HomeMy WebLinkAbout0491.093I .
! ~'.~.".
" '.,
:-.-.
Ocr.obee 21, 1993
nONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
/
1050 ARAS'l'R...'\DEfW ROAD -COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT,
g}'..A_A..."W_ DESIGN REVIEW, VA..~IANCES AA"D DEVE:"OPM_~N"""T .bJ:;KEEMENT
Members of the Council:
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report forwards to Council a recommendation of the Planning
Commission and Architectural Review Board (ARB) fer apprcyal of
an application by Keenan-Lovewell Ventures to de~ ... elop property at
1050 Ara.stradero Road into a research and development use. The
application is for ~) a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to
change the land use designation from Multiple-Family Residential
to Research/Office Park, 2} a Site and Design Review of two
proposed research and develcpmeut buildings and relat.ed site
improvements, 3) variances to exceed the all·:)wable 35-foot height
by 5 feet and a side yard setback of 20 feet where 40 feet is the
minimum required. and 4) a Development Agreement between the City
and Stanford University extending the time period for development
of the project and modifying the proposed housing mitigation,
which includes purchase by the City of property at 753 Alma
Street as a potential site for construction of housing.
PROJE~ GESCRIPTIQN
The project is the development of a now vacant 5.9-acre site at
105D Arastradero "Road into two research and development
bUildings, totaling 75,890 grass B~~are feet. Altr.ough the site
is z.oned LM-5 (D) (Limited Indu9trial/Res~arch Park). approval of
the proj eet requires a comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change
the land use designation f.I"om Multiple-Fami ly Res ident ial to
Research/Office Parle This change in the land U8e designation
results in the potential loss of approximately 88 units of
housing. Project plans are not included in packets, but may be
reviewed at the planning Department.
CMR:491:93
,.
,June 12, 1992;
August 26, 1992:
September 17, 1992:
November 23, 1992:
March 15, 1993:
Ap~lication received
Planni:;.q COl.':r:cissicn on a 5-0 vote (Giazier
and Marsh absent) r£commends appr':)Val of the
Project wi th cond::.tions. The Plar~ning
COI'!'.missic·n staff report dd,:ed August. 21, 1992
(attached without attachments), prov-ides a
detailed description of the pr·oject, the
initial housing mitigation proposal, the
variance'3, the visual impacts of the project,
the project drainage and the transportation!
circulation issues. Excerpt minutes of the
Co~ission meeting are atta~hed.
~~B on a 4-0 vote (Maser absent) recommends
approval of the project with conditions. The
attached Informatic,n Memorandum fo~ the ARB,
dated September 17, 1992, provides additional
design and landscaping information. Excerpt
minutes af the ARE meeting are attached. .
City Ccuncil expresses general support for
the Site and Design applicaticn and
variances, but on an a-o vote (Cobb ~ot
participating) refers the application back to
staff and the applicant [or the purpose of
developing an alt~rnative mitigation proposal
that relates directly to the loss of a
potential 88 units of housing that results
from the Comprehensive Plan Land Use change.
CMR:460:92; dated October 15, 1992 iattached
without attachments), provides inforIDution on
the history of the Cornprehensive Plan Land
Use designation for the site, the
appropriateness of housing for the 1050
Arastradero Road site, the availability of
alternative housi.!".g sites and the revenue
impact analysis of the proposal. Excerpt
minlltes of the November 23, 1992 Council
meeting are attached.
City Council on a 7-0 vote (Cobb not
participating, Kniss absent) refers the
conditions of a proposed Development
A9reem~nt to staff and the applicant for
document preparacion and review by the
Planning Commission before returning to
Council. The Development Agreement is to
include an additional housing mitigation fee
10/7/93
Page 2
August 25, ]993:
ISSUES
of $407,000, a ten-year project entitlement.
and city acquisit.:'on of a -,,:acant sit:e at:
753 l~lma Street lI;ith the inte!1t of developing
the site for 10\11-:..nd m,':Jde!:"a~e-ir..come
housing. CMR 203:93. da.ted March 11, 1993
(attached withoui: attachments), pro'"~id~s a
descript~orr and staff analysis of the
proposed Deyelc.pment AgI'eement. Minutes of
the March 15~ 1993 City Council ~eeting are
attacr-.. ed.
Planning Commission on a 4 to 1 vote (Beecham
opposed. Glazier abstaining, Scr:.irJ<: absent}
reaffirmed their recommendation for approval
,)f the Comp:-ehensive Plan Land Use change,
the Site and Design application and the
variances, and recommended approval cf the
Development Agreement. Commissioner Beecham
was not opposed to the lose Arastradero Read
praject~ but opposed the motion because he
felt that commitment tQ purchase the 753 Alma
Street site prior to obtaining approval of ·a
housing proj ect ",,·as not appropriate. The
Planning Commission s~aff report, dated
August 20. 1993, {attached without
attachments). prov~des a detailed desc~iption
of the two proposals for mitigation of the
potential loss of housing, including a
comparison of the econowic value of the
proposals, the key points in the Development
Agreement and issues related to City
acquisition of the vacant site at 753 A11T!a
St:reet.
Deve10pment Agree~ent
Attached is a revised copy of the draft Development Agreement
between the City and stanford University, o\ll'l1ec i~f the p::-operty.
The main point~ _of the Development Agreement are as follows:
• The sale by Charles J. Keenan III and Mark T. Gates~ Jr. of
property at 753 Alma Street for possible development as lo~
and moderate-income housing. Purchase of the property is
subject to the provisions of the Purchase Agreement .
• Development of the site at 1050 Arastradero Road in
conformance with the development plans previously appro·Jed
by the ARB and the Pl3ru~ing Co~mission<
CMR.:491:93 10/7/93
Page 3
• Payment of the requirr:d H:J1Jsing r'!itigaticr'. Fee ~cur.rer.t fee
$3.34 per square foot for a cotal of $253,4721, cr:e-half a.t
building permit issuance and one-ha1f at occ~panc)'. i~
accordance with Chapter 16.41 of the PalQ Alto M~nicipal
Code (FAMC).
• Payment of the required Transportation ::::r.pact Fee ::curr~n~
fee $2.62 per square fOC't fo!' total 0: $198,831.80) at t.1_me
of building pendt issuance, in aoccc:-da.!'.ce with Cha.;,ter
16.46 of the PAMC.
• Payment of an additional fee of $407,001] as mitigation for
the loss of potential housir.g due to the Compr~hensive Plan
Map Amendment. This fee shall tee adjusted sr.artiT1_9' en th~
fifth anniversary of the effective date of the Development
Agreement. From that date forward. the fee shall ve
adjusted annu<3.11y by one-half (~) the percentage increase in
the Consumers Frice !ndex, all consumers, for the San
Francisco--Oaklafld-San Jose Area (cpr). The additional fee
shall be due upon the first {lst) anniversary of tt'.e date of
issuance of the building permit.
• ~.n extraordinary processing fee in all amount not to exceed
$15,000. This fee does not replace usual and customary
application, processing and permit fees of the type now in
effect, such as b~ilding permits, utility hook-up fees. etC.
'rhis fee is added to offset the extra staff time required to
monitor and implemer.t a developmer,t agreement over a ten
year term.
• The term of the agreement is for ten years from the
effective date.
]53 Alma Street~
At the March 15. 1993 City Council meeting, the 9ite at 753 Alma
Street was put forward 3S a possible location fer housing in
conjunction ...... ith the 1050 Arastradero P.cad project. As a r'?sult,
the City'S purchase of the prcperty at 753 Alma Street, for the
purpos~ of developing low-and moderate-income housing or other
uses, is included as a condition to the effectiveness of the
Development Agreement. As discussed belo ...... seve:ral issues have
been raised ralated to this property. Additional information on
purchase, reuse and development of the 753 Alma StL-eet site is in
the Planning Commission report of August 20, 1993.
• On June 23, 1~93, a neighborhood meeting was held by the
Palo Alto Housing corporation (PAHC} to discuss the proposed
use of the 753 Alma site. A summary of the comments from
that meeting is attached, as well as copies of letters from
property owners and business operators in the area ~ho
oppose the use of the 753 Alma Street site for housing. The
primary issues of concern to che business owners and
operators are the lack of available parking, the parking
CMk:491:93 10/7/93
Page 4.
/
-"--"-
demand a housing pr~Ject would add, the inco~patibility of a
residencial us€' · .... ith the ex.ist.ing service cQmr.-.ercial u.ses, a
fear that app:roval of ":lousing on the site ... ::;.11 event::..:;.ally
me3r~ a loss of the entire area fo!" se:rvice ccrr.~.~rcial uses,
concern that approval of the lesO Ar3Stradero Road project
and p"i.l.rchase of the 753 Alma Street site crea.tes a "fait
acco:t\plP in .... hi~h 1',ousing is alx~ady approved, and
perception :hat the pr'Jpo$al is a bad deal for the C~ty.
These issues and conr:":er-ns were also raised du!"ing t.he publi:::
hea:dng and discussed by the plan!"ling Comr.',isslon at the
A'.lg'..lSt. 25, 1993 Plar-.ning Commiss.lQr,. meeting.
• The purchase price was negotiated at $650,000. )l.n appraisal
pertorm~d by the Hanford/Healy Company for the City of Palo
Alto concluded that th~ parcel's high.est a.nd best '.l.se i.s as
comm.ercial [CD -S (P)]. Banford/Healy -;:;o:v;luded that the
commercial land value for the property was $750, ':100. As a
residential (RM-30) property, the es~imated range of value
was between $29.70 per square toot (.$523,908) and $38.25 'ger
square foot ($574,9061. Ha.nford/Heal)" based thei.r opinior.
of value on the assumption thac there was no hazardous
material on or in the property that wot.Jld cause a loss in
value.
• A Level II soil and groundwater analysis completed by Lowney
Associates revealed two areas of concern. A copy of the
cover letter from Lowney Associates report is attached.
The first area is an area inside the cinder b!ock garage. A
soil sampling near one of two existing hydraulic lifts
revealed a high level of petroleum oil. Because there
appears to be leakage-related contamination r Lowney
recommended that the two hydra~lic lifts and a sumo inside
the building be removed. along with any impacted soil,
before the property is tTansferred to the City.
Soil samples collected from two lo"ations in the front
par-king lot at the site apPl.·oximately three feet belcW'
ground surface detected high levels of oil, 9=ease and
diesel.. Lowno::y suggested t.his area be further investigated
to determine the extent of contamination.
Because of the soil con".:aminatio!t issues, the drait purchase
agreement for the 753 Alma Street prope:z:-ty (copy attached,
Item 9) includes a provision that the seller 'Will deliver
the property to the City clean ot all soil contami~ation.
• At the March 15, 1993 City Council meeting, the Council
included direction to staff to pursue the possibil~ty of an
option to purchase instead of outright purchase. An option
to purchase could make purchase contingent on final approval
by the City of a housing project. The propercy owner,
however, has stated Lhat he is not willing to pursue a~
option to purchase.
CMR:491:93 10(7(93
Page S
",,"
1.-'; .
c:;[ "..,.;:.-." "
"'-;"' . ./
• 'riming of pu.rchase .
• At the August 25, 1993 Plamung CQm:-r.issiO:"l rr,eeti!1g, Of
variety 0: comments regarding City policy for the Alma
Corrido~, and specifically poljcy regarding reten~ion Qf
aut.o servi-:-e uses, were presented to the Commis .. ;io:l.
Attached are the March 12, 1991 staff repo~t (CMR:421:911
ar.d the Septe:r.ber 23, 1991 ('5 ty C:>un.:-i 1 minutes, ...... hich
present the most recer.t Coun<:il discusaion and acticl!s or:.
'Che Sout".h of Forest Area [SOrA).
In 1990, the City Council initiaced -3. .study of la:ld ue>?
issues in the South of Fo=-est Area (SO':A)" SOFA, for th~~
purposes of the 1990-91 study, ..... as defined as the area
bounded by Forest, Ramona, Addison and _~lma, plus several
comrnercial properties alor~g Alma south of Addison
Following a Septert'l.ber 13, 1990 City Coun::il-Planning
Commission study session focu.s::ed on ider..tifying SOFJ>..
planning issueE, the Planning COlmr.issian establ ished
priorities Dn SOFA issues and identified strategies to
add~ess thes~ issues.
The future role of auto service businesses in SOFA was an
important c·onsideration during the Planning Commission and
City Council discussions. As noted in the Septe~~er 12,
1991 staff report transmitting Planning Commission
recommendations and the September 23, 1991 City Council
minutes. there is an underlying conflict betW'e~n the desire
to visually upgrade properties in SOFA, ir_::-luding along Alr.l3
Streetr and the desire to retain the auto service uses.
After discussions, some of which centered on actio~s to
retain the auto service uses r the City Council expressF~ a
desire to look at more extensive ways to ret:.ain auto ser.rj ce
uses in the SOFA area and adopted the recommendations of the
Plan~ing Commission to ~Allow auto service businesses to
remain indefinitely" anCi "Consider higher-density mixed use
office/residentia.l use incentives alorlg the Alma corridor."
Fur~her considerations were to be included in the SO~A
charette and the Comprehensive Plan update.
As noted on page 4 of the September 12, 1991 staff report.
staff supported the strategy of having mixed use incentivc5
along the Al.:la corridor. ~S0me auto service businesses in
the SOFA area could and should be allowed to remain.
However, the Alma corridor, as a major arterial, and given
its proximity to public transit, is ac appropriate location
for highe=-density hou~ing combined ~ith some amount of
ground floor commercial." Staff believes that the u",e of
753 Alma Street for residential use is consistent. with the
SOFA strategies recommended by the Planning Commission and
endorsed by the City Council.
.. --~-'--.-
10/7/93
Page 6:
•
I
!
I
·"....,>.
ANALYSIS
As stat.ed in previous report~, staff does not believe that the
1050 Arastradero Road site is app!:opriate for hou"Sing and t.hat
the proposed project by' the app1 icar:t is we:l designed and
suitable for the site, ?::l'ther, staff suppo:r-ts ~:r,e acq'J.isition
or the property at 753 Alma Str~et ~ith the intended purpcse of
developing ~t as housing. PAEC nas indicated that the 753 Alma
site is suitable for SRO t'r'Pe housing and that the constraint.s
resulting from e.he clc,se proximit.y of the auto service uses COin
be ror;solved.
Since there are very few vacant sites in Palo Alto for hO;J.sing it
is ·.mlikely that any SRO he,using proposal is going to proceed
without some opposition. Staff believes th<1t the opportt:.nit.y to
constr"...lct housing on the sir;.e should be allo· ... ed to proceed
through the normal city process. If housing is not approved,
further investigation should be done on possible re-use of the
site allowing fer land swaps or long-term lease/sale that ..... ould
benefit the :loUSl.ng mitigation fund.
The granting of a Development Agreement requi res findings of
extraordinary benefit. Staff be1ieves that the development of
the research and development project at 1050 Arastradero Road
does provide extraordinary benefits by ,3.11owing for an additiona.l
~itigation fee and the possibility of the const~ction of much
needed 10w-and moderate-income hC1using. The Project will also
have a positive impact on the Research Park and the ability of
the City to provide appropriate research and development
facilities.
It should be noted that I"mder either development proposal t.he
Comprehensive Plan land use designation of the site will be
chang~d to Office/Research Park, even if ~he Project is not
developed and no fees collected. Should this occur, the Council
has the opt.icn tc redesignate the land as residential.
FINDINGS AN'D CONDITIONS
Findings for Developm~greemenL
The development of the project at 1050 h'astradero Road provides
extraordinary benefits co the City by allowing for an additional
housing mitigation fee in excess of that normally required, by
paying an extraordinary processing fee. by facilitating the
construction of much needed low-and modeL-ate-income housing. and
oy its positive impact on the Stanford Research Park and the
CiLY' s ability to provide appropriate research and de'/eloprnent
facilities.
10/7/93
Page 7
•
.. ~
/" ...
1. The redesignation for the property a~ 1050 AraSLradero Road
is in :::lccoI-dance ..... i t.h the purpos~s of th~ Comp!"ehensi ve
Plan, in that the site and adj dcem:. us~s are research and
development in nature a~d the designation will allow similar
use.
2. The Comprehensive Plan Land USe designatio~ and proposed
development will not. result in significant environ~ental
impacts. as documented in the attached Initial Study and
Amended Mitigated Negative Declara:.ion ,: 92 -E LA-19) prepared
in accordance • ... ith the C.3.lifcrnia Environrr,ental Quality JI..ct
iCEQA) .
3. Tbe proposed map amendment to tl-.e Comprehen::;ive Plan is
consistent. with P,olicy 13 of the Housing Element, which
states that the Cit.y should increas:e funding sources used to
provide affordable housing. The developer of this prcje,.:;t
will contribut.e funds from this commercial development.
towards affordable housing.
4. The proposed map ame:tdm.;nt to the Comprehensive Plan is
consistent with the definition of Research/Office Park to
provide office, research .. and manufacturing establJ.shments
whose operations are clean and quiet and do not conflict
with any adjacent residential uses.
Findings for Height and Side Yard Setback V~iances
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary cix-cumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved that do not
apply generally to property in the same district, in that
the property slopes i5 feet from the front to the rear and
thE buildings are sited to minimize the amount of visual
impact, site grading and excavation and to provide the
necessary parking. circulation and site imprvvements.
2. The granting of the application is necessary for the
prese~ation and enjoyment of a substantial property riaht
of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss
or unnece8sary hardshIp, as the applicant could not provide
the required amount of the parking and site improvements for
the two buildings and design the facility consistent with
standard hillside developmep..t guidf!l ines, · ... r.ich encourage
reduction of fill and siting facilities parallel with the
natural condition. Research and development facilities
require building footprints that are predominately flat.
Lowering the buildings further into the earth ..... ould increase
the amount of hillside cut and increase the heights of the
retaining ..... alls.
10/7/93
Page 8
.. /
3. The granting of the ap91ication will not be detrimental or
ir.jurious to property ::.r improvement.s in the vicir'.ity an-:i
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare, or cor::-Jenienc:e in that the var.iar:.::e fer
height occurS only for the towers ;,;hich are no r.igher than
the building they adjoin. T:::'e tuwez-s are situated on
several teet of fill in order th~t they be level wi~h ~he
parking areas from ""'hieh people will enter the facility_
The variance setback request of 20 feet from the propert:t"
line for B~ilding 1 and Building 2 is only for ~he building
corners. Where these setb3cks occur, the buildings are o~e
story. The average setback for each of these buildings is
40 feet and 44 feet respectively. The corners protr-ude into
the setback area because the buildings are placed "or:.
contour" rather than pa.!"allel .... ith the pr·::Jperty lines.
Developing parallel with the contour lS preferable in
hillside development for reduc.!.n? vis'..la:i. impacts and
gra.ding.
Finding~_ .for Site ar:d Design
1. The proposed design will be orderly, h~rrr~nious, and
compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining
property. in that the proposed use and improvements will be
similar to other uses in the area and the project has beer.
designed to minifT'.ize visual impacts on adjoining property.
2. The project will maintain desirability of imrestment in the
same or adjacent ~rea6, in that the requ2red en-site
improvements and landscaping and construction standards
governed by the current Unifo~ Building Code (UBC) or other
current codes will assure a high quality of development.
3. The proposed design will oz,serve sound principles of
environmental design and ecological balance, in that the
seleGted location of the new structures and impyovements
limit disruption of the site, and measures incorl.)orated in';G
the project design ..... ill help minimize erosi'=,n and offset
'risual impacts.
4. The Comp~ehensive Plan Map Amendment proposed to be approved
as part ot "this application will bring the proposed use in
conformance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed research and development facility and related site
improvements are consistent with the recomrr.ended
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment.
Recommended CongitiQns for Site and Design and Val-iance Approvals
1. The project shall be subject to the provisions of the
att'ached Development Agreement to be exec:uted by Stanford
University and the City Ma~ager. City purchase of the
property at 753 Alma Street shall be in accordance with the
attached purchase agreement.
CMR:491:93 10/7/93
Page 9
."
---
2. The revised site plar. submitted bi' the app~icant, whic:,
shows the full dri ve:,<.tay, incl-.lding th.:., exit pert ion on the
neighboring property, shall be subject :'0 .ceview and
approval by the Pl;:;;nnir.g and Transportatiol'! Divisio:l.s prior
to issuance of building permit.
3. A revised circu]atio~ ~lan shall be submitted ill~stratlng
all the details of access to this driveway under
consideration to meet the satisfaction of the Transpor:aticn
Division, prior to issuance of a c.Jilding pe::-mit. The pla.:--~
shall include circ~lation on the subject site and adjoining
properties. parking layo~t, striping and signage.
4. A detailed grading, drainage, and erosion repair plan
prepared by a .r-egistered c i vi 1 engineer sha] 1 be sub\!1.i t ced
to the Planning Divisi'.:m a:1d Puc::'ic Works Department [or
review and appro .... Tal prio::-to issu.ance of a bu.ilding permit.
Construction details and calculations for all drai~age
facilities shall b€ subm.l.tted ...... it~ the detailed drainage
plans. The prcject is 6~bject teo state mandat.es for Best
Management Practices for non-point source pollution.
5. All grading and development or. the site shall conform with
all aspects of the project soil and geotechnical report
recommendations. The project geotechnical engineer will be
requir~d to certify that the gradi~g and cons~ructic~ were
done in accordance with their recommendations, prior to
finalization of the building permit.
6+ Prior to issuance of a building permit, a detailed landscape
plan and irrigation plan (naIf-sized drawings) shall be
requi:ced to be revie-,oIed and a9proved by the Stanfcrd
University Planning Office~ Stanford Management Company, and
the ARB. The final plan shall include the common and
botanical names of all species used, and the number, size,
type, location and spacing of all plant materials.
7. The following tree protection measures shall be implernented
during construction activities:
a. All trees designated to be preserved shall be protected
with-six-fO()t high chain link fences mount.ed on t'oIiC
inch diameter galvanized iron posts, and driven into
the ground to a depth of at least 2 feet at no more
than 12-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the
entire area under the drip line of exist ing tees. In
no case shall any ...... ehicles or equipment be permit.ted to
be stored w~thin the enclosed areas. The fences shall
be erected before construction begins and remain in
place untjl finali~a~ion of the building permit.
b. No storage of materials or topsoil shall be permitted
within the Lree enclosure areas.
CMR,491,93 10/7/93
Page 10
8.
.... ,-
j.:. -
c. Above g::'ound 61,,;rfClCe runoff a::ea shall ~ot be direct€d
into the tree canopy area f~o~1 ad'j acent areas.
To redl.lCe d.ust levels dL::ring cer:stn.:;:ti 0:1 , :t shall be
required that exposed earth s-crfa'.:e;; be watered frequently,
during the late :TIornir:g and at the end of the day, with
frequency of watering i:lcreasing 'Yl .... ir:dy ('-ays. Spillage
resulting frem hauling 'Jperations alor:g or aC1:OSS any publ.:..c.
or private property shal:' be remcnTec immediately and paid
for by the contractor. Dust !11Jisances origir.<l.t ing from the
contractor's ope.ra':ion:3, such as stockpiles QE debris, scil,
sand or other mat,=rials th.at can boe blown cy the wir'.d shall
be covered. ]lIl.y spillage res-....:.!ting from hauling ope:::--ariC'!1s
ei1:-her inside or outside the publ ic right -of -way sr~all be
removed immediately, at the expense of the contractor.
R.;,claimed water shall be used for this purpose, in
accordance with Public Works Departroent policies.
9. All construction activities and installation of site
improvements shall be subject to compliance ~ith the
provisions of the City of Pale Alt.o Noise Ordinance, Cha.pter
9.10 of tn~ PAMe.
lO. A haul route and const~uction impact plan m~st be submitted
and approved by the Transportation Division, Planning
Division. and Department of Public Works prier to issuance
of a building permit.
11. All City of Palo Alto utility installations shall be in
accordance with the City cf Palo Alto Standard
Specifications.
12. Prior to issuance of a building perrr,~t. written approval
from Stanford University Planning Office and the Stanford
Lands Management Company must be received by the Planning
Division for the project. referencing drawings and materials
in conformance with those receiving City of Palo Alto
approval.
13. The applicant shall display at. the project. site full-sized
color panels of the base color cf the building walls for
r-eview and appro .... al by the Stanford University Planning
Cffice, the Stanford Management Company. and the ARB.
14. The applicant shall submit to the Planning and
Transportation Divisions, for review and approval prior to
the issuance of a building permit, detailed drawings of the
trash and recyclable materials storage enclosure and loading
areas including locations, elevations, and installdtion of
these areas.
15. A photometric lighting plan shall be submitted to Planning
staff for review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits. Exterior light fixtures in the parking lot shall
be mounted no higher than 15 feet from grade and be directed
and shielded in order to prevent spillover beyond the site.
10/7/93
Page 11
.'
,.
Staff recommends tr.at the Clty Counci 1 a.dopt. th",:: .:;.mended
Environmental Assessmo:!nt recDmmending a mitiga.ted negative
declaratiC'n and 1) adopt the attached Resolution alT1ending the
Comprehensive Plan land use ITlap to change the designation of the
property at :!C'SC Arastradero Read frau. Open Space Con~rclle:d
Developmf'nt to Research/Office Parir.:.; 2) grant var~ances to exceed
the allowable height by 5 feet '.Ilher-e .3 5 feet is the maximum and a
side yard setback of 20 feet where 4C feet is the ~ini~um
required; 3] approve a Site and Des~gn R€vielli of two research and
deve:J..opment buildings and related site irr.provements; and -4)
authorize the City r--tanager to execut.:e the attached draft
Developm:>nt Ag'!'eeme!1t for 1050 Al.'Qstradez-o Road and Purchase
Agreement fer 753 Alma Street, subject to t~e findings and
conditions given above.
Attachments:
11-,jo,. "'-< J-t .... i St-h l ... -' J:k ,r "'
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Draft Resolution
Draft Ordinance
Location Map
Draft Purchase Agreement for 753 Alma Street
Amended Environmental Assessment dated
Septerr~er 6, 1993
Draft Development Agreement
August 21, 1.992 Planning Commission Staff Report
withou~ attacnments
August 26. 1992 Planning CommIssion excerpt
minutes
September 17, 1992 ARB Information Memorandum
·September 17, 1932 ARB excerpt Minutes
October 15, 1992 CMR:460:92 without attachments
November 23~ 1992 Excerpt City Cou~cil Minutes
March II, 1993. CMR:2a3:93 without attachments
March 15, 1993. Excerpt City Council minutes
August 20, 1993 P13nning Commission staff report
without attachm~nts
August 25, 1993 Excerpt Plan.'1ing Commission
Minutes
10/7/93
Page 12
,...\
. ~.-'-,
. /.-;-{:-:;-,
"". '., ./ ... ;)! .• ,
-~'"'-;;;":'--'--,.:'-'/ /
Atta.chments: (cont inued \
Summary Comments of Jur,e 23, 1393, neighborhood
meet ing on 753 AI~a Stre€t
Letter~ Erom property owners/users i~ vicinity of
7SJ Alma Str-=et
August 11. 1993 letter f!:"cm PARC ""'ith att:achm€n~s
August 11, 1993 letter from I,ol.oiney As~ociates
Septerr-.ber 12, 1991 CMR:421:91 withcut attachment.s
8eptem~er 23, 1991 Excerpt City Council minutes
Additional co~respondence
cc with attachment3:
Keenan-Lcvewell Ven,:ures, 700 Emerson Street, Pala Alto, CA
94301
Marlene Prendergast, Director, Palo Alto Housing
Corporation, 56(l Chaucer Street, Palo Altc', CA 94301
Linda Niles. Plan:1ing Director. 26379 Fremont Road,
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
cc wit.hQut attachments:
Archi tectur~l Revie ...... B08Xd
Marilyn Bryant, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto,
457 Kingsley Avenue, Pale· Alto, CA 94301
Ellen Christensen; 4217 Los Pa10s Avenu~, Palo Alto, CA
94306
Andy Cae. Direct.or of Community Relatio!'!.s~ Building 170,
Stanford University. Stanford, CA 94305-2040
Andy Doty, 4072 Scripps Avenue. Stanford, CA 94305
Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto. CA
94303
Joseph Martignetti. Jr., Pa.lo Alto Housing Corporation,
540 Cowper street; Suite G, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street. Palo Alto. CA 94303
Janet Owens, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, 540 Cowper
Street, Suite G, Palo Alto; CA 94301
Denny Petrosian, 443 Ver.tura, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Kenneth Rodriques & Associates, Inc., 50 West San Fernando,
#650, San Jose, CA 95113
Willis and Rose Thoits, 744 Eigh Street, Palo Alto, CA
94301
Dee and Cozette Hileman, 793 Alma Street, Pal·o Alto, Cf.
94301
Joe Yarki<1, -152 Homer Street, palo Alto, CA 94301
Barry Swenson, 701 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95112
Thomas C. McMullan, Chestnut Hill Land Co, P.O. Box 478,
Menlo Park, CA 94026
Ole Christensen r Ole's Car Shop, 801 Alma, Palo Alto, CA
94301
Marlene Smidt. 666 High Street, ~al0 Alto, CA 94301
Geoff Bertelsen, 960 waverl~y, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Earl Schmidt, 201 Homer, Palo Alto. CA 94301
Earl Ellison, 705 Alma Streetr Palo A1to~ CA 94301
Susan Herald, Stanford university, P.O. Box N: Bldg. 170,
Stanford, CA 94305
Ron Rainey, Hallg~im6on, McNichols. McCann & Inderbitzen,
40 S. Market St, Suite 700, San Jose, CA 95113
1017/93
Page 13
---------
j
RES(lL-T}TION OF TP.E cutr;':Cll:.J OF THE" CITY OF PALO 1,:'.::'(:
AME~uIN-:; THE LAl'm USE r".:Ap OF THE PALO AL'10
COMPRE~n,SlVE Pi-AN FOR PROPERTY AT ::"~'5 Q
AJU..STRADERO ROAD
W:-tER2}l.S, the Planning C()rr,rr.issi~r., after duly JlOticed pub} ic
hearing he!d on August 26, 1992, has recomrrtend",d t.hat the CO'.jr:cil
am~nd the Land Use ~-!a.p of the: Palo Alto COMp!'ehensive Piar..; and
WHEREAS, upon consideration ot said recommendation atte~
duly noticed p:.lblic hearing, the Council desire~ to a....'!:er.d said pld::l
as hereinafter set forth;
NO~, 7HBRE~GRE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
RESOI,vE as follo ..... s:
SECTION I. The City Ccuncil finds that ~he public
incerest, health, safety and ..... elfC';.re requi:t.-e amen:iJner,lts to the [,and
Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehens:ive Plan as set forth in Section
2 hereof.
SEC;r:rION. ___ ~......!.._ The Ci ty Council hereby amends the Land Use Map
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the land use
designation of the property at 1050 Arastradero Road from
"Mul tiple-Family Residential-to -Research/Office P~l:"k".
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds that this project
will have no significant effect on the enviro~ent.
SECTION 4. This',' resolution shall be :effective upon the
thii,ti"'fJrst (~,l.St) day afte,Z" ite, adoption., This delayed effective
da~e-::--l_~,:-:,,~t~ecl: ':and ,sh;;ill be constrtled to provide a Bufficient
per~"Qf, ,tl~ ,be~~e1l.:a,doption o~, tbe resolut.ion and its effective
date-::t6'al1.0w"-a>eonlplet~,~, exclusi..---e opportlJnity .for the exercise of',:,~E' :l;"efe1;"endum power, -purSuant to the {;'hart~r of the City of Palo
Alto' and 'the ~onstitution of the State of California. A referendum
petition 'filM after the effective date shall be rejected as
untiIne1y.,
INTRODUCED AND PASS8D,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
.'\BS TENT IONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Cleri<. Mayor
.... ,.,
•
APPROVED A£ TO FORM:
City Mdr:i.dger
Director ,of pfa:l!"oin':i a ... d
Cornrr;\.,m';'t)o° Environrr"cE-r:t
ORDINA..'{CE NO_
ORD!NA."{CE CF THE COUNCIL OF 1-;-~i CITY OF PA~O AL'~(~:
APPROVING A DEV:ELOPME~T AGREE..~El':T ES'TWEEN THE
EOA..::tD 0:-TRUSTEES OF THE LELA.1IJD STA..\iFO.i:\D JI)"NIO~.
UNIVERSITY AND THE CITY OF PALO A:... 70
WHEREAS, A do:velaprner:l a.greeme::r. ~as bee:: regt..:.eS:~f:'j of the
City for the approval of development Qf certain real property
collectively known as 1050 Arastradoaro Read, and mare partic~larly
described in the subject Development Aqreene~~; ar.d
WHEREAS. t:-'~ City Council fi~.ds and do;:te_n .. :dnes t.r.at n-.)ti-:::e
of intention to co:;.sid",r the developnent ag.reem-s:r.t hCl:3 bE~=-give:-.
pursuant to Government Code section 65867; and
WHEREAS, the City Cour..cil hdS conducted a public hearing ce
the Development Agreement, amendments to the Palo Alto Ccrnprehen
siv€ Plan, and vario'J.s related land use approvals; and
WHEREAS, the Ci ty Cou.ncil has r~vie ...... ed, consid~!"ed. and
approved the enviror • .rnental information contained in a mitigated
negativ~ declaration for the project, and
~"HBR&AS, the Cit}~ Council finds and d-::::errnines that: the
develop-~ent agreement is consistent with the Cl)mp.rEh~nsi-.. re Plan of
the City of Palo Alto, as amended. Th~ City COuncil has specifi
cally considp.:red the regional welfare and the impacts of the
development a.greement and specific plan upon the region.al welfare.
The City Council finds and determines that the benefits of the
project set forth in the development agreement, specific plan, and
statement ot overriding considera.tions est~blish the reasonable
relationship of the project to the regional welfare;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto .c.oes
ORDAIN as tallows:
SECTION'm.!; The City Council hereby apprr.JVes the Develop
ment Agreement bet .... een the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford
Junior University and the City of Palo Alte, a copy of which is
attached heret.o as Exhibit ~A", and authorizes the }"~yor to execute
the agreement on be:1dlf of the City.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of.
the development agreement to be recor'ded with the County Recorder
not later than. ten \10) days after it becomes E:ffectiv2.
1
........
/,' ,
SEC"!'r.ON ";',, This or:dirl;l.t':c~ shall be E-ffect1Vt:' i.1p0:1 the
thi:-ty-first (31st) ca.y after its passage a.nd a~,:,p:ion.
INTROtJUCEiJ;
PASSED:
AygS:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT,
A'ITEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
APPROVED,
Ci ty Manager
Director of Planning and
Ccmmun i t y Envi rorurL€n t
APPROVED:
fV'"kiyor
2
G;::/"PHI[ ATTAC~t·jENT
D STMF r.U'ORT 1---
[';':(:.J[C T : ____ :OMPRE m::.NS:'Ve PLAN MAP AM ENDMENT:
OESIG~~-=-~~_e FROM "'~~:.!_~_~ ___ ::-_~~~~L'" RESDENr:Al
: TO FI'[SEAACt-i/OFFrCt: PARK
:\
, ~~ . -,-'
.; .. . ,
~' -.. '. ',.
PURCHASING AGREEMENT WILL FOLLOW FROM ClTY
ATIORNEY'S OFFICE
f i
£NV1ROOJ:IENJAL ASSESSMENJ
Project Deseri pti on/Ti t 1 e: Research and deve 1 O!l!!!E'nt facil ity 1050
Ar~straderQ RQa~* construct to? n~research and Uevelooment twg"story i2ll11Q,"~ Qr 37J:~4"~Uilre-feeL!!ng.lll 27§·sguarg·fggtJ!aeh t~t~llng 72..WJ)
gros5 square feet and related sTte imoroYements on a hilTSTdE site.
locati~'/Address: 1050 Arastradero Road. Palo Alto California
Sponso ri og Agency I f.W 1 i ea nt : "Ke=o""un ...Il",o",v"",,,,,,C!.ll.l -,V",eunt",ulJ,r",e .. , _________ _
ACldress and Telephone of Applicant: 700 EmerSQn Street Palo Alto CA 94301
(415) 321-5517
Application for: COOrel1ensive plan Ainenil!Jent Variance Site and Design ARB
and a Development Agreement (e.g., zoning change, subdivision of property.
architectural review, use permit)
Zoning at Project location: LMS (0) Fee Receipt No.: 92-314
NonCE Of DETERMINATION
Based upon review of the project files, the undersigned member of the Planning
Oepartrrent has concluded:
IX, Mitigated Negatjve Declaration: The project has no significant
enVironmental impacts. No EnVironmental Impact Report is required.
The reasOI1s for a Mitigated Negative Declaration are: in the 'ttached
Initial Studv. A reg!fd of the prQject action is available for reYlew
~ PalQ ~ltQ DeoaC1mcnt of Plaonin£Lgnd Communitt.Envir~
be&i?E'n the hpu~~ Of s:oo AM to 12000 noon aiiiUJ!Q "'" to 50 00 PM HofKiaY ttlrO!l!lhridav located on the 5th floor Civic Center Building
at 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo ,.,lto.
el The project may have a significant environmental impact. An
Envi ror.rnental Impact Report 1t be prepar~
Planning Department Official: ~~ ykfl ,0
Planning Director: x~CA~ Date: ql?/Y~ i/ j
The project has been approved. Date:
The proj ect ha s been den i ed. Date.
file No.: 92-CPA-2
92-EIA-19
92-0-4
92-AB8·86
AMENDED 7/6/93 & 9/1/93
9Z·(lA-19 (aIIIefIded)
h!if! 1
-•
. :;..'
I
ENVIRCHfENTAL DOCUMENTS PALO AL TO
l!:!.lIl AL ST@Y* **
L Project Title/Address: CR &. m ResAarrh CtrJd De'/Elooment FgrilHv lQSQ
Arasjradero Road Palo Alto
II. Project Description: CQIlstruct M ne.; R & P t'oQ-story build-ono gf
37704 square feet and 38 276,sguare feet each total1nq 75 QBO arQ~5
sqvare feet and reiatf!(j 5;te lrmrgvements OJ1 &; hi 11 Side sHe
Ill. Environmental Setting: The site js Qne parcel of lana totalino
approximateTy 5.q acres. Presently the Site is vacant Rev-arch end
pevelopment facilitiec: are to the east and west Qf t~e prooerty and
single-familY residential across Arastrad"rc Road to the south. The
51te slOPe' in a southerly dJrection approximately )1 percent
IV. Envirormental Impact Checklist (Explanation of all ·yes· ans""!rs are )n
Sl!ction V)
1-W,th. Will the proposal result in: ru MAYB,
a_ Uostable earth conditions or changes
in geologic substructuresl
b. Disruptions. displacements. compac-
tion or overcovering of the ~oll -L
c. Change in topography Of grounO
surface relief featuresl ...L
c. The destruction. covering or modi-
fication of any "~lque geo1og1C or
~ysical features?
e_ Any increase in Wine! or Ioater erosion
0f soils. either on or off the sitel _I_
f. Exposure of people Dr property to
geologiC hazards SL~ as earthQua~es.
landslides. mudslides, ground failure
or similar hazards' -L
g. Changes in siltation. deposition. or
erosion Which may mcdify the channel
of a river or the bed of a bay or
inlet'
* Adapted from AppendlX 1. California Guidelines for l~lerrentation of
CEQA. December 14. 1976.
** Updated May 1982. June 1983
JG:1993JA:\E1A\lC~ 92·EIA.·!9 :~J
"'19'I! 2
,-" .-
_1_
2. Ai!". Will the proposal result In" ill HAY8~ ND
a. Substantial air emissions or de·
tenoration cf ambient air Qu;!lity? -)-
b. The creation of objectionable odors' _x_
c. Alteration of air movement. roistur.
temperature. or any change in cli-
mate. either locally or regional! ..L
3. ~. 101111 the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates. drainage
patterns. or the ;ate and amount Of
surface 'water runoff? ..L
b. Alterations to the course or f]DoI of
fl cod waters' ..L
c. DisCharge into surface waters, or in
any alteration of surface water
Quality, including but not li',ited to
temperature. dissolVed O.ygen or turbld;ty? ..L
d. Alteration of the direction or rate
of fl ow of grOOfld "-'aters? ..L
e. Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal wave' _x_
f. Change in the quantity of ground
waters. ei ther through di rect
additions or lOitndrawals, or through
interceptions of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations? ..L
4. Plant tiff. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diverSlty of speCies. or
nlfltler of any specles of plants [in-
cluding trees. shrubs, grass. crops.
microf]oril and aquatic plants}? ..L
b. Reduction of the numb€rs of any
unique. rare or e.'1dang~red speCies
_x_ of p1ants?
oX; \ 195J:A:\!)A\lD5aARAS. 9Z-fIA·19 (~)
Pagr J
~
IntrOduction of n~ speCies Of lli MAYSr-c.
plants into an area. or 1n a barrier
to the normal replenishmect of
e~is~ing species? _x_
. d. Reduction in acreage of .any agricultural crop'
S. Ani!!!ill Lifg. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species.
or number of any speCies of animals
(Dirds. land animals inCluding
reptiles. fish and Shenfish .. bEnthic
organisms. insects Or microfauna)?
tl. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique. rare or endangered speCies of animals?
c. lntrOduction of new species of
animals into an area. or result in
a barrier to the migration or move-
ment of animals'
d. Deterioration in existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
6. l!Q1g. onll the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? L
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. light and Gl,re. Will the proposal prOduce new ight glare? ...L
8. La~d Use. Will the proposal resu1t in
a substantial alteration of the present
or planned Jana use of an area? L
9. Enfrg~/N~tyrel BfSQ~r~s. proposal result i~:
Will the
a. Use of sUbstantial amounts Of fuel or energy:
oXi.:l99JI"':\ElA\l~ 92·E1~-:l'9 tl/le'l'--j)
Pilge C
!!Q
_I-
L.
....L
L.
L
L
...L
b. Su::tai1tlal increase in demano" upon ill MAYBE !:!Q
existing sources of energy. Or
require the development of new sources or ener~y?
_1-c. Increase in the fate of use of any natural resources?
-L o. Substantial depletion. of any nonre.
newable natural resource'
-L 10. Ri ~~ Qf Uc~ft. Does the proposal lnvolve a risk of an explosion or the
celeaso. of hazardous substances (in.
cluding. but not l,miteo te'. Oil.
pesticides. Chemicals or rao;ation) in the event of an accident or upset?
_1_' 11. PQIllll at i Q!! l!1Q~s i ng.
a. Will th€ proposal alter the location. distr1~Jtion. ~sity. or growth rate
of the human population of an area' _x_ b. Will th€ proposal effect existing
hous i ng. or create a demand for
addftioop; ht)uc:ing? -L
12. Tran~~ct~tiQQ/Cirtu]gtiQn. Will the proposal reSult in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular IMvernent?
-L b. Effects Ct1 existing par~ing faeili.
ties. or Cl€mand for new parUng? 2....
c. Alterations to present patterns of
circulatlon or movement of people anolor goOds? -L
d. Increase in trafflc hazards to motor
vehicles. bicyclists or pedestrians' -L
13. Publjc Services. Will the proposal have
an effect upon. or result in a need for new
or altered governmental services in any of the fOllCM'ing areas:
a. Fire protection' -L
..Kill9!lJlA.\£J,t'.l~
92·ErJo.-!9 (~J
P"'gt-5
,
ill ~IAYB[ JiQ
b. Police prot~ction?
_X_
c SchOOls'
_1_
d. Parks or other recreatior.al facilities'
_X_
e. Maintenance of public facilities. inCluding roads? .L
f. Other governmental services? .L
14. Utj11~ies. Will the proposal result.;n a
need or new systems, or substantial
alterations to the fcllconng utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? .L
b. Camiutlications systems? .L
c. Water? .L
d. S_r or septic tank? .L
e. Storm water drainage? _X_
f. Solid waste and disposal? .L
15. ~I!!li\n !lea It h. \Ii 11 the proposa 1 result In:
a. Creation of ar~ health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? --_X_
b. Exposure of people to potential
health hazares? L ..
16. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
Or ,iew open to the public, or on11 the
proposal result in the creation of an
a esthet i ca 11 y offens i ve site open to publiC view? L
17. Recreation, \lill the proPOsal result
in an lmpact upon the quality or Quantity
_1_ of existing recreational op;>ortun,tles?
.x,.:l~\A.:\ElA\l~ 92-EIA·H l~) '.9l" 6
ill Mt,YB( !:iQ
18, Cultural Resources.
a. wlil the proposal result in the
alteration of/or the destrucUc'n
of a prehistoriC or histO;lC
archaeologi~al site' _1_
b. Will the proposal result in aa-
verse physical ar aesthetic effects
to a prehistoric ar historlC
bulldln9. structure; or object? _x_
c, Does the proposal have.the potential
ta cause a physical change ;.t,ich
-..:lula affect unique cultural ~alues? L
11. loIill the praposal restrict existing
religious Dr sacred uses within the
potential impact area' L
19. !1a.rut2tQr~ Fj nO:' ngs Qf Si gni fi ~a[!~~.
a. Does the project have the potentlal to
degrade the Quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish ar wilolife species. cause a fish
or wildlife population to (lrop belQoi
self-sustaining levels. threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community.
re<:!uce the nlJllber or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate impoe-cant examples
of the major periOds of California
hi story or prehi story? L
b. Does the project have the potential
to ach\eve short-term. to the dis·
a(lvantage of long-term. environoental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
env; ronment is one Wli en occurs ina
relatively brief. definitive periOd
of time ...nile long-term impacts will
_x_ endure well into the future,)
c. Does the project have impacts ..tJicn
are i ndlVi duo lly limi te<:!. but
cumulatively considerable? (A pro-
ject l1l<ly impact on tloO or more
separate resources ...nere the lmpact
~:I99JIA:\EIA.\l~ 92 -EIA-19 (1III!nOed) '''' ,
on each resource is relativ€ly
smal;. but ~nere the effect of the
total of those impacts on the
environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental
effects ..nich will cause substantial
aaverse effects on human beings.
either directly or indirectly?
ill
Y. Explanation of ·yes· ans"'i!rs in environmental checklist.
See attached.
JG ll9'JJl": \EIAUIl5r.AP.AS !l2~ElA·19 (~) '''' .
I
I
I I
~
., :,.-
) It c e fl E?[1h Construction of the new bU11dlngs and related sHe
l~rovements will disrupt and displace slte so11s and result in changes to
site topography. The pro!X>s,l 1ncl udes 20,000 cubic nrd, of cu: 1nto the
site and import of approximately 3,500 cubic yards of fll1. The proposed
proJect may result 1n al1 incoeaSE-In so"il ,erosl0n due tD gradlng and dlgglng
actiVlties related to construction. ErOS10rl can be reduced ,by stockpl11ng anD
covering ldose soils and watering of graded arEas, The proJect would be
conditioned that the bui1d1ngs be constructed in accordance .'lth the
Soils/Founaation re!X>rt sui:<n1ttEd by the applicant. A Getanea grading and
drainage plan and eroSion control plans Wl11 ~ required to be revie.Yec1 and
approved by the D;'-.ctor of Pubi ic Works Department prior to 1 ssuanee of anv
grading or building pennit. .
The project Site is located in a sei smic area of moderate ri sk, and would be
subject to very strOrlg ground shaklng 1r. the e'ent of an earthquake, All new
construction on the site will be subject to the provisions of the current
Uniform Building Code. portions of ..nich are d1rected at minimiZing seismjc
risk and preventing loss of life or property ln the event of an earthquake,
2 (a) Ai,-, Construction of the two· buildings wi 11 t€l!POrarll.v result in an
increase in dust emissi011S over e.isting amient air condaions.
To reduce dust levels durin~ construction ,t shall be required that exposed
earth surfaces b<! watered frequently during the late morning and the end of
the day, with freqllE!r.cy of wotering increasing on Wlndy days. Reclaimed
water. in accordance .nth the Public Works Department policy, shall be used
for this purpose. All streets and haul routes shall be cleaned daily. The
developea shall ensure that spillage resulting from hauling operations along
or across any public or private property shall be reroved lnmediately and paid
for by the contractor. The developer shall also ensure that dust nuisances
originating from th~ contractor'S operations shall be controlled at the
contractor'S expense.
J (al Water Toe construction of the t>.tl n ... · buildings and parking area will
increase the amount of impervious surface area by approxlmate1y 47 percent and
therefore increase the amount of surface water runoff and change toe
absorption rate on Site. The applicant has indlcated that th,e on-slte
drainage will be directed to catch-bas,ns and then 01recteo lnto a maln 1100
to be laid down the access road and then connected ,"to the eX1stlng stonm·
orain in Arastradero Road. The Public WOrks Department has iod1cated that
this drainage system is satisfactory in principle, however. a final dra1nage
plan shall be revi~ by the PubllC lIorKS Department prior to app1yjng for
building permits.
4 (a cl Plant Life, The site is presently covered with natural grasses.
weeds 7 Pine trees along the north boundary, and one mature 36-1nch Oak tree
near the south boundary. The addltion of the two new bUl1d1ngs and related
Site improvements will require t~.e r€!!(lv,' of one P1ne tree. The proJect
aroorist report. prepared by James M. McClenahan of s.P. McClenahan C(J1lJany.
Inc .. dated June 12. )992. recQlllTendS tree protectlOn measures Mllch shall be
implemented and required as cond1tlOns of project approval.
JG: 199J: A" \E1A\lDSQ./IfIAS S2-£IA·19 (~l
P.!i'E' 9
The project being proposed for the sHe includes plantlng IB6 n<,-' trees
consisting of a variety of declduous, evergreen, and conlferous trees as well
as evergreen shrubs. Vlnes. and groundcovers. The 210·fost setbacK along the
Arastradero Road frontage is propcsed to be planted "" th row> of grapevines.
As the subject Site is not proposed for agricultural use. tne vines are cnly
for decorative purposes, Adjacent to the proposed site, the frontages are
planted Wlt1> natlVe Callforma Oa~ Trees and native grasses. The applicant is
conSidering ~ revision to this setback area to includ-e a row of native
Califemia Oak Trees along the property frontage Wlth the grapevines to the
rear.
Grapevines I<{)uld introduce a new species on the property and provide II
dramatic char,ge in scenery along this Side of Arastradero Road, Planting
grapevines or, the site could involve the use Of pesticides. Materials anct
suOstances ..nich are rapidly biodegradable. present no persistence on the
SOil. and present no hazard to maintenaoce and landscape crews must be used to
mitigate any impact that the pesticide use may other.nse 1ncur. A Pest
Control Advisors Report for the proposed vineyard ","uld be cequ; red to
reccrnneOO pest management for this Site. This OOcLl!"ent would be reviewed by
City Staff pnor to the issuance of building permit and any recoorr..endi:ltions
shall be SLlbnitted and shawn in the final landscape plIO. The final lands~ape
plan shall be required to be reviewed and approved by the ArChitectural Revi ... ,
Board prior to the issuance of any building permits,
6 (ji) Noise Construction of the proJect will result in a tE!!l\)Orary i.ncrease
in ambient noise levels. Construction activlt'es will be subject to tne
prO\'isions of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.10. PAI1Cl ""ich require
construction equilJOOnt to be Illlffled so as not exceed a noise ern';ssion of 8J
decibels (dEAl at a distance of 25 feet. or a noise level exceedlng 86 dBA
outside the property. unless an exceptiOO is granteO.
The additional traffic generated by this prOJect will contribute to aooient
nois~ levels in the area. but this increase should not result in a signif1cant
impact in traffic noise. over existing conaltlons.
7 Light and Glare, The development of the site may result In a r~gligible
lncrease in 1 iQ;1t and gl,re generated froo the ad:::,.tional 1 i9)1tln9 of the
site. but ~ill-not have ao adverse impact on surrocr-ding research and .
development uses. A detailed lighting plaosensitive to eXlstlng adJacen,
land uses onll be required as part of the flnal landscape plans to return to
the Architectural R~'Jiew Board for review.
S Land Use This project requires a ~rehensive Plan JoJnenanent to change
the Cooprehensive Plan designatlOn for the property fran Hultlple·falnlly
residential to Research/Office Par,. If adopted. the COOJ;JrehenslVe Plan .
change would result in the potential loss of,a.max1mum of B8 unlts of hO"Sln9
on the site. T.., possible alternatlVes to mltlgate the potentl.l 10ss.of
housing on the site have ~n considered. Other proposals for m1t19otlon of
the potential loss of housing may be conSi~ered and appropnate envlronmental
evaluations of any add1tlonal proposals "" ,1 be requlred. The two proposed
alternatlves are:
~:I99J:A-\EIA\1~
-~----
9'·E1A·19 (lIIr.ldfll)
Pa9~ l(l
-.--~---
..
1) The standard housing mitigation fee as outlined ln item 11
Population/Housing belc;w would be doubled. The additlOnaJ 52<15.415. or the
actual fee as determine(! at the tlme of buildln9 perrnt lssuance. ,,~uJd be
pl.ceO in the city'S residentlal housing mitigatlGn fund "t,ere the funds WOuld
be used for the development of necw housing or th-: converSion of existing
housing into low income housing. The adoltiona) fee 'w'Ould be due ," full at
the time of building permit issuance.
2) M alternative mitigation i"cludes a Developn-ent Agceemen: ..,:h the
follONing points:
a. The project approval would be for a period of ten years instead of
the normal t~u years.
b. In adeitio" to the normally required in·11e" fee under Chapter
16,47. the developer o.oulo pay 5407.000 as an added hOUSing mitigation
fee. The 5407.000 would be payable en the fir,t anniversary of the date
of issuance of the building permit.
c. If the building pennit " not issued ~1thin the flrst four years.
the 5407.QOO mitigation fee is to be adjusted beginning at the 5th year
of approval and annually eocr, year thereafter. The adjustment ~11 be
based on one-half of the percentage Change in the Cons"",' Price Index
for all urban consumers for the San FranCisco·oakland area.
d. If the building (>erroit is not issued >'ith,n the ten years permitted
by the Development Ag~t. the C"""rellensive Plan designation ~11 remain as Research/Office par<.
e. under the Developnent Agreement. the City agrees to purchase the
property at 753 Alma Street "'thin a reasonable period of tll!le
(apprOXimately three months) ~th the intent of using the site for low
and moderate incane housing. Purchase price '0'111 be 1650.000 ",ere the
appraise(! value is J?50.000. The 753 Alma Site ~ll be subject to
furtller environmental and development reviews Which mayor may not flnd
it suitable for hO'Jsing. If the 753 Alma site can not be developed as
housing. the city ~ll have an asset through ",ich proceeos from the
development of the site could be used for creating housing.
