HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-17 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
December 17, 2001
1. Potential Issues and Need for Information and Further
Action regarding Real Estate Holdings within the Spheres of Influence of both the City of Palo Alto and
the Palo Alto Unified School District [Cubberley-Ventura] ................................................... 179
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ................. 179
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ............................................. 180
1. Directive for Public/Private Partnership re Hoover
Restrooms .................................................. 181
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ............................................. 184
2. Resolution 8111 entitled “Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Approve an Amendment to Contract Between the Board of
Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and the City of Palo Alto to Provide Section 21362.2 (3% at 50 Full Formula) for
Local Police Members ....................................... 185
3. Resolution 8112 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Compensation Plan for Hourly Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 8097 By
Amending Salary Schedule to Add Two Classifications Previously Omitted” ........................................ 185
4. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.06 to Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to New Construction or Replacement of Wood Burning Fireplaces and Appliances” ................................. 186
5. Ordinance 4730 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending sections 18.04.030, 18.41.030, 18.43.030, 18.45.030 and 18.49.050 of the
12/17/01 93-175
Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit the Conversion in Commercial Districts of Ground Floor Non-Office Uses
to Medical, Professional, Administrative and General Business Offices”(1st Reading 12/03/01, Passed 5-0) ......... 186
6. State Required Revisions to Park Grant Application ......... 186
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Community Design & Architecture in the Amount of $288,000 to
Create Capital Improvement Program Project 10223, Master Schematic Design Plan for El Camino Real for (State Route 82) Project ................................... 186
8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Pacific Gas and Electric in the Amount of $100,000 for Mandated
Department of Transportation Operator Qualification Certification .............................................. 187
9. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Midpeninsula Community Media Center, Inc. through June 30, 2002, in the Amount of $79,050 ......................... 187
10. Renewal Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and ChildrenFirst, Inc. in the Amount of $53,100 for Backup Childcare Services for City of Palo Alto Employees .................................................. 187
11. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S2140169 Between the
City of Palo Alto and Government Finance Officers Association in the Amount of $87,500 for Services
Related to the Implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning System ................................... 187
12. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Del Conte’s
Landscaping, Inc., in the Amount of $345,109 for Facilities and Irrigation Improvements at Robles Park ...... 187
13. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. S1128286 Between the City of Palo Alto and Foothill De Anza Business and Industry Institute in the Amount of $119,286 for
Employee Training .......................................... 187
14. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will
consider the appeal of the decision by the Director of Planning and Community Environment to approve a Coordinated Development Permit to allow construction of a 37,798-square-foot mixed-use project and the rehabilitation of the historic French Laundry building
12/17/01 93-176
to provide for office, residential and retail uses on approximately 0.58 acres located at 250/270 Homer
Avenue; and to allow rehabilitation of the historic AME Zion Church and construction of a new two-story annex to provide approximately 5,300 square feet of office development on approximately 0.12 acres located at 819 Ramona Street. ...................................... 188
14A. (Old Item No. 15) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the appeal of the decision by the Director of Planning and Community Environment to
approve, after review and recommendation by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), of an ARB
application and a mitigated negative declaration [01-ARB-100, 01-EIA-15] to allow the demolition of an existing one- and two-story building and construction of a two-story building with underground and surface parking facilities at 2475 Hanover Street [01-AP-5]. ....... 205
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 14 ............................. 205
16. Resolution 8115 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Not to Exceed $27,500,000 of Utility Revenue Bonds, 2002 Series A, Approving Indenture of Trust,
Official Notice of Sale, Notice of Intention and Official Statement and Authorizing Official Actions
Related Thereto ............................................ 224
17. Approval of Financing Documents for Construction of the Non-Parking Portion of the Lot S/L Parking
Structure, and for the Refunding of the 1992 Civic Center Certificates of Participation, and
Authorization for Staff to Execute the Sale of an Amount Not to Exceed $9,000,000 in Taxable and Tax-Exempt Certificates of Participation ....................... 225
THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED TO A SPECIAL MEETING AS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
(PIC) CORPORATION AT 12:18 A.M. AND RECONVENED AS THE CITY COUNCIL AT 12:20 A.M. ................................. 225
18. Resolution the Compensation Plan For Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 8096 to Amend the Salaries
of Council Appointed Officers .............................. 225
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS .................. 226
12/17/01 93-177
19. Conference with Real Property Negotiator ................... 226
20. Conference with Real Property Negotiator ................... 226
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:45 a.m. .......... 227
12/17/01 93-178
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham (arrived at 6:20 p.m.), Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 6:25 p.m.), Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Wheeler
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
1. Potential Issues and Need for Information and Further Action regarding Real Estate Holdings within the Spheres of Influence of both the City of Palo Alto and
the Palo Alto Unified School District [Cubberley-Ventura]
No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
12/17/01 93-179
Regular Meeting
December 17, 2001
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler
Vice Mayor Ojakian thanked Mayor Eakins for her dedication to the City of Palo Alto. Council Member Mossar presented a gift on behalf of the
Council to Mayor Eakins.
Judith Wasserman spoke regarding her experiences with Mayor Eakins on the Public Art Commission.
Jack Morton spoke regarding Mayor Eakins public service to the City of Palo Alto.
Honey Meir-Levy thanked Mayor Eakins for her level of confidence in the City.
Catherine Carlton stated her service on the Public Art
Commission was due to Mayor Eakins. Gerald Brett, current Chair Public Art Commission, expressed admiration for Mayor Eakins rise from the Public Art Commission to the City Council.
Council Member Lytle spoke regarding Mayor Eakins’ work on the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Mossar mentioned that Mayor Eakins took
photographs that appeared in the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Fazzino added his admiration and thanks to Mayor Eakins for her outstanding service to the City.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Kerry Yarkin, 135 Churchill Avenue, spoke regarding the Churchill Avenue Traffic Committee.
Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, spoke regarding Friends of the Palo Alto Library.
12/17/01 93-180
City Manager Frank Benest stated that the City was discussing with the Palo Alto Unified School District
(PAUSD) the issue of the Friends of the Palo Alto Library book sales. Cedric deLaBeaujardiere, 3153 Stelling Drive, spoke regarding the trail alignment in Stanford.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, spoke regarding housing.
Mayor Eakins shared that Public Technology, Inc. had given Palo Alto a significant award as the winner of the 2001
Solutions Technology Achievements.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
1. Directive for Public/Private Partnership re Hoover Restrooms Vice Mayor Ojakian stated that he supported the staff recommendations. Doug Cox, El Dorado at Cowper, said his
primary concern was safety for kids who played soccer and baseball. With the current increasing sports use, parking along Cowper Street got congested with decreased driver visibility. He did not want to feel responsible for a child or adult who was maimed or killed by the driver of an
automobile. The new Community Park Designation was supported although it was only a draft and had not been
discussed by the Park and Recreation Commission (PARC). The Community Park Designation should include two new concerns: off-street parking and expansion for using night lights.
The Council was urged to postpone a decision until after the PARC discussed the policy and the new definition of Community Park. The PARC discussion on Hoover Park was neighborhood rather than community. Hoover Park was small and held only one major sporting event, which was a
tournament the prior summer. The local neighborhood had not petitioned the Council to convert Hoover Park from a
neighborhood park to a community park. Most of the local neighbors were in opposition. A small amount of money should not sway the Council from long-term proper land
planning use. A sports area would be better located at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, was concerned that a neighborhood park was changed to a community park with
little input from the neighbors who were affected. She
12/17/01 93-181
understood that Mr. Arrillaga volunteered to construct the bathrooms at no cost to the City. Comments made by Director
of Community Services Paul Thiltgen in the Parks and Recreation minutes of September 25, 2001, related to the cost of maintenance and infrastructure, which was something the Parks and Recreation Commission had not considered. The bathrooms needed to be opened in the morning, closed in the
evenings, and kept clean. Infrastructure costs needed to be considered.
Sean Cottle, President of the Palo Alto Little League Board of Directors, 895 Rourke Way, commended the City, staff,
and the PARC for taking on the issue, which has been in review for six months. The issue was not only a Palo Alto Little League issue, but was a community issue. Hoover Park benefited Palo Alto as a whole.
Council Member Kleinberg was pleased that the issue came to the Council with some modicum of speed and efficiency. The restroom facility was an important asset to fully utilize Hoover Park for the type of activities that took place there. The issues had to do with sanitation, convenience,
necessity, and humane treatment of people who used the park. Mr. Arrillaga was thanked for his wonderful offer. A
concern with the staff report (CMR:464:01), under RESOURCE IMPACT, was that there was no discussion about maintenance. Given the current revenue situations and revenue stream,
the Council needed to be able to anticipate what the costs were for ongoing maintenance, in terms of staff, lighting,
or water. Sensitivities in terms of the neighbors needed to be acknowledged. Concern was raised about whether bathrooms attracted undesirable people; for that reason, she asked
whether staff considered security for the bathrooms. The gift was wonderful, but the Council needed a policy for
accepting donations, so that donations were accepted in an equitable fashion. The Policy and Services Committee was encouraged to consider the donations issue in the new year. Council Member Fazzino said the issue of restrooms was
important. Hoover Park was used by many groups. Children and other users needed to get into cars to go elsewhere or use bushes and shrubbery to answer nature’s call. Bathrooms
were needed, and the maintenance issue needed to be addressed. The issue of usage was separate. He formerly
lived across from Peers Park, which had bathrooms that did not attract undesirables. The PARC needed to address usage of parks to make sure neighborhoods were not forced to face
12/17/01 93-182
the burden of large sporting tournaments that attracted many non-City users. Restrooms did not create additional
usage. Council Member Kleinberg’s point was important in that gifts needed to be clearly aligned with City priorities and spread across the City. Council Member Mossar supported the motion. A restroom
facility in Hoover Park was important. A process was established when the issue was brought before the Council the prior summer, and the process was not completed. The
Council needed to address how it could make sure the PARC worked on the policies that would implement the type of
infrastructure improvements the Council wanted to make in the park and recreational facilities. The gift was nice, but she questioned what assurances the Council had that the product would meet the City’s specifications and that there would be warranties for the quality of work.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the direction staff asked for was that his office develop an agreement. The requirement would be included in the agreement. The City had current policies on fee waivers and on gifts that were
in the Policy and Procedures Manual. What was presented to the Council appeared to be consistent with existing
policies. City Manager Frank Benest said he instructed staff to
insure that the project met City standards.
