HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-15 City Council (4)11
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:MARCH 15, 2004 CMR: 192:04
SUBJECT:2957 WAVERLEY AVENUE: REQUEST BY CHUCK BRADLEY
FOR A PARTIAL REFUND OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
PAID IN NOVEMBER 2002 ON A SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the request for partial refund and direct
staff to introduce an ordinance clarifying the Council’s intent to make the reduced fees for
multi-family residential dwelling units smaller than or equal to 900 square feet apply
retxoactively to all applicable developments approved on or after the date the original fee
was established (January 29, 2002).
BACKGROUND
On April 8, 2002, the City Council adopted impact fees that are collected from residential
projects for the City’s parks, libraries and community center facilities. On October 7, 2002,
the City Council adopted an ordinance reducing these fees for multi-family residential
dwelling units smaller than or equa! to 900 square feet from a total of $6,930 to $3,500. The
Ordinance took effect on November 7, 2002.
One of the projects subject to the impact fees was the replacement of a single family
dwelling at 2957 Waverley of approximately 925 square feet with a new residence of
approximately 2,600 square feet and a second unit of approximately 900 square feet. The
larger unit was not subject to development impact fees because it replaced an existing home.
The second unit was subject to the fees.
The larger unit was approved in June 2002. The second unit was approved on August 26,
2002. Development impact fees were paid when the building permit was issued on
November 21, 2002. (See timeline of project approvals - Attachment A.)
On March 1, 2004 City Council considered a request by the property owner at 2957
Waverley Avenue to partially refund the impact fees paid in November 2002 because the
CMR:192:04 Page 1 of 3
lower fee for multi-family units, which took effect on November 7, 2002 did not apply to
projects approved prior to that date (CMR174:04).
DISCUSSION
When the Council considered this request on March 1, 2004, it directed staff to provide
inforrnation on the following questions:
1. Can the City legally give Mr. Bradley a refund, and if so, how?
The Council can act on Mr. Bradley’s request by adopting an ordinance clarifying its intent
to make the reduced fees apply retroactively to all applicable developments approved on or
after the date the original fee was established (January 29, 2002). A draft copy of such an
ordinance is attached as Attachment B.
How many projects were similarly affected by the fee’change?
Five residential projects were subject to the higher fees. These are listed below:
Address
2957 Waverley Avenue
727 Addison
124 Emerson
2051 E1 Camino Real
Table 1
Description Fees Paid?
2nd unit Yes
2nd unit Yes
2nd unit attached to garage Yes
2 units (part of a mixed use project)No
3. What is the total fee difference if the reduced fees were retroactively applied to all
similar projects approved on or after January 29, 2002?
The difference is $3,430 per unit ($6,930 - $3,500)’. Applied to all five residential units the
total amount is $17,150 ($3,430 x 5 units).
4. If Council adopts the proposed ordinance retroactively applying the reduced fees,
how will it be implemented?
If the Council chooses to adopt the proposed ordinance, upon its effective date, staff will
issue partial refunds to the applicants listed above who paid impact fees based on the higher
fee amounts. The applicant at 2051 E1 Camino Real has not yet paid impact fees on that
project. If the project is built as approved, staff would apply the reduced fees.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The resource impact of retroactively applying the reduced fee amounts is $17, 150. Payment
would be made from the impact fee funds designated for parks, libraries and community
centers.
CMR: 192:04 Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENTS
A.Timeline of Project Approvals
B.Draft ordinance
B.Minutes of City Council Meeting, September !7, 2002.
PREPARED BY:
Special Counsel
EMSLIE
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
"HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
cc: Chuck Bradley
CMR:192:04 Page 3 of 3
Time Line Of Project Approvals Relative to Council’s Impact Fee Actions In 2002
Limited to projects with units of 900 square feet or less
Janua~ 29, 2002
March 25, 2002
April 2002
May 2002
Projects with one or more
900 s.f. unit or cottage Counci! Action
Effective date of Impact fees
Impact fees adopted for parks, libraries and
cormnuniW centers
727 Addison approved April 19
(paid impact fees 10/02)
Application for cottage at 2957
Waverley
Application for replacement home
at 2957 Waverley May 20
Permit issued & fees paid on
124 Emerson May 29 (cottage)
2051 E1 Camino approved May 31
(2 units part of a mixed use project,
not yet built)
June 2002
July 16, 2002
August 2002
October 7, 2002
October 10, 2002
November 21, 2002
Replacement home at
2957 Waverley approved June 20
Finance Committee recommends reduced fee
for multi-family units, including cottages, up
to 900 square feet in size.
Cottage approved at
2459 Waverley August 26
Council reduced impact fees on multi-family
units 900 square feet or less from $6,930 to
$3,500. By law the fee applies to projects
approved after November 7, 2002.
Fees paid on 727 Addison
$6,930 Impact fees paid on cottage
at Waverely
$0 paid on the replacement home at
Waverley
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4763, RELATING TO THE
IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES ON RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS SMALLER
THAN OR EQUAL TO 900 SQUARE FEET.
