HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-18 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
October 18, 2004
1. Part-Time Employee Report .............................................................243
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. .................................243
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................244
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ..........................................................................244
1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Approval of Amendment No. 4
to the Agreement for Funding of Operation and Maintenance for the
Central Valley Project Power Facilities and Authorization to the City
Manager to Execute Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement ....................244
2. Adoption of a Resolution Electing to Establish a Health Benefit Vesting
Requirement for Future Retirees Under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) for SEIU, Service Employees’
International Union, Local 715 .........................................................244
3. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council Adoption of a
Resolution Authorizing the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) to
Apply Payments Due from Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), as appropriate, to set off the alleged PG&E claim related to its Scheduling
Coordinator Services (SCS). ............................................................245
4. Public Hearing: The City Council will consider an Application by Hoover
Associates on behalf of Richard Peery for Site and Design Review of a
new 73,932 Square Foot Office Building with at Grade Parking and
Related Site Improvements Located on a 5.66-Acre Site at 2300 East
Bayshore Road within the LM (D)(3) Limited Industrial Site Combining
Zone District. Draft Initial Study Recommending the Preparation of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration. File Numbers: 03-EIA-17, 03-D-04 ......245
5. Public Hearing: The City Council will consider a Request by Herman
Shaw of A&D Protocol Transportation, Inc. for a Five-Year Extension to
an Approved Tentative Map for a 10-Lot Residential Subdivision
Located at 525 San Antonio Road. City Council Approved the Tentative
Map on July 1, 2002. No Modifications to this Map have been Made
10/18/04 98-241
Since that Time. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration
has been prepared. Zone District: R-1(743). File No. [04-SUB-01; 04-
EIA-05]. ........................................................................................260
6. City Attorney Focused Work Plan ......................................................261
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ........................264
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. ...............................264
10/18/04 98-242
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Freeman, Kishimoto, Morton, Mossar,
Ojakian
ABSENT: Kleinberg
STUDY SESSION
1. Part-Time Employee Report
City Manager Frank Benest presented and reviewed a briefing paper on the
hourly employee issue. He emphasized City management was open to the
group or any group organizing as a recognized bargaining unit. The initial
issue was the appropriate definition and composition of the proposed
unit. He also identified a number of different types of "hourly" employees,
including continuous hourlies, seasonal employees, PERS exempt staff, PERS
retirees, and intermittent hourly employees. Finally, the City Manager
presented the legal process the City must follow in considering the petition
to form the bargaining unit.
No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
10/18/04 98-243
Regular Meeting
October 18, 2004
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Freeman, Kishimoto, Morton, Mossar,
Ojakian
ABSENT: Kleinberg
Junior Girl Scout Troop 663 from Duvenek Elementary School led the
meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and presented the Mayor with an
orchid.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ed Powers, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding good government and
sang.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Assistant City Clerk Deanna Riding requested the minutes of September 20,
2004, be removed from the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Burch, to approve
Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3.
LEGISLATIVE
1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Approval of Amendment No. 4
to the Agreement for Funding of Operation and Maintenance for the
Central Valley Project Power Facilities and Authorization to the City
Manager to Execute Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement
Resolution 8461 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Amendment No. 4 to Agreement for Funding of
Operation and Maintenance for the Central Valley Project Power
Facilities”
2. Adoption of a Resolution Electing to Establish a Health Benefit Vesting Requirement for Future Retirees Under the Public Employees’ Medical
and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) for SEIU, Service Employees’
International Union, Local 715
10/18/04 98-244
Resolution 8462 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Electing to Establish a Health Benefit Vesting Requirement for
Future Regular Employee Retirees from Local 715, Service Employees'
International Union (SEIU) Under the Public Employees’ Medical and
Hospital Care Act”
COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
3. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council Adoption of a
Resolution Authorizing the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) to
Apply Payments Due from Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), as
appropriate, to set off the alleged PG&E claim related to its Scheduling
Coordinator Services (SCS).
Resolution 8463 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Authorizing the Northern California Power Agency to Apply
Payments Due from PG&E to Set Off the Alleged Pacific Gas and
Electric Company Claim Relating to its Scheduling Coordinator Services
Tariff”
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kleinberg absent.
PUBLIC HEARING
4. Public Hearing: The City Council will consider an Application by Hoover Associates on behalf of Richard Peery for Site and Design Review of a
new 73,932 Square Foot Office Building with at Grade Parking and
Related Site Improvements Located on a 5.66-Acre Site at 2300 East
Bayshore Road within the LM (D)(3) Limited Industrial Site Combining
Zone District. Draft Initial Study Recommending the Preparation of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration. File Numbers: 03-EIA-17, 03-D-04.
Mayor Beecham indicated the matter before them was quasi-judicial and
subject to Council disclosure.
