HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-20 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting October 20, 1997 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..........................................85-4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES..........................................85-4 1. Status Report on Sheridan Apartments and Request for Council Direction on Priorities for Use of Community Development Block Grant and Other Development Funds and Selection of Developer for New Affordable Family Housing - Refer to Finance Committee........................................................85-5 2. Public Safety Building Scope of Services for Consultant - Refer to Finance and Policy and Services Committees.....85-5 3. Family Resource Center Implementation Plan and Budget - Refer to Policy and Services Committee........................85-5
4. Ordinance 4458 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement
Project 18617, Art in Public Places≅ ....................85-5 5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation to adopt the proposed amendments to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.30, Contracts and Purchasing Procedures, and Chapter 2.31, Property Control.85-5 6. Approval of Compensation Plans, Resolutions and Budget Amendment Ordinance for Hourly Employees, Management and Confidential Personnel..................................85-5 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey for Design Consulting Services.............85-6 8. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Zucker Systems for an Organizational Review of the City of Palo Alto Planning Function................................................85-6 10. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Collishaw Construction for Construction of the Bryant/Addison Traffic Circle..................................................85-6
10/20/97 85-1
11. Ordinance 4460 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 2.36.030 and 2.36.040 of Chapter 2.36 [Personnel Procedures] of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to Adherence to Peace Officer Standards and Training and Receipt of State Aid for Recruitment and Training of Peace Officers and Public Safety
Dispatchers≅ ............................................85-6 12. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Veterans Workshop for Acquisition and Operation of the Margarita House Veterans Workshop................................................85-6 13. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Alison Kendall for Consultant Services for Palo Alto Medical Foundation/South of Forest Area (PAMF/SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan...........85-6 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS.....................85-7 14. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application for a Zone Change to the Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the demolition of an existing 26,000 square-foot laboratory building and construction of a 35-unit three-story condominium complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements, with associated Design Enhancement Exceptions for minor encroachments into the daylight planes and a subdivision map for 35 air-rights condominiums for property located at 425-435 Sheridan Avenue (440 Page Mill Road)...................................................85-7 15. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Site and Design application to construct three mixed-use commercial/residential buildings for a total of 10,450 square feet, 23 parking spaces, landscaping and related site improvements for property located at 1865-85-95 El Camino Real...................................................85-35 16. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 9.09 [Assault Weapons] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code 85-73 17. Vice Mayor Andersen re Resolution Barring Business in Burma85-73 17A. (Old Item No. 9) Confirmation of Council Priorities for Fiscal Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000............................85-83 18. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........85-87 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.............85-87
10/20/97 85-2
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 7:12 p.m.), Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding more photos of the competition to show current practices. Claudio Martinez, P. O. Box 393, spoke regarding miscellaneous. Tomas Moran, Alger Drive, spoke regarding the homeless. Julia Moran, Alger Drive, spoke regarding the homeless. Daniel Heller, 928 Fulton Street, spoke regarding lighting of sidewalks around Downtown. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding politics. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, spoke regarding 1) Stanford Management Company; and 2) Longs Drugs Midtown and CEQA. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding CMR:433:97 - Comp Plan Noise. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of August 4, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of August 11, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 6-0-3, Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider Αabstaining.≅ MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of September 8, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Rosenbaum Αabstaining.≅ CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-8 and 10-13. 1. Status Report on Sheridan Apartments and Request for Council Direction on Priorities for Use of Community Development Block
10/20/97 85-3
Grant and Other Development Funds and Selection of Developer for New Affordable Family Housing - Refer to Finance Committee 2. Public Safety Building Scope of Services for Consultant - Refer to Finance and Policy and Services Committees 3. Family Resource Center Implementation Plan and Budget - Refer to Policy and Services Committee
4. Ordinance 4458 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement
Project 18617, Art in Public Places≅ 5. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation to adopt the proposed amendments to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.30, Contracts and Purchasing Procedures, and Chapter 2.31, Property Control. Further, to waive the requirement for Council standing committee participation in the consultant selection process for the Utilities Department and that staff be directed to modify the City's Policy and Procedures, Section 1-10 (Selection Procedures for Professional Consultants) to reflect the changes.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.30 and Sections 2.31.010 and 2.31.090 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating
to Purchasing Procedures and Disposition of Surplus Property≅ 6. Approval of Compensation Plans, Resolutions and Budget Amendment Ordinance for Hourly Employees, Management and Confidential Personnel
Resolution 7712 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1701 of the Merit System
Rules and Regulations≅
Resolution 7713 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers and Rescinding Resolution Nos. 7627, 7662 and 7683"
Resolution 7714 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Hourly Personnel and Rescinding Resolution No. 7628"
Ordinance 4459 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Salary and Benefit
10/20/97 85-4
Increases Retroactive to July 1, 1997 for Management and
Confidential Employees≅ 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey for Design Consulting Services 8. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Zucker Systems for an Organizational Review of the City of Palo Alto Planning Function 10. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Collishaw Construction for Construction of the Bryant/Addison Traffic Circle - CIP 19709
11. Ordinance 4460 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 2.36.030 and 2.36.040 of Chapter 2.36 [Personnel Procedures] of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to Adherence to Peace Officer Standards and Training and Receipt of State Aid for Recruitment and Training of Peace Officers and Public Safety
Dispatchers≅ 12. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Veterans Workshop for Acquisition and Operation of the Margarita House Veterans Workshop 13. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Alison Kendall for Consultant Services for Palo Alto Medical Foundation/South of Forest Area (PAMF/SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-12. MOTION PASSED 8-1 for Item No. 6, Rosenbaum Αno.≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item No. 13, Huber Αnot participating.≅ AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Andersen, to remove Item No. 9 to become Item No. 17A. MOTION PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 14. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application for a Zone Change to the Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the demolition of an existing 26,000 square-foot laboratory building and construction of a 35-unit three-story condominium complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements, with associated Design Enhancement
10/20/97 85-5
Exceptions for minor encroachments into the daylight planes and a subdivision map for 35 air-rights condominiums for property located at 425-435 Sheridan Avenue (440 Page Mill Road). Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the Council was familiar with the site which was the former site of the Linus Pauling Institute. Several year prior, the Council extended the nonconforming use termination to give the Institute additional time at the site. The Institute moved to Oregon, and the site was available for redevelopment as a residential use. The project had been through the Planning Commission, the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and staff, and was unanimously recommended for approval. Planning Commissioner Kathy Schmidt said the Planning Commission was pleased with the project. She noted a correction to the staff report (CMR:421:97) which indicated that she was opposed to the project, but she had supported the project. In earlier discussions of the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan), it was mentioned that an eight-foot sound wall was required to meet the exterior noise requirements for patios. In meeting those requirements, staff recommended landscaped screening because the wall was obtrusive. The goals of the new Plan were to try and create more people-friendly and street-friendly projects. The current noise requirements for exterior patios near transit corridors required high sound walls. In addition, the project architect was happy not to have an exterior wall. There were some neighborhood concerns about the trees, but the Planning Commission felt comfortable with
the planning arborist=s analysis that some of the trees were old and not going to last much longer, and the new trees in the project would compensate for those trees being removed. The Planning Commission complimented the architect on trying to become familiar with Palo Alto and its requirements, and in doing so, the result was an attractive, interesting project.
Council Member Fazzino referred to the public benefit, Αten feet of
right-of-way for a proposed widening of Page Mill Road,≅ and asked why it was considered a benefit and whether the City was moving toward a time when there would need to be a great separation at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. He asked whether the benefit was moving the City in that direction. Mr. Schreiber said no. The public benefit had nothing to do with grade separation, and there were no plans by the City or current policies that would pursue a grade separation. In the Citywide Study in 1989, the Council desired a variety of intersection improvements. At Page Mill Road there were three turn lanes that were part of those desired improvements, one being a right-turn lane from westbound Page Mill Road to El Camino Real. The benefit was that the City was getting the right-of-way which was essential in adding the turn lane. Without that right-of-way as part of the
10/20/97 85-6
project, it could not be built unless the City bought or condemned land. Staff felt the benefit was significant even though the improvements to the intersection were not scheduled. Staff hoped those improvements would be attained in the next five to ten years. Council Member Fazzino recognized it was not City policy. Former Mayor Noel Porter made such a statement in 1955 about the grade separation at Alma Street and Oregon Expressway when some improvements were made to that area. The reality was that the grade separation did not occur until 1994. His concern was whether the project in any way represented an inducement for greater traffic which might lead to a grade separation. Mr. Schreiber said no. The turn lane was an operational improvement that facilitated the functioning of the interchange. The bottom line, in terms of transportation priorities in Santa Clara County, the region, and the state, was if the Council were interested in a grade separation, it would need to appropriate approximately $10 million to start the process. He did not believe the interest would be there to generate local funding for that type of project. Council Member Schneider referred to the eight-foot sound wall
required for the project and the Plan=s specification for walkable neighborhoods. She asked how it could be done other than putting up an eight-foot wall and still be within the guidelines of the Plan. Commissioner Schmidt said it could not be done differently. The noise requirements dictated that there must be a solid eight-foot wall. Mr. Schreiber said the only way it could be handled differently was to separate the project from the roadway by a greater distance and reduce the density. The Planning Commission addressed the issue in the draft Plan which was where the issue would be resolved, to have language allowing the City to have greater discretion in reviewing projects in a transit-oriented area so the rules would not be as hard and fast as they were currently. As noted in the staff report (CMR:421:97), the situation the City was in was if it mitigated the potential impact, the result would be an unmitigated impact which meant an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be necessary. As noted in the Planning Commission minutes, if the new Plan were adopted with more flexible language on noise standards, it encouraged the applicant to seek a minor amendment to the PC Zone to lower the wall to seven feet. Council Member Schneider asked about the Linus Pauling plaque and whether it was a true public benefit. It was not clear as to how the public would benefit from a wall plaque.
10/20/97 85-7
Mr. Schreiber characterized the plaque as a minor public benefit. The value of the right-of-way provision was a major public benefit. The plaque was a nice idea and would be accessible to the public, but it was not a critical element of the project. Council Member Schneider asked whether the wall plaque could be eliminated as a public benefit because there were other public benefits that were inherent in the project. Mr. Schreiber said staff was comfortable with the public benefit package without the wall plaque. If the Council wished to have the plaque but eliminate it from the list of public benefits, it was acceptable to City staff. Council Member Wheeler asked about the relationship of the construction timing of the project and the project which was currently under construction next door. She understood the project would break ground in the spring or summer. She asked whether most of the heavy construction on the lot next door would be accomplished by then so the disruption to the general neighborhood would be minimal. Mr. Schreiber said the answer would be related to the winter weather. If there were no undue weather delays, the construction schedule for the housing project next door would have completed most of the substantial exterior work by the summer.
Council Member Wheeler asked whether it was staff=s concern that the two projects might be happening simultaneously and whether there would be any potential conflict between the two projects. Mr. Schreiber said staff had not identified any potential conflicts between the two projects. With large scale construction projects, there would be disruption in the street network, heavy equipment, trucks, etc. It would be good to get the project under construction and have some of the excavation completed before the housing was occupied, rather than the noise, dust, and other impacts of the project occurring after the adjacent housing was occupied. In either case, staff did not see it as a significant problem. Council Member Wheeler said there was an intention at the Planning Commission level to provide units that could accommodate families,
and one of the Council=s goals was to provide additional family housing in the community. She did not see in the plans any outdoor area which was particularly set up for the use of young children. Contract Planner Chandler Lee said in negotiating with the applicant to provide four family units, staff tried to accommodate a larger three-bedroom unit as part of the below-market-rate package which would be traded off with the outdoor space that could only be provided within the footprint of the building. Staff
10/20/97 85-8
allowed as much outdoor space as possible, but it was not as much as could be found in a larger unit or a detached single-family home. Council Member Wheeler said her question was targeted toward the landscaped areas and whether those common areas lent themselves to small play equipment. On the landscaping plans, those areas looked formalized rather than family-friendly. Mr. Lee said that was correct. There was not room for that type of equipment in those areas. It was an urban landscaped environment and would not accommodate play structures. Council Member Rosenbaum was surprised about the concern in attempting to make Page Mill Road a pedestrian-friendly street. He looked at the Harold Hobart project which had an eight-foot wall along Page Mill Road, and all the pedestrian-friendly amenities were at the main entrance to Sheridan Avenue. Commissioner Schmidt said there were discussions about making El Camino Real in that area more pedestrian-friendly. It was very close to the California Avenue area which was in the process of being redeveloped. Part of it was in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission needed to be aware of those things when planning new projects. It was not the most pedestrian-friendly street. The new Comprehensive Plan was moving beyond continually building in those areas, putting up large walls next to those areas, and making some of the larger areas generally more pedestrian-friendly. Council Member Rosenbaum asked with regard to interior noise whether the units were supposed to be air conditioned. Mr. Lee replied yes. Council Member Rosenbaum felt that was a key point to the extent that the windows were to provide interior noise protection. Mr. Lee said the windows had noise attenuation rating so that the indoor standard would be met. Also, air conditioning would be used. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Serena Trachta, Architect, Full Circle Design Group, representing BK Palo Alto 1 LLC, 1002 Rhode Island Street, San Francisco, said when the conceptual development of the project first began, local history and specific site characteristics were drawn from to generate for the design. It was important to create a sense of community while preparing the site and contributing to the definition of neighborhood. The site near the intersection of two major commercial routes, Page Mill Road and El Camino Real, was a
10/20/97 85-9
landmark in that it represented the southern passage into the established commercial centers of California and University Avenues to the north. The scale and density of the projects were appropriate to the El Camino Real and Page Mill Road scale and would serve to screen the residential neighborhood beginning at Sheridan Avenue. The site was well suited for a moderate to high density development with proximity to transit routes, commuter highway access, and train travel. The project would support existing infrastructure rather than stress it. The project was supported by commercial retail and additional educational resources. California Avenue was four blocks away, Mayfield Library, Stanford University, and Stanford Shopping Center were all within a short bicycle ride. The proposal would reinforce higher density housing already functioning well in the neighborhood. The project respected its relationship to the Midpeninsula Housing
Corporation=s project next door and related to its important position near the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. In order to create as much variety of useable open space as possible, the envelope was pushed to the parameter of the project and used the units to develop the outdoor living rooms. The interior court offered a variety of special experiences as one traversed from Page Mill Road through to Sheridan Avenue, offering residents a place for social gathering and individual meditation. In addition, to respond to the question about children, the area had visual control. The intent was private backyards which would be available to children who lived at the first floor level. The units were planned to allow the parents to see their children as they played in the courtyard which was gated for safety. At each stage in the planning process, it was critical that the designing team create a building suitable for its important location. As with any project, there were challenges in negotiating the fulfillment of the various interests of the project. Full Circle Design Group (Full Circle) found it necessary to accommodate the future widening of Page Mill Road by a land dedication of 10 feet. Those and other challenges led to submittal for a Planned Community (PC) application rather than strict compliance with RM-40 Zoning guidelines. As mitigation for the project variations for street zoning guidelines, Full Circle worked closely with the staff to prepare a public benefit which she felt exceeded their allowances. Full Circle proposed to provide the land dedication of 10 feet to accommodate the additional right-turn lane on El Camino Real. In addition, 16 oak trees, 8 on each side, were being proposed to create a gateway into the City. The Linus Pauling memorial, intended as a plaque in the sidewalk, was proposed to commemorate the important work of Linus Pauling. Full Circle was excited about the project and the opportunity to work in Palo Alto and contribute to the high
standard of living in Palo Alto=s unique community. All of the issues raised by the City had been addressed and received recommendations from the Historic Resources Board (HRB), staff, and Planning Commission, as well as support from many neighbors.