11 p~pulatiQn/HQlISinQ This project is subj~ct to the pro ... ·isiOf1S of Chapter
16.4 of the Palo Alto ¥~icipal Code. "Approval of ~-ojects ~th Impacts on
Housing." ",ich requires the develcperto contribute to programs that lOcre".
the City's supply of low and moderate lncome housing. This project 1S subject
to an in-lieu fee based on 75.980 square fe!:t of new floor area. The fee as
of April 1992 is 53.23 per square foo! for." total fee of 5245,415. One·half
the fee ($122.707 .. 50) 1S payable at the t1me of bUlldlng permlt lssuance and
the remaining one-half at buildlng occupancy. The actual fee due ~ll be
based on the bUllding square footage sh""" on the bUlldlng permltplans. The
fee is adjusted annually in the spring and the fee 10 effect at tne tl<T>2 of
building permit issuance is the fee requlred. Th,s fee 1S not relwbursable.
oX; f !99JIA' \EIAUOSrJAP,A; 92·[jA·19 ClG\E'flcIett)
P.~ 11
.'~. , .
,
12 Transportation/Circuiation The project will require the prOI'lslO.o of 244
parking spaces on 51te ano must meet all City parking reQuirement~. Tne
Transpartatlon Divisl0n has revieweC the c'rculatlOn olans and concluDes that
llXldification of the clrculation plan is necessary to l.oelude: I) a !ldewal'
to conne~t the ArastraDero Road pedestrian/blt~ path to the bUl1dlngs or
dellneate a pecestrlan route to reach the waltl,dY to the buildlng; 2) dri.eway
access shOtling how one-way trafflC on each side of a median ",111 be able to -
reaCh the parki .og lots of the site and the nei ghboC1 .09 propert)'; and 3)
r~locat~ Class 3 bicycle parking located at the far end oft/1€ covered wallo"y
for Building 2 closer to the visitor entrance to t,1€ buildlng. City staff has
discussed these changes with the applicant. A reviseo plan in wnpliance .1th
these requirements shall be submitteo for Architectural Revi€'.' Board review.
The 75,980 additional gross ,quare feet of building is expected to generate
580 average daily trips, and 92 daily trips during a.m. pear, hours, and 80
daily trips during p.m. peak hours. (Source; TrlR Generation Rat" 5th
. Edition. HE. #760 -Research & Develorroent.) Potential traffiC i~acts for
development in the Stanford ResearCh Park were evaluated in the cumulatl'.
analysis of the City-llide Land use Transpartation Study [nvironmental Impact
Report. The Transportatior Impact fee establishes mitlgation SUCh deve10ponent
and the project is subject to the proviSions of the City's Transportation
Impact Fee for nonresidential development (PAM£ 16.46).
The Tran!;;ortation Impact fee is based on the 75.980 square feet of additlOna1
OOOExt'S1llt gross floor area. Currently the fee is S2.57 per gross square foot
(effective until June 30. 1993) or approxlmately fl95.269.00. The full amount
of the Transportation IlI;lict fee 5'lal1 be paid to the City prior to issuance
of a bLIilaing pennit. The applicant shall pay the oo11ar per-square-foot
ilIOOunt of the fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
The applicant has not proposed a construction haul route for export1ng
materials excavated from the slte. The proposed project .011 reqUlre
exporting approximately 18.000 cubic yards to an off-site landfill. The.
app1icant has estimated that at 15 cubic yards of export per truck that lt
.nIl tale 1.200 truck trips. However. the applicant has indicated that four
trucks would De used at a time resulting in 300 truck trips at B hours.per day
or 18 days worth of trips. An acceptable haul route aod constructlor. lmpact
plan to address road clearlng. stacking of trucls. and noise control. hours Of
operation, etc .. "eeds to De reviewed by the Transportat'Dn DlVlS10fl, Publ1C
Works Department -Operations and Engineering Divisions. and Police
DepartJrents prior to issuance of buildlng pel1llits.
JG: 1 993JA,: \EIA\lCSCARAS 92-£tA-l'i f~dl
p"gt' 12
----~
-<\. -'.-
RECORDING REQUESTED BY ~~
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO,
City Clerk
City or Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box ~C2S0
Palo Alto. CA 94303
AGREEMENT
Between
TilE BOARD OF TRllSTEES OF THE
LELAND M'ANFORD J1lN:IOR UNIVERSITY
and
CITY OF PALO AI. TO
. , . ".'
I
I,
; ..
..-.. {
"
ArtiSl!!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
9.
Defirit.ion$.
Interest of Dgveloper
Binding Effe~
CQndition
Negation of Agency
Devglppment of the Prooertv
{a) PerqUtteg Uses
(b) Maximum pensi;\" and Inte,nsit-y of Use
Cc) Maximum He:igr.t; Number of Stories, Size: snd
fAJ<
Cd) ether Development Standards
pevelopment lees
nedications EzactioDS. Mitigation And Rgottvatigns
(a) Deciicatipps
{bJ Other ~dihatiQns
Ie} Np Ot.her PuhliS Imp;:oygments or FinaPdaJ
Contributions
Agreement Z.;ld Asfn;nnce§
Ca) Agreement and Assurances on the Pirt Qf
Dgveloper
(bl Agreement and As5uranc:"'s on the Fart pf the
~.
(c) CQQpe~atiQn and Implgmen~ation
(dJ Identification of Applicable Ruli:s
{ei No Other Exactions
•
7
7
7
7
8
S
8
8
8
10
U
11
U
11
13
17
18
18
10. [SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT Er.ANKl 19
11. Periodic Review of Comp] iancg 19
(a) Periodic Review 19
(bl Special Review 19
eel procedure 19
(d) Proceedings Upon MDdification Qr T~rminatiQn 21
Ie) H=-arings on Modificat.ign or Terminat ion 21
(f) Cert.ificate of Compliance 22
(il
Art is) e
12. NQdifitatlop k'lflendrngnt. 0"" Cancellat.iQ:)
l3. Remedigs fo~ Default
14. Litigatipn Expensp5,
lS. Supers~dip9 State or Federal Law
16. Hold Harmless
l"J . Not ices
~S. Term of Aareement
19. Migeella~~QUs
(a) ccnstruetion
(b) Severability
(el ReC'Qrdat oj on
(d) Captions and References
(e) ~
{f) A$s igpme nr:
(g) Ka.ive r
(h} Ggycrnino .state Law
(i) Ctr~ifipat@ of Complianc@
(j) Mqrtgagee Protection
(k) Force Maieure
(11 Eptlre Agreement
(m} No Third party Bgneficiari@s
en) CQunterparts
Col Jur';sdictiOl'! and Venu@
(p) further Actions
(q) A\J'"hority tp Rxe;ute
{r} Exhibits
(51 Sianatur~ Pages
EXHIBITS
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
PROcTECT DESCRIPTION
ALMA PROPERTY
23
23
26
26
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
31
33
34
3.
34
36
37
37
37
37
38
3~
38
3S
EXHIBIT A
EXHIEIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D ALMA PROPERTY PURCHASE & SALE AGREEMENT
tiD
\
'THIS DWVELOPME1>."T AGREENENT rhereir..afte.:-"Agreament·) is
entered into as of thie day of 19$3, by and
between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered ciry r.rJereina~ter
·City"). and THE BOARD OF-TRUSTEES OF THE LEL..lOO) STA..1.lFORD JUNIOR
UNIVEltSIT)'. a body having corp-:::>rate powers under the lalrls of the
.,State of Cal iforLia (hereinafter "Developer~).
R E crT b L S
ThIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is entered into on the basis
of the follow-ing facts, understandings and intentions of the
parties:
A. These Recitals use ceztain capitalized ter.ms ~hich
are defined in Section ~ ot this Agreement. City and Developer
intend to reter to those definitions when the-capitalized terms are
used in these Recitals.
B. Government Code Sections 65S64i-65869.5 authorize the
parties to enter into a binding developme:Jt agreement for the
development of real property ~ithin City's jurisdiction.
C. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6SB65. City has
adopted Resolution No. 6597 establishing procedures and
requirements for consideration of development agreements.
D. Developer is the owner of the Property.
-1-
"." ..
".
E. On _________ , :i.99-3 , the City Council o! Cit}'
adopted Comprehensive rlan Amendment No. ___ ,0!1
___ ~ 1993, the City Council granted site and design approyal c.!
the Project {~Site Approval·) and approved rela~ed varia~ces; and
on the City Council adopted Ordinance No. __ _
approving and authorizing execution o! this Development Agreement.
This Agreement is consistent with the Comp:--ehEnsive Plan, as
amended. and the Palo ~to Zoning Ordinance.
F. In connection with the Ccnr.prehensive Plan A..onendment.
Charles J. Keenan III and Mark T. Gates. Jr. have offered to sell
to the City real property co~~nly kno~~ as 753 ~rna Street. Palo
Alto l California a&scribed on EXHIBIT ·C n (the ·~rna Property~) for
development as housing tor very loW', low and mooerate income
households~ or sucr~ other useS as the City may deem necessary and
de8irable~ The parties recognize that the ultitnate land. use
designation of the Alma property may depend. upon the resul c.s of
investigations and hearings which have not yet taken place.
Accordingly, nothing in this agreement shall oe deemed to
constitute a promise or other comulitment of any kind with respect
to the future uses of the Alma Property by the City~ The Alma
Property '\I.'ould not have been offered to the City for purchase but
for the City's entering into this Agreement.
G. City desires to obt.ain the binding agreement of
Developer wit.h respect to the development of the Property in
accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
-2·
9.l1,}l11 .... aMO%J
H. Deve-leper dE'sires to obtair. the bir:;-S::::'r.g agreemer::t of
Ci'Cy that City will perJ':'Lit Developer to develop tbe Property in
accordance with the Applicable Rules and Subsequent Applicable
Rules~ including any modifications permitted by this Agreement.
I. Developer has applied to City pu.rsuant to the
OevelopmerJ.t Agreement Act and City' 5 Resolution No. 6597 for
approval of a dev~lopment agreement providing for the binding
agreements desired by the parties hereto. City's Planning
Commission and council have given notice of intention to consider
this Agreement, have conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to
Government Code section 65S67 anc City's Resolution No. 5597 and
have found that t.he provisions of this Agreement are consistent
~~th CitY~B Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
J. The tenus and conditions of this Agreement have been
found by City to be fair~ just and reasonable~ and prompted by the
necessities of the situation so as to proviae extraordinary
benefits to City.
K. This Agreement is consistent 'With the pre-sent publl.c
health, safety and welfare needs of the residents of the City ot
Palo AltO and t.he surrounding region. City has specifically
considered and approved the impact and benefits of this Pz-ojec:t
upon the regional welfare+
L. This Agreement will bind futu~e City Councils to the
terms and obligations specified in this Agreement and limit. to the
degree specified in this Agreement anc under state 1 a .... ' , the f'.lture
exercise of City'S ability to preclude development on the Property.
-3 -
M. A mitigated Negative Declara~':"on has been prepared
and certified in ccnjunctio:1 ",l'ith t!'1.e conside:-ation of the
Comprehen,Sive Plan Arnend.rnent in acc:o.::-dance .... '1th the applicable
statutes, ordinances and regulations of the State of California and
of City.
N. This Ayreement will eliminate uncertainty in
planning and provide for the orderly developmen~ of the Property,
eliminate uncertainty about the validity at exacti::ms irnposed by
City~ allow installation of necessary improveinents. provide for
pUblic sen'ices appropriate to t_he developn'l.ent of the Project. and
generally serve the public interest. both ""i thic the City of Palo
Alto and ic the surrounding region.
NOW. THEREFORE. ~e parties do hereby agree as follows:
1. DefJnitiQns. In this Agreement, unless the context
otherwise requires:
(a) "Applicable Rules· means the rules~ regulations
and official policies of City in force as of the Effective Date;
governing permitted uses of the Property. govern~ng density, and
governing design. improvement an~ construction standards and
specifications applicable to the Project.
(b) ·City· is the City of Palo Alto.
( c l "nevel oper· is THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers
under the laws of the State of california its successors, assigns,
-4-
'l103tl ...... 00509Ol
transferees, or other persons or en~ities acquir:ng Litle to or an
ownership interest in the Property or Prcject.
{dJ "Development Agreement Act" means Se-:.ti.ons
65864 -65669.5 of the California Government Code.
(e) "Discretionary Action; Discretionary Approval"
is an action which requires the exercise of jud~ent, deliberation
or a decision. ana which contemplates and authori%es the imposition
of revisions or conditions. by City, including any board,
commission or depar~~nt and any officer or employee thereof. in
the process of approving or disapproving a par.ticular activity~ as
distinguished from an activity which merely requires City,
inc~uding any board~ commission or department and any officer or -
employee thereof, to determine whether there has been compliance
with applicable statutes. ordinances, regulations. or conditions of
approval.
(f) "Effective Date" is the date this Agreement is
executed by all parties. In the event this Agreement is executed
by the parties on different. dates~ t.he date the last party to
execute this Agreement executes shall constitute the Effective
Date.
{g)
Comprehensive Plan.
~Cornprehensive Plan" is the Palo Alto
(hl hMortgagee~ means a mortgagee of a mortgage or
a beneficiary under a deed of truSt.
'il ·Party'" is a signatory to this Agreement, or a
successor or assign of a signatory to this hgreement~
-5-
(j) "Zoning" means zoni:J.S:
condit.ioned. pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code c~ap:e::.-16.66.
oc) ~ project ~ means the P~operty and the proposed
development of t.he Property descr:'bed in EXEIEIT B a!:tached he=et.o.
(11 "Proj ect. Approvals· means the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment No. t.M Di str i ct Zoning, Site Approval,
conditional use per:mi ts. varian-::es, architectural review. and ani'
other perrdts, licenses or other ent.itlements, discretionary or
~nisterial. relating to the development of the Property.
1m) ·Property" is the subject real property located
at 1050 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, which is vithin City and mere
pa~icularly described in EXHIBIT A attached hereto.
(n) "PUblic Improvements· means those public
improvet!'lents that the Developer agrees to construCt and dedicate to
the City pursuant to requirements of the project Approvals~ or that
the City or such other public entity as the City shall lawfully
Cl.esignate~ ~y acquire~ construc::t, equip, install, opera.t.e or
'12\a.intain.
(a) "Subsequent Applicable Rules· means any rule!=i.
regulations and official policies of City~ as they may be adopted
and effectivE after the Effective Date of this Agreem~nt. governing
per.mitted uses of the Property~ governing density. and governing
design, improvement and construction B~andards and specifications
applicable to the Project. The Parties intend the Project to be
subject to any such subsequentlY adopted rules. regulations or
po.:.fcies only to t.he extent specified in this Ag.!"sement. No such
-6-
\
subsequently adopted rules, regulations or pclicies c:a:l be applied
to the Project ..... ithout Developer's consent unles!= application
thereof is necessar'y to protect. against condiCio::ls ...... !tier.. creat.e a
demonstrable risk to t.he hEalth or safety of residents c,f Ci~y or
the surrounding region or occupants of the Property_
(pl "Zor.ing Ordinance" is the zoning ordinancs for
the City of Palo Alto (Title lS o! the Palo ~~to Municipal Code}.
2. Interest pf [>ev~lQ'Ver. Developer represents to City
that, as of the Effective DatE', it owns the Property in fee;
Subject only to encumbra.nces, easements, covenants, conditions, re
strictions and other matters of re~ord.
3 _ Binding EffeGt. Subject to the provisions of
Section 19 CfJ below~ this Agreement. and all of thF!' ';erms and
conditions hereof, shall run with the land and shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective
as~igns. heirs or other Successors in interest.
-i. Cpndit.iQn~ The effectiveness of this Agreement, and
the Parties" rights and obligations hereunder. shall he condit.ioned
upon close of escrow for purchase of the ~ma Property by City or
its nominee on ter.res a~d cODditions set forth in the Purchase and
Sale Agreement dated ~993 bet~een City and Charles J.
Keenan III and M.."lrk T. Gates, Jr. a copy of which is attached
hereto as EXHIBI~ D.
5. Negation of Agen~. The parties ackncwledge that,
in entering into and performing this Agreement. each is acting as
a!1 in::h~pendent entity and not as an agent of the other in any
-7-
respect. Nothing contained herein or in any c':)cune:::: €xecutec i:r:: -
connection here ... i tn shall be cons'trued as maKing Ci t)' and Deve-lopE:I"
joint venturers or partners.
6. ~lop!'nent of th~ prope:rty_ The follo .... ing specific
restrictions shall govern the use and develcprnent cf the Pz-operty
during the term of this Ag~eement:
{al Permitteg Uses. The Property may pe used for
development of the project d~scribed in EXHIEIT B, as the project
may be modified from time to time as provided in this Agreement, in
accordance with the provisions of the Applicable Rules and
Subsequent Applicable Rules.
'bl Maximum Density and lnt~!"lsity of Use. When
developed~ t.he maximum density and inte.."lsity of use of the Property
s~l not exceed those densities and intensities of use set forth
in EXHIEIT B attached hereto.
(c) MaximQm Height. Number of Stories, Size and
TOe maxLmum building height~ n~~er of stories k size, and
floor area ratio shall be the maximum building heights, number of
stories. sizes ar.:d floor area ratios set forth in EXHIBIT B
attaChed hereto. In the event a conflict arises be:ween
application to the Proj ect or any part thereof of the maximum
building height ana size. stories k or FAR, the ~dXUnurn building
height. shall control, unless City, in the exercise of its sole
discretion. determines otherwise.
{d) Other Develoornent St.andards_. All design and
development standards not set forth in this Agreement shall be in
-8-
9J.OIIS ....... OOJOQrW
------;---
,-... -
"-"";1;-,<-
o.;"_";"?i;:.._
i;"::;;"~":'-'O:'"'c~.L;/~c.::::....J_' ~_
ar..cordance with the Applicable "~ules and Subsequent Applicable
Ru~es. The parties anticipate the exercise by City of discre:ia~
in its r~view and grant.ing of tu~ther Prcje-.:t .a..p!=,!"ovals cor i!"l
amending p~oject Apprcvals upc~ Dev~loper applica~ion ther~fcr.
The Parti~~ agree that the remaining project Approvals iroplerne~t
the Project Approvals granted as of the £!fective Dat.e, and t.he
Parties do :10t inten~ to limit City~s ab:lity to control and
regulate the design, site layout, architectural features, and
building materials, in the implementation of the Project Approvals
granted as of the Effective Date or with respect to Future Project
Modifications. provided that such control and regulation shall not
be exercised in a manner that "Would physically or economica.lly
prevent development of t.he Property with the permitted '.l.ses~
mayiwlm density and intensity of use~ and maximum height~ size,
stories~ and FAR of the Project set forth in EXHIBIT B. Developer
may request amendments or modification to the Project Approvals
{-Future Project Moditications~J and the City shall, upon payment
by Developer of any and all application or precessing fees in
Effect at the time sucb request is made, grant such Future Project
Modifications provided that such ~Jture Project Modification would
not (1) increase the height, density, or intensity of use, or floor
area ratio (FAR) of the project by more tilan two per cent. (2\), or
(2) exceed the maximum height, size, stories. FAR~ or density and
intensity of use permitted by Applicable Rules or Subsequent
Applicable Rules~ Ot"" (3) materially al ter the architect.ural design~
construction materials. or si te desi~~ of the Project. Any Future
Pre ~ct Modification shall be
-9-
subject to any and all Citr review pro::esses i.n e:~ect a:: the time
the Future Project. Modification is requ-estec. in,:luding but not
limited architectural review or staff revie..... Ar.y Future Project
Modification shall be subject to all uniform code provisions in
effect in the City at the time the request is IT4de.
'7. Development Fees. Developer sr.all pay the following
Development Fees in connection with the development ot the Project;
(a) Developer shall pay the Housing Mitigation Fee
at the rate (including ann'U, .. ! adjustments for changes i~ the
Consumer Price Index) and when due in accordance with Chapter ~€.47
of the Palo ~to ~nicipal Code in effect on the Effective Date.
{b) Developer shall pay a Transportation Impact Fee
at the rate (including annual adjustments for changes in th'E!
Consumer Price Index) and when due in accordance with Chapter ~6.46
of the Palo ~to MUnicipal Code in effect on the Effective D~te.
{c) Developer shall pay an additional tee of
$407,000 as additional mitigation of the loss of potential housing
due to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. On the fifch 15th)
anniversary of the Effective Date. this fee shall be increased by
a percentage equal to one-half [1/2) the percentag~ increase in the
Consumers Price Index, all consumers, fo~ the San Francisco-
oakland-San Jose Area (~CPI·) from the mOD~h preceding the fourth
(~thl anniversary of the Effective Date to the month preceding the
fifth {5th} anniversary of the Effective Date. The fee shall be
adjusted annually thereafter en the each subsequent an~iversary of
the Effective Date (an ·Adjustment Date~) by a percentage equal to
-10-
I ,
,' .. ~
",.~ '.::"-.
one -hal!' (1/2) the pi:!rcentage increase i::'l the CPl fro."'i'. the
Adjustment Date in the p~eceding year to ~he then Current
Adjustment Date. Tt:.e fee shall be due upon the first (1st)
anniversary of the date of issuance of the building p€rnti t for the
first building of the Project or upon occupan~y of any building,
whichever occurs first.
8. ~icati9n§, Exactions. Mitiaation and R2sprvatiouc:.
{a} Dedications. Developez-shall dedicate
necessary easements for traffic signal control. se\.<ler.r utilitr, and
storm drain pu~ses.
Cb) Q;:her pedicat.iQn§.. Developer shall provid~
any other dedications required by the provisions of the Project
Approvals.
Cel NQ Other Public ImprgvemgDts or Financial
Contrihut.iQll5. Developer shall not be required to construct public
improvements or make financial contributions to City in lieu of .
public improvements. except as expressly set forth in this Agree·
ment. or as may De agreeaDle to Developer. or as provided in
Section S below.
{a) Agreement and AsE;uranCe$ on the Part of
Develop@r. The parties acknowledge and a9'ree that development of
the Property will result in substantial public needs and further
acknowledge and agree that this Agreement confers unique benefits
on Developer which can only be bdlanced by 'the proYision of
extraordinary public benefits. The parties intend by thiS
-11-
J'I.g::.g,ement to provide consideration to the ~'ubL:: to balance the
private benefits confe~-red on Developer by p=oviding for the
sat"isfac:t"ion of certain direct and indirect pLOblic needs :-esultinS
tram or relating to the Project; and to provide public assu~ance
that this Agreement is tair. JUSt and reasonable, and p::ompted by
the necessities of the situation so as to provide extraordinary
benefits to CitY4 Developer acknowledges that this consideration
is reasonably related to the type and extent of the impacts of the
project upon the community. and further ackno .... ledges that this
consideration is necessary to address the d.irect and indirect
~acts caused by the Project. In consideration of the foregoing
and i.D consideration of City's assurances for corrpletion of the
Project pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in Section
Sib) and (f) below, Developer hereby agrees as foll~Ns!
(1) If Developer proceeds with the Project,
Developer will develop the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, with the conditions established in
the Project Approvals, with the Applicable Rules. and with the
Subsequent Applicable Rules.
(2) In addition to any other remedies pro"lridea
the City under t.his Agreement, it Developez-tails to mak.e any
payment or complete any other act or perfo~ce specified in this
Agreement; Developer shall have no fUrther right or entitlement to
any building permit or certificate of occupancy pursuant to the
Project Approvals until the default has been cured as pr~id€d in
this Agreement. The Parties recognize that this subparagraph may
-12 -
I
\
result in the limitation or-cessation ot :ha rig!lts ot.he:!:'"lo;i.se
conferred by this Agreement upon Developer (as defined to include
any successors, assigns. transferees. or other persons or entities
acquiring titl~ 'to or an interest in the Property or Proje;:t) fo!:
development.
[3} Extypprdinary PtQcesqing Fe~. Before
issuance of any building permits fo~ the Project. D~veloper shall
pay to City an extraordinary processing tee to compensate City for
additional costs incurred as a result of the negotiation and
proceSSing of this Agreement. Such fee shall include all staff r
consultant, City 1..ttorney or other time and :materia! charges in
excess of those charges estimated in CityZs ~sual processing fees
in an amount not to exceed ~ ~5.000.
(b) Agreement. and. It.f!~Uranr;e5 on the Part of the
ti:I. In order to effectuate the proviSions of this Agreement and
as an inducement for Developer to obligate itself to carry out the
covenants and conditions set forth in the preceding Section 9(a) of
this Agreement and in consideration for Developer doing so, City
hereby agrees and assures Developer that Developer will be
permitted to carry out and complete the entire Project. subject to
the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the conditions
established in the Project Approvals. and the Applicable Rules, and
s"olbsequent Applicable Rules. In furtherance of such agreement and
assurance, and pursuant to the authority and provisions set forth
in the Development Agreement Act, City, in entering into this
Agreement. hereby agrees and acknowledges that:
-13 -
(l) £;"ltitlern,gnt to Develqt;. Develope:-r .. as
acquired and been granted the vested rig~t to develop the Project
pursuant to the Project Approvals, as amended fro~ time to time as
provided in Section 6(d} of this Agreement, to the extent and in
the malli~er provided in thiS Agreement. subject to the ccnditions
imposed by the Proj ect. Approvals and in acc"rdc.nce .... i th the
Applicable Rules ana Subsequent Applicable Rules, and City hereby
finds the Project consistent with the Comprehensive Pla:J and the
Zoning Ordinance.
Any change in the Applicable Rules. inc~~ding,
without limit.ation, any change in any applicable general or spo;:·
cific plan~ zoning~ subdivision or building ordinance or regula
tion, adopted or becoming effective af'ter the Ef.fective Date in
clUding, without limitatioo. any such cba.nge by meanE of ordinance,
initiative~ referendum, resol~tion. policy. order or moratorium,
initiated or instituted for any reason whatsoever and aaopted by
the Mayor. City Council, Planning commission or any ot.her boa,rd.
coamission or department of City~ or any officer or employee
thereof, or by the electorate~ as the case ~y be, wnich would,
absent this A~reement, otherwise be applicable to. the Project and
which would confli~t in any way with or be more restrictive than
the Applicable R~les. shall not be applied by City to the Project
unless such change is necessary to protect against conci ticns
creating a demonstrable risk to the health or safety of residencs
of Ci ty or the surrOL:':lding region or occupants of the Property.
9J0111 "'f'L 0QS0968
•
--
.-,,"
Any subsequent Discretionary A.:: tio:.:, 0::-o:her
approviill which does no':. (I) increase the height, ciensity, or
int:ensity'o! use~ or floor area ratio (FAR) of the Project, 0:'-(.2}
exceed the maximu,':'! height. size, stories. FAA, or denSity and
intensity of use permitted by Applicable Rules or Subseg-.J.ent
Applicable Rules, or r,3} materially alter the archi~ectural design,
construction rr.aterials. or site design of the Project shall .be
.9'o,,~erned by the Applicable Rules, unless it is nece-ssary for su~h
subsequent Discretionary Action tc be governed by Subsequent
Applicable Rules in order to protect against conditions which
create a demonstrable risk to thR health Or safety o~ residents of
City or the surrounding region cr occupants of the Property.
Any su!;)seq-...lent Discretionary Actions by City or
any conditions. terms, restrictions and requirerr.ents fer such
Discretionary Actions by City,. shall not prevent development of the
Property for the uses an~ to the maximum density or intensity of
development and heights. sizes, number of stories and FAR. set forth
in this Agreement. unless City determines that the prevention of
such development is necessary to protect against conditions which
create a demonstrable risk to the heal~h or safety of resideots of
City or the surr~lndin9 region or occupants of the Property.
The City acknowledges that Developer cannot at
this time predict whether. when. or the rate at which the Project
will be developed. Such decisions depend upon nu."llerous factors
which are not wi thirl the control of Developer. such as IJ\.:':..rket
orientation and demand, int~ ,est rates, absorption, competition and
-15 -
9lOS 18 !Of"( «lSO',l6l
•
~<. -"
oth~r similar factor-so Be:a-:..;.se the Ca.lifornia S:.1p.:-eme C'o:.:.rt held
in. pardee Construction CQ v. City of Camar)llo (1984) 37 CaL.3d
465. thc-.t·failure of the parties therein to provide fer tho;-timing
of development resulted in a later adopted ir:itiative restricting
the ti~~ng of development to prevail over such parties' agreement.
it is the parties' intent to c:u!"e that deficiency by ackno,,"'ledging
and providing that Developer shall have the right to develc;: the
Project in such order af1d at such rate and at such times as
Developer deems appropriate within the exercis~ of its subjective
business judgment.
(2) Consistency with Applicable Rules. City
finds, based upon all information made available to City prior to
or concurrently with the execution of this A£reement~ that there
are no Applicable Rules that would prohibit or prevent the ful~
completion and occupancy of the Project in accordance with uses,
densities, designs, heights, si2es~ number of stories, and FAR
incorporatea and agree~ to herein.
C3} Suhsgquent p'siretionary ArtiQns. With
respect to any Project Approval that is required subsequent to the
execution of this Agreement or any Future Project Modification
reque3ted by Developer, City agrees that it will not unreasonably
with.'l-J.old from Developer or unreasonably condition or delay any such
Project Approval or Future Project Modification, ..... hich must be
issued by City in order for the project to proceed to ccnstruction
an::l occupancy. In addition, no condition shall preclude or
othe~ .... .'ise limit :Developer's abili ty to develop the Proj ect in
-16 -
-.--
accordance with the height, density and i!lter:sity of use and size,
number of stories and FAR specifications set forth i~ EXE!8!T E no~
ot.herwise' conflict 'With anI" provisio;) of this Agr-eemen't, unless
suet. condi'tion is necessary to protect against conditions whic.h
create a demonstrable risk to the health or safety of residents of
City or the surrounding region or occupants 'Of the Property.
(c) C'2gparg'Cion and Implement.ation. City agrees
that it ~ill cooperate with Developer to the fullest extent reason
able and feasible to implement this Agreement. Upon s~tisfactary
completion by Developer of all required preliminal~ actions and
payments of appropriate fees, including the-fe~ for processing this
Agreement, City will cammence and in a timely manner proceed to
complete all steps necessary for the implementation of this
Agreement and the development of the Property in accordacce with
the terms of this Agreement, including. but not limited to. the
processing and checking of any and all Project Approvals,
a9reements~ covenants, applications and related ~tter6 required
under the conditions of this Agreement, building plans and speci
fications and any other plans n~cessary for the develo~ent ~f the
Property, filed by Developer and the issuance of all m~cessary
building permits~ occupancy certificates or other required permits
for the constrl,jct.ion~ use and occupancy of the Property. When
Developer is prepared to initiate such process, Developer will, in
a timely manner~ provide City with all documents, plans and othe~
informacion necessary for City to carry aut its obligations
hereunder.
·17-
(dl l.Q:entifica':ion Of At;0lic,?,ble R'.:.les, Pnor to
the E.ffecti ve Date. the parties will use reas::ma;olE e~fo= ts tc
identity the Applicable Rules and t.o duplicatE se::~ thereof, one
(1) set [or the City and one tIl eet for DevelopE~, 50 that if it
becomes necessary in the fu~ure to refer to any o! the A~plicable
Rules~ there will be a common set of the Applicable R:.;les available
to both parties. Failu:re by City to idenr.ify un .... =itte:1 Applicable
Rules shall in no man....."er lirrJ.t City's ability to later identify 0:
use such Applicable Rules.
(e} No Other Exactions + Except as expressly set
forth in this Agreement, no other exactions shall bE required to be
paid, dedicated, constructed or contribut.ed by :Developer in
cOllnection with this Agreement or any Project Approval~ unless City
determines that such an exaction is necessary to protect agai~st
conditions which create a demonstrable risk to the heal th or safety
of residents of City cr the Burroun~ing region or occupants of the
property. For purposes of this Agreement .. exaction shall mean any
requirement of City in connection with or pursuant to any
Applicable Rule or any Project JI.pproval tor dedication of land~
construction or improvement of public facilities, payment of fees
or making any other contribution required in order to address
impacts of development on the cOlmrunity or the impact.s of this
Agreement.. For purposes of t~is Agreement, usual and cwstomary
application. processing and penr,it tees of the type now in effect
shall not be considered exactions~ and shall he paid by Developer
in whatever amou.nt has been established by City :'n a generally
-18-
applicable manner at the time any such app~icaticr., p~ocessing or
pe~it is sought by Developer.
10. {SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BL~~X}.
1.1. Periodic Revig .... · of Cornpli:ance.
(a) periodic R~view~ City sh~ll review this
Agreement ~ually~ on or before the anniversari' af the ,ffective
Date~ in accordance with the procedures and standards se~ forth. in
this Agreement and in Resolution No. 6597 in order to ascertain
comp11ance by Developer witr. the tet1T1S of the Agreement. DevelClp-er
shall submit an annual reportr iD a form acceptable to City, within
30 days after written notice from City. The annual report shall be
accornpani ed by an annu:s.l review fee sufficient to cover t.he
estimated costs of review an~ aam.inistrat.ion of the Agreetn9[lt
during the succeeding year. The amount of the annual review and
a~stration fee will be set by resolution of the City Council.
Cb) Special Reyiew. The City Council of City may
order a special review of coznpliance with this Agreement at any
time. The Planning Director or City Council, as dete~ined from
time to time by the Ci ty Council. shall conduct such special
reviews.
ee) Proc:edure.
III During ei ther a periodic: review or a
special review I Developer shall be required to demonstrate good
faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. The burden of
proof on t.his issue shall be on Developer. The Parties acy.nowledge
.. , , ,.
t.hat failure by Developer to demonstrate s:.od fa..ith compliar..:.;
shall constitute grounds for termination cr moci~ication cf this
Agreement' in accordance with the provisions 0: t.his Sec::i.on 11.
i2) Upon completion of a periodic revie .... · or a.
special re~iew, the Planning Director shall submit a report to the
City C.ouncil setting forth the evide:'lce c .. :mcerning good faith
compliance by Developer with the terms of this Agreement ~nd the
recommended finding on that issue.
(3) If the City Council finds aD the basis of
substantial evidence that Developer has complied in good faith with
the te~ and conditions of this Agree!nent, the review shall be
cone 1 uded .
(4) If the City Council makes a finding that
Developer has not complied in good faith with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement. the City shall provide VYitten notic:e
to Oeveloper describing (i) such failure to comply with the terms
and conditions of this Agreement (referred to herein as a
-Default-), (ii) whether the Default CaD. be cured, (iii) t.he
actions, if any, re~~ired by Developer to cure such Default, and
(iv) the time period within which such Default mu.st be cured. .If
the Defaul t can be cured, Developer shall have at a mininr..un 90 days
after the date of such notice to c~re such Default, or in the event
that such Default cannot be cured within such 90 day period but can
be cured within one (lJ year, Developer shall h~ve commenced the
actions n~ ... essary to cure such Default and shall be diligently
procee~ing to complete s~ch actions necessary to cure such Default
-20-
OJ,OIII: .,..... OOJQ961
within 90 days from the date of notice. If the default cannc't he
cured or cannot be cured ~itr.in one [I} year. as oeterminec by City
during perioo.ic o!' special review, the City Council may modify or
terminate this Agreement as provided in Section 11 (0,1 and Sectio:::l
11 (e) •
(5) If the Developer fails to cure a Default
within the time periods s~t fortt, in Section 11 Ie) (4), the City
Council may rr.odify or terminate this Asreemer.t as provided in
Section ~l(d) and Section ll(el.
(d; Proceedings Upon Mpdificati~" or Terminatiop.
rf~ upon a finding under Section 11 (c) and ~he expiration of the
cure period specified in Sect.ion 11 (c) (4) above, City determines to
proceed with modification or termination o! this Agreement. City
shall give written notice to Developer ot its intention so to do.
The notice shall be given at least ten calendar days before the
scheduled hearing ana shall contain:
Ii) The time and place of the hearin~;
(i:') A statement a6 to whether or not Cit.y
proposes to terminate or t~ modify the Agreement; and
(iii) Such other informat.ion as is
reasonably necessary to infcrm Developer ot the nature of the
proceeding.
(e) Hearipgs on MDdifiqq:iop or Tennin2tion. At
the time and place set for the hearing on modification or termina
tion, Developer shall be given an opportunity to be heard and,
Developer shall be required to demonstLate good faith compliance
-21·
with the ter:ru; and conditions of this Ag:reE'!TIen:. The blJ.~6en o!.
proof on [,he issue shall be on Developer. If th~ CJ.ty COuncil
finds, based upon substantial evidence, that Developer has no:
complied in good !aith with the terms or conditions of tbe Agree
ment, the City Council may terminate this Agreement or modify this
Agreement and impose such conditions as a=e reasonably necessary to
protect the interests of City. The decision o~ the Ci~y Cou~cil
shall be final and subject to judicial review only pursuar:.t to Code
of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5.
(f) Cfrtificace of CQmpliance~ IL at the conclu
sion of a perioaic or special revie~. Developer is found to be in
complia::ce with this Agree."Itent. City shall, upon request by
Developer~ issue a Certificate of Compliance 'IICertiticate") to
Developer stating that after the most recent periodic or spe~ial
review ana based upon the information known or made known to thE:
Director of Planning and City CounCil that (1)
remains in effect and (2) Developer is not in
this Agreement.
defaul t . The
Certificate shall be in recordable form. shall contain informatior::
necessar.l to communicate co~st::-.v:tive record notice of the finding
of compliance, shall state whether the Certificate is issued after
a periodic or special review, and shall state the anticipated dat~
of commencement of the next periodic re"~iew. Developer may re=ord
the Certificate.
Whether or not the certificate is relied upon by
assignees or other transferees or Developer, City shall not be
bound by a Certi ficate if a default existed at the time of the
·22-
periodic or special revie .... , but .,.as concealed frc:'r or-c:ner;,:is€ no::
known tc the Planning Direct":-or City CO'.mc.d.
,12. MQdif:icatiQn~,""nt Q,:," Cancellat:o:-,. Subject to
meeting thE. notice and hearing requirements of Secrlo:) ESS67 of the
Development Agreer.tent Act. this Agreement rrlay be modifiec or
amended from t:l....rne to time by mutual consent c! the parties or r..heir
successors in inte~est in accordCL~ce with the provisions of Section
65868 of the Development Agreement Act and City~s Resolution No.
6597; provided, however. that any amendment which does not relate
to the term. permitted uses, density or intensity of use, height,
size. n~ber of stories or FAR of buildings, provisions for
reservation and dedication of land, conditions, tetlnS. restrictions
and requirements relating to subsequent Discretionary Actions~ or
any eaodiLions or covenants relating to the use of the Property.
may. if deemed appropriate by City, be conducted yithout notiCE or
public h~aring before the pa~ie9 ~y execut~ an amendment her~to.
It is acknowledged by the
parties that City would not ha~ entered into this Agreement if it
were to nave liability in damages undp.r this Agreement, or ~ith
respect to this Agreement or the application thereof. The parties
intend by the provisions of this Section 13 that Cjty shall have no
liability for damages arising out of a breach of this Agrea~ent.
It is further acknowledged that City would not have entered into
this Agreement if Developer had not acknowledged that a reasonable
relationship exists ben"een all dedications. reservat.ions,
conditions, impositior~ or other exactions imposed ana the impact
-23-
•
\
of the Project upon the com:nuni ty. In add:'tion, :it is !"llrthe::'"
acknowledged that City would no: have entered intc, t~.i.5 J..g!"E:emo:;:"lt
if Developer-had not ackno"deaged that the direct a:J.c indirect
impacts of the Proj eet warrant and require thE' terms ana co:.::ii:::ions
of this Agreement.
Each of the parties hereto may p'...:..rsue a!1Y remedy at la\\.·
or equity available for the breach of any provisicr: of this
Agreement~ except that City shall have no l:i.ability in da.-nages to
Developer during the term of this Agreement or thereafter "'ith
respect to any act.s which are alleged to have Comr.\er::cea or o::curred
during the term of this Agreement.
The parties further acknowledge that mocey damages and
remedies at law generally are inadequate and specific performance
is an appropriate remedy for the enforcement of this Agreement and
should ~ available ~o all parties for the following reasons:
{a) Monoey damages against City are excluded as
prov-ided above.
Cb) Due to the size, nature and scope of the
Proj ec:t., it may not be practical or possible to restore the
Property to its origina.l condition once implementation of t.his
Agreement has hegun. Aiter such implementat.ion, Developer may be
foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the
Property or portions thereof. peveloper has invested sigr.ificant
time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing
of the Project in agreeing to the t~rros of this Agreement and will
be investing even more significant time and resources in
-24-
implementing the project in relia:.lce upon the te~s of this:
Agree.rnent. and it is not possible to dete!:'rnine the SUlH Clf I':'.oney
which would adequately cornp~nsate Developer for such effo~ts.
Except for non-damages remedies, including the remedy of
specific performance, Developer, for itself. its Successors ana
assignees~ hereby releases City. its officers, agents and employees
from any and all claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind or
nature arising out at any liability, known or unY~owu, present or
future, including .. but not limited to. any claim or liability,
based or asserted~ pursuant to Article I, Section ~9 of the
California Constitution. the Fifth and Fourteenth A .. nendments of the
United States Constitution, or any other la ..... or ordinance which
se~ks to impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever, upon the
City because it entered into this Agreement .. because of the terms
of this Agreement, or because of the manner of ilrplementation a!'
performance of this Agreement.
All legal actions shall be heard by a reference from the
Santa Clara County Superior Court pursuant to Cod~ of Civil
Procedure Se~t.ion 63a, .fU. ~~ Developer and City shall agree upon
a single referee who shall then try all issues. whether of fact or
law. and report a finding and judgment thereon and issue all legal
and equitable relief appropriat.e under the circumstances of the
controversy before hjrn. If Developer and City are unable to agree
on a referee within ten 110} days of a writt.en request to do so by
either party hereto, either party may seek to have one appointed
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 64D~ The cost of such
·25·
IS Y
proc~""in9 shall ir.itial~y be borne equally by the parties. A."1)'
referee selected pursuant to this Section 13 shall be considered a
temporary' judge appointed pursuant to A-:-ticle f, Sect-im:. 21 of the
California Constitution.
14. Litigation Expensf~. If a legal action or pro·
ceedin9 is brought by any party because of default under this
Agreement, or to enforce a provision thereof, the p~evailing party
th~rein shall be entitled, in addition to any oth~r relief, to
recover reasonable attorneys~ fees and court costs from the losing
party as determined by the court in which said actio~ or proceeding
is pending.
15. S~per5edina State or Federal Law. In the event that
any state or federal law or regulation enacted or adopted after the
date of this Agreement shall prevent or preclude compliance with
any of the provisions hereof~ such provisions shall be modified or
su~ded only to the extent ana for the time necessary to achieve
compliance with said law or regulation and the remaining provisions
of this Agreament shall be in full ferce and effect. Upon repeal
of said la ..... or regulation or occurrence of ot.her circum.stances
remo:wing the effect thereof upon this Agreement, the provisions
hereof Shall be restored to their full original effect.
16. Hold Harmless. Develope~ agrees to and shall hold
City~ its officers, agents, employees and representatives. harmless
and shall defend and indemnify City from liability for damage or
clainL~ for damage for personal injury, including death, and claims
[or property damage which may arise from the operations of
-26 -
9){llla .... OOj{)%!
-' .. ,' .
.,/ .. t
\
Developer, cr its contractors. subcontracto~s. a?~~:s. employees or
other persons actin? on its beha1.f in relation to development. ot
the Property ~ This hold harmless ,section app:'ies to all aa.'n:lges
and claims for darr.ages suffered or alleged to have been s'..:.ffered by
reason of the operdtions r€ferred tc in this Agreement. regardless
of whether 0= not City prepared. s""ppl ied Cr app!"oved plans or
specifications or both.
In addition to che foregoing, Developer agrees to pay all
costs. expenses, resultant charges j and damages, including bu~ net
limited to attorney's fees ~~d the cost of any additional
mitigation measures Cr project revisions determined by a final
judgment by a court of competent jurisdiccion ~o bs required under
the California Environmental Quality Act or State CEQA Guidelines,
ineurred by or imposed upon City as a result of a."ly litigation
attaCking this Agreement or any aspect of the Project, provided.
however. that: Developer shall have the right unt3er this
subparagraph ~o recommend legal counsel for the defense of City.
subject to City's approval.
City agrees to aDd shall hold Developer, iCE officers,
agents, employees and representatives~ harmless a~d shall defend
ana indemnify Developer from liability for damages or claims:
arising out of the wrongful or negligent act.s of City in the
performance of its obligations under this Agreement.
In the event a claim is filec wlt-h either party for which
indemnification is claimed under chis paragraph, the party seeking
indemnification shall give no"_ice to the inde.-nnifying party of the
-27-
." .
f:.J.ll p&rticulars of the claim promptly after learr:ing of S:t."r1E" The
party seeking indemnification shall not settle S'"J.ch a claim i:i!'ter
a demand for inde!llnification has been made ... ·ithout the consen::. of
the indemnifying party. ....·r.ich consent shall not be unreasonablr
withheld.
17" NQtic;gs. All notices required or pro .... ided for under
this Agrea~nt shall he in writing and shall be delivered
personally or by overnight cour.ier service or sent by certified or
registered mail, return receipt requested. A.Tly notice given by {i}
personal delivery, {iil recognized overnight national courier
service. or (iii) registered or certified mail. return receipt
requested; shall be deemed to have been duly giver. and received
upon receipt. Notices to t.be parties shall be adaressea as
follows:
City:
wit.h a copy to:
Developer~
with a copy to:
City Manager
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto~ California 94303
City Attorney
City of P310 Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto~ California 94303
S~anford University
clo STANFORD MANAGEMElI'J' COMPANY
~7?O Sand Hill Road
Palo Alto. CA 940~5
Attn~ Wij.liazrl Phillips
-2S-
Office of the Vice ?res:dent
and General Counse-':
Sta!'lford University
P. O. Box N. Bldg. 170
Stanford. California 943{JS
Attn: Susan Herald. Esq.
Any notice so delivereo shall be effective L.!pon the: date of
personal delivery orkin the case cf mailing, on the date of
delivery as shown en the u.s. Postal Service return re~eipt. Any
party may change its address for notice by giving ten [ID} days'
notice of such change in the manner provided for in t.his paragraph.
lB. Term pf Agr.oement. The teD!"! of this Agreement shall
commence as of the Effective Date. and shall continue for ten (lO}
years from the E.f.fective Date or until terminated by mu~ual consent.
ot the parties or as otherwise provided by this Agreement. Upon
the termination of this Agreement. no party shall have a.'Ply further
right or obligation hereunder except with respect to any obligation
to have :been performed prior to such termination or with respect. to
any default in the performance of the provisions of t.his Agreement
which has occurred prior to E:uch termination or with respect to any
obligations which are speci.fically set fo=th as surviving this
AgreemeDt~
~9. Miscellaneous.
(a) construction. As used in this Agreement~ and
as the context may require, the singular includes the plural and
vice versa, and the masculine gender includes the feminine and
neuter and vice ..... ersa.
-29-
-....,..------
rb) Se.verabiljty+ If any te:Tr., prov;;.siarJ, CDvena;-;t
or condition of this Agreement shall be detem,ined i.nvalid, vo.:.c,
err unenfO):"cs.able, the remainder of this Agreerner.::. shall n~t be
affected to the extent the remaining provisions are no~ render~ci
impractical to perform taking into consideratio~ the purposes of
this Agreement+ Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provision of
exactions and consideration referenced in Section 9 of this
Agreement are essential element.s of this Agreeme:1t and City would
not have entered into this Agreement but tor such provisionsr an~
ther~fore in the event such provisions are determined to be
iDValio~ void or unenforc~able~ this entire Agreement shall be null
and void and of no force and effect whatsoever as of the date such
det.ermination becomes .final.
{c) gf!S;9rdat.ion. Upon execution of this Agreement.
City Shall promptly arrange ter its recordation as provided in
Government Code Sectio~ 6se68.S+ Failure to re~ord this Agreement
within the ttme period pravided for in Section 6SS6E.5 shall not
affect its validity or enforceability aroOI".gst the Parties hereto+
(d) Captipn5 ang Referen~. The captions of ~he
Sections and subsections of this Agreement are solely for
convenience of reference. and shall be disregarded in the
construction and interpretation of this Agreement.
tel .:rime. Time is of the essence of this Agreerr.ent
and of each and every tern". and condition hereof. provided that
failure by City to give notices at the times specified in this
Agreement during a periodic review or special review, or
-3C-
III)OS II ""I'" oomoa
'-"
termination or modification p~oceedin9 shall not aff~=t the
validity of such ~roceedings if Developer has actual r.o~ice of such
proc.oaecings.
(0 .;ssignrn en :
{1) EJoht to assign. Developer sha.ll have the
right: to selL c.ransfer or assign the Property, in ..... hole or in part
(provided t.hat no su.-;h pa.r-tial transfer shall be permitted to cause
a violation of the Subdivision ~.ap Act~ Government Code section
66410, ~ ~.), ~o any person or entity at any time Quring cbe
term ot th.is Agreement; provided. however, the.t any such sa.le,
~ransrer or assignmen~ shall include the assignrrenc and assumption
of the rights~ duties and obligations arising under or from this
Agreement with respect to the property transferred and shall be
made in strict compliance with the following conditions precedect;
Ii) No sale~ t-ransfer or assignment of any
right or int.erest under t.his Agreement (-Transfers") shall be made
unless made t.ogether with the sale, transfer or a6si~nt of all
or a part of t.he Property. Transfers shall includ.e granting or
assigning a ground lease est:ate in the entire Property.
(ii' Concurr~n~ly with any such sale, transfer
or assignment, or within ten (~O) business days thereafter,
Peveloper shall notify City. in writing, of such sale. transfer or
assignment and shall provide City with an executed agreement, in a
form reasonably acceptable to City. by the purchaser, transferee or
assignee and providing therein that the purchaser. transferee or
-31-
assignee expressly and unconditionally assumes a':'l the du';ies 2rJ,j
obligations of Developer unde= this Agr~ement.
'No~withstanding the tailure of any p~~chase~, trans!e=ee
or assignee eo execute the Qgree~ent required by subpa=agraph (ii)
above. the burdens of this Agreement: shall be binding upon su,:h
purchaser.. transferee or assignee, but the bene!i ts of this
Agreement shall not inure to sucn pu:-chaser. transfere:e o!' assignee
until and unless such agreement is executed.
(2) Release of TransferriDc Developer.
Notwithstanding any sale. transfer or assignme~t, a transferring
Peveloper shall ccntin'Lle to be obligated under this Agreement
\lUless sl.lch transferring Developer is given a release in writing by
City. which release ..... ill be provided by City upon t.he full
sat.isfaction by such transferring Developer of t-he follo· .... ing
conditions:
(il The transferring Developer no jonger has
a legal or equitable interest in the portion of the Property being
t.rans f erred.
(ii) The transferring Developer is not then in
default and default proceedings have not been cor.rnencec. by City
under t.his Agre~~ent.
(iii) The transferring Developer has proviCled
Ci ty with the notic.e and executed a9'reeme~t required under Section
Hit) 11) Iii) above.
{iv) The purchaser. tr3nsferee or assigr..ee
pro..-jes City 'With "-:curity rt:asonably satisfactory to (-(y tc
·32·
secure performance Ol its monetary obligztic:-:.s under Secri~I"'.
9 (a) (4d above, including its p:-o rata. share of the obligatio:1 s~t
forth under Section 9 ta) C';) (vii).
Nothing contained in this Section 19(f) shall prevent a
transfer of the Property, or any portion thereot, to c.D
institutional lender as a result of a foreclosure or deed in lieu
af foreclosure and a!'ly lender acquiring the Property, o:r any
portion thereof, as a result of foreclosur~ or a deed in lieu of
torec:los!lre shall take such property subject to the rights and
obligations of Developer under this Agreement; provided, however,
in no eVent shall such ~ender be liable for any defaults or
moneta~ obligations of Developer arising prior to acquisition of
title to the Property by such lender and provided fUrther in no
event shall any such lend.er or its successors or assigns be
entitled to a building permit or occupan:::y certificate for any
port-ion of the Project for which any fees required by this
Agreement :have not been paid to City or for any pert ion of the
Project for wr.ich any other obligation un~er this Agreement r~ains
unperfortned.
Subject to t.he provisiOns of ttds Section 19 (f). the
burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits
of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors-in-interest to the
parties to this Agreement.
Cg) Waiver_ No waiver of any provision of this
Agreement shall be effective unl~ss in writing and signed by a duly
-33-
9.'IU. >. ~ OO.5D'Kol
-->, "J
authorized rep~esen~ative of the pa::-ty a9ain::-~ \I:hom enforcemeo:; of
a wa.ive:-is sough~. No 'Waiver of an.y right or remedy in respect o~
any OCcurre!1ce or event shall be deert1ed a waiver (,!' any right 0:
remedy in respect of any other occu~rence or even~.
(h) Governing Sta~. This Agreement shall be
construed in accordance ~ith the laws of the State of California.
This Agreeltlent shall be construed as a "'-hole according to its fair
language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes
of the parties. The rule of construction to the effect that
arnbiguit.ies are to be resolved against the drafting party shall .cot
be employed in interpreting this Agreement. all parties having been
represented and having fully pa!"ticipated in the negotiat.ion of
this Agreement.
(il CenificeU of Cpmp'ia.nce. At a.ny time dur,c09
t:he term of this Agreement. any lender or other part}' may request
any party to this Agreement to confirm that. to the best. of such
party's knowledge, no defaults exist unde.r this Agreement. or if
defaults do exist, to describe the nature of such defaults. Each
party hereby agrees to provide a cer?:ificate to such lender 0':
other party within ten (lOi business days of the request therefor.
