HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-08 City Council Summary Minutes
09/08/97 −210
Special Meeting
September 8, 1997
1. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................84-213
2. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................84-213
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.............84-213
1. Drawing of the Ballot Order - General Municipal Election -
November 4, 1997......................................84-214
2. Annual Report of the Joint Community Relations Committee for
Palo Alto Airport Committee...........................84-214
2A. (Old Item No. 19) Request for Direction on Whether the City
Should Fund an Audit of the Santa Clara County Transportation
Authority Airport Enterprise Fund with Regard to the Palo Alto
Airport, 1901 Embarcadero Road........................84-215
3. Selection of Candidates for Architectural Review Board84-217
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................84-217
APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................84-218
4. Resolution 7707 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Determining the Calculation of the Appropriations
Limit of the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 1997-98"84-219
5. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County
for Social Worker Services............................84-219
6. Approval of Standard Form Energy Services Contract....84-219
09/08/97 −211
7. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement C3044299 between the City of Palo
Alto and Lytton IV Housing Corporation and Community Housing,
Inc. for Funding of Site Acquisition and Development for the
Lytton IV Senior Housing Project......................84-219
8. Participating Agency Agreement between the City of Palo Alto
and County of Santa Clara Providing for Administration of the
Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Programs
Management Program....................................84-219
9. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Niccoli Landscaping
(DBA The Village Gardener) for 1997-98 Tree Planting Project
84-219
10. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and EMCON for Landfill
Gas Migration Investigation and Remediation Project...84-219
11. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Royal Roofing
Company, Inc. for the Cubberley Wings C and G Reroof Project
84-219
12. Rejection of Construction Bids for Driving Range Project - Golf
Course Improvement Project............................84-219
13. Resolution 7708 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Ordering the Summary Vacation of Public Utilities
Easements at 302 Ramona Street and 301 Emerson Street”84-219
14. Ordinance 4444 entitled “Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4381
in Order to Extend the Period Within Which Chapter 16.50 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code [Interim Historic Regulations]
Shall be in Effect”...................................84-219
15. The Policy and Services Committee recommends Council approval
of the staff recommendation to adopt the policies concerning
appointed boards, commissions and other advisory bodies84-219
16. The Finance Committee recommends Council approval of the staff
recommendation to approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance for
the Utilities Customer Information System Project (CIP 9357)
......................................................84-220
17. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....84-220
18. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a
proposed subdivision of a 10.1 acre site into 14 single-family
residential lots (western 3.24 acres) and one commercial parcel
09/08/97 −212
(eastern 6.82 acres) for the Cabaña Hotel facilities for
property located at 4290 El Camino Real...............84-221
20. Vice Mayor Andersen and Council Member Schneider re Review of
PC Zoning Public Benefit Standards....................84-254
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 9:00 p.m.
......................................................84-260
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.. ...84-260
09/08/97 −213
09/08/97 −214
09/08/97 −215
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 6:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino (arrived at 6:15 p.m.),
Huber, Kniss (arrived at 6:18 p.m.), McCown,
Schneider, Wheeler
ABSENT: Rosenbaum
CLOSED SESSIONS
1. Conference with Labor Negotiator
Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant
to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds)
Unrepresented Employees: Management and Confidential
Authority: Government Code section 54957.6
2. Conference with Labor Negotiator
Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to
the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Judith
Jewell, Randy Rafoth, Linda Craig)
Represented Employee Organization: International Association
of Firefighters (IAFF), Local 1319
Authority: Government Code section 54957.6
The City Council met in a Closed Session to discuss matters involving
Labor Negotiation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 1 and 2.
Mayor Huber announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda
Item Nos. 1 and 2.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
09/08/97 −216
Regular Meeting
September 8, 1997
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m.
PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown,
Schneider, Wheeler
ABSENT: Rosenbaum
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Drawing of the Ballot Order - General Municipal Election -
November 4, 1997
Assistant City Clerk Kathi Hamilton introduced Michael Pezzimenti,
student at Palo Alto High School, who would be drawing the names
for the ballot order.
FULL-TERM
1. Gary Fazzino
2. Sandra Eakins
3. Micki Schneider
4. Tru Love
5. Liz Kniss
6. Andrew L. Freedman
7. Eric J. Bloom
8. Victor Ojakian
9. Trina Lovercheck
SHORT-TERM
1. Dena Mossar
2. Duf Sundheim
3. Edmund Power
MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to move Item
No. 19 forward to become Item No. 2A.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent.
2. Annual Report of the Joint Community Relations Committee for
Palo Alto Airport Committee
Nick Petredis, Outgoing Chair, Joint Community Relations Committee
(JCRC), said the Incoming Chair, Peter Carpenter, was out of the
country. In addition to the report, he wanted to mention some of
the goals. With regard to Goal No. 9, Theft of Electronic Equipment
from Aircraft, in October 1996 there was a $250,000 fly-in burglary
at the airport. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) would help
with some security issues, but the audit of the Enterprise Fund might
free up more money to help implement a security program at the
airport. Goal No. 11, Renovation/ Relocation of Terminal Building,
was previously reported to the Council. Currently, there were good
09/08/97 −217
discussions with Santa Clara County (the County) and City staff,
but before proceeding further, the JCRC wanted guidance from the
Council as to the exploration of the concept of a new terminal
building and the relocation the present temporary building out of
the safety zone. The Council did not need to make a commitment but
was asked to provide a general sense that the concept was workable.
The next step would be to continue with the County and others, and
the end product would be a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the
County which would be reviewed by the City before proceeding further.
Council Member Wheeler was in full agreement with the JCRC with regard
to the condition of the old terminal building. There was a
conceptual plan by Victor Aviation that would have involved
incorporating a new terminal building in its own facility. She
asked if those plans for expansion at that site had been abandoned.
Mr. Petredis said those plans had been abandoned, but that
application was what gave JCRC the idea that there was significant
interest to help with funding.
Council Member Schneider used the Palo Alto Airport frequently and
knew how important a new facility was. She asked about the waiting
list for hangar space, number of planes, and use of the airport
compared to five to ten years before.
Mr. Petredis said there were over 50 tie-downs open, and hangar space
was no longer available. Hangars would be a tremendous benefit.
The general activity was up slightly but not significantly.
Mayor Huber said the report was good, concise, and well-thought out
and thanked the JCRC for its hard work.
2A. (Old Item No. 19) Request for Direction on Whether the City
Should Fund an Audit of the Santa Clara County Transportation
Authority Airport Enterprise Fund with Regard to the Palo Alto
Airport, 1901 Embarcadero Road
John A. Stern, Vice President, Palo Alto Airport Association, 1849
Webster Street, commended the staff report (CMR:371:97) which was
complete and helped substantiate the need for an audit. The last
sentence on page 1, “The policy decision to be made is the extent
to which the City funds an audit, will benefit a limited number of
Palo Alto residents (airport users),” was true. However funding
had been provided for many other special limited groups, such as
community centers, libraries, and the golf course, and the audit
fund was relatively modest. As mentioned in a letter from Patricia
Roy (on file in the City Clerk’s Office), on January 1, 1996, over
$200,000 had been paid to the Santa Clara County Transportation
Authority Airport Enterprise Fund over and above what was
09/08/97 −218
anticipated in back rents and interest. In addition, the Palo Alto
Management Association, while having a smaller facility, funded a
significant amount to the Enterprise Fund in terms of readjustment
of rents, etc. The question was where all the funding was going.
It was a significant amount of money. There was an urgent need
for night security at the Palo Alto Airport, there had been several
fly-in robberies, and the next fly-in robbery was just an event
waiting to happen.
Jerry Bennett, Director of Aviation, Santa Clara County, said with
regard to the staff report (CMR:371:97), the County Administration
was receptive in recommending to the County Board of Supervisors
that the County share in the costs using its Enterprise Fund. The
County wanted to clearly define the scope of the audit so both the
County and the City would be in agreement as to what the end result
and mutual benefits would be.
Council Member Wheeler asked about an Annual Report which came from
the County but had not been forthcoming for the past two fiscal years.
Mr. Bennett said the County had been publishing an unaudited report
which needed to be reintroduced with an audited financial statement,
separate from what had been embodied into the County bookkeeping.
He felt the audit would set the process so the Palo Alto Enterprise
Fund would clearly be separated and defined at the end of the year.
It would let people know what monies were coming in or going out
and how the net revenue would be used.
Council Member Wheeler clarified the intent was either to renew an
agreement or to enter into a new agreement with the City to issue
a public report on an annual basis once a good, solid statement was
available.
Mr. Bennett said the Palo Alto Enterprise Fund had an end of the
year statement which did not reflect commingling of funds with the
other two airports.
City Manager June Fleming said it was noted in the staff report
(CMR:371:97) that the City Auditor worked with staff closely on
the report. She understood the Auditor was consulted about the
statements with regard to working on the scope.
City Auditor William Vinson agreed. The staff report was excellent.
It remedied a problem that had existed for many years and would
move the City in the right direction. He encouraged Council support.
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Andersen, to
approve funding of an audit of the Santa Clara County Transportation
Authority Airport Enterprise Fund with regard to the Palo Alto
09/08/97 −219
Airport, 1901 Embarcadero Road, with the provision that the City
of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County share equally in the cost.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent.
3. Selection of Candidates for Architectural Review Board
RESULTS OF THE VOTING FOR INTERVIEWS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
VOTING FOR BELLOMO: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss,
McCown, Schneider, Wheeler
VOTING FOR HANSON: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss,
McCown, Schneider, Wheeler
VOTING FOR HUO: Eakins, Fazzino, Kniss, Wheeler
VOTING FOR LIPPERT: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss,
McCown, Schneider, Wheeler
VOTING FOR PETERSON: Andersen, Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss,
McCown, Schneider, Wheeler
Assistant City Clerk Kathi Hamilton announced that Joseph Bellomo,
Lee Hanson, Kenny Huo, Lee I. Lippert, and Robert C. Peterson received
four or more votes and would be interviewed on Monday, September
22, 1997.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
T.J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding transparencies which show Palo
Alto is noncompetitive.
Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, spoke regarding commercial rents and
airplane noise.
Margaret Ash, 164 Hamilton Avenue, spoke regarding homelessness.
Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding fair play
(letter on file in the City Clerk’s Office).
Tony Ciampi, Timothy Hopkins Park, Palo Alto, spoke regarding life.
Susan Frank, 325 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Art
and Wine Festival held on August 23 and 24, 1997.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, spoke regarding staff responsiveness.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
09/08/97 −220
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve
the minutes of May 12, 1997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve
the minutes of May 19, 1997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve
the minutes of June 2, 1997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve
the minutes of June 9, 1997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 7-0-1, Andersen “abstaining,” Rosenbaum absent.
MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve
the minutes of June 23, 1997, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 4-16.
4. Resolution 7707 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Determining the Calculation of the Appropriations
Limit of the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 1997-98"
5. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County
for Social Worker Services
6. Approval of Standard Form Energy Services Contract
7. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement C3044299 between the City of Palo
Alto and Lytton IV Housing Corporation and Community Housing,
Inc. for Funding of Site Acquisition and Development for the
Lytton IV Senior Housing Project
8. Participating Agency Agreement between the City of Palo Alto
and County of Santa Clara Providing for Administration of the
Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Programs
Management Program
09/08/97 −221
9. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Niccoli Landscaping
(DBA The Village Gardener) for 1997-98 Tree Planting Project
10. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and EMCON for Landfill
Gas Migration Investigation and Remediation Project
11. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Royal Roofing
Company, Inc. for the Cubberley Wings C and G Reroof Project
12. Rejection of Construction Bids for Driving Range Project - Golf
Course Improvement Project
13. Resolution 7708 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Ordering the Summary Vacation of Public Utilities
Easements at 302 Ramona Street and 301 Emerson Street”
14. Ordinance 4444 entitled “Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4381
in Order to Extend the Period Within Which Chapter 16.50 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code [Interim Historic Regulations]
Shall be in Effect”
15. The Policy and Services Committee recommends Council approval
of the staff recommendation to adopt the policies concerning
appointed boards, commissions and other advisory bodies
proposed in the staff report (CMR:442:96) and further refined
in the staff report (CMR:260:97). Further, that staff use the
evaluation process delineated in the staff report (CMR:260:97)
to evaluate the formation of an advisory body with respect to
libraries and return directly to Council.
16. The Finance Committee recommends Council approval of the staff
recommendation to: 1) approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance
in the amount of $750,000 for the Utilities Customer Information
System Project (CIP 9357); 2) approve and authorize the Mayor
to execute contracts with SCT Utility Systems, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Systems and Computer Technology Corporation, the
total amount of which was $1,100,000. The Software License
and Services Agreement included: acquisition of the software,
software modifications, interfaces to existing City systems,
data conversion, technical and functional training,
implementation, and project management services. The
Technical Currency Agreement included first-year maintenance
and enhancements for the software; and 3) authorize the City
Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more
change orders to the contracts with SCT Utility Systems for
related additional, but unforeseen, work which might develop
during the project. The total value of the change orders shall
not exceed $110,000.
09/08/97 −222
Ordinance 4445 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98
to Provide An Additional Appropriation for Utilities Customer
Information System Capital Improvement Project 9357"
Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and SCT Utility Systems
Inc. for Software License and Services
Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and SCT Utility Systems
Inc. for Technical Currency
MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 4-13 and 15-16, Rosenbaum absent.
MOTION PASSED 5-0-3 for Item No. 14, Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider
“abstaining,” Rosenbaum absent.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting.
17. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation
Subject: City of Menlo Park vs. City of Palo Alto (Stanford
University, Real Party in Interest), SCC CV768196
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
18. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a
proposed subdivision of a 10.1 acre site into 14 single-family
residential lots (western 3.24 acres) and one commercial parcel
(eastern 6.82 acres) for the Cabaña Hotel facilities for
property located at 4290 El Camino Real. Applications to be
considered for this project include: 1) an amendment to the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation (from Service
Commercial to Single-Family Residential); 2) rezoning (from
PC District to R-1 District) for the western 3.24 acres for
single-family residential use; 3) rezoning of the eastern 6.82
acres to PC (Planned Community) District; 4) a Variance from
the requirements of PAMC Sections 18.68.110(c) and
18.68.150(b), permitting an increase in the current hotel
building height limits to 100 feet; 5) Architectural Review
approval of modifications to the site plan and buildings
elevations for the Cabaña Hotel facilities; and 6) Tentative
Subdivision Map approval for a 15-lot land division, which
includes a request for conditional exception from PAMC Section
21.20.240(b)(2) to permit a 50-foot wide right-of-way width
09/08/97 −223
for a cul-de-sac extension of Glenbrook Drive, in-lieu of the
required 60-foot right-of-way width. (continued from 8/4/97)
Mayor Huber announced that the public hearing had been held on August
4, 1997, and the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed
with time left for Council to ask questions of staff and the applicant
if Council desired.
Council Member Kniss said the “southerly road” did not appear to
be the problem the Council considered it to be previously. If it
were a problem, she asked staff to reiterate what Council had been
advised of by staff.
Contract Planner Paul Jensen said the southern one-way access road
south of the Cabaña Hotel facility was only wide enough to accommodate
two-axle vehicles. Based on a report that was prepared by the
project geotechnical engineer in consultation with the project
engineer, the soil conditions of the area and the condition of the
road, limited it to two-axle vehicles, i.e., either light-weight
or empty construction vehicles.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
the Planning Commission heard two proposals during its discussions
from various segments of the public regarding the south one-way
access road. The first proposal was to have all construction traffic
use the south road, which would be two-way traffic, heavy vehicles,
but the two-way traffic would cause a significant problem because
the road was not designed for two-way traffic. The larger vehicles
were also a problem. The second proposal was to have the road be
part of a loop road in which there would be one-way traffic with
all vehicles, heavy and light, using the south road as an exit.
The conclusion was that the heavier vehicles beyond two-axles should
not use the south road. Cars, pickup trucks, and smaller
construction vehicles could use the road as a one-way exit only due
to its narrowness.
Vice Mayor Andersen asked if any suggestion were made, when the
proposal first went before the staff, as to the appropriateness of
the land being used for a higher density than R-1 or that it might
not be consistent with some of the objectives for infill and providing
moderate-income housing for people working in the hotel.
Mr. Schreiber said the proposal before the Council that evening was
preceded by a different proposal which involved redevelopment of
the entire site. That proposal would have involved both
multiple-family and single-family housing on 50 to 65 percent of
the land. With the current proposal, the hotel was retained access
to the back of the site from the front at El Camino Real, which would
be difficult and not a desirable option. The south access road was
a fire lane and not suitable for ongoing traffic. Then a roadway
09/08/97 −224
would have to be created on the north side. It could be done, but
there would be conflicts with hotel parking lots and traffic. With
the previous proposal, the development concept would be to have a
transition of single-family houses from the rear of the site adjacent
to the existing single-family area, which was a development concept
that would generally be the way to proceed. Those two factors,
especially the access issue, ruled out any development greater than
single-family, and the single-family should have access to Glenbrook
Drive.
Vice Mayor Andersen asked if there had been resolution to the one-foot
strip issue.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Debra Cauble said the status of the
one-foot strip changed slightly since the August 4, 1997, Council
meeting. There had been additional discussions with the attorneys
regarding possible form of settlement; however, there was no written
consent for settlement from the homeowners. She understood consent
would not be forthcoming until the Greenacres neighborhood saw what,
if any, project the Council approved for the site. As the City
Attorney’s report from August indicated, there was a meeting
involving Improvement Association board members and a number of other
homeowners who agreed that if the project were approved as proposed,
with some additional commitments by the developer, the one-foot issue
could be resolved.
Council Member Schneider asked whether stabilization measures were
necessary. It had been recommended that two to three concrete
bollards would be placed alongside the road, and she asked if those
would be removed when construction was completed.
Pubic Works Senior Engineer James Harrington said they were columns
of concrete and would be buried two to three feet below the ground.
Irrespective of the current conditions, the columns would never
be seen and would not be removed.
Council Member McCown asked whether the recommendations in the staff
report (CMR:377:97) were identical to those in the August staff
report or had new information.
Mr. Jensen said the recommended actions were identical. The changes
that had occurred were redlined in Attachments 2A and 2B which were
conditions.
MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve
the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and staff
recommendation that the City Council:
09/08/97 −225
1. Approve the Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
finding that the proposed project would not result in any
significant environmental impacts.
2. Adopt the resolution amending the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map designation for the western 3.24 acres of the
subject property from Service Commercial to Single-Family
Residential.
3. Introduce the ordinance rezoning the western 3.24 acre portion
of the subject property from PC (Planned Community) District
to R-1 (Single-Family Residential) District.
4. Introduce the ordinance rezoning the eastern 6.82 acre portion
of the subject property from PC (Planned Community) to PC
(Planned Community) District for the continued operation and
maintenance of a hotel use.
5. Approve a Tentative Map for a 15-lot subdivision and conditional
exception from PAMC Section 21.20.240(b)(2), permitting the
extension of Glenbrook Drive with a 50 foot wide right-of-way,
based on findings and subject to conditions.
6. Approve the ARB findings and Standard Conditions of Approval
for the hotel site and building improvements.
7. Approve the proposed variance from PAMC Section 18.68.110c and
18.68.150b (maximum building heights of 50 feet and 35 feet,
respectively), allowing an increase in hotel building height
to 100 feet, based on findings.
FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (96-SUB-5)
1. As modified by recommended conditions of approval, and upon
the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan amendment
(96-CPA-4) and zone change (96-ZC-13), the proposed subdivision
is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that it would result in a
project that would preserve a hotel/commercial land use along
the El Camino Real property frontage and would establish a
single-family residential use for the western 3.24 acres of
the site. The subdivision would result in a project that is
compatible with the scale and development pattern of the
surrounding residential and commercial neighborhood land uses
and improvements. In addition, the subdivision would be
consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that it
would result in a residential density that is within the density
range of the Single-Family Residential land use designation
09/08/97 −226
and a commercial/hotel land use intensity that is consistent
with the Service Commercial land use designation. The project,
as designed and approved would not be inconsistent with Policy
10 of the Open Space Element and Policy 4 of the Schools and
Parks Element, which encourage public access along creeks in
that, after detailed study of possible public access
alternatives along the contiguous Adobe Creek, it has been
determined that safe public access along this portion of the
creek is not feasible or recommended given a) the constraints
of the hotel parcel and the requirement to significantly modify
existing improvements on the hotel site, b) the proximity of
the existing hotel site improvements to the Adobe Creek bank
and c) the potential for introducing a point of access to the
adjacent residential neighborhood, which could be used for
overflow hotel parking; this would result in a significant
environmental impact and would be contrary to the mitigation
measures presented in the environmental assessment for this
project (96-EIA-32).
2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of
the proposed single-family residential development, in that
the lots are sized and configured to provide sufficient outdoor
living space and are designed to allow protection of existing,
mature trees along the property border. Likewise, the site
is suitable to accommodate a 6.82 acre parcel for continued
hotel use and improvements. Furthermore, the proposed
subdivision respects the physical conditions of the site by
appropriately arranging residential lots with access to and
frontage on an extension of Glenbrook Drive, which continues
the pattern of the traditional single-family residential
neighborhood to the west. As modified by conditions of
approval, the proposed 6.82 acre hotel parcel would respect
the physical conditions of the site by avoiding impacts to or
encroachments within Adobe Creek and by implementing a tree
replanting program for proposed tree loss.
3. The subdivision design would not cause significant
environmental impacts or substantially or unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat, as documented in the
environmental assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(96-EIA-32). Mitigation measures have been incorporated into
the conditions of approval for the various project
applications, including the Tentative Subdivision Map, which
will reduce all potentially significant impacts to
less-than-significant levels.
4. As modified by conditions of approval, the design of the
subdivision and the proposed improvements will not result in
serious public health problems in that, all necessary public
09/08/97 −227
services, including public utilities and access to El Camino
Real, a public street, are available and will be provided.
Furthermore, conditions of approval require that the
single-family residential subdivision access to and utility
services from Glenbrook Drive, a public street, are to be
provided prior to the approval of a Final Subdivision Map by
the City Council. The subdivision design and recommended
conditions of approval for erosion and sediment control would
ensure protection of water quality within the Adobe Creek.
5. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with the
provision of utilities to adjacent land uses or public easements
in that the project layout and map is designed or proposed to
receive direct utility connections from two public
rights-of-way.
CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION FROM PAMC SECTION 21.20.240(b)(2)
1. There are special circumstances and conditions surrounding the
subject property which warrant the approval of a conditional
exception for the reduced road right-of-way width for the
extension of Glenbrook Drive. The subject property being
served by the road extension represents a small area (3.24
acres), would serve a limited number of residential lots (14)
and is designed to preclude future extension for additional
development or road connection.
2. The exception from the 60 foot wide road right-of-way
requirement is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right in that it would permit a
subdivision design that would respect the existing tree cover
along the property border and would maximize the size of
single-family residential lots in a limited area of 3.24 acres.
3. The granting of the exception, which would permit a 50 foot
wide road right-of-way width and a curb-to-curb street pavement
width of 30 feet, will not be detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to other property of the neighborhood, in that
the street is sized (width and cul-de-sac turning radius) to
provide adequate emergency vehicle maneuvering and access.
While the road width would limit on-street parking to one side
of the street right-of-way, the individual residential lots
are adequately sized to provide more than the minimum on-site
parking.
4. The granting of the conditional exception would not violate
the requirements, goals, policies or spirit of the law in that
the exception would be limited to permitting a reduced road
right-of-way for a cul-de-sac serving a limited number of
09/08/97 −228
residential lots. Other requirements and goals for approval
of the subdivision can be met or are required to be met through
implementation of conditions of subdivision approval.
CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 96-SUB-5
Please note that a separate set of conditions apply to applications
#96-ZC-13 and #96-ARB-168. These conditions address specific site
and building improvements for the 6.82 acre Cabana Hotel parcel.
Prior to Filing the Final Subdivision Map for Approval and
Recordation
1. This map was processed concurrently with a Comprehensive Plan
amendment (96-CPA-4) and a zone change (96-ZC-13). Approval
of the Tentative Map shall not be effective until the effective
date of the rezoning ordinances for the PC (Planned Community)
and R-1 (Single-Family Residential) rezoning.
2. The Final Map and Improvement Plans shall incorporate the
required mitigation measures presented in the Environmental
Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration (96-EIA-32), and the
approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, both on
file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment.
3. All construction, improvements and grading activity proposed
within the El Camino Real (SR 82) right-of-way may be subject
to approvals and/or permits from the State Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). If intersection improvements are
incorporated into the Final Map improvement plans, the project
sponsor shall be required to submit, with the Final Subdivision
Map, a written authorization or proof of an approved permit
for construction activities within the Caltrans right-of-way
encroachment permit.
4. All construction and grading activities proposed within Adobe
Creek may be subject to approvals and/or permits from the Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG - streamed alteration), and the US Army
Corps of Engineers. The following shall be submitted with the
Final Subdivision Map:
a. A written determination from CDFG that the proposed
actions do not fall within their jurisdiction, or that
a standard streamed alteration agreement has been executed
for authorized work within the creek.
b. Proof of authorization and/or permits from the US Army
Corps of Engineers for outfall construction and associated
grading within the Adobe Creek (Nationwide Permit).
09/08/97 −229
c. A written authorization and/or proof of an approved permit
from the SCVWD, for all construction and grading work
within the Adobe Creek and/or properties owned by SCVWD.
In addition to approvals/permits for construction of
outfalls, the SCVWD may require an easement for future
construction of an access ramp, through the hotel parcel
to the creek. If this easement is required by SCVWD, it
shall appear on the Final Map.
5. The name of the residential cul-de-sac (Glenbrook Court) shall
be changed to Glenbrook Drive. This name change shall appear
on the Final Subdivision Map.
6. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be prepared. The
plan shall include the following:
a. The detail plan shall include the submittal and
implementation of a drainage and erosion control plan to
ensure that the potential for erosion is minimized.
b. The plan shall include a detailed program addressing the
removal, transport and crushing of the existing asphalt
in the rear (western) parking lot. If the crushed asphalt
is used as base material for the front (eastern) hotel
parking lot, it shall be placed only in areas that are
proposed to be paved for parking. No crushed asphalt
shall be used in areas proposed for landscaping or
planting. Following installation of the base material,
the project sponsor shall contact the City Planning
Division for a site inspection. The City Staff shall
inspect the area to ensure compliance with this mitigation
measure.
c. Drainage for the residential subdivision improvements
shall be designed with a closed, stormwater drainage
system. This system shall be designed so that all run-off
is collected and deposited into Adobe Creek at one outfall
location. Residential subdivision grading shall be
designed so that all lot run-off is directed into the
closed drainage system.
d. Drainage for the eastern 6.82 acre hotel parcel shall
include the installation of a new culvert into Adobe Creek.
e. The final design of all new stormwater drainage outfalls
shall include the installation of an acceptable,
biotechnical erosion control measure (e.g., techniques
such as mixture of local rock, woody material and native
09/08/97 −230
planting). Use of sacked concrete or rock rip-rap for
erosion control shall not be permitted. Ultimate design
and materials for outfall erosion control shall be
determined based on consultation with the Santa Clara
Valley Water District. In addition, the construction of
the outfall shall avoid impacts to or removal of
native/riparian trees. If tree removal is necessary to
construct the outfall, removal shall be limited to
non-native trees and shall be noted on the final grading
and drainage plan and shall include details for
replanting.
f. All catch basins shall be stenciled with the approved City
logo and the word "No Dumping! Flows to Adobe Creek."
This shall be noted on the plans.
g. An overland flow path flow must be provided between Lots
10 and 11 to provide a release point from the cul-de-sac
in the event of flooding beyond the capacity of the storm
drainage system.
7. The proposed development will result in a change in the
impervious area of the property. The project sponsor shall
provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area,
submitted with the Final Map. A storm drainage fee adjustment
will take place in the month following the approval of
construction by the Building Inspection Division.
8. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers,
and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the final
landscaping and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict
will occur between the utilities and the landscape materials
and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building
design and setback requirements, subject to ARB review and
approval.
9. The following permits shall be secured from the Department of
Public Works:
a. An Encroachment Permit for use of and improvements to the
sidewalk, street and alley.
b. A Permit for Construction in the Public Street.
c. A Grading and Excavation Permit.
Any construction within the CPA right-of-way, easements or
other property controlled by the City of Palo Alto must conform
to the standards established in the CPA Standard Specifications
for Utilities Department and the Public Works Department.
09/08/97 −231
10. The Final Subdivision Map and improvement plans as well as
construction drawings for issuance of a building permit for
the hotel parcel shall comply with or include all conditions
recommended by the Utilities Engineering Division summarized
in the memorandum from Jose Jovel, dated October 25, 1996, on
file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment.
Utility Engineering Division. (See Attachment #9 of staff
report).
11. A construction logistics plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Transportation Division and Public Works
Engineering Department, addressing at minimum parking, truck
routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of
pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction
site. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto's
Truck and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route
map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City
of Palo Alto. The logistics plans shall be prepared to ensure
that, for the first 12 months of grading and construction for
the subdivision and hotel site improvements, all construction
vehicle access shall be routed eastward, through the hotel site,
to El Camino Real. The logistics plan shall identify an access
point and staging area to the residential subdivision, designed
to ensure minimal impacts to the hotel improvements and
operation on the 6.82 acre hotel parcel. In addition, the
routing of construction traffic shall include use of the
southern, one-way access road (south side of hotel facility)
for lighter-weight, 2-axle construction vehicles only. Any
reinforcements to this road that are required to protect the
road and/or adjacent creek slope banks shall be made based on
the recommendations of the project geotechnical engineer, as
approved by Public Works Engineering.
