The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0138.095• ~ ~ --- City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report HONORABLE CITY l."'OllNCIL FROM: CITY MA.'I1AGER AGENDA DIt. TE: FobN.1')' 13, 1995 DEPARTME."I'T: PIa •• iag aDd CommaDity E.vimDmoDt CMR:l38:\IS SUBJECT: Am.ndm.at to the Do"lIloWll Commercial (CD) ZoDiliC Regulation!, Sectio. 18.49.G6O, 10 Allow 1II'.Dm'es for Seismk U pgnode aDd Historic ~rvatioD to be Combi.ed ('4-ZC~, '4-ElA-7) REQUEST This report Irlmsmits for first reading aD 0r01llliDCe drafted by the City Attorney's Office 10 reflect Council action on December 12. 1994, The orOma..,.,~ amends the Downtown Comme,dol District (CD) Regulations 10 aJIow the 2,SOO square fooc or 2S percent floor area ratio (wbkhever is greater) incentives for seismic upgrades and historic preservatioo 10 be rombincd. ll.ECOMMENDATlONS StB1J =ommcnds Ibat the City Council approve the ar.ached mitigated negative de<:landion and adop! the attached ordinan<e aJIow'.ng seismfu and historic presuvatioo floor area incentives to be =nbilled. POUCY IMPUCATIONS The attachtld ordinance is C<lIlSislent with the fOllov.ing Comprehensive Plan policies and programs: ), fkbgn [)esiW' E/emell/ Pdp C, Encourage private preservation of buildings which have /Jistoric (lI' archi!ocIural merit oc both. a. Program 6: Allow transfer of development rights for designate<! buil<fmgs of hL<!oric or arcbi!ectunl significant (Historic Categories 1 .. ,.j 2) w;thin the CD zone Ibraugh the PC Zone Change process. ' .. -," -. ' .. ~--:~.~-, . ' . . , , ! , . b. Program lOb: Expansions o( Downto",,, builOmgs in historic categories 1 and 2 sbouId require findings during tl,e design review process t.1,at the cbaractet of such builOmg exteriors woold not be compromised by the expansions. c. Paw"", II: Main!ain and strengthen the Cily'. design review procedure for historic buildings proposed for exterior remodeling or thr~!ened by demo!itioo.. 2. {khan Design P'*.q 5: Encourage rehabilitaHoo of aging .... .an areas 10 keep them ec~ healthy. 3. Program 16: Seek innovative ways 10 apply the .pirit of current <<>des and oofUlJlDCeS. As,ist and encourage developen in finding ways 10 r""1",,, these buildings 10 usefulnoss. 4. Envircmmerllal Resources Policy 14: Measure. 10 lessen risk 10 human life and property sbouId lOcus upon identified areas of population concentration and keyed to areas of greatest n.aturaI haza..rd and areas of \Down {)C suspec1ed structural hazard. The provision> of the attached ordinan«, whic!> require City Council findings that the use of the secood bonus is oot incoosistent with historic preservation o( the interior (l< exterior of the buildings, represents the first instance of the City m:ognizing interior pre,mratioo of non-City·owned buildings as a public policy. As such. this is a change in City policy. Impktnentation of this pOOcy may require the City securing outside expertise in evaluating, OIl a case-by~ basis, the quality and appropria1eness of in!erior historic preservation prorosals. The attached cr~ indicates thaI the bonus," can be tra.'ISferred off .. ite through 1."" use of a Planned Commurilly zooe prow.s, which is existing CitY po!jcy. City CoonciI bas giv"", staff an assignment 10 develop a trar.,fer of development rigllts (IDR) program for the buildings eligible 1<> receive the <looble OOn\IS. Future ad<¢on of .. TOR program would be an expansion of cUlTent City po!jcy. EXtCU1JYE SUMMARY 00 December 12, 1994. the City Council approved a motion 10 request that staff prepare Ihe auached ord'mance and pur5Ue • revised IDR program. The Council', discussion focused on Ihe issues raised in the public hearings by !be Historic Resources Board (HRB), and in the negative declaration regarding the potential impacts of additiooaJ tloor area k> the historic integrity of the Cotego<)' I and Il bwlOwgs located in the Downtown. fu response to Ihe HRB recommendation that HRB should become the '--.