.88.020, entitled ΑAccessory uses
and facilities,≅ allowing carports as an accessory use to residential use, to read as follows: (c)(1) Residential garages, carports, and parking facilities, together with access and circulation elements necessary thereto; Creation of a new provision within Sections 18.12.050 and
18.10.050, entitled ΑSite development regulations,≅ requiring carports to be counted towards floor area
ratios (FAR=s) within R-1 and R-E zoning districts to read as follows:
(I)(4) Carports shall be counted towards the maximum allowable floor area ratio requirements.
Amendment to the definition of Αgross floor area,≅ Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(C), requiring carports to be counted towards floor area ratios, to read as follows: (v) Carports shall be counted towards the maximum allowable floor area ratio requirements. Council Member Kniss said Vice Mayor Andersen had been one of the first Council Members to raise the issue of garages. The home at the corner of Addison and Webster had one of the more creative carports. The problem was one of "mass versus mess" for which staff had done its best. Moving carports back 75 feet addressed one of the real problems. Addressing the reality of closing in a carport and whether or not it was in compliance was also addressed. Staff had done as well as it could. No Council decision ever remained in place forever. Because Palo Alto was doing unusually well, it was tempting for builders to maximize the potential. The proposal leveled the "playing field," at least temporarily, and should be approved. Changes could be made at a later time. The effectiveness of the proposal would be unknown until something was in place to determine whether it would work.
11/17/97 85-191
Council Member Eakins was not enthusiastic about the Planning Commission's proposed exemption from the FAR for carports set back 75 feet because the bulk problem would not be addressed. The 200 extra square feet increased the bulk problem which was troublesome, particularly with what commercial builders were doing, i.e., making houses so large and bulky while being unable to use good quality materials, which was not right. Doors should not be placed on carports 75 feet back which could be used to increase the bulk. If the City wanted to encourage garages and carports to the back of lots, incentives could be given to carports and garages recessed to the backs of lots when permanent ordinances were implemented. Council Member Rosenbaum agreed with Council Member Eakins with respect to not adding the additional complication of the carport at 75 feet. He asked about the pipeline with regard to the compatibility review process. Mr. Calonne wanted Council to request staff to return with something for a first reading. The staff alternate was not in ordinance form, and he wanted the opportunity to revisit the pipeline issue. Staff could return with a proposal on the pipeline which met any Council direction. Sensitivity would be given to how to deal with the historic compatibility problem given the desire to make the process as functional as possible for people. Vice Mayor Andersen appreciated the letter Council had received from Jim McFall, who recommended what had appeared in staff's recommendation. He was comfortable with the recommendation except for individuals who had purchased massive structures with the additional square footage in garages. If there were genuine incentives in the future regarding the 75-foot setback, he would encourage future Councils to consider a variable for something which would add integrity to the dynamics of the entire home rather than just putting a carport in the back. MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Schneider Αnot participating.≅ MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved to approve the 75-foot setback exemption recommended by the Planning Commission. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Mayor Huber asked when the ordinance would return to Council for a first reading. Mr. Calonne said the item would return to Council within two weeks on the Consent Calendar. Some discussion would be helpful regarding the pipeline.
