HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 245-06City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JUNE 5, 2006 CMR: 245:06
2300 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD/2450 WATSON COURT [05PLN-00305].
REQUEST BY PEERY/ARILLAGA FOR A VESTING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED OFFICE BUILDING. THIS MAP IS REQUIRED TO
COMBINE TWO LOTS INTO ONE LOT TOTALING APPROXIMATELY
5.6 ACRES.ENWIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENWIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PER SECTION 15315.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City
Council approve the proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, in order to merge an approximately
3.8 acre parcel with an approximately 1.8 acre parcel to form a 5.6 acre parcel at 2300 East
Bayshore Road / 2450 Watson Court for the purpose of constructing a previously approved
office building, based upon findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use
Action (Attachment A).
DISCUSSION
The project site is located on a 5.6 acre site at 2300 East Bayshore Road and 2450 Watson Court.
On July 25, 2005, the City Council approved the Site and Design Review application for the
77,956 square foot building to be constructed on the site. This approval included a condition that
the two lots comprising the site be merged prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The proposed lot merger is in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance in
regard to Tentative Map requirements (PAMC 21.12) and design (PAMC 21.20). Because the
sites to be merged would exceed five acres, the map requires City Council approval (PANIC
21.08.020).
The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the design of the
building to be located on the lot, which has already been reviewed and approved by the City
Council.
CMR: 245:05 Page 1 of 2
The Vesting Tentative Parcel Map includes information on the existing parcels and onsite
conditions including the future office building, vehicle parking spaces, and site drainage. The
map would abandon a 65 foot Public Utility Easement remaining on the site from the time period
when Embarcadero Road traversed the site before it was relocated to its current position, and
would provide a public access easement for bicycle/pedestrian use. This map contains all
information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Parcel Map (per PAMC Sections
21.12), as well as conforming to the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets,
walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). The map also conforms to the approved site
plan.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On May 10, 2006, this project was heard by the Planning and Transportation Commission
(Commission), who recommended (6-0-0-1) that the City Council approve the Vesting Tentative
Parcel Map to merge the two lots into one. Commissioners discussed the proposed five foot
punic access easement that would connect the existing bicycle/pedestrian path adjacent to the
southern portion of the site to Watson Court and the abandonment of the 65’ PuNic Utility
Easement. The Commission minutes are attached to this report (Attachment C).
PREPARED BY:
Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Director of Planning and Community Environment
.~._ ~. I [ ~
A_..,. ’ .~
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
A.Draft Record of Land Use Action
B.Planning & Transportation Commission Report dated May 10, 2006 (without
attachments)
C. Draft Planning & Transportation Commission excerpt verbatim minutes, May 10, 2006.
D. Tentative Map (Council packet only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Dick Peery
Hoover Associates
JMH Weiss, Inc.
Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
ACTION NO. 2006-03
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 2300 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD/2450 WATSON COURT
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
05PLN-00305 (RICHARD PEERY/JOBI~ARRILLAGA, APPLICANT)
SECTION I. Background. The City Counci! of the City of
Paio Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Richard Peery and John Arrillaga have requested the
City’s approva! of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to merge two
!ors, each approximately 3.8 acres and 1.8 acres respectively, into
one approximately 5.6 acre lot, for the purpose of the construction
of a previously approved new office building.
B. The approximately 5.6 acre parcel is located near the
intersection of East Bayshore Road and Embarcadero Road. Approved
for construction on the site is a 77,956 square foot office
buiidihg that received City Council approva! on July 25, 2005. This
approval included a condition that the two lots comprising the site
be merged prior to the issuance of building permit.
C. The Vesting Tentative Parcel Map includes information on
the existing parcels and future onsite conditions including the
footprint of the future office building, vehicle parking spaces,
and site drainage. The map would abandon a 65 foot Public Utility
Easement remaining on the site from when Embarcadero Road traversed
the site prior to it being relocated to its current position. The
proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map would also dedicate a five
foot public access easement to enable the City to develop a
bicycle/pedestrian path from the Highway i0! bicycle/pedestrian
overpass to Watson Court. These drawings are in compliance with the
applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. These
plans contain all information and notations required on a Tentative
Map (per PAMC Section 21.12.040).