-... /- approval body for buildings wbkb apply fOr the combined bonus \0 assure bisWric expertise in the final decision. the CoonciJ. determined the! the authority fOr approving th= project! sbouId rest with the City CoonciJ.. The CounciJ coocluded ~ were benefits in allowing the double bonus as incentives to preserve historic buildings. perticularly if the additional floor area (i.e., the s.:cood bonus) were lnnsfCJred off-site \0 a non-historic receiver sitA:. In the case of applicants who apply 10 use the additional 25 pen:enI floor area OII-site, • disereOOnary 8p,."rOval process will be required. The process will require the Council \0 make tw(> findings prior \0 approving the project: 1) that the exterior modifications proposed owe! the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Staodards, and 2) that the ewnulative floor area bonus will not be otherwise inconsistent with bisloric: pr=:rvatioo. of the interio< Or exterior of the building. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed CD lext amendment .... 111 not have a tiscaI impact on the City_ ENYlRONME.."''IAL ASSF.<!.5MENT 'The proposed kX1 change will not have I significant impact on the envir"""",Dt. A revised en YiromneDIal assessment recommending adoption of. mitigated negative declaratioo. is .tIacbed. A 17 ACHME!:fl'S Enviroomental lmpact Assessment. with Re..ised Traffic Impact section and Table of InfOnnalion fOr Each Building Draft On!inan<:e PREPARED BY: Nancy Maddox Lytle. Chief Planning Officials DEPARlMENT HEAD REVIEW: Y-E.My!9£~ KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Envirooment COTY_ ... ""'m~ M S OJNY Assistant City anager --.'~.""-::-,~~------;-"-' . ,/ ." ..... l0(4 cc P1annlng Commi3sioI> Arcbitcctural Review Board Historic ~ Board Dennis &<oklun<l W.arI< Vermilion Gerard MsrnuIIo Marcia Tanner Natalie Wells Wm!« Dellenbach Charles Keenan Rkha.-d Rosenthal Roo Rainey CMJt,13l:95 , -! ",", > Environmental ooeume"u • City of hlo Alto JliYIj\QNMlOO'AL ASSES SMEN'l' • project Descrl~ion/Title: The City of Palo Alto is propo$ing a Zoning 9rd.in'oce Uxt amendment to the City; s downtown regulatioos to alloy ,"wives for Beilm!' \lpsrade And h:!itpric; pU!!§t:tvet ion to be cpmbiPe4 Cpr those structures Calling w1~bin C,ttaPritG I i II fQ-ICdnd~ lIPSri,"e 2nd CAtegories 1 and 2 for bistQric preservatiOn (gi.ilA-'.~. Location/Address, SpOnsoring Agency/Applicant: City of Palo Alto, Planning P:iviedon Adclress and Tal.phone of Applicant, AJto CA 943Q1 filS) 329-~ Application for: Zoning Text p.;r;.e.ndment Zoning at Project Locations.: CQ-C i rn-s HOTI CE OF pETiRMlNATI PH 2 SO HAmil ton Avenue I Palo FeE :Receipt. No _: 24 -15 g Based upon review of the project files. t.he undersigned me:rber of the Plamrl.ng Depanmen·t has con<:luded: 1il WeaotjYl Pe,l.x,tiOO= The project has no significant environmental impact. No Environmen.tal Impact. Reoport is required. Tbe ~eaEODS for a Negative oeclarati~ are: in the att,chad initiAl study A recQrd of project aCt.ion is available for review at th@ Palo Alto Planning QepartJr..cmt Ipca'ted on the 5th floor of Cjty Hal} 250 HgmiltOtj Avenue-paIR Alto fA ll1ll. t:t The project may have a significant environmental impact. An Envirocmental Impact R.eport Yil~ be prepared.~ Planning Department Official:: o-f"'~ ---I tt' n_.J... s: d' u_ " Planning Director:: f6-Scl-4 /J/¥}.I.c Date, ..,/u /1j The project has been approved. The project has been denied. • Revised -7/21/94 Date: Date, .'" ... .. ,'. 1. Project 'I'iUejAMre... CD District Text Amendment rl. Project D •• orIption. The City of Palo AltQ i. proposing a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to the CitY"5 downtown regulations to allow incentives for seismic upgr~de and historic pr~serv.tion to be combined for tbosa structures falling ~ithin Categories I ~ II tor seismic upgrade and Categories 1 and :2 for historic prese~tion 194-EIA-7), tIl. £D.vi~tal Setting: A zonir£9 text amendment that 'Would allow applicants to take· &dvantage of both seismic: upgrade and historic preservation incentives ~ould currently be applicable to 9 proper~ies falling vithin those categoriEs: 401 Florence, 456 On1ve.rsity .. 480 oniversity. e.El Bryan,t. 5:20 .P.amona l 205. Hamilton .. 529 Alma" 525 Alma a.od 232 Homer. Attached is a table shoving the site area, current use. seismic category, historic category .. existing floor area and potential neW' floor area under the pr.oposed zoning t.ex:t amendment for eacb of the nine buildings ~ The p~oposed revision would alEO be applicable to any additional st1""-.:.ct.ures included. c.n the historic inventory in the fut1lre~ (;If the nine-structures, .. fO'..lr have been upgraded using one of the bonuses; and ale (the President Apartments at 4Bo-Ur,iversity Avenue) exceeds the 1: 1 FAR. and could not be fu=ther expanded. Thus... there are S bui1dings which -would qualify for the double incentive. With the exce~ion of the properties at 456 University and 661 Bl:)"aIit. the existing buildings are built.