HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-18 City Council (13)TO:
City of Palo A]lto
City Manager’s Summary Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 3
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community
Environment
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
November 18, 1996 CMR:470:96
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Urban Design Element - Program 6a,
and Zoning Ordinance Text Changes amending Section 18.49.060 and
adding Chapter 18.87 to implement a revised Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) Program and to revise the floor area bonus program in
the Commercial Downtown (CD) District.
REQUEST
This report transmits a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zoning ordinance text changes that
1) modify and implement a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program for qualified historic
and seismic qualified sender sites, and 2) revise the floor area bonus program in the CD (Commercial
Downtown) District. The TDR Program and associated floor area bonus ordinance revisions were
prepared in response to City Council direction on December 12, 1994, and May 1, 1995. The revised
programs provide that bonus floor area granted for seismic or historic rehabilitation of buildings in
the Downtown may be trans"erred to eligible nonhistoric receiver sites in the Downtown.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission, Historic Resources Board (HRB), Architectural Review Board (ARB)
and staff recommend that the City Council:
1.Approve the attached Negative Declaration (Attachment 3);
Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) amending the programs in the Comprehensive
Plan which establish Transfer of Development Rights;
Approve the attached zoning ordinance revisions implementing a revised Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) Program (Attachment 2) and modifying floor area bonus
provisions in the Commercial Downtown (CD) District; and
CMR:470:96 Page 1 of 27
o Direct staff to return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance fee schedule amendment
(Attachment 4) establishing cost-recovery fees to be charged to applicants requesting
approval of TDRs.
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Attachment 1) and ordinance (Attachment 2) contain all of
the recommendations of the Planning Commission, with one exception. At the May 1, 1995
meeting, the City Council directed staff to develop a TDR ordinance that did not bestow" rights
retroactively. However, based upon testimony at the recent hearings, the ARB and Planning
Commission recommended that the program be revised to retroactively apply TDRs. The proposed
ordinance does not contain provisions to apply the program retroactively, reflecting Council’s
May 1, 1995 action.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Existing Policy Framework
The project before the Council is revisions to the TDR Program and the existing bonus floor area
provisions of the CD District regulations.
The existing TDR Program is contained in the Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
It provides that bonus floor area granted for rehabilitation of historic buildings in the Downtown may
be transferred to eligible nonhistoric receiver sites in the Downtown. The Comprehensive Plan
program includes three general provisions: 1) the approval process for transferring floor area is the
Planned Community zone process; 2) a size limit of 0.5 to 1.0 of additional floor area above what
is otherwise permitted is established on projects that are receivers of transferred floor area; and
3) receiver sites must be at least 150 feet from residentially zoned property.
The existing Floor Area Bonus provisions are contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The CD District
regulations currently provide for floor area bonuses (2,500 square feet, or 25 percent of the existing
building, whichever is greater) to be granted for historic preservation of historic Category 1 and 2
buildings and for a qualified seismic rehabilitation of seismic Category I, II or III buildings. Double
bonuses (5.000 square feet, or 50 percent of the existing building, whichever is greater) can be
granted for buildings which undergo both historic and seismic rehabilitation, pursuant to Ordinance
4261 adopted by the City Council on December 12, 1994.
City Council Direction
On December 12, 1994, the City Council directed staffto develop a more streamlined TDR Program
to make it more useable, while keeping the existing program’s project size limits and required
distance of 150 feet from residentially-zoned property. On May 1, 1995, the City Council reviewed
a revised TDR Program, which was prepared by staff in response to the City Council direction on
December 12, 1994. Staff prepared the Draft TDR Program Ordinance for Council consideration
on May 1, 1995 to address only historic Category 1 and 2 properties as qualified sender sites. This
draft was consistent with the current TDR program in the Comprehensive Plan, Urban Design
Element, Program 6A, but modified the program as described in the Comprehensive Plan to allow
transfers in the CD District without need for PC rezoning. The City Council continued the TDR
Program on May 1, 1995, primarily to have it expanded to include allowing transfers of floor area
from seismic upgrade projects on qualified non-historic sender sites as well.
CMR:470:96 Page 2 of 27
Proposed Revisions to the DensiD’ Bonus Program and the TDR Program
In general, the proposed project is consistent with, and provides further support and incentives for,
existing City policies to encourage historic preservation and seismic safety as addressed in the
Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Element and Environmental Resources Element (i.e., Urban
Design Element, Policy 2, Programs 6~ 8, 10b, 10c and 11, and Environmental Resources Element,
Policy 14, Program 45). The following proposed revisions contained in the attached ordinance and
resolution represent changes to existing City policies.
Incentives through Sn’eamlined Process - Under the proposed TDR program ordinance, the decision-
making body for CD District development projects in which TDRs are granted and/or used in the
CD District would be the ARB/Planning Director rather than the City. Council. As a streamlining
measure, the Planning Commission and City Council would no longer be part of the review process,
as they now are in the Planned Community zone process. The Council would hear applications only
if the ARB/Planning Director decision were appealed. Therefore, the normal process will be
shortened. An exception to this overall statement is that Council would continue to have review
authofiw for the use of a double bonus on a qualified historic sender site which is also transferring
a portion of the bonus off-site.
Allow Nonhistoric Seismic I. II or III Buildings to Transfer Development Rights - The City
Council’s direction on May 1, 1995 was to expand the current TDR program in the Comprehensive
Plan to include nonhistoric, qualified seismic buildings as sender sites. The attached resolution and
ordinance have been amended to include qualified seismic buildings to participate in the TDR
program. The purpose in allowing buildings that are in need of seismic repair to participate in the
program is twofold. One is to provide incentives to property owners to reduce the threat to
life/safety which is presented by the seismic instability of these buildings. Many of these buildings
are constructed of unreinforced masonry, and/or were constructed prior to 1935. Often, when
buildings are upgraded or refurbished to improve their marketability, some seismic strengthening
is completed, but for cost reasons the upgrade stops short of meeting the requirements of the City’s
seismic program. Allowing buildings in need of seismic upgrading to sell development rights
provides an incentive for building owners who would not otherwise be able to seismically
rehabilitate their buildings. The second reason for including seismic buildings is to encourage long-
term retention of older buildings that contribute to the character and quality of Downtown but are
not historic Category 1 or 2.
Both Seismic and Historic Rehabilitation Required - In the existing CD District bonus regulations,
the owner of a building designated both seismic Category I, II or III and historic Category 1 or 2 can
elect todo either of these rehabilitations and receive the bonus without doing the other rehabilitation.
The proposed CD bonus ordinance language has been amended to require that both upgrades are
accomplished in all instances where either is desired. It is important to require both rehabilitations,
primarily because an historic building which has been rehabilitated could be lost in a major
earthquake if the structure were not seismically upgraded. Conversely, a seismic upgrade project
could adversely impact character of an historic building if the work did not include historic
restoration.
CMR:470:96 Page 3 of 27
Establish Maximum FARs at Receiver Sites - The proposed TDR ordinance establishes maximum
FARs at the receiver sites which are different from the limitations in the current Comprehensive Plan
TDR Program (see Section 18.87.050(a-d) in Attachment 2). Under the current Comprehensive Plan
program, TDR may not exceed 0.5 to 1.0 above what would otherwise be permitted. Under the
proposed ordinance, for receiver properties within the downtown parking assessment district, the
maximum FAR would be increased to 1.0 to 1.0 above what exists or would otherwise be permitted
for the site, whichever is greater, provided that the total additional floor area does not exceed 10,000
square feet. For receiver properties located outside of the parking assessment district, the maximum
FAR would be 0.5 to 1.0 above what exists or would otherwise be permitted for the site, whichever
is greater, provided that the total additional floor area does not exceed 5,000 square feet. The higher
project size limit was recommended by the Planning Commission to provide additional incentives
to persuade applicants to commit to seismic upgrades. The proposed TDR ordinance also includes
overall FAR limits of 3.0 to 1.0 in the CD-C subdistrict and 2.0 to 1.0 in the CD-S and CD-N
subdistricts, identical to the existing FAR limits in the current floor area bonus program (Section
18.49.060(b)(2)).
Modify-the 150-foot Residential Buffer - At the May 1, 1995 meeting, the City Council decided to
retain the 150-foot buffer between residentially zoned properties and receiver sites. Based on
testimony at the recent hearings, the Planning Commission and staff recommend that the 150-foot
residential buffer be revised to include a modification which complies with the intent of the 150-foot
buffer, while not meeting the precise distance requirement. Under the proposed TDR program, a
provision has been added which allows a property located both across the street and one parcel
away from a residential district to qualify as a receiver site.
Certification and Transfer of Development Bonuses - Instead of the development bonuses for
historic and seismic rehabilitation being granted and used only through the approval and construction
of a development project (i.e., under existing CD District regulations), the proposed TDR ordinance
will allow the City to certify that certain development rights have been granted based on the approval
of a qualified building rehabilitation. In cases where all of the development rights have not been
used on the site, those unused rights may be sold or otherwise transferred for use on an eligible site.
Bestow Transfer Rights Retroactively - At the May 1, 1995 meeting, the City Council directed staff
to develop an ordinance that did not bestow rights retroactively. Based upon testimony at the recent
hearings, the Planning Commission recommended that the TDR Program be revised to allow seismic
and historic projects, that were going through the building permit process or had an open building
permit prior to final inspection after May 1, 1995, to be eligible as TDR sender sites. Since the
Council action on May 1, 1995 was not to apply the TDR Program retroactively, the attached draft
ordinance does not contain any revisions to apply the program retroactively.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed Revisions to the Existing Comprehensive Plan TDR Program
The attached resolution contains the following revisions to the Comprehensive Plan, Urban Design
Element, Program 6:
CMR:470:96 Page 4 of 27
Approval Process. Eliminates reference to the Planned Community Zone process as the
only implementation process for the TDR program.
Modification of 150-Foot Buffer. The current Comprehensive Plan 150-foot residential
buffer is modified. The purpose of the modification is to allow properties which achieve the
"residential buffer" intent, through a separation by street and another commercially zoned
property, although they do not meet the exact distance parameter to be eligible for TDR.
Project Size Limits. Under the current Comprehensive Plan program, TDR may not exceed
0.5 to 1.0 above what would otherwise be permitted. Under the proposed TDR Program
Comprehensive Plan amendment, receiver properties within the downtown parking
assessment district would have a higher project size limit. The maximum FAR would be
increased to 1.0 to 1.0 above what exists or would otherwise be permitted for the site,
whichever is greater, provided that the total additional floor area does not exceed 10,000
square feet. For receiver properties located outside of the parking assessment district, the
project size limit is further constrained. The maximum FAR would remain at 0.5 to 1.0
above what exists or would otherwise be permitted for the site, whichever is greater,
provided that the total additional floor area does not exceed 5,000 square feet.
Proposed TDR Ordinance
The attached TDR ordinance establishes a TDR program with the following provisions:
o
Implements Comprehensive Plan Programs for Historic Preservation and Seismic
Safety. The draft TDR ordinance implements the above provisions of the TDR resolution
and extends the TDR program to qualified seismic properties.
Terms Defined. The following terms are defined: "Certification", Receiver Site", "Sender
Site", and Transferable Development Right" (see Section 18.87010 in the attached draft
ordinance).
Transfer Procedure. Under the draft TDR ordinance, procedures are established for
transferring and purchasing development rights.
Transfers to Sites within Planned Community (PC) Zones. The draft TDR ordinance
allows a PC zoned property, to be a receiver site if the site was formerly located in the CD
District, and the ordinance rezoning the property to PC approves the use of TDR.
Proposed Revisions to the Existing Floor Area Bonus Program
The attached ordinance contains the following revisions to the existing floor area bonus program:
Historic Rehabilitation Def’med. The term "historic rehabilitation" is defined as "returning
a property to a state of utilit3,, through repair or alteration which makes possible an efficient
contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are
significant to its historic, architectural and cultural values" (see Section 18.49.060(a)(1) of
CMR:470:96 Page 5 of 27
the attached draft ordinance). This definition is consistent with Council action in adopting
the Double Bonus Ordinance 4261 on December 12, 1994.
Both Rehabilitations Required. Currently, the owner of a building designated both seismic
Category I, II or III and historic Category 1 or 2 can elect to do either of these rehabilitations
and take the bonus without doing the other rehabilitation. This would no longer be pen~tted
under the revised floor area bonus program (see Section 18.49.060(b)(2) and (3)(A)).
Rehabilitation Work Must Be Included in Project. The attached ordinance clarifies what
is self-evident, but was not stated: that an expansion of a historic building would not qualify
for a floor area bonus unless any needed historic and seismic rehabilitation is included in the
project (see Sections 18.49.060(b)(3) and 18.49.060(b)(3)(A) in the attached draft
ordinance). This is a "technical clean-up" amendment.
Record Keeping Process. A process is established for the City to certify that certain
standards have been met and that development bonuses have been granted, used and/or
available. These administrative requirements are consistent with Council’s actions in
adopting the Double Bonus Ordinance on December 12, 1994. They are needed in order to
allow sale of a right to a third party.
FISCAL IMPACT
While the precise fiscal impacts to the City cannot be determined, it seems likely that they would
not be significant. Additional costs would be incurred by formalizing the process of City
certification that development bonuses have been granted and/or lzansferred, since this would require
minor modifications to application forms and additional record keeping. It is recommended that
cost-recovery fees for the cost of processing specific applications can be charged to applicants and
that a municipal fee schedule amendment remm to Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An Environmental Impact Assessment and a Negative Declaration have been prepared for the TDR
Program and the revised bonus floor area provisions, and is attached (see Attachment 3).
PREPARED BY: Robert Schubert, Contract Project Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CMR:470:96 Page 6 of 27
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
anager
CMR:470:96 Page 7 of 27
CMR:470:96 Page 8 of 27
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
SUBJECT:TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Urban Design Element - Program 6a,
and Zoning Ordinance Text Changes amending Section 18.49.060 and
adding Chapter 18.87 to implement a revised Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) Program and to revise the floor area bonus program in
the Commercial Downtown (CD) District.
REQUEST
This repor~ transmits a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zoning ordinance text changes that
1 ) modify and implement a Transfer of" Development Rights (TDR) Program for qualified historic
and seismic sender sites, and 2) revise the floor area bonus program in the CD (Commercial
Downtown) District The TDR Program and associated floor area bonus ordinance revisions were
prepared in response to Ci~’ Council direction on December 12, 1994, and May 1, 1995. The revised
programs provide that bonus floor area granted for seismic or historic rehabilitation of buildings in
the Downtown may be transferred to eligible nonhistoric receiver sites in the Downtown.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission, Historic Resources Board (HRB), Architectural Review Board (ARB)
and staff recommend that the City. Council:
1.Approve the attached Negative Declaration (Attachment 3);
Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) amending the programs in the Comprehensive
Plan which establish Transfer of Development Rights;
Approve the attached zoning ordinance revisions implementing a revised Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) Program (Attachment 2) and modifying floor area bonus
provisions in the Commercial Downtown (CD) District; and
Direct staff to return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance fee schedule amendment
(Attachment 4) establishing cost-recovery fees to be charged to applicants requesting
approval of TDRs.
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Attachment 1) and ordinance (Attachment 2) contain all of
the recommendations of the Planning Commission with one exception. At the May 1, 1995 meeting,
the City. Council directed staff to develop a TDR ordinance that did not bestow rights retroactively.
However, based upon testimony at the recent hearings, the ARB and Planning Commission
recommended that the program be revised to retroactively apply TDRs. The proposed ordinance
CMR:470:96 Page 9 of 27
does not contain provisions to apply the program retroactively, reflecting Council’s May 1, 1995
action.
BACKGROUND
On February 21, 1995, the Cib~ Council approved an ordinance allowing seismic and historic
bonuses to be cumulative. The Double Bonus Ordinance also provides that a cumulative bonus
cannot be used on the historic site unless the Cit-y Council approves the project and makes certain
findings that the historic preservation of the building is not compromised.
As a related matter, at the December 12, 1994 meeting, the City Council directed staff to develop
a more streamlined TDR Program, while keeping the existing program’s project size limits and
required distance of 150 feet from residentially-zoned property. On May 1, 1995. the City Council
reviewed a revised TDR Program which was prepared by staff in response to the City. Council
direction on December 12, 1994. The Council continued the TDR Program in order to expand it to
include TDR for seismic upgrades and requested staff to recommend any modifications necessary
to address 11 questions.
Historic Resource Board (HRB) Recommendation
The HRB reviewed the revised TDR Program on June 19. 1996 (see attached HRB minutes). One
member of the punic spoke. Chris Dressel representing the President Apartments, 480 Universi~
Avenue, requested that the TDR Program be revised to allow the property to participate in the TDR
Program as a sender site. The site is currently an ineligible receiver site because the existing floor
area exceeds the maximum 3.0 to 1.0 floor area ratio (FAR). The HRB, on a unanimous (5-0-2-0)
vote. with Carol Murden and Roger Kohler absent, recommended approval of the proposed TDR
Program. The HRB also recommended that the program be revised to allow sites with buildings that
are Historic Catego~’ 1 or 2 and that currently exceed the maximum permitted FAR to obtain floor
area bonuses and transfer the floor area. The HRB’s specific recommendations are summarized
below under the Discussion section of this report.
Architectural Review Board (ARB) Recommendation
During the public hearing on June 20, 1996, Chris Dressel spoke on behalf of the President
Apartments. requesting that the property, be allowed to participate in the TDR Program as a sender
site (see attached ARB minutes). The ARB, on a unanimous (4-0-1-0) vote, with Julie Maser absent,
recommended approval of the revised TDR Program. The ARB’s specific recommendations are
summarized below under the Discussion section of this report.
Planning Commission Recommendation
During the public hearing on June 26, 1996, testimony was received from four members of the
public (see the testimony by Jim Baer, John Northway, Robert Konevich and John Hanna in the
attached minutes from the June 26, 1996 Planning Commission). The Planning Commission
continued the item, and referred three questions (Questions 6, 9 and 10) to a TDR Committee,
consisting of Commissioners Cassel, Schmidt and Schink, for further review. On August 6, 1996,
the TDR Committee met to discuss the questions which were referred from the Planning
Commission. One member of the public, Jim Baer, attended the meeting. On September 11, 1996,
the Planning Commission recommended approval of the negative declaration and the revised TDR
CMR:470:96 Page 10 of 27
program, including changes recommended by the Committee (see attached minutes from the
September 11, 1996 Planning Commission meeting). Public testimony was provided by Jim Baer
and Tricia Ward-Dolkas. The Planning Commission’s specific recommendations are summarized
below under the Discussion section of this report.
Project Description
The project before the Council is revisions to the TDR Program and the existing bonus floor area
provisions of the CD District regulations.
Proposed Revisions to the Existing Comprehensive Plan TDR Program
The attached resolution contains the following revisions to the Comprehensive Plan, Urban Design
Element, Program 6:
Approval Process. Eliminates reference to the Planned Communiw Zone process as the
only implementation process for the TDR program.
Modification of 150-Foot Buffer. The current Comprehensive Plan 150-foot residential
buffer is modified. The purpose of the modification is to allow properties which achieve the
"residential buffer" intent, through a separation by street and another commercially zoned
property, although they do not meet the exact distance parameter, to be eligible for TDR.
Project Size Limits. Under the current Comprehensive Plan program, TDR may not exceed
0.5 to 1.0 above what would otherwise be permitted. Under the proposed TDR Program
Comprehensive Plan amendment, receiver properties within the downtown parking
assessment district would have a higher project size limit. The maximum FAR would be
increased to 1.0 to 1.0 above what exists or would otherwise be permitted for the site,
whichever is greater, provided that the total additional floor area does not exceed 10,000
square feet. For receiver properties located outside of the parking assessment district, the
project size limit is further constrained. The maximum FAR would remain at 0.5 to 1.0
above what exists or would otherwise be permitted for the site, whichever is greater,
provided that the total additional floor area does not exceed 5,000 square feet.
Proposed TDR Ordinance
The attached TDR ordinance establishes a TDR program with the following provisions:
Implements Comprehensive Plan Program for Historic Preservation and Seismic
Safety. The draft TDR ordinance implements the above provisions of the TDR resolution
and extends the TDR program to qualifed seismic properties.
Terms Defined. The following terms are defined: "Certification", Receiver Site", "Sender
Site", and Transferable Development Right" (see Section 18.87010 in the attached draft
ordinance).
Transfer Procedure. Under the draft TDR ordinance, procedures are established for
transferring and purchasing development rights.
CMR:470:96 Page 11 of 27
Transfers to Sites within Planned Community (PC) Zones. The draft TDR ordinance
allows a PC zoned property to be a receiver site if the site was formerly located in the CD
District, and the ordinance rezoning the property to PC approves the use of TDR.
Proposed Revisions to the Existing Floor Area Bonus Program
The attached ordinance contains the following revisions to the existing floor area bonus program:
Historic Rehabilitation Defmed. The term "historic rehabilitation" is defined as "returning
a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration which makes possible an efficient
contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are
significant to its historic, architectural and cultural values" (see Section 18.49.060(a)(1) of
the attached draft ordinance). This definition is consistent with Council action in adopting
the Double Bonus Ordinance 4261 on December 12, 1994.
Both Rehabilitations Required. Currently, the owner of a building designated both seismic
Catego~, I, II or III and historic CategoD, 1 or 2 can elect to do either of these rehabilitations
and take the bonus without doing the other rehabilitation. This would no longer be permitted
under the revised floor area bonus program (see Section 18.49.060(b)(2) and (3)(A)).
Rehabilitation Work Must Be Included in Project. The attached ordinance clarifies what
is self-evident, but was not stated: that an expansion of a historic building would not qualify
for a floor area bonus unless any needed historic and seismic rehabilitation is included in the
project (see Sections 18.49.060(b)(3) and 18.49.060(b)(3)(A) in the attached draft
ordinance). This is a "technical clean-up" amendment.
Record Keeping Process. A process is established for the City, to certify that certain
standards have been met and that development bonuses have been granted, used and/or
available. These administrative requirements are consistent with Council’s actions in
adopting the DoubleBonus Ordinance on December 12, 1994. They are needed in order to
allow sale of a fight to a third party.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Existing Policy Framework
The project before the Council includes revisions to the TDR Program and to the existing bonus
floor area provisions of the CD District regulations.
The existing TDR Program is contained in the Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
It provides that bonus floor area granted for rehabilitation of historic buildings in the Downtown may
be transferred to eligible nonhistoric receiver sites in the Downtown. The Comprehensive Plan
program includes three general provisions: 1) the approval process for transferring floor area is the
Planned Community zone process; 2) a size limit of 0.5 to 1.0 of additional floor area above what
is otherwise permitted is established on projects that are receivers of transferred floor area; and
3) receiver sites must be at least 150 feet from residentially zoned property.
CMR:470:96 Page 12 of 27
The existing Floor Area Bonus provisions are contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The CD District
regulations currently provide for floor area bonuses (2,500 square feet, or 25 percent of the existing
building, whichever is greater) to be granted for historic preservation of historic Category 1 and 2
buildings and for a qualified seismic rehabilitation of seismic Category I, II or III buildings. Double
bonuses (5,000 square feet, or 50 percent of the existing building, whichever is greater) can be
granted for buildings which undergo both historic and seismic rehabilitation, pursuant to Ordinance
4261 adopted by the City Council on December 12, 1994.
Citn, Council Direction
On December 12, 1994, the City Council directed staff to develop a more streamlined TDR Program
to make it more useable, while keeping the existing program’s project size limits and required
distance of 150 feet from residentially-zoned property. On May 1.1995, the Citn, Council reviewed
a revised TDR Program which was prepared by staff in response to the City Council direction on
December 12, 1994. Staff prepared the Draft TDR Program Ordinance for Council consideration
on May 1, 1995 to address only historic Category 1 and 2 properties as qualified sender sites. This
draft was consistent with the current TDR program in the Comprehensive Plan, Urban Design
Element, Program 6A, but modified the program as described in the Comprehensive Plan to allow
transfers in the CD District without need for PC rezoning. The City. Council continued the TDR
Program on May 1, 1995, primarily to have it expanded to include allowing transfers of floor area
from seismic upgrade projects on qualified non-historic sender sites as well.
Proposed Revisions to the Density Bonus Program and the TDR Program
In general, the proposed project is consistent with, and provides further support and incentives for,
existing Ci~’ policies to encourage historic preservation and seismic safety as addressed in the
Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Element and Environmental Resources Element (i.e., Urban
Design Element, Policy 2, Programs 6a, 8, 10b, 10c and 11, and Environmental Resources Element,
Policy 14, Program 45). The following proposed revisions contained in the attached ordinance and
resolution represent changes to existing City policies.
Incentives through Streamlined Process - Under the proposed TDR program ordinance, the decision-
making body for CD District development projects in which TDRs are granted and/or used in the
CD District would be the ARB/Planning Director rather than the City Council. As a streamlining
measure, the Planning Commission and City Council would no longer be part of the review process,
as they now are in the Planned Community zone process. The Council would hear applications only
if the ARB/Planning Director decision were appealed. Therefore, the normal process will be
shortened. An exception to this overall statement is that Council would continue to have review
authority for the use of a double bonus on a qualified historic sender site which is also transferring
a portion of the bonus off-site.
Allow Nonhistoric Seismic I, II or III Buildings to Transfer Development Rights - The City
Council’s direction on May 1, 1995 was to expand the cun’ent TDR program in the Comprehensive
Plan to include nonhistoric, qualified seismic buildings as sender sites. The attached resolution and
ordinance have been amended to include qualified seismic buildings to participate in the TDR
program. The purpose in allowing buildings that are in need of seismic repair to participate in the
program is twofold. One is to provide incentives to property owners to reduce the threat to
CMR:470:96 Page 13 of 27
life/safety which is presented by the seismic instability of these buildings. Many of these buildings
are constructed of unreinforced masonr3.’ and!or were constructed prior to 1935. Often, when
buildings are upgraded or refurbished to improve their marketability, some seismic strengthening
is completed, but for cost reasons the upgrade stops short of meeting the requirements of the City’s
seismic program. Allowing buildings in need of seismic upgrading to sell development rights
provides an incentive for building owners who would not otherwise be able to seismically
rehabilitate their buildings. The second reason for including seismic buildings is to encourage long-
term retention of older buildings that contribute to the character and quality of Downtown but are
not historic Catego~~ 1 or 2.
Both Seismic and Historic Rehabilitation Required - In the existing CD District bonus regulations,
the owner of a building designated both seismic Category I, II or III and historic Category 1 or 2 can
elect to do either of these rehabilitations and receive the bonus without doing the other rehabilitation.
The proposed CD bonus ordinance language has been amended to require that both upgrades are
accomplished in all instances where either is desired. It is important to require both rehabilitations
primarily because an historic building which has been rehabilitated could be lost in a major
earthquake, if the structure were not seismically upgraded. Conversely, a seismic upgrade project
could adversely impact character of an historic building if the work did not include historic
restoration.
Establish Maximum FARs at Receiver Sites - The proposed TDR ordinance establishes maximum
FARs at the receiver sites which are different from the limitations in the current Comprehensive Plan
TDR Program (see Section 18.87.050(a-d) in Attachment 2). Under the current Comprehensive Plan
program, TDR may not exceed 0.5 to 1.0 above what would otherwise be permitted. Under the
proposed ordinance, for receiver properties within the downtown parking assessment district, the
maximum FAR would be increased to 1.0 to 1.0 above what exists or would otherwise be permitted
for the site, whichever is greater, provided that the total additional floor area does not exceed 10,000
square feet. For receiver properties located outside of the parking assessment district, the maximum
FAR Would be 0.5 to 1.0 above what exists or would otherwise be permitted for the site, whichever
is greater, provided that the total additional floor area does not exceed 5,000 square feet. The higher
project size limit was recommended by the Planning Commission to provide additional incentives
to persuade applicants to commit to seismic upgrades. The proposed TDR ordinance also includes
overall FAR limits of 3.0 to 1.0 in the CD-C subdistrict and 2.0 to 1.0 in the CD-S and CD-N
subdistricts, identical to the existing FAR limits in the current floor area bonus program (Section
18.49.060(b)(2)).
Modify the 150-foot Residential Buffer - At the May 1, 1995 meeting, the City Council decided to
retain the 150-foot buffer between residentially zoned properties and receiver sites. Based on
testimony at the recent hearings, the Planning Commission and staff recommend that the 150-foot
residential buffer be revised to include a modification which complies with the intent of~e 150-foot
buffer, while not meeting the precise distance requirement. Under the proposed TDR program, a
provision has been added which allows a property located both across the street and one parcel away
from a residential district to qualify as a receiver site.
CMR:470:96 Page 14 of 27
Certification and Transfer of Development Bonuses - Instead of the development bonuses for
historic and seismic rehabilitation being granted and used only through the approval and construction
of a development project (i.e., under existing CD District regulations), the proposed TDR ordinance
will allow the City to certify that certain development rights have been granted based on the approval
of a qualified building rehabilitation. In cases where all of the development rights have not been
used on the site, those unused rights may be sold or otherwise transferred for use on an eligible site.
Bestow Transfer Rights Retroactively - At the May 1, 1995 meeting, the City Council directed staff
to develop an ordinance that did not bestow rights retroactively. Based upon testimony at the recent
hearings, the Planning Commission recommended that the TDR Program be revised to allow
seismic and historic projects, that were going through the building permit process or had an open
building permit prior to final inspection after May 1, 1995, to be eligible as TDR sender sites. Since
the Council action on May 1, 1995 was not to apply the TDR Program retroactively, the attached
draft ordinance does not contain any revisions to apply the program retroactively.
DISCUSSION
On May 1, 1995, the City Council continued the TDR program and requested staff to recommend
any modifications necessary to address the questions listed below. Each question is followed by a
summary of the discussion and recommendations from the HRB, ARB, Planning Commission and
staff.
1.Should the 15,000- or 25,000-square-foot project size limits in the CD District be
included in the TDR ordinance?
Section 18.49.040(a) of the Zoning Ordinance limits nonresidential projects in the CD District to
25,000 square feet total or 15,000 square feet above the existing building square footage, whichever
is greater. Comments by Chop Keenan at the hearings last year suggested that the TDR ordinance
should be more general in reference to the 15,000 and 25,000 square foot maximum downtown
project size limits (see page 75-453 in the attached minutes from the May 1, 1995 City Council
meeting, Attachment 6). The concern was that if the project size limits were revised in the future,
the TDR ordinance would need to be amended accordingly. However, Section 18.87.050(b) of the
draft ordinance presented at the previous meetings already contained a cross-reference to the project
size limits as provided in the CD District regulations (i.e., it refers to "development limitations set
forth in Sections 18.49.030 and 18.49.040(a) of this Title").
Recommendations: The HRB, ARB, Planning Commission and staff recommend that the 15,000-
and 25,000-square-foot project size limits, currently contained in the CD District regulations, be
retained but by cross-reference rather than specific reference in the TDR ordinance. These size
limits have been effective in assuring that the pedestrian scale of Downtown Palo Alto is retained.
Without them, parcels could be consolidated and large scale projects could be constructed,
potentially damaging the qualities which make downtown a traditional pedestrian-oriented "Main
Street".
CMR:470:96 Page 15 of 27
2.Should the 150-foot residential buffer apply to the TDR Program?
At the May 1, 1995 meeting, the City Council decided to retain the 150-foot buffer between
residentially zoned properties and receiver sites. The purpose of this buffer is to provide a transition
to residentially-zoned property from commercial development, as potentially massive as 3.0 to 1.0
FAR. Projects of this intensity are difficult to make compatible with Palo Alto’s residential
neighborhoods unless they are separated by a sufficient distance.
However, it is unclear in the existing TDR Program whether the 150-foot residential buffer applies
to PC and commercial zones where residential uses are allowed. In addition, at the Planning
Commission meeting on June 26, 1996, public testimony supported a recommendation that the TDR
Program be revised to provide a modification to the 150-foot buffer for any property, located both
across the street and one parcel away from a residential district.
Recommendations: The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the ordinance include the
following language (see Section 18.87.040(c) in the ordinance, Attachment 2):
"The receiver sites shall be (i) at least 150 feet from residentially-zoned properties (not
including residential property in Planned Community zones or in Commercial Zones within
the Downtown boundaries where mixed-use projects are permitted); or (ii) separated from
residentially-zoned property by a city street with a width of at least 50 feet; and separated
from residentially-zoned property by an intervening property zoned CD-C, CD-S or CD-N,
which intervening property has a width of not less than fifty 50 feet."
The HRB, ARB. Planning Commission and staff recommend language in the draft ordinance
providing that the term "residentially-zoned properties" does not include residential PC and mixed-
use projects within the downtown boundaries. Since downtown residential projects with PC or CD
zoning are already adjacent to existing commercial development, they would not benefit from the
150-foot buffer. In addition, due to the number and distribution of residential PC and mixed use
projects downtown, a significant number of potential receiver sites would be eliminated if the buffer
were applied to those properties.
Can/should previously completed projects be able to receive the bonus square footage
retroactively?
During the hearings in 1995 on the revised TDR Program, Phyllis Munsey requested that the
program be applied retroactively to the seismic and historic upgrade project at 520 Ramona Street,
which occurred prior to May 1, 1995. However, at the May 1, 1995 meeting, the City Council
decided not to retroactively apply the revised TDR program (see attached City Council Minutes).
At the recent Planning Commission meetings, Jim Baer requested that the ordinance be revised to
allow 340 University Avenue (Z Gallerie) and 401 University Avenue (Taxi’s) to receive the bonus
square footage retroactively for the recent seismic upgrade projects. Robert Konevich also requested
that the program be applied retroactively to 401 University Avenue.
CMR:470:96 Page 16 of 27
Recommendations: The Council action on May 1, 1995 was not to apply the TDR Program
retroactively. Therefore, the attached draft ordinance does not contain provisions to apply the
program retroactively. However, the Planning Commission and the ARB recommend that the
ordinance be revised to apply the program retroactively. The Planning Commission recommended
that the TDR Program be revised to allow seismic and historic projects that were going through the
building permit process after May 1, 1995 to be eligible TDR sender sites. The Commission
suggested that seismic upgrades are in the public interest and the City should do what it can to
reward the property owners who have been responsible and invested in seismic upgrades, even as
an example to others.
The Commission provided the rationale that any developer or investor who had relied on a City
commitment for a speedy legislative response should not be penalized for moving forward with
projects in advance of the ordinance adoption. Staff would caution against the use of this rationale.
In reviewing the minutes from the May 1, 1995 City Council meeting, staff finds that Council
directed staff to return with a TDR ordinance to include seismic bonus incentives, but not a
retroactive rights provision (see the attached May 1, 1995 City Council minutes, pages 75-460, 5-1
vote against including retroactive rights, with Andersen against and Fazzino and Kniss absent). Staff
stated that they would "try to return before Council’s vacation in August 1995" with an ordinance
that would follow Council direction. Both applications for seismic upgrades at 340 University and
401 University were in process prior to the target date that staff unsuccessfully attempted to meet,
and prior to the May 1, 1995 Council action to include seismic bonuses in the TDR Program.
The ARB recommended that, due to the length of time which has transpired since the City Council
originally directed staff to revise the TDR Program for historic upgrades, the Council should
consider allowing previously approved projects to transfer any unused bonus square footage
retroactively. The ARB suggested that if projects are allowed to transfer development rights
retroactively, a specific retroactive date should be established. One ARB member expressed concern
regarding applying the program retroactively, noting that such applicants made decisions to proceed
knowing that the revised TDR Program was not in place, and the outcome of the ordinance was yet
to be determined.
In the opinion of staff, a reasonable case can be made that retroactivity for historic projects back to
December 12, 1994, the effective date of the prior double bonus ordinance, is possible, based upon
ordinance language allowing transferability of bonuses for historic preservation. However, no such
language exists for seismic bonuses. Applying the TDR Program to historic buildings retroactively
accomplishes a public purpose by preventing future additions to the buildings. If rights are to be
bestowed retroactively, a rationale should be provided for the public purpose which would be served
by granting retroactive rights to properties that have previously been seismicly upgraded. This
rationale would be needed because zoning ordinances are not intended as tools for rewarding past
accomplishments, but can be used to provide incentives for meeting public objectives. Should the
City Council decide to approve transferrable bonuses for previous seismic upgrades through zoning
ordinance mechanisms, staff recommends that it would be preferable to do so through a specific PC
zone versus a general zone district in order to limit the applicability of this unusual use of zoning.
CMR:470:96 Page 17 of 27
Should the right to transfer development rights "vest" upon completion of the project
or upon receipt of the building permit?
The floor area bonus program was revised to discourage a TDR from being sold and then the sender
site’s seismic repair and!or historic upgrade project not being carried out. For a property owner
transferring floor area, a written certification of bonus floor area entitlement would be issued by the
City when the sender site project is completed. The basic steps in the review process for floor area
bonuses are as follows:
An owner of a potential sender site would file an application requesting a bonus. The
application would indicate the extent to which the bonus would be used on-site and/or
transferred to a receiver site.
Upon review of the application, the City would issue a written determination of the eligibilit),
for the bonus, based on the following:
Seismic rehabilitation bonus - the Chief Building Official would determine whether
the City’s seismic standards are met.
Historic rehabilitation bonus - the ARB, taking into account the recommendations
of the HRB, would determine whether the project complies with the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitation of Historic
Buildings. The City would have the ability to retain a historic rehabilitation expert,
at the applicant’s expense, to provide an evaluation of the project’s conformity with
the rehabilitation standards.
Bonus for.combined seismic and historic rehabilitation - the City Council, taking into
consideration the recommendations oft he Chief Building Official, HRB and ARB,
would determine whether the project complies with the City’s standards.
o Once a project has been completed in the manner approved, a written certification of bonus
floor area entitlement would be issued by the City.
Recommendations: The HRB, ARB, Planning Commission and staff suggest that the proposed TDR
Program, as currently drafted, adequately addresses the issue of when the right to transfer exists.
The right to transfer a bonus would not occur until the work at the sender site is completed (i.e., the
fight should not be granted until the public purpose is accomplished). Many entitlement permits are
granted but not executed.
Should the TDR Program be expanded to include Public Facilities (PF), Planned
Community (PC) and residentially-zoned properties within the area generally zoned
Commercial Downtown (CD)?
Under the proposed TDR Program, both sender and receiver sites must be zoned CD. To provide
information in determining whether the program should be expanded to include properties in other
CMR:470:96 Page 18 of 27
districts, an inventory of potential sender and receiver sites was recently prepared. The inventory
includes downtown properties within residential zoning districts, with CD zoned properties on at
least three sides, and PC and PF zoned properties (see Tables 1- 6, attached).
Based upon the information provided by the inventories, it is not recommended that the TDR
program be expanded to include PF, PC or residentially zoned properties as sender sites. There are
no downtown PC or residentially zoned sites which would currently qualify as TDR sender sites.