RECITALS
A. On April 8, 2002, the City, Council adopted Ordinance No. 4742,
amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code by adding Chapter 16.58 establishing
development impact fees to be imposed on new development for the purpose of funding
parks, community centers and libraries (the "~fees"). The fees applied to all applicable
development receiving discretiona~ approva! or a building permit on or after Janua~ 29,
2002.
B. On October 7, 2002, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4763,
amending sections 16.45.050. 16.47.030 and 16.58.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
to create certain exemptions from the fees (the ~Ordinance").
C. The Ordinance also amended the Municipal Fee Schedule by modi~,ing
the amounts of the fees.
D. The Ordinance modified the fees for multi-family residential dwelling
units smaller than or equa! to 900 square feet by reducing such fees to the following
amounts: parks - $2,634; community centers - $630; and libraries - $236. These fee
reductions were not specified to be retroactive, so they took effect on November 7, 2002,
the effective date of the Ordinance.
E. It was the intent of the City Council, in adopting the Ordinance, to hax~e
these fee reductions for multi-family residential dwelling units smaller than or equal to
900 square feet apply retroactively to all applicable developments approved on or after
the date the original fee was established (JanuaD; 29, 2002). This Ordinance clarifies that
intent.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 4763, including the amendments to the Municipal
Fee Schedule adopted by that Ordinance, is amended to reflect that the fees for the
purpose of funding parks, community centers and libraries, established by Ordinance No.
4763 for multi-family residential units smaller than or equal to 900 square feet, shall take
effect on JanuaD, 29, 2002.
SECTION 2.
force and effect.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
Other than amended above, Ordinance No. 4763 remains in full
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Senior Assistant City Attorney Ci~ Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Enviromnent
Director of Administrative Services
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16
AND BROADCAST ON KZSU, 90.1 FM.
Special Meeting
September 17, 2002
Subject: Conference w_uh Poqice Chief Regarding Security of
City Facilities ............................................404
.~DJOU~NT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m ..................404
ORAL C0_MLMU~iCATiONS .............................................405
APPROVAL OF M!~,’-t~TES .............................................405
Request for Authorzuy to Participate" as Ar0,icus Curiae in
California Court of Appea! Case Border Business Park, inc.
v. City of San Diego .......................................406
°Emp!ol~ment Agreement for Code Enforcement Services with
Lance Bayer ................................................406
°Authorization of the Counci! of the City of Palo Alto to
the City Attorney’s Office to Enter Into Contracts with
Outside Entities To Provide Lega!, Consulting and Training
Services ...................................................406
Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation
Subject: Wei Waig and Weyyi Wang v. City of Pa!o Alto, et
a!.; SCC# CV802799 .........................................406
o PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider
modifications to Pa!o Alto PIunicipa! Code section 18.32.070
regulating the height of solid wa~!s or fences required to
be constructed and maintained on properties within the
Public Facilities (PF) zone where the property abuts any
residentially zoned property. The existing re_cfuirement is
that the height of the wall or fence be within the range of
five and eight feet. The modification to be considered
would provide for the maximum height to be within a range
of eight feet to ten feet where the additiona! height is
needed for mitigation of enviros~enta! im_macts resulting
from the use of the Public Facilities zoned property .......407
7.PUBLIC HE~!ING: The City Council will consider changes to
deve!opment impact fees ....................................414
09/17/02 94-402
COU~CiL COF!MENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ~_NNOUNCE~NTS ..................420
8. (Old Item No. 5) Conference with City Attorney -- Existing
Litigation Subject: Jaim Nulman, Ave!yn We!czer v. City of
Pa!o Alto, SCC #CV77983! ...................................420
ADJOURNHENT: The meeting, adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:40
p.m ........................................................420
FINAL ~JOU~W-MENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. in honor
of Dan Logan, Executive Director of Midpeninsu!a YM_CA, for
a speedy recovery from a recent bicycle accident ...........420
09/17/02 94-403
The ~’~-_~!~y Council of the City of Pa!o Alto met on this date in
the Cubber!ey Community Theatre, Room M3, 4000 Middlefieid Road,
at 6:05 p.m.
PP~SENT:Beecham._ ..0 Butch._ __, Freeman, Kishimoto, K!einberg, Lvtle.
Morton (arrived at 6:45 p.m.), 0jakian
ABSENT: Mossar
’-~ TCLOSED S~SS~0N
Subject: Conference with Police Chief Regarding Security of
City Facilities
Authority: Government Code section 54957
The ~," ~ .....~ met ~ Closed C=~sion to d~=~s m=~=~
involving Security of City Facilities as described in Agenda
item No. i.
Mayor Ojakian announced that no reportable action was taken on
Agenda Item No. i.
ADJOURN~ENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
09/17/02 94-404
Special Meeting
September 17, 2002
~h=City ~ou~7 of ~he ’~.........~ C!~y of Pa!o Alto met on this date in
the Cubberley Community Theatre, 4000 Midd!efie!d Road, at 7:10
p.m.