-out to the property lines . • •• Adapted from Appe!ld.ix I. Ca.l i f ornia Guidel ines Implementation of CEQA, December 14. 1976. Updated May 1982. Jun~ 1983 for ---~ lY. Envi rOl1lllf'l!ti 1 SEct j CII V) I""act Ch&l<1ist (E"Planatloo of illl "yes' ans-.er5 are in 1. W:t!l, Will the proposal result in: ru ~~ tlO •• U1stable earth conditions or changes .L 1~ geo"og~c sOOitrLJCtures1 b. Disruptions. displacements. c~. tton or overcovering of the soi .L C. OIange in tqlOgraphy or grour<l surf~ relief features? ..L d. The destruction. covering or rodi· fiatton of any UI1iQL'e geologic or physical features? ..L e. Arly increaSE 10 wind or water erosioo of soils. elther on or off the slte? ..L f. E>qlOSure of peepl e or property to r.;:l~iC hazards socii as earth~uake5. a nds iIIes. muds 1i!les. ground • i1 ur. or similar nazards? ..L ~. C>!anges in slltatiOl1. deposition. or eros~on ""iet. may rodif] the cnannel of i TiYer or the bed of a ~ay or i"'et? ..L 2. Air. \'ill tile \lfClpOsal result in: II. Substantial air emissions or de· ~erjoration of ambient ilir qual it,? .L b. The creation ~f Objectionable odors? .L c. Alteration of ilir movement. moisture terrperature. or any change in eli· Ilate. either locally or regional? ..L 3. I!fillt. W"Ill the proposal result ;ro: a. Changes in allS.orption rate-;. df~inage patterns. or t.~e rite and al!OOi1t of surface ""ter runoff? ..L 1;. Alterations to the coonE or f1()W Qf f1 QO(f waters? ..L c. Discharge inUl surface waters. or in any alteration cf surface ~ter quality. inclLlding but not limited to J ill ~ tt:l t~ature. <lissohed oxygen or tur i-dit,? ....L lI. Alterat10n of the dlreetion or rate of f1 cw of ground waters? ..L e. Exposure of peQlll~ or pr~rt, to "",ter relate<! hazards sue is flood· ing or tidal wave? ....L t. (;hange 1~ the Quantity of ground waters. either through oj reet add; t i OIlS Of' wi tI!dr awa ls. or t1lroog/l interceptions of ~n iq<Jifer by cuts or excavations? . . ....L 4. fl~ot 11ff. 101111 the proposal res.lt in: iI. (;hange in the diversity of species. or number of any species of plants lin· clUlling trees. staubs. grass. crops. I rncroflora and aQUatic plants)? b. Reduction of the nLJrbers of any uniqU!!. ra re or enda ngered spec; es of plants? ....L c. lntroooct \011 of ne.t speci es of plants into an area. or in a barrier to t~e normal r~le"ishment of existir.g species. ..L <I. R..oQuction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ....L 5. Ani!!l!Jl Life. 1o'i11 the proposal result in: iI. Change in the diversity of species. or of any species of animals (birds. 1aoo a~jmals including rept; 1es. fisll and shellfish. bertilic organisms. insects or IIi crofauna n ....L b. Jieductfon of the "lJTilers of any uniq<Je. rare or endangered species of anima,s? ....L c Introduction of ne; species of . animals fnto an area. or result In a barrier to t~ migration or !roVe· ment of animals? ....L d. Deterioration im e<istlng fish or Re,ise~ 7/22/94 wildlife ~a~jtat? 6. ~. 'o!111 t~ proposal resuit j~: 1. 8. a. Increases in existing mise levels? b. E~ure of people to severe [.vise levels? li<;llt !nd £lace. ~ll tile proposal prodoce r.ew li gilt 91 are? t~ proposal resuit i~ teration of t~ present use of an area? 9. Energyfllat\Jfil Res9!;cce,. Will tile proposal result in: ~. Use of subsU.otial amounts of fuel ()<" energy: b. Su~tantiil increase in demaM l.poIl existing sources of energy. cr require the devel~t of new sources ~ energy? c. Increase in tile nte of \JS€ of ar.y natural resources? d. Sutstantial depleHon of .n1 ryo,:u-e newab1e naturel r~source? 10. Risk <if !met. lJoes tfte proposal involve i rjslt of cn explC'iion N the release of hazardous substaoces (in CluOlng .. but not 1imited to. oil. pestiCides. c~.emjc.1S Of" radiation) in the evert of an accidert or W.>Et? U. foovlationlHovsing. 01. Vil1 the proposal alter tile location. distribution. dells;ty. or gra..th rate of the human population of an area? b. \oIill the proposal effect existing /loosifl!{. or create a demand fO<" additional houslng? ; - ~ . 