In addition, there are only three downtown PF sites: the senior center, post office and the electrical
substation at 841 Alma, with a total of 7,973 square feet of potential bonus floor area, if they were
included as sender sites (see Tables 3A and 3B, attached). Thus, there are not a significant number
of PF properties that could benefit from the TDR Program. This does not mean that these properties
are ineligible as receiver sites, but the process for modifications to buildings zoned PC (Planned
Community) is a PC zone process.
Recommendations: The HRB, ARB, Planning Commission and staff recommend that: 1) the TDR
ordinance should not be revised to include downtown PF, PC and residentially-zoned properties; and
2) the Comprehensive Plan should include language explaining that downtown sites with existing
or proposed PC zoning are eligible to be receiver sites, provided that the PC review process is
followed. PC zoned properties could be receiver sites provided the PC zone process is followed
rather than the ARB process. It is not recommended that the TDR ordinance be expanded to include
PF or residentially zoned properties as receiver sites for several reasons. First, residential sites
cannot qualify, as receiver sites due to the 150-foot buffer requirement. Second, there is an adequate
supply of potential CD District receiver sites to create a market for TDR’s. There are a total of 165
potential receiver sites within the CD District which could receive a total of 741,765 square feet (see
Table 4A attached). If PC District and PF District properties were allowed to receive development
rights, there would be only 17 additional receiver sites. Third, PC sites would not necessarily benefit
as receiver sites because any building expansions on those sites would be subject to the PC process,
i.e.. additional square footage could be approved without the need to purchase TDRs. Finally, with
the exception of the electrical substation at 841 Alma, all of the potential PF receiver sites are
parking lots which should remain in parking use long into the future. The public policy questions,
regarding City participation in selling development rights from PF zoned property to private parties
for downtown redevelopment and intensification, would likely lead to administration requirements
too cumbersome to justify public participation in the program.
Should the TDR Program be expanded to include seismic upgrades of nonhistoric
buildings?
In order to address the question of whether the TDR Program should be expanded to include seismic
upgrades of nonhistoric buildings, an inventory of potential TDR sender sites was prepared (see
Tables 1-3, attached). Below is a list of the 23 downtown sites that have nonhistoric buildings that
qualify for seismic rehabilitation and bonus floor area.
CMR:470:96 Page 19 of 27
Downtown Properties With Nonhistoric Buildings That Quali _fy for Seismic Bonus Floor Area
403-405 University
411 High
705 Alma
400 University
539 Alma
544 Emerson
171 University
663 Alma
380-382 University.
542 High
820 Ramona
435-41 Emerson
611-23 Emerson
340 University
530-32 Emerson
230 Homer
.~.~ University
150 Hamilton
310-14 University
270 University."
160 Forest/701-05 High
281 University
610 High/132 Hamilton
Summary of Potential Sender Sites Under Proposed TDR Program
Type of Existing Potential Sender Sites Floor Area Bonus Sq. Ft. at Percentage of Total
Building(s)Potential Sender Sites Bonus Floor Area
Seismic (Nonhistoric)23 59,116 46%
Historic (Not seismic l 14 41,440 33%
Both Seismic and Historic 8 27,182 21%
Total 45 sites 127,738 square feet 100%
Recommendations: The HRB, ARB, Planning Commission and staff recommend that the TDR
program include seismic upgrades of nonhistoric buildings, as proposed in the attached draft
ordinance (Section 18.87.010(a), Attachment 2, includes buildings that are classified as Seismic
Category I, II or III as TDR sender sites). Including these properties as sender sites almost doubles
the total square footage available to be transferred under the proposed TDR Program, i.e., the total
amount of floor area which could be transferred is increased from 68,622 to 127,738 square feet (see
attached Tables 1 - 3, for information regarding the individual sender sites). Increasing the
transferrable floor area does not change the downtown’s 350,000 square for total development cap
adopted in 1986.
Should building owners be required to complete both seismic and historic upgrades to
receive bonuses for buildings that are in both categories?
Both the previously proposed ordinance and the attached ordinance require building owners to
complete both seismic and historic upgrades to receive bonuses for buildings that are in both
categories (see subsections 18.49.060(b)(2) and (3)(a) in the ordinance, Attachment 2). There are
several reasons for this requirement. The threat to life and safety presented by the seismic instability
of historic buildings often warrants requiring that seismic rehabilitation be accomplished
concurrently with historic rehabilitation. Seismic rehabilitation projects can be so extensive that it
would be difficult to do the seismic strengthening while at the same time not addressing the historic
features of the building. Frequently, when a building is upgraded to improve its marketability, some
seismic strengthening is done, but for cost reasons, stops short of meeting the requirements of the
City’s seismic program. While seismic rehabilitation can be costly, historic rehabilitation may cost
no more, or even less, than modern facade improvements to the building, yet both types of
rehabilitation offer the same floor area bonus. Without the joint improvement requirement, a
CMR:470:96 Page 20 of 27
building owner could make relatively inexpensive historic rehabilitation improvements and request
bonus development rights, while making only limited or no seismic improvements. On the other
hand, seismic rehabilitation could be undertaken at the expense of protecting the historic integrity.
of the structure.
Recommendations: The HRB, ARB, Planning Commission and staff recommend that the provisions
of the draft ordinance requiring both seismic and historic upgrades to occur in order to receive
bonuses for buildings in both categories, should remain.
8.What is the difference between historic preservation and historic rehabilitation?
This question was raised because it was unclear why the previous draft ordinance used both terms.
The attached draft ordinance was revised to use only the term "historic rehabilitation," which is
defined in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards of Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as follows:
Historic Rehabilitation - "the process of returning a propem2 to a state of utility, through
repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving
those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural
and cultural values."
The term "historic preservation" is defined in the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Treatment
of Historic Properties as follows:
Historic Preservation - "the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the
existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary.
measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing
maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than of extensive replacement
and new construction. New additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however,
the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other
code-related work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project."
Recommendations: The HRB, ARB, Planning Commission and staff recommend use of the term
"historic rehabilitation" exclusively, as shown in the attached draft ordinance (Attachment 2).
The current TDR Program does not allow bonus square footage beyond the maximum
allowable FAR - 3.0 to 1 FAR in the CD-C District and 2.0 to 1 in the CD-S and CD-N
Districts. Should sender sites be able to transfer bonus square footage above the
maximum allowable FAR?
Under existing Code requirements, bonus square footage is granted if all other Code requirements,
including the maximum allowable FAR with the bonus, i.e., 3.0 to 1.0 in the CD-C District and 2.0
to 1.0 in the CD-S and CD-N Districts, are satisfied. If the maximum allowable FAR restriction
were removed, all of the potential TDR sender sites which meet the other zoning requirements would
CMR:470:96 Page 21 of 27
be able to utilize the full bonus, by transferring the bonus square footage above the maximum FAR
to a receiver site.
The attached inventory of sender sites shows the bonus square footage that would be available if the
maximum allowable FAR was removed as a restriction on the bonus square footage (see Tables 1 B,
C and D., Attachment 4). A total of 11 sites within the CD District could benefit by removing this
restriction, including 8 properties that are currently at or exceed the maximum allowable FAR (see
attached Tables 1B and c). If this restriction were removed, the total number of potential sender sites
within the CD District would be increased to from 45 to 53 and the total floor area that could
potentially be transferred would be increased from 127,738 square feet to 267,926 square feet, a 48
percent increase.
The Planning Commission was concerned that including all 8 properties as sender sites would
significantly increase the amount of TDR floor area on the market, which could make the sale of
TDR’s at the other 45 sender sites more difficult. However, the Commission suggested that there
may be merit in allowing sender sites to transfer bonus square footage above the maximum allowable
FAR, if the TDR Program is expanded in the future to include certain properties outside of the
downtown area. For example, if the properties within the Stanford Research Park were allowed to
be receiver sites, there would be a greater demand for receiving the TDR square footage from the
additional sender sites.
Recommendations: The HRB, ARB and Planning Commission made different recommendations
regarding transferring bonus floor area above the maximum allowable FAR. Staff’s recommended
draft ordinance (Attachment 2) is consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation that
sender sites should not be allowed to transfer bonus square footage above the maximum allowable
FAR. Table 1 C (attached) shows that there are 8 properties downtown, which are unable to
participate in the program as sender sites because they currently exceed the maximum FAR. If the
maximum FAR limits were eliminated (for transferability purposes only) and all 8 properties were
allowed to become TDR sender sites, the total amount of floor area that could be transferred under
the program would be almost doubled.
The HRB recommended that the program be revised to allow" sites with buildings that are Historic
Category 1 or 2 and that currently exceed the maximum permitted FAR to obtain floor area bonuses
and transfer the floor area. The site(s) which currently exceed the FAR should not be allowed to use
the bonus floor area on-site. The transferred floor area from the site(s) should be limited to 50
percent of the maximum permitted FAR with the bonus (i.e., up to 3.0 to 1.0 in the CD-C subdistrict
and 2.0 to 1.0 in the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts). The HRB noted that, currently, 480 University
is the only site which would benefit by the recommended revision (see Table 1 C, attached). The
site is 9,425 square feet in area with a 55,362 square foot building, or a 5.87 FAR. If the site(s) were
permitted to transfer 50 percent of the maximum permitted FAR with a double bonus ( i.e., 50
percent of a 3.0 to 1.0 FAR), it could transfer 14,137 square feet to an eligible receiver site.
The ARB recommended that the program be revised to allow sites with buildings that are both
historic Category 1 or 2 and seismic Category I, II or III and that currently exceed the maximum
permitted floor area ratio (FAR), to obtain floor area bonuses and transfer the bonus floor area to
CMR:470:96 Page 22 of 27
eligible receiver sites. The site(s) which exceed the FAR should not be allowed to use the bonus
floor area on-site. The transferred floor area from the site(s) should be limited to 50 percent of the
maximum permitted FAR with the bonus (i.e., up to 3.0 to 1.0 in the CD-C subdistrict and 2.0 to 1.0
in the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts). Currently, 480 University Avenue is the only site which would
benefit by the recommended revision.
10.Should the current restriction on new floor area at receiver sites be increased above the
.5 FAR maximum?
The purpose of increasing the maximum .5 to 1.0 FAR at receiver sites would be to ensure that there
is an adequate incentive for the receiver sites to purchase TDRs. There are a total of 165 potential
receiver sites located within the CD District which could receive a total of 741,765 additional square
feet. Since the maximum TDR square footage which could be transferred from the 45 sender sites
is 127.738 square feet, there is an adequate supply of potential receiver sites to create an adequate
demand for the TDRs. Thus, increasing the FAR would not necessarily result in any additional
seismic or historic rehabilitation at the sender sites.
The Planning Commission referred this question to their Committee for further review. At the
Committee meeting, Jim Baer requested that the Committee consider recommending increasing the
maximum transferrable FAR. He suggested that since most properties within the CD-C subdistrict
are currently built-out to the property lines, restricting the transferrable floor area to a maximum of
.5 FAR would often result in the construction of a new second-story addition covering only half of
the building. IK as a result of the transferred floor area, the entire building is required by the City
to comply with current building codes, the additional costs are considerable in relation to the amount
of additional floor area. He suggested that it would be more cost-effective if projects at receiver sites
were allowed to construct a second floor above all or a greater portion of the existing building (i.e.,
a .75 FAR or 1.0 FAR maximum increase in floor area).
However, at least two downtown properties have recently proposed second-story additions covering
less than 50 percent of the existing first story (i.e., 401 High Street and 901 University Avenue).
Thus, although staff has not conducted a complete inventory of recently proposed projects, it appears
that there are circumstances when it is cost-effective to construct a second floor above less than 50
percent of an existing first floor.
Recommendations: The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the provisions regarding
allowable new floor area at receiver sites be modified, as follows: 1) for properties within the
downtown parking assessment district, the transferred floor area would be limited to a 1.0 to 1.0
FAR above what exists or would o.therwise be permitted for the site, whichever is greater, provided
that the total additional floor area does not exceed 10,000 square feet; 2) for properties located
outside of the parking assessment district, the transferred floor area would be limited io a .5 to 1.0
FAR above what exists or would otherwise be permitted for the site, whichever is greater, provided
that the total additional floor area does not exceed 5,000 square feet; and 3) for all receiver sites, the
maximum FAR for the existing and new floor area would be 3.0 to 1.0 in the CD-C subdistrict and
2.0 to 1.0 in the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts. The draft ordinance (Attachment 2) and Negative
CMR:470:96 Page 23 of 27
DeClaration (Attachment 3) have been revised to reflect the Planning Commission and staff
recommendation (the HRB and ARB did not discuss this issue).
11.Council Member Simitian suggested that the following be considered:
Establish a cap on the amount of potential new floor area which could be
transferred.
Under Section 18.49.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), there is an existing 350,000
square foot cap on additional development downtown. Under Section 18.18.49.060(b)(3), the bonus
floor area counts toward the cap.
Recommendations: The HRB, ARB, Planning Commission and staff recommend that the TDR
program should not be revised to include a cap on TDR square footage because 1) there is no
indication that the pro~am will be used extensively; and 2) bonus square footage is already counted
against the existing downtown cap of 350,000 square feet. Future downtown monitoring reports will
highlight TDR square footage so that it can be monitored by the City Council.
Establish a sunset date in the ordinance in order to encourage that the seismic
upgrades are accomplished before the next major earthquake.
The purpose of including a sunset date in the ordinance would be to encourage seismic upgrades
of buildings to be completed sooner, rather than later. However, it is uncertain whether a sunset date
would actually encourage property owners to seismically rehabilitate their buildings at an earlier
date. If the sunset date expired and there were a significant number of remaining properties that
could benefit from the TDR Program, there would be a basis for the City to extend the sunset date.
The process of using TDRs is likely to be complicated, and adding a further artificial time constraint
does not appear to be warranted. In addition, a sunset date could create apparent inequities for
downtown property owners who are committed to long-term leases.
Recommendations: The HRB, ARB, Planning Commission and staff recommend that the TDR
Program should not be revised to establish a sunset date.
Research the cap on the downtown parking deficit in relation to any additional
parking required for projects participating in the program.
To ensure that the downtown parking deficit does not increase beyond the deficit of 1,600 spaces
that existed in 1986, the Downtowo. Plan included a monitoring program and a cap of 225 parking
space exemptions, which represents one-half of the number of spaces deemed necessary for the
construction of a new public parking garage. If the parking exemptions exceed 225 spacds, a review
of the exemption regulations would be conducted and the construction of a new parking garage
would be considered. Between September 1, 1986 and August 1, 1995, a total of 108 parking
spaces had been exempted from parking requirements, an average of approximately 12 spaces/year.
CMR:470:96 Page 24 of 27
The City recently began a study to determine the need for a new downtown parking structure. The
project is organized into two phases. Phase 1, which is currently underway, focuses on the feasibility.
and schematic design of the parking structure. Phase 2 will focus on the final design, construction
documents and contract administration.
A total of 133 sites of the 165 potential receiver sites are located within the downtown parking
assessment district. Any projects within the assessment district are exempt from parking
requirements. Projects at the 32 potential receiver sites which are located outside of the assessment
district must provide any required additional parking for floor area transferred under the TDR
program. Under a "worst case" scenario, if all of the 64,116 square feet of potential bonus square
footage under the revised TDR Program were transferred only to the receiver sites which are located
v, dthin the parking assessment district, a total of 256 parking spaces at those sites would be exempted
from the City’s parking requirements, based upon 4 parking spaces/1,000 square feet of floor area.
Thus, the proposed project could affect the time at which the total number of exempted parking
spaces reaches the cap of 225 spaces. However, the actual increase in parking demand would be
expected to be gradual and distributed geographically.
Recommendations: The HRB, ARB, Planning Commission and staff recommend that the TDR
Program should not be revised to require parking for transferred floor area. The parking exemption
is one of the primary incentives for completing historic and seismic upgrade projects and transferring
floor area.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives include the following:
Allow previously completed projects to receive the bonus square footage retroactively
(Question #3)
2.Expand the program to include PF, PC and residentially zoned properties (Question #5)
Allow sender sites to transfer bonus floor area above the maximum allowable FAR
(Question #9)
4.Establish a cap on the total transferrable floor area under the program (Question #11 .a)
o Establish a sunset date for sender sites with buildings requiring seismic rehabilitation
(Question # 11 .b)
FISCAL IMPACT
While the precise fiscal impacts to the City cannot be determined, it seems likely that they would
not be significant. Additional costs would be incurred by formalizing the process of City
certification that development bonuses have been granted and/or transferred, since this would require
minor modifications to application forms and additional record keeping. It is recommended that
cost-recovery fees can be charged to applicants and that a municipal fee schedule amendment be
adopted by the Council (see Attachment 4).
CMR:470:96 Page 25 of 27
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An Environmental Impact Assessment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the revised
floor area bonus program and TDR Program and is attached (Attachment 3).
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
After the revised TDR Program is adopted, steps required for implementation include:
Development of a handout for property, owners and the general public explaining the TDR
Program;
2.Modification of existing forms for processing development projects;
Development by the City Attorney’s office of new forms for recording and transmitting
information about granting and transferring property rights; and
4.Staff training in the new TDR process.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1"
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3"
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7:
Attachment 8:
Attachment 9:
Attachment 10:
Attachment 11:
Attachment 12:
Attachment 13:
Attachment 14:
Attachment 15:
Attachment 16:
Attachment 17:
Attachment 18:
Attachment 19:
Draft Resolution Amending Program 6A and Text of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan Relating to Density Transfer
Draft Ordinance Amending Section 18.49.060 and Adding Chapter 18.87
Regarding Transferable Development Rights
Negative Declaration
Draft Fee Schedule Modification
Tables 1, 2 & 3 (TDR Sender Sites)
Tables 4, 5 & 6 (TDR Receiver Sites)
Minutes from May 1, 1995 City Council Meeting
Minutes from June 19, 1996 HRB Meeting
Minutes from June 20, 1996 ARB Meeting
Minutes from June 26, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes from September 11, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting
Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Element, Program 6a
Map of Downtown CD Zone District
Urban Design Guide, Building Volumes Diagram
Letter from James E. Baer dated September 11, 1996
Letter from James E. Baer dated June 24, 1996
Letter from James E. Baer, Premier Properties, dated April 12, 1995
Letter from John Paul Hanna dated June 26, 1996
Letter from Charles J. Keenan 11I, dated April 6, 1995
COURTESY COPIES:
Planning Commission
Historic Resource Board
Architectural Review Board
CMR:470:96 Page 26 of 27
Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301
Tricia Ward-Dolkas, 412 Everett Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Russ Flynn, 3165 California, San Francisco CA 94115
Jim Baer, Premier Properties, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301
Charles Keenan, Keenan Land Company, 700 Emerson, Palo Alto CA 94301
Roxy Rapp, P.O. Box 1672, Palo Alto CA 94302
Robert Konevich, 5150 E1 Camino Real, Suite A-22, Los Altos CA 94022
Warren Thoits, P.O. Box 21, Palo Alto CA 94301
John Northway, 437 Lytton Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301
Chris Dressel, 2995 Woodside Road, Suite 400, Woodside CA 94062
John Paul Hanna, Hanna & Van Atta, 525 University Ave., Suite 705, Palo Alto CA 94301
William Reller, Real Estate Investment Corp., 664 Gillman Street, Palo Alto CA 94301
Phyllis Munsey, 520 Ramona Street, Palo Alto CA 94301
CMR:470:96 Page 27 of 27
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING PROGRAM 6A AND TEXT OF THE PALO ALTO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATING TO DENSITY TRANSFER
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 6571, the Council of the
City of Palo Alto amended the City’s Comprehensive Plan to add a
program on density transfer (transferable development rights)
pertaining to certain designated buildings of historic or
architectural significance within the Commercial Downtown (CD)
zone; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the transferable
development rights program should be streamlined, in order to
encourage historic and seismic rehabilitation of significant
historic buildings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palo Alto,
after duly noticed public hearing held on June 26 and September !I,
1996, has recommended that the Council amend the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, upon consideration of said recommendation after
duly noticed public hearing, the Council desires to amend said plan
as hereinafter set forth;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION i. The City Council finds that changed conditions
and the public interest, health, safety and welfare require
amendment of the Pa!o Alto Comprehensive Plan, as set forth in
Section 2 below.
SECTION 2. Program 6A and text of the Urban Design element
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as reflected in Resolution No.
6571 incorporated into such plan are hereby amended to read as
follows:
Program 6A: Allow the transfer of development rights
~ ~i~m ...............designated buildings of historic or
archit~~:~ral si (Historic ories 1 and 2)
~own
sites would have to be located within the Downt~=~========~
zoning district. The receiver sites:
Shall be ~
residentiall, zoned
150 feet from
1 ATTACHMENT 1
961112 lac 0080308
o
°
Shall not be sites with structures of historic or
architectural significance; and
Shall be subject to applicable downtown project
size limits.
SECTION 3. The Council hereby finds that this project will
not have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 4. This resolution shall be effective upon the
thirty-first (31st) day after its adoption. This delayed effective
date is intended and shall be construed to provide a sufficient
period of time between adoption of the resolution and its effective
date to allow a complete and exclusive opportunity for the exercise
of the referendum power pursuant to the Charter of the City of Palo
Alto and the Constitution of the State of California. A referendum
petition filed after the effective date shall be rejected as
untimely.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:City Manager
Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Planning and
Community Development
961112 lae 0080308
2
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.49. 060 [CD DISTRICT
REGULATIONS] OF THE .PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODEAND
ADDING CHAPTER 18 . 87 REGARDING TRANSFERABLE
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing held June 26 and September ii, 1996, has recommended that
Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter
set forth; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after due consideration of the
recommendations, finds that the proposed amendments are in the
public interest and will promote the public health, safety and
welfare, in that existing City policies promoting preservation of
designated buildings of historic or architectural significance and
seismic rehabilitation of buildings will best be implemented
through adoption of a Transferable Development Rights ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION i. Section 18.49.060 (CD District Site Development
Regulations) of Chapter 18.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
18.49.060 Site development regulations. The site
development regulations in the CD-C, CD-S and CD-N subdistricts are
set forth in the following matrix, provided that more restrictive
regulations may be recommended by the Architectural Review Board
and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment,
pursuant to Chapter 16.48. General regulations that apply
throughout the CD district are set forth in Section 18.49.040.
Additional regulations for the CD-C subdistrict are set forth in
Section 18.49.070. Additional regulations for the CD-S subdistrict
are set forth in Section 18.49.080. Additional regulations for the
CD-N subdistrict are set forth in Section 18.49.090.
SITE
DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS
Area:
Width:
Depth:
Front Yard:
9611"13 lax 0080309
CD-C*CD-S*CD-N*
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
Minimum i0 feet
planted and
maintained as a
ATTACHMENT 2
Rear Yard:
Side Yard:
Floor area
ratio (FAR):
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
landscape
screen,
excluding area
required for
site access.
No requirement
No required
interior;
minimum street
side yard 6.1
meters (20
feet)
1.0 to 1 0.4 to 1 0.4 to 1
*These regulations may be modified by the regulations set forth in
Sections 18.49.040, 18.49.070, 18.49.080 and/or 18.49.090.
~ i!i~i~i~iiiii!iiiiiii!ii!iFor purposes of calculating floor area ratio for
nonresiden~:~=~ses under this chapter, "gross floor area" includes
not only the area defined in Section 18.04.030(65), but also all
covered at or above grade parking for nonresidential uses, no
matter how slightly above grade such parking is.
(b)Exceptions to FAR regulations:
(i) When a building is being expanded, square footage
which, in the judgment of the chief building official, does not
increase the usable floor area, ~5~d is ~i~i~ necessary to
conform the building to Title 24 ~ ......... the .... ~:~:~:~rnia Code of
Regulations, regarding hanJicapped access, ~iiiiiiiiiii~ililiiiiiiii~i~i~iiii!iiiiiii~
(2) When a building that is in Seismic Category I, II or
III is being seismically rehabilitated to the analysis standards
referenced in Chapter 16.42 of this code, such building shall be
allowed to increase its floor area by two thousand five hundred
square feet or by twenty-five percent of the existing building,
whichever is greater, without having this increase count toward the
FAR; however, all square footage shall be counted as square footage
for the purposes of the three hundred fifty thousand square foot
limit on development (Section 18.49.030) and the project size limit
96! 112 lac 0080309
(Section 18.49.040(a)) and in no event shall a building expand
beyond a FAR of 3.0 to ! in the CD-C subdistrict and a FAR of 2.0
to 1 in the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts. This exception shall be
allowed on a site only once..
[~~~ five hundred square feet or by twenty-five percent of the
existing building, whichever is greater, without having this
increase count toward the FAR; however, all square footage shall be
counted as square footage for the purposes of the three hundred
fifty thousand square foot limit on development (Section 18.49.030)
and the project size limit (Section 18.49.040(a)) and in no event
shall a building expand beyond a FAR of 3.0 to 1 in the CD-C
subdistrict and a FAR of 2.0 to 1 in the CD-S and CD-N
subdistricts. This exception shall be allowed on a site only once.
Any exterior building modifications ~i£iiiiiiii~d~i~-~ ............................ made under this
subsection (b) (S) shall conform to :{~:~:::::~:~:~{:~:ry of Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
HlStOrlC Buildings ( 36 CFR ~i~i~i~i~i~i~!~i~i~i~7 @ 7 .... st~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ....
(B) Upon City Council approval, the floor area
bonus described in ~ subsection (b)(3)iii~!!I may be used on a site
in Historic Category 1 or 2 cumulatively ~~~h the floor area bonus
described in subsection (b) (2) of this Section. Such approval is
discretionary and may be granted only upon making both of the
following findings: (i) the exterior modifications for the entire
project comply with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
........ atlons), and:::::i:£:~]::::::{~~:::::~£:f:~£te use of the cumulative floor
area bonus would not otherwise be inconsistent with ~ historic
of the interior and exterior of :::[~ building
and site. ======================= for ~i~[~ .................... use of a cumulative floor area
bonus shall have the burden o£:~:~:~:~nstrating the facts necessary to
support the findings required for Council approval.
(C) The floor area bonus described in
subsection (b) (3)iii(i~ii, singly or cumulatively with the floor area
bonus described :~:~ subsection (b) (2) of this Section, may be
transferred to a non-historic receiver site within the Downtown CD
zoning district in accordance with the transfer of development
rights program described in the Comprehensive Plan
i~iiiiii~i~iiiiiii~:iii:iii~iiiiiiii~i~. Such a transfer shall not be
961112 lac 0080309
3
discretionary Council approval set forth in paragraph (B) of this
subsection ( b ) ~-2-~i!i~:.i~ .
(4) A building that is not in Historic Category 1 or 2
nor in Seismic Category I, II or III shall be allowed to increase
its floor area by two hundred square feet without having this
increase count toward the FAR; however, all square footage shall be
counted as square footage for the purposes of the three hundred
fifty thousand square foot limit on development (Section 18.49.030)
and the project size limit (Section 18.49.040(a)) and in no event
shall a building expand beyond a FAR of 3.0 to 1 in the CD-C
subdistrict and a FAR of 2.0 to 1 in the CD-S and CD-N
subdistricts. This exception shall be allowed on a site only once.
(5) In the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts, (i) for exclusive
residential use on any site, the regulations and guidelines set
forth in Chapters 18.24 and 18.28, or Chapters 18.22 and 18.28,
respectively, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall apply, and (ii)
for mixed residential and nonresidentia! use on any site, the
regulations and guidelines set forth in Chapters 18.24 and 18.28,
or Chapters 18.22 and 18.28, respectively, of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code shall apply to that portion of the site area in
residential use. In no case shall the floor area ratio of the
nonresidential uses exceed the base FAR set forth above.
CD-S CD-N
(See Map 2)
RM-30 regulations,
except RM-15 regulations
in Areas 1 and 2
(See Map 3)
RM-30 regulations,
except RM-15 regulations
in Areas 1 and 2
SITE
DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS
Site
coverage:
CD-C CD-S CD-N
No
requirement
No
requirement
Maximum of
50% of site.
Height:50 foot
maximum
50 foot
maximum
25 foot
maximum,
except 35
foot maximum
where one or
more floors
of principal
facility are
in
residential
use
961112 lac 0080309
4
Accessory
facilities
uses:
Regulations governing accessory facilities and
uses, and governing the application of site and
development regulations in specific instances,
are established by Chapter 18.88.
961112 |a~ 0080309
5
SECTION 2. Chapter 18.87 is hereby added to Title 18 (Zoning
Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
9611121ac0080309
7
9611121ac0080309
8
9611121ac0080309
SECTION 3. The Council finds that this project will not
have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first date after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
961112 ]ac 0080309
9
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Project Title: TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, (TDR) PROGRAM:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (’Urban Desi,qn Element, Proqram 6a) and ,Zonin,q
Ordinance Text Changes (amendin,q Section 18.49.060 and adding Chapter 18.87) to revise
the floor area bonus,,,,pro,qram in the CD ICommercial Downtown) District and implement a
Transfer of,, Development Rights (TDR) Pro.qram
2.Lead Agency Name and Address: C..i.tY of Palo Alto Planninq Division, 250 Hamilton
Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
3.Contact Person and Phone Number: Robert Schubert (415) 329-2441
4.Project Location: Downtown Palo Alto
5.Application Number(s): 95-EIA-06; 95-CP-01 & 95-CP-03
6.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: .City of Palo Alto Planninq Diyision, 250 Ham..i.lton
Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
7. General Plan Designation: ~e.qional/Community Commercial
8. Zoning: CD-C, CD-S, CD-N & PC
9.Description of the Project: The proposed TDR program provides that all or part of floor
area bonuses for seismic upgrade and historic rehabilitation for Seismic Category I, II and
III buildings and Historic Category 1 and 2 buildings located in the CD District may be
transferred to downtown nonhistodc sites. Bonus floor area which has been granted but not
used on the site may be transferred to a qualified receiver site. Development on receiver
sites must be approved by the Architectural Review Board, and receiver sites must comply
with the following requirements and restrictions: 1 ) shall not be sites with historic structures;
2) shall be located at least 150 feet from residentially zoned property (not including
residential property in Planned Community zones or in Commercial Zones within the
Downtown boundaries where mixed-use projects are permitted); or (ii) separated from
residentially zoned property by a city street with a width of at least 50 feet; and (iii) separated
from residentially zoned property by an intervening property zoned CD-C, CD-S or CD-N,
which intervening property has a width of not less than 50 feet; 3) shall receive a maximum
additional floor area ratio, as follows: i) for properties located within the downtown parking
P:\EIA~IA.TDR
ATTACHMENT 3
assessment district, the maximum new FAR is 1.0, provided that the total additional floor area
does not exceed 10,000 square feet; and ii) for properties located outside of the parking
assessment district, the maximum new FAR is .5, provided that the total additional floor area
does not exceed 5,000 square feet; 4) projects shall be limited to 25,000 square feet of floor
area or 15,000 square feet above the existing floor area, whichever is greater; 5) all square
footage shall be counted for the purposes of the 350,000 square foot limit on downtown
development; and 6) in no event shall a building expand beyond a FAR of 3.0 to 1 in the CD-
C subdistrict and a FAR of 2.0 to 1 in the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts.
Program 6A of the Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains an existing
TDR program. The proposed TDR program makes the following changes to the existing
program:
a. The review process for transferring development rights to a nonhistoric receiver site is
changed from the Planned Community (PC) process to review by the Architectural Review
Board.
b. The owner of a building which is designated both Seismic Category I, II or III and Historic
Category 1 or 2 is required to accomplish both rehabilitations, when not already
accomplished, in order to obtain a floor area bonus.
c.Seismically rehabilitated buildings within the CD District are allowed to transfer development
rights.
d. Zoning Ordinance Section 18.49.060(b)(3)(A), which allows the granting of a floor area
bonus for the expansion of a historic building whether or not any historic rehabilitation is
included in the project, is revised to require that any needed historic rehabilitation be
completed, together with any seismic rehabilitation that may be needed in order to obtain a
bonus.
e.The program is expanded to include downtown PC zoned properties as eligible receiver
sites.
The current 150 foot buffer between receiver sites and residentially zoned properties is
modified. Under the draft ordinance, receiver sites must be located at least 150 feet from
residentially zoned property (not including residential property in Planned Community zones
or in Commercial Zones within the Downtown boundaries where mixed-use projects are
permitted); or (ii) separated from residentially zoned property by a city street with a width of
at least 50 feet; and (iii) separated from residentially zoned property by an intervening
property zoned CD-C, CD-S or CD-N, which intervening property has a width of not less than
50 feet.
g. Provisions regarding allowable new floor area at receiver sites are modified, as follows: i) for
properties located within the downtown parking assessment district, the maximum new FAR
is increased from .5 to to 1.0, provided that the total additional floor area does not exceed
10,000 square feet; and ii) for properties located outside of the parking assessment district,
the maximum new FAR remains at .5, provided that the total additional floor area does not
P:\EIA~IA.TDR
exceed 5,000 square feet.
10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The CD District is the City’s downtown
business district, an area approximately three blocks by ten blocks, which is densely
developed with one- to four-story buildings and a few larger buildings. The total
amount of existing development downtown is approximately 3,350,099 square feet (as
of September 26, 1995), which includes retail, office, manufacturing, restaurant, bank,
service, lodging and church uses. Downtown is surrounded by multi-family residential
and service commercial land uses.
The TDR program would apply to 45 sender sites, including 23 designated Seismic
Category I, !1 or III and 22 Historic Category 1 and 2 buildings. Of the 22 historic
buildings, 14 are eligible for the historic preservation bonus, and 8 are eligible for
both the historic preservation bonus and the seismic upgrade bonus. This program
would also be applicable to additional structures included on the historic and seismic
inventories in the future. There are a total of 169 potential receiver sites.
11,Other public agencies whose approval is required: None,
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X
X
X
Land use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
X Water
Air Quality
X Transportation and
Circulation
X
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Hazards
Noise
X Public Sen,ices
X Utilities and Service
Systems
X Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I I find that the pr°p°sed pr°ject COULD NOT have a significant effect °n the envir°nment’ and a I X INEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
P:~EIA~EIA.TDR
I ~nd that atthough the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by m~gation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Polentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ,
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a s~gnificant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been
analyzed in an eadier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mi’dgation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
Project Planner Date
Dire Planning & Community E"nvi"~on’-~ent Date
P:~EIA~EIA.TDR
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?.c)
d)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
e)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income or minorfty
community)?
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
2,3,4,56
2,3
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
2,3
2,3,10
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?2,3,4
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?2,3,12
b) Seismic ground shaking?2,3,12 X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil cond~ons
from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
2,3,12
2,3
2,3
2,3
2,3
2,3
2,3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
x
I) Unique geologic or physical features?X
1,2 X
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff?.
P:~EIA~EIA.TDR
b)1,2,3 X
c)1,2 X
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality, including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other typical storm water
pollutants (e.g. sediment and debris from construction,
hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle use, nutrients and
pesticides from landscape maintenance?
d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body 1,2 X
or wetland?
e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 1,2 X
movements, in madne or freshwater, or wetlands?
1,2 Xf) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct addrdons or withdrawals, or through intercepi~on of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability?.
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h)Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of
reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted
pollutants from urban or industrial activities?
I)Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
j) Alteration of wetlands in any way?.
5. AJR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting or
projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants
c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any
change in climate?
1,2
1,2
1,2
d) Create objectionable odors?
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
x
X
X
X
X
X
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?1,2,3,7,11 X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves 1,2 X
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment))?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?1,2 X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?1,2,3,5,7,X
11
e) Hazards or barders for pedestrians or bicyclists?1,2 X
P:~IA\EIA.TDR
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
1,2
1,2
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result reduction or interference in:
a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or
birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c)
d)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
Locally designated natural communizes (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, dpadan and vernal pool?
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict w~th adopted energy conservation plans?
b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?.
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
1,2
1,2
1,2
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass
of trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\EIA\EIA.TDR
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant Impact
Impact
a) Increase in existing noise levels?1,2,3,8 ~X
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?1,2,3,8 ’X
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?2,3 X
b) Police protection?2,3 X
c) Schools?2,3 X
d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or storm 2,3 X
drain facili’des?
e) Other governmental services?2,3 X
12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?2,3 X
b) Communications systems?2,3 X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?2,3 X
d) Sewer or septic tanks?2,3 X
e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?2,3 X
f) Solid waste disposal?2,3 X
g) Local or regional water supplies?2,3 X
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?1,2,3,5 X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?.1,2,3,5 X
c) Create light or glare?1,2,3,5 X
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?1,2,3 X
b) Disturb archaeological resources?1,2,3 X
c) Affect historical resources?1,2,3 X
P:~IA\EIA.TDR
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
1,2,3
1,2,3
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facil~es?
1,2,3
b) Affect existing recreational opportun~es?1,2,3
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
1-13
X
X
X
X
X
b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to 1-13 X
the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c)1-13 X
d)
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)
1-13Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?.
X
P:~EIA~IA.TDR
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Introduction
The proposed project is the implementation of a TDR program that provides that floor area bonuses granted
for seismic or historic rehabilitation of downtown buildings may be transferred to eligible downtown
nonhistoric receiver sites. The TDR program will have potential environmental impacts due to the following:
1) additional development that would occur at the TDR receiver sites, and, 2) redirection of downtown
growth from the potential 45 sender sites to the 169 potential receiver sites.
The purpose of the project is to accomplish two environmentally beneficial objectives: 1 ) to provide for the
rehabilitation of historic buildings; and 2) the seismic rehabilitation of existing structures. The project does
not itself add any entitlements to bonus floor area space beyond what is already authorized by existing
ordinances. Existing law allows for the transfer of part or all of that bonus floor area to another site
within the same zone district, except in the case of non-historic buildings subject to seismic rehabilitation.
The program change would allow for transfers in the latter case. Thus, at most, it may provide further
inducements to property owners to avail themselves of some of these existing bonus programs, because
of the prospect of being able to transfer some of the floor area bonus to another site. As such, it is
impossible for the City to gauge the extent of any development that will be induced by this project that
would not otherwise occur under existing law. Also, because there is no particular pattern to the location
of receiver sites, the City cannot forecast in any meaningful manner that there will be any greater
concentration of density in one area than another, by virtue of this program.
In 1986, the City approved the Downtown Study Environmental Impact Report that evaluates the impacts
of 350,000 square feet of additional development downtown. The City subsequently established a 350,000
square foot cap on downtown development. All square footage under the TDR program is counted for the
purposes of the 350,000 square foot limit.
In relation to the total amount of existing downtown development, the effects of the proposed project is
expected to be minor. The total amount of floor area which could be transferred under the TDR program
is 127,738 square feet. However, the existing TDR program (Comprehensive Plan, Design Element
Program 6A) currently allows 68,622 square feet of floor area to be transferred. The total amount of floor
area that could be transferred would be increased by 64,116 square feet, compared to a total of 3,350,099
square feet of existing development downtown (as of September 26, 1995).
Since the size, location, combination of uses and design will vary from one receiver site to another,
environmental reviews will be completed on a project-by-project basis. Consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, and a finding of no detrimental impacts to adjacent land uses, transportation, and
population will be a requirement, as is currently the case. Each project will be assessed for environmental
impacts and the appropriate mitigation measures will be required.