PRESENT:Beecham, Butch, Freeman, Kishimoto, K!einberg, Lyt!e,
Morton, Ojakian
ASSENT: Mossar
Mayor 0jakian requested that the meeting be adjourned in honor
D!_ecuor of Midpeninsula YHCA, for aof Dan Logan, Executive ’r ~
speedy recovery from his recent bicycle accident.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding the Bress!er property
auction on October i0, 2002.
Bumpy Good, P.O. Box 82a spoke regarding ~.__, ~__e Homer Tunne!
Lynn Chiape!!a, 631 Co!orado Avenue, spoke regarding zoning
litigation and a need for a Zoning Administrator.
Mark Lawrence, 446 Marion Way, spoke regarding traffic problems.
APPROVAL OF MIi~CTES
HOTiON: Counci! Member Morton moved, seconded by Butch, to
approve the minutes of July 8 and 15, 2002, as submitted.
HOTiON PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
HOTZON: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Beecham, to
approve item Nos. 1-3 on the Consent Calendar.
council Member Freeman requested that Consent Calendar items
have complete information so the public could get questions
answered through the packet rather than needing to ask.
~MiNIST~hTIVE
09/17/02 94-405
Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in
California Court of Appea! Case Border Business Park, Inc.
v. City of San Diego
Lyrun Chiape!!a, 631 Co!orado Avenue, urged the Council not to
vote on something they did not understand.
o Employment Agreement for Code Enforcement Services with
Lance Bayer
o Authorization of the Counci! of the City of Pa!o Alto to
the City Attorney’s Office to Enter Into Contracts with
Outside Entities To Provide Lega!, Consulting and Training
Services
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Hossar absent.
Council Member Morton would not particimate in Item No. 4 due to
a conflict of interest because he was the Founder of Community
Skating, Inc.
MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Beecham, to hear
C!osed Session Item No. 5 later at the end of the agenda to
become Item No. 8.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent.
The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 7:30 p.m.
4.Conference wit~ City Attorney -- Existing Litigation
Subject: Wei Wang and Weyyi Wang v. City of Pa!o Alto, et
a!.; SCC# CV802799
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said he hoped the Council would take
to heart comments noted in the City Attorney’s staff report.
The City Counci! met in C!osed Session to discuss mat~e_s~ r
involving existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 4.
Mayor 0jakian announced that no reportable action was taken on
Agenda Item No. 4.
The Ciu~ ~ounc!l reconvened at 7:45 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
09/17/02 94-406
o PUBLIC HEARING: The City Counci! will consider
modifications to Paio Alto Municipal Code section 18.32.070
regulating the height of solid walls or fences required to
be constructed and maintained on properties within the
Public Facilities (PF) zone where thep_omer~y~ _ ~ abuts any_
residentially zoned property. The existing requirement is
that the height of the wall or fence be within the range of
five and eight feet. The modification to be considered
would provide for the maximum height to be within a range
of eight feet to ten feet where the additiona! height is
needed for mitigation of envirom_menta! impacts resulting
from the use of the Public Facilities zoned property.
City Attorney Ariel Ca!or~_e said staff was asking the Council to
amend the Pa!o Alto Municipal Code (P~C) to assure the law was
clear at the time the trial court heard the case. Under
California !awj the relevant rules on cases, such as the one
being presented, were the ones in effect at the time the matter
was heard by the Court. Staff’s recommendatgon that the Counci!
choose that route did not indicate the Counci! action was
unlawful. He believed the Council had the power to re_quire a 10-
foot sound mitigation wa!l. The Public Facility (PF) zoning
required a wal! between 5 to 8 feet in height a!ong common
property lines. That wal! would provide a minim’~m level of
protection for neig_hbors from the PF use. The Council had
evidence that a wa!l higher than 8 feet would be useful in
reducing the fair amount of noise from the outdoor skating
facility and the use of the tennis court.
Director of Planning and Community and Enviromiment Steven Emslie
said the proposed !egi$!ation would end an apparent conflict, as
described by the City Attorney, and would provide clarity to
staff when imm! ~{ .in_ emen~_ng mitigation measures Staff was
support of the legislation.
Vice-Chair of the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC)
Bonnie Packard explained the actions of the Planning and
Transportation Co~mission (P&TC) meeting held in August 2002.
The P&TC members looked at the Ordinance change to see if it
made sense and could be applied to any situation. There was
concern about the procedural questions being raised and whether
staff should look further into the fence ordinance before moving
forward. The P&TC approved moving forward with the proposed
change to the ordinance in a 4-2 vote.
Natalie Fisher, 736 E!lsworth Place, said changing the law after
the judgment was filed seemed unfair and unethica! to many
people in the City and was a poor precedent to set. She urged
the Counci! not to let the wall height for Price Court residents
09/17/02 94-407
affect the need for a i0-foot sound wall for E!isworth
residents.
Louise Herring, 3945 Nelson Drive, said she purchased her house
in 1978 when Cubber!ey was a functioning high school behind her
back fence. She had to replace and repair her 6-foot fence
twice ~ ~=~h ~ City nor the Pa!o Alto nn~ed Schoo!
District (PAUSD) was willing to contribute to its replacement.
