HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-14 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting
January 14, 2002
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................... 239
1. 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), 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 .................................................................................. 239
2. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for Library Advisory
Commission ......................................................................... 265
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ................................................................. 266
3. Ordinance 4732 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-02 to Accept
Grant Funding for the Children’s Theatre Lighting Project in the
Amount of $175,000 ............................................................. 266
4. Ordinance 4733 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 ........ 266
5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and P&J Utility Company
in the Amount of $1,372,394 for Water Main Replacement
Project 15, Capital Improvement Project 33330 ........................ 266
6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical
Co., in the Amount of $638,000 for the Sludge Thickener
01/14/02 93-237
Rehabilitation Project at the Water Quality Control Plant
(Wastewater Treatment CIP Project 8021) ............................... 266
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical
Co., in the Amount of $836,000 for the Blower Systems
Replacement Project for the Water Quality Control Plant
(Wastewater Treatment CIP Project 8021) ............................... 267
8. Acceptance of Annual Status Report on Developers’ Fees ........... 267
9. Extension of the Santa Clara County Abandoned Vehicle
Abatement Service Authority (AVASA) for second 10-year term
and ..................................................................................... 267
10. Change Order No. 3 to Contract No. C1129753 Between the City
of Palo Alto and Bragato Construction Co., in the Amount of
$19,891 to provide Additional Barriers, Amenities, and Plants at
the Duck Pond Parking Lots .................................................... 267
11. Approval of the City Manager’s Appointment of Stephen Emslie
as the Director of Planning and Community Development........... 267
12. Request for Council Consideration of Development Fee and
Mitigation Policy and Request to Schedule a Noticed Public
Meeting on a Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Declaring Council Policy to Mitigate Development Impacts and
Initiating Proceedings to Establish Development Impact Fees for
Parks, Community Centers and Libraries .................................. 267
THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED AT 10:55 p.m. TO A SPECIAL
MEETING AS THE PALO ALTO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND
RECONVENED AS THE CITY COUNCIL AT 11:00 p.m. ................. 269
13. Conference with Real Property Negotiator ................................ 269
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. in
memory of Council Member Beecham’s father, Lt. Col. William P.
Beecham (USAF, Retired) of West Palm Beach, Florida, who
passed away on January 11, 2002........................................... 270
01/14/02 93-238
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 7:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton,
Mossar (arrived at 10:25 p.m.), Ojakian
ABSENT: Beecham
City Manager Frank Benest introduced Steve Emslie as the new
Director of Planning and Community Environment.
Mr. Emslie thanked the City Manager and stated that he looked
forward to working for the City of Palo Alto.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic integrity.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. 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), 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]. (continued from 12/17/01)
Mayor Ojakian announced that the item was quasi-judicial and that
Council Members were required to divulge contacts they might have
had with the applicant.
Council Member Kleinberg said she could not participate in the item
due to a conflict of interest because her husband’s law firm
represented Stanford University.
Mayor Ojakian noted that Vice Mayor Mossar could not participate in
the item due to a conflict of interest because of her husband’s
employment with Stanford University.
01/14/02 93-239
Mayor Ojakian said he had discussions with College Terrace residents,
Kathy Durham, Dorothy Bender and two representatives of Stanford
Management Company (SMC), Gene Snyder and Bill Phillips.
Council Member Lytle said she had the same disclosures as the Mayor
plus a few additional members of College Terrace Residents
Association (CTRA).
Council Members Morton and Burch said they spoke to members of
CTRA, Kathy Durham, Dorothy Bender, and Jean McCown.
Council Member Kishimoto said she spoke with College Terrace
residents, Kathy Durham, Dorothy Bender, Gene Snyder and Bill
Phillips.
Council Member Freemen said she met with Bill Phillips and Bob Reedy
from SMC, Kathy Durham and John Ciccarelli from CTRA, Joy Ogawa,
and Dorothy Bender. She visited the site on her own.
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the item was an appeal of the
Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision regarding
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) application at 2475 Hanover
Street. The project involved demolishing an existing 51,000-square-
foot building and building a new 81,900-square-foot building, of which
30,400 square feet would be new square footage. The project included approximately 2,500 square feet of employee amenities such as areas
specifically designed to serve employees on the site such as cafeteria,
gymnasiums, and credit unions. The employee amenities were non-trip
generating space. The project went through one preliminary ARB
review and two formal ARB reviews, and the ARB recommended
approval of the project at the second review. The Director of Planning
and Community Environment reviewed and signed the approval on
November 6, 2001, which was then appealed on November 19, 2001.
When an application went to the Planning Division, staff determined
application completeness, which meant staff evaluated whether or not
all the submittal materials were included in the application package,
whether or not the materials were complete, and whether or not the
project was consistent with the land use designation and zoning
requirements. The subject project was determined to be complete, was
consistent with the industrial land use designation, and was consistent
with the permitted land uses in the Limited Manufacturing (LM) zone.
Once the determination of completeness was made, staff completed
the initial checklist, which was a California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) requirement that involved approximately 85 questions
01/14/02 93-240
regarding potential impacts on the environment. Based on the answers
to the questions, staff determined whether a Negative Declaration, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) was appropriate. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was one
which acknowledged there were potentially significant impacts for the
project or as a result of the project, but that they could be mitigated
to a less than significant level by specific mitigation measures and
conditions. Staff determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
appropriate because none of the thresholds of significance were
exceeded. Once staff determined that a potential significant impact
existed, the conclusion was not necessarily that an EIR was required
but rather that mitigation was required. That mitigation could be
attached through the Negative Declaration process rather than the EIR
report process. Threshold designations were standards that, if
exceeded, caused significant impacts that had to be mitigated. If that
were the case, the impact and mitigation needed to be explained in
the text of the initial study. Staff determined there were three areas of
potential impact: archeological, seismic, and noise. A special acoustical
analysis was conducted and recommended certain noise mitigation,
which was incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Mitigation measures to address seismic and archeological potential
impacts were included. Traffic and housing were not determined to
have potentially significant impacts because there were standard
conditions of approval that addressed low-level impacts in both areas.
The first was a traffic impact fee that was applicable in the Stanford Research Park (Research Park) for certain designated intersections.
The second was a commercial housing fee that addressed potential
housing impacts citywide. The impact fees were explained in the text
of the initial study. The CEQA required an explanation of “no impact”
answers as well as the “yes, potentially significant impact” answers.
Several criteria were required to determine whether a traffic study was
needed. Ten criteria were outlined in the EIR for the Comprehensive
Plan (Comp Plan). The thresholds ranged from safety hazards to
emergency access to pedestrian, bicycle circulation, and potential
conflicts onto streets and intersection impacts. Most of the thresholds
were evaluated by staff. A traffic study was asked for when there were
potential intersection or street impacts. A standard, developed by the
Congestion Management Agency (CMA), was used to look at impacts
to intersections and roadways on a regional basis in all cities of the
County of Santa Clara. The standard used was to look at whether or
not a project generated 100 peak hour trips through certain
designated intersections. If a project did that, a traffic impact analysis
was required by the CMA. The proposed project did not trigger the
100-trip threshold. Staff determined the thresholds were not
01/14/02 93-241
exceeded, and a traffic study was not required. Stanford Management
Company (SMC), as the applicant, provided a traffic study as part of
its application materials in order to give the City additional information
on which to evaluate the project. The study indicated that traffic
standards were not exceeded for the proposed project. The City had a
housing impact fee for commercial projects, and the proposed project
was assessed on a per square foot basis for new commercial square
footage. There were no technical reasons for requiring an EIR. The
thresholds were not exceeded. Staff recommended the Council uphold
the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision and
not approve the appeal.