1.a. & c. Land Use
Program 6A of the Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains an existing TDR program.
The proposed TDR program makes the following changes to the existing program:
P:\EIA\EIA.TDR
1.The review process for transferring development rights to a nonhistoric receiver site is changed from the
Planned Community (PC) process to review by the Architectural Review Board.
2.The owner of a building which is designated both Seismic Category I, II or III and Historic Category 1
or 2 is required to accomplish both rehabilitations, when not already accomplished, in order to obtain
a floor area bonus.
3. Seismically rehabilitated buildings within the CD District are allowed to transfer development rights.
4.Zoning Ordinance Section 18.49.060(b)(3)(A), which allows the granting of a floor area bonus for the
expansion of a historic building whether or not any historic rehabilitation is included in the project, is
revised to require that any needed historic rehabilitation be completed, together with any seismic
rehabilitation that may be needed in order to obtain a bonus.
5. The program is expanded to include downtown PC zoned properties as eligible receiver sites.
6.The current 150 foot buffer between receiver sites and residentially zoned properties is modified. Under
the draft ordinance, receiver sites must be located at least 150 feet from residentially zoned property (not
including residential property in Planned Community zones or in Commercial Zones within the Downtown
boundaries where mixed-use projects are permitted); or (ii) separated from residentially zoned property
by a city street with a width of at least 50 feet; and (iii) separated from residentially zoned property by
an intervening property zoned CD-C, CD-S or CD-N, which intervening property has a width of not less
than 50 feet.
7.Provisions regarding allowable new floor area at receiver sites are modified, as follows: i) for properties
located within the downtown parking assessment district, the maximum new FAR is increased to 1.0,
provided that the total additional floor area does not exceed 10,000 square feet; and ii) for properties
located outside of the parking assessment district, the maximum new FAR should remains at .5, provided
that the total additional floor area does not exceed 5,000 square feet.
The TDR program will increase the total amount of development on the receiver sites and redirect
downtown growth from sender sites to receiver sites. The total existing floor area within the CD District is
3,350,099 square feet (as of September 26, 1995). The total amount of additional floor area that could be
transferred under the revised TDR program is 64,116 square feet, or an increase of approximately 2%
compared to the existing downtown development. The 1986 Downtown Study EIR evaluated the impacts
of 350,000 square feet of additional development downtown. The City subsequently established a cap of
350,000 square feet on downtown development. All square footage is counted for the purposes of the
350,00 square foot limit on development in the downtown. Thus, the land use impacts of the revised TDR
program would not be significant.
2.b. Housinq
Additional commercial development downtown under the revised TDR program, up to 64,116 square feet,
would create a demand for additional housing for any additional employees. Under the provisions of
P:~EIA~IA.TDR
Chapter 16.47 of the PAMC (Approval of Projects With Impacts on Housing), receiver sites with 20,00C
square feet of existing development that add 2,500 square feet or more in floor area, will be required tc
provide mitigation for housing impacts. Thus, additional development under the revised TDR program wili
not create a significant demand for new housing.
3.b., 3.f. & 4.a. Soil, Seismic and Storm Water
The project does not change any of the existing City requirements for surface coverage or drainage. Tc
the extent that it will result in increased seismic rehabilitation of buildings in the downtown area, it wil!
reduce the risks to people and structures from a future earthquake. Each project will be assessed for soil.
seismic and storm water impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be required. All construction wil
be subject to the provisions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at
minimizing seismic risk.and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake.
6.a. Traffic
The additional commercial development downtown from the revised TDR program, up to 64,116 square
feet, will increase the amount of traffic downtown. The 1988 Citywide Traffic Study evaluated the impacts
of 350,000 square feet of additional development downtown. The additional floor area under the program
is counted toward the 350,000 square foot cap on downtown development. In addition, since the potential
receiver sites are dispersed throughout the downtown area which encompasses approximately 30 blocks.
the traffic will not be concentrated in any specific area. Thus, the proposed project will not have significant
traffic impacts.
6.d. Parkinq
To insure that the downtown parking deficit does not increase beyond the deficit of 1,600 spaces that
existed in 1986, the Downtown Plan included a monitoring program and a cap of 225 parking space
exemptions which represents one-half of the number of spaces deemed necessary for the construction of
a new public parking garage. If the parking exemptions exceed 225 spaces, a review of the exemption
regulations would be conducted and the construction of a new parking garage would be considered.
Between September 1, 1986 and August 1, 1995, a total of 108 parking spaces had been exempted from
parking requirements, an average of approximately 12 spaces/year. The City recently began a study to
determine the need for a new parking garage.
A total of 137 sites of the 169 potential receiver sites are located within the downtown parking assessment
district. Any projects within the assessment district are exempt from parking requirements. Projects at the
32 potential receiver sites which are located outside of the assessment district must provide any required
additional parking for floor area transferred under the TDR program. Under a "worst case" scenario, if all
of the 64,116 square feet of potential bonus square footage under the revised TDR program were
transferred only to the receiver sites which are located within the parking assessment district, a total of 256
parking spaces at those sites would be exempted from the City’s parking requirements, based upon 4
parking spaces/I,000 square feet of floor area. Thus, the proposed project could affect the time at which
the total number of exempted parking spaces reaches the cap of 225 spaces. However, the actual increase
in parking demand would be expected to be gradual and distributed geographically. Thus, the impact of
P:~EIA\EIA.TDR
the additional potential parking exemptions from the proposed project would not be significant.
lO.a. & b. Nois_._..~e
Construction activities at the receiver sites will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels.
Each project will be assessed for noise impacts and the appropriate mitigation measures will be required.
All projects will be required to comply with the requirements of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10
PAMC. Thus, the noise impacts of the project would not be significant.
11.a. - e. Public Services
The additional development will result in an increased demand for fire, police, road maintenance and other
government services. However, since the potential additional development under the proposed project
represents approximately a 2% increase over the total amount of existing development downtown and
because the downtown development cap includes this new square footage, the increase in demand is not
considered to be significant.
12.a.-g. Utilities
The additional development will result =n an increased demand for power, communication, water, sewer,
storm water drainage and solid waste services. However, since the potential additional development under
the proposed project represents approximately a 2% increase over the total amount of existing development
downtown, the increase in demand is not considered to be significant.
13.b. & c. Aesthetics
Development at the receiver sites would not have significant aesthetic impacts because each project will
be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board. In addition, the project would have
a beneficial impact. Each project will be assessed for aesthetic impacts and appropriate mitigation
measures will be required.
14.c. Historic Resources
The TDR program will have a beneficial effect by encouraging historic rehabilitation and the seismic
rehabilitation of historic buildings. The program provides an option of transferring development potential
from the site of an historic building to a nonhistoric site. Since bonuses are not allowed to be transferred
to any site where an historic building is located, the proposed project will aid in the protection of historic
buildings.
P:~EIA~EIA.TDR
INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST:
1)Planner’s Knowledge of Area
2)Downtown Study Environmental Impact Report
3)City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan ,
4)City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
5)City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance
6)City of Palo Alto Zoning Map
7)City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
8)PAMC Chapter 9.10, Noise Ordinance
9)Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Appendices (as adopted by the City)
10)PAMC Chapter 16.47, Approval of Projects With Impacts On Housing
11)City of Palo Alto Planning Division’s Downtown Parcel Log
12)State of California, Special Studies Zones (Revised Official Map)
13)City Aerial Photos
P:~EIA\EIA.TDR
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 5
,£
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
11
ATTACHMENT 6
I I I -- I I I I
0 0 0
I I ~ I I
I I I I I I I I I -- I I I I I I I
I I I I I ~I I I I I I I I I I I I I
iii iiiiiiI
I I 1 I 1 I I I I
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I 1 |I I I
I
I 1 I I
-
8
CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16
AND BROADCAST ON KZSU, 90.1 FM
Regular Meeting
May i, 1995
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ..................75-435
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 1995 ........75-435
Lease between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara
County Girl Scout Council, Inc. for property located at
1305 ........................ 75-435
o Resolution 7505 entitled "Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for
Management and Confidential Personne! and Council-
Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 7351 to
Amend the Management Benefit Program ........ 75-435
o Ordinance 4273 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year
1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the
Library Division of the Community Services Department in
Recognition of Receipt of Funds from the Public Library
Fund of the State Library ............. 75-436
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ........75-436
4a.(Old Item No. 4) PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission
recommends to the City Council adoption of the 1995-2000
Consolidated Plan describing Palo Alto’s affordable
housing and community development needs ...... 75-436
4b.(Old Item No. 4) PUBLIC HEARING: The Finance Committee
recommends: I) Approval of the funding allocations, as
recommended by staff and the Citizens Advisory Committee
in Attachment B, be included in the 1995-96 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program ....... 75-438
o PUBLIC HEARING: The Architectural Review Board, Historic
Resources Board, and Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Zoning Ordinance Text Change for Transfer of Develop-
ment Rights (TDR) Program ............. 75-442
PUBLIC HEARING: Option to Lease between the City of Palo
Alto and Community Skating, Inc. for the Property Located
at 3005 Middlefield Road ..........
0 5 / 01 / 9 5 ATTAC}iA4ENT 7
o PUBLIC HEARING: The Architectural Review Board, Historic
Resources Board, and Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning
Ordinance Text Change for Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Program.
Council Member Schneider said she would not participate on the item
because of a potential conflict of interest.
Senior Planner Virginia Warheit said the item involved an amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance to change the existing Transfer Deve!opment Rights (TDR)
Program. The proposed change to the Comp Plan was that the review
process for transferring development rights to a non-historic
receiver site be changed from the Planned Community (PC) zone
process to review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The
proposed zoning ordinance text change would implement the TDR
Program. The TDR Program provided that al! or part of the floor
area bonus for seismic upgrade and historic presez-vation for
historic category 1 and 2 buildings located in the Downtown zone
district could be transferred to other non-historic sites also
05/01/95 75-442
located in the Downtown zone or sold to a third party for transfer
at a later time.
Planning Commissioner Anthony Carrasco said the Planning
Commission’s comments were incorporated into the ordinance that I)
the ARB not have the right to decrease the square footage that was
transferred; and 2) the rights were to be vested at the time of ARB
approval and the donor site had been achieved.
Architectural Review Board Member David Ross said a number of
questions had been raised during the ARB review, and a list had
been given to Council. Generally, the ARB enthusiastically
supported the TDR Program.
Mayor Simitian briefly described each.item and said he would return
to each item for Council Member questions or comments. The list
was not exhaustive, but the items had been identified in earlier
discussions. The first few items required Council direction to
staff before staff would take any action: I) For question i,
"Should the 15,000- or 25,000-square-foot project size limits apply
to the TDR program" there had been some suggestion during the
debate that the caps might be lifted. 2) For question 2, "Should
the 150-foot residential buffer apply to the TDR program?" staff’s
approach, absent direction from Council, was to leave the 150-foot
buffer in place. 3) For question 3, "Can/should previously
completed projects be able to receive the bonus square footage
retroactively?" he asked if the TDR process would apply to projects
that had already been completed but were not eligible for TDR
because it was not in place. 4) For question 4, "Should the right
to transfer development rights vest upon completion of the project
or upon receipt of the building permit?" it was both what the
Council policy direction would be and what the proposed ordinance
would do. 5) For question 5, "Should the TDR program be expanded
to include PF, PC, and residentially zoned properties within the
area generally zoned CD?" the question was also a policy direction
from Council. 6) For question 6, "Was it Council’s intention to
expand the TDR program to include seismic upgrades of nonhistoric
buildings?" he said at the December 12, 1994, Council Meeting,
Council had directed staff to consider the use of the TDR Program
not only for sites with historic and seismic issues but also for
sites with simply seismic upgrade needs. Staff had drawn a
different inference from the discussion, and Council needed to
consider the implication of including seismic-only buildings.
Additional environmental work would be needed before staff could
return for Council action. 7) For question 7, "Should building
owners be required to complete both seismic and historic upgrades
to receive bonuses for buildings that are in both categories?" the
building official had recommended the item which was both a policy
question and a substantive question about what was being proposed,
and whether or not the proposed ordinance required both seismic and
historic work to be done not only for the TDR but also for the
double bonus on site. 80 For question 8, "What is the difference
between historic preservation and historic rehabilitation?,, the
proposed ordinance involved a change .in language with a new "term
of art," and Council needed to know what that might mean as a
practical matter. He asked if there was a tangible consequence to
05/01/95 75-443
the Use of the particular words. 9) For question 9, "The current
TDR program does not allow bonus square footage beyond a 3.0 floor
area ratio (FAR). Should sending sites be able to transfer bonus
square footage above a 3.0 FAR?" sites existed that had not been
eligible to participate in the program because the TDR process was
not in place. The question was whether or not sites could use the
program ±f they were going to send but not use the additional bonus
on site. The questions had resulted from discuss±on with staff and
Counci! Member McCown’s assistance working through the process. He
asked whether Council Members had questions or comments on Item i,
"Should the 15,000- or 25,000-square-foot project size ~imits apply
to the TDR program?"
Council Member McCown asked for clarification on what the proposal
was that underlaid the question which had been raised by Chop
Keenan at the ARB and the Historic Resources Board (HRB) meetings.
The current program existed in the Downtown area to basically
discourage parce! merger.and the ability to construct new buildings
larger than 25,000 square feet. She questioned whether the
proposal meant the rules would still generally apply for new
construction or whether the proposa! meant to take it out of the
regulations for any deve!opment Downtown.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
the proposa! in the Council motion of December 12~, 1994, directed
staff to develop a program consistent with existing City policies
and regulations. The 15,000- or 25,000-square-foot project size
limits ~were adopted as part of the Downtown Study in 1986 and had
been City policy since that time. There was no recommendation to
change the policy. Any receiver site would have to function within
the 15,000- or 25,000-square-foot project size limits.
Council Member McCown said perhaps the question could best be
answered by Mr. Keenan. She understood him to say with regard to
receiver sites that the bonus square footage and transfer to them
should not to be limited. The implication of that was that no
Downtown site should be limited by the restrictions any longer.
Mayor Simitian said Mr. Keenan would respond during the ~public
testimony portion of the meeting. He asked whether Counci! Members
had questions or comments on Item 2, "Should the 150-foot
residential buffer apply to the TDR program?"
Council Member Rosenbaum questioned whether Item 2 was in the
current ~ordinance or whether it was proposed only in connection
with TDR and asked what the buffer was supposed to accomplish.
Mr.Schreiber said the 150-foot buffer had also been adopted in the
1986 Downtown Study and was the continuation of existing policy.
A concern arose in the Downtown Study regarding the impact of
larger non-residential development in close proximity to
residential deve!opment. The purpose of the buffer was to reduce
the possibility that the transfer process would effectively
facilitate a larger building next to a single-family home around
the Downtown. It was consistent with the overall thrust of the
Downtown.Study to reduce the impact of larger projects both within
05/01/95 75-444
the Downtown commercial and those projects on the residential
areas.
Council Member Rosenbaum asked how development within 150 square
feet was limited relative to development that was not within 150
square feet of a residential site.
Mr. Schreiber said the program was one which related directly to
the TDR Program. There were setback and daylight plane
requirements for commercial development which was adjacent to
residential, but that was the only facsor where the 150-foot
distance was used.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the existing Comp Plan language
that established the TDR Program had a flat 150-foot buffer
requirement in it and was not in the zoning.
Council Member Rosenbaum confirmed that independent of TDR, there
was no limitation within 150 square feet but was a carryover from
the program which had never been used.
Vice Mayor Wheeler said those who spoke in favor of rescinding the
150-foot buffer indicated that they believed there were sufficient
restrictions in the code that would protect residential properties
from overdevelopment immediately next door. She asked what the
restrictions were between residential and commercial zones.
Ms. Warheit said one of the restrictions with the 150-foot buffer
that would not be there if the buffer were to go away was that the
floor area ratio (FAR) Downtown was 1.0; but under the TDR Program,
sites could become as large as 3.0. The possibility of having
larger buildings within the 150 feet could become a reality than at
the present time because of the limit.
Vice Mayor Wheeler confirmed that setbacks and daylight planes
would preclude buildings that immediately abutted against
residential zoning from becoming that large.
Ms. Warheit said the ultimate size would not be limited.The FARcould still be 3.0, but the side directly adjacentto theresidential zone would require certain setbacks, etc.
Vice Mayor Wheeler said the same could be accomplished with a 4-
story or 5-story building that set back as with a 3-story building
stacked one on top of the other.
Mr. Schreiber said perhaps. However, if that much mass were put on
a parcel in close proximity or adjacent to a residential zone,
there was little to be done to effectively mask and shield the
residential site from the impacts. With some contentious projects
of the mid-1980s, shifting the mass around on the site was not
viewed by adjacent homeowners as addressing ~heir concerns about
the impact of a 3-to-I FAR across the street or across the
backyard.
05/01/95 75-445
Mr. Calonne said the basic concept throughout the ordinance was to
make a conscious trade in favor of certainty and simplicity in the
application and review process in exchange for the !oss of site-by-
site customization ability on the part of the decision makers.
Mayor Simitian clarified the law was designed to allow easy
transfer, but protections were built in against easy transfer
having unintended adverse consequences.
Mr. Calonne said yes, but the cost of easy transfer and a
streamlined process was somewhat of a loss of ~ase-by-case
flexibility to meet exceptional circumstances.
Council Member Andersen asked if there had been any discussion in
1986 regarding the 150 feet and whether there was something special
about that number as opposed to I00 feet.
Mr. Schreiber did not recall any discussion about the magic of 150
feet. The decision makers in the process which included several
Council Members were sensitive to the impacts of large-scale, non-
residentia! development in close proximity to single-family. The
general sense was that 150 feet was lar.ge enough to minimize the
possibility, if not totally negate the possibility, of those types
of impacts coming back to haunt the transfer situation.
Council Member Andersen asked what the implications would be for a
reduced amount of 125 feet or I00 feet.
Mr. Schreiber said the closer receiving sites could be to
residential sites with the greater the likelihood that at. some
point in time nearby residents would fee! significaDtly impacted by
the mass of a project. A transparency was available that showed
parcels affected by the 150 feet. Maps could be prepared which
showed 125 feet and i00 feet. Council would need to assess what
level of setback and what- level of potentia! impact were
comfortable.
Council Member Rosenbaum said the City Attorney had indicated the
effort was to balance certainty of approval with the lack of
ability to have. discretionary approval on certain sites. He asked
whether it was anticipated that someone could make use of a TDR
within the 150-foot buffer of a residential property if one came in
for a Planned Community (PC) approval.
Mr. Schreiber said yes.
Mayor Simitian confirmed the TDR right Would not have to be
simultaneous with the PC as it was currently because the TDR right
would already be in place to use if there were a PC.
Mr. Schreiber said that would be his interpretation.
Mayor Simitian asked for questions on Item 3, "Can/should
previously completed projects be able to receive the bonus square
footage retroactively?"
Council Member Andersen asked how many sites would be impacted by
applying bonus square footage retroactively.
Ms. Warheit said there were two buildings at 521 Ramona Street and
401 Florence that were both seismic and historic. The building at
401 Florence took a 25 percent bonus. Unless the granting of
double bonuses was also retroactive, it had already received the
allowed bonus. The building at 521 Ramona had not added usable
floor area.
Mr. Calonne said he did not want to preempt a policy discussion on
the point should it happen, but from a "canned" standpoint, he
believed it would be difficult to craft it legally.
Mayor Simitian asked for questions on Item 4, "Should the right to
transfer development rights vest upon completion of the project or
upon receipt of the building permit?"
Mr. Calonne said the ordinance before Council was responsive to the
Planning Commission’s direction on the point. The question framed
by the Planning Commission was not whether the right to transfer
the development rights should vest at building permit or completion
of the project, but whether or not the City could create some means
proving to a lender or others than upon completion of the project
they would be entitled to that transfer right. The ordinance that
came from the Planning Commission established the certificate of
eligibility which became a certification from the City that upon
completion of the project as proposed, the right would vest.
Mayor Simitian confirmed that in the City Attorney’s view, the
difference was not what the rights were or when they vested but
what was done by the City to make it clear to a third party that
the rights in fact existed.
Mr. Carrasco said the City Attorney’s comments were an accurate
representation of what the Planning Commission discussed.
Mayor $imitian asked for questions on Item 5, "Should the TDR
program be expanded to include PF, PC, and residentially zoned
properties within the area generally zoned CD?"
Council Member Huber questioned what the rationale had been for not
allowing a transfer anywhere within a CD when the Downtown Study
was done.
Mr. Schreiber could not recall any specific rationale.
Mr. Ross understood the FAR bonus program was originally put in
place to relieve CD restrictions under certain conditions.
Mayor Simitian said in other words, there was no need to give
relief to CD conditions for PF or PC where those conditions did not
pertain. There was no need for relief, and so no relief was given.
He asked what the impacts would be if PF and PC were included in
residentially zoned properties.
05/01/95 75-447
Ms. Warheit said in terms of public facilities, the only buildings
which would be a potentia! sender site were the Senior Center and
the Post Office.
Mayor Simitian asked about residentially zoned properties.
Mr. Schreiber said there were no residentially zoned properties
totally encompassed within the lands that were zoned CD. There
were three areas in the Downtown where there were residential
properties that had Downtown commercial zoning on three sides. The
interpretation included those properties. Staff did~ not believe
there were any sender sites in those areas but di~ include six to
eight potential receiver sites for residentialdevelopment.
Mayor Simitian asked for questions on Item 6, "Was it Council’s
intention to expand the TDR program to include seismic upgrades of
nonhistoric buildings?" He asked how many buildings involved only
seismic upgrades.
Ms. Warheit said there were 30.
Mayor Simitian said if staff were to look at the possibility of the
TDR process applying to seismic upgrades only, staff had indicated
additional environmental assessments would be necessary. He asked
what the time line would be.
Mr. Schreiber said the answer would relate to how many items
Council wanted staff to pursue. Assuming that the list was
reasonably extensive and included that particular item, staff would
try to return to Council before the Council’s vacation in August.
Council Member Huber said more important to him t~an.the number of
buildings was how much total square footage was involved because no
additional parking was included.
Mr. Schreiber said staff had not calculated the total square
footage for the 30 seismic only sites but could calculate the rest.
Mayor Simitian asked what caps applied which would protect against
Council Member Huber’s concern.
Mr. Schreiber said there was an overall Downtown development cap of
350,000 square feet. In 9 years, 45,000 square feet had been used.
Mayor Simitian questioned if there was a second cap that dealt with
the amount of square footage that could be Used for unparked space.
Mr. Schreiber said he did not recall the amount of the cap, but a
subtotal of the amount could be used. The overall parking
shortfall in the downtown was capped at 1,600 spaces. To the
extent new parking was provided, that number had been reduced and
would.be reduced further in the future.
Mayor Simitian confirmed there was a limit on the total square
footage and a limit on what was in effect a parking shortfall.
05/01/95 75-448
Mayor Simian asked for questions on Item 7, "Should building owners
be required to complete both seismic and historic upgrades to
receive bonuses for buildings that are in both categories?" The
ordinance language seemed to clearly indicate that in order to get
credit for historic preservation work, not only historic work but
also seismic upgrade work had to be done. He questioned whether
that was in the TDR Program or whether it was for work done on site
and space added on site. He understood from the minutes that the
building official indicated having to do both to receive credit
applied only to the TDR process and not to using the bonus on site.
He asked staff for clarification of what the intent was in terms of
the use of the bonus.
Chief Building Official Fred Herman said seismic upgrade required
a tremendous amount of work with the building. When going through
the ARB and the HRB process, historic preservation had always
become an issue. It seemed logical that with seismic upgrades,
historic preservation also took place as part of the approval
process. If just historic preservation were being done, there was
always a question of how much was required to qualify for the
historic credit of 25 percent.
Mayor Simitian said currently, someone who only wanted to do
historic preservation and wanted to use the bonus on site was
allowed to do so without regard to any TDR process. He questioned
if it were staff’s intent to change that policy.
Mr. Herman said no. The point was that preserving the building
should also include preserving it structurally as well as
historically.
Mayor Simitian confirmed the existing program said if historic
preservation work was done on a site, a 25 percent bonus was
included and could be used on site.
Mr. Herman said that was correct.
Mayor Simitian asked whether staff intended to change that rule so
if the bonus were to be used on site, the seismic upgrade as well
as the historic preservation had to be done.
Mr. Herman said yes.
Mayor Simitian confirmed that staff had come forward with a policy
change not only to the TDR Program but also to the existing
ordinance for bonus allocation and allowance.
Mr. Herman said that was correct.
Mayor Simitian confirmed the ordinance language imposed not only
doing both to satisfy one requirement on TDRs but also doing both
in the existing program to satisfy one requirement of on-site use.
Mr. Calonne said yes.
Mr. Herman said in a Downtown CD, every building covered
I00 percent of the site. Using as an example an historic site
entitled toa 25 percent bonus, in order to add square footage such
as in the case of 401 Florence, it would have to be a second story,
thus adding new loads to the existing structure which meant
upgrading the existing structure. In the case of 401 Florence, it
was a matter of practicality and useability that required upgrading
the existing structure. He believed it met the intent of the
Council direction at the time.
Mayor Simitian asked for questions on Item 8, "What is the
difference between historic preservation a~d historic
rehabilitation?" Staff had developed a new legal.term of "term of
art" which was necessary to receive the 25 percent bonus. He asked
what it meant and whether it applied to folks who wanted to use the
bonus on site which meant it did not just apply to the TDR but also
to the existing ordinance.
Ms. Warheit said when staff wrote the proposed change to the
ordinance, staff had realized there was a need to clarify the terms
as they were used interchangeably in various City documents. Staff
returned to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation which had been adopted by Council as the standards
for reviewing historic buildings. The document’s introduction
contained a summary of what the terms meant. Rehabilitation was
defined as "the process of returning a property to a state of
utility through repair or alteration which makes possible an
efficient, contemPorary use while preserving those portions and
features of the property which are significant to its historic,
architectural, or cultural values." The standards were distinct
from other standards the Secretary of the Interior had for
restoration, stabilizing, etc., which could be Bone to historic
buildings. The Standards for Rehabilitation were the ones the
Secretary of the Interior proposed for use and were needed for
requirements such as tax credits.
Mayor Simitian asked what term ~"rehabilitation,, was replacing.
Ms. Warheit said preservation and/or restoration.
Mayor Simitian asked what would demonstrate that rehabilitation
rather than preservation or restoration had taken place.
Ms. Warheit said the standards as laid out in the document would be
used by someone making the determination.
Mr. Calonne said the applicable standard in the ordinance was the
same and was the Secretary’s standards as applied to the exterior
with the sole exception of the double bonus case where the Council
included interior protection language. The new term rehabilitation
or the definition effected the decision-making standard.
Mayor Simitian clarified theodecision-making standard was whether
or not the work had in fact met the threshold required to qualify
for the bonus.
Mr. Calonne said yes.
Mayor Simitian clarified the use of the term rehabilitation
effected no change at all on what someone needed to do to qualify
for the 25 percent historic bonus.
Mr. Calonne said it removed a misleading quality of preservation in
that rehabilitation referred to contemporary uses of the structure.
Mayor Simitian asked for questions on Item 9, "The current TDR
program does not allow bonus square footage beyond a 3.0 floor area
ratio (FAR). Should sending sites be able to transfer bonus square
footage above a 3.0 FAR?" He understood since 3.0 was the absolute
cap and in the past people were expected to use the bonus on site,
the buildings were not allowed to use a bonus because there was no
place to put it on site.
Mr. Schreiber said that was correct.
Mayor simitian said the question raised during the discussion was
whether or not someone should qualify for the bonus if he or she
would be able to participate in the TDR Program and use it off
site.
Mr. Schreiber said the existing policy and existing program did not
have a bonus for those sites. Item 9 represented a change in
policy.
Mayor Simitian clarified whether the change would allow someone
with a 3.0 FAR to be a receiver site.
Mr. Schreiber said no. The 3.0 FAR maximum size would still be in
effect. If a site qualified for a bonus, it could transfer off
site.
Council Member Huber questioned whether any of the 30 buildings
which qualified for seismic rehabilitation was at or close to the
3.0 FAR.
Mr. Schreiber said there were probably some; however, staff would
need to research it.
Council Member Rosenbaumquestioned the rationale of the limitation
on an increase of 0.50 in the FAR. Many buildings in the CD zone
were single story and already had a FAR of I. It made more
economic sense if square footage were being added to a building
that an entire second floor be added rather than half a second
story.
Mr. Schreiber said the 0.50 limit was part of the existing Comp
Plan TDR Program and went back to the concern in the Downtown Study
regarding size of projects. The limit was included to act as an
additional "dampener" for the potential of having out-of-scale
projects.
Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the limit would be pertinent
with a small receiver property.
05/01/95 75-451
Mr. Schreiber said staff had not extensively analyzed potential
impacts of going above the 0.50 limit. He understood Council’s
direction had been to work within existing policies.
Council Member Rosenbaum clarified there had been an existing
policy in the previous TDR.
Mr. Schreiber said yes. The existing TDR Program in the Comp Plan
had a maximum increase on receiver sites of 0.50 FAR.
Ms. Warheit said of the 132,000 square feet that could~potentially
be added by buildings that were seismic or historic or both,
approximately half were attributable to those buildings which were
just seismic. .
Mayor Simitian clarified all of the buildings, seismic, historic,
or historic and seismic, had the potential for adding 135,000
square feet from the 25 or 50 percent which could be added.
Ms. Warheit said yes.
Council Member Huber said, hypothetically, if the entire 135,000
square feet were transferred, all would be without benefit of a
single additional parking space.
Mr. Schreiber said yes.
Council Member Huber clarified the standard was to add 4 spaces per
1,000 feet. A deficit of 540 spaces~would result with the addition
of 135,000 square feet.
Mr. Schreiber said yes.
Mayor Simitian declared the Public Hearing open.
Wayne Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, addressed three issues: parking,
precedent, and process. He questioned Item 5 regarding transfers
to PF and PC zones. He understood the existing code requireda PC
zone process be used to transfer development rights. He did not
believe any applications or developments had been processed that
way; therefore, there was no precedent to know whether it would or
would not work. He had experience with parking assessment
districts and was aware of parking requirements. He estimated that
the 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet referred to by Council
Member Huber would be worth $50,000. The fiscal impact could be
considerable. The draft ordinance before Council, under the
regulations on page 1 stated, "more restrictive regulations may be
recommended by the ARB and approved by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment." He described two unfavorable experiences
he had had with the ARB involving an application for a new church
and the Mayfield Apartments at 345 Sheriden Avenue. He did not
believe the ARB should be given the power to transfer development
rights.
Phyllis Munsey, 520 Ramona Street, requested that the proposed
ordinance be made retroactive as discussed in Item 3. When the
o5/o~/~5 ~5-~52
ordinance for seismic rehabilitation was first adopted, she had
complied and upgraded the building at 520 Ramona. Ten years later,
the process was to become more lucrative. She did not believe it
fair to penalize someone who had been one of the first people to go
through the process.
Chop Keenan, Developer, Keenan Land Development, 700 Emerson
Street, was opposed to the 25,000-foot cap referred to in Item I.
His sentiments were reflected in a letter to the Planning
Commission. Rather than referring to the 25,000-foot cap in the
proposed ordinance, he recommended referring to whatever cap was in
place pursuant to the cap ordinance. A year from now, the cap
might be 50,000 feet; and instead of amending the proposed
ordinance, only the cap ordinance would need to be amended. With
regard to the 150-foot buffer program, he believed there was
interface protection between residential and commercial zones,
400 Hamilton Avenue being a good example. The reason it was four
stories at the corner was that there was no residential site
adjacent to it. Farther down Hamilton Avenue where the building
was adjacent to a residential site, a height limit and daylight
plane were in effect. The 150-buffer was an unnecessary
protection, particularly limiting the receiver site. He said that
the same theoretical arithmetic regarding the amount of possible
square footage that could be built under the ordinance had been
used to talk about the 350,000-foot cap and other downzoning
limitations; and although it was a good question, he cautioned
getting "hung up" on the theoretical. He supported Items 3, 6, 7,
8, and 9 and believed the limitation on an increase of 0.50 in the
FAR on receiver sites should be extended beyond the 0.50. The
entire keynote of the TDR Program was whether funds could be
generated for buildings that had extraordinary costs for seismic
and historic retrofit in order to move them out of the risk
position. Previous incentives had not been adequate to address the
outsized costs. The double FAR bonus did address that and was
excellent for those buildings that could not use it on site. The
TDR was a great idea, and staff should be commended.
Council Member McCown clarified that Mr. Keenan’s intent regarding
the 25,000-square-foot cap was that the wording in the ordinance
should be more generic; so if at some point in .the future there
were a different cap, that ordinance would not have to be amended.
Vice Mayor. Wheeler said Mr. Keenan had sometimes appeared before
Council regarding parking issues. If each site in all three
categories decided to take advantage of the program, there would be
a considerable parking deficit. She asked for his opinion on the
issue.
Mr. Keenan said he would have a difficult time going to the parking
assessment district and saying a new $6 million parking structure
was needed on lots S & L and would be consumed by TDR efforts. The
question was a tricky one. The intent was to get at least one,
perhaps two, parking structures to lower the parking deficit and
take pressure off the neighborhoods. He believed he was taking
that leap of faith that said the theoretical numbers would not be
achieved. Personally, he. would like to see all of it happen. If
PaloAlto lost most of its historic buildings such as what had
occurred in Santa Cruz during the Loma Prieta earthquake, there
would be many unhappy Palo Altans.
Council Member Andersen suggested those in the assessment district
who were able to take advantage of the bonus could pay more.
Mr. Keenan believed the assessments would then be going in the
opposite direction and would suggest leaving the status quo because
the 25 percent would be a better dea!.The incentives would
evaporate.~
Council Member Andersenquestioned whether it would’depend upon the
percentages.
Mr. Keenan said the in-lieu ordinance called out $19,000 per space,
or $80 per square foot of cost that would accrue if the full
parking complement were met.
Council Member Huber asked what a realistic TDR buildout would be.
Mr. Keenan said speculatively, if one quarter were built out, the
ordinance would be successful.
Council Member Huber confirmed approximately 35,000 square feet as
one quarter.
Mr. Keenan said the constraint would be on t~e receiver side and
was one reason he wanted the 25,000-foot project cap lifted. The
more enterprising developers in town, such as James Baer, would be
the market maker on the receiver side.
James Baer, 532 Channing Avenue, said Mr. Schreiber had mentioned
that 45,000 square feet had been added since 1986; 5,000 square
feet had been approved during the moratorium. The CD monitoring
report for September 1993 showed the net increase as 23,000 square
feet, which included 22,000 eliminated square feet from the
Times/Tribune building. Looking .at the theoretical growth in the
Downtown, which was the 350,000 anticipated square feet, the used
45,000 square feet was a good number because of eliminated basement
footage. Looking at the increased vitality since the 1984
moratorium was put in place, much had been realized with relatively
little square footage. The largest single additional square
footage, 20,000 square feet, was 250 University Avenue. Premier
Properties had done approximately $30 million of hard cost
renovation work, not new construction, since 1986. The following
buildings in seismic 1 or 2 categories had been worked on with no
added bonus: 251 University Avenue, Fidelity Investment Building;
300 University Avenue, Walgreens; 180 University Avenue, Ross
Store; 437 Emerson Street, The Barker.Hotel; 529 Bryant Street, Pac
Bell; and 250 University Avenue which did add square footage. The
buildings where no square footage had been added had the potential
to add 62,000 square feet and only added 3,000. There were 59,000
square feet of potential additional square footage on the books.
Presumably, 180 University, Ross Store, could be upgraded to the
1973 code and receive the benefit of additional square footage. He
o5/o~/95 v5-454
complimented Chief Building Official Fred Herman for his
intelligence and hard work in the early negotiations with
developers in renovations about what the logical system was to
create seismic strengthening of historic or non-historic but
seismically deficient buildings. Developers still might not choose
going to the 1973 code because by satisfying the 1973 code, it was
possible to trip into the 1991 code which was vastly more expensive
and complex. One threshold was established by the state, and based
on what the City established as necessary to achieve bonuses for
multi-story buildings, the 1991 code would need to be satisfied.
He agreed with Mr. Keenan’s answers to the questions raised. He
believed the 0.50 limitation on FAR would be on receiver sites, not
transfer sites. He suggested developers should work with staff to
look at what the likely receiver sites were, looking at permanently
preserved space, space that was not yet preserved and subject to
development, and those spaces imminently threatened with
development. A building which had just done a major renovation,
180 University Avenue for example, would not be a receiver site and
would not go through a 1973 upgrade. If that type of analysis were
done, particularly in the Downtown where the buildings were of such
high utility by virtue of the rent received, it would be difficult
to casually put a tenant out of business and go through a major
redevelopment to add minor incremental square footage. Fairly
typical of the type of property Downtown was Swain’s House of
Music, a 6,000-square-foot parcel. To add 3,000 square feet,
limited to a 0.50 FAR as a receiver, was not economically worth
demolishing the building to build it to a 1991 code.
Council Member Huber asked for staff’s observations on the
practicality, economically or otherwise, on Mr. Baer’s and
Mr. Keenan’s comments. He was concerned there was a lot of square
footage that could open up, and the comments suggested that was not
realistic and why.
Mr. Herman agreed with the comments based on past experience. The
25 percent bonus was to be an incentive for seismic upgrading of
existing facilities but had not happened. He did not understand
why.
Mr. Schreiber said the ability to transfer the square footage off
site created a new economic game. While it could not be used on
site, it was expected to be transferred off site.
Mr. Calonne said one of the problems might be conceptual. The
total quantity of square footage was only one component of the
overall growth picture. Rate sequence ~ and timing were the
classical statements of the other pieces. On further analysis, the
concerns related less to the 350,000 square feet or the
132,000 square feet and more to the rate sequence and timing of
those square feet.
Council Member McCown asked what the next steps were procedurally.
She questioned how much time some items might take for further
staff work and what it would mean in terms of required
environmental analysis, etc. Based upon the answer, she would be
influenced as to what direction was given to staff versus acting on
05/01/95 75-455
an ordinance that might not answer all the questions but moved the
process along. She questioned whether the entire discussion needed
to be continued before choosing any items for further review and
additional information from staff.
Mayor Simitian asked staff to comment on continuing the public
hearing, directing staff to return with comments on all the items,
as well as performing environmental assessment work on all the
items.
Mr. Schreiber hoped Council would narrow the list. S~aff time was
limited. He assumed Council was comfortable with the discussion on
Item I to make the caps in the TDR Program consistent with the
overall Downtown regulation caps and not to change the 15,000- or
25,000-square-foot .project size limits in the CD zone which made
the item inconsequential timewise. Item 2 would require a
significant time effort. Item 3 was a question for the ~City
Attorney’s office. Item 4 had been addressed in the ordinance and,
therefore, was not a time issue. Item 5 was not a time issue.