Council Member Lytle said the Council heard at the budget hearings when the issue was raised that they would get a recommendation back in the fall. Six public meetings on the
topic were held. She believed the process was a good one to evaluate as to why a recommendation took a long time and
why the Council was not more accountable to its original timeline. Her policy question had to do with the interim solution to deal with the sanitation issues raised by Council Member Kleinberg. The Council was alarmed when it found out there was a health violation occurring at a local
park. The systemic problem had gone on for a decade. Each time the portable were pulled out, the issue arose again. The City apparently received a gift from Palo Alto
Sanitation Company (PASCO) to put portable in for free. The City had not paid for the portable toilets. Her questions
to the Attorney’s Office was how long could the Council accept the gift and would the portable costs of $1,500 per month begin to cover the costs of maintenance. The original
12/17/01 93-183
offer was one that would have included a restroom similar to the one built at the Stanford Athletic complex: no
electricity, skylight only, and lockable. The other option discussed by staff was for a prefabricated toilet, which had maintenance advantages. Having the public and neighborhood involved in the final decision was a nice idea.
Vice Mayor Ojakian thanked Council Member Lytle who spent considerable time on the issue with the two donors, Mr.
Arrillaga and Mr. Peery. Staff was asked to provide a copy of the Gifts Policy to the Council. The PARC was to hear
the policy at a meeting the following evening. Mr. Benest said the City had a ten-page Gift policy, which the Administrative Services Department was trying to simplify. The policy would be given to the Council. The
maintenance costs were not a concern to him. The issue was discussed with staff, who were looking at a variety of ways to minimize the maintenance, opening, and closing costs. Users of parks needed restrooms. The policy would return to the Council. The design and aesthetics of the restroom
would be discussed by the PARC, as well as the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
Council Member Burch was concerned about neighborhood parks becoming community parks. Neighborhood parks were meant to
serve neighborhoods. The people who used the bathrooms needed to have the responsibility to take care of them.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Lytle, to
approve the staff recommendation to: 1) direct staff to
expedite a process to approve the privately funded and managed design and construction of a permanent, public
restroom at Hoover Park; and 2) direct the City Attorney to develop all necessary agreements with Mr. Arrillaga and Mr. Peery to build the restroom on City property and prepare the required park improvement ordinance; and 3) waive all permit costs associated with the project.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve the Minutes of October 22, 2001, as submitted.
12/17/01 93-184
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate in Item No. 5 due to a conflict of interest because it affected Stanford property and her husband was employed by Stanford University and Item No. 9 because her family owned stock in AT&T.
Council Member Beecham stated he would not participate in Item No. 5 due to a conflict of interest because he had a client who might or might not be affected by the ordinance.
Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not participate in Item No. 5 due to a conflict of interest because it
covered retail in Stanford property, and her husband’s law firm represented Stanford in legal matters. MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-13.
LEGISLATIVE 2. Resolution 8111 entitled “Resolution of Intention of
the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Approve an Amendment to Contract Between the Board of
Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and the City of Palo Alto to Provide Section 21362.2 (3% at 50 Full Formula) for
Local Police Members “
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing An Amendment to Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees'
Retirement System and the City of Palo Alto to Provide Section 21362.2 (3% at 50 Full Formula) for Local
Police Members” 3. Resolution 8112 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Compensation Plan for Hourly Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 8097 By
Amending Salary Schedule to Add Two Classifications Previously Omitted”
4. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.06
12/17/01 93-185
to Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to New Construction or Replacement of Wood Burning
Fireplaces and Appliances” 5. Ordinance 4730 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending sections 18.04.030, 18.41.030, 18.43.030, 18.45.030 and 18.49.050 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit the Conversion in Commercial Districts of Ground Floor Non-Office Uses to Medical, Professional, Administrative and General
Business Offices”(1st Reading 12/03/01, Passed 5-0)
6. State Required Revisions to Park Grant Application Resolution 8113 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Submission to the State of California a Grant Application for
Construction of a Gateway Educational Facility at the Arastradero Preserve” Resolution 8114 “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Submission to the State of
California a Grant Application for Development and Construction of Educational Exhibits and Displays at
the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center” ADMINISTRATIVE
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Community
Design & Architecture in the Amount of $288,000 to Create Capital Improvement Program Project 10223, Master Schematic Design Plan for El Camino Real for
(State Route 82) Project
Ordinance 4731 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal
Year 2001-02 to Establish Capital Improvement Project No. CIP 10223, Master Schematic Design for El Camino Real; to Accept Grant Funds from Caltrans in the
Amount of $240,000 and to Appropriate that amount to CIP 10223; and to Transfer 48,000 from the El Camino Median Landscape Capital Project, Number CIP 10113, to CIP 10223”
8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Pacific Gas and Electric in the Amount of $100,000 for Mandated
12/17/01 93-186
Department of Transportation Operator Qualification Certification
9. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Midpeninsula Community Media Center, Inc. through June 30, 2002, in the Amount of $79,050
10. Renewal Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and ChildrenFirst, Inc. in the Amount of $53,100 for Backup Childcare Services for City of Palo Alto
Employees
11. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S2140169 Between the City of Palo Alto and Government Finance Officers Association in the Amount of $87,500 for Services Related to the Implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning System
12. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Del Conte’s Landscaping, Inc., in the Amount of $345,109 for Facilities and Irrigation Improvements at Robles Park
13. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. S1128286 Between the City of Palo Alto and Foothill De Anza Business and
Industry Institute in the Amount of $119,286 for Employee Training MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 1-4, 6-8 and 10-13. MOTION PASSED 6-0 for Item No. 5, Beecham, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating.” MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item No. 9, Mossar “not
participating.”
PUBLIC HEARINGS 14. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the appeal of the decision by the Director of
Planning and Community Environment to approve a Coordinated Development Permit to allow construction of a 37,798-square-foot mixed-use project and the
rehabilitation of the historic French Laundry building to provide for office, residential and retail uses on
approximately 0.58 acres located at 250/270 Homer Avenue; and to allow rehabilitation of the historic AME Zion Church and construction of a new two-story
12/17/01 93-187
annex to provide approximately 5,300 square feet of office development on approximately 0.12 acres located
at 819 Ramona Street. Mayor Eakins stated the Council would decide at 9:30 p.m. if it would get to Item No. 15.
John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager, said the item before the Council was an appeal of a Coordinated Development Permit for the South of Forest Area (SOFA)
project areas. The application was the final private development project before the City Council for the
implementation of the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan (CAP). The SOFA CAP and Development Agreement provided for several public amenities, including a neighborhood park, the development of the historic Roth Building as a community facility, a childcare center serving up to 95 children, the
rehabilitation of seven historic residential structures, and 53 affordable housing family units in the SOFA area. In addition to the Development Agreement implementation, 250 and 270 Homer Avenue and 819 Ramona Street provided for a public plaza adjacent to the Roth Building, with 60 public
parking spaces for evenings and weekends, 20 dedicated parking spaces for use by the affordable housing project,
construction of a shared parking ramp by the developer for use by the affordable housing project, and rehabilitation of two commercial, historic structures: the French Laundry
Building and the AME Zion Church. The project appeal raised three important points for contention for the project: 1)
was the process correct and complete; 2) were the policies adequately addressed; and 3) had the Design Review adequately addressed quality architecture and guiding
policies and standards. The project received four preliminary review hearings: July, August, September, and
November 2001. During the preliminary review hearings, the Architectural Review Board/Historic Review Board (ARB/HRB) reviewed the site feasibility, the historic structures, the massing and scale of the proposed project, the public plaza and design development. In a study session in February
2001, the ARB/HRB extensively reviewed the issue of the parking ramp and the feasibility of a shared or dedicated parking ramp between the affordable housing project and the
proposed project. That was in compliance with the Council’s direction when it reviewed the SOFA Plan and Development
Agreement. The submittal of the project review was reviewed by the ARB/HRB at three formal project hearings: March 8, March 22, and in April 2001, where they made their final
12/17/01 93-188
recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Subsequent to that, the ARB/HRB also formed a
committee to review the final details of the project with respect to the Secretary of Standards for Rehabilitation. The reporting of both meetings was contained in the project file for public review. The Director of Planning and Community Environment issued the Coordinated Development
Permit on November 27, 2001, which was issued after the ARB/HRB completed their review of the affordable housing project. Both development permits were issued concurrently
so the conditions with respect to the shared ramp were concurrent. The policies and standards that the Council and
ARB/HRB were asked to review with the project was the Development Agreement and conditions of the Development Agreement for 250 and 270 Homer Avenue, and 819 Ramona Street. The Staff prepared standards of review, included as Attachment C to the staff report (CMR:461:01). Those
standards of review were specifically prepared for the subject project by the City’s Historic Preservation Planner to ensure that the standards of review for the Secretary of Interior Standards and the SOFA policies were concurrently reviewed with respect to the project. In addition, the
applicant prepared a Transportation Demand Management Plan that was reviewed by the Transportation Division. The
design issue with respect to the appeal was the shared ramp location on the affordable housing site on Ramona Street. The Council directed, during review of the SOFA Plan and
the Development Agreement, the City to explore the feasibility of a joint ramp south of the AME Church. South
of the Church implicitly meant “on the affordable housing site,” and to be constructed by the applicant in a way that could be served by both the affordable housing project and
the mixed-use project. The ARB/HRB fully explored design and circulation issues with respect to that shared ramp,
its location, and how it worked for the entire City block as well as the two projects. The Housing Developer identified that the ramp location shown in its current location was the same ramp location if it were used as a solely dedicated ramp for the housing project. The next
issue was the number of parking spaces provided by the project. The project met both the zoning requirements for parking and a development agreement, which was in excess of
the zoning requirements for the project. That included 20 dedicated parking spaces for the affordable housing project
and 60 public parking spaces on weekends and evenings. The plan had five tandem parking spaces, which were over and above what the Zoning Ordinance required for the number of
12/17/01 93-189
parking spaces. The project exceeded the Zoning requirements and met the requirements for the 140 parking
spaces. The tandem spaces would not be used as part of the dedicated spaces for the housing project. With regard to the residential units, staff felt both the Development Agreement and the Development Permit adequately restricted the units for residential use only. There was a strict cap
on the amount of office use that the project could use, and condition monitoring was contained in the conditions of approval to ensure that the residential units remained
residential units. The affordable housing units were impacted. Staff prepared an exhibit showing the location of
one of the housing units of the several buildings on the affordable housing project. That building was located and placed over the shared ramp location that entered into the mixed used project. The ramp under the project did not restrict the ability to build housing or a housing
structure above it. The number of parking spaces restricted the number of housing units. If there were an increase in the number of parking spaces provided on the affordable housing site, more units could be provided. The SOFA CAP guidelines and standards were a subject of the appellant.