Council Member Kishimoto walked by the site and spoke with several
members of the public.
Council Member Freeman did not obtain any new information from persons
she spoke with.
Council Member Cordell spoke with approximately three members of the
public and the developer, and did not glean any new information.
10/18/04 98-245
Council Member Ojakian spoke with Ms. Volterra and Mr. Peery, and did not
receive any new information.
Council Member Morton spoke with Mr. Peery and did not receive any new
information.
Mayor Beecham and Vice Mayor Burch did not receive any new information.
Planning and Community Environment Director Steve Emslie said the project
began in 2000, when the applicant submitted a Planned Community (PC)
application for an approximate 110,000-square-foot office building. In early
2003, the PC application was rejected by the City Council on the
recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) and
Planning staff. The Council at that time, with the support of the P&TC,
adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in conjunction with
approving the applicant’s request to rezone the restaurant parcel from a PC
to a LM(D)(3). The project was subsequently reduced to 73,932 square feet.
In addition, the project met or exceeded all other development standards,
was less than the 35-foot height limit, reduced the impervious coverage by
7.5 percent, exceeded the 10percent landscape requirement by 4.3 percent,
and exceeded all required setbacks by a substantial margin. The action
before the Council that evening was the approval of an architectural and site
plan, as required under the City’s site and design provisions. Staff
recommended to the Council approval of the site design based on the
findings contained in the staff report (CMR:446:04) and the attachments. Staff found the building was similar in height to other existing two-story
buildings in the vicinity, and approximately 50 percent of the proposed
landscaping was verified by City Arborist Dave Dockter to be native or
naturalized vegetation consistent with Baylands policy. The building was
substantially set back from public streets providing an appropriate landscape
buffer and complimented the approach to the Baylands. The project was also
consistent with the Comp Plan, which established the Bayshore area as a
diverse employment center.
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the proposed project was within the
allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .3 to 1. The site coverage was at 16
percent, which was below the 30 percent allowed. In addition to providing
more landscaping than required, the applicant modified the landscape plan
to be more reflective of the Baylands. The eleven proposed Redwood trees
would be moved from the south side of the building to a southeast perimeter
location, which would help screen the site from the bike path. In addition,
the remaining perimeter of the site had been modified to reflect native or
naturalized plant material. The two areas adjacent to the main entrance had
been modified to reflect Byxbee Park landscaping and other Baylands native
plant material, and the applicant was amenable to providing informational
10/18/04 98-246
signs to reference the landscaped areas. The applicant had proposed 54
additional parking spaces over and above the 246-minimum required. The
P&TC recommended the additional 54 spaces be placed in landscape reserve,
which was noted in Attachment A of the ordinance. Planning staff
recommended the 54 additional parking spaces be provided at the same
time as the rest of the parking because it would be useful in an area where
there was no room for overflow or on-street parking.
Transportation Engineer Heba El-Guendy described the Congestion
Management Program (CMP) guidelines for performing traffic impact analysis
for cities and towns within Santa Clara County. The guidelines covered four
analysis scenarios: 1) existing conditions; 2) background conditions; 3)
project conditions; and 4) cumulative conditions. Existing conditions were
based on representative traffic volumes, turning movement counts, and the
study intersections, as well as segment counts on freeways. Background
conditions covered the list of approved projects and were determined for the
year when the project was completed. Project conditions involved project
generated trips, which were added to the background volumes at study
intersections and roadway segments. If there were approved projects on the
site that could be fully occupied without going through another approval
process, and had its own set of implemented mitigations, the project would
be provided with credit for its existing uses. The project trips would then be
the difference between the project-generated trips minus the existing uses.
Cumulative conditions were typically asked of projects, which generated net
trips of 100 or more trips during the AM or PM peak hour.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Karen Holman, said the P&TC
motion was to approve the MND with four conditions. They included: 1) the
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program that went to the
Director of Planning and Community Environment for approval, plus
consideration of any possible additional funding for a shuttle as part of the
TDM program; 2) the 54 additional parking spaces should be placed in
landscape reserve; 3) the driveway should be moved pending police and fire
considerations and needs; and 4) the landscape plan should reflect the
Baylands Master Plan (BMP). Amendments to the plan suggested: 1)
integration of the bicycle path along the southern edge of the property
should be incorporated into the TDM program; 2) consideration should be
given to preserve more of the existing trees; and 3) possible salvage of the
buildings being removed. There was considerable discussion about the site
and design review of the physical building and its compatibility with the BMP,
which was referred to the ARB.
Architectural Review Board Member David Solnick, said the ARB felt the
architectural drawings were not complete with regard to details and
10/18/04 98-247
materials. They also did not feel the concept would be in context with the
Baylands.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing open at 7:30 p.m.