Item 6, the third category, seismic but not historic, added a
significant number of buildings to the base. Items 7 and 8 were
not problems. Item 9 would involve work if it were merged with
Item 6. Item I0, the 0.50 FAR limit, would require significant
staff time. He corrected a previous answer regarding the 150-foot
limit and whether a site within 150 feet could become a receiver
site through the PC zone. The Comp Plan Amendment would continue
the wording in the Comp Plan that the receiver site would be at
least 150 feet from residentially zoned properties. With that
wording, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make a
finding for a PC zone.
Mayor Simitian asked how much time staff would need to gather the
information on those items requiring a significant amount of time.
Mr. Schreiber said staff would require outside assistance which had
already been budgeted. He did not believe staff could return
before Council’s vacation but would be ready to return early in the
fall.
Council Member Andersen asked if the 1991 standard was used in
terms of seismlc upgrades.
Mr. Herman said no. The reference for seismic upgrade was
contained in the seismic identification program. For unreinforced
masonry buildings, the Uniform Code for Building Conservation was
used. The 1973 Uniform Building Code was used for other buildings,
which was approximately 65 percent of the Current code.
Council Member Andersen asked whether there were differences within
the two restrictions that would encourage the City to go to a
higher standard. He asked if there was a motivation to use a
higher standard to attain a higher degree of safety.
Mr. Herman said the unreinforced masonry standard, brick-bearing
wall buildings, were designed, for life safety. After an
earthquake, if the building had not collapsed and killed someone,
05/01/95 75-456
it worked. However, the building could still have extensive damage
and need to be demolished. The 1973 code required a much higher
force leve! with detail. The problem with existing buildings was
trying to meet the detail requirement of connections, etc., of
current code.
Vice Mayor Wheeler asked the City Attorney whether a Council
strategy, as Council went forth with its. discussion, to adopt the
ordinance as it had been presented that night and direct staff to
do further research would be a good strategy.
Mr. Calonne said the basic pros and cons really had to do with how
the whole thing would go together when it was done and to what
extent details became lost in a multi-step process. It was wiser
to consider everything as one package after time for deliberation.
However, he would be remiss if he did not mention a tremendous
amount of effort from his office and the Planning Department had
gone in to bringing the item before Council that night. It would
be unfortunate to put aside that effort and not take some action.
Because there were so many new issues involved in the TDR Program,
he guaranteed I00 interpretive questions would result. Handling
the whole package at one time would minimize that process.
Council Member McCown asked whether it would be possible, if
Council acted in a piecemeal fashion by adopting the ordinance that
night and directing staff to look at selected items and return to
Council, for someone to start operating under the first revised
version of the ordinance while Council continued to look at
possible additions to the ordinance.
Mr. Herman said yes. Staff had already received phone calls on
loans and refinances and had based appraisals as if the TDR Program
were in place when, in fact, it was still a draft. If Council took
action that night, he believed there would be phone calls the next
day.
Mayor Simitian said he was persuaded by the number of issues which
had arisen and the complexity of the issues to take whatever time
was necessary to do things right when the whole package was on the
table at the same time. He imagined how many issues would need to
be amended or corrected because of not understanding how the issues
might affect the ordinance.
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by
Huber, to continue the Public Hearing to a date to be determined by
staff and request the staff to provide further analysis on the
following questions as appropriate: I) should the 15,000- or
25,000-square-foot project size limits apply to the TDR program?
2) should the 150-foot residential buffer apply to the TDR program?
3) can/should previously completed projects be able to receive the
bonus square footage retroactively? 4) should the right to transfer
development rights vest upon completion of the project or upon
receipt of the building permit? 5) should the TDR program be
expanded to include PF, PC, and residentially zoned properties
within the area generally zoned CD? 6) was it Council’s intention
to expand the TDR program to include seismic upgrades of non-
historic buildings? 7) should building owners be required to
complete both seismic and historic upgrades to receive bonuses for
buildings that are in both categories? 8) what is the difference
between historic preservation and historic rehabilitation? 9) the
current TDR program does not allow bonus square footage beyond a
3.0 FAR; should, sending sites be able to transfer bonus square
footage above a 3.0 FAR? and I0) should the 0.5 FAR limit on
receiving sites be modified? Further, to request staff to provide
the analysis and potential modifications to the Ordinance and/or
any environmenta! assessments necessary for all of the items listed
above at the Council Meeting. ~
Mr. Calonne asked Council for guidance on Item 3. If the questionwere, "Could the ordinance be applied retroactively?" the answer
was no. If the question were, "Could an ordinance be written that
would accomplish what was being sought by retroactivity?" the
answer was probably.
Mr. Schreiber sought Council guidance on Items 2 and 6. If the
150-foot residential buffer were not to be maintained, a
significant amount of work would need to be done in terms of
analysis. The expansion of the TDR Program to include seismic
upgrade of non-historic buildings would have significant impacts on
staff resources.
Council Member McCown said perhaps the appropriate action might be
for someone to offer an amendment to delete or clarify a particular
item. Her intention had been to put all i0 items on the table for
direction to staff.
Council Member Andersen said based on staff[s responses to
questions on Item 3, the need for a lengthy analysis, and that
Council had indicated sensitivity toward retroactivity, perhaps
something could be incorporated into the motion which was
indicative of what was in process. He was not ready to change the
150-foot residential buffer unless persuaded to do so.
Vice Mayor Wheeler said she believed Items 2 and 6 were
intertwined. A comment had been made before one of the advisory
boards that if~ seismic buildings without a historic designation
were included, it would be necessary, in order to create a sizable
enough market area, to go into the !50-foot residentia! buffer.
She supposed all the research could be done first and be returned
to Council, and Council could debate the set of issues. However,
she was not interested in amending the 150-foot residential buffer.
She remembered from the Downtown Study that the 150~foot buffer was
a very strongly debated issue among owners of residential
properties bordering on the Downtown. Additionally, work had been
done on an Urban Design Guideline document which indicated that
when additional height and additional density were being sought in
the Downtown district, they should be done toward the core of the
district. If the area were spread out in which bigger, taller
buildings were allowed to be constructed, it would be working in
the opposite direction of the Urban Design Guidelines.
AMeNDMeNT: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to delete
Item No. 2, "should the 150-foot residential buffer apply to the
TDR program?" from the motion.
Council Member Huber said ~the purpose of the Downtown Study
.centered around growth and the protection of residential areas
around it. He believed the number was arbitrary, workable, and
recognized by people in the City. It was not worth studying and
should be kept.
Mayor Simitian said he would vote against the amendment. The fact
that staff said the item required a great deal of time to be
understood fully meant an informed decision could not be made on
the item that night.
AMeNDMeNT PASSED: 5-1, Simitian
participating," Fazzino, Kniss absent.
"no, " Schneider "not
Council Member Rosenbaum questioned what action Council needed to
take to apply Item I, the 15,000- to 25,000-square-foot project
size limits.
Mayor Simitian said Council could direct staff to return with an
analysis and recommendation with respect to whether or not a
generic statement regarding a cap would be more appropriate.
Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the intent was not to "scrap"
the 15,000- to 25,000-square-foot project size limit.
Council Member McCown said it was her intention to adopt Mr.
Schreiber’s characterization of the issues which was not to reopen
the 15,000- or 25,000-square-foot project size but was a potential
wording change in the ordinance that would describe the concept of
the cap more generically.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to
delete Item No. 3, "can/should previously completed projects be
able to receive the bonus square footage retroactively?" from the
motion.
Council Member Rosenbaum said action had been taken earlier for the
advantage of the owner of the building and did not believe Council
should provide a retroactive benefit.
Vice Mayor Wheeler looked at the issue as she looked at other
zoning ordinances and did not believe Council should attempt to
build in retroactivity into general zoning ordinances.
Council Member Andersen was concerned that removal of the item at
that time would effectively put it in place well down the road.
All seismic upgrading could be stopped based on some of the changes
until Council took action. Particularly in the transition period,
opportunity for the analysis and ramifications needed to take place
first, and then Council could take action.
05/01195 75-459
AMENDMENT PASSED : 5 - i, Andersen
participating, " Fazzino, Kniss absent.
"no, " Schneider "not
Council Member Rosenbaum clarifiedthe intention of Item 4 was for
the current ordinance.
¯ Mayor Simitian Confirmed staff had indicated that the issue of
vesting was really not one of substance but of how the process was
handled and manifested that a right had vested. Staff would move
ahead with the direction and would analyze how to put it into
place. ’
Mr. Calonne said that was correct. The language on page 4 and 5 of
the ordinance could be clarified further.
Council Member Rosenbaum asked for clarification on Item 5’s
intent.
Mr. Schreiber said, for example, the City would not slow down on
the Senior Center seismic rehabilitation project in order to
position itself to obtain some theoretical development right in the
future. There were no PC or residential sites that would be sender
sites; therefore, he did not believe Item 5 amounted to much of
anything.
Council Member Rosenbaum said Item 5 should remain.
Mayor Simitian thought that was an argument for deleting Item 5.
Vice Mayor Wheeler said she thought there were many PF properties
that could conceivably be a receiver site. The City was
considering building structures on or over plrking lots, for
example.
Mr. Schreiber said only if the City wished to get into the process
of buying development rights. There was a Comprehensive Plan
Program somewhere to continue to use PC zones to develop parking
garages in PF zones.
Mayor Simitian. said there was obvious interest for discussion and
agreed Item 5 should remain.
Council Member Rosenbaum moved that the answer to Item 6 was yes.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Rosenbaum moved that with respect to
Item 6, "was it Council’s intention to expand the TDR program to
include seismic upgrades of non-historic buildings?" staff be
directed to include the evaluation of seismic upgrades.
Mayor Simitian asked whether Council needed to give direction to
staff or simply ask staff to go back and look at it.
Mr. Schreiber said the clearer the direction to staff, the better.
05/01/95 v5- 60
Council Member Rosenbaum said staff had asked for direction on
Item 9 and asked for an analysis on whether there should be a FAR
limit on a sending site. In addition, on Item I0, he asked staff
to.analyze the impact of allowing a FAR increase of more than 0.50.
From his standpoint, for a small receiver site, a somewhat larger
FAR would be allowed than for a large receiver site.
Mayor Simitian confirmed that Items I, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and I0
remained on the list for further analysis by staff.
Council Member Andersen asked the maker and seconder if the
questions incorporated some assessment of the impaqt of the parking
deficit.
Council Member McCown understood that the Mayor had included the
impact of parking deficits in his comments. The environmental
analysis would comment on it as well.
Mr. Calonne asked whether the Council had any specific instruction
on returning the items to the Planning Commission before returning
to Council.
Council Member McCown was inclined not to give that direction
because the ideas were coming out of a process which had included
the ARB, HRB, and Planning Commission suggestions to Council.
City Manager June Fleming agreed with Council Member McCown since
the items grew out of issues that had been at the Planning
Commission and were not new to it. Absent any direction from
Council, staff would not refer the item to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Simitian recommended to the maker and seconder of the motion
that the item be returned to the Planning Commission.
MAKER AND SECONDER AGR~F~D TO INCORPORATE INTO T~E MOTION that the
item be referred to the Planning Commission prior to Council
deliberation.
MOTION TO CONTINUE AS AMENDED PASSED 6-0, Schneider "not partici-
pating,"..Kniss, Fazzino absent.
RECESS: i0:20 P.M. -10:30 P.M.
Historic Resources Board Minutes
Roll Call
Board Members present:
Board Members absent:
Staff Members present:
City Council Liaison:
Approval of Minutes:
Wednesday, June 19, 1996
8:00 a.m. - I0:00 a.m.
Council Conference Room
Palo Alto City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California
Anderson, Willis, Backlund, Mario, Bernstein
Koh!er, Murden
Grote, Bills, Schubert (TDR)
None
May !, 1996 (as amended)
Oral Communications: None
Agenda Items:
!. 1026 Webster Str~ 96-HRB-!8
"Boardmember Anderson st~mped down on this item since he is the
Architect for the project.
Mr. Anderson outlined the revised project.
Project Description:
Recommendation to Zoning Administrator for an HIE to allow first
and second story additions on a substandard lot. House would
comply with rear setback and daylight plane requirements.Side
yard setback encroachment will be extended.
Project Representatives:
Monty Anderson, Architect
Ray and Cindy Inglin, Owners
Public Testimony:
Deborah Re~ter, 1044 Webster Street: Asked about windows~ and
increased distance the house will be extended in the rear area.
Summary of HRB Discussion:
The Board asked about the height and rear yard dimensions.They
also asked about the foundation and it needing to be redone.
ATTACHMENT 8
There was a general discussion about window placement and
extension of side and rear walls.
No windows or dormers are currently being proposed on the side
closest to 1044 Webster Street. BM Bernstein stated street
presence is being maintained and he supports that direction.
BM Willis stated her support for the revised plano
Chair Mario stated her support for the revised pl~n also.She
appreciates the applicant’s and architect’s effort.
MOTION:
Moved to support the revised plan and HIE request.
VOTE :
4-0-2-1 (Kohler, Murden absent, Anderson stepped down.)
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) NQ HRB ND~ber
Project Description:
Transferring development potentia! from historic sites and
seismically upgraded sites to other sites in the downtown area.
Bob Schubert, contract planner, gave overview of TDR concept and
proposed ordinance revisions. 45 sender sites, 165 receiver
sites.
Project Representatives:
N/A
Public Testimony:
Chris Dressel, representative of President Apartments: It is a
category 2 and seismic 2 building. Wants sites like his to be
included, in some form, on the sender sites.
Summary of HRB Discussion:
The HRB discussed the concept of TDR and the sale of development
rights.
Could the clinic building (Roth building) benefit from this
concept?
Discussed allowing transfer from historic buildings that are 3 or
4 (in downtown).
Discussed 3:1 max. FAR in downtown.
What if used 50% of max. 3:1 for President Apartments and other
buildings that are over 3:1 now?
MOTION : ~\
Moved to approve TD~/amendment that historic sites that exceed 3:1
FAR also be eligible"as TDR sender sites at a 3:1 FAR max.
VOTE :
5-0-2-0 (Koh!er, Murden absent)
General Discussion:
Get Historic Inventories to new members.
i.Murden
2.Bernstein
3.Back!und
Caroline will go to City Council on 7-22-96 for TDR.
Items on Future Agendas:
2.
3.
4.
Representation at City Council meetings (July I0, 1996)
Discussion of outreach to Board of Realtors (July i0, 1996)
275 Lowell (Ju!y !0, 1996)
Discussion of Sea Scout Building follow-up (July i0, 1996)
Adjournment: 9:45 a.m.
ARCHITECTURAL VIEW BOARD HEARING
June 20, 1996
TRANSFER OF ,DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM
City. of Palo Alto
95-EIA-6
95-CP-1
95-ZC-3
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Urban Design Element, Program 6a) and Zoning Ordinance
Text Changes, amending Section 18.49.060 and adding Chapter 18.87, to revise the floor area
bonus program in the CD (Commercial Downtown) District and to implement a Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) program.
Chairman Ross: This is a proposal that has been forwarded by the City of Palo Alto. Are there
any additional staff comments?
Mr. Schubert: Yes. not seeing an?, Historic Resources Board members present, I want to
summarize their action yesterday on this item. The process is that this will go forward to the
Planning Commission for their recommendation on June 26, and then it goes to the City, Council
on July 22 for final action. Yesterday, the HRB recommended approval with the revisions
contained in the staff report, with one change. Mr. Chris Dressel of the President Apartments,
spoke at the meeting. He requested that the program be revised to allow the President
Apartments to participate in the program. Currently, they are excluded because there is a 3:1
FAR limit, and that site is almost at a 6:1 FAR. So the HR~ recommended that the program be
revised to allow historic buildings that are over the FAR to be permitted to obtain that bonus
only for the purpose of transferring it. They could not use it on site.
The board also recognized that as the program is currently proposed, it would allow the President
to transfer 27,000 square feet of floor area, a significant amount, when you look at the total floor
area in the current program, which is 128,000 square feet or 20 percent of the total. They thought
that was excessive, so they proposed a restriction that would allow the maximum floor area to be
transferred to be based upon the 3:1 FAR. So you would take the site size and apply the 3:1
FAR. In this case, it comes to about 14,000 square feet that could be transferred. So that is the
HRB’s recommendation.
Chairman Ross: If I understand the board’s recommendation, it would be to look at the 3:1 gross
floor area, take 25 percent of that number, and allow that to be transferred.
Mr. Schubert: Right. In this case, it is 50 percent, because they get a double bonus for seismic
and historic.
KITIPCMIN S.31A:\TRD6-20.ARB
6-20-96
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 9
Chairman Ross: If both were to be perfon-ned.
Ms. Grote: Yes. They also did not limit it just to The President, but to any historic building over
3:1 FAR currently in Historic Categories 1 or 2.
Mr. Schubert: That currently only applies to The President. There are no other historic buildings
that are over that. However, there could be some in the furore. ,
Chairman Ross: Someday, the high rise might be designated as a historic structure! Are there
any questions for staff?.
Mr. McFall: (Joyce thinks she is getting to know these voices, but it is still basically a guess). I
have a couple. The addition of nonhistoric buildings to the program, did that come from the City
Council?
Mr. Schubert: Yes. That was one of the eleven questions that the council asked staffto look at.
It is a staff recommendation at this point. It is not something that the City Council directed to be
included in the program. They told us to look at it, which we did. We found 23 buildings
downtown that could benefit in the program. We saw a lot of good reasons to include seismic
buildings, so we are recommending that they be included.
Mr. McFall: As far as the implications for review of historic buildings that they upgrade, it is my
understanding that that review component would be only on the exterior of the buildings, as
opposed to exterior and interior. Is that correct?
Mr. Schubert: Yes. The way that works is that if there is a double bonus, where they are doing
both seismic and historic, the city. does look at the interior, but does not use the Secretary of the
Interior standards. Those would only be applied to the exterior of the building.
Mr. McYall: Is that defined in the ordinance?
Ms. Grote: I believe that was discussed in the CD amendments that occurred just prior to the
Varsity Theater application’s being made. That was a determination made at that time, that if a
double bonus was to be requested on a historic building, the interior would be subject to the
ultimate review and approval by the council. They would not use the Secretary of the Interior
standards for the interior, only the exterior. That would only be the case when the double bonus
was requested. So it did not have to do with TDR as much as using the double bonus on site.
Mr...McFall: So it has already been implemented.
Ms. Grote: Yes, it has been. Also, since historic sites are not receiver sites, this would not
become a question when someone was attempting to transfer development rights, because they
KITIPCMIN S.3 [A:\TRD6-20.ARB
6-20-96
Page 2
would not transfer those development rights to a historic property. They would transfer the
development rights from a historic property.
Mr. McFall: That would occur when that historic property, was being upgraded.
Ms. Grote: That is correct. If they were not using those development rights on site, that is when
TDR occurs. If they use both bonuses on a historic site, TDR does not come into play.
Mr. McFall: The Varsity. would be an example of that situation.
Chairman Ross: So that I am sure I understand this. if there is a historic building that is
receiving this Category 1 or 2, and that building also happens to be on a site that is on the seismic
inventory as a Class 1, 2 or 3 building, then both upgrades need to be performed in order to get
the historic bonus.
Mr. Schubert: Right. There is a requirement that they both be done.
Chairman Ross: That building, since it is on the seismic list could also receive a single bonus for
just doing seismic, and not doing the historic. In other words, someone not seeking the historic
bonus but only the seismic bonus could perform a seismic upgrade and receive the 25 percent
bonus. (Yes) If they perform both the seismic upgrade and the historic rehabilitation, then they
can receive a double bonus, with some other conditions being applied.
Mr. Schubert: Right. and those are existing provisions currently in the code.
Chairman Ross: The thing that is being changed is that in order to earn the historic bonus on a
building on the seismic inventory., the seismic upgrade has to be done, as well. (Yes) In that
case, if someone is looking for just the historic bonus, they get nothing or the 50 percent if they
do both. (Yes) There may be some buildings around town that have had seismic repairs or
structural repairs in such a manner that takes them offthe seismic invento~ which might still
qualifs; for historic rehabilitation. Would those buildings be eligible for that historic bonus?
Mr. Schubert: Yes, as we are currently proposing it. they could get the 25 percent bonus for the
historic rehab.
Mr. Peterson: But no retroactive.
Mr. Schubert: The council discussed that issue on May 1 of last year. At that time, they said
they would not apply the ordinance retroactively.
Chairman Ross: So each bonus can be applied for once and only once. If the seismic upgrade
has already been done, the building is still eligible for the bonus under the historic incentive
6-20-96
KITIPCMINS.31A:\TRD6-20.ARB Page 3
program. (Yes)
On this question of retroactivity, as I read the staff report, the development right vests currently,
or is supposed to vest, at the time that the final inspection and occupancy permits are issued on
the improvements for which the bonus is earned. Is that correct? (Yes) So for projects in
process currently or about to be engaged in before this ordinance is created, if the ordinance is
created before those projects are completed, since it did not vest at the time the permit was issued
but rather, when it was closed out, there is a possibility that there are some projects going on on
which we do not have much of a grasp that will earn some transferrable rights. (Yes) I wanted
to make sure that was correct.
Mr. Peterson: That could slow down the completion of some projects.
Mr. McFall: As far as the historic rehabilitation and bonus, does that apply only to Categories 1
and 2 buildings on the inventor3r? Or could non-inventor3’ buildings apply?
Ms. Grote: Only Categories 1 and 2, as it is now written. If the Historic Resources Board does
amend their ordinance, and the council amends it, which somehow changes the categorization
and no longer uses Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, at the same time they will have to amend this
ordinance so that whatever the new category system is will be reflected in this TDR program.
That is something the HRB discussed yesterday, as well.
Mr. McFa!l: That is down the road.
Chairman Ross: Does staff know the number of buildings that are not currently a Category. 1 or
2 historic building but could really be eligible if someone made an application?
Ms. Grote: No, at this point, we do not.
Chairman Ross: Do you "know if the HRB has any idea of that. I know of a few’.
Mr. Schubert: I am not aware of any group of structures that has actually been discussed as
being ready to be on the inventory.
Chairman Ross: I was curious because I know the Historic Resources Board has talked about
redoing the inventory. So some other buildings may be brought on that just by a walk-around.
The application process has a lot of requirements, but the board, in the past, has not been shy
about looking for buildings they might adopt into the list.
Mr. Schubert: As Lisa mentioned, they are loo "king into revising the ordinance and inventory to
reclassify structures, so that would certainly change the numbers. There may be new ones that
go on, and there could be others that drop down the scale.
KITIPCMINS.3 IA:\TRD6-20.ARB
6-20-96
Page 4
Chairman Ross: As I understand it, classification does not require the owner’s consent.
Ms. Grote: At this time, it does not. Making an application does not require the owner’s
consent. The owner’s consent would, however, at least be considered during the review process.
Mr. Schubert: Historically, the city has not put buildings on the inventor3.’, at least within the last
six to eight years, without the owner’s consent.
Chairman Ross: Is there a presentation on this?
Mr. Schubert: I can give an overview, if you want. As you mentioned, this is a city-initiated
proposal. There is an existing Comprehensive Plan policy that allows the floor area bonus
granted for historic buildings to be transferred. It has never been used, because it has the
complicated PC process required for that existing policy.
Chairman Ross: That receiver sites can only take the fights through a PC.
Mr. Schubert: Yes, currently. So the City Council’s direction to staff about a year-and-a-half
ago was to streamline the process so that the program would be more usable. What we have
done is to set up a much simpler process, basically the ARB process, with a recommendation
from the HRB where there is a historic building involved. The council also directed us to keep
the project size limits intact, as well as a 150-foot buffer between the receiver site and any
residentially zoned property. Then, as you will recall, a little over a year ago, this came before
you, and the ARB recommended approval with certain modifications. On May 1, 1995, the City
Council looked at the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the HRB, the ARB, and at
that meeting, came up with a list of eleven questions that they wanted staff to research and to
make modifications. So what you have before you today are those modifications. The most
significant change before you is to include seismic buildings to allow them to transfer their bonus
as well as the historic buildings. Under the revised program as presented to you, there is a total
of 45 eligible sender sites, which includes 23 sites that are seismic only, 14 that are historic only,
and eight that are both seismic and historic, which could get the 50 percent bonus.
We also took an inventory of the entire downtown to see how many receiver sites there are, and
we came up with 165 potential receiver sites. We looked at how much floor area they could
receive, because those sites are able to get 50 percent FAR beyond what they would ordinarily be
allowed. We found that they could receive almost three-quarters of a million square feet
compared to 128,000 square feet which could be transferred from the receiver sites. It is a good
situation to create a market for these TDRs if someone wants to sell theirs. There are plenty of
sites where they may be interested in purchasing those fights.
Mr. Peterson: Is the fundamental motivation for this to encourage upgrades, both historically
and seismically?
KITIPCMINS.3IA:\TRD6-20.ARB
6-20-96
Page 5
Mr. Schubert: Right. It is to create some funds to do those projects, especially on the historic,
not to put the square footage on the site but to allow it to be transferred to a non-historic receiver
site.
Mr. McFall: You commented on three-quarters of a million square feet. What was that number?
Mr. Schubert.: The exact number is 741,765 square feet of floor area that can be added to these
receiver sites. There is an existing Comprehensive Plan policy that receiver sites can get a 0.5|
FAR increase by becoming a receiver site. We applied that to the receiver sites, also looking at
any additional square footage that is not currently built out. We added that into that figure, also.
Chairman Ross: So all of these can still fall under the 350,000-square-foot development cap. It
is not possible that an aggregate exceed the cap. You just look at it from a market point of view
as to how much demand there is for transfer of development rights.
Mr. Schubert: Yes. We also recommended that there be FAR limits on the bonus. Currently in
the CD district on the sites that get a floor area bonus, there is an FAR that is different from the
normal FAR. It is 3:1 for the CD-C, and 2:1 for the other two subdistricts. We also applied that
to the receiver sites, which is another change which is before you for the first time today,
applying that same FAR maximum to the receiver sites.
Chairman Ross: Currently, with a site, for example, that has a building on with a 2.75 FAR, if
someone were to add square footage to the building, the bonus would be reduced so that the 3.0
FAR is not exceeded. (Right) If someone were to transfer that right, instead, would the full
bonus be transferable, or only the amount that is capped by the 3.0 FAR?
Mr. Schubert: It is flexible. They could use part of it on site, transfer part of it, or transfer all of
it. They could not exceed the 3:1 FAR on site.
Mr. Peterson: Could they split that transfer? (Yes).
Chairman Ross: Will the city be issuing a document to people who have earned this, like a stock
certificate, saying it is tradeable? Or will it be in the grand computer system that is being
installed?
Mr. Schubert: As far as documentation, there is a certificate that is issued by the city when the
floor area bonus project is approved by this board. That starts the TDR process. That is
something you can take out and start marketing. It does not actually get vested until the project
is completed. As far as how it is going to work in terms of records management, the details have
not been worked out.
Chairman .Ross: I guess the concern would just be that some rights do not inadvertently get
6-20-96
KITIPCMINS.31A:\TRD6-20.ARB Page 6
pulled two or three times. Once used from the sender site to the receiver site, the sender then
loses those rights. They get used up. A record will need to be kept for that. How long can
someone bank their development rights?
Mr. Schubert: That has not been addressed. There is no time limit.
Chairman Ross: We have one member of the public who would like to address the board.
Chris Dressel, 488 University Avenue, Palo Alto: As Bob said, I was here yesterday,
representing 488 University. Avenue, the President Apartments. It is a seismic Category 2 and a
historic Categor3, 2. I wanted to ask Bob, on the transferring of rights to someone, what is the
requirement for the receiver site as far as the parking required for that square footage?
Mr.. Schubert: It depends upon whether it is in the parking assessment district or not. If it is
outside the district, it needs to provide the parking on site. There are some receiver sites that are
outside the district. Most of them. however, are within the district, and they are exempt from
providing parking.
Mr. Dressel: When I came yesterday, my main plea was that for our portion of the property we
are dealing with, it is above the 3:1, and for that reason, it was excluded across the board.
Originally, the concern was that since the property is already over 3:1, if it was a receiver site, if
we did the seismic work and then used that square footage on our property, that would clearly be
a misuse of that square footage. So my plea yesterday was to exclude it as a receiver site and
consider it only as a sender site, but to somehow make some sort of incentive or some sort of
marketability for some amount of square footage for that property so that indeed, a seismic
upgrade would be a possibility. Not only is it above 3:1, but then the cost is much more than
someone who has a 3:1 to do that seismic upgrade. So that is my position in a nutshell. We
would like to see it included at the full floor area ratio, at the full square footage, which is
27,000 square feet for that property, for the transfer of development rights. If that is not possible,
and as we discussed yesterday, it seemed reasonable to consider the site as a 3:1 just as anyone
else would, as far as a maximum, and then be able to use that as a sender site only.
Chairman Ross: Thank you.
Mr. Peterson: Bob, do you have a position on this site?
Mr...Schubert: As I mentioned yesterday, if you look at Table 1C attached to the staff report,
there is a table showing the CD district sites that were excluded because they exceeded the FAR.
The only ones on there that have historic categories are The Varsity and The President
Apartments. The Varsity, has already used its rights. If you can do what the HRB is
recommending, it would only apply to The President currently. We are expanding the program
now to allow seismic sites to transfer. To try and come up with a rationale where historic
KITIPCMINS.3 IA:\TRD6-20.ARB
6-20-96
Page 7
buildings that exceed the FAR can exceed theirs and seismic buildings that exceed the FAR
cannot transfer theirs would require some kind of rationale to distinguish between the two. If
vou look at the other sites, you come up with a very large number of seismic sites. 525
University. Avenue could transfer up to 50,000 square feet.
Chairman Ross: Is that a sender site?
Mr. Schubert: Yes. If you take offthe 3.0 FAR cap and apply the 50 perce, nt to the existing site
area.
Chairman Ross: But is it, in fact, on the seismic hazard inventory?
Mr. Schubert: It is a Category 3 seismic. My point is that if you look at this total square footage,
it is like 125,000 square feet for all these sites, which would double the amount that is already in
it for the 45 other sender sites. That is why staff did not recommend removing the FAR cap. It
would bring in these large numbers on individual sites.
Mr. Peterson: But if you leave the FAR cap on, that still gives them some transferable rights,
does it not?
Ms. Grote: Conceptually, it does not quite fit, because if you are already over 3:1 FAR, that
means you have used your development rights on that site. Therefore, you really do not have any
rights to transfer. So conceptually, it is a little hard to get building over 3:1 FAR into this
program. In summary, staff has not really formulated an opinion or a recommendation on the
HRB’s recommendation as yet. It just came in yesterday. I think we would tend towards not
concurring with it, but we do need to consider it.
Mr. Schubert: We did have a staff committee that met over several months reviewing the
questions that were raised by the council. That was one of the questions raised by the council.
We had already decided at the staff level not to recommend that it be revised. What we will
probably be doing is to do more analysis on that before it goes forward to the City Council.
Mr. McFall: What were the numbers you mentioned that the HRB spoke about? They have a
potential for almost 28,000 square feet at the President?
Mr. Schubert: The HRB expressed concern with that number. They were looking for some way
to limit it. What they ended up recommending is that you not consider anything over 3:1 FAR.
So you would look at the site area, which is 9,425 square feet, times the 3:1 FAR, and then you
take 50 percent of that, which comes out to about 14,000 square feet that they could transfer, the
way the HRB recommended.
Chairman Ross: Would that recommendation, provide a 50 percent bonus for both? 25 percent
KITIPCM INS.3IA:\TRD6-20.ARB
6-20-96
Page 8
for doing only seismic, but not a 25 percent bonus for doing only historic?
Mr. Dressel: Is that correct? As I understood it, I thought that if you were going to do the
seismic, you had to do the historic.
Mr. Peters.0n: It is the other way around. If you do the historic, you have to do both. The
incentive is to ~ and get these buildings seismically upgraded.
Chairman Ross: Is the current program for seismic upgrading applicable to buildings in
Category 3, or is it just 1 and 2?
Mr. Schubert: Currently, Category 3 is included.
Chairman Ross: So it is not creating any new development rights.
Mr. Schubert: No, it simply is allowing those seismic 1,2 and 3s to transfer the bonus.
Chairman Ross: If that completes the questions, I will return this to the board for discussion.
Mr. Peterson: I personally am entirely motivated to improve old buildings seismically, so the
HRB’s recommendation to take some sort of compromise position is attractive to me,
particularly if it applies to this building. So I like the HRB’s suggestion to take a moderate
approach. It would obviously help this building to be upgraded.
Chairman Ross: Any comments on the ordinance itself?.
Mr. Peterson: I think it is a great idea providing a wonderful incentive.
.Ms. Piha: I am in support of it. I believe there are three areas where we are being asked to make
recommendations. One is to approve the attached negative declaration, adopt the Comprehensive
Plan, and approve the ordinance revising the floor area. I am in support of all three of those
items.
Mr. McFall: I would echo those comments. It is a great oppommity to improve safety
considerations downtown. Certainly from the historic preservation aspects, it provides a great
incentive to protect and maintain those structures. So I will support it. I would support the
HRB’s contention that The President Apartments should be able to access these benefits, as well,
despite its exceeding the FAR. To me, I do not think that it necessarily requires that seismic
upgrades also be able to obtain the bonus if they are over the FAR. From the aspect of historic
preservation, I am comfortable with allowing that as an exception just for historic buildings so
that they can obtain the bonus, as well. Since there is only one structure that is in that situation,
the impact is minimal, at best. It certainly would allow that building to be upgraded seismically
KITIPCMINS.3IA:\TRD6-20.ARB
6-20-96
Page 9
and historically preserved. So I would agree with the HRB’s suggestion. I would suggest that
we include that in any action that we take.
Chairman Ross: I am also in support of this, particularly the seismic upgrade ordinance. The
bonus program was created just for this purpose, to create an incentive for buildings to be
upgraded and made safer. It has not been widely used. Part of the reason is that adding square
footage to an existing building can sometimes be more arduous than performing a seismic
upgrade on an existing building. So there really has not been any compellin, g motivation for
building owners to undertake this project, even though the incentive is I think
what we are really talking about here in terms of incentive is that square footage development
rights do not require parking in the assessment district. By my calculation, currently, the value
of that just from a parking assessment district point of view is on the order of $72 per square
foot. If one were to go through a PC process and be excused from providing on-site parking, it
would cost about that much to buy out of those parking spaces. I believe it stands at about
$18,000 per stall now. With the four spaces per thousand-square-foot requirement, that gives
you about $72 per square foot of cost if you are developing a building and not providing the
parking that is normally required. So this is a very valuable right. Perhaps it is a funding
mechanism, and it is certainly an incentive for the work to be performed. It is extraordinarily
expensive, in most cases, to upgrade a seismic challenged building. (Chuckling) So I am verb’
much in support of this.
Regarding buildings that are already over the downtown maximum of 3.0, it seems to me that
there is definitely a conflict here between the principle that previously a building having used its
rights, in fact, having used more than what would currently be allowed, but on the other hand,
providing some incentive and funding mechanism for a valuable public safety program.
I will also support an amendment to this program for those buildings in both the seismic and
historic categories that exceed the currently allowed FAR to earn and transfer at least some
portion of those rights. I like the ARB’s proposal to provide an incentive to help provide some
funding for this program. The point that Bob raises is that there may be some buildings in the
future that may also fall into this category. I would be surprised if The President Apartments
across the street ever get designated as a historic Category 1 or 2 building, but that would
probably be the biggest impact that would take place. By itself, it is a fairly large piece of the
potential program, but on the other hand, it is a large and potentially unsafe building with a lot of
people living in it, not just at night and working during the day. So the life safety problem is
magnified in a sense, since it is occupied around the clock. The chances are even greater of
serious injury.
I would also like to suggest, ifI can get board support, as things for the council to review, to take
another look at the retroactive question. This discussion has been going on for quite some time.
If there were projects that are in the pipeline or have been undertaken during the last several
months that have been anticipating this, and people move forward with their upgrades under the
KITIPCMINS.31A:\TRD6-20.ARB
6-20-96
Page I0
expectation that thev will be able to transfer some development rights, and if those people can
make some kind of compelling case to the City Council, I would like to see them review that
question, at least on a very. short-term retroactive basis. I certainly would not want people to
hold up their final inspection in order to wait for it to pass and qualify, for the program.
MOTION: Chairman Ross: I will move that we approve the staff recommendations to:
(1) approve the attached negative declaration; (2) adopt the attached Comprehensive Plan
Amendment; and (3) approve the attached ordinance revising the floor area bonus program in the
CD (Commercial Downtown) District and implementing a TDR program. I would like to amend
that recommendation with the inclusion of buildings that are in both historic and seismic
categories that exceed the allowable cap floor area ratio and to also suggest a consideration of a
short retroactive effect for this ordinance, if it gets passed, to some reasonably short time,
certainly no more than 12 months.
Mr. Schubert: Could vou repeat that last part?
Chairman Ross: That council consider including an amendment to the ordinance that would
allow projects within the last 12 months that have undertaken improvements in anticipation of
this pending ordinance to earn a transferable right, rather than one that could only be used on the
site.
Mr. Peterson: A project that has qualified within the last 12 months.
Chairman Ross: We looked at this last April and May of last year. I do feel that people who
undertake projects are doing it at their own risk, but this is a potentially powerful incentive for
performing those things that we want done. I would ask the council to entertain the idea of a
retroactive amendment date whereby the TDR could be used. The only change would be that the
transferable rights, if not used on the site, would become vested and transferable.
SECOND: By Mr. Peterson.
Mr. McFall: I would like some clarification from staff as to whether they are aware of any
projects that fall into that category, of having been started within the last year or so that may fall
into this program.
Ms. Grote: That have not yet been completed or we don’t have exact information at hand, but do
not have a final on their building permit?
I can think of a couple that have undergone seismic upgrades. The old Liddicoat’s, which is the
Z Gallery., underwent a seismic upgrade. That is completed, they have their final and it is
occupied.
KITIPCM1NS.31A:\TRD6-20.ARB
6-20-96
Page 11
Chairman Ross: Did they add square footage on that site?
Ms. Grote: No, they did not, so they would be able to transfer square footage for the seismic
upgrade, the 25 percent bonus, onto another site.
Mr. Schubert: There is a question on that site as to whether they actually did enough work to
qualify. Last I heard, that issue is still be discussed by the building department. ~
Ms. Grote: That is correct. Building staffneeds to check the final approved building permit, as
there is a question about the diaphragm in the roof. If it does meet the code, it would be eligible.
Mr. McFall: Were they required to do a seismic upgrade?
Ms. Grote: It was a voluntary, upgrade.
Mr. Peterson: That would be enacted in the sense that it would just be a bonus. The assumption
is that they proceeded because they thought it would work anyway.
Mr. McFall: I have a comment about that. When this issue came up previously for other
buildings that had been theoretically historically preserved and wanted to come into this program
years ago, I think there is a very gray area in terms of whether they comply with the seismic
requirements. I know that historically, there were always questions as to whether it was
preserved appropriately, and does it meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for historic
rehabilitation. It is very difficult to go back in time to make those determinations..We have
seen on the one project that there were some structural questions as to whether it was a full
upgrade. So I don’t think I could support the motion as made to retroactively include certain
projects within a limited timeframe for those reasons. Those developers or applicants made their
decision, knowing that yes, they may take advantage of the bonus, however, it was at their risk,
knowing that the city does not move overnight and that these bonuses might not be available.