12. Final Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be
submitted for review and approval by City departments to
determine compliance with the Tentative Map conditions. The
final CC&Rs shall include the tree preservation and protection
provisions presented in Section 3.03 of the draft subdivision
CC&Rs, on file with the City.
13. The Final Subdivision Map shall include a “non-development”
setback along the southern portions of residential lots #1-4.
The setback shall be 20 feet wide, as measured from the southern
property boundary of the subdivision (rear property line of
subject lots). The Final Map shall include a note restricting
the use in this setback, prohibiting dwelling units, accessory
structures and swimming pools. The restrictions of this
setback shall be included in the provisions of the subdivision
CC&Rs.
09/08/97 −232
14. The improvement plans for the Final Subdivision Map shall
include the placement of fire hydrants every 300 feet (Model
76 type). A specific plan showing new and relocated hydrants
shall be submitted to the Fire Department, prior to the
completion of the improvement plans.
15. The property owner shall provide proof that subdivision access
and extension of utilities can be provided over the one foot
wide strip of land extending over the existing terminus of
Glenbrook Drive, thus authorizing the extension of Glenbrook
Drive (the proposed residential cul-de-sac). If, at the time
of the filing of the Final Map, the subdivider has neither a)
acquired sufficient title on interest in the required public
right-of-way in order to allow construction of the improvements
and conveyance of same to the City for use by the public, nor
b) secured adequate documentation of the existence of the
accessory public right-of-way, then the subdivider shall agree
to the following:
a. The subdivider shall complete the improvements at such
time as the City acquires, or confirms the existence of
an interest in the land which will permit the improvements
to be made, and
b. The subdivider shall pay all costs and expenses of the
City related to acquisition of, or judicial confirmation
of the existence of, a public right-of-way across the
one-foot strip of land. Such costs and expenses shall
include, but not be limited to, court costs, appraisal
expenses, payment, if any, to parties having interests
which must be acquired, and legal fees (whether rendered
by City employees or outside counsel).
The City may require as part of the agreement, a deposit and/or
posting of other security to guarantee payment by subdivider
of all costs and expenses.
16. The subdivider shall enter into an agreement with the City of
Palo Alto, which addresses the performance standards and
contingency measures required for implementation of a hotel
“parking performance plan.” The implementation of this plan
and requirement for the agreement is outlined in the PC District
ordinance for the 6.82 acre hotel parcel (96-ZC-13). The
agreement shall be recorded with the approved Final Map at the
office of the Santa Clara County Recorder.
09/08/97 −233
17. The final layout and design for the extension of Glenbrook Drive
shall conform to Article 9, Section 902, meeting specifications
for emergency vehicle access.
18. Prior to recordation of the Final Subdivision Map, final
landscaping and irrigation plans, as well as other pertinent
improvement details including but not limited to above ground
utility boxes and apparatus, shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Architectural Review Board, the City’s Planning
Arborist, Utility Energy Service Division and Planning
Division. The final plan shall include the following:
a. Specifications for the removal of fire damaged trees along
the north banks of Adobe Creek (south of hotel parcel).
Trees shall be pruned to ensure adequate clearance for
the vehicular fire lane.
b. A total of seven street trees shall be planted along the
El Camino Real frontage, spaced at intervals of 25 feet.
Tree species shall be Yarwood London Plane (Plantanus
a.) and planted at a 24 inch box size. Planting area shall
be a minimum of 3' x 5', including area for irrigation.
c. A total of 18 street trees shall be planted along the
Glenbrook Drive extension, spaced at intervals of 40 feet.
Flowering Pear - "Redspire" (Pyrus calleryana) is an
acceptable species, planted at a 36" box size. Planting
area shall be a minimum of 3' x 5', including area for
irrigation.
d. All trees with trunk diameters of 6" or greater that are
to be removed (as per Sheet L-1, Preliminary Landscape
Plan dated December 19, 1996 and Sheet TRP, Tree Removal
Plan dated December 19, 1996) shall be shown on the final
landscape plan. Tree replacement shall be two new trees
for each tree lost/permanently removed, planted at a 50/50
size mix of 24 inch and 36 inch box size. A mix of
deciduous and evergreen species shall be provided for all
replacement trees, as approved by the City’s Planning
Arborist.
e. Landscaping for the "gateway" feature bordering El Camino
Real and Adobe Creek shall include 6-7 Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens) or Deodara Cedar (Cedrus deodar)
planted at a 48" box size, arranged with shorter trees
in the foreground. The Fremont Cottonwood (Populus
fremontii) species is not acceptable and shall be deleted
from the plan. The landscaping details for the “gateway”
feature shall include plans for construction and
09/08/97 −234
installation of a monument-type entry sign to Palo Alto.
The sign shall be designed based on consultation with
the Public Works Operations Division and in accordance
with the sign specifications provided by the City.
f. The final landscaping and irrigation plans shall show an
area for two pad mounted transformers for the residential
portion of the subdivision, one between Lots 13 and 14,
and one between Lots 6 and 7. An area for one above ground
switch/LB cabinet is required at Lot 4. An area shall
be identified for a new pad mounted transformer along the
El Camino Real frontage, to serve the hotel
facility/parcel. All utility equipment shall be screened
with landscaping, as approved by the Utilities Department
and the ARB.
g. Final specifications for street lighting along the
extension of Glenbrook Drive.
h. Specifications and/or plans for perimeter fencing along
the northern, western and southern property boundaries
of the 6.82 acre hotel parcel. For details of this
requirement, see condition 11.f. of the Standard
Conditions of Approval for 96-ZC-13 and 96-ARB-168.
i. Specifications and/or plans addressing landscape
treatment, tree protection, parking lot lighting, hotel
signage, pavement materials, on-site bicycle parking and
pedestrian path details for the 6.82 acre hotel parcel.
For details of this requirement, see conditions 11.g.
through 11.l. of the Standard Conditions of Approval for
96-ZC-13 and 96-ARB-168.
19. Submittal of a tree protection plan, prepared by a certified
arborist, for review and approval by the Planning Division and
the City’s Planning Arborist, and implemented prior to
demolition, grading and throughout construction. The plan
shall include implementation of the recommendations contained
in Sheet L-1, Preliminary Landscape Plan (Royston, Hanamoto,
Alley & Abey), dated December 19, 1996, and Sheet TRP, Tree
Removal Plan, dated December 19, 1996. The plan shall preserve
and protect trees that are not proposed for removal on Sheet
TRP (Tree Removal Plan). If additional tree removal is
necessary, it shall be accompanied by a report from a certified
arborist and a re-planting ratio of 2:1. The plan shall survey
and accurately map all trees to be protected and shall include
measures for their protection during construction including
a temporary construction fence to be erected around each tree,
or tree cluster that is to be saved. The fence shall consist
of portable cyclone fencing or wire mesh, security attached
09/08/97 −235
to metal posts driven into the ground, or alternative fencing
approved in writing by the Planning Division. The purpose of
the fencing is to keep all construction activity and storage
outside the dripline of the trees. It shall be erected before
any construction machinery enters the site, and shall not be
removed until the final landscaping grading is completed. The
site and landscaping plan shall be designed to provide tree
roots with air and water through use of perforated paving or
other permeable surfaces. In order to ensure the protection
of the creek during construction, the existing chain-link fence
that is located immediately south of the southern, one way
access road (hotel site) shall be maintained, in-place, during
construction. This chain-link fence shall be extended
westward, along the southern property boundaries of residential
lots #1-4, terminating at the southwest border of the subject
property.
20. All new development on the proposed single-family residential
lots shall be subject to Palo Alto Unified School District
(PAUSD) school fees, to be determined by the school district.
Proof of fee payment to PAUSD shall be submitted to the City
prior to issuance of a building permit for the single-family
residential lots.
21. The project sponsor shall be aware that services requiring 400
amps or greater will require a three-phase service.
22. The improvement plans shall show that all sidewalks
bordering/crossing the project site shall be repaired in
accordance with Public Works standards. Approximately 50
lineal feet of sidewalk on the El Camino Real frontage shall
be removed and replaced. The width of the sidewalk must be
eight (8) feet to comply with ADA requirements. In addition,
the El Camino Real driveway curb ramp shall be repaired or
replaced. The sidewalk improvements may need to include the
widening of the existing Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) bus line stop #22, which fronts the subject
property. This improvement shall be determined in
consultation with the VTA.
23. The Final Map shall show the location of all lot lines along
with easements for deed restricted areas and reciprocal use
of land for private yard areas, common driveways and parking
spaces.
24. Easements must be created over parcels crossed by storm drainage
or other utility infrastructure. The storm drainage easement
must extend to the creek outfall from the inlets on the Glenbrook
09/08/97 −236
Drive extension. These easements shall be shown on the Final
Subdivision Map.
25. The applicant must apply to the Santa Clara County Assessor's
office for a tract number for this subdivision.
26. The subdivider shall submit improvement plans for the design
of the improvements proposed for the public right-of-way and
all public utilities. These improvements shall be installed
by the subdivider, at the subdivider's expense and shall be
guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to
the City Attorney. All public improvements shall be
constructed by a licensed contractor and shall conform to the
City's standard specifications, except as modified by this
approval (see City Standard Drawing 201). These plans shall
include the proposed modifications and improvements to the main
hotel driveway intersection with El Camino Real. The final
driveway alignment with El Camino Real shall be designed in
consultation with Caltrans, the City Transportation Division
and Public Works Engineering. The intersection design shall
include the installation of a second pedestrian crosswalk over
El Camino Real.
27. The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with
the City of Palo Alto. The agreement shall be recorded with
the approved Final Map at the office of the Santa Clara County
Recorder, and shall guarantee the completion of the public
improvements (inclusive of funds to be submitted for City
construction of an entry sign to Palo Alto, to be constructed
in the approved “gateway” area). This agreement shall include
the subdivider’s agreement to fulfill Program 13 of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan - Housing Element, below market rate
(BMR) housing program, through payment of in-lieu fees. The
executed agreement shall include the in-lieu fee program and
fee payment structure outlined in the letter to Carrasco &
Associates, Inc., from Ken Schreiber, City of Palo Alto Director
of Planning and Community Development, dated May 15, 1997.