Lee Ashby, Architect, Hoover and Associates, urged Council’s support of
staff’s recommendation to approve the MND, as well as the site and design
review application for the proposed office building. During the life of the
project a number of design changes were made in direct response to the City
process. In December 2001, Hoover and Associates met with the ARB, after
which a number of changes were made to the site and floor plans. They
included changes to the building wings, the exterior walls, and delivery
vehicle spaces. After the project went before the Council, the building was
downsized and the underground parking was eliminated. Additional changes
occurred in 2004, whereby the first and second floors were offset, columns
were added to give the south façade a more three-dimensional appearance,
the landscape plan was modified, and an interpretive landscape area was
added. The color palette was changed to more closely resemble the colors
found in the Baylands. Despite the many changes, there were a number of
items the architect could not concur with: 1) a more architectural
inventiveness and responsiveness to the site’s location at the gateway to the
Baylands. The colors, textures, forms and variations in the architectural
composition were, in his mind, compatible with those found in the Baylands,
while appropriate for use as an office building. The building palette of
materials was varied and included pre-cast concrete, green-colored vision glass, etc. The building’s façade achieved variety through its two- and three-
dimensional characteristics, changes in height, and floor placed geometry,
which added animation to the building; and 2) a higher level of sustainable
design. The project incorporated high performance dual glazed windows with
low e-vision glass, showers and lockers for bicyclists, a reduction of building
coverage from the existing plan, parking lot landscaping, the lowest FAR in
the City, bio swells along the off-ramp, energy star high reflective roofing
cap sheets for possible photovoltaic cells, water conservative irrigation
systems, and the use of fly ash in the concrete. He expressed his love of the
project, the way it was presented, how it met or exceeded all the City
standards for zoning, and was believed to be a quality project.
Dorothy Bender, Military Way, referred to Attachment H of the staff report
(CMR:446:04), and said the MND being proposed had not yet been
circulated for public review. The ARB unanimously denied the project on
April 2004, because of its basic flaws related to the requirements of the
BMP, as follows: 1) compliance with the requirement for compatibility with
the Baylands and for no increase in urbanization; 2) compliance with the
requirement for sustainable architecture; and 3) design of the project as a
gateway building. She urged the Council to deny the project.
10/18/04 98-248
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said because of the misgivings of some
P&TC members and the full ARB Board, the Council would be wise to refer
the project back for further review or deny it.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Street, urged the Council to deny the project
and pay attention to the comments of the ARB.
Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said he believed the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) was inadequate and insufficient. He also felt the Council should
take a serious look at the ARB’s comments regarding the site and design
review of the project. He urged the Council to reject the project.
Joy Ogawa, Yale Street, urged the Council to follow the unanimous decision
of the ARB to deny the site and design review application for the project.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, concurred with the comments of Dorothy
Bender. A fair argument had been made that the project would have a
potentially significant impact that was not mitigated by the present MND.
Either the MND should be amended or an EIR prepared.
Mike Alexander, Barron Park, said the ARB’s unanimous denial of the project
was impressive and unique. He believed the ARB was looking for a more
ambitious refection of the Baylands site. The developer had been cooperative
in some respects, and contrary in others. The building was too urban for the
location, did not relate to the nature of the Baylands, had no special gateway qualities, and lacked progressive sustainability elements. He urged the
Council to require the developer to continue working with the ARB to
improve the design.
Diane Sekimura, 2082 Sandalwood Court, expressed her concern about
traffic. She said based on Tom Brohard’s focused study report, there were
numerous errors and outstanding transportation issues associated with the
projects. The Fehrs & Peers Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) failed to show all of
the significant and/or potentially significant impacts of the project or to
provide adequate mitigation, and should not be approved.
Angelica Volterra, P.O. Box 1724, said in 2002, public hearings were held to
discuss the dangerous and congested situation created as the result of the
International School of the Peninsula’s move to Laura Lane, not far from the
site of the proposed project. There was approximately 389,000 square feet
of vacant office space in the project’s immediate vicinity. The project was
being built on a dead end cul-de-sac on Watson Court near the highly
congested intersection at Embarcadero and East Bayshore Roads. A study
commissioned by the City regarding the aforementioned roads stated a
project at that intersection would cause significant environmental impacts
10/18/04 98-249
and operational safety hazards that had not been disclosed. She urged the
Council to deny the proposed project.
Council Member Kishimoto asked Ms. Volterra for clarification of how she
arrived at the figure of approximately 389,000 square feet of vacant office
space in the project’s immediate vicinity.
Ms. Volterra said she documented the amount of vacant square footage that
covered East Bayshore Road to the south just north of the Emily Renzel
Marsh, north along East Bayshore Road to the Post Office, and eastward on
Embarcadero Road that included part of Geng Road.