The ARB held three meetings where a full review of the SOFA guidelines and standards were provided. All issues with
respect to development standards and policies were addressed. A peer review was included at the request of the ARB to provide for review of the Secretary of Interior
Standards for Rehabilitation. The information was contained in each of the three staff reports that went to the ARB/HRB
and were included in the staff report (CMR: 461:01). Staff recommended the Council uphold the Director of Planning and Environment’s decision and deny the appeal; the project
complied with the Development Agreement; the project conformed to the plans and policies and standards of
review; the project was consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. There were no exceptions required from the project with respect to the Development Standards. The conditions of approval were concurrent with the affordable housing project to ensure
that the shared ramp was adequately addressed in both projects. The Coordinated Development Permit had 62 conditions, addressing over 100 individual items with
respect to the development of the individual project.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne reminded the Council that their decision-making was governed by laws and rules that defined the owners and neighbors rights. The appeal was a quasi-
12/17/01 93-190
judicial matter, which meant the Council was acting in a formal capacity as a decision-maker. The Council’s decision
needed to be based upon evidence that was presented in the written record or what was heard at the current meeting. The Council was not constrained by the decisions of the staff or ARB; however, the Council was able to use the information in the record. If Council Members received
information outside the hearing that significantly influenced his or her point of view, that should be disclosed prior to the hearing so that the public or
applicant had an opportunity to understand what Council Members thought about and refute any information the
Council Members had. The Council was not operating from a clean slate where there were no rules. The Council Members had established rules through the SOFA CAP and the Development Agreement. The Council needed to apply the rules to the facts that were in the record. If the Council
disagreed with the policies that were set forth in the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan, the Council needed to vote to support the project if the project met the standards. The Council did not have the freedom to simply disagree for the sake of disagreement or personal distaste with the policies
that were previously established. If the facts presented at the current meeting convinced the Council that the
previously established policies were satisfied, the Council had a legal obligation to support the project. Members of the public and staff were confused about whether
development agreements constrained or forced a particular Council decision. The ARB staff report included in the
Council staff report (CMR:461:01) included an analysis of conformance of the project to the applicable rules in the Development Agreement. The historic standards for
rehabilitation of the existing French Laundry building and other historic buildings were given an unusual trump right
over the square footage granted by the Development Agreement. The square footage numbers that were granted by the Council were subject to the applicant’s being able to prove that the resulting buildings met the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation.
Council Member Lytle asked whether it was feasible to combine the two ramps on Block C into one ramp and whether
it was desirable for the two ramps to be located on Bryant Street. She also asked whether the cost of the ramp could
be provided by the commercial structure.
12/17/01 93-191
Mr. Calonne said an effort was made to examine the desirability and feasibility of the ramp and not a
commitment that it would happen. The Council’s previous direction was not considered binding. Staff presented evidence as to the desirability and technical feasibility of the ramp. The Council had room to analyze the evidence such as cost and impact on the number of units.
Mayor Eakins said the Council indicated its disclosures a year prior and asked that the disclosures be limited to any
activity since the Spring of 2000.
Vice Mayor Ojakian clarified that when the property was owned by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), he had a conflict of interest and was unable to participate. Since the PAMF no longer owned the property, he would be able to participate.
Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Vice Mayor Ojakian disclosed that he had received a letter from the appellant that was included in the packet.
Mayor Eakins said that was correct. She did not have
additional contacts. Council Member Beecham met during the prior year with the
Housing Corporation, the commercial developer, and staff, on issues that were represented in the staff report
(CMR:461:01). Council Member Mossar said there had been a flurry of
emails regarding this issue that were not part of the public record.
Council Member Wheeler stated that she did not participate in the Spring of 2000 discussions because she was not a member of the Council at that time. She received phone calls from Marlene Prendergast and Jim Baer regarding the
development. Council Members Lytle, Kleinberg, and Burch stated they
received voice mails from Marlene Prendergast.
Acting Chair of the Architectural Review Board Joseph Bellomo said the application was a model example of process. The applicant and architects were willing to take
12/17/01 93-192
the ARB’s comments to heart and willing to sculpt an architectural design. The project was originally before the
ARB in a different shape. As the ARB reviewed the project, the ARB looked at opening up the pedestrian flow and the solar exposures. The design was successful and compatible. Appellant David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, appealed the
decision of the Planning and Community Environment Director approving primarily the office development at 250, 270 Homer Avenue. The top section of the project was two
approximately 4,000-square-foot penthouses. The rest of the project was 30,000 square feet of office space. The French
Laundry building would be incorporated into the development. When the City Council established the SOFA Plan process, it adopted a policy framework calling for compatibility with the existing neighborhood in character, scale and massing. The French Laundry building represented
the scale of the existing neighborhood. The scale and massing was not compatible with the neighborhood. Sixty-two people agreed the project was not compatible. The object of the appeal was to examine the process that produced the building, highlight its remarkable outcomes, and spotlight
the message it conveyed about the City’s priorities. The first issue was why the building was approved under the
SOFA process because it was never evaluated within the SOFA compatibility framework. The design was reviewed by a special ARB/HRB panel, but the City staff that conducted
the process disallowed adjusting the scale and mass. Staff maintained that the Council granted the developer an
entitlement to 38,000 square feet. That effectively abrogated the SOFA stipulations for compatibility and scale and massing. The outline did not change within the prior
year. The only compatibility issue addressed was fenestration or window dressing. The process redid the
building’s windows but the impact of the overwhelming scale was untouched. Staff improperly interpreted its charge and allowed a subordinate document, the SOFA Development Agreement, priority over its legal foundation, the SOFA policy framework. The Development Agreement created a
direct conflict with the higher law. The Council was asked to give greater weight to the intent of the SOFA CAP process and its policy framework, which were promised to
the public. The Council was asked to void the SOFA review and reconsider the project in its intended context. The
real issues were expectations, outcomes, and trust. The ARB/HRB panel was improperly constituted. While its meetings were noticed as public assemblies of a government
12/17/01 93-193
body, implying a make up of dully appointed members, Mr. Robert Peterson of the ARB continued to participate after
his ARB term expired, solely by the consent of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. That was improper because only the City Council was able to make or extend ARB appointments. Mr. Peterson’s authority to participate on the review panel expired when his term on the parent ARB
expired. His subsequent participation was invalid. The City Council condition that required the penthouses to be in residential use was relaxed outside the process. The SOFA
plan adopted by the Council explicitly stated that “all residential units in the project shall be subject to annual
inspection by the City to insure that the units are in residential use.” The Planning Department’s letter of approval asked only for annual inspection of the residential units to insure they were maintained for residential use. The entire text was rewritten. The Council
needed to assert the original intent and wording on the matter. When the Council adopted the SOFA plan, the office developer was urged to share the building’s parking access ramp with the neighboring affordable housing development and pay all costs for the ramp. That stipulation was
adopted. The City would, instead, pay for the ramp by allowing the office developer to deduct its cost from an
easement fee. The language in the letter of approval was subtle but clear. The City granted an easement discount equal to the ramps cost. The Council was asked whether
their intent was to subsidize the office buildings’ construction costs. The City Auditor and City Attorney were
urged to examine the issue and report back to the Council. The Council was asked why the shared ramp was on the affordable housing site, taking space from affordable
housing and why the parking ramp served an office building set on a family housing development where noise, fumes, and
safety impacts were borne by lower income families. At the ramp study session on February 22, 2001, staff offered four options, which placed the ramp on the affordable housing project. At that meeting, the developer testified that placing the ramp on the office site would cost the office
building 2,200 square feet. The process was one-sided. The office project completed its ARB/HRB review with the ramp on the affordable housing site on April 26, 2001, but the
housing developer was designated on May 30, 2001, one month after the ramp’s location was set, and was unable to
negotiate while the decision was made. The process was unfair. The rationalization was that the affordable housing needed a ramp anyway. A shared ramp could be in only one
12/17/01 93-194
place; it could be on the office site, costing office space but increasing affordable housing opportunity. The ramp
could straddle the property line, sharing its impacts equally, or it could be on the housing site, boosting office space while costing Palo Alto affordable housing. The conclusion was undeniable. By locating the ramp on the housing site, the process sacrificed affordable housing
opportunity to increase office space. For decades, the ramp would be a monument to Palo Alto’s priorities in 2001.