This agreement requires that the housing mitigation fee for
the 14 vacant residential lots be paid to the City prior to
City Council approval of the Final Subdivision Map. The
agreement requires that a further mitigation fee be paid at
the time the first building permit is issued for each
residential lot.
28. A detailed site specific soils report must be submitted to and
approved by Public Works Engineering. This report must include
specific recommendations for street design and discuss the
suitability of the soil conditions for the proposed
development.
09/08/97 −237
29. The tentative map shall be valid for a period of 24 months (2
years) from the date of final approval.
During Construction
30. Consistent with the approved construction logistics plan, for
the first 12 months following commencement of grading and
construction for the subdivision improvements, all
construction vehicle access to the western single-family
residential subdivision shall be routed through the hotel
parcel to El Camino Real.
31. Dust control measures shall be imposed to ensure that temporary
air impacts to the surrounding neighborhood are reduced.
Measures during construction shall include:
a. The watering of all exposed earth surfaces during the
construction process (early morning and early evening).
b. Avoid overfilling of trucks to reduce spillage into the
public right-of-way and requiring contractors to cleanup
spillage in the public right-of-way.
c. Requiring the contractor to submit a logistics plan
identifying routes of transported earth material.
32. All construction activities shall be subject to the
requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of
the PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be
posted and that construction times be limited as follows:
Single-family residential grading and construction hours:
a. 8:00AM to 6:00PM, Monday - Friday
b. 9:00AM to 6:00PM, Saturday
Grading and construction hours for the hotel facility:
a. 8:00AM to 6:00PM, Monday - Friday
b. 9:00AM to 6:00PM, Saturday
For the first 18 months of construction, no construction shall
be permitted on Sundays. Signs shall be posted informing
workers of restricted construction hours and fines for
violations.
33. Following installation of the base material (crushed asphalt)
for, and prior to, the pavement of the eastern (front) hotel
parking lot, the general contractor/construction manager shall
09/08/97 −238
contact the Planning Division staff for a site inspection.
The Planning Division shall verify that no crushed asphalt
material has been placed in areas designated/approved for
landscaping or planting.
34. All new electrical service shall be placed underground. All
electrical substructures required from the service point to
the switchgear shall be installed in accordance with standards
published by the Utilities Engineering Division.
35. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street
or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works
Engineering.
36. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best
management practices (BMPs) for stormwater pollution
prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with
the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP's
with respect to the developer’s construction activities on
public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction
debris (soil, asphalt, saw-cut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.)
or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains (Federal
Clean Water Act).
37. During construction, a qualified archaeologist shall be
obtained to observe approved ground disturbing activities,
including the removal of the rear parking lot and subsequent
project site preparation (grading activities). The
archaeologist shall inspect the exposed ground surface
immediately following the initial disturbance of the uppermost
two feet of soil on any part of the project. In the event
indicators of archaeological resources are discovered, all work
shall be halted in the area for further investigation. Further
investigation may result in a requirement to remove, relocate
or cover any finds, as recommended by the archaeologist.
38. A survey monument shall be installed in the bulb area of the
Glenbrook Drive. This monument shall conform to CPA Public
Works Department standards and be located by the same.
On-going (Throughout Processing and Construction)
39. City staff time required for implementation and monitoring of
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) shall
be subject to cost recovery fees charged to the project sponsor.
FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL OF HOTEL SITE AND BUILDING
IMPROVEMENTS 96-ZC-13 AND 96-ARB-168
09/08/97 −239
1. The project is consistent and compatible with the applicable
elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Specifically,
the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Service
Commercial land use designation for the site and is within the
overall, average commercial intensity limits permitted for the
southern El Camino Real area. The realignment of the main
driveway intersection with El Camino Real would ease the flow
of traffic and improve the intersection, which would be
consistent with the policies of the Transportation Element.
Furthermore, as modified by conditions of approval, the
project would be consistent with the Urban Design Element and
the El Camino Real Design Guidelines in that, the project would
maintain the existing building scale and would contribute to
the City’s southern “gateway” by providing significant
landscaping and entry signage at the southeastern corner of
the site. Conditions of approval require that, although the
location of the freestanding, monument-type hotel
identification sign is appropriate for the project and the
property frontage along El Camino Real, the design of the sign
should be improved to better complement the approved design
and materials of the hotel facility.
2. The project design and the proposed improvements would be
compatible with the immediate environment and the surrounding
improvements. Although the project would permit a slight
increase in the permitted building height, the design of the
additional height would not be overpowering or appear massive
to the adjacent residences and commercial uses, in that the
project would maintain, and continue to provide ample building
setbacks and landscape buffers.
3. The design of the proposed improvements would be appropriate
for the continued hotel use of the property. The project is
designed to provide ample landscape setbacks and buffers from
adjacent properties to screen parking and other hotel uses.
In addition, the parking program and the implementation of
a “parking performance plan” would ensure that there is adequate
on-site parking and that the use would result in minimal impacts
to adjacent residents.
4. The hotel property is not located in an area that has a unified
design or a historical character. However, the project design
is an improvement to the existing building and in keeping with
the variety of architectural designs that are present in the
surrounding area.
5. The project, as designed, maintains the present scale of the
hotel facilities. The building scale, in combination with the
09/08/97 −240
maintenance of existing setbacks and landscape buffers, present
project improvements which are compatible with the commercial
and residential development of the area.
6. The design of the project would be consistent with existing
on-site and off-site improvements. Specifically, the project
is designed to preserve and protect existing, mature trees and
landscaping along the northern and southern (Adobe Creek)
borders of the site. While tree removal within the hotel
parking lot is proposed, substantial tree replanting is
proposed to offset this loss. Furthermore, the project would
not result in any major changes to the hotel facility size or
footprint. As such, the site would maintain its present
character.
7. As proposed and as modified by conditions of approval, the
planning and siting of the proposed improvements, particularly
the parking, vehicle circulation and landscaping, would
create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable
environment for patrons of the hotel and surrounding property
owners and the general community.
8. The amount and the arrangement of the open space is appropriate
to the design and functions of the hotel use and facilities.
The design of the site plan ensures that there is ample vehicle
access to El Camino Real and access for emergency vehicles.
9. The project proposes a design that provides sufficient
ancillary functions to support the hotel use. The design of
the ancillary functions, specifically the location and
arrangement of the on-site parking, circulation and
delivery/service areas, as well as outdoor activity areas, are
compatible with the project’s design function.
10. The site plan is designed to ensure that property access and
circulation are convenient for hotel visitors and service
vehicles. On site parking is designed to include the
implementation of a valet parking program and shuttle service,
as well as areas for employee parking.
11. Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated
into the project. Specifically, the project proposes no
changes to and ample setbacks from Adobe Creek and the mature
landscaping along the northern property boundary. While tree
removal is proposed within the front (eastern) parking lot,
a replanting program is proposed and required to offset tree
loss.
12. The materials, textures, colors and details of construction
of the hotel structure were previously reviewed and approved
09/08/97 −241
by the Architectural Review Board. The Board found these
features to be appropriate to the design and function of the
hotel use and compatible with the neighboring structures,
improvements and landscape elements. As modified by
conditions of approval, the proposed improvements would
complement the approved building material, colors and
architecture of the hotel facility.
13. As proposed and as modified by conditions of approval, the
landscape design of the project would create a desirable and
functional environment for hotel patrons, visitors and
employees. Landscaping is designed to maintain the existing,
mature landscape buffers surrounding the site and to maintain
the present landscape character of the site.
14. The plant materials as proposed and as recommended through
conditions of approval, would be suitable and compatible for
the site. Plant materials have been selected that would be
appropriate for screening on-site parking, would be consistent
with Comprehensive Plan policies (selection of redwood trees
at City “gateway”) and to be compatible with the native
vegetation that exists along Adobe Creek.
15. The design, as proposed would be energy efficient. New
building materials selected for the hotel structure are energy
efficient. Furthermore, the improvements would maintain solar
exposure to outdoor use areas.
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR HOTEL SITE AND BUILDING
IMPROVEMENTS 96-ZC-13 AND 96-ARB-168
Prior to the Approval or a Grading and/or Building Permit
1. This approval shall incorporate the required mitigation
measures presented in the Environmental Assessment/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (96-EIA-32), and the approved Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, both on file with the
Department of Planning and Community Environment. In
addition, this approval shall incorporate those conditions of
approval for the Tentative Subdivision Map (96-SUB-5), which
are pertinent to the subject hotel parcel.
2. All construction, improvements and grading activity proposed
within the El Camino Real (SR 82) right-of-way may be subject
to approvals and/or permits from the State Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). If intersection improvements are
incorporated into the detailed plans for the issuance of a
building and/or grading permit, the project sponsor shall be
required to submit, with the application, a written
09/08/97 −242
authorization or proof of an approved permit for construction
activities within the Caltrans right-of-way encroachment
permit.
3. All construction and grading activities proposed within Adobe
Creek may be subject to approvals and/or permits from the Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG - streamed alteration), and the US Army
Corps of Engineers. The following shall be submitted with the
application for building and/or grading permits:
a. A written determination from CDFG that the proposed
actions do not fall within their jurisdiction, or that
a standard streamed alteration agreement has been executed
for authorized work within the creek.
b. Proof of authorization and/or permits from the US Army
Corps of Engineers for outfall construction and associated
grading within the Adobe Creek (Nationwide Permit).
c. A written authorization and/or proof of an approved permit
from the SCVWD, for all construction and grading work
within the Adobe Creek and/or properties owned by SCVWD.
4. All construction shall comply with the standards and
regulations of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for minimizing
seismic risk.
5. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be prepared. The
plan shall include the following:
a. The detailed plan shall include the submittal and
implementation of a drainage and erosion control plan to
ensure that the potential for erosion is minimized.
b. The plan shall include a detailed program addressing the
removal, transport and crushing of the existing asphalt
in the rear (western) parking lot. If the crushed asphalt
is used as base material for improvement to the front
(eastern) hotel parking lot, it shall be placed only in
areas that are proposed to be paved for parking. No
crushed asphalt shall be used in areas proposed for
landscaping or planting. Following installation of the
base material, the project sponsor shall contact the City
Planning Division for a site inspection. The City Staff
shall inspect the area to ensure compliance with this
mitigation measure.