11/17/97 85-192
Council Member Rosenbaum understood that when it came to compatibility, the process of negotiating with Barbara Judy had become very rigorous and time consuming. An application already in process should not be included in the change. Vice Mayor Andersen agreed with Council Member Rosenbaum but was also concerned about the kind of homes which had been designed with the specific intent of taking advantage of the loophole and pushing through quickly in order to eventually make the carport into a garage. The door should be closed as quickly as possible in order to avoid more of the mass-plus-garage problem, based on a first reading, or earlier if possible. Mr. Calonne thought the City should have the ordinance effective on the night of first reading to deal with applications and processes for historic review as well as home improvement exceptions or other discretionary processes. Such a procedure would allow such applications to run their course, if submitted as of that time, although they were not ready for building permits. 13. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, as recommended by the Architectural Review Board, to deny a minor change to a Planned Community Ordinance (PC4243) for an existing residential building located at 216 Everett Avenue. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the appeal had resulted from a decision by the Director of Planning & Community Environment to deny a minor amendment to an existing Planned Community (PC) zone development plan. The house in question was located on the former Times Tribune site. The PC zone ordinance required all development on the site be in compliance with the approved development plan. (Section 3(c)(i)) of the ordinance stated that certain small items, such as landscaping, spas, skylights, windows and window coverings could be added or modified without approval of the Architectural Review Board (ARB). A further subsection of the ordinance stated that any other exterior changes to the buildings had to go through a PC amendment process. In examining the application, the Director and staff had determined that enclosure of the balcony had not constituted either window or window coverings or the minor changes allowed by the ordinance, but it was substantial enough to trigger an amendment to the development plan and should be reviewed by the ARB through a process outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.99, allowing minor changes to be reviewed by the ARB rather than through the Planning Commission and Council. Once the application had been reviewed by the ARB, it would become subject
11/17/97 85-193
to ARB standards found in Chapter 16.48, which were the 16 standards used by the ARB to review all applications. When the ARB reviewed the application, it had found the standards could not be met, and it recommended denial. The Director of Planning had then signed the recommendation, which had been appealed to Council. The basis for the appeal appeared to be based on two elements: 1) the enclosure of the balcony fell within the definition of window and window coverings, with which staff disagreed in that it was the intent of the ordinance to allow minor modifications to locations of existing windows, e.g., shutters or awnings, but not an enclosure; and 2) ARB standards were arbitrary, subjective, and not a reliable way to assess or review an application, with which staff also disagreed in that the assertions were used for all ARB applications, had been consistently applied when applicable to applications, and were not unreliable or unreasonable methods of assessing a project. Staff also disagreed with the appellant's overall assertion that the item should not have been subject to review by either the ARB or brought to Council on appeal. The application constituted a minor amendment to a PC development plan and that the appropriate place for the potential visual impacts was at the ARB, which had been correctly processed. Staff recommended the ARB's recommendation and the Director of Planning's decision be upheld and the appeal denied. Architectural Review Board Chairperson Robert Peterson said the ARB had not been excited about reviewing a single-family residence. However, it had recognized the appropriateness as part of the PC. An issue discussed by the ARB had been whether or not enclosing a porch increased the FAR. The answer had been unclear to the ARB, so its recommendation had not been made based on the question of whether the enclosure increased the FAR. The first fundamental issue reviewed and acted upon by the ARB was: 1) the enclosure of the porch itself. Both the effect of the enclosure on the building and the effect of the enclosure on the entire project had been considered, which had been of major importance to the ARB when the PC had initially been reviewed, i.e., the sense of openness and lack of bulk in all of the buildings had been an important element in approval of the project. Enclosure of the porch would change the building and probably set a precedent to encourage enclosure of further porches. The ARB had not seen it as an issue of a window but as the enclosure and removal of open space. 2) The second issue was the nature of the proposal for the materials and design of the enclosure. The ARB thought the use of the design and materials would not integrate into the existing building, i.e., it was of a makeshift, temporary, and lower quality appearance than the original buildings. For the two reasons cited, the ARB had not approved the application. Council Member McCown thought Council had had extensive discussions
11/17/97 85-194
about the particular exception, i.e., what would be considered a minor PC versus a major PC when the issue had first come before Council. The idea of having window treatments come back through the process sounded familiar. Ms. Grote had not been present when the discussion had taken place. In the past, staff and Council had discussed major versus minor amendments. Chapter 18.99 of the ordinance attempted to define minor amendments as items or elements which would not change the use or substantially change the character of a structure. Sometimes it was a difficult call to make. Council Member McCown said when the PC had come before Council, Council discussed the whole issue about a certain enumerated set of types of changes a homeowner could make to his or her home that would not require going through the ARB. Except for those, anything else would be processed as part of the PC had been addressed. Council Member Wheeler said Council had specifically talked about windows and window coverings and one of the definitions of window coverings. Council Member Rosenbaum said the ARB minutes likened it to single-family design review and the problems which might arise. He questioned a single-family subdivision which required ARB approval. Ms. Grote said if houses in a subdivision were developed together, the ARB would review it. A singly developed, single-family unit would not be reviewed by the ARB. Two or more units brought about an ARB review. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether further limitations would occur because of the limitation in a subdivision which fell under the jurisdiction of the ARB and had been approved to make other allowable modifications on the property. Ms. Grote was unaware that the ARB had placed such a condition on its review of a subdivision. The ARB usually reviewed a subdivision once and sometimes requested details returned for further review. However, there was no ongoing review in a subdivision. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified a homeowner in a subdivision five years later who wanted to close a balcony would not require any City approval. Ms. Grote replied no, not as part of the subdivision, which was a different process from a PC.