Architectural Review Board Member Judith Wasserman said the project
was reviewed by the ARB on several occasions. There were many
interesting aspects about the project, with the most significant being
the level of cooperation between the applicant and the CTRA. The ARB
was pleasantly surprised that the CTRA supported the project. One of
the major points of agreement had to do with site planning. The ARB
was impressed with the quality of the site planning on the project. The
concept of the mid-block service access spine was a good idea, and
the parking lot was designed so that the spine would continue when
current buildings were removed in the future and the lots were
redesigned. The large setback from California Avenue was a major
aspect of the site planning. The building was set back approximately
150 feet and separated from the street by a berm and extensive landscaping. The site planning and landscaping were responsive to the
neighborhood. The architects responded to the ARB and neighbor’s
concerns by enriching the architecture. The ARB approved the project.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council operated in the form of a
court, and its decision needed to be based on evidence in the record
before the Council. The appeal process had the Council reconsidering
the matter from scratch, so the Council was not limited to the issues
raised on the appeal. In making a quasi-judicial decision, the Council
needed to make a disciplined and structured decision. The facts
presented to the Council needed to be applied to the rules associated
with an ARB approval or the rules arising under CEQA. The appeal was
well framed in that it addressed the correct issues before the Council
under CEQA as well as under the Comp Plan. The matter was serious
and called for serious consideration. The appropriate legal standard for
reviewing a Mitigated Negative Declaration was always important to
set out at the beginning of a hearing. The test was whether there was
substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project “may”
have a significant effect. The idea behind the CEQA was that the EIR
01/14/02 93-242
was a relatively, easily prepared document. The Council could consider
public opinion but not as a determinative factor. The sentiment of the
public might be best used in weighing close calls. Economic and social
impacts were not significant environmental effects. If impacts could be
mitigated, the City was obligated to do that. Staff operated under a
dual set of constraints and did not have the flexibility to say, “Well,
neighbors we tend to agree with you; we ought to do an EIR because
it would be helpful.” If the evidence showed that the impacts could be
mitigated, staff was constrained to recommend a Mitigated Negative
Declaration. If there were merely a fair argument that the project
might have a significant effect, an EIR should be required. The
Council’s job, with respect to environmental impacts, was not to weigh
whether or not there was more evidence of significant environment
impact. The Council needed to consider whether there was substantial
evidence of significant impact. The EIR process was supposed to
resolve disputes. Arguments, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or
narrative were not substantial evidence when dealing with technical
questions. Expert opinions given by qualified staff or the applicant’s
representatives were entitled to additional weight. The Council might
have a situation where everyone could be right. Ms. Grote described
the process by which the staff identified thresholds of significance for
traffic, basically the recently adopted dual standard of delay and
another factor. That was probably a well-selected threshold of
significance. The law said thresholds of significance were identified.
The CMA was a good authority for environmental standards, and the Council was bound to apply those standards. The City had not formally
adopted thresholds of significance. The standards were used by
inference out of the Comp Plan. Thresholds of significance were a key
area for the Council to pursue in trying to define the shape and feel of
the community.
Council Member Lytle asked Mr. Calonne to repeat, for the benefit of
the CTRA Board members who arrived late to the meeting, a point he
made regarding the nature of the Council’s purview of the appeal.
Mr. Calonne said appeals in Palo Alto were “de novo,” which meant the
Council decided the whole issue from scratch but did not mean that
everything in the record was ignored. The Council was not limited by
the issues asserted on appeal.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the Council had a responsibility
to require a Mitigated Negative Declaration if there were fair
arguments that an EIR was required.
01/14/02 93-243
Mr. Calonne said a Mitigated Negative Declaration was required when
it was available. There might be a requirement for additional public
review of the document. Recirculation of the document was
conceivable.
Mayor Ojakian declared the public hearing open at 7:45 p.m.
Joy Ogawa, Appellant, said she would focus on her objections to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration but asked that the Council not forget
the two design issues she brought up: (1) the loop driveway needed to
be kept one-way; and (2) clear cutting and removal of nearly all the
existing trees on the site. The purpose of CEQA was to provide
protection of the environment. CEQA established a duty for public
agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage, where feasible.
Courts pointed out that an EIR was the heart of CEQA because the EIR
was a vehicle by which environmental impacts were identified and
described. People asked her why an EIR was not automatically done
for the project. When an application was filed, the lead agency
determined whether or not the project was exempt from CEQA. Small
projects were usually exempt. An environmental checklist was
completed in order to determine whether an EIR was needed.
Determinations were based on substantial evidence; however, what
was considered substantial evidence varied. Substantial evidence could
be quantitative, evaluation compared to quantitative standard,
qualitative subjective opinion of one person. If the City determined in its initial study that there was no evidence of significant impact or that
potential significant impacts were avoided or mitigated, the City then
prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and an EIR was not
required. The standards and thresholds used by the City to determine
significant effects were too lenient to developers, and often significant
effects were overlooked and not properly recognized when an initial
study was done. Because the purpose of CEQA was environmental
protection, the lower threshold standard of review was applied. Her
appeal letter laid out arguments that were supported by substantial
evidence. The conversion was an existing one- and two-story building,
totaling 51,500 square feet and previously used for research and
development (R&D) purposes. Conversion of that to an 83,928-
square=foot office building for lawyers was not a land use that was
compatible with the adjacent neighborhood but was an intensification
that generated 50 percent more car trips than an R&D use. Staff
reported that SMC adopted a policy that no more than 25 percent of
the floor area of the Research Park would be used for law and financial
offices. That did not help those in the College Terrace area if the bulk
of the 25 percent was at their doorstep. CEQA said the baseline for
01/14/02 93-244
determining environmental impacts was the existing physical
conditions of the project site when the environmental analysis was
commenced. The property was vacant for a long period of time and
might have been vacant on the date the application was filed. In April
2000, when the City’s last traffic counts were done, only 31,000
square feet was occupied for R&D purposes. Prior to that, the site was,
at most, used for 51,500 square feet of R&D. The project added many
jobs but provided no housing even though housing was allowed under
the Zoning Ordinance. The project worsened the jobs/housing
imbalance. Staff indicated 121 jobs would be added, but she believed
200 to more than 300 jobs would be added if the appropriate baseline
were used. Staff indicated the applicant would pay $128,000 in
housing mitigation fees for the project. In an initial study, staff applied
a 100-trip threshold to determine whether or not there was a
potentially significant traffic impact. Staff determined the project
generated 91 new a.m. trips which did not meet the 100-trip
threshold. If staff used an appropriate baseline, the threshold would
have been met, triggering a potentially significant impact. Stanford
University commissioned its own traffic study which concluded that the
project would result in no significant impact. The study’s data indicated
a potentially significant impact at Hanover Street/Page Mill Road. The
Mitigated Negative Declaration failed to address cumulative impacts. A
cumulatively considerable impact triggered a mandatory finding of
significance and the preparation of an EIR. Cumulatively considerable
impacts were obvious in the Research Park. A new building at 1117 California Avenue added 32,000 new square feet of office. Staff
referenced the Comp Plan as a basis for finding no cumulatively
considerable impacts. Her appeal presented the City with a fair
argument that the project might have a significant effect on the
environment and, therefore, in accordance with CEQA guidelines, “the
City shall prepare an EIR,” even though it may also be presented with
other substantial evidence that the project would not have a significant
effect.