The failure of any party to provide the requested certificate
within such ten flO} bUSiness day period shall not constitute a
confirmation that to t.he best of such party's kL-::o\lrledge. no
defaults exist under lhis Agreement.
rj) Mqrtgag""e-Prot"'ct1,M. The parties hereto agree
tb3t this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer in any
-34-
9:ma II .. ,.. OO~I
mannsr, at: Developer's sole discretion. :rc:r. E;'lcl.1m.be!"ing the
Property or any portion thereof or any imt:'rovement thet"eon by a~y
mortgage. 'deed of trust or other security device securing fine:.r".cing
with respect to the Property. The City adm.Olorledges that t.he
lenders providing such financing may re<,p..:i.r-e certain Agreeme::lt
interpret.ations and agrees upon request, from time t.o time; to me-et
~ith Developer and representatives of such !e-ooerE to consider any
such request for interpretat ion. Ci ty "'ill not unreo..sonably
withhold its cocsent to any such requested interp~etation provided
su~h interpretation is consistent with the inten~ and purposes of
this Agreement. Any MOrtgagee of the Property shall be entitle:j to
the following rights and privileges:
,~) Neither entering into this Agreement Dor
a breach of this Agreement shall defeat. render iovalid~ diminish
or impair the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust on the property
made in good faith and for value.
(2) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or dee~ of
trust encumbering the ~roperty; or any part thereof, which
Mortgagee, has submitted a request in writing to the City in the
tnamler specified her'ein for givl.ng notices. shall be entitled to
receive ~itten notification from City of any default by Developer
in the performance of Developer's obligations under this Agreement.
(3) If City timely receives a request from a
Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to
Developer under the terms of this Agreement. City shall provide a
copy of that not.ice to the Mortgager ... ·i thin t......e.nty (::20) days of
-35-
sending the notice of de~aul t to the Devel :l'per. The Mortgagee
shall have the right. but not the obligation. to C\.l:-e the ae!a:..:J.t
during the remaining cure period allowed such party l.<nder this
Agreement:.
(4) Any Mortgagee who comes in::.o posses.sio~ of
the Property, or ~~y part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the
mortgage or deed of trust. or deed in lieu of s~ch foreclosure,
shall take the Property, or part thereof, Subject to the terms of
this Agreement; provided, however, in no event shall such r1o:-tgag-ee
be liable for any defaults or mO:lEtary obligations of Developer
arising prior to acquisition of title to the Property by such
l"..ortgagee and provided further in DO event shall aoy such Mortgagee
or its successors or assigns be entitled to a building pern.it or
c..ccupancy certificate until all fees due under thiS Agreement
(relaring to the portion of the Pro~rty acquired by such
Mortgagee) have been paid to the City and until any other default
has been C'.Jred.
(k) forcg ~~ieure. Neither party shall be deemed
to be in default. where failure or delay in per!o:nnanc~ of any of
its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods. earth·
quakes, other Acts of God, fires. wars, riots cr similar
hostilities~ strikes and other labor difficulties beyond the
party's control (including the party' s employment force), court
actions (such as restraining order or injunctions) i or other causes
beyond the party's control+ If any such events shall occur, the
term of this Agreement and the time for performance by either party
-36-
"OS II ~ OOW9bl
of any of its obligations ~le.l."'under shall be ex:ended fo::=-::he
period of time that su=h events prevented such perfo~ance.
II} Entire Agreement. This. Agreem:nt se:s fc.:-:::h
and contains the entire understanding and agreemen~ ot the parties.
There are no oral 0:'-written representations. understa:Jdi~gs.
undertakings. or agreements which are not contained or expressly
referred to herein, and any such representations, understandings,
or agreements are superseded by this Agreement. No evidence of a~y
such representations, understandings, or agree~ents shall be
admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature relating to the
terms 0= conditions of this Agreement. i'ts interpretation. or
breach.
em) No Third party Beneficiaries~ ThiS Agreemer.t
is made a.nd entered into for the sole protection and benefit of th~
parties and their successors ana ass1gns~ No other ~rson shall
have any right of actio~ based upon any provision of this
Agreement.
Cn) Cgunterparts~ Thls Agreemen~ may be executed
by the parties in co~nterparts~ which counterparts shall be
construed together and have the Sal!I.e effect as. if all of t.he
parties had executed the S~ instrument.
(oj Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or
in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by an party
hereto for the purpose of enforo:.ing, construing or oetennining the
validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and
tried io the Superior Court of the county of Santa Clara. State of
·37-
? ,
:'/
California. and the partie.s ",,·aive all p:rovis:o:1s o~ 12:\\: p:=ovidir.g
for th~ filing, r~moval o=-change of venue to "lny o-.:..[;er co-.::-t.
Ip) Fyrth€'. Art ions. Each of the par~iEs sh~l]
cooperate with and prov1ce ~easonable assistance to the other to
the exte!lt contemplated in the performance of all o::;'liga:ions uncier
this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this
Agreement. Upon the request of eithe=-part:y at any time, the other
'party shall promptly execute ..... ith acK..'t)owledgment. or aff::.aavit if
reasonably requir~d, and tile or record such re~~irej instr~er.ts
and writin9~ a~d take any actions as may be reasonably necessary
uncer the terms of this Agreement or to ~vidence O~ cO~S~~te the
transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
(q) AUthority to ix'but£. The person or persons
executing this Agreement warrant and represent that they have the
authority to bind Developer to the performance of its obligations
hereunder.
(r) t)i:hibits. The following exhibi ts co which
reference is made in this Agre~~nt are deemed inco~orated herein
in their entirety:
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
Description of Property
Project Description
Alma Property
Alma Property Purchas~ & Sale Agre~~e~t
(s) Signat.urE;-Paggs. For convenience. the pa:!"ties
may execute and acknowledge this Agreetr.e-nt on s'Sp.a::-ate signat.ure:
pages whiCh, when attached hereto. shall consti:.u':.e tt.is as one
complet· Agreement.
·38 -
./
n: Wl'!N::SS WHEREOF J t.his .Agreement :has been execut.ed by
ehe parties as of the day and year first above written.
"City"
CITY OF PALO ALTO, a
<::hart.ered cit.y
Py' _________________________ __
Mayor:
Oa~~' __________________________ _
{Sign&~ure Block Continuedl
ATrEST:
~'-----~~~~~----City Clerk
APPROVE!) AS '1'0 FORM,
City Attorney
"Developer-
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
r.ELANIl STANFORD JmIIOR UllIVERSn·y •
• body having corporate powers under
the laws of the S~ate of
California
By; stanford Management Company
By' __________ _
Title' ______________________ __
-39-
.. , .
STATE OF CALIFORKIA
SS.
COUNTY OF
on this day of . in the year 1993.
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said Coun:y
and State, personally appeared , personally
known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence}
to be the Mayor. and • personally kno~ to ne (or
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be City
Clerk: of tns municipal corporation that executed the ..... ithin JI!"
strument~ known to me to be the persons 'Who executed the vithin
Instrument on behalf of the municipal corporation therein named,
and acknowledged to ma that such corporation executed the within
Instrument ~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
ss.
NOTARY PUBLIC IN M":l FOR
SAlD COUNTY AND STATE
On this day of ~ in the year 1993~
before me, the undersigned. a Notary PUblic in and for said County
ud St.ate, persona.l.ly appeared _ . personally
known to me {or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)
to be the Mayor ~ and . personally knO'WD to me (or
proved to .me on the basis of satisfactory evidencei to be City
Clerk of the municipal corporation that executed the within In~
strument. known to me to be the persons who executed the within
Instrument on behalf of the municipal corporation therein narned~
and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within
Instrument~
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR
SAID COUNTY AND STATE
~ , "
uESCltlI>TION or PMFERT)"
[Developer to Supply]
SPECIFIC P.LAl\'"
CDE.lil7SITY. INTENSITY OF USE, SIZE. HEIGH'!' AJI,'D S~ORIES)
EXHIE!T p
DATE:
TO:
PREPARED BY:
Citp of Tal 0 Jllto
P.O. lOX 1.o2!~
PALO ALTO. '!:" tO~!
August 11, 1991
PALO ALTO PLAHNING COIIIIISSION
lorraine W'!ls5
REPORT IN BRIEF: 1050 ARASTRADERO ROAD Application for (I) a (o"prehensiv.
Plan H!p Amendm!nt to cnange the rand USe d!signaticn from Multiple·Fam;ly
Residenti,' to Research/Office Park, (2) a Sito a"o Desig" Review of two
proposed res.arch and development buildings totaling approximately 76,000
square feet and relited site improvement:t and (3) variances to exceed the
al10~.ble 35-foot height by S fo.t and a sid. yard s,tbacK of 20 feet where 40
feet is the ~inimum required.
EnVironmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative ~claration n4s ~tn prepared
for this projoct,
ZDru! Oistrict: lM-S(D)
file Hos.: 9Z-(PA-l, 91-EIA-19, 92-0-~, 91-V-ll, 91-ARB-86.
APPLICATION INFO~AT!ON
, Applicant:
T~ of Application:
D',te. :
SITE IHFORKATJON
Owner: (L.lseholder)
keenan-Lovewell Ventures
700 Em>.rson Str.et
Pilo Alto, CA 94301
(415) 321-5517
Amendment to (GOprehensive Plan froo
existing Mult;-f .. ill Aosidenti'! to
Research/Office Parki site I~d design of two
rese&rch and development buildingl;
variinces to exc~ed the eaxfmum height limit
of 3S fe.t by 5-fe.t aod side yard setback
of 20 feet where 40 feet is the minim~m
reQuired, Ind Sjt~ & Design applicat?on.
AppT'citiDn received D6·12-92; Applicitfon
cGOplet. Q7-12-92; M.ndatory action deadline
~ (ltgis1.tj.e action, 180 days .rt.e
application has been d.emed complete)
Keenan-Lo~ewel1 Ventures
700 Emerson Str!et
Palo Alto, (A 94301
(415) nl-5S17
8/2'/91
P.
(Lando ... ·ner) Stanford Manageme~t Com,Oar.y
,770 Sand Hill Road
Men!o Par~, CA 9~~Z5
Assessor~s ParcEl Number: 112·16.060
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi·famiiy Re~identia1
Exi..lting land Use: Vacant
Surrounding land US!:
. Existing Zoning:
Poreel Size:
PROJECT JIIFORMATION
North:
East:
S,"th:
West;
tM-S(O)
Research & d~~elopment facilities
R~search & development ficiTitles
Sfngle·family re~idential
SingTe·famny residential
258,569 sQuare feet
Project Hi!tory: The !ite ;s one of the few in the City wn!re the zonlng and
Comprehensive Plan designations are net co~sistent. The property is zoned for
research and dE~elDp~nt but deSignated for muitiple·fimily bousfng in the
Comprehensive Plan.
In 198~ the applicant filed an app1icatiDn for I CQmprehen$f~e Plan amendment
f~ multiple-family residentiil to resear(n/office park, and re~iew of two
33.0QO-sQuare·foot adminfstrat;ve research buildings of two stories ~acn and &" StOOO-squlre-foot day care center ~t t~e front portl~n for the site. T~is
project was ~1thdrawn due to tencern ever emergency access needs of children
on-sfte at tne day eire center in case of evatuation and the possible re'ease
of tox;, gas from nearby hazardous ~aterial storage facllities.
Curr~nt Prgject Cgmparison Wlth Current Qrdinance Requirements:
PROPOSED AllOWED (R •• uired) EXISTING
75.980 gToss 77 ,570 gress 0
feet s vare feet
FAR 29;3 30.0 0
Maximum Up to Approx. 40 35 feet 'fa H.ignt feet at tower
e1 ements
,
8/21/92
Pig. 2
Park.ing
Use
.. "
PROPOSED
244
Rf!;!.3rCn I;
deveiopment (same
as current
zoni"g)
Project Dgscription
·'
AllO\.,I£D (Rst;luired)
244
Resear-::h & ne .. 'eTopment
EXISTING
o
Vacant
Th~ site is sloped from the rea~ towards the front it Arastradero Road ~ith an
1J percent dPWnslcpe. A~astradero Road, a scenic corridor, has i scenic 210·
foot setback along it where structures ire prohibited. The app1fcant proposes
to construct t.o d~ubl •• story res •• rch and development buildings of 37,704
sQuare f •• t {BuildIng IJ and 3B,276 square feet (Building 2), totaling 75,9BO
square feet) with surface parking for 244 cars on the center and rear portions
of the s1t •.. Tbe maximum height of Building I and Building 2 is 36.S f.et
high and 37 feet ~igh respect iVely, though the tower on Building 2 measures 4C
!eet. An atrium IS ~roposed for •• ch level of both buildings to allow 1ig't
lntc the bott!lm stones of the rear port;(]ns (If the buildings, wh;e~ are cut
into the .lopo.
lIhen using the proposed flcflity, one is led from the parking ar .. to an ""try
tower and covered arcade to I courtyard. The courtyard serves is the entry to
both buildings. A fDu~tain in the middle of t~e courtyard acts as a focal
pa;nt on a c~ss-axis. Beyo"d the courtyard is a common patio area.
The proposal ~n,lude! ~~ensive landscaping. The site cantains native grass
and weeds $imilar to the growtn e1sewnere on UndeY210ped lands in the art., as
well as Dne ~ture 36-1ncn native California Oak tree near the south bou~dary
along Ar.stradero p~operty frontage and seven Pine trees l~on9 tnf north
boundary. The addition of the two new buildings and related site improvements
wi11 require the rem~vll of two Pine tree5~ Appr~ximat~1y J90 new trees
consisting of i variety of deciduous, evergreen. and con;f~rous trees, is well
.s evergreen shrubs, vineJ , ground cov~rs and grasses, will be planted on
site •. Tne 210-foot setback an Arastradero Road is proposed to bi! pl anted' with
a row of meandering California Native Oaks, natural grasses, grapevines to
for.m a vineyard, and ground cover planted behind a 4-foot-hlgh berm. The lreQ
between the oaks and grapevines will be bermed and plant~d with natural
grasses. The grapevines and graund CDVer will meand!r to the rear af both ..
buildings and wiTl provide a s~enic vista from the courtyard. A common p1cnlC
area of decomposed granite and picnic facilities will be pro~jded amidst the
grapevines in the front setback. Suff (onsiders these nOll-structured
amenities illowabl! within the scenic setback area_ Th~ central courtyard
.. · .... '.lgso-.. ' S/11/92
Pig. 3
---~-~~-.-.
..~' ... ,
1
.j
"
~tween the bu;1d~n9$ is planted with hedg~s and shrub$, The parklng lrt
medians will be planted with cont;nuaU5 rows of trees.
A reta'nin9 ~i11 at the rear of the property near tne nortn!rn boundary ~ill
be constrlJc:ted of shotcrete. This \IIall will be ils t1ig/\ a.s 20 feet in tne
areas near,tne northeast CDrner. A thick landscape of shrubs 6 to 10 feet
h1Sh will be planted near th~ wall to s~reen tne hefg~t of the wall at
pedestrian level.
.-.,
The p~oposed architectural concept resembl~s an Italian Vi1'_, and the
~ropc5a' lnc1uoes exterior materials or concrete panel walls wlth sandblasted
finish, precast molding, traditional style clay-tile rOOf, norizontal re~eals
and bronze tinted 91a2in9 set in bronze anodized aluminum window frames. '
ANALYSISIISSUES
JioU$jng
The projeet is subject to the prov'sfons of the City's Housing Mftigation Fee
(PAKe 16.47). The Housing Mitig.tion Fe. is b.sed on the additional nonexempl
gross floor .rn Df the buildfng. Current plans shew a total of 75,9&0 sQ'uare
feet. Currenlly, the fee is 53.23 per gross square fool or 5245,415. Tbis
fee is subject to change annua11y. 1~! app1icable fee ~ha11 be that in effect
at the time of bulTding permit issuance. One~.naH the fe! is due it bui 1din;
penmit iss~ance an~ one-half prior to occupancy.
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment w,11 result in the 10" of • potential 8S
housing units on t~e site~ Staff does n~t believe housing on this site is
c~ltible either with the adjacent research and development uses or
appropriate due to the possibility of toxit substantes in the vitinity of tho
site. Upgn stiff re~cmmendatian. the de¥eloper has agreed to mitigate the
housing loss by pa~nt of a fee to the City's Resfdentiil ~ousing Reserye
Fund. Th. fee shill be based on the g1"OSS .<q,,,re footage of tb, bonding and
shall be equal t. t~. Housing Mitigation Fee in eff.tt at the time of bui1ding
penDit issuanc., and the full fee shall be paid it issuance of tb, building
p • ...,it.
Request for Variances
Height Var1ance: The prop~s.l includes a request for variance to exceed the
allowable height by 5 fIHt, _from 35 feet to 40 feet. Because the site slopes.
downward and the buildings have bee" designed to conform to the site
tcpograph..Y and cut and fills work wlth the existing contours, staff suppo:·ts
Ihe request. The portions of the buildings th.t exceed the max;~ height
permitted by the zoning ordinance are: l} tne buildln~ towers. whlC~ d~ not
protrude over and above the b~ildingi ind 21 the roafl~ne of betn bU'lldlngs,
wtdch seNe jointly as an eQuipment screen. I-ie'ght 15 measured to the
bottom of ttl! fill or naturil gride. and the towers are positio"p..d on several
feet of fill. lDwering the buildjngs further into the earth would increase
the amo~nt of hi11S1de cut !nd increise the height of the proposed retaining
8/2l/91
Page 4
,
-.
walls. The development ~f the site ha~ been designed to minimize the amount
of fill as r:luch as possible, whjch is desir.ab1e to red..:ce the visva1 impa:t of
the facility it final construction. The facility "ill, .t completion, appear
-nestled" j~t~ the hill rather than perched upon it. Fill has teen used
spJringly. ~hiTe the roofs are slightly higher than would normally be
penzlitted l this ser"vts the function of providing equIpment screer.i"9 1n ii more
attractive manner. Tni!' fill is needed at the tOk'er elem-ents in order tc keep
t~e towers at a level grade with the parking facilities from whjc~ people
enter.
Sld~ setback Variance: The applicant nlS requested a variance to the side
$et~ic~ to allow a minimum of 20 feet rather than the 40 feet r!Qujred by
ordinance. !r, orde~ to pOSition the necessary bui1ding envelope ·on centour,"
w~ich is desirable for hills~de development, the footprints arf at an angle
Wjt~ the property line, rather than parall.l. While the s,tback exc.eds that
whicn is pe~itted, only one carner of Buildin9 1 and Building Z are within
the setback. At these corner pOints. each of tn!se bui1dings are one story.
The ave rag. setback for .ach building is 40 feet and 44 f •• t respectively.
VisyaJ Imolcts
The site will be screened by a row Gf ~eanderin9 Oak irees i10ng the
Arastradero Road property frontage .nd a 4-foot blgh berm behind the oaks.
The oaks and bErm will be consiitent ~it~ the landscape setback on adjacent
properties. Secaus~ of the site topographY, the SlOP! and berm will aid in
screening the vineyard from Arastridero RDad. The Vineyard ;s consistent with
land5u.ping poHe1e.s in Jdjlcent Los Altos Hills, whirI!' decoritive
agrfculturil p'lntings are encourlged to eaintain the Town's ruril character.
lh. slt. has been deslgned to a110" the buIldings to step up the slope with
the topography. The cut and fill proposed for development of the new
bulldt"9' have been designed to follow the natural topography of tke sHe ""~
will lower the buildings making t~e prOject less DbtrusiY~ at completion.
Drainaae
The development of the proposed buildings and related slte improvements will
increase t~e ~ount of ;mperviD~s surface irea by ipprcximate,~ 47 percent and
therefore inerease the iJIlOtint Df .sU'rficf water runoff and change ttle
ib~orption rate on site. Tne appliCint has indicated that the on-site dr~inage will be d)rected to catch basins, tnen directed into a ~1n line to
be laid down the access road, Ind tnen connected into ~he existing sto~ drain
in Arastradero Road. Tne Public Works Oepartment ~as ,nd1cated th~t tn~s
drainige system is satisfactory in principle; bowev~rt a final ~ralnage plan
shall be reviewed by the Public WorKs Department prior to ipp1Y1ng for
buildi.ng permits.
,.; ..... 11050 ....... 8/21/92
Pc::l~ 5
------
\
,~ ' ..
: ; ,
-' .. ,
Transnortat~qn!C;~cu1at;an
TrafflC': The proposed development is expected to ger'lerate 580 average dal1J
trips and 92 daily trips durfng a.m. peak hour~. and Be aai1y trlps dvrtng
p.m. pfak hours. Potential traffic impacts for deve10pment in the Stanford
Research P,arJe. were evaluated in tt'le c.umulative ar..a1ysis of the City_ide-land
Use Transportation Study Environmental Impact Report. A Transportati~n Impact
Fee has bun established to mitigate for such de'r'elopment. and the project is
subject to the ~rovis;o~s of the C;ty~s Transportation Jmpact Fee fer
nonresidenti.l d.,elopment (PAMC Chapter 16.4£).
The transportation Jmpact fe! is based on the 75,980 square feet of additioncl
nonexempt gross floor area. Currently the fee is $2.57 per 9rcss sq~are foot
(effective until June 30, 1593) or appro.lm,t.ly S195,269.
Access: turrfntly I driveway from Arastradero R~ad is ~sed by the adjacent
tenant, Syntex, to access the site. In concept~ the driveway ;s pr~posed to
be extended ana improved, to provide a sharEd Dn!~W~ ;CCess on each sid! of
the zed!;n str5p t~ the mlddl! of the driveway for tne subj~ct s~te and the
neighboring site. As of the date of this report, tne applica~t has not
satisfied the Transportation Oivisi~n with a plan demonstriting acceptable
circulation {refer to CDndition 2J. As a condition of the project, the
applicant is requtred to submlt a revised cfrculltion plan tc meet the
satisfaction of the Transportation Division.
Bfcyrle Parking: Tne proposed parking plan provides 34 bicycle parking
spaces. lbe proposed bike p.rking is more tnan sltl.factory in that the
applicant's providing 24 tilke lockers In place of the Cllss I and II
reqUirement, and augmenting this number with t~e ten extri bike ricks.
However, if the applica~t decides to confDrm tQ lower the proposal to th~
minieum zoning ordtnance requ1r4ment, Class 1]1 ricks cannGt be used to
substitute fDr Class II racks.
The fiy. C1I.' III racks shown adjat.nl to the vineyard on the southern part
of the site aTt acceptable if the n.arloy enlr.nce to Buildin! I will be
acc~s$ibl! by visitors, and not just pmployees. Othe~i~~ these racks s~o~Td
be relocated to a Visitor entrance to the building.
Construction Haul Route: The applicant has not yet proposed a construction
haul route fer exporting materials exc.avated fr~ the site. T~e proposed
project will req~tr! expcrting approximately 18,000 c~bic yardS t~ an off-sitE
landfill. The applicant has estimated that at 15 cublc yards of export per
truCK that It will taKe 1,200 truck trips. Th. applicant hiS inditated th.t
four trucks would be used at a time, resulting in 300 truck trips at 8 hours
per day or 18 days WDrt~ of trips. An acceptable haul route and construct len
impact plan to address road clearing. ~taging of tru~ks. truck pa~king.
employee park1n9t n~ise control, trafflc control dU~lng constructlon and ha~l
operations, and hours of operations needs ~o be r~vlew!d by the ~r~n~pcrtatlon
Division, P~h];c Works Oepartment -Operat~Dn~ and £n~lneerlng Dl~1~10ns. and
Police Departments prior to issuance of bUl1d1ng perm,t (see Ccndltl0n 9).
S/II/52 ',g. 6
I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE
The proposed redesignation of the land I.tse from Multiple-fao;:-;ily Residential to
Research/Office Park is consistent with the c'Jrrent zening. proposed use of
tne site. and' adjacent uses. The 10ss of th~potentia' hOl.)sing resulting from
the-redesignitien will be mitigated by an. addltiona1 ~aJl1iel'lt to the City'S
Housing Reserve Fund.
RfCOMI'IEHllATIOl1
Based on the findings and conditions below, staff recommends that the Planning
COIlIllission .ake tho following recommendations to the City Council:
1. Adopt tbe attached Mitigated Negative Declaration,
2. Adapt the Ittiched resolutior! .amending the Comprehensive Ph.n,
redesfgnatlng the property from Multiple-familv Residential to
!Ie,urch/Offic. Park; .
3. Approve the variances t..:l exceed the max;mull', ~eight allowed and side yard
setback j and
4. Approve the site and design app1icat;on.
F1NQ1HGS
FlPl!lINGS FOR COIIPRElI£HSIVE PLAN AMENOM£!1T
1.
2.
3.
4.
The redesign.tl •• for the proporty It 1050 Ar,stradero ~o.d 1, In
&Ccordince with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, in tnat th~ site
and surrounding ~se are research ind develQpment in nitu~e and the
designation will allow similar use~
The Comprehens! •• Plan designation and proposed development will not
result in significant environmental impacts. as do,~ented in the
attached Inltio1 Study and Hitlgated Negatiye Declaration (92-EIA·I~)
prepared in accordance ~ith the California Environment!l Quality Act
(CEQA) on August 5, 1992.
The prDposed amendment to tne Ca.wprehe~$l~e Plan is consi~tent with the
Policy 13 of the Housing E1e •• nt, which st.tes that the City sMou1d
increase fund;ng sources used to provide affordable housing, The
develCl~r of this project .... ;n contribute fLlnds from thls cOJll'l1e,..cii~1
development towarcs affordable nQusing_
The prop~sed amendment to ~he ~ind Use Elem!nt of,the Camprehensi~~ Plan
~s consistent with the deflnitlon of Research/Offlce Park to proY1de
office research and manufacturing establishments whose ~perations are
clean ~nd quiet ~nd do not conflict with any adjacent resid!ntlal uses.
Stanford Reseiirc.~ Park is an exampl e of thts tYPi! of land use.
•
BI2I/92
Pag. 7
,-.--:---
-.. " -'
".;>c'_
FINDINGS FOR HEIGHT AlW SlOE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES
1. There Ire fxte~tfDna' or fxtraordinary circumstances Or conditions
applicable t~ the property involved that do not ap~1y gene~i'1y to
property in the same district, in that the property slopes 75 feet from
the front t~ the rear inc the buildings ~re sited t~ minimize the amount
of ow'lsual impact, site grading and excavation and to provide the
neeessary parking. circulation and site improvements_
2. The gr-Inting Df thE' application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to
pr~vent unTeas~~able property loss or unnecessary hardship, IS the
applicant c~uld not provlde the required amount of the par-king and site
improvemtnts for the two buildings and deslgn the facility con$fst~nt
wit~ shl,gard hillSide development guidelines which encourage Nauction
of fill and siting faciliti •• p.rall.l with th. natural condition.
Research and develo~ment facilities.require building footprints of t~e
size proposed. lowerfng the buildings further fnta tne earth would
increa •• th, amount of hillside cut ,n" incr •• s. th. height. of the
retaining walls.
J. Tne granting of the applicition will not be detr1me-ntal or injuTlous to
property o~ ~mproY~nts in the Vicinity and will not be detrimental to
t~e public healtn. safety. general welfare, or convenience in that tne
variarlce for l1eight occur" only for the towers which are no .higher than
the building they adjoin. The towers Ire situated or. seyeral feet of
fill in oraer that they be level with the parking .r •• s fr .. which
people will enter the facility. The .arlance s.tback roque.t of 20 f •• t
fram the property line for Building I and Building 2 Is only fDr the
building corners. Where these setba~ks occur. the buildlngs are one
story. The average setback for .ach of th.s. buildings Is 40 ftet and
44 feet respectively. T~t cor.ne~s protrude into t~e setback area
because the ~ild1ngs are placed -an cQnto~r· rather than parallel wit~
the property lin.s. ne.elopini parallel with tho contour is preferable
In hi1lside de.elopment for reducing .isual Impacts and irading.
FINDINGS FOR SITt AND DESIGN
I.
z.
The proposed d!sign will be orderly. harm~niDusJ a~d compatible with
exf~ting or potential usel of adjoining property. 1n t~at the proposed
use and improvements will be similar to other uses 1n the I~ea and the
projett has been designed to ~inj~ize visual impacts on adjoining
property.
The project will maintain desirability of investment in the same or
adjacent areas, in that the required an-site improvements and .
landscapir.g and construction standards governed by the current Unlfcrm
Building (ode (UBC; cr ether current codes wiTl assure c high quality of
de.el opmen t.
P,\hoIl10s0 ... \II.
8(21(92
Page 8
•
3.
4.
" "/'-'-
T:1e proposed dUlgn will observe sound principjes of en'o'iromr.El"Ital
design and ecologlcal t.?1ance , in that the selected locatio!'"! of tile new
st,..~cture.s. and impro·",ements l~mit dlsr-lJpticr'J of th~ sHe, and f!1easures
inco:"'porated into tne pr-oj!ct dezfgn will help m:nimi2:e trOSl0n and
offs~t visual jmp~cts.
The'Comprenensjv! Plan ~~ndm~nt proposed wii1 bring the proposed USt in
conformance with tnt Pil0 Alto Comprehensive Plan, and tne proposed
research and developm~nt faciljty and related site improvements conform
to existing uses on adjacent propertfes.
CONDnlGNS
1.
2.
J.
~.
~.
6.
A site plan is required which shows the full driv!way, inclUding thE
exit ?ortion on the neighboring property. The uphi11 tr.ffic direetion
from the existing Syntex driveway near the area next t~ the Syntex
parking stalls ~lt be removed 1n order for this ingress and egress te
wor~. A plan must be submitt!d showing both sfdes of the driveway?
with signing ind striping that ~ets Iransportation DiYisic~ standards.
A revised clrcul.tion p1a~$h.l1 be submitted illustrating .11 the
detai1s Df access to this oriyeway und~r consideration to meet the
satisfaction of the TrJnsportat1on Diylsion. 7he plan ~hal1 include
circij1ation an the subject site and adjolnin~ Draper! .~ park.hg
layout. striping Ind sign4ge.
A detailed grading. dralnagf, and eros~on repair plan prepared by a
registered civil engineer sh.11 be submitted to the Pllnning Pi.lslon
and Public Works Department for review and approval prior to lssuance of
• building pe .. ;!. tonstruct;." det,ll, and cl1c.l.tions for .11
drainage facilities .h.l1 be submitted with the det.il., drainage .1.ns.
All grading and development on the site ,~.11 conform with .11 .spects
of the project soil and ·geotechnicil report recommendations. The
project geotechnic.' engin •• r will be requirod to c.rtify that the
g~ading and construction ~re dOfie in Ictordance w~th their
recoDat:!ndations. ,prior to flnalization of the building pennit.
Prior to ~ssuance of i b~11ding p~nlitt a detailed lindscap! pl~" and
irrigation p1 an shall be req-uirea to be reviewed and approved b .. " 'Ie
Arcnitect~ral Review Board. The final plan shall ;nc'~de the cowman and
botanical names of .11 specits used I an~ the number, size, type,
lecation .~d spacing Or all p1ant materlals.
The follOWing tref p~tect;~n measures sha11 be implemented during
construction activities:
I. A11 trees designated to be preserved shall be protfcted with i
six-foot ~i9h chain link fenc!? mo~nted on two-inch diameter
ga1va nized iron posts, ind drl~en lnto the ground to i depth of ~t
B/Zl/9,
Page 9
."
I
b.
c.
.'
least 2 feet at no more than lO·foot spacing. TMe fence shall
enclose the entire area under the dripline o~ uisting trees. In
no case shall any vehicles or equipment be pEr~itted to be st~red
.... ithin this enclosed area. The fence snal1 be erected before
CO!1structjon beginl and rema~n in place until fjnal of the
build;~g permtt.
No storage of materials or topsoils shall be permitted within the
tree enclosu~e area.
Above ground surfacl runoff aiea shall not be directed into th~
tru c.anopy aTea from adjacent areas.
7. To reduce dust levels during construction, it snail be required' that
exposed earth surfaces be watered frequently, during the Tate mornlng
and at the end of th~ day, with frequency ~f watering increasing on
windy days. Spillage resulting fram hauling operatlDns along or across
any public ar private property shall be removed immediately and pafd f~r
by the contrattor. Oust nUlsances origtnating from the contractor's
operatlDns, such as steckpiles of debris, soil. Sind Dr other ~teTi.ls
tn.t Cin be blown by the wind shall be coyered. Any spillage resulting
from haul i"9 operations either insfdt! Dr outside the peoHc rig~t~cf~waj'
snall be remDved fmmedhte1y. at the expense of the contract.or.
Reclaimed water shall .be used fClr this purpDse, 1n i!ccordance witt!
Public Works Department pelicies.
S. All construction letivlties and inst.llation of sit. improvements sn,11
be s.bject to compllanc. wit~ t~. provision. of the City of Pal. Alto
Noise Ordinanc., Chapter 9.10 of the PAMe.
9. A haul route and construction i=pact plan m~st bt submitted a~d meet the
sltisflction of the Transportation Division, Plannin~ C;v!s;on, and
Oepartllent of Public Works.
10.
]J.
12.
All City of Palo Alto utility instill.tion. shail be in accordance with
the City of Palo Alto Standard Sp.cific.tions.
The applic.ant sha11 be reqU"ired to ply a H:H1Sir.g Mitiga.tiDn Fee of S3.27
per gross square foot cf bunding, far a SW! total of .$245,4)5, purslIant
to Cllapter 16.47 of the PAIIC. Tnis fe. is idjusted onnual1y .nd the
totil due shall be adjusted based on t.'. fe. in _'f.ct at the time tho
building permit i. issued. Half of the Ho~sing Mitigation Fee shall .be
paid to the Clty'S Housing Reserve f~n~ prl0~ to 1ssuance of I blll1dlng
pennit witn the remainlng half of the fee paid priDr to Dccupancy.
The applicant shall be required to ~a~ a hOllsing fee based on.tnt grQ~s
square footage of the building to ~ltlgate thf loss af potentlal hous1ng
resulting from the Comprehen$;ve P1an pt~p Amendment. The fee shall be
payable in full at the ti~e of building penmit issuance and shall be
P;YwI10SO" .. 1I' 8/21/92
Page 10
,.
.;;t:. ;-.
" .
based on the H¢~sin9 Mlt'9at,on F~e ;~ effe(t at th~t time. ihe current
fee fs $3.23 per square foot and is idj~sted annual1y.
13. The iPplicant shall be reQulT'ed to -pay a 1ra:nspar-tat iol'l lmp"act fee of
SZ.S1 per qross !Quare foot (effective until J~ne 30, 1993) or S195.Ze9
for ~anresldent~ll development pursuant to Chapter 16.45 of the FAMe,
The fu11 amount of the Transportit\On lmpact F~e shall be paid to the
C1ty priD1 to issuante of a bu,1d\~9 permit. lhe ~pp"'ant shall pay
the do11ar per-sQuare-f~Qt amour.t of the fees in fffect at the tim~ of
building p.rmlt Issuance.
Athch!elJ.U:
~J.WU.kVpAW~f¥tIsIrN,N.frIr{ See CMR:4cO:92
Environment.l Assessment
Locat i"n lIop
Project Plans (Commission lIemPer, only)
Rgftren,~d MattrjJls:
Geotechnical and S011$ Report {on fi1e foy thost ;nterested~ p1ease ta11 fOT
copy)
Cop; es Sent T$1:
Architectural Review Bo.rd
A;>plicant
8/21/92
P.ge 11
'uauc H~~RltlGS
EXCERPT
Palo Alto Planning Commission Meeting
August 26, 1992
I. 1050 ABASTRAPERO ROAD; Application for tIl. Comprehensive Plan
Aaendment to change the land ~se designation from Multiple-Family
Residential to Res,arch/Office Por', (2) • Sit. and Oesigo Revie~ of
t~ proposed r!searcn and deve10pment buildjngs totaling
approximately 7~,OOO square feet and related site improvements, and
(3) yariances to exoeed the .llow.bl. height by five feet and. side
yard setback of 20 feet where 40 feet 1S the minimum required.
fnvlro~ental Assessment: No significant impacts were determined to
reSiJlt fr{lm this project, and a negativE: declaration has been
prepared. FiT. Nos. 9Z·CPA-2, 92-EiA-19, 92-0-4, 92·V-Il,
92·ARB-B6. Zone ~istrict; lM-5(O).
Chajrman Btecnam; Does staff nave any comment$?
Ms. Weiss: Yes. first I would like to note two co~rectlDns in t~e staff
report. Number One is on Page Two. The surrounding 1and uses should
include t~ree sides that are research and de~elopment buildings and one
sfde on the south side across Arastradero Road, where we have
Single-family residential. The second correction wo~ld be to ~ondition
Ill. lbat should state that the housing ~'tig.tion fee ;s $3.23 per
gross square foot, not $3.27, as noted, for a s,~ total of $245,415.
The application is for i Comprehensive Plan awendment t~ change the land
use designation from Multfple-Famjly Residential to Resaarch/Office Park,
a site and design review of two proposed research and development
buildings totaling approximately 76,000 square fe.t and related sit.
improvements; and variances to exceed the allowable height by five feet
and a side yard setback of 20 feet where 40 f!et is the minimum required.
Chairman Beecham: Mr. Zimmerman. can you give us same additional
background on this sit~?
Mr. lirnmerman: r think the question was raised by ~ne of yo~r colleagues
prl0r to this meeting as to whY we ~ave the situation of this site belng
designated multiple-family residential t yet it is loned lH-S. Back in
1980, the city evaluated a number of s;t~s. incl~din9 thil one, which
were vacant and desig~ated f~r nonresidential development is being
potential housing sites. Abo~t four or fives sites with1n the citYI
including t~is one. which was t~e only one in the Stanford Reseirc~ Park,
were redesignated. I be1ieve it was the summer of 1980. However, the
rezoni~9S did nDt occ~r at that time. When the rezonfngs occurred
approximately six months later, Stanford voiced strong oppositio~ to the
rezDning of this site. As a result, we ha~e the rather unique situation
of the site being designated multiple-family residential, whSle ret.ining
its LM-S loning designation.
Chainman Beecham: Any questions by the commission for staff?
08/26/92
-I·
.,
I
Co~;ssioner Cullen: SincE j th1nk we are going to be hearing from the
.:J:p.pUca~t, tfih might be the opporturtity to ask U~is questio". I thotlg~t
the landscape pl an was e.x:el ient. but I was wOrded .about the wate"
impact~ and the a~aillb;lity or water. Perhaps staff needs to answer
this. t.:)~. Ho ... is our-alletment from Hetch Metelly affected? Is Vlat
incr&ased when you hav~ developmfnt en an undeveloped site? Or does the
.111otme.,t for this site come out of allotments for wat.er for ether
s; tes'?
Hr. Gilliland: 1t does not change our allotment from the San Francisco
Water District.
CQmmiss10ngr Cullen: So in ether words, it does come out of the
allotment for other sites. So more measures need to be taken to reduce
the water on this site, pernaps. r do r.ot se! anything in the conditions
tnat speak to this.
Ms. Case: I am not in exp!rt in water matters, but we have been studyir-g
t~is issue with resp!ct to s~mt othar environmental assessments that we
are now doing for some large projects. This question came up, and we
have been told by our ut11lty department that ft is nat an issue yet. So
it is net being addressed as an fzpact~ as such. It might bE in one of
the upcoming, very large deyelopments~ but nothing at this size.
Conrnissloner Cul1tm; I do not understand why it 'is not an i.s.sue yet.
Ms. Case: They do say It Is not a problem for them.
Commissioner Cu11,n: The utilities department feels that the amount Df
water that is being allocated to us by Netch Hetchy can encompass the
development O~ this property?
Ms. C ••• , ,hat Is what we have been told.
Commissioner Cul]e~: It certainly bas not helped with the residential
peoFle. If they go over their .llotment
Ms. Case: 1 am a~suming that anyone wh~ il in the city 1s going to be
under the same water rules that everyone else is.
C9pf!!.is5ioner CL;llen: r.s anyone up to d.ate-on the water rules in ti1:e
Stanford ~eseilrch Park?
Ms. Case: No, r am not.
Commissioner C~'lgn: Perhaps someone with the deyeiDp~r can answer that
question.
Ms. Case: What we can do is to ask that that question be answered by the
time this goes to the city council.
'ommissloner Carrasco: I have same ques~ions on housing. but first, r
w~uld like to purs~e some of the issues that Pat just brought ~p. When
the sites on either side of this one were developed. there was an effort
made to have the site look ~atura' and retain the natural grasses,
minimizing t~e amount of rigid landscaping, i.e., tne formal,
06/Z6/92
-Z·
,
I
.....
. ';--
siteaspecific kinds of 1 andsclpfng. How doE's Uli 5 5 Ite blend iM witn the
others? Wili it look like it is going t~ stand out more than the others
because there is more landscaping on this one tnan on tne ~thers?
Ms. Weiss: Staff has worked with the applicant, as ~e11 as with
Stanford, on this particular 1ss.ue. Originally. the pN)po~al inc~uded
just a vineyard. A revision was made to the landscape plan to inc1ude i
~ander;n9 row of oaKS at the front setback aiong Arastradero Road with
about a fOUTafcot berm. That is expected to hide some of the vineyard,
altho~gh ~cause it does slope somewhat on the site, it would b~ somewhat
noticeable, but it is not expected to stand <Jut.
Cnmm;ssioner Carrasco: I have some questions on n~usin9. I missed some
Df wnat George explained a little while ago, but r would imagine that one
of the majDr issues we are goi~g to be dealing ",,·ith ton;gh::. ; s the
Comprehensive Plan changE from housing to comnercial. I am ii little
ton fused about what the conditions of approval are suggesting here,
especially Conditions 11 and 12. It seems to mt that on Page 4 under
ANALYSIS, HQusing, you are s~ggesti~g that the deveroper has agreed to
mitigate the housing loss by payment of a fee to the Clty'S resider.tial
hOilsing reserve fund. 1$ thh fee the nonaal fee, Dr 1s it 1n addition
to the no~' fee?
Mr. pilliTand: Tnf normal housing mit;s~tion fee that they would pay is
$3.23 per SQ.'r! foot. That is being paid. That Is the first one. In
addition to that. as i mitigation f~r the lass Df the potent;.l housing
that was !hl!'t'e because of tne CORiprehensive Plan. they are paying that
fee a second time to mitigate the loss. We will put that in the
residential fund and build houslog with It. So It is actu.lly • double
fee over ~at ~ould no~a'ly be assessed.
CommiSsioner Scnmidt~ I hav! a historical quest;on. It says t~lt the
applicant applied for two office buildings and a chlld care center in
1989. That, howev!r t was withdrawn because of potential problems with
possible release of toxic gas from nearby hazardous materials storage
facilities. ] want to know a littl! more about that. and why are we net
concerned about that anymore. ~~y arenlt we concerned about t~at for
~p 1 e who work and 1 f ve out there? '5 i l "n-
tis. Weiss: I half'" discussion witll the fire depart •• ' today. Th. fire
dl!'partrllent 1ndlc'ted that the nearest storage of hazar:dous materials it
approximately 1,500 feet aw.y. That is for Syntex's ~YYA site, which I
believe is .t 3401 Hillview Avenue. Tiley Indicated tn.t that should no!
be a problell'l lI:itfl: this new d~veloPf!!ent. We did not go into further
discussfon about the original proposal, whlch ir.cluded a day care
f.cllity On sit •.
Chairman Be@cham: As we move to the public testimony portion of t~e
hearlng, I would like to ernphaslze to the commiSSion that as you listen
to the testimony and will probabli have Questions, we have three issues
tonight before us. One is to change the Co~prEhensiye Plan ~apj the
second is to do a site and design review Df the projecti tn! third is the
issue of yariances for setcackS, so as to ensure that we get the
i~fonBation that we need on ail of those. J will nDW opfn the public
hearing"
08/26/92
-3-
Chop ke.~an, 700 tmerson Stre~t, Palo Alto; 1 would like to st;rt with
·what we consider t'J be the easy and fUn part of th is proposed project,
that is. the ~jsion that we are tryins to execute on t~;s site. It is a
tricky sHei there is over 70 feet of fallon the site. W€ haVE gene
through half a dolen different iteratfons of a theme, a vision fer the
site. !verything from a kind of a Contempo number to Frank lloyd
W'rightp.sque and everything in between. We final1y tJa\l!: coa\esce-d around
a c:lncept of an Jtal; an hil 1 side vi" i with \.'ineyards and 01; ve trees and
lack of lawns, to address Commissioner Cullen's concerns. J tEnd to 90
back to our project at ~OOI Miranda, which we talled Foothill Research
Park. We had a vision there that was a kind of turopean piazza with a
auto c~urt. There was lots of resistance from many quarters about this
vision. including the ARB and city staff. ""e hung in th!re wit/; our
vi sion, trying to expl ain it as best we could. Everybody finally agreed
that maybe t~;.s ,,'as worthy of their approval. 50 away we went. and the
project has been immensely ~uccessful. The feeling ir.side that auto
courtyard 1S .xactly as we had dreamed. So wnat we are proposing here
tonigbt is sort ~f in that same vernaCUlar. 1t is nat j~st the
buildings; it Is not just the sitE plan; it is not just the vineyards and
the o11Ye trees. rt is the entire production that will make this a ve~y
special place both to work in a~d to look to the residents and be a good
nei9hbor to the residents across Arastradero and the ether park tenants.
1 Might mention that I have met .... ith 5eIiEral of tne residents i21croS$
Aristradero and haye shown the plans to them. We hav£ had nothing but
tne best reception for what we aTe propOSing. 1 might also menticn that
there is no lawn in thfs project, Pat. It is sensitive to the new water
ethic. not just in these droug~t perjods l tut with so~ recognition that
we are in a dry. ~iterraneln c1i~ate here. Fo~t~ill Res!arch Park bas
• 20 foot by :0 foot spot of la.n. If we were going to de it today. r
don't think ~ would even have that. Tne vineyard will be on a drlp
system to get it established over the first few y~ars. and it will be
dry-fINmed. as welT. So we are very aware of the water fssue. besides
which, we liie the look. It is (Ctnsistent With this Mediterranean theme
that we are de.eloping.
On the history of the property, with regard to the child e.re program ar.d
tne Comprehensive P1an ch~nge. at one t1", we nad considered a child
care center within tne pr~ject that wo~ld not only accommodate tne
project, but be fDr park tenants in general. As you knDw, I sit on tne
Child Care Task Force in Palo Alto. and it has .lways ~en a speci.l
issue for me. We have tried mightily to get that accomplisned here.
Unfortunatel1. the new laws with regard to toxits for residential areas,
in 9!neral, not just cnild care, are that tne two don't ~ix very well.
It is not that there is i disproportionate risk. It is just that in this
lit1giolJS world, the t~ought of ha'.rtng a hundred ctdldren in a child care
center in an area where there is potential for an accident ~ade it
unacceptable for the fire department. Ultimately, it was unacceptable to
Stanford University, as well, for the contingent llability. So we are
moving in a direction where r don't think there was iny group who fplt
that tl1is .as • good housing site. I "ill let tho Palo Alto Housing
Corporation speak for itself. Density sites snould occur along
transportation corridors. not jn the midd1e of an R&D park. Therefore,
we have attempted with staff to address the houslng loss thro~9h t~is
doub1e fee. The fact of the matter is that it is an inappropriate site
for housing. Stanfcrd has made that clear over the years. Ther! is a
08/26/92
·4·
--,-----
. -,-
-'
/' ....
representative here from St ... nf<lrd tonignt. if .1.JU wisn to pur~ 1e it. IJe
are lookjn~ at a good alt~rnative where h<lusing still gets a Wln by
funding thefr fund for a more appropriate ~it!.
Tne zoning issue on the variance is like anytime you get into tne hills,
Thingl do not f~t into a nice neat d~finition. 1 will 1et cur architect
and our landscape architect addr~ss the need fer these minor variances.
One is a definition of how height is defin!d. and the other is a side
yard setback issue.
Comi:;,s10ntr Carrago: ! have a Question about why you fia" .. e sited it
whe~ you did) fr~m the philosophical, big picture point of view.
Mr. Kl!enan: As you can see from your site hlcatior~ map, the first 275
feet ire all open spac.e corridor. That has been consistently followed all
up and down Arastradero RGad. It was intended to be an addltianal buffer
for the residents across Arastradero. So the site js somewhat
constrained to begjn witn. When you think about t~at much of it 90jn9
fnto lap.dscaping before y~u even start the project. and you o~~rlay that
with 70 feet of f.ll, it really becomes a chall,nge, We have attempted
~riad solutions to t~is Site question. Wh~t we nave ended up with here
is something tnat essentially ~sks tne retaining wall at the rear of the
b~i}din9 t~rough layers of both landscaping and buildtngs. Mucn 1$ we
accomplished with Our Xerox project at 3400 Nillv~ev. the retaining wall
was hidden by building and landscaping, and was executed IS we had hoped
it would be~ It is i marvelous setting there. and you do not hive a
sense of that retaining wall. That is whit we ha~e attempted to do
here~· After Ill, unless everybody is driving Jeeps, you need these
terraced parking lots to accommodate automobi1ts. The fUnction of R&D
buildings Is such that havIng lot. of split floors do •• not ... t the
deffnition of a large R&D floor plat! criterion. As it is. it'! a littl!
tricky where you enter the second floor from tn! courtyard and drop back
down to the first floor with tne downhill condition. and m~re
traditionally on the uphill buildin9_ So it i5 .n extremely challenging
site that I could not be MOre proud of, both in terms of the site pl.n
and the t~eme of the Irchitect~ret the vineyards and t~e olive grove.
Unfortunately you do not have the ben.fit of the last year or two that w.
have wrestled witn this one. but we will try and attl~ulite the ~isiJn
ton19ht and see if YO~ concur.
Comm1ssipner tarrjsco: Chop, I know you like parking, but do you need
all of that parting? 00 you think that once YGU have a tenant, you could
devote S~ of it to landscape preserve? Usually, it seems to m! that
not .',1 of the partjng is used in the Stanford Research Park. It seems
lite 20-25 percent of the spaces seem unused in other buildings. Is
there In option for a landscape preserve?
Hr. Keenan: I don't believe so here. Tony. Unlike an office parking
ratio of 4 per thousand, t~is is 3 per thousand. So you are already a
little .hy. ,ffectively,.n R&D building is an office building with 13
feet clear and a tr~ck door and lots of power. You still get the same
kind of body CQur.ts. s~ we don't beTi~ve that that is.i ~ia~le ~ption
here. If it were I would obviously tla~e no problem Wl th 901ng 1n and landscapi~g. Menlo Park has a 6 per thousand parking requir!~nt in some
areas~ Tn~re we nave done landscape reserve, but here~ we are already on
the cutting edge of what is n!eded.
08/26/92
-5-
..
I
/
CommisslQner $c~midt: Mr. Keenan, you ~~ntioned the r!taining wall at
the back and that the level changes in getting to the parking. I want tQ
have it clarified that indeed, in order to get to the parking it the
back, you stll1 need to have a very high retaining waii in ~rder to make
grades and makt the paTkl~g work, and that that is is close as you can
get it? .
Mr. Kteran: Yes, it is. But what we have dGne is tc layer production of
landscapi~9 and buildings, and then y~u will see this long. tiled arcade
tl'lat also is betwe~n the buildings and the hndsciping. We be1 ieve trlis
does a very effective layering job of screening that off, ~ucn is we did
at 3400 Hillview.
COmmissioner Schmidt; It seems unf~rtunate t~at yo~ have to end up
having to take allo'ay an a;..oful lot of dnt in ord~r tCi maKE-everything
wor~. J kn~w y~u are not filling muc~, but you are navfng to t~ke away i
lot.
Hr. keenan: Ves, everybody 10ves the word ·natural· thes! days. You can
sell cornflakes or darn near anytning with that word. Natural. sloped
lots are bUll words among residential de~elopers? at least during the
planning phase. But when it comes to function, you still hive to have a
flat p~d, and you have to have flat flo,r plates. So that is what
happens. What you are trying to d~ is to do a special job ~ith paint and
petunfas and architecture.
tommissiontr Cullen: J have one additional Question. Chop. Whit about
the u.e of tn1' buIlding? A1Re'! .11 of the build!ng. th.t are out there
are being used by • single company. Is that going to be tr~e here. or
are you going to h.ve multiple l •• se ••.
Mr. Krenan: I can tel' you unequivocally that t~ fiTst tenancy w~ll be
a single tenant for the entire space. What happens in tht future at the
expiration of the leas! co~id mean ~ltlple tenants. We have tried to
address that kind of t~ink1ng in terms of footage, tenant idtntity,
different entrances, etc+~ but the fact of the matter is that today, in
ordeT to finance anything, you need long-term 1eases Ind yDu n!ed credit
tenants. That necessitates the sort of build-to-su1t concept.
COmmissioner Cullen: I aS$u~e, having been through the Stanford revj~w
process .itn thi •• that they have no problem _ith the 'O·foot high
tower.
Kr+ Keenan: Yes. it has gone through their process. These are ilready
stamped by the Stanford review group+ Again, you do not nave the beneftt
of tnis, but we had spent. lot of time getting them warm with tn!se
various iterations of design concepts that we finally arrived it here+
Commissioner Cullen: I know how hard that is.
Cnairman Beecham: Do yo" nave a scale model for us to look it?
Mr. keenan: r wil1 let t~e
have any ot"er questions on
mare appropriately address.
ar,hitect make that presentatfan, unless you
the Comprehensive Pian issue, whicn I ~ould
Since there aTe none, I would like to
08/26/92
-6-
I
I
1
introduce Ken Rodrigue=.
ken RQdrigue~, 50 West San Fernando. San Jose; It is a pleasurf to be
back befoJ'"e you again wil' inother project. Chop ta1k.ej a littie bit
about the visiQn~ which is sometntng that bath he and John ~re really
good at focusing in ~r.. For us, we need to capture tne vision and makE
it happe~t in terms of botn the architecture and the land plan. We are
passing around a model to you now, and I would 1 ike to speak to it.
focusing in on a ccuple of ireas~ The first one is the landscape
setback, which is a scenic setback (If 275 feet. Clearly. ;,., researchfrlg
with both Stanford and staff, with their encouTage~nt and that of the
ARB, we were able to try and blEnd this scenic, natural open space on
Arastradero Road with t~ls vineyard con(ept. As staff mentioned, we have
bermed up the front. naturil landscape setback to be in natural grasses
and oak trees. Then you will have this light carpet layer of ~jneJa~dJ
ab~ut lOa feet of it. or approxfmately half of that scenic setb~ck 'n
vineyards. They ~ill be more or 1~s3 tucked down be10w this ber=. As
Chop safd , it will be more hill side oriellted, giving a true European
flavor to the buildings. Those grapes will also surround a portion of
tne building, which will be on the upper pirt of the ,ite pli. on She.t
.g. The exciting part about that is that it is • r •• lly unique plant
material that ts lush and green~ much like lawn, but it does not require
any water. Those kinds of plant ~te~ials are really appropriate in
these enviro~mentally sensitive times, as W!'l as creat1ng a working
vineyard which takes us baCK t~ our agricultuTil heritage.