Obviously, they had other economic reasons for proceeding. So I think it is too fuzzy to make it
clear that these projects comply with all of the requirements retroactively. So I would suggest
that we approve it as you have stated, with the amendment to include the one building type that
exceeds the FAR. I do not feel it is appropriate to go back in time and retroactively approve an
unlimited number of projects. They knew the risk and proceeded for other reasons. I still
support everything else.
Chairman Ross: I am also uncertain about it. That is why I phrased it as a request for the council
to consider it, not as a recommendation from the board that it be retroactive. I feel it is a
question that is valuable to reconsider, rather than thinking of it as a closed issue. I would like
the council to think of it as an open issue. If someone wanted to make a case for it, they could do
so. That may be an unnecessary amendment, because if someone is motivated on the subject,
they wilt go to the council meeting. Also, on the issue of whether work performed meets the
KITIPCMINS.31A:\TRD6-20.ARB
6-20-96
Page 12
seismic requirements, that is actually determinable. It may be a little more difficult on the
historic side of the question, but the determination of whether something meets the seismic
requirement is done at the time of a plan check anyway. So presumably, those documents could
be plan checked again to see if they qualify.. If they do not, it would not be an issue. It has not
been done yet, as I understand it, but it can be done.
Mr. McFall: What are you stating in the motion?
Chairman Ross: That the board recommend that the council consider a retroactive date for the
amendment, so that this is an issue that gets noted and discussed. The staff report, as we have it
before us. does not support any retroactive clause. The council would simply adopt the staff
report, and it would not be discussed. I am asking that they open it for discussion so that there is
an opportunity for debate on the issue, and consideration of it.
Mr. McFall: Does the board support the retroactive inclusion of projects?
Mr. Peterson: I support consideration of it.
Mr. McFall: I think that if you ask for consideration of it in the motion, then you are stating that
this board feels that it should be a part of this program. I feel it can be a recommendation, but I
don’t think it is appropriate to put it in the motion that the information be transferred to the
council that this board feels they should consider it.
Chairman Ross: Let me ask staffa question. Is it possible to forward a recommendation that is
not pan of the motion to approve the staff report?
Ms. Grote: You could say that it is a suggestion. You could make your motion, and have this as
a suggestion to follow.
Chairman Ross: I would be happy to amend my motion to move the formal recommendations
but to make a suggestion that the issue of retroactivity be opened. Now the only amendment that
is a part of the motion is to include as a sender site any building that falls into both the historic
and the seismic categories that exceeds the current FAR limit.
Mr. Schubert: So that would only apply to the 488 University Avenue structure?
Chairman Ross: As far as I know. I do not want to make a motion that is specific to a piece of
property. I do not mind making it for specific categories.
Mr. Peterson: As seconder, I agree with that.
Chairman Ross: All in favor of the motion as amended? Passes unanimously.
KIT[PCMINS.31A:\TRD6-20.ARB
6-20-96
Page 13
EXCERPT Planning Commission
Minutes of June 26, 1996
AGEN~DA ITEM 4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND,~ONqNG
ORDINANCE TEXT CHANGE FOR TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS tTDR) PROGILAdM: In order to expand
the existing TDR program, the following two changes are being
proposed to Program 6A of the Urban Design Element: 1) The review
process for" transferring development fights to a nonkistoric receiver site
is changed from the Planned Community ~C) process to review by the
Architectural Review Board; 2) The limit on the maximum additional
floor area that can be transferred of 0.5 above "+,’hat would otherwise be
permit-ted on the receiver site may be exceeded by the Architectural
Review Board with special findings.
Vice Chairman ¢arra$co: Are there any sta.ffcomments?
Mr. Schubert: Yes, I would like to give a bfiefoverview of this item. This is a city-initiated
project to revise the downtown floor area bonus program, as well as the city’s Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) program. As you will recall, there is an existing program in the
Comprehensive Plan that allows floor area bonuses granted for historic rehabilitation projects
to be transferred to non_historic receiver sites downtown. This slide summarizes the existing
Comprehensive Plan TDR program. First of all, it 0nly allows floor area to be transferred
from historic buildings. The process that is used is the Planned Community zone process.
There is a requirement that the receiver sites be at least 150 feet from residentially zoned
property. There is an allowance for a 0.5 FAR increaseon the receiver sites. The City
Council’s direction to staff when this came up was primarily targeted towards Item #2, the
PC process, which, as you know, is a fairly cumbersome process. The council’s direction
was to streamline the process. They also directed staff to maintain the 150-foot buffer
between the receiver sites and residentially zoned properties and to keep the project size
limits intact in any revisions that we did.
As you will recall, last year this item came before the commission with the revisions
recommended by staff. The commission looked at it and passed it on, recommending
approval with certain modifications. On May 1 st of last year, the council considered the
recommendations of the Historic Resources Board, Architectural Review Board and Planning
Commission, continuing the item with direction to staffto look at 11 questions, which I shall
project. Each one of these questions is addressed in detail in the staff report. Generally, in
the revised program, the major change is that it was revised to include allowing for transfer
of development fights for seismic rehabilitation projects as well as for historic habilitation
projects. Including those seismic sites as sender sites almost doubles the total square footage
that could be transferred under the program.
Under the revised program, the total amount of floor area that could be transferred from the
45 sender sites is approximately 128,000 square feet. Also, we inventoried the potential
KITIPCMINS- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 20
ATTACHMENT lO
receiver sites downtown. We found a total of 165 potential sites that could receive
transferred development fights, up to about 741,700 square feet of floor area. Just last week,
the ARB and HR_B looked at the revised TDR ordinance. There was one speaker at those
hearings, Mr. Chris Dressel, on behalf of The President Apartments on University Avenue.
He requested that the program be revised to allow The President Apartments to participate as
a sender site. The HRB recomr~end~d approva!, subject to the program’s being revised to
allow for sites which have historic buildings that currently exceed the maximum permitted
floor area ratio. Currently, only The President Apartments fall into that category to
participate as a sender site. They alsd suggested that the site be restricted so that only 50% of
the maximum permitted FAR could be transferred.
The ARB had a similar recommendation. They recommended that the program be revised to
allow sites with buildings that are both Historic Category 1 or 2 and Seismic Categories 1, 2
or 3 that currently exceed the maximum permitted floor area ratio. Again, only The President
Apartments fall into that category to participate in the program. They recommended similar
limits on the amount of square footage that could be transferred, as recommended by the
HRB.
Finally, the ARB also suggested that due to the length of time that has passed since the City
Council originally made this assignment to staff, the council should consider allowing
previously approved projects to transfer unused bonus square footage retroactively. So in
conclusion,, staff is recommending that the commission recommend to the City Council that
they approve the negative declaration, as well as the revised ordinance and Comprehensive
Plan amendment.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: Thafik you.
Ms. Lvtle: I have one more comment to add to the staff presentation. We have received
correspondence from Jim Baer dated June 24, 1996, who is present tonight. It was at your
places toni.’ght. There is a concern I hear in the letter about the speed with which we are
processing this ordinance. To clarify that issue, staff has no difficulty with continuing this
item, allowing for further discussion and slowing it down. Our primary motivation in
moving it quickly has been the support to do so from Mr. Baer, so we are perfectly happy to
slow it down at his request.
There are a couple of points in his letter about which he is asking for further consideration.
We have no difficulty with further consideration of any of those items. In fact, most of them
are discussed in the staff report at some point. He does seem to have a misconception about
the council’s actions on May 1. There were certainly some definite actions by the City
Council documented in the staffreport that are counter to what he would like their action to
have been. That is the Council direction, however, under which we are operating. I would
also note that while the contract planner worked on this ordinance, other members of the "
KITIPCMrNS- 1993.3 IA:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 21
Planning Department have been very involved in it as well, including me and the Director of
Planning and Communit)’ Environment.
Corarnissioner Schink: In looking at all of this information, I realize that we are going to
confront some very complicated issues in which I see myself heading in a direction that is a
little different than the ordinanc~ that is formed here. If we are unable to hammer all of this
out tonight, how soon could this issue come back to us?
Ms. Lytle: The August 14th agenda is a good one for continuing to a date certain. We have
the Sand Hill Corridor coming through between now and then, which will take up many
commission nights.
Commissioner Schink: Could it go on the next agenda if we just want to make a few
changes?
Ms. Lytle: It depends on the magnitude of your changes. If they are simple and we have
evaluated them, we could probably include them on July 10th.
Cgmmissigner Schink: I only bring that .up because I can see us bogged down in
wordsmithing as we try to struggle through this. If we fred .a concept that we can agree upon,
we could try getting it on the next agenda.
Vice Chairman Carra$cg: Regarding this wordsmithing issue, I suggest that we stay with the
concept, leaving the wordsmithing to the city attorney and planning staff. We might move
along faster that way.
Commissioner Ojakian: I concur with Jonjust said. I would say this commission should not
think about how fast or slow they are going, but to try and come up with something that
everyone is comfortable with and is a good product for the council to look at, in whatever
timeframe that takes. I do feel that the next meeting would be a little difficult. Perhaps that
is my own bias, because we are going to talk about the downtown parking structure, and I
have spent a lot of time on that.
Also, I appreciated Nancy’s comments. I, too, noted in Mr. Baer’s letter that he commented
about how the report was put together. I noted that Nancy signed off on this report. When I
have somebody produce something for me that I sign off on, I spend some time looking at it,
and I am sure that Nancy did also.
A third comment is that even though this is a legislative item, it is going to be a public
hearing, so it is worth saying that along with some other commissioners, I have talked
personally with Mr. Baer this week, for the record.
KITIPCMINS-1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 22
(~ommissioner Sclamidt: I also talked with Mr. Baer this week.
Vi~¢ Chairman Carrasco: I talked with Jim Baer today.
Commissioner Eakins: Mr. Baer has been busy. I talked with him today, too.
Commissioner Schink: I talked with him on Sunday, I believe it was.
Commissioner Casse!: We had a phone conversation but did not cover much as my schedule
was too tight.
Commissioner Eakins: I have a question for Mr. Schubert. In the memo you gave us, on
Page 2, the ARB suggested that there be a retroactive transfer. Was there any discussion of
time limits on that?
Mr. Schubert: Yes, there was discussion. They did not come up with any specific
recommendation, but the implication was that it would be back to approximately the time of
the assignment. The thought process behind this is that some projects may have begun
proposing actions based upon this ordinance’s being in effect. They certainly did not feel it
should go back any further than that.
C0mmi~i0ner Ojakiarl: Does staff have any opinion on that topic? From a legal point of
view, is there anything that restricts us from going back to, say~ May 1, 1995, which is when
I believe this whole thing got proposed?
M~. Cauble: I understand from Bob’s memo that the ARB recommendation applied
generally to seismic, as well as to historic upgrades. There are different issues related to the
two types of projects. For one thing, we have had a Comprehensive Plan policy in place for
years that contemplated transferability under certain circumstances for historic. In addition,
last year, in February when we did the first stage of this work, which was tinkering with the
bonus program, originally we were contemplating the bonus program and the TDR going
forward together. It became so complex and we were hurrying on the bonus because we had
people waiting for the prpgram, so we separated the two out. In going back, the February
1995 ordinance increased the bonuses available foi: historic and seismic upgrade. It had a
statement, but it did not have a program or a process. It said that historic bonuses are
transferrable. So certainly there might be some facts which would support someone in
relying upon that order, feeling that historic work would enable them to qualify for
transferability if they met the standards in the ordinance.
In addition, facially allowing transferability of bonuses or unused square footage on historic
sites is an issue the commission might want to discuss. It raises some policy issues that even
if the work was done last year by allowing square footage that would otherwise be available
KITIPCMINS- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 23
to that site to be transferred away, arguably, you are contributing to the preservation of the
historic resource. You are decreasing the development pressure for that historic resource. I
do not know if you could make the same argument for seismic upgrades. If the work has
been done, it has been done. Sometimes, it involves preservation of a building, and other
times, it involves tearing it down and building a new one. So there are factual questions that
relate to the legal questions as tb the purposes of the ordinance. It would be real helpful to
staff, and ultimately to the council, for the commission to grapple with some of those policy
issues and give us your thoughts on it.
Vice Chairman CarrascQ: We will now open the public hearing.
Jim Baer, 532 Channing Avenue. Palo Alto: I am sorry if the speed with which my letter got
put together angered staff. There was a different perception by some of us who attended the
City Council hearing on May 1 st about the inquiry and the nature of the inquiry as to how to
create an effective TDR. One of the things we are in agreement on is that they clearly said,
extend it to include seismic upgrades, as well since the post-Loma Prieta earthquake, and I
think the council specifically said, to suffer what Los Gatos and Santa Cruz did by the
absence of having a viable program is something we should not allow.
One of the concepts that was clearly discussed and that Fred. Herman understands very well
and which some of the council members really listened to that Chop Keenan addressed
equally well (and as you know, Chop is much more laissez-faire than I, much to the benefit
of all of us who are developers), if the restrictions on the receiver sites are too great, all the
planning data and analyses do not change the fact that no incentive has been created. There
has been a true disappointment, as Fred Herman stated in that council hearing. Expectations
of the level of seismic upgrade have not taken place. The economics are quite simple. We
have small parcels throughout the entire CD district. There are very few large parcels. I will
use the example of Pauline Swain’s building. It is 6,000 square feet. it is economically
unfeasible for that site to go through the receipt of a limit of 3,000 square feet. The reason is
not that the 3,000 square feet does not have some value. It is that for that building, to add a
second story would take 0.5 above the current FAR, and the allowed FAR has to come to the
current building code, not the 1973 code. Basically, it is less expensive to knock down and
build a new building if you want to add a partial secon~t floor. So the biggest limitation was
not heard through the council debate. I came away fi’om the hearing with the impression that
the council was saying, let’s make a program that really works, with the support of Fred
Herman saying, it has to work. Many of the buildings cannot do a seismic upgrade to the
satisfaction of the ordinance in order to take advantage of the 25% or 2,500-square-foot
bonus on their own site, and it makes it unfeasible for the receiver site to do it. So I would
most strongly encourage that this notion that there are 165 receiver sites for 127,000 square
feet, so what is the problem? The problem is that existing buildings cannot receive
economically if the limitation is 0.5. The alternatives are to do something greater than 0.5,
whether it is that the only limit on the receiver be that it not exceed 2.0 in the CD-N or CD-S
KITIPCMrNS- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 24
or 3.0 in the CD-C or something more restrictive than that, I understand. But the alternative
of 0.5 really is just not gbing to get you the incentives to create seismic upgrades or historic
preservations. So I hope it tings true for you that that is a real issue.
John Northway will address the second issue that the 150-foot buffer, which is more
commonly a use permit noise aridimpact kind of issue, may be overly restrictive on receiver
sites where we have boundaries that are defined by streets or where adjacency is not an issue.
The third issue is one that I hope the" city attorney’s office will support. If the geographic
boundaries for a receiver site are the CD, and a project, for reasons outside of the TDR
ordinance, requires that it be a PC, why can’t a receiver site be a PC if it were otherwise in
the CD zone? It is the geographic boundary we should be interested in, not a legal, technical
distinction. The distinction is the receiver site, not the transfer site. If there were reasons
why a transfer site should not be a PC or a PF, I can understand that. But why a receiver site
cannot go through the PC seems overly restrictive to me.
On the retroactivit3’, there are two projects -- Liddicoat’s had prepared drawings for
Z Gallery, a building I was involved in as a general partner. It did not include a 1973 UBC
upgrade. We modified the drawings after the May 1 council hearing and after the indication
from staff that hopefully, not promised, but hopefully, the ordinance would return shortly
after the council’s vacation in August, in the early fall. That is a direct statement. So we
hustled, and our inveltment was something in excess of $250,000 to bring it up to the 1973
code. We would not recover that under the TDR program, but we would recrver it some of
it. I know that Bob Konevich, who represents Taxi’s at 401 University Avenue, went
through a very similar analysis, and chose to do a full 1991 code upgrade. So the
retroactivity that we are aware of would apply to those two projects that were relying upon
the hope that TDR might exist. We have had productive and good meetings with staff that if
it were a problem to create retroactivity because drafting ordinances for retroactivity is
problematic, there is a PC application submitted to be heard on July 31st for 390 Lytton
Avenue. We would bring it as an issue for that PC ordinance transferring tights from 340
University Avenue and 401 University Avenue. Then all we need is some indication from
commission and council that they would be aware and sensitive to that, if retroactivity were
viewed by staff, commission and council as an unpleasant precedent. We would take care of
transfers through that mechanism. Staff has been cooperative in talking about that
possibility.
Commissioner Schink: Jim, maybe you can help me with one concern that I have. I may not
understand this completely. If I understand your recommendations, you are suggesting that
any of the buildings downtown that.need a seismic upgrade should be allowed to transfer the
bonus in excess of the 3.0 tol FAR.
Mr..Baer: No, I have confused you, as well as.myself. It was the receiver site, not the
KITIPCMINS- 1993.31A:\6-26. PC
6-26-96
Page 25
transfer site, that I meant to focus upon. The receiver site, being limited to 0.5, cannot
benefit. Existing buildings will not become receiver sites, because they cannot afford to take
advantage of the program for 0.5. IfI spoke saying transferor, I misspoke. I meant that the
receiver needs to not be limited to 0.5.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: It seems to me that there is about five times more square footage
available at receiver sites than donor sites. I am wondering whether, in your opinion, from
market perspective, that is a good ratio, one to five, or is it too small a ratio? Do we need
more receiver sites? Do we need to increase the square footage? Are we creating a
monopoly here with receiver sites?
]Mr. Baer: If you expanded the receiver sites, you would probably need to expand the
boundary. The 150-foot restriction is really the only limitation that has been put on. I
believe the way that staff arrived at 165 sites was to count sites within that geographic
bounda_D’. What I am saying is that the economic reality is that within those 165 sites, a
small, existing building cannot take advantage of it. Let me give you a very specific
example. Don Klages’ beautiful building, formerly Wiedemann’s, did a lot of seismic work.
It did not go to the 1973 seismic code. And why not? Because the cost to add extra square
footage as a new second floor w~uld require the entire building to come to the 1994 code. "
That became prohibitive. So the problem of adding a second story onto any of your receiver
sites (and those of you with architectural and construction background could, I hope, confirm
this for your colleagues) is that to add that little extra square footage on a second floor is to
build a new building. So the ratio, whether it be 5:1 or 25:1, is inadequate if the 0.5
becomes the limiting factor, to my way of thinking. Everybody would have to come in with
a PC and say, please allow us to use more than 0.5. We cannot economically just add 0.5.
On all of the other restrictions of 15,000 square feet or 25,000 square feet, the FARs are there
in place to provide protection against our having massive acquirers of transfer rights.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: With your experience in working in the downtown area, Jim, there
are some parts of the downtown CD on the outskirts of the actual CD-C district where there
is an FAR of 0.5 to 1 in some instances. Do you think that going through your process of
getting the neighborhood together and asking them questions about how your proposed
design fits into their neighborhood, do you think you would have a difficult time increasing
that FAR to 2.0 to 17 In other words, almost four times the FAR of 0.5 to 17 Would it be
difficult to convince a neighborhood to add that kind of unusuai density on one site?
Mr. Baer: Let me get to some specific examples, because your question is a good one.
Would the neighborhood be pretty upset if the Peninsula Creamery were able to assemble a
2.0 FAR? Probably. I do not know the dimensions of that parcel well enough to know if the
25,000-square-foot single building limitation provides adequate reIief. On a 12,500-square-
foot parcel, a 25,000-square-foot building is frequently found in the CD-S. So I do not want
to be flippant and say that FAR alone should be the only guide. I can say that if you look in
KIT[PCMINS-1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 26
the CD-C district, the one I am familiar with (and I have less experience in the other), I do
notunderstand why, for instance, since we are interested in Leonard Ely’s site, the gas station
site at the corner of Lytton and Waverley, to say that that site can only take 0.5 transfer fights
when it is in a district surrounded by 1.92 average density, it seems like we have hurt the
likely market for receiver sites. Some of the renovations that are going on in mid-block .
buildings fight now, if you go twO, why not add a third, but you cannot because you are
limited to a 0.5 FAR. I am just saying that for some of the renovations that are likely, the 0.5
is overly restrictive on them. There is noquick, easy answer. 0.5 1 feel is too restrictive, but
whether that translates to 0.5 in the CD and to 0.25 in the CD-S and CD-N, it is overly
restrictive for the market.
(~0mmi~sioner Eakins: In your example about the Swain building, did you say that adding
only 3,000 square feet is halfofa second story?
Mr. Baer: Yes, the parcel is 6,000 square feet, and the ground floor is 6,000 square feet.
Commissioner Eakins: Thank you.
J0h~ N0rthway, 437 Lvtt0n Avenue, palo Alto: I want to second what Jim said about the
economic feasibility. I was the Chair of the Seismic Hazards Ordinance Committee. This
was certainly an area that we were very concerned about when we went through the whole
redoing and putting together of the seismic ordinance. We should not lose track of what we
are trying to do here, which is to get historic buildings preserved and get seismically unsafe
buildings upgraded. This is another one of the mechanisms we can use in order to do that.
The important thing is that we make this system work so that we do not end up offering with
the fight hand and taking away with the left hand. That is what Jim Baer was talking about.,
It is one thing to have it in place where you can transfer density if you do a seismic or historic
upgrade. But if you so restrict the sites that are available to receive it, you still have not cut
the dea!, and you will not get upgrades being done. Jon and I have been involved in
Midtown, and there gets to be confusion sometimes when you talk about the economy of"
some of these buildings. There is a difference that tends to get confusing when you talk
about change of use. There are uses as defined in the zoning ordinance, and those uses can
change and not cause seismic upgrades. You get the Uniform Building Code, and uses can
change that are permittedunder the zoning ordinance, but they trigger seismic upgrades. A
classic is Bergmann’s in Midtown, where it was a little department store. If you change it to
bringing in a possible exercise club, juice bar and some small retail, then under the Uniform
Building Code the uses change, and that triggers an entire seismic upgrade. That is what Jim
was talking about wilh a place like Swain’s. It has been a retail use. If you add offices
above, it changers the use of the Uniform Building Code, and that is what triggers your going
from using the 1973 for your seismic upgrade credit to 1984.
That is not what I was really here to talk about. I do want to talk a little bit about the
KITIPCMINS- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 27
restrictions that are being put on the receiver sites, specifically, the 150-foot distance from a
residential zone. I would like to give you specific examples again so you know exactly what
I am talking about, and then show you some alternatives that could lend some flexibility to
the ordinance. This is an example of the project that we are working on with Jim Baer and
Leonard Ely. It is the abandoned gas station at the corner of Lytton and Waverley Streets.
You can see the 100-foot radiusthere. All that does is to clip the driveway of#385 which is
in an RM zone. So that is about 142 feet, and would disqualify this site, the way you are
ctm-ently tal "king about. This site is separated by a major street, Lytton Avenue, and is also
buffered from the residential zone by commercial properties in between it. So it is an
example of where 150 feet is a nice round number, and we tend to do that with our
ordinances, but in terms of the purpose, which is to give some protection to the residential
properties from commercial properties, it really does not make any sense. It is being rather
doctrinaire about the whole thing.
Another way of looking at this (and certainly you can discuss what would be the best round
number to use), from a planning standpoint, ways that could be considered is if you have a
residential zone separated by a major street, that certainly could be considered as a very good
receiver site in the spirit of what you are Wing to accomplish, which is to not have some
building looming over and dominating a residential property. The same thing that could be
looked at is if you have a residential property and you have a commercial property at least 50
feet wide, that would again offer the kind of buffer to the residential property, and you could
develop a receiver site. These are just a couple of ideas that I hope you will discuss, again in
the spirit of what you are Wing to accomplish -- to develop receiver sites that can accomplish
the upgrading, both seismically and historically, and also protect the surrounding
neighborhoods. Thank you.
Commissioner Oiakian: I will be a little bit of a devil’s advocate here. You just said that in
certain situations in our code, due to a change of use, it is mandatory that a seismic upgrade is
done. Why doesn’t it behoove a property owner, separate from an incentive, to seismically
upgrade his building since it protects his interest in it, and is also the right thing to do for the
safety of the people using that building. Why do we need an incentive to do that? Why
shouldn’t a property owner just do it in and of his/her own duty?
Mr. Northway: Most of these buildings are commercial ventures. The cost of the seismic
upgrade then has to be transferred to the potential tenants of the building. All of these
buildings are in a marketplace that if you transfer too much to the tenants’ rent, I can give
you a classic example that I am very familiar with, and you will soon be seeing it. That is
Midtown. Midtown is not working because there are no financial incentives currently to do
any of this kind of activity. One of the examples I used with the Midtown people when I
started practice in 1978, the first building I did downtown is now the Stanford Bookstore.
That was in response to Fred Eyerly who was going to pass an ordinance because there were
so many vacant sites on University Avenue that also had abandoned basements. He either
KITIPCMINS- ! 993.3 [A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 28
wanted the properties filled in, or beautiful fences erected around them. Downtown was a
basket case, just as Midtown now is. It took a lot of incentives to get downtown going again,
just as it will with Midtown. The cost of these upgrades is enormous. One of the things we
were concerned about during the seismic ordinance discussion was that so many of the worst
sites, the unreinforced masonry bhildings, are also our historic sites. We did not want to get
into a situation where we had izicentives to fix the historic buildings, but the only fix that
made any sense was to tear them down.
Commissioner Oiakian: So to state what you said in a slightly different way, we could, as a
city, mandate that, but it would cause a harsh economic hardship on whoever owned the
building.
Mr. Northwav: What we found when we went through developing the current seismic
ordinance was that the first staff report and run-through on it had definite dates for a
structural report, definite dates for a fix up. What we found was that every single building
was different, just like all of us in this room. We are all individuals and we all have different
schedules and activities. Each building has its own schedule of leases and maintenance, etc.
We found that we could not do a blanket ordinance, as it would have cost an enormous
amount of money, andwe would have had to find some kind of temporary shelter for half the
tenants downtown if this were put in place. That is why the.ordinance came forward
requiring structural reports, yet letting some of the economic forces go to work on them. As
Jim has said, some of these buildings are so small that the economic forces do not really
Work on them. They need some more help.
Commissioner Cassel: Since you worked on this seismic committee, should the receiving
sites not already need seismic upgrade, or be seismically upgraded as part of the program?
My sense is that historic restoration is nice, but if the building is not safe over your head, it
does not do any good. Basic health and safety is the first issue to worry about, so seismic
upgrading is most important. In the receiving sites, do they not have to meet some standard
for seismic upgrade?
Mr. Northway: I think any receiving site would be a site under construction, so even if it
were an existing building that was adding square footage, it would then have to meet the
current existing codes that are much more restrictive than 1973, which is what the Building
Department is using for just seismically upgrading a building. So yes, the receiver sites
would be seismically safe. I cannot imagine a circumstance where you would add the square
footage and not upgrade to seismic safety at the same time. Maybe Tony knows of some
way. ,
Vice Chairma~n Carrasco: I have not found a way to do it. John, I have a question about the
150-foot setback. I understand it is Useful for use permits and for building heights of 50 feet.
I can see why it would infringe on residential areas. What do you think a reasonable number
KITIPCMINS- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 29
would be? Obviously, it cannot be ten feet, and you are suggesting 50 feet. Would 100 feet
work, or 50 feet, or somewhere in between?
Mr. Northway: I have not thought emensively about it, but I would probably es~blish a
safety range of 100 to 150 feet. I would have that aspect looked at by the Architectural
Review Board. We get all hun~ up in numbers, and we tend to forget the purpose of what we
are Wing to do here. The purpose of the 150 feet was to give some form of protection to a
residential property. Whether it is 100 feet or 49-1/2 feet or 151.5 feet is immaterial as long
as the protection is there. The beauty of the City of Palo Alto is that we have very qualified
people sitting boards and commissions that can take a look at specific projects being
submitted. If the ordinance is written in such-a way that the health, safety and welfare of the
residential property must be protected, if it is in this "danger" zone, then you really can
handle it that way and it makes the most sense. Fifty feet is a lovely number, but it makes no
sense from an architectural standpoint.
Nice .Chairman Carrasco: On the other, hand, from a practical point of view, a receiver site
must "know that it is a receiver site in order for you to start negotiating with them. You
cannot go through a review process and say, son’)’, it is no longer a receiver site because staff
says it is 42 feet. So we need some kind of number. I was asking if you had some reasonable
number, from your intuitive understanding of Palo Alto, as to how that would work. Would
it be 75 feet?
Mr. Nortlnway: What I showed on the screen is a good example. Ifit is less than 150 feet,.
but is also separated by a road and also has a buffer zone in there, I sure that would work.
.CQ.mmissioner Cassel: Are you looking for an exception process? In other words, a buffer
zone of 100 feet with an exception process? The problem is that we keep making these more
complicated.
MS. Ly’tle: I think the problem is that there is only a rare piece of property in the situation
that this property is in, that is, that it is both separated by a line of commercial and across a
maj or street. If you combine both of those criteria, if you look at the map behind you, you
can see that the residential areas are orange, and the yellow sites are all of the receiver sites.
The gray area between the two is the 150-foot buffer. You have this property that is on the
right side and buffered by commercial but still happens to be nipped by the 150-foot line. If
you use the joint criteria, you do not get into an analysis of the remainder of the buildings in
that 150-foot buffer that could potentially be adversely impacted if there were up to a 3.0 to 1
adjacent to them, which the zoning ordinance would Ultimately allow.
Vice (~bairro,, an Carrasco: Nancy, are you suggesting that this one particular parcel might go
through a different process as a receiver site?
KIT1PCMINS- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 30
~: No, I am sPeaking not only to this one, but we happen to have a specific example
that hascome up that helps us in clarifying and accommodating situations like this. The
substantive point is that if it is across and buffered, it is hard to include it as it has really met
the criteria we are trying to achieve.
Mr. Northway: You might hav~ this circumstance on other properties along Lytton because
with the properties on the southeast side, other properties there could certainly have this
when you expand that 150-foot radius. Certainly, the south side of Lytton is a prime receiver
type area. It is out of that University Avenue corridor and is certainly in an area that would
be prime for receiving some of this square footage.
Commissioner Schmidt: Nancy, are you saying that dual criteria are a possibility? 150 feet -
or separation by a street and a commercial buffer?
Ms. Lvtle: I feel that meeting both of those criteria is something that staff would feel
comfortable with immediately.
CgmmissiQner $chmidt: Meeting both? Or meeting either one?
Ms. L .vtle: Meeting both. You would be separated and across the street.
Mr. Northwav: By both, you meant a property and a street.
Commissioner Schmidt: So it is either 150 feet or these other two criteria.
MS. Ly’tle: That is correct.
Robert W. Konevich, 5!50 El Carnino Real, A-22. Los Altos, CA: I am an attorney
representing the owners of 403-405 University Avenue, which are Helen Crow and Elaine
Shearer. As Jim Baer referended in his remarks, we were in the pipeline.when the City
Council first addressed the possibility of including a seismic upgrade only as part of the
transfer of development rights ordinance. Briefly, the history of the project was that we
began construction in July of 1995, and spent probably $350,000 - $400,00 just on the
seismic and hard and soft costs. Our last tenant moved back in February of 1996. The
building itself was built in 1926, and I do not believe that anything of a structural nature had
been done to it since that time. Even though the ordinance was not in place, in talking with
people around town, before we committed to doing the seismic upgrade, we felt that a clear
policy indication was that it was something that was very desirable, something that the city
wanted to have ~aappen, and to happen sooner than later. I believe this building is in seismic
Category 1, unreinforced masonry, so in terms of timing, if we are talking about policy, this
happened at the right time. We looked at the incentive, although not codified, and that
nudged the owners in the direction of doing the full upgrade. So we are asking if you would
KITIPCMINS- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 31
possibly consider the retroactivity issue to at least look at those projects that were in the
pipeline as of May 1, 1995. We had started construction in July, and we hope that you will
consider this. From an economic standpoint, I do not believe the owners would have
committed to this seismic upgrade had there not been some hope down the line of receiving
the benefit of the ability to transfer development fights. So I just ask for your consideration
there. Thank you.
John Hanna. 525 University_ Avenue. Suite 705. Palo Alto: Perhaps optimistically, we
thought we might be able to speed along the process, if not tonight, then on July 10th, by
suggesting some alternate wording to the ordinance that is proposed. First of all, on the
Comprehensive Plan amendment, we have suggested this additional "whereas"clause just to
upgrade the conside~:ation of seismic to the same level as historic. We feel they should go
together and that seismic upgrading should be equally favored. The present clause talks
about historic and seismic rehabilitation of significant historic buildings. What we have
added is that the TDR program should be streamlined to encourage seismic rehabilitation of
buildings identified as seismically hazardous, including those which are, as well as those that
are not, of historical significance.
In Program 6A, we have suggested breaking that down into two categories, the first one
referencing historic categories and the second one referencing the seismically hazardous
Categories 1, 2, and 3. It seems to make more organizational sense. It is not really a
substantive point. On the second page of the ordinance, what we are suggesting there is to
incorporate in words what John Northway presented to you. Instead of just the 150 feet, we
have added two other potential alternatives, one being separated from residentially zoned
property by a city street of at least 50 feet in width, and a third alternative being separated
from residentially zoned properties by an intervening property which itself is zoned CD-C,
CD-S or CD-N, and which property is at least 50 feet in width. The idea is that with 50 feet,
you were asking for some kind of parameters, Mr. Carrasco, and that would be adequate,
whether it is the street or another property not zoned residential.
Rather than leaving it open ended on No. 4, what are applicable downtown project size limits,
we felt we ought to refer to the two that we want to be applicable. They are the
350,000 square feet and the 15,000 and 25,000 square feet rather than having people argue
about what it means and whether it is or is not subject.
Turning to the TDR ordinance, the first page is simply a cosmetic wordsmithing in terms of
commas and inserting the word "promoting"seismic to put it on the same level as promoting
historic preservation. The second page of the ordinance is also, to some extent,
wordsmithing, adding the word "such increased" square footage should be counted so thai it
is clear what we are talking about. Further down, we just thought (C) would read a little
better the way we have reworded it there. Again, it is wordsmithing. The fourth page of the
zoning ordinance is again just cosmetic, adding a few commas. On the next page, we just
KITIPCM1N S- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 32
threw in a little "if any" so that it reads "...which shall state the total floor area bonus utilized
at the site, if any," because there will be many cases where none of it wil! be used on site and
will all be transferred off.
The final point is on the eligible receiver sites, where we have done the same thing we did in
the Comprehensive Plan, putting in the 150 feet in the three separate categories. In (a), this
was Jim Baer’s earlier point. It should be located within the geographic boundaries of the
CD commercial and may include a PC zone. So if you have a PC zone within the CD, it
should also qualify for receiver sites. Finally, we recommended deleting subparagraph (a)
which is this overly restrictive 0.5 to one so that what would limit receiver sites would be the
350,000 square feet and the 15,000 and 25,000 square feet. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Carra$c0: Seeing no other speakers, I will close the public hearing. Now I
would like to suggest that we take these issues one at a time, as outlined in the City Council
questions. I Would like staff to discuss each question for us a little further.
Commissioner Qiakian: I hope that in the future, when we have similar issues like this, it
would be helpful for me if we had something like a study session where we could look at real
live examples, not just a selective group of certain ones that certain people have some interest
in. It would be more helpful if we could look at the entire g .amut of things, and even had a
map laid out so that we could see what that means for a particular site. "It makes it tougher
down the road, when properties come in which nobody in this room may be affected by, and
the project gets proposed and we look at it and say, gee, we never meant it to be this
particular way. So that is just a comment at this stage, to get that out of the way: I am
comfortable with the process you have suggested.
Vice Chairman Carrasc0: It is an important issue that will have important ramifications for a
long time: If that is the way we all feel, we should not just think about it in the future. I
think we could do that with this one, if everyone feels that way.
Commissioner Ojakian: I would be interested in hearing from everyone else. I brought that
up because we should state it. I have a certain sense, having everyone here and hearing us
talk about it a little, that everyone is comfortable with some of the issues and uncomfortable
with some of the others, i agree with you that it is a long-lasting situation. I agree with
Mr. Northway’s comment earlier, seasoned old planning commissioner that he is, that we
have to always keep in mind and stay focused on what we are trying to accomplish here,
making sure that that is the objective that we meet. Just as another quick general comment, I
agree with him; and I, think he .stated it in this way, that my preference is to look for
incentives rather than trying to mandate things. I think things work better that way. Nobody
likes something ~-ammed down their throat. Normally, when you do that, they end up not
doing what you want them to do, so it is better to create a different avenue. Tony, I would be
interested in hearing what others have to say.
KITIPCMINS- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 33
Commissioner Schink: I don’t think we have seen an ordinance in my time on the Planning
Commission where the statement "The devil is in the details" is more relevant than in this
ordinance. I do not feel we are going to be terribly productive with our time in trying to go
through this one by one. I feel we need either a study session or a subcommittee. I prefer the
subcommittee approach, because then we could deal with some of the vested interests in the
community, approaching them 6ne on one in a room where we could say, well, if we take this
site and apply your concept here, what is going to happen, really working through this in a
great deal of detail and then return to the entire commission. That would allow us to do it
quickly. That is the direction in which I would prefer to go. It will also allow staff to
analyze some of the suggestions that have been made which, on their face, seem pretty
interesting. Staff no doubt has reasons why they were not incorporated to begin with. I
would like to hear their response, and I prefer it if we went straight to the subcommittee
approach and not spend too much time tonight other than just generally indicating our
feelings on some of these issues.
~ommissioner Eakins: Could we find some of these that we do not have to study, and
eliminate them tonight? I don’t think every question deserves equal attention. -
Vice Chairman C~rrasc0: I would suggest that we go through this process, perhaps more
rapidly, if that is the consensus here, so that it seems like we. would be moving in some
direction where we would have a little more study on these items, but I would like to get
some idea from my fellow commissioners as to whether issues are important or whether they
are easy to decide upon. We could place a time limit on each one, say five minutes on each,
and discuss them. Bob, can you describe the first question that the City Council had?
Mr,.Schubert: The first question is,-should the 15,000 or 25,000-square-foot project size
limits in the CD District be included in the TDR ordinance? This was one that was raised by
Chop Keenan at the May 1 st City Council hearing. The way we understood his comments
was that he was saying that the ordinance more or less generically refer to the 15,000 and
25,000-square-foot size limit instead of including those numbers in the ordinance. We
looked at it, and it had already done that, so we did not make any revisions along those lines.
Commissioner Schink: I understood his concern to be that you should not cap the projects in
those square footages. Does this not cap the projects in those square footages?