10/20/97 85-10
Irvin Dawid, 3886 La Donna Avenue, supported the project and agreed
with the Planning Commission=s comments that the project was a good use, with appropriate density for the location, and close to transit. He referred to the third paragraph on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:421:97) regarding pedestrian access, transit access, and bicycle access. He said Full Circle discussed how the project was valuable to encourage creating a pedestrian-friendly environment, and asked why widening the intersection would be a public benefit. It was mentioned by Mr. Schreiber that in the 1989 study it was determined that the intersection needed to be widened. In the westbound direction of Page Mill Road at El Camino Real, there were two left-hand lanes which went onto El Camino Real with two through lanes. The road also veered to the right so vehicles could make a right-hand turn, and it was hazardous for bicyclists crossing the road on the other side of El Camino Real. The intersection did not need widening. Council Member Fazzino talked about the potential impact of widening in terms of a grade separation. The Council needed to focus on what the impact would be for widening the intersection. It would make it less pedestrian-friendly. The pedestrian would have to navigate two crossings to get across one side of the street. From a transit perspective, it was a key intersection. There were three transit stops, which all accompanied the super express VTA buses. At commute times at those three intersections, there were people waiting to board buses and pedestrian activity. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the concern for pedestrians. There were pedestrians waiting to take buses, and those people needed to cross the intersection to get to the bus stop. He would not like to think that the Council talked about pedestrian-friendly and then widened the intersection as a public benefit. He wondered how many Council Members were aware of the crosswalk at Ash Street and Page Mill Road. Also, he did not have a problem with the plaque because it was not a public detriment, but widening of the intersection for motorists was a public detriment. David Duncan, 345 Sheridan Avenue #421, said six of the seven people that had spoken at prior meetings supported saving the trees, yet no compromises were discussed and no questions about suggested changes were discussed. The given excuse was that the arborist approved the project. Now the developer wanted to use the lot next door as a staging area, killing many of the adjoining trees and ground squirrels on the adjoining lot. According to a recent article in the Palo Alto Daily News, some people supported the environment, which he hoped was true. He asked the Council to require that the trees be saved, and that the developer save the fig tree, leave the Aleppo Pine tree which was the defining tree in the neighborhood, and not to disturb the trees and the animals on the adjoining lot. The matter should not be ignored; it was about life in the area. Elly Duncan, 345 Sheridan Avenue #421, said the developer vocalized concern about the impact of the project on the neighborhood and the
10/20/97 85-11
quality of living in Palo Alto. However, the developer was seeking a zone change so the project buildings could violate the height and setback restrictions normally zoned for in that residential area. In exchange for the violations, the developer was proposing public benefits such as widening of the intersection which was not necessary, planting trees on either side of Page Mill Road which would limit the visibility of the businesses on the opposite side of the road, and the Linus Pauling plaque which most people felt was not a benefit. The privately-owned vacant lot next door to the project site was of value to the neighborhood as an open space area. There was a large Aleppo Pine tree, several old Cypress trees, and some historical structures. The Allepo Pine tree was to be removed because the Arborist said it was too old. She felt the real reason was that the garage cut into the root system which would make the tree unstable. She proposed that a two-level garage be built which would solve two problems: 1) it would save the Aleppo Pine tree which added historical value to the neighborhood, and 2) by leaving the Aleppo Pine, it would provide a screen for the apartments which would be aesthetic and also cut down on air conditioning bills. One proposed design did not allow enough parking spaces. By providing a two-level garage, it would make the garage smaller, save the tree, and have sufficient parking spaces. Then a vacant lot currently used by the church would not be eliminated. She stressed that the variety of large old trees provided the neighborhood with its residential character. Ms. Trachta said Full Circle would be negotiating to use the next door lot as a staging area and had walked the lot the previous week to negotiate which trees could be removed to allow the crane to park in the corner of the lot. Only three trees were being removed on the site which were along Sheridan Avenue. In addition, the only historical structure on the site was entry steps in the foundation. There was no historical structure to be saved. The fig tree had been investigated and found not actually to be a tree. It sprouted up from suckers from a tree which had been cut down years prior. The project met the height guidelines as well as the setback guidelines except for Page Mill Road. The setback was needed until the widening of the road occurred. There was a minor daylight plane infringement, but the developer was building much less mass than was allowable by the PAMC. The trees being proposed on Page Mill Road were on City land which was a significant benefit. Full Circle worked with City staff to choose trees that would have a major visual impact. With regard to parking spaces, the proposal was one guest-parking space short which was mitigated with eight bicycle parking stalls. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Kniss asked the location and age of the Allepo Pine. Planning Arborist Dave Dockter replied the Allepo Pine was on the property line, a few feet into the vacant lot and was approximately
10/20/97 85-12
70 years old. Three certified arborists, including himself, looked at the Pine and determined that if the roots were compromised at all by the underground parking garage, the stability of the tree would be compromised. It was determined by all three arborists that it would be a very unsound and unsafe situation if left as it was. Mayor Huber asked what the life expectancy of a 70-year old Allepo Pine tree was. Mr. Dockter said the specimen in question would have a life expectancy of five to ten years. The tree would dismantle itself because it was in very poor structural condition in its upper canopy. Council Member Schneider asked whether anything could be done to shore up the Allepo Pine in order to keep it there during construction and then give it some type of renewal so it could remain after the construction was completed. Mr. Dockter replied that if the roots were cut, the tree would have to be removed. Council Member Kniss clarified that if the roots were not cut, the tree would have a life expectance of five to ten years. Mr. Dockter said in the case of the particular tree, it was very poor structurally in its upper branches, and it would just be a matter of time when a storm in the next five to ten years would break it apart. He was surprised the tree was still remaining. Council Member Wheeler asked to what extent it would compromise the garage if the garage were redesigned to work around the Allepo Pine tree and how many spaces would be lost. Ms. Trachta said it would be a fairly significant impact. The garage would have to stay at least 20 feet away from the tree. Currently, the garage wall was 10 feet from the property line. The garage would have to be set back another 10 or 15 feet and would take out some parking stalls in the garage. It would also impact the units that were sitting above the garage. Full Circle felt the tree was important, but the opportunity to develop housing in that particular location was also important. Because the tree had a life expectancy of 5 to 10 years, Full Circle felt that designing the entire garage around the tree and losing the possible three units which were stacked in that location was not worth the 5 to 10 years. Council Member Wheeler clarified that the major reason for not having a two-level garage related to the ground water and the toxic plume that was farther down.
10/20/97 85-13
Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. There were other projects in the area and any property owner that accessed the toxic ground water, under state and federal rules, had an obligation to commence clean up of that water. It was imperative that the applicant not excavate the basement and the foundation footings too deep to break into the ground water. A two-story underground garage would be in that high danger zone of breaking into the water which was the primary reason why staff could not recommend a two-level underground parking garage for that location. Council Member Eakins said the tree resembled the well-known Cypress on the 17-mile Drive. Mr. Dockter agreed that the silhouette was nice from a distance. However, its branches went up and out at right angles and were very long and heavy. It was foreseeable that the branches would break at those right angles which was common to the Allepo Pine. Council Member Eakins clarified the Allepo Pine had a heavy needle growth at the end of the long runs of branches. Mr. Dockter said all of the branches had a lot of growth at the ends. There was no interior branching which would allow for pruning in order to make the tree safer. There was almost no proper way to prune the tree structurally to lessen its failure potential. MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation to: 1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts if certain conditions of approval are imposed; and 2. Approve the proposed project for construction of the 35-unit, 3-story condominium complex, 81 parking spaces, and related site improvements, consisting of (a) Ordinance for Planned Community rezoning, (b) associated Design Enhancement Exceptions for minor encroachments into the daylight planes and (c) a subdivision map for 35 air space condominiums based on the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION 425-435 SHERIDAN AVENUE Recommended Findings for Approval 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, in that the project would be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.20) in that the proposed subdivision is consistent
10/20/97 85-14
with neighboring properties, particularly the adjacent Page Mill Court complex; the project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: Housing Element Policy #3: "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto's neighborhoods especially desirable" in that the project is located in a unique neighborhood that features a mix of multiple family residences and commercial activity and is in close proximity to the California Avenue Business District; Housing Element Policy #13: "Increase funding sources used to provide affordable housing," in that the project will provide Below Market rate units that will contribute to the supply of affordable housing and the project recently has been revised to provide 6 three-bedroom units for families as well as 29 two-bedroom units; Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42,
"Promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements through the review of new development" in that the site is designated Multiple Family Residential and is well suited for this use and that the proposed site plan makes more efficient use of the site by improving the layout of parking and landscaped areas compared with the previous use; and Urban Design Element, Policy 6A, Program G, "Encourage residential use in the commercial areas near California-Cambridge Avenue area" in that the proposed replacement of a laboratory building with high density residential use within walking distance of California Avenue is consistent with this policy; 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed 35 condominium units are within the density range allowed by existing zoning and compatible with the scale of neighboring multiple family buildings; 3. The design of the condominium complex will not cause significant environmental impacts in that potential traffic, noise, and biological impacts have been mitigated by the dedication of a ten foot right-of-way and adjacent soundwall and existing trees have been either preserved or replaced on-site. 4. The design of the condominium complex will not result in serious public health problems, would not be detrimental to the existing pattern of the neighborhood and would result in development of multiple-family homes that would be consistent with the adjacent buildings in the neighborhood; and 5. The design of the condominium complex will not conflict with public easements for access through the use of the property in that the resulting lots would have frontage on a public street for vehicular access and utility service. Conditions for Subdivision
10/20/97 85-15
Prior to Submittal of Final Map 1. The subdivider shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Planning Arborist, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a parcel or final map. 2. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City's jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility Department. 3. The subdivider shall work with the Utilities Department to determine all utility design and capacity requirements including water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable facilities. All new construction shall have underground utility, telephone and cable service. The project shall be limited to single service laterals for each lot for sewer, water and gas. Each parcel shall have separate electrical service. All utility plans shall be approved by the Utilities Department before the Parcel map is recorded. Prior to the Recordation of the Final Map 4. 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 include the following agreements: a. The subdivider shall be responsible for installing any required off-site improvements, including utilities, to the satisfaction of the Utilities, Public Works, and Planning Departments. These improvements shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney. b. The subdivider shall grant the necessary public utility easements to the City for the location and maintenance of required utilities. The required easements shall be shown on the face of the Parcel map. c. The subdivider shall preserve all existing trees on site and shall include all trees in the final landscape plans. 5. In compliance with Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the project is subject to a 10 percent Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement. The applicant shall provide 2 two-bedroom units and 1 three bedroom unit at Below Market Rates. No in-lieu fee for the additional one-half unit is required. Provision of the units and fee shall be
10/20/97 85-16
consistent with the Letter of Agreement from Ken Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment, and signed by Rick Hill. The Letter of Agreement is attached and is included herein by reference. In addition to other conditions, the Letter of Agreement requires that an Agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney, be prepared and executed by the owner and by the City and that the Agreement be recorded in the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 6. The final parcel map shall be filed with the Planning Division within four years of the approval of the preliminary parcel map. 7. A street dedication is required as follows: Subdivider shall dedicate a five (5) foot wide strip along the southerly side of the property along the entire frontage of Page Mill Road. 8. The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel map to guarantee the completion of the work specified in condition(s) 68 and 74. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 9. The subdivider shall submit to Public Works Engineering one (1) permanent mylar with reproducible set of "as built" drawings for the work in the City right-of-way. 10. The subdivider shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 11. The subdivider shall submit a storm water pollution protection plan to be included in the improvement plan submittal. 12. The subdivider shall construct public curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the entire frontage of Page Mill Road. The improvements shall meet the City's standard requirements and shall be to the City's satisfaction. FINDINGS FOR DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION 425-435 SHERIDAN AVENUE Recommended Findings for Approval FINDINGS 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the
10/20/97 85-17
site is located near the intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road and within an area desired by the City to be used for the addition of a right hand turn lane along the Page Mill Road frontage and the approved Page Mill Road project adjacent to the site will be separated from the proposed project by sufficient setbacks such that both projects will be provided with adequate light, air and privacy; and 2. The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of Title 18 and the standards for review set forth in Chapter 16.48 in that the encroachment is minor (3 to 4 feet intrusion into the daylight plane), will enhance the design of the building, and is needed to preserve the quality of living spaces within the building. One of the two outdoor courtyards previously proposed by the applicant was sacrificed due to the provision of a ten foot right-of-way dedication along Page Mill Road. Pulling back the building to meet the daylight plane requirements would jeopardize the remaining outdoor courtyard to the detriment of the livability of the residential units. Therefore, the exemption would preserve the design integrity of the roofline and the facade along the Page Mill Court frontage, would preserve the outdoor courtyard for use by project residents, and preserve the architectural style of the building. 3. The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that the proposed exception relates to a small portion of the roofline adjacent to the Page Mill Court building, the design of the roofline and building facade is consistent with the Page Mill Court project along the shared property line, and the setback and roofline provide adequate light, air and privacy to both projects. DRAFT CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL 425-435 SHERIDAN AVENUE Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit 1. A final site plan shall be prepared and approved by the Planning Division which reflects any modifications by the ARB, Planning Commission and City Council. The revised site plan shall include the following: a 10 foot right-of-way dedication along the entire Page Mill Road frontage for the future construction of a right turn lane onto El Camino Real and a five foot planting strip between the Page Mill Road sidewalk
10/20/97 85-18
and the curb; the two mitigation measures recommended in the Noise Study conducted by Charles Salter & Associates (April 28, 1997) including: 1) an eight foot high acoustically effective barrier located approximately 15 feet from the building facade along the Page Mill frontage, and 2) installation of windows with an STC rating of 36 in all rooms nearest Page Mill Road and an STC rating of 30 in the units further north along Page Mill Road. The soundwall shall be planted with a covering of ivy or other vine on the side facing the public right-of-way. A suitable location for a Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) of 48-inch box size shall be integrated within the project site. The location shall have an adequate volume of soil, sufficient drainage and dedicated space to enable unobstructed growth over the long term. Change the species of the Private Garden Accent Trees
from Arburus unedo, Strawberry Tree to Arbutus >Marina=,
Marina Madrone and from Lagerstromeia >Cherokee= to
>Muskogee=(Lavender), >Natchez= (White) or >Tuscarora= (Coral). All neighbors trees that overhang the project site shall be protected from impact of any kind. A statement of the circumstances of the tree removal and intent of replacement on the applicants property, inclusive of all expenses and ongoing maintenance, shall be sent to the owner of the tree and written approval established. The applicant shall submit a letter to the Planning Division indicating that a hazardous materials permit has been obtained and that the proposed construction will not interfere with any extraction activities that are part of the on-going clean up of the area. The public art proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Art Commission prior to subsequent review by the ARB. The applicant shall be required to submit to the Planning Division a mitigation monitoring report indicating compliance with all the mitigations contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Utilities Electric 2. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert @ (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. Public Works Operations 3. PAMC Sec. 8-04-070 shall apply to all public trees to be retained. 4. All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved tree inventory or landscape plan shall be protected during construction. The following tree protection measures shall be 10/20/97 85-19
approved by the City Arborist and included in construction/demolition plans and contracts. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the developer or project arborist verifying that the tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit issuance unless otherwise approved. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees. If the sidewalk will be blocked by the above, the entire planting strip may be fenced off to allow pedestrian traffic to use the sidewalk. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department's standard specification detail #505). b. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. c. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. d. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 5. A certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant to prepare and submit tree protection plans. The plans shall identify the trees to be protected and include measures for their protection during construction. The certified arborist shall inspect the tree protection measures and shall certify that the PAMC Sec. 8-04-015 have been installed prior to demolition, grading, or building permit issuance. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 6. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. The form is available at the Building Department. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed.