In terms Df some of the qu!stions about the amDunt of landscaping and
percentages of pirking areas, what ~ ~ave tried to do is to break down
t~e pa~king co~rts into a series of three courts. One is at the front
side, one is in the middle an~ one 1s at the rear. 1 think we have been
very successful at doing that. alsu taki~g small retaining walls and
stepping it up the hill. So the rear retaining wall is actually less. in
most cases. than what we presented to you $~time back on Hillwiew. We
also learned from Hillview. As Chop said, it is SUtces1f~1, but going a
step further 9 we are trying to create an extensive amount of landscaplng
fn front of that wiJl. which we [,.,: .... e dOM at t.t,e-rear setback line.
That gets LIS into the variance requests. Iihen WE laid out the site, it
WilS i very long. narrow site, and 275 feet of it are .'1atural cpen space.
So in doing a site circulation plin, and bei~g able to p~t 1n the parking
requirement for tnese bui1dings, we found that you cannot surro~nd this
site) as done with "o~l bUl1dings, with parking. Once you do that. you
use up a tremendo~s amount of t~e are. for paved, impervious surface. We
thought th.t wa, wrong. We thought th.t by sliding the buildings to the
upper part of the property line, we would not only achieve circulation on
the sides of the buildlng witn this very strong entry focal point, which
you can see on the model {the arcade} that picks up all of the
pedestrians and visltors and moves them into the main entry, but also did
not surround the buildings with a sea of asphalt. We thought that was
tr~ndo~slJ important. The ARB, the staff and Stanford UniYerslty hare
enco~raged us to move in that direction, and we would hope the commission
would do the s~ by granting this .... ariance.
In terms of the height reQuirementt as Chop said. it is a question of
code interpretation. ~e want to lnterpret the (ode the correct way. the
way in which staff wa1ted ~s to do it, as well as the ordinance. and in
08/26/92
-7-
•
I (
doing the design, ~ actually set the~e buildings down ioto the grade
significantly. As yo~ can see from some of our sketches, Wf iCtuan.,)'
have floors that we have cut atriums into, because ~e do not have
exterior g'~zin9 where the natura' grade actually mounds ri9ht up to ind
above the floor line at the first floor level. So what we have do~e
there is to cut these atriums into the interior of the building to creat~
light and hive nestled the building dawn into the existi~9 contours. So
that has been extremely successful, as pofnted cut in cur staff report.
Then. however, because we have nestled them down. we had to raise the
roof screen up a little tal1~r than our normal situation. This one is a
1itlle bit over eig~t feet. That does push us into and over the height
requirements. We think thfs is successful. We learned at cur 400]
Miranda site that, glven the types of tenants that ire in the Stanford
Rtsearcr. Park. these heavier, biotech fi~s require larger than normal
eqUipment. W! should be prepared to screen those no~. So we nzve do~t
an extensive stuay and developed tne roof heights to be very sensitive to
screen that equipment from the neighboring sites. both from In R&D
standPQlnt, is we1l as from the rEsidential sites across the way,
Commissi~ner Cu11en: Are you saying that the canopy screening is four or
five feet ibove the allowance that we have for canopies in tbe code? ~e
do have an alTowance tfl,at goes above the n~ight of the building.
Mr. Rodrigues: Yes, in fatt. most of the height requirements are the
tower pieces that form architectural features. based upon setting the
heights of that p~rapet around the perimeter~
CommissjDner Cu11en: So the totil height of the building, with the
tower, is 40 feet.
Mr. Badrjqvgs: Yes.
Comols';pner tu11.n: Th. other part ;s 35 f'et? Will the oanopy be on
the tower Dr on both of these buildings?
Hr Bodriguts: It moves III around the perimeter.
COmmissioner C~llen: What is the act~al height of thE canopy?
Hr. Rodriques: It is roughly eight feet. You meas~re that from natura1
grade, so the fart~er ~ push t~ese buildlngs down. we tend to get
penalized a bit. That is where we are tonight. We thin. th.t is the
appropriate way to go. because again, it lessens the impact of the
project from Arastradero Road.
Cpmmis~foner Cullen: I do not disagree wtth that. I just want to be
clear that the code does have a provision for canopies not to be included
in the height.
Mr. Rodrjoues: The otner item I wlsn to speak t~ tonig~t is the actual
building architecture .-the forms, the materials, and the colors. As
Chop aention~d, we have had a very successful prDje~t It 4001 Miranda.
We wanted to be able to bring back to you a similar, de$ign~Driented
project that spoke to the European heritage. We are utilizing a natura1.
exposed, sandblasted concrete here again. in a lighter. buff tene, and I
believe there is a colar board tfl,it nas moved around amongst the
08/26/g2
-a.
.~.
. -
e~mm;!s'oners. That color W~ s~e as being the natural cOler of the
hillside. That i$ really what we are Tooking for, that wheat color that
~e ~et ~st of tnt year. The bronze glazing and frames are, agai~. very
sensitive. Thl!' project itself ;s not standing out, flexing its mu:;c1es>
Zt ~1de$ behind this very senJitive landscape plan of bot~ olives and
shrUbbery and Yines. At the top, we are talking about using a very
nlturil.,c~ay tile roof materia', in fact, trying to get some of the
older clay tfles off of some of the older historic buildings that are
still available around the state.
Chairman Beecham: I have a question on your co1ors. You hi'll! iii picture
~f a Stanford bufldin9, and you have t~i$ material. Is your jnt~nt to
make this color the same as the basic stanford cOlors?
Hr-Rodriques: Yes, that 1S for coior only. What we would llke to see,
of course, is that the concrete would then be sandblasted and given a
textured surface, !mulating some of tne sandst~ne forms on the campus.
So we are looki~g for that buff coiDred sandstone.
Cj{fis!iOnar Cul1en~ So this is not a~ accurate color stmp1e of what the
bui ding exterior wil] be?
Mr. Rodrigues: It 1S the actual coTer s~le as it goes into the
concrete mfx, but keep in ~ind that it gets sandblasted and receives that
variegated texture.
Commissioner tullen: Will it receive additi~nal color, as well is
texture?
Mr. Rpdrigues: He, it will have that integral color mixed in witn the
concrete to ca.e Qut like i color~, sandstone blDck.
COmmissioner Cullen~ It looks more gray tnan wheat to me.
Cnairman Beecham; So this is the coler?
Mr. Rodrigues: Yes. When you te~tur. it1 it will look like the
buildings on the campus. That is whit ~ are looking toward. Agaln. jf
you look at our 4001 Mir~nda project, we made close to nine sa~les on
that to get the color just .s we w~~ted it. We work.ed closely with both
staff and Stanford, which we will do again ftere , to sandblast those
panels in different textures, as well is takln9 that standard color and
then possibly adding same color to it until we get the £xact color we art
really looking for, which is to emulate tne sandstone buildings on
campus~
CQmmissioner Cullen: ]n terms of site and design, I think yeu have a WI.,
to go on t~at materia' before it becomes what you are talking about. You
are asking us to approve it on the basis of wh~t we see.before us
toni~ht_ I think that before it ~oe$ to the 01ty councl1. I would get,
sample and try o~t the sandb1asting and see what will happen, so that it
looks like what it ~;ll eventu.l1y be.
Mr. Rodrigues: 10 reiterate our commitment to that (and r certainly
appreciate your comments" typically in the past, we have m~de these
ten~foot by twtlve-foot~bigh samples on the site, sandblastln9 them and
08/26/92
-9-
-.
coloring them. We have gone to great e~tre~s. as a group, botM ~ith
~taff and with Stanford, as ~ell as ourselves, to get to this coJ~r. r
can ten y~u t~at Chop and JOMn are very cOlmlitted to this vision, and w~
will achieve that. But J appreciatt your concerns, and r realize this is
only an additive sample. It is not a huge ~andblasted piece. J wi'l be
glad to answer any other Questions. bary la~on, the 1andscape archItect,
II here to speak t~ any questions regardin9 plant materials, the
1indscape concept aT any other hndsc.ape Questions you mi9ht nave.
Commiss,oner CarraS't1: I ~ave a Q'Jestion about the setback variance. On
the eist slde of that propertYt you want a 20-foot setback fnsteid of 40
feet. Could y~u explain how these b~ildings tnet you have created closer
to the property line relate to the adjacent buildings? Do tney create a
better space b~cau$e you have set it back in a varied way, or beca~se you
do not have parking?
Mr. ~odri9yes: If J could step over to tnt plan~ right here yo~ can see
the parking for the adjacent site, which h the Oialog'Je site. It
act~al1y has landscaping along the prope~ty line, i se~jes of parking
stalls and access~ and then the b~ilding edges. By pushing tne b~;ldings
up in t~is direction. we felt that ha~ing this landscape edge meet t~;s
landscape edge ~ith this parking, tnese buildings related very ";(.1y.
By sliding it back down~ continuing to add the aspMalt, we just kept
widening this bQrrjer. If you take a look at both tne elevation concept
moving up the ~ill, which you ca~ reallJ see up here on Sheet '12, you
ca~ start to see how tne heights move across here. Even tho~gh tnis site
is just. slight bit higher. the building height i. here. It is he •• ily
landscaped. and then our landsc.;:p-i."g will roll lrollnd the edges of thos.e
buildings. We purposely skewed the buildings to work with the contours
to step up the bill exactly tne way in which the contours ire moving. In
other words, we did not turn the buildings in this direction, which would
have caused a greater cut_ ~e tried to work with the !xistin9 centours
and Jook at this as • natural landscape belt. Tnat drawing pretty well
shows that.
Commissioner Schmidt: I have a ~uestion about ceiling heights indoors.
The proportions of the elevations are veri ~ite, with the lower level
being taller, reminiscent of the Italfan style. One ~f the drawings
shows a 9~foot celling height on the lDWer level. I wondered if that ~as
what was intended and do you end up wlth a h~g~ amount for mechanicil
eqUipment, etc.?
14r. Rodrigues: Right now, ... e have the flexlbllHy of going it a 9-foot
minimum neight~ ~e would obvtcusly l1ke to encourage tne lO~ and
12·foot.high ceilings, much as we did it Miranda. We hive the ability to
go to the higher, 12~foot ceilings, should i tenant requi~e that. If it
is also a heavy mechanical user, as you mentioned, that tends to push it
down. It;s our intent to keep this ceIling up as bigh as possible,
remfniscent of that photo of some of the buildings on campus. The first
floor always had that 12-foot-high cejl,n9~ and seemed s~ spacio~s wh~n
you walked in. So that 1S ~ur intent.
Commissioner Schmidt: 1 have anotner qUfstion. In tnf staff Tfport.
tnere is a Q~estion about th! aCCei$ road, the shared road, onf-way on
eash side. J think staff has asked you to look at that. a~d I wondered
if anything nas been lookod it or if you are still lookin; at tn.t.
06/26/91
-) 0-
•
Would that potentially impact your pjrking and lands~ape?
Mr-, Rodl"'lCHltS: We have locked at that, and are tune-nO,)' in the proces~
of looking at that as we speak. I cannot answer that it shouldn't be a
problem. What WE hav~ looked at with staff is to look at adding a stop
Jign. John mat want to speak to that. as he just ~t on that today.
Jghn Lqvewell. 700 £merson Strget. Palo Alto: We met yesterday with the
transportation department, and we too~ ~ 1oo~ at the circulation p1an.
We ha~~ come up with i circulation plan that 15 consistent ~jth t~e
or1g1niT concept for that slte~ It has always bee., the concept tnat we
would have a two-way divirled road gaing up that nilT. utiliting the
ease.ent that is already in plice. Tnere was ~om! concern about the
conflu~nce of several parking lDts and the str~et at one pOlnt ~p on the
hill, but Wt! were abl~ to work Ulr()ugh a 501l.ltion. We have addfod a stop
si;r. and some additi~nal signage to handl! that. We are going to study a
couple of other alternat1~es. but J think tbis is the on~ that is going
to work for ~S.
Cqmmfs$~9ner Carrasco; 1 have another question o~ access~ John. In the
pastJ sites i~ t~is zone have bee~ required to aCCESS fire tr~cts to the
rear portion of the property. How does that happen on this site? I do
nat see an access gate t~@re.
Mr, Rpdrigues: 1 w()uld be happy to answer that, as we did spend S1me
ti~ with tnt! fire department initially to make sure this worked. As you
come up the hillside, they were very specific on what the percentage of
slope would be. Tony, that we could not exceed, given that the fire
trucks needEd to get to the top. w. have bee. able to meet that. It
lOves up the westerly property line. and tne. you come to the top of the
site, ~ve arou~d through the back parking area, ~ere you can see a
wider turnaround at the top of Build,ng TWQ, and t~en come batk d~
througn the site_ Th.y have laid cut their templates on It tnd feel very
coafortable t~at it works. both from I circ~lation standpoint, plGS I
pertentage of slope standpoint.
ComgjssiQner (arrisce: Do they connect betw~en Sltes2
Mr. Rodrigues: No. It was interesting that they allowed ~s to do that
on this slte. given the slape and given SC~~ of the other issues. Tb!y
felt that if they needed to, since the pa;'king is Dn the easterly side of
the property line, they could jump the c~rb in a real emergency. we did
get their concurrence and approval of this sfte llYcut~
Commissioner CarriSCO: I ha~e i Question on the height va~iince. It
seems to me that the difference in beight tn~t you are ask1ng to Exceed
is not going to bt SUbstantial. yo~ are not going to be able to see it
from the street.
Mr. RQdrjgues: That is correct.
Co.mfsslpner Carrasco; 1$ there anywhere else.th~t you will ~ able to
see that addition.' MeigMt from? Are th.re bu,ld,"gs above th,sl Maybe
the top [PRJ building might be able to look down on this additional
height. Does it CLlt Dut any dews that you know of?
08/26/92
-Il-
Ht'". ~odl'"i9ues: I don't bel1evi:-so. We have ltloked at that. It lS
densely landscaped at the opper part of the site. t~~ no~thern part.
They ;lsc set dONn in a little knoll. At thi! property line, it berms up
a bit and then sets back down. Their ~iews ind vistas ~ould still be
unobstructed~ beciuse the bUlldings set still lower than the e~istin9
h"9'nt of the ,ontour on the top part of the hill. So I feel P"etty
comfortable that we are not going to b~ an impact on any of the
surrounding properties. We were most concerned with the residenti.il
property owners looking up at it. There, 1 feel we have bee~ very, very
slJccessful~
Cgmmissioner Carrasce: I nave a question for the landscape architect.
Mr. Rodrlcues: I would like to introduce Gary lamon from Antnony
G~zzardo Asso~iates.
(oamjssion~r Carrasco: ! am WQndering about the question r ha~e asked
lorraine about the landscaping. There is more landscaping proposed en
this site than Dn the ones t~ either sfde of it. I am wondering about
your t~inking on those oak trees. Jt would seem to ~ tr.at as y~u are
dr1vfng down Arzstradero Road, you would all of a sudden see this clump
of oak trees, which would lock different from the rest of the sites
btcause the other sites do not have the oa~ trees. What was your concept
in adding them?
Gary lamon, Guzzardp Associatgs. San Francjscg: Along the Arastradero
corridor t there are eXlst1ng native oaks. In the upper right hand corner
of the page~ there is i partfcularly large, existing oak specfmen
there. In addition, there are oak trees which have been planted fn
front of the Synte~ s1te~ just below o~r site. It sort of embraces both
Sides of the driveway is you go along tk!re. So the oak trees are
consistent with t~at corridor theme, and of course. with t~e residential
and soae of the oak trees Which ire existing on the adjace~t sites. Sa I
am picking up that oat theme with the grassy nill, maintalning some
continUity. Let me go over o~r intent, in terms of quantity of
landscaping. slnce that seems to be an issu~ that sEvera1 commissioners
are concerned about. What we lOOK to do on this was to try and create a
landscape tnat would be ver~ soft and very subtle around the p~rimeter of
the development. tiking things like oak trefs, hydroseed native grasses.
and take t~'at all alo",s the perimeter of the property Hne. In tn.t way,
a non-irrigated ground cov~r condition would be created, with oak trees
that would be on drip irrigation just for t~e establis~ment period. So
whereas the total square footage of landscape appears fairly substantiel.
and indeed t~e tree cover would sU99~st that we are putting in a lot of
pl~nt ~at~riils in there, t~e ground cover t~eatment is actually very
miniaal, in terms of jost getting a ground cover there which wilT
nattlr.allze and blend in wlU the surrounding en .... ironment.
1he most intensive landscaping occurs within the parking lot itse1f,
wntre we are doing things to help sQften the impact of cars. creating
those layers of screens going through the parking lot, ind i1so providing
trees which give a canopy and snade for people using tke parking Ireas.
The most intensively used , lindscaped area wi 11 be the central corridor
in the patiD space between th~ two buildings, ar.d also the patiO space
just beyond, toward the Dialogue site. They were creating a kind of
outdoor ro~ there~ whi,~ will be enclosed with shrub material. The
08/26/9<
-11-
. "
......
--"', .
paVeMnt m.ateri,ill will be dec-C':!lposed granite, whict'! allows. ",,"'ater to be
.absorbed into the soil, creating a iight touch onto the lInd.
CommissiQner Cullen: J see that you have olive trees that do not bear
fr-Llit. Does that mean you are going to spray them, or is there somett'!ing
new on the market that I am n~t .aware of?
Mr. lamon: There are o1ive trees on the market which ilre hybrids, and
tend to produce less fruit than the normal, fruit-bearing ~arjeties. I
don't tb1nk there is an olive tree that you wo~ld want to plant in a sea
of paving that would absolutely be guaranteed never to nave an olive upon
it. But t~ere are bybrid strains which produce fewer olives. ¥ou can
also spray the tree for clives, and we wili be doing that in th1S case.
Mr. Si1li1and; Since they are usfng that sdndblasting technique, whic~1
is the same one tnat WiS ~sed at 4001 Miranda, we did receive seyer~l
comphlnts during the constructior, ~rocess about the noise from that. I
wondered if they could address the iss~e of no~ they might take steps to
m;nlmfze the imp~ct on the neighbors from the noise of the sa~dblasting.
Hr. Keenan: Curing the Foothill project t is ! recall, wher. the
earthquake hit, ~ had J43 panels all standing there with just one little
braee on each one. We lost a t~till of three. Tne project got set back.
and I thi~k we were sandblasting it tn! edge of the envelope in terss of
the time perf ods. ! think we deferred until B o'clock. rithe~ than 7
o'clock, a~d ~ knocked off at 4;30 p.m. I don't think we h~ye a problem
with that here. We were sandblasting on Saturd.,s, and I t~ink that was
the probl~. It 15 noisy, but 1t is 1150 of very lhort d~ratlon. It was
less than. week.
Cqmmi$$longr Cullen: ] see these are tilt-up buildings. I was under the
iMpression that tilt·up buildings were nut seismically safe. HiS that
been dealt with in a different way? I ISSU&> that the building
departaent .ust be looking it this, knowing Fred He~nr5 concerns about
earthquakes. Is there something different .bout these tilt-up buildings?
Mr. Keenan: No, they are j~st engineered better. Tht early tilts that
were done in the l.te 1~50s and e.rly 1960s had to be retrofitted as the
teChnology became more dffined. These are seismic to the ClJrrent code.
I might add that ~ith the till buildings that we ha'. at Feothill
Research Park, people come from allover to look at them. They cannot
belieye they are really tilt buildings. They think they.are proca.t or
stone. Tnat was the art fonn of what Ken is able to achieve in tne
reve&ls and the sandblz.sting t~ g'ive the effect of the stone look, but at
the cost of a tilt~ I guess that lS why we are here, and a lot of other
developers aren~t.
Janet Qwen$. 863 Horgno Avenue. Palo A1to: Good evening. I ~ sp~~kin9
for the Palo Alto Housing Corporatl0n. 1 want to make two br,ef pOlnts.
One, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation is su~prised that there is no
review of the reasoning that led to the e.ar]ler amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan. ~o that ~ousjn9 cauld be incl~ded on tne Pal0.Alt~
side of Arastradero Road. Since few of you were deeply involved ,n Clty
affairs at that time it seems ~st appropriate for you to ~ tpone
action on this reque;t until you have s~fficient background Informatic
to make a well infonned judgoent. Secondly, in a 'y with ." little
08/26/91
·13· --_ ..... -_.
'f< '.
/,.
und~yeloped land available for housing and with such ~ s~vere
jobs/nousing ilT"JiaTance, money is Ii! meaningless mitigation for tne loss of
sites for ~ousin9. Only one-for-one replacement of the lost sites by
land not now zoned fOT housing can effectively mitigate the action
proposed he~e. T~e Palo Alto Housing Corporation OPPOS2S the ~se of this
land for anything other than housing. We urge the commission to consider
(areful1~ and fully what is being requested of you.
1 also want to s~eaK to _nether this i5 a good sit~ for housing. Thos!
of us in this room tonight could debate that er,dl~ssly, I suppose.
thfnk the approp.riate place to put the question is to a family with
children now living i~ a car. That is the situation we are facing now.
As hlrd as the housing ccrporation has worked, things have gotten worse,
not better. T~ank you.
Chafnmao Beecham: Seeln9 no other speakers, 1 will close the public
nearing and return this item to the planning commission and staff. Are
there any questions fr~ the commission to staff?
(Oll1'nlHloner Q;ikjan: Under wnat set Qf circumsta.,ces could this
property be developed for housing?
Hr, Gilliland: rt would, first of al1, take a r~zon;ng, as it is zoned
LN. ihen I ~uppose iii developer could put housing on jt if they could
deal witn the toxic issues, the fire department, and their concerns about
tt_ It is a developable site for housing. Also, as Ms. Case just
polnted out to Ge, Stanford would probably keep it in vacant land before
the,y W{)uld put no'.!'sing in there. There are some very 1 Itigiou.s fsslJes
going en for tho. with regard to houslng_
CommissiQner Ojakian: So for t~is piece of property to be used is
housing, (I) Stanford would have to agree te it and (2) it would have to
aeet toxic and other hazardo~s requirements. So in your opinion, ;5 it i
feasible piece of property for housing?
Mr. Gilliland, That really put. us on the spot. I don't beliove it ;5
an appropri~te site for hDusin~t and I don't belie~e staff would say that
it is. I retract that stitemer.t, as ~y legal counsel idvises me that I
should not make that statemeot.
Ms. Case: The reason r say that is because I don't tnink staff has
actually done i st~dy of that, especially wtth regard to to~ic is~ues.
It is I fiir question to a~k, but it is not a question that I believe
staff is prepared to anSwer at this point, with respect to the to~ic
issues. at any rate_ 1 don't think staff has fu1l understanding of what
the impacts of the to~icity might be. I think it is fair to say that as
a practical pro.b1em, unless the housing .. 'as going ttl be financed by the
builder, tnat it would be just be(ause of tne nervousness of lenders
nowaday., it would be very difficult te build housing. That does not
necessarily mean it isn/t an appropriate place for housing. Of courSE,
the bottom lir.e at t~i$ point is that the ~er has the final say a~ to
what happens en t~e land.
Mr. Gilliland: let ~ clarify my comment and say ~hat as a pr~fessional
planner, r do not fir.d this to be an appropriate site for houslng beca~se
of the location 1" the midst of other R&D uses.
08/26/92
-14-
1
1
Chairman Beecham; To clarify ilso en the attorney's meaning. I beliey~
the DWn!r ~as control over whether Dr n~t the own~r builds O~ a piece of
property, but the ow~er does not centrol the designation of the
property. 15 that correct?
Ms. Case; That is correct. If you are ta7king about zoning or land use
deSignations, that is strictly the city's purview.
COmmissioner CarTasco: I would like to ask Jim a fol1owup questinn on
that recommendation. unen this Comprehensive Plan change was ir.itiated
at that time, staff recommended that it wa~ an ~ppropriate site f~r
housing. J am wondering wnat did he find to be incorrect in that
recommendation, and why did he cnange his mind now?
Mr. Zimmenman~ 1 think it really ref1e~ts a change of valUe system of
where sites are approprfate for housing. What W~ knew back in 1980 was a
lot less than what we know today with the issues t~at ~~ collelg~~s have
just been discussing. As a result, staff did an inVEntory of IIIfrtually
eyer~ opportunity site that w~s deSignated and zoned for commercial or
industrial use in Palo Alto at t.at time. Through the public revi ••
pracess, it sifted d~ to about five sites. I thln~ that if we were to
do a similar exercise today, we would come ~p with substantially fewer
s~tes~ and not necessarily at the sam! locations as were designated then,
lnclud1ng tne one you are conSidering tonight for the proposal.
COmMissioner Cgllen: let me add a little to that, .s the only person
present, beSide George, who was present It the ttae this was done. This
partieular site was selected by people In the lndu,trial p.rk for a
deaonstratfon project for housing, for eMPloyees who would not have to be
transported to workl so that they cDuld live near where they worked.
Unfortunately. because the support for that fell through at the Iligher
echelons in some of the ca.panies, the task force was diSbanded. The
onll thing that came out of It was this zoning. Stanford sald at the
time, ·We will never allow housing on that site. It will sit vacant for
20 to SO years, if need be, but we will not allow housing Dn that site.
How I know it is not the developer~s responsibility that the housing
cannot be put on this sfte, a~d th! applicant has come through with some
mltigatlon for tne loss of tn1s site. 1 fee1 that Stanford nas a strong
obligation to come t~rough ~tn another Site, if we allow this to be
redesignated tonight. Stanford's record has not been good on that. We
designated the triangle across from the shopping center for housing.
Sta~ford fought that~ It was ~~t .ithin the city limits, so the zoning
ultimately went to the oount,. In spite of the staff recommendation and
in spite of tne city council Yote, the~ allowed Stanford to retain the
deSignation on that site as academic instead of ~ousin9. It was a
perfect place for housing. It was or. a transportation corrid~r; it was
near shopping; it was even near open spate. I really would llke to see
Stanford rethin~ that~ If we allow this designation to be cnanged~ they,
in turn. should allow a redesignation ~f anotner site. I know that is
not What is befor! us tonight, but I want to get that into the record, as
I feel very strongl, about ;t. I tnlnk th.t many of tne people who •• '.
on the co~nci] around that time will also feel strongly about 1t.
Cnairaan Beecham; In term~ of our discussion tonight, in order to ~elp
focus us; we have three areas of issues. One is t~e Comprehens;v~ Plan
08/Z6/92
·)5-
..
,
i
i mJp a~endment. as we ~ave just talked about. Second is the site and
design, and third is the variances. What I would like us to do is to now
continue the discussion an the Comprehensive Plan map amendment, and see
if we can resolve that. If W~ do? ther. ~e can continue ~it~ thE site and
design, and then finally. take up the varfances.
Cqmmissioner Clrrasco: r think~ first of a11, that housing needs to be
in neighborhoods. J am not sure you can isolate housing and expect all
of the social aspects of housing to perform. For instance. you need to
be next to grocery steresj yeu need' to be close to oHler facilities such
as parks, etc. 1 find that this ~ery slcping site, with the 270-foot
setback, with hnusing way up close to research park buildings, is
inappropriate. I tM1nk tn. appropriate des1gnation at tMat time should
have r~ined in lM, and I tbink it ;s « wise idea to keep g~ing in the
directi~r. that staff has recommended at this point.
On the other nand, I am concerned that we are going to lose 88 units.
remember that stu~ .h11. I .as .ith city .t.ff. wo had looked for
housing sites that could nandle the additional nGusing t and we could net
find politically acceptable sttes, it see~. r agree with Chop that
additional ho~sing 5hc~ld occar along transportation corridors. and 1
would hope that both Stanford and Keenan(Lovewel1 would lobby for these
kinds of additional densities al~n9 transportation corrldors ~hen the
hard' time c:omes that we have to taU to neighborhoods and ruson w;U
neighborhoods as to why additional density might happen, for instance,
along El CUrino. While we cannot requlr! tf'sat as iI mitigation ·here. r
would rely on t~e fact tkat he is a developer who is really interested in
Palo Alto and hope that they oill co .. forth and .pea. for an .dd1tional
8S units on a transportatfen cDrridor~
~av1n9 se7Ved en the housing corporation, J ~ gratef~l tnat developers
have proposed paying an additional fee for housing. although I dan/t
think that buyl"g your way out of a Compre~noiY. Plan I. the oay
plannfng should nappen, even in recessions and in times when we have a
ohortago of oo.oy for hou.ing.
]n summary, 1 fe~l this is an lnappropriate site for hOUSing and ~re
appropriate for an industrial park use. 1 would hope that
Ke-enafl./lovewel t ... ill come out and' speak for housing in more appropriate
saes.
(ommlss~o~er $chmldt; 1 agree with ~at has been said about hDusing.
Tne only troubling part of this p~opasal is that I hate to see a site
that has been deSignated for 8B units to be e'i~inated ~ith nothing to
replace it. Even though the applicant is paying essentially a double
fee. it really does not ~ake up for the loss of 88 units, but we cannot
expect the applicant to pay for everything. obviously. rt is a very
generous thing to do~ In looking at th~ site and the adjacent uses, it
does riot look. 1 ike iii very appr(lpriate site for housing.
I looked tf'srougn tne Stanford Research Park planning document or study
that was done six or eight months ago. It made several recoa.endations.
One of them was that therE ".oded to be a new .,.tor plan for the
research park, because many of the older bu;ldin9s were coming to the end
of their life in iii particular use. Perhaps if a n~ ~ster plan was
undertaken for the Stanford Research Park. perhaps housing could be
08/26/92
-16·
looked at tnrougn tne research park when that is done. r ~~uld nope that
not aTl of the research park is so tOXic tnat we cannot do anything but
'nave reseatch there. I think. the loss of hOUS'flg is the troub1ing part
of this) but that particular sit@ wou1d be more appropriate as a research
facility.
ComroiSSiO?gT Qjak1an: I contur with what has been said, thus far. For
everyone's lnowledqe, including Janet o.ens., in 1979·1980, as pa'l"'t of the
University Park Association, 1 was in~olved ~jtn some ~f the zoning
issues, especially is tney related tc the nelghborhood I lived in. So J
ha~e some familiarity ~ith ~hy'we set ~p some of thes~ zones and what we
were tryin9 to do with them. I will also say that I spent the time to go
and look at this Sitf; I checked out the adjacent are~s. and in t4king a
look at it, I would probably hay! more difficu1ty wit~ this issue if the
1ands adjacent t~ this s'te on either side of it ~ere zon~d for housing.
But in fact~ what we htve here is a $ingle plot of land that is lOn@Q for
multiple·flmily in which there is notning else aroun~ it that ~ould be
allowable for ~ouslng. It is sitting ~n a piece of property that to me,
given some of the factors we .re hearing tonight, fOT instance the
problem with toxic wastes and some of the other aspects l it is difficult
to vote in , way th.t is other than what the .pplicant i, asking for.
Again. I agree with what Commissioners Carrasco and Schmidt are sayfng
that in & sense, what we ~ave here is a piece of property where the oniy
issues is the hous;n9. The rtst of what is being proposed is a fairly
attractive situation.
Chairman Beecham: 10 f~ll~* up Dn thDse comments, 1 ~ tOEing from the
other end. I read tnroush this. and I felt a little bit a. though tne
applicant .nould not oe.d to pay any mitigation for this. When I looked
at tb. tomprehensive Plan and saw that this one parcel In the ~'ddl. of a
li9ht Hanufa,tur'ng area was deSignated as housing. 1 thought back to
1980 and felt that we must t,a"e been grasping It straws. 1 am sure it
was very diffic~lt to ffnd inY opportunity ~t tnat time at all for
hous1ng. 1 was not part of that dec'sion. and I do not recall any of the
discussions, but in looking at the situat'on today and in visiti~ the
Site. I cannot believe that we wou1d say. let~s put some high~density
housing here. It is surrounded by totally noncompatib1e uses. So I felt
that in terms of ta1king about requiring mitigatton from the applicint
f~r a lGSS of potential housing, by one definition. ~e are 10si"9
potenttal housing, be,a~se that is what is in the Comprehensive Plan ~ap,
but ! have no do"bt th.t t"e •• y things are today. it lea.t. that is not
an approprlite des;gn~tion for that 51n91e parce1 in tbat arei.
MQIlQH: Chainman Beech~m: To move tbis forward. I will move that we
Iccept the st,ff recommendation. 5p~cffi,ally, Recommendation 12 on
Page 7 which refers to the Compreher.,iv. Plan; ("Adopt the attached
resolution amending thE Comprehensive Plan, redesignating the property
from multiple-family residential tc Research/Office Park); and also that
we accept the findings relativE to the Comprehensive Plan lmendment on
Page 7.
~: By C~issioner tarrasc~.
COmmissToner Cullen: I am going to vote for the Motion, but I want to
make two points clear. Fir~t of all, we don;t know that there is any
kind of toxic •• ste on this property. and I don't think tne "ocord should
{ ,
08/26/92
·17·
•
. ~.
7:----•
• ,j.
indi~ate any implication tnat there is. We have ne kno~1edg~ of w~at tnt
soils study na'''t s.hown~ ind perhaps we could be enlightened en that.
EW"!'n If there were toxic soil in there, with this applic .. tiM. it would
st i 11 have to be remed i ed, just as it was wi th the Hi randa property. $0
the toxic pr~b1em J feel i5 irreltvant as regards whether it is for
ho~sing or not. There may be some future problem, and I can see where
you might say there is an ~nknown factor there, b~t l!t's not say there
is a problem with toxic soil .
T~e second thing I want to reiterat~ again ;s that ~e GTe lOSing the
ho~sing designation here because tne underlying owner of the land will
never allow housing to be b"ilt here, and I feel th,t Stanford has •
.arll obligation to pay attention to housing elsewhere, since they are
the largest employer 1n the irea.
Chairman &et;~jm; As a point of clarification, I don't be1ieve the
rep~rt does i~~ly or say anything about toxic sDils On the site.
~is§ioner Cullen: Ho, but we ha~e been sitting here talking about it.
Mr. Gilliland: If I m~ address that, Commissio~er Cullen is ibsclutely
correct. We are not talking about toxics in the gr~und. Our conc!rn
CCGes mare from tnE storage of halardoos mater~als in the surrounding R&D
uses.
MaTlON PASSES; Chairman Beecham: Is tnere any further discussion on
this action? All those in favor of adopting the staff retommendations
regarding the COIIPrehensiVe Plan amendment, pleue say Aye? .tIll
apposed? That passes on i vote of 5~O, with Commissioners Glizier ind
M.rsh absent.
CnaiT!jD Be~cham: Skall we no~ address the sit~ and design review.
~issiontr Schmidt: I think the de~elopeT and the architect have done
a .ery good job of designing and SitIng t~e building. Bero and I went
aut to the site, and the building will, Indeed, nestle into the site.
The side that it Is located on does Indeed slope upw,rd to.ard the
Dillogue property. The other side, with parking? bowls over toward the
Syntex property. I think that is really i good relationship. I feel
that the siting on the contours is the appropriate wly to do that. You
create more interesting spaces on what 1S essentiall, i rectanguliT piece
of property. I aha like-the USI!' of SOmE' \/ineyard's around the bUilding.
It is my understanding that grapes are very drought tolerant, and will
not need much water, so 1 don't think they are going to be planting many
things that involve a great future investment of water. 1 would support
thls for the site and deSign ipproval. I feel that the project ~eets all
of the findings expressed.
~: C~a;rman Beecham:
accept staff recommendation
application-)
Should we interpret that as a motion to
14: (-Approve the site alld design
COlTlTliSSlDner Sc:hmMt: Yes, you may interpret that as .a lIl,otion to accept
the findings for site and design.
SECONQ: By Commissioner Cullen.
08/26/92
• J e-
. \.
Commissigner Cuilen: J WCH/ld like t{l ma~~e an amendment. It seellls to me
that Finding 14 for Site and Design, Page 9, is irre1evant to site and
design. I do not know what jt is doing in there. It talks about the
Compreher.sive Plan. The other things about relating to the e~isting uses
on adjacent property is covered in finding '1. Finding 14 !t~tes t~at
~The Compre~ensfve Plan amendment proposed ~il' bring the proposed ~se jn
conformance "'"it" the Palo AHo (omprehf:!nslve Plan, and the pr<lpc;sed
r~search and de~e'opment facility ind related site improvements conform
to eXlsting uses on adjacent properties.-So my amendment is tQ
el1m1r.ate that. Would yo~ like to incorporate tnat in your ~ain motion,
or is there some reason fro~ staff why we shcu1d not do that?
Hr. Gil11Jjnd: We need t{l look it ~p, but 1 believe we have to ~ake a
finding of conformance wfth the Comprehensive Plan for site and des~gn.
I belie.e that is what is intended to be addressed by this.
CQnmhsjongr (",lTen: I will h01d off on that until )'OU can find out.
Mr. Gilliland: Probably what we will b< lcokiog .t is the need to do
some rewording of it.
Chairman aeeGham: I think the rewording shou1d be consistent to the
point of saying that the site and design wi1l be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan intents, etc.
Commissioner Cullen: Thank YDU. You have reworded ay amendment for Ee~
CDmrnissfoner Schmidt~ J accept the ~ndment to rewnrd it.
Commfssioner tullen: And lea~e Findfng '4 in, ~t reworded.
Chainman 8e~cham: An) other comments on Site and design?
Commissioner Carrisco: Yes, r wo~'d like to ~eep this aspect of the
tot., IIOtion general. I think it is the role of tile ARB to look at it
more specifically. It is a complicated process, and if we add additional
criteria, other than what ~athy has said, 1t gets very complicated. So I
am harpy to stay with what Kathy has said.
C~1ssioner Cullen: ] am unsure of what ycu are saying. "Do YQU not
like the rephrasing of the site and design?
Commissioner Carrasco; No, that is not it. I agree ~ith your ~ndment,
(~issjDner Cullen, and wft~ ~hat you ~ave changed. I was just going to
caution the plannfng commission not to get too heav;ly involved in site
and design issues, because that 1S the role of the arChitectural review
board. We will get the benefit of their comments when it comes back to
us.
(QmmiS5ione~ Cullen: I appreciate that~ but the planning commission is
charged witn s1te and design review in certain areas of the city~ This
is one of those areas. 1 am not saying that we begin to do the kind of
job that tbe ARB does and we have always depended upon them. In fact,
we have had them tike'another look at s~ething we ~re worried about.
but I would not say tnat it is not Dur job. It is.
08/26/91
-!9·
=
MOTrON PASSES; Chairman Begcham: Is there ary fvrthe7'" a'tSCLJSS ion on
this motion? We have a motion by Commissioner Schmidt and secondEd by
Commissloner CuTten to accept staff recommendation #4 to approve the site
and design ~pplicat;on and to accept the findings for sit~ and design. as
written by staff. except to mOdify Finding 14 to indicate that t~e design
is consistent with the ComprehensiY~ Plan amendments. All those in
favor , say Aye? All cp~sed? Tha.t passes on a vote of 5-0, \!lith
Commissioners Glazier and Marsh absent.
Cha;rman Beecham: Now I move to the variance issues. Any comments?
MQIlQN: Cpmrnis~ioner Schmidt: Ccntin~ing my statements, I w;1l move to
accept the variances. Also, 1 feel that the prcposed ~ariances work w~11
with tn~ site in siting up the bUilding. They are in tMe spirit of what
the Design Enhancement Exception Committee is going t~ propose. Ton1 and
I have been on i subcommittee to bring forth an exception process to
faci1it.te design of buildings to .llow for thi"9S 1i •• a tower that is •
littl. high.r or for something that wo"ld improve the building design by
gDi~g into the setback. These two varianCE reQu!sts are in that spjriL ,
even though that process is not yet in place. They add to the design of
the building.
I also want to mention something that is good about the design. I think
this project does a really good job of locating cfrculatlon for peeple
coming to the ~ildlng. Tnat is something tnat we architects often do
not do wft~ buildings, whether they are homes or offices or whatever.
The entrances and the points of circulation are not well emphasized.
think tne coyered walkway with the tawers re.l1y does. good job of
telling people how to get into the building.
~: By CommiSSioner Carrasto. I would li«e to make a slight
change. Firstly, ~ are not accepting it. We are recommending to th~
zoning administrator tbat she grant the ~ariante~ as I understand it. Is
that carrect?
~~: Yau are making l recommendatlo~ to the city counci;.
Commlssioner Carrasco: Secondly, while I Igree with what Commissioner
Schmidt has just said, I WOUld is.k the arChitectural review tlOCird to pay
s~ special attentl0n to views from the properties ~~ above, looking Cit
the impact of the fiy, feet of addition,l h.ight in terms of the .;ew
from the buildings up above. J would Ilse ask the architectural review
board to look at the rel.tionship between t~e b~ildings on the east side
of this property and how they r.1at. to the 20-foot setback. as oppos.d
to the 40~foot setback, getting their comments in terms of whether it
benefits the site or nut.
Ch.irman 8e~tham: In addition to y~ur co~nts to the city council, djd
you make no net cnang~ to the motion?
Commis$ioner Carrasco: I asked that the architectural review board look
at the issues relating to the additional height, and then come back to us
on what they feel the .dd;tion,l height will do to the .iews of the
b~ildjngs abov9 the site , as ~ll as to the setbacks on each sidE.
08/26/92
·20-
•..
-. 1 ,-r··-
.....
Chairman Beedlam: In that case, let me argue witn your proposed ,r,ange
to the motion. The only portion of the buildings, i3 I understand 7t.
ttaat exceed the height 11mit are the towfrs. (Yes) I cannot imagine
their changing the towers and have it t~lprove the Tooks by shortening
them. That would be the result of looking at the helght. So I would not
reilly support Towering the towers. which would be tne result of what you
might be .,king.
CO'/I"ITI1Hiongr Carrasco: That is not what I am asking. I am just asking
for ARB input in terms of what tnE variance would do. I have not looked
at th15 project from an architect~ral review board potnt of vie~. I ~awe
l~oked at it from an overa11 site and design. general purpose vie~, and r
t~ink it lOOKS great, in terms of the architecture and all of that. B~t
I think. we-need to look at ;t more specifica1ly from the Tt!al detailed
V1!W.s of what it does from the buildings on the sHes up above, and what
H looks like from a d!tailed point of view. That is an I am asking. I
don't think it is 1 big issue.
Ms. Casr: Mr. Chairman? the variances do not go to t~e ARB. This is
action on a variance. You have already taken Ju~r action on site and
design. So if s~body wants to make i stlt~ment that they would like
tne ARB to look at soaething. that is fine. But at this point, you do
not have t~t right to send so~thing on a v~rfance to the ARB and nave
them come back to you~ You cannot keep this action open, because it is
not sometning you ha\'e the right to do on i yar~ance.
Chainean Beecham: Let me find out if. based on that. if what you are
seconding as a Detion you will ,ccept that we actept the staff
rec~ndation (their Recommendation 13 on Page 7 -Approve the varlinces
to exceed the maxiMUm height allowed and sid. yard setbic«j •• 10ng with
the findlngs on Page 8.
~~~~~~~¥; At this point, I ... little confused. If the
variance issues, are we submitting ill djffe-rent set
of plans to the ARB without the variance?
ChaiMRln Beecham: The ARB has no role in approving the variance. let m€
suggest that 'Me see if we can work on What we. the comjssiO~t Siy on ttle
variances, and cl-ear up 'fI1hetner or not lIIe apPr-{)'oI! them. Then if we wish:
as a group or slngly, to make other comments to ot~er commiSSions or
boards,-·that we do that afterwards.
MOTION PASSES: Chainman Beechsm' So 1 believe we have in front of us a
motion to accept the staff recommendation '3 regarding appro~ing the
\lariances fDr fteight a.nd side yard setback, along wiU !he findings for
sucft on Page a. Is tnere any f~Tther discussion Con this motion? All
those in favor. SiY Aye? All opposed? That passes on i vote of 5-0.
with C~mmissicners Glazier and Harsh absent.
Tony, how would you like to proceed?
CO!IIf!issioner Ca.rrasco: At this point, I feel it becomes moot. It was
not a big issue to me, although on the other hand, 1 do not ~ant to
constrain the architectur.al review board's .abi1ity to look.at iss:.Jes that
lIight exceed the height limit and ha'ie .a point ~f vie~ thC!-··~t !iiJ'n
out to be slig~tly differ.nt from ours. They M19ht f,nd : ,he
08/26/92
-2l'
•.
.'-."
additional htight is detrimental to the vi~ws from the site above or to
the res1cents below. I was hoping that we would get a more detailed
opinion from them. But it is net that big an issue.
Mr-~ Gilliland: If I may, I don't think tltat is any problem. Sefore it
goes to the architect~r&l reviEw bearc, we will bring up that issue in
the informational memcr.andum and ask that tne ARE! .specifically look at
that issue.
Chainman Bgecham: We also neeQ to move to accept staff recommendation '1
regarding adopting the mitigated ntgative declardtion.
MQ11QH: I t~erefore move that WE accept staff reccmm',dation '1 to adopt
the attached mitigated negative declaration, a.s we1l as the conditions on
Pag •• 9. 10 and 11.
~: 8y Commissioner CuTlen. I am 5t;J1 worried, ho~evert about the
water. I feel that before this geES to the tity council, a more detailed
explanatiDn of the origln of the water for this project should be
attached, includlng how 1t will impact otner uses in the city.
MOTION PASSES: (~ajrman B!ecnaw: Is there any fu~~er discussion on
this .otion? All tnose in favor, say Aye? A11 opposed? That passes on
a vote of S·O, with Commissioner~ G!azfer and Mars~ absent~
Mr~ Keenan: Tnank you, Hr. Chai~an~ ] ~u1d be the first in line for
Commissfoner C~11en/s recommendatiDn in terms of the housing mitig~tiDn
and Stanford's responsibility to it. Stanford West isn't ex.ct1y chopped
liver, and J a. here to suppcrt it. So I look forward to your positive
endorsement of that housing on Stanford land on transportation
corrido~s. Tnank you again.
Cnairman Beecham; What is tne ntxt action on this matter?
M~. Sjl1iland: It Will go to tn~ architect~ral review board on September
17t~, and it is tentatively scheduled for the city co~ncil on October
19th.
08/26/92
-22-
---_.-
r . R.E1>UI.AlI AGENDA
INfORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
AIICHITECTURAl REYIElI BOARD
September 17. 1992
1 CSC ARASTRAOERO ROAD
Keen.n/Lovewe1l Ventures 9Z-ARB-S6. 92-CPA-2, 92-E1A-19.
92-0-4. 92-V-Il
Construct two new research and development bLJildin9s in the Stanford
Research Park
REQUESTED ACTION
Final ARB approval
ZOHING
IJt-S (D) limited Industrial/Research Pilr.k: District liith S1 te ana ~sign
Revlew Combining District
COMPREHEXSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION
Multiple Family Residenti.,
ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT ASSESSMENT
A Mitigated Negative Dec1.ration h.s been prep.red and is attached to this report.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notices were sent to property owners .ithin 300 feet of the project sit •.
REYIElI BY OTHERS
This app1ication i~ follOWing the major site and deSign review process.
The review sequence for this process lS~ ]) Planning CQlmlission
rec .... ndation, Z) ARB reco ..... d.tion, and 3) City Council for fin.'
action. A prelimlnary revlEw 6f the project by the ARB was held prior to
in1tiil Planning Commission review.
On August 26, 1992, the f'a"ni~ Co.mission reviewed this proposal and
after 'e~thy distL1ssioJ'1, uiflanil!K)usly recolllnEnded approval {with two
Planning Commissioners absent) with modifftation to wording of finding 14
of the Site a.nd Design Findings. The findings for Site and Design
applications require a finding of conforomance with the ComprehenSlve P1an.
The Plann'ing Comission r"'ecolIPended approval of the Comprehensive Plan
~ndment pflor to recommending approval of the proposed site ind design
PAGE 1
' .. /"'.
,":,~}:.::, ~.
~:".'~~ '.
of the project, bat the Comprehensive Pian change tlas not become effective
since no City Council action has been taken. The Planning (orrrnission
~equested tnat finding #4 be revised to reflect this sequence of events.
The revised Site and Design findin9 ,( reads as follows:
4. The Comprehensive Plan ~ndment proposed to be approved as a part
of this application will bring the praposed use in conf~rmance with
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed research and
de'.lelopment facility and related site impravl!ments are conSistent
with the rec~nded Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The project is tentattvely schedu1ed ttl be reviewed by the City Council on
October 19, 1992.
BACKGROUND
This project had prel i.inary review by the ARB on May 21, 1992. The Board
r~viewed a proposal for the design of two res~arch and deve10pment
buildings of 37,540 square feet (Bui lding I) and 37,920 square feet
(Buildirtq 2') with surface paric.H19 for 22S cars on t.'e center and rear
portions of tne site and' related site iIDpP"Ove-ments. The Board was in
support of tne general design direction. the variance to .,,~w an average
setback, and supported a vineyard in the scenic setbacx wlth NattYe Oak
Trees along the Arastradero ROld,
The ARB requested that the fin.l ARB submittal include a softened building
fo,.. us1ng ardlftectural lleans, s1Jch l.s eve Dverhangs, to reduc~ the
impact of tne project on the hill. They als<I rt-Quested that there-be
furt~er development of the outdoor spaces for ~se by tena~ts. Minutes of
this meeting and corrections to the mlnutes are included in your packet~
DESCRIPTION
1. the final ARB application for 1050 Arutradero Road, the a,oplicant
proposes to construct two double-story research and devel~pment buildings
of 37,704 square feet (Building I) and 38,276 square feet (Building 2),
totaling 75,980 square feeL with surface parking for 244 cars on the
center and rear portions cf the site and additional related site
improvements. T~e ma):lmLml height of Bulldfng 1 ind Building 2 is 36. S
feet high and 37 feet high respectively, though the towe, on 8ufldio9 2
measures 4D feet~
Tn. revised plans ioclude planting the 210-foot front setback with. row
of meandering California Native Oak trees, natura' grasses, grapevines to
form a vineyard, and ground toyer p;anted behind i 4-foot high berm. The
vineyard has been red~ced at the front setback to allow for planting of
Oak trees and a berm, though the vineyard and ground coyer are proposed to
meander to tne rear of both buildings. Please refer to the Planning
Commission staff report for a moTe detiiled project description.
The final ARB plans consist of site plan modifications inc::ludlng the
P:AH\I .. ~_D917 PAGE 2
-,
..,._.
Tne final AR.B plans consist of .:ite plan m<ldifications including the
follo_ing:
Site plan
A 5-foot wide bfcycle l~ne has been extendEd along the ~ntry driv~
from Ar~stradero Aoad.
One-way traffic has been provided on both sides of the medi an strip.
Y"isitor bicytle p~rking ha.s been reTDcated neal' thlE' S.ui Iding 2 entry
facing tn. vineyard.
Tne retaln'fnq wall near the nortnern property line will curve around
the property and has • height of op to 20-feet ne.r the north •• st
corner of the site.
244 surfa,e parking spaces have been provlded on site.
Tbe row of parking spae~s along the front setback has been moved to
align with the front setback.
Eleyatlons
Courtyard entry tower at Building J has been changed.
The rDund co1umn$ at towers and entries hive been eliminated.
The window bl1 spacing ~as been revised to meet the futu~ tenant's
spac i ng needs.
Change in roof eave detailing.
Wincow glazing has been changed t. tinted bronze.
Window framing has been changed to bro~ze anodized al~inum fram~s.
Wall and window details have be~n included in the revised drawfngs~
A aod.l and color board will be presented .t the meeting.
A1fALYSIS
Pl.ase refer to the attached Planning Commission ,taff report for a full
analysis of tne issues pertaining to this proposal which include housing
illlpact mitigation. request for height and side setback variances, 'Wisllal
illpacts, drainagt', Ind circulation. As of the date that this
fnform.atiDn~l memorilPidum WiiilS written, Planning Staff has not rece;"ed a
revised circulation plan. The applicant is expected to meet all the
conditions of approval inc1uded in the Planning CommiSsion staff r~port
and any additional recommended conditions.
p':MS\rIFDEllO\IMf0917 PAGE 3
· ..
The Plannil'lg CDI'I1'T11SS;On reQuested that the ARB review the plans with
regards to how much of the view is blockpd by the neW.' buildings from the
higher sites such as EPRJ. In particular, tlie Co~n1SS';or. was cOf1'Cfrned
that t~e additiona1 helgM for tt'le tower necessitate;j by the Variance,
might cause a view blo:.kage. Included in your packet is .. driwing f~orr.
the app1icant showing ii. site section of the hillSide. T~e added height to
the t(!wer do"!s not appear to cause any additional \lieirrl' bloc~age.
The rev~sed 1andscaping of the front setback. blends in a:1d better relati!$
to tile ~djac!'nt pn:;pertlEs on eittler slde of the subject site I{ith
Cal iforrda Nat; we Oaks a10119 the Arastradero Road frontage and a berm
behind the Oaks. Iihiie the vineyard may still be somewl,at tHlticeab1e from
Arastradero Road, the proposed berm lrtilT aid in !Crei!ning thoe vineyard.
The vineyard w!)u1d be most vlsib1e by those tri"lt'e11n9 east along
Arastradero Road. Th~ Stanford Vni~!rsity Planning Office is requiring
additional planting to screen tne vineyard in order to be consistent with
neighboring properties by providing a denser buffer along Ar.astraoi!r()
Road. By t!Jrtl'r.:ding tfte vineyard to meander to the f'e.Qir of both buildings,
a SCEnic v1!ta hu been prtlvided to be viewed' from the courtyard between
botfl bul1dings. A picnic. area in tne ~if')eyard of the front setback
creates additional amenity al1ow1ng the \lll1!:'yard to be enj{lyed by
employees.