Applicant Jim Baer said in November-December 1999, when PAMF entered into the contract with Summerhill Homes, there
was a conceptual review by the P&TC and the Council. Discussions were held, guided by staff and the Working Group, on proposed or anticipated modifications as the project came to reality. In the late winter and spring of 2000, regular Working Group meetings were held, as well as
a P&TC hearing and a Council hearing. The Working Group, by a vote of 13-2, adopted and uniformly recommended the package of Development Agreement rights in the SOFA Plan, which were delivered to the Council. He was asked by several Council Members whether there were two things that
could be done more significantly that had not been negotiated by staff over a six-month period in negotiating
a Development Agreement. The issues were whether dollar benefits could be provided that would accrue to underwriting needs for affordability of the adjacent
housing project in two forms: to pay for a shared ramp, and to provide 20 dedicated parking spaces. That was not
trivial. The cost to the applicant was in excess of $1 million. Neighbors articulated a concern whether the housing could be six per 1,000. A 3.2 per 1,000 limit was
negotiated. A site plan only was brought to the first hearing of the ARB/HRB. A historian’s opinion about moving
the French Laundry front and center in the block was brought to the second hearing. Image boards were also brought to the second hearing. Massing models were brought to the third hearing, where the ARB/HRB said the orientation created unuseful public spaces. A regional and
international search was done for a conceptual architect. An architect from Belgium was hired because he wrote extensively in Europe and had a book published in November
2000 about compatibility. The purpose of the model before the Council was to dispel the notion that compatibility was
two-dimensional. The model showed approximately 40 percent open space. At each hearing, staff asked for findings of compatibility and historic satisfaction.
12/17/01 93-195
Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing open at 9:05 p.m.
Harold Justman, 828 Ramona Street, said he lived across the street from the proposed project. As a result of the 250 Homer Avenue project, he had the pleasure of getting to know Jim Baer. If the project were approved, Mr. Baer would be one of his neighbors. Mr. Baer kept him informed of the
details of the project, was available by phone or in person, and worked hard to make the 250 Homer Avenue project complement the 800 block of Ramona Street. Mr. Baer
went the extra mile in complying with the demands, both written and unwritten, of the Palo Alto process. Mr. Baer’s
project should be approved. Tom Harrison, 230 Homer Avenue, supported the project, and asked the Council to approve the project. He waited 50 years to see the neighborhood upgrade. There were homes
with broken windows and lots filled with junk. The project was an upgrade for the neighborhood. If the community wanted retail and “friendly businesses,” a business community needed to be created. Office space was not necessarily bad because it brought people in to support
community businesses in retail.
Bob Kuhar, 248 Homer Avenue, said he owned a business across the street from the proposed project. The French Laundry did not represent the scale of the existing
neighborhood because a large condo complex was located across the street from him. The controversy about the ramp
surprised him. The project would add to the neighborhood. Natalie Wells, 3259 Alma Street, Vice Chair of PAST
Heritage, said PAST Heritage urged the City of Palo Alto to apply the provisions written into the SOFA CAP policy
framework, calling for compatibility with the existing neighborhood and character, scale, and massing, to all development activities occurring in the area subject to the SOFA CAP. PAST Heritage supported the appeal.
Chris Stevens, 730 Bryant Street, considered the project as the “Stealth Project.” The public notification he received consisted of a white card printed with the level of import
that was placed on a roof overhang that might go into a setback. Had he seen the proposed building, he would have
responded sooner. The public process was nonexistent. The Council had to accept the appeal. The project did not meet the CAP. There was no commercial building in the CAP
12/17/01 93-196
proposal. The commercial building happened in the Development Agreement.
Julie Cockroft, 930 Colorado Avenue, opposed the appeal because it would delay the development of the affordable housing in the SOFA area. Peninsula Interfaith Action (PIA) worked with the League of Women Voters and other citizens
on behalf of efforts to have affordable housing in the SOFA area. She was delighted that the Council approved the plan to have what was called “Oak Court” which would provide 53
units of family housing. The development should go forward as soon as possible because the need for housing was great.
Something could be worked out among the principles involved: the commercial developer, the Housing Corporation, the neighbors, and the City planners without further delaying the project. The City delayed the RFP, which caused several months delay before the housing
developer was chosen. Some sources for funding deadlines were lost. The application for tax credit funding was fast approaching. A delay because of the appeal would be devastating to the housing development.
Jane Glauz, 152 Ely Place, said PIA worked and advocated for Below Market Rate (BMR) multi-family housing on the
SOFA site for many years. PIA applauded when the SOFA CAP was adopted by the City and was delighted when the final architects plans responded to input from the community.
Missed deadlines meant loss of funding, imperiling the whole project. PIA wanted the funding project to remain on
tract and make the 53 units a reality per the PAHC time line.
K.C. Marcinik, 4046 Ben Lomond, was unhappy to see the Palo Alto Medical Clinic building torn down but understood that
staff and neighborhood groups felt the massing of the building was inappropriate for the neighborhood, which was primarily residential with small scale commercial buildings. The proposed large office building surprised her. Palo Alto could use more of an urban infill.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, was also surprised to see that the project was a large, massed office building. Fewer
office buildings were needed in Palo Alto. The project was too large for a neighborhood of houses. There were other
areas, such as on El Camino Real or Edgewood, where a large office building would fit.
12/17/01 93-197
Laura MacDougall, 2875 Ramona Street, said she attended a housing forum where Palo Alto property owners talked about
the changes in their neighborhoods. They discussed neighborhood preservation and the problems with the imbalance between office space, housing, and retail. The project did not fit the neighbors’ idea of mixed use. The Council was urged to find a way to solve the problem.
Ian Irwin, 800 Cowper Street, said the appeal rested on the issue that the proposed building was incompatible in
massing and scale. The process that produced the proposed building was one that bent the rules in favor of the
developer. The neighborhood wanted to see more low-income housing. The RFP for the low-income housing was withheld. Some ARB/HRB members felt there was nothing they could do because the mass of the building was dictated by the Development Agreement. The Attached Multi-Family (AMF)
required doorways along every 25-50 feet, per Section 4.2 of the SOFA CAP AMF Design Guidelines. The staff responded saying that did not apply because it was only for residential portions of the AMF, while the Mixed Utility Office (MUO) did not fall under that. Following that logic,
staff’s interpretation was that the MUO did not have guidelines for parking and landscaping.
Carol Kiparsky, 800 Cowper Street, supported the appeal. Mr. Harrison pointed out that the project was supposedly in
scale with the condos across the street from his building. The condos had a good amount of green space in front and on
both sides. The proposed project was massive, coming up to the corner and engulfing the historic building that it got credit for saving. Many people who supported the appeal
were strongly supportive of the below market housing and tried to urge the P&TC and others to hasten the project.
The project was delayed for reasons that were hard to understand. The project was too massive, too close to the edges of the block, and made no contribution to the housing needs of Palo Alto. The building should be scaled back and more fitting with the neighborhood.
Mayor Eakins announced that at 9:40 p.m. no additional speaker cards would be accepted on the issue.
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said Development
Agreements were seldom a benefit to the community. It was unfortunate that some of the housing advocates did not support the appeal because the housing project might be
12/17/01 93-198
delayed. The housing project was delayed because the staff did not put out an RFP until many months after it could
have. The location of the ramp was set, which impacted the ability of whatever developer might be selected for the housing. The historic buildings that were supposed to be saved were dwarfed by the scale of the project. Having a former board member represent a Board in any type of
capacity that had official sanction was highly irregular. Steve Reyna, 840 Kipling Street, supported the appeal. With
respect to the policy framework, staff asserted that the project conformed to the goals and policies of the SOFA
CAP, to which he did not agree. Staff cited Architectural Design Policy DC-21 as a finding for compatibility with the CAP. DC-21 in the SOFA CAP read, “In AMF and MU areas, where lot aggregation may be needed to create efficient structured and underground parking, require design measures
to reinforce the scale and character of the original development patterns and that of the adjacent older development.” The associated explanatory text adjacent to DC-21 read, “Building articulation, roofline step backs, and variations, and frequent use of street entry features,
are all design measures which reinforce the original finer grain of development in the area.” There were long
stretches on the building with no entrances. The building was not compatible in scale with the original older development of the area. The French Laundry was dwarfed,
and the lack of frequent street entry features broke the pattern of the original finer grain of development. With
regard to the issue of the ARB representative participating beyond the expiration of his term, the fundamental question was whether the Director of Planning and Community
Environment had the authority to alter a public board member’s length of tenancy on a public board without a vote
by the Council. The Council was urged to consider the legal questions raised by the appellant, Dave Bubenik. There were ten tandem parking spaces located within the structure in a commercial building. His understanding was those were not allowed in a commercial parking garage. There would be 120
parking spaces plus another 20 for the BMR housing. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, #126, was conflicted by the
appeal. Moving forward with affordable housing was crucial. He did not want to see the affordable housing project
imperiled so that a few more units could be gained. The main thrust of the appeal did not have to do with the parking access ramp but had to do with the character,
12/17/01 93-199
scale, and massing of the project. Single-family homeowners living in detached, single-family homes wanted to preserve
their neighborhoods in a way they viewed it, which was not the way it was. They wanted to preserve the character of their homes. Many of the apartment buildings in the neighborhood would not be built because they exceeded the 50-foot height limit. The Council was urged to resolve the
parking access ramp issue. He could not support an appeal that was based on character, scale, and massing because he believed the project would be an improvement to Homer
Avenue.
Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, said the City did not have a good track record on inspections, which closed the gap on interpretation. The retail was touted by the applicant during the review process as a public benefit, which should be added to the conditions of approval. The rehab plans for
the AME Zion Church and French Laundry had not been submitted, but were noticed as a condition of approval. There would be no public process for review and no apparent process for appeal. The affordable housing RFP did not go out in a timely and appropriate fashion. Two doors on the
French Laundry building that faced Homer Avenue were rendered useless. There was no indication that any of the
entrances on the Homer façade were to be used. The building turned its back on the public, contrary to the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and SOFA guidelines. The
elevator placement constrained the use of the building as retail. There were no identified criteria to determine the
easement value of the ramp. The money was indicated to be paid at the time of occupancy but, in most cases, the money had to be paid when a property was bought. The subtraction
from the easement value was questioned. If it were allowed, it should be the incremental difference between the cost of
the ramp that had to be built for the office project and any incremental difference in addition that had to be spent for the affordable housing project. Paul Kelleher, 426 Homer Avenue, supported the appeal and
asked that the Council put limits on the project. The SOFA plan promised the residents a project that would be in character with the existing residential neighborhoods in
scale and massing. The project was a beautiful 30,000-square-foot office building but he was unsure what that had
to do with the SOFA plan’s massing, scale, and compatibility with the neighborhood. The Summerhill Project had the same problem. The Council was asked to further
12/17/01 93-200
explore the economics of the parking ramp. How the ramp was negotiated was a mystery. Mr. Baer noted that the project
had 40 percent open space, but it appeared to him that if the ramp were moved from the affordable housing to the Baer project, the open space dropped down to approximately 20 percent. Mr. Lusardi indicated that from a negotiating standpoint, the ramp had no value to the affordable housing
project. Mayor Eakins noted that Ms. Indergand, who completed a
speaker card but had to leave, wanted to ditto the remarks of Ms. Glauz.