Toni Stein, 800 Magnolia Street, Menlo Park, said the proposed project was
in the treasured Baylands. The Fehrs & Peers TIA report failed to conduct a
Level of Service (LOS) analysis at the intersection at Watson Court and East
Bayshore Road, and they assumed all the traffic coming from the restaurant
would come out at Watson Court, rather than East Bayshore Road. She
encouraged the Council to take a look at the flaws in the TIA, including the
fact it did not assume all the permitted uses.
Jason Peery, Peery-Arrillaga, said he and his team had been responsive to
the comments of the P&TC, the ARB, and the public for the past four years.
Council Member Mossar asked why photovoltaic cells were a possibility
rather than a certainty.
Lee Ashby, Hoover and Associates, said he did not believe it was a
requirement, but the structure was being upgraded to include it if the
tenants so desired.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:05 p.m.
Chief Transportation Official Joseph Kott said staff received an email
attachment that afternoon of the work of Mr. Brohard and did a cursory
review of his submittal.
Mr. Emslie said the traffic analysis had undergone extensive review by the
previous and current Planning staff, and both were satisfied the TIA was
adequate to conclude the findings in the MND.
Council Member Morton said the suggestion was made that Watson Court
was an intersection; however, it seemed more like a driveway. He asked
whether that was a correct analysis.
10/18/04 98-250
Ms. El-Guendy said that was correct. Watson Court only served the Peery-
Arrillaga development. In addition, the property at 2370 Embarcadero Road
had two parking lots, one of which was a driveway off Watson Court.
Council Member Mossar referred to the City Attorney’s Report dated October
12, 2004, regarding 2300 East Bayshore Baseline Analysis. She said it was
important for the Council to proceed with the current strategy for traffic
baseline analysis. She did not want to see the City get into the business of
not crediting baseline traffic when buildings were unoccupied because it
would make it difficult to convert those properties into housing. She
encouraged her colleagues to stay the course and not change policy.
Council Member Morton asked for a point of order. He expressed general
concern about due notification to the public. It seemed to be a major policy
issue that had not received adequate notification.
Mayor Beecham asked staff whether adequate notification had been given on
the issue of baseline analysis.
City Attorney Gary Baum said adequate notification had been given to deal
with the issue in its present context.
Mayor Beecham clarified the issue was relative to 2300 East Bayshore Road
although the Council may want to consider future ramifications as well.
Mr. Baum agreed and stated every project the Council considered might
have other ramifications; however, the Council was able to deal with the
baseline issue that evening.
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Morton, that for
this project the baseline traffic count, as suggested by staff, would be used.
Mayor Beecham said it would also provide credit for the project for the
existing buildings, even though they might be vacant and had been so for
some time.
Council Member Morton said he was happy to limit the discussion solely to
the motion on the table.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the City Attorney wanted to
present his recommendations.
Mr. Baum said the City Attorney Report dated October 14, 2004, outlined
three possible options, any of which were legally defensible. He also laid out
approximately eight baseline cases that equally upheld or rejected the
10/18/04 98-251
variance. The issue was before the Council so there would be an adequate
record that the cases clearly required the decision makers to adopt a
baseline, but they must establish, for the record, how they got there and
make the findings.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by
Freeman, to accept City Attorney Baum’s recommendations to count
restaurant traffic, but not count the office traffic, as the office buildings had
been vacant for four years.
Mayor Beecham said if the Council wished to consider a substitute motion
that reversed where the main motion was headed he wanted to get an
understanding of the preference. He accepted the substitute motion for
Option 2, which was to accept the traffic credit for the restaurant into the
baseline.
Council Member Kishimoto said she chose Option 2 because it was a
compromise based on a consistency of how other traffic analyses were done.
She asked when an LOS was measured at an intersection, did it involve
extrapolations based on adding back the 400,000 square feet of vacancy or
were actual counts taken.
Mr. Emslie said regular readings or actual counts were taken.
Council Member Kishimoto said the CEQA wording stated the conditions must be evaluated as they existed. If extrapolation was used for traffic increase, it
needed to be consistent in applying it to evaluating impacted intersections.
Council Member Freeman said there had been a number of changes at the
intersection of East Bayshore and Embarcadero Roads with different
projects; however, the capacity of the intersection was known based on
what had been there previously. She believed it should be counted.
Council Member Cordell commended the City Attorney for being proactive in
raising an issue that needed discussion. She concurred with Council Member
Morton that it could not be disposed of that evening. She indicated she
spoke with Mr. Peery who stated the process had been a very long one. He
also pointed out he was told what the baseline would be, and now the rules
seemed to change. She wondered what was morally and ethically the right
thing to do with respect to Mr. Peery and the proposed project. She
expressed opposition to the substitute motion.
Vice Mayor Burch expressed opposition to the substitute motion. He said
Palo Alto had always considered the “re-occupancy” rate the same as what
was there originally.