11/17/97 85-195
Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the unique feature was a collection of single-family homes which were developed under the PC ordinance. Ms. Grote said what was unique about the situation was just as Council Member Rosenbaum stated. It had specific changes and minor modifications, which would have been allowed. Others would not have been allowed without subsequent review. The specific PC ordinance made the development unique along with the review process. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the requirements for review of changes made sense with commercial buildings or multi-family units, but from the standpoint of the homeowner, the purchaser of a single-family house was faced with restrictions which would not occur with any other single-family house. Ms. Grote said most single-family homeowners would not favor such restrictions. Council Member Schneider said the restrictions were similar to Covenants, Conditions, & Restrictions on a condominium building. Director of Planning & Community Environment Ken Schreiber said there were two parts of the answer. CC&Rs and many condominium situations addressed the type of change. The area was a PC zone with integrated development and small lots with single-family units which differed from typical single-family units. The City would not monitor or enforce CC&Rs or what was in the CC&Rs for the particular project, but it was a matter for the private property owners to address. The City focused on zoning and the restrictions and regulations within the zoning. Council Member Wheeler said Mr. Peterson had mentioned the ARB discussion about the FAR and the open space provided by the open porch. She asked whether staff had researched and had a clear answer to the question of FAR, i.e., whether enclosing the balcony would cause the FAR limit to be exceeded and/or whether the FAR discussion was relevant to Council's decision. Ms. Grote said the FAR question was not relevant to the decision. The two aspects of Ordinance 4243 were Subsections 3(c)(i) and 3(c)(ii). The question of FAR had been unclear. Staff had examined the files to determine whether the balcony area had been calculated in the FAR, but it had not specifically been called out as part of the FAR. She suspected the balconies had been calculated in the FAR from the beginning. The definition of FAR in
11/17/97 85-196
the PAMC for residential uses included covered balconies above ground floor. By enclosing the balcony, the FAR would not technically be increased, but a substantial visual element was changed and subject to Subsection 3(c)(ii). Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. James Newton, 216 Everett, said the openings would be enclosed in glass which, according to the PAMC, was existing space. Putting glass in the openings would not change the character of the space and would not change the FAR. The change was not to zoning of any type. Whether or not the openings contained glass would not change the calculation of the FAR. The design review on a PC community in perpetuity to the properties was unreal. There were no deed restrictions on the properties or condominium and no CC&Rs. The only thing in condominium was the back alley. The property was purchased as a stand-alone, single-family home, developed under a PC but not currently in a PC. Even if the PC zone were applied, Subsection 3(c)(i) allowed installation of windows, which was an existing structure counted in the FAR. Mr. Peterson had questioned the use of the quality of materials, but the design which had been submitted had used exactly the same materials as had been used in the rest of the house, i.e., the same windows. The arguments about how it fit into the Comprehensive Plan and ARB criteria were totally subjective. The type of installation was the most common remodel, and ample precedent could be found throughout Palo Alto. Specifically, 101 Alma Street was a 12-story high-rise which contained almost solid glass enclosures, most of which had been done without any City review. In Summer 1996, the City had reviewed unit 205 and approved enclosure of the balcony. The single-story equivalent would enclose the front porch. Seven addresses on the block had enclosed balconies. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Architectural Review Board and staff recommendation to deny the appeal of an application for a minor change to an approved plan for an existing Planned Community (PC) zone district, based on the following ARB findings: FINDINGS: The proposed design does not further the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance as it does not comply with the Standards for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC.