Marlene Prendergast, 725 Alma Street, Executive Director of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), said she was not directly involved in the appeal but interested in it. The joint ramp was not a preference but it allowed for more
commercial space to be developed. The ramp did not cause a material loss of housing units as currently structured. A separate ramp for the PAHC was easier but there were timing, management, maintenance, and construction issues. PAHC could not work with a delay because of the financing
applications. PAHC would be severely impacted if the Council wanted to further discuss the ramp issue. The issue
had been studied by a professional set of people on both sides.
David Schrom, 381 Oxford Avenue, said the project was not consistent with the existing character and scale of the
neighborhood. Edie Keating, 3511 Waverly Street, supported the appeal.
She was concerned that the ARB was instructed to not comment on the 38,000 square feet. The project should be
sent back to the ARB with correct instructions. The Council was asked to take action that would not delay the affordable housing. Options were available to do that. One option was to have the ramp and parking separate. Another option was to keep the existing dual, shared ramp but no
more changes to that. If the cost of the project, property values, and ramp location were a concern to the Council, the Council should address the issue with dollars rather
than redesign.
Martin Stone, 260 El Verano Avenue, said the proposed BMR housing ran the risk of being seriously under parked. The additional 20 spaces appeared to be necessary. Permitting
12/17/01 93-201
the BMR housing to be under parked was an inappropriate precedent to set. The ramp appeared to be inappropriate in
the context of the BMR housing and sent an inappropriate message. Parking ramps were notorious for the fumes they generated. The under current notion of a slant toward the developer in many of the decision made by the City’s professional staff was unfortunate. A permanent public
advocate sitting at the negotiating table was a suggestion. The representation in the appeal that a member of the ARB, whose term had expired, was permitted to continue in an
official capacity was extremely troubling. That rendered virtually all the decisions made by the ARB unlawful and
sent an unfortunate message that the City did not have a lawful process in place. He urged the Council to allow the appeal. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero, said the public purpose
of the CAP, as written in the ordinance, ended with a phrase, “To provide residents, business, and property owners with early meaningful opportunities to shape the physical components of the neighborhoods and communities.” The key word was “meaningful.” The neighborhood and
community bought into the SOFA CAP because of the words cited by David Bubenik at the beginning of his appeal
letter: a highly visible set of words that promised the community compatibility and character, scale and massing, preserving existing scale of development, and compatible
land uses in historic pattern. Most of the seeming development rights, in contrast, came from changes added at
the eleventh hour, without full discussion by the SOFA Working Group or the Council. The AMF/MUO Development Standards, which staff reported were complied with, were
written specifically for the proposed development. The Development Agreement had higher legal standing than the
policy framework that was presented to the Council. She urged the Council to support the appeal. John Easter, 1125 Stanley Way, did not believe two large penthouses at the site were needed. More housing was
needed. Mayor Eakins announced that the appellant and applicant
would each have three minutes for closing comments.
Mr. Bubenik agreed the project was a “stealth building” of SOFA, put in at the last minute after the Working Group process finished and published its plan. Zoning had to be
12/17/01 93-202
created to accommodate the project. The project was not expected by the residents. Roger Kohler commented at the
March 8, 2001, ARB/HRB hearing, that he did not see how the buildings, in scale and massing, related to the existing historic neighborhood. The neighborhood had enjoyed a close and friendly relationship with the PAHC and PIA. Regarding the shared ramp, the tradeoff was an endearing shame to
Palo Alto. He hoped a solution could be found and that the Council would reaffirm Palo Alto’s policy regarding affordable housing versus office when there was a direct
tradeoff between the two. The developer was supposed to furnish 120 parking spaces plus 20 spaces for the
affordable housing. He questioned whether tandem parking counted toward the 120. Since the City was buying the ramp, according to staff’s obligation in the letter of approval, the ramp could be given to the affordable housing people as their own ramp, severe the connection, and let the office
building build its own ramp. Mr. Baer said the Council direction was clear to do two things: (1) study the feasibility of placing a ramp south of the church; and (2) make it possible for 840 Bryant to
be moved into the project. The City Attorney said that action was a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
finding and could not make it a requirement. Under the direction, staff and the applicant, in four preliminary hearings with the design review board, asked whether the
ramp location met the Council’s request. In January and February 2001, extensive meetings were held with the PAHC
expressing serious concerns about how the project would work. The PAHC, in the final two hearings, shifted from being cautiously optimistic to editing and negotiating for
the ten days prior to the adoption of the Conditions of Approval, on March 22, 2001. The PAHC, along with other RFP
respondents, were shown a shared ramp. Only after determination by the PAHC that moving 840 Bryant Street south of the Church was less preferable for their project than moving it under the Heritage Oak along Churchill Street, did they feel that the ramp had complexities to it
without the same benefits which would have included 840 Bryant being out of their way for the development. The PAHC had specific conditions of approval for their project that
the ramp be shared; it was not the PAHC’s choice to choose whether or not the ramp was shared. The conditions were set
up specifically not to provide that. Eight hundred thousand dollars was spent on the design of the building in a
12/17/01 93-203
process that iterated on sharing a ramp and absorbing the cost of the shared ramp.
Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:12 p.m. Mayor Eakins said the Council needed to decide whether or
not it would continue with Agenda Item No. 15. She noted that several neighbors were present for Item No. 15.
Council Member Fazzino said he would leave the meeting at 11 p.m. He was willing to come back the following night to
finish Item No. 15. Vice Mayor Ojakian said the Council was unable to meet the following evening because the Finance Committee was meeting. The last meeting prior to a holiday break was
always full of items. He was willing to stay until the evening’s meeting was completed. Council Member Fazzino said the Council had rules in place for many years, and the rules indicated that the Council
made decisions at 9:30 p.m. with respect to remaining items on the agenda. Making decisions after 11 p.m. was a
disservice to the public. A way needed to be found to accommodate the neighbors.
Council Member Beecham asked staff about the impact of moving Agenda Item 15 to the first regular meeting of 2002.
Mr. Benest said the Agenda Item 15 would be scheduled for January 14, 2002.
Council Member Beecham clarified there was no impact on the
Council’s or applicant’s timeframe. Mr. Benest said he was sure the applicant had feelings about that. The Council could open Agenda Item 15 and continue the matter to January 2002. The Council needed to
consider Agenda Item 16 because of an important timeframe. Council Member Beecham assumed that speakers who wished to
speak to the Council could do so at the current meeting even though the item was to be continued.
Mayor Eakins disagreed.
12/17/01 93-204
Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not participate in the item due to a potential conflict of interest because
her husband’s law firm represents Stanford in land use matters. Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because her husband
was employed by Stanford University. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Lytle, to
move Item No. 15 forward out of order to become Item No. 14A for the purpose of continuing the item to the January
14, 2002, City Council meeting. MOTION PASSED 6-1, Ojakian “no,” Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating.”
14A. (Old Item No. 15) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the appeal of the decision by
the Director of Planning and Community Environment to approve, after review and recommendation by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), of an ARB
application and a mitigated negative declaration [01-ARB-100, 01-EIA-15] to allow the demolition of an
existing one- and two-story building and construction of a two-story building with underground and surface parking facilities at 2475 Hanover Street [01-AP-5]. RECESS: 10:20 p.m. to 10:30 P.M. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 14
Council Member Lytle asked for an explanation as to how Mr. Baer followed up on the Council’s motion, which was to
determine whether it was technically feasible to combine two ramps into one, whether it was feasible for the ramps to be located on Ramona Street, and whether the cost of the ramp would be provided by the commercial structure.
Mr. Baer said the sense of the assignment was to place the
ramp in a position so that 840 Bryant could be placed adjacent to the church with the ramp beyond that. Comments
were made by Marlene Prendergast at both the P&TC and Council meetings that renovating the home would be expensive for them. Moving the home into the proposed location was, at the time, thought to be appropriate. The understanding was always that the developer would pay for
12/17/01 93-205
the cost of the construction of the ramp and the connection in through the commercial project.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the applicant looked at both streets. Mr. Baer said Bryant Street was not looked at. The project
started with the ramp coming off Bryant Street. When the project was first looked at, extensive materials were developed and reviewed in conjunction with the Development
Agreement.
Council Member Lytle asked whether staff ever received a pro forma evaluation of the project. Mr. Baer said staff asked repeatedly what he thought the costs estimated by the engineer were to build a ramp and
ramp connection. He had a separate estimate of the cost to relocate the home. Council Member Lytle asked whether staff reviewed the pro forma for the commercial development project.
Mr. Baer said staff did not review the pro forma. In the
development agreement, he was granted the rights to build 30,000 square feet of office and 7,900 square feet of residential, to a height of 45 feet.
Council Member Wheeler said the appellant raised the
concept of the hierarchy of laws and placed in the hierarchy the policy framework for the CAP as the constitution.
Mr. Calonne said the Council decided, when it approved the
Development Agreement, that the Development Agreement implemented the policies in the CAP. The analysis offered by the appellant depended on challenging the consistency of the Development Agreement to the CAP. That was a decision that was made and not challenged. They were attempting to
raise an issue that would call for reinterpretation by the Council of the decision they already made. The argument was correct, but the factual premise was wrong.