12. Transportation/Circulation. Win the proposal result in: ,. Generation of substantfal additional velli<:"'.r movenent? b. Effects a; existing lXlri.ing faciH· ties. or <lemand for neo pa rl:. i ng? c. Alterations to present patterns of cIrculation or movement of people andlor goods? d. Increase in traffiC ~azirds to motor .eIl!cles. oicyclists or pedestrians? 13. MHo Services. Will the proposal have '" dfect upon. or resul tin a need for new or altered go,ernmental services in any of the follooo.9 areas: a. fire protectiOl1? b Police protection? Co Schoch? d. Parks or other recreational facnities? e. Maintenance of public facilities. i rIC 1 udin!l roa cis? f. Otl1er gQvemnenta 1 ser.i ces? 14. Utjlities. Vlll t.'>e proposal result in a need for new systems. <lI" substantial alterations to the fclloong utilities: a. Fower or natural gas? b. Communications systems? C. \later? d. ~r or septic tank? e. ~01"111 water wa; nage? f. Solid was~ and disposal? 15. Human He.lth. Will the proposal result R •• lsed 7/22/94 _l_ ..L ..L ..L ..L ..L ..L ill MY!l£ t!Q in: ,. Creation of any health hazard or potent1.' ~altM ~alard (excluding _,tal health)? ..L b. Uposure of people to potential hea1t11 hazards? ..L 16. Aestbetic"s. 11111 the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic .ista or yiel<fopen to theJ:ubliC. Of';;11\ the prqposal result in e creation of an aestheifeal1! offensiYe site open to pOOle yjew? ..L 17. Becreatloo. II1n the pr~al re~lt in an ill1lOCt upoo the qua it! or QlJantity of existing recreational opportunities? ..L 18. Cy 1 tur .1 Resources. i. Will the proposal result in the 11teratjoo of/or the <lestructioo of a prehistoric or historic archaeclogfca1 site? ..L b. II1n the proposal result in ad- verse pliysical or aesthetic effects to a prehiStoric or historic building. structure; Of' ooj&.-t? -L c. Does the pr~al ha,. the potenti.1 to cause a ys i cal change ..., lch IoOOld ilffect unique cultural ralues? _I d. 11111 the proposal restrict existing religiOUS or s.acred' uses .. itMrt Ule potential impact area? ..L J ,ill MAYBE lID 1!1. t!ilnQi!J:!l:t [i!!!li ag:; I!f Si go i fi~~OI:e. I. Does tllC~Cject have t.ie poteotial to ~ade qoality of t.ie envlrornnent. s' tantfil~ reduce the habitat of i fish or Wll Ife species. cause I fish or "';I<11lfe populatloo tG drop belC1w" self·~tli"ing levels. thre.te~ to eliminate I plant or ani~l community. reduce the ntllDer or r2stri ct the range of a rare or endaogeredp1ant or animal or eliminate important examples of tile 1Iil,lor periods of california bistery or prehistory? ....L b. Does the project have the poteotial to ~ieve s~ort·teno. to the dis- advantage of long·tenl. environmental goa1s? (A short-term irrpaet on the environment is one Wilen OCCLifS ir:'1 a f.lativellll1"ief. definitive period of time Wlile long-term i~aets WIll enclure..,l1 into t/1e fut""e.) ...L c. Does tJ>.e project Mve ill"llact, ..nien are individuall, limited. but cumulatively conSiderable? {A pro- ject NY i;rpact on t\oO or more separate resour,es ..nere the ill"llict on eadh resource is relativ.ly small. but >.f1ere the eff"'t of the total (Jf tIv.Jse i"llact, on the environment is significant.) ...L d. Does tne project have envirormental effects ..nieh '0111 cause sLobstant,al adverse effects on hunan beings. either qirectll or in~irectly~ ...L Y. ['Planation Qf "yes" and "maybe" answers i~ environmental chec~list are attaclled. ;;, -" , . ~. '-< ZONING ORDnu.NCE TEXT AMENDMl!N'I' -ATTACHMElIT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT v. EJDl,nation of "yes-And -maybe-SD$Wer§ in environmental cbecJs:1i z;t. 12.b. Parking '. %BIpaetl:: Parking il5 an issue because additional floor area. pursuant to seismic ~ historic FAR incentives is exempt from parki:lg requirements U. e.. the additional floor area does not trigger a requiretr'..ent to construct additional parking spaces}. Se-.-en of the eight buildings which would qualify for a double inceot.ive undEr the 'proposed text code amendment ,are located within the downtown assessment district 1232 Romer is ~ located within the district and would therefore be required to provide additional par_king for an expa .. 1Sioo). A parking rate of " spacssj1.000 square feet of floor area is applied to the downtown area regardless of use. The unifortl:! parking requirement for uses downtown was approved by the City in 19B6 in order to allow changes in the use of downtown buildings ~itbout the need to adjust the number of required parking spaces. Below is the estimated parking demand for ~ential additions to the aeven buildings. 