HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 428-09TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2009 CMR: 428:09
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action and a Tentative Map to
create six commercial condominium units within an existing office
building at 164 Hamilton A venue.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council
approve a Tentative Map to create six (6) commercial condominium units within an existing
office building at 164 Hamilton Avenue based on the findings and conditions stated in the draft
Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
BACKGROlTND
The project is to request for approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide the existing approximately
10,395 square foot three-story building at 164 Hamilton Avenue into six (6) airspace
condominium units. The drawing submitted for this application (Attachment C) contains all
infom1ation and notations required on a Tentative Map pursuant to PAMC Section 21.12.040.
The Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Title 21 do not require that the division of airspace for
condominiums be shown on the map. Because the application is a request to create more than
four condominium units, this request cannot be processed administratively, and, therefore,
requires review and recommendation by the Commission and approval by the City Council,
pursuant to PAMC 21.08.090.
DISCUSSION
The existing three-story office building at 164 Hamilton Avenue was constructed in 2006 and is
situated on an approximately 0.104 acre site in the CD-C (P) zone district as shown on the
location and zoning map (Attachment B). Three existing standard parking spaces are provided at
the rear of the building, accessed from an alleyway. Although the site is within the Downtown
Parking Assessment District, no additional parking assessments would be required since no
building additions are proposed in conjunction with this Tentative Map application.
CMR: 428:09 Page 1 of3
The Tentative Map would create six (6) "for sale" condominium units inside an existing
commercial building. Although the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Title 21 do not require that
the division of condominium airspace be shown on a Tentative Map, the applicant has indicated
that each condominium unit would approximately be 1,100 square feet in size, with two units on
each of the three floors. No exterior improvements are proposed in conjunction with this
Tentative Map application.
The use of each of the proposed condominium spaces would be required to comply with the
provisions ofPAMC Chapter 18.18 'Downtown Commercial (CD) District' and PAMC 18.30(B)
'Pedestrian Shopping Combining District.' The entire building was designed for office use, and
was approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment through the
Architectural Review Board process in 2005. The building has been leased by Facebook since
October of 2006, and was one of Facebook's main office locations in Palo Alto. Facebook
recently relocated its main offices to another location in Palo Alto, but is still the tenant of the
entire building, with its lease expiring in 2011. The proposed ground floor level condominium
units would continue to contain offices uses.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On October 28, 2009, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) voted unanimously,
recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Map. The PTC motioned to
incorporate an amendment so that item #2 under Section 3 'Tentative Map Findings' of the Draft
Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) states that the proposed Tentative Map does not
conflict with any Comprehensive Plan goals or policies. The PTC staff report and minutes from
the October 28, 2009 public hearing are included in Attachments C and D.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Approval of the Tentative Map to create six (6) airspace commercial condominium units inside
an existing building would not have economic impacts on the City.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
City staff has determined that this Tentative Map application is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code. There are no other substantive policy implications.
TIMELINE:
Action:
Tentative Map Application Received:
Tentative Map Application Deemed Complete:
Commission Meeting on Tentative Map:
Scheduled Action by Council on Tentative Map:
ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW:
Date:
October 6,2009
October 15, 2009
October 28,2009
November 16, 2009
This Tentative Map application is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (k) of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which exenlpts the subdivision of
existing commercial buildings, where no physical changes occur.
CMR: 428:09 Page 2 of3
ATTACHMENT A
APPROVAL NO. 2009-
(DRAFT) RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 164 HAMILTON AVENUE:
TENTATIVE MAP 09PLN-00239
(SPI 164 HAMILTON, LP -PROPERTY OWNER)
At its meeting on November 16, 2009, the City Council of
the City of Palo Alto approved the Tentative Map to subdivide an
existing three-story building at 164 Hamilton Avenue into six (6)
airspace commercial condominium units, making following
findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.
of 0 Alto ("City Council") finds,
The City Council of the City
determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Proposed by Ryan Amaya of Kier & Wright on behalf of
SPI 164 Hamilton, LP, this Tentative Map application involves the
subdivision of an existing office building in the CD-C (P) zone
district into airspace commercial condominium units, with no
proposed building additions or exterior improvements.
