The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-04-19 City CouncilCity of Polo Alto C ty Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DATE: SUBJECT: APRIL 19, 2004 AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 211:04 TO ORDINANCE NO. 4763 RELATING TO COLLECTION .OF IMPACT FEES ON RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS SMALLER THAN OR EQUAL TO 900 SQUARE FEET RECOMMENDATION - Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance to clarify Council’s intent to make reduced development impact fees for multi-family residential 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 (January 29, 2002). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Ordinance Attachment 1" CMR 192:04 Prepared by: and Community Environment Department Approval: City Manager Approval: EMSLIE DirecDr, Planning and Community Environment EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR: 211:04 ’ Page 1 of 1 NOT YET APPROVED Attachment 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 The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: 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 discretionary approval or a building permit on or after January 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 Paio Alto Municipal Code to create certain exemptions from the fees (the ~Ordinance"). C. The Ordinance also amended the Schedule by modifying the amounts of the fees. Municipal Fee D. The Ordinance modified the fees for multi-family residential dwelling units smaller than or equal 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 have 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 (January 29, 2002). This Ordinance clarifies that intent. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: " 040413 syn 8250032 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION I. 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 January 29, 2002. SECTION 2. Other than amended above, Ordinance No. 4763 remains in full force and effect. SECTION 3 the thirty-first INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: This ordinance shall be effective upon 31st) day after its passage and adoption. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor APPROVED: Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Director of Administrative Services 040413 syn 8250032 ,11 City of Palo Alto CRy Manager’s Rep r TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: MARCH 15, 2004 CMR:192:04 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 retroactively 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 sn-mller than or equal 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 information 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. ’ 2. 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 gmage Yes 2 units (part of a mixed use project)No 3. What is the total fee difference if the reduced fees were retroactiveiy applied to all similm- 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 ATTACI-~4ENTS A.Timeline of Project Approvals B.Draft ordinance B.Minutes of City Council Meeting, September 17, 2002. PREPARED BY: DANIEL Special Counsel Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 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 January 29, 2002 March 25, 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 16, 2002 August 2002 October 7, 2002 October 10, 2002 November 21, 2002 Projects with one or more 900 s.f. unit or cottage 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 Pemait issued & fees paidon 124 Emerson May 29 (cottage) 2051 E1 Camino approved May 31 (2 units part of a mixed use project, not yet built) Replacement home at 2957 Waverley approved June 20 Cottage approved at 2459 Waverley August 26 Fees paid on 727 Addison $6,930 Impact fees paid on cottage at Waverely $0 paid on the replacement home at Waverley Council Action Effective date of Impact fees Impact fees adopted for parks, libraries and corr~nunity centers Finance Committee reconvnends reduced fee for multi,family units, including cottages, up to 900 square feet in size. 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. 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, cormaaunity centers and libraries (the "fees"). The fees applied to all applicable development receiving discretionary approval or a building pent, it on or after January 29, 2002. B. On October 7, 2002, the City Council adopted O~?dinance 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 modifying the amounts of the fees. D. The Ordinance modified the fees for multi-family residential dwelling units smaller than or equal 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, 2002s the effective &ite of the Ordinance. E. It was the intent of the City Council, in adopting the Ordinance, to have these fee reductions for multi-family residential dwell~ing 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 (January 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, co~rnnunity 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 January 29, 2002. SECTION 2. force and effect. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYE S: NOES: AB SENT: AB S TENTIONS: ATTEST: " Other than amended above, Ordinance No. 4763 remains in full City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor APPROVED: Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and C0nvrmnity Environment 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 with Police Chief Regarding Security of City Facili’ties ............................................404 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m ..................404 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ............................... ...............405 APPROVAL OF MIbytTTES .............................................405 Request for Authority to Participate" as Amicus Curiae in California Court of Appeal Case Border Busimess Park, Inc. v. City of San Diego .......................................406 o Employment Agreement for Code Enforcement Services with Lance Bayer ................................................406 0 Authorization of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to the City Attorney’s Office to Enter Into Contracts with Outside Entities To Provide Legal, Consulting and Training Services ...................................................406 Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation Subject: Wei Wang and Weyyi Wang v. City of Pa!o Alto, et a_~l.; sCC# CV802799 ’ " 406 PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council wil! consider modifications to Palo Alto Municipa! 