4. o~ Fl cren<:e 456 Oniversity -661 Bryant 520· Ramona 20S Hamilton 529 Alma 525 Alma Toeal !1U Office Theatre: Church Retail/Office JI'.etail/Office Ret.ail Retail/Office Additional Floor Area. 2,51>0 sq_ ft. 7_486 sq_ ft. 5,560 sq. ft. 2.500 sq. ft. 3.150 sq. ft. 2,S()0 sq. ft. ~ sq. ft. 25 .... sq. ft. Additional Parking Demand 10 spaces 30 spaces 22 spaces 10 spaces 13 spaces 10 spaces LQ. spaces 101 spaces Whil.e the pot.ential deficit increase of 101 spaces may scund substantial. it is worth noting several points. FirEt, the actual in.crease in parking demand... if and when it occurred, would be expected to be gradual and to be distributed geographically. Second .. the lSE6 Do\..-ntown Plan instituted a monitoring program for parking exe~ions. A perfcrw~nce measure was established at a cmnulative impact of 2:25 parking spa-ce exceptions (one-half of that deemed necessary for constru-ction of a new public parking garage) .. at which poin·t the exception regulations would be re-evaluated, a.~/or construction cf a parking garage 'Would be considered. A total of 59 parking spaces haye been exeq>oted to date. Third .. an intent of the 19S6 Down·town Plan is to insure that the parking deficit does n~ increase beyond the beyond 1~590 spaces calculated in 1SB6. The parking deficit has actually decreased to 1",490 spaces sin-ce the ~·town Plan was approved. In addition .. ". ~. during this period. the actual square-footage adde" to the downtown hal been cons1-'erably less than what was anticipate<! ~. 4',0-00 square feet constru~t.ed verS'".JS 350 .. COO square feet maximum allowed; including 14,000 square feet cf exempt construction, versus 75.000 &qUare feet allQwable. Finally, the City bas recently taken action to improve parking downtown. In January 1994, the City Council approve6 a program of 12 parking strategies fc·r -downtown., crafted jointly by t.he Palo Alto Chamber or Cocmnerce and city staff. On ,..-..ay 2, l.S94. tb-e City Council approved it downtown parking p!atL The primary purpose of these acti.OIls is to increase the nurriber O·f parking spa.:::es and. make all public parking easier t.o use. In conclusion, t.he impact of t.he additional potential parking e.x.ertpt:ions .from the proposed t.ext a.'fleoomeot would n~ be significant. A monitoring program is already in place to insure that t.be number of parking space exemptions do:!! not exceed 225 spaces 'iiithout a revie ..... of the exerrption regulations and/or an increase in the public parking supply. lfitlgatloa. llaaaur •• ! None required. 18.b 5 c. cultural Resqurces :Impa.ct..: A zoning text amendment that "Would allow applicant.s to talte advan·tage c·! both seismic upgrade ar..d hiEtoric preservation incentives wt)Uld curren·tly be applicable to 9 properties falling witbin those categories: 401 Florence~ 456 University. 480 oniversity~ 6'1 Bryantr·~20 Ramona, 205 Bamiltcn~ 529 ~~ma, 525 Alma and 232 Bomer. Att.ached is a table showing the site area, current use~ seismic category, historic category, existing floor area and poteo·tlal :new floor area u. .. ·lder the proposed zoning text amendment for each of tbe nine buildings. The proposed revision would also be applicable t.o any additional str-~-ctures in.cl'.lded on th~ historic invento~~ in the future. Of the nine structures. four have been upgraded using one of the bonuses; and one (the President Apartments a.t 4S0 University Ayenue) exceeds t.he 3: 1 FAR. and cO'.Jld not be furtber expanded. Thus~ there are 8 buildings that ~ould currently qualify for the double incentive. With the exception of the properties at 456 university and 661 Bryant~ the existing buildings are built-out to t.h~ property lines. Thus. additions "Would e.ither have to occur within t.he existing building envelope or by adding additional stories to the buildings. It is the construction of additional st~ries which could have potential to adversely impact the histo~ical character of buildings on the inventory. In 1986 t.he City Co~.cil amended the Cor.prenensive Plan to add a progra~ of density transfer. The program allows the transfer of rlevelopnent rights {mRS} for designated boJildings of historic or architect.ural signifiCcn-ce (Historic Ca.tegories 1 and 2) within t.he CD District througb the Planned Community (PCt process. T"ne TDR ::~ "\~: ." ; . , f" i . I \ \ '- .