Ms,...Cauble: If I could respond, my recollection was that Mr. Keenan originally made the
comment that you just made, which is that those limits should be changed. By the time we
got to the May 1st meeting, he had altered it to deal more with the process thing of, Let’s not
lock numbers into the Comprehensive Plan so that if someday, we change them, it goes with
the riow. I Will check that in the minutes, however, as my recollection could be wrong. Is
that your recollection, as well, Bob?
KITIPCMINS- 1993.3 [A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 34
Mr. Schubert: We were simply responding to his last statement at the council meeting. We
had dropped his request that the actual project size limits be increased.
Vice Chairman CN’raTeO: Do I hear agreement from everyone, or is this one we would like to
study further?
Ms. Cauble: The minutes from May 1, 1995, Page 75453, indicate that Mr. Keenan stated
that rather than referring to the 25,000-square-foot cap in the proposed ordinance, he
recommended referring to whatever cap was in place, pursuant to the cap ordinance. A year
from now, the cap might be 50,000 square feet, and instead of amending the proposed
ordinance, only.the cap ordinance would need to be amended. In other words, just refer to a
section, and then, if that section changes, everything flows with it instead of repeating the
substance of the section.
Commissioner $chink: But the TDR ordinance maintained the caps, didn’t it?
Ms. Lv~le: No, it reflects that comment from Mr. Keenan, which is that you would refer to
the code section on size limits rather than specific numbers of size limits.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: That seems fairly simple. Can we move on from the f~s~ question
to the next one?
Commissioner Qi.akian: I am comfortable with Question #I. I think that Mr. Keenan’s intent
of what he was Wing to get after is a valid point.
]vIr~...$chubert: Question # 2 is whether the 150-foot r~sidential residential buffer should
apply to the TDR program and kept in place. At the May 1st council meeting, a majority of.
the council clearly said that we should keep the 150-foot buffer in place, therefore, we did not
do a lot of staff analysis on that issue. However, we did clarify the residential PC sites on
mixed use. projects downtown. Since we did make a change in that regard, the 150-foot
buffer would not apply to those sites. Basically, we felt that those residential properties
downtown are already surrounded by commercial development, and to. put a 150-foot buffer
there would not make a lot of sense.
Vice Chairman Carrasc<): Any discussion on the 150-foot limit?
Commissioner $¢hink: The proposal that was made earlier having the street and one property
buffer seemed to mgke a lot of sense.
Vice Chairman’Carrasc<~: To repeat that, I heard it as a 150-fo~t buffer or if it were across a
street and buffered by a commercial lot. In that event, the 150-foot limit would not apply.
KI’I]PCM IN S- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 35
~: Yes, that is something that staff would be comfortable with, without further
analysis in a subcommittee. If you were to do the either/or in the draft language presented by
Mr. Hanna tonight, we feel that there are 26 additional properties that you would want to take
a look at in the field to see if they would be appropriate receiver sites before you came to that
conclusion. We wbuld, also. Changing the "or" in this draft language to "and" we would
immediately feel comfortable With. Leaving it as "or" would cause us to feel that further
analysis was necessarT.
Commissioner ~a~el: The draft language here, Nancy, is slightly different. All three of
them are "or" and we combined the last two.
(~ommissioner Qiakian: I am comfortable with that particular proposal. If we studied it, I
imagine we are not going to find too many pieces of property out there that are actually
affected. I am cbmfonable with the fact that we are excluding the PC residential piece,
because most of them are already sitting in commercial areas.
Cornm.issioner Sc~idt: I am comfortable with the proposal as we discussed, the 150 feet or
both the street separation and the commercial property separation. I am comfortable with
that but not with Mr. Hanna’s proposal.
Vice Chairman (~arrasco: I see agreement on that question so we will move on to
Question #3.
Mr. Schubert: Question #3 has to do with applying the TDR program retroactively to sender
sites. Those would be properties that had been historically or seismically upgraded from
some given point. Again, at the May 1 st counci! meeting, a majority of the council members
indicated that this program should not be applied retroactively. Sta_ffrecognizes that more
time has passed than anybody had intended when they made that decision. Staff is certainly
open to revisiting that issue.
.Co.mmissioner Oiaki.an: Was there anything in the council deliberations that would lead
someone to believe that from the point of their discussion going forward, somebody might
qualify for this bonus down the road? What I mean is, as the council got into a deliberation
that said, on April 30, 1995, or prior, we are not interested in retroactively granting anybody
anything. That does not answer the question as to whether they are saying, today is May 1,
and tomorrow is May 2, and we are not sure when this ordinance is going to be in place, so
we might consider people who are going to be building something in the time frame between
now and the ordinance’s being completed as people who might qualify for the bonus.
Ms. Lytle: I don’t think there is anything in the minutes that obligates the city in any way to
this consideration. There may be some receptivity on the part of the policy makers to
consider it, however, and we are certainly open to reconsidering it, even though their May 1st
KIT1PCM INS- ! 993.3tA:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 36
action was clearly not to include it at that time.
Commissioner Eakins: I think we have had enough discussion here tonight to indicate that
this item should go to the subcommittee.
Commi~.ioner Schink: I am very sympathetic and feel that inmany ways, we are obligated
to try and accommodate those who have gone previously. Phyllis Muncie made some very
meaningful comments here a year-and-a-half ago when we talked about this. She said, I did
the right thing four or five years ago. Shouldn’t I, in some way, be rewarded for going
forward and doing what other property owners should do? That is true. We certainJy should
not penalize those who stepped up to bat when many other property owners should have. So
I would encourage whatever we can do to reward those who have proceeded earlier on this.
Cgmm.is~io.ner $chmidt: I, too, am very sympathetic to people who have spent a lot of
money and energy to do both seismic and historic upgrading. Phyllis is not here tonight, and
I know that is very retroactive to go back to when she upgraded that project. The other two
projects that we know of occurred between the time this ordinance came before the council a
little Over-a year ago and now. They had a great expectation.that it would be in place and
could use it. So I think they certainly should be included. I also would love to see Phyllis
rewarded for doing her project a long time ago.
Vice Chairman Carra~c0: The way I feel about this is that the program is meant to be an
incentive program. People who have reaped a reasonable economic return from upgrading
made a decision on the market at that time, and said they would go forward without the
bonus. So I am not sure we need to go too far back, retroactively. However, there is a
category where, I believe in the minutes, Ken Schreiberdescribed that this ordinance might
come forward by May 1., 1995. People who were hoping that that decision would have been
made but had to to forward with their buildings, there is a reasonable case there for rewarding
buildings done after May 1, 1995 in the bonus program.
~ommissiQ.ner. Eakin$: I agree with that.
Commissioner Ojakian: Are you saying that at the time the council discussed this, it was
rather like the question I asked of staff?. At the time of their discussion, if developers were
led to believe that something was going to happen, that encouraged them to go ahead and do
a project, so we shou!d, in fact, give those people, anyone who started a project on May 1,
1995 or after, the bonus. Is that what you are saying.’?
Vice Chairman .Carrasco: Yes, that is it.
K1TIPCMINS-1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 37
Commissioner Oiakian: This is a tough issue. It comes down to an issue of fairness. So I
can hear where Jon and Kathy are coming from. It is like drawing a totally arbitrary line in
the sand and saying, if you are in front ofthat line, you get it, and if you are behind it, you
do not. That is a very tough issue to decide upon, as you are probably going to make some
people unhappy if you do not go back far enough. I almost feel like we should punt it to the
council and let them make the ultimate policy decision.
Commissioner ~a.7~el: I feel very much as Vic does. I can see it both ways. That leaves me
very much in the middle. If I were the builder, I would very much want it, yet we are
drawing this arbitrary line in the sand. When do you make this line? Traditionally, we have
made our line when we passed the ordinance, and that has been the arbitrary date. I feel that I
want to go back, yet feel that I should not.
Commissioner Eakins: For me, the place where I come down on where the line should be
drawn, if an3’, is where the council gave people reason to rely upon the promised ordinance,
raising an expectation. These are the people who thought their projects would happen under
the expected ordinance. They relied upon it to make their investments. That is where I
would recommend it if we do an3rtt~g retroactively.
Commissioner Schink: I would like to speak to this again. This is one of the rare cases in
Palo Alto where we are upzoning property. There are a few pieces of property we are talking
about not upzoning, and those are the people who were good citizens and forged ahead and
upgraded their property, before we increased the zoning on these properties. I feel it is not
good government to take those people who were the best citizens, who led the way, and leave
them out of handing out these benefits. In some ways, we are obligated to reward the people
that did the right thing first.
.Commissioner Cassel: Where would you draw the line, Jon?
Commissioner Schink: I think we should go back and open the files and look at those people
who did the seismic or historic upgrades and see what we can do to fashion some sort of
bonus and pass it on to them. It is a complicated issue, but I feel we are obligated to look at
it.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: I would ask the city attorney if we should make a motion on this
question.
Ms. C.auble: Yes. One process would be that if you want to start addressing individual
issues, you could make a motion to tentatively take a position on a particular question, and
then when you get to the end, you could make a global motion to incorporate that. Then you
are not "fixed in sand."
KITtPCMINS-1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 38
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I would move that projects which have previously
completed the seismic or historic upgrades should receive the bonus square footage
retroactively.
Commissioner Schmidt: Are you moving that we do that or that we open the files and see
what is involved?
q~)r0rrlissioner Schink: It is that the ci.tyltry to develop an ordinance or an approach to
providing that bonus.
Mr. Schubert: The commission should recognize that those sites could already use the bonus.
If they wanted to use it on site, that was in place for them to do. It is just a question of
whether we should retroactively allow them to transfer to another site any unused bonus that
they could have received
Cornrnissioner $chink: Yes, I recognize that is the issue, and that was the point I was trying
to make. That bonus would be vested with those people and they would be allowed to sell it.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
Vice Chairman Carrasce: Is there any discussion?
Commissioner Qiakian: I am not going to support that motion because the council has
already given some direction there, saying they are notinterested in making it retroactive. If
they have some reason to ha{,e a change of heart, then when they get this back in front of
them, they could do that. At this stage, it seems to me to be a fruitless process, putting a
motion in place that they have already, in essence, made a policy statement against.
Commissioner Schink: But we are here to advise them, and you should share what you think
is right, not what they think. I watched that council meeting, and I did not come to that same
conclusion. It was not clear. There was a lot of hand wringing at the council. I think our
obligation is not to support what they said but to lend them our opinion.
MOTION FAILS: Vice Chairman Carra~co: All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That
fails on a vote of 2-4 with Commissioners Schink and Schmidt voting aye and
Commissioners Carrasco, Cassel, Eakins and Ojakian nay.
MOTION: Vice Chairman Carrasco: I will make an alternate motion that says that all those
projects thatwere. going through the building permit process after May 1, 1995 be eligible ~or
this additional bonus retroactively, either seismic or historic.
Commissioner Qiakian: Jon, you should know that there have beenplenty of times in the
KIT1PCMINS-1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 39
past that regardless of the way the council thought, I have stated my opinion many times in
opposition to the way that they think. That aside, this particular issue they have not
discussed or decided upon. I will be in support of Tony’s motion because I agree, to some
degree, that it is the right thing to do to come back to people who, of their own volition, did
their duty, and we should give them recognition for that in some way, shape or form.
MOTION PASSES: Vice Chairman Carra~co: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 6-0
with Chairman Beecham absent.
Mr. Schubert: Question #4 is, should the right to transfer development rights "vest" upon
completion of the project or upon receipt of the building permit. Since the May 1 st proposal
by staff, we have nm made any revisions in that regard. We have simply tried to explain that
issue. Basically, the concern here is that a project not receive approval for a density bonus
project, then go out and sell the right to it and never complete the seismic or historic upgrade
project on the sender site. The way ordinance is set up, there would be a certificate issued
upon completion of the work on the sender site, and that certificate is what would be sold as a
TDR, and the vesting would not occur until the project at the sender site is completed.
yice Chairman Carr~c0: That sounds reasonable.
Commissi0ne(..(~assel: Jon, are you happy with this?
Commissioner Sqhink: I am not unhappy with it. Initially, my concern was in trying to
make it strong enough that someone could know they are going to the bank with it. I think
the issue is there and I think it is strong enough. There are some things we could do to make
it better, but for proceeding forward at this time, I feel we are all right.
Vice Chairman (~arrasco: If there is no further discussion on that, we can move forward to
Question #5.
Mr. Schubert: Question #5 is whether the program should be expanded to include PF, PC
and residentially zoned properties within the area generally zoned CD? This was a major
work effort in this assignment. This required us to inventory all of the properties downtown
and generate that map on the board behind you. You need to lo0k at this in townparts. One
is to look at all of these as potential sender sites. The other one is look at them as receiver
sites. Loo "k.ing at them as sender sites is a little more cut and dry because there are very few
sites that could participate as sender sites. There are no PC sites that qualify, obviously,
because these generally tend to be newer buildings that are not historic or in need of seismic
upgrading. As far as PF properties that could benefit, those are the properties that are colored
in green. We only found four of the downtown PF zone properties that could benefit. One of
them, the Senior Center, has already done their seismic upgrade or is in process. Most of
KITIPCM INS- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 40
these are city-owned properties, and to allow them to receive a bonus raises questions of the
city’s creatLng a program and then receiving benefits from it. So in short, we didn’t
recommend that they be included as sender sites for those reasons.
As we have heard from testimony tonight, the question of whether they should be included as
receiver sites is more complicated. As far as the PC properties are concerned, there are four
PC-zoned properties downtown that could participate as receiver sites, if allowed. There is a
chart, Table 5A, that shows the four PC sites that could benefit from participation. There is a
total of 22,00 square feet that they could receive if they were allowed to go 0~5 FAR over
what is otherwise permitted under the program. Those four are 485 Ramona/251 University
Avenue, 400 Emerson, 423-5-7 Alma/430-32 High Street, and 531-5 Cov,laer Street.
Commissioner Cassel: Could a new PC be a receiver site?
M~. Ly-tle: Our rationale on the PC issue is that when you are a PC or are going to be a PC,
you can make all of these arguments about getting TDR rights in your PC ordinance anyway,
and you are going through a PC process anyway. The point of this ordinance was to
streamline the PC process into an ARB quicker format. It would take more ordinance work, I
believe, than analysis work for us to make the revision to include the PC requirement. It is
not a revision to the CD regulations, as we have done here.. We need to look at how the PC
regulations are structured. It is a little awkward, because with the PC, you do not have a
receiver site.
Commissioner Schink: sO are you saying that with a PC, you get the square footage
anyway?
Ms. Lvtle: Correct. That is why we came to the conclusion that it did not need to be
included here. Why have a streamlined new ordinance when you will be going through a PC
process in any case.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: I can see that from an ordinance point of view. From a policy
point of view, however, you may have to put in some language that says a PC is eligible as a
receiver site.
Ms. L~le: Perhaps in the Comprehensive Plan section, that could be clarified, avoiding this
ordinance complication. That might be a possibility.
Commissioner Schmidt: Was the gist of this to try and not have to come in and change a PC
if you are an ex~isting PC and yo.u bought the development rights? You could just go through
the vesting process and not have to change the PC? Is that what was being aimed at here, so
you would not have to go through changing your existing PC? What you are saying is, you
can always come in and change the PC?
KIT1PCMINS- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 41
Ms. L~le: If you want to be a receiver site on an existing PC, you are.going to have to
amend your PC. There is no way around it. If you are a new PC, you will go through a PC
process, so the whole PC issue for us was a moot point. I can appreciate, however, that when
we assess punic benefit in a Planned Community zone, we look to some type of
proportionality between the benefit necessary and the amount of overage. I think it was our
assumption that people would, ibxough the PC process, continue to rely on the policy in
making their case if they were seismically upgrading or if they were historically upgrading.
They would continue to try and make a case that would support it through our provisions, and
it has been supported in the past in PC zones that that bonus square footage is possible for
their properties, as well. It would not take this other ordinance to do it. They would not be
using that other mechanism, in fact. They would be using a PC process to make the case. So
that was our conceptual thinking on it. We could rethink that. We could look at the Comp
Plan resolution as. being the place to make the amendment to clarify that out for the PC
process, you could end up with a certificate for transfer, or you can be a receiver site, as well,
in a Planned Community zone. It will take a PC ordinance in either of those instances, not
the streamlined ordinance that we are putting forward here.
C~mmis$i.0r~er Cassel: I was going back to a very basic question. If the PC allows a 1:1, and
this is going to allow them a slightly higher FAR, they may want that benefit of the right to
receive it. It just doesn’t care how it does it, correct?
Ms. Ls~tle: Right. The PC is not limited by a 1 to 1 FAR.
Commissioner......Cassel: There is no FAR limit in the PC?
Ms. Lvtle: Actually, in the PC, there is not an FAR limit. We have always compared it to
the existing downtown regulations, and I do not know that we have ever approved a PC
above the three to one anywhere downtown. We have always looked to the project size
limits, as well, in terms of the PC ordinance, which is another standard against which to
evaluate projects. But there is not an FAR limit.
Commissioner Cassel: So then, they do not need it.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: I think they need it as a policy statement. It needs to be put in the
Comprehensive Plan that PCs are eligible, but the ordinance does not need to be changed.
Commissioner Ojakian: I am comfortable with that. Nancy has done a great job of
articulating this whole issue. It has been very helpful. I am comfortable with what Tony has
just said.
C~mmissioner lEakins: Logically, that would mean existing PCs only, not new projects.
KITIPCMINS-1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 42
Vi~e Chairman Carrasco: Yes.
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I will make a tentative motion that we adopt
Comprehensive Plan language which would support Planned Community zones in the
downtown area to be receiver sites for density transfer.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
MOTION PASSES: Vice Chairman Carrasco: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? Al! those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 6-0
with Chairman Beecham absent.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: Next we have Question #6, should the TDR program be expanded
to include seismic upgrades of nonhistoric buildings.
Mr. Schubert: This is the question about whether seismic upgrades should be allowed to
transfer floor area. This question was the most significant change we made. We revised it to
include those. That added 23 properties downtown that are listed on Page 8 in the staff
report. Basically, it doubled the number of sites that could participate in the program and
doubled the square footage that could be transferred. Most people are aware that seismic
upgrade projects are very expensive, normally much more expensive than a historic
rehabilitation project, There seems to be great benefit in including them in the program.
¢ommis~i.oner Cassel: I will be delighted to speak in favor of this. I did not realize we
would get comments to this effect from the develdpers of the community as I read my notes
this afternoon. Obviously that is the most basic health and safety issue we have to worry
about. We need clean water, clean food, and a clean, safe roof over our head. Then you can
worry about going to the doctor. Without it, you are in trouble. So I feel very strongly that
this should be included.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: I don’t think there will be much opposition to that.
Commissioner Schmidt:. I am very much in favor of this also.
Commissioner Schink: Is it correct that that does not include the properties that exceed the
current FAR on that list?
Mr. Schubert: Correct.
Commissioner $chink: So those properties are excluded. (Yes)
Ms. Lytle: There was also brought forward to us tonight a modification of the resolution by
6-26-96
KIT]PCMINS-1993.31A:\6-26.PC Page 43
Mr. Hanna, suggesting that we insert policy language on seismic upgrades that is similar and
parallel to our current language on historic upgrades. Staffhad considered that issue and felt
that that was what we needed to do, as well. The problem was that there was really no place
to put it. The place that Mr. Hanna is as’king us to insert it falls into a bunch of policy
sections on historic upgrades. It would not really fit there. Our solution to this was that in
the structure of the draft Comprehensive Plan, which we are working on in parallel, we
wouldfind a place to put these programs that fit, whereas in the current Comprehensive Plan,
it does not really fit well. We have not revealed that in this report, but it is an important point
that we should have those parallel policies. Our solution was that this is getting so
complicated in amending a document that it does not fit well right now. We really need to
rehab the whole thing. The assignment was given to the person working on the
Environmental Resource Section of the element of the draft Comprehensive Plan. That is
how we solved it. We can return with that resolution amendment and just put it in here, even
though it is extremely awkward, "knowing that it will come back in better form later, as well,
if that is the desire of the commission and council.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: I think we do want that to happen.
Comm.issione~..Schink: I have a clarification question. Going back to that last issue wejust
voted on, could staffpoint out to me where in the ordinance.it is made clear that if you are in
excess of the 3.0 to 1 FAR, you do not get the bonus? My reluctance is that I am afraid of a
situation where we end up providing a bonus that Would apply to 525 University Avenue, for
example, and you could actually flood the TDR market with available square footage,
thereby diluting the value of the square footage for sale. It makes it much less of an incentive
for the other property, owners. I could not fred it in the ordinance.
Mr, Schubert: That is in the existing CD district requirements, and we have included it all in
this draft ordinance.
.Commissioner Schink: In your analysis, you discussed that type of analysis, but I did not see
how it was excluded in the ordinance.
Ms. Cauble: For example, if you look at the bottom of Page 2 and the top of Page 3 in the
ordinance, Paragraph (2) talks about the rehabilitation of a seismically unsafe building, and it
allows one to get the additional 2,500 square feet or 25%, whichever is greater, "but in no
event shall a building expand beyond a FAR of 3.0 to 1 in the CD-C subdistrict and an FAR
of 2.0 to 1 in the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts." So that is an existing limitation. Then if you
look at the next paragraph (3)(A) where it talks about historic rehabilitation, that same
limitation is in there. So again, that is not new language. It is an existing limitation. And
remember, the TDR is tal "king about transferring certain rights. To a great extent, those rights
are already in the code. Some of them were recently added last year, but these were already
in the code. Now we are trying to decide when people can sell those, rather than using them
KITIPCM INS- 1993.3.1A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 44
on site.
~0rrlrrlissioner Schink: So essentially, you are saying, if you do not have the right, you
cannot give it away, or sell it.
Ms. Cauble: Exactly.
Commissioner ]~akins: Then where is the incentive for the two big, old buildings to upgrade?
The President Apartments, and is the University Art building in that Category 2? What is the
incentive for them to do the seismic upgrade, if it has not been done?
Commissioner Schink: That is the tough question we have to deal with. That is one of the
reasons why I felt we need a subcommittee. There needs to be some kind of bonus that will
encourage the seismic renovation of The President Apartments. You don’t want the same
bonus to apply to 525 University Avenue. They have taken too much already. If we make
this bonus too great in too many locations, it will essentially devalue itself because there will
be square footage floating all over the place that will not have enough value. There won’t be
enough receiver sites.
Mr. Schubert: There is a.table for this, Table 1C, "Ineligible CD District Sites which are
currently at or exceed the maximum FAR." There are 19 sites listed there, including 480
University Avenue, The President Apartments. If you look at the right-hand column, if there
is square footage in that column, those are the ones that were excluded because they
exceeded the FAR. The others have already done some upgrading work.
Commissioner Cassel: Is this an issue we need to look at in the subcommittee?
Commissioner Schink: I think you also need to reach out and get more feedback from the
development community about the question of whether you will, in the long run, flood the
market with density that devalues the square footage to the point where it loses its incentive
value. That is a tough question. How do you get it solving The President Apartments.
problem?
Commissioner Oiakian: I would like to say what Jon was talking about in a slightly different
way, inasmuch as one of the residents of The President Apartments is still in the audience
tonight. It is clear to us that we need to provide some incentive, whether it needs to be a
means whereby The President Apartments is seismically upgraded. I don’t think there should
be any ifs, ands or buts about that..On the other side of the coin, I hear what Jon is saying. If
this does end up,in a subcommittee, it might be interesting to look at it and come to som~
statement about how many TDRs can actually be used for a particular site. I am not sure if
that is what Jon is getting at, but that might be an issue -- how much square footage of
combined TDRs should be allowed for a particular site, something along those lines. That is
KITIPCMIN S- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 45
why it is probably a good idea to have this item go to a subcommittee.
Commissioner Schink: Along the lines that I was thinking, but on which I wanted staff
feedback, and alsothe development community and property owners’ response, is that maybe
when a property exceeds the 3.0 to 1 FAR, if it is a residential property or if they want to put
a residential designation on it o~" some kind, then maybe we would be able to allow that
vesting of the density transfer. Something along those lines needs to be explored further.
Nice. Chairman Carra~c0: This is an issue that we do need to study a little further. It is the
core of the whole TDR program. This is what generated TDR, in addition to the historic.
The issues that Jon brings up are really important ones. Maybe we can limit that discussion
to the buildings that are the sender sites, those buildings that are above the 3.0 to 1 FAIL to
be discussed by the subcommittee so that we would not have to discuss the concept of the
seismic upgradel but be limited to those buildings that are above the 3.0 to 1 FAR that are
sender sites. Is that acceptable? (There was agreement on this)
Vice Chairman Carrasco: Next we have Question #7. Should building owners be required to
complete both seismic and historic upgrades to receive bonuses for buildings that are in both
categories.
Mr,......Schubert: On this one, we are not recommending any revisions from what was before
you the last time. Any buildings that fall within both categories are required to do both
upgrades simultaneously. If a historic building is doing a historic upgrade, you certainly do
not want the building to fall down in an earthquake. So they should have to do the seismic
upgrade. Conversely, when seismic upgrades are done, there often are significant impacts on
a historic building, so it makes sense for them to rehabilitate the building historically when
doing a seismic upgrade. That is how we feel on that issue.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: When you talk about historic upgrades, are you always referring to
the Secretar}’ of the Interior Standards?
Mr,......Schubert: Yes, for a single bonus, it is the Secretary of the Interior Standards. For a
double bonus, it is the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the exterior, and the interior is
subject to review by the City. Council.
Ms. Lytle: There is also a finding that it not be inconsistent with the historic character.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: Any discussion on this? It seems quite clear cut.
~ommissioner Casseh This is fine. (The others agreed)
Vice Chairman C.grrasco: Seeing agreement, we can move on to Question #8.
KIT{PCMINS. 1993.3{A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 46
Mr. Schubert: Question #8 is, what is the difference between historic preservation and
historic rehabilitation? This issue came up at the council meeting in May because those
terms are used more or less interchangeabty throughout the staff report and the ordinance.
What we have done is to go back and consistently use the term "historic rehabilitation" in the
ordinance and staff report. We have definitions of those terms in the staff report on Pages 9
and 10.
Ms. Lytle: The term "preservation" has been eliminated from the ordinance. It is no longer a
part of the terminology.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: It is "rehabilitation" instead. Is there any discussion on this?
(There was none) Then we will move on to Question #9: The current TDR program does not
allow bonus square footage beyond the maximum allowable FAR of 3.0 to 1 in the CD-C
District and 2.0 to 1 in the CD-S and CD-N districts. Should se.nder sites be able to transfer
bonus square footage above the maximum allowable FAR?
Mr. Schubert: We talked a little about this when discussing Question #6, the maximum FAR
restrictions. I was somewhat surprised that Mr. Dressler was not present tonight representing
The President Apartments, since he spoke at both the ARB and HRB meetings. Both boards
recommended that changes be made to the ordinance, altho.ugh they were coming from a
little different point of view. They would both basically allow The President Apartments to
be a sender site so thi~t they would have an incentive to do rehabilitation work. Also, they
both came up with the same recommendation as to a cap on the amount of square footage that
could be transferred. They both said that the additional square footage could not be used on
site and that the amount that could be transferred should be limited to 50% of the maximum
FAR in that district. In the case of The President Apartments, that is a 3.0 to 1 FAR. You
would use that as a cap and take 50% of it for them to transfer.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: Is this an issue we decided upon earlier to send to the
subcommittee? The issue relative to the FAR buildings over 3.07
Ms. L’,~tte: Yes, that is what you decided earlier.
Vice Chairman Carrasc0: I have a problem on the question of a 2.0 to 1 FAR on non-CD-C
sites, those sites that are below the 3.0 to 1 FAR or a 0.5 to 1 FAR, to raise that to a 2.0 1 to 1
FAR. I think that is a huge difference, and I wonder an environmenta! impact report might
need to be done on that much of a jump? "
|
Mr. Schubert: Yes, if we were to make that type of modification, we would have to modify
¯our envlronmental assessment for this project.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: But if we decreased that 2.0 to 1 FAR to, say, an additional 0.5 to
KIT{PCMIN S- 1993.31A:\6.26.PC
6-26-96
Page 47
1 FAR on these non-CD-C sites, would that also require an environmental impact report? Or
is it smaller enough to be covered under your environmental impact assessment here?
Mr, Sch,ubert: Our guess is that it would not, but we would need to take a look at that.
Vice Chairm~n....Carrasco: I woifld suggest that we reduce the 2.0 to 1 FAR and increase by
four times the FAR ofnon-CD-C sites to be limited to 0.1 to 1 FAR instead of a 0.2 to 1
FAR. I really feel it would not be compatible with adjacent sites. We are just causing
problems for ourselves down the road when a project is at a 2.0 to 1 FAR, which essentially
is a three- to four-story building close to one- and two-story buildings, mainly one-story
buildings. I feel we will just get difficult opinions from the community if we do this. I
suggest we decrease that FAR to 1.0 to 1.0 for non-CD-C receiver sites.
Ms. Lytle: Mr. Chair, when you made the motion to reduce the FAR, I think we
misunderstood your question earlier. We thought you were talking about an increase, as
opposed to a reduction. So we would not do more environmental review for an increase for a
status quo building.
Ms. ~auble: For clarification, then, you are not talking about Question #10 which says, the
3.0 to 1 and 2.0 to 1 are maximums on a single site. Then we have the 0.5 to 1 as an
additional limitation. So you are not proposing to liberalize the 0.5 to 1, but simply reducing
and imposing a greater limitation in the CD-S and CD-N zones. So no additional
environmental assessment is needed to impose greater restrictions of that kind.
Commissi.0ner Schmidt: I personally would want to save that for awhile. I think Tony is the
only one who understands exactly what you are talking about. I would feel uncomfortable
with saying tonight, let’s change it.
~ommissioner Schink: Tony, I think your suggestion needs study. It is probably right if we
modify Question #10, which I feel we need to do. That is where it comes into play, because
# 10 may have to go to 1. Once # 10 goes to 1, then you have to set some caps on the others.
Vice Chairman Carrasc0: Jon, I agree that this one needs to be studied more carefully. The
urban design and urban form issues of Question #9 are enormous and we need to look at it
closely. I suggest that this also go to subcommittee.
..Chairman Carrasco: We will get to Question #10 in a minute.
Commissioner Oiakian: Remaining with Question #9 for a minute, I actually understood
what you were saying, Tony, and I think I am in agreement with you, but it is probably safe
to say that it would be a good one for the subcommittee to look at. The hour is getting late,
KITIPCMINS- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 48
and we are discussing a lot of issues here. I am glad you brought it up.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: Everyone seems to be in agreement to send that one to the
subcommittee. Next is Question # 10.
Mr. Schubert: Question # 10 is" whether the FAR increase at the receiver site should be
greater than a 0.5 to 1 FAR increase. Basically, when we did our inventory of the receiver
sites, it appeared to us that with 165 receiver sites able to receive 742,000 square feet of
additional floor area, there was an adequate market for these TDRs that are being created.
We did not go into a whole lot of analysis beyond that. As we said earlier, we are not
recommending in the staff report that that be changed or increased or decreased.
Commissioner Ojakian: I would be interested in looking further at this one. I heard what Jon
said earlier, and I have been thinking about it. It was an issue raised by Mr. Baer for
something greater than the 0.5 to 1 area. Perhaps in the 1 to 1 FAR, it would be more
appropriate. It looks like we will be having a subcommittee, so we might as well include this
one.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: Let me give you some feedback, as I may not be on this
commission when this item returns. I think a greater than 0.5 FAR is adequate and
completely acceptable in the CD-C zone. I am less certain about the CD in general. The
central core zone could take a larger than 0.5 FAR. In general, I also agree that this should
go to a subcommittee.
Commissioner Schmidt: Yes, this definitely should go to the subcommittee. It is the big
question around the issue of the economic feasibility, which has been brought up by several
people. In order to make this work, it must be economically feasible, so this is really one of
the main issues. I would not feel comfortable changing the number to something else
tonight.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: We are now at Question #11.
Mr. Schubert: The Question #11 suggestions were not discussed extensively at the City
Council meetings. These were items that Council member Simitian suggested while we were
looking at the other issues, that the following be considered.
Suggestion A is whether there should be an additional cap on the amount of potential new
floor area which ccruld be transferred. We simply noted that there is the existing 350,000-
square-foot cap on additional development downtown. The bonus square footage counts
toward that cap. We did not feel it was necessary to have an additional cap.
Commissioner Ojakian: I basically agree with that.- I see no necessity for putting a cap on
KITIPCM IN S- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 49
there. If anything, maybe we want to say, let’s look at this again after a year or some other
time interval has passed, and ask, how is it wor "king. What do we need to do to change it if
we think it is working to our detriment, or not working enough.
Mr, ..Schubert: Regarding Suggestion B, "Establish a sunset date in the ordinance in order to
encourage that the seismic upgrMes are accomplished before the next major earthquake," we
felt it would not serve as an incentive for property owners. If the date did expire and there
were several properties that had not participated, the city would likely extend the sunset date.
So we do not recommend a sunset date.
Regarding Suggestion C, ’~Research the cap on the downtown parking deficit in relation to
any additional parking required for projects participating in the program," there are receiver
and sender sites located both within and outside of the downtown parking assessment district.
Most of the sites are within the district, and as such, are not required to provide parking for
this additional square footage, which, incidentally, is an additional incentive for the receiver
sites. They not only would not only get more square footage, but that square footage is
exempt from parking requirements if within the assessment district. So these receiver and
sender site projects within the assessment district would increase the parking deficit
downtown.
Commissioner Schink: I will comment on A, B and C. I am not particularly concerned’about
providing a cap. I do not feel that we have created enough incentive here that this will be a
land rush. It is a good ordinance, but it is not going to be overwhelming, so I do not see any
need for that.
I see problems with a sunset date in that so many property owners downtown are tied into
long-term leases. You would create some really difficult problems in doing this. It is a good
idea to get people moving, but I can see a lot ofp~ople being put in a tough spot if the
ordinance were only to last, say, five years, and they have just signed a five-year lease. So
while it is interesting, it probably should not be adopted. The incentive should be sufficient.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: On Suggestion C regarding a cap on downtown parking, I agree
with Bob Schubert. Not providing parking is one of the incentives for transferring and for
doing historic and seismic upgrades. It appears that everyone is in agreement on these issues.
Are there any additional questions that the commission might have?
Commissioner Schink:. I was pushing the concept of a subcommittee, but I do not want it to
be a black hole that sucks this ordinance in and never comes out again. I am hoping it will
be something to help solve some of these little problems in a quick fashion. If we form a
subcommittee, how can we take very quick action, get this back out, get it digested and back
into the public process?
KITIPCMIN S- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 50
Ms. Cauble: Procedurally, you should first of all continue this matter to a date certain so that
the public is still on notice. Then the committee will be operating with a deadline to get a
report back by a date certain. So just continue it and refer it to the subcommittee to study the .
issues in question and report back to you by a date certain. Earlier, Nancy suggested Aug .ust
14th, but all of the meetings between July 10 and August 14 are taken up by the Sand Hill
Corridor. That would mean thii would be a six-weeks continuance if you do that.
Commissioner Schink: Mr. Baer is in the audience and has been working on a project in
anticipation of this ordinance. Could he tell us if that would have any effect on him?
Mr. Baer: The commission and staffhave done such a good job of articulating issues that if
we come through with a PC, we feel we have gotten new guidance tonight on policy issues.
By being a PC, we hope that our PC will meet the measure of the policy statements you made
today. The ordinance is going to be around a long time, and those were tough issues that you
have sent to a subcommittee.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: We wil! then continue this item to August 14th. The
subcommittee will examine Questions 6, 9 and 10.
Commissioner Schink: I will volunteer for the subcommittee, and would like Commissioner-
Schmidt .to be on the committee.
(~ommissioner Cas~el: I would also like to be on the subcommittee.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: Ms. Cauble, can this subcommittee be open to the public so that
we can have some input?
Ms. Cauble: Yes. The only limitation is if the public includes other commissioners. It then
becomes a meeting, and we need to notice it as a meeting for Brown Act purposes. So if any
of you have a burning desire to participate, we really should call this a study session and
notice it as a special meeting. In terms of other members of the public, you certainly are
Welcome to invite people to come in and talk to the committee.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: Perhaps the subcommittee should invite Jim Baer to attend.
Commissioner Schink: It is essential, in order for the subcommittee to be successful, to get
further input from property owners. And architects. And attorneys.
|
Commissioner ,Eakins: And most likely an ex-commissioner -- Tony.
Commissioner Ojakian: As Chair, have you chosen Commissioners Schmidt, Schink and
Cassel?
KITlPCMINS- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 51
Vice Chairman Carrasc~: That is correct.
Commissioner Oiakian: It sounds like somewhere along the line, staffwill put out some
notification so that anyone from the public, exclusive of other Planning Commissioners, will
be able to attend those meetings.
(,20mm.issi0ner Schink: We are not going to be burdened by the public notice process for this
subcommittee, are we?
Mr, Schubert: I would suggest that we notif?’ those who have spoken or have submitted
written comments on this item in the past.
MOTION: Commissioner...Ca~.~el: I move that we have a study group to study Questions 6, 9
and 10 and report back to the Planning Commission on August 14th.
SECOND: By Commissioner Sckink. I have a question for clarification. What about the
previous motions that I understood to be tentative motions? Are they real motions
previously, that are nov,’ being incorporated in the final motion?
Ms. Cauble: You have not made your final motion. Your final motion will occur on August
14th, so the motions you have taken tonight have you on record as to where you are
tentatively leaning. They will be brought back on August 14th. Presumably, you will do a
global motion on August 14th. ..
MOTION PASSES: Vice Chairman ~.~rrasc0: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 6-0
with Chairman Beecham absent.
Commissioner Ojakian: Before leaving this matter, I want to thank Bob Schubert and Nancy
Lytle because as we have gone through this process, looking at al! of the detailed charts, etc.
that you have included in here, you have obviously spent a lot of time on this, so we
appreciate that staff effort.
Vice Chairman Carras~o: I’ll second that. This was verb’ well done. A complicated issue
well sorted out.
KITIPCMINS- 1993.31A:\6-26.PC
6-26-96
Page 52
EXCERPT Planning Commissic
Minutes of September ii, 199
AGENDA ITEM 6 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS i’TDR)
PROG1Lzk .M: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Urban Design
Element, Program 6a) and Zoning Ordinance text changes
amending Section 18.49.060 and adding Chapter 18.87 to revise
the floor area bonus program in the Commercial Downtown
(CD) District and to implement a Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) Program for seismic and historic properties and
upgrades. Environmental Assessment: A negative declaration
has been prepared. File Nos. 95-ZC-3; 95-CP-1, 95-EIA-6.
Chairperson Cassel: We will next take up this item. as decided earlier tonight.
Ms. Cauble: I want to point out that staff called to my attention today that I had not fully
incorporated the Planning Commission TDR Committee’s recommendation regarding
FAR caps. There is a two-page memo before you tonight entitled "TDR Ordinance.’" It
includes in the body of that memo what should have been the correct language to Section
18.87.050 of the proposed ordinance. What I had failed to include is that the committee
had proposed two different maximum FARs for receiver sites and the amount of square
footage that could be transferred. They had coupled the FAR limitation with square
footage caps. I had failed to include that in the draft that I gave to Planning that they
included in your report. I have done it properly in this memo.