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 the property 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 additional height is needed for mitigation of environmental impacts resulting from the use of the Public Facilities zoned property ....... 407 7.PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider changes to development impact fees .....................................414 09/17/02 ~ 94-402 COUNCIL COKMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ..................420 o 01d Item No. 5) Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation Subject: Jaim Nulman, Avelyn Welczer v. City of Palo Alto, SCC #CV779831 ...................................420 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting, adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:40 p.m .................................................. ~ ..... 420 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: 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 ...........420 09/17/02 ,94-403 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Cubberley Community Theatre, Room M3, 4000 Middlefield Road, at 6:05 p.m. PRESENT:Beecham, 8~rch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kteinberg, Lytle, Morton (arrived at 6:45 p.m.), 0jakian ABSENT: Mossar CLOSED SESSION Subject: Conference with Police Chief Regarding Security of City Facilities Authority: Government Code section 54957 met ~ to ~ Lnvolving Security of City Facilities as described in Agenda Item No. i. Mayor Ojakian announced that no reportable action ~as taken on Agenda Item No. i. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. 09/17/02 94-404 Special Meeting September 17, 2002 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Cubberl~y Community Theatre, 4000 Middlefield Road, at 7:10 PRESENT :Beecham,. Butch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Ojakian ABSENT: Mossar Mayor Ojakian requested that the meeting be adjourned in honor of Dan Logan, Executive Director of Midpeninsula YMCA, for a speedy recovery from his recent bicycle accident.. ORAL COHI4UNICATIONS Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding the Bressler property auction on October i0, 2002. Bunny Good, P.O. Box 824, spoke regarding the Homer Tunnel. Lynn Chiapella, 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 MINUTES HOTION: Council, 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 HOT!ON: 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. ADMINIST.R-hTIVE 09/17/02 ,94-405 Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in California Court of Appeal Case Border Business Park, Inc. v. City of Sam Diego Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, urged the Council not to vote on something they did not understand. Employment Agreement for Code Enforcement Services with Lance Bayer Authorization of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to the City Attorney’s Office to Enter Into Contracts with Outside Entities To Provide Legal, Consulting and Training Services MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent. CLOSED.SESSION Council Member Morton would not participat~ 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 Closed 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. Conference with’ City Attorney -- Existing Litigation Subject: Wei Wang and Weyyi Wang v. City of Palo Alto, et al.; 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 Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 4. Mayor Ojakian announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 4. The City Council reconvened at 7:45 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 09/17/02 94-406 PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider modifications to Pa!o 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 the property 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 additional height is needed for mitigation of environmental im_macts resulting from the.use of the Public Facilities zoned property. City Attorney Ariel Cal0nne said staff was asking the Council to amend the Palo Altq Municipal Code (PAMC) to assure the law was clear at the time the trial court heard the case. Under California !awi the relevant rules on cases, such as the one being presented, were the ones in effect at the time the matter war heard by the Court. Staff’s recommendatLon that the Counci! choose that route did not indicate the Council action was unlawful. He believed the Council had the power to require a 10- foot sound mitigation wall. The Public Facility (PF) zoning required a wall between 5 to 8 feet in height along common property lines. That wall would provide a minimum level of protection for neighbors from the PF use. The Council had evidence that a wall 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 EnviroHment Steven Emslie said the~proposed legislation would end an apparent conflict, as described by the City Attorney, and wou!d .progide clarity tO,.. staff when implementing mitigation measures. Staff was in support of the legislation. Vice-Chair of the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) Bonnie Packard explained the actions of the Planning and Transportation Commission (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 Ellsworth Place, said changing the law after the judgment was filed seemed unfair and unethical to many people in the City and was a poor precedent to set. She urged the Council not to let the wall height for Price Court residents 09/17/02 94-407 affect the need for a 10-foot sound wall for Ellsworth residents. Louise Herring,. 