The entire area surrounding the Cubberley site consisted of
Eichler homes. Eich!er homes were 8 to !0 feet in height and
could not ~-~=nd~e~ a ~0-~uo~~ ~- ~ f~±~ on its ~perEy _line wi~ho~
obstructing the homeowners’ view of the f!oor-to-ceiling glass
at the back of their home.
John K. ~raham, 736 Ellsworth Place, said the neighbors in his
area wanted a !0-foot wall along the Ellsworth Cana! Masonry as
previously directed by the City Counci!.
Lym_n Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, expressed opposition to the
site for a private ter_nis club and park, which the neighbors
could not use. A !0-foot wall would block a!l possible sun to
Eich!er homes in the -’ ~ rwmn~e_. She suggested putting the 10-foot
wal! several feet on the other side of the existing trees to
leave a little landscape and fence cover.
Robert Gsossman, 3036 Price Court, said he was appalled the City
wanted to change the present ordinance. He believed the City
must consider all reasonable options.
Gi! Walker, 3029
property.
Price Court,supported Wei Wang and her
Laura Agigian, 3030 Price Court, said she was dismayed the City
had opted to change an ordinance to dismiss valid concerns of
one of its residence. The wall would affect the _ouality of life
for the Wang’s.
Roberta London, 3019 Price Court, said she was disturbed at the
sound of trees being-chopped down on the other side of Hs.
Wang’s fence. She would have preferred an 8-foot wal! put on the
other side of the trees, which she believed would help buffer
the noise. She.was opposed to the proposed legislation.
Grace R. Butler, 3024 Price Court, concurred with the comments
made by Ms. London.
Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, said she was never given the
opportunity to discuss with the City Attorney other ways to
mitigate noise im_macts on adjacent residents,other than
09/17/02 94-408
changing the law. To moot the lawsuit, City staff violated a
notice of hearing code, because none of her neighbors were
notified of the public hearing before the P&TC on August 21,
2002. She believed the intention of the ordinance change was to
single-out an individual residentia! property owmer.
Audrey Sullivan Jacobs, 245 Lytton Avenue, said she had been
representing Community Skating, inc. (CSI) for the past two
years to provide a top-rate tennis facility at the former Chuck
Thompson Swim Club. Al! of the residents who lived on Price
Cou_~ opted for an 8-foot sound wall except for Ms Wan~ She
urged the Counci! to adopt the amended ordinance so that the CSI
tennis project could proceed.
Loren Broom_, 334 Kingsley Avenue, concurred with the comments
made by Ms. Sullivan Jacobs and supported the proposal to modify
the ordinance to permit a 10-foot sound wall.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, urged the Council to let the tria!
court make a decision without changing the ordinance.
Linda Jensen, 3009 Midd!efie!d Road, urged the Council to amend
the Code to allow for a 10-foot sound wal! where appropriate.
The code amendment would bring an end to a long cycle of delays
for the CSI tennis project. She said CSI had agreed to install
whatever facilities and walls the City determined were desired
and re~@ired.
Weyyi Wang, 3054 Price Court, urged the Council to remove the
item from that evening’s agenda because of the following:
o
The proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance wasnot
exempt from the California Envirosimental Quality Act
(CEQA).
The 12-day hearing notice, re_c!uired by the P~C, wasnot
provided for the P&TC meeting on the proposed amendment.
The P&TC did not have a separate meeting to initiate a
change to the zoning ordinance.
Counci! Member Jack Morton participated in the public
hearing held before the P&TC meeting on August 21, 2002, in
violation of the conflict of interest provisions of the
Politica! Reform Act.
The public hearing notice for the P&TC meeting held on
August 21, 2002, violated the Brown Act for agenda
description.
Chuck Bradley, 2957 Waverley Street, said he represented ~
Pa!o Alto Tennis Club in 1991, and wrote the initia! proposal.
He urged the Council to move forward with the proposed
09/17/02 94-409
legislation, although he offered a partial solution. He worked
c!osely with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and
was aware the floodwa!is a!ong Matadero Creek were being raised,
which could absorb some of the sound. He suggested that City
staff contact the SC~ND’s Senior Project Manager Leyan Lee.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orm. e Street, said if the Council agreed to adopt
the ordinance changes, a compromise should be made. He suggested
the sound wal! on Price Court remain less than 8 feet in height,
and the language in Section 2 of the Ordinance be modified to
~= sound wall "may be or ~ be"~~=~ on the
property line.
Jan Van der Laan, Board of Directors o~ Winter Lodge, 3090 Ross
Road, recalled that Ms. Wang initially argued vehemently in
favor o~ the sound wal! and wanted it to be higher than !0 feet.
it was only after the Winter Lodge obtained the lease for the
~e~ chat she ~ ....~ her ~ ~wa!~ a~ was ~sed ~ ~=~
Council Member Beecham asked the City Att6rney whether anything
in the information received that evening would prevent the
Council from taking action on the staff recommendation.
Mr. Calorm_e said no.