Mayor Eakins suggested the Council review the appellant’s areas of concern as listed in the staff report (CMR:461:01).
12/17/01 93-206
1. Appellant Concern: The SOFA CAP policy framework was disregarded in the ARB/HRB review of the
project. The Development Agreement conflicted
with the council policy determinations and left the ARB/HRB to review only very minor
compatibility issues such as details regarding building window size, placement, and decoration.
Mayor Eakins clarified the Council resolved to everyone’s satisfaction the question of the policy framework and that
it was not disregarded in the City Attorney’s opinion. 2. Appellant Concern: The placement of the shared
parking ramp on the adjacent affordable housing site decreases the opportunities for affordable
housing. This also constrains the number of
housing units for the affordable housing project. Mayor Eakins said the Council heard comments and information from staff and opinions from others about the
concern. Council Member Kleinberg asked for clarification about some of the suggestions that the two projects would be divided and the affordable housing could continue on its own,
either with or without the ramp.
Mr. Lusardi said the ramp location was in a site where the affordable housing indicated it would be regardless of whether it was a shared ramp or dedicated ramp. If the ramp
were severed at the property line, the affordable housing project could conceivably move forward. He was unsure how
much that changed the actual design and mechanics of the project, but costs would be added to the project that the City might wind up having to bear. A dedicated ramp would
not add any additional housing units to the project because not many parking spaces would be added.
Mr. Benest said the City subsidized the affordable housing project as much as it could. After a long series of
negotiations, the City was ready to go to the Council with a recommendation of what was the most the City was able to
subsidize the project. Council Member Kleinberg clarified that was based on severability.
12/17/01 93-207
Mr. Benest said if the Council took action that required the affordable housing project to find money for additional
costs, that would call into question the project, given the City was putting in a tremendous amount of subsidy. Acting Director of Planning and Community Environment Les White said the statement was fair unless the PAHC came
forward to say it could absorb the cost. Council Member Kleinberg understood Ms. Prendergast so say
PAHC could live with the ramp either way.
Mr. White said Ms. Prendergast indicated that, while PAHC has reservations with respect to a shared ramp, the PAHC could live with that. He assured PAHC on several occasions that their concerns with respect to construction and maintenance costs could be contained in the conditions and
in the DDA, and in side agreements if necessary, to ensure that what needed to get done in terms of the construction of the ramp and maintenance of the ramp could be assured in writing.
Council Member Wheeler said one of the items that Ms. Prendergast spoke to was the absolute need for the PAHC to
have the 20 parking spaces. Mr. White concurred that was what was indicated to him. As
far as the agreement was spelled out, if that was where they were on it, they would get the 20 parking spaces. He
did not hear that the PAHC would agree to give up 20 spaces.
Council Member Wheeler asked what the impact was on the number of units of affordable housing if PAHC did not have
the 20 spaces. Mr. Lusardi said per the Code, PAHC would have to utilize the tandem parking spaces that were currently in the project. PAHC had interim approval to utilize the tandem
parking spaces until the 20 parking spaces became available for the project.
Council Member Wheeler clarified what was visualized as a potential temporary measure became a permanent measure if
the ramps were totally separated.
Mr. Lusardi said that was correct.
12/17/01 93-208
Council Member Wheeler clarified the tandem parking for the residential property would be allowable as far as the
Planning Department was concerned. Mr. Lusardi said tandem parking could be used for multi-housing projects. The Director of Planning and Community Environment had the authority in the SOFA CAP to reduce the
parking requirement by 20 percent when a joint parking structure was being utilized, which was another advantage of the shared ramp.
Council Member Beecham clarified if the two projects were
separated and the affordable housing had its own dedicated ramp, the PAHC would pay. Mr. White said that was correct.
Council Member Beecham clarified if the two projects were separated, there was no gain in housing units because the ramp was still in the same location. Mr. White said statements were made on occasion that there
might be a couple, but there were more constraints: the parking issue, height limitations, and other factors that
might not allow any additional units. Council Member Beecham said another option was to move the
ramp off the affordable housing site onto the commercial site. If that were done, the two projects would not be
separated and the time frame for affordable housing would not be lost.
Mr. White said staff had not explored the option with the PAHC of moving the ramp. Moving the ramp to another
location might raise questions about ramifications of the other location. Council Member Beecham asked whether staff had a cost estimate of the difference to the PAHC versus the
contractor paying for the ramp. Mr. White said the PAHC felt the cost might be as low as
$150,000; the estimates from the developer were in the $200,000 range.
Council Member Lytle clarified she heard the PAHC say it could “go it alone.” She assumed that meant financially.
12/17/01 93-209
She thought she heard staff say PAHC’s going it alone would cause the project to not be financially feasible.
Mr. White said staff had not negotiated whether PAHC would go it alone. If they were to absorb the cost and that did not reflect in any further increases in the subsidy, there might not be a problem from a dollar standpoint.
David Easton, Palo Alto Housing Corporation Board President, said the ramp was a large issue. The PAHC was
able to absorb the cost of the ramp, which was estimated at approximately $150,000. The PAHC believed its project was
better off it there was a single-use ramp. The project should not be delayed while studies were done to see if the single-use ramp worked. Council Member Wheeler asked about the issue of the 20
parking spaces. Mr. Easton said the 20 parking spaces were a separate issue from the ramp. The parking spaces were provided for in the Development Agreement. Approximately 10 additional housing
units were created because of the 20 parking spaces. With a single-use ramp, all parking for the site would be onsite.
Mr. Calonne said the applicant or appellant should have the opportunity to address Mr. Easton’s comments.
Mr. Bubenik yielded to the PAHC.
Mr. Baer said the project was unanimously approved on November 9, 2000, with the proposed model and 50 pages
worth of drawings. In January and February 2001 and between January 15 and March 8 and 22, extensive negotiations took
place with PAHC who, with input from architects, provided staff and the applicant what should be the resolution of the ramp. Two public hearings on the ramp were held. The last public hearing included the conditions of approval in draft form and written and verbal commentary by Ms.
Prendergast about the placement of the ramp. When the project was finalized on May 27, 2001, the choice was made with staff that the PAHC was formally designated as the
developer of the project. All the RFP respondents showed the ramp as a shared ramp. With the PAHC chosen, he did not
finalize the conditions of approval with the Council because he wanted to make sure the PAHC got matched up on its approval by the ARB/HRB with the ramp in the same
12/17/01 93-210
location that was recommended by the ARB/HRB for his project. The project was not inconvenient when conceived by
the Council and not inconvenient when labored over by staff, the PAHC, and the ARB/HRB. Council Member Mossar said she could not imagine what benefit there was from having two ramps.
Mr. White said when he first started working on the project, he thought the City was on the cusp of doing
something creative, which was working together for a joint ramp where the City made a reasonable abstraction from the
developer to pay for the cost of the ramp which would benefit the affordable housing project, and the developer would provide for maintenance cost. The arrangement was reasonable, and he concluded there was no benefit of not having a shared ramp.
Council Member Mossar said her recollection was that the Council had a conversation one year prior about the ramps and agreed that, from a community design standpoint, a single ramp was highly desirable, and it was highly
desirable for the ramp not to exit onto the bicycle boulevard, which was Bryant Street. The Council wanted to
minimize the number of locations where cars came from the ground and affected the walkability and streetscape.
Mr. White concurred that the direction had been provided. Staff worked hard to negotiate in good faith what the
Council sought to have staff do.
Mayor Eakins asked where the housing project started.
Mr. Lusardi said the housing project started near the fig tree next to the AME Zion Church.
Mayor Eakins said there was a question as to where a second
ramp would go. Mr. Lusardi said the only place the second ramp would go
with respect to the project was on the other side of the AME Zion Church. There would be two dedicated ramps less
than 75 feet apart. Staff did not support a ramp on Bryant Street because Bryant Street was a bicycle boulevard and was directly across the street from the park. Staff did not support a ramp on Homer Avenue because of the impact with respect to Homer Avenue and the site design.
12/17/01 93-211
Mayor Eakins asked whether the underground parking would be accessible from both ramps.
Mr. Lusardi said if there were two dedicated ramps, the underground parking for the 250, 270 Homer Avenue would only be accessible from that ramp. The 20 parking spaces that went toward the housing project in the 250, 270, Homer
Avenue, which was a requirement of the Development Agreement, would be parked separately from the housing project. The residents had to park in the commercial
building, exit the commercial building, and go to the residential units. There would not have been a cross
through underneath the ramp. The shared ramp allowed access to the 20 parking spaces. The ARB did not recognize whether the shared ramp was cost-effective to the project. Mr. Easton said the location of the ramp was adjusted to
work for his project. The location was “a given” to his project. Looking at the project alone, a residential ramp worked better. Mayor Eakins clarified Mr. Easton’s position was having a
partition between the two parking garages was workable and the PAHC would provide the additional 20 spaces by tandem
parking. Mr. Easton said that would be correct.
3. Appellant Concern: The project should pay the City
a reasonable, continuing fee for an easement for
the shared ramp on the affordable housing site.
Mayor Eakins said the staff response was on page 7 of the staff report (CMR:461:01) and asked whether there were any
questions. Council Member Wheeler said the appellant raised the issue of a subsidy to the developer of the commercial developer, the discounting of the cost of the construction of the
ramp. The appellant questioned why the Council did that.
Mr. White asked for a clarification of Council Member
Wheeler’s question. Council Member Wheeler asked why the City would discount from the price of the easement, the cost of the ramp, and
12/17/01 93-212
whether that meant the City subsidized or paid for the cost of the ramp construction.
Mr. White said his thought was if the developer were not paying for the ramp, the entire value of the easement might be extracted. Since the ramp was built by the developer, there would be an offset to the easement value.
4. Appellant Concern: The project conditions provide an alternative to provision of the 20 parking
spaces (for use by the affordable housing project) called for in the Development Agreement. The
developer may vacate his obligation with the in-
lieu fee of $35,000 per space for the 20 dedicated parking spaces. Council Member Mossar noted a recommended change in the
staff report (CMR:461:01). Mayor Eakins said the change was that the developer would provide 20 dedicated underground parking spaces in the parking garage on the site for the use of the affordable
housing project. The 20 dedicated spaces would be located in the commercial structure.