3945 Nelson Drive, said she purchased her house in 1978 when Cubberley was a functioning high school behind her back fence. She had to replace and repair her 6-foot fence twice, and neither t~= p{~y nor the Pa!o Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) was willing to contribute to its replacement. The entire area surrounding the Cubberley site consisted of Eichler homes. Eichler homes were 8 to i0 feet in height and could ~lut handle a 10-foot fence on its property line without obstructing the homeowners’ view of the floor-to-ceiling glass at the back of their home. John K..Abraham,’ 736 Ellsworth Place, said the neighbors in his area wanted a-10-foot wal! algng the Ellsworth Canal.Masonry as previously.directed by the City Counci!. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, expressed opposition to the site for a private tennis club and park,’ which the neighbors could not use. A 10-foot wal! would block all possible sun to Eichler homes in the winter. She suggested putting the 10-foot wall several feet on the other side of the existing trees to leave a little landscape and fence cover. Robert Grossman, 3036 Price Court, said he was appalled the City wanted to change the present ordinance. He believed, the City must consider all reasonable options. Gil 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 quality 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 Ms. 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 impacts 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 residential property owner. 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. All of the residents who lived on Price Court opt.ed for an 8-foot sound wall except for Ms. Wang. She urged the Council to adopt the amended ordinance so that the CSI tennis project could proceed° Loren Brown~ 334 Kingsley Avenue, concurred with. the cemments. 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 Counci! to let the trial court make a decision Without changing the ordinance. Linda Jensen, 3009 Hidd!efie!d Road, urged the Council to amend the Code to allow for a 10-foot sound wall 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 required. Weyyi Wang, 3054 Price Court, urged the Council to remove the item from that evening’s agenda because of the fol!owing: o The proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance wasnot exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The 12-day hearing notice, required by the P~C, wasnot provided .for the P&TC meeting onthe proposed amendment. The P&TC did not have a separate meeting to initiate a change to the zoning ordinance. Council 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 Political Reform Act. The public hearing notice for the P&TC meeting held on August 21, 2002, violated the Brow~ Act for agenda description. Chuck Bradley, 2957 Waverley Street, said he represented the Palo Alto Tennis Club in 1991, and wrote the initial propo6al. He urged the Council to move forward with the proposed 09/17/02 94-409 legislation, although he offered a partial solution. He worked closely with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and was aware the floodwalls a!ong Matadero Creek were being raised, which could absorb some of the sound. He suggested that City staff contact the SCVWD’s Senior Project Manager Leyan Lee. Bob Hoss, 4010 Orme Street, said if the Council agreed to adopt the ordinance changes, a compromise should be made. He suggested the sound wall on Price Court remain less than 8 feet in height, and the language in Section 2 of the Ordinance be modified to read,~ .....~ be"~= sound wall "may be or~=u directly on the property line. Jan Van der Laan, Board .of Directors of Winter Lodge, 3090 Ross Road, recalled that Ms. Wang initially argued vehemently in favor of the sound wal! and Wanted it to be higher than I0 feet. It was only after the Winter Lodge obtained the leasefor the a~ was opposed ~ the wall. Council Hember 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.Calonne said no. HOTZOH: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Lytle, to introduce an ordinance for first reading amending Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.32.070, with a change on page 1 of the ordinance, Section 2, paragraph 2, i0~h line, after the word ~site,~ to add the language "and as approved by the Counci! on a case by case basis..~ Ordinance ist Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 18 (Zoning),Chapter 18.32 (PF Public Facility District Regulations),Section 18.32.070 (Special Conditions), Subsection (A) (2)of the Palo Alto Municipal 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 Council 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 im_mlement that policy more fully. There were concerns by the public whether it was fair to enact an ordinance one year after setting up policy. 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 Hember Lytle believed the intent of the City was to put the property back into public recreational use. The City ne=a~s to do the best it could to achieve City policy. She supported the motion. Council Member Kishimoto asked whether staff could clarify the conditions of use, as related to the hours of operation for the tennis courts and lighting. Mr. Calonne said the conditions of the use permit approved by ~ Cmunci! wer~ ~ubsequently abandoned. Afterwards, a letter was sent to CSI directing compliance with the major conditions, as required by the lease. Those conditions included hours of operation limitations, removal of the security lighting to. prevent improper nighttime use, and posting of a 24-hour contact number. Council Member Kishimoto questioned whether trees had been removed in front of Ms. Wang’s property. She said the PF Zoning required a 10-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 removal. Council Member Kishimoto asked the City Attorney for a response to allegations raised by Mr. Borock in his lette~ to the Council. Hr. Calonne said the .Planning Division acknowledged the PT&C public hearing notice did not have the customary 12-day notice. However, under State law the meeting was nQticed 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! impact. If the ordinance amendment were used again, the City would have to go through an environmental 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 environmental impacts. 