B. The Tentative Map includes information on the
sting parcel and onsite conditions. The drawing is in
compliance with the applicable provisions of the City',s Subdivision
Ordinance. The Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision
Ordinance do not require that the division of air space be shown on
the Tentative Map. The plan contains all information and notations
required to be shown on a Tentative Map pursuant to Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 21.12.040.
C. On October 28, 2009, the Planning and Transportation
Commission conducted a duly noticed publ hearing and recommended
that the City Council approve Tentative Map.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review The City as the lead
agency has determined that this Tentative Map application is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(k) of the CEQA Guidelines, which
exempts subdivision of existing commercial or industrial buildings.
SECTION 3. Tentative Map Findings.
A legislative body of a ty shall deny approval of a Tentative
Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California
Government Code Section 66474) :
1
1. That
applicable general
65451:
the proposed map is not consistent with
and specific plans as specified in Section
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. site does not
lie within a specific plan area. The land use designation in the
area of the subdivision is Regional/Community Commercial, which
allows non-retail services such as offices and banks in addition to
retail establishments and restaurants. The existing building was
constructed in 2006 and has been used as an of space. As such,
the proposal to create six (6) airspace commercial condominium
units would not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation for the site.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. There are no
Comprehensive Plan provisions that preclude the subdivision of
commercial office space.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type
of development:
This finding cannot be made in the firmative. The te is
physically suitable for the type development since it already
exists on site. The creation of the commercial condominium units
does not impact the te in any way.
4. That the te is not physically sui table for the
proposed density of development:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The te is well
suited for the proposed level of density of development in that
building already exists and the map only creates the ability for
separate ownership of portions of the existing building. The
density of development is not impacted.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habi tat:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The subdivision will
not cause environmental damage in that the subdivision only divides
the spaces within an existing building. No additional floor area or
any other exterior changes are proposed in conjunction with this
Tentative Map.
2
6. That the design the subdivision or type of
improvements likely to cause serious public health problems:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The design of the
subdivision will not cause serious health problems in that the
subdivision only divides existing spaces and any improvements
associated with the subdivision would only divide up the interior
spaces in full compliance wi th I applicable codes to ensure
publ safety.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public
at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may
approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or
for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously' acquired by the public. This
subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements
established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that
the public at large has acquired easements for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of
the existing parcel will not conflict with easements of any type.
SECTION 4. Approval of Tentative Map. Tentative Map
approval is granted by the City Council under PAMC Sections 21.13
and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject
to the provision stated in Section 6 of this Record.
SECTION 5. Parcel Map Approval.
A. A Parcel Map 1 in conformance wi th the approved
Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC
Section 21.16)1 and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 1 shall
be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works
Engineering Division within two (2) years of the Tentative Map
approval date.
B. The Parcel Map submitted for review and approval by
the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be in
substantial conformance with the Tentative Map titled, "Tentative
Map for a One Lot Subdivision for Condominium purposes" consisting
of 1 page, dated October 16, 2009. A copy of this plan is on file
in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current
Planning Division.
3
SECTION 6. Term of Approval.
Unless a Parcel Map is led within a two-year period from
the date of Tentative Map approval, or such extension as may be
granted, the Tentative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall
terminate. Thereafter, no Parcel Map shall be filed without first
processing a Tentative Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[d]).
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Those plans prepared by Kier & Wright titled, ~Tentative Map for a
One Lot Subdivision for Condominium Purposes", for 164 Hamilton
Avenue consisting of one (1) page, dated October 16, 2009.
4
accessed from an alleyway. Although the site is within the Downtown Parking Assessment District,
no additional parking assessments would be required since no building additions are proposed in
conjunction with this Tentative Map application.