MOTIOn: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Lytle, to
introduce an ordinance for first reading amending Pa!o Alto
Municipa! Code section 18.32.070, with a change on page ! of the
ordinance, Section 2, paragraph 2, !0:h line, after the word
"site," to add the language "and as approved by the Counci! on a
case by case basis.."
Ordinance !st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Pa!o Alto Amending Title 18 (Zoning)Chapter
18.32 (PF Public Facility District Regulations),Section
18.32.070 (Specia! Conditions), Subsection (A) (2)of the
Pa!o Alto Municipa! Code to Modify the Fencing Requirements
in the Public Facilities District"
Council Member Beecham said the proposed amendment to the
legislation was not revisiting the policy made by the Counci!
one year prior. That policy set a number of mitigations for the
Winter Lodge and what needed to be done to take care of noise
and other issues. The present ordinance would allow staff to
implement that policy more fully. There were concerns by the
public whether it was fair to enact an ordinance one year after
setting u~ Do!icy. He believed the policy previously set, and
the ordinance being voted on that evening, would not change what
had already been approved for any particular neighbor.
09/17/02 94-410
¯ Council Member Lytle believed the intent of the City was to put
=n~o pub!Tc ......~4~7 use. The City n==d~athe property back ~ ~’ .................
to do the best it could to achieve C_uv Do!icy. She supported
the motion.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether staf9 could clarify the
conditions of use, as related to the hours of operation for the
tennis courts and lighting.
Mr.Calorn~_e said the conditions of the use pe_rmit approved by
A~erwaras, a letterthe Counci! were subsequently abandoned.
was sent to CSI d~recting compliance with the major cond±u!ons,
as required by the lease. Those conditions included hours of
operation limitations, remova! of the security lighting to
prevent im_mroper nighttime use, and posting of a 24-hour contact
number.
Council Me_mber Kishimoto questioned whether trees had been
removed in ~r ~._ _~_r_onu of Ms Wang’s property. She said the PP Zoning
required a !0-foot landscaped buffer.
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said as part of the
Conditional Use Permit there were two rows of landscaping to be
included in front of the new sound wal!. Some of the existing
trees would remain and others were approved for remova!.
Council Member Kishimoto asked the C_uy Attorney for a response
to ~:-al!egau±ons raised by Mr. Borock in his letter to the
Council.
Mr. Caiom~e said the .Planning Division acknowledged the PT&C
public hearing notice did not have the customary !2-day notice.
However, under State law the meeting was noticed properly and,
if the error was not prejudicial, it did not provide grounds for
overturning the decision. He said that another concern had to do
with the propriety of a variance. He would be more concerned
about the Council attempting to grant a variance on the basis
that the property was uniquely situated than on a code
amendment. The purpose of the sound wall was to mitigate what
was claimed to be a significant environmenta! im.mact. If the
ordinance ~mendment were used again, the City would have to go
through an environmenta! review process.
Council Member Kishimoto commented in the future she hoped that
City staff would comply with the public hearing requirements.
She also said mitigations could also cause enviros~ental
impacts.
09/17/02 94-411
Mr. Ca!onne clarified that a noticing defect made sense if the
government was attempting to hide what they were trying to do.
He was proud of the open and direct manner in which st=ff had
communicated the situation to the public and the Counci!.
~_MENDMENT: Counci! Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Freeman,
that the PF zoning state ~any solid wal! or fence between 5 to 8
feet sha!l be maintained with a landscape screen, and change PF
Zoning so that could be within a buffer zone."
~==~ .....~7 Member Beecham encouraged his col7===~=s ......no make the. PF
zoning change at the Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU). He reca!led
a previous discussion on the issue, which questioned the
location of the wal!. The concern then was not to have it
inboard because there was a section of land that could not be
maintained, it was agreed to put the fence on the property line
for that purpose. The ordinance before the Counci! stated, "the
....77 should b .... ~ .... ÷=m =~m ~=~e=~=m =7~ the ..... ’
line." That language was in the pre-existing ordinance and was
not recommended for change. He was uncdmfortable making the
change that evening.
Council Member Lytle commented as the wall was moved off public
property, it diminished the public’s right of use. There was a
potentia! for giving public land to private purpose, which the
City did not have the right to do.
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECONDER
~!KEh~MENT: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Freeman,
to direct staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission
to review placement of sound walls in PF Zones, whether on the
property line or in the buffer zone.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the change in the ordinance
that was not highlighted was exempt from being discussed or
modified that evening.
Mr. Calonne said the P_~C allowed the Council to modify zoning
ordinance regulations, i9 the issue related to a boundary change
or Com_mrehensive Plan (Comp Plan) change, then it would need to
be sent back to the P&TC. In the current case, he did not
believe that needed to be done.
Council Member Freeman said it was in the interest of public
trust for the City to adhere to the policies, codes, and
practices that had been adopted and abided by. She asked whether
lawfu! co.mp!iance to the California Environmenta! Quality Act
(CEQA) overruled City ordinances.
09/17/02 94-412
~r. Ca!onne said he did not believe so. Environmental law
re~aired some other source of power to make its recommendations
happen. The fact that a !0-foot sound wal! was recommended did
not independently authorize the Council to do so.