Tne final AI(B ,phns inc1ude 244-parking spi!ces wMch meets the zoning
ordinance parking requirements jess an exemption for recfssed window area
and atri~s on one leY~l of each building. Tnre~ of thtse parkin9 spaces
are in landscape reserve in the northern portion af t~e site.
Staff notes that Stanford University'. Planning Office and the Shnford
Management Company have not appraved the revised elevations, details and
color board. It is Stanford;s polic~ for building~ in the R~s~8rch Park
to relate contextually to each other a~d the p~posed buildings do not
relate to the existing by;ldings on three sides of th~ site. The Stanford
Un~versfty Plar.ning Office is ilso requiring that the ground floOT windows
of the bUllding be framed at the base. The colors and materials for t~e
I!roject will be subject to review a.nod approval in the field by both
Stanford and the ARB as i condition of appro~ai of the project.
All new development shou7d provide adequate and accessible enclosures fa_
recyclab7e materials storage. Tne design; construction ijnd accessloi1ity
of these areas ~ust be in accordance with the dEsign guidelines of the
ordinance. The trasn, recycling, and loading irea should be deslgned to
be attractively screened from parking and ped!str1an spaces. Additional
detailing to include trasn, recyc.ling and loading areas are required to
return for final approval prior to tne issuance of I building pe~it.
R£COIIMENOATlOM
Staff recommends tnat the ARB recommend that the City ~ouncil adopt the
mitigated negative declaration and approve the project subject to tne
fo17owlng findin9s and conditions:
':.Ift\i.KWIe\lMOt17 PAGE 4
•
Findings fRr Site and Des ig(1,
1. The proposed d!si9" will be orderly, harmonlous, and compatible with
existing or potential uses of adjoining property. jn that the
proposed use and improvements 'Win be similar to other t:ses in the
area and the project has been designed to minirr,ize \/lsual ir.1pacts 0;1
adjoining property.
2. l~e project will maintain des1rabi11ty of invistment in the same or
adjacent areas, in t~at the t'equ~red on-site improye~nts and
landscaping irtd construction standards gDverned by the current
U."lform Bt.dTding Code (trBe) or other current codes win assure a
high quality of developm.nt.
3. The proposed design will observe sound principles of environmental
design and ecolQgical balance, in that the selected location of the
new structures and improvements limit disruption ·of the site, and
RleUiJres incorporated into the project design will help v.inimize
erosion ind offset visual impacts.
4. Tn~ Comprehensi,e Plan Amendment proposed to be appro,ed as part of
th1.S application will bring the proposed use in c.onfonnance with the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rese-arch !nd develop .. nt
fatilit.Y and related site improvgents are t:onsfstent wfth the
recommended Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
PUlIltlNG COItIISSIOH STAFF REPORT COIIDlTIONS
I. A site plan is r.qui .... d whlth shows the full driveway, intluding tn.
exit portion on the neighboring property. The uphill traffit
direction from the existing Syntex driveway near the area next to
the Syntex parking stalls must be removed in order for this ingress
and egres, to work. "plan I!Illst be submitted .howing both ,id.s of
t~e driveway, wit~ signing and striping that meets lranspartation
Oivision standards.
l~ A revised cirCUlation plan s~all be submitted il1ust~lting all the
details of access to th~5 driveway under consideration to ~eet the
satisfacttoP'l: of the Transporution Oivision. The plln shall include
circulation on tne subject site and adjDining properties. parking
layout, stripfng and signage.
3. A d~tailed grading. drainage, and erosion repair plan prepared by a
registe~ Ciyil engineer ,hall bE subcnitt.d to the Planning
Diyislon and Public Works Department for re,;ew and approval prior
to issuance of a building pennH. Construction details and
calculations for all dralnage facilities shall be slJbmitted with the
d.t.lled drainage plans.
4. All grading and development on tne sHe sh.all conforti with a"
.aspects of the project soil and geotechnical report rec<llfITIendations.
The project geotechnical engineer will be required to certify that
P~U.F(IIIBD\I~7 PAGE 5
·1.
the grading and construction were done il1 accordance with their
reconoend-ations, prior to finalization of the building permit.
5. Prior to issuance of a bUilding p~rmit, a detailed 1 andscape pian
and irrigation plan ~nall be required to b€ reviewed and approved by
the Stanford University Planning Office, Stanford Manag~ment
Company, a~d the Art~itectural Review Board. The final plan shall
include the c~n and botanlcal names of all specles used, and the
number, size, type, location and spacing of ali plant ~aterja15.
6. The following tree protection measures shalT be implemented during
construction actfvities:
7.
B.
9.
10.
l. All trees deSignated to bE preserved shalT be protected with
six-foot high chain link fences ~ounted on two-inch diameter
g,:lvaniZi!d iron posts, and drfver; into tne ground to a depth
of at le.st 2 fe.t .t no more tllan lO-foot spac;ng. The
fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripl ine of
existing trees. In nc case shall any lIehic.les or equipment be
permitted to be stored within t~e enclosed ar~a5. The fences
sha1l be erected befare construction blE!gins and remain in
place unt;l final of tne building permit.
b. No storage of materials Dr topsoils sha1l be p~rmitte4 within
the tree enclosure areas.
c. Abo"'e ground surface runoff area shall not be directed into
the tree canopy area fram adjacent areas.
11) reduce dust levels during constructl0n. it shall be required that
exposed eartn .sLlrfaces be watered frequently, during the lilte
JDDrnTng and it t"e end of the day I witft frequency of watering
increasfng on w~ndy days. Spillage resultin9 from hauling
operations along or across iny p~blic: or private property shall be
removed immediately and paio for by the co~trictor. Oust nuisances
or1ginlt i n9 from t~e contractor's ope rat ; ons, such as stockp i1 es of
debris, soil, sand or etner mate~ial$ that can be blown by the wind
shall be covered. Any spillage ~esulting from hauling operations
either inside or outsidt the public right-of-way snal' be re~ved
i.ediately, it the expense of the cont!'"ac-tor. Rechimed water
shall be used for this purpose, in accordance with P~Dl ic Works
Department policies.
All cDnstr~~tion activities and installation of site improvements
shall be subject to compliance .itll the provisions of tile City of
Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of the PAMC.
A haul route artd construction impact pl art must be submitted and 0eet
the satisfaction of the Transportation Oivfsion, Planning Division,
and Department of Public Works.
All City of Palo Alto utility installations s1l0.1 b< in accordance
PAGE 6
.-.,
~';;...
,,,:+(~.-'~.,. -""",","
with t~e City of Palo Alto Standard Specific~tio~s.
11. The applicant Shill be required to pay a Housing Mitigation Fee of
$3.23 per gross square foct of building. f<lr a sum total of
,$245,415, pursuant to Ch.pter Ii ,47 of the PAMC This fee is
adj~5ted annually and the total due shall be adjus~ed based on the
fee in p.ffect at the time the bunding permit is issued. Half of
the Housing Mitigatior. Fee shall be paid to the City's Housing
Reserve fund prior to iss:.!ance of a building pennH wfth the
remaining half af the fee paid prior to occupancy.
12. The appHcant shall be required to pay a housing fee base<l' cn thE
gross sQuare footage of t~e building to mitigate the 10s:5 of
potential housing resulting from the Comprehensive Plln Map
Amendment, The fe. sh.TT be payabTe in fuTT at the time of building
permit issuance and snall be based on Ute Hous;rl9 Mitigation. Fee in
eff.,t at that tlme. The current fee i. $3,23 per square foot and
is adjusted annually.
13. The applicant shall be required to p.y • Transportation IEpact Fee
of $2,57 per 9ro.s squ.re foot (effeotl,! until June 30, 1993) or
S19S,!'69 for nonresidential development pLlrsuant to Chapter 16.45 of
the PAML The full amolJnt of tMI!' Transportation Impact Fee sliall be
paid to the City prior to issuance of Ii building permit. The
applicant shall pay tne dollar per~sQuare·foot a'!llOu~t of Ute fees in
effect at tne time of building permit issuance.
ADDITIONAL STAFF RECOMMENCED CONDITIONS
]4. Prior to iss.uance of a building perm; t, writ tf! n approval from
Stanford lJl1 ivers ity Plann; ng Offi ce and the Stanford lands
Management Company .ust be received by the Planning Division for the
project referencing dnwlngs and materills in conftnnance wHk those
receiving City of Palo Alto approval.
15, The applicant shall display it the project sHe full .ize color
panels of the base color of the building wall s for review and
approval by the-Stanford University Planning Office. the Stanford
~nagement CDmpany~ and the Architectural Review Board.
16, The applicant sh.11 submit to the Planning Stiff and the
Transportation Division for review and approva1 prior to the
issuance of a building perr.it, detailed drawings of the trash and
recyciable materials storage enclosure and loading areas including
locations, elevations, and installation of thesf! areas.
17. A photometriC lighting plan shall be submitted to Planning Staff for
review and approval prior to issuance of bullding permits. txterio!"'
light fixtures in the parking lot shall be mounted ~o higher than 15
feet from grade and be directed and shielded in order to prevent
spillover beyond the site,
":AD\llfOIEMr\l.mJ917 PAGE 7
r ".
, .
,
I
-.-",.. . -.-
"'/.' :--.
1050 ARASTRADERO ROM
Architectural Revie~ Board
S~pternber J7. 1992
c·.~=~~,~,=c::,:,'"
~, paP.Q5a: Item No. J on our regular agenda is lDSO Arastraoerc Aoad.
Are there any staff co~ent~?
M~, Weiss: Not at this time.
Ms. OaRosj: Are therf any questions for staff?
Ms. Wilson: On Page 4 of the stafF report. you refer to the ground
windows to be framed at the base. Could you clarify that as t~ w~at th!
requirement is?
Hs WfiU: The Stanford Plannfng Office h going to corrment an that toda,;'
because some changes are going to be put fo~a~. They have not b~&n
approved yet. So pernaps we should wait until we hear frDm Stanford on
th.t.
Ms. 1111 son: But we are not going to see tnis again.
Ms. Weiss: J bel~eve there are some cha~ges being brought forward today.
Mr. tYlWa: So you believe that tne project will return on consent
calendar ~ft~r today be:ause of the cnanges?
Ms~ Wefsi: If changes ire not brought forward today, tnen they would be
brought back on consent. That is correct.
Mr lyzwa: And if t~ey a~ brought forward, then do they come bac« on the
regu11r .genda? (Yes)
Ms. Wilson; There was .n issue abo~t the Syntex parking garage next
door. Could you clarify t"t for me?
Ms. Wei,s: This plan right here on the grading pl.n shows the project
adjacent to the Syntex slte. OUr transportation division ~as not approved
the circulation plan. Chang!s still need to be made. We are still
waiting for a new Site plan witn the circu1ation on ft. Right now, the
transpDrtation division is uncomfcrtable wfth the circulation in the area
where the adjacent prop!rty's parkin9 starts and t~e snared ingress/egress
access easeme~t. We want to get this clarified, possibly adding an
additional stop sign nere.
Ms. Wilson: So they are sharing driveways?
~s. Weiss: That is correct.
Ms. PaRosa: Any other questions for staff?
Chop Keenan, 700 Emerson Street. Palo AltG: r believe we nave complied
with everything today. including traffic. We will put on o~r presentation
nDW, with that in mind. Our Mediterranean villa is coming together. It
has gone through ~any iterations. Tnere have been lots of challenges at
this Site, whicn has 7~ feet of eievation from top to bott~. Same of the
·l·
1
, ,~
.',1"
s1gn;ficant issues that have been addr~ssed were raised by Stanford
relating to the frontage of the scenic setback. Those nave been
resolved. The layering effect in orde~ to s~reen the retaining walls to
the rear has been brought down to a maximum of IS feet at the very
highezt. The ~ast majority is much lower than tnat. We have met witM
neighbors acrass Arastradero Road. and have accord from them. We have
been to the planning commission, ~nd were unanimously approved by them,
induding a couple of variances with re9ard to side yaro setback and
helgnt of the to~er element.
J am going to let Ken RodriguEz go through the architectural issues. and
then turn it oyer to Gary Lehman of Bizarre and Associates to talk about
thp landscape p1an.
Ken Rodriguez: let me take you through some of the steps since we saw you
last. As you (an see, there are Quite a few more drawings that ~e have
been working on. As Chop mentioned. one of the issues we all lef~ ~jth
last time was, how dG we keep this ~ineyard and make it work i~ a scenic
setbaCk. With the h~'p of Stanford and Drew Oman, we were able to come uo
with a solution that allows sort ef i natural grass open space in front, .
as Chop mentioned. with the higher berm wall, and then the vines would
actually tuck down 1n behind that, giv1ng you views and vistas frDm the
project into the vineyard, yet from Arastradero Road, still keeping that
natural, open space. Gary wi11 talk a little more about the plant
materials and ~ow hls goal was to SDrt of feather them in and create a
very natural. scenic open space. I think they have rea11y done a sood job
of stydying what was on the adjacent sites and how to incorporate that.
One of the thlngs we have studied since we Slk YDU last has been the wnole
grading issue. We have probably done about six or seven grading plans,
and perhaps three Or four of those have been reviewed by staff. We Ire
eDnstantl~ trying to push this building down and get the retaiD1ng walls
down. We are at a pOint where they are at a maximum of 15 feet? which is
lower than the ta11e.t wall. we had out It Hillview. I think we <an all
say tnit that was a success. Tbe difference between this project and
Hillview, which we learned from, 15 that we nnw nave large landscaped
areas in front of the walls so we can actually get the vlnes tc grew up
and over the walls and cascade d~. So agafn? r tnink we are going tQ
have a ~ch softer solution than at 3400 Hillview, which Mas also been i
SUCC~S$. Th~se were So.! of t~e la~er issues in term~ of site el~ents.
As lorraine mention!d, there is an ingress/egress easement ~ere, and I do
believe tnat we have worked out what those ire wit~ staff. and with
Transportation, in particular. What we would like to do in terms of our
ne~t step? prior to oor building permit, is to get a traffic engineer out
there to make sure they look at the circulation of this space and nave
some dia10gue with Transportation to ensure that we don't need to add Ir.y
other arrows or any other stop signs. Basically, in c~ncept, tn;s ~as
been well received. So while staff is correct that we need to contln~e to
look at this detail, tnis is what J would consider as details to be done
during t~e construction documents in the no~al course of study, and
continue to devel~p the design, ~orking these out prior to our building
~rmiL Jt cel'1te'rs around perhaps adding one I)DrE stop sign to impro .... e
circulat;on.
In terms of the building architecture, as you can see,,~e nave de'oleloped a
·2-
/
.. ------'
lot more t~an previously from the sketches. We have gone as far as to cut
wall sect"lons to taH about heights. An isSIJE C1me up at the planning
COITITIi.s:sion, rafsed by COIMI;ssioner Ca.rrasco. is to whether Y.Ju could, frem
the upr;ter buildings here, see these buildings or the tops of roofs. That
Wi! ill very good question. We did nct havE! a Site section at the time. Ife
have :since supplied one. You Ckn see it here. Basically. you cannot see
anything beyond the property line. There is some really dense vegetation
at EPRI; and ill you Cin really see is up into the h.ot"lZ{lr. So from the!'!'"
standpol~t, if I was Bn occupant of that bUilding, I would like to have
seen some vistas of the hills, but you are lite-rilly looking across the
tops of these large, evergreen trees, so you cann~t see that. Again, ~e
have provided that section since the planning comission meeting. We
purposely printed these in blue so that you can identify anything that is
new as being blue, inything new that the commission had net seen. So they
had nc.t seen this plan.
The last one was tnat we spent a lot of time working with Stanford to
really refine tne design of tnis building. J appreciate the early,
up-front c~nts now, versus the kind of format we have had in the past,
because it is nice to have this thing tG the point where eyery~dy ~as
consensus. ] rea1ly believe we have that. Certain1y, the people are
present today from Stanford and ~an speak to it. Basically, you can see
fr~ these sketches t~at we ha~e proposed floor-to-ceilino window
heights. One of t~e reaso~s for that when starting out was that tne
tenant was sort of pusning us in that direction. Stanford c~me back wlth
the suggestion that maybe there should be ~ really strong bast created on
tt1h bull ding to andlO'i the building, and also ha .. e the ability to mound
thls eart~ up against t~at. The other positive element tD that ;5 thlt it
will screen the desks and waste baskets Ind chairs t~at tend to go ~p
against the windows. What we nave done since then 1S to raise up the
Window sill heights, taking out t~at bottom mullion pie~e, and bringing
that up to chair rail height t which again will solve the problem of
screer.ing the desks on the inside. We will ~lsQ have the ability, as you
can see here wit~ the dotted lines, to BO~nd the e~rth against that,
creating a sh~ub hedge and a real strong base to anchor the building. So
I feel that was Quite s~~cessful, in terms of our studies.
We nave refined some of tne tower elements in great detail. One of your
~ooments was that you f.lt the building looked. little chopp.d off wh,",
the roof met the con~rete parapet. It did not have tnfs more horiZontal
look. Stanford agre!d with tnose comments; tney were sittin9 ber! as you
made them. We haYe si~ce added a really ~ice copper gutter and copper
soffit all the way around t~e entire projeet~ and W! kave extended tht
rDof line out~ sort of stretching the building her1lor-tally again. Th!
heights have b!en lowered. The to~r element that you saw previously
peaked up above the roof, and we fee1 that the current prGportions are
mucn stronger and more appropriate.
As Chop mentioned, we did get concurrence from the commtssion on our two
variance reQuests~ both of which you asked us to pursue. That was, to
slide the buildings over and create again this landscape buffer agai~st
the property line. They agreed with those c~nts. The one large tower,
which became the focal point, the main entry for a single tenant, peaks up
a few feet above the neight reQuirement. The commission WiS, again, very
recept he to that. How] would like to tlJrn ttli s over to Gary to tal k
specif1cally about the landscape plan.
-3 -
•
I ,
Gary lthman: Ken "as given y~u a good introduction to the overall Site
deyelopment lsSOes.. Perhaps 1 can get iii little more specific in terms of
t~e plant materials and what type of landscap! solutions we have come up
witn. As we weTe ]Qoking at the ~;neyard area, t~e sentimentl expressed
about Arastradero Road and trying to figure out the context of the
vineyard witnin t~e overall site de'llelopme:lt. What we have looked at
doing is bringing in tree materials on the adjacent ~roperty. primarily
oaks, wMch would help to bl~nd our site in wiH the adjacent site.
Primarily. the screening is going to be t2king place with t~e mounding
that will occur here. This will be a very soft and subtle mounding IIIltn a
very gentle grade transition s~ it does not look like a 1andscape mound,
but ;s much mor! of a natur~l hillside. ~hat ~e have done is to create a
steeper slope along the ed;e next to the bike patn. As you are on the
bike path, that .. 11 1 tend to ec1 ipse YOilr vi~ ... of this terraCE which ;s
beyond. That snows up en the sectlon.
~at we also inte~d to do 1s to introduce ev~rgreen shrub material along
the crest of t~at mound so that as the mound crests, you will ha~e shr~b
material to help screen the View of the nill. One 07 Stanford's comm~nts
was tnat they wanted to see more shrub material, so that is what we wjl1
do as part of the design. yo~ will see that on the workln~ drawings.
AnDther really e~citing part of the landscape design, besid~ tne vineyard,
is lOOking at this cvurtyard space here. these spaces in between the
buildings. There are primarily two spaces, one an interior courtyard
which will be a combination of concrete paths and crushed granite paving,
plus a group of trees which will occur in tne central area. This irei
will be eq~ipped with benches and pots, etc. to give tbe Med,terranean
feeling of 2 plaza. Outside. again, that terrace will be extended out It
the !ame elevation and surrounded by the vfneyards plus a group of trees,
treBting an inside-outside room there which will also be furnished.
The trees in the parking lot will be selected to ha~e st~ng canopies so
it will get lots of s~.dlng. Thos. trees will also add to that layering
Effect you get as you look up. It will soften the slte retaining wall it
the rear and also ~elp nestle the b~ilding.
One of the otner concerns at the ~lanning commission meeting WiS the use
of water. I wanted to make sure we were doing it appropriately for this
area. This drawing is i ltttie greener than what it will actually look
like. Our ir.tent is to use a drip irrigation system to irrigate this
entire perimeter area, primarily, including t~e vines and the new trees
that will be introduced along the frontage. This area on top on the
hills1de along the perimeter in between the vines t~emselves will 111 be
seeded with natural grasses. Some of it will be down the hillside behjnd
Hillview. The shrubs and trees will be on i drip and bubbler system, as
will the vines. Those systems will all be ab1e to turned off eventually
as tney 9Et establisn~d. That wi11 be a very low water use system. The
parking lot, likewise, wlll be on bubblers and drip irrigatiDn, so the
parking lot, which covers a large portion of the site, will also be using
minimum water. The only water t~at will really be used wi1l be in t~is
one corridor area, where we wi1l be using shr~b materials, but that is a
very small area. It will have that ~editerranean lOQX in the plant
materials, so it should be a very con~ervative landscape plan overall.
As I mentioned, tne actual ~eight of the retaining wall alDng this edge is
-4-
•
..• ; .
.. , . -----~.
15 feet. I kno~ that it says 20 feet in your pack.t. W. could go through
the grading plan here. This grading plan is actually not the current site
plan. As you wi11 notice, in tne landscape pla~. therf are actually three
lanciscape preserve stallS which we are introducing here to nelp soiten
that wall. That occurs here and along this edge. That allows us to
encroach a little bit farther there. In addition in our landscape
studies, we were able to mound up at the base of the wall and t~rn bac~ a
little more behind the wall than what the civil engineer has shown here.
So this wail is on1y IS f~et, and we will b~ able to sGften it a little
more than that.
We are also working out an a9reem~nt with Syntex o~er here to get a
qradlng easement a10ng this property line. You can see that these grades
are mounding up and crest right along the propfrty line. It really made
sense to lower that crest, tnerefore lowering the height of that reti1ning
wall. and also shortening it lengths. So that wall along this edge here
is shorter and lower.
We are antiCipating that, in addition to the vine plantings along this
wal1 l because we have the generous setback in front of it, we will be able
to put ;n evergreen trees. primari1y evergreen oaks, wh1ch wiil gi~e you
an immed1ate landscape along that wall, in addition to uS1Pg the other
shrub materials. We think we can take care of that wall ~ith a
combination of th~se three items.
Mr, Keenan: In summing up, ] would like to point out that we do have an
accurate model, and also a color board. We have worked amongst ourselves
to go through those c~lors. I would like to explain it to you, as it is
much like Miranda. I know that you remember there that we c.me in with
the actual color that they add to the concrete to g.t th •• ffect that we
have out there. While 1t does not look like this, this is the col~r that
goes In there. Wh.n I .ay it do.sn't look like that, the end product that
we are trying to achieve is so-ething 1n tone similar to what you are
seeing here in terms of tne photograph~ This, then, will go lnto the
concrete color and w11~ be mixed. We will then sandblast it at a ~i~m
sand blast, and 1~ some cases. we will also utilize the light sand blast
just to roughen up, possibly, the base of the building, much like we did
at Miranda. We will, as staff mentioned, mock up some samples. They will
not be full size, wnich is about 30 feet, but they will be about 8 x 12
like we did at Miranda, for all of you, and staff and Stanford to look at
in terms of difffrent sand blast textures. ~e are also going to be trying
about four or flve different colors iD thjs range, and then you ca~ mix
the col~rs. It is a proce~s that took us about a month-and-a-half at
Miranda of trying different samples and different textures. In thf end,
we came ~p with the exact color that we wanted, and we will do it here,
too. J just wanted tn reassure you tnat tne color field we are looking at
is something similar to that.
The clay tile nas the vari~gated colors. The gutters ar.d soffit area will
be copper. So th! or.ly three materials yo~ have in terms of tne building
are copper, tile and the integral colored , sand blasted concrete. Then of
cours., you have tne bronze glass set in bronz~ frames.
Ms. Wilson; Would you pursue the glass a little bit more? Are you uSlng
glass ever~here on all buildings?
-5-
---=~
.. '
.•.
Mr. ktrnan~ Yes, we i~e using the b~onze glass everywher~~ wSth the
exception of the main entry, whicn would be c1ear glass.
Ms. Wli:;Qn: Why are you using it in tt"le m~re shaded areas, like between
buildings? It seems l1ke it is going to be dark in there.
Mr. Kggnan: Tnis ~ijl be clear, and so ~ill this, and the main entrance.
~VilsQn: ~ou ~an the fu11 elevations?
Mr. kggnan: Yes. Those are rec!ssed underneath. That arcade wraps
around thi! courtyard, and those windows are set bac.k and ... '11 1 b! clear
glass.
Mr. Lyzwa: I ha~e some Q~estior.s in reference to the retaining wall. Ii
this tne ~ection of t~e retaining wall tnat we are p~oposin9 on the Sit!,
on Sheet 13?
~ Ighman: Right.
Mr. lyzwa: I wanted to know about your intentlon on the finish of the
retaining wa111
Hr. Lehman: It is going to be a shock-crete, prefinished wall.
Mr. lyl''''.: Ok.a.y.
"r. Lehman: This ret.ining •• 11 would ~cur both along that upper ridge
in that curved liyer fOnl, and it will also Occur in tnis intenmedtate
terrace tbat is coming down.
Mit Lyt'~: let me i"terr~pt for a .inute ~nd ask that all speakers
identify themselves before speaking. We ~eed to send I transcript of this
hearing on to the co~ncil, and it is very difficult for the tr~nscriber ta
identify voices wben there is more than one ip~lic'nt speik~n9 for &
proje<:t.
Mr. tYzwa~ 1 would like t~ continue the retaining wall issve a little
furt~er. A~ far .s tne color of the shock-c~tt i$ conceTned l what d& yo~
intend for that to be?
Mr. lehman: We are lGoking at just I natural gray color.
Mr. lyzwa; So you were not thinking about trying to match the building
color.
Mr. lehman: HOt the intent .as to screen v;th the p1antings.
Mr. tyzwa: Have you used the shock-crete retaining wall en yo~r previous
project O~ Hillview or Miranda?
Mr. lehmln: Ve did use that material.
Mr. Ly,.a: And you feel tnat it nold, up well, ~ith tim., as far .,
potential cracks and !verything else 1S co~cerned?
Hr. lehman: It is a \I~ry stron9" wal j.
M~. lyzwa: Just as strong as a cast· in-place, in your opinion?
Hr. lehmal;; Yes. It incorporates a system of tie-backs whir" are stef)
rods that go into the hillside wit~ i! series of anch.oring devices w~.ich
make it very strong. So it is not just tensile strengt~ of the retaining
wall, but a1so has support as we11.
Mr. ly2wa: Okay. Do you intend to do tne drainage with a perforated she~t
in bac.k of it'?
Mr. lehn:an: Yes.
Mr. Lyzwa: Okay. As far as tne \lines on the retaining wan are
concerned. what type of vines will they be and how do you intend to
irrfgate tnem? What sort of planting proceH do you envision there?
~r. Lehman: What we would do is that we would introduce vines at b~th tne
top of tn! wall and at the bottom of the wall.
Hr. lyzwa: Would you point that out to me, please?
J1r. lehman: At the bottom along tlere? we w~LJld be working with the
s:ructural engineer to mik! sure that the footings are low enou;h so that
there is a genero~s planting pocket at the base of the wall. The
irrigatfcn wo~ld be bubbler irri~ation. From here we would encourage bot~
self-clinging vines and vines tnat we would actually tie to tne Will.
They would grow up from t .. bi •• of the wall.
From the top of the wall, just behind the back edge, we would .1SD put in
vines and ground cover shrub ~terials that would cascade and spillover
the top of the wall. So that wi1' b. reaching over t~. top, and it .lso
would be on bubbler irrigation. We ~ave plenty of water and ca" deliver
that to the top of the •• 11. There will also be a soil cap over the
drainage material behind the wall so that there will be a good growing
.. terlal for that pl.nt material.
Mr. lyzwa; Thank you. My vther q~est10n is in reference to shipping and
receiving. In your project, I believe the last time ,you pointed out to me
that yo~ bad one set of doers for snlpping and rtceiv;ng. Is th~t still
correct?
Mr. Rpdr,ouez; Yes.
Mr. Lyzwa: There is only one ingress a~d egress there. 00 you feel you
nave enough room for maneu~erability, for instanc!. for 60·foot trucks on
site at the present time, and then as you enter and as you maneuver around
yo~r retaining walls and ~arkin9 spaces?
Mr. Rodrigue2: Yes, we baye had it reviewed. We worked with the fire
depirtment. They were the most concerr.~d. They h~ve the l~rgest rigs
that could be on the site, so what we did was to Slt down wlth them,
initially, and .ade sure that the grades did wor~1 is they were worried
about the steepness and also we -rolled the parklng and encouraged the
truck traffic to mo;e back around there. There is also a hammerhead here,
.).
., :
per their ~e~uesl so that they could actually back in and drive the truck
back out again. So from their standpoint) th~y are very satisfied with
it.
The te~ant that OUi client is working with does not receiv~ the larg~5t
~5-foot rigs. ThfY receive 45·foot rigs and they do have plenty of access
for them. A 63-foot fire t~lJck was t~.e con.:~rn for us, and we have
included· those condition~.
Mr. Lyzwa: Was the fire department satisfied with the pr0.olerty .along the
upper portion of your site where there would be no truck access?
Mr. Rqdriguez: A good point. There is a driYEway that moves right along
here) Mitnael, so they felt comfortable.
Mr. Lyzwa: They could service it from that side. J ju~t am trying to
preclude any unpleasant sur'pr~ses dOWTl ttte road'. So your ingress/e;ress
width is adeQuate enough to nandle the tr~cks, in your opinion, in~ludin9
all tne radii, etc. You feel comfortable with them?
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes.
Mr. Ly?wa: What are y~ur est,~ated construction costs on this b~ilding?
MT. RodriR~El: The shell is right now at roughly $63 per square foat.
Ms, Wilson; Gary, you said it would not be as green as this drawing. The
ground that fs going to be dirt~ is it going to ~~ve the natural grasses?
What is this r •• lly g01ng to look like? The beno is not re.lly • beno.
It is really a grad!, and that confused .e in t~e drawing. When J saw
your seetion, 1 realfzed it 1s~'t a berm. Could it be a lfttle ~111* as
is done lower down on Arastradero Road on one of the sites, and is very
effective. Is that not possible here? It seeRS to me it ~ould work even
better. You have a lot of c~t you could get rid of that way, tOG,
Mr. lehman: It was very effective in that se~5e. Our intent was to find
a home for a lot of the step material that we are generating by depressing
these stone~. This will ~ a very soft be~. A berm evokes images of an
artificial mound, and probably the best way to describe it that it is just
going to roll up a~d make a steep!r bastion along Arastradero Roa~, and
then cr~st and descend biCk down. creating a flatter terrace up here.
Ms. Wllsor.: But tnat terrace is fairly ~at~ral in grade, isn't it? Or
are yo~ ~e9rid;ng it?
Mr. lehman: It is a11 being regraded. Currently, t~e e~ist;n9 topography
has a fafrTy uniform grade all the way up. Then it gets i littie steeper
as 1t goes towards the back. So t~is ~ill be altered and you will see a
lot more so11 ir', the foreground.
Ms. WilsQn~ Are the grasses going tG be allowed to grow? What is your
intent?
Hr. lehman: 7~e intent would be, along the landscape corridor here, that
th05~ grasses be left s;milir to what are on tne adjacen! properties,
where t~ey iTe allowed to grow. They would be tilled for fire contro1.
•
.~
,'.
! ,
Then the vineyards t~emse'vts wouid stil1 be in this area, so that ~ould
have a tilled earth appearan~e underneath there. This area alon9 the
frontag! would z11 remain in MtuTal grasses. Likewise the areas around
tM! front where we have trees planted would also be left in natural
grasses.
Ms Wilson: As a point of interest, there must be a reason why the
grlpevill'es ar~ phnted against the 9rad~. Is tnat a typical way~
Mr. lrhman: I think the most i~teresting way to look at a ~ineyard is to
be ab1e to see the rows. So we wanted the view frorr. the inside of the
building to b~ able t~ look out and perceive that geometry and see those
rows.
Ms. Wilson; DoesnIt that create water problems and irrlgatl0n problems?
Mr. Lehman: No, it doesn't. The ~ctua' irrigation 1ines wjli be running
with the strings. All of these will be tied with cables: etc. and the
irrigation linf5 vill be tied and will drip right down to the base of eac~
~1ant .
Ms, paRas,; 1 have a couple of Questions for ken Rodriguez, Are you
gOlng to be sandblasting on the site?
Mr, RDdriguez: Yes. It will be much DOre controlled tnan at Miranda. As
yo~ will recall, we lost i few panels in the eartnqua~e, and stiff
received a couple of complaints, because there were two or three Saturdays
during whirh they were trying to get those panels back in place. W. will
have a little tighter control t"lS time as to the ho~rs of sandblasting.
Mr. Keenan: In any event, it does not exceed about seven to ten minutes.
It Is • much smaller building.
Hi.-D~: You mentioned the roof tiles. Is it •• ariegated tile? lou
are not planning to use a mil of different colors?
Me Keenan: Yes. thlt is why r called it variegated. It is not one,
uniform cclor. [t would be a mix of tneir Mission blend, wbfch is pretty
much tne same tile you see on the campus.
Ms. paRosa: So it is several different colors of tile, not different
calors within the tile.
Mr. k.@nan: Yes.
~s. paRosa: [WDuld no~ like tG htiT from Stanford University.
MarJ,te bvmb,ra. Planning Office. Stanford University! We haye beEn
working with the applicant, and we feel that the form and mass are
achieving what you nad originally drafted. We intend to continue te w~rk
with t~em as tney proceed toward working drawings to reso1ve same of tne
minor details. But ~ are in approval of the bu1~ of the project from an
arcnltectural standpOint.
Prew Oman. Stanford Planning Office: As Marl~ne indicated. we have been
working with the applicant iTl along on the S1te design and landscape
·9-
•
,~ -
plan. We do ccnt~n~e to wark ~ith the ap~litant throughout tne design
dev~lopment and construction pnases of the project. So we w;11 be ~orkins
with the;:n as they refine tnl;' dra""ings, but as submitted, we are in
approval.
Ms. Oa~osi: I will now ~,en the public hearing.
Denny Petrosian. 443 Ventura. Palo Alto: 1 think you alT understand that
there is a very serious issue involved nere, which is housing. It really
ne4!ds to De addressed. Otherwise, the housing is not going toO be
suitabl e.
1 cinnot help it if tne rlanning commission did not do ltS job. You also
must make a point about ccnfonmance, regardless of what th€ planning
commisSion did. Z would say that this project 1S not mitigated. To my
knowledge, there is no mitigation p-ennitted in the CDmprehens"ive Phn.
There is ~othing documented tnat would even suggest tnat it is posstble to
suggest a~ mitig~tion. W~ are talking abo~t i mitigetion that is
invented out of thin air. ~rogram 110 of the Housing ElEment says. -The
cit} should discDurage the conv~rsion of lands d~signated is residentlal
to non-residential uses.-What has happened so far is not a
dlsccuragernent. What the planning commission has done is in direct
violatinn of the Housing Element of the Ccmprehenslve Plan. r hQpe that
yDU will not endorse that and yourselves be in violation of the Housing
Element. Some of you may remember that there was a tremendous amount of
discussion about Program 110. Tnere was languige that wa! proposed to SiY
-Tne city should discourage the conversion of lands designated as
residential to non-residential uses ~ same public benefit could be
found.-Well, that language was deliberately strutk out~ because the
public b!nefit itself is housing_
I think that the ARB is on th+n ice today. You are potentially passing
along a project to the city council with your bl~ssing, ~redicated on a
supposed change that has not eyen been determ+ned as being kosher, as far
as the Comprehensive Plan goes. I don~t see how you can legally tlke Iny
action to approve tnis project. The planning division is listed in
progr .. 10 as t~. lead agency for this program. r really think it is in
your laps as well as in the laps of otner personnel. r think it is very
Questlonable to approve a Compre~ensive Plan change or even talk about a
Comprehensive Plan change for the convenienCe of a particular developer,
wh;c~ is what ;s happening here. It is not necessarily tne highest and
best use of this property~ When you do a (~rehensive Plan change. that
is what you are ta1.ing abo"t. What is the "i~hest and best use of the
property? rt is not whether thiS wil1 benefit a particular developer. So
J th~nk this should hive gone to the council way before now. I think that
before any more pub1it time i$ spent on it, it should go to tne t1ty
cou~cil. Housin9 is the greatest need. That has been id~ntified in all
of our city planning. Otherwise~ why did we go through the ~our$ and the
aggravation? Why did we go through the CHAS ~ro~ess? Why d1d we do ~
Comprehensive Plan at all? Why does the ~ubl'c oother to care? Why 1S
there public input? Why s~ould we, anymore?
The reason we go through this is because we need to build more housing in
Palo Alto. There is a shortage of housing that peop1. can afford to live
in. There ar~ many people who hav! already used.up the~r first and second
paychecks Dn rent. We are all readln9 the headllnes. We all kno~ why we
-10-
•
-")
. '
.. ".:
',' .
kayE' tkese nousing programs. We all feeT whim we read the head1 ines I I
nope. Our society 15 f~11ing apart, and ~ne reeson is that people cannot
find l place to llve. Why are w! talking about vineyards? The =oney that
goes into the reserve fund fo~ hau~ln9 is not sUDPosed to CDme from 9iving
away the. one resource we have for making housing possible. That is not
where it is supposed to come f'l"'(jm. It is SlJPpos~d to mitigate employment
development, which puts pressure on eX'isting housing.
Sa I h(lpe th-at the AR8 will refer tnis imrTle-dialely to the city council.
think th! only cost is housing, if the council were to decide on what
would be an exc~ange of land, is not mor.ey. Money is useless when you
don't r.ave the lanG. The only thing that would justify a change in the
C~rener.sivf Plan, on principle~ wou1d be to find an~tne~ piece of land.
I don't mean a little tiny strip of land along the Baysnore. That would
be in no ~ay a comparable exchange+ r hope I have ~ade my pofnt. and I
hope you really will look at wh!iher you are on firm gro~nd. To ~ it is
a. total yiolation of tl'\e Comprehensi .... e-Plan. I don't se~ how the findings
can be made. Thank you.
Ms. DaRpsa: Nancy. will you answer th~s question that was r~i$ed? Cln
th~ ARB make any recommendations for approval of a project before approval
cf a Comprehensive Plan chang!?
Ms. lytle: You have the ability to make a recommendation to the council,
wtljch 1S all we a.re doing here. It would not be app"'opriat€ for you to
approve i project. You are n~t in a pos~tion to do $0+ You are simply
making rec~ndations on this application. The council Will, indeed.
need to consider the issue of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. ~1c~ is
part of this ippiication. T~e project is scheduled to go forward
immediately in that manner, as a jOint application. Ms. Petrosian has
certainly spoken eloquently regarding the primary policy issue of this
application. wt,ic~ lS the loss of housing. I hope the ARB uno!rstood from
the materials in your ~acket that the property is in conflict. We haye a
Ccmprehenslve Plan d2signation for housing and a lonin9 designatlan for
this type of use. It is one of the rare pieces of property in town where
the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan are not conSistent. ff we were n,t
a charter city. it would not even be legaT to have that situation,
essent1al1J. Consistency is requtred by most citlPs i~ the state.
But they ~ave proposed a mftigation for tne houstn9 loss. You may have
noticed in your list of co~dit1ons tnat they are do~bl;n9 t~e normal
~ous;ng mltigatlon fee. We certainly will be taking up the issue of
wnether this is an appropriate housing site when they reyt~w the
application. It is not legal for you now to make tnat a condition of the
proje<t.
Hs+ Wilson: Can"'~ pursue this a little further. because as I read
through tne planning commission materials, I was curious. Was this loning
not changed on purpose. or by mistake? It seems peculiar to me that there
was tnis loophole.
Ms. \ytl~: My understanding is that it was intentionally not t~anged.
There was a great deal of opposition to this Comprehensive Plan amendment.
both from the property owner and from surrounding res;dent~ at ~he time
Vlat it was designated for housing. • in!lieve there was dlr~ctl0" flot to
go forward with t~e zoning amendmen and we would lea .... e it as a sort of
-11-
•
•
split positian until i future time when an appHcatlon came in. Tl'lat is
nO'lll ~ stood. It 1$ 1ega1 for us, as i cMarter city, to na'lle it that way,
but c:lear1y, it is a fundamental policy issue nerE. Is tnis an
appr-aprfate sHE for hOlIsing? Is it more 'appropriate for the type of use
that is b~ing proposed ber!? If it is appropriate for this type of use as
it is zoned, whit is an appropriate mitigation meas~re? Staf' Tecemmend~
that t~e housing mitigat'ian fee fOr.o'arded to the council is fin!, although
we fUlly appreciate the iss~e that the speaker today has raised. They
understood that it is a primary issue, anrl we fully support looking fDr
ways to make our hauslng dollars go further in the Cornprehens;ve Plan
update. We are looking for more innovative solutl0ns for houSing, mixed
use projects, li~e/~ork scenari~s. etc. We understand that pro~ision fOf
housing in the future is important for Palo Alto,
Hs~ Wi1son: The Dther question that disturbed me, even btfore r read the
planning commission minutes, was that whtn this ca~ before os on
preliminary review 1 there ~as not a whisper of this pr~biem. We had no
1dea there was potentfal for housing.
Ms. Lvtle: It was in a staff !M.morandum that tnere was an inconsistency
in the 20:"lin9.
Ms. oaRpsa: wilT now close the public hearit~9 ar,~ return to the board
for cOlI'ments.
Mr. ~isg: First I would like to address the inconsistency with the
Comprehensive P1an. r went back to the standards for review for the
a~hitecturil review board. and read the= to ~ke sure] am comfortah1e
wit~ tnem. It says here that in a~ditjon to the gOi1s and purposes set
fortn in this chapter, the following standards art to be used for the
architectural review belrd review of projects wit~fn its jurisdjction~ It
lists 15 standards far review, and tne flr~t one is whether the design is
consistent and compat;bJe wit~ applicable elements of the City of Palo
Alto Comprehensive Pian. r think the way this has been addressed right up
front is that the applicant hd~ acknowledged tbat it is not consistent,
and they are taking the recommend.d path toward, addressing that
inconsistency. I have no problem with reviewing it an the other 14
req~ireMents. I am comgJet!ly comfortable with reviewing this project
with this inconsistency. and I feel that the appropriate pl~ce to ~ork jt
out is not it the architecturil revl~ board level but at the c1ty (ounel]
level. That is my feeling ~n tne iss~e.
To address the prop~sal that is before us today, the concerns that I kad
at the preliminary review were around tne scale and massing Qf the
building, as well as some of the specific details such as ~indow
fenestration on the building. plus final landscaping scneme. r think the
applicant has dane I very good job of addressin9 each of those i$sues. I
am satisfied wi:h t~e solutions. I have no negative comments at all on
this proje~t, and r will support it. My comments are all complimentary,
and I would like to hear what my fellow board members' feelings are. 1
wou'rd recomnend apprcvili.
Ms+ W11son: J feel is Thomas does, a150. As far as the housing is
concerned r fe-that ideally. land 1s a b~tter mjtigat In in situation
like this~than money. r dan't know how the councli or the planrl1ng staff
will pursue that in t~e future, but.I don't_feel that,tha-. bUI"rjer. ~$
-eal]y on thjs board. Denny has raised an 1mportant lSSU~.
·12·
I haYe been very interested in li'ie/work sHoaticns in the :.,~anfc·'.:i
Research Fark and ~a~e talked with Ken Schreiber about it. My
understanding that to.xic problems out trlere are real. and are verjl
difficijlt. J don't know what the toxic situation is on this site. Or if
you are goi"9 to be testing fGr it in the future. or if you are going ~~
go into this blindJ.v. r k.no~ you have done tTeanlJp on a lot of your ot~.·r
projects.
Mr. Keenan: H is what they do in it. rt is not contamination. Jt 1.S
the fact that they are using these facilities 1n the ~urrounding
facilities. That is the issue. not some ~istorical PC8s in the soil. It
has to do with the ongoing ficilities.
Ms. Wilson: 1 am comfortable with ev~rything you are doing. I went ~p to
the [PRJ site, too, and you cannot see a thing from the front yard. It is
amazln~ the way they have screened their property. This drawing does not
show it, but in another drawing J tho~ght you showed where your equip~nt
was, and I think you are sensjti~e to the eq~lpment being close to the
hillside so that the vistas are spoiled from up above as far as seeing
mecbanical equipment. Your roof is probably the sensitive area.
1 am r~ally pleased with the shared circulation you have developed with
Synte.x, and I think the two of you ~ight d!velop a little stronger entry
stateme~t in your landscaping down on Arastradero Road, so that it is
attractive and easy to see as you are driving cp and cown, as far as
finding an entry. Somehody stopped when J was locking at your site
yesterday. and was trying to get into [PRJ. He and I both had an equally
difficult ti~ trying to figure out out to do that. I don't know if the
poor guy ever found it, becaijse J sent hi~ in the wrong direction.
1 re.l1y like the way you have developed the site for people, inviting
them into the site. That 1S really an improvement. My only concern at
this poi~t are your colors. I have to say that in spite of your pleasure.
J have a nigh level of discomfort witn the way the colors ended up it
Miranda. I know how hard it is, but I don't think that the blend is as
harmonious as one would like it to be. I think the colors you are working
wtth here haye a greater cbance of success. 1 1ik! the roof color and [
like the wall color at Mira~da~ but tQ me, they never fit together very
well. So I am going to be watching t~at carefully, if we are going to
review the col Drs ultimately a9at~. Are we going to be seeing the
'andscape plan again with more specific plant materials? The.colors, J
guess, we will deal with on site. I hope YDU will get sometn1ng that is
not quite as harsh a relationship as I feel t~at is. That may just be me,
but I feel Qu~te disappoi~ted about that when otherwise, it is a
terrifically elegant project. So I will be supporti'ie of approval.
Mr. lyzwa: First, I would like to address Denny's concerns. I nave been
very much in support of housing in this town, period. ! think the
difficulty is t~at the staff has done absolutely eVErything in reference
to making housing a~re accessible and possible. other than what 1 feel !s
a floor area limitation. whlch was sort of forced on the staff by the c,ty
council years ago. which I know, for a fact. does not work. So that
precludes some housing development in this town. I am a7so convinced.
because I have been doing housing. and I think I h~ve be~n.dojng the
highest density housing in this town in ~ne past ~lve or SlX ysars. ~e
are not serjous about housing, and tne clty counc' ~o matt!r what they
-13·
1
1
i
J
.; -/
SaY, ~re not supporting hou~ing. They have a very strong record to prove
that. Unless you address it ~ith the City cooncil, y~u are not going to
get any change. I don't think tl1,t the planning commisSion or the
arc~itectL1ra1 revieW' beard Or the staff have enough power to turn that
around. The only people who can do that are tt1e cIty council. and they
are not doing it. ihey have their own reasons, but I certainly do not
want to hear them say again ;n p~blic that they are in support of
r,ollsing., They are not in support of housing.
Having said this, and putting this site aside, just the wnole issue of
hOl.Jslng, in my opinion, that is where it stands. Ha'.'ing said this, I
think that thE applic~nt was faced with a very difficult site to
acc:orrtr.odate research and develCipmer,t. REsearch and development bvild7ngs
are one of the most difficu1t things to try and acco~d~te. This 73 a
very tough site because of the grades and hecause ~f the surrounding
area. They nave dont! an outstanding job in trying to marry a project lnto
the existing situation. They ha~e 5uccessfu11y pu1led it off. J echo the
res.t of the board m~ers' comments. r am very m~ch in support of the
project, in tne sense of design, with what they ~ave done here. The only
two things I would like to rafs! are tnat retaining wall. I have done
some retainl!"1g wall s with the vine concept. 1t takes years. before that
real1y works tne w~ you have de~crjbed it. ] wou1d li~e to eitner see
the retaining wall match the color of the building so tnat it doesn't look
so separate, initiaily, for the first couple of years, or have some
stronger assurance when you come back wtt~ yo~r fi~al landscap! p1an,
perhaps, that these vines are act~al1y going to be creeping and growing
faster than J have ever seen them do. Typically, it takes about five
Years, in my experience, on shock-crete or cast-in-place walls for t~at
.ffect to really do what you are sayinq. It looks beautiful if you can
wait fjve years. but prior to t~at, It looks a little like the Berlin
wall. Other than that, I think your detailing is nlce, and I feel it is a
successful project.
The only thing I would isk is that I had a gre.t deal of difficulty in
trying to read the reduced dravi~gs. This is , .atter fDt staff_ 1 tnink
they were reduced to a point where they are nut leg~b'e. I would like the
staff to please ensure that if we ask for a~d accept reduced drawings,
that they are no less than nalf the original size. These are crystal
clear, and I wanted to compl~ment you for i very thorough application.
This is really something that goes beycnd what we normally se~. and it is
so helpful in reassur~ng u: that t~e quality is there. ]t is definitely
there in the drawings. The only thing J wo~ld ask is that if you reduce
it for us~ do it half slze S~ ] can read the legend. J could not read any
of the details. I fe.l comfortable with th" project, and r to;n' both th"
arcnitecture and the landscaping are very well coordinated.
Ms. DaRosa: ] also snare my colleagues' comments. The ~ous;n9 mitigation
and the clarjficat;~n of z~ning and the Comprehensive Plan must be left to
tn! city council. Denny Petrosian has raised a very important point -
the concept of land and money, and when yDU have the ~oney, what do you d~
with it. I wDu1d like that t~ get to tne city council. That is a very
important concept.
J thinx the project 1S going to be a very ~i,e asset to that area. There
is a lot of very nice detail there. also share Shirley Wilson's
concerns about the colors at Miranda. 1 ike the colors separate1y, but
-14·
•
\
togetheT, th~ purp'~ dnd the orange and the roof r did ~ot feel work as
well as tha cOlors you are showing herf. 1 l<lok. forward to seeing this.
project.
Ms. Lyt1e: You ne~d to make a Tecommendation or motion. 1 would add, if
I may. a recommendation in the plannlng commisslon conditions #1 and 2.
The condition should be timE"d to be completed prior to issuance of the
building permit.
K~. lyzwa: Those are the planning co~ission cnnditions on Page S?
Ms. lyt1e; Right. We would like you to incorporate those conditions in
your motion, as well, adding the timing to that prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
~: Mr. lyzwa: 1 would like to mak~ a motion fOT appro~a' ~f tne
project, with Items] and 2 of the planning commission conditions to be
lied to the project, including the staff recommendations. The only other
thing J wou1d llke to incl~de in that is if the project r.turns for
ccnsent calendar with the 1andscaping, that we have i haif·s;ze reduction
of the drawings.
~: By Mr. Hise.
Ms Wi1son: 1 want to clarify this. The lan~scap;ng is coming back. Is
tne eclaT going to be reviewed on site? (Yes) No. 15. ~anfls of the
base color. 1 thought that statement was a little unclear. What;s that
5UpPOS~ to mean? ls that the bu;'dfng color?
Ms. Weiss: ¥es.
Ms naRosa: There is a ~tiDn for approval of the project with changes to
planning commission items 1 and 2 that tney be completed prior to issuance
of tne building permit. All those in favor? That passes unanimously.
Mr. lyZWj; Also the mode' was very. very helpful.
-15-
October 15. 1992
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto. Califonoi.
,/
J050 Arastradera Road Comprehensl~e Plan Map Amendment ,
Site and Desiqn Rtview, and Variances
Members of the Council:
REPC8T IN smF
.. ,~
This report forwards to Ihe City Cooncil an appHcalion by Keenan-Lovowell
Ventures to dev~lop a vacint property at 2050 Arlstraderc Road into a research
and develo_nt use. The application is for (I) • C..,prehens;ve Plan Map
Amendment to change the land us. d.Signition from Multiple-family ReSidential to
R!search/Off;ce Park, (2} I Sit! and Design Review c( two proposed resei~ch and
develoPlM!'nt build'tl'\gs totaling 75.980 sq~lre feet and reh.tl<i site improvements,
.and (3) voriances to eX<eM til_ .llowable 3S-foot height by 5 feet and a side
yard setback of 20 f.et where ·10 feet is the minillllJm required. A "'re detailed
description of the project is provided in t~e attached Pl.nning Coaaission staff
TOPDrt.
PLANNING CQHHISSIQH ACTION
On August 26. 1992, the Planning C""",ls.lon recomended approval of the
applicatIon to the City Council subject to the findings and conditions listed
below by • Yot. of 5-0 (Glazier and Marsh .bsent): I) the attached Mitigated
Negative Declaration. 2) resolution amending the Cocpre~ensive Phn,
redesignating the property from Moltiple-famlly Residenti.l to Re.earch/Office
Park I 3) the varlanee.s to exceed the maximum height .allowed and side yard'
setbacK'; !:"Id 4} the site and design appHcitior. fo!'" the developmer,t of two
reuarch and develapeent buildings and related site improvements. An excerpt of
the minutes of the meeting are ittac::hed, The Planning Conrnfssion i'SO asked
stiff to prDvide additional information fer City Coundl review. These items are
discossed below_
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION
On September 17. 199Z. the Architectural Review Soard by • ,vote of 4-0 (M~s.r
absent) recommended approval of the proposed development subJe~t to the flndlngs
ond (onditions, including added conditions number J4 through 17, listed below.
An excerpt of the .inutes of the meeting are ittacheo.
tl!R:460: 92
•.
1. Site l1istoa
1n 15180. the City evalua.ted ffJr patent",i1 housing us~ a number of sites.
inc.luding this site. which were vacant and desigrja.ted for non·resiOential
development. Four sites withir, the city were redesignated in U1e Comprentnshe
Plan MiP for ho~sing. Prior to initiating tn~ rezoning for the J050 Aristradero
ROid site. Stanford and several adjac.el1t Lost Altos Hills residents expressed
strong opposition to the ~se of this sit! for housfng. As a result, City staff
did not initiate the rezoning. and tne site ;5 one of the few in the City where
the Comprehensive Flan designation ;s inconsistent w1th the zon?n;.