Chairp.erson Cassel: Are there other staff comments on this proposal?
Mr.... Schubert: As most of you will recall last year, the commission recommended
approval of the revised TDR program with certain modifications last year. The council
considered the recommendations of the commission, along with those of the HRB and
ARB. They then continued the item, with direction to staff to investigate eleven
questions that the5’ raised at that meeting. On June 6th of this year, the revised TDR
program came back before the commission, which then made recommendations on eight
of the eleven questions, A committee was appointed, consisting of Commissioners
Cassel, Schrnidt and Schink, to further consider the three remaining questions and to
report back to the full commission. That committee met on August 6th, and made several
recomrfiendations that I would like to briefly summarize.
The first question they looked at was #6, "Should the TDR program be expanded to
include seismic upgrades of nonhistoric buildings?" At the June 26th meeting, the
commission supported the concept of including seismic upgrades of nonhistoric buildings
in the TDR program. The main reason the commission referred this item to the
committee was to explore allowing properties that currently exceed the maximum FAR to
participate in the program as sender sites, which is Question #9, which is whether sender
sites should be able to transfer bonus square footage above the maximum allowable FAR.
At the August 6th meeting, the committee noted that there are eight properties downtown
which are unable to participate in the program at all as sender sites because they currently
exceed the maximum FAR. If the FAR limits were eliminated and those properties were
ZBIPCMIN-4IA:\9-11 .rain Page 13
10-18-96
Attachment ii
allowed to become sender sites, the total a.mount of floor area that could be transferred
under the program ~’ould be almost doubled. The committee was concerned that
including all eight properties as sender sites would sigrlificantly increase the amount of
TDR floor area available on the market. That could make the sale of TDRs at the other
45 sender sites more difficult, thus the committee recommended that the TDR program
remain as proposed regarding the maximum allowable FAR.
The final question reviewed by the committee was whether the current restriction on new
floor area, the receiver sites, should be increased above the 0.5 FAR maximum, which is
currentl.v in the cib"s TDR program. Jim Baer attended that meeting, as he did the
commission hearing in June. and suggested that since most properties within the CD-C
district are currently built out to the propero. lines, restricting the transferrable floor area
to a 0.5 FAR often results in the construction of a new second story addition coveting
only half of the building. If, as a result of the transferred floor area, the entire building is
then required by the building division to comply with current building codes, the
additional cost can be considerable in relation to the amount of square footage the.’,’ are
getting. So he suggests that it would be more cost effective if projects at receiver sites
were allowed to construct a second floor above all of., or at least a greater portion of, the
existing building, which would mean a greater FAR.
The committee recommended that for properties located within the downtown parking
assessment district, the maximum new FAR should be increased to a one to one, provided
that the additional square footage did not exceed 10,000 square feet. For those properties
located outside the par’king assessment district, the maximum new FAR should be 0.5
with a 5,000-square-foot maximum transfer of floor area.
Following the committee meeting, staff discovered that at least two downtown properties
that we are aware of proposed second-story’ additions coveting less than 50% of their first
stor~’. Those are located at 401 High Street and 201 University," Avenue. Thus it appears
that there are circumstances when it is cost-effective to construct a second floor above
less than 50% of existing floor area. We did not have that information at the committee
meeting. The revised ordinance at your places tonight contains all of the Planning
Commission recommendations and the committee recommendations with one exception.
On June 26th, the commission recommended that the TDR program be revised to allow
seismic and historic projects that were going through the building permit process after
May 1st, 1995, to be eligible as TDR sender sites. Staff does not support this
recommendation, but agrees with the City Council action on May 1 st, 1995 not to apply
the TDR program retroactively. Under the current code, the bonus floor area must be
used on site at the same time that the seismic upgrade project is completed. Staffwould
recommend ~hat the current code be amended so that the bonus floor area could be used
on sites following completion of the seismic upgrade project. If this code amendment
were approved, requests to transfer floor area to receiver sites following completion of
the seismic upgrade projects could be considered on a case by case basis through the PC
process. At that time, the city" could consider the public benefit of doing those transfers.
ZBIPCMIN-4iA:\9-1 l.min Page 14
10-18-96
In conclusion, it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the Ci~
Council approve the negative declaration, adopt the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and
approve the version of the draft ordinance that is at your places tonight.
Commissioner Beecham: You mentioned that there were two buildings in the downtown
area that have built second floors on less than a 1:1 FAR on High Street and on
University Avenue. For those two buildings, what year’s code did they upgrade to? Was
1973 or was it 1994?
Ms. Grote: On the 401 High Street application which is coming through the Architectural
Review Board process right now, they are building to the 1994 code. It is not a
mandatory or even a volunya~’ seismic upgrade. This is not a building on our seismic
list. It will be built to the most current code. That is the building that has a bicycle shop
and is at the comer of High Street and Lytton Avenue.
Commissioner Beecham: Is that of brick construction?
Ms. Grote: No, it is cast-in-place concrete.
~.ommissioner Beecham: How significant of an upgrade cost will they have undergo to
bring it up to the 1994 code?
Ms. Grote: I do not know the total cost of that.
Commissioner Beecham: And the other building?
Ms. Grote: That is 201 Universi~’ Avenue. That occurred in the late 1980s, and is
located at University Avenue and Emerson Street. It is where Max’s Eats used to be, and
World Rapp’s is there now.
Chairperson Cassel: Does David Ross have any comments to make?
Mr. Ross: Yes, the process is fairly close to completion. The committee and the various
boards have checked in with the recommendations. The ARB was at odds with some of
those recommendations, and probably remains at odds, but not in major ways. We had
recommended a couple of things that staff has not adopted. One of them is to eliminate
the need for the 150-foot setback of any part of the site from residential zoning. Our
feeling was that the CD zone requirements are sufficient to control overdevelopment
when it approaches a residential edge, and that this additional requirement was not really
necessary.
We had also recommended that the square footage caps for receiver sites be dropped, and
we also recommended, again in disagreement with the committee recommendations, that
the square footage that would be potentially available from combination sites which are
already at or close to a 3.0 FAR be allowed to be transferred, so that no site would ever
ZB!PCMIN-41A:\9-1 1.rain Page 15
10-18-96
be built out at more than 3.0 FAR, but the incentive would remain for the owners of those
sites to perform the..missing upgrade on those buildings. Since this is really driven by the
desire to have those upgrades performed, it seemed to us to make sense to retain that
incentive. While it does potentially double or approximatel.v double the amount of square
footage available to transfer, that is actually not a very large number of square feet. It is
somewhat comparable to the approximate amount of development downtown since the
downtown cap was established. That is in the neighborhood of about 10% of that cap.
So we did not feel that adding those combination sites into the ordinance would
overwhelm the potential development downtown, which is, after all, still capped by the
downtov, an cap. Other than that. the board believes enthusiasticall.v that this is a great
idea. Additional incentives need to be created to get the last of these buildings upgraded.
One other item is that under the new ordinance, sites that are eligible for both upgrades
are required to receive both upgrades to get any benefit at all. That was the wav it stood
at the ARB meeting, at any rate. It was our feeling that sites that are eligible and have
received one of the upgrades already, i.e.. a seismic upgrade but not a historic upgrade,
should be allowed to nov, earn the other half of the upgrade. That would be a
modification to the ordinance as we understood it at the time. That concludes mv
comments.
Chairperson Cassel: We have someone present from the HRB next. Would you like to
say a few words?
Dennis Backlund: Yes. On June 19th. the Historic Resources Board moved
enthusiastically to approve the proposed TDR program with the amendment that historic
sites that exceed a 3:1 FAR also be eligible as TDR sender sites at a 3:1 maximum. Part
of the thinking behind this vote is that we are very, very sensitive to the problems that
have arisen on properties that are loo "king just for a seismic upgrade. Properties that are
not a Category 2 Historical or are non-historic buildings may enter the TDR program and
throw a ve~’ great deal of TDR square footage onto the market, devaluing the program.
Yet we had before us this one property at 480 Universi~" Avenue that just happens, in the
old days of 1929 and 1930, to have been built into a very large building. They have not
really used development rights. They simply had a very large building there. The
problem is that a very large building is going to have a very large expense to rehabilitate
it seismically and historically. Yet they are not eligible for an incentive. There is this
problem of the devaluation of the space. If you let The President Hotel in, what if you
have to let all of the other properties in that exceed the 3:1 FAR? So what we decided
was to. in a way, respect the 3:1 FAR which we also value highly, and to base the square
footage of The President Hotel on that, which would give it 14,000 square feet of
sendable square footage instead of 27,000 square feet. What we have to remember is that
a rationale has to be developed for distinguishing The President from these other
properties. Why give it to them and not to other properties? For that, we go back over
and over at the HRB to a statement by Virginia Warheit at the ARB hearing of April 6,
1995, ,,,,’hen she said, "The current TDR program was developed specifically to protect
historic buildings." What kind of a building is 480 University, Avenue? Among other
ZBIPCMIN-4IA:\9-11 .min Page 16
10-18-96
things, it is the largest historic landmark in Palo Alto. It is also in the Spanish Colonial
revival style, and this book that most of us are familiar with, the historic and architectural
resources of the City of Palo Alto published by the City of Palo Alto in 1979, states that
Spanish Colonial revival is the defining style of Palo Alto. Also, this is the largest
building of Birge Clark who is described in this same book as the most character-defining
architect in Palo Alto. So we have an extremely important building with a high price tag.
We want to respect the 3:1 ratio and yet get it an incentive. That was the rationale for our
vote. Thank you.
Commissioner Beecham: Going back to the TDR rights. Bob mentioned that one could
use the PC process in certain circumstances to get benefit of TDR. If one were to do that,
what would be the benefits that we would need to find to grant a PC?
Mr. Schubert: It would depend upon the particular application. I think what we would be
looking for is some nexus between the square footage that is being transferred and the
public benefit that is being proposed.
Commissioner Beecham: My presumption is that you have an ordinary building, and all
that is special about it is that it is doing a transfer. As a mechanism to get the transfer, it
would be done as a PC. I wondered what are the conditions we would have to find in that
case.
Mr. Schubert: I think we would look toward the Urban Design Guidelines for policies in
there. If it furthered policies around urban design principles, we could take that into
consideration.
Commissioner Beecham: We have had buildings previously where a PC got extra FAR
for design purposes or fitting in on a comer where we wanted a larger structure. So I do
not see how, if one qualifies for doing that, what is different. I do not see how one gets
transfer rights if they have to make the public benefit requirements otherwise. It seems to
me that if one does a PC, and one has enough of a public benefit to warrant getting extra
square footage, extra FAR, then why would they say, I want to apply some transfer rights
to this building if thev were qualified anyway to get the extra square footage through the
public benefit.
Commissioner Eakins: What I understand about the TDR transfer is that it comes
without the obligation for parking. Isn’t that the difference? Does Bem’s question have
to do with what is the difference between the PC process for getting extra density?
Commissioner Beecham: If I understand what you are mentioning, the parking benefit is
a benefit to the building owner or developer, the receiver site. But whether one uses
transferred rights or not, the public benefit would be the same in either case. Whether
you say, I am applying for 5,000 square feet and here is my public benefit, that benefit
would be the same whether they are using transferred rights or not.
ZB!PCMIN-4[A:\9-11 .min Page 17
10-18-96
Ms. L\-tle: The difference in this situation is that the ordinance we are looking at is
allowing transfer beyond a PC zone as a regular operation through the ARB process. So
we are developing an ordinance that allows you to transfer floor area from one property to
another that would not have any need for public benefit. The additional square footage
bonus for doing the seismic upgrade is then a bonus for the upgrade itself. A bonus for a
historic upgrade is an incentive for that purpose and is not related to PC upzoning and
public benefit finding. A Planned CommuniD zone process is a separate matter. This
ordinance streamlines the transfer and really deals with a different matter than a Planned
CommuniD" zone process.
Commissioner Schink: Do we have any of the charts that would give us a sense of how
much more square footage we would be throwing into the pot if we followed the HRB’s
recommendation?
Mr. Schubert: I believe it is Table 1C attached to the June 26th staff report. It is the first
set of tables showing the sender sites. It lists the CD district sites which are currently
ineligible because their buildings exceed the maximum FAR restrictions. This is the one
where 480 University Avenue is listed as having the potential for 27.681 additional
square feet if there were no FAR restrictions on it as a sender site. The way the HRB
recommendation was worded, the only site that could benefit would be 480 UniversiD’
Avenue. They recommended 50% of that 27,681 square feet. That is where Dennis came
up with the 14,000 square feet of additional floor area that could be transferred with that
HRB recommendation.
Commissioner Schink: So all the?, are talking about is adding 13,500 square feet?
(Correct)
Chairperson Cassel: I will now open the public hearing.
Jim Baer, -",~~_ Channing Avenue, #20.~, Palo Alto: Good evening, staff members and
commissioners. I want to address one issue, only with respect to the TDR, and it has to
do with the analysis of retroactivity and the context for retroactivity. The Cit2,.’ Council,
in its May 1 st debate, made a statement that they did not think retroactivity was
appropriat.e, but for those in attendance at the meeting, there was a veD’ important piece
of discussion occurring in the latter 20% of the meeting. It went like this. Staff: We can
piecemeal [this was literally the words Jean McCown used] tonight, because we have
gotten enough consistent understanding from those of us on the council about certain of
the issues, such as seismic buildings being subject to TDR, that we can piecemeal that
and have you come back and do a cleanup ordinance so that we could adopt with the
spirit of what we have said tonight, which is piecemeal, or have you come back. Council
member Andersen (and there were three council members speaking to this issue
repeatedly trying to get clarification) asked, "Do we have projects in the pipeline that
would be discouraged to do seismic upgrades if we are protractive in our adoption of the
ordinance? That would influence our decision as to whether to piecemeal tonight, or do a
better, well researched ordinance. How long will this take to develop an ordinance?"
ZB’,PCMIN-4IA:\9- I 1 .min Page 18
10-18-96
Ken Schreiber’s statement was vet? specific. "We cannot get it done by }our vacation in
August, but we already have budgeted the work necessary to modify the ordinance. We
would do that with an outside plan assistance, and we have that budgeted. We should be
able to do it first thing in the fall."
Council member Simitian was also included in part of that discussion that said. "If we
think these are important incentives, let’s not lay waste to the projects that may be in the
pipeline." Ron Andersen’s comment was, "Is there any wa,v we can get data on who is
out there that might be impacted if we do not move forward." Whv am I going to the
trouble of making this detailed analysis? It is because the key on the commission and its
6-0 vote for retroactiviD’ on the motion that was adopted, virmall.v every commissioner
spoke to the issue of behaviors that were in reliance or modified. I could go through the
comments of each of you that spoke that night, speaking specifically about being
uncomfortable with an arbitrar? cutoff, and should we go back to time immemorial,
which two of the commissioners supported, Commissioner Schink and Commissioner
Schmidt. The others did not. The discussion was about whether May 1 st is arbitrars,’ or
not arbitras3.’. I believe Commissioner Eakins focused in one of her comments very
specifically on whether we are reall.v talking about whether reasonable expectations or
reasonable behaviors have changed.
To bring us to why I am belaboring this, there were two projects, and only two projects,
in that window frame. One of those was 340 UniversiD’ Avenue, which received a
building permit subsequent to May 1st. That was a building that I was joint managing
partner and ovmer of at the time. In February, we had begun designs for that building
that did not include a 1973 code upgrade. In fact, we were in contract to sell the building.
That sale did not come through, so we eventually put together a package that fully
complied with the 1973 code upgrade. That permit occurred subsequent to May 1 st, and
a very significant part of our decision was that we would get something out of a TDR.
The second one is less clean. That is 403 UniversiD" Taxis. Bob Konovich, who attended
several staff meetings and who spoke previously on this subject to the commission, was
the other propert?" that you considered in your debate the last time. They received their
permit on April 25th. His point is, we were $400,000 over budget. The architect for the
project was Tony Carrasco. He said, "We did not start construction until August, because
we were struggling with scope and cost production. We were in the pipeline of the
permit process. We could have reduced our scale and scope, but part of our decision not
to reduce the scope and remove the steel frame was that we would get some benefit from
TDR." The specific language of the motion that was approved 6-0 talked about if you
were in the building permit process on May 1 st, some may want to interpret that literally
and say, being in the permit process means, had you applied for and received a permit, or
it may be that that whole period of decision-making, which is a reliance and avoids the
arbitrariness that some of you addressed. We would advocate that both of those projects
were in the pipeline and were not the retroactivitv issue that the City Council was
discussing. In fact, they wer~ precisely the kind of projects that the council was
interested in seeing not defeated in their incentives for seismic upgrade.
ZBIPCMIN.4IA:\9-11 .rnin Page 19
10-18-96
There is a second issue. I trust you have the letter from Phyllis Munsey who owned
Double Rainbow. She did a comprehensive historic preser~’ation long before this
ordinance was ever debated. She asked about retroactivity in the ordinance and was told
no. I want to make this distinction. She asked the wrong question. Program 6a of the
Comprehensive Plan specifically’ stated that a historic building may, provided it goes
through a PC process and transfers to a project that is 150 feet away from a residential
property and is not a historic site as a receiver, may transfer its density. The question that
is better put for Phyllis’ project and for those of you who are sympathetic to this notion,
as several of you were at the last hearing, is "Don’t defeat Program 6a but have it
supplemental to, and the specificity." of. how these rights vest and are documented." At
the time she made her upgrade, Program 6a spoke worlds and volumes and what it
required of her to be able to benefit from this. So Program 6a should continue to apply’,
and therefore allow bonus transfer on those provisions that exist in the Comprehensive
Plan 6a of Urban Design Element. This should not supersede or supplement or destroy
rights that she had in her possession before this debate ever took place.
Tricia Ward-Dolkas, 412 Everett Street. Pato Alto: IfI could ask vour indulgence. I
would like to ask a question for clarification, as I do not understand TDR. I have not
taken al! the time I should, but it is a massive document. Regarding the inability.’ to
transfer the parking to the receiver location, in other words, you can transfer square
footage, but is it my" understanding is that you do not transfer the requirement for that
square footage for the receiver site?
Ms. Lvtte: That is correct.
Ms. \Vard-Dolkas: I do not understand whv that would happen. I do not see why we
would want to transfer square footage and not allow adequate parking for it. That seems
to be shortsighted, but again, I have not read all of it and do not understand the logic
behind it.
Chairperson Cassel: Seeing no other speakers, I will now close the public hearing and
return this item to the commission. Are there any questions of staffby commissioners?
Commissioner Beecham: I will ask this just one more time, and ifI am the only one who
is confused, I will drop it. On Page 6 of the September 11 staff report, the first full
paragraph begins, "Commissioner Schink provided another rationale that seismic
upgrades are in the public interest and the city should do what it can to reward the
property’ owners who have been responsible and invested in seismic upgrades." Midway
into that paragraph, it says,"...staff recommends that it would be preferable to do so
through a specific PC zone versus a general zone district." Can staff explain to me how
that works? How would one apply a PC zone to get a seismic transfer from a past
project?
Ms. Lytle: I would assume that the commission would use whatever rationale they were
considering using when they looked at it in a general ordinance. We would prefer that it
ZB PCMIN-4iA:\9-11 .rain Page 20
10-18-96
be done in a limited fashion, if you are going to recommend doing that, rather than
broadly. So whatev.er rationale you would use -- the one that I heard developed that did
not lack substantiation by the facts in the record was the argument forw’arded by
Commissioner Schink about reward. That is not a traditional use of zoning, rewarding
someone for a past action. But should the commission decide that that is the activity’ they
would want to do with a zone. w’e would prefer that you do that activi~" with a PC zone
than to do it with a generally applicable ordinance.
Commissioner Beecham: I read through the minutes of the previous hearing, and I
wanted to make sure that the rationales that were presented then offered enough of a basis
that staff thinks it would be defensible as a public benefit.
Ms. Cauble: I am not sure this will be responsive to your question, but the materials
presented to you tonight with respect to a PC do not attempt to articulate any specific new
standard for public benefit. They simply carry through, as Mr. Baer commented upon.
the existing Comprehensive Plan polic.v that allows for transfer of historic bonuses
pursuant to a PC ordinance, with no particular additional standard. It would be like every
other case of a PC zone. The commission and council would weigh all aspects of a
projectand evaluate whether or not all of the elements that the applicant has proposed
meet the general public benefit standard that you struggle with during ever5." Planned
Community zone. So no additional specific standard is proposed with respect to PCs. It
would be on a case-by-case basis, taking all the facts into account.
.2ommissioner Beecham: I understand your answer, but it is not quite responsive. I think
that I, as much as anybody, is tight on what is required to meet the public benefit for a PC
zone. So I still have a concern that the benefits that would be necessary to justify a PC
for this purpose would be different than an?" benefit that we have had in the past. Staff
certainly has heard the rationale from the commission at previous meetings, and I
presume that if staff is making this recommendation here, the staff has at least some
comfort level in how that could be crafted so that it would be defensible.
Chairperson ~assel: I feel we should ensure that everyone understands what TDR means.
It stands for Transfer of Development Rights. Basically, we are talking about allowing
the right to build on one piece of property, which is limited for some reason, and transfer
that right to build to another property. We are looking at questions that relate to who has
the right to transfer these rights and under what circumstances and how much is the right
to develop, and who can receive this developable square footage, and under what
circumstances may they receive it. It is not property we are transferring. It is the right to
develop a certain number of square feet on that piece of propert3,.
What we did was to review the charge from the City Council prior to this, and we had
three questions that we were unable to resolve in our hearing. We formed a
subcommittee, and it made some proposals on them. At this time, it is appropriate for us
to comment on those questions.
ZBIPCMIN-41A:\9-1 l.min Page 21
10-18-96
Commissioner Schink: I would like to ask for your indulgence and talk about a different
issue before we talk, about each of the commit-tee recommendations. I feel that Bern has
raised the essential question that we need to discuss in a great deal of detail. As I see it, it
is the integriD’ question. V~rhat sort of integrity do these densiD" fights have when you
want to transfer them under a PC2 As I view this, if a 5,000-square-foot project were to
come forward, and the Architectural Review Board thought the project was wonderful
and could be approved without any further review, if a person went out and bought an
additional 5,000 square feet and put that identical building right next to it, and then came
in with a PC because they were transferring the densitT rights, it would be our obligation,
through respect of these rights, to say it is good, with no tinkering with it. For these
rights to have any value at all, we need to very clearly state that we will respect these
rights and will not. during the PC process, begin to extract too many things, or else you
will devalue the densiD’ rights very quickly. The marketplace will respond, and they will
become worthless, and will not accomplish what we have been twing to accomplish. So
if we have any hopes for this project to be successful, we all need to state publicly that we
respect the value in these as they are transferred to other properties. It is an important
question before we get into the specifics of the subcommittee.
Commissioner Schmidt: It is my understanding that no property has to go through the PC
process to bu.v TDRs from another project unless they want to do something else that
requires a PC. If they are buying the exact amount of square footage available and it falls
within the requirements of the ordinance, no one has to go through a PC process.
Ms. Cauble: That is exactly correct. As a matter of fact, when Virginia Warheit and I
first started working on this ordinance, and later, Bob and I over a year ago,.as Mr. Baer
has pointed out. our original drafts completely eliminated any reference to a use in a PC
zone. The reason that everyone had brought these ordinances changes forward for
consideration was that we had a policy in our Comprehensive Plan for years saying, you
can transfer rights under a PC zone, and nobody was doing it. It apparently was felt to be
too cumbersome. So the proposal was, find a way to do it within the existing downtown
conventional zone. People would not have to go through the perceived hassle and
uncertainty of a Planned Community zone. Draw the box for them, saying, you can
transfer so many square feet and use it in this way to create some certainty and increase
the marketability of these rights. Quite recently, I believe it was Nancy that pointed out
(and perhaps in the context of a PC zone that you will be hearing later tonight) that you
have drafted this to completely eliminate any ability to use these in a PC zone, and even
though no one has ever tried it, we should not foreclose that option. Let’s leave it in there
in case someone has a creative proposal. Where the City Council was directing us and
where staff’s efforts were focused was not at all through a PC. It was to create a
relatively straightforward process under the CD zone, as Commissioner Schink points
OUt.
Chairperson Schink: That alleviates my concerns. I misunderstood where we were going
with this.
ZBIPCMIN-4tA:\9-11 .min Page 22
10-18-96
Commissioner Beecham: Now I think I clearly understand that the public benefit of
someone using transfer of development rights, even if those upgrades were done
previously, I presume that could be done under the Comprehensive Plan program using a
PC. Is that correct?
Ms. Cauble: That would be up to the commission and council to determine if there were
some benefit to the community to be attained by the PC project. You would need to ask
what is the benefit it is creating. In making that finding, you would need to make the tie
to some work that had already been done.
Commissioner Beecham: I presume that in the Comprehensive Plan and the program, it
does not specify.’ how the program works or what are the mechanisms or anything else. It
says. these are the benefits one can get, and leaves the exact mechanism entirely
unspecified.
Ms. Lvtle: It does specify.’ the Planned Community. process and the wa.v to accomplish it.
Commissioner Beecham: But there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that specifies
that one needs to be done before the other or vice versa, or any specific things that have to
be done.
Ms. Lvtte: Well. it deals with historic.
Commissioner Beecham: Versus seismic.
Ms. Lvtle:
language.
process.
Correct. The zoning ordinance itself lays out the historic upgrade bonus
The Comprehensive Plan deals with historic transferability,’ through a PC
Chairperson Cassel: We also need to explain this parking issue. What happens is that for
certain buildings, they’ get a bonus if they do a seismic upgrade. For other buildings, they
get a bonus if they do a historic upgrade. Certain buildings can get both. However, when
they do get that bonus, there is not a parking requirement for it on that site.
Ms. Lvtle: That is correct. The original bonuses did not allow you double, but we did
have a revision recently" that allowed you to do both. With all of the individua! bonuses
in the past, there v‘’as always a forgiveness of the parking for this bonus square footage.
Nov,’ you have the ability." to combine seismic and historic upgrades and get a double
bonus. This ordinance was taking it even further, allowing the transferability.’. Along
with the transferred square footage would go the transferred forgiveness of the parking
deficit created from that bonus.
Chairperson Cassel: And the reason you are not transferring it and not putting it on that
particular site is that maybe it has already reached its height limit or it has already
reached its total FAR. So although they are eligible for that bonus, they cannot use it on
ZB!PCMIN-41A:\9-1 l.min Page 23
10-18-96
that site.
Ms. Lvtle: The original policy was drafted for historic properties. The point was that it
would probably be better not to add on to a historic property. It is touch,v when you try" to
put an addition onto a historic property, so the idea of the bonus was to encourage the
upgrade and allow the right to the extra square footage, but to see if that could be sold
elsewhere so that the historic building would be kept as intact as possible.
The issue on seismic is vet to be defined for transferabiliD’. We have suggested that some
of the benefit, as Bob mentioned earlier, might be that there is a better place to put that
additional building volume than where the seismic building was upgraded in terms of
urban design objectives. We do have a guide that tells you where volume is appropriate
and where volume is less appropriate. That could be one basis foi- transferring the
seismic bonus. Another basis could be that the deficit parking issue would be better in
one location of the downtown, to have a spreading of the shortness of parking throughout
the do~’ntown or away from the core.
Chairperson Cassel: I want to continue explaining the basics for those in the audience
who might be watching. This is a complex issue. The basis of allowing this transfer or
the sale of this right is to give the person doing the upgrade the mone,v to do the upgrade.
We are trying to encourage people to do a seismic upgrade of their building to make the
building safer.
Ms. L~-tle: That is true. The policy direction, at this point, with the Cit3’ Council’s
direction, was really to provide incentives. We heard the word "incentive" from them,
and that is the idea. I think we were seeing the amount of seismic upgrade activi~
lacking in this program. We were underachieving in the area of seismic upgrade, and felt
that this could actuall,v help us do better in that area.
Commissioner Schmidt: Is this just within the Commercial Downtown district, much of
which is in the parking district?
Mr. Schubert: That is correct.
Commissioner Schrnidt: So it is not ever’where in Palo Alto.
Ms. Lvtle: Right. It is limited to the downtown CD district. There are portions of that
which are outside of the assessment district, but the majorit3, is within the district.
Mr. Schubert: The exhibit on the wall shows potential receiver sites in yellow. It also
shows the historic sites in red.
Ms. Lytle: And the white buffer area is the 150-foot dimension to protect the adjacent
neighborhoods from both the receiving of volume and the receiving of the parking deficit.
ZBIPCMIN-41A:\9-1 1 .min Page 24
10-18-96
Commissioner Ojakian: If this program worked to its fullest, what is the absolute amount
of square footage that could be transferred?
Mr. Schubert: That is in Table 1. It is 134,961 square feet.
Commissioner Ojakian: Looking at that in a slightly different way, that means that if this
gets all built out. there are, in fact, about 530 parking spaces that we will not be requiring.
That ends up being almost two-thirds of the number of parking spaces we expect to get
out of the new parking structures when we build them.
Ms. Lvtle: I also want to mention that this additional square footage is all still within the
applicable development caps in the downtown. It does not go beyond those limits that
have already been established and which we monitor on an annual basis. This is all
square footage that still counts toward those total development caps.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would like staffto review again the rationale for the two sites
that Mr. Baer mentioned that were in the pipeline at the time the City Council discussed
this. If those are to be included in the proposed TDR program, staffwoutd suggest that
these go through the PC process rather than being included as a retroactive element
because they would have preceded the adoption of the TDR changes.
Ms. Lvtle: Yes, both projects would have long preceded the adoption of the TDR
ordinance, which is yet to occur. One of the projects would have preceded the direction
to include seismic upgrades in the TDR program by virtue of having received its building
permit prior to that direction being given by the City Council. We have struggled with
the rationale and looked at the commission’s suggestion for a rationale at the last
meeting. We found that the pipeline issue applied to one of the projects, but it simply did
not appl.v to the other project. The only rationale we saw in the minutes was the bonus
rationale which Commissioner Schink brought up, the reward rationale that you would
retroactively go back and reward someone for having done the fight thing. You have
heard from both the attorney and the planning staff that that is not a traditional use of
zoning. You do not generally provide additional fights to people because they did
something good in the past. It is usually something you do to provide incentives for
future actions or to provide some other limitation on size. Zoning is generally something
that sets density limits or volume, those types of things, but it is not used as a bonus
reward program.
So if that is the rationale, we have not come up with a magic solution for the commission
here as to what is a good public rationale for including those two projects. We do not
have that for you, but if you are going to follow the logic of reward, we would prefer to
see you do that in a limited Planned Community zone process rather than in any general
ordinance.
Commissioner Schmidt: So those two projects could be proposed as part of a PC?
ZBiPCMIN-4iA:\9-11 .min Page 25
10-18-96
Ms. Cauble: They have been proposed as a part of a PC. The challenge to the
commission and the council is to assess what public benefit is created b.v the specific PC
project as relates to usage of those theoretical bonuses.
Commissioner Beecham: That is the question I was struggling with earlier. I would find
it hard to come up with a rationale for a PC public benefit for previous activities.
Another thing I want to clarif?’ is that there has been mention made in the record of
projects in the pipeline and in the permit process. In a general sense, as we have talked
and as others have talked, the pipeline includes both projects. The permit process only
includes one project. Tony Carrasco had made a motion in a previous meeting that talked
about the permit process. That would apply to one project but not the other.
Ms. Cauble: I would like to make a further response to Commissioner Ojakian who
raised the question of the number of deficit parking spaces. At the staff table, Mr. Ross
pointed out quite correctl.v that the par’king issue already exists under the current
ordinance as adopted. It reall.v is not a transferability issue that changes the location of
the new buildings that would have a theoretical parking deficit. The current bonus
ordinance for a CD for seismic and historic is applied in a manner that does not require
additional par’king spaces for the bonus square footage. The TDR ordinance just adds a
layer of allowing somebody to move that square footage without parking spaces. They
can already build it on site without the parking spaces.
Commissioner Ojakian: But we are looking at the ordinance right now, which means we
are looking at the ordinance in its entirety. Is that correct?
Ms. Cauble: Correct, so you could propose changes to the ordinance. I just wanted to
clarify that that part of the bonus ordinance already is law. It is here before you tonight
because there are some tweaks to it in relation to the TDR program, but that parking
deficit issue already exists under the ciD’ ordinances as exist today.
Commissioner Ojakian: I hear what you are saying, but I also know that the ordinance
was written at a point in time when the par’king problems were not as bad as they are
today. It is just a concern with me, and probably a concern with the city. Maybe that is
why they are looking at solutions to deal with parking in the residential neighborhoods.
Commissioner Eakins: Reading all through the staff report, it took me a long time to
understand that really what you are getting down to saying is, don’t put in an ordinance
something that is ve~, specific. An ordinance is meant to be more general and provides
general entitlements, whereas the very specific instances that we are going to be looking
at later can be addressed without the ordinance. That was the main point of not putting it
into the ordinance. That is just too specific.
Commissioner Schink: l wanted to go to some of the discussions we had on the
subcommittee. I would suggest that you look at the staff report, beginning on Page 8.
That is the real question that the subcommittee was grappling with. Our decisions are on
ZB!PCMIN-4IA:\9-1 l.min Page 26
10-18-96
Page 9. To refresh every’one’s recollection, the question we were struggling with was, ff
this is a good idea and these are lofty goals we are trying to accomplish, why shouldn’t
we apply them to all of the buildings that need improvements, taking into account 525
University Avenue and The President Apartments. We should make it all-encompassing,
but we were unclear as to what the ramifications would be of doing that, so we thought
we should study it in a subcommittee. Our conclusions are that if we made it as all-
encompassing as we would like to, it would simply be self-defeating. You would not
have anv value in the property rights to be transferred, because there would be so man?’ of
them. So we proposed that it be limited, and I think that is the essence of it all. We did
raise one point to which I would like to add emphasis at this time. Because these are
good objectives, we should recommend to the council that they look at broadening the
area of receiver sites. In my mind. Stanford Research Park makes abundant sense as an
area to send this densi~’. It can easily be absorbed there; we can accomplish what we are
tr?’ing to accomplish downtown and send it elsewhere. That is the direction in which we
should go, so in addition to this report, we should add a recommendation to send it to
areas other than downtown.
I would also like to comment that there are some important points in the other portion on
which we made a recommendation for a cap of I0,000 square feet and 5.000 square feet.
We should bring to everyone’s atlention that the reason why we limited it to 5.000 square
feet outside of the parking assessment district was that we began looking at an example of
some various sites along High Street, saying, what would happen here, if we are not
requiring parking, if you transferred I0,000 square feet, you could put 40 cars out on
residential streets without the potentia! relief of the parking assessment districts. So in
that area. we felt it was important to hold to the 5,000-square-foot cap.
Commissioner Qiakian: Jon, are you saying you would limit it to just the research park,
or could it be any commercially zoned area?
Commissioner Schink: I always go to the research park because I feel it has the potential,
in man? ways, of being a perfect receiver site. One, it does not have a lot of residential
neighbors. There are large parking areas which do not seem to be strained, and a transit
system is developing that is connected to mass transit, so there are benefits there. It
seems to me to be the logical place to send it with the least repercussions.
Commissioner Beecham: I would add that if someone in the Stanford Research Park
builds a facility that is under parked, their problem is constrained to that facili~,. As Jon
has said, it does not overflow into any other nearby uses, for the most part.
Chairperson Cassel: Let us vote on these questions, one by one. I will begin with
Question # 1. Should the 15,000- or 25,000-square-foot project size limits in the CD
district be included in the TDR ordinance? The last time we heard this, the Planning
Commission .supported the staff recommendation that the 15,000- and 25,000-square-foot
project size limits currently contained in the CD district regulations should be retained
burby genera! rather than specific reference. These size limits have been effective in
ZBIPCMIN-41A:\9-11.rain Page 27
10-18-96
assuring that the pedestrian scale of downtown Palo Alto is retained. Without them.
parcels could be co.nsolidated and large-scale projects could be constructed, potentially
damaging the qualities which make downtown a traditional, pedestrian-oriented "’Main
Street."
MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: I move the staff recommendation.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there anv further discussion on this motion?
All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
Question #2. Should the 150-foot residential buffer apply to the TDR program? The
recommendationreads that the Planning Commission (1) support the new language
clarifying that "residentially zoned properties" does not include residential PC and mixed
use projects within the downtown boundaries; and (2) recommended that Section 18.87-
040(c) in the draft ordinance be revised to read as follows: "The receiver sites shall be (i)
at least 150 feet from residentially zoned properties (not including residential property in
Planned Communi~’ zones or in commercial zones w4thin the downtown boundaries
where mixed use projects are permitted); or (ii) separated from residentially zoned
propeR’ by a city street with a width of at least 50 feet; and (iii) separated from
residentially zoned property by an intervening property zoned CD-C, CD-S or CD-N,
which intervening property has a width of not less than fifty feet."
MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt: I move the staff and Planning Commission
recommendation.
SECOND: By Commissioner Beecham.
Commissioner Byrd: Does this language, as proposed, allow for the project at 390 L.vrton
Avenue to move forward? That was the big concern here.
Mr. Schubert: Yes, in fact, that is the only property we are aware of that would be
allowed to move forward under this.
Chairperson Cassel: However, when the committee looked at this, we again were trying
to be veD" general as to whether that would be a reasonable, general concern. We were
unaware, at that time, whether or not that was the only piece of property.
MOTION PASSES: ~hairpers0n Cass.el: Is there any further discussion on this motion?
All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
Question #3. Can/should previously completed projects be able to receive the bonus
square footage retroactively? The recommendation was that the Planning Commission
recommended that the TDR program be revised to allow seismic and historic projects that
ZBIPCMIN.-4IA:\9-11 .min Page 28
10-18-96
were going through the building permit process after May 1. 1995 to be eligible TDR
sender sites. The co.macil action on May 1. 1995 was not to appl.v the TDR program
retroactively. Therefore, the attached draft ordinance does not contain any revisions
related to applying the TDR program retroactivel?’.
MOT!..ON: Commissioner Schink: I move the Planning Commission modification of the
recommendation with one modification to say that they were going through the building
permit process, or under construction and have not received a final after Ma.v 1, 1995.
SECQND: By Commissioner Beecham.
Commissioner Schink: What I was trying to accomplish here is the inclusion of the
questionable project. The arguments that Mr. Baer made have the strong possibility of
merit. Here was someone who saw what was going on in the city, thought the? would be
able to get some benefits that justified going forward with their seismic improvements,
and they did so. As I argued before, I think you should reward people for doing the right
things, and this is the way to do it.
Commissioner Beecham: For me, it is not so much a reward but more an assessment of a
vet? generalized action by someone based on their understanding of what ciD" policy is or
will soon be. I have gone through the council minutes several times back from the May
1 st meeting, and it has never been clear to me, frankly. There were a number of
comments, and the staff report does accurately summarize the motion, but in the
discussions prior to that, there was clearly some concern .about projects that may be in
process. "In Process" was not clearly defined as a permit or some other in-process. The
council was concerned about not having things stop. The council motion was whether or
not to parcel out certain portions of this issue for consideration, and they decided not to
do that.