Bill Phillips, Stanford Management Company, said 2475 Hanover Street
was comprised of two former long-term ground leases with the Alza
Corporation. The Alza Corporation was in the process of consolidating
its operations into Mountain View due to limited growth potential in the
Research Park. In keeping with SMC’s efforts to continually revitalize
the Research Park, SMC pursued and completed the purchase of the
leasehold in April 2001. The 50-year old buildings were functionally
obsolete and needed to be replaced. Earlier in the year, in anticipation
of the leasehold purchase, SMC began preparations for redevelopment
of the site. A traffic study was prepared in the event the City might
01/14/02 93-245
require one. A design team was assembled to begin to study the site
and schedule development. A neighborhood community outreach
program was begun, and four community outreach meetings were
held. SMC wanted the design phase, from start to finish, to be a
collaborative process with the College Terrace neighborhood. From the
outset, SMC recognized that although SMC and the neighborhood
might not agree on everything, the objective was to accommodate as
many of the requests as possible. The first outreach meeting was held
on March 17, 2001, where comments and suggestions were made
which steered the design of the project.
Jean Snyder, Stanford Management Company, said one of the most
critical and expensive design decisions was to put the majority of the
parking, 146 spaces, underground. While adding significantly to the
cost of the entire building, the adjustment allowed for the provision of
an enormous setback on California Avenue, which was four times the
Code requirement. In the setback, a minimum height berm with dense
tree plantings to screen the building from California Avenue, was
introduced. The existing curb cut along California Avenue was
eliminated to keep vehicles from entering the project from California
Avenue. A double lay of trees planted along the sidewalk was included.
The parking layout allowed the establishment of the main employee
entrance as far from California Avenue as possible. The most direct
route to all employee parking was from the entrance. Based on a
suggestion made by College Terrace residents, the site plan accommodated a future right of way for a potential spine road through
the middle of the Hanover Street block. The overwhelming reaction by
the residents when the preliminary site plan was presented at the
second outreach meeting was that SMC had listened to the residents.
The subsequent neighborhood meetings involved further additions to
the basic site plan and building design. In both the preliminary and
final ARB hearings, the CTRA Board spoke about the benefits of the
outreach process. Each ARB member commended both SMC and CTRA
for the collaborative and successful design process. The community
outreach program resulted in positive changes that extended beyond
the specific site. The spine road concept and the lay of trees theme
were examples.
Mr. Phillips said the proposed building conformed to zoning in both size
and use. The project did not exceed the allowed .4 Floor Area Ratio
(FAR). Offices were a permitted use. A completed, but unrequired,
traffic impact analysis conforming to City standards yielded no
significant impacts. The staff report (CMR:455:01) documented
effectively and completely why the appeal should be denied. The loop
01/14/02 93-246
road was discussed in detail at the third community outreach meeting.
Due to concern about overuse of the road, while recognizing the need
to accommodate overflow visitor traffic, the residents suggested
making the road one-way. There were no comments about bicycle
safety with respect to the design. Statements were made by the
appellant regarding the impact of employee density. The comment
about lower employee density for R&D use should have referred
specifically to laboratory research use, which was at the lower end of
the density range. Most R&D uses, such as software, were equal in
employee density to most single user offices. SMC was committed to
the preeminence of research and development in the Research Park.
The economic viability of the Research Park depended on the project.
SMC was dedicated to the vitality of the Research Park over the long
term. Law firms, as well as other service firms leased space in the
Research Park. The law firms represented less than 11 percent of the
Research Park’s total square footage. All law firms that were surveyed
had an employee density of three to three and one half employees per
1,000 square feet, which was a density similar to R&D tenants. The
largest law firm, Wilson & Sonsini, and Pillsbury, the tenant for the
subject property. had a current employee ratio of three per 1,000
square feet. The appellant’s ratio of six per 1,000 square feet was not
reality. Recent communications suggested confusion about the
project’s substantial contribution towards traffic calming in College
Terrace. The $150,000 contribution originated as a condition under the
proposed Mayfield Development Agreement. After the Jewish Community Center (JCC) announced its interest in another site at the
end of the Hanover approval process in November, the City requested
that SMC shift the condition from the Mayfield transaction to the
Hanover project. SMC agreed and added the cost to the Hanover
project. A process was under way, which was likely to lead to adoption
of new and increased development fees. Permit issuance on the
project was not known. The project might ultimately be subject to the
fees. SMC wanted to eliminate the uncertainty posed by the timing of
the fees by offering the following: with respect to the community
services fees and the housing impact fee, SMC would agree as part of
project approval to pay such fees if approved prior to the end of the
year, up to the amount of the current staff recommendation. The
amount totaled $14.51 per square foot on the new square footage to
be added to the site. The proposed redevelopment conformed to
current zoning regulations and the City’s standards for environmental
analysis of traffic and other issues. Community outreach was critical in
formulating the design and defining project costs. The Council was
requested to deny the appeal.
01/14/02 93-247
Paul F. Garrett, 890 California Avenue, CTRA Board Member, said he
attended the four public meetings with SMC and the ARB meetings.
The Council was requested to deny the appeal. The City’s credibility in
advocating the process was seriously damaged by approval of the
appeal. Neighborhood individuals spent many hours on the project; if
the exercises were shown to be futile, neighborhood associations
would not find persons with the spirit and energy to take on such
tasks. SMC was thanked for their offer to contribute a substantial
amount to the housing effort.
Dorothy Bender, 591 Military Avenue, raised three points concerning
the Negative Declaration: air quality, traffic, and bicycle safety. Staff
incorrectly checked “no impact” in answer to the question, “Would the
project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation.” Chloroform was found in
the soil and, when left in the environment, had detrimental effects that
were linked to cancer. When the soil was dug up for underground
parking, toxins were released into the environment unless mitigated. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration for hazardous chemicals should include
an assessment of air and health impacts associated with excavation
activities. Identification of local standards of excavation, including dust
levels and noise, transportation impacts from the removal of redial
activities, and for the risk of upset in the event of an accident at the
site. The environmental checklist mentioned chloroform in the soil as
potentially significant unless mitigated but did not mention potential impacts to the air. The project should document all applicable Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations to insure
that none were violated. A risk assessment should have been done. All
phases of the remediation, both to the soil and to the air, needed to be
documented. A public review of the analysis needed to be conducted.