I~ 1989. tht ipp'ic~nt submitted a proposal for development of t~ research .nd
development build~ngs, I ch;ld care center, and related site improvements. This
application was withdrawn by Stanford at a prel iminal"'..7' stage, after CHy
emergency responn staff riised concerns regarding the risks associated wlth
having a child care fIC-ility in dose proximity "it., toxic gas storage
hc il1 ties. Concerns re1 ited to the ch i 1 d care center. concent ra U n9 a
population Df infants ;and toddlers unab1e to eVicuate witnfJ:Jt assistance. in
prDximity to a toxic gas storage facility. City emergency personnel suggested
mitigation measures~ whlcn included an early compliance with th~ then.pending
toxic gas ordinance by slJrrounding facilities and the appl ic::ant providing an
£mergency tvacuation System for the Researth Park.
During the review of the pre.sent application for i resnrch and development
filcil tty. the fire Department indicated the lOCltHIn of hual"dous -.aterials
storage is not iI Concern for the subject application. since t~e proposed dlytim!
population is c.ap.able of normll M!'I"'9'I!'ncy response and urlnsiste4 evacu.ation and
comp1iance wit" the toxic gls ordinance is now mand.tory.
2. O~tru,t1Dn pf Views
The PI inning C""""ission asked the I>.rthitectur.l Review Board to co","".t on
whether tbe tOlilers would c,-u.se a view blockage. Tfte ARB revie'fl.ed i s!ction
,ubmitted by the applicant il1",troting , profile of the hillside from abcve the
site to Arastridero Road" Tne towers are located It a dtfffrent el£vltion than
the buildings. and the towers do not protrude .bove the buildings. The added
h!ight of the tow~r5 does not appear to ca~se any additional view blockage. The
overall project also does not disrupt "iews from buildings on the hillside beyond
the subject site.
3. Housinq as an Appropriate Use for tht Site
In 19BD the site had bee" redesignated for multiple-family housi"g in the cmnpreh~nS1ve Plan. At that time, housing was thoug~t to be appropriate for tne
site serving as potential conyenient housing for employees of the R~~earcn Park.
Relatively isolated housing in I research and development campus lS c~rre~tly
tno~ght to be less appropriate, because it does not offe-r the necessary ameniti~s
normally enjoyed by residents, i.e., grace.ry stores ~ park~, and p~bhc
transportation, and it places higher con<::entrabons of res1dents lntD relatlVely
closer prDxtm1ty to toxic materiils and substances.
CJIR:460:92
p. \alr-\J4S~ru.c:mr
10/15/92
Page 2
.,
.• :!if:
"
4. Wah,. Allotment
The Phnnit'lg C{)mmiss;on raised COf'1Cerns of how tne lar,dscaping for t!'l,= 'pr-opos~d
deve10pment would impact the City's water allctment. T~e plan ~Mcludes a 210-
foot front setback, planted with i meand'!:r;1H~ ro,,", of Cal Hornia Native Oak. trees
1101109 the-Ara.stridero Road property frontage, and i \'inej'ard thit meanders from
t~e setback to the rear of bot~ bui1dings.
The Utilltie:s Energy Sfrv1ce$ Department has indicated to stiff that these plans
meet water use guidelines in effect at tne time the applicatlcn ~a5 submitted.
The stan.dards for water consumption in effect at t~e time of Utn it,)' Department
review .Ire based on ill prescriptive set of limits on tL:rf and high water use
,plants. Vineyards consume mw::h less water than t~rf but more than native
plantings. me Utility planner.$ further indicate the amoLint of water that is
presently alloeated to the City af Pile ~,lto from the San Franci sco Water
Dfstriet can iccol11'OOdatt the vi~eyard ind all other landscaplng associated .... ith
the developmfnt of this property.
Future projects will be reviewed under a ne .... and more water·restrictive stan~ard
which sets a maximum water 2:11owance on an t!nt ire hndscil.pe, not based on a
speclf!c type of plantings. Tnis stondard was app.oved by the City Cou"ci) on
September 14, 1992 and will be In .ffect on OCtDber IS, 1992. Adminl,t •• tiv.
~li~ for applying these guidelines is to subject all a~plications recei~ed on
Dr subsequent to October IS. 1992 to the new stlndiTds. T~is project would not
be subject to the strict.r standards un1e .. specifically condition.d by Council.
The applicint has nat been asked to submit the necessary lDformation. includi~;
ca1cu10tlon sheet'_ to deteMiin. Wh.t~.r Dr not t~e plan, comply ~itn the new
standards.
s~ Qth,r lands for HoHsing Sites
The P10nnlng Commission asked why t~. City Is not requiring Stanford Unlv.rsity
to provfcSe otner landli for resident tal tis!', such as tfte .site near Hocver
Po.l11on. The site near the HODver Pavilion was Cited by t~e City .. a potential
hOlafng site In 1990, when Shnferd Unlver.lty Initiated, rOlle.lgnation of sites
In " County General Plon Amendment. Th. City strongly supported a nousing
designatiDn or hOL!sing l1itigation for this site during the County .Phnning
Co.ission's revfew of the AJendaent and accompanying Environmentar Impact
Report. The County Pl inni"9 COUIJI,i ssi on di d not acceJlt the Ci ty' s recOlll'llendat; 01' ..
Ultimately. the City endorsed a ·University Lands ~ Campus· designation for the
oite p",vided the County Board of Supervlsers fo ...... liz. a housing mit ig,t iDn for
deveiopatelJt projects not l:Iiti9at~ by provisions of th+e Gen,e\il Use Penna.
Final County action by the Seard did adopt 5UC~ a ho.s,ng .,t'9'('00 for the
Gen •• ,l Plan Amendment.
Staff believes it is time to reevaluate the trldltienal ~nner in which housing
goals ire achieved in Palo Alto. Traditionally, most Cilifornia comm~n~ties in
the 1910'.s ~re encouriged ind required by t.ne State to see.x una.er-ut 1 11zed and
vacant parcels or sites which could be redes1gnattd is hOU~1n9 sltes: As vacant
parcels oiIre devel.oped, this .strihgy is no lon?er as app.l"able as It onc.E! was.
The COIq'lrenensive Plan Update will illow tnlS c.ommLlnlty the opport~"lt.Y .to
reconsider h:~'sjnc; :)~ten~ial in i rer ~llil context and colhborat10n wlth
Stanford Universlty. Strat~gjes for tne next !S to 20 yeirs may include more
C~R:460:92
p :"-'\1 QYla.1"tS ,em"
10/15/12
Page 3
reliance on innovative nousing concepts, (Lt. live-illork. single resldent
occupancy, anc' co-t)ousing). As p!Jtential fer redevelopment continues (e.9 .• tlie
Palo AHo Medical Foundation and the Urban lane area), ne ... opportunities will
becMe IViflable. The Comprehensive Plan Update lS the best fcn,Irr. for
City/Stanford cooperation in finding housing solutIons.
REVENUE IMPACT ANALVSIS
consutent with City Council policy. the applicant nas submitted the attached
CHy Revenue JlI1pact Analysis. Data 111 the Anal'ysh lliS been reviewed by the
Ci ty'" 5 fin.ance: Department. The Ana1ysis i!ldicates that the research and
development us.e ... ill generate sl igMly higher City re..,enues. staff' does not
believe that th~ difference fn revenues is large enough to be ~igl']jficant. and
thus City revenueS are not 01 concern in evaluating the appropriateness of the
requested Comprehensive Plan ~n~nt,
rlHPIHGS AND CONDITIONS
The Plannjng Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend that the (lty
Council adopt the Mitigated Negil:tive Declaration and amend the Comprehensive
Ph.n. grant varilnc-I!'s to height and side yard' .setbacks. and approve t~1!' .site an~
design application, subject to the following findings and cond~tions.
FINDINGS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
1. The redes1gnation for tne prDperty at 1050 Arastradero Road is in
accoraance witn the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, in that the
site and surrounding use are research and development in nature and
the designation will allow similar ~St.
2. The Comprehensive Plan de.ignation and proposed develop""'"t will not
result in significant environmental i~acts, .5 docu.ented in tnt
attached Initi.l Study and Mitigated Negati.e Declarotio. (92·EI~·
19) prepared in atc.raonce lrith the Cal ifomia Environmenta' Quality
Act (CEQA) on August 5, 1992.
3. The: proposed uendmertt to tf)e Comprehenst'Je Plln is consistent with
Po1icy 13 of the Housing El_nt, "Men states that tho tity should
increase funding so~rces used tD provide iffordable'housing_ The
develDper af this project will contrii:tU'te funds from this cOll'lll.ercial
devel.pment towards affordable housing.
4. The prDposed ilDlendment to the land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan is consist.nt with the definition of Research/Office Park to
provide office. reseil'"c:h. ind ma.nufactLlring establ tshments whose
operations are clean and qUlet and do not conflfct with any adjacent
rufdef)tial uses. Stanford Research Park is at! example of tnis type
of lind tlse.
FINDINGS FOR HEIGHT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES
I.
CIIR:4GO:9Z
There are exceptional or extraordinary circ~m$tanc2s Dr concitions
applicable to the property involved that d. not apply ge"er.lly to
10/15/92
P.ge 4
property in the same district~ in that the property slopes 75 feet
from the front to the rear and the buildings are sited to minimize
the alDOtmt of visual impact, site grading and exc.avition and to
provide th~ necfss~ry parkfng, circulation and site improvem~nts.
2. The granting of the a.pplication is nec:ess.ary far the preserv.;.tion
and enjoyment of a substantial property rl;nt of the applicant, and
to pre~~nt unreasonable property lOss or unnecessary hardship, as
the applicant could not pr~vide the reQu:red amount of the parking
ind site improvements for the two buildings and deSign the facil1ty
consistent with standard hftlsjdoe development guide) ines, whlch
encourage reduction of fjll and sitfng facilities para1lel with the
tlatural condit'ion. Research ind d'!!velopment facilities re<:jutre
building footprints of the size proposed. lO'lrfering tne-buildings
further into Ule earth wDuld incre-ase the amount of hillside cut an.c'
increase the heights of the rftainlng walls.
3. The granting af the applicatior. .... i11 not be detrimental or injurious
to property or improvements in the Vicinity and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safet.)", general welfare, or
(.onvE'n1el'tc:e in that the variance for neight occurs 01','.1 for the
towers whid are no h1gner tnan tne buildlng they adjoin. Th!
tower.£; are situated all s~veral feet of fin in order that they be
level with the puking areos from ""ieh people will ent,r the
facility. The .arhnce setback request of 20 feet fr= the property
line for Building 1 ond Building 2 is only for the building corners.
Where these setblcu occur. the buillHngs are OM-story. Th.
Iverage setblck for .ach of these buildings is 40 feet Ind 44 feet
res~ct;Yt'ly. The corners protrude into the se-tback .arti because
the building, ire placed 'on c01\tour' r.ther than piroll.l with ttle
property line5. Develaping p.ra1~el with the contour is preferable
;n hillside de¥elopment for reducing visual 1~act5 Ind gr~ding.
FINDINGS fOR SITE AND DESIGH
1.
2.
3.
CMR:460:g2
The proposed design will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with
existing Dr potenthl uses of adjoining pT"Operty, in tha,t the
propcs~ use and improvements will be similar to other uses ,n the
area and' the project has been deslgn'!d to ainimtze 'Visual impacts an
adjoining property.
The pr~5ict ~ll maintain desirability of investment in the same or
adjac:ent areas, in t.hat the required on-site lllPraveaents Ind
landscaping and. construct ion standards governed by the-CLlrrent
Uniform Building Code (UBC) or other current codes will assure ~
high quality of development.
The proposed design will observe sound princlples of e~v;ronmentll
Qesign and ecological balanc:e, in ~~~t t~e sel~cted lo~at1o~ of the
new struc:tures and improvements l1m.lt dlSruptlon. of the sl~e':. ~nd
meuures incorporated into the project design w,ll h.Tp lunlllllZE
erosion and offset vi$~al impacts.
1l;\aw"dDS6ltn.~
10/15/92
Poge 5
1";-" ·>~·;;j;f-·.,.c",.,:,,~?
'-::!..:~.::-::.
4. The Compren!nSiVf Plan Amendment proposed to be approved is part of
th1s appHcation will bring the proposed t.'se in conformance wit'" tnt'
Palo Alto Comprenensive Plan. The proposeG research and development
facil1ty and re1.lted site i;nprovements are c[lnsistent with the
rec~mmended Campre~ensjve Plan Amendment.
RECOMliENOED CONOITIONS FOR SITE AND DESIGN AND VARIANCE APPROVALS
1. A site plan is requ~red whfeh snows t~e fun drlveway, tnc:1L!ding the
exit portion on the neighboring property. The uphill traffic
direction from the existing Syntex driveway neir the f;rea next til
the Sy.ntex parking shlls must be removed ;n order for this ingP'"!ss
and egress to work. A plan must be s.ubmitted showing batt! sides of
th£ driveway, with si;ning and striping that meets Tr.nsportatjon
01'o'ision standards, prior to issuance af buildlng per.mit.
2. A revised Circulation pl,n shall be submitted illustrating all the
details of acce.ss t<l this driveway unde.,. cOl1sider,tior; to meet th!
satisfaction of the Transportation Division. p~ior to issuin~e of a
building perQtt. The plan shall includ! circulation on the subj!ct
Sit, and adjoining properties, parxing liyout, striping and signage.
3. A detailed grading. drainage. and erosion repair pl~n prepared by a
registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Planning
Division ind Public Workl ~pa~tment for review and approval prior
to T.ssuanc:e of a bullcUng penAit. Construction dehils .and
cllcul.tion. for ,11 dr,inage facilities sh,ll be .ubmitted with the
detailed drolnage plans.
4. All grad! ng and deve 10PEnt on the site .han confoT'll with all
aspects Df the project soil and ge.otet:hnical report re.eomendiiJ;t'ons~
The project geotechnical .ngin~r will be required to ceTtify th.t
the grading and constructlon were done in accordance with thefr·
recammendations, prior to finllfzation of the build;ng permit.
S. Prior to issulnce of a buildins pennit, • det.iled landscape pl.n
ond irrigation plan (1/2 size dr.wing.) s!loll be required to De
reviewed and approved by tfte St.nforo UniverSity Planning Office,
Stanford Mana.gement Caapiln~) and the Architectural 'Review Board.
1ne fi •• l plan shall include the comoon and botanical names of .11
species used, and tne number, size, type, loca.tion and spacing of
.11 plant materi,ls.
6. 1he following tree protection meisures .h.ll be implemented doring
construction act1vities;
i.
CHR:460:92
p: \atn'"\I~"'i!:I.-=-
All trees deSignated to be preseP'"~~ shall be p~otected with
six-foot high 'hiin link fen,es POunted on two-lnch diameter
galvanjz~d iron posts. and driven into the ground to a dept~
of at least 2 feet ilt no Dare than lO-foot spacing. Tne
fences Shill enclose the entire iTea under ttl! drip lin! of
existing trees. In nC) case shall any vehicles or eqUipment be
penmitted to be stored within the enclosed areas~ T~e fences
10/15/92
Page 6
......
7.
s.
9.
10.
11.
12.
CHR:460:9Z
.:[ ~-.. .. .
shall Dt! erected before construction begins and remain in place until finali2aticn of the building permit.
b. No storage of !naterials ~r t~psoih shall be permitted IIIlthir; the tree fnclos~r~ lreas.
C. Aboye ground surface runoff area sna11 not be directed into the tree canopy .re~ from adjacent areas.
To redtlce dust 1evels duriP'lg constl""lJcti.an, it shall be required t~at
exposed earth surfaces be watered frequently, GUring the late
mt)rnin,g and .t ttle end of tne day, witI'!: frequency of \iIIatering
increasing on windy days. SPillage resulting from hauling Dperatio~s along or across any public or private praperty shall be
removed immediatel, and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances
origfnating from t~e contractoT~S operations, such as stockpiles of
debris, soil, sand or other mlterjils that can be blnwn by the ~ind
shall be covered. Any sPi1lage resulting from halJljng operations
either inside or Dutsfde tile public right-of-way .Ilall b. rellOvod
illlDedhtely. at the expense of the tontractoT. Rechimed water
shan be used for this purpose, in accDrdance with Public Work.s Department policies.
All construction actiYitt~s and installation of site iMProvements
shall be subject to complflnce with the provisions of tile City of Palo Alto Nofse Drdinanc., Chapter 9.10 of the fAMe.
A haul rout. and construction i~act plan must be submitted lnd .. et
the ,atlsfoctfon of the Transportotio. Of_i.ion, Plonning Ol.ision,
Ind Department of Public Works prior to issuance of a building pe .... ft.·
All Clty of Pal. Alto utl1fty Inst.llatlons sh.ll be in .ccord.nce
with the City of Palo Alt. Standard Speciflcations.
Til. applicant sh.ll be requfred to pay a Housing Mitigatfon Fee of
$3.23 per gross squ, ... foct of bUilding, for l Sllll total of
$245,415, pursuant to Ch.pter 16.41 of the PAMC. This fe. Is
adjustEd onnually Ind the totol doe shall be adjusted based on the
fee in effe.t at the tl .. the bullding permit fs issued. Half of
the Hou'ing Mitfgation Fee sh.ll be pai~ to the CHy', .Housing
Reserve Fund prior to issuance of I bcnldlng peMll1t, Wlth tne
remaining nalf of tne fee paid prfor to Qccupaney.
The 'ppH.ant shall be roquired to poy • housing fee based on tn.
gress ,quare footage of the bUilding to mitigate the loss of
potential hDusfng resulting from the Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment. Tne fee snal1 be payable in full prior to issuance of a
building permit .nd shall b< based on the Housfng Mitigation Fee in
effect at that time. The current fee is S3.23 per square foot and is adju,ted ,nnu,lly.
.P ~ \air\! D511.1!"u. ow-IO/15/gZ
Page 7
I . 13. 1fte appi itant Shill be required to pay a Transportation Impact Fef:!
for nonresidential develcpment pursuant to Chapter 16.46 of tile
PAMC. The fun amount of the Transportation lmpact Fee shall b!'
paid to the City ~rior to iss\Jance of a bui ldi ng permi t. The
app1icant shall pay the ~ollar-per-squar!-foot amollnt of the fees in
effect at the time of bui1ding permit issuance. The current fee is
$2.57 per STOB square foot. or approximately S195,269, ::md i.s
adjusted annually.
ADDITIONAL ARC~lTECTURAl REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
14. Prior to issuance cf a building permit, 'tIT'1tten approvi!.l from
Stanf~rd University Planning Office and the Stanf<lrd Lar.ds
Management Company must be received by the Fhnnlng Di'f).sion for the
project referencing drawings inC: materials in cDl1formance with thDse
receIving City of Palo Alto approval.
IS. Th. applicant sl\al1 display at tho project ,it. full size color
panels of tfle base cohr of the building walls for rfview an~
approval by the Stanford Uni .. r,ity Planning Office, tho Stanford
Management Cempanl. and the Architectural Review Soard.
16. Tne applicant sha11 submit to the Planning and Transportition
Divisions.. for review ind appro'Y'aT prior to the issuance of i
building per'lllt, detailed drAwings of tnt truh and recychb1e
materials storage enclDsure and loading Ireas including locations,
elevltions. and installation of tnese areas.
17. A phot .... trio lighting plan shall be .u .. ,tted to Planning ,taff for
review Ind i.pPr"'CIval prior to issuance of building permits. Erteri{lr
light fixture. In tile parking lot shall be MOunted n. lIi9h.r than 15
feet frOll grade and be directed and shiel oed 'to al""der tD 'Pre~tnt
spillover beyond the site.
RfCCMfE!lDAIION
The Planning Commission and Arehite<tur.l Review Board recommend that t~e City
Council ildapt tne Mitigated H~!J.ative Declantion and pend the CCNIlpre nens7ve
Fl.an t grant variances te height and side Yird setblcK.s. and apprD~! the site and
design applicatiDn. subject to the findings and conditian5 given above.
R.sp.otf"11y suomitted,
, 1 • Ln =-d.J~t~ CL t. ~
CHR:460:92
p; \air\! OSQ.I,'u _ cw
KENNETH R. £CHREIBER
Director of Plallning and
Community Environment
10/15/92
Page 8
-.' .. ''''-,
-: .
.,":' " "," .
;rj/c:;~ ~;!;.
Attachments;
COQPrehens,ve P1a~ Amendme~t Rtsolut1on
Phnnlog CO"'i"!on Staff Rep.rt dated II.'Jg"$t 21. 1992
PlaM;ng C4Ilr>i<sion ~,nutes dated August 26, 1992
;;'"
Architectural Review e.ord lnform.tion.l Memo dated September 17, 199Z
Architectur.l Review Bo.rd Minutes doted Septe"" 17, J992
Re~.n.e \eplct An.lysts dated July 21, 1~92
Dr.ft Policy Memo and Urban landscape Standards
tc: K.ena.-Lovewell Ventures. 700 Emerson Stre.t, P.lo Alto, t~ 94301
JJnet ~nSt Palo A1to Housing Corporat~or., 540 CQwp~r StT~~t, Suit~ G,
P.lo Alt., tA 94301
Denny Petro.tan, ~43 Ventur., Palo Alto, tA 94306
Ellen thr"tens.n, 4211 los Pal •• , tA 94306
Stanford Univer5ity (D.vid NeUffion, Andy Ooty)
Stanford ~nageaent Company (Oia.e He.ley)
CI!A:460:92
,:u-\l.oSQI."".QW
10/,>(92
rage 9
P y13LIC HEARINGS
t:ITY COUNCIL MINUTES
~~~3.lr?.?.
6. PUBLIC BEAR,IHV: The Planning CODlIlission recommendation to
approve the 'fte<Jat.1ve declaration, Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Kap dssignation free Multiple-Family Resi~ential to
Research/Office Park, the Site and Design application for two
proposed research and development buildings, an~ the proposed
Varianc.... for property located at 1050 Arostradero Ro .. ~
(deferre4 fro. lO/19,92)
Council Kember Co~ advised that be would not p3rticipate in the
i tea dUe to a potentio.l confl iet of interest. .
Director of Planning and comounity tnvironlllent Ken Scru;eiber llai/!
.taft and the Planninq Comaiasion r .. =-ended approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Map a_ncment; staff, planning Commission, and
Arcbitectural Review Board (~J reca.mended approval of the Site
and Design Review and the variance exceeding the bei9ht Hait.
1l/~3J'2 69-428
---.
I
i
!
'i
Planning Commissioner To~y Carrasco said the Planning commission
spent a lot ot ti.e on the location of tbe property an~ ~e assets
for housing-as 'Well as what 'Was proposed~ While the entire
Planninq Commission agreed additional housing was an ongoing nead,
when the need was balanced against the subject location, the
Planni~ Commis5ion found that the LM uses were ~ore appropriate at
the site. After locking at the desiqn of the project, the Planning
commission concurred with staff that the variances requested placed
th~ building better and made the quality of the ~ite plan far
better with the varia"ces than without them.
Council Member Kniss queried the tOXiC6 problem and 1989 proposal
regardinq development at the: subject location includinq a child
care site. It seemed puzzling that the property was designated tor
multiple-family housinq yet there appeared to be a significar:t
taxics problem. She queried hoW' the housing c:!esiqnation 'Was
justified when a si9nifi~ant taxies problem existed.
Fire Chief Bob Wall saie the Fire Department supported the proposed
application. In 1989, the Fire Department presented some require
ments to mitiqate potential adverse impacts. The previous proposal
~as submitted priol: to council ts passage: of the toxic gas ordi
nance, which now required compliance :by all existing Palo Alto
facilities by April or Kay of 1993. While the Fire Department
supported the concept of nixed uses in zoning, it recognized the
associated Olfficulties. The possibility of mixinq residential or
child care uses in an industrial area needed careful consideration
which would have occurred in 1~89 and would oc.cur in the future if
the possibility arose. Palo Alto was not the only city looking at
mixed uses, and the Santa Clara Fire Chiefs Association vas puttinq
together a task ~orce to look at developinq countywide quidelines
tor addressing the issue.
Council Member Kniss said qiven that the toxics issues were better
defined than they were in 1989, it the Fire Department received the
sue proposal as was received in 1989, she que!."ied vhether the
decision WOuld be different than in !9B9.
Chief Wall said the risks of any proposal 'Would be carefully
considered, and the Fire Oepartm~nt would try to present a
reasonable and safe approval of the project. The~e might be aome
different requirements in 1992 than there were in 1989 because of
the change in the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Hr. Schreiber said t.he property Vas ~esignated fc~ .ultipl~ family
housin<J in 1979-1980, and at that time, tbere was not an over
whelming concern about the issue of toxies. Since t~at time, a lot
had been learned about the potential problems of ~ixing higher
d~nsity populations or child care facilities into an area where
there were a variety of active resear'"ch, aevelopment,· and manu
facturing processes which used a variety of toxic materialS and.
gases. ~n 1992, staft concluded the proposed site was not
desirable for multiple family housing because of the toxic issue
and the recognition that development of the &ite would be diffi~lt
for a variety of reasons inclu~inq .the slope and isolat~~n
problems.. While there 'Were underlY.lng concerns abcut t01(~C
11/23/92 ~9-429
I
.", .
materials in the area, the site itself was ~clean.· In the 1990
Hoasinq Ele.ent adopted by the Council, a housing development was
not indicated as being likely on ~~e sjte in the next five to ten
years. The landowners were not willing to entertain housing.
Council Member Wheeler sai~ when she was a Planning Commissioner,.
she and Chief Wall walked into the Industrial Park when the Fire
Department 'ili4S first discussinq haz.ardous materials storage and
placing a large 40-foot setback requirement on the industrial
properties at that time. The Fire Department approved a variance
that would allow at least a portion of the buildings to encroach
into the 40-foot setback, and she asked what had chanqed to make
the Chief comfortable to allow an encroachment into that setback.
Chief Wa11 said chanqes had been made 1n the hazardous materials
ordinances and there were more comprehensive requirements to
prevent a release and include engineering controls at the ooint of
u:se of hazardous :materials. In the event of a release.-from a
facility, the shut-off and filtering mechanilJDlS to contain the
toxic materials would be efficient to the point where there would
be little to no off-site negative impacts. The Fire Department
still carefully reviewed worst case scenarios and state and federal
rules required that calculations be done in terms of ho~ far off
site consequences would go from a particular facility. The Fire
Department did not rely as heavily as it once di~ on just distance
away from a ..... oxie site but rather the controls vere built in.
Council Member Wheelar clarified Chief Wall'8 comaents might apply
to many sites in the 1ndustrial Park; they vere not particularly
Wliql.le to the sUbject site and the contour of the land.
Chief Wall said the rules would be comprehensively applied to any
facility which used hazardous materials.
Council Member Wheeler referred to Palo Alto's pride in being one
of the fev jurisdictions .in the state that had both a State
certified. Housing ~lement and II COmprehensive Housing Affordability
Strateqy (CHAS). The particular parcel of property was one of just
three properties that were counted upon in both the CHAS and the
Comprehensive Plan as prQducinq significant numbers of units o~
housing to .eet the 1.990-1995 qoa18. Sbe queried at wt-.at point the
City riaked bavinq the State beooae unhapPy as potential projects
to achieving the city'S housing qoals were peeled off and what
aight l:»e the negative consequences if that occurred.
Mr. Schreiber sai4 to the ]:est of hia knowledqe housing development
on the subject aite was not included in any of the qoa1s or
forecasted nw:abers in the Housinq Element or CRAS. Not all
potential housing-sites were included in either the Housing Element
or CHAS. Sites were included. that staff belieVed were likely to be
developed within a reasonable t~ frame, and the subject site vas
not in th6t category. If the State vas unhappy with the City#s
prQP08als regarc:!ing its HOl.!sinq Eleaent, they would not be approved
and would :be returned. vi th a request that aore be done. There was
no ~nism at that point that beld a jurisdiction particularly
accountable in terms of actually producing numbers. It was a
11/43/94 69-430
.. , ...
" . .:
recognition that there were a wide variety of factors leading to
housing, only one of which was the City's villingness to zone anQ
prQvide the approvals for housinq. In te~s of the State planning
context, it was still perfectly appropriate for cities to revisit
land use designations, either ho~sing sites or nonhousinq si~esl
and designations and requlations were changed based Up':H'l current
information. In the subject case, between tb2: years 1979, 19BO,
the late 1980's and 1992, ~~ch mere became known aboyt hazardous
materials issues, and: information now availa:bl~ was not available
in 1.979. It was perfectly valid for the community to rethink I
revisit, and change the designation. After the qo aro~nd in 1989
over the mixed use research and development and child care on the
site lead, staff rethought its position and over time conCluded the
site was really not good for housing.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Housing Element did include
the proposed site in the inventory of potential sites, but in the
speCific forecast of what vould happen in 1990 to 1995, the site
was not included. That was a aistinctjon bet~~en what was possible
ana what was realistic and likely to happen. In ~akinq the cut,
the Camprehensive Plan stated that development ot the site ~ith
housinq was not something the City "Was banking on to meet its
numbers between 1.990 ana 1995. It was an important consideration
in looking at the leqal issues.
Vice Mayor McCown referred to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation's
letter to the Council, dated october 1.5, 1992 (on· file in the City
Clerk's Office, which noted the site was identified as likely to be
converted to housing. They cited Table B on paqe 52. Her copy of
the Houginq Forecast 1990-1995, vas not site specific except for
asterisks which listed sites not assumed to be redeveloped in the
next five years includinq Maximart, 1515 El camino Real, Stanford
Terrace, Elks Cl~, ami Fiesta Lane.s. She was confusecS about
whether the subject site-vas treated as a site likely to be
c!8veloped •
Mr. Schreiber said page 52 of the current Housing' Element "Were
lands included in the current inventory but not the sites called
out in the forecast ~hich "Was on page 59.
Council Member Wheeler referred to the range of alternatives for
possible mitigation and the pr~sal from staff and the Planning
commission that the developer contribute an addi tional SUD of Jaoney
to the City's bousinq ftlitiqation funds. She asked how the
determination was made that the mitigation was to be .onetary and
the fiqure was arrived at.
Mr. schreiber liaid at the beginning of the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation CPAKF) process a determination was Jaade that the
designation of land from multiple-family residential in the
comprehenliive Plan to en institutional use constituted a Biqnifi
cant envirormental ilapact that had to be mitigated. The sallie
problem existed. with t.."e subject si~e in that the loss of the
housinq de&iqnation by prece.dent was a sig-nit icant l-.pbct which had
to be .itiqated. staff indicated to the applicant that the site
was neither good nor appropriate tor multiple family housing and
11/23/92 69-4H
-j
the s1t~ was also not included in the Housing Element for the next
five years in terms of any potential hoYsing density~ The~e vas ~o
fixed rule in terms of what constituted a~equate mitigation, and a
series of discussions occurred between he, other staff melZlbers,
John Lovewell, and people from his office. Their proposal, vhich
statf recommended to the Planning commission, vas to dOuble the
basic mitiqation fee per the municipal ordinance which was about
$3.20 plus cents a square foot, which would constitute appropriate
Eitiqation. Staff felt comfortable with the mitigation given the
baekqround of where it was mentally on the site and not seeing it
as a likely or very dE.'sirable housing' site. The appropriatenes.s of
the .itiq8tion was a valid issue fOl" the Planning commission and
the Council and it was ultimately Council's decision in terms of
what was an appropriate mitiqetion.
Council Kember Xniss asked ~or the total amount of mitiqation.
Mr. Schreiber said the housing mitigation was about $245,000 times
t~o~ and the transportation mitigation was about $19S~OOO, ~or a
total of about $685,000, which would be adjusted upward in terms of
when the building permit was issued.
council .Member Wheeler was concerned about the perception that the
proposal 4n~ the Counci1's resolution of the application could set
a precedent for ot..'I).er applicants~ While stanford: was clearly
unhappy about the City's putting-the Comprehensive Plan designation
on the particu1ar parcel an~ the City'S stated intent to actually
re.z:one the parcel, there were many owners of property 'Who likewise
expressed their ~ispleasure that Comprehensive Plan designations
and zonIng changed. on them. She queried whether the Subject parcel
VZI s unique I Whethtt the Ii i tUI!I tion was unique I or lIhether the C'i ty
ran the risk of baving any number of applicants who did not like &
change in zoning coming in and askinq to pay A little extra aoney
to -buy· their way out of a ~oninq they did not like.
Mr. SChreiber said the subject site qiven the combination of tha
Ccnaprillbensive Plan designation" the :iolope, the location, and the:
surrounding toxic issues was trl.11y unique. ee did not believe
whatave.r action Counci1 took that evaning would establish a
preCedent for any other sita or for any member of the public. The
process existed Lor other property owners to seek relief trom the
llIIortizatlon process and. it that happened. they 'Would be evaluated
independently by staft~ the Planning C'o:uaission~ and the Council.
Council Member Wheeler said Council raceivea expressio!'ls of concern
about the propriety of the action as it related to policies and
proqrams in tbe Rousing Eleaent. There were also some pretty
stron~ statements in the Employaent Element of the Comprehensive
Plan Which epoke to cDntinued efforts to reduce employ:Dent
potential in the City and encourage construction of more hOUSing
prfaarily on or near ind~atrial and co=mercial sites. She queried
how an .. etion that evening to change the Comprehensive Plan
designation back to • light incSu;&.trial deSignation would be in
conforaance with those co.prehensive Plan policies.
11/23/92 69-432
;-
\
-,
Kr. Schreibe:.;:-said any !1pplication lIIade t.o the City 'Was looked at
as an individual action and assessment of the factors that
influenced the particular application needed to be considered. In
the sense that the Comprehensive Plan set forth general ~~idelines,
policies, and stron9 encouragement, stafr used the .ame types of
factors in looking at any other site. Staff did not make the
recOlIJIlendation that the designation be changed out of lIlultiple
family housing quickly or lightly. It was. a proce:.s$ of zany
disc"ussions, and a weighing ot & variety of factors.. Within the
comprehensive planninq process, the jurisdiction needed, and had,
the authority and responsibility to look at individual sites fro~
a -;.ride variety of policy perspectives. From the standpoint of
&taff, there yere site planning issues, and some toxic issues ~~at
were not clearly in the minds of staff, the public, and the council
in the late 197oO's. Times and pe.rspeet.ives changed, and he
believed those needed to be weighed in light of current kno~ledge.
Vice Mayor McCown Bald while she IIppreci4ted the correctness of
what Mr. Schreiber pointe~ out about the tables and wha~ sites were
assumed to be producing bousing in the time frame 1990-1995, page
52 of the Comprehensive Plan stated that the Urban Lane and 1050
Arastradero sites were vaca.nt or underdeveloped 'With uses not.
likely to have long aJDortization peri~5 anc:S as such had the
greatest likelihood of redevelopment for housing during the five
year implementation period. She queried whether anythinq in the
"1990 document suggested to the reader that one should not really
count on 1050 Arastradero Road because of the toxic and other
problems.
Mr. Schreiber noted that page 58 and the table on paqe 59 did not
include the develoPDent of vaoant induEiitrial sites or redevelopment
of eXisting commercial industrial sites in ~e specific fo 4 ecast.
Even though the languaqe on page 52 indicated a "'1ikelihood,· it
WaS hard to concur with the. weight of that likelihood bec!luse Urban
Lane was zoned CS vbic:h allowed a much wider range than bousing~
It was effort to callout potential sites. He shared the under
standing of the wording, but the conclusion on paqes 58 and 59 was
that they were not included in the rive-year forecast.
Vice Hayor McCOwn was concerned that &nyone reading the language
would see the City making a fairly significant shift in its
"prediction'll between 1990 and the present.. The document was fairly
recent, and she did not see anywhere that 1050 Arastradero was
actually not a very good site tor the kinds of reasons beinq
dis~~&&ed that eveninq ..
Mr~ Calonne believed if one took the sentence on paqe 52 in
isolation, it did say that 1050 Arastradero Road and the urban Lane
area had the greatest li~elihood of redevelopment for bousing~ The
botto. of page 58 contained the explanatory language that the 1050
Arastradero site was not included. The rationale expl~ined that
both the actual unit nUDDers and timing of such development was
difficult to· predict. While the dOCUDent said the two sites had
th.e greatest pote.ntial of the land. z.oned commercial and iMustrial ...
the plan went on to 5ay even though it was the greatest potential
it WAS still nat sufficient to warrAnt including them in the
U/23/92 69-433
---_.,----'
forecast. He returned to the distinction between the Housing
El~t enumeratinq potentials for land use versus making fore
casts. While ~~e sites were included in the potentials, they were
not included in the forecasts~ In looking at the Housing Element,
he 'Went through and tried to identify the "shoulds'" and the
"shalls,· and he did not fin~ 1050 Arastradero on a ·shall-list.
There were lots of ·shoulds· that Council might read as policy
Indicatiens contrary to the proposal but he did not find a ·shall
which was the distinctiQn he needea to maxe.
Vice Mayor McCown referred to an acknowledgment in the report of
the policy issue in terms of a &ite oriqinally designated as a
potential contributor of 88 units being taxen out of the potential
use without a specific proposal for where else the 88 ~nits might
come ~rom. The suqqeetion was to loOk to the Comprehensive Plan
process to try and. qrapple with the question. In light of the
discussion and some of the other names being tossed around, e.q.~
Urban Lane. which 'Was now under discussion by the. PAMF for
something other than a housing use, she queried what other ups and
do'Wns would be considered in the comprehensive Plan process in
terms ot other 81 tes that might be in the Housing' Ele;;.ent or in the
CBAS that would also be argued to need to ~all out. On the flip
side, if tha.t was going to happen with some sites,. she queried.
'Where the City would look. tor the opportunity to achieve the kind.s
of units that the Housing Element set out as a qoal~
Mr. Schreiber noted that since 1968, palo Alto bad been redesiq
natinq sites nonre.sidential to residential on a rather regular
basie whether it be In the Midtown area along Middle.field~ alon9' £1
Camino Real~ the Res.ar~ Park, or wherever. Clearly, in :faCing
tbeo next ten to fifteen years,. 1n the Coaprehensive Plan process
there was going to be some difficult policy issues regarding a
nuaber of the sites~ Some of the rezoninqs in the late ~9'O's and
early l'80~s were sites that bad a lot of potenti~l tor us~s other
than housinq and there 1D.ight be. SOlIe strong co.-petlng community
deJl4!lds Which -would be a critical policy issue. There might be
801Ie other commercial s.ites that could be appropriate for hOUSing,
e.q. J PAM!"s site JDiqht be vacated if they went to urban Lane. If
the.y did not 90 to Urban Lane~ the Ci~y was back to lookinq at the
sites identified in the Citywide study. Staff would also be
l;;)Qklnq at areas such as ,around the Oniversity train station. Palo
Alto had been very good over the past 15 to 25 years in terms of
findinq sites and o-pportunities and IIOSt had converted to housing~
While be was not sure the pace 'WOuld. be the S&lle, the opportunities
would still be there in the process, and then it wou14 up to the
citizen's committee, the Planning Commission, and the Council to
veigh the appropriate co-.unity decisions. The second part. of the
question was the <1ensity and the willingTI8ss to taeJc.le the question
of higher densities along El camino or other areas~
Vice Mayor McCown queried. whether staff's evaluation considered or
included discussions with stanford about whether there wer~ other
sites of the .ort alluded to by Mr~ Schreiber that might no't bave
been previously considered for a bousing d.5ignatlon~
U/2J/92 69-434
.. \
'r
/
Mr. Schreiber said in response to a Council discussion of about a
year and one-balf aqo regardinq land near or in the medical center
region, e.g: .. , Welcb Road and Quarry Road, be, Stanford Planning
Director Phil Williams, and others sat down with maps and aerials
ana tal~ed their way through a lot of Stanford land. The ~ttom
line was that stanford had a policy of tryinq to keep development
on the campus side of Junipero Serra Boulevard. There 'Were
relatively few vacant sites in that area and they were all spoken
f'='T from the standpoint of one or more parts of the academic
organization cr the medical school. If the Arboretum and west of
Jutlipero Serra were excluded, there was relatively little potential
for additional housing within the unincorporated campus area.
Stanford's ~ajor thrust was the Stanford West project~ Stanford
believed that by adding the Children's Hospital site to the 46-acre
site the City struggled with in the mid-~9BO's creating a larger
site, they had designated a significant Bite tor mul~iple-family
residentiaL It was not currently c1esiqnated. JlUltiple family
residential in the Comprehensive Plan. He previously indicated to
the COuncil, Pla~~in9 Commission, and privately to Stanford, that
stan~ard pre~ented a very difficult dilemma. On one hand, it was
the only major employer to step forward and provide significant
amounts of housinq especially contrasted to the impact of U.C.
Berkeley on the City of Berkeley. The flip side was Stanfcrd owned
a lot of land and was in 4 situation where the City in all of its
different components looked to ~'1E::I aqain and aqain to d:o even more
for bousinq. He wanted the record to reflect that Stanford had
done a great deal and wanted to continue to try to do a good deal.
~e stanford ,West proposal w~s a major step in that direction4
Vice Mayor McCOwn queried whether any c:lie;cussion occurred wit.lJ.
Stanford about sites in the Research Park or within the City limits
that could conceivably provide housing if the supject site was to
be taken out of hOU5inga
Hr. Schreiber said the discussions he had with Phil Williams a ye.ar
and one-half to two years ago did not present any other housinq
site. as a trade-ott. Earlier in 1992, City and Stanford staff
discussed that stanford should look carefully at the long-term
feasibility and de$irabili~y of multiple-f~mily residential sites
in the Research Park.. While Stanfora/s planning proceases were
pl~ced on bold while Stan~ord went throuqh staffinq changes, the
City staff vas assured that Stanford would be returning in the near
future to start the process moving again. He did not knov vhether
the process would be successful in identifying additional housing
sites. HfI a.nticipated stant'ord's thouqhts on the Research Park
would feed into the citizen's committee process on the
Co~prehensive Plan.
Council Member Andersen understood the transportation ~itiqatiQn
was not available for housing.
Hr. Schreiber said that was correct.
Council Kember Andersen aske-:i whet.her the. same resist.ance to
housing would apply to all other downzoned areas.
I r~ •
"/
Mr. SCbreibt!r said v.h11e the resistanc(! generally referred to the
subject site .. AI'IY time resi<1ential and nonresidential land uses
'Were .ixed~ the potential for conflict had to be 'Weighed. Some
conflicts were difficult to resolve regarding mixed residential and
coltlllercial in the downtown area in tenns of noise, hou:";; of
operation, fumes, etc. There 'Uere greater conflicts with tne
sUbject site given its isolation and slope than many of the other
sites both within and near the Research ~ark~
C~~cil Member Andersen said the kinds of alternatives referred to
and some of the efforts by Stanford did not $pecifically a~dress
the housinq needs for Research Park employee:s~ He queried 'What
Stanford was accomplishing in that regard.
M:r. Schreiber W"lderstood some parts of stanford West were to be
market rate housing tor the qener~l population as vall as some or
stanford lands along EI Camino Real, so it vas rA4sonable to expect
that some people livinq there would vork in the Research Park.
Council Member Andersen was \lJ1clear-as to why C01.:ncil was presented
with such a detailed proposal before a major policy question was
deciaec!.
Mr. Schreiber Sloid the city could process either tb~ comprehensive
Plan BJlendme.nt separately and: have it go throuqh the Plannirll;
camai.sion and the councilor it could be processed jointly with
the site and design approval. Oftentimes applicants concluded the
ehanc:es of" SUC<:.eS8 were greater with a specific proposal rather
than just an openended change where they aight return with a
project in the future.
Council Kember Simitian referred to the toxies issues and where
they were located in relation to the subject property.
Chiet Wall said all the properties adjacent to Coyote Hill could
store or use hazardous materials. Currently, the Hewlett Packard
aite was 1n coaplete cOlllpliance with tlle toxic qas ordinaz;lce, and
While "the Syntex site had some hazardous IDAterials on site, he dieS
not believe it hac! any toxic qoses.
Council Kember Simitian claririec! the other sites a little closer
to the sUbject site had the potential far toxic gases but did not
pre.ently have any to the City's knowledqe.
Chief Wall said that was corr~ct.
Council Member Simitian asked 'Wbat toxic substances 'Were being
ref erred to.
Hayer Fazzino asked about the difference bet'loteen bazardous and
toxic .. terials.
Chief Wall said the issues which faced a mixed use concept were
usually gas toxics that would result in an o.tf-site incident, .e.g.,
airborne. In some cases., it could be in I!!I solid fonD but pul
verized into a powder that could through a dust explosion carr}·
11/23/92 69-436
· '
across property lines. Usually something airborne came from liquid
or gas. and in some cases s~lids.
council Melllbc.r Simitial"l. clarified part of the increased concern
~rose as a result of the increased awareness and understanding of
toxic issues since the ti~e the site was designate~ tor housing.
Mr. Schreiber said that ~as correct.
council Member Simitian clarified Chief Wall indicated the City haa
a far more effective mechani~m in terms at the current or~inance to
provide protection as contrast~d when the housinq d~signation was
firat placed on the site.
Chief Wall said that was correct.
Council Member Silllitian queried what. was across the street from the
site location and in what jurisdiction it V&S located.
Hr. Schreiber said Single family, and the jurisdiction was Los
Altos. Hills until further down ArastracSero where it became palo
Alto.
council Member Simitian asked 'Whether there were concerns about the
potential fer a problem with toxics in thos~ single family homes
immediately across the street and adjacent to the properties
identified as havinq taxies.
Chief Wall said there were always concerns in t..lte residential area.
which existed before the development of th. Research Park. The~e
was Significant distance. between the properties in the Resea.rch
Park and the residences. While the city was better at relying-less
on the dist6nce bstween the properties t it still liked to have it.
Anytime there was a aixed use there w~s a concern about risk, and
the Tire Department 'Would consider the risks very care! ..... lly with.
whatever th. aixed proposal lIIiqht be.
Council Member Simitian a.ked for clarification about the distinc
tion between the peril to homeovner& if the 5ite were developed
with housinq as contrasted vitb the peril to the 1'Illl!lber of
employees on the site if it was used for otfice purposes.
Chief Wall said employees on a site were 'Working and a~aka whether
it be day or niqht and they were knowledgeable of the operations.
Employees were in the situation where in the event of an unfortu
nate situation, notification was fairly easy by local alarm,
evacuation v~s fairly &traiqhtforward. Residents could be
sleepill9t they 'Would have t.o be awakened" there. 'Woul!:! have to be a
plan tor evacuation" and it was much more difficult.
Council Member xniss asked Whether there vere other examples iT.!
Santa Cl~a Valley of the subject type of .ixed uses.
Chief Wall kneW that San Jose and Mountain View bad looked at the
site but did not know of a joint use situation.
1.1/23/92 69-437
couneil Member Siwlitian understood from
CCMR:460:92) that it ~as reviewed as a revenue
would n~t generate inco~e for the City.
Mr. schreiber said that ~as correct~
----
the staff report
neutral project and
CQuncil Member Simitian understoOd the gross square footage was
7',000 , al'ld h,. asked how many additional employees that 'Would
generate.
Mr. Schraiber said there vere approximately three employees per
1,000 sqyare feet or 210 to 220 employees but that could vary with
the employer. Tbe Research Park Bve~aged about one employee per
360 square feet.
council Me~r SilIIitian clarified staff's re"commendation was
predicated on its professional assessment that the !Site was not
appropriately~eslqnated for housinq and not on the notion that the
property owner could dictate what the zoninq would be on the &ite~
Mr. Schreiber said that 'Was correct. Wi.lle the property owner's
unwillingness to have housing on the ~ite was not part of staff's
conclusion, it was part of the conclusion of staff in the early
1980a t.o not pursue rezoninq of the site from. .th-e LM.-SD to a
aultiple-family desiqnatic>n. The unwillingness of the property
owner to entertain a housing proposal and the stated intent of some
of the neigbbdrs in the area to not only require an Environmental
Impact Report (EDt] but to pursue lititJation caused the staff' to
put the rezoning low on the list of planninq projects ever the
course of the years.
council xe1lber SiBlitian referred to the COl!lprehe..~ive Plan and the
comprehensive"Houslng Af.forda!:!ility strategy (c:HAS), and etsked how
the City's participation" in the Golden Triangle and Conges.tion
l!anaqement Aqency (CIIA) processes anc2 its c01llll1 tlIIent to malte a good
faith effort in concert with other communities to try and reduce
the jobs/housinq ilrIbalance illS II. transportation strateqy related te
the process.
Hr. SChreiber said the GOlde"n Triangle process establishe.d an
overall cap on nonresidentie.1 developm.ent 'Which was a policy act-iot'!.
approved by the variou8 city councl1s~ Bedesiqnation and 'd~velop
aent ot the site would fit well within that cap, and there was a
101U; way to 90 betore the cap was reached. The ei tia.. in the
Golden Tr iang Ie proce.. c::oami tted theasel v.a to f indinq more
housing sites and that issue would come up again durinq the
Comprehensive Plan process in teras of trying to find .ore housing
sites. Tbere was no nWDerlc.al commitJlent to the number of units
that shoUld be found or builtIn anyone. perIod ot tille.. It was
consistent with the CMA process because tha.t process fcocused on
identificatIon of aitiqatlon of i.pacts.
council Member s~itian recalled that T2000 and T2010, the santa
Clara County-wide transportation plans, ape-nt a fair UIIOunt of time
didCUSsif19 the research ~ s in the past and the extent to which
people were forced in and. v ... e of cOlImuter traffic by virtue of the
11/23/92 69-438
lack of proximity to housing, services, and jobs.
whether the 88 units fit into that problem~
He queried
Mr. SChreiber said aa units in the context of a county with 800,000
employees and a Research Park with 22,000 or 23,000 employees yas
not a significant detraction or contribution toward solving the
jobs/housing imbalance, but as is policy issue it was important~
rhe county retained the right under various planninq objectives to
evaluate sites on the basis of specific characteristic impacts.
The site was designated for m~ltiple-family residential, but from
the Planning Commission's and the staft's perspectives the site had
chanqed significantl)' since the 1979-198:0 period.
council Member Rosenbaum asked l'lOW $250 million could be extracted
from ~~e developer for the 88 units if the site was not suitable
for housing.
Mr. Schreiber said the applica.nt entered the process without being
sure what the staff recommendation would be. While the applicant
preferred to have a positive staff recommendation, there was no
requirement on the part of the applicant to have that before
entering the process. The recommendation unfolded as staff worked
with the ~pplicant and the project. Staff no~ knew mora about the
concerns regarding the toxic issue than it did in 1979 and 1980,
anc:l tbe decisions macie durin; that time were in the context of
trying to find housing anywhere possible. In the last ten years,
the thinking vas more balanced on the part of staff regarding the
relat.ionship of housing-a.nd the appropriateness of sites for
housinq, i.e., bow the site fit into the fabric of the community,
and the po1icy basis had cbanqed. As tar &51 the mitiqation
dollars, statf became involved in th~ need for mitigation with the
Pale Alto .Medical Foundation (PAMF) process. He told the
applicant a precedent had been approvec:l by the council that the
removal of a site out of hOUSing, even though it was not likely to
be used for housing, was viewed as a significant environmen'Cal
iapact. One of the objectives of staff in bringing projects to the
Planning Commission and the Council was to ~ry to recognize prior
Council precedent and not send an applicant forth with the
potential danger of a lawsuit. He told the applicant that qiven
the precedent of requirinq mitiqation for tbe loss of the housing
site, some type of mitigation WOuld be required because it was a
significant impact. The only way to get around mitigation was to
trigger an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which the applicant
did not want. Staff did not cons.ider the site to be a prae
housing site and considered the mitigation amount to be modest. He
felt comfortable with the mitiqation based on the staff's under
standing of the site. If the site wa. flat with hiqh potential,
the .itiqation would be much greater.
Council Member Rosenhaum hypothesized a two-step process where the
policy question about whether to amend t..lte Comprehensive Plan based
on new information to change tbe designation of the site from
housing to commercial was before the Council, and after due debate~
it vas deemed proper~· If, following that, Mr~ 'Keenan made his
proposal, there would not be an additional $2S0~OOO fee t~ be paid
for housing.
11/23/92 69-439
--~----
Mr. Schreiber said if the action was city-initiated, the City vould
still have to deal with the issue ot 2niti9ation~ He di~ not
believe the issue went avay if the City ",as the applicant, but
rather it vas confronted in a different arena. His sense was the
City, could es~ablish a mitigation at t~e time the site desiqnation
vas changed, decide there vere overriding considerations in an ErR
and bave no mitigation, or perh",ps create IS situation where the
ziti9Ation was tied. to thea: future use of th~ property. In any
event, the City would have dealt with the policy and mitigation
issue early on.
council Melftber lI;.os.enbau'1D clarified if for sOlEle qood reason the
Council decided a site previously designated in ,the Com~rehensive
Plan tor housing was no lonqer suitable for housing, a common sense
change Of the. Comprehensive Plan would require all the actions
referred to by Mr~ Schreiber~
Mr. SChreiber said it depended upon the nature of the site. When
Council redesignated the Rhona W,illiams site out of single-family
resiOential several weeks ago, the magnit:ude of that impact was
such that extensive mitigation 'Was not ne.e<1~d.. The. loss of a
multiple f&lllily site havinq some considerable potential for housing
required council to at least confront the issue of mitigation. If
the action ~as in the context of an EIR, council could qet around
the =itigation issue by making overriding findings.
Council JleJIber Kniss said Council talked extensively about the
jobs/housing i.Dbalanca, and sbe queried the Research Park anCi where
it was over the past 20 to 30 years.
lIr. Schreiber did not have the specific fiqures before hill, but
believed. the Rasearch Park bed about 22# 000 eIDPloyaes which was
lover thaJ:t what was predicted. in the 1980 Comprehierisive Plan and it
was 81&0 lower than the City's prediction of about 28,000 when it
began surveying the Research Park in the late 1980s.
Council JI.bber -Kniss q:ueried Whether the actual nlmber in the
Re&earch Park had dropped.