09/08/97 −243
c. Drainage for the hotel site shall include the installation
of a new culvert into Adobe Creek.
d. The final design of the stormwater drainage outfall shall
include the installation of an acceptable, biotechnical
erosion control measure (e.g., techniques such as mixture
of local rock, woody material and native planting). Use
of sacked concrete or rock rip-rap for erosion control
shall not be permitted. Ultimate design and materials
for outfall erosion control shall be determined based on
consultation with the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
In addition, the construction of the outfall shall avoid
impacts to or removal of native/riparian trees. If tree
removal is necessary to construct the outfall, removal
shall be limited to non-native trees and shall be noted
on the final grading and drainage plan and shall include
details for replanting.
e. All catch basins shall be stenciled with the approved City
logo and the word "No Dumping! Flows to Adobe Creek."
This shall be noted on the plans.
6. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers,
and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the final
landscaping and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict
will occur between the utilities and the landscape materials
and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building
design and setback requirements, subject to ARB review and
approval.
7. The following permits shall be secured from the Department of
Public Works:
a. An Encroachment Permit for use of and improvements to the
sidewalk, street and alley.
b. A Permit for Construction in the Public Street.
c. A Grading and Excavation Permit.
Any construction within the CPA right-of-way, easements or
other property controlled by the City of Palo Alto must conform
to the standards established in the CPA Standard Specifications
for Utilities Department and the Public Works Department.
8. Construction drawings for issuance of a building permit for
the hotel parcel shall comply with or include all conditions
recommended by the Utilities Engineering Division summarized
in the memorandum from Jose Jovel, dated October 25, 1996, on
09/08/97 −244
file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment.
Utility Engineering Division. (See Attachment #9 of staff
report).
9. A construction logistics plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Transportation Division and Public Works
Engineering Department, addressing at minimum parking, truck
routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of
pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction
site. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto's
Truck and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route
map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City
of Palo Alto. The logistics plans shall be prepared to ensure
that, for the first 12 months of grading and construction for
the contiguous subdivision and housing development for
subdivision and hotel site improvements (authorized under
Tentative Map #96-SUB-5), all construction vehicles access
shall be routed eastward, through the hotel site, to El Camino
Real. The logistics plan shall identify an access point and
staging area to the residential development, designed to ensure
minimal impacts to the hotel improvements and operation on the
6.82 acre hotel parcel. In addition, the routing of
construction traffic shall include use of the southern, one-way
access road (south side of hotel facility) for lighter-weight,
2-axle construction vehicles only. Any reinforcements to this
road that are required to protect the road and/or adjacent creek
slope banks shall be made based on the recommendations of the
project geotechnical engineer, as approved by Public Works
Engineering.
10. The detailed plans for the issuance of a building permit shall
include the placement of fire hydrants every 300 feet (Model
76 type). A specific plan showing new and relocated hydrants
shall be submitted to the Fire Department, prior to the
completion of the improvement plans.
11. Submit final landscaping and irrigation plans, as well as other
pertinent improvement details including but not limited to
above ground utility boxes and apparatus, shall be submitted
for review and approval by the Architectural Review Board,
Planning Arborist, Utility Energy Service Division and
Planning Division. The final plan shall include the following:
a. Specifications for the removal of fire damaged trees along
the north banks of Adobe Creek (south of hotel parcel).
Trees shall be pruned to ensure adequate clearance for
the vehicular fire lane.
09/08/97 −245
b. A total of seven street trees shall be planted along the
El Camino Real frontage, spaced at intervals of 25 feet.
Tree species shall be Yarwood London Plane (Plantanus
a.) and planted at a 24 inch box size. Planting area shall
be a minimum of 3' x 5', including area for irrigation.
c. All trees with trunk diameters of 6" or greater that are
to be removed (as per Sheet L-1, Preliminary Landscape
Plan dated December 19, 1996 and Sheet TRP, Tree Removal
Plan dated December 19, 1996) shall be shown on the final
landscape plan. Tree replacement shall be two new trees
for each tree lost/permanently removed, planted at a 50/50
size mix of 24 inch and 36 inch box size. A mix of
deciduous and evergreen species shall be provided for all
replacement trees, as approved by the City’s Planning
Arborist.
d. Landscaping for the "gateway" feature bordering El Camino
Real and Adobe Creek shall include 6-7 Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens) or Deodara Cedar (Cedrus deodar)
planted at a 48" box size, arranged with shorter trees
in the foreground. The Fremont Cottonwood (Populus
fremontii) species is not acceptable and shall be deleted
from the plan. The landscaping details for the “gateway”
feature shall include plans for construction and
installation of a monument-type entry sign to Palo Alto.
The sign shall be designed based on consultation with
the Public Works Operations Division and in accordance
with the sign specifications provided by the City.
e. An area shall be identified for a new pad mounted
transformer along the El Camino Real frontage, to serve
the hotel facility/parcel. All utility equipment shall
be screened with landscaping, as approved by the Utilities
Department and the Architectural Review Board.
f. Detailed plans for perimeter fencing along the northern,
western and southern property boundaries of the 6.82 acre
hotel parcel. Consistent with the requirements of PAMC
Chapter 18.68 (PC District), a solid fence of 5-8 feet
in height shall be provided along the northern and western
property boundaries of the hotel parcel. The fencing
shall be designed to complement adjacent building
improvements. In addition, the fencing details for the
northern property boundary shall be consistent with the
improvements as agreed to between the project sponsor and
the Palo Alto Redwoods Condominium Association. All
fencing proposed along the Adobe Creek frontage shall be
designed to detour access to the creek banks and shall
not encroach on lands owned by SCVWD. Details for
09/08/97 −246
fencing along the creek frontage shall be reviewed by the
Public Art Commission and the SCVWD, prior to review by
the Architectural Review Board.
g. Specifications for landscape planting, tree protection
and perimeter fencing for areas within the 6.82 acre hotel
parcel are addressed in the conditions for permit
96-SUB-5. Detailed specifications for off-site
landscaping, irrigation and street lighting
improvements to the Adobe Creek Bridge and the El Camino
Real center median are addressed in the conditions for
the PC District (96-ZC-13).
h. Specifications for all exterior hotel parking lot and
grounds lighting shall be presented on the final plan.
These lighting specifications shall be identical or
equivalent to the lighting specifications presented on
Sheet E-1, Site Lighting Plan (Carrasco & Associates),
dated December 19, 1996, on file with the Department of
Planning and Community Environment.
i. Specifications for the location of the freestanding,
monument-type sign, which, as required by
ARB approval, shall be reduced in height
to comply with the City’s sign provisions
and the El Camino Real Design Guidelines.
These specifications shall include
improvements to the design of the sign so
that it is more compatible with the
approved architecture, materials and
colors of the hotel structure.
j. Specifications for the scored, concrete pavement material
that is proposed for the hotel entry (porte cochere).
k. Specifications for the location, type and amount of
on-site bicycle parking. A total of 28 on-site bicycle
parking spaces shall be provided, unless a reduced amount
of spaces is acceptable by the Transportation Division.
Of the total spaces provided, 40% shall be for Class I,
30% shall be for Class II and 30% shall be for Class III.
l. Modifications to the parking and landscaping plans for
the front (eastern) hotel parking lot, which incorporate
a centralized and clearly defined pedestrian path through
the parking lot. The path shall be defined with use of
special pavement material and maintenance of the existing
Italian Cypress trees (where possible/feasible).
09/08/97 −247
m. Final plans for 1) landscaping and irrigation improvements
within the center median of El Camino Real (between the
intersection of Dinah’s Place and the Rickey’s Hotel
driveway intersection) and 2) pedestrian-scale street
lighting improvements at the Adobe Creek bridge, as
specified in the PC District Ordinance for the eastern
6.82 acre hotel parcel (public benefit).
12. Submittal of a tree protection plan, prepared by a certified
arborist, for review and approval by the Planning Division and
City Arborist, and implemented prior to demolition, grading
and throughout construction. The plan shall include
implementation of the recommendations contained in Sheet L-1,
Preliminary Landscape Plan (Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey),
dated December 19, 1996, and Sheet TRP, Tree Removal Plan, dated
December 19, 1996. The plan shall preserve and protect trees
that are not proposed for removal on Sheet TRP (Tree Removal
Plan). If additional tree removal is necessary, it shall be
accompanied by a report from a certified arborist and a
replanting ratio of 2:1. The plan shall survey and accurately
map all trees to be protected and shall include measures for
their protection during construction including a temporary
construction fence to be erected around each tree, or tree
cluster that is to be saved. The fence shall consist of portable
cyclone fencing or wire mesh, security attached to metal posts
driven into the ground, or alternative fencing approved in
writing by the Planning Division. The purpose of the fencing
is to keep all construction activity and storage outside the
dripline of the trees. It shall be erected before any
construction machinery enters the site, and shall not be removed
until the final landscaping grading is completed. The site
and landscaping plan shall be designed to provide tree roots
with air and water through use of perforated paving or other
permeable surfaces. In order to ensure the protection of the
creek during construction, the existing chain-link fence that
is located immediately south of the southern, one-way access
road (hotel site) shall be maintained, in-place, during
construction. This chain-link fence shall be extended
westward, along the southern property boundaries of residential
lots #1-4, terminating at the southwest border of the subject
property.
13. The project sponsor shall be aware that services requiring 400
amps or greater will require a three-phase service.
14. The final construction plans shall show that all sidewalks
bordering/crossing the project site shall be repaired in
accordance with Public Works standards. Approximately 50
lineal feet of sidewalk on the El Camino Real frontage shall
09/08/97 −248
be removed and replaced. The width of the sidewalk must be eight
(8) feet to comply with ADA requirements. In addition, the
El Camino Real driveway curb ramp shall be repaired or replaced.
The sidewalk improvements may need to include the widening
of the existing Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) bus line stop #22, which fronts the subject property.