People who lived and worked in the area, pedestrians, and bicyclists
had a right to know that the site would not release toxic chemicals in
the air. A memo was written to the Council previously regarding traffic
regarding her concerns. The Fehr and Peers Associates study came out
with .009 and, had they applied the 91 traffic numbers to its volume
over capacity (V/C) ratio, they would have come out with a significant
impact. They came out with four seconds but came up with .009 which
they said was insignificant. If the 91 figure was put into the V/C
formula, the result would have been significant. Bicycle safety was
raised at an ARB meeting. The staff report (CMR:455:01)should have
addressed issues relating to Hanover Street and its use as a main
bicycle route between Stanford University and locations in Palo Alto.
Palo Alto needed to do an EIR if a fair argument was made that the
01/14/02 93-248
project generated significant impacts. The arguments were fair and
indicated the project generated significant impacts unless mitigated.
Ben Lerner, 3482 Janice Way, supported the appeal of the approval of
the 2475 Hanover project. The appeal illustrated a multitude of
impacts the project had on its immediate surroundings on the
environment in Palo Alto. The project had the potential of impacting
the Midtown neighborhood where he lived. Palo Alto had a housing
shortage. The project proposed to replace an office building of
approximately 50,000 square feet with one of approximately 80,000
square feet, an increase of 30,000 square feet. Using the standard
estimate of four jobs per 1,000 square feet, the project added an
additional 120 jobs to Palo Alto. The existing site was unoccupied.
When the 80,000 jobs were occupied, 320 jobs were added to Palo
Alto. Each job equaled one worker who needed housing in Palo Alto.
Using a standard factor of one housing unit per 1.5 workers, the
project required Palo Alto to increase its housing supply by 80 units.
Using less conservative figures, the number rose to 213 units. The
proposed project provided no housing for its worker population and did
not provide suitable land elsewhere where such housing might later be
built. Various state and county mandates required that cities provided
sufficient housing for the people who worked within the city. A city
might get fined if it did not provide sufficient housing, and the fines
were paid out of the city’s general fund, that is, the taxpayers, while
the benefits went to the developers. Common wisdom for solving the jobs/housing imbalance was to build high density housing wherever
suitable housing was found, which was often in or near existing
residential areas. That would adversely affect the quality of life in the
neighborhoods by increasing density and traffic and overloading the
overcrowded schools. The proposed project set the City behind in its
housing goals. The Council was urged to require the developers to
produce an EIR that objectively studied the effect on Palo Alto’s
jobs/housing imbalance and determined suitable mitigation for any
negative impacts.
Winter Dellenbach, 859 La Para, said there was nothing mutually
exclusive or contradictory about what was negotiated to date by
residents. The Council found evidence of significant impacts requiring
an EIR. An EIR supported the residents and would end up with a
project that was most compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Grote
stated that $150,000 was offered for traffic calming. That was only
half the offer. The offer included a condition that the $150,000 would
be withdrawn if an EIR were required by the City. The monetary
inducement had the appearance of impropriety and set potential for
01/14/02 93-249
bad precedent. The Council was asked to address the $150,000 with
conditions. The Council was urged to follow the CEQA standards, find
significant impact, and approve the appeal.
Karie Epstein, 1143 Stanford Avenue, CTRA Board of Directors, said
the Board spent countless hours working with the SMC to achieve
changes to the project that had less impact on the neighborhood.
Residents were able to attend meetings to give significant input. The
CTRA worked hard during the General Use Permit (GUP) process to
gain mitigations for the neighborhood. The City, when negotiating the
Mayfield site deal, ultimately obtained $150,000 specifically for College
Terrace to mitigate traffic impacts. When the Mayfield deal became
uncertain, SMC agreed to delink the $150,000 so the money would not
be lost, and the money was able to be used to mitigate traffic impacts
with new development projects in the Research Park. Approving the
appeal was not in the best interest of the neighborhood or the City. If
an EIR were required on the project, the $150,000 would be eaten up
by the EIR, and there would be no money remaining for traffic
mitigation by the affected neighborhood. An EIR on the proposed
project was misguided and would not achieve the results the
proponents suggested would happen. The Council was asked to deny
the appeal.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said there were no staff reports available
in the Council Chambers prior to the meeting, and he realized there was no procedure for additional reports on items that were continued.
He suggested the operating departments and City Manager work with
other Council Appointed Officers to have a procedure where reports for
continued items were available at the meeting where the item was
continued. The applicant mentioned that the $150,000 was somehow
shifted from the Mayfield agreement. Only the City Council was able to
make changes to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and the
MOU was not on the Council’s current agenda. Any action taken on the
proposal had nothing to do with the money that was agreed to in the
MOU. The question that SMV could choose whether to spend the
$150,000 on an EIR or traffic mitigation was a silly argument. The EIR
determined what the mitigation was. The issue raised that the Council
should make decisions based on a political question of whether a
neighborhood association agreed on something rather than on the
legal requirements of an EIR did not make much sense. In terms of
the Community Impact Development fees, the Council had the right to
set that by a date. The traffic standards were not new City standards
but were the applicant’s standards. The applicant’s consultant chose to
raise the level on the standards by having two standards instead of
01/14/02 93-250
one and by lowering the timeframe. In an EIR, the City was supposed
to prepare an independent analysis. When SMC or other applicants
hired their own traffic consultants, those consultants’ work was
accepted uncritically by the Planning Division staff.
Brielle Johnck, Menlo Park, said she was inspired by the drama she
heard about the possible loss of the $150,000 for traffic calming
measures that SMC would withdraw if an EIR were required. The
Council should not feel it was held hostage. The $150,000 was a small
amount of money for SMC to put in and would serve as a much needed
community relations healing measure. SMC might come up with traffic
calming measures whether or not an EIR was done.
Martin Stone, El Verano Avenue, supported the appeal on traffic
related issues. The traffic volume increase due to the project was likely
to double what SMC projected it to be. The applicant indicated that the
original building was 51,500 square feet, and the increase was 31,500
square feet. The project was listed as single-tenant occupancy with
1.78 trips per 1,000 square feet. When that was multiplied out, the
change was only 54 trips per period of time. SMC relied on an
erroneous 30,000 figure in its job calculation numbers. If the number
was four jobs per 1,000, that would result in 120 jobs; if City staff was
correct, it said only 31,000 square feet was occupied. The new building
of 82,000 square feet would result in an increase of 51,000 square
feet. Staff erred when it said the original use was single-tenant office. Taking City staff’s correct number of 51,000 square foot increase and
applying the Institute for Traffic Engineer’s standards for R&D space,
the original number of trips would have been 1.24 per thousand,
thereby giving the increase of 108 trips per period of rush hour traffic.
That triggered the 100-trip threshold that City staff discussed. The
Council was urged to allow the appeal and order the EIR.
Mayor Ojakian announced that all speaker cards must be turned in by
8:40 p.m.
Victoria Colligan, 1160 S. California Avenue, CTRA Board Secretary,
said the CTRA concluded that the changes to the project were
incorporated into the design and/or conditions of approval and, as a
result of the meetings, were more beneficial to the neighborhood than
would have been achieved through the normal EIR process. She
attended many meetings and was impressed that SMC listened to the
residents’ concerns. The proposed building, setback, berm, and trees
were good proposals.
01/14/02 93-251
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, urged the Council to support the
appellant and require the EIR. The process where buildings were
intensified in usage concerned her. Cumulative impacts were not
considered. Midtown residents experienced the short cut traffic of
people who tried to get through intersections on Page Mill Road. There
was a problem in the development pattern, particularly in the way staff
looked at the project. When a building project came in as a remodel or
added square footage, the project was rarely the same or less.