The Tentative Map would create six (6) "for sale" condominium units inside an existing commercial
building. Although the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Title 21 do not require that the division of
condominium airspace be shown on a Tentative Map, the applicant has indicated that each
condominium unit would approximately be 1,100 square feet in size, with two units on each of the
three floors. No exterior improvements are proposed in conjunction with this Tentative Map
application.
The use of each of the proposed condominium spaces would be required to comply with the
provisions of PAMC Chapter 18.18 'Downtown Commercial (CD) District' and PAMC 18.30(B)
'Pedestrian Shopping Combining District.' The entire building was designed for office use, and was
approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment through the Architectural
Review Board process in 2005. The building has been leased by Facebook since October of 2006,
and was one of Facebook' s main office locations in Palo Alto. Facebook recently relocated its main
offices to another location in Palo Alto, but is still the tenant of the entire building, with its lease
expiring in 2011. The proposed ground floor level condominium units would continue to contain
offices uses.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
City staff has determined that this Tentative Map application is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code. There are no other substantive policy implications.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This Tentative Map application is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (k) of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which exempts the subdivision of
existing commercial buildings, where no physical changes occur.
TIMELINE:
Action:
Tentative Map Application Received:
Tentative Map Application Deemed Complete:
Comnlission Meeting on Tentative Map:
Scheduled Action by Council on Tentative Map:
A TT ACHMENTS:
A. Draft Record of Land Use Action
B. Location Map
C. Tentative Map (Commissioners Only)
City of Palo Alto
Date:
October 6,2009
October 15, 2009
October 28, 2009
November 16, 2009
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Attachment D
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
October 28, 2009
EXCERPT
Chair Garber: So we will go immediately to our first item, which is 164 Hamilton Avenue. A
request by Ryan Amaya of Kier & Wright on behalf of SPI 164 Hamilton, LP for a
recommendation of approval for a Tentative Map to create six commercial condominium units
within an existing office building. Does Staff have a presentation?
NEW BUSINESS
Public Hearings:
1. 164 Hamilton A venue: Request by Ryan Amaya of Kier & Wright on behalf of SPI
164 Hamilton, LP for a recommendation of approval for a Tentative Map to create six
commercial condominium units within an existing office building. Environmental
Assessment: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (k) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Zone District: CD-C(P).
Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: Very brief. I want to say that the owner, Gary
Miranda, is here and he can or cannot make a presentation. He is definitely here for questions. It
is a very simple matter. It is a Tentative Map for a commercial condominium of approximately
six units. They do not need to show how large those units are though it has been said that they
are about 1,100 square feet in size with two units on each of the three floors. There are no
exterior improvements in conjunction with this Tentative Map application. The next step is after
the Council review of this would be, as it says in the Record of Land Use Action, a parcel map
filing. So Staff is here for questions as is the property owner.
Chair Garber: Thank you. It appears we have one card, is that from the property owner, Martin
Bernstein?
Chair Garber: No, he is not the property owner. He is a member of the pUblic.
Chair Garber: I see, apologize. There are a few too many distractions up here this evening. So
why don't we hear from the one member of the public Commissioners and then we will come
back to us and if we have any questions. Martin Bernstein you will have three ~nutes.
Mr. Martin Bernstein, Palo Alto: Thank you Chair Garber and Commissioners. I am a neighbor
of this property. I fully support the Staff presentation and the Staff proposals and
recommendation for this, and urge you to vote approval. Thank you.
Chair Garber: That was succinct. Thank you very much. Commissioners, questions or
comments? Commissioner Keller and then Holman.
Page 1
1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. In terms of the draft Record of Land Use Action it mentions
2 number 2. In terms of the Tentative Map findings it is, "That the design or improvement of the
3 proposed subdivision is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans." "The
4 analysis says the finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The design is consistent with the
5 following Comprehensive Plan Policy B-7, which states, "Encourage and support the operation
6 of small, independent businesses." The condominium subdivision would create small office
7 tenant spaces within one existing office building resulting in 'for sale' spaces for smaller
8 companies to purchase and occupy."