Χ The design is not consistent and compatible with applicable
11/17/97 85-197
elements of the city=s comprehensive plan (Standard #a1), in that the proposed window wall system is not compatible with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as discussed in the Policy Section of this Report.
Χ The design is not compatible with the immediate environment of the site (Standard #a2), in that the proposed location and design of the window wall system is not integrated with the front facade. The proposal does not maintain a similar design as other houses in the PC zone and would create a negative visual impact. The enclosure of the second floor balcony is not consistent with the general character of the building and would disrupt the character of the surrounding building and land uses.
Χ The design is not appropriate to the function of the project (Standard #a3), in that the proposed design is not appropriate to the function of the project because the window wall system would eliminate the use of outdoor space off the master bedroom. Also, the enclosed balcony would eliminate visual openness, and break the mass of the front elevation.
Χ In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, whether the design is not compatible with such character (Standard #4), in that the proposal to enclose the second floor porch is not consistent with the unified design character of the residential units in the Planned Community District. The second floor balcony was designed to be a distinctive feature of this particular residential unit and is similar to other residences located in this development.
Χ The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and
character in areas between designated land uses (Standard #a5). This finding does not apply because the proposal does not affect the transition in scale and character of the existing building.
Χ The design is not compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site (Standard #a6), in that the proposed location and design of the window wall system does not blend in with the existing characteristics of the building. The proposed window configuration and proportions would create visual clutter on the building facade and negatively affect the aesthetics of the building both on and off the site.
Χ The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings 11/17/97 85-198
on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a
desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community (Standard #a7). This finding does not apply because the proposal does not impact the planning and siting of the existing building.
Χ The amount and arrangement of open space are not appropriate to the design and the function of the structures (Standard #a8), in that the proposal eliminates private open space on the second floor of the existing house.
Χ The sufficient ancillary functions are not provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are not
compatible with the project=s design concept (Standard #a9),in that the proposal eliminates an open porch that was intended to function as outdoor open space for the existing house.
Χ The access to the property and circulation thereon are safe
and convenient for pedestrians, cyclist and vehicle (Standard #a10). This finding does not apply because the proposal does not impact circulation on the site.
Χ That natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated (Standard #a11). This finding does not apply because the proposal does not impact natural features on the site.
Χ The materials, texture, colors and details of construction and plant material are not appropriate expression to the design
and function and the same are not compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions (Standard #a12), in that the proposed use of materials and details are not appropriate expression to the design of the existing second story balcony and are incompatible with other neighboring structures located in this PC zone.
Χ Whether the landscape design concept for the site, as shown by
the relationship of plant masses, open space, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment (Standard a#13). This finding does not apply because the proposal does not impact the existing landscape design.
Χ The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a
11/17/97 85-199
variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce
consumption of water in its installation and maintenance (Standard a#14). This finding does not apply because the proposal does not impact the existing plant materials on the site.