Projects were evaluated individually rather than in conjunction with
other things, and no maximum limits were set on occupation of the
buildings.
John Ciccarelli, 2065 Yale Street, said the CTRA looked at the project
and decided, on benefit, it was the way to go. The project was not
perfect and did not address all the City’s goals. The project made
accommodations and set a process and a set of standards in motion
that CTRA hoped would influence the entire lower Research Park.
Delaying the project was bad for Palo Alto’s interests because it
delayed the opportunity to extend the prototype that the project
offered down California Avenue, throughout the Research Park, and
across Page Mill Road. Rather than the EIR’s way of dealing with the
intersection of Page Mill Road at Hanover Street, the intersection could
be offloaded by offering alternate circulation paths.
Kathy Durham, 2039 Dartmouth Street, CTRA President, said a survey was conducted in June where residents were asked about the priority
of issues. Nine out of the 25 issues related to traffic and development
in the immediate range of the neighborhood. The Council was urged to
deny the appeal and uphold the findings in the staff report
(CMR:455:01). Few people understood the term “significant impact”
when talking about a traffic study done for an EIR. The traffic impacts
of the project were not significant as defined in the conventional traffic
studies that the Council had to rely on in an EIR. The Council was
urged to find out more about what the top quality transportation staff
was doing to get the City out of its current situation by looking at ways
to monitor on an annual basis vehicle trip reduction, reduced reliance
on single-family occupancy vehicles, and level of service for
pedestrian, cyclists, and transit riders.
Edith Eddy, 2579 Cowper Street, watched an ongoing process where
Palo Alto became increasingly crowded, congested, and threatened
with ever-rising housing costs and an inability to provide housing for
people who did not make large salaries. The problems continued to get
worse even though residents lobbied, planned, and asked City staff to
01/14/02 93-252
help. The proposed project added jobs to the City with no housing
balance.
Edie Keating, 3511 Waverley Street, said the Council’s role was to look
at how it could do an EIR. Her understanding was that EIRs offered
more flexibility than Mitigated Negative Declarations. The City wanted
the flexibility. Community standards might be added about what would
and would not be done in terms of jobs/housing, traffic, and widening
streets. The City needed standards to require EIRs and say “no” to
some projects.
Mr. Phillips said Alza’s decommissioning of the site proceeded to the
point where, based on third quarter 2001 information, they requested
and submitted evidence for final case closure on the site from the
Regional Water Quality Control Board. That included any impact from
chloroform. Impact fees mitigated environmental impacts.
Ms. Ogawa admired the CTRA’s efforts on the project. The project was
better due in part to the CTRA’s involvement in the process. That did
not mean there were no significant environmental effects resulting
from the project. An EIR would identify and address the effects. Eighty
signatures were collected from people who felt the project might have
a significant effect on the environment. She doubted that the
opponents of the appeal were able to honestly say they did not believe
there would be any significant environmental effects. The question before the Council was whether the City was presented with a fair
argument that the project might have a significant effect on the
environment. If the answer was yes, the City should prepare an EIR
even it the City might be presented with other substantial evidence
that the project would not have a significant effect.
Mayor Ojakian understood an email was received earlier in the day
from Menlo Park Council Member Paul Collacchi, which the Council
Members had not received.
Menlo Park Council Member Paul Collacchi said his email addressed
long-term policy issues that arose from the type of project being
discussed but did not speak to the project itself.
Council Member Morton clarified Mr. Phillips said SMC was prepared to
pay the increase in development fees on the $30,000 additional square
feet.
01/14/02 93-253
Mr. Phillips said that was correct. The development impact fees were
applicable to housing and to the library and community services
elements.
Mayor Ojakian clarified SMC found the condition regarding
development impact fees acceptable to the approval of the project.
Mr. Phillips said that was correct.
Council Member Freeman said SMC and the CTRA did an exemplary job
working together to come up with a solution for the site. SMC
mentioned several monetary mitigations that it would make in order to
move forward with a Mitigated Negative Declaration rather than an
EIR. She asked whether the driveway loop was one-way.
Mr. Phillips said the driveway was one-way.
Council Member Freeman clarified signage for one-way was acceptable
to SMC.
Mayor Ojakian said that was correct.
Council Member Freeman said an issue was raised about the variation
and degrees of whether there were traffic impacts. Stanford would pay
$94,000 to mitigate the impact, assuming there was traffic impact. The intersection at Hanover Street and Page Mill Road was discussed
with staff, and she understood making corrections to the intersection
took approximately three years, based on funds supplied by SMC. She
questioned whether the building would be built prior to completion of
the intersection.
Mr. Phillips said that was correct but expected the building process to
be 18 months to 2 years.
Council Member Freeman asked whether SMC was open to preparing a
supplemental EIR on any further development in the Research Park.
Mr. Phillips said SMC was open to the process of evaluating whether
the amount of cumulative development in the Research Park, relative
to and measured by some of the criteria that were established in the
Comp Plan EIR, and suggested that further or supplemental
environmental review had to be done in the Research Park. SMC
supported the review.
01/14/02 93-254
Council Member Freeman clarified SMC supported a review on whether
there should be a supplemental EIR.
Mr. Phillips said if it were staff’s determination that, based on the
review, there should be a supplemental EIR, SMC supported the
supplemental EIR.
Council Member Kishimoto said she took the housing impact seriously.
The increase of 221 additional jobs led to a demand for 75 housing
units, which was equivalent to approximately 5 percent of the unmet
housing need in Palo Alto according to the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG). She asked whether SMC considered rezoning
some sections of the Research Park such as in the area along
California Avenue or El Camino Real, as an alternative to paying the
full housing impact fee.
Mr. Phillips said SMC would not consider the alternative in connection
with the proposed project.
Council Member Kishimoto clarified SMC agreed to pay the existing fee
of $3 per square feet and $150,000 for traffic calming. She did not see
anything in the conditions to minimize the net traffic volume increase
and asked whether SMC considered doing a shuttle for the project and
along California Avenue to address the current project and cumulative
impact of all the relatively recent new buildings and intensification of the Research Park.
Mr. Phillips said as part of the process of evaluating various scenarios
about traffic impact, the Marguerite shuttle was looked at as to
whether it could be extended, and the result was it could not. A
dedicated shuttle for the project was a significant amount of money;
for example, $68,000-70,000 per year. Shuttle service in the Research
Park needed to be evaluated at some point in the future.
Council Member Lytle raised an issue regarding SMC’s testimony that
the setback was four times the requirement. She understood the
setback to be 100 feet. There was a 75- foot landscape buffer zone on
California Avenue. She asked how the “four times” was figured.
Ms. Grote said the required setback was 50 feet. The project was 150
feet or three times the requirement.
Council Member Lytle asked about the landscape buffer zone down the
property along California Avenue.
01/14/02 93-255
Ms. Grote said the zone was 75 feet.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the project building was at 100
feet.
Ms. Grote said the project building was 105 feet.
Council Member Lytle asked how staff was satisfied on the
environmental determination of the air quality issue on chloroform.
Ms. Grote said the issue was addressed in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and was reviewed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District
and the BAAQMD. A monitoring program was in place and continued
during construction and excavation.