Council Member Freeman asked whether CEQA co~mliance required a
!0-foot sound wall if the City did not have it presen~!y listed
in the ordinance.
~r. Ca!onne said he did not believe that just because ~_e P_<MC
re~ired 8 feet~_~ could not extend higher. The Counci! had the
policy power in deve!oping conditiona! use permits to impose
reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the
public.
Council Member Freeman said she would like to add a condition
that anytime a !0-foot wa!l was considered around a PF zoned
property, the Counci! would need to address it, there would be
public hearings, and it would not be allowed through p!ar~_ing
alone.
Council Member Butch said ~-~ hoped the decision .... made that
evening would resolve the issue. He supported the motion.
Council Member K!einberg said the CSI had put forth many
mitigated measures. Nine years prior, the Counci! thought it was
an important project for the community and for the youth. She
supported the motion.
mormon He expressed concern about~ayor Ojakian supported the ~’ .
changing the fence ordinance in PF zones and having 10-foot
walls put up.
Council Member Freeman said there should be flexibility given to
have the wa!l moved within the buffer zone instead of directly
on the property line, as a mi~’~ ~’ .~a~on to the property owner
Mr. Ca!onne asked whether the desired flexibility was in the 10-
foot provision or the entire ordinance.
Counci! Member Kishimoto said it applied to any wall.
Council Member Freeman said it gave the option for the fence to
be _oca~ed at the mrome_~v ]{he or in the buffer zone.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the intent of the ~mo~.on
was to imnact the Price Court and Eilsworth properties.
09/17/02 94-413
Council Member Kishimoto said yes.
Council Member Beecham said he would .not support the amendment
because there were too many unanswered questions.
Counci!Member Lyt!e said she would not support the amendment
~I~~ had not been fully analyzed.
Counci! Member Butch was opposed to the amendment.
Council MeK~er Kleirioerg said the amendment was too complicated
to support without input from the Planning staff.
INCORPORATED iNTO THE MOTION BY THE MAKER AND THE SECONDER to
direct ~ ~=suar~ to look at introducing flexibility into the PF Zone
to allow for the siting of the sound wall.
"not participating," Mossar absent.
MAIN MOTION PASSED 7-0,Morton ....’ ’ ~ "nou parulc!pau=ng,Hossar
absent.
MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by Kishimoto,
that staff review sound wall situations in PF Zones but not
associated with this particular issue.
Counci! Member Lyt~e said she would not support the ~-mo ~±on
because she could not see the pres ~_eo_~ circumstance arising in
the near future.
Counci! Member Kleinberg asked whether the motion could be
looked at as part of the ZOU.
Mayor 0jakian affirmed that staff said yes.
MOTION PASSED 5-2, Beecham,Ojakian "no,"Morton "not
participating," Mossar absent.
RECESS: 9:30 to 9:40 p.m.
7.PUBLIC HE~ING: The City Counci! wil! consider changes to
deve!opment impact fees.
Council__ Member Kleim~erg stated she would_ not m_art~c~_ate- -m in the
item due to a potential conflict of ~nterest because her
husband’s law firm represented Stanford in land use matters.
09/17/02 94-414
Mayor Ojakian said the proposa! before the Council was a
~o~t~m~±~on from the Finance Committee.
Council Member Butch, said as Chair of the Finance Committee,
the Counci! adopted ordinances related to the deve!opment impact
fees in March 2002 and then referred the matter to the Finance
Committee for further study on a number of issues. The Finance
Comm_~tee voted 4 0 to exempt new childcare facilities from
development im_mact fees for parks, community centers, and
libraries. The vote was 4-0 to establish a category of large new
~== ~=~=~ ~ ~ s~@ ~r= ~e=~, and to mod{fy the
Municipal Fee Schedule (MFS) to increase the fee charge to that
category of homes to the ful! recovery leve!. Additionally, the
Committee voted in agreement to establish a new category of
smal! multi-family units less than 900 square feet, and modify
the HFS to decrease the fee charge for that category of homes.
Although the~==~ were not large, _~ message was se~t ...... of ~
preference to discourage large homes and encourage smaller
buildings The vote was 4-0 to d~_ec~ an Envirom:menta! impact
Report (EIR) for new deve_opm~n~ in the Stanford Research Park
to include an analysis of a range of t_ansmor~azmon mitigation
__. C~±~ acknowledged thereand traffic calm{ng measures The - -~==
was a nexus study for cit~wide transportation im_mact fees, which
would evaluate alternative transportation ~ ~~__mp:ovemenus plam~ed
for completion in 2003. The vote was 3-1 to establish a one-time
!,500-square-foot per site exemption from i~Dact fees for new
space, which, by law, could only be used for retail, restaurant,
automotive, or personal service. The Finance Committee did not
_a~e (BMR) ’~_ un! u svote to expand the exemption for below market ~ ~
because they ~_u it was not appropriate to reward developers
for including units tha~ were already required.