<. :~ .... • , , -., ,- pr<>gram "o<old ... ls~ in preservation of historic buildings tty allowing the additiooal flocr area pet1!'itted under the double incentive to be transferred to a building(s) whlch do not bave historic significance. JII.it;i~&t.loc K •• .ur.: Any exterior building modifications c.onstn:cted pursuanc to the double FAA incentives shall conform. to tlle U~S4 Secretary of Interior's Standards 0' Rehahilitation and Gyi4tlines for Bebabil{tA~ing Histgric ijul1ding§. The standards will serve" to protect buildingS in the process 0: rehabilitation because they preserve those teatur-es (if -the property -which are significant to its historic, architectural and cultural values~ Vl • COCSlllSi pn In relation to the tot:al amount of development in the-d<y".rntown ... the etfect: of the text change is anticipated to be minor. Since the size .. location, -combination of uses and ~esigZl rill vary from one project to anotber l environmental reviews will be completed on a project-by-project basis. Consistoency with the-Comprehensive Plan, and a finding of no detrimental impacts to adjacent land uses~ trar.sport.a.tion.. and population will be a requirement I .as is currently the case. Each project will be assessed for environ mental i!l'pacts and the appropriate mitigation ~a6l,Jres vill be required.. Attachment: Table of Info~tion for Each Building . . - ·-, c "; -0:. "<- ~',"i: ktt&cba.~t A -Reviled 'arklnq Impact section ~t the .eq&ti~. Deel_r.tion for Zoning Or~in.De. ~ext Amendment Ct4-ZIA-'J 1.2..1». Parking rap_ct.. I parking-is an issue 't;.ecause additional floor area pursuant to seismic and historic FAR incentives is exempt froll parJting requirements (Le .. , the additional floor area does not trigger a requir-e.l:tent to eonst['uct additional parkill9 spaces). Seven of the eight bulldin-g:s \oilicb would qualify for !!Ii double inceTltlve under the proposed text code amendment are located within the downtown assessment district (232 Homer is: not located within the district and vould therefore be required to provl~e additional parkinq COl" an expansic-n) .. A parking rate of 4. spacesjl,O'o-O square feat of floor area is applied to tl'le dot.rIntown area regardless of use.. The tl:nitora parltinq requil"em'?nt for uses 4owntovn ...-as approve!j by the Ci~y in 1986 in o~aer to allow chang~s in the use of downtown ~~ildlnqs without. the ne-eo to adjl..2st the nllmber of req'\lired parking spaces. Below is t~e estimated parkiM9 demand for pot~h~ial additions to the sev~n buildings. 4.01 Flore~e <1-5.6 Oniversity 661 Bryant 520 Ramona 205 Hamilton 529 Ahl. ~25 1.1"", Total !lli..O. Office 'rheetre Church Retail/Office Retail[Office Retail Retail/Office Jo..dditio.nal Floor~ 2,50<1 sq. ft .. 7"U!6 sq~ ft. 5_5-60. sq .. ft. 2" 50'0 sq. tt. 3,160 sq. tt. 2.5-0,0-sq. ft. L2Q.Q sq. ft. 26,206 sq. ft. .J..dd it iona 1 Parking Demand 10 spaces .30 spaces 2'2 spaces 10 spaces 13 spaces lc} spaces II spaces 105 spaces While the potential deficit increase of 105 spaces :may sound substantial" it. is worth noting se .... eral points. First, the actual increase in parking demand.. it ar.d when it occurred, would be expected to be graclual and to be distril:x;ted geographically. Second, the 1986 Oo~to~n Plan i~stitutea a monitoring progra~ for 9arking exemptions. A pertor~ance IDeasure was established at a CU1l1\Jlative impact of 225 park.ing :£pace exceptiOl"ls (one-half of that deemed necessary fo~ constr;J.-ction of a neW" public par'kinq garage), at .... hich poInt the excep·tion requlatio.ns 'Would be re-evaltlated. and/or constr~tion of a parking 9arage vould be considered. A tot.al of S9 parkIng spaces have been exempted to date. Third, an intent of the 19S6 Oowntown Plan is to insure that the parking ~eficit does not increase beyond the beyond 1,590 spaces c~lculated in 19S6~ The parki~ deficit has actually decrease~ to 1,490 spaces since the Do~to~~ Plan vas a~oved. In addition, durinq this perioo..r the actual square-footage ;,:added to the do1mtown ha.s been considerably less than 'What 'Was anticipated --46,000 square teet constructed versus )50" {.I(I'O square teet maximum allowed; -. • includinq 14,000 &qu~re feet of eMempt ccnstruction .. versus 15,000 squar. teet allcwable~ Finally" the City has recently taken action to iJlprove parking downtown. In 3anuary 1994" the city council approved a program of 12 parking strate9ies for dovntovn, crafted jointly by the Palo Alto Chtlll:b!