10/20/97 85-20
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit Utilities Electric 7. This project requires a padmount transformer. The applicant shall provide an easement for installing the padmounted equipment and associated substructure. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Planning Department and the Architectural Review Board. The tentative map shall be submitted to the Utilities Department for establishing the location and dimensions of the required easement. Fire Hazardous Materials 8. A hazardous materials closure permit shall be obtained from the Fire Department for the existing building to ensure that construction does not interfere with any extraction or monitoring wells on-site that would be part of the on-going clean up of the area. Fire Department 9. The applicant shall submit final plans for review and approval by the Fire Department that include the following: (a) automatic sprinkler system is required (NFPA-13R modified). Plans and permits required on underground fire service line and automatic sprinkler system (b) Fire alarm system required (plans and permits required),(c) central station supervision of sprinkler system for water flow and control value tamper - by building, (d) elevator gurney access is required to be large enough to accommodate a gurney 24" by 82" and emergency personnel, d) rated corridors and shafts are required, e) wet standpipe system and hose cabinets are required in garage area only, f) emergency and illuminated exit signs, g) Knox Box, h) Portable fire extinguisher, (i) Site annunciator, j) Elevator recall with programming. Planning/Zoning 9a. A subdivision map is required to merge the existing lots and create the condominium spaces. 10. The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features. 11. Final landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plan table areas out to the curb must be submitted to and approved by the Utility Marketing Services Division. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations, a grading plan, and a statement of design intent shall be
10/20/97 85-21
submitted for each project. These plans should be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include: a. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including private and public street trees. b. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. c. Irrigation schedule and plan. d. Fence locations. e. Lighting plan with photometric data. The existing lighting plan shall be revised to reduce illumination so as not to exceed 1.5 footcandles. All lighting must be shielded in a manner to prevent visibility of the light source, eliminate glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the development. The lighting plan, photometrics and specification sheets should be revised to meet these guidelines and submitted to Planning staff for review and approval. f. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 12. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate ARB application. 13. The project shall include an enclosed trash and recycling area which complies with the design guidelines adopted by the ARB and approved by the City Council pursuant to Section 16.48.070 (PAMC). The final site plan shall include an enclosed trash and recycling area with a roof. The trash/recycling facilities shall be approved by the City of Palo Alto Recycling Division prior to issuance of a building permit. Public Works Engineering 14. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. 15. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division.
10/20/97 85-22
16. Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards. 17. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for the proposed construction which will impact the use of the sidewalk, street, alley or on property in which the City holds an interest. 18. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, 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 with the City of Palo Alto's Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. 19. The applicant shall gain approval of the Santa Clara County Roads Division, in writing, for the placement of the special paving at the page Mill Road entrance. Transportation 20. Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance requirements of PAMC 18.83.080, applicable to project frontages where driveways are present, and in parking lots. Landscaping shall be specifically identified in the landscape plan as meeting these height requirements. 21. Bicycle parking shall be provided in the amount, type, and location specified in PAMC 18.83 and submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division prior to submittal of a Building Permit. Guest bicycle parking shall be Class III. Utilities Electric 22. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 23. The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.).
10/20/97 85-23
24. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any other required utilities. 25. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 26. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing water and sewer mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes the design and all the cost associated with the construction for the installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or services. Planning/Zoning 27. In compliance with Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the project is subject to a 10 percent Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement. The applicant shall provide 2 two-bedroom units and 1 three bedroom unit at Below Market Rates. No in-lieu fee for the additional one-half unit is required. Provision of the units and fee shall be consistent with the Letter of Agreement from Ken Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment dated July 21, 1997, and signed by David Knudson. The Letter of Agreement is attached and is included herein by reference. In addition to other conditions, the Letter of Agreement requires that an Agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney, be prepared and executed by the owner and by the City and that the Agreement be recorded in the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Public Works Engineering 28. The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. 29. A portion of the proposed work is within the State of California or County of Santa Clara right-of-way. A permit must be obtained from the applicable agency. Evidence of permit approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 30. An underlying lot line exists on the property. The developer/applicant is required to apply for a Certificate of Compliance to remove the underlying lot line from this parcel.
10/20/97 85-24
31. A detailed site-specific soil report must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement construction issues. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 32. The approved relocation of service, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person requesting the relocation. 33. Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water, gas meters and sewer lateral connection. 34. A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. 35. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required to furnish customer's demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the Utilities Standard Detail. 36. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required to furnish customer's demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. 37. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required to furnish customer's demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. 38. An approved Reduce Pressure Principal Assembly (Backflow Preventor Device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Reduce Pressure Principle Assembly shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 39. An approved Check Valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Double Check Detector Check Valve shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the city connection and the assembly.
10/20/97 85-25
40. A new gas service line installation is required to furnish customer's demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. 41. A new sewer lateral installation is required. 42. The applicant shall install a new sewer manhole and install a new sewer lateral per Utilities requirements. During Construction Building Inspection 43. To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor's operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor's expense. Utilities Electric 44. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 45. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling. 46. Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. Planning/Zoning 47. All street trees shall receive monthly watering. A written log of each application shall be kept updated at the site construction office. The log shall be forwarded to the Planning Arborist before final sign off is approved. Police 48. All non-residential construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday.
10/20/97 85-26
Public Works Engineering 49. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. 50. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 51. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) 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 private property; and the Public Works Department 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, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. The applicant also will be required to paint a "No Dumping/ Flows into the Bay" logo near all drainage inlets. 52. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 53. The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from CALTRANS for all utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way and an Encroachment Permit from Santa Clara County Department of Transportation for all utility work in the County Road right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW Engineering Department. 54. The applicant shall obtain a Construction Permit from Santa Clara County Valley Water District for the gas service line to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 55. The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new water service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 56. The applicant shall pay all costs associated with required improvements to on-site and off-site gas mains and services. All improvements to the gas system will be by the City of Palo Alto or their contractor.
10/20/97 85-27
Prior to Finalization Planning/Zoning 57. The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to Planning Division, and call for inspection, that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and that irrigation has been tested for timing and function, and all plants including street trees are healthy. Public Works Engineering 58. All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. 59. The six unused driveways located on Page Mill Road and sheridan Avenue shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. 60. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. After Construction Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 61. The customer shall give the City written notice of any material changes in size, character, or extent of the equipment or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before making any such change. 62. Project construction shall include installation of irrigation supply to all street trees. Details shall specify an inline loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the rootball at a point one-third of rootball diameter. All tree irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto (V-C)(o).
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance 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 425-435 Sheridan/440-460
Page Mill Road From RM-40 to PC-Planned Community≅ Vice Mayor Andersen concurred that the project was exciting, and he was happy to see it proceed. He was not persuaded that the plaque should be eliminated. There were some historic reasons behind it, and he felt the area should be acknowledged. He was not persuaded that the project should be deviated from with regard to the trees, 10/20/97 85-28
even though many disliked removing trees. In the current situation, he felt it was appropriate to do so. Council Member Wheeler concurred. In addition, she felt the same about the plaque, particularly that it was designed as a decorative sidewalk element. She thought it would be very attractive as well as appropriate to commemorate the site, Mr. Pauling, and his contributions to the community. The property was rezoned to residential almost 20 years prior. She felt it was a good thing in that particular location and would be a great improvement. She supported the motion. Council Member McCown asked whether there was any time frame in mind for a potential additional turning lane. Mr. Schreiber said there was no time frame in terms of making that decision. He emphasized that acceptance of the right-of-way was not a City commitment to build the roadway improvements. That would be a future City Council decision. Not getting the right-of-way would foreclose that option in the future. Council Member McCown said it seemed that the project was being required to leave available to the community the potential of an additional turning lane. She did not disagree with the comments that it would be nice to not have to use that lane and to actually succeed in other transit and transportation improvements in the community that would keep that intersection under control. On the other hand, at some point in the future, for air quality issues or other congestion management issues that would make the quality of life better to have that availability, the Council would regret not holding onto that option. She felt it was appropriate to reserve the option and make the area available, letting the future determine whether it needed to be used or not. Council Member Fazzino was happy with the housing on the site and congratulated everyone associated with the project. He was also concerned with the right-hand turn lane and not ready to move forward and make a commitment to add it. He used the intersection often and was not convinced that a right-hand turn lane was needed. He was concerned the intersection would be much less pedestrian-oriented if a right-hand turn lane was added. If the City continued to add more pavement to that site, pressure would grow to improve it along the lines of a grade separation which would be a terrible mistake. He felt it was appropriate to move ahead by accepting the right-of-way and hoped it would not have to be used for that purpose. Council Member Schneider supported the project. She commended the developer and Planning Commission for the excellent use of the half Below Market Rate (BMR) unit in which an in-lieu fee was to be paid but instead it would be a three-bedroom unit which provided for a family living on the site. She believed the project was a public
10/20/97 85-29
benefit, and there was no need to look for additional public benefits. She had great respect for Linus Pauling and hoped the developer would somehow honor Linus Pauling without being told that it should be part of the agreement in order for the project to move forward. Council Member Kniss asked who the Allepo Pine tree belonged to. Mr. Dockter said the tree belonged to the neighboring property owner who gave permission to remove it. Mayor Huber said whether or not another turn lane was ever created, the project was one of the few projects in some time that truly had a substantial fiscal public benefit to the community should it ever be needed. He said that the plaque was a minor public benefit that should be there for a double Nobel Loriett who spent a great deal of time in the community. Sometimes the types of pedestrian amenities that could be found in an R-1 neighborhood but would not be expected if one lived on a busy road like Page Mill Road, were somewhat far reaching. The reality was that most people that would live there preferred to have the noise reduced rather than an amenity that allowed one to look out or walk along side moving traffic most of the day. It made more sense that the amenities should be looked for in such projects in which there were inter-court type facilities and space available. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 15. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Site and Design application to construct three mixed-use commercial/residential buildings for a total of 10,450 square feet, 23 parking spaces, landscaping and related site improvements for property located at 1865-85-95 El Camino Real. Variances required on each parcel for an arterial front yard setback, side yard setback, open space, perimeter landscaping, interior landscaping for parking area and parking spaces. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the project was interesting in the sense of a mixed use, residential/nonresidential building which staff felt had a good possibility of being constructed. There were some situations in the past with residential mixed use proposals which did not materialize. The project, if approved, would materialize the way the project was proposed. There were many variances which dealt with the mixed use, and in the review process, there were no problems with the variance but with the number of variances. At
Council=s places was a letter from Carrasco & Associates, dated October 20, 1997, which was new information delivered that evening. After Council reviewed the letter, it could respond and talk about its content and procedure.