10/18/04 98-252
Council Member Morton said he was not appreciative of the City Attorney’s
memo. While he appreciated the fact there were policy questions, they
needed to be duly noticed with input from everyone. He expressed
opposition to the substitute motion.
Council Member Ojakian said the substitute motion and the City Attorney’s
recommendation was in opposition to longstanding policies and practices the
City had and was contrary to what most other cities in the Bay Area and in
California were doing. He suggested the City Attorney take another look at
the baseline issue. He expressed opposition to the substitute motion, as it
would encourage maximum use of a building if someone wanted to
redevelop the site.
Council Member Freeman said she realized her colleagues’ dilemma involved
two difficult moral issues: 1) following through with the original decision on
the basis of fairness; and 2) what was the overall good for the long-term
safety and welfare of the community. She believed it was the responsibility
of the Council, based on the information presented, to make a moral
decision.
Mayor Beecham said the Council had decisions to make on land use, zoning,
and traffic to name a few; however, emotionally charged issues of morality,
patriotism, or the flag should not be discussed. He believed it was in the
City’s best interest to support the existing usage of the buildings and to
acknowledge, if the application was not approved, the landlord could lease those buildings out, knowing the traffic would return when the economy
improved. He expressed support for the original motion.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether staff understood the consistency
issue and took into account the consistency between traffic counts and LOS
analysis.
Staff nodded in agreement.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kleinberg absent.
RECESS: 8:45 p.m. to 8:52 p.m.
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to deny
approval of the 2300 East Bayshore Road Application.
Council Member Mossar felt the project did not comply with the direction or
history of the community in protecting the Baylands and developing the area
10/18/04 98-253
to be compatible with the Baylands Master Plan. She said regardless of the
previous baseline discussions, she did not believe the traffic analysis could
withstand a logical interpretation, and was disappointed the project did not
adequately deal with the bicycle access issue.
Council Member Kishimoto said she would like her previous questions to staff
to be made part of the record. She asked whether it was true that without
any further review by either the Director of Planning and Community
Environment or the Council, the entire project could be used for a
medical/dental or a private educational facility.
Ms. El-Guendy said that was not true. Those types of land uses had different
trip generation rates.
Council Member Kishimoto said based on how the Zoning Code was written a
medical/dental facility was a permitted use.
Ms. Lisa Grote said medical/dental and private educational facilities were
permitted uses; however, staff would look at traffic and parking impacts as
uses that had more intensive parking requirements.
Council Member Kishimoto asked when that would be done.
Ms. Grote said it would be looked at when the uses changed.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether it would go through the Planning
Department’s discretionary review.
Ms. Grote said it was not a discretionary review, but staff would require
more parking when they became aware of tenant changes.
Council Member Kishimoto clarified there was no obligation to report the
change in use.
Ms. Grote said the City did not require business licenses so they were not
automatically notified.
Council Member Kishimoto said without the City knowing about it, the facility
could become 100 percent medical/dental. In looking at the cumulative
impacts, she asked whether staff included the Four Seasons Hotel and/or
University Palm.
Ms. El-Guendy said no. The cumulative impacts were not included in the
study. She said based on her own analysis, there would be some mitigation
required under Policy 20-15.
10/18/04 98-254
Council Member Kishimoto expressed opposition to the project, which was
based in part on the extensive record she received. She noted the P&TC
deferred a lot of the design review to the ARB, who denied the project based
on their findings. She also noted if there was substantial evidence that a
project would have a significant impact on the environment, the agency was
obligated to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). She found
the record to be incomplete, the site and design findings could not be made,
there was substantial evidence to prepare an EIR, and there were mistakes
in the staff report.
Council Member Morton said the project before them involved three empty
warehouses and an empty restaurant on an unpleasant intersection and not
on the edge of the Baylands. Staff indicated the project met all the
requirements, did not ask for any variances or access, had an
environmentally sensitive landscaping program, and was on the corner of a
street of office buildings. There had been some suggestions certain members
of the ARB felt the applicant would not respond to textures or colors. He
asked whether staff had any apprehension the applicant would not work with
them in terms of preferred colors and compatible landscaping.
Mr. Emslie said no. Staff supported the project and believed the applicant
would work with them.
Council Member Morton clarified the applicant would also be a willing partner
in the landscaping and colors. He asked his colleagues to vote against the motion and support staff’s recommendation. It was a project that was four
year’s in the making.
Vice Mayor Burch said the project was a lot further from the Baylands than
other buildings in between. He had been to the Emily Renzel Wetlands on
numerous occasions, but the proposed project was different, and he could
not foresee any development in the space that would not pose traffic
problems. He expressed concern about what was really being said and what
any developer or property owner was expected to do on the site that would
make it valuable to him or her, and a value to the City. He expressed
support for the project.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether there was substantial evidence or
contradictory evidence as to how CEQA should be handled.