5. Appellant Concern: The project conditions imply that the residential units need only be habitable
while tacitly permitting their use as offices, contrary to the provisions in the Development
Agreement. Instead, the condition should ensure
that the residential units be maintained “in” rather than “for” residential use.
Council Member Burch said the Council should make the
change. The staff was asked whether there was extra footage given to the project because it was mixed use. Mr. Baer said the adoption of the Development Agreement was a single, concurrent document that provided 30,000 feet
with two large units. Council Member Burch clarified there was no implied extra
benefit.
Mr. Baer said that was correct.
12/17/01 93-213
6. Appellant Concern: A preliminary review of its plans indicates that the project, which is
required to provide 140 parking spaces, 20 of
which are dedicated to the neighboring affordable housing project, has fewer spaces than that.
Mayor Eakins said the approved project and plans submitted
on October 22, 2001, provided 140 spaces onsite, and the SOFA CAP required that only 114 parking spaces were required for the project.
Council Member Mossar clarified when the Council got to the
actual building permit stage, the real number of parking spaces were determined and that permits would not issued until the plans accurately reflected the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement.
Mr. Lusardi said that was correct. The plans showed 142 spaces. Staff discounted one of the parking spaces. The final 140 parking spaces would be determined during the plan check, and the 140 spaces had to be provided to Code.
Mr. Calonne said the effect of the residential units was to allow greater height on the project, which in turn might
facilitate more square footage, consistent with historic standards.
Mr. Lusardi said the residential units were the only component of the project that were allowed to go over 30
feet in height. The office component could not exceed 30 feet. The two residential units could go up to 45 feet. The two residential units were allowed by both the Development
Agreement and the Development Standards in the SOFA CAP. The project was 1.4 floor area ratio (FAR) and was below
the 1.5 FAR requirement of the CAP. Mr. Calonne said without the residential units, the square footage would have to be within 30 feet.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said the staff report (CMR:461:01), page 9, said staff recommended the Council amend the condition. He asked whether that was a condition that needed to be
added at the current meeting.
Mr. Lusardi said staff asked the Council to provide for 60 spaces, if they were making a motion in favor of the project.
12/17/01 93-214
7. Appellant Concern: The project does not provide pedestrian entrances at intervals of 25 to 50
feet as required by Section 4.2 of the SOFA CAP
AMF Design Guidelines. Mayor Eakins asked about the lack of entrances and how that fit in with the CAP guidelines.
Mr. Lusardi said the CAP guidelines were only guidelines and were not development standards. The guidelines
referenced by the appellant were in the AMF Section, not in the Mixed Use Overlay AMF Section. The Development
Agreement provided for a single building that had common entrances and common elevators, which needed to be taken into consideration in a design review. A single entrance was at the center of the building. The French Laundry building had historic doors that staff required to remain
operable. The use of the plaza added to what staff felt was the articulation of the building in the setbacks. Council Member Burch said one speaker mentioned that the elevator had doors that were only window dressing and
inoperable. Mr. Lusardi said the French Laundry building had a door that would be operable. The speaker referred to a door on
the Plaza side that directly accessed an elevator. The elevator was the public access to the parking structure for public parking.
Council Member Burch clarified the doors were necessary. Mr. Lusardi said the doors were part of the historic
building and would be utilized. Mr. Bubenik said staff was confused as to the location of the doors. There were two doors on the front of the French Laundry building; under the proposal, only one would be
accessible for human access. Staff referred to a door that would be added on the side of the building for elevator
access. The citation trail in his appeal established that all AMF guidelines applied to an MUO District except the ones that were specifically accepted. That requirement was
not specifically accepted.
Mr. Lusardi said the entrance from the French Laundry was an existing door in a historic building and could not be sealed up as part of the historic rehabilitation. The door
12/17/01 93-215
had to be operable. If the Council desired, it could add a condition that the door was operable. Staff confirmed with
the applicant that the door would be operable. The door to the elevator shaft was directly accessible for public access in and out of the elevator and to the parking structure. With respect to the guidelines, the guidelines that talked about 50 to 75 feet separation were implicit
that it referred to residential guidelines. The guideline did not fit the project as determined by the ARB/HRB.
Mayor Eakins asked which door did not open.
Mr. Lusardi said he was unsure. The plans showed all the doors as opening.
8. Appellant Concern: THE ARB/HRB Subcommittee lacked proper process. Near the end of its
250/270 project review, the joint SOFA ARB/HRB
panel chair created a subgroup to resolve differing opinions on fenestration issues between
architectural consultants hired by the 250/270 developer and the City.
Mayor Eakins asked whether Council Members had questions
not covered by the staff response. There were none. 9. Appellant Concern: An ARB representative
participated in the ARB/HRB beyond the expiration of his term on the ARB.
Council Member Kleinberg asked the City Attorney to clarify whether there was any decision-making power, which might
impact legal ramifications.
Mr. Calonne said his recollection was there was nothing that constrained the appointees to the joint Board. Staff felt having Mr. Peterson continuing beyond his ARB term was appropriate.
10. Appellant Concern: the conditions of project
approval do not include the full set of City Council conditions.
Mayor Eakins said there were no comments by the Council.
12/17/01 93-216
11. Appellant Concern: Does the Chief Building Official have valid signature authority for a
Planning Division document?
Mayor Eakins said there were no comments by the Council.
Council Member Beecham said he was convinced that staff
responded adequately to each of the Appellant’s concerns. The concern of substance that the Council talked most about had to do with placement of the ramp and whether or not it
was shared. His understanding was there was no advantage to changing the shared setup. The PAHC preferred the ramp to
be separate but was willing to live with it as it was. One ramp was a benefit to the community. There was no cost to the PAHC or City of having one ramp. The potential cost to the City if the ramp was not shared was either a ramp on Bryant Street, which was what the Council tried to avoid,
or two ramps in close conjunction to each other on Ramona Street, which was undesirable. The remaining issues were adequately addressed. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar,
to approve the staff recommendation to:
1) Deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of the proposed project; and
2) 2) Amend condition No. 1c of the Conditions of Approval, Attachment J of CMR:461:01, to
specify a procedure for the possible release of excess parking spaces for the affordable housing project and condition No. 49 to
require explicate that the developer to provide public parking for weekday evenings
and weekends for at lease sixty parking spaces in the project's parking structure. Further, to add the following three amendments:
a) The developer of the 250/270 Homer project will provide 20 dedicated underground parking spaces in the parking garage on the
site for the use of the affordable housing project. The 20 dedicated spaces shall be
located in the 250/270 Homer parking structure, generally along the Ramona/Homer street-side and accessible to the affordable
12/17/01 93-217
housing residents, as determined by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 250/270 Homer Project, there shall be recorded an Access and Parking Easement Agreement for the benefit of the affordable housing project in
a form acceptable to the City. If, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 17.83.070 or the provisions of the SOFA
Community Area Plan, the City determines, with the agreement of the developer of the
affordable housing project, that one or more of the 20 spaces is not needed by that project, the developer of the 250/270 Homer Project will make a payment to the City of $35,000 for each space released. The
decision to release spaces must be made prior to commencement of construction. The payment shall be made prior to the granting of any certificate of occupancy for 250/270 Homer Avenue or 819 Ramona Avenue.
b) Amend Development Agreement condition No. 49 to require the “applicant to execute an
Easement and Maintenance Agreement with the City providing public access to at least sixty parking spaces in the underground
parking garage between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and between
8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends.” c) The residential units shall be maintained “in” rather than “for” residential use.
Council Member Mossar understood the concerns of her
neighbors and other interested parties in the community who spoke before the Council. The project was a piece of a large redevelopment in the neighborhood. She did not participate in the whole project, but the community participated from the beginning. One year prior, the
Council approved a development on the site that included many buildings that were larger in scale than what the neighbors were used to having. The community had to deal
with issues of infill in ways that worked best for the community. The larger site was chosen as a place to do
infill development and was denser and more intense than what some people hoped to see. The project meant
12/17/01 93-218
significant additional housing for the community and a park.
Council Member Beecham said the basic parameters were set one year prior when the Council made the basic arrangement with Summerhill and set up the Development Agreement. At that time, there was a package discussed by staff that
resulted in the firm transfer to the City of lands for the park, affordable housing, and childcare parking. The Council gave firm rights to the developer including
development rights for the parcel in question. The limitations set one year prior was why staff explained to
the joint ARB/HRB that the square footages was the right of the developer given the condition that the development was compatible with the Secretary of Interior Standards for development for historic preservation. That condition was met and verified by an independent peer review. The Council
did not have the ability to say “no” to the 38,000 square feet as long as the developer met the conditions, which he did. The ramp worked out adequately well for the PAHC, and the community benefit by having one ramp.
Council Member Lytle said one of the things the majority of the Council agreed to when it approved the Development
Agreement was that the new building “shall be reduced if necessary to comply and preserve the French Laundry, in compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards.” The
instructions were given that the size could not be reduced. Standard No. 9 said, “related new construction shall not
destroy historic materials that characterized the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. There was potential in
the process to reduce the size of the project. She supported a motion to uphold the appeal. Council Member Beecham said the flaw in Council Member Lytle’s logic was that the City went out for an independent
purview to determine whether or not the Secretary’s Standards were met. The independent peer review said the conditions were met.