9
10 What I am wondering is the extent to which the -let me make a distinction between the physical
11 changes to occupy smaller space and the legal changes to allow those smaller spaces to be
12 separately owned. Now I could understand how the physical changes to make separate spaces
13 occupied by six different tenants allows for smaller companies to occupy. What I am wondering
14 is what kind of small businesses are financially able to purchase one of these six units and to the
15 extent that that actually enhances the ability for the kind of office use mix we want. How does it
16 affect Downtown? What kind of businesses would be able to afford it? Is it doctor's offices? Is
17 it lawyer's offices? What kind of office space would this become based on that?
18
19 Ms. French: I might see if the property owner would like to respond as far as offering what he
20 had in mind by doing this project as far as the type of businesses he would like to have in his
21 building.
22
23 Chair Garber: May I just ask for a clarification actually from the attorney as to if this outconle
24 would have any affect on our action this evening?
25
26 Mr. Donald Larkin, Assistant City Attorney: Not unless there was a Comprehensive Plan policy
27 that discouraged this type of ownership then that would be relevant. In terms of what businesses
28 go in, as long as they are permitted in that zone then I don't think it is relevant.
29
30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller are you suspicious that there may be a conflict with the
31 Comprehensive Plan?
32
33 Commissioner Keller: I am suspicious that the claim to reason by Staff, because I assume Staff
34 wrote this paragraph, and if it wasn't written by Staff I would like to know who wrote it. I am
35 wondering about the voracity of this particular statement. I am skeptical as the degree to which
36 having ownership properties enhances Comprehensive Plan Policy B-7 or whether having rental
37 properties is more consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy B-7. Since that is the only
38 Comprehensive Plan policy cited then I am questioning the voracity of this statement.
39
40 Mr. Larkin: It may be a more relevant finding to say that there are no Comprehensive Plan
41 policies that conflict with this action. We can revise the Record of Land Use Action to reflect
42 that because you are right. There probably are many Comprehensive Plan policies that would
43 support something like this but to pull one out of a hat probably isn't appropriate. The more
44 appropriate finding is that there isn't anything that conflicts with this action.
45
Page 2
1 Chair Garber: That being the case, would that satisfy your suspicion if that were rewritten to
2 reflect that?
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Well, put it this way, to the extent to which having small office
5 ownership spaces versus small office rental spaces is enhancing of Comprehensive Plan Policy
6 B-7, if small office rental is more effective towards this then the answer might mean that it
7 would be in conflict with B-7. So that is why I think it would be helpful to get the answer from
8 the applicant.
9
10 Chair Garber: Mr. Attorney.
11
12 Mr. Larkin: Comprehensive Plan Policy B-7 doesn't say that small, independent businesses
13 must rent or that rental properties are encouraged or that ownership is encouraged. It doesn't
14 address that at all. So I think it is up to the property owner to determine. If the property owner
15 didn't think that these were viable for sale units then he wouldn't be suggesting that they
16 condominiumized.
17
18 Commissioner Keller: I actually, personally as a Commissioner, object to the Chair providing
19 legal questions for counsel. If our legal counsel believes that my question is out of line then the
20 counsel should interject his objection. However, if the counsel did not have any objection to the
21 question being answered I am not sure why the Chair wished to squelch my question.
22
23 Chair Garber: I am trying to move things along and it is my prerogative. Thank you very much.
24 Commissioner Tuma, did you want to weigh in on the topic?
25
26 Vice-Chair Tuma: Off the top of my head I can see venture capitalists, attorneys, CPAs,
27 architects, real estate firms, any variety of firms wanting for one reason or another to own a piece
28 of property instead of renting. I think there is a whole host of companies that would. In fact,
29 some people prefer to own simply because they see it as an investment and a way to park capital
30 instead of having to rent. The availability of small offices to purchase I can tell you from my
31 own experience is extremely limited.
32
33 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, did you have anything else or should we go to .....
34
35 Commissioner Keller: I actually object to this process. I object to a fellow Commissioner
36 answering a question that I actually directed to Staff and the applicant.