In regard to the two projects, the testimony has been, "We relied on what the council was
saying," and that is always hard to assess at this point. I think what was done was
certainly appropriate, was certainly in keeping with what the council was heading toward,
although in a much slower manner than the council had anticipated. In summary, I do not
see this as rewarding past action, but as keeping some justice in the city’s implying what
they were going to do and people who are in the process taking action, based on their
interpretation of that implication.
Commissioner Eakins: Now that I have figured out that the two projects are very specific
and would perhaps be superfluous to a workable ordinance in the future, I want some
guidance from fellow commissioners or from staff. If we were to go with the staff
recommendation instead of the commission’s recommendation, can we still deal with
those two previously completed projects with respect to the other item on the agenda?
The way the project is propo.sed, it is without the parking obligation. That is the key
element, I believe. So if we do not put it into the ordinance, can we still put it in under
the PC?
ZBIPCMIN-4IA:\9-1 l.min Page 29
10-18-96
Ms. Cauble: Whether you put it in the ordinance or not is irrelevant to the PC. The only
thing that the propo.sed ordinance and Comprehensive Plan resolution, the only specifics
in them relate to transfer of fights in the CD zone. As to the PC process, it simply says it
is available. So certainly, you will probably think about whatever rationales you have
offered for the TDR program you want to recommend when you are considering the next
project. They really are separate, and again, the issue for a PC ordinance is whether there
is a public benefit. You get to decide that. and it is an unspecified standard that you
appl.v which varies according to the facts.
Commissioner Eakins: I would like to "know, if we were not to include this retroactivitv
after going back to May 1, 1995 in the TDR ordinance, would that rule it out? Would
those components of the next project be ruled out?
Ms. Cauble: From a legal perspective, I don’t believe that is necessarily true. The issues
are similar, but not identical. As we discussed in adopting a TDR program or
amendments to the TDR program, like any zoning ordinance, we do not call it a public
benefit. There needs to be a public interest served in adopting a zoning ordinance. You
do not do it for private benefit or out of whim or for arbitrary reasons. You do it to
achieve a public purpose. So implicitly, when vou decide to change an ordinance like the
TDR ordinance, you are taking into account in your recommendations what is the public
interest here. That may not be identical to public benefit under the PC ordinance. They
are similar, but not necessarily identical, I don’t believe. As to the TDR ordinance, we
would be establishing a standard that applies across the board. There mav be other
properties out there that are going to make a claim that they qualify under whatever you
recommend. That has not been analyzed, as far as I "know.
Ms. Lytle: I believe our concern is that vou start to think the way the way I hear you
thinking tonight. That is, people should begin assuming that they should invest, based
upon a direction from the City Council to put forward some legislation. We all know that
that direction is not necessarily the adoption of legislation. I think it is a slippery, slope to
start making that assumption when we are never sure of the outcome until there has been
due process and public hearings. We all know that sometimes, we start out with one
intention and we discover information and facts that finally lead the decisionmakers to a
different conclusion. That is our discomfort with that type of rationale in a general
ordinance, that perhaps people will see vou doing it in this instance, and we do not know
who all would be affected, but then the?’ may also assume that in the next set of
legislation, you would go forward to provide incentives and they should also begin
investing on the basis of the good ideas and direction that we got originally in a process,
but not on the final action taken.
Commissioner Schink: Nancy has raised a good point. Do we start incorporating the
intentions, and why should we do that? Are we starting down a slippery, slope? Again, I
would bring up two points. One is that government vers’ often does exactly this. If you
look at tax codes, quite often they will adopt a tax code in the middle of the year and
make it retroactive to January 1 st, realizing that it is certainly unfair to change it in the
ZBIPCMIN-41A:\9-1 l.min Page 30
10-18-96
middle of the ?’ear, eliminating certain people. It is simply a fairness question. Here I
think the fairness reall.v applies when you take people who have been good citizens, have
done what is right before other people who nov, are getting incentives to do what they
really should have done previously. You realize there are people out here who own
buildings where hundreds of people are living, and it is a dangerous situation, yet they
have not taken action. Previously, building owners have acted responsibly. They don’t
deser~,e to be left behind in this ordinance. It is not necessarily a reward. It is just acting
responsibly. It is in the public interest to be consistent in the ordinances when we provide
benefits back to properO.’ owners encouraging them to do the right thing.
Commissioner Schmidt: I have thought about this a lot. too. At the previous review of
this. I was unhappy to support rewarding people. I am comfortable with the idea. for
example, of the Phyllis Munsey building. She could, indeed, attain these rights by going
through a PC process. On the properties we are tal -king about under this particular
question I support what Jon and Bern have said. It is basically good faith. This is still
something we are tr?’ing to achieve -- seismic upgrades. If this were the "kind of thing that
people saw and thought that the City Council was going to make a decision in this
direction, dozens of property owners could have run out to do this, but there were only
these two that have done it over this amount of time, so it does not seem to me that it is
really leading people on to suspect something might be done, and then it is not done.
These are responsible goals to upgrade buildings seismically, therefore, I think it is
reasonable to make the recommendations that we have
Commissioner Beecham: I agree with what Nancy said in terms of a slippeD’ slope, etc.
This is a very close issue in this regard, and it is cutting the line finer than I would
otherwise like to. The other comment I would make is to respond to a comment by
Debbie. She made mention of its being in the public interest versus a public benefit,
which would be required under the PC zone. To me, that is where this comes down. I
believe this is in the proper public interest, but as I think about a PC zone, I don’t know
how I would find it to be a public benefit as required by a PC. That is why I primarily
support this.
Chairp.~.rson Cassel: Jon, would vou repeat the motion?
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I move that the Planning Commission recommend
that the TDR program be revised to allow seismic and historic projects that were going
through the building permit process or were under construction prior to receiving final
approval after May 1, 1995 to be eligible as TDR sender sites. The reason why I did not
say "’previously under construction" was that we had testimony that they were not, in fact,
under construction. They had a permit that was issued, but they had not started
construction. They were waiting. What I want to say is, "Through the building permit
process or with an open building permit prior to final inspection after May 1, 19952’
Chairperson Cassel: So the permit has already been opened but is not completed. To
repeat Question #3, Can/should previously completed projects be able to receive the
ZB PCMIN-4iA:\9-11 .rnin Page 31
10-18-96
bonus square footage retroactively? The motion is that the Planning Commission
recommend that the TDR program be revised to allow seismic and historic projects that
are in the building permit process with an open building permit, or were going through
the building permit process after May 1, 1995 to be eligible as TDR sender sites.
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there an.v further discussion on this motion?
All those in favor, sa.v aye. All opposed? That passes 6-1, with Chairperson Cassel
voting no.
Question #4: Should the fight to transfer development fights "vest" upon completion of
the project or upon receipt of the building permit? The recommendation of the Planning
Commission supports the staff recommendation that the proposed TDR program, as
currentl.v drafted, adequately addresses the issue of when the right to transfer exists. The
-right should not be granted unless the public purpose is accomplished. However, this
does not answer the question. The right to transfer a bonus would not occur until the
work at the sender site is completed. That is our recommendation.
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I so move.
SECOND: By’ Commissioner Schmidt.
Commissioner Beecham: I believe Jon has earlier clarified that the right would vest upon
issuance of a permit and be granted at the final inspection point. Is that included in this
recommendation?
Ms. Cauble: I feel that that is an uncomfortable use of the term :’vest." I think we were a
little loose vAth that when we were before you a year ago. Vesting, to lawyers, implies
that vou have a right and you can sell it and use it. The staff recommendation, which the
commission tentatively went with when you considered this a couple of months ago, was
that you start the process of entitlement to the fights when you pull the building permit,
but you really do not have any transferable fights which I would consider "vesting" until
vou have completed the work which entitles you to the transferable fights.
Chairperson Cassel: The comment below says, "The fight should not be granted unless
the public purpose is accomplished." In other words, you complete the project, and then
you have the fight to sel! the fights.
Commissioner Schink: When I read the language, I felt that they were essentially
achieving what my previous objective had been. It was well defined, and I feel that
essentially, it gives people a feeling that it is vested, to a sufficient degree, that it is
marketable.
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion?
All those in favor, say’ aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
ZBIPCMIN-4[A:\9-1 l.min Page 32
10-18-96
Question #5: Should the TDR program be expanded to include Public Facilities (PF),
Planned Community (PC) and residentially zoned properties within the area generally
zoned Commercial Downtown (CD)? The recommendation is (1) to support the staff
recommendation that the TDR program should be expanded to include dov~-ntown PF, PC
and residentially’ zoned properties; and (2) to recommend that the Comprehensive Plan
include language explaining that downtown sites with existing or proposed PC zoning are
eligible to be receiver sites, provided that the PC review process is followed.
MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt: I move the recommendations as read.
SECOND: By’ Commissioner Beecham.
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion?
All those in favor, ~av ave. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0,
Question #6: Should the TDR program be expanded to include seismic upgrades of
nonhistoric buildings? The recommendation is to support the staff recommendation that
the TDR program be expanded to include seismic upgrades of nonhistoric buildings as
proposed in the attached draft ordinance.
Commissioner Ojakian: I would like to ask staffagain how much square footage would
this involve being added to the program?
Mr. Schubert: It is roughly half of the 134,000 square feet that would be added. That is
about 65,000 square feet.
Commissioner Ojakian: The reason I am getting at this is that I am almost at the point
where I feel like we could even grant a slight bit more in TDR if, in fact, the square
footage was used somewhere other than in the downtown area. The reason for that is
what I alluded to before, that it is going to aggravate the downtown parking situation, for
which we do not have a very, good solution, even if we build the garages. So I am Wing
to encourage us to keep the program. I am not trying to torpedo it, but in the meantime, I
am twing to put that square footage somewhere else where the types of problems we are
going to get from having this happen downtown arenot as significant.
Chairperson Cassel: A little further along here, I think part of our recommendation from
the subcommittee was that the Cib" Council look at the issue of considering sites beyond
the downto~nn. What they gave us was the downtown area to work with.
Commissioner Ojakian: I would be happy to hold off, then, and do that wherever we can,
but that is a point I don’t want us to lose, as I feel it is vital. I don’t want to have
competing good intentions here.
MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: I move the staff recommendation.
ZB’PCMIN-4iA:\9-1 l.min Page 33
10-18-96
SECOND: By Commissioner Schink.
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion?
All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
Question #7: Should building owners should be required to complete both seismic and
historic upgrades to receive bonuses for buildings that are in both categories? The
recommendation is that the Planning Commission support the staff recommendation that
the provisions of the draft ordinance requiring both seismic and historic upgrades to occur
in order to receive bonuses for buildings in both categories should remain.
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I move the staff recommendation.
SECOND: By Commissioner Eakins.
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there an?’ further discussion on this motion?
All those in favor, say ave. All opposed? That passes unanimousl.v on a vote of 7-0.
Question #8: What is the difference between historic preservation and historic
rehabilitation? The recommendation was that the Planning Commission support the staff
recommendation to use the term "historic rehabilitation" exclusively, as shown in the
attached draft ordinance.
MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt: I move the staff recommendation.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schink.
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion?
All those in favor, say ave. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
Question #9: The current TDR program does not allow bonus square footage beyond the
maximum allowable FAR - 3.0 to 1 FAR in the CD-C District and 2.0to 1 FAR in the
CD-S and CD-N Districts. Should sender sites be able to transfer bonus square footage
above the maximum allowable FAR? The committee recommendation was that the
proposed TDR program remain as currently proposed, i.e., sender sites should not be
allowed to transfer bonus square footage above the maximum allowable FAR. However,
there may be merit in allowing sender sites to transfer above the maximum allowable
FAR if the TDR program is expanded in the future to include certain properties outside of
the dov~nntown area. For example, if the properties within the Stanford Research Park
were allowed to be receiver sites, there would be greater demand for receiving the TDR
square footage from the additional sender sites.
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I move the committee recommendation.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
ZB!PCMIN-41A:\9-1 l.min Page 34
10-18-96
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there an} further discussion on this motion?
All those in favor, s.ay aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
Question #10: Should the current restriction on new floor area at receiver sites be
increased above the 0.5 FAR maximum? The committee recommended that the
provisions regarding allowable new floor area at receiver sites be modified as follows:
(1) for properties located within the downtown parking assessment district, the maximum
new FAR should be increased to 1.0, provided that the total additional floor area does not
exceed 10,000 square feet; and (2) for properties located outside of the parking
assessment district, the maximum new FAR should be 0.5, provided that the total
additional floor area does not exceed 5,000 square feet. The committee made the
distinction because properties within the parking assessment district are more likeh’ to be
built out to the property lines, compared to properties outside the district which are
required to provide parking on site.
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I move the committee recommendation.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion?
All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
Question #11: Council member Simitian suggested that the following be considered:
(A) Establish a cap on the amount of potential new floor area which could be transferred.
The recommendation of the Planning Commission, supported by staff, is that the TDR
program should not be revised to include a cap.
(B) Establish a sunset date in the ordinance in order to encourage that the seismic
upgrades are accomplished before the next major earthquake. The Planning Commission
supported the staff recommendation that the TDR program should not be revised to
establish a sunset date.
(C) Research the cap on the downtown parking deficit in relation to any additional
parking required for projects participating in the program. The Planning Commission
agreed with staff that the TDR program should not be revised to require parking for
transferred floor area.
MOTION: Commis~i0ner Schink: I move the staff recommendations A, B, and C.
SECOND: By Commissioner Eakins.
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Casse!: Is there any further discussion on this motion?
All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
ZBIPCM1N-4IA:\9-11 .min Page 35
10-18-96
Ms. Cauble: Since you have a resolution and ordinance before you for recommendation
tonight, it would be.helpful to us. in transmitting your recommendation to the City
Council. to have a summar3." motion. As I understand it from the eleven votes you have
just taken, it would be to recommend approval of the resolution and ordinance in your
packet tonight, which includes the updated version of the ordinance at your places, with
the one change regarding retroactiviD’ as expressed in Commissioner Schink’s earlier
motion. That, of course, would include the negative declaration.
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I so move.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion?
All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
I thank everyone for participating in this. It has been aver?." detailed discussion and is of
great concern to a lot of people.
Commissioner Schmidt: Do we need to make a separate, special recommendation to the
City Council as per Jon’s discussion earlier about pursuing the idea of TDRs for the
Stanford Research Park, or has our discussion been enough to cover that?
Ms. Lvtte: The committee recommendation motion that you adopted before you adopted
the main motion that Ms. Cauble summarized was part of that. We will make sure that it
is highlighted in the transmittal we forward to council so that they do not miss that.
Mr. Schubert: This goes to the Ci~’ Council on October 21st.
Commissioner Beecham: I will not participate in the next two items tonight due to a
conflict of interest. I live near both the 390 L.vtton Avenue address and 525 University.
Avenue.
ZB!PCMtN--41A:\9-1 l.min Page 36
10-18-96
RESOLUTION NO. 6571
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALOALTO
AMENDING THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO ADD A PROGRAM ON DENSITY TRANSFER
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palo Alto, on
February 12 and 20, 1986, and March -6, 1986 held a properly-
noticed public hearing to consider amendments to the Palo Alt~
Comprehensive Plan affecting the Downtown Area, including a ne~
program on density transfer; and
WHEREAS, THE City Council of the City of Palo Alto on April
21 and May 12, 1986, held a properly-noticed public hearing to
consider such amendments, and on June 2, 1986, continued the den-
sity transfer program to be considered with the proposed revisions
to the Historic Preservation Ordinance on October 27, 1986.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto .~oes
RESOLVE as follows:
~ECTION I. The City Council finds that changed conditions
and the public interest, health, safety and welfare require
amendment of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as set forth in
Section 2 below¯
SECTION 2. Program 6A and text is hereby added to the Urban
Desig~ element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to read as
follows:
Program 6A: Allow the transfer of development rights
for designated buildings of historic or architectural
significance (Historic Categories i and 2) within the
Commercial Downtown (CD) zone through the Planned Com-
munity (PC) zone process.
A transfer of development rights program would per-
mit transferring the difference between the amount of
existing development and the maximum permitte.~ develop-
ment from Categories 1 and 2 historic building sites to
non-historic receiver sites. Both sites would have to
be located within the Downtown CD zoning district. The
receiver sites:
Shall be at least 150 feet from residentially
zoned properties;
Shall be permitted to receive a maximum additional
floor area ratio of 0.5 to I above what would
otherwise be permitted for the site;
Shall not be sites with structures of historic or
architectural significance; and
Shall be subject to applicable downtown project size
limits.
ATTACHMENT 12
SECTION 3. The Council hereby finds that the adoption of
tllis resolution will not cause any significant envir~nmenta 1
i mpa c t.
I NTRODOCED AND PASSED : October 27, 1986
AYES: Seci,tel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley
NOES: Patitucci
ABSTENTIONS : None
AI~SENT : - None
City Clerk ’( , May(r
,irector of Planning and
/,~.~mmun i t.~ Envirgnmen t
C~ief B~ilding Of£icial
PC-4048
’PC-2836
¯
PC-
2830
Z
ATTACHMENT 13
I
I
I
I
I
I
"’". -/’" ¯FIGURE 6¯ -~, I’ I ~Building Volumes
I
ATI"ACHMENT 14
A G E M E N T
September 11, 1996
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Palo Alto
Re: Transfer Development Rights Ordinance/Program 6A
Dear Commissioners:
You will be reviewing for a second time the Transfer Development Rights
Ordinance, which has expanded from the initial Draft Ordinance to include both
buildings that are identified as seismically hazardous and those that are
identified as historically significant.
Before adoption of the new Ordinance, Transfer Development Rights have
existed only through Program 6A of the Urban Design Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. A copy of ProgTam 6A is attached. Program 6A provides
that a building which is historically significant is entitled to transfer its
development rights provided that a transfer takes place pursuant to a Planned
Community Zone. The time frame during which the transfer may take place is
not defined in Program 6A. Presumably, a building that is historically
significant, that has completed substantial renovation work which preserves its
historic character, is entitled to Transfer Development Rights even if the transfer
takes place subsequent to the date on which the historic preservation work takes
place.
In adopting the proposed Transfer Development Rights Ordinance, Program 6A
should not be defeated, but rather supplemented, by the detailed procedures
being adopted in the Ordinance. In particular, the procedures define how
Transfer Development Rights become certified and available for transfer. Since
this mechanism did not exist at the time Program 6A was adopted, these
mechanisms and timetables should not be applicable to projects otherwise
satisfying Program 6A. In particular, the Double Rainbow building, owned by
Phyllis Munsey, is the only historic building with an FAR of less than 3:1 that has
completed historic preservation without utilizing the bonus area provided under
§18.49.
We encourage the Planning Commission to recommend that this project be
~ its unused bonus area of 2,062 s.f., provided the other provisions of
Program 6A are satisfied.
Sincerely yours,
James E. Baer
cc: Phyllis Munsey
172UniverMtvAvenueoPaloAlto, California 94301 415.325.7787 Fax:415.325.43O4
ATTACHMENT 15
PROPERTIES
June 24, 1996
Planning Commission Members
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Transfer Development Rights - June 26th Planning Commission
Dear Commissioners:
On Monday, June 17, 1996, the Staff Report and Draft Ordinance for Transfer
Development Rights ("TDR") became available to the public. The TDR
Ordinance was debated by the Historical Review Board ("HRB") on June 19, by
the Architectural Review Board ("ARB") on June 20, and will be debated by the
Planning Commission ("PC") on June 26. As in 1995, when the TDR Ordinance
was debated, an accelerated schedule made thoughtful input from the
community difficult. The TDR Ordinance to be presented to you raises issues
presented by Staff without commentary from Downtown property owners.
In 1995, Chop Keenan and I provided considerable input at the May I City
Council hearing. Since that time, John Northway, Leonard Ely, John Hanna and I
have had several meetings with Council Members and Staff Members about the
TDR. Nevertheless, the Staff report, drafted by a Contract Planner, does not
capture the spirit of the May 1, 1995, City Council debate which focused on
concepts that would make the TDR economically feasible rather than creating
restrictions based on theoretical planning data. The Staff Report dismisses
changes seemingly welcomed by the City Council in 1995 in a way that will
defeat the effectiveness of the TDR to create incentives for seismic upgrades and
historic preservation.
Please consider the following concepts which were seemingly understood by the
City Council on May 1, 1995, against which the Staff has taken positions not quite
in sync with the economic reality of creating incentives through a TDR.
First -- a Receiver site should not be overly restricted. Otherwise, the TDR
incentives are effectively defeated:
1. Protecting residentially zoned, adjacent properties is important, but 150’
may be too great a radius in some circumstances, such as when a City street or
another commercial property is located between the Receiver Site and the
residentially zoned property for which protection is sought.
172 L,~i~ ~’rs~!’. .-\~ cnu,’ Pak, .-\k,, Cai~;wnia ~ 4z:~i 4 : 5 ¯ 3 2 5 ¯ 7 .-. S .- Fa,. 4 1 R . 3 2 5 ¯ 4 3 ~ 4
ATTACHMENT 16
Planning Commission Members
Page Two
2. A PC Zone should be allowed to be a Receiver Site if it is within the CD
geographic boundary - the CD Zone is meant to be a geographic boundary, not a
technical limitation. Therefore, a PC Zone could be a Receiver.
3. Limiting Receiver Sites to .5 of existing area, or the area allowed under
Section 18.49.06, is too restrictive. The 3.0 FAR in CD-C, and 2.0 FAR in CD-S
and CD-N Zones provide all the protection needed without further restriction.
The Staff Report at Item 4 suggests that the 165 identified Receiver Sites could
use all of the 127,738 possible transfer area by applying a .5 FAR Receiver
limitation. This analysis fails to understand a point well understood by the City
Council in May, 1995. An existing, welt-leased, building cannot bear the costs of
demolition, vacancy, City approvals, and structural and handicap upgrades for
little additional incentive area. This is predsely why the seismic hazards and
historic preservation bonus density programs (existing in the CD Ordinance
since 1986) have not achieved the number of upgrades and historic preservations,
as was anticipated. Just as a well-leased building that is currently identified as
seismically hazardous will not perform a 1973 Code upgrade in order to add the
bonus 2,500 s.f., a Receiver Site will not go through an enforced vacancy,
tremendous investment in Code upgrades and releasing, without a very
substantial increase in allowed area, which is not achieved by limiting the
Receiver Sites to a .5 FAR. As an illustration, a 6,000 s.f. building cannot go
through a renovation if the TDR benefit is only 3,000 s.f. This is simply not
economically wise or feasible. The Staff Report does not perceive development
economics when stating that an increase from a .5 to a 1.0 FAR would not result
in any additional seismic or historic rehabilitation. Were a .5 FAR adequate
incentive, we would have seen many more historic preservations and seismic
upgrades taking advantage of on-site existing bonuses since 1986. The entire
TDR as proposed is flawed by not perceiving and addressing the economics of a
Receiver Site.
Second, limitation on Sender Sites: Section 3 of the Staff discussion differs
from the direction that the City Council seemingly gave Staff on May 1, 1995 with
respect to Transferor Sites, including sites that either currently exceed 3.0 FAR, or
would exceed a 3.0 FAR upon completing a seismic upgrade or historic
preservation.
The Staff Report sites concerns for the 1986 Downtown Study "regarding the
negative visual and other impacts of projects that exceed the maximum FAR."
This seems to miss the point. A building such as 498 University Avenue, the
President Apartments, exceeds the 3.0 FAR. It, therefore, cannot take advantage
of seismic or historic bonuses on site. It can only take advantage of these bonuses
Planning Commission Members
Page Three
through a TDR Program. Nevertheless, the President Apartments would be high
on the list of Fire and Building officials among those buildings in the Downtown
for which incentives should be provided to encourage historic preservation and
seismic rehabilitation. Without the incentives provided by a TDR, 498 University
Avenue, and others (Lansin, Chateau, Bentwood Rocker, University Art Center,
etc.) may not perform seismic upgrades. The density cannot be added to a
building that already exceeds 3.0 FAR, so protection from the negative visual
impacts of a building exceeding the 3.0 FAR is simply a misstatement. The issue
for the Planning Commission and City Council is whether larger buildings which
may be seismically most hazardous are eligible for some TDR benefits. The Staff
Report does indicate that the potential area subject to transfer increases from
127,738 s.f. to 267,926 s.f. This increased possibility for transfer should be of
concern, but should be handled differently than the misstatement about negative
visual impacts. A Receiver Site cannot exceed a 3.0 FAR under the proposed
Ordinance so the protection sought already exists.
Third, the TDR does not deal sensitively with retroactivity: At the City Council
hearing one speaker requested that the TDR Ordinance be applicable to a seismic
upgrade and historic preservation performed 6 or 7 years previously. The City
Cound~ stated that retroactivity for such an application did not seem
appropriate. However, several Council Members, including Jean McCown and
Ron Anderson, specifically asked whether there were projects which could
benefit from the concepts debated by the City Council on May 1, 1995, related to
the TDR. Specifically, the question was whether there were any projects in the
wings which would perform seismic or historic upgrades as a result of the TDR
Ordinance. At the May 1, 1995, hearing the Director of Planning stated that he
believed a revised Ordinance could not be returned before Council’s vacation in
August, but that the revised Ordinance would be ready to return early in the fall.
Subsequent to the May, 1, 1995 City Council hearing and Staffs indication that a
revised Ordinance would be available in the fall of 1995, two projects proceeded
with seismic upgrades in reliance on the eminence of the TDR Ordinance, as
outlined by the City Council. 401 University (Taxi’s), considered a variety of
users and proceeded with a major seismic upgrade with the expectation that the
TDR Ordinance would be applicable to its upgrade. Similarly, 340 University
Avenue (formerly Liddicoats) had prepared and submitted drawings which did
not include a 1973 UBC seismic upgrade. These drawings were revised
subsequent to the May 1, 1995 hearing, and incorporated extensive
improvements so that the building would fulfill the 1973 UBC with respect to
seismic codes and, thereby, qualify for rights under the TDR Ordinance as a
Transferor site.
Planning Commission Members
Page Four
Representatives of 401 University and 340 University have met with members of
City Staff and several Council Members on more than 8 occasions since early fall,
1995, to discuss the applicability of the TDR to these projects.
Specific comments to text are provided in correspondence from John Hanna,
Esq..
I am sorry if this letter and its analysis seems hurried. These are complex
issues with a dear written response difficult in the short time we have had to
review the Staff Report and Draft Ordinance.
Sincerely yours,
Leonard Ely
Ken Schreiber
John Northway
John Hanna
Chop Keenan
M
)PERTIES
M E N T
April 12, 1995
Members
Planning Commission
City of Palo AltoCity Hau
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Re: Transfer of Development Rights (TDR}
Dear Planning Commissioners:
The purpose of this letter is to encourage your adoption of the TDR program
bu__~t with modifications to provide that seismic upgrades to the 1973 UBC standard
for buildings in seismic categories 1 and 2 also be included in this program. The
opportunity for abuse from such an expanded program is small as there are few
buildings in the downtown area which have not completed some substantial seismic
work. As an example, among our properties, we have renovated 529 Bryant, 180
University, The Ba~er Hotel, 251 University and 201 University. Only one of our
remaining buildings would qualify for a seismic TDK
JEB:lpl
co: Ken Schreiber
Fred Herman
Virginia Warheit
Sincerely yours,
Ja . Baer
172 University. Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301 4 1 5 ¯ 3 2 5 ¯ 7 7 8 7 Fax: 4 1 5 ¯ 3 2 5 ¯ 4 3 6 4
ATTACI]MENT17
JOHN ~AUL HANNa.
DAV|D M. VAN ~,TTA
June 26, 1996
Via Facsimile (415) 329.2440 and (415) 329-2646
Debra Cauble, Assistant City Attorney
City Artome.y’s Office
Ken Schreiber, Director of Planning
Office of Planning and Community Development
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
PLAN1Nq2qG COMMISSION EEARING ON DENSITY TRANSFER
Dear Debra and Ken:
Enclosed for your information are copies of some proposals that Jim Baer and I intend to
make during the Planning Commission meeting for changes in the wording of the draft
comprehensive plan amendment, and the "I’DR ordinance.
I thought it would be helpful for you to have the advance copy of these changes, so that you
will have an opportunity to review the proposal before the meeting.
i~~a~~ anna
Enclosure: Copy of Proposed Changes to Zoning and Comprehensive Plan
--. ~t 5639 ATTACI~VIENT 18
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF TH~ CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMEN]gENG PROGIL4!VI 6A AND TEXT OF THE PALO ALTO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATI2qO TO DENSITY TRANSFER
WHEREAS, by i~ Resolution No. 6571, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
amended the Cit2,/s Comprehensive Plan to add a program on density transfer (transferable
development rights) pertaining to certain designated buildings of historic or architectural
significance within the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone; and
WI-IEREAS, the Council has determined that the transferable development rights
program should be streamlined, in order to encourage historic and seismic rehabilitation of
significant historic buildings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palo Alto, after duly noticed
public hearing held on June 26, 1996, has recommended that the Council amend the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, upon consideration of said recommendation after duly noticed public
hearing, the council desires to amend said plan as hereinafter set forth;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that changed conditions and the public interest,
health safety and welfare require amendment of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as set
forth in Section 2 below.
SECTION 2. Program 6A and text of the Urban Design element of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan as reflected in Resolution No. 6571 incorporated into such plan are
hereby amended to read as follows:
Program 6A: ~ Allow the transfer of development rights from designated buildings
of historic or architectural significance (Historic Categories 1 and 2) which are
subject to historical and, where applicable, seismic rehabilitation within the
Commercial Downtown (CD) zone to non-historic receiver sites within the CD zone’]
Both sender and...
(PAGE 2 of ComErehensive Plan Resolution)
receiver sites would have to be located within the Downtown CD zoning district. The
¯ receiver sites:
1.Shall be~]~ ~ least 150 feet from residentially zoned properties ~not
including~~~iproperty in Planned Community zones or in Commercial|Zones withi~ the Downtown boundaries where m~xed-use projects are
I
Shall be subject to limitation, as specified in the zoning ordinance, on the
maximum additional floor area~,~atio which may be received and utilized
3.Shall not be sites with structures of historic or architectural significance; and
Shall be subject to applicable downtown project size
SECTION 3. The Council hereby finds that this project wil! not have a significant
effect on the environment.
SECTION 4. This resolution shall be effective upon the tldrty-first (31st) day after
its adoption¯ This delayed effective date is intended and shall be construed to provide a
sufficient period of time between adoption and the resolution and its effective date to allow
a complete and exclusive opportunity for the exercise of the referendum power pursuant to
the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Constitution of the State of California. A
referendum petition filed after the effective d ate shall be rejected as untimely.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
ORDINANCE NO.
OP, DINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AM_ENDING SECTION 18.49.060 [CD DISTRICT REGULATIONS]
AND ADDING CHAYrER 18.87 P, EGARDING
TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing held June
26, 1996, has recommended that Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as
hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after due consideration of the recommendations, finds
that the proposed amendments are in the public interest and will promote the public health,
safety and welfare, in thal existing City policies promoting preservation of designated
buildinfs of historic or architectural significanc~ and ~ seismic rehabilitation of
buildings~ will best be implemented through adoption of a Transferable Development Rights
ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORe, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does OR!3AIN as
follows:
SECTION I. Section 18.49.060 (CD District Site Development Regulations) of
Chapter 18.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.49.060 Site development regulations. The site development regulations in the
CD-C, CD-S, and CD-N subdistricts are set forth in the following matrix, provided that
more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the Architectural Review Board and
approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, pursuant to Chapter
16.48, General regulations that apply throughout the CD district are set forth in Section
18.49.040. Additional regulations for the CD-C Subdistrict are set forth in Section
I8.49.070. Additional regulations for the CD.S subdistrict am set forth in Section 18.49.080.
Additional regulations for the CD-N subdistrict are set forth in Section 18.49.090.
(’PAGE 3 of Zoning Ordinance)
beyond a FAR of~3.0 zo 1 in the CD-C subdistrict and a FAR of 2.0 to 1 in the CD-S and
CD-N subdistricts. This exception shall be allowed on a site only one. If the site or the
building is also in Historic Category I or 2, then no floor are bonus shall be granted under
this subsection unless the project also includes, to the extent not already accomplished,
historic rehabilitation conforming to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
and Guidelines for P,.ehabilitating Historic Buildings (36 CFR § 57,7).
(3) (A) When a building is in Historic Category I or h and historic
rehabilitation is performed thereon, such building shall be allowed to increase its floor area
by two thousand five hundred square feet or by twenty-five percent of the existing building,
whichever is greater, without having this increase count toward the FAR; however, all ~
~~ square footage shall be counted as square footage for the pro’poses of the three
hundred fifty thousand square foot limit on development (Section 18.49.030) and the project
size limit (Section 18.49.040(a)) and in no event shall a building expand beyond a FAR. of
3.0 to 1 in the CD-C subdistrict and a FA_R of 2.0 to !1 in the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts.
This exception shall be allowed on a site only once. Any exterior building modifications or
additions made under this subsection (b)(3) shall conform to the Secretary of Interior’s
Standards for RehabiLitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (36 CUP,
§ 67,7). If the site or the building is also in Seismic Category I, 12, or I12, then no floor area
bonus sha!l be granted under this subsection unless the project also includes, to the extent
not already accompLished, seismic rehabilitation to the analysis standards referenced in
Chapter 16,42 of this Code.
(B) Upon City Council approval, the floor area bonus described in
subsection (b)(3)(A) may be used on site in Historic Category 1 or 2 cumulatively with the
floor area bonus described in subsection (b)(2) of this Section. Such approval is
discretionary and may be granted only upon making both of the following findings: (i) the
exterior modifications for the entire project comply with the U. S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for RehabiLitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (36 ~
§ 67,7), and (ii) the on-site use of the cumulative floor area bonus would not otherwise be
inconsistent with the historic character of the interior and exterior of the building and site.
The applicant for on-site use of a cumulative floor area bonus shall have the burden of
demonstrating the facts necessary to support the findin~ required for Council approval.
(C) The floor area bonus:~ described
~’~:k~;~’;~"~;~, may ~e uanste~ed to a non-~sto~c recewer site ~t~n ~e
Do.town ~ zo~ng disNct in accordance ~th the ~nsfer of development 6~
described ~ ~e ~mprehemive Plan and ~ Chapter 18.87 of ~s Title. Such a ~fer
shall not be subject to ~e
(PAGE 4 of Zoning Ordinance)
discretionary Cou0cil approval Set forth in paragraph (B) of this subsection (b)(3).
(4) A building that is not m Historic Category 1 or 2~ nor in Seismic
Category I, lt, or llI~ shall be allowed to increase its floor area by two hundred square feet
without having this increase count toward the FAR; however, all square footage shall be
counted as square footage for the purposes of the three hundred fifty thousand square foot
limit on development (section 18.49.030) and the project size limit (Section 18.49.040(a))
and in no event shall a building expand beyond a FAR of 3.0 to 1 in the C’D-C subdi~trict
and a FAR of 2.0 to 1 in the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts. This exception shall be allowed
on a site only once.
(5) In the CD-S and CI)-N subdistlicts, (i) ....
(NO FURTHER CI:{~GES ON THIS PAGE)
(PAGE 5 of Zoning Ordinance)
(No Changes at the Top of This Page)
(3) The City may retain an expert in historic rehabilitation or preservation,
at the applicant’s expense, to provide the City with an independent evaluation of the
project’s conformity with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
(d) The floor area bonuses described in subsections (0)(2) and (3) of this Section
may be used on this site of the proposed seismic or historic r~habilitation project and a
building permit issued therefor only upon satisfaction of all of the requirements in
subsection (c) above. Upon determining that the project has been completed as approved,
the Director or Director’s designee shall issue a written certification which shall state the
total floor area bonus utilized at the site, ~ and the amount (if any) of remaining floor
area bonus which is eligible :for transfer to... (paragraph ends on Page 6)
ZUt¢-26-~. V;-’.’) =’C5., P},’.-.~!.= 321 563~~.. 8
(PAGE 7 of Zoning Ordinate)
is eligible for transfer, and (b) compliance with the transfer procedures set forth in Section
18.87.060. The City does not guarantee that at all times in the future there will be sufficient
eligible receiver sites to receive such Transferable Development Rights.
18.87.040 Eligible Receiver Sites. A site is eligible to be a receiver site only ff it meets
all of the following criteria:
(a) is located CD Co _ ercial
,.. ;~:;~.2’,~,.~"-~.,: .........~-n~’.=.~ ,~¢-:~,~.,~;, ~’~g,~,~.~.:.~.. ~. ~..~’~.-Dow to
(b) It is neither an historic site, nor a site containing a historic structure, as those
terms are defined in Section 16.49.020 (e) of Chapter 16.49 of this Code; and
(c) It is: ~ located at least one hundred fifty (150) feet from any property zoned
for residential use ~not including ~~ property in Planned Community zones or in
commercial zones within the Downtown boundaries where mixed-use projects are
18.87.050 Limitations on Usage of Transferable Development Rights. No otherwise eligible
receiver site shall be allowed to utilize Transferable Development Rights under this Chapter
to the extent such transfer would:
~: . ~ Cause any of development limitations set forth in Sections 18,49.030 and.., ~.~ ~.,_.~,~!~:~ ..........~the
18.49.040(a) of this Title to be exceeded; or
~2iCause the site to exceed 3.0 to 1 FAR in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0 to 1
FAR in the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts.
April 6, 1995
Palo Alto Planning Commission
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please accept my apologies for not testifying personally in the revised T.D.R.
ordinance, however I am out of town.
The revised ordinance does a superb job of creating a workable T.D.R. process
which is simple to use and provides the appropriate financial incentives for
buildings, which, for various reasons, can’t accommodate F.A.R. bonus on-site.
The staff has carefully drafted the amended ordinance to rationalize it with the
many existing ordinances. This is no mean feat.
i have two modifications to suggest, both dealing with "receiver sites": 1)
eliminate the 150’ radius prohibition from residentially zoned land, 2) eliminate the
25,000 square foot cap for project size.
There already exists many restrictions between the R and CD districts (i.e., light
planes, set backs, height restrictions) which safeguard the zoning interface from
abuse. This radius restriction is unnecessary and eliminates potential receiver sites.
The 25,000 square foot project cap in the CD district came about during the 1984
Downtown downzoning in response to a building boom over the prior 3 or 4 years.
It was intended to preclude the large projects and attain a smaller scale. I believe it
was an over reaction in the same context as the 350,000 square foot cap for
downtown. Any architectural jury would agree that size is a poor criteria for
attaining architectural excellence (including context). The project cap is
discriminatory of the large sites left in town and restricts the potential large
receiver sites where bonus square footage will have the least impact (visually and
parking).
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Very. t.ruty yours,
Charles :J. Keenan, Iil
/wf
ATTACHMENT 19