10/20/97 85-30
Mayor Huber asked whether or not the suggestions received in the letter, which had not been considered by either the Planning Commission nor the Architectural Review Board (ARB), should be incorporated into the discussion that evening. City Attorney Ariel Calonne did not know of a procedural requirement. There were a number of findings on variances that in part depended on access to the units, which he had not had an opportunity to review. The Council could conduct the public hearing and discuss the letter, but the package needed to be looked at to see how it fit together. Planning Commissioner Kathy Schmidt said the project was approved unanimously. The Planning Commission liked the concept of the mixed use, even though it would be hard to control the top floor as residential use only and having commercial use on the lower floors. Council Member Rosenbaum said there was a CN Zone and a RN-15 Zone, and the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the CN Zone was .4:1 and for the RN-15 Zone was .5:1. In addition, the project was somewhat greater than the larger of those two numbers .5 FAR. The staff rationale was to add .4 FAR and .5 FAR which would produce an allowable FAR of .9 FAR. He asked whether there was a hotel combining district with .6 FAR which could get up to 1.5, and could there be something wrong with that logic. Mr. Schreiber said it would depend upon the nature of the combining district. It was not a combining zone. Incorporated within the
City=s commercial zones were the applicable multiple-family regulations. The provision for FAR was that it was an additive for mixed use projects which would be the .4 FAR plus the .5 FAR. That would not happen with a combining district because the combining district was structured to stand alone rather than be additive to the underlying zoning. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that the ordinance read that way and it was not just an interpretation. Mr. Schreiber said yes. The initial concept was introduced in 1978 with the Zoning Ordinance that was developed following the 1976 Comprehensive Plan as a way of encouraging residential or mixed use and had been carried forward.
Council Member Eakins asked for definitions for a Αknox box≅ and a
Αbioswale.≅
Chief Planning Official Eric Riel said a Αknox box,≅ required by the Fire Department, was a box placed on a site near the parking area to allow access to a key or to a combination if for some
reason the parking lot was blocked off. A Αbioswale≅ was a swell
10/20/97 85-31
located adjacent to the parking lot for a natural drainage pattern to go into from the parking lot areas. Vice Mayor Andersen referred to the letter from Carrasco & Associates and asked for a clarification as to what was detaining the possibility of making the residential units larger, and what kinds of changes would be necessary in order to prevent that from happening. Mr. Schreiber said there were several things staff wanted to follow up on. One, staff did not have a set of plans and the details which would normally be incorporated into a variety of findings and would need to review the findings to sort out what type of wording changes might be needed. Second, the introduction of the stairwell might require a new variance or a modification of an existing variance but as yet that had not been resolved. Third, one important conclusion of the Planning Commission review was that a way of facilitating the units as being residential and Live/Work units was that the access would be through the commercial area. The third floor stairway introduced an outside entrance into the residential units. Staff needed to look at what the code requirements were, which might impact a number of findings. Mr. Calonne said while the Building Code did not require that it return to the Planning Commission, staff was authorized to modify the application. The changes had not been reviewed, so at a minimum, staff needed time to review it. In the context of a variance, staff needed to give it careful thought because if the concept of the variance were driven by preserving a property right, presumably that was done with the package of variances which were before the Council that evening. There was currently 1,000 square feet of property right that staff should have given the first time but had not, if the staff continued to use the variance as a
vehicle to do that. It was awkward, and the City Attorney=s Office needed to work with staff dependent upon Council direction. Council Member Schneider asked how much time staff would require. Mr. Schreiber replied a minimum of two weeks, preferably three weeks to do the analysis and write a staff report. Council Member Schneider clarified that all that would be required would be the addition of the $1,014 square feet of residential. Mr. Calonne said there was also the additional stairway in the
front and part of the staff=s reasoning was that the units would function as Live/Work units because of the interior access only to the residential space. He felt the issue could be heard by Council that evening and staff given some direction and time to deal with the issue. The other option would be to send the issue back to the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The ordinance did not require that, but it was unusual and looked as if
10/20/97 85-32
it effectively circumvented Planning Commission and ARB review through the procedure. It was not a modification the Council expressed. It was very awkward but not illegal. Mr. Schreiber said assuming Council approval, whatever design changes occurred would require ARB review. From the staff perspective of the application, it was an application that staff was supportive of. It was an interesting concept and use of the properties, and it responded to some Comprehensive Plan
discussions. If the Council concurred, staff=s intent would be to try to find a way to make it work.
Mr. Calonne said the staff=s interest in making it work was not insignificant. He reminded the Council that in the past four months, staff had undone a Live/Work on Lytton Avenue that did not work. Council needed to recognize where those things might head down the road. Mayor Huber referred to the Carrasco & Associates letter and said it was a leap of faith of Live/Work. He liked the concept and the internal effort to retain the upstairs and downstairs together. It might work, but he was skeptical of a proposal with outside staircases. He asked whether staff was going to make it work by compelling internal upstairs/downstairs, and how that would be dealt with in a proposal using external as well. Mr. Schreiber said that was a question staff wanted to explore. There were Building Code requirements, but when he met with Carrasco & Associates earlier that evening, there was no way to get input from the Building Official. Staff would need to sort out what type of design would satisfy the Code while retaining, to the maximum extent possible, the integrity of the residential/ nonresidential combination. MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to refer the issue back to the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board in light of the letter dated October 20, 1997, from Carrasco & Associates. Council Member McCown supported the motion if it were the preferred choice of the applicant and wished the new proposal be evaluated. The alternative would be if the applicant wanted the Council to act only on the original application without the request for change. She agreed that if Carrasco & Associates wanted the Council to review the proposal, it should be referred back. Anthony Carrasco, Carrasco & Associates, 120 Hamilton Avenue, said the consensus was to go with the original project and withdraw the request in the October 20, 1997, letter, even though it was felt that the additional square footage made the units more liveable.
10/20/97 85-33
MOTION TO REFER WITHDRAWN WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Mr. Carrasco said the reason the Live/Work was chosen was because for many years Palo Alto pursued the idea of getting housing and offices close to each other. The additional emphasis in the location was that it was sensible to use that type of project on El Camino Real. Carrasco & Associates decided to take an experimental risk and integrate living and working. There was a need for small office spaces from 3,000 to 9,000 square feet and some need to be able to attach a housing unit. It was not a new concept; it was a type of land use that had been part of the European, American, and Asian culture for many years. The current zoning ordinances made it difficult to produce the type of project that was encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission and the ARB unanimously recommended approval for the project, and he felt staff had adequately outlined the issues. Council Member Schneider asked whether there was a way to guarantee that the units would be Live/Work units. In the past, Palo Alto had not had much luck in the Downtown area. Mr. Carrasco said he could not find a good way to enforce it. Council Member Rosenbaum expressed his appreciation to Carrasco & Associates and staff for all the hard work done on the project. He asked whether the units were expected to be sold. Mr. Carrasco said the units would be sold or leased. Grace Woo, Hillview Land, LLC, 120 Hamilton Avenue, received many telephone calls from people interested in leasing or buying a project involving the Live/Work combination. The concept was particularly appealing for people in the computer business who worked 12 hours a day and often slept in their offices. Council Member Rosenbaum said it got down to the question of whether the market was being limited and was there the expectation that an individual or small family could really live and work in that type of project. Ms. Woo did not believe that type of project was for families but rather for young single people starting out in the computer business. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that she would not anticipate that someone might lease the office space and rent the living space to someone else.
10/20/97 85-34
Ms. Woo said she would not anticipate that happening because the living space was too small for a family, and it would be attractive to people wanting to have their office close by and convenient. Council Member Kniss asked whether there was a particular reason for Carrasco & Associates to have a last minute request that evening. Mr. Carrasco said as they were looking at the project, it seemed as though the living area was getting small. They hoped to make it a little larger in order that two people could live in one unit rather than one person. Also, they were getting burdened with imposing costs that a little more square footage was needed to make the numbers work. Council Member Kniss said the idea was great, but Palo Alto had not had a great track record with that type of project. She asked if there was an area or project in a city nearby where that type of project had worked successfully. Mr. Carrasco replied the San Francisco loft Live/Works were more live than work, and the present project was more work space which had a small living unit attached. The project was more of a Silicon Valley type product. Council Member Kniss said the project was intriguing, but in the past it was challenging to make it work in the community. Mr. Carrasco said it would probably continue to be a challenge. Council Member Wheeler said the question seemed to be whether it could be guaranteed that the living space would be used appropriately. She asked whether there was any way to do that through a deed restriction or covenant with the applicant or the eventual buyer.
Mr. Calonne said the zoning would be violated after Council=s approval if the residential units were not used for residential purposes. The practical restriction that staff had in place was the internal access. He felt comfortable that the staff approach would give the kind of control needed. Council Member Wheeler clarified that there was a prohibition that the applicant could ask for rezoning at a later date. Mr. Calonne said it might be a PC zone, but it would not be something that would slip past the Council. Council Member McCown asked whether there was anything to prevent someone from buying a residential unit and using it 100 percent as a residential unit.
10/20/97 85-35
Mr. Schreiber said no. Council Member McCown clarified that someone could use some of the space on the third floor as office space and the remainder as residential. Mr. Schreiber said it could be done, but there might be internal design issues in terms of how the unit was laid out. Council Member McCown said in terms of market demand given housing prices, she would not be surprised to see someone buy the unit as a straight housing unit which would be more live then work space. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board (ARB), and staff recommendation to: 1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts if certain conditions of approval are imposed; and 2. Approve the proposed Site and Design application and variances for construction of three mixed-use commercial/residential buildings with a total of 10,450 square feet, 22 parking spaces, landscaping and related site improvements, based on the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS FOR SITE AND DESIGN (97-D-6) 1865, 1885 AND 1895 EL CAMINO REAL 1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites in that the proposed mixed-use development provides a harmonious transition from the commercial use on El Camino Real to the residential use located behind and adjacent to the subject property. The proposed mixed-use commercial and residential buildings are similar in size, scale and design with other buildings located in the area and the project has been design
so as not to impact the adjacent residential neighbor=s privacy or enjoyment of their property. 2. The project will ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas in that the project will provide an unique opportunity to live and work in the same building and the proposed design of the mixed-used development and related site improvements are generally consistent with the development on El Camino Real, and the construction of the development will be governed by
10/20/97 85-36
the current Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes, to assure safety and a high quality of development. 3. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed with this project in that this project has been designed to be consistent with the Site and Design Criteria adopted by the City Council as well as the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the Architectural Review Board standards for review. The buildings have been designed to relate to the unique configuration of the site and the diverse visual styles in the surrounding area. The project will not have a significant environmental impacts as indicated by the mitigated Negative Declaration. 4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive plan; in that the project will meet the goals and objectives of polices in the Housing Element, the Urban Design Element, the Employment Element and the Transportation Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as outlined in the Policy Implications section of this staff report, and the proposed residential use and related improvements comply with the Site and Design development regulations and conform to the intent of the CN mixed used development land use regulations, which support mixed-use projects that include residential uses. VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR 1865 EL CAMINO REAL, 97-V-14
1. Variance for a 10=-0≅ front yard set back where a 25=-0≅ minimum arterial front yard setback is required. a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, in that the subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 5,377 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood north of the site. The proposal places the building footprint in the arterial front yard setback to locate the building and entry features closer to the street, which enhances the pedestrian environment and allows parking to be located behind the building. In addition, the building location is consistent with the prevailing setback along El Camino Real and creates a design solution that results in a more livable floor plan for the residential unit than would otherwise be attainable without the variance. b. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
10/20/97 85-37
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that the strict compliance with the front yard arterial setback would unreasonably reduce the usable area of the site and preclude a design solution that allows for both residential and commercial uses on the site, both of which are property rights within the zoning district. The purpose of the arterial front yard setback is to encourage appropriately scaled building massing at the street and a sense of openness on El Camino Real. The small size and scale of the proposed building satisfies this intent while bringing pedestrian activity closer to the street. c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposal will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval would not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate setbacks for privacy, solar access and physical separation between buildings will be maintained. 2. Variance for no interior side yard setback where the required interior side setback is 15'6" (PAMC 18.22.050(e)(2)). a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 5,377 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood north of the site. The 50 foot width of the subject site and the 15'6" side setbacks would result in a living unit 20 feet wide. b. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the side yard setback would produce a residential unit 20 feet in width, which would not meet contemporary living needs. The required side yard setback unreasonably restricts the small site and the proposed residential use. c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity
10/20/97 85-38
and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposal will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval would not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate setbacks for privacy, solar access and physical separation between buildings will be maintained. 3. Variance for 24% open space where 35% minimum lot area open space is required (PAMC 18.22.050(j)(1)). a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, in that the subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 5,377 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood north of the site. In addition, the live/work nature of the use with just one residential unit on the site results in less demand for common usable open space than would a traditional multifamily development for which the common usable open space requirements were designed. b. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the common usable open space requirement unreasonably restricts the small site and will produce a project with excessive usable open space in relation to the need for such space and a project which can not meet other necessary site development requirements. c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposed amount of private and usable open space together will provide residents on the site a viable area to recreate and privately enjoy outdoor area. The common usable open space provided will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval would not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate private usable open space is provided and users of the site will have outdoor space to use.