Chuck Bradley, 2957 Waverley Street, said he strongly
recommended the C_uy Council exemDt single-gami]y homes from the
ordinance because it was an excessive financial burden.
Deborah Ju, 371 Whitciem Drive, urged the Counci! to eliminate
an exemption to the current provision governing deve!opment
im.mact fees, which provided that mixed-use projects had to pay
either the commercia! development impact fee or the residentia!
BMR or in-lieu fee, whichever was greater. The looseness of the
mixed-use provision made it vulnerable to spurious claims and
led to the !oss of a great deal of money to the City’s housing
trust fund.
Mark Sabin, 533 Alberta Avenue, Sunn~-~a!e, said the multi-family
units of 900 s~dare feet or less would only provide a two-
bedroom home, which did not allow for much of a family. He urged
the Council to increase the square-footage for multi-family
09/17/02 94-415
units. He said the idea of including an analysis of a range of
transportation mitigation and traffic calming measures for the
Stanford Research Park was nebulous. He wondered how the
established range would be determined.
MOTION:Counci! Member Butch moved, seconded by Kishimoto,
approva!of the Finance Committee recommendation to:
!.introduce the ordinance for first reading to:
Establish = one-time 1,500 square-foot per site
exemption from impact fee for new space which, by
law, could only be used for retai!, restaurant,
automotive, or persona! service;
Exempt new chi!dcare facilities from development
impact fees;
Establish a category of large new homes as those
greater than 3,000 square feet, and modify the
Municipa! Fee Schedule to increase the fee
charged for this category of homes to the full
cost-recovery level;
Establish a category of smal! multi-f=mily units
as being those 900 square feet or less and modify
the Municipa! Fee Schedule to decrease the fee
charged for this category of homes.
o Direct that an Environmental Impact Report (EiR) for
new development in the Stanford Research Park include
an analysis of a range of transportation mitigation
and traffic calming measures.
Ordinance is: Reiding entitled "Ordinance 6f the Council of
the City of Palo Alto ~ending Sections !6.45.050,
16.47.030 and 16.58.030 of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code to
Create Certain Deve!opment Impact Fee Exemptions"
Council Member Kishimoto said the Finance Committee’s message
was in support of local-serving retai!, encouraging smaller
residentia! units, and ensuring the traffic im_mact fees were not
limited to widening intersections, but also allowed their use
for alternative transportation.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Beecham, to
encourage be!ow market rate (BMR) units by exemption of
deve!opment im_mact fees.
Counci! Member Butch said he did not want to incorporate the
exe.mption of BHR units into the motion.
09/17/02 94-416
Counci! Member Lyt!e said she would like the Council to look at
the mixed-use exemption provision raised by Ms. Ju.
Counci!Member Beecham agreed
possible to encourage B~ units.
that the C_ uy do everything
Council Member Morton said the City did not encourage B~£R units,
it required them; generally for a greater density. He did not
believe deve!opers would build BPLR units if the fees were not
required, and it seemed financially irresponsible to surrender
fees o4 ~ ~=~=~=~
Council Member Kishimoto said the only possible compromise would
be to exempt the deve!oper impact fees on BMAR units over and
above any statutory requirements.
Council Member Morton said he was not opposed to that, because
the C_uy would receive a bene~u that was not a legislative
requirement.
sh!mouo "yes K!einberg "notAMENDMENT FAILED 2-5, Beecham, Ki ’ ~,"
participating," Mossar absent.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Butch, to
exempt below market rate (B}LR) units that are included in a
m-o3ec~ over and above Palo A_~o statutory remu~rements
AMENDMENT PASSED 7-0,
absent.
Kleinberg "not participating," Mossar
.~MENDMENT: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Lytle, to
request staff to return to Council with a revision of mixed-use
deve!opment im_nact fees per Palo Alto Municipal Code section
16.47.040 so that each portion of the project was responsible
for its appropriate share mf the impact fees.
Council Member Lvt!e said as with all_u__e im_mact fees the City
had adopted, the commun!uy had been asked whether they believed
_ ’ oro~ab~litythe fees were overly burdensome and ~f somehow the _
had been removed.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the City had two distinct sets
of housing fees. The ~ one that Ms. Ju mentioned applied to
commercial and industrial projects, and was found in the zoning
code. The one in the Comp Plan applied to housing projects. The
Palo Alto Municipa! Code (P.~MC) stated that on mixed-use
projects, the housing fees were based on the average of the two
projects, and it did exempt half of the project.
09/17/02 94-417
Council Member Morton said that exemption was what the Council
would like staff to review.
Director of Planning and Community Envirom~nent Stephen Emslie
clarified that staff was directed to return to the Council with
changes to the housing fee so the shares of mixed-use projects
attributable to com_mercia! fees and residentia! fees paid the
appropriate amounts of each, without averaging or exempting
those fees.
Council Member Morton said that was correct.
Hr. Ems!ie said staff would try to incorporate the changes to
the housing fees with those related to the BPLR program already
scheduled to return to the Counci!.
AMENDMENT PASSED 7-0,
absent.