-r' of Commerce and city statt.~ On M:ay 2 .. 1994, the City CoUncil approved a downtown par-kinq plan.. The pri:r:ary purpose of these actlol'l.s is to Increas.e the .number of parking spaces and lIla)c.e all PUblic parking ~~sier to us.e. Ift conclusion.. the Impact of the additional potential parkIng exemptIons fro. the proposed text amendment vould not be 61qnifiea~t~ A monitoring program is already in place"to inSure that the .number of pl!zldnq space exemptions does not exceed 2~S spaces without a review of the ex-eH'.ption regulations and/or-an increase in the public parking Sllpply. ~itiq&tloD Measures: None required. • , -\; " ,t, .' . \ " I,: 'I '. " RevlNd Table 1, laformalto" For Ea.h of til. , BaUdblp _lI'<.LY.ZOIIEiJ _I!S ""'CH ME I!01lt S[I""t CATtOOlY I, II, a. III NIl HIS1\IIUc CArtr.orw 1 a. 2 ... ~. t ••• ~ •••• " ....................... 0 •••••• ,,_ ••••••••••• " ••••••• ~I ••• ~.~ •••• ~" ....... ~ •••• ~ ••• 4. '.~.".~".'" •• ~ •• '''.''' '. u.~ ............... , .. ~ ... _ .... . ,,-,"IDrS ,.roe' , Proportj -. .. ZQf\1,., 5n" ..... £11;;'1;1"9 U .. Se1 .. 1a Hllt,Ol'1e tot_y Co'_Y lJlflt1rtg $eft: (f) ~. "'Tata1r..t't SqI'\ ") (E)· (,) ,_ .................................... + •••• -............... ~ •• ~ ..... ~.~ ........ "·· ••• • •• ·~·····.·····.n·.~··* ... ··H ........ ~ ...... · ................. ¥ ........... . lZ0615.0CW ~Ol 'lDl"a"lce (/I·e ;',400 Office 1 , S,U/ 120·15·069 456 lh1veratty CO-C 20,400 'Ow.t,.. II 1 14,972 120.15.011 480 lIn1" .... 1ty ,Dot 9,420 "et •• '/Rea1dlflt111 II 2 M,302 120·16-034 661 SI"Ytnt CO·t 15,82'S (1,-II 2 11,121 120_26·069 620 R.1III'Ilrl1 co-e 3,000 Retlil/Otf1ce I 1 6,106 1.20.26.074 20S HIIII11ton co-e )0,000 Rtt111/Of11ce II 2 26.840 120-,6.092 5Z9 Al/11l co-e 6,250 Retlil I 2 ft,823 120·26-(193 52& 1\11114 CO-C 6,250 RK.i1l0fflce 2 1,692 120-28-011 232 Hale .. (/I·S '1,460 ltM;.il 2 1,4&8 'WrN.- .Pot""~111 undllr Pl"opo.ed ton1nQ ten ~t .t\kh would .llow PM. exript1tJt11 fOf" ,.1&111;C rftI.1Ht.t1on Of" tr.1atOl't~ pre5lt1'v.tiM h~ be .dd1t1ve (5,000 lqft 1rr,...q Of' 601 01 8.11i1ting bIJ11<HI1Y, IiItIlchever 1. qrH\eI") , ",. pr'oper'ty hn Ilre.dy uti"Z" one F.tR lac.'an 1Itd1af' nt, b"", '1.111111CI11y "'PI'h'td. 8-prllpf!llrty is It 01" "N;~1"V 111.11'_ .lllllllbl. fAA, lD eltCeption pt'DYh1Dn~ .II,.. !'tOt 1Ipp11ctble. c-nl!W SquM'fI foot'fIe 15 111111ted by I •• .111..-"Nt D1 3.0 to 1 1n the en-c. 0-nlllW I;qlollirfO footl9l' ,. lilllited by llIoII.II1111111,M D1 2,0 to l in the ro.S, nct>Cl<\OOLBDI'US, PllN <,500 7,627 •• 7,486 . 11,451 0 ",36/ • 5,56. 16,681 2,500 8,706 • 3,160 30,000 C l,500 8,323 • 2,500 11'.192 • 3,462 4,W'O 0 29,668 nw, s.c! 12/6/94 "a. .. ',', :.;. :"'~.'~', . " ' < " , ORD!NANCE NO. ____ _ OJ;DDt\NCE OF THE cotlNCIL OF THE CITY OF FALO A1.TO AMENDING SECTION 18.(9.050 OF THE PALO A1.TO MUNICIPAL O'"JOl! (CD DISTRICT JUlG<.,'LATIONS}, RELATING 'l'O RJ!<J«JDELING OF !lISTORIC BUILDINGS ~# the Planning Commission, after duly ~!ced public hearing held May 11, 1994, has reconmeneed that Section 19.49.060 {CD District Site Development Regulations} of th9! Palo ,..Ito MUniCipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth; and ~R.EAS, the City Cou.ncil, after due cocsi·::!erat.ioc of the re""""",Ddatioos, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public in,terest and ~11 promote t.he public bealth, safety and "'-elfare. The CO\lnCil firAs that. the curre::lt wordi09 in S<.lbsectiQ!l (b) of Section lIL4.9.<l60 .. which limits t.he amount of additional square footage allowable tor remodeling an historic building t~~t requires seismic rehabilitation, ma.y inadvertently in..TUbit the best reuse or remodel of such historic building, and thus not be compatible wit.h the goals of t.he City relating to historic preservatiot!. The council f!rids that the proposed ameDdment. which would delete the current. "penalty· OIl aMitioca.l square footage for such mildings, will enhance t.he opportunities for reuse of historic build_inge in the downtown area, while en~ouraging seismic rehab11itatioc~ NOV .. THEREFORB ... the council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follo~: SECTiON )~ SUbsection (b) of Section 1.8.49.1)60 (CD District Site Devel~e~t Regulations) of t.he Palo Alto MUnicipal COde .. is hereby amended to read as follows: Site development regulatiocs. (bJ Exceptions to FAR reg-u.latioc9: III When a building is :O,,1ng