10/20/97 85-39
4. Variance for a 2-1/2-foot perimeter landscape strip where a the required 5-foot perimeter landscape strip is required at the northwest property line (PAMC, Section 18.83.100 (a)). a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, in that the individual site is considerably smaller than surrounding commercial sites and the parking for all three parcels involved in the project has to be designed as one parking area so that access to the parking for all three sites can be assured. Access to the parking area for the remaining two parcels could not be obtained if perimeter landscaping is provided on the northwest property line of this site. b. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the perimeter landscaping requirement unreasonably restricts the small site and will produce a project that effectively prevents access to the remaining two parcels that are part of the overall project. Requiring the standard amount of per miter landscaping would prevent the efficient design of the parking area for the subject site as well as the other two sites that are part of the overall project. c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that a two foot to ten foot landscape strip will be provided around the perimeter of the entire site, which includes three parcels, and will buffer the buildings from adjacent residential and commercial uses. 5. Variance for the required 5% interior landscaping within the parking area (PAMC, Section 18.83.100 (b)). a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, in that the site is physically constrained by its small size and angled orientation to El Camino Real. The irregular length of the side property lines does not provide enough depth on the site to accommodate the interior landscaping in the parking area as well as the other site development requirements.
10/20/97 85-40
b. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the interior parking area landscaping requirement unreasonably restricts the small site and will produce a project that effectively prevents access to the remaining two parcels that are part of the overall project. Requiring the standard amount of interior parking area landscaping would prevent the efficient design of the parking area for the subject site as well as the other two sites that are part of the overall project. c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that interior parking lot landscaping is provided on the two remaining sites that are part of the overall development and a seven foot landscape strip is provided on the back (north) property line which will buffer the parking area on the subject site from the adjacent residential uses. VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR 1885 EL CAMINO REAL, 97-V-14
1. Variance for a 10=-0≅ front yard set back where a 25=-0≅ minimum front yard arterial setback is required; (PAMC, Section 18.22.050(d)). a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, in that the subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 6,045 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood north of the site. The proposal places the building footprint in the arterial front yard setback to locate the building and entry features closer to the street, which enhances the pedestrian environment and allows parking to be located behind the building. In addition, the building location is consistent with the prevailing setback along El Camino Real and creates a design solution that results in a more livable floor plan for the residential unit than would otherwise be attainable without the variance. b. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable
10/20/97 85-41
property loss or unnecessary hardship in that the strict compliance with the front yard arterial setback would unreasonably reduce the usable area of the site and preclude a design solution that allows for both residential and commercial uses on the site, both of which are property rights within the zoning district. The purpose of the arterial front yard setback is to encourage appropriately scaled building massing at the street and a sense of openness on El Camino Real. The small size and scale of the proposed building satisfies this intent while bringing pedestrian activity closer to the street. c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposal will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval would not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate setbacks for privacy, solar access and physical separation between buildings will be maintained. 2. Variance for no interior side yard setback where the required interior side setback is 15'6" (PAMC 18.22.050(e)(2)). a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 5,377 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood north of the site. The 50 foot width of the subject site and the 15'6" side setbacks would result in a living unit 20 feet wide. b. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the side yard setback would produce a residential unit 20 feet in width, which would not meet contemporary living needs. The required side yard setback unreasonably restricts the small site and the proposed residential use. c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
10/20/97 85-42
general welfare, or convenience in that the proposal will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval would not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate setbacks for privacy, solar access and physical separation between buildings will be maintained. 3. Variance for 29% open space where 35% minimum is required (PAMC, Section 18.22.050(j)(1)). a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, in that the subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 6,045 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood north of the site. In addition, the live/work nature of the use with just one residential unit on the site results in less demand for common usable open space than would a traditional multifamily development for which the common usable open space requirements were designed. b. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the common usable open space requirement unreasonably restricts the small site and will produce a project with excessive usable open space in relation to the need for such space and a project which can not meet other necessary site development requirements. c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposed amount of private and common usable open space together will provide residents on the site a viable area to recreate and privately enjoy outdoor area. The common usable open space provided will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval will not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate private usable open space is provided and users of the site will have outdoor space to use. 4. Variance to allow 8 parking spaces where a minimum of 9 parking spaces are required; (PAMC, Section 18.83.050.)
10/20/97 85-43
a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the lot is substantially smaller than surrounding commercial sites and the proposed use is based on a live/work concept, which requires fewer parking spaces and generates fewer vehicle trips than the typical multiple-family residential or commercial use. b. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the on-site parking requirement will produce a project with excessive and unnecessary parking given the live/work nature of the use. c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the reduced on-site parking corresponds to the reduced need for parking and the reduced number of vehicle trips generated by the live/work use. The number of parking spaces provided will be sufficient for the live/work use that is proposed. 5. Variance for the required 5% interior landscaping within the parking area (PAMC, Section 18.83.100 (b)). a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, in that the site is physically constrained by its small size and angled orientation to El Camino Real. The irregular length of the side property lines does not provide enough depth on the site to accommodate the interior landscaping in the parking area as well as the other site development requirements. b. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the interior parking area landscaping requirement unreasonably restricts the small site and will produce a project that effectively prevents access to the remaining two parcels that are part of the overall project. Requiring the standard amount of interior parking area landscaping would prevent the efficient design of the parking area for the subject site as well
10/20/97 85-44
as the other two sites that are part of the overall project. c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that interior parking lot landscaping is provided on the two remaining sites that are part of the overall development and a seven foot landscape strip is provided on the back (north) property line which will buffer the parking area on the subject site from the adjacent residential uses. VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR 1895 EL CAMINO REAL, 97-V-14 1. Variance for a 12=-0≅ front yard set back where a 25=-0≅ minimum arterial front yard setback is required. a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, in that the subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 6,710 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood north of the site. The proposal places the building footprint in the arterial front yard setback to locate the building and entry features closer to the street, which enhances the pedestrian environment and allows parking to be located behind the building. In addition, the building location is consistent with the prevailing setback along El Camino Real and creates a design solution that results in a more livable floor plan for the residential unit than would otherwise be attainable without the variance. b. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that the strict compliance with the front yard arterial setback would unreasonably reduce the usable area of the site and preclude a design solution that allows for both residential and commercial uses on the site, both of which are property rights within the zoning district. The purpose of the arterial front yard setback is to encourage appropriately scaled building massing at the street and a sense of openness on El Camino Real. The small size and scale of the proposed building satisfies this intent while bringing pedestrian activity closer to the street.
10/20/97 85-45
c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposal will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval would not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate setbacks for privacy, solar access and physical separation between buildings will be maintained. 2. Variance for no interior side yard setback where the required interior side setback is 15'6" (PAMC 18.22.050(e)(2)). a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 5,377 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood north of the site. The 50 foot width of the subject site and the 15'6" side setbacks would result in a living unit 20 feet wide. b. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the side yard setback would produce a residential unit 20 feet in width, which would not meet contemporary living needs. The required side yard setback unreasonably restricts the small site and the proposed residential use. c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposal will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval would not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate setbacks for privacy, solar access and physical separation between buildings will be maintained. 3. Variance to allow 6 parking spaces where a minimum of 8 parking spaces are required; (PAMC, Section 18.83.050.)
10/20/97 85-46
a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the lot is substantially smaller than surrounding commercial sites and the proposed use is based on a live/work concept, which requires fewer parking spaces and generates fewer vehicle trips than the typical multiple-family residential or commercial use. b. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the on-site parking requirement will produce a project with excessive and unnecessary parking given the live/work nature of the use. c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the reduced on-site parking corresponds to the reduced need for parking and the reduced number of vehicle trips generated by the live/work use. The number of parking spaces provided will be sufficient for the live/work use that is proposed. 4. Variance for no perimeter landscape strip on the west property line where a 5-foot perimeter landscape strip is required (PAMC, Section 18.83.100 (a)). a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, in that the individual site is considerably smaller than surrounding commercial sites and the parking for all three parcels involved in the project has to be designed as one parking area so that access to the parking for all three sites can be assured. Access to the parking area for the remaining two parcels could not be obtained if perimeter landscaping is provided on the northwest property line of this site. b. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the perimeter landscaping requirement unreasonably restricts the small site and will produce a project that effectively prevents access to the remaining two parcels that are part of the overall project. Requiring the standard amount of per miter landscaping would prevent the efficient design of the parking area
10/20/97 85-47
for the subject site as well as the other two sites that are part of the overall project. c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that a two foot to ten foot landscape strip will be provided around the perimeter of the entire site, which includes three parcels, and will buffer the buildings from adjacent residential and commercial uses. 5. Variance for the required 5% interior landscaping within the parking area (PAMC, Section 18.83.100 (b)). a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, in that the site is physically constrained by its small size and angled orientation to El Camino Real. The irregular length of the side property lines does not provide enough depth on the site to accommodate the interior landscaping in the parking area as well as the other site development requirements. b. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the interior parking area landscaping requirement unreasonably restricts the small site and will produce a project that effectively prevents access to the remaining two parcels that are part of the overall project. Requiring the standard amount of interior parking area landscaping would prevent the efficient design of the parking area for the subject site as well as the other two sites that are part of the overall project. c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that interior parking lot landscaping is provided on the two remaining sites that are part of the overall development and a seven foot landscape strip is provided on the back (north) property line which will buffer the parking area on the subject site from the adjacent residential uses. 6. Variance to allow 33% usable open space where 35% is required.
10/20/97 85-48
a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district, in that the subject lot is substantially smaller than surrounding lots; the subject lot is 6,045 square feet compared with the 12,000 to 19,000 square foot commercial parcels to the east and west of the site and the standard 7,500 SF parcel size in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood north of the site. In addition, the live/work nature of the use with just one residential unit on the site results in less demand for common usable open space than would a traditional multifamily development for which the common usable open space requirements were designed. b. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that strict compliance with the common usable open space requirement unreasonably restricts the small site and will produce a project with excessive usable open space in relation to the need for such space and a project which can not meet other necessary site development requirements. c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposed amount of private and common usable open space together will provide residents on the site a viable area to recreate and privately enjoy outdoor area. The common usable open space provided will maintain the character, livability and scale of development on abutting properties. The variance approval will not prevent the basic intent of the zoning regulation from being met because adequate private usable open space is provided and users of the site will have outdoor space to use. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD REVIEW/FINDINGS 1865, 1885 and 1895 El Camino Real ARB Standards per Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC.
! The proposed project will meet the goals and purposes of the Architectural Review ordinance in that it will promote the orderly and harmonious development of the city by providing a harmonious transition from the commercial uses on El Camino Real to the residential uses located behind and adjacent to the subject site. The project will enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city by providing an unique opportunity to live and work in the same building and will
10/20/97 85-49
encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and
improvements by providing a uniquely designed project that will relate to the unusual characteristics of the subject sites as well as to the eclectic visual surroundings. It will
enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the site or in adjacent areas by developing a currently vacant site that has had little or no maintenance over the years. It will provide living units on the site that will be compatible with surrounding residential uses while still relating to the commercial uses along El Camino Real. The project will promote
a visual environment which is of high aesthetic quality and variety and which at the same time is considerate of other uses by using high quality materials that are compatible with surrounding residential and commercial uses.
! The design is consistent and compatible with applicable
elements of the city=s comprehensive plan (Standard #a1). The proposal is compatible with the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan as discussed in the ΑPolicy≅ Section of this report.
! The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the
site (Standard #a2). The design compatible with the immediate environment of the site, in that the design of the building reduces visual impacts, maintains overall neighborhood appearance and preserves the character of the surrounding building and zone district.
! The design is appropriate to the function of the project (Standard #a3). The proposed design is appropriate to the function of the project, in that it provides an adequate transition from the live-work use to the residential use on the lot abutting the rear of the subject site.
! The design is compatible with a unified design character or historical character. (Standard #a4). The subject property is not located in an area which has a unified design or historical character.
! The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses (Standard #a5). The proposal breaks the mass of the three live-work buildings with wall and roof plane changes that create a harmonious transition in scale and character from the commercial use on El Camino Real to the residential uses located behind the site.
! The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site (Standard #a6). The design of the project is compatible with the existing improvements both on and off the
10/20/97 85-50
site, in that the proposal does not negatively impact the adjacent side and rear residential uses.
! The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general
community (Standards #a7). The proposal creates an internal sense of order and provides a desirable environment, by integrating the functions of live-work on the site and locating the residential further away from El Camino Real and using the office use as a buffer from the street.
! The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures (Standards #a8). The proposal adequately integrate the outdoor spaces with internal living spaces of the commercial and residential use; The proposal provides a shared courtyard space for the commercial use and a private deck for the residential use.
! The sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and whether the same are
compatible with the project>s design concept (Standards #a9). The proposed pedestrian pathways and interior courtyards that reinforces open space and pedestrian circulation on the site.
! The access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclist and vehicles (Standards #10). The proposed design provides a safe access and circulation for pedestrians, cyclist and vehicles.
! The proposed preserves natural features that are appropriately preserved and integrated (Standard #11). The proposed design preserves and integrates existing street trees into the project.
! The materials, texture, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and
function and whether the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions (Standard #a12). The design incorporates architectural details including eaves, overhangs, window detailing wall treatments that give the building a coherent architectural vocabulary.
! The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with various buildings on the
site (Standard #a13). The proposal utilize adequate
10/20/97 85-51
landscaping to screen and soften the wide street frontage. The major and secondary landscape elements could provide an effective screening from El Camino Real and Leland Avenue.
! The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance
(Standards #a14). The proposed plant materials are drought resistant and an irrigation plan will be required for the final submittal.