This improvement shall be determined in consultation with the
VTA.
15. A detailed site specific soils report must be submitted to and
approved by Public Works Engineering. This report must include
specific recommendations for street design and discuss the
suitability of the soil conditions for the proposed
development.
During Construction
16. Consistent with the approved construction logistics plan, for
the first 12 months following commencement of grading and
construction for the subdivision and hotel site improvements,
all construction vehicle access to the adjacent, western
single-family residential subdivision shall be routed through
the subject hotel parcel to El Camino Real.
17. Dust control measures shall be imposed to ensure that temporary
air impacts to the surrounding neighborhood are reduced.
Measures during construction shall include:
a. The watering of all exposed earth surfaces during the
construction process (early morning and early evening).
b. Avoid overfilling of trucks to reduce spillage into the
public right-of-way and requiring contractors to cleanup
spillage in the public right-of-way.
c. Requiring the contractor to submit a logistics plan
identifying routes of transported earth material.
18. All construction activities shall be subject to the
requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of
the PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be
posted and that construction times be limited as follows:
a. 8:00AM to 6:00PM, Monday - Friday
b. 9:00AM to 6:00PM, Saturday
For the first 18 months of construction, no construction shall
be permitted on Sundays. Signs shall be posted informing
09/08/97 −249
workers of restricted construction hours and fines for
violations.
19. Following installation of the base material (crushed asphalt)
for, and prior to, the pavement of the eastern (front) hotel
parking lot, the general contractor/construction manager shall
contact the Planning Division staff for a site inspection.
The Planning Division shall verify that no crushed asphalt
material has been placed in areas designated/approved for
landscaping or planting.
20. All new electrical service shall be placed underground. All
electrical substructures required from the service point to
the switchgear shall be installed in accordance with standards
published by the Utilities Engineering Division.
21. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street
or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works
Engineering.
22. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best
management practices (BMPs) for stormwater pollution
prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with
the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMPs
with respect to the developer’s construction activities on
public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction
debris (soil, asphalt, saw-cut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.)
or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains (Federal
Clean Water Act).
23. During construction, a qualified archaeologist shall be
obtained to observe approved ground disturbing activities
(grading activities). The archaeologist shall inspect the
exposed ground surface immediately following the initial
disturbance of the uppermost two feet of soil on any part of
the project. In the event indicators of archaeological
resources are discovered, all work shall be halted in the area
for further investigation. Further investigation may result
in a requirement to remove, relocate or cover any finds, as
recommended by the archaeologist.
On-going (Throughout Processing and Construction)
24. City staff time required for implementation and monitoring of
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) shall
be subject to cost recovery fees charged to the project sponsor.
FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE FROM 35 FOOT AND 50 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITS
09/08/97 −250
PAMC SECTIONS 18.68.110C AND 18.68.150C (97-V-3)
1. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and
conditions applicable to the subject 6.82 hotel property and
improvements which warrant the granting of a variance from the
35 foot height limit of the PAMC Section 18.68.150c and the
50 foot height building limit required by Section 18.68.110c.
The exceptional circumstances and conditions, in this case,
are that a) the existing hotel tower structure is 85 feet in
height, which is consistent with the special 85 foot height
limit permitted under the current PC District (Ordinance 2006)
for this property and b) the hotel parcel is unusually large
and the existing hotel tower is substantially set back from
the public street and surrounding properties. The additional
height would not substantially change the bulk or massing of
the existing hotel tower as it would not result in additional
floor or building area.
2. The granting of the variance from the PAMC building height
limits, in this case, is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right and would prevent
unnecessary hardship. The additional building height would
permit the property owner to improve and update the appearance
of the hotel facility, make it more compatible with the design
of the adjacent residential buildings, and create a more
aesthetically pleasing hotel design from El Camino Real. The
additional building height would permit improvements to the
building roof line, which could not be accomplished without
a major reconstruction of the building or removal of the upper
portions of the tower, which would result in an unreasonable
property loss and an unnecessary hardship.
3. The granting of this variance for additional building height
will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the health,
safety and generally welfare of surrounding residents or
properties in that, the hotel tower is substantially set back
from the public street and from adjacent residential
properties. The proposed addition to the rooftop equipment
enclosure would not increase building area, or increase the
massiveness of the structure, would comply with daylight plane
requirements and would not result in the loss of light or air
to adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, the tower
would continue to be screened from adjacent residents by
existing landscaping along the property borders; this
landscaping would be maintained under the proposed plan.
Finally, the additional building height would not impact the
Fire Department's ability to respond to an emergency situation,
09/08/97 −251
as the additional height would only serve to screen an existing
rooftop equipment enclosure.
Council Member McCown congratulated the project proponent and the
neighborhood. She felt there would be some well-designed new
housing and upgrading of a very important hotel facility in the
community. She was glad the project was moving forward.
Council Member Kniss said there had been much consternation about
what was happening in the neighborhood. According to Ms. Cauble,
it seemed an agreement had been met. She clarified that if the
Council agreed to the proposal, it would be a completed deal.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said staff had the same optimism, but
there were no assurances, partly because all the neighbors needed
to act individually to approve the arrangement.
Council Member Kniss encouraged the parties involved to arrive at
a conclusion and move forward so it would not be necessary for the
Council to become involved with the issue again.
Vice Mayor Andersen requested the motion be separated for the purpose
of voting on the R-1 and PC portions. He did not believe the Council
should relinquish as much of the area requested. There were some
serious issues regarding parking, and he was not convinced that it
could not be a more densely arranged area for housing. When he
reviewed the Housing Element of the proposed Comprehensive Plan,
it seemed appropriate that more creative thinking could be provided
with regard to density. He was disappointed there was division as
to whether or not there should be funds paid for land set aside.
He was discomforted with the fact that there was a number of
employees entering into the community who could not afford to live
in Palo Alto. The City was not providing housing for them but instead
for those who could afford to live in Palo Alto million dollar homes.
If the City were going to provide a perverse housing mix, it needed
to do whatever it could to accomplish that. He did not see the action
as being consistent with what could be done with respect to infill
but as an opportunity lost. He believed a hotel should not be put
on the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. Efforts should
be redoubled to make it a site for housing given what had been
sacrificed and lost in the site. He supported the PC portion of
the motion but would oppose the R-1 portion.
Mr. Calonne advised that Items 2, 3, and 5 should be separated out
of the recommendation which were found on pages 1 and 2 of the staff
report (CMR:351:97).
Council Member Fazzino commended the people involved in the
successful effort of bringing the proposal before the Council that
09/08/97 −252
evening. The hotel operator deserved credit for working with the
Greenacres neighbors to address their concerns about access, and
he was glad the issue was resolved. He was pleased that the housing
proposal was consistent with the housing in the Greenacres
neighborhood and that hotel use would be continued on the site due
to its unique history. Real efforts were made during the previous
month to address legitimate concerns of the neighbors to the north,
and a reasonable compromise was reached to limit the number of trips
on the northerly side of the project. There was enough flexibility
in the plan to address issues of parking, and should the need for
additional parking occur for good business reasons and for the need
to address the legitimate concerns of neighbors, the hotel operator
would move forward with the plan to add additional parking. He was
most pleased with the project because it evaded the need for a hotel
at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. He preferred
adding hotel space in the community on existing hotel sites, and
he was much more open than before to the possibility of housing at
the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. He felt the
community won as a result of the project. The staff, neighbors,
developers, and Planning Commission deserved credit for bringing
the project to fruition.
MOTION DIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING
1ST PART OF THE MOTION for Recommendation Nos. 1, 4, 6, and 7:
1. Approve the Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
finding that the proposed project would not result in any
significant environmental impacts.
4. Introduce the ordinance rezoning the eastern 6.82 acre portion
of the subject property from PC (Planned Community) to PC
(Planned Community) District for the continued operation and
maintenance of a hotel use.
6. Approve the ARB findings and Standard Conditions of Approval
for the hotel site and building improvements.
7. Approve the proposed variance from PAMC Section 18.68.110c and
18.68.150b (maximum building heights of 50 feet and 35 feet,
respectively), allowing an increase in hotel building height
to 100 feet, based on findings.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the
Classification of Property Known as 4290 El Camino Real from
PC-Planned Community (Ord. No. 2006) to PC-Planned Community”
09/08/97 −253
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent.
2ND PART OF THE MOTION for Recommendation Nos. 2, 3, and 5:
2. Adopt the resolution amending the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map designation for the western 3.24 acres of the
subject property from Service Commercial to Single-Family
Residential.
3. Introduce the ordinance rezoning the western 3.24 acre portion
of the subject property from PC (Planned Community) District
to R-1 (Single-Family Residential) District.
5. Approve a Tentative Map for a 15-lot subdivision and conditional
exception from PAMC Section 21.20.240(b)(2), permitting the
extension of Glenbrook Drive with a 50 foot wide right-of-way,
based on findings and subject to conditions.
Resolution 7709 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan for Property Located at 4290 El Camino Real”
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Zone
Classification of Certain Property Located at 4290 El Camino
Real from PC-Planned Community District (Ord. No. 2006) to the
R-1 (Single Family Residence) District”
MOTION PASSED 7-1, Andersen “no,” Rosenbaum absent.
COUNCIL MATTERS
20. Vice Mayor Andersen and Council Member Schneider re Review of
PC Zoning Public Benefit Standards
Vice Mayor Andersen said he and Council Member Schneider felt it
was appropriate to give more specific direction to the community
with respect to how the “public benefit” question was approached
in the Planned Community (PC) Zoning applications. The criteria
needed more clarity and what was appropriate “public benefit.”
There needed to be more certainty for all involved parties, including
developers, with regard to what was required. Findings needed to
make sense, and the City needed to move away from the concept
suggested by some that “If you have the right mix, you can, in effect,
buy zoning,” which was not the intent of the Council. He proposed
that the concept be referred to the Policy and Services (P&S)
Committee for discussion of the appropriate scope of the work program
09/08/97 −254
for staff and the Planning Commission. The P&S Committee would be
asked to report back to Council, and if agreed to, the item would
then be referred to the Planning Commission.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to refer
review of PC zoning public benefit standards to the Policy and
Services Committee for discussion of a work program for staff and
Planning Commission.