Mr. Baum said the standard requirement for an EIR was whether there was a
fair argument based on substantial evidence of a significant impact upon the
environment. It was up to the Council to make that determination.
10/18/04 98-255
Council Member Ojakian asked how the dueling traffic studies came into
play.
Mr. Baum said there could be contradictory information provided; however,
there was a traffic engineer on staff who had evaluated the traffic impacts
and was comfortable with it.
Mr. Emslie said he understood CEQA case law and regulations stated
disagreement among experts was not necessarily reasonable cause for
making a fair argument that an EIR should be prepared.
Council Member Ojakian clarified if the project went forward and was legally
challenged, staff was comfortable with their recommendation.
Mr. Baum said the MND, if passed by Council, was legally defensible.
Council Member Ojakian asked for clarification of the project not being
compatible with the BMP, and there being no guidelines yet developed.
Mr. Emslie said there were numerous documentations and plans for the
Baylands, which had been reviewed and considered by the City over the
years. One of the items on the Planning Department’s work plan was the
compilation of the existing policies in relation to what existed in the Comp
Plan and what, if any, changes were necessary to bring the intended policies
of the Baylands into compliance with the Comp Plan. Staff was scheduled to bring back Council’s consideration of the Environmental Services Center
(ESC) in conjunction with the results of the Comp Plan policies, now
imbedded in the Comp Plan and which amendments, if any, would be
needed. He said there were no guidelines in place, but recommendations to
be implemented.
Council Member Ojakian said there were traffic issues surrounding Laura
Lane. He asked staff for their perception. He also asked what the TDM
covered.
Mr. Emslie said there was a condition for the TDM plan to be implemented in
conjunction with the project, which required the applicant to come back and
propose specific measures. Staff, however, could not anticipate the
implementation of a shuttle system, but rather a ride matching work hours
type of issue. Staff could give the Council a more in depth analysis of Laura
Lane; however, they would need time to compile the information.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether the TDM addressed the concerns
Council Member Mossar raised around traffic and LOS at the intersection of
Embarcadero and East Bayshore Roads.
10/18/04 98-256
Mr. Emslie said trip generation rates and staff’s experience with diversion of
traffic would yield a fairly low percentage of trip diversion, or approximately
5 to 8 percent through a comprehensive TDM program.
Council Member Ojakian concurred with the comments of Vice Mayor Burch.
He was concerned if a project such as the one proposed could not be
approved, the City would perhaps be left with something less appealing. He
said staff comments and recommendations and the P&TC recommendation in
support of the project should be weighed in conjunction with the ARB’s
unanimous vote against the project. The applicant had made several
changes over the years and brought the project down to a reasonable level.
He hoped, if the motion failed, the Council would come back and approve the
project.
Council Member Morton asked whether the existing shuttle’s route included
the area around the proposed project.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
Council Member Cordell said she wanted to remind her colleagues they were
there for two specific reasons: 1) approve the MND; and 2) approve the site
and design review application. The overriding goal however was to have a
project at 2300 East Bayshore that mitigated any environmental impacts.
She expressed concern about the process, which seemed convoluted. When
the P&TC looked at the site and design review they had to make four findings, which they could not do and deferred the matter to the ARB. The
ARB could not do it either, but did request more information from the
developer. The project went back to the P&TC without having all four of the
findings made, but the P&TC still approved the site and design review. The
question in her mind was how could the Council make a decision that the
site and design review findings had been made when: 1) the P&TC was
unable to make all four of the findings; and 2) the ARB could not make them
either. The project was in the Baylands and called for special scrutiny to be
applied. She expressed support for the motion.
Mayor Beecham said from his point of view, the discussion that evening was
not about the use. The TIA was consistent with the kinds of analysis relied
on previously, including data and projections. Issues had been raised about
whether the project was an appropriate gateway facility. He did not perceive
the gateway to the Baylands to be something outstanding in terms of being
multi-storied nor was it a row of telephone poles stuck on a building. He
would like it to be something that did not attract much attention but was
surrounded by landscaping to soften it, which the proposed project did. He
believed the findings were there and could be supported. He expressed
opposition to the motion.
10/18/04 98-257
Council Member Freeman said it had been stated the project relied on a
previous traffic analysis. The previous traffic analysis was the cause of
problems at the intersection with the ISP. She wondered whether the vision
of the Baylands was an office building that you could not see, or was the
vision one of changing the Baylands to a more natural looking habitat. She
believed the site called for more precise information based on the realities of
today’s knowledge.
MOTION FAILED 4-4, Beecham, Burch, Morton, Ojakian no, Kleinberg
absent.
Mayor Beecham suggested making a motion to close the public hearing, and
continue the item to a date certain when all nine Council members were
present.