! The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable
energy design elements (Standards #a15). The proposed building will be designed for energy efficiency to include such features as dual glazing and insulation. SITE AND DESIGN CONDITIONS FOR PROJECT APPROVAL FOR 1865, 1885 AND 1895 EL CAMINO REAL Planning Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 1. The applicant shall provide and record an easement agreement in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney between the property owners of 1865, 1885 and 1895 El Camino Real for driveway access to the parking areas and the placement of public utility laterals originating from utility mains on Leland Avenue. 2. The applicant shall provide and an easement agreement in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney between the property owners of 1865, 1885 and 1895 El Camino Real for access to the trash and recycling areas. 3. The proposal shall incorporate additional noise mitigation measures to protect residential units from traffic noise on El Camino Real that includes double glazed windows and a 5-foot high wall around the roof deck as noted on Page 1 of the acoustical analysis prepared by Salter Associates, dated August 4, 1997. The revised plans incorporating these modifications shall return to Planning staff for review and approval. Below Market Rate housing requirement 4. Provide a BMR in-lieu fee based on 3.25 percent of the appraised value of the residential portion of the project. The fee is due and payable prior to occupancy of any of the structures and shall be based on appraisal prepared by a
10/20/97 85-52
certified appraiser selected by the City and paid for by the applicant.
In conformance with the City=s Below Market Rate (BMR) requirements (Program #13, Housing Element, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan), a lump sum payment in-lieu of provision
of BMR housing shall be paid to City for deposit in the Housing Reserve Fund. This payment shall be calculated based on the actual sales value or the appraised fair market rental value of only the residential portion of the project, whichever is greater, and applying a rate of 3.25% times the
value. An Agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney, shall be prepared and executed by the project owners prior to issuance of any Building Permits for the project. On-Going 5. The sites shall retain the residential component of the project at all times as shown on plans dated June 5, 1997. No conversion of these areas to other uses shall be allowed. The interior connection between the living units and the work areas shall remain, and at least one occupant of the living
unit shall work in the commercial space within the same building and the living unit and work area shall not be rented separately. VARIANCE CONDITIONS FOR 1865, 1885 AND 1895 EL CAMINO REAL Prior to Issuance of Building Permit Planning Arborist 1. All neighboring trees that overhang the project site shall be protected from construction impacts. A tree protection plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Arborist depicting how trees on adjacent sites shall be protected. Protection methods can be included, but are not limited to, fencing and wrapping of trunks and limbs. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair and replacement of any publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to PAMC, Sec. 8-04-070. 3. The two London Planes to be retained, as shown on the approved landscape plan shall be protected during construction. The following tree protection measures must be implemented and included in construction/demolition plans and contracts. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained:
10/20/97 85-53
a. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees*. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. This detail shall appear on grading and construction plans (see Attachment # 8). *If the above will block the sidewalk or street right of
way, the entire planting strip may be enclosed by the above fencing to allow pedestrian traffic to use the sidewalk. *If the trees are in a small tree well, the trees must be wrapped with 2-inches of orange plastic fencing from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch thick wooden slats
bound securely with additional orange plastic fencing . They shall not be allowed to dig into the bark. While this protects the trunk, caution must be used not to damage any branches. Major scaffold limbs may require the same treatment as the above or as directed by the City
Arborist. 4. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the developer or project Arborist verifying that the tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit
issuance unless otherwise approved. 5. Before the protective tree fencing is installed, all trees to remain shall be pruned in compliance with the following standards; a. All specifications for working on trees to be retained shall be written and administered by a qualified Arborist. b. All tree work performed within the City of Palo Alto shall be in accordance with the industry Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995 and ANSI Z133-1994. c. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: 1. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area.
10/20/97 85-54
2. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. 3. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 4. All street trees shall receive monthly watering. Written log of each application shall be kept updated at the site construction office. The log shall be forwarded to the Planning Arborist before final sign off is approved. d. All new trees shall be planted as per Public Works Standard Tree Well Diagram #504 (see Attachment # 9) and have the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. This diagram shall be shown on Landscape Plans. e. All specified tree work shall be designed to promote practices which encourage the preservation of tree structure and health, according to the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines for Certified Arborists and Tree Workers (see Appendix B). 6. Irrigation shall be supplied to all street trees. Details shall specify an inline loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the rootball at a point one-third of rootball diameter. All tree irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto (V-C)(o). Revised landscape plans showing the irrigation details shall be submitted to the Planning Arborist for review and approval. Utility Marketing Services 7. The applicant shall provide a completed Landscape Water Use Statement, Water Use Calculations, grading plan and Statement of Design Intent. These plans should be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Building 8. The project shall comply with Table 5-A in the Uniform Building Code for location of 1 hour wall and protection of openings. Transportation 9. All garage doors shall be at least 8-1/2 feet wide.
10/20/97 85-55
10. The location of trash and recycling bins shall be modified so that they do not require access from the handicapped parking stall. Site plans showing the revised location shall be subject to review and approval by Planning Division staff. 11. The plans shall indicate the main entrance to the office areas on the floor plan and bike racks shall be provided at that location. 12. The bollards separating the on-site driveway from the sidewalk must be placed behind the sidewalk, with no portion of them on the sidewalk. In addition, at least one additional bollard must be installed behind the sidewalk opposite the northerly edge of the driveway curb cut, so that vehicles do not encroach on the sidewalk beyond the width of the curb cut. Fire 13. An Automatic Sprinkler System shall be provided throughout the buildings (NFPA-13 light hazard) residential areas NFPA-13R modified; plans and permit required on underground fire service line and automatic sprinkler system. 14. The location of a knox box shall be indicated on the site plan. 15. If the sprinkler system serves 100 or more it shall be supervised by central station for water flow and value temper trouble. Utilities Engineering Electrical 16. A padmount transformer and a P.U.E. shall be required to provide electric service to the new development; 17. Since the site includes three parcels, a common P.U.E. measuring 10 feet wide shall be provided around the three lots to give flexibility in designing the new electric distribution system and the location of the transformer pad on site. Three-phase power is available across the street. Service voltage shall be 120/208V based on information submitted so far. Size of transformer shall be determined upon review of actual load data submitted. 18. All on-site and off site substructure work shall be done by applicant. Utilities Engineering 19. The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for the City of
10/20/97 85-56
Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H. and sewer in G.P.D.) 20. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 21. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 22. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing water and sewer mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes the design and all the cost associated with the construction for the installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or services.
23. The applicant=s engineer shall submit water flow calculations which will show that the site and off-site water distribution system will provide the domestic, irrigation, and fire flow water demands needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flows demands. Field test may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing main. Calculations must be stamped by a registered civil engineer. 24. The applicant shall submit to the WGW Engineering Division of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and sewer utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the Utilities Department Design Criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared and stamped by a registered civil engineer. 25. The applicant shall provide to the Engineering Department a copy of the plans for fire systems including all Fire
Department=s requirements. 26. The approved relocation of service, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person requesting relocation. During Construction 27. Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water, gas meters and sewer lateral connection.
10/20/97 85-57
28. A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. 29. An approved Reduce Pressure Principle Assembly (Backflow Preventer Device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Section 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Reduce Pressure
Principle Assembly shall be installed on the owner=s property and directly behind the water meter. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 30. An Approved Single Check Valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. 31. A new gas service line installation is required to furnish
customer=s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. 32. A new 4" sewer lateral install per lot is required.
33. The applicant=s contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the utility improvement plan have been approved by the Water, Gas and Wastewater Engineering Division and all utilities conditions are met. 34. The applicant shall provide a Public Utilities Easement for
facilities installed in private property. The applicant=s engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the County of Santa Clara, and provide the Engineering Division with copies of the public utilities easement across this parcel or the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the applicant. 35. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Utility Standards for Water, Gas & Wastewater. 36. The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from CALTRANS for all utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW Engineering Department. 37. The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new water service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities.
10/20/97 85-58
38. The contractor shall furnish to the Utilities Department a complete schedule of work and method of construction. 39. The contractor shall submit for approval by the Utilities
Engineering Department the manufacture=s literature on the materials to be used. 40. The applicant shall provide meter protection for gas meters subject to vehicle damage. 41. The applicant shall pay cost associated with the required improvements to on-site and off-site gas main and services. All improvements to the gas system will be performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 42. No water valve or other facilities owned by Utilities
Department shall be operated for purpose by the applicant=s contractor. All required operation will be performed only by
authorized Utilities Department Personnel. The applicant=s contractor shall notify the Utilities Department no less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time that such operation is required. 43. All utility work shall be inspected and approved by the WGW Utilities Inspector. Inspection costs for any work done before 8:00 A.M. or 4:30 P. M. on a regular work day, or on
Saturdays or Holidays shall be paid by the applicant=s contractor. Schedule WGW utilities inspections at 650/329-2691 five working days before start of constructions.
44. The applicant=s contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department (650) 496-6032 OR (650) 329-2413 if the existing water or gas mains are disturbed or damaged. 45. The contractor shall not disconnect any part of the existing water main except by expressed permission of the utilities chief inspector and shall submit a schedule of the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission. 46. The water main shall not be turned on until the service installation and the performance of chlorination and
bacteriological testing have been completed. The contractor=s testing method shall be in conformance with ANSI/AWWA C651-86. 47. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW Engineering Division, inspected by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector and tested by a licensed tester prior to activation of the water service. 48. All customer piping shall be inspected and approved by the Building Department before gas service is instituted. Gas
10/20/97 85-59
meters will installed three working days after the building piping passes final inspection. 49. Utility service connections will be installed between 30 and 45 days following receipt of full payment. Large developments must allow sufficient lead time (6 weeks minimum) for utility construction performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 50. The customer shall give the City written notice of any material changes in size, character, or extend of the equipment or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before making any such. Rules and Regulations 3 D. 51. The Permittee is required to submit a drainage plan showing existing and proposed drainage of the site. This plan shall show the existing affected off-site storm drainage and provide showing how this system will handle the proposed site run off. This plan should show spot elevations of existing and proposed grades showing how drainage patterns work. Existing drainage from adjacent properties shall be maintained. The Applicant shall contact the Public Works Department to coordinate a meeting to discuss the production of these plans. 52. The Applicant shall include the design of a Bioswell to located along the back of the properties adjacent to the parking lot. The applicant shall coordinate a meeting with the Public Works Department for discussion of the production of this design. Police 53. All non-residential construction activities shall be subject
to the requirement of the City=s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday. For construction on residential property, the ending time shall be 6:00 p.m. Monday-Saturday. Public Works 54. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with applicable codes, but the design remains the responsibility of the architect/engineer who prepared it. 55. Any changes to these plans, other than those provided within, must be reviewed by the Public Works Engineering Division.
10/20/97 85-60
56. The movement of the traffic barriers on Leland Avenue shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department. The applicant shall provide more detailed plans for the location and construction of these new barriers. The construction costs for new barriers shall be funded by the applicant. Any bollards placed on the Leland Avenue frontage must be placed in back of the City sidewalk. 57. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. 58. Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards. 59. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, 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 with
the City of Palo Alto=s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. 60. The applicant shall obtain a Permit for construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. 61. To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the
contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor=s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall
be controlled at the contractor=s expense. 62. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650-496-6929) prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.060. 63. All Construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Sec. 12.08.060. 64. All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010.
10/20/97 85-61
65. Only standard sidewalk construction and materials are allowed in the public sidewalk area on the Leland and El Camino Real frontage. No special paving will be allowed. These acceptable standards may be obtained from the Public Works Department. 66. Construction conducted within the city right-of-way must have a Permit for Construction in the Street must be obtained from the CPA Public Works Department prior to commencement of work. 67. Any construction within CPA right-of-way or easements must conform to standards established in the CPA Standard Specification for the Utilities Department and the Public Works Department. 68. The Applicant will be required to obtain an Encroachment Permit from the California Department of Transportation if any lane closures are needed on El Camino Real in performance of this work. 69. Proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area on the property which would affect the monthly storm drainage fee. The Applicant must provide calculations showing the impervious area with the building permit application. The fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. 70. The site shall be fine graded to provide a minimum 2% slope away from the building perimeter and adjacent property lines. In no case shall the final grading increase the sheet flow onto adjacent properties. 71. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 72. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best
management practices (BMP=s) 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, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) Or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act) Ongoing 73. All three sites shall retain the residential use in the buildings at all times as shown on plans dated June 5, 1997. 10/20/97 85-62
These areas shall not be converted to any other use. The interior connections between residential and commercial areas shall remain, and at least one occupant of the living unit shall work in the commercial space within the same building
and the living unit and work area shall not be rented separately. 74. Fire extinguishers shall be located inside the building at all times. Council Member Schneider said it was a wonderful project, and was the type of living space that was being called for in the Comprehensive Plan. It suited the area ideally. It had not worked in the Downtown area and probably would not because the cost of land was too expensive to make it a buyable project. Council Member Eakins said the architecture would be refreshing. When she was a Planning Commissioner and land use changes for that area were being decided when the Comprehensive Plan Map was being prepared, there were a number of neighbors that were concerned about the land use becoming multi-family. She felt Carrasco & Associates had a solution that would work for that piece of land, which might have continued to be a vacant lot or would have become a source of controversy. She was glad to see the project move forward. Vice Mayor Andersen supported the recommendation. Some of the concerns expressed by several of the Council Members regarding whether or not the project would actually work, was an indication as to what needed to be done in the future when creating incentives while proceeding with the new Comprehensive Plan. Down the line, there would have to be some creative thinking which allowed and encouraged developers to take the type of direction which had been carried out with the Carrasco project. In addition, some mechanisms needed to be created which would convert to something
other than the Comprehensive Plan=s intentions, that there would be a consequence. Those mechanisms were not in place currently but needed to be thought about and determined as to how they could be applied. Council Member Kniss clarified that there had been nothing on that site for the past 20 years. Mr. Schreiber said it had been vacant for some time but not quite 20 years. Council Member Kniss said it was commendable to develop a piece of land that was vacant for such a long period of time. Vacant land did not return much in taxes and that piece of land had been an eye sore along El Camino Real. She was delighted to see something happen to that piece of land and hoped it would work as a Live/Work area.