Χ The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements (Standards #a15). This finding does not apply because the proposal does not impact the energy efficiency of the existing building. Council Member McCown said when the project had come through the City process, there had been a comprehensive design approach to the units which had been more like a condominium or multi-family project than a single-family, individual lot development, even though the lots had been sold as separate parcel ownership. However, there had been an integration of design approach on all of the buildings which had been given great scrutiny and commentary by the ARB and reviewed at Council level. Ordinance 4243, Subsection 3(c)(i), had been discussed extensively as to what a homeowner would be able to move forward with without going back for an ordinance change. The balcony had been conceived as a balcony, and completely enclosing it with windows was an enclosure of a porch, not window treatment in terms of what Council had been trying to define in the ordinance. The ARB's jurisdiction was correct, and the ARB's judgment had been thoughtfully made, as with everything it did, in terms of what was consistent with the original intent of the design. The situation was unusual, but the City's jurisdiction over the homes in question was different from other homes in the community, and the jurisdiction had to be carried out in a manner which was fair and consistent with the original intention of the PC ordinance, which the ARB had done. Council Member Schneider had not been supportive of design review for single-family houses, but the project had not sailed through easily from the beginning. The developer had to jump through a tremendous number of hoops and had been asked a great deal in terms of design in order to obtain approval. One of the key issues for the project had been the way it reacted with the existing street scape. The balconies and windows had been two of the most important elements. By enclosing the balcony, the City would have stepped back from the original intent to make it an airy-looking building without the mass. Windows would detract from the sense of airiness and would enclose a balcony intended to remain open. The ARB had done a thoughtful job of examining the appeal. Council Member Rosenbaum said the discussion had convinced him that the difference between the appeal under question and a normal
11/17/97 85-200
single-family house was the fact the City had zoning regulations for single-family homes, but with the PC, it was really the PC which determined what could be done. With a single-family house, in general, the structure could be knocked down and rebuilt but would not be allowed with the structure under consideration since a modification of the PC would have to be sought. He asked whether the Newtons would ever be able to make effective use of the porch because of the wind conditions, i.e., whether the ARB would be open to some other treatment or any other solution. Ms. Grote said a process in place would allow the Newtons to make an application through the minor amendment to the PC development plan. The ARB would need to review the proposal and evaluate it against the standards and intent of the ordinance and the original design. She suspected there was a solution somewhere, but it might take some time to determine. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 13A. (Old Item No. 2) Policy and Services Committee re Stop Sign Intersection System Update and Recommendation to Install Stop Signs at Hale Street at Hamilton Avenue MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Policy and Services Committee recommendation as follows: 1) to install stop signs on Hale Street at Hamilton Avenue; and 2) not to install stop signs at the following four locations: a) Homer Avenue at Cowper Street; b) Parkinson Avenue at Harriet Street; c) Channing Avenue at Webster Street; and d)
Webster Street at North California Avenue, with Item 2d, Αnot to
install stop signs at Webster Street at North California Avenue,≅ to be referred to the December 9, 1997, Policy and Services Committee Meeting. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 14. Recommendation to Revise Proposed Long-Term Council Chambers Improvements, Council Chambers Refurbishing, CIP 19625 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the staff recommendation to 1) direct staff to proceed with
the implementation of an ΑEnhanced Basic Project≅ in the amount of $390,000 for the refurbishing of the Council Chambers, as detailed
11/17/97 85-201
in staff report CMR:429:97; 2) direct staff to proceed with hiring an architectural consultant for the design of the Council Chambers improvements defined by the selected scope; and 3) confirm that
Council=s direction as to the scope of work will allow staff to proceed directly to the consultant selection stage without additional review by the Finance and Policy and Services Committees. Vice Mayor Andersen said staff had done an excellent job of dealing with issues with which he had concern to make the place work more effectively within a reasonable and prudent range. Council Member Wheeler had been among the first Council Members in favor of the $900,000 improvements which, although not the most popular with the public, were still favorable. At the time, she had been concerned about the price tag and had asked staff for ways to phase in the development as funds became available. Staff's recommendation would allow future Councils to complete the original plans as funds became available and as the will to do so existed in the future. The public might even see what the first phase brought and be more receptive in the future to have the work done because the plan had been very handsome. She was pleased the plans would not preclude an eventual taking of the next step as time and politics allowed. City Manager June Fleming asked Council to deal with the three recommendations, not just the recommendation having to do with the finances. In terms of the package staff put together, although possible in increments, it would be some time before staff would return with future proposals. Council Member Wheeler had not advocated anything at the current meeting to imply Council's intent to proceed with the $900,000 work. Council Member Fazzino asked where the television booth would be relocated. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the issue would be negotiated among the City, Cable Co-op, and Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation (MPAC) in the contract for 1998-99. Prior discussions had indicated that should Council approve the recommendation, the City Clerk would negotiate the relocation. Council Member Fazzino asked about the realistic options. Mr. Roberts said there were several conceptual options, but no specific options had been identified. The television booth could be located off site or in the back corner of the Council Chambers