Council Member Lytle asked how the baseline was defended.
Ms. Grote said the building was partially occupied when the traffic
analysis was conducted, for example, approximately 31,000 square
feet of occupied square feet of space. The building contained office
space and some lab space. That was used as the baseline, and the
single occupancy tenant was used for the additional traffic, which
equaled approximately 97 trips rather than 55.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the baseline evaluation needed to be started from the point of application and conditions on the site at
that time.
Ms. Grote said the building was partially occupied at the point of
application.
Council Member Lytle asked about the increase in the Research Park
that occurred since adoption of the Comp Plan, what was learned from
the census about the population increase, and was the City ahead of
the Comp Plan EIR predictions for growth.
Ms. Grote said the approximate square footage since approval of the
Comp Plan for new square footage in the Research Park was
approximately 530,400 square feet. Adding what was added between
1996 when the EIR was completed, the amount was increased by
approximately 170,000 square feet. Approximately 670,000 square
feet was added since the EIR was completed for the Research Park.
01/14/02 93-256
Council Member Lytle said the Comp Plan EIR assumed the 1990
Census Data when population levels were estimated. She asked
whether the City updated the assumption for environmental analysis
purposes using 2000 Census Data for employment projections.
Ms. Grote said staff started to get employment projection data from
the 2000 Census.
Council Member Lytle asked how staff handled cumulative analysis.
Ms. Grote said staff relied on the Comp Plan EIR for the cumulative
impact. As long as square footages did not exceed those analyzed in
the EIR, staff assumed a cumulative impact was not created. Staff
looked at individual project impacts and how they affected certain
designated intersections.
Council Member Lytle asked whether requiring an EIR to assess the
project in the context of the entire Research Park was legally
legitimate, and might the City require the landowner to mitigate
cumulative impacts of growth in the Research Park.
Mr. Calonne said there was no system in place to mitigate all the
cumulative effects identified. A scenario where the City could exact
mitigation for development that had already occurred was difficult to
imagine.
Council Member Lytle asked who paid the cost of the development that
already occurred.
Mr. Calonne said if staff found there was a need for developing a
specific traffic improvement caused by a level of development, future
growth could bear a fair share of the cost of upgrading the facilities.
The question was how much of the cost of upgrading facilities could be
assigned to future growth as a means of recouping some of the costs
that were, as an example, lost through the lack of cumulative impact
analysis.
Council Member Lytle said the staff report (CMR:381:01) did not
estimate costs for existing use but estimated costs of the
proportionate share that people paid for their cost. She asked if the
cost was not collected from developers, who paid the proportionate
share of the cumulative projects that were approved.
01/14/02 93-257
Mr. Calonne said no one paid until the Council gave direction to pass
the cost along. Until there was action to develop a cumulative impact
mitigation system, the costs would not be collected.
Council Member Lytle asked whether taxpayers bore the burden if the
City did not collect the costs.
Mr. Calonne said taxpayers, residents, and business users were the
burden of the underservice caused by the unavailability of facilities. He
understood Council Member Lytle’s question was whether SMC could
be charged at the proposed project for the cost of previous SMC
development that was not charged. The answer was no.
Council Member Morton asked whether the ARB had a general principle
of approval to try to preserve mature trees.
Ms. Wasserman said the ARB reviewed the applicant’s arborist report
and discussed tree issues with the staff arborist Dave Dockter. A
question about existing Gingko trees planted by school children was
raised. She did not recall receiving a final word on the condition of the
trees.
Council Member Morton said he drove by the project site and noted
eight or ten mature trees that faced Hanover Street and appeared to
give Hanover Street a certain character.
Ms. Grote said Mr. Dockter reviewed the landscape plan. The Gingko
trees would be relocated to a public park. The Gingko trees were not
considered as appropriate for the site as the replacement Ash trees.
For every Gingko tree that was removed, two Ash trees would be
replaced.
Council Member Morton said there was no dispute that traffic impacts
existed and asked what might result from an EIR. The burden was the
increased traffic. The question was asked whether imposing a shuttle
requirement would be looked at if an EIR were required.
Ms. Grote said the threshold that the CMA used of 100 trips through a
specific intersection was not a threshold that determined whether an
EIR was required but was a threshold that determined whether a
traffic analysis was required. Staff’s position was that even if there
were 108 trips that went through the intersection of Hanover Street
and Page Mill Road, the appropriate mitigation was the payment of the
impact fee. The impact fee evenly distributed money from
01/14/02 93-258
development as it occurred throughout the Research Park for identified
intersection improvements. The staff recommendation was that the
Mitigated Negative Declaration was appropriate rather than an EIR.
Council Member Freeman said the delta in time between when the
intersection of Hanover Street and Page Mill Road was completed and
when the building was completed, was possibly one year, which would
cause some traffic impact. There was no clear definition as to what the
impact was. She asked whether it would be possible, after the building
was occupied, for SMC to study the intersection for impacts. If there
were impacts, the shuttle could be used for the time period until the
intersection was completed. At the same time, SMC could review using
the shuttle for the Research Park as a whole rather than for one
particular project.
Mr. Phillips said the time delay that was experienced by the existing
line to serve the area, adding seven to ten minutes, was a reasonable
estimation and did impact the ridership of the line in a way that offset
what the rider would gain by doing the loop. Figures he received from
transportation traffic and the people who ran the Marguerite shuttle
had to deal with establishing a new dedicated shuttle from Caltrain, up
California Avenue, around Hanover Street, and back to El Camino,
which amounted to $70,000 per year.
Council Member Freeman said part of the public input at the current meeting reflected the perception that the City came up with great
ideas for implementation and agreed that some time in the future the
ideas would be attained. In the meantime, the future point did not
have a deadline or timeline. The issue involved a development on the
corner of Hanover Street and Page Mill Road that had impact for
traffic. She heard three different options for using the shuttle in
varying degrees to help mitigate the traffic problem. The $92,000-
94,000 was actually the official mitigation, but the problem was with
traffic in the delta period between the time the intersection was
changed and the time the building was built. She asked whether SMC
considered alternatives to using the shuttle to some capacity to help
the situation.
Mr. Phillips asked the City to consider whether it could accelerate the
mitigation at the intersection.
Council Member Freeman wanted to understand the actual threshold
for determining whether traffic analysis should happen at any given
intersection. The report prepared for SMC by Fehr and Peers gave a
01/14/02 93-259
definition that used four or more seconds and used a V/C value of .01
or more. The definition from staff said “more than four seconds” or
“more than .01.”
Ms. Grote said the threshold was as stated in the traffic impact
analysis that was done. Whether it was a V/C of .01 or slightly less or
more or an intersection delay of slightly less or more than four
seconds, was not a CEQA threshold. The threshold was a CMA which
said a traffic analysis was done or not done. In the particular case, the
traffic analysis was done. The thresholds that were typically used, in
addition to a CMA threshold for a traffic impact analysis, were those
that were outlined in the Comp Plan about hazardous to design
features about significant impacts and substantial relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity, vehicle safety, emergency access,
and safety around a site. Those were outlined in the Comp Plan and
used in making the initial determination on whether a traffic study was
required.
Council Member Freeman said it was important to understand that four
seconds or more was different than more than four seconds.