10/20/97 85-63
Council Member Fazzino recalled that the site had been vacant for somewhat short of 10 years. He was pleased with the project. It was the most definitive commitment to Live/Work units that the Council had before it, given the way in which the units were being
constructed. It applied a tremendous commitment to the Αlive≅ as
opposed to only the Αwork≅ part of the project. Mayor Huber supported the motion and asked that staff track the issue. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 16. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 9.09 [Assault Weapons] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code City Attorney Ariel Calonne said there were interest groups who were anxious to have the Chapter repealed. The ordinance was preempted, and staff ensured those groups that it would not be enforced. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to introduce the Ordinance.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 9.09 [Assault Weapons]
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0. RECESS: 9:20 P.M. - 9:30 P.M. COUNCIL MATTERS 17. Vice Mayor Andersen re Resolution Barring Business in Burma Vice Mayor Andersen said there were some who felt the issue was an
area outside the Council=s domain and would be better left to other jurisdictions. He agreed to agendize the item because there were many constituents in the community that felt the issue should be heard by the Council. As he prepared the item for Council, his views became much stronger, and he felt it was an appropriate area for the Council to consider and take action on. Aung San Suu Kyi was, from any indication, the Martin Luther King, Jr. of Burma. She was a true hero to her people and had asked for the kind of support his memo suggested. It was also a local issue. He did not want to overstate the issue, but he was not surprised when he saw a significant article in the San Jose Mercury three weeks prior about the tremendous increase in heroin in the Bay Area, particularly San
10/20/97 85-64
Francisco. In his work at Palo Alto High School, he was surprised to discover young people in the community who were flirting with the drug. He was not suggesting there was an epidemic, but there was experimentation going on which he had not seen since the late 1960s and early 1970s, and it concerned him a great deal. He felt there was a connection in how the community was impacted by some of the policies of the Burma regime. The atrocities were well described in the document provided. He hoped the Council would listen to the public carefully. Council Member McCown referred to a letter from Herb Borock which
went through the background of the prior Council=s consideration policy with respect to investment in South Africa. In the course of his letter, he commented there was the 3-0 vote with 2 abstentions and 4 not participating due to conflicts of interest which she assumed related to the possibility that the Council Members might have investments in companies that might be affected by the proposed action. She asked whether that was an issue for the Council, and what did staff know about what companies would be
affected by the Council=s action. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said in a general way it was an issue with the Council, and Council should inquire of staff whether the City was currently involved with any of the companies that might be affected. Once that factor was known, the question became whether
the effect on those companies by the City=s action would be material. Generally speaking, for most of the Fortune 500 companies, it would make a large dollar impact, and he doubted it would be material. It would be prudent for the Council to find out which companies were involved, so staff could give the Council meaningful advice rather than generality. Council Member McCown asked whether the City presently purchased goods from companies on lists which were accessible that produced goods in Burma. James Steele replied no. The list referred to was the Investor Responsibility Research Center List which was broken down into three sections. The first section was United States (U.S.) companies with direct investments or direct employee operations operating in Burma. Of those there were perhaps 15, none of which were large energy and oil drilling equipment companies that Palo Alto acquired goods or services from. The second section was companies that did not produce anything in Burma but might have distribution centers, consumer goods, etc., none of which the City had direct purchases with. The third section was international companies which he was unfamiliar with and would have to go over with the Purchasing Department staff. Council Member McCown clarified that if a Council Member owned stock in a company and the City did not purchase anything from that company, there would not be a concern as to whether conflict of
10/20/97 85-65
interest needed to be evaluated, or was the Council taking a policy decision not to purchase from that company and, therefore, a Council Member who owned stock in that company should raise the potential conflict of interest. Mr. Calonne said the former was correct that there would not be material financial effect because the City was not currently doing business with such company. It was not reasonably foreseeable to assume the City would do business with any particular company. The
resolution stated generally Αdo business in Burma≅ and from the examples he saw, staff would want to be more specific about those kinds of transactions if the Council gave policy direction to do so. There was no conflict of interest issue if the City were not currently in a contractual relationship with the company. Council Member Fazzino said a number of companies, including his employer, Hewlett-Packard, were in Burma doing business until about one year prior. Since Hewlett Packard was no longer doing business there, his question was whether there was any possibility of conflict of interest. Mr. Calonne said if Hewlett Packard was no longer doing business in Burma, there would not be a conflict of interest. Council Member Schneider asked whether it would be a conflict of interest if a spouse had a current contract with a Japanese company that might be doing business in Burma.
Mr. Calonne said unless the spouse=s employment were somehow related to the Burmese involvement, it was unlikely there would be a conflict of interest. Andrew Pierce, 363 Ely Place, said a subcommittee was formed to consider the proposal and the purchasing ordinance was unanimously supported. He believed that the City staff and the subcommittee came to an agreement on all the terms of the ordinance; that it was enforceable and City staff would not have difficulty enforcing it even though the City could not take a position on it. He believed the ordinance to be self enforceable and felt there should not be any practical difficulties. He was sure the question of why the Palo Alto City Council should pick up the issue was raised in some 15 cities that had adopted resolutions or purchasing ordinances and two states, Colorado and Massachusetts, which had acted at the state level. Many of the cities that took action were college towns, but there were also major cities that adopted either selective purchasing ordinances or resolutions on the subject of Burma, so the City was not being asked to be pioneers in the field. As former Assistant to the City Attorney of El Cerrito, he was aware of an old Supreme Court decision in California which he had given to Vice Mayor Andersen, which stated that it was appropriate under California procedures for City Councils and Boards of Supervisors to take positions on issues of foreign policy. If
10/20/97 85-66
anyone were concerned about the power of right authority to do so, it was part of the democratic system for a City Council to express itself and use its purchase power in a positive manner. There were many companies, including prominent local companies, that had already pulled out of Burma. He asked the City to do something that many companies and other cities had already recognized. He made reference to reports of the United Nations and the U. S. State Department and their conclusions. He encouraged the Council to act on the issue. Zan Rubin, 1102 Emerson Street, said the United States Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) estimated that 60 percent of the world=s heroin came from Burma. During the past month, the Clinton Administration reported that heroin use was increasing among teens and had been increasing every year since 1992. Many third world countries had problems stopping the drug trade, but Burma was different because the Burmese government benefitted from the trade. In a country with such severe oppression, why was the State Law and Order Council (SLORC) able to stop the drug trade. Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, gathering of groups of five or more, or teachers criticism of the government was not tolerated. The penalty for possessing a modem in Burma was as severe as a penalty
for murder in the United States. He learned that Αwith freedom
comes crime≅ which he believed to be true and why SLORC did not want to stop the heroin. SLORC was more aggressive in its attitude toward the National League for Democracy than against drug traffickers. He quoted conclusions from various government reports regarding drug trafficking in Burma. The issue before the Council allowed the citizens of Palo Alto to vote for human rights and democracy in the world. He believed everyone wanted to do what they could for the world. That was why the Council became involved in the government and why he and others were there that evening. The Generals of SLORC might not call a meeting to discuss what action had been taken in Palo Alto that evening, but if the Council took action SLORC would hear about it. It was not only important to send a message to the SLORC, but Ms. Kyi and those fighting for democracy in Burma would hear about it as well. It was the right thing to do. Helen Sofaer, 1200 Bryant Street, said the question before the Council was not one dealing strictly with the people of Burma and what they stood for, but a question concerning the people of Palo Alto and what they stood for. It was said that every dollar spent on a product was a vote for that product and all that went into producing it. The question was, what type of products Palo Alto would support; those which came from a military dictatorship that deprived people of their basic rights or those which came from
companies that respected people=s basic rights. People should educate themselves and try to take whatever small steps possible to help improve the conditions of those less fortunate. Some people
felt it was not the City=s place to consider foreign policy issues,
10/20/97 85-67
but the federal government passed a law forbidding any new companies to invest in Burma, and if the Council approved the item, Palo Alto would simply be expanding on the current federal law. In
the 1980s, without the government=s lead, Palo Alto passed a
similar ordinance in response to South Africa=s Apartheid. Numerous cities passed selective purchasing ordinances and passage of the measure would add Palo Alto to the growing number of cities that stood up against injustice. In Burma, advocates of democracy risked imprisonment or death when trying to have a say in their own government, the penalty for possessing an unauthorized modem could result in years in jail, colleges were closed due to the
government=s fear of providing students with a convenient place to organize, and it was illegal to have meetings with more than five people present. The blatant lack of free speech crushed all hope for constructive engagement. She asked the Council to not only think about the Burmese but also the Palo Alto community and what it stood for. Jill Shenker, Coordinator of Students for Environmental Action at Stanford University and Regional Coordinator for Student Environmental Action Coalition, 550 San Juan Road, Stanford, represented over 3,000 students who supported the introduction of a Burma selective purchasing bill in Palo Alto. Her organization worked with the International Free Burma movement for over four years and played a significant roll in putting pressure on some of the 20 corporations that had pulled out of Burma in the past two years. The reason those corporations, 15 cities, 1 county, and 2 states passed selective purchasing bills similar to the one being discussed that evening, along with President Clinton imposing national sanctions, was because the government of Burma was one of the worst human rights abusers in the world. Since 1992, the schools were closed 13 times, which was one of the State Law and
Order Council=s (SLORC) programs to keep its people uneducated, powerless, and divided. Despite all that, there was sufficient pressure which led to a democratic election in 1990 in which Ms. Kyi received 82 percent of the vote. Seeing their power dissolve, the SLORC overthrew the election in Burma, and Ms. Kyi was put under house arrest until the past year. Since that time, she remained virtually under house arrest. She urged the Council to make a clear statement to the citizens of Palo Alto and the country that it would not support the injustices committed against the people of Burma. The effect the selected purchasing bill would have on the business of the Council was minimal, but it would have an enormous effect on lifting the spirits of the Burmese refugees and those who continued to live under the oppression of the SLORC. Passing the bill would also give a clear message to corporations that persisted in involvement in Burma, that Palo Alto would no longer support irresponsible businesses that ignored human rights. She asked the Council to pass the selected purchasing bill.
10/20/97 85-68
Amanda Atwood, 2873 Cowper Road, senior at Stanford University and member of the HAAS Unifying Board, said the Student Leadership for the HAAS Center for Public Service housed over 45 student public service groups. A resolution was passed by the Associated Students of Stanford University to end purchasing from companies that invested in Burma. She shared her appreciation for the quotation hanging on the wall outside the Council Chambers which said
ΑInjustice everywhere is a threat to justice anywhere,≅ which addressed the issues being discussed that evening and the power of government to combat that. In March of 1995, concerned about the human rights violations and environmental degradation perpetuated by the illegitimate government of Burma (SLORC), Stanford students began organizing with the Free Burma Coalition to address some of the concerns. Learning more about the issue in Burma, the situation, and the efforts to remedy that, Ms. Kyi, legitimate leader of Burma, on occasions when she was able to make public statements in spite of her house arrest, consistently emphasized that economic sanctions were an important way for outsiders to alter the situation in her country. In November of 1995, the Associated Students of Stanford University signed a resolution to demonstrate its support for the democracy movement in Burma. The Association saw a yearly budget of $15,000, and the signed
resolution stated, ΑThese funds were to no longer be used to purchase goods made by corporations operating or invested in
Burma.≅ In addition, the Association distributed over $300,000 of students funds to over 100 student groups. The resolution discouraged those groups from using their funding to purchase goods made by companies operating or investing in Burma. The students at Stanford were proud to be among the 25 other colleges and universities across the country whose student governments passed similar resolutions and were honored to be able to respect the request of Ms. Kyi. She strongly encouraged the Council to make a similar statement of support for the citizens of Burma and for the importance of freedom and democracy across the globe. David Rubin, 1102 Emerson Street, said the distinction between local and global issues was difficult and applied not only to the products but to the pollution and use of money as it peculated through the global system. Money spent in Palo Alto was a local use that affected the global economy and politics. Also, it was an opportunity to do something constructive as was done for Apartheid. He wanted to be proud that the City of Palo Alto took a stand regarding Burma rather than looking back on the issue saying something should have been done when the issue presented itself. Jane Jerome, 3744 Star King Circle, thanked the Council for taking the matter under consideration. While many people considered the issue to be governmental, Ms. Kyi and the rightfully democratic leadership of Burma called upon the people of the world to support them in a nonviolent way to attain a transition into democracy, and there was a popular grass roots support for that aim. Ms. Kyi asked that people use economic measures like boycotts and selective
10/20/97 85-69
purchasing laws, which was a decision by an aggregate community rather than an individual decision to not do business with the companies that were helping to keep the military regime in power. Burma was a land of terror and brutality, and Palo Alto could sit idly by or support the resolution. The State Department estimated that 3 percent of the gross domestic product of Burma was from forced labor. Some people were concerned that the issue was not a local one. It was not a foreign policy measure but rather a purchasing law and how people spent their tax dollars. People were exercising collective first amendment rights, not making foreign policy. By the Council passing the measure, it would send a clear message to SLORC and its partners that it was time to cease and for a people transition to the rule of law. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, supported Council approving the proposed resolution. He felt it was a local issue because it involved how the taxpayers spent their money. He thanked Vice Mayor Andersen and the Bay Area Action group for its persistence in
following through on the issue. Vice Mayor Andersen=s memo indicated that perhaps there were some Council Members who might think it was inappropriate for the Council to take action on national and international issues. Palo Alto had a history of over 25 years of taking action on those types of issues: withdrawal from Viet Nam in 1971, ban on the nuclear weapons freeze in 1982, Jobs with Peace initiative in 1983, and investments in South Africa in 1985. In addition to passing the resolution, he believed the government of Burma should be notified of the action. In the
materials that accompanied Vice Mayor Andersen=s memo, was the
President=s action regarding investment policy. He believed the City should take the parallel action of amending investment policy with regard to Burma as the consistency would be helpful. Jeanne Hallacy, 701 Capp Street, San Francisco, worked in Thailand and Burma as a journalist for the past five years. She interviewed hundreds of people from various areas of Burma and shared stories about the atrocities regarding people she had interviewed. She met many Burmese people who were professionals, elected officials, teachers, housewives, students, etc., and who repeatedly stated they wanted change. She conducted many formal and informal interviews with Ms. Kyi, the last being six weeks prior when she returned from Rangoon. Ms. Kyi was again virtually under house arrest. She was at the meeting that evening on behalf of the numerous people, known and unknown, who chose to be heard and cared what the Council thought and did. Vice Mayor Andersen appreciated the testimony that was shared with the Council that evening. He believed Palo Alto had a responsibility to the Burmese people. It was an opportunity for the Council to represent the community in an honorable and appropriate way.