Mr. Benest said staff would look at the calendar and select a date to return
the item to Council.
Mayor Beecham asked whether a date certain was needed in the motion.
Mr. Baum said without a date in the motion, the item would need to be re-
noticed.
Council Mossar said the strategy to continue the item would favor one side
over the other. The side that voted to deny was in a better position to have the item fail.
Mr. Baum said based on Council Protocol, there was nothing to prevent any
Council Member from agendizing a matter that resulted in a tie vote for a
subsequent meeting.
Mayor Beecham clarified regardless of whether action was taken that
evening, the item could be called back by either side; however, the public
hearing, as well as the entire process, would be reopened.
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Morton, to return
to Council with this item on November 8, 2004, when Council Member
Kleinberg is in attendance.
Council Member Freeman asked what would be the next step if the motion to
continue the item failed.
Mayor Beecham said the Council would have taken no action on the item nor
would they have continued it. The situation remained whereby any two
members of the Council could ask to have item agendized and brought back.
10/18/04 98-258
Council Member Freeman clarified the motion would not have failed, but
rather no action was taken.
Mayor Beecham said yes.
Mr. Benest said staff was concerned given the other major items facing
Council before the end of year. If the item were to come back, the public
hearing should be closed.
Council Member Morton said if the motion to continue the item did not pass,
he and Council Member Ojakian would request to reagendize the item.
Council Member Kishimoto requested clarification on the status of the project
if the motion to continue failed.
Mayor Beecham asked whether the Council was obligated to take action on
the item by a certain time.
Mr. Baum said under the Permanent Streamlining Act the Council would be;
however, under Council Protocols the project would be suspended if the
matter were continued.
Mayor Beecham asked if the Council became truly tied in any action and
thereby took no action, would that put them in any jeopardy that required
them to take action on the application.
Mr. Baum said, ultimately, the developer could bring an action in court to
comply action to be taken. It was a multi-step process that tended not to be
successful.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the status could be denial of the
project because of a failed majority.
Mr. Baum said in certain cities that rule applied; however, Palo Alto was not
one of them. Palo Alto did not have an ordinance deemed denied.
Council Member Cordell stated the Council took a vote that evening to deny
approval of the application, which failed on a 4-4 vote. The Council had not
taken a vote to approve the application on the assumption it too would fail,
but she believed that vote should be taken. If that motion failed on a 4-4
vote, then the Council would be in a position to say that no action had been
taken.
MOTION WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECONDER
10/18/04 98-259
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Burch, to approve
the 2300 East Bayshore Road Application.
MOTION FAILED 4-4, Cordell, Freeman, Kishimoto, Mossar no, Kleinberg
absent.
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Morton, to return
to Council with this item on November 8, 2004, when Council Member
Kleinberg is in attendance.
MOTION PASSED 6-2, Kishimoto, Mossar no, Kleinberg absent.
5. Public Hearing: The City Council will consider a Request by Herman
Shaw of A&D Protocol Transportation, Inc. for a Five-Year Extension to
an Approved Tentative Map for a 10-Lot Residential Subdivision
Located at 525 San Antonio Road. City Council Approved the Tentative
Map on July 1, 2002. No Modifications to this Map have been Made
Since that Time. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration
has been prepared. Zone District: R-1(743). File No. [04-SUB-01; 04-
EIA-05].
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said staff’s recommendation to the Council
was to approve a five-year extension of the Tentative Map for a 10-Lot
residential subdivision at 525 San Antonio Road. All aspects of the original
proposal were the same, as well as all of the conditions originally attached. The extension would not interfere with the continuation of the Peninsula Day
Care Center (PDCC). The Tentative Map would be extended to July 1, 2009.
Mayor Beecham opened the Public Hearing at 9:45 p.m.
Ken Schreiber, 432 Webster Street, said in order to process the Final Map,
the City Attorney’s office concluded the buildings would have to be
demolished and PDCC closed, which the operators did not want to do. Thus,
the five-year extension was sought.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:46
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Morton, to approve
the staff and Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation to
extend the approval of the Tentative Map for an additional five-year period,
based upon the original project findings, one modified Condition of Approval
extending the approval, and all other original Conditions of Approval
contained with the Record of Land Use Action.
10/18/04 98-260
ACTION NO. 2004-06
Record of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Land Use Action
For 525 San Antonio Road: Approved Tentative Map Extension
04-SUB-01; 04-EIA-05 (A&D Protocol, Applicant)
Council Member Ojakian said PDCC was one of the biggest daycare centers
in town with the largest number of slots for incoming children. He expressed
support for the extension.
Council Member Morton said although the use would continue, did it require
the use to be in place for the next five years or could the applicant shorten
the time.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie said the
extension allowed the applicant five additional years in which to prepare and
have the Council approve their Final Subdivision Map.