Council Member Lytle said the process was flawed because
improper instructions were given to the group that made the recommendation. The City entered into a Development Agreement without having knowledge of the project’s
12/17/01 93-219
economics, and the Council agreed to a much larger project than was needed in the location. The project was
approximately the same size as the one at the corner of University Avenue and Ramona Street, which was the center of town. Council Member Fazzino was troubled by the process. He
found it frustrating to sit through a three and one half hour hearing and feel a disconnect among neighbors, developer, and staff. The Council was encouraged to put a
process in place to keep such things from happening in the future. The appellant raised legitimate issues, but the
larger issue was that the Council made the fundamental decisions with respect to the project. Legally, he had felt he had no alternative but to move ahead and support the application. The project was fine, but the most legitimate concerns on the part of the appellant had to do with the
massing. The project was part of a broader plan that included affordable housing, single-family homes, a park, and preservation of the Roth Building. Some of the appellant’s concerns had to do with greater clarification, which was necessary. On balance, the building was a nice
project, and the Council had a legal obligation to move ahead and support the project. The developer, neighbors,
and Council deserved predictability. He understood the frustration on the part of some of the neighbors that they felt the staff did not follow through on the commitments
that were made early on with respect to massing and other aspects of the project.
Council Member Wheeler suggested an amendment to the motion related to the payment for the easement mentioned on page 7
of the staff report (CMR:461:01), proposing that the cash payment be for the fair market value of the easement. The
cost of the ramp was being borne by the applicant as part of the granting of the square footage and other considerations for the project. The payment for the easement was the fair market value of the easement and did not deserve a discount. AMENDMENT: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by
Lytle, that the developer pay for the construction of the
ramp, pay the cost of the easement for the ramp at fair market value, and maintain the ramp.
Council Member Mossar said she would accept the amendment.
12/17/01 93-220
Council Member Beecham asked about the valuation.
Council Member Fazzino asked about the impact. Mr. Lusardi said he heard a range in cost for the ramp. The easement was based on the fair market value done by the City. A specific amount was not available. The range was
between $300,000 and $400,000. Council Member Beecham clarified staff preferred an upfront
payment versus payment over time.
Mr. Lusardi said that was correct; that would be income or revenues that the City would put into a capital project as opposed to payments over time. Council Member Beecham accepted the amendment.
Council Member Burch said he would like a separate motion. Council Member Lytle said fair market value made sense to her.
Mayor Eakins asked whether Council Member Wheeler’s intention was the construction cost plus whatever the
appraisal on fair market value was. Council Member Wheeler said the amount was what the fair
market value was. She questioned why the amount would be reduced by the $150,000 construction cost of the ramp.
Council Member Beecham said the money went to the City and not to the PAHC.
AMENDMENT PASSED 5-4, Burch, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Ojakian
“no.” City Attorney Calonne said the amendment should be reflected as an amendment condition 1B(7). Rather than discounting the easement value was by the cost of the ramp,
the easement would be paid for separately, in addition to the cost of the ramp.
Council Member Beecham said page 7 of the Staff Report (CMR:461:01) indicated there were three ways to pay for the
easement: (1) pay for the construction of the ramp; (2) make a cash payment for the difference between the
12/17/01 93-221
construction of the ramp and the market value; and (3) maintain the ramp.
Mr. Calonne understood maintenance was a separate condition. The ramp was on the housing site and was to be used by the housing project. The easement being discussed was for the additional use occasioned by the office
buildings, in the nature of an ongoing overburden of the housing site easement. He had no clue how that would be valued.
Council Member Burch asked whether the City was paying the
homeowners the fair market value for an easement when the City received easements from homeowners and whether a precedent was being set. Mr. Calonne said no. The easement was a limitation on the
owner’s rights to use. The easement allowed people to drive cars down a ramp. Council Member Beecham clarified the amendment would have deleted the payment for maintaining the ramp.
Council Member Wheeler said that was not the intent of the
motion. Council Member Beecham asked that the amendment be
reconsidered.
Mr. Calonne explained that Council Member Beecham needed a motion and second to reconsider, and the Council could decide whether or not to reconsider.
MOTION TO RECONSIDER AMENDMENT: Council Member Beecham
moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to reconsider the motion. Council Member Wheeler said her intent was that the Council get fair market value for the easement, and that the Council did not relieve the applicant of the responsibility
to maintain the ramp after it was constructed. MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSED: 8-1, Lytle “no.”
AMENDMENT: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Lytle,
that the developer pay for the construction of the ramp, pay the cost of the easement for the ramp at fair market value, and maintain the ramp.
12/17/01 93-222
AMENDMENT FAILED 3-6, Lytle, Mossar, Wheeler “yes.”
Council Member Wheeler said she had high hopes when the City entered into the SOFA CAP process. She felt a great sense of let down as she was aware how the people who submitted the appeal felt. The proposed project was not what the Council envisioned as the end product of what the
Council considered a bold planning process when the Council entered into the process. The vision of the CAP was to give the neighbors and other significant stakeholders meaningful
input into the design and give potential developers clear parameters against which they could submit applications.
The Council failed the neighbors and the applicant and lost public trust in the way the matter was handled. She supported the motion because the Council was instructed that it needed to apply the laws as they existed to the decision, and she heard nothing in the presentations or
through communications to the Council that she felt was upholdable by way of appeal. Council Member Kleinberg concurred with comments made by
Council Member Wheeler. Early on in the process, she was hopeful that things would turn out fine. When she voted for the entire package, with the office building, she thought
the Council felt the project was interrelated and that the office building would look compatible and be an attractive
enhancement to the neighborhood. She did not believe the project was a tremendous enhancement to the neighborhood. The Council was constrained by what it may or may not do because of the quasi-judicial appeal. The Council might have technically met all the legal requirements but that
was a sad statement if the perception was that the Council had not met the requirements. Housing rather than offices was needed.
Council Member Burch said the decision on the project was
difficult. The Council did not have a right to say what size housing could be built on the property. He hoped people would feel they gave their best shot and it was time to move on and accept what happened.
Vice Mayor Ojakian supported the motion. One of the good things that came out of the appeal process was that the
Council added a few conditions that assured parking spaces around the residential units. His understanding of the original Development Agreement was that the Council vested
rights with the applicant.
12/17/01 93-223
Mayor Eakins said the intentions for the process were honorable. The City was bold. Council Member Lytle inspired
her to meet with neighbors to assure them that there could be a way to have input into the future. The Council understood it had to see whether the elements of the appeal overrode the original decision that was made one year prior. She was pleased that, in addition to the affordable
housing and other benefits, the Ramona Street side of the development saved the French Laundry building and the AME Zion Church.
MAIN MOTION PASSED: 8-1, Lytle “no.”
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
16. Resolution 8115 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Issuance and
Sale of Not to Exceed $27,500,000 of Utility Revenue Bonds, 2002 Series A, Approving Indenture of Trust,
Official Notice of Sale, Notice of Intention and Official Statement and Authorizing Official Actions Related Thereto”
MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Burch, to
approve the resolution to: 1) authorize staff to issue and sell Utility Revenue Bonds, 2002 Series A, not to exceed $27,500,000 to finance City gas and water system capital improvements; and 2) approve the Indenture of Trust, Official Notice of Sale, Notice of Intention and
Preliminary Official Statement, and authorize official actions related thereto.
Council Member Lytle was supportive of the City using bond indebtedness to accomplish the capital improvements, but
she was not in support of the reservoir and ground water pumping project. Environmental impacts had not been
adequately analyzed. City Manager Benest understood that engineering and
environmental work remained to be done, which would return to the Council at a later date.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
17. Approval of Financing Documents for Construction of the Non-Parking Portion of the Lot S/L Parking
Structure, and for the Refunding of the 1992 Civic
12/17/01 93-224
Center Certificates of Participation, and Authorization for Staff to Execute the Sale of an
Amount Not to Exceed $9,000,000 in Taxable and Tax-Exempt Certificates of Participation THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED TO A SPECIAL MEETING AS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT (PIC) CORPORATION AT 12:18 A.M. AND RECONVENED AS THE CITY COUNCIL AT 12:20 A.M.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Wheeler,
to 1) approve the Resolution; and 2) authorize staff to execute the sale of an amount not to exceed $9,000,000 in Certificates of Participation to: a) finance on a taxable basis the non-parking area on Lot S/L; and b) refund on a
tax-exempt basis the 1992 Civic Center COPS.
Resolution 8116 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Approving, Authorizing, and Directing Execution of Certain Lease Financing
Documents, Approving Official Notice of Sale, Approving a Preliminary Official Statement, and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions With Respect Thereto” MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS
18. Resolution the Compensation Plan For Management and
Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 8096 to Amend the Salaries
of Council Appointed Officers MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the resolution.
Resolution 8117 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan For Management and Confidential Personnel and Council
Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 8096 to Amend the Salaries of Council Appointed Officers”
Vice Mayor Ojakian said the CAO Committee and full Council met and discussed salaries for the CAOs. The process was difficult due to the current economy and the fact that the way the City issued increases was not on a performance or
12/17/01 93-225
merit based policy, but one in which salaries were determined on what they should be. He and others felt the
CAOs did an excellent job and their efforts were appreciated. Council Member Burch concurred. Given the economic situation, the Council had to be more disciplined.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Lytle mentioned that Historic Resources Board Member Carol Murden had undergone bone cancer surgery
and wished her the best on behalf of the Council.
Council Member Kleinberg referred to the earlier Committee of the Whole item regarding the City and the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) policies about overlapping interests, stating that it was a good first step, and that she would like the discussion to continue at the Policy and
Services Committee level at the beginning of the year. Council Member Mossar mirrored Council Member Kleinberg’s comments.
CLOSED SESSION
City Manager Frank Benest announced that Closed Session Item No. 20 would be rescheduled at the request of staff.
The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 12:22 a.m. 19. Conference with Real Property Negotiator Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: 1237 North San Antonio Road, Palo Alto and
1275 North San Antonio Road, Palo Alto Potential Negotiating Party: City of Los Altos City Negotiator: City Manager
Subject of Potential Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment 20. Conference with Real Property Negotiator
12/17/01 93-226
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 2747 Park Blvd., Palo Alto 2785 Park Blvd., Palo Alto Potential Negotiating Party: Robert V. and Patricia M. Brown and Madrona Design and Manufacturing, Inc.
City Negotiator: City Manager
Subject of Potential Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Potential/Anticipated Litigation and Pending Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 19. Mayor Eakins announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 19.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:45 a.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Vice 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.
12/17/01 93-227