Council Member Schneider was aware of the staffing problems and
understood that the P&S agenda was filled until the end of the year.
At some point, she would recommend that the Council fund additional
staff or hire contract staff to assist in the endeavor when
appropriate.
Council Member Eakins said her experience with the PC Zone was mostly
in the Downtown applications. People were hearing about PC Zones
all over town and were concerned. Her colleagues’ memo was accurate
with respect to having better explanations and the “public benefits”
better outlined so there would be more predictability not only for
the applicant but also for the neighbors.
Council Member Wheeler said the Council was about to launch into
its concluding discussions and adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan,
which would result in commencing a massive redoing of the zoning
ordinance. She asked how the action being contemplated in the
colleagues’ memo would fit within that framework and whether the
Council should be taking action in that regard out of context with
the larger picture.
Vice Mayor Andersen said by making the referral, in the event the
Council was able to resolve the larger picture while proceeding with
the Comprehensive Plan, he would be delighted. If further refining
were still necessary, then the process would allow for that to occur.
He did not see a conflict. If the Council were at the point in
the Comprehensive Plan discussions where PC Zoning could be
incorporated in a way that was workable and manageable, the Committee
would not have any difficulty with the fact that it had already been
taken care of. It was his and Council Member Schneider’s intent
to raise the issue, hear the public’s reaction, and have some
discussion in order to allow for it to proceed.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said
PC Zones were viewed as a positive device for projects such as an
Alma Single Room Occupancy (SRO), a Downtown parking structure, a
Byxbee House historic preservation project, and those that could
not have been accommodated under the zoning. The difficult part
was the office and commercial projects and trying to create some
sense of certainty as to what benefits were suitable for an office
09/08/97 −255
or a retail project or a typical commercial/private sector for profit
development. It was a difficult question, and had struggled with
it in the past unsuccessfully. Staff did not have the resources
to grapple with that because it involved economic expertise that
staff did not have. If the intent were that type of discussion,
he would recommend trying to keep it out of the zoning ordinance
process. The zoning ordinance process would to be complicated
enough and would be a long, difficult process. To the extent that
complex subissues were added in, the overall zoning process would
take longer and longer. If the desire were to identify the obvious
more clearly, it could be done initially or folded into the zoning
ordinance. Presently, there was no staff resource available to work
on the issue. He emphasized a statement in the colleagues’ memo
“...the community will benefit from a healthy injection of certainty
into the PC Zoning process,” and he was dubious that “certainty”
could be interjected into the process with regard to commercial
development. It was a level of complexity that was acceptable in
one economic environment but two years later might be a very different
type of response. Creating that level of certainty would be
extremely difficult and might not be feasible.
Council Member McCown saw a whole set of implementation issues
emerging from the Comprehensive Plan once completed, not just the
zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission, Council, etc., would
move toward a broader menu of implementation issues which were the
highest priorities. Currently, it could not be decided whether PC
Zones should move ahead of some other post-adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan issue. When the plans for the following year
were developed after completion of the Comprehensive Plan, PC Zones
should then be fit into the process in terms of staffing issues and
other priorities the Council might choose to follow. She was not
saying it was not a top priority, but she would not want to prejudge
that until the other priorities were determined after the
Comprehensive Plan was in place. Her concern was making sure the
issue was evaluated in context in terms of where it would fit as
the next assignment for staff.
Council Member Kniss recalled when the prezoning was done and the
different parameters were set in the mid-1980s, PC Zoning was looked
on as a method to allow enhancements to the Downtown to take place.
At that point, she understood a decision had not been made as to
what the parameters should be for that type of development.
Mr. Schreiber explained the history of the PC Zone concept which
was established in 1951. From 1951 until 1978, there was no public
benefit requirement. From the 1950s through the early 1970s, the
PC Zone was widely perceived as a way of circumventing the zoning
ordinance, i.e., 101 Alma Street, Forest Towers, Channing House,
and the Tan Apartments on Arastradero Road. Those buildings were
out of character, out of place, and almost all PC Zones. With
09/08/97 −256
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1976, the first task was to
redo the zoning ordinance. The new zoning ordinance was adopted
in 1978 which was when the introduction of the public benefit concept
occurred in order to lower the use of the PC Zone as done in earlier
years. The definition of what constituted “public benefit” was not
clearly stated because there was such a wide variety of potential
uses. A PC Zone was used to solve an unusual subdivision situation
in the upper foothills that was desirable in relation to potential
foothill issues, but it was the only mechanism that could solve that
particular problem. In the 1980s as the development restrictions
tightened, the feeling, especially in the Downtown, was that PC Zones
were the mechanism available to allow flexibility. Council Member
Rosenbaum had referred to it and was correct that in the Downtown
Study and the actions taken at that time, there was a very clear
sequence of thought to use the PC Zone to achieve development
flexibility in the Downtown. Public benefits could be achieved as
they were developed in the Urban Design Guide. In the rest of the
community, it was not that clear. The general thinking was to have
flexibility and to achieve things that were beneficial for the
overall community without trying to second guess what all the
applications might be and what type of combination of benefits would
be suitable in the next few years while the prime rate was unknown.
Council Member Kniss clarified that a number of the buildings which
changed the appearance of the Downtown and enhanced both University
and Hamilton Avenue corridors could not have happened without that
flexibility.
Mr. Schreiber said yes.
Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, thanked Vice Mayor Andersen and
Council Member Schneider for addressing the issue. A few weeks
prior, a board member of her neighborhood association raised the
question of public benefits in the context of a discussion about
a development in her neighborhood. When the City gave developers
valuable zoning variances that seriously changed the appearance of
the City and the rules that governed it, she believed public interest
was involved. The use of the term “public benefit” implied that
the public would derive some benefit from the oversized monster
buildings and developments that had been proliferating at an ever
increasing rate. There needed to be a way to distinguish between
a benefit to the development and a benefit to the community. For
example, when a shopkeeper swept the sidewalk in front of his/her
store, the public benefited, but the merchant should not be given
extra credit because it was expected behavior from good citizens.
Similarly, a developer who landscaped and installed lighting around
a development expected that those benefits should be reflected in
his/her sales price. Amenities around a project were not public
09/08/97 −257
benefits but were paid for by the public. Most public benefits were
benefits to a project which would have been done by the developer
anyway in order to increase the value of the project. Funds
contributed for public benefits should be invested in projects the
community, not an individual, considered a benefit, e.g., a small
park, childcare center, public restroom, and housing for the poor.
Those benefits should be used to address those kinds of public
concerns. In addition, public benefits for a project in the current
economic climate should be of significant value to the community
and should represent a significant portion of the cost of a project.
The public benefits should not be allowed to outweigh the negative
impacts of a project, e.g., when the project was oversized or would
aggravate already heavy traffic. She felt the notion of “public
good” needed to be brought back. She suggested that the developer
set aside a percentage of the value of a project and that the public
decide how the money should be spent. Part of the problem might
be in the word “benefit” which implied the idea of charity, when
the donor decided whom to give the money to. Public benefits were
not charity, but were considerations paid for zoning changes that
translated into a more profitable project. The City needed a policy
on public benefits and a committee composed of a variety of citizens
who were not financially interested parties to advise the Council
whenever a zoning change was requested. She asked that the matter
be referred to the P&S Committee and that the Council not approve
millions of dollars of public benefits that were self-serving.
Mark Nanevicz, 228 Waverley Street, thanked Vice Mayor Andersen and
Council Member Schneider for addressing the issue. PC Zones were
currently a big issue with the Downtown North Neighborhood
Association (DNNA), and many of his neighbors were concerned about
what was happening with the Downtown North, especially with regard
to “public benefits.” He lived on the corner of Waverley Street
and Bryant Court, and the public benefit for a project that took
place on Bryant Court was to repave the alley and install new street
lamps. The project began in October 1996 and was currently not
completed. The street was torn up in mid-October, and the neighbors
were driving through mud and gravel for six to nine months for a
project that was to take one month to complete. The streets were
currently paved, but the public benefit of new street lamps, which
were in consideration of putting in 13 houses where 6 lots had been,
still had not occurred. Another concern was a current project in
Downtown North on Waverley Street, and the DNNA asked for $75,000
for a traffic study as a public benefit. All other benefits such
as trees, bus stop bench, and wider sidewalk were seen by the
neighborhood as benefits to the developer, not to the public or
neighborhood. It would be a $75,000 out-of-pocket cost for
approximately 8,000 square feet of commercial space in the Downtown,
which he felt was a bargain in the current market. There were many
concerns with the City and with the neighborhoods that needed to
09/08/97 −258
be addressed. The cost of the project should be weighed against
the benefits, and a substantial amount in value should be given to
the City, which should in turn be put into a park, homeless center,
community benefit, etc. In that way, the public would see it as
a public benefit, not as a benefit to the project.
Mayor Huber agreed with the comments of Council Members McCown and
Wheeler but believed that the item should be referred to the P&S
Committee so the Council’s attention could be more focused.
Council Member McCown supported the motion. She encouraged the next
P&S Committee and the Council to look at the issue in the context
of priorities in pursuit of implementation of changes that emerged
from the Comprehensive Plan process, which would be more useful.
Council Member Kniss staff’s heavy schedule was discussed, and she
asked if the item would return to the Council before the end of the
year.
Vice Mayor Andersen said no.
Council Member Kniss clarified the item would not return to Council
until 1998, but it was seen as being incorporated into the review
that would take place after the actual Comprehensive Plan was
completed.
Vice Mayor Andersen saw it as an issue that needed more public debate,
and it was more difficult to do that when there were many other issues
that would surface through the Comprehensive Plan process. It
would allow some additional focus on the whole issue of how PC Zones
were approached, and making the referral would give Council the
opportunity for public debate.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 9:00 p.m.
The City Council met in a Closed Session to discuss matters involving
Existing Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 17.
Mayor Huber announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda
Item No. 17.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
09/08/97 −259
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.