Kleinberg ~not participating,~ Hossar
AMENDMENT: Council Member Beecham moved, ~econded by Kishimoto,
to establish 1,500-square-foot units for one-time deve!opment
i~mact fees and exempt al! ground f!oor commercial units.
Council Member Beecham said the purpose of the amendment was to
encourage a strong ground f!oor element within the community.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the exemption was limited
to zoning, which re_quired ground f!oor retai!, or did it also
include ground f!oor retai! that could be converted to other
uses.
Counci! Member Beecham said he wanted to limit it to those areas
that required ground f!oor uses.
Counci! Member Morton opposed the amendment because the benefit
of ground floor retail went to the o~er of the building, not
the tenant.
Council Member Kishimoto asked the maker of the amendment
whether the intention was to limit the exemption fees for ground
floor retai! to a permanent re_cfuirement or easement.
Counci! Member Beecham said his intention was to have the
exemption apply only to those areas that required ground f!oor
retai!.
Counci!~Member Butch clarified the amen6ment on the floor was an
exemption of al! ground f!oor retai!.
09/17/02 94-418
AM~ID~NT FAILED 2-5, Beecham, Kishimoto "yes," Kleinberg ."not
participating," Mossar absent.
Counci! Member Beecham was opposed to the main motion because it
discriminated against future residents of Pa!o Alto. He believed
the discrimination was exacerbated by Proposition 13, which
assured that those who moved to Pa!o Alto and built something
new, would pay far more in property taxes than the current
residents did. The proposed reductions brought forth from the
Finance Committee would make a difference of approximately
benefit or detriment.
Council Member Lyt!e said the Finance Committee was attempting
to reduce impact fees through a series of exemptions.
~.~-~MENT: Counci! Member Freeman moved, seconded by Lyt!e, to
direct staff to return with a status report on development
impact~s~== for new develomment_ for sto_~m drains and the
possibility of a "Percent for Art" fee.
Council ~emmer Freeman said she was the liaison for the Blue
Ribbon Storm Drain Committee and was recently made aware that
new deve!opment fees for storm drains was a common fee in other
municipalities. She believed it was something Pa!o Alto might
want to examine. ~Percent for Art" was previously mentioned as a
way for the City to contribute to public art. She suggested
staff evaluate the possibilities of those issues.
Council Member LvtT= asked the maker of the motion whe~he~ the
request of staff could be modified to a status repo_~ on the
issues.
Council Member Freeman said she would accept the change.
Council Member Morton requested the item on storm drains be
deferred until the issue came back to the Council.
A~E~MENT FAILED 3-4, Freeman, Kishimoto, Lytle "yes," KleiN~erg
"not participating," Hossar absent.
~4AIN HOT!ON PASSED AS AM~TD~D 6-1, Beecham "no," Kleinberg "not
participating," Mossar absent.
Council Member Burch said the Finance Committee also requested
~__~ staff explore the idea of exempting from deve!o~ment impact
fees non-profit organizations providing social services.
09/17/02 94-419
COUNCIL C0_M~NTS, QUESTIONS, ~D ANNOUNCEMENTS
Counci! Member Freeman said City Counci! Members would be at
various locations on September 28, 2002, for Sidewalk Office
Hours.
Mayor 0jakian said staff and some of the Council Members would
attend a meeting at Mitchel! Park on September 18, 2002, to get
input on the proposed Mitchel! Park Library and Community Center
Complex. He also thanked staff members, KZSU, Mid-Peninsula
Community Media Center (MCMC) I and others who made it possible
to hold tonight’s meeting offsite.
Council Member Lytle exp_ressed the opinion the City may be at a
disadvantage because they did not currently have a Zoning
Administrator.
CLOSED SESSION
(01d item No. 5) Conference with City Attorney -- Existing
Litigation Subject: Jaim Nu!man, Avelyn Welczer v. City of
Palo Alto, SCC #CV77983!
Authority: Gover_n_ment Code section 54956.9(a)
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, referred to a letter put at Council
places that evening regarding litigation on the trade of
dedicated parkland without the vote of the people, in his letter
were attached minutes that expressed the opinion that the vote
of the people was re_cfuired. He said any solutions that involved
Rea! Estate (RE) transactions should be properly noticed under
the Brown Act. The size of the parce! in question was over 1.5
acres and there was a. 1-acre minimum requirement in the RE zone.
There was a provision for creating a solution.
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters
involving existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 8.
Mayor Ojakian announced that no reporta!~le action was taken on
Agenda Item No. 8.
~JOURb-MENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:40
p.m.
FINAL ADJOU~NT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. in honor
of Dan Logan, Executive Director of Midpeninsula YMCA, for a
speedy recovery from a recent bicycle accident.
09/17/02 94-420
ATTEST:APPROVED:
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with
Pa!o 1~. .¯A_uo Municipal Code Sections 2 04 !80(a) and (b) The City
~ ~nd c~=~ ~~ ~=~ ~ ~=~ ar= ~=~= solely _~_~
the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of
the meetings. City Counci! and Standing Committee meeting tapes
are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are
available for members of the public to listen to during regular
office hours.
09/17/02 94-421