09/17/02 ~ 94-411 Council Member Kishimoto said yes. Council Member Beecham said he would not support the amendment because there were too many Unanswered questions. Council Member Lytle said she would not support the amendment because it had not been fully analyzed. Council Member Butch was opposed to the amendment. Council Mender Kleinberg said the amendment was too complicated to support without input from the Planning staff. INCORPOR.~.TED INTO THE MOTION BY THE ~ER AND THE SECONDER to direct staff 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, absent. Morton "not participating," Mossar MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved, second÷d by Kishimoto, that. staff review sound wall situations in PF Zones but not associated with this particular issue. Council Member Lytle said She would not support the motion because she could not see the present circumstance arising in the near future. Council 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, participating," Mossar absent. Ojakian "no," Morton "not RECESS: 9:30 to 9:40 p.m. 0 PUBLIC HEARING: The City Counci! will consider changes to development impact fees. Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not participate in the item due to a potentia! conflict of interest because her husband’s law firm represented Stanford in land use matters. 09/17/02 94-414 Mayor 0jakian said the proposal before recommendation from the Finance Committee. the Counci! was a Council Member Butch, said as Chair of the Finance Committee, the Council adopted ordinances related to the development impact fees in Hatch 2002 and then referred the matter to the Finance Committee for further study on a number of issues. The Finance Committee voted 4-0 to exempt new childcare facilit.ies from development impact fees for parks, community centers, and libraries. The vote was 4-0 to establish a category of large new homes greater than 3,000 square feet, and to modify the Municipal Fee Schedule (MFS) to increase the fee charge to that category of homes to the full recovery level. Additionally, the Committee voted in agreement to establish a new category of small multi-family units less than 900 square feet, and modify the MFS to decrease the fee charge for that category of homes. Although the fees were not large, a message was sent of the preference to discourage large homes and encourage smaller bui~idings. The vote was 4-0 to direct an Environmental Impact Report (E!R) for new development in the Stanford Research Park to include an analysis of a range of transportation mitigation ¯Co~LLI~e~ acknowledged thereand traffic calming measures The - -’~ - . was a nexus study for citywide transportation impact fees, which would evaluate alternative transportation improvements planned for completion in 2003. The vote was 3-1 to establish a one-time 1,500-square-foot per site exemption .from impact fees for new space, which, by law, could only be used for retail, restaurant, automotive, or personal service. The Finance Committee did not vote to expand the exemption for below market rate (BMR) units because they felt it was not appropriate, to reward developers for including units tha~ were already required. Chuck Bradley, 2957 Waverley Street, said he strongly recommended the City Council exempt single-family homes from the ordinance because it was an excessive financial burden. Deborah Ju, 371 Whitclem Drive, urged the Council to eliminate an exemption to the current provision governing development impact fees, which provided that mixed-use projects had to pay either the commercia! development impact fee or the residential 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 loss of a great deal of money to the City’s housing trust fund. Mark Sabin, 533 Alberta Avenue, Sunn~£ale, said the multi-family units of 900 square feet or less would only provide a two- bedroom home, which did not allowfor 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:Council Member Butch moved, seconded by Kishimoto, approval of the Finance Committee recommendation to: 1 Introduce the ordinance for first reading to: Establi-~=~ ~ one-time 1,500 mqu=~e-~uuu per site exemption from impact fee for new space which, by law, could only be used for retai!, restaurant, automotive, or personal service; Exempt new childcare facilities from development impact fees; .. Establish a category of large new homes as those greater than 3,000 square feet, and modify the Municipal Fee Schedule .tg increase the fee charged for this category of homes to the full cost-recovery level; Establish = ~=t~gory of --71 multi = ~--s~=± -~am±±y units as being those 900 square feet or less and modify the Municipal Fee Schedule to decrease the fee charged for this category of homes. 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 lS~.Reiding entitled ."Ordinance of the Counci! of the City of Palo Alto .Amending Sections 16.45.050, 16.47.030 and 16.58.030 of the Palo Alto Hunicipal Code to Create Certain Development Impact Fee Exemptions" Council Member Kishimoto said the Finance Committee’s message was in support of local-serving retai!, encouraging smaller residential units, and ensuring the traffic impact fees were not limited to widening intersections, but also allowed their use for alternativetransportation. AMENDMENT: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Beecham, to encourage below market rate (BMR) units by exemption of development impact fees. Council Member Butch said he did not want to incorporate the exemption of BMR units into the motion. 09/17/02 94-416 Council Hember Lytle said she would like the Council to look at the mixed-use exemption provision raised by Ms. Ju. council Member Beecham agreed that possible to encourage BMR units. the City do everything Council Member Morton said th.e City did not encourage BMR units, it required them; generally for a greater density. He did not believe developers would build BMR units if the fees were not required, and it seemed financially irresponsible to surrender ~==~ on ~ requirement. Council Member Kishimoto said the only possible compromise would be. to exempt the developer impact fees on BKR units over and above any statutory requirements. Council Member Morton said he was not opposed to that, because the City would receive a benefit that was not a legislative requirement. 