D. Following Staff review the Planning and Transportation
Commission (Commission) reviewed the Project and recommended
approva! on May i0, 2006. The Commission’s recommendations are
contained in CMR:245:06 and the attachments to it.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency
for the Project has determined that it is categorically exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15315.
SECTION 3. Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a
city shall deny approval of a Tentative Map, if it makes any of the
following findings (California Government Code Section 66474):
Page 1
!. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451:
The site does not lie within a specific plan area and
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans:
The site does not lie within a specific plan area and
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type
of development :
The site will be improved with a new office building
and related site improvements pursuant to City Council approval on
July 25, 2005. Physical changes on the site would include the
removal of the existing landscaping and vacant buildings. Site
improvements to accommodate a new office building and landscaping
would be subject to first acquiring a building and grading permit.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed density of development : ’~
The site is currently developed with a vacant
restaurant and abandoned office buildings. All existing buildings
will be removed to allow the construction of the approved 77,956
square foot office building. The Council reviewed the new office
building and project site as wel! as all potential environmenta!
impacts and determined that the site is appropriate for the new
development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habi tat :
An Environmental Assessment was prepared for the
application to construct the new office building and it was
determined that no physical changes are being made to the site that
would cause environmental impacts.
6. That the design of the subdi vi si on or type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:
No physical changes are being made to the site that
would cause serious public health problems.
Page 2
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public
at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may
approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or
for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This
subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements
established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that
the public at large has acquired easements for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
The vesting tentative parce! map will not conflict with
pre-existing easements.
SECTION 4.Tentative Map Approva! Granted. Tentative
Map approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto
Municipal Code ("PAMC") Sections 21.12.090 and the California
Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of
approval in Section 6 of this Record.
SECTION 5.Fina! Map Approval.
The Final Map submitted for review and approva! by the City
Council of the City of Palo Alto shall be in substantial
conformance with the Vesting Tentative Parce! Map prepared by JMH
Weiss consisting of I page, received March 28, 2006, except as
modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6.
A copy of this map is on file in the Department of Planning
and Community Environment, Current Planning Division.
Within two years of the approval date of the Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or
any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in
Chapter 21.08.010, to be prepared in conformance with the Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance
with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section
21.16.210 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section
21.16.010[a]) .
SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map, al! requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance
(PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
shall be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works
Engineering Division within two years of the Vesting Tentative
Parce! Map approval date (PAMC 21.13.020[c]).
Page 3
SECTION 7.Term of Approval.
Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Vesting
Tentative Parce! Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a
Final Map (PAMC Section 21.!6.010[c]) .
Unless a Final Map is filed, and al! conditions of approval are
fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map approval, or such extension as may be granted,
the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map shall expire and al! proceedings
shall terminate. Thereafter, no Final Map shal! be filed without
first processing a Tentative Map (PAMC Section 21.16.0!0[d]
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
..... ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Deputy City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map prepared by JMH Weiss consisting on
one page, received March 28, 2006.
Page 4
Attachment B
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMIS SION
FROM:Christopher Riordan
Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community
Environment
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
May 10, 2006
2300 East Bayshore Road/2450 Watson Court [05PLN-003051:
Request by Peery/Arillaga for a Tentative Parcel Map for the
construction of a new office building. This map is required to
combine two lots into one lot totaling approximately 5.6 acres.
Environmental Assessment: Categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15315.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrequests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend
that the City Council approve the proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, in order to merge
an approximately 3.8 acre parcel with an approximately 1.8 acre parcel to form a 5.6 acre
parcel for the purpose of constructing a previously approved office building, based upon
findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION:
The 77,956 office building to be constructed on the site received City Council approval on
July 25, 2005. This approval included a condition that the two lots comprising the site be
merged prior to the issuance of a building permit. The only action required of the Planning
and Transportation Commission is a recommendation on the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map.
The Vesting Tentative Parcel Map complies with the requirements set forth in Chapter 21
(Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC).
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
both with respect to the Research!Office Park land use category and adherence to the
City of Palo Alto Page 1
following policies of the Land Use and Communty Design and Natural Environment
Elements:
Policy L-l: The Comprehensive Plan indicates, "to continue current City policy lbniting
future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area." The
existing parcels are located within the urban growth boundary and their merger is consistent
with this policy by continuing the reuse of land within this area.