expanded, square foocage which, in the judgment of the chief building o,fticial. does DOt. increase the usable fl()l;)r area# but ie necessary to cocform t.he buIlding t.o Title 24 of t.he califorIlia Code ~gulatiops. regarding handicapped access .. sball not be ~nted as floor area. ~21 When a building t~~~ is in Seismic category I .. II or III is being seismically rehabilitated to the analysis standards referenced i~ Cha~er 16.42 of this code, such building 1 -.' ~., I I ! , ..... . shall be allowed to in~rease ite floor area by two thousar~ five hundred l8.qU.!.re feet or by twenty-five percent Of the eJf..isting building. wh1che'orer 1s great-er, without having this increase count toward ~he FARr however, all s~~are footage shall be counted as square footage fer the p.lrposes o-f the three bundred fifty thousand square foot limit on development (Section 19.49.030J and the project size limit (Section 1.8.49.040(a}) and in no event shall a buil~ing expand beyond a FAR of 3.0 to 1 in tne CD-C subdistrict and a. FAR. of 2.0 to 1 in the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts. This exception shall be allowed on a site only on-ce .. (3} JI.)., /:j\ building that i9 in Historic Category 1 or 2 (&fl~ a5iee is Be~ is Seismie Gate~e~ I, II e~ III) ehall be alloyed to increase its floor area by two thousand five hundred square feet or by twenty-five percent of the eXisting building, whiche'J'l;'r i.e greater, without baving this increase count toward the PAR.; howeve:r .. all square footage shall be counted as square .footage for the purposes o·f the t.hree hundred fifty thousand square foot: limit on development. (Section 1.8.49.030) a..""1d tbe project size limit (Section 18.~.94040ta}) and in no event shall a building expand beyond a PAR of 3.0 to 1 in the CD-C subdistrict and a FAR of 2.0 to 1 in ~he CD-S and CD·N subdistrict.s. This shall ~ allowed on a site :~~r~.t!9f>t a~!lb«~'·O'''':~''i.~! t4J.h:t.t ~~f>ii! !bUll ~!!"~lY. <It. ~'!!'I'~ aH-irillYVi.t.h .. ·~ ~i.90~,:r"~"t>dnu~ 2 !=~.,--........... !. , -, • · . te) A bu!ldiog that js not in Historic Category 1 or 2 nor in Se!s!!l1e category I. II or III shall be aliowed to lnc~ease its floor area by two hundred s~~are feet without ~~vi~ this incre.ase eount toward the FAR; h-crwever .. a,ll square. [O<)tage s~all be counted as square f~age for the purposes of the three hundred fifty thousand square foot limit on development (Section 1~.49.0301 and the project size lirr~t (Section lS.49.040{a)} ~~ in no event shall a building expand beyond a FAR oE 3.0 to 1 in the CD-C sUlX'!:istrict and a FAR of 2.0 to 1 in the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts. ThiS e-~e~ion shall be allowed on a site only once. (5) In the CD-S and CO-N subdistricts,. (i} for exclusive residential use on any site. the r~~lations and guidelines set forth in Chap<ers 19.24 and 18.29 .. or Chapters 18.22 and 1!L2S. respectively .. o·f the Palo Alto Mlnicipal Code shall apply. and (iiJ for mixed residcneial and nonresidential use en any site, the regulations a~d guidelines set forth in Chapters 1!.24 and 1a~28. or Cha~ers 19.22 and 18.2S~ respectively. of the Palo Alto Hunicipal ~ shall apply t.o that port-ion of the site area in residential use. In DO case shall the floor area rat.io of the nonresidential usee exceed tbe base FAR set forth above. CD·S (See Map 2) RM-30 regulatioos l except. It.''t-1S regulations in Areas 1 and 2 CI)·c Site -coverage: No requirement. ", '. + , .\-. 3 CD-S CD·. (See Map 3) RM-3C regulations. except RM-1S regulations in Areas 1 and 2 CD·. No requirement M3xllm1!!l of sot of site. Height: Aceessory faci1ities uses: 50 to.x maxi.mura 50 foot maximum :< 5 foot maxi J:'Ium, except. 3S foot maxi JI'l'I..mt -where one or more floors of principal facility are in residen tial use Regulations govErning accessory facilities and uses. and governing the application of site and development regulations in specific instances, are established by Cha~er 18.88. SECTION 2. The CO'..mcil fiDds t.hat this project .. as mitigated~ will ~ bave a significant environmental effect. SECTION 3 _ This ordioa.nce shall be effective on .the thirty-first day after the date Qf its adoption. INTRODUCED : PASSED: AYES: NOBS: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO PORM: City Attorney APPROVED: Mayor City Manager . Director of Planning and Community Environroent ... -c· j --. -, --