2~ENDMENT FAILED 2-5~ Beecham, Kishimoto "yes," Kleinberg "not participating," Mossar absent. AMENDMENT: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Butch, to exempt below market rate (BMR) units that are included in a project over and above Palo Alto statutory requirements. AMENDMENT absent. PASSED 7-0,Kleinberg "not participating," Mossar A~MENDMENT: Council Memb. er Morton moved, seconded by Lytle, to request staff to return to Council with a revision of mixed-use development impact fees ~per Palo Alto Municipal Code section 16.47.040 so that each portion of the project, was responsible for its appropriateshare of the impact fees. Council Member Lytle said as with all the impact fees the City had adopted, the community had been asked whether they believed the fees were overly burdensome and if .somehow the profitability had been removed. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the City had two distinct sets of housing fees. The one that Hs. 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 (PAMC) 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 Environment 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 commercia! fees and residentia! fees paid the appropriate amounts of each, without averaging or exempting those fees. Council Member Morton said that was correct. Hr. Emslie said staff would try to incorporate the changes to the housing fees with those related to the BMR program already scheduled to return to the Council. AM-ENDMENT PASSED 7- 0 ,Kleinber~ "not participating,"Mossar AMENDMENT: Counci! Member Beecham moved, ~econded by Kishimoto, to establish 1,500-square-foot units for one-time development impact fees and exempt all ground floor commercia! units. Council Member Beecham said the purpose of the amendment was to encourage a strong ground floor element within the community. Counci! Member Kishimoto asked whether the exemption was limited to zoning, which required ground floor retail, or did it also include ground floor retail that could be converted to other uses . Counci! Member Beecham said he wanted to limit it to those areas that required ground floor uses. Counci! Member Morton opposed the amendment because the benefit of ground floor retail went to the owner 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 retail to a permanent requirement or easement. Council Member Beecham said his intention was to have the exemption apply only to those areas that required ground floor retail. Council.Member Burch clarified the amendment on the floor was an exemption of al! ground floor retail. 09/17/02 94-418 AMENDMENT FAILED 2-5, Beecham, Kishimoto "yes," Kleinberg "not participating," Mossar absent. Council Hember Beecham Was opposed to the main motion because it discriminated against future residents of Palo Alto. He believed the discrimination was exacerbated by Proposition 13, which assured that those who moved to Palo 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 ÷~,~I~ 0n~ per,,~=~ which, ~in h~ o~on, was not benefit or detriment. Counci! Member Lytle said the Finance Committee was attempting to reduce impact fees through a series of exemptions. ~M=}~M=~,T:~ = =~ ¯ Council Member Freeman moved, seconded by .Lytl.~,__ to direct staff to return witi a status report on development impact fees for new development for storm drains and the possibility of a "Percent for Art~ fee. Council Member Freeman said she was the liaison for the Blue Ribbon Storm Drain Committee and was recently made aware that new development fees for storm drains was a common fee in other municipalities. She believed it Was something Pal0 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 Hember Lytle asked the maker of the motion whether .the request of staff could be modified to a status report ’on the issues. Council Member Freeman said she would accept the change. Council Member Horton requested the item on storm drains be deferred until the issue came back to the Council. AMENDMENT FAILED 3-4, Freeman, Kishimoto, Lytle "yes," Kleinberg "not participating," Hossar absent. MAIN MOTION PASSED AS ~ENDED 6-1, Beecham "no," Kleinberg "not participating," Mossar absent. Council Member Burch said the Finance Committee also requested that staff explore the idea of exempting from development impact fees non-profit organizations providing social services. 09/17/02 ~ 94-419 COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Counci! Member Freeman said City Counci! Members would be at various lo~ations on September 28, 2002, for Sidewalk Office Hours. Mayor Ojakian said staff and some of the Council Members would attend a meeting at Mitchell Park on September 18, 2002, to get input on the proposed Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Complex. He also thanked staff members, KZSU, Mid-Peninsula Community Media Center (MCMC), and others who made it possible to hold tonight’s meeting offsite. Counci! Member Lytle expressed the opinion the City may be at a disadvantage because they did not currently have a’ Zoning Administrator. CLOSED SESSION (Old Item No. 5) Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation Subject: Jaim Nulman, Avelyn Welczer v. City of Palo Alto, SCC #CV779831 Authority: Government 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 required. He said any solutions that involved Rea! Estate (RE) transactions should be properly noticed under the Brown Act. The size of the parcel 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 reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 8. ADJOUP!N-MENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:40 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. in honor of Dan Logan, Executive Director of Midpeninsula ~CA, for a speedy recovery from a recent bicycle accident. 09/17/02 94-420 ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk ~/ {, ~Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto l~unicipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made .solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings, City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from ,the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 09/17/02 94-421