Hr. Schrei~r did not believe the number had dropped, but it was
never as blqh as was predicted. The actual employment vas lower
than the planning assumptions made 15 years ago in terms of density
per thousand square feet. .
council Member Xniss asked about the )obs/housinq imbalance in the
kseareb Park ~
Mr. Schreiber said there was no clear answer to the questiDn. The
jobs/housing imbalance had been discussed in Santa Clara county for
several years,. and the ·cu~ting edg'e" research 'Would' probak)ly
indicate a greater 60ubt in 1992 that a signifioant jobs/housing
.iJDbalance existed than ther-e vas 10 or 15 years ago because it was
now known that people would not commute in large numbers for v~ry
long distances over long periods of tiJDe~ The current rea.earch
baaed on distribution nuabers staff received tor Palo Alto
11/23/92 69-440
-.. ~,--,-.----
, .
emplopent through the Congestion Management Agency seemed to
ind.ic:ate a relative balance of jobs and housing. There was a
commute shed tor palo Alto within 20 to 30 =in~tes from Palo Alto,
'Which was different th!!n there 'Would be flJ;r Sunl1yvale, Moffet
Rasearch Park, or for downtown San Jose. He was sure the Compre
hensive Plan update process would get into the issue in some
considerable detail. When he. the Director of Finance J and other
City statt interviewed corporate l~aders in the Research Park two
years ago, it was startling to note the relative lack of concern
about housinq and recruitment. Staff expected to tinc! people
moaning and ~oaninq about the difficulty of recruiting employees I
O!IInd the only problems seemed to OCcur with highly placed execu
tives, senior research people, and high flying younger research
peDple where there was _ national job market ana the hQusing prices
in the Say Area put it at a competitive dis~dvantaqe.
MAyor Fazzino declared the Public Hearinq open.
Chop Xeenan, applicant, 700 Emerson, appreciated the commentary on
the history of the site datinq ~ack to ~979. While the is~~e of
-affordable hOt.~f;inq-had a lot of relevance in 1979 1 it had a
different relevance in 1992. Rathe, than housinq on the site, he
.and his partner John Lovewell had approached the site ~ith a child
C3re proposal which hel th-e University, and employers in the
Research Park believed was a real ~riority because there was nexus
between child care and job creation.. The endeavor was a mixed use
site which involved child care and research and development (R&D),
which was ultimately found to be an inappropriate .ixture~ The
site vas particularly challenqing physically.. There was a 275 foot
setback off of Arastradero Road. havinq to do with ill scenic setback,
and 70 feet of fall across the sevan acre site. The proposal
before the Council represented a version of an R'D mediterranean
villa. The ARB and the Planning Commission revieWed the project,
and everyone s.eeaed to be enthusiastic. The is ;ue seemed to be
whether the site should most appropriately be residential or R'D.
Council heard. ill lot of i nf o.ru.ed judgment. on the f act that the
property should be an R&D site. While the property could be milde
to work with housing, the contingent liabilities to the companies,
their willingness to locate there, and the pure cost, precluded
bousinq. FrOID a sound planninq perspective, the site was "Kl:ost
appropriately R'D. Tbe second issue was stanforo's commi~ent to
housing--past, present, and future. The applicant was in accord
with staff in teras of the .itiqation cost even thoU9h ther. were
alternatives such .5 child ca~e. In light of City's precedent on
the medical center, they believed the mitigation was acceptable.
Andy Doty, 4072 Scripps Avenue, Director of Co~unity Relations,
Stanford University, supported the project of Keenan/Lovewell
Ventures to develop 1050 Arastr~dero Road for Research. Park use.
Stanford bad always believed the site vas more appropriate for the
Research Park use than for multiple family housinq. He pointed out
that Stanford bad bUilt about 5,000 housing units or student beds
since .1960, it now had about. 1,400 more units on. the drawlnq
boards, and the rate of construction of housing for students and
eliqible staff .t Ste.nford. ~ell exceeded :the. rate of growth of
those popul~tions. Stanford ~nvested $58 m~ll10n to date in three
11/23/92 69-441
different hOl,lsinq assistance programs far its .faculty and statf and.
the Unive~sity's gener~l use permit with Santa Clara County revised
in 19$9 contained six different housing mitigation with whioh the
Un1vl!rsi~y needed to comply not to mention the housing mitig~.tion
for the QUarry Road rezoning last year. The 1,400 proposed units
cor~isted Qf 1,210 units 9f stenford West, 180 student beds at the
xnoll, and nine faculty units on San Juan Hill. Stanford looked
forward to working with the City ~nd the County in bringinq the new
housing to reality. stanford was also prepare;! to discuss the
local housing problem and its appropriate role relatt!'d to it.
Stanford was willing to york actively with the city in its upcoming
Comprehensive Plan review particularly in the study of the
important housing element. At the Eame time, the University would
aoon be revisinq its 1980 land use plan, the Stanford Research Park
plan vas beinq reviewed, and the so-called ~Dream Team-was taking
a hard look at the lands between :£1 Palo Alto and Embarcadero Road.
A fresh look at the. famous -jobs/housinq imbalance-was long
overdue, and how much could or shOUld be done, whan and wbere~ and
at' what cost were all questions Which should be Asked, and Stanford
would be gla4 to help in that examination. During that review,
pro~r recognition shOUld be given to the 1,400 units that Stanford
intended to build. For example, the 1,211'} units projected for
Stanford West alone was already 410 units qreater than the 800
units baing considered far the site during the general use permit
revision. :If' the City desired., stanford 'Would be pleased to
nominate a few University representatives for membership on the
City'. C'OlLprehenaive Plan review <::01IlIDittee. A new era of coopera
tion between Palo Alto and Stanford seemed to be dawninq. At the
sa.e tiae some new Stanford representatives were appearinq on the
scene. All of them--President Casper, Oavid Newman, Bill Phillips,
and Peter VanEtten were _ost anxious to continue and enhance the
productive relationship.
Vice Mayor McCown appreclated stanford's yet-to-be-completed nature
of its: examination of the Research Park, but queried 'Whether there
were any potential sites that miqht be part of the joint discus
sions durinq the Comprehensive Plan process.
Mr. Doty believed the possibility existed not includinq the
Mayfield site b~t rather the Research Park per se.
Xen Rodriquers, 50 west San pernando, #650, San Jose, CA 95113,
said hi. fina vas the architect for the proposal. The over-all
concept vas to-take an extremely difficult site and come up 'With an
appropriate R,O use. Any use on the proposed site would be
difficult but the proposal suggested II: large scenic setback. that
would be landSCAped. ~he buildinqs would be nestled into the hill
in order to be sensitive to the residents across the street. The
buildings act'Ulllly terraced back into the. foothills, and the
overall appearance o~ the buildinq would be lower in scale'ana more
in keeping with the residential component across the wily and the
actual R.O projects surroundinq ,them. One Variance request 'WillS to
encroach into the setback .ainly because they wanted to surround
one .ide Df the property with landseape. Allot the pa~kin9 'Was
d.eveloped: on the westerly and northerly sides of t.he site. The
proj~ vas qui te unique fro .. its land planninq st.ndpoint ·anc! its
11/23/92
overall design. Keenan/Lovewell always pushed for a bett.er product
than what was done in the past, and he saw the proposed project as
beinq significAntly greater in ter.ms of the overall aesthetics than
the previous award 'Winning project at 4001 Miranda, which had bec_n
the .tart of a lonq-term relationship with Xeenan/Lovewell,
Stanford University, and Palo Alto. He urged approval in terms of
the architectural ia&ues.
Harlena Prendergast, 560 Chaucer Street, spoke as the Executive
Director of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PARe). The PAMe
believed the redesiqnation as proposed did not eomply with fairly
spac:ific policy language in the COlllprehensive Plan and in the CHAS,
and that the proposed ac:tion would set a precedent tor accepting
monetary mitigation for the eliaination of housing sites without
the benefit of a more systematic and rationally based approach to
the establishment cf 5ucn a mitigation. The .onetary mitigation
represented a policy question because there was a lonq-tsrll. loss of
a housing site which vas specifically identified for study or
possibly as houeing in the next live year~. If the site was not
going to be housing designated, the lanquaqe in the Comprehensive
Plan should reflect the policy. While the PARe under .. tood the
appeal of putting acre money into the Housing Research Fund, it
questioned wbether the calculation of the fee was a.daquately
thouqht out because it needed to "aitigate" the impact of the lost
housing. While a fee mi~ht be appropriate, it ehould perhaps be
based on acme connection to the potential units lost rather than
the square footage of the replacement commercial buildlnq" or
perhaps a land-far-land sort of analysis vowld better .itiqate the
permanent loas of housing potential" She understood there was a
site along ~a Street thAt was available for a Single Residential
OCcupancy {SRO) development. Whatever the calculation, "the PAHC
urged the City Council to carefully consider the question because
it would Bet a precedent which other OODDercial/industrial
developers would return to. council bad a vell-deserved reputation
for &qqresliiively working for solutions to very difficult b"ousinq
prol:lleas, and she urqecS Council to uphold its reputation by
honorinq the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan reqardinq
conversion of residentially designated land.
Ellen Fletcher, 777 San Antonio Road, was surprised th3t staff cNIle
out so stronqly reqardinq the site's isolation when not two lonq
aqo they urged council not to dedicate the 77 acres of Arastra
property ~.suaably to leave the opportunities open for housing.
She dicl not consider the site to be isolated because c£ its
proxiBity to jobs and transportation. In SODe respects it had
better transportation than most neighborhoods in Palo Alto in that
it had the Dumbarton Express which on weekdays went down to :£1
camino ReeL downtown Palo Alto, and to Union city BART. The site
was a150 supplied with bicycle paths and lanes and one c~u1d get to
the California Avenue business c:listric::t on the 801 Park bike path
and there vere bike lanes all the way to the elezentary schools,
Gunn High School, and Jane Lathrop SChool. She did' not consider
the redesignation of the'Children's Hospital site for housing beinq
at all related to D1tiqatinq the 10s5 of the housinq because sne
understood it was going to be 5enior housing which did no~ improve
the jobs/housing imbalance which traffic indicated was a very real
U/23/92 69-443
r
I:
problell~ Stanford West 'Was .already zoned for multiple family
housing' so it could not be considered a mitigation for the
particula~ site~ She urged careful consid~ration.
Ellen Christensen, 4217 Los palos, opposed the proposed Comprehen
sive Plan map change~ The land use ~ap redesiqnation violated the
letter and _!,irit of the Housing Element adopti9Q in 1990. The
proPQrty was specifically referred to in three separate places in
the Housi,ng Element including J>roqram 17, and it was also disc:ussea
on page 1 looking to the year 2000 as the potential of providing 88
units for residential that could be redev~loped on vacant indus
trial land. One of the qoals of the Housing Element vas to lessen
the jobs/housln9 imbalance, and she was distressed to hear staff
suggest the jobs/housinq imbalance was no Longer a problem. Palo
Alto need.~ to increase ,its housinq supply and the planned approach
to Beating the goals included rezoning industrial and commercial
lands to achieve a dual purpose of lessening the job growth and
increasing the opportunities for hcusin9~ Throughout the ~980s,
the City looked at a large range of industrial and commercial lands
throuqh the Cityvide Land Use and Transportation Study to be
rezoned for bousinq. The resul t was the suhj ect ona on Arastradero
Road and eight others with the potential ~or rezoning. Looking at
those sites--151S El Camino was qral'ldfathereli .. being r8Jllodeled, and
could be used tor offices; the Elks Club was qrandratheredi Fiesta
Lanes vas grandfatheredi stanford Terrace inn was qrandfathered ~d
recently remOdeled as a hotel/motel; Maybell Avenue behind Cbes
Louis eight units; and the Mayfielcl School site which with the BP
station could be developed for 414 units but the City .staff were
vorkin<] vi th the ovner of the property on the idea of a potential
botel conference center~ 'l'be likely result vas' eight units on
soaetbing the City worked for ten years to re~esignate. That was
not very impressive. statf wanted to wait and work with stanford
collahoratively, and While Stanford had unmet housing obliqations,
Palo Alto had its own housing obligations independent of
stanford's~ The City's 1988 estimated employaent total vas 74,644
jobs.. and between 1980 and 1988, city staff estimated 8,BOO new
jobs~ During the .&De time fewer than 1,200 new housinq units were
added~ staff now said the site was not ideel for housing. There
were no new pieces of property out there, and te:n years went into
lookinq at almost every conceivable parcel in the City~ There
seemed to be a lack of commitment .in teras Qf making the hard
d.ecisions in favor of housing ~ The housing .crunch for younq
families and Palo Alto workers had not disappeared. What dis
appeared was a commitment to a Housing Element. The City had a
housinq action plan but did not .take positive actions to produce
housing and expand the opportunities for housing to be built.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, agreed with Mr. Schreiber that the pa.rticular
site had no taxies on it nor were there any taxies or hazardous
materials used or located on any of the adjacent properties~ He
took issue with the comJIlfInt that the situation was unusual in terms
of a bousinq site being directly adjacent to industrial and
commercial. The same situation existed on West Bayshore .. southeast.
Palo Alto, Barron Park .. College Terrace, an~ peter Coutts were all
directly adjacent to housinq and hazardous/toxic materials.storage
in industrial sites and there 'Were incidents of exposures of
11/23/92 69-444
'.
. ,
. ,.
residential people and prQperty from th(1se adjacent sites. He
estimated. between l5,OOO and 20,000 Palo Alto residents livecj
within one quarter .ile of toxic and hazardous materials &torage
sites. If the site VilS left: as clJrrer.tly zoned, it eliminated
between 150 and 300 new jobs. There was a jobsjhousinq imbalance,
He estiaated it woul~ cost $2 to $3 million to buy 2 to 3 acres at
40 ~it& an acre tQ replace the equivalent housing. If hazardous
materials and toxies were so dangerous, he queried why the City
ov~r the last ten years allowed a number of new and expanded uses
in irlduatrial park directly adjacent to existing residential. His
concerns related to the basic principle 0: accepting additional
mitigation funds in e~chanqe tor rezoning. Once the City received
the money for housing mitigation, there vas no aS6uranc~ it vould
actually be used to build housing for workers. It might pnd up
being used f~r senior hDusing.
Denny PetroSiian, ""3 Ventura Avenue, urged Council to deny the
application and to direct that an ordinance be prepared to razone
the property to .ultiple family and to bring the property into
conformance 'With the Comprehensive Plan or to find land. eq1livalent
in value and housing potential. It was Council's duty to uphold
the Camprehensive Plan.. The property should be held. in the
residential desiqnation until Council fulfilled its formal
cO!lll.itment to initia.te a special stud.y of the property &s r«!.flecte<1
in the 1~nguage after Prosram 17. She believed a Comprehensive
Plan cha..nqe should be w.e.de on its. own Derits apart from a. spec.ific
development proposal so that it COuld be looked at in the broad
context of the City's 90als a:'ld not for the convenience of a
particular developer. Ar.y Comprehensive Plan change sbould
consider the. hiqhes't an~ best use of the property ~ The mitiqation
for such a project on residentially zoned land found no support in
any of the City's laws. She was surprise.'" that, any ltoney mitiga
tion tor cOJIUIlercial develop.ent of r~sidential land 'Was used.
especially vben considerinq the Planninq commission minutes of
May 30, 1992, which indicated there vas no mitigation for th~ loss
of land. The toxies arqument 1-'1 support of the prpject were
generally insubstantial. If there was a toxies problem, all of the
business .hould be closed illmled.iately and evacuated. If not,
housing sbould be built. The. housing policies were the result of
a great deal of public involvement which should have 6cme meaning.
Tbe neW federal administration provided hope for housing ~oney for
affordable housing an<1 it was inappropriate to give up any housing
pot.ential on t.he sites 'With such iI!!I; possibility cOJI:Iing t.o fruition.
Mr. Keenan urqed council to consider their application. Be agreed
it was a two-part application~ The issue of the ·pretty babyW was
really secondary to the fundamental question aPout whether R&D or
housing was the appropriate use for the property. Council h~d the
informed judgment of its professional staff, Plannin~ Commission,
a~ the ARB. If council ... as co.fort-able with the R&D use as
opposed to the housing use, be suggested. counei 1 approve the
application.. The issue of buyill9 the zoning out either through
. land swaps or monetary payment was wholly inappropriate .. It w~s a
bad planning decision 'to begin with.
rgcESS: 9;40 P.M. TO 9;55 P.M.
11/23/92 69-445
\
" .. '
,,"", . ".,.:
,,
,\
•
. -----''--,----' --"""-:"---OC:'
Council Member Simitian said many of the Council Members asked some
fairly rigorous questions, and challenqed some of the assumptions
included in the report. He hoped it would not deter staff from
giving couneil its best professional j~dqment in the future. The
fact that aey Couneil Member individually miqht have ft different
point of view or ta~e exception to staff's point of view or simply
choose to put s:taff's p~int of vie'W aside for polic~' reasons did
not mean Council did not want to hear from staff's candid
responses. He was struck by the use of the word -appropriate-over
and over again and whether the site was "appropriate" for housing.
The site might better be characterized as • conventional " or
~unconventional.· While the site miqht be unconventional in terms
of its use as for housing, the fact that it was unconventional did
not mean it was necessarily inappropriate. council Also heard
several times that the site would not. be the first choice for
hOGsinq, but he ~id not believe Council had any first choice sites
left. The question was whether the choice was acceptable or
desirable qiven L~e limited choices. While the project was well
designed a~d would be an attractive addition to the location, he
was concerned the project added the housing and transportaticn
burden of ~25 n~_ employees and it was not a revenue generator for
the City. He continued to be cOJjcerned about t.he jobs/bousing
imbalance. issues the community had faced for a great many years a:1d
the applicftnt made a qood point that the project in and of itsel~
'Was not qoinq to solve the jobs/housing illLbalance. There waS a
question about the extent to Which the City allowed site after site
and location after location to be nibbled avay# and he suggested
that rather than approve the application and all the various
related approvals and redesignation that evening, the applicant be
asked to work with staff and members of the community to return
'With • cUfferent mitiqation whieh more clearly and specifically
dealt with the issue of replacement housing stock for the 88 units
on the .ite.. While the applicants might not .believe they coulcl
respond # to the extent the issue was raised that evening, rather
than clan)' the application :because of the loss of 89 units of
bousi.ng# the applicant coulc:t be given the chance to talk about how
the 1"",. !ligbt be better m!ti'l'ated than the payment of a simple
t.e.
KOTIOIU CoUncil Member SiJaitian moved:, seconded by Wheeler, to not
approve or deny the application but to request that the applicant
WOrk with ataff and return to Council with an alternative mitiga
tion propoaal that related directly to tpe loss of the 88 units
and, further, that a 90-day extension be allowed.
COuncil Reaber oimltian clarified he did not vant to suggest that
• one tor one replacement was implied in the motion or that like
b0U8ing .toct va. necessarily the only appropriate replacement for
the lNt opportunities on the site.. It was rather t~ ask the
applicant to work with staff ana the community members to return
with aa.e ~rt of a .itigation which more deliberately addressed
the po~enti.l loss ot housinq st-ock. He wa.nted the applicant to be
91Y*ft enough tiae to respond in a fair .anner# and on the other
hand Jtr. ~ .poke before about the tiae tax of lengthy
extan.lona. 8e belieVed the applicant made ~ fairly compelling
caM tbat IUD vas an appropr iate Qse but it did not OIl ve. the
U/H/'12 69-446
"
problem ot the loss of housinq possibilities on the site. He wO~ld
rather not vote against the project if he could have it both ways~
Mr. calonne said there was no time limit for reapplication on the
comprehensive Plan amendment or site and design. The variance had
a eix-lIlcnth period within 'Which a substantially similar application
could not be filed. 'the application had a January 6" l.~g.3,
streamlining deadline that would apply to the site and desiqn piece
of the project. He believed state law allowed one ~O-day exten
sion, or a denial without prejudice would be ~nother way to 90~
"Without prejudice a would siqnify some reapplication~ He believed
the 90-day extension would be the cleaner way to go.
Mr. Xeenan sald it ~s fine to talk about whether aa units would
fit o~ the site in th. first place or magically St~nford West could
have 88 units more. Tbe opportunity for density eha.nges around the
city could make the 88 unit. so insignificant but the political
constraints of doinq '3 units per acre a~jacent to Barron Park as
opposed to 23 units per acre adjacent to Barron Park vere aignifi
cant~ It was possible to Bmask" 88 units somewhere I but the real
issue was finding seven acres of new land and fresh cash, which was
the kind of zoning swap being d.iscussed. He had a hard time
~iguring out the answer to that one. Tbe SO-days was acceptable.
council Member Si.itian said the. 8B units .attribUtable to the
partiCJ1lar site lIiqht or sight not be tbe lIIaqic number. Rather
than simply taking some cash and puttin9 it into a fund where it
did little except point out hew difficult it was to create hoUsing,
the opportunity should be cea.sed to work with an applicant 'Who
brought not only resources but talent into the process and ask hi1ll.
to return to the Cou..,cil to hl!lp make housing happe.."1. How Hr.
Keenan helped make housing happen .. ould only be limited by his
cr.ativity and expertise.
Mr. Keenan felt be was being asked. to grope around for the answer
to a nebulous questiCiLl. If Counc:il vas looking for seven acres of
new land, the answer was probably a quick -no.-~f the question
was wbether SS units more could be done somewhere else on stanford
land, t.he a.nswer vas "yes.· If Council 'W'ante.d. more cash. the
answer was "no.-He could not search the universe tor possibili
ties. He needed better guidance.
COuncil Meaber Xniss said it would &Hm that what Mr. Keenan jU6t
said was important and she believed the City Bhould be talking to
St&n:('ord because the negotiations were really with Stanford not the
applicant.. Council would be 'missing the boat if they believed Mr ..
X •• nan was the place to negotiate. She asked whether 90 days vas
a reasonable amount of tae f:Jr Stanford to provide some ansvers in
teras of a better-way to .itigate the-p~rticular piece o~ property.
Mr. Doty belieVed Stanford was rel~ctant to get into suCh a trade.
The University was perfectly willinq to work with city staff, Mr.
Xeenan and others but be could not promise 88 units somewhere on
Stanford lanc:l that evening. '
llfl3/92 69-447
..
Council Keml:>er Siaitian queried the applicant of record on th'2
project.
Mr. Schreiber said tbe applicant 'Was Keenan/Love .. ell, a.nCl his
~nderstandinq under state law was that they would need to concur
with the SlO-d.ay extension beyond .January 8, 1993., and also that
would be the only opportunity £or an extension. At the end of the
90 days., the City would have to make a decision.
Council Member Simitian would look to the applicant of record who
put the pack:~qe together wi th the property owner in the first place
to 9'0 back and York with the University aqa.i:n. He wanted the
applicant to accept the responsibility. He did not characterize
the !'equest as II trade. Council was being asked to take two
discretionary actions. While one was perhaps relatively modest
vith respect to the variances, the other Substantial one dealt with
ill change to the Comprehe~sive Plan deslgn~tion. While it would be
easy for Council to deny the project, it was .fair to say that
COuncil ~as troubled by a aitiqation measure which he did n"t
believe tully address~d the l~ss attached to taking the site out of
the potential housing stock. He was asking for the ~pplicant to
return with a proposed mitigation which more fully addressed the
potential loss of housing stock.
Council Member Kniss doubted that 90 days would _aka an enormous
difference. As important as it was to stay within what was laid
out in the Housing Element, Where housing was located. Wti.S equally
ir.portant. She clid not bal1eve the site "a. puticularly prime or
even secondary for locating housing. rt was surrounded on three
sides by iDciQstry end "hile it miqht be close to a Variety of bike
paths or easy access to the buses, it still vas not located along
a transportilltion corridor or within the real comsaunity per see
Thirteen years 4go Stanford said it would not put hOUBi~9 ~p there
no matter What the City suggested, and 13 years later they had not
put housing up there. She doubted housing would be out there. For
Council to continue to insist that they do so was hardly sending a
messaqe that the City was more than willing to work with stanford
in the future as they vent forward with a number of new people at
the helm. She did not believe St~nford could be perslJaded that
.. vening to do more than what it bad done in the past~ She would
support th. J:lCtion 'Witil great hesitancy and with the provi:;o that
at the 6nd af 90 days she would be ready to support the project.
Vice Mayor McCown said vben she first read the entire packagQ$ ber
qreatest frustration was not a~ .uch 'With the arguments -about
Whethtt th'!: project aade senae as a land use matter on the site but
bow the City was going to address the fundaaental policy question ..
It was not concrete enough to just get into it with the Comprehen
sive Plan process.. She appreciated Mr. DotY'1i '!::''!:'!I1Dlents about
Stanfordra willingness to work with the City and to look at some
sites in the industrial park. While there vere no quarantees about
'Wbat that .eant, sbe accepted Mr .. Doty's commitllents~ She did not
expect that at the end c.f 90 days the council vould necessarily
successfully fiqure out where to find 88 housing units. -If it
bappened. and Stanford vas consistent in 1 ts commi bients that
evening to work with the City, she 'We prepared to go forward with
11/23!92 69-448.
•
\
/'
apprO"V'al at the project~ Council Mem.bE'.r Simitian's motion was
atte.ptinq to ge~ significant additional movement down the path of
actually working towards a ~tter mitigation toward the proposed
use than just dollars~ She understood the concern. Council could
either just trust in good faith that stanford would talk about it
in the ruture or the time could be used to see how much proqress
could be .ade. Her expectation was that City staff, Mr. Keenan,
Stanford, and the Council woulc2 JDaJce an effort to see 'Whether
somethinq .ore concrete could be accomplished.
Council Member Rosenbaum said the applicant made it pretty clear
that he vas not qoinq to come up with any aore Doney.
council Member Simitian wcu. not prejudginq what the applicant's
response :m:i;ht be or Ghouldl be. His motion &et out a concern about
the nature of tbe~itiqation and SQ9gested that the applicant given
some,additional time miqht be able to :ake some more demonstrable
progress toward 18akinq howoing happen than the payment gf iii fee
which would go into a. fund~ H~w the applicant chose to demonstrate
that Substantial progress was left to the applicant.
Council Mellber RosenbaUlll queried what council Kember Silllitian
anticipated.
council Member Simitian was not prepared to design the applicant's
aitiqation for him that eveninq. He anticipated the applicant
would design a mitigation which .ore clearly satisfied the concerns
expressed by council.
Counci~ Member Rosenbaum referred to the Bryant Street Boulevard
issue where Counci~ qot into a long discussion because no one Dade
a motion tu approve the recommend~tion. If Council Member Kniss
was in favor of the project that day, he believed it would be
helpful to make a substitute motion to approve the staff reoom
aendation~ He did not know how the applicant was supposed. to :eact
to the motion except by somehow coming up with something that was
worth more money~ ,
council Member Andersen appreciated Mr. Keenan's candidness. While
the project had a lot a merlt# the concern was the loss of housing
possibilities~ Be clearly was not anxious to see any net d~creaS8
in the bou:ling comDtitaent nor cUd bfl' want to wnickel and dime-that
commitment. Stanford seemed to be interested in participating in
the comprehensive Plan process and did not seem that concerned
about the land sitting vi!i.cant. He 'WouleS not support the lIIotion
because of his desire to see a long-term comprehensive apprDach to
the i5sue which he believed needed to occur In the context ot the
Cpmprehensive Plan.
council Heaber Huber would not support the motion becaUse he did
not believe it would result in ~nythinq new or different. Ninety
days did not qet much done with Stanford at any ti_e. Council had
Bn0U9h infor.ation to ~ake a decision and let the applicant 90 on
his wily. He would support the staff and Planning Commission
rec~ation.
11/23/92 69-449
iW nr
• ,
Council ~ember Wheeler supported the ~otion because she believed
something could return in 90 days. If nothing happened, Council
was no worse oft than it was at that time and it could taxe another
vote. She believed the project was attractive and unique And dealt
well with the site. She appreciated st4ff's analysis and willing
ness to undergo lots of very difficult questions that Council
posed. Regardless of the outcome, she urged staff and the Planning
commission to continue to provide such strong recOWlIendations. She
aqreed with t~e staff's analysis that more was known about certain
subjects than was the ease in 1979, hut one thing tl1at had not
changed since then 'Was the need and commitment to produce more
housing in the cOMlllunity. To b.!!:ck off those issues while the
Comprehensive Plan vas .till in place was a mistake. She was not
villinq to do that~
StrBST:I'%'tI'TJ HOTZOH: council Kember .Kniss Dlovf!d, seeonded by Ruber,
to &pprov~ th~ staff recommendation~
council Member Kniss said it appeared to her that the proposal ~as
a win-win, and she intended to support the lIlain motion if the
substitute railed. She vas sympathetic to the applicant and knew
there was a time tax. The City talkod a 9rea~ deal with Stanford
and the Research Park and she believed ~ere were .any otber t;.t-.ings
that could be done .. ith hou&inq in the community that Council had
stayed away rroa. council was atraid to increase densities beceuse
historically neiqbborboods frequently pushed Council not to do &0.
one of council's challenges would be to dare to increase the
densities·alonq those corridors where she believed it should occur~
Vice Mayor McCown agreed with auch of what Council Member Wheeler
said except she did not believe the policy concern was confused4
The problem was the project did not deal with the probl .... , While
there was mitigation and Councjl ~ould accept it as a part of the
approval, it did. not daal with the fund_ental Policy problem of
what was happeninq. She was villinq to support the project rather
than deny it but would hold Stanford to its promise to work with
the City and council had to work toward i.plementing some steps
that yould deal yith the pollcy concern.
Mayor Fazzino supported the motion. Thirteen years aqo he thought
the site was a stranqe one for housing and his views had. not
changed~ He suspected there would be an .1,1.00 housing proposal
before the Council Boon wbich he believed put the entire issue of
88 bousinq units in iii difterent contert. It COuncil was seriously
~itted to the concept of housing, it would embrace .uch or all
of the proposal ~ He hoped. those who advocated the continuation of
the co.prehensive Plan desiqnation would be strong advocates of tbe
upcoIIIing proposal which .. _eel like .. real opportunity to hole:!
everyone'. feet to the fire on the issue of additional housinq.
council had lIIade decisions over the last decade 'With respect to
changing the Comprehens'ive Plan in several cases on the basis of
cha.nqing community needs~ In 1982, he and council Member Cobb lead
the effort to save Century Stores on Middlefield Road primarily
because residents in that area believed it waB very important to be
able to purchase bre.~, .ilk, an~ other kinds of things in Palo
Alto rather than havinq to drive three or four milas, a.nd that
11/23/92
,.":"
property was desiynatea for hiqher density hous1n9~ council also
saved a 9&6 station during the mi~ 1980s on the basis of community
needs. Given those decisions, it made sense to alloW' for an
outstandinq R&D facility being proptJsed tor the s.ubject site~
Council had stronq recommendations trom the Fire Chief ar:d the
Planning Director, and the ARB and Planning commission unanimously
supported the recOllIDIenc!ation.. He could not imagine a proposal
receiving any greater scrutiny by commission or staff and Coun~il
should not iqnore its excellent advice. At the sallie time he
appreeiated. the spirit of council Member Simitian':S motion, and .. as
not completely opposed to his suqqestion with respect to mitiqaticn
but believed the issue for the most part was stanford and the
City'S ability to 'Worle ef.fectively on issue. like Stanford west
rather than Mr~ Xunan's perceiVed. ability to identity an alterna
tive site fo~ however many units ot· bousing ever the next month and
one-hair. If the substitute motion tailed, he would ~upport the
:main -motion.
Council Member Rosenbaum aqreecJ with Ellen Fletcher's comments: that
the aite was not really a bad one for ~ousin9 with ~eqard to issues
like qrocery stores, parks, and transportation~ His problem
related to the question ot storage of to~ic materials possibly on
adjBcent sites, and he did not feel tha.t issue .. as completely
resolved. The Fire Chief indicated t.'lat -wor-k was ongoing, and
based on a lot more mater-ial than was presented /!It that time,
council Bight decide the site really could not be used for housin9~
If that happened, the use proposed would be a proper one. Under
those conditions, he would not Bee the need nor appropriateness of
any mitigation fee. COUncil was at a halfway point in his mind
where maybe the site va IJood tor housing and maybe" it was not. He
opposed the aotian tor the. moment.
8OBft~B .OT:IO. failed 4-4, HCCOYn, Fazz.ino, Kniss, Huber votinq
·aye,~ Cobb not participatinq~
Council Member Andersen queried what ~ould happen if the 90 days
were fruitless ..
Mr. CaloMe said the project 'Was before the council with a
:mitigated negative declarat.ion '.Ialch said staff ide,,_tifiecj
significant impacts but ~'lrou9h mitigation ag~eed to by the
applicant, those impacts CQuid be avoided. One of the impacts the
applicant agreed to avoid was the housing impact. The motion as
framed essentially said Council did not know whether that mitiga
tion and it should be reconsidered.. At the end of the 90 days, the
possible ~tca.es were that a) the oriqinal mitigation was
sufficient; b) the original mitiqation 'Was not sufficient and
somethinq else was better; c) the oriqinal lIIi tigatioTi vas not
sufficient and the project was voted down; and d) the original
mitigation was not sufficient, an EIR was prepared to" determine
whether soae other mitiqation existed which might be foun~ in the
90 days.
council Meat»er Simitian understood the 90-da;y period to be the
maxizaUlll council could work wi th absent a request from the applicant
for a longer period of time.
11/23/92 E9-451
Mr. ~lonne said even if Ceuncil and the 4pplicant agreed that a
longer than 90-dey extension vas necessary, it could. not be
peraitte~. There vere vays to get there threugh a denial without
prejudice but for that even~ng the -cleaner way vas the 90 daYS4
XOT%QI ~&BaBD a-o, Cobb not ?articipating.
apqQURRMEHT: The _eating adjourned at lO:4v p.s~
ATTEST: APPROVt!l:
city Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance vith
Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 Ca) and (b). The City
Council and Standinq committee meetinq tapes are Da~e solely for
the purpose of facilitating the prepara~ion of the minutes of the
meetings. City Council and Standln; Committee meeting tapes a~e
recycled two years fro. the date of the meetinq. The tapes ar9:
available for ~mbers of the public to listen to during r~lar
oft,ice bours.
11/23/92
Marcil II, 1993
HONORABl[ ,m COUNC I l
Pllo Alto, California
]050 Arlstradero ROid -Ccmprehensive Plan ~ndment,
Site *nd DfS1q~ Review, and Variances
M~r. of the Council:
Report in Brjd'
..r .-~: -
11 ...."
This report forwards to Council an alternative proposal by th~ applica~t
Keenan·Lovewel1 Ventures, to mitigate the 10s$ of a p~tential 88 housing1units
It 1_050 Arutradero Road ilnd i recoanendatior. to refer the application back to
.tarf and the Planning CommisSion for preparation of a Development Agreement_
fiACXGRO!!!iD
The IpplfcatiDn l fir,t considered by t~e Council on November 23. 1993. is for
(1) • Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change tile lind use design,tlon of the
Yacant parcel at 1050 Arastradero Road, from Multiple-Family Residential to
Research/Office Park; (2) a Site ind Design Review of twe proposed rese.reh
and development buildi~. totaling 75,980 square feet and ~lated site
i~royements; and (3) yarlance. to exceed the allowable 35-foot height by
5 feet and I side yard .. tbad ~f 20 feet where 40 feft .1s the .inl""""
required. A .ore detailed descr1pt1on of the project and the actions of the
Plannlng Commi$sion and Arthitect~r,l Review Board are provided in the
attached City Manager's Report (CMR:450;92), which inc'uoes the Planning
CClmission staff report.
At It .... ting of November 23, 1993, the City Council .xpressed general
support for the sft~ and design applicat;o~ and variances, but was concerned
about the lIitigation proposed to off.et the potenthl loss of 88 Ilousing "nits
on the site d~e to the change in the C~mprehen$iye Plan land use designation.
The proposed mltigation was a doubling of the required housing mitigatio~ fee
($486,000) .
The Council approyed 8-0 (Council Member Cobb did not participate) • 90-day
extension from January B, l39J to April 8, 1993. The extension was granted to
CMR;203:93
allow t~e applicant to work ~ith staff and return to thE City Council ~jtn an
alternative Initigatior. proposal ~'hich directly relate-.s to the potential loss
of 88 houSing units.
DESCRIPTIQN
After d1scu'ssions with staff and C.ounci' Members, the applicant has presented
an alhrutiye propoBl t:3 Ilitigate the poUntial 10ss of h~us':ng, is welT as
comply with the required housing and trin~portation impact fees. T~e
~~~!~c~~;;~ ~:D~~~~~ !~d~~~t~~~:~t!~ !~ef~jj~~~~d memo to lorraine Weiss,
-1. ]050 Arutradero shelT be ipprD~ed pursuant to the staff, ARB • .and
Planning Commi5sion recommendation,
"2. ]050 Arl.tridero shall be subject to the following traffiC and
h~using mitigltion fe~s, (in addftion to c~rrent normal City
application and permit fee.):
~. St.tutory traffic f., (current •• ti •• t. 1]91,000+) subj.ct
to annual CPI (Consumer Price Index) adjustments.
S. Statutory housing mitigattofl fee {current estimate $243~OOO)
to be fixed at the curr*~t a=o~nt,
C. Additional housing mitig.tion fee equal to $407,000
(1650,000 -J243,OOO).
D. All of the obov' f~s shall be due and p.yabl. on. y.ar
after building penolt.
'3. A DeveloptNnt Ag ...... nt betwe.n tM City and property ..... r
wher.by the fots and .ntitlement shall be bindi"9 for. term of
ten years.
'4. City of Pal. Alto to Icqulre 753 Alma for purpose of SRO ~ousi"g
as soon as ,an reasonably ~ aecomplis~ed. i.e" 90 days, Sitd
site shall be for the sum of $650,000 subject to hazardous
~ttrlals study and appraisal. Clasing costs to be 'allocated per
the custom of Santi Clira CDunty,~
ANALYSIS
Staff and the applicant ~aye not concluded negotiatiDns; hDWever, staff is
supportive of the direction of the negotiations. Staff'. ccaments on the
elements of the alternative proposal aTe as follows:
l. Staff ~upports approval of the design of t~e project~ the site and
design application and tne Y~riances to he19~t and Side yard setback as
pr.viously stated in CMR:460:91.
CMR:203:93 3/11/93
Pag, 2
I
~ .'.
2. Staff supports the f~11owing changes to the applicant's proposals for
traffic Ind ho~s;n9 ~iti9ation fees:
A. The proposal for t~t tnffjc fee based Of'! MeW $Qu~re footagf!
(currently estimated at S192,000) with annual CPI adju5tme~ts is
accept.ble.
B. Staff rec~nds that tne required housi~g mitigation fee based or.
new square footage arod currently estimated at $243,000, should
,1so be subject to annual adj",tments based 0' CPl. The
requirement for the fee and an annual adjustment is specifically
required by the existing Ordin.nce (Chapter 16.47, PAMC).
Author1zJttcn to modify this requirement would require new
Ordfnance lan9~lg. fer this project.
C. Staff reco.oends that the additional mitig.tion fees be subject to
in annual adjustment, particularly if the t~mf required for the
paytUent of the fees; s extended beyond tne two-yeir provisions of
tne site and design regulations.
O. The required time for payment of t~e traffic and housing
mitigatfon fe!5 is contained in tne enibling Ordinances. The
traffiC fee is due Tn full at Ute ttme of the issuance of the
buflding pe~it. The housing mltig,tfon fee is d~e one·h,if ~t
building ~ercit issuance Ind on~-hilf at occupancy. Aut~Dr1zation
to .adify this requ~rement would require new Ordinance language
for this project, Which staff do •• not support. 5lnce It is not
an Ordinlnee requirenent, the ti~ for pI,.ent of the additi~nal
housing mitig.tion fee tan be negoti.ted.
J. The applicant is proposing I Oeyelopment Agr ..... nt in order to h,.e full
entitlement far the project for, ten·ye.r p.riod. Th. gr.ntlng of I
Development Agreement requires the Council to make findings of
extraordinary benefit. If the project entitl .... t$ are e.tended to ten
years and the housfng mitigation fees Ire frozen at the current levels,
staff beli •• es that it will be difficult to .. k. tne findings.
Moreover. staff belieyes tnat a ten-yeir entitlement fl excessive;
however, conSidering the current economy and the difficulty in obtaining
financing, an entitl~nt b!yond two years ~ay be appropriate_
4. As a commercially·zoned property (CD-S), 753 Alma Street could
effectively be ~ed for rtsidentill ~urposes and cou1d offset tn~
potential loss of hOLlSlng on the-1050 Arastradero site. The 17 ,640.
square-foot Alm4 Street site could provide SO+ unl~s of Single R~om
Occupancy {SRO) housing. It should be noted tnat 111 order tc bUlld an
SRO or other housing exceeding 40 unit~ pe~ acre! a lone c~ange, $~ch as
a Planned Community zone, will be requlred. Untl1 the ehVlronmental
doc~ntitiDn is prepiTtd and public hearings held. the (auneil cannot
co~it to the use of the 753 Alma StreEt site for housing exceeding 40
units per I!::rf.
CMR;203;9l l/d/9)
Pig" )
•
----~-
,.
\
" .. -.,-. '
•.. ~ . ; , ..
...... '. ,
"',.;-, ".
Since t~e Alma Street prop!rty is incl~ded IS I part of the package,
wn1~h substitutes tne potenti.) housing 'o~s at t~e 10S0 Arastri~ero
site to a potential gain at the 753 A1ma Street siie, t~e purc~ase price
snou1d pravide some benefit to the City that (ould not be gil ned by
buying the property on tne open market. At i minimum, staff recomme~ds
Unt, the pU'rchue price be .5550,000 or tne i;lp r aL5ed ~a'ue, whichever is
less. in addition to the appraisal. I le'olel two soils report and titl~
re~ort wl11 be required. Should iny condit;~ns be raised by the soils
report, thes~ would nave to be resolved prior to p~rchale.
Since the project requires i (Dmprehensi~e Plan change, the State PeTrnit
Stre~lining Act is not app1fclb1e unt;1 the proposed project ;5 consistent
with the CDlnpr!~enshe Plan. Therefore. t~e Council need not take f i,nal
action an this item prior to April S. 1993, if the applicant 15 agreeable to
further contfnuance and so states Dn the record before the Counci1.
If i Oevelopment Agree~nt is to be pUTs~ed, t~e docume~t must be reviewed bJ
the fll irtning CDZJlllisslon at a publ1c hearing prior to (ollncil rr:view and fir!a'
letlon an the project and t~e ~velapment AgreEment.
R W)!f\£Nll.! Tl Q!j
Staff recommends that t~E City Council provide 9~idance to the staff ana
appl1cl~t on the te~s and conditions to be ,"cluded in , ~yelopment
AgYee.ent and refer the Ippllcition blck to the stiff for prepirati~n of a
Developaent Agreement and revllfon of the envirD~ntal aSS5tSsment. A
finalized Devflopment Agreement would then be reviewed and I .. commend.tion
sade by the Pl.nning Coaoisslon prior to return to CounCil for final action on
the revfsed negative dec1aration, the Agreement, the Compreherts;ve P~an
..endment. Y,rlances and stte and desfgn review.
Res et'ul1y submitted,
~. t. ~~pkL.O
s E. GIlll~t
~a iger ~lanr.ing Projects
~Ww\WM ~ J~ F lEIII HE c->\
City Hanag!r
Att achMnts:
Memora~du~ from the Keenan Land C~any,
CHR:450:S2, dated October 15, 1992, ~ith
CMR:203:S3
,,:\oWl' DSOww.
fiJ'vt'd 1f'/~
KENNETH R. SCH~EIBER ~
01rettor of P1annf"9 and
Cammunlty Environment
dited Harch 11 J993
ittachments
, ,
3/11/93
Page 4
cc: Keenan~LQvewel1 Ventures, 700 Emerson Street, Pale Alto, CA 94301
M.ril,o Bryant, league of Women Voters of Pile Alto, ~57 Kingsley
A,enu., Pale Alto, CA 94301
[llen Christensen. 42]7 los Pilos. CA 943C6
Arod, i)Qty, Director of Corrrounity Rehtjons. Stanford University,
'4072 Scripps Avenue, Stanford, (A 94305
Ellen Fl.tch.r, 777 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA
Joseph Hartignetti. Jr., Pilo Alto Housing Corporation, S40 Cowper
Stre.t, Suite G, Fale Alto, CA 94301
Bob ~oss, 4010 Onoe, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Jlnet Owens. Palo Alt~ Housing Corporation, 540 Cowper Street, Suite G1 Palo Alto, CA 94301
Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura, Palo Alto, CA 94306
~rlene Prendergast. Oirettor, Housing Corparation, 560 Chaucer Street.
Pilo Alto, CA
Kennet~ Rodriques 1 Associates, Inc., SO West San Fernando, ,~SO, San
Jose, CA 95113
CMR:202:93
.,---'10so..
3/11/93
Page ,
--.-..
."\
'.
-.. .'
~:.. , . ,
in place and the applicant \r(as 'Willing to leave the existing'
parking in place rather than develop the area.
Hr. Colonna said t~at was c~rrect. The existing parking faeility
vould not be demol~shed unt~l the permanent parkinq !acility vas
constructed on the ch~rch parcel.
Council Member Fazzino said it was appropriate to recogn~ze tormer
Mayor Caspar .by naming the court after him. Mayor-Walt Caspar
served as .Kayer be"t.ween ~950 and 1952 and led the effort to
establish the city manaqer form of government.
J!01'ION: Council Member Fa%zino moved, seconded by Wheeler to
I.Ipprove the fina.l map and the new street name of Gaspar court',
K~IOlf pust:.O 8-0, Kniss absent.
UNFINISHED aUSlHESS
11. PpB.J(IC HWING: The Planning Commission and Architectural
Review Board. recommendation re Adoption of the mitigated
negative declaration and approval of: (1) a Comprehensive Plan
Hap ~~enament to change the land use designation, (2) a Site
and ~iqn Review of two proposed research and development and
(3) variances t.o exceed the allowable ~5-.toct height by 5 feet
far the ~perty located at 1050 Arastradero Road (continued
~rOlll 11/23/9:1)
COuncil Member Cobb sald that he would not participate in the it ....
because of a conflict Of interest.
Mayor MCCOwn declared the Public Hearing open.
Chop Xee.m!n., 700 Elae.rson Street, said. in NoveDlber 1992, the
proposal was before the Council after unanimously beinq approved. by
both the Arcl>itec:tural Review Board (ARII) and the Plo.nninq
Commission for the proposed research and develcpment project at
1050 Arastradero Road. Tbere was consensus from the council at
that time that the project was consistent with the hiqh level cf
architectural excellence that had been demonstrated in the Research
Park OVer the l.e.st numl:>er of years. Council Me~r Silllitian's
motion indicated concern about housing, the fact that the proposal
had a Comprehensive Plan desiqnation~ the merits or deaerits of
housing in proximity to hazarQous materials tacilities~ and
explorinq the possibility of providing alternate housing for the
City. He hl!ld followed up on that request and vas prepareQ to enter
into a lo-year development agreement with the city of Palo Alto.
The details would be worked out with the City Attorney~s Office,
but the general Skeleton would: be that Keenan Lovewell Ventures
would pay approximately $192,000 for the statutory traffic fee and
pay approximately $243,000 foe a statutory mitigation housing tee
required by the project~ and in addition, a housin~ mitigation fee
equal to an incrementa_ S407,0004 Both -:.-~ statutory housing and
traffie fees .. ,uld be _ bject to the c-umer Price Index ,CP1)
escalation!' :::'::"'rentl,} ?rovJ.c .. -: in thf:. .rainance. However, th.e
in::-rer · ... ta. . .·:JO would .be ;. fixed number. All of those fees
03/15/93 70-207
.....
-.
would be due 12 months after the issuance of a huilding permit.
The development aqreement would be 8 lO-year agreement whereby the
fees and entitlements would be binding. Xeenan Lovewell Ventures
wculd propose to sell to the city of Palo Al to a lot of 17 ,650
square feet at 753 Alma Street for the sum ot $650 1 000, subject to
toxic analysis and a.ppraisal. Closing costs ""ould be alloca":.ec:J per
the custom of Santa Clara county. The lot would be used for Single
Room OCr::upaney (SRO} hO'.Jsinq. and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation
(flAMe) had bet:ll interested in the site. lie went to Stanford
University in the spirit of trying to find a comprottise, and it was
an excellent gesture on the University's pa~ and w~s well beyond
what vas required in an ordinance. The SRO would he in an area
that would have siqnificant i~pact and would be close to tra~spor
tation, jobs, and services. He was excited about the proposal and
encouraqed the Council's approval.
Council Me~r Wheeler said staff expressed concern in its staff
report (CMR:20J~9J} about the proposed lO-year develop~ent
agreement and asked the rationale for requesting 10 years.
Mr • .keenan hoped a tenant 'Would be secured and financing and
building would proceed as soon as reasonably possible. Because of
the position taken with regard to the incremental tees, it was a
horizon that the uncertain tiaes required. One opportu~ity had
a~eady been lost because the entitlements were not in place, but
he vas optimistic another te:nant would be secured. Stanford
university was acle.mant: about the condition and 'Wanted binding
entitlements not only trom the p:"esent Council b'.1t also trOll future
Councils because a future council miqht have a different view.
COW1cil Member Wheeler clarified a building permit application
would not be submitted until a tenant had be~n 8ecure~.
Mr. Keenan said that vas correct.
COuncil Member Andersen asked how a potential hazardous material
issue would be dealt with at the Alma street site.
Mr. Keenan said the buyer or the seller had a Phase I hazardous
material stUdy done by an indepen~ent ~nalyst.
council Member Anders~n asked Whether that had been started.
Mr. Keenan said yes. Depending on What 'Was found, a second phase
mig-ht be necessary 'Which could involve soil and/or water character
ization.
Council Member Andersen asked what would happen if there vere a
probleJII on the si te .
Mr. Keenan said the city would not buy the site.
council Member Huber said the proposal indica~ed ~ll. .
statutory fees, Le., traffic and the two housl.ng m~t~9'atlons,
would be paid 12 ~onths after issuance of building permits.
03/15(93
Mr~ Keenan said it would be 12 months after iSG'Uance of huilding
peraits, but it was si9nificantly more than A double housing fee,
The &tatutcry hcusinq f~e was $24~,OOO, and the inc~ement beyond
that figure was $407,000.
Coyneil Member Huber clarified n~rmally soce fees were paie at the
time o~ issuance of the builQinq pe~it ~nd some were paid later;
so one year after issuance, all fees would be paid.
Mr. Keenan said that 'Was correct.
traffic tees had a cpr component;
$407,000 would not.
The statuto!'"y housing and
ho~ever, the increment of
Council Me~r Rosenbaum said Mr. Keenan had previously indicated
a willingness to sake 753 Alma Street availAble to the City, and
the City had been interested in that site for an SP~. A qreat deal
CQuld nappen in determining' lihet. .... er an SRO was possible, e.g.,
fundinq. In the private sector, a person would try to protect
themselves by securing an option rather than a p\.lrchase at tbe
start of the process. He asked whether an option could be Offered
to the City rather than the sale of the site within 90 daysJ
recoqnizing there 'Would. be a cost to tbe City for doing that.
Mr. keenan said an option would be excellent. He could not do the
usual PARe option of ~2 months. There would have to be money and
a tighter time frame involved.
Mayor Mccown clarified Stanford University insisted on a 10-year
development aqreement and wanted the entitlemen~ to be there for
land regardless of whether Mr. Xeenan's project went forward.
Hr. Xeenan said that was correct .
.Mayor McCoWn asked who would be obliqated to reimbur~e the City far
the fees if the city acquired the SilO site but then Keenan Lovewell
Ventures disappeared.
Mr. Xeenan said those fees 'Would be connected to the propert,}l.
Mayor McCown clarified it would be stanford University~s obliqation
which would be indicated in the development agreement.
Hr. keenan said that was correct.
Susan Frank, Executive Director, Pa.lo Al to Chaml:ler of cownerce,
325 Forest Avenue, offered support on behalf ot the Boara of
Directors' Government Action council and Stanford Research Park
Forum for the proposed commercial development at 1050 ~astred~~O RO&~ The site was most: appropriately 4esiqnated for a~ ~ndustr4al
use, • not for housing-, and many people would benefl t from the
project. A new development in the Stanford Research Park W~IS
welcomed and woul"-help both the Palo Alto .cha~r of Commerce s
and the city":; _ .1s for -,ositive econom~c ~:?ve~opmer:t.. ~e
'Ur-ierstood that par .. of til .. packaqe included a . _USln-g m~t:l.9at~or:
i-¥olving the construction of SRO housing at 75? Alma e~~eet Wh~Ch ;:~s also supported by the Chamber o~ Coltll'llerce In 0: "to. provl.dk.
03/15/93 70-209
.. -
much needed low-incolne hotJsing for the com."Qunity' s residents. SRO
at the Alma street site would allow Downtown ~erchants to preserve
much need~d existing pa~king, The Chamber of Commerce joined the
PMC in supporting .e:cquisition of the sit1! oJ' the City, but. had a
major concern about the process that occ~r~ed tor the 1050
Arastradero Road project. EVen thouqh the proposal ~as Yltimately
positive tor the communi t}', the Chamber of Commerce 'Was concerned
ahQut the' City being aqgressive in requiring contributions from
.tJu:sinesse& and property owners on projects. \r\."hile the Chamber
supported pUblic/private p&rtnerships as · .... ell as the open system of
90ve~ent~ not every business person and property owner in Palo
Alto were able or willinq to make a traoe-off when considering a
new development. The Chamber hoped futYre proposed developments
and correspcndinq mitigations ~ould be considered independent of
the developer's ability to paJ' and. trade even if the end result. was
positive for the community.
Ellen Christensen, 4217 Los Palos Avenue, supported the staff
recommendation but ",,.nted the Council to include as part of the
process II. redesiqnation of the Comprehensive Land Use Map for
7.53 Aba Street site from commercial to housin; ~ She urged the
Council to 4irect staff to work with Stanford University through
the Comprehensive Plan process to designate some additional sites
for ho~sing near the stanford Research P~rk and near the Medical
Center to compensate for the various housing sites that were given
UF for com=ercial development~
Bob Jloss, 4010 orme Street, previously opposed the concept ot
zoninq for sale and the ic!. of losill9 a housinq site~ 'I'he C\arreTIt
proposal siqnificantly redUCed those adverse impaC't$~ Stanford
University had been a~t that it would not allow housing on the
site under any circumstance~ The City should take what bad been
offered, and stanford University should not be able to 4ictate to
the City the terms and. conditions of Approvals~ A d.evelopment
agreement was not necessary, and it would allow Mr~ Keenan or his
successor to sell the approved project. It ~as inappropriate to
bend the process al'ld 9i ve Itt. Keenan a development agreement. TtJe
city shOUld not pay now and ~ reimbursed later. He suggested, i£
the proposal were adopted, that payments be BLade as no:naally
required, that there be no development agre~ent, and the 753 Alma
street site be suJ:)ject tC'l a car-etul investigation for-possible
toxies. The density suggested for the site was hQrrendou$~ and the
Council should be careful abOut considering that kina of density in
tbe City.