Council Member Kishimoto clarified even though there were various
versions of the threshold, ultimately the authority was with the
Council.
Mr. Calonne said that was correct. The Council was not completely
uninformed because there was a Comp Plan EIR.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether operation of a shuttle rather
than collecting a fee could be required.
Mr. Calonne said the problem became whether the shuttle was more
than a fair share related to the impacts caused by the project. If the
Council wished to look at what a fair share was for a shuttle, staff
should be directed to go back and return with the best information on
what the project could properly be compelled to support.
Council Member Kishimoto asked how staff came up with no impact on
housing.
Ms. Grote said there was no impact because, as a standard condition
of approval, there was a commercial housing impact fee. That was
assessed on the per square foot basis for the new square footage and
equaled $128,000, which mitigated the housing impact. The standard
01/14/02 93-260
condition was derived from both the Comp Plan and Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC). Staff determined there was no potentially significant
impact because of the condition.
Mr. Calonne said mixing the significant impact analysis under CEQA
with the police power analysis of what the Council could require was
easy. There were places where a significant impact under CEQA was
not present. That did not mean the Council was powerless to address
problems created by the project, but meant another source of
evidence needed to be looked at. The Comp Plan policies were usually
the source of evidence looked to. The environmental law was not a
restriction on what the Council could require, but was a minimum floor
of what the Council had to require.
Mayor Ojakian declared the public hearing closed at 9:50 p.m.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Lytle, to deny
the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community
Environment’s approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
and the proposed project, with the additional mitigation measures as
follows: that the shuttle be extended to Hanover Street, and to protect
the mature trees on Hanover Street.
Council Member Lytle said SMC offered to pay the fees up to what was
proposed by staff. She wanted to add a condition that would say “up to what is the maximum that the Council could approve eventually” or
“what is approved,” whichever was lower.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF
THE MAKER AND SECONDER that Stanford will pay the additional
fees ultimately approved by the Council on the 30,000 square-foot
addition.
Council Member Lytle said she felt that the Council asked permission
from SMC to do the supplemental EIR, but it was the Council’s decision
to require a supplemental EIR. The Council should initiate a new EIR
for the Research Park.
City Manager Benest suggested Council Member Lytle’s proposal be a
direction to staff as a separate motion.
Council Member Morton said there were suggestions made that the
neighborhood was almost held hostage for the $150,000. He assumed
that was a negotiated item and was already included in the
01/14/02 93-261
mitigations; if not, it should be included as a firm condition in the
mitigations.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF
THE MAKER AND SECONDER that Stanford’s offer of $150,000 for
traffic calming measures be a firm part of traffic mitigation.
Council Member Kishimoto supported the concept of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration but, conceptually, she liked to think of it as a way
of rejecting the old one and accepting the new one. The old Mitigated
Negative Declaration was flawed. Correcting the old Mitigated Negative
Declaration including the checklist should be a condition.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF
THE MAKER AND SECONDER to correct the Mitigated Negative
Declaration to reflect Council action, including housing, community
center, park, and library impacts.
Council Member Morton understood the “less than significant impact”
meant after the mitigation measure that would ordinarily be imposed
had been met.
Ms. Grote said staff needed to discuss whether or not the Mitigated
Negative Declaration had to be recirculated.
Mr. Calonne said there was no reason to self-inflict time pressure to
come up with a final motion at the current meeting. He suggested the
Council develop a tentative motion and direct staff to finalize the
motion and come back to Council in the future.
Council Member Morton clarified the item would come back on the
Consent Calendar.
Mr. Calonne said that was correct.
Council Member Kishimoto said the Council discussed the one-way sign
to make sure the loop road remained one way.
Council Member Morton said he preferred to leave specifics of the one-
way road for the applicant to deal with.
Council Member Kishimoto said there was prior discussion about
whether the supplemental EIR was a direction to staff or became part
of a condition. A condition was stronger, and she said that, prior to the
01/14/02 93-262
Council considering development in the Research Park, a supplemental
EIR be completed.
Mr. Calonne said the problem with the supplemental EIR was that SMC
was not before the Council with a project that would trigger a
supplemental EIR. He heard Mr. Phillips say SMC was willing to
cooperate and support the supplemental EIR. The message the Council
wanted to get across was that it was not inclined to favorably consider
any future Research Park projects unless and until a supplemental EIR
was prepared.
Mr. Benest said when staff brought the item back to the Council, staff
would let the Council know how it planned to progress on it and what
the implications were about the workload. The Council needed to
consider having staff prepare the supplemental EIR, how the EIR
would be paid for, and what the impact was on the workload and
priorities of the Planning Department.
Council Member Burch asked the City Attorney how the City could
push to have the shuttle go through as part of the motion.
Mr. Calonne asked for time for staff to quantify how much the Council
could compel the project to bear.
Council Member Burch said he had difficulty voting on the condition regarding the trees because the recommendations of the City Arborist
went through the ARB, who supported the landscaping.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the Gingko trees were in the way
of the double row of trees.
Ms. Grote said the Gingko trees were in the location where the
proposed double row of trees were to be planted.
Mayor Ojakian said the motion directed staff to look at several of the
items as part of returning back to the Council.
Council Member Freeman was concerned about the threshold issues
and standards and wanted to see them identified and brought back to
the Council in order for the Council to approve something that staff,
the public, and developers understood.
Council Member Lytle assumed that would be part of the supplemental
EIR project.
01/14/02 93-263
Council Member Freeman said the thresholds had to do with any
project in Palo Alto and preferred the thresholds not be tied to the
supplemental EIR associated with the Research Park.
MOTION PASSED 5-1, Burch “no,” Kleinberg, Mossar “not
participating,” Beecham absent.
MOTION: Council Member Freeman, seconded by Kishimoto, to direct
staff to create a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
Stanford Research Park for any further developments or additions, and
direct staff to present thresholds for California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) checklist so the Council understands what they are and can
decide if they are adequate for Palo Alto.
Mr. Calonne said the Council needed be clear if it wanted to say it was
not inclined to look favorably on future projects until the supplemental
EIR was prepared.
Mayor Ojakian clarified the Council directed staff to produce a
supplemental EIR related to the Research Park and to have the
supplemental EIR in place prior to approval of any future projects.
Mr. Calonne said the task was to look at the Comp Plan EIR to see
where it became outdated. The first step was the triage to identify the
scope of the document.
Council Member Lytle said the concept of reviewing standards prior to
moving forward on the project was missing. The Comp Plan standards
were weakened from the citywide standards.
Mr. Benest said there was a clear signal that the Council did not want
any further projects prior to the supplemental EIR. Staff would meet
with Stanford, identify what work had to be done, identify the
workload implication for staff, identify who would bear the cost, and
return to the Council with that information. Staff would figure out a
way to let the Council know more about the standards, such as
through a study session or regular Council meeting.
Council Member Freeman asked for a timeline.
Mr. Benest said a timeline would be given to the Council once the
timeline was figured out. Another issue was at what level did the
Council want to be experts on the topic.
01/14/02 93-264
Council Member Freeman said people, such as appellants, had different
ideas of what thresholds were. There were thresholds in the Comp Plan
but changes were made since the Comp Plan was created, and it was
time to review the changes to make sure they were appropriate for the
level of population and traffic.