37
38 Chair Garber: One moment please. Would the attorney like to weigh in here? I am not
39 understanding what the problem is.
40
41 Mr. Larkin: I don't have a problem either way. If the applicant wants to answer the question the
42 applicant can answer the question. I don't think it is particularly relevant to the decision.
43
44 Chair Garber: I believe he used the word 'relevant.' Is the process out of line in some way?
45
46 Mr. Larkin: I think any Commissioner that wants to ask me a question can ask me a question.
Page 3
1
2 Chair Garber: Okay. Would you like to ask the applicant a question?
3
4 Commissioner Keller: I think I already expressed my question of the applicant. If the applicant
5 wishes me to repeat I would be happy to, but I did address my question to the applicant. I don't
6 think that the attorney objected to my asking the question of the applicant.
7
8 Chair Garber: Nor did the Chair. Would the applicant care to approach?
9
10 Mr. Gary Miranda, SPI Holdings: Our affiliate owns the property. What we are really doing is
11 just providing the flexibility for smaller businesses to buy. We are not committed to selling but
12 if that opportunity arises and I think the range of tenants or users that you mentioned are all ones
13 that we have thought of architects, real estate firms, other financial planning, and what have you.
14 Those are all very likely candidates for properties of this size. Candidly, one of the reasons that
15 we thought of it is we were going to buy a property for our own firm. It was about 15,000 feet
16 and we said what we really need is like 3,000 feet. So that though kind of helped spur this idea.
17 We think Downtown Palo Alto is kind of the ideal place for that sort of opportunity.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
20
21 Mr. Miranda: Does that answer that question?
22
23 Commissioner Keller: Yes, thank you.
24
25 Mr. Miranda: Okay, thanks.
26
27 Chair Garber: Anything else? Commissioner Holman, and then Fineberg, and Tuma did you
28 want to go again or were you just weighing in on that? Okay. Commissioner Holman.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: If you will bear with me just for a moment you will see where it is
31 going. It is number 4, that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
32 development. As a building obviously it is fine, it has been approved.
33
34 I am interested though in what conditions of approval there were. The reason for that is because
35 if because of the density of development Downtown there is no parking to speak of, I think there
36 were three parking places behind this. Then if it happens to be six different ownerships and there
37 was a TDM program for instance how could that be managed, overseen, etc.?
38
39 Ms. French: I can answer that. There was no TDM program. It went from the Craig Hotel and
40 it lost square footage to become the Facebook building. So there was no TDM that I am aware
41 of. Again, because it was a net reduction in square footage and certainly there were just the
42 parking spaces that were on the site previously.
43
44 Commissioner Holman: It is from the Craig Hotel? I am a little bit confused.
45
Page 4
1 Ms. French: Yes, it used to be the Craig Hotel and it was removed and it became the office
2 building that you see there now, back in 2006 through the ARB process~
3
4 Commissioner Holman: There are no conditions of approval that would affect this finding?
5
6 Ms. French: Julie wanted me to make sure that I mentioned that it is in the Downtown Parking
7 Assessment District. So they paid into the Parking Assessment District many years ago. What
8 was your next question?
9
10 Commissioner Holman: It is part of the same question. I understand that they paid into the
11 Parking Assessment District, so thank you for that. Were there other conditions of approval that
12 might affect this finding for the project?
13
14 Ms. French: The conditions of approval were related to the construction and completion of that
15 project per ARB plans and building permit plans.
16
17 Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you.
18
19 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg followed by Lippert.
20
21 Commissioner Fineberg: One quick note. On Attachment A, which is the Record of Land Use
22 Action, I believe there should be a note on the top of it that it is not yet approved. It is future
23 dated and I believe members of the Commission understand. But since it is going into the record
24 for the public it would be helpful when these future real proposed documents come up that the
25 proposed version of it say 'not yet approved.'