11/17/97 85-202
adjacent to the Police building. If it remained on site, although not recommended, a number of places were theoretically possible. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion but expressed concern about the treatment of MPAC and the television booth. In 1971, when KZSU first approached the City and Council had approved broadcast despite tremendous trepidation, the original plan had allowed KZSU to use the booth in the Police Department. A few months later, the Police Department had decided the location was not the best since the booth would be used to observe disturbances in the Council Chambers. It was very important for the City to do all it could to retain the television and radio broadcast, and it was folly to believe camera people could do so from a remote site. MPAC should not receive second-class treatment during negotiations regarding the issue. There were legitimate reasons to understand it was not reasonable to believe MPAC could do an outstanding job from a remote location. City Clerk Gloria Young had attended several council meetings at other cities at which most community access broadcasting had been conducted from a remote location and not necessarily in the Council Chambers. The City's cable booth had serious safety issues about which the City staff had been cautioned by MPAC. The issue required attention whether at the current location or elsewhere. Council Member Fazzino had observed a number of occasions when camera people had had to adjust cameras, etc., to improve the telecast, which would be more difficult to accomplish if at a remote location. Ms. Fleming had been present when City Hall had originally been designed, and the booth in the Police Department had been designed for broadcasting. However, because of the time it had taken to finally set up the broadcasting, the booth had become impractical for various reasons, including access and requirements for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The staff recommendation had not included funding for building new facilities on site for broadcasting but required another site. Ms. Young's observations were correct; the current facility was unacceptable. Staff might need to return to Council for additional funding if the operations were to be kept in the Council Chambers. Council Member Fazzino was interested in a reaction from MPAC and others associated with the production prior to making any decision. Ms. Young said she would be meeting with Elliot Margolies the following day and would follow up with Council Member Fazzino's comments.
11/17/97 85-203
Vice Mayor Andersen agreed with Council Member Fazzino, although he was not as concerned about the location as the adverse financial impact on MPAC by requiring the relocation. If the City's improvements to the facility required relocation of MPAC and there were costs associated, it was not appropriate to ask MPAC to absorb the costs. Ms. Fleming said the staff report (CMR:429:97) required relocation of the cable broadcasting to be the responsibility of MPAC. If the City required a financial contribution to assist MPAC in the relocation, she requested the authorization to do so. An estimate of $70,000 would be necessary for relocation. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the City Manager be given flexibility with respect to the costs for the relocation of the cable booth and the radio station. Ms. Fleming said staff had desired to bring back something which would work. Council Member Eakins asked about her current seating position and said the screen as it was positioned was hard to see. Mr. Roberts said the physical locations would remain the same. The visibility of the screen would be greatly enhanced. Council Member Eakins expressed disappointment. Members of the public and applicants put a great deal of effort into visual presentations. When something was done to increase the utility of presentations, the press and the public had become very excited about the money being allocated. However, it was too bad the visual functionality would not be increased. Mr. Roberts said Alternatives 4 and 5 would be necessary to accomplish the upgrade to the systems embodied in Council Member Eakins' comments. Council Member Eakins asked whether anything could be done with a supplemental display so that Council Members sitting at one end of the dais could see the presentations without risking a trip to the chiropractor. Mr. Roberts replied no. Such a change would involve rebuilding the dais with new electrical monitoring, new systems, etc., which was not within the scope of the current alternative. Council Member Kniss said the City would need to "chip away" at the project, little by little.
11/17/97 85-204
MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 15. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Huber congratulated Council Member McCown for her reappointment to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and reminded his colleagues of the need to appoint a Sand Hill Ad Hoc Committee. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
11/17/97 85-205
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.
11/17/97 85-206