Council Member Kishimoto thanked the appellant for a courageous and
well-researched job in appealing the application. Issues were raised
that were valuable for the Council to consider. The issue of setting
standards of significance was extremely important as well as an
opportunity for Palo Alto to state its local values. Tools such as EIRs
were used to determine the direction the Council wanted to go and the
speed in which the community wanted to grow. The discussion about
thresholds for traffic, noise, air pollution, and wastewater treatment
were critical.
Council Member Morton clarified the Council asked staff to return with
a public primer on the principles or thresholds that were used in
determining significant impacts or project approvals.
Council Member Freeman said the Council did not need a presentation
about every threshold, but she wanted to see a document with what
the thresholds were.
Council Member Morton said the document would be suitable for release to the public.
MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,”
Beecham absent.
RECESS: 10:25 p.m. to 10:35 p.m.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for Library Advisory
Commission
City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Dan Dorosin, George
Gioumousis, Sandra Hirsh, Lenore Jones, Mary Jean Place, Ann Shelby
Valentine, and Thomas Wyman received four or more votes and would
be interviewed.
Mayor Ojakian asked when the interviews were scheduled.
01/14/02 93-265
City Clerk Rogers said the interviews had not been scheduled, but the
appointment was scheduled for February 4, 2002. Interviews would be
scheduled prior to that date.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Mossar, to
approve the Minutes of November 13 and 19, 2001, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Kleinberg absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Freeman disclosed that she was on the Board of the
Friends of the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre, but was advised by the City
Attorney that she could participate in Item No. 3.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Morton, to approve
Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3-11.
LEGISLATIVE
3. Ordinance 4732 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-02 to Accept
Grant Funding for the Children’s Theatre Lighting Project in the Amount of $175,000”
4. Ordinance 4733 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” (1st
Reading 12/17/01, Passed 9-0)
ADMINISTRATIVE
5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and P&J Utility Company
in the Amount of $1,372,394 for Water Main Replacement
Project 15, Capital Improvement Project 33330
6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical
Co., in the Amount of $638,000 for the Sludge Thickener
Rehabilitation Project at the Water Quality Control Plant
(Wastewater Treatment CIP Project 8021)
01/14/02 93-266
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Monterey Mechanical
Co., in the Amount of $836,000 for the Blower Systems
Replacement Project for the Water Quality Control Plant
(Wastewater Treatment CIP Project 8021)
8. Acceptance of Annual Status Report on Developers’ Fees
9. Extension of the Santa Clara County Abandoned Vehicle
Abatement Service Authority (AVASA) for second 10-year term
and the City of Palo Alto’s Continued Participation
Resolution 8121 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Approving the Extension of Authority for the California
Department of Motor Vehicles to Collect the Vehicle Registration
Fee for Distribution to the Santa Clara County Abandoned
Vehicle Abatement Service Authority”
10. Change Order No. 3 to Contract No. C1129753 Between the City
of Palo Alto and Bragato Construction Co., in the Amount of
$19,891 to provide Additional Barriers, Amenities, and Plants at
the Duck Pond Parking Lots
11. Approval of the City Manager’s Appointment of Stephen Emslie
as the Director of Planning and Community Development
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Kleinberg absent.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
12. Request for Council Consideration of Development Fee and
Mitigation Policy and Request to Schedule a Noticed Public
Meeting on a Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Declaring Council Policy to Mitigate Development Impacts and
Initiating Proceedings to Establish Development Impact Fees for
Parks, Community Centers and Libraries
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Resolution was designed to put in
place as quickly as possible the policy direction initiated by the Council
with development impact fees for community centers, parks, and
libraries.
Council Member Lytle asked whether staff looked at what the fees
would have amounted to if the fees were counted toward the
Community Center, which was a project the Council placed a condition
01/14/02 93-267
on to count development impact fees. Her calculation showed $1.5
million.
City Manager Frank Benest said staff tried to move forward, and the
Resolution helped have something in place in order to charge those
who could be charged.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, questioned why two Council Members did
not participate in the prior item but one participated on the current
item. When the item was before the Finance Committee in October
2001, the Government Affairs Council and Chamber of Commerce
representatives said there should have been more input. At a meeting
on December 19, 2001, he asked how the fee could be applied and
was told it could be retroactive. The current approach was that the
Council had to pick and choose which ones to apply the fee to. A fee
should be adopted and made retroactive to October 2001.
Mayor Ojakian said Item No. 12 was not specific to Stanford
University. Council Member Kleinberg could not participate due to a
conflict of interest because her husband’s law firm worked on
development in Stanford, and the possible fees approved could have
an impact on the law firm.
Mr. Calonne said each financial interest was discussed differently.
There was an exception when the financial interest of the Council Member was affected the same way as the public generally. Council
Member Mossar’s financial interest was Stanford University as a source
of income. Stanford University was affected in the same manner as the
public generally because of the number of properties affected. Council
Member Kleinberg’s financial interest was her husband’s law firm. His
law firm was affected because of Stanford, but the impact on that law
firm was not the same as the impact on the public generally. The point
of the Resolution was to allow staff to begin immediately placing on all
projects a condition that said “pay the fees immediately.” The
Resolution became effective on January 28, 2002, after the Council
conducted a noticed public meeting. The action requested of the
Council was to direct staff to schedule the noticed public meeting.
Council Member Kishimoto understood Mr. Borock’s question was why
the Council would not vote directly on the development impact fees
rather than a resolution.
Mr. Calonne said Mr. Benest and Carl Yeats met with him in late
November or early December and said they wanted to cover as many
01/14/02 93-268
projects as possible. The Resolution went through some pain to draw
on the Comp Plan and the source of authority.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the Council should have a
discussion of the development impact fees.
Mr. Calonne said there were significantly more cumbersome procedural
steps for adopting the fees. Staff was not prepared to do that at the
current meeting. Hearings and notices were required. The Resolution
was the most streamlined way to get the fees in place as quickly as
possible.
Vice Mayor Mossar agreed the Resolution was the most streamline way
and saw no advantage to the Council doing anything other than
passing the Resolution.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to consider
a Development Fee and Mitigation Policy, and to schedule a noticed
public meeting on a Resolution Declaring Council Policy to Mitigate
Development Impacts and Initiating Proceedings to Establish
Development Impact Fees for the Parks, Community Centers and
Libraries.
Council Member Lytle requested that necessary steps to get the fees in
place were clear.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kleinberg “not participating,” Beecham absent.
THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED AT 10:55 p.m. TO A SPECIAL
MEETING AS THE PALO ALTO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND
RECONVENED AS THE CITY COUNCIL AT 11:00 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. to a Closed Session.
13. Conference with Real Property Negotiator
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 2747 Park Blvd., Palo Alto
2785 Park Blvd., Palo Alto
01/14/02 93-269
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
Real Property Negotiations as described in Agenda Item No. 13.
Mayor Ojakian announced that no reportable action was taken
on Agenda Item No. 13.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. in
memory of Council Member Beecham’s father, Lt. Col. William P.
Beecham (USAF, Retired) of West Palm Beach, Florida, who passed
away on January 11, 2002.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council
and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the
purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings.
City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90
days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for
members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
01/14/02 93-270