26
27 Secondly, forgive me for imperfect memory, but I would like to ask Staff whether any of the
28 proposed changes that we discussed here at Commission several weeks ago regarding the ground
29 floor retail, did any of those proposed changes affect this site? If they did, how did they?
30
31 Ms. French: This site was not among those properties that were to be changed as far as their
32 zoning. As far as the regulations related to the CD-C, because this is the CD-C(P), it is not the
33 CD-C(GF) or Ground Floor, or Ground Floor P. It is the CD-C regulations that talked about
34 having flexibility between office and other uses. So it is office now and it doesn't need to go to
35 retail. Any flexibility that we may have heard from the Commission about that Ground Floor
36 Retail Protection Ordinance is not going to adversely affect this or really affect it in any way
37 since it already an office building designed as such and used as such.
38
39 Commissioner Fineberg: Is this property within that area where we introduced the two-way
40 ratchet, that if they go to retail they can ratchet back to office later?
41
42 Ms. French: Yes it is.
43
44 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so this is an example of where that two-way ratchet clause can
45 come about and be helpful. Okay, great.
46
Page 5
1 Then another question I have about this is I understand that there is no external construction, and
2 there is no new building, there is no new addition. The subdivision within the structural work
3 inside the building is going to yield six individual units that will be used very differently than
4 one large building. Does CEQA or does prudent consideration of the Comprehensive Plan
5 require us to think about how many employees might be in the new physical build out? Or how
6 many car trips, how much traffic? Simply because there is no external construction do we ignore
7 that maybe it is going to be ten times the employees or one-tenth of the employees? Can we get
8 information and analyze that or because it is only internal are we prescribed from analyzing that?
9
10 Ms. French: Well, the first part of that question was about CEQA and CEQA considers this an
11 exempt project. So there is no environmental review. As far as real time, it is in the Downtown.
12 The build out of the Downtown was considered years ago with the Environmental Impact Report
13 as far as the maximum build out, parking needs, etc. It is Parking Assessment District. So even
14 in the building today not subdivided could have a fluctuation of office personnel or staff and we
15 wouldn't have an analysis each time they want to change, increase, or reduce staffing. So I don't
16 know if Don has anything to add.
17
18 Mr. Larkin: All that the Tentative Map is doing is allowing them to sell off airspace rights
19 within the building. So the Map itself, the action that the Commission is being asked to take
20 tonight isn't going to have an effect. In fact, as the applicant says they don't have to sell it, and
21 they may not sell it. It gives them the flexibility to sell off chunks of the air pace within the
22 building as they see fit or as there is a need.
23
24 Ms. French: I would add in the end there is a finite occupancy of the building and that would
25 have been considered originally when it was converted or when the building was built for office.
26 There is a finite fire, safety related occupancy maximum.
27
28 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, great. My last comment is in the analysis of consistency with
29 the Comprehensive Plan I was troubled in particular by the second finding used to justify
30 consistency with Comprehensive Plan. I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion but just
31 as a sort of theoretical way of thinking about findings for consistency if we are to analyze the
32 overall consistency with this document saying that it is consistent because there is one tiny-
33 weenie, little, I believe it is a policy, doesn't do justice to the substance of the shear strength and
34 importance of the Comprehensive Plan. So I was very pleased to hear what the attorney said that
35 the finding could be worded more in that there is nothing that is inconsistent or that there be
36 significant numbers of substantive polices where it is consistent. I don't think that that is
37 necessarily going to change the course on this but when the analysis comes back where we are
38 using incredibly nit-picky items to justify consistency it just doesn't pay respect to the
39 meaningfulness and the import of the document. Thank you.
40
41 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
42
43 Commissioner Lippert: First of all, I want to thank the Chair for trying to move things along
44 here, and also the applicant for keeping your presentation very brief.