Policy L-46: The Comprehensive Plan states, "maintain the East Bayshore ..... areas as
diverse business and light industrial districts. "’ The project site lies within the Bayshore
Corridor Employment District. The proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map would allow the
approved project to revitalize the under utilized site which currently contains vacant
buildings with minimal landscaping and site amenities.
Policy L-60: The Comprehensive Plan indicates, "protect Palo Alto’s archaeological
resources." The site is located in an area of Moderate Sensitivity. The proposed lot merger
would not involve any disruption to the existing uses and facilities on site. However, the
approval for the new office building on the site does include a condition addressing the
correct procedures to follow if archaeological resources are discovered during construction.
Policy T-14: The Comprehensive Plan states, "Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and
between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space,
employment districts, shopping centers and multi-modal transit stations. " The proposed
Tentative Parcel Map would dedicate a five foot public access easement to enable the City to
develop a bicycle/pedestrian path from the Highway 101 bicycle/pedestrian overpass to
Watson Court.
Subdivision Ordinance Compliance
The proposed lot merger is in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance,
in regard to Tentative Map requirements (PAMC 21.12) and design (PAMC 21.20).
However, because the sites to be merged would exceed five acres, the map cannot be
processed administratively through the Director of Planning and Community Environment
and requires review by the Commission and City Council (PAMC 21.08.020).
The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the
design of the building to be located on the lot, which has already been reviewed and
approved by the City Council.
The Tentative Map plan set includes information on the existing parcels and onsite
conditions including the future office building, vehicle parking spaces, and site drainage. The
map would abandon a 65 foot Public Utility Easement remaining on the site from the time
City of Palo Alto Page 2
period when Embarcadero Road traversed the site before it was relocated to its current
position. These drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Ci~,’s
Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations required to be
shown on a Tentative Parcel Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12), as well as conform to the
design requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar features
(PAMC 21.20). The plan set also conforms to the approved site plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Minor land divisions conforming to all zoning regulations are exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review per Section 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines.
CEQA requires review of projects, not simply individual permits or approvals. As
conditioned, the proposed Tentative Parcel Map conforms to local zoning r%o~lations and
will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, finding the Tentative Parcel
map categorically exempt from CEQA is appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Record of Land Use Action
B.Tentative Map Plan Set (Commission Members Only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Dick Peery
Hoover Associates
JMH Weiss, Inc.
Prepared by: Christopher A. Riordan, AICP, Senior Planner~o~~
Reviewed by: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Plannin~
Department/Division Head Approval:
Steve Emslie, Director of Planning and
Community Environment
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ATTACHMENT C
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
May 10, 2006
DRA FT EXCERPT
2300 East Bayshore/2450 Watson Court* (05PLN-00305): Planning and Transportation
Commission review and recommendation to City Council of a Request by Richard Peer5, for a
vesting tentative parcel map to merge two lots into one 5.6-acre parcel.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Chris Riordan, Senior Planner: Yes, good evening. The approximately 78,000 square foot
building to be constructed on the site received City Council approval on July 25, 2005. This
approval included a condition that the two lots that comprised the site be merged prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The only action required of the Planning and Transportation
Commission this evening is a recommendation on the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. The
proposed map is in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. Because the
sites to be merged would exceed five acres the map cannot be process administratively through
the Director of Planning and Community Environment and requires review by the Commission
and City Council. So Staff requests that the Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map based upon the findings and conditions
contained with the Record of Land Use Action. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Would the Commission like to ask any questions of Chris or other
members of Staff before hearing from the public? Okay. So I think at this time we will hear
from the public if we have any speaker cards on this item. We don’t so we are back to questions
from the Commission to the Staff. Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: I had three actually just for clarity, perhaps just two actually. The proposed
public easement could Staff point out how that relates to the existing pedestrian-bicycle overpass
and how it links to that? That would be great. Thank you.