10/20/97 85-70
MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Eakins, to adopt the Resolution with the following revisions: 1) add a WHEREAS clause to
read: ΑWHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto wishes to sustain the United
States Government=s policies with regard to Burma≅; 2) revise the
second RESOLVED clause to read as follows: ΑRESOLVED that in
enforcing this resolution, City staff shall rely upon the list of U.S. Parent Companies and non-U.S. Parent Companies with Ties to Burma developed by the Investor Responsibility Research Center in its publication entitled Multinational Business in Burma; and be it
further≅; and 3) add an additional WHEREAS clause to read:
ΑWHEREAS, the United States Government has barred new U.S. company
investments in Burma.≅ Council Member Kniss said the speakers that evening had been articulate and persuasive. Council Member Eakins said in terms of the seriousness of the issues involved, the resolution was worth consideration. She asked how reliable the list was and how easy it was to use. She wanted an estimate of what was being taken on and what was being asked of staff to do. Mr. Steele did not know how reliable the list was. Staff had to trust that the organization, which cared deeply about the situation in Burma, was following it closely. Staff would use that list to administer. There were approximately 50 companies listed. However, in his earlier introductory comments, he mentioned a second category of companies that were not located in Burma but did business there indirectly which were only partially listed. He was not sure how that portion would be administered. That was what led Mr. Calonne to refer to how narrowly or broadly any ordinance would be drawn and how difficult it would be to administer. City Manager June Fleming said Mr. Steele was accurate. Staff had to go on faith that the list was accurate, and it would impact every contract over $5,000. Staff tried to be responsive to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and to stay neutral. Council Member Fazzino asked Vice Mayor Andersen whether it would
be acceptable to amend the motion to add a fourth ΑWhereas,≅
something to the effect of ΑWhereas, the United States Government
has barred new U. S. company investment in Burma.≅ There was no question that Burma was a very repressive totalitarian regime, and
he accepted all of Council Member Andersen=s comments and arguments. Generally, he was one who felt that the City should not get involved in international foreign policy except on extraordinary occasions. He supported the issue of investment in South Africa in 1982. Actions on the part of governments at all levels had an impact on South Africa, and he felt Burma was another extraordinary situation. He was pleased with the argument by Vice Mayor Andersen as well as his willingness to accept the language.
10/20/97 85-71
It was helpful to the Council if it took actions consistent with
the federal government=s actions and international issues. In the future, the Council might want to look at the issue as a broad policy question, but for purposes of moving forward, inclusion of the language made him more comfortable with supporting the motion. He thanked the young people involved in the effort. It was due to their hard work that the issue was before the Council that evening. Grass roots organizing did work, had an impact, and the positive vote that evening was a result of the hard work and effort. He supported the motion. Council Member Rosenbaum had serious concerns as to whether the Council should get involved. There were hundreds of countries in the world with problems, and he did not believe it was a fruitful
use of the Council=s time to get into those issues. MOTION TO TABLE: Council Member Rosenbaum moved to table the issue. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Wheeler struggled with the issue for a long time. She had always been in sympathy with the sentiments expressed and deplored what was going on in Burma. She admired the way everyone worked with the staff and Human Relations Commission (HRC) on the issue over the last two years and took into consideration the impact of going forward with such an action would have on the staff and how difficult it could be to carry the policy out. The added language from Council Member Fazzino made it possible for her to make up her mind. She supported the motion. Council Member McCown recalled a conversation with Zan Rubin 18 months prior asking him to look at how the proposed action with respect to Burma was similar or dissimilar to prior policy actions of the City of Palo Alto. It was important to see whether the Burma situation were similar to that, and follow up was
significant. In addition, the HRC=s letter to the Council dated September 24, 1997, outlined the points of the framework for how the City should try to decide what issues should or should not be acted on. Those were the types of considerations the Council needed to look to when presented with policy positions. She believed there was a distinction because there was an activity of the City of Palo Alto which was the purchasing policy that the Council was directly speaking to. It was not simply going on record with some outside controversy taking a position for or against some issue. The Council was acting in an area that had civic responsibility, which was the purchasing side of what the Council did. Given the precedent of prior policy action in the area, the framework given by the HRC which was reasonable and appropriate, and the resolution was being adopted in an area of municipal conduct. She believed it was an appropriate action and would support it.
10/20/97 85-72
Council Member Schneider said her opinion in the past was that it was not within the purview of local government to become involved in international affairs. The issue surfaced two years prior, and she took the position that it was not a decision for the Council to
make. However, the prior week she attended a workshop on ΑMorals
and Ethics in City Government≅ at the League of California Cities conference in San Francisco and was convinced that there were certain decisions that Council had the opportunity to make which did not surface often when decisions could be made that affected human rights. She was pleased to support the resolution. Council Member Eakins asked the City Manager and her staff to advise the Council as to the status of the situation if it were not working out as the Council hoped. City Manager June Fleming understood the spirit of the request to report back. She said it would be virtually impossible to know whether or not it was working to the spirit and intent, but responsibly staff could return with a factual report on what it took to implement the resolution. It was a policy matter and Council would have to interpret whether or not staff should continue. She would need direction from the Council to do that. Mr. Calonne asked Council for direction to staff to prepare implementation guidelines as necessary. He was particularly
concerned with the phrase ΑThose who do business in Burma≅ which was ambiguous and could be handled at the staff level. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION that staff be directed to report back on the effect on staff of implementing the Resolution and that staff prepare implementation guidelines as necessary to comply with the Resolution.
Resolution 7715 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Barring Purchases from Businesses in Burma
(Myanmar) and from Those Doing Business with Burma≅ Mayor Huber believed that the Council was not there to make decisions on that which involved foreign policy. He felt all of the Council Members could make an argument that there were many governments throughout the world that deserved the same sort of activity that was brought before the Council that evening. He personally supported the actions but did not believe it was something a local city government should be involved in because he had trouble sorting out one from the other, there were so many bad
ones. He appreciated everyone=s comments and supported each individual, but he could not support the resolution as an action of the Council. MOTION PASSED 6-2, Huber, Rosenbaum Αno,≅ Kniss absent.
10/20/97 85-73
17A. (Old Item No. 9) Confirmation of Council Priorities for Fiscal Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 Council Member Fazzino said the issue was discussed several weeks prior in Study Session, and there were some differences of opinion with respect to the selection of Council priorities for the next two years. One issue, which had direct relationship on the question of whether of not the Council might consider homelessness for 1998-99, was the issue of implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. There was much discussion about when that would be a priority for the City. He asked how the City Manager viewed implementation of a Comprehensive Plan to be an appropriate priority for the Council. City Manager June Fleming said it would be helpful if it were thought about in the context of fiscal years. The City was currently in the fiscal year 1997-98. Before the Council was the
continuing review of the Comprehensive Plan. It was staff=s goal near the end of the fiscal year, which would be into calendar year 1998, that the Council would have completed that review and the plan would be adopted. The next budget would be fiscal year 1998-99 which was currently being worked on. There would be little in the Fiscal Year 1998-99 Budget that related to the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The staff was beginning to work on the implementation plan which would have to be brought to Council with the finalization of the Comprehensive Plan. There was one overarching portion that related to the zoning ordinance changes that needed to occur which staff would have to start on early. Fiscal year 1999-2000 would probably be the budget in which the Council would see the full portion of it. Mr. Fazzino clarified there would be little on the implementation plan for 1998-99 but a significant portion in 1999-2000. Ms. Fleming said staff did not feel that the zoning ordinance portion was to be thought of as a small effort. That part would start in 1998-99, but the entire portion would not be seen until 1999-2000. Staff would be working on it over two budget years. Council Member Eakins received telephone calls from Litsie Indergand and Eve Agawich about shifting the priorities. It caused her to wonder what priorities meant. It seemed to her that priorities did not mean take care of or neglect, it was where the emphasis was and where the staff direction and time went where concentration of funds went into priorities. When something was a priority or not, that could sound like the idea was lost. She thought of it as services to the homeless and the needy in the community as ongoing priorities but maybe not priority with the calendar year attached each time. The issues were regional and required regional communication and efforts. She cared very much for a drop-in Downtown center and urged the Human Relations Commission (HRC) to continue its efforts to find a location and get
10/20/97 85-74
it going. She did not think it was necessary for it to be linked to a Council. Human Relations Commissioner Litsie Indergand, 336 Ely Place, said the HRC thought the issue would be an agenda item on October 27, 1997, therefore was not prepared with a statement. The HRC urged the Council to adopt the implementation of several outstanding recommendations from the Homelessness Task Force Report at the Special Meeting a couple of weeks prior. The HRC continued to make the request. There was no question as to the need. Her constituents continued to ask when the much discussed public toilets would be considered. Palo Alto did some wonderful things with regard to the homeless, but a lot more was needed. A city as caring, progressive, and affluent as Palo Alto should be able to find a way to have a warm, dry, indoor drop-in facility for citizens who were temporarily homeless. Surely, Palo Alto must
take the lead in finding a regional answer to the question, ΑWhere can I legally sleep tonight, perhaps in relative safety and
protected from the elements.≅ There was no answer to that question as yet. The Council was aware of the problem, and she hoped Council would assign the necessary priority to the answer. The Comprehensive Plan did not need to be a Council priority for the next two fiscal years, some of it would be implemented in the normal course of events and much of it would not be ready for implementation for one to two years in the future. She thought 1998-99 was the window of opportunity to deal with the problem of homelessness because it was a desperate human problem which would be exacerbated significantly by welfare reform starting in early 1998. The HRC urged the Council to consider finding a way to acknowledge the Homelessness Task Force and its recommendations by making the implementation of the remaining items a priority. That would show acknowledge the tremendous hard work the task force had done. She acknowledged Council Members Andersen and McCown for their outstanding records in their many years of community service and asked that they vote to implement the items as a Council priority. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to: 1) confirm the selection of the following three priorities for Fiscal Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000: Traffic Management and Safety; the Infrastructure Plan; and Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) approve the scope prepared for each priority; and 3) direct staff to incorporate these priorities into the development of the budget. Council Member Wheeler said the three priorities were extremely heavy areas for 1998-99. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to amend the main motion to provide that the priorities be revised as follows: 1) for fiscal year 1998-99 for the Traffic Management and Safety and Infrastructure Plan, for fiscal year 1999-2000 for
10/20/97 85-75
Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, and fiscal year 1998-99 for the homeless issue, including but not limited to, provision of shelters, regional efforts, a drop-in center, and involvement of the private sector; 2) approve the scope prepared for each priority; and 3) direct staff to incorporate these priorities into the development of the budget. Council Member Fazzino said implementation of the Comprehensive Plan would be a major issue for the Council in 1999-2000, and the Council would have some unique opportunities to address issues related to homelessness during 1998-99. Maybe both priorities could be accommodated to some degree because of the time tables associated with the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Schneider supported the amendment. Vice Mayor Andersen said he indicated support of the HRC recommendations but abstained from that meeting in part as a result of not being on the Council at that time, and it would not be appropriate for him to cast a vote for a future Council. He was then persuaded that his responsibility should continue until December 31, 1997. He was also persuaded that based on comments made at public forums, the Council candidates running for office would support the recommendation. He would cast his vote in favor of the amendment and encouraged his colleagues to do so as well. Ms. Fleming asked Council for clarity about the homelessness priority that was recommended. Previously, priorities had not carried mandates for particular programs, and she did not interpret the item to be a mandate to institute certain programs because that was not how decisions were made in the organization about policy issues. She was concerned that the Council be clear with regard to what was expected from staff in that area. Council Member Fazzino made comments at the previous meeting with respect to initiatives that he felt should be part of a broad priority item which had to do with shelter, regional efforts to address the broader issue of homelessness, consideration of the drop-in center, possible expansion of the City work program, and possible inclusion of the private sector. Council Member McCown felt it was up to the new Council Members who would be responsible and accountable in 1998-99 and 1999-2000 to determine what items should be on the list of priorities. Most of the programs mentioned by Commissioner Indergand were accomplished in years in which they were not priorities, i.e., the SRO project, the Alma Street project. They were very subtle distinctions and because of that it was appropriate for the Council Members that would be in place to implement and enact them. She supported the majority and opposed the amendment.
10/20/97 85-76
AMENDMENT FAILED 3-5, Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider Αyes,≅ Kniss absent. Mayor Huber believed the Council priorities needed to be reviewed. City Manager June Fleming said when staff started setting Council priorities, it was a way to focus efforts among staff and Council on programs Council was interested in. That was started in 1987, and the first time any revision was made was in 1993 when Council Member McCown was mayor. Currently, there were different processes in place. A Mission Driven Budget (MDB) allowed thorough budget guidelines to decide the areas to be focused on and staff would include those into the budget. Because things were being done differently, it might be time to revisit Council priorities through the Policy and Services Committee and determine whether there was sufficient meaning, whether the process should be revised and continue to do so, or include into what staff was trying to make an overarching, guiding document for the Council through the MDB in which the Comprehensive Plan would be incorporated. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Andersen Αno,≅ Kniss absent. 18. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member McCown referred to the letter from the Emergency Housing Consortium regarding a meeting on Tuesday, November 18, 1997, beginning at 7:30 a.m., at the Santa Clara County Office of Education. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
10/20/97 85-77
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
10/20/97 85-78