45
Page 6
1 I have a several small questions that I need to ask. First of all, this is the first time I have seen a
2 condominiumization in the Downtown. I have seen this before on San Antonio Road where we
3 reviewed condominiumization of commercial office space. Are there any other buildings in the
4 Downtown that are condominium office that you know of?
5
6 Ms. French: Not that I know of. I wish Jim Baer was in the audience he may know.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: Then with regard to condominiumizing the building it doesn't preclude a
9 large office user from leasing the entire building. It just makes it a little more problematic in
10 terms of getting the individual owners together to lease their spaces. Is that correct?
11
12 So if we had another Facebook that wanted to go into say a building like this there would be no
13 problem with having one user in there, no use and occupancy issues?
14
15 Ms. French: Sure, or you could have six individual property owners renting to the same user for
16 the whole building too if it ended up going that way. The people that buy the units are not
17 necessarily going to be businesses that go in there.
18
19 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then one last question is in the past we have had like Digital, and
20 we have Facebook, and a number of other large companies that have leased individual offices
21 throughout the Downtown trying to make the Downtown their headquarters. Are there still other
22 buildings that would be conducive to this if this was taken out of the equation?
23
24 Ms. French: Yes, I can't think of an address offhand but I anl sure there are buildings in the
25 Downtown area that would lend themselves to a subdivision like this. This is a newer building
26 so it has nlore modem conveniences. I don't know if the older buildings would lend themselves
27 to subdivision.
28
29 Commissioner Lippert: So it doesn't substantively diminish the inventory of large office space
30 in the Downtown?
31
32 Ms. French: This one project doesn't and again I don't have a list of other ones but I don't know
33 of any offhand.
34
35 Commissioner Lippert: If there aren't any other speakers ...
36
37 Chair Garber: Please go ahead.
38
39 MOTION
40
41 Commissioner Lippert: I move the Staff recommendation as stated. I don't need to go through it
42 do I?
43
44 Chair Garber: You may ask if there is a friendly amendment. I suspect that perhaps
45 Commissioner Fineberg might have one.
46
Page 7
1 Commissioner Lippert: Well, I need a seconder first.
2
3 Chair Garber: Yes, you do. Is there is a second?
4
5 SECOND
6
7 Commissioner Fineberg: Second.
8
9 Chair Garber: Second by Commissioner Fineberg. Does the speaker wish to speak to their
10 motion?
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I don't see a problem with this. My only concern is that it may
13 diminish a large user building but if the individual owners of the building where to get together
14 they could very well lease the building to a single tenant if they so desired. So from an
15 ownership point of view I think it is very desirable. In fact, when it comes to Prop 13 as the
16 condominiums come up for resale they would be reappraised and would be reevaluated in terms
17 of property tax accordingly. Whereas if this was an ownership building as owners flip in and out
18 of a limited partnership there would be no turnover in terms of property tax. So I think it is very
19 desirable. I think it could work and I support what is being proposed here.
20
21 Chair Garber: The seconder?
22
23 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to propose a friendly amendment that in the Record of
24 Land Use Action in Section 2 the language be changed per the City Attorney's language
25 reflecting that there are significant programs or policies that are inconsistent.
26
27 Commissioner Lippert: I will accept that.
28
29 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. Other than that I would concur with what Commissioner
30 Lippert has said and that's it.
31
32 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, discussion?
33
34 Commissioner Keller: Yes. First, I think that the attempt to move things along actually took
35 more time than if things had been allowed to proceed at its normal pace. Secondly, let the record
36 show that this particular project is consistent with the Land Use Program L-20, which says,
37 "Facilitate reuse of existing buildings." That particular program, I am not suggesting that it be
38 added to the item, but that would have been a much better thing for Staff to reference if they
39 were referencing anything than B-7, which is not necessarily appropriate.
40
41 In any event, I think this is a reasonable thing to do. I have no objection to it with the
42 understanding that there are tenants either way and hopefully this will allow, by subdividing it
43 into smaller spaces, this will allow the building to be reoccupied faster than having to find a
44 tenant for the entire building.
45
46 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Page 8
1
2 Chair Garber: I see no more lights. We will close the public hearing. All those in favor of the
3 motion as stated say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? The motion passes unanimously. Thank
4 you very much.
5
Page 9