Mr. Riordan: The bicycle path comes from off the highway offramp, goes along the southern
portion of the site, curves up along the site and intersects with the East Bayshore Road. The
easement will be a cutoff that will bring bicyclists and pedestrians from that existing bike path
through this five-foot public access easement directly to Watson Court.
Vice-Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Then I had one other question which is the
easement that is being relinquished, just so we can be clear, typical process when there are
easements that run across a property that is a utility easement like this who has ownership, what
is the relinquishing of that entail? Who owns the property? Is there a purchase required? Is it
just someone relinquishes the property?
City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Riordan: The easement to be relinquished is a right-of-way easement that was the old
position of Embarcadero Road. When Embarcadero Road was realigned the right-of-way stayed.
So the City had been wanting to fix this issue here and this was a good time to do it when this
map was finaled.
Vice-Chair Holman: So the ownership of the property has always been in whose hands?
Mr. Riordan: The ownership would still be with the owner.
Vice-Chair Holman: As it was previously.
Mr. Riordan: Yes. It was a right-of-way easement over the property for the benefit of the City
owned by the property owner.
Vice-Chair Holman: Tat is very good clarity. Thank you, Chris.
Mr. Riordan: You are welcome.
Chair Burr: Yes.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a follow up question from when we had originally seen this item.
We had seen this as a discretionary review originally and the ARB had seen it and we had made
some comments to the ARB and I just want to follow up with some of our comments.
With regard to story poles for the building that was there.
Mr. Don Larkin. Senior Depu _ty City Attorney: Just to caution, we are limited to discussing the
map at tonight’s meeting and basically the lines on the map.
Commissioner Lippert: I understand that.
Mr. Larkin: So lines going up might be a little bit off topic.
Commissioner Lippert: But we had specifically asked for story poles and that the ARB look at
that.
Mr. Larkin: If it is a question about whether something was done that was required as a
condition prior at the end of the meeting you can bring that up as referral and it will go to the
appropriate channels to look into whether the conditions were met.
Commissioner Lippert: That’s fine. That is agreeable.
Chair Burt: Dan.
Commissioner Garber: Just a question of order. Normally, the other maps that we have seen
usually have the proposed projects outlined on them as opposed to the existing. Is there a reason
why it is presented this way?
City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 2 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Larkin: Because this is a subdivision map it reflects the changes from the current conditions
so it wouldn’t reflect the future conditions. That was done as part of the Site and Design
Review. This is only dealing with property borders, improvements and easements that are being
granted.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: Just to follow up on that and to give the Commissioners some credibility
here it is true that we often times see what is proposed as well as what existing conditions are.
So I think the Commissioner is accurate that often times we are provided with the other as well.
Mr. Larkin: Typically, we would be doing this closer in time with the Site and Design Review
part of the project but because this is coming, it has been almost a year since this was at the
Planning Commission, so what we are looking at now is something that would typically be done
on a Staff level just to make sure that it conforms with the Subdivision Map Act. The reason that
it is here and it is somewhat unusual is because of the size of the project. This is the first time
not only that I ever heard of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map it is the first time that anybody in
our office has ever seen one. It is an extremely unusual situation. So this is different from most
of the subdivision maps that we would see.
Chair Burt: Paula.
Commissioner Sandas: I am just wondering if there is any legal ramification of our not making
the recommendation that the Council approve the proposed vesting map.
Mr. Larkin: The problem is that you need to make the findings that you have already, not you
because you weren’t on the Commission at the time, but as a Commission have already made the
findings that this project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and has met all the Site and
Design Review criteria. So to make the findings that would allow you to deny the map tonight
would be to say that what was approved before was a mistake. So yes, there would be legal
ramifications would be the short answer.
Chair Burt: So this is really largely a procedural matter. Phyllis.
MOTION
Commissioner Cassel: I am going to move the Staff Report.
SECOND
Commissioner Sandas: Second.
Chair Burt: Any discussion? Would the maker of the motion like to speak to it?
Commissioner Cassel: No. This is a fairly routine matter. I read the findings and they match
my understanding of the circumstances and I can make the findings.
City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 3 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Sandas: Same thing.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Bialson absent).
Chair Burr: Any other comments from Commissioners? All right. Those in favor say aye.
(ayes) Opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you very much and we will be moving on to
item number two.
City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 4 of 4