Council Member Mossar clarified when the Council previously approved the
Tentative Map, the approval was conditioned on having a bike/pedestrian
access through the end of the proposed cul-de-sac onto the school district
property. She understood that condition still existed; however, it did not
show on the Tentative Map.
Mr. Emslie said it was referenced in the Conditions of Approval and the
purpose of the Final Map was to implement those conditions. It would be reflected on the recorded Final Map.
Ms. Grote said the bike/pedestrian access was outlined on Page 6, Section 6,
under “Prior to Recordation of Final Map.”
Council Member Freeman asked what legal ramifications would exist to
extending the Final Map.
City Attorney Gary Baum said the original approval was simply extended for
five years with no changes.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kleinberg absent.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
6. City Attorney Focused Work Plan
City Attorney Gary Baum presented an overview of the City Attorney’s Office
and Focused Work Plan. The Focused Work Plan outlined seven action items
for the City Attorney to concentrate upon for the balance of the fiscal year.
10/18/04 98-261
Those items were in addition to the regular responsibilities of the City
Attorney including attending Council meetings, providing legal advice to
Council, responding to staff requests and managing the City Attorney’s
office. The Attorney’s Office was comprised of five fulltime attorneys, plus
several hourly and part-time attorneys. There were seven action items as
well as seven goals, which were consistent with the Council’s Top Five
Priorities: 1) Complete more assignments while reducing the turnaround
time. The goal was to enhance the Office’s productivity by making staff more
task oriented; 2) Prepare or form a “Conflicts Analysis Strike Force” utilizing
two in-house attorneys and one outside attorney. The goal was to enhance
the advice provided to Council; 3) Assist in the City contract-streamlining
program. The goal was to reduce contract-processing time and standardize
City forms. A small number of boilerplate forms would be placed on a shared
drive for staff members to utilize; 4) Attempt to reduce outside counsel for
utility-related work. It would involve monitoring outside counsel as well as
bring as many items in house as possible; 5) Continue to analyze Code
Enforcement and determine the best way to provide those services; 6) Assist
in providing training in areas of need and increase the availability of legal
services. The goal was to enhance the legal services to the Police
Department by direct involvement by the City Attorney; and 7) Maximize the
City recovery on the Utility User’s Tax lawsuit and the entire process to net
additional revenue for the General Fund.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to
approve the City Attorney Focused Work Plan but without use of the word “boilerplate.”
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved,
seconded by Freeman, to amend the Work Plan by adding that the City
Attorney would work with the Planning Department to update the Council on
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) standards and procedures.
Council Member Kishimoto asked the City Attorney for input to her
amendment.
Mr. Baum said he would take responsibility for working with the Planning
Department in updating the CEQA standards and procedures.
Council Member Ojakian asked where did the Zoning Ordinance Update
(ZOU) fit into the proposed Work Plan.
Mr. Baum said staff had been working consistently on the issue. He did not
believe there was much left to do.
10/18/04 98-262
Council Member Ojakian asked what timeline had been set for the Work
Plan.
Mr. Baum said the Work Plan was set for the balance of the fiscal year.
Council Member Morton urged his colleagues to vote against the amendment
until the fiscal impact was determined.
City Manager Frank Benest said the City Attorney’s Work Plan also affected
the Planning Department’s Work Plan, which was ambitious at best. If the
Council voted to move forward with additions to the Work Plan, he would
suggest proposed takeaways from their present workload.
Council Member Freeman said she seconded the amendment because every
time an issue was raised that involved CEQA, lengthy discussions ensued
because there were no standardized guidelines.
Council Member Mossar expressed opposition to the amendment because it
involved taking the City Attorney’s Work Plan and attaching a topic of
interest the Council had not given a high priority status.
Council Member Kishimoto said the CEQA update had been on the Planning
Department’s Work Plan for a number of years. She asked whether staff had
the issue on their current year’s Work Plan.
Mr. Benest said it was not a priority of the Planning Department given their
present workload.
AMENDMENT FAILED 2-6, Kishimoto, Freeman yes, Kleinberg absent.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the noise ordinance fell under code
enforcement and, if so, could the ordinance be reviewed to see if it was up-
to-date.
Mr. Baum said the noise ordinance was not included with code enforcement
at the present time.
MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved to request that the City Attorney
review and determine if the noise ordinance is up-to-date.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kleinberg absent.
10/18/04 98-263
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Morton asked City Attorney Baum to provide the Council
with guidelines on how to call for the question and if that action takes
precedence over other actions.
Mr. Baum stated Council Protocols state the action takes precedence but the
Mayor has the ultimate prerogative to run the meeting.
Mayor Beecham clarified the question was whether a colleague could call for
the question or did they have to be recognized by the Chair in order to make
that motion.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto
Municipal 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.
10/18/04 98-264