Marlene Prenderqast, Executive Director, palo Alto Housinq
Corporation (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office), disagreed
with Ms .. Frank from the Palo Al to Chamber of Commerce and said the
precer:!ent was better than the .original proposal presented. in
November 1992. At that time PANe stated that doUbling fees as a
mitigation far loss of h~usinqwas not,a s~itable appro~ch. PARe's
Board of Directors had d.1scussed the slte l.n the conte-Xl: of t.."le Lot
R proposal and the development of new SRO housing. PARC had:
indicated concerns about the site at that time but supported the
use of 753 Alma street site for SRO housing~
03/15/93 70-210
\
\
I,.
F
\
council Member Rosenbaum had disc'.Jssed t.he possi.bility of securing
an op.tion and asked about the time period: required to rasolve some
of those unknowns 50 the City ~ould teel comfortable about
acquiring the property~
MS. Pren~arqast did net know the best way to appr~ach the hazardous
materials, issue. The political unknowns 'Would not be X::"lOlJT'l until
the city was involved in the project. The financial unkno~ns would
be securinq funding~ and PARe would have t~ consider tax credits
lihich did not presently ex:ist. She did not believe an ootion 'Would
~awer those questions. -
Mr. Keenan said a Comprehensive Plan designation on 753 Alma S~reet
for housing was premature. The suggestion that Stanford University
was dictating anything was l!!Iisplaced and inappropriate. Th.e trade
offs were significant and way beyond the call of duty. The te~
years was an outside date becaus~ the real estate finance ~orld was
very problematic at the present time. He suggested the City not
buy 753 Alma street if a toxics or a site design problem occurred.
Mayor McCOwn declared the Public Hea~in9 closed.
council ~ember si~itian said whi:e Mr. Moss believed the proposal
had been made too easy and Ms. Frank believed it had been made too
tough, he believed the proposal vas just right. ThQ issue was
previously })e.fore the Council, and tlle Council's vote was split
equally in terms of ~e~her the mitiqatio~s were appropriAte. He
had previously made a action to defer ection IJ11 the project and had
SU9gested. the miti9ation was inappropriate given the loss of II
significant housing site. He referred to his memo dated March 3,
~993, whiCh indicate~ atte~ the council meet inq , Mr. Keenan aSked
him for a clearer idea of Wbat the Council 'Wante.d. He: indicatea he.
wanted to see housing generated it the 1050 Arastradero Road
process moved forward, and SRO housing at the 753 Alma Street site
seelDed to be g'ood example of what might be dene. Mr. :Keenan
~tioned at that time that it was an expensive piece of property
and had .been previously offered at $750,000. He indicated to
Mr. Keenan that if the purchase price were made more reasonable
given the current market and if everyone cooperated, it might be
accomplish~.. Mitiqation .fees of $486.,000 ha~ previo\,;;.sly .been
considered by the city for the site. ThIS-proposed price was
$650,000, and $lSOrOOO or $~50,OOO was not a large gap to resolve.
Given the choice between 80+ market rate units on a site that was
imperfect and 10SO Arastr~dero Road and so+ units for the working
poor in Do...mtown Palo Alto Which filled a need identified by t.'1e
council as being at the top ot its priority list, he favored the
80+ affordable units in Downtown Palo Alto tor th~ working poor.
He believed it WIIS a sensible mitigation and was a wi~-vin-~in-~in
win. Stanford University would he able to make good use of its
site the applicant ~ould be able to develop the project, Stanford Rese~ch Parle: would be toned up which was consistent with the
City's economic development goals, the publiC won because afford
able housing would be dE:· ... elr;.~ ~<j in an area and of the type that
~therw i se posed rea 1 cha II eng '-~, and the DO!JntoYn merchants won
because there would. ,ce a s1 te for an SRO that would not take a
parking area. All of those things could. happen ",-i th .:.: little
03/15/93 70-211
.~'.
/
cooperation. He supported the City's purchasing the property
sooner rather than later and allowing some fees to be deferred. He
did not know whether the proposal was the right one~ and he wanted
steff's comments on it. Stanford Universit.y and the applicant
should be commended for seeing s~me enlightened self-interest~ and
he hope~ the city would De commended for seeing that as well. The
specific numbers mentioned that evening were J"lot far off. The
proposed project wOlJld be subject tv an appraisal and Ii! toxic
studYf and he wanted to see the data on th~ adjacent property uses
Which also posed some challenges. lie supporte.d the staff :t'eco'llmen
dation to refer the proposal to the staff and direct staff to
prepare It development Bgreement and have it revieio'ed by the
Planninq Commission Which woula ensure an opportunity for community
input before the issue returned to the Council. He wanted. the
issue of the comprehensive Plan desiqnation at 753 Alma St~eet to
be includea. Mr. Xe~nan's suggestion that it not happen until and
~less the City got to that point in the process was also appropri
ate. He pointed out the 7SJ Alma Street site was not ne~ to the
SRO discussion and had been discusse~ by the PARe for over a year.
He believed there ~as an opportunity for everyone to come o~t a
winner. The details could be resolved in neqotiation vith statf,
and the public proce:s& would still be there for the development
agreement.
HOT~OH~ Council M~er Simitian moved, seconded by And~sen, to
provide quiclance to the statf .and applicant on the terms and
conditions to be included in a Development Agreement and refer the
application .back to the staff for prepar.ation or a oevelopment
Ac;r-eeJAent and revision of tile environmental assessment. A
finalized :Developaent Agreement 'Would then be z'evlewed and a
recommendation made by the Planning Commission prior to return to
council for final action on the revised neqatlve declarat1on, the
Agreement, the comprehensive Plan aDendment, variances and site and
design review with .a proviso that a compre.."tensive Plan designation
be included for 753 Alma street.
council Member Andersen said the taxies issues should be carefully
consicle~ed. He believed the proposal provided the City with land
needed to build affordable housing in the COMmunity.
council Member Rosenbaum commended Council Member Simitian for his
efforts. He woula have preferred a decision on Whether housing was
suitable at 1050 Arastradero Road.. .If the Council belieVed it vas
suitable, it shOUld have remained a housinq site. If the council
did not believe the site was suitable for housing, there shoUla be
nothing to nlitiqate4 He believec1 the City should. attempt 'to secrure
an option rather than purchase the property until. the unknowns
dealing with the construction of an SRO were establlshed.
JIl\ltBIt ~ SECOIlIlER AtlRZE.D TO %lICORPORA1'E nrro 'l'1lE 1CAl:H 110'1'%011: to
consider an option to purchase.
council Member Huber said council Member Simitian did a superb job
in tryinq 'to put so=ethinq together that would work we~l for bOth
stanford University and. the city. He supported the mot~on but had
concern about the ten-year aevelopment agreement Lor which concern
03/15/93 70-212
,
\
•
might be set aside if the cpr vere put into place on the $407.000
rather 'than the proposed ride for ten year-s. There might .be a
i>C/int in ti1!le when that figure should be adjusted up\rrard. He
wanted further clarification of the effect on th@ process if the
753 Alma street site fell throuqh.
council ",ember Wheeler WZl.fi, c01"lcerT.!eO about the length of the
develo!Jment aqreement and. suqqested the Dlotion ind.ica.te eta.!f
explore a shorter time period or have a CI'I escalator t.o the
$407,000 should the time period prior to issuance of the building
permit go beyond a certftin date.
Council Member Simitian said the proposed time of the development
agreement related to the quara~tee that the entitlements survived
over a lO!'lqer period of time and. wne-ther the: economics of the
transaction ~ould begin to change if the time value of the money
'Were accounted for over a ten-year period. The more compelling
iSSUG from the Council's standpoint was to make sure that the
transaction made ecollo-mic sense. He 5uqqestec1 staff be directf1d to
explore in its negotiations the financial implications of the ten
year ~roposed term and consider any adjustments it miqht want to
recommend over that period of ti~e~
Council Member Andersen was concerned about the lack of a CPI on
that portion of the mitigation Dut recoqnized the applicant vas
concerned about the time value of ~oney issue. He would be open
to exploration of a five-year period with no CPI escalation, and
after that period of time in the ten-year 4evelopm~nt agreement,
there could be an inclusion of a CPI issue so it would not beCQ1Ie
profitable to delay.
JO&:D. UI) BZCOKIIllIL MlIlEED oro :tllcoaPOllAn nrro = IO.DI KonOH to
cUrect staff, as part of the Oevelop1llent Aqree.aent, to address the
econoaie implications gf the ten-year entitlement.
council Member Wheeler said there could only be a.n agreement vben
several parties cooperAted: and the credit should be shared ~ith
both Mr~ Keenan and Stanford University~
City Attorney Ariel Calonne appreciated the CouncilJs flexibility
but believed it might be necessary for the statf to have additional
quidar.ce. He was uncertain vhat the Council wanted the staff to
end up with wben it returned to the council~ He encouraged more
detail rather thar. less if there were o~e~ issues that were not
outlined in tI~e ~otion.
council Kember Simitian appreciated the City Attorney's request to
make sure that staff understood the Council's will in the matter so
it could negotiate on the Ccuncil's.behalf.effectiv~ly_ 8 7 did
not believe it worke~ well to ne90t~ate PQ~nt by po~nt the ~tems
that went into an aqreement. He wanted the staff to negotiate from
that point forward with the information provided. If the site was
worth $650 000 and the Council previously voted 4 to 4 for is.
mitigation fee of $486 000. then there was an incremental increase
in the dollar value of '$16 ... ~OOO. He hoped Stanford U,:iversity. the
City I and the applicant would cooperate and make ~t 'We.:;:. H.s
OJ/l.S/93 70-213
guidance was if everyone .. ere re<"J.soneble, then everyone "'''oule! tdn4
It one party became toe qreedy, then the situ.e;tion would not happen.
council Member Andersen said
there would be hiqher densitY4
figures r9ferenced.
it the site were used for an SRO,
He wa~ comfor~able with the density
H~~a. PASSED 7-0, Cobb "not participating,-Kniss absent~
I
1
1
Mgust 20, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
Palo Alto, Calif"mia
· .-, .... '
/
r
PLAt"l,1\'ING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
1* ABASTRADERO ROAD: Comp:-ehensive Plan Map Amendmeru, Site and Design
Review, Variances and Development Agreement
Membe~ of the Commission:
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report forwards to the Commission a proposed Developmenl Agreement between !he
City and SWlford UDiv=ily for !he property at 1050 Arastndero Road. Planning
Commission approval is teqUl!Sted for the anacbed Development Agreement Which,
among other iIcms, provides for developmem of!he IOSO Arasttadero Road Research and
Devclopmeut project, exteOOs the time period fOT development of !he project and modifies
the proposed bousing 1I1ltlga~ which will include purcbase by the City of property at
753 Alma Street as a potemiaJ site for COllSttUctian of housing. Stanford Univmity is
represemed by Xeenan-LoveweD VenlUres.
The planning applicalion for !he 1050 Arastradero Road project ("Proj~·). which was
previously recommended for approval by the Planning Co=is.sion includes I j a
Comprcl!tnsive Plan Map Amendment 10 change lbe corresponding land use designation
from Multiple-Family Residential to ResearcliiOffice Park; 2) a Site and Design Review
of two proposed research and development buDdings and related site iroprov'!lI\eD!S; and
3) Variances to exceed the allowable height by 5 reet where 35 feet is the m.a.ximum and
a side yard setback of 20 feet where 40 feet L, the minimum required. Project plans are
not included, but may be reviewed at the Planning Department.
p~ \Pt:SSI\Sll Q51W1'
8·2{}-93
Page 1
,
c.
~ , ,
;; •• <" ••• ~
BACKGROUND
The Project !s the deveJopmem of a now vacam 258.569-square-foot site at
1050 AniStradero Road into two research and developmem buildings lOt;, ling 75,890 gross
square feet.' Although Il!e site is zoned LM-5(D) (Limited Industrial/Research Park),
approval of the Project requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendmem to change the land
use designation from Multiple-Family Residential to ResearclJ!Office Park. This change
in the Comprehensive Plan land use designation results in the potential loss of
approximately 88 units of housing.
Since the ArchitocruraJ Review Board (ARB) and Planning Commission had previously
reviewed and recommended approval of the Project beluding the site and descgn ,eview
and the ,w=. this staff repon addresses only the issues raised by the elly Council
relating to mitigation for the loss of potential housing, the tenos of the Development
Agreemeru and Il!e implications for the site at 753 Alma Street. The pertineru previous
staff repons and excerpt minutes are atuched. Attachments to these staff repons are DO!
included but may be reviewed at the Planning Department.
APPLICATION mSTORY
June 12, 1902:
August 5_ 1992:
AUgust 26. 1992:
September 17, 1992:
November 23. 1992:
Application received
Environmental Assessment recommending negative
declaralioc prepared.
Planning Co!mnisIiion on a 5-0 vote (Glazier and M' .... sb
absent) reco!llJll<'nds approval of the Project with conditions.
ARB on a 4-0 vote (Maser absent) recommends approval of
Il!e Project with conditions.
City Council OD a 8-0 vote (Cobb not p.articipating) refers the
Project back to staff and the applicant for the pu~ of
developing an alternative mitigation proposal that related
directly to the Joss of • porential 88 units of housing.
8-20-93
Page 2
\
! March IS, 1993;
July 6, 1993:
ISSUES
City Council on a 7-0 vote (Cobb not participating, Kniss
absent) refers the conditions Of a proposed Developmen<
Agreement te staff and the applicant for documenr preparation
and review by the Planning Commission before rernmini,. to
Council. The Development Agreement is to include an
additional housing mitigation fee of S407 ,000, a ten year
project entitlement, and ciey acquisition of a vacant site at
753 Alma Street witiJ the intent of developing the site for low
and moderate-income housing.
Amended Environmental Assessment recommending negative
declaration prepared.
Mitigation for lQss of housing:
In addition to !he Ordinance required housing mitigation payment, two pr<ljlO'3Js bave
been presented to mitigate the po:entialloss of housing resulting from !he Comprehensive
Plan Amendment to change !he !aDd use designation of !he site.
The first and original proposal would bave required a housil1g mitigation fee e<jIW to
double the IlOtmally required housing mitigation fee. Uadcr this proposal CODSttUCtiOD
on !be rescarcb and development building$ would be required to begin within two years
of the due of approval by the City Council. The additional bowing mitigation fee wnuId
be payable at !he time of building permit issua""". If !he buildil1g permit were issued in
1995-96 (i.e within twO years of !be date of Council approval), !he value of the double
fee is estimated at $268,909.
The second proposal is included in !be Dcvelopmeru Agreement, which is summarized
below. The proposal includes, in addition Ie !he normally required housing mitigation
fee, an incrememal housing mitigation fee of S407 ,000 payable one year after issuance
of the building permit. In accordance with !he provisions of Ibe Development
Agreement, !he $407,000 added mitigation fee is 10 he increased by ooe-Italf of an
estimated 3.0 percent Consumer Price Index (Cpr) after an initial five years of no
increase. Also included in Ille second proposal is an agreement by the City 10 purcha ••.
within a reasonable period of time, the vacant parcel at 753 Al.m> Street for $650,000.
The intent of purchase of the site would be for the development of low-and moderate
income housing uruLs.
": i.
8-2()'93
Page 3
" ... -.,,-'
./
Since the Ordinance required bousin, mitigadon fees (Chapter 16.47) will be collected
under each proposal and arc of equal value and, since it is assumed that the 753 Alma
Street parcel would maintain irs value over time. the dud poL.1.r of comparison between
the two proposals is the economic value of the incremental or additional housing
mitigation fees.
The chan on the foDowing page, compares the economic value of the additional housing
mitigation fees in the two proposal, over a ten year period. The incremental do~ble fee
in the first proposal was increase<l b)' an inflation factor of 3.0 percent O'.r the ten years.
The increlll<'Iltal $407,000 mitigation fee was increase<! by 1.5 percent per year after five
years of no increase per !be requirements of the Development Agreement. As. shown h'l
the cban, the inf\ated value of the incremental fee in the firs! proposal in year 10 equals
$330,724 while the inflated value of the incremental fee in the second proposal in year
10 equals $438,455. The value of the .. incremental fees do Dot become equal until 29
years after approval of the project. Based aD the above assumptions, the second proposal
is more finanl:iaIly advantageous 10 the Ciry.
Development A~reemen;:
Attache;! to this repon is a d."aft of the proposed Deve!<ljlIlleCl AgreemeCl between !he
City and SWlford University. o~r of the property. The main points of the
Development Agreemeru are as follows:
• The sale by Charles J. Keenanm and Mark T. Gate'5, Jr, afpropeny al753
Ahm Slreel far development as Iow-and moderate-income housing, subject
10 the results of investigations and bearings that have nOI yet 1aken pla<:e,
• Development af the sile al 1050 Arastradero Road in conformance with the
deve10pmenl plans previausly approved by the ARB and the Planning
Commission.
• Payment of the rCGUired Housing Mitigation Fee one-half at building permit
issuance and one-half at occupancy in accordance with· Chapter 16,47 of the
Palo Alta Municipal Code (pAMC).
• Payment afthe required Transportatian Impact Fee at time afbuilding permit
issuance in accordance with Chapter 16.46 of the PAMC.
.-.-
8-20-93
Page 4
tkill'.t~
Addilional
(Double)
Mitigation
fee
Second Pr.QJl!!SlIl
Addiliooal
Mitigation
F .. "r
$4Q7.00\)
Allaclunent A
Cu",.,.rhon of Addlll .... ' /loull", Mlllplion F .. v.", .. for 1050 ArM.lud.ra 1'"'" .... '"
Yeftt t
1993·94
Vear 2
1994·95
V •• t3
1995·96
V ... "
1996·97
V •• rS
19·n·98
V •• r6 I Y •• t 7
199.·9'/ 1999·2'
V .. , 8
lOOO·OI
V •• r9
2001·02
\ ... 1<1
2002.0)
sm.4'13\ $16\,071) S2~~.'ltI91 $276,9761 S2!5.2B(,I_~29).S441 S)02'~)P!~.,7J91$33-,.o~~1~J3o-,?2"
I ! ~L-_L~. __ -~_. $!~~E!'l'L$4.1~~O_Sl~l_",lO~I~".2.sc5<l.!tt~1,9~51$4JII!4S5 j
AJ$tImptiORS:
'rho 1992·9311",,.;ng Mitlp\ion f~'qIIlIl. $3.34 per '1."''' 1;'01
IO~O A .. st,.dero "1 ...... foolo", <qu.l. 7!i.E9<l
The crl u,"", 10 Innsle tho ldditlo .. l. donNt mitigation r ... equal. 3.0%
lIa!f oreN I<> inflale $401,000 Additional r .. <q1l.1. 1.5%
• Payment of an additional fee of $407,000 >s .dditional mitigation for the loss
of potential housing due to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This fee
.hall be adjusted starting on the fifth anniversary of the effeclive date of the
Development Agreement. From tllat dale forv.'ard the fee shal) be adjus:ed
ancually by one-half ('h) the percentage increase in the Consumers Price
Index, all consumers, for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area (Cpr).
The additional fee sball be due upon the tirst (1st) anniversary of the date of
issuance of the building permit.
• An extnOrdinar)' processing fee in an amount not to exceed $15,000. This
fee does lIOt replace usual and CUSLo1llJlry application, processing and permit
fees o( the type now in effect, such .s building permits, utility hook-up fees,
etc.
• The !em of the agreement is for ten years from the effective date.
Staff bas reviewed the language and ccnditions of the Development Agreement and fmd
them to be generaUy acceptable with the exception as noted in the following discussion
on !he 753 Alma Street site.
753 Alma Street:
The City's purchase of the property at 753 Alma Street (or the purpose of developing
low· and moderate-income bou5ing or otber uses, is a condition to the effectiveness of
the Development Agreement. Several issues have been raised related to this propert)l.
• On Juue 23, 1993, 2 neighbcrhood ~ting was beld by the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation (pARe) 10 disalss the proposed use of the 753 Alma
site. A summary of !he comments from that meeting is anached, as well as
copies of letters from property owners and business operators in the area who
oppose the use of the 753 Alma Street site for housing. The primary issues
of concern !O the business owners and opetators are the lack of available
parking, the parking demand a housing project would add, the incompatibility
o( a residential use with the existing service commen:ial uses, a fear that
approval of bousing on the site will eventually mean a loss of the entire area
for service commercial uses, concern thaI 2pproVal of the 1050 Arasrradero
Road project and purchase of the 753 Alma Street sire creates a "fait
accompli" in which housing is already approved, and pen:eption that the
proposal is a bad deal (or the City. The Development Agreement specifically
reserves the City's authority to consider any 1I5es for 753 Alma Street, base<!
on furure public bearings.
, , \' .;
8--20-93
Page 6
~
i
1
• The purchase price was negotiated at 5650,000. An appraisal performed b)'
the HanfordlHealy ComparJes for the City of Palo AlIa concluded that the
parcels highest and best use was as commercial [CD-S(P)]. HanfordlH .. ly
concluded that the commercial land value for the properrf was $750,000. As
a residential (R'I1-30) property, the estimated range <>f valu. was between
$19.70 per squar: foot ($523,908) and S38,26 per square foot ($674.906).
HanfordlHealy based their opinion of value on the assumption tlJat there was
no hazardous material on or in Lbe property tlJat would cause a loss in value.
• A Level n soil and groundwater :malysis completed by Lownev Associa ...
revealed two areas of concern. .
The first area is an ar .. inside the cinder block garage. A soil sampling near
Oll2 of twO existing hydraulic lifts rev .. led a high level of petroleum oil.
B=use there appears to be le.akage-reIate<! eomamination, Lowney
recommended that the two hydraulic IiflS and a sump inside the building be
removed. along with any impacted soil, before the property is transferred to
the City.
Soil samples collecled from twO locations in the fron! parl:ing lot at the site
approximately three feet below ground surb.ce detected high levels of oil,
grease and diesel. u,wnty suggested Ibis area be funber investigated to
detennine the extent of contami1Iation.
A copy of the letter from u,WDe)' Associates is attached.
Prior to Council adoption of !he Development Agreement and ac::eptanco of purchase of
the property at 753 Alma Street, the issues related to the soil sampling. further
investigations and possible site clean-up will be resolved.
The type of housing being considered for the 753 Alma Street site is a Single Room
Occupancy (SRO) hotel genexally classified as being for tI:. working poor. The property
is currently zoned CD-S which for exclusive residential use requires lbe standards of the
RM-30 regulations to be used. Sine< the sire is 2pproximarely 17,640 square feet, the
maximlllIJ density under the current zoning would be 12 units. Any proposal for any
greater densities will require a zone change for the property. Preliminary discussions
have indicated that a facility with • minimum of 80 units (each having approximately 240
square feel) and • four-story building would be required for operation economy. A
proposal of this type would require a Planned Community (l'C) zone. Approval of such
a project would require further review by the Architecrural Review Board, the Planning
Commission and City Council, as well as appropriate environmental documentation.
8·20-93
Pag<' 7
· . ,
, to.
/.
If the site cannot be developed for housing for whatever reason. the City wo"ld hal'e z
tangible asset However, since ~~e money 10 purchase the sile is proposed 10 come from
the Housing Mitigation fund, it would be necessary for the mitigalion fund 10 be
reimbursed for the COf:t of the land purchase or a suitable aiternative sile substituted
Stalf has strongly supported the need for additional SRO housing in the Cit}' including
!he downloWD area. Vacant or suitable land is extremely difficult to find. The 753 Alma
Street site bas the advantage of being vacant and available. It is not a prime location for
retail Or offlce uses because of \he noise, speed of traffic and limiled access from Alma
Street. The issues of project parking and noise will have 10 be addressed in the review
process for the developmenl of the site. Staff believes Ihat a well designed and execuled
projecl can be an asset 10 the development of Alma Streel and the South of Forest Area
while lI!Ainlaining compatibility with \he existing uses.
ANALYSIS
As stated in previous reports, staff does not believe lJlat the 1050 Arastradero Road site
is appropriate for housing and that the proposed project by the applicant is well designed
and suitable for the site. Staff supports the acquisition of the property at 753 Alma Screel
with the intended pwpose of developing it as housing. Since there are very few '.a.:an!
sites in Palo Alto for housing it is unlikely iha! an)' SRO housing proposal is going 10 be
able Ie proceed without somt oppl'Sition. Staff believes that the opportUnity 10 =
housing on the site should be allowed to proceed through the nomW city process. If
housing is not approved, further investigation should be done on possible re-use of the
site allowing for land swaps or long-lerm leascJsale that wouid benefit the housing
mitigation fund.
The granting of a Development Agreement requires findings of extraordinary benefit.
Staff believes that the development of the research and development project at
1050 Arastradero Road does provide extraOrdinary benefits by providing for an
extraoroma..ry mitigation fee and the possibility of !be construction of much needed low
and mooerate-income housing. The Project will also haY< a positive impact on the
Research Park and !be ability of the City to provide appropriate research and development
facilities ,
It should be noted !bat under either development proposal the Comprehensive Plan land
usc designation of the site will be changed 10 OfficelResearch Park even if the Project is
not developed and no fees collected.
,: \PaIt\.Sl1 O5OM
8-20-93
Page 8
• <.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission I) reaffinn their recommendation that
the City Couocil amend the Comprehensive Plan, grant variances to height and side yard
setbacks, and approve the site and design application, 2) recommelJd Council adope tbe
amended Environmental Assessment recomlnending.a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
3) approve the Development Agreement, subject to the following fmdlngs and conditions.
fimtings for Development Agreement
The development of the project at 1050 i\rastradero Road prOvides extraordinary benefits
to the City by providing an extraordinary mitigation fee, an extraordinary processing fee.
allows for the construction of much needed low and moderate income housing, and will
have a positive impact on the Stanford Research Park and the City'. ability to provide
appropriate research and development facilities.
fjndjUfs for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
1. The redesignation for the property at 1050 Arastradero Road l. in accordance willi
the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, in that the site and adjacent uses are
research and development in nature and the designation will allow similar use.
2. The Comprehensive PIan designation and proposed dev,lopmen! will not result in
signi.fieant enviroJ'll!letltal impacts, as do...-umented in the attached Initial Study and
Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration (92 -EIA-19) prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on July 6, 1993.
3. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Policy 13
of the HOUSing Element, which sta:., that the City should increase funding sources
used to provide afford.ble housing. The developer of this project will contribute
funds from this commercial development towards aF.ordable housing.
4. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the
defuUtion of Research/Office Park to provide office, reseMch, and manufacturing
establishmerus whose operations are clean and quiet and do not conflict with any
adjarent residential uses.
8-2()'93
(Amended 8-25-93)
Page 9
....
. -.' -'..: .
j
I
I
Findings for Hejgtt and Side Yard Setback Variances
1. There are exceptional or extraordinar:y circumstances or conditions applj~abJe [0
the property involved tha, do not apply generally to prope",} in L"e same district,
in that the property slopes 75 feet from the from to the rear and the buildings are
sIted [0 minimize the amount of visual impact, si[e grading and excavation and to
provide the necessary parking, circulation and site ireprovemems.
2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantia! property right of the applicant, and 10 prevem unreasonable property
loss or unnecessary hardship, as the applicant could DO' provide the required
amoUllt of the paridng and site improvements for the two buildings "nd design the
facility consistent with SWldarci hillside development guideline., which encourage
reduction of fill and siting facilices pa.-allel with the natural condition. Research
and development facilities require building footprints that are predominalely flat.
u,wering the buildings fll1ther into the e.,..,h would increase the amount of hillside.
cut and increase the heights of the retaining walls.
3. The granting of the appl.ic:ation will not be detr'.menul or izljurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the publ,c health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the vwnce for height OCCIl1S only
for the towers which are DO higher !han the building they adjoin _ The towers are
situated on severa.! feet of fill ill order thaI they be level with the parldng areas
from which J>eDple w'll emer the facility. The variance setback requesl of 20 feet
from Ibe property 1iDe for Building I and Building 2 is only for Ibe building
cornen.. Where tlrese set~ks occur, the buildings are one story, The average
sethack for each of these buildings is 40 feet and 44 feet respectively. The corners
protrude into the setback area be<:ause the buildings are placed ·on contour" rather
!han parallel with the propeny lines, Developing pa."Ollel with the contour is
preferabl e it: hillside development for reducing visual impacts an.: grading.
Findings for Sile and Design
1. The proposed design will be orderly 1 harmoruous, and compatIble with existing or
potential uses of adjoining property, in thaI the proposed use and improvements
will be similar to other uses in the area and the project has been designed to
minimize visual impacts on adjoining property.
2. The projecl will maintain desirability of investment in the s3.me or adjacent are,as.
in that the required on·silc improvements and landscaprng and constrUctlOn
standards governed by the ,_ ;-ren' TJnifonn Building Code (USC) Ot c',hor current
codes will assure a high quality 01 development.
P :\PCSl\SlItO!GM.
8-20-93
Page 10
3. Th:.: proposed design wiil oDserve sound pri~dples of environmental design zOO
ecological balance, in that the selected location of the new structures and
improvements limit disruption of the site, and measures incorporated into the
proje<:t design will help mjnimj7e erosion and offset visual impacts.
4. The C:::omprehensive Plan Amendment proposed to be approved as pan of this
application will bring the proposed use in conformance with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive PLa.". The proposed research and development facility and related
site improvements are consistent wit4 the recommended Comprehensive Plan
Amendment,
Recommended Conditions for Site and Design and Variance Approvals
I. The project sbaII be subject to the provisions of the Development Agreement dated
_-=.,-_" Prior to City Council action the issues of further investigation and
possible site clean-up raised by the Lowney and Associ.ates Leve! n soil and
ground"''8ter analysis of the 753 Alm, Street site shall be resolved.
2. The rev\sed site plan submitted by the applicant, which sbows the full driveway,
including the exit pomon on the neighboring property, ,balI be subject to review
and approval by the Planning and Transponation Divisions prior to issuance of
building pemlll.
3, A revised circulation plan sball be submitted illustrating all the details of access
to this driveway under consideration to meet the satisfaction of the Transportation
Division, prior to issuance of. building permit. The plan sball include circulation
on the SUbject site and adjoining propenies, parking layout, striping and ,ignage.
4. A detailed grading, drainage, and erosion repair plan prepared by a registered civil
engineer ,balI be submitted 10 the Planning Division and Public Works Department
for review and approval prier to issuance of a building permit. Construction
details and calculations for all drainage facilities shall be submitted with the
detailed drainage plans.
5. All grading and development on the site ,balI conform with all aspects of the
project soil and geotechnical repen recommendations. The project geotechnical
engineer will be required to certify that the grading and construction were done in
accordance with their recommendations, prier to finalization of the building
pencil.
P:\PCStI\SII:105a.r-t
8-20-93
(Amended 8-25-93)
Page II
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan
(lh-sized drawings) shal! be required to be revie .... ed and approved by the Stanford
University Planning Office, Stanford Managemenl Company, and the ARB. The
flD2.1 plan shail include the common and botanical nzmes of all species used, and
the number, size, type, location and spacing of all plani materials.
7. Tae following tree protectlCD m'!aSures shall be implemented during construction
activities:
a. All trees designated to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot high chain
link fences mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, and driven
into the ground to a depth of at ieast 2 feel at no more than 12-foot sparing.
The fences shall enclose the entire area under the drip line of exisling tees.
In no case shall any vehicles or equipment be permitted to be stored within
the enclosed areas. The fences shall be erected befe .. construction begins and
remain in place until finalization of the building pennil.
b. No storage of materials or topsOil shall be pennitted within the tree enclosure
areas.
c. Above-ground surface runoff area shall oot be directed WO the tree canopy
area from adjaceD1 are.1S.
8. To reduce dust levels during construction, it sball be required that exposed earth
swfaces be watered frequently, during the late morning and II the end of the day,
with frequency of Wllering increasing on windy days. Spillage resulting from
hauling operations along or = any public or private property shall be removed
immediately and paid for by the comractor. Dust ncisances originating from the
ronme!!)r's operations, mel! as stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials
thai can be blown by the wind sball be covered. Any spillage resulting from
hauling operations either inside or outside the pub!ic right-of-way shall be removed
immediately, al the expense of the contraclor. Reclaimed waler shall be used for
this purpose, in accordance with Public Works Depanmenl policies.
9. All construction activities and installation of site improvemerus shall be subject to
compliance with the provisions of the City of Palo Allo Noise Ordinance, Chap,er
9.10 of the PAMC.
10. A haul roule and construction impaCI plan musl be submilted ond approved by the
Transportation Division, Plaruting Division. and Depamnent of Public Works prior
to issuance of a building pennil.
8·20-93
Page 12
.. ,-,'
1 J . All Ciry of Palo AltO utility installati"ns shall be in accordance Witll the City of
Palo AltO Standard Specification;.
The following are additional ARB recommended conditions.'
12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, wri= approval from Stanford University
Planning Offlce and the Stanford Lands Management Company must be received
by the Planning Division for the project, referencing drawings and materials in
conformance ""th those receiving Cit"j of Palo Alta approval.
13. The appliC3Dl shall display at the project site full-sized co)or p_1, Gf the 00se
color of the building walls for review and approval by the Stanford Dniversi!),
Planning Offlce, the Stanford Management Company. and the ARB.
14. The applicant shall submit to the Planning and Transpor.ation Divisions, for
nview and approval prior to !he issI:ance of a building permit, dC'.ailed drawings
of !he traSh and recyclable materials ~orage encloSure and loading areas including
locations. elevatiuns, and installation of lIles. areas.
15. A pllorometric JigbtirJ& plan sll&lJ be suhmlaed to PlBnDiDg staff fur review and
approval priOr fl) issua= of building permits. Exterior li,sbt f= in the
parking 101 shall be mOllllled 00 bigber !han 15 feet from grade and be directed
and shielded in order 10 prevent spill over beyond !he site.
•
,-'. .,.;< . ::r·.'
Anachments: Draft Resolution
Lo.:ation Map
.';" ,'.C<'
Amended Environmental Assessment dated July 6, ~993
Draft Developmem Agreement
Summary Comments of June 23, 1993, neighborhood meeting
on 753 Alma Street
Letters from property owners/users in vicinity of 753 Alma Street
August 1 I, 1993 letter from P AHC with attachments
August II, 1993 letter from Lowney Associates
March I I, 1993, CMR:203:93 wi~"out attachments
Much 11, 1993, Excerpt City Council minutes
October 15, 1992 CI>iRA6Q:92 without attachments
,-
August 21, 1992 Planning Com.!nission Stiff Report wi thoul attachmems
August 21, 1992 Planning Commission excerpt minut"
September 1 7, 1992 ARB Information Memorandum
September 17, 1992 ARB excerp; Minutes
cc with Bttachments:
KeelWl-Lovewell Veoture.;, 700 Emerson Stteet, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Marl""" Prendergast. Director, Pale Alto Housing Corporation, 560 Chaucer
Street, Palo Alto, CA
Linda Niles, Planning Director, 26379 Fremoru Road, Los AlIO& Hills, CA 94022
g; without i!!l!ChmenlS'
A.rchite<:tUral Review Board
MlIriJyn Bryaru, Leagu. "f Women Voters of Palo Alta, 457 Kingsley Avenue,
Palo Alto, CA 9430 I
Ellen Christensen, 4217 Los Palos Avenue, Piile Alto, CA 94306
Andy Doty, Director of Community Relations, Stanford University,
40'72 Scripps Avenue, Stanford, CA 94305 .
Ellen Flet~ber, m San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA
Joseph Martignetti, Jr., Palo Alto Housing Corpor:uion, S40 Cowper Street,
Suite G, Palo AltO, CA 94301
Bob Moss, 4010 Otme Street, Palo Alto, CA
Janet Owens, Palo AltO Housing Corporation, 540 Cowper Street, Suite G,
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Kenn.~" Rodriqu,' & Associates, Inc .. 50 West San Fernando, #650,
San los., CA 95113
8-20-93
Page 14
\
\ Willis and Rose Thoits, 744 High Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dee and Cozene Hileman, 799 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Joe Yarkin, 152 Homer Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Barry Swenson, 701 Nonb First Street, San Jose, CA 95112
Thomas C McMullan, CheStnut Hill Land Co, P.O. Bo x 47 S,
Meolo Park, CA 94026
Ole Christensen, Ole', Car Shop, SOl Alma, Palo Alm, CA 94301
Marl""" Smidt, 666 High Street, Pale Alto, CA 94301
Geoff Bertelsen, 960 Waverley, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Earl Schmidt, 201 Homer, Palo Aito, CA 94301
Earl Ellison, 70S Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Susan Herald, Sunford Uuiversity, P.O. Box N, Bldg. 170, Stanford, CA 94305
Ron Rainey, HJlJgrimson, McNichols, McCann & lnderbi=, 40 S. Market St,
Suite 700, San lose, CA 95! 13
P: \1al\U10SQu
g·2!)'"3
Page 15
I
1
i
.'
EXCERPT: Planning Commission minutes
of 8.'25/93
The planning commission met in a reguJar meeting on Wednesday. August 25.
19513 at 7:35 p.m. in the COL'TH:il Conf.erence Room ~itn Chairman 8E:'ec~am
presiding.
ROll CALL
~: Commissioners Beecham, CarrascQ, Cassel, GTazier~ Ojakian
and Schmidt
Absent: Commissioner Schink
Staff present: Susan Case, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Wi 11 ; am F ell man I Kanl-ger. Au 1 Propel'ty
James Gilliland, Manag~r Planning Projects
Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning
Robert Schubert. Planner
Car1 Stoffe'~ Transportation Engineer
George Zinmerman, Assistant Plar,ning Official
ORAL C_ICATIONS
Chairaan Beec.haM:
Any III!1I!ber of the
agenda is welcOde
next igenda item.
The first itefll on our agenda is Oral C01M1ur,lcations.
public wishing to speak to us ~n an item not on tne
to do so. Seeing no spe~kers. we will move on to t~e
AGEHQ~ ITEM 1 APPROVAL OF PlAN"ING COMMISSION HIHUT~~ Of ~Ull 28, 1993.
Chairman Beecbam: believe Commissioner Clss~l has a co •• ection.
C9llj$Slongr Cassel; On Pige 17. the first piragraDh reads ·Commissioner
Schmidt,· the second paragraph reads ·Commissioner Schmidt,M the third
paragraph reads MCommissioner Schmidt.M The second paragraph was comments
by Com.issioner Cassel.
~: CQ!!iss1ontT Schmidt:
corrected.
~: By Commissioner Cassel.
move approval of the mlnutes as
MOnON PASSES: Chairman Buci'HIm: All those if!. favor. say Aye? All
opposed? That passes on a vote of 6--0. with Comi ssioner Sdtink absent.
AGENDA ITEM 2 IC50 ARASTRAQERQ ROAQ: Appllc.tion for (1) •
Comprehensive Plan map amendment to change the
corresponding land use designation from Multiple-Family
Residential to Research/Offite Park; (Z) a site and
design review of two pr~posed research and deve10pment
buildings and related site impro~ements~ (3) variances t~
e~ceed the allowable hejght by five feet and a side yard
setback of 20 feet where 40 feet is the minimum required;
and (4) approv.l of a development agreement extending the
time period for development of the project and modifying
the proposed housing mitigation, which may incluci
purc~ase by the city of -operty at 753 Alma Str" as.
08/Z5/93
-3 -
•
", .:
,.--
p-tltential sitl!' for construction of housing. [n. ... 1rcnmental
Assessment: A negatfve declaration nas been prepared.
Zone District: LM-5IDI. File Nos. 92-CPA·2, 91-EIA·J9.
91-0·4. 92-V-13. S2·ARS-96.
Chainman B?echam; AssOCiated ~lth this item is a property en Alma which
has been discussed regarding single·room occupancy {SRO} housin;. Tonight
we w;11 first have comments from staff. followed by Questions for staff.
CQtml1ss1onel'" Glazier: Due to a confl iet of If'lterest involving my wife and
~er employment, 1 wi)l e~cuse myself from this item.
Cnairman Beecham: Does staff have any comments or clarlficat;ons for us?
Mr. Gilliland: wouid 1ike to clarify two items. In the attacnments
that were received with the fu11 staff report, the mtnutes from the
neighbor-hood meeting djd not print. You "'avE a copy of those in front of
you which are the full minutes of that neighborhood ~eting held by the
Palo Alto Mousing Corporation. I would a1so 1ixe to make a correct ton to
Condition 12 on Page II ~f the staff r~port dated August ~O. 199>. This
is the condltion that was orlginaJly written at the time it went to the
City Council. In rewording some of ~t beciuse it has been taken care of,
we said. -ApprDval by the ARS prier to issuante of ~ building permit.-It
should be. -Approva1 by the Plannj~g Oivislon and Transportition
O;vTsion.N It 15 an item that is not necessary to 90 back to the
Architettural Review B~ard. That was the way it wa~ prev?ously wr7tten.
Cnairman Beecham: Questions from t~e commission?
Commissioner QiaKjan: I want to get a idea about the proce~s a little
bit. When we went over this the fiTst ti~, we sent it to the council,
and there have been SQme changes. including the addition of 753 Alma
Street. I am curious. ln H.ose disct.jssions with the de-veloper. were
other sites suggested? Why have we come to the a~proach that we are-at
right now?
Kr. Gi11jland: At the time this item went to the City Counc11~ which was
the first time. the co~ncfl had a concern that th~re were not actually
units befng provided because of the loss of housing in the Comprehensive
Plan amendment on the 1050 Arastradero site. It was sug9fsted at that
time that the developer and staff go back anc look at otner mea~s cf
providing nousing~ partic~lar1y tryin9 to get property where unlts could
be provided in lje~ of the dollars that were crigina11y proposed. The
particular site that we are talking about has been discussl!'d prevlously in
staff reports for the possible use as an SRD downtown. It also was a
property that the developer had some interest in. So it was the logical
site that the council e1ected tD talk about. Other sitl!'s were thought
about very briefly. Consideration was given to 100king at other sites,
but no other Sites we~ actua11y looked at.
Commissioner Qjakian: T~is is the ~nly one that the developer presented
to us?
MT. Gilli1and: That is correct.
Co~isSl0ner 'isse1: If you proceed with this, and other arrangements can
08/25/93
-4 -
•
be Nde fot" another site, ttle way His is. written t the land then could be.
transferred to anotner site. Could we do a site exchange or something of
that sort?
Mr Gilliland: That is correct. If, for some reason, the 75.3 Alma site
is not ap~roved as a ~~Jsing site, as ,t stands right now~ ~he funds that
would be used to purchase the site are required to be used fDr housing.
Jf it cannot ~ IJsed for housing, tnen in same way, some other site has to
be fo~nd or the mo~ey recouped to be used for another project for
housing. Certainly a land swap in the fvture ;s somethin9 that could be
considered.
Chainaan Beecham: In the council minutes. they disc~ssed, ratner tnan
baying in the agreement purchasing the site. an option to purchase. 1
have not seen anything in the disc~ssion that indicates how that is going
to be 1mp1emented. We do not have in the Appendix an Exhibit B. Can you
tel' us .nat is going t~ happen on purchase versus option to purchase. and
how that is gOing to be worded?
Hr, Gilliland: Tne intent, right now. is that there will not be .n opti~n
to purchase. ]t will be a purchase .grep.ment. That agreement nas not
been final ized, but wi 1 1 have to I>e flnal ized prior to (Hy Counc; 1
consideration.
Chainman Beecham: How did we get to that, when r read in the council
.inutes a discussion about an opti~n.
Mr· Gilliland: On~ of the considerations that Clme out Df the council
~tnutes was to consider an option, but '" the negotiations tnat we~t on,
the develop~r felt that an option was not the approrriate way to 9~.
Cogglssjoner Carrasco: It seems t~ me that from loo~ing at these numbers
(althougn ] may not be reading th~ correctly), in the last iterat;on of
Option I of the first proposal, there was a total fee of about S660,OOO
that would benefit tne city ho~sing fund. In other words. that was a
lIitigation fee.
Mr. Gilliland: That is $330,000 after ten years, and that is the added
fee. In addition. if you are looking at Attachment A in the eMirt in the
flrst proposa', all that is shown here 15 the added fee. In either ~ase,
it is required (the project) to ~ke the normal payment under tne housing
,itigation fee ordinance. Vhat this chart shows is the added fee. The
added fee onder the first propos.l ;5 $3)0,000, .r~ that is tot.l. Toe
added fee under the second proposal starts at S407,OOn and ends up at
$438,000.
Commissigner Carrasco: So in other words. we are getti~g i bigger fee for
the second proposal.
Mr~ Gilliland: That 15 correct, under the assumptions that were made in
putting this chart together.
Coro.issioner Ojakian: To keep on that line, the total fee we are going to
receive in terms of the housing mitigation fee is going to equal out to
wnat?
08/25/93
·5·
-----
..
:",.".
,j. ( ......
". ;
Mr. Gilliland: Under the first, original proposal, the r[>quired
mitigation f~e is 5til1 required. That is estimated right now at
$253,000. That is in addition to what is shown under th~ first proposal.
In the second proposal, you hav~ a $401,000 added fee, plus you stilT have
the ordinance-reQuir!d mitigation fee, which is $253,000. Without
complicat1ng it. th~re are escalation factors in the req~lred mitigation
fee which adj~sts that. That is why we did not put ~t in ~~is chart,
because under either proposal, it remains, and it is the same. $0 this is
only the .oded f •• s.
tQmm~ssioner Ojakian: And those fees will gc into the fund that, in turn,
will pay for. in this case, 753 Alma Street.
Mr. Gilliland: You can think of it as reimbursing the funds, because the
funds wi)] already have been spent.
Commi5s1gner Qiakian: So it almost a wash.
Mr. Gilliland; Yes, tn fact. that was the intent~ that it be a wasn under
the second proposal.
Chairman Beecham: I understand from what was written up that the action
that is recommended tha~ we take tonight. and that the council take, will
change the Comprehensive Plan. But if the developmeflt never octl1rs, the
city gets no money. but the Plan designation will have been chan;!d. Is
that still the situation?
Mr. Gilliland: That is correct. It would take city action at the tfme
tnat eft~er agreement lapsed to put the reSidential designation back on
the property.
Commissioner Carrasco: To clarify what Bern just asked about, were you
talking about the 1050 Arastradero Road site, and not tne Alma site?
Mr. Gilliland: Tnat is cor~ect. The Aima ~ite is zoned COS, which
permits RM·JO zoning already.
Cnairman Beecnam; For clarifitati~n~ what we do have before us tonight is
more or less addressing the ]050 Arastradero Road site, a~d it is
addres3ing i Co~prehensive Plan map change for that. The way the Alma
Street site 1S invQl~ed is that it sets out a de~elopment agreement
between the ctty and the developer that says, the develQper will give the
city some money, and the ~ity will buy the Alma Street site. So that
purchase is involved in tn~ report a"~ in the business we have in front of
YS tonight. However. we do not have anyinfng before us about rezoning or
any particular ~se of the Alma Street site. That tends to put us in a
Catch·22 loop, because obviously. what ~as been done here anticipates SRO
housing going in at Alma: Street. Tonight~ lIo'e are tak.ing no acticm to do
that. Jt is just tnat the city has proposed to buy that property with
that ultimate intent, and as acknowledged nere, minimally perhaps, the
city ~st go tnrou9h some prQced~res and public hearings, and then
determine if that is the right use for that site. Then at some further
point, the~e would be action by the city to cause that to ~appen. $0]
would antlcipate a lot of you ton;~ht wishing to talk abo~t whether that
is the right use for the Alma Street site. We will be happy to llsten to
you, and] think that is germane to wnat we do here tonight, as it is part
08/25/93
-6-
.... , •. ~
,.
/
of the igreer.lent. r just want to make sure tnat eV'eryone t.!r.derstands that
we are net taking any direct action tonight on the Alma Street sit!.
Cpmmjssioner Carrasco: To follow up on that issue, as I understand it,
the value of the property as a commercial site is S750 1 000. The
recommended amount for the city to pay is $650,000, so there js S100,000
of added value if jt is not rezoned to commercial. So r ha~e a question
for staff. If it is not rezoned to commercial, is that extra $0100,000
factored ioto this S407,OOO?
Hr. Gilllland: That SlOO,OOO is not factored in. in any way, to the
figures that are part of the mitigation fee.
Commissjoner Carrasco: So if 1t is reroned to commerciaT. we might have
the added benef;t of SlOO,OOO?
Mr, Gilliland: That is correct.
Chairman Beecham: We will now turn to the public hearing. J believe
Mr. Keenan is 9~ins to m.~e t~e presentation for tn~ applicant.
Chop Kienan. 700 Emerson Street. Palo Alto: r will not re~ash what you
hay~ already approved once in terms of our 1050 Arastradero Road project,
which has also been approve~ by the ARB. r wi11 get right t~ the
development agreeser.t. lhere are two minor 1ssues r want to clarify,
because I have not seen the final development agreement. One;s that we
be allaweQ the flexibility of modifying our existing approvals for lOSO
Arastradero to the city maximums allowed under the ordinance, if some
.inor MOdjfication snould occur. We are only talk~ng about 19000 to 1,500
feet, which is t~e spread between what we are asking to be approved
tonight and what is the potential. But that could occur.
Mr. Gilliland: Is that tfoe two-percent chuse?
Mr. Keenan: Yes.
Mr. Gilliland: Staff is comfortable with that, I am not sure whether it
got into the agreement that is in this packet.
Chainman Beecham: I thought saw it in here.
Mr. Gilljla~d: It snould be in here, and we are agreeable to tnat.
Mr. Keenan; Tne ot~er issue is that there was some conc~rn expressed
about the term of the development agreement. I tan tell you from the
Keenan-Lovewell Ventures and the universjty~s perspective, the ten years
is imperati~e. So if that is a deal breaker, it is a deal breaxer.
other than that, r have a brief comment on 753 Alma Street. This may be a
long WlY around the barn. tn terms of meeting some of the city's
objectives with regard to SRO housing. I will mention for the record thit
this property is not ordained to be a parking lot forever. So whether it
is SRO or something else allowable within the zoning ordinance. its days
as a parking lot aTe numbered. So J do not want to get too ~ung up on its
attractiYeness as parking. because that is really at our pleasure. OUT
intention has not been to maintain it in t~at mode. 0bviously, we are
08/25/93
-7·
....
I
interested in its highest and best use, and I just want to keep that in
focus. ~e Mave, in fact, removed the property from the market for almost
a year now while discus.sing 1050 Arastradero, trying to !("ake it altla'iiable
to the city, shou1d they desire it. It nils been a complicated
ne90tiat1on. I think ~e are there, but again. that might addre~s one of
the questions on the option versus pu~chase. The city has effetti~~ly had
a free option for the past year, and now, it has become ~put up or shut
up.-That completes my presentation.
Chairman Beecham: I have a questlon on (u~rent parking+ P.egar~ing the
parking that is on there now, is it open perking?
Mr. ~tenan: No, 1 think we have it leased to a couple of tenants. Whole
Foods has some of it. and there may bE a covple of others.
(hairman Be@cham: Is it leased to particular compan12s or individuals?
Mr. Keenan: Yes, as best W~ can. Policing is .l_'ays a problem. Wht!n you
have a tenant paying rent. they tend to do the policing for you.
tOnrD;ssiol'ler Ojakian: Jim, at the meeting which you referred to tonigU
in the minutes that we have, there was it lEast one comment that struck my
curiosity. It alluded to the fict that the city had an obligation to
provide this space for parking in the Whole foods igreement. Do you have
any co~nt on thit1
Mr. Gilliland: Yes. T"lt is not correct. The agreement that dealt with
with Whole Foods and Ylrious off-site parking allo~ances that go witn
Whole Foods involves only the Whole Foods parking lot directly icross the
street from the store. That parkins lot does provide par~;ng for the
market t also for the self-storage building and for The (ity of Paris
bUilding.
COmmissioner Ojakian: I wanted to clarify that, because people might
raise that as an issue. There is an agreement that governs t~at?
Mr. Gil Hland: That is correct.
~. ioner Ojakian: The other Q~estion ! have 1s one I asked earlier
to~ign~. T~at 1S+ what other sites did you ~onsider offering a5 part of
this negotiation?
Mr. Keenan; That question is best directed to the Palo Alto Housing
(orporation 9 and there are members of that present tonight to speak to
it. rt was really their show, They started, as you may reCin, wlth
Parking lot ~+ and it became apparent that there were concerns in the
assessment district as to that ~se. So they looked at a number of sites.
and Marlene Prendergast is present who can probably speak to that better
than I. This is the site that they alighted on.
Commissioner 6jakian: As far as your deliberations with the city ir!
concerned, this is the site that you offered is part of th~ mitigation1
Mr. Keenan: 1nat is correct. I own it now. so it was obviously within
our control to negotiate for it witn the city.
08/15/93
-8 -
_.
'j
1
il
Commissioner Schmidt; You said you took the property off th! market a
year Ig<l. r wondered 1f it was on the market for a long t~me before that?
Mr. Keenan: We have a1ways had a but1d-tc-suit sign on tnel·e. and \ole have
been in discussions ~ith a number of people, and nave had to put them on
ice wni1e we tried t\J conclUDe this deal. Yes, tnere ha\'€ beer'! a number
of other alternatives.
(gloor'ssloner Cassel: How long has. It been on the market? How long have
you own!d it?
Mr. Keenan: I have o_~~d it for probably six or seven years, whenever I
did the Whole Foods Market. But when I say, on the market, it has been
for lease. We have been trying to do a build-to-suit. We have had
aiscusslons with prospective buyers. but never have gott~n down to a deal,
per se. We are giving the city what we consider to be a bargain price to
the extent that it is SlOn~OOO less than the MAl appraisal. So in order
to try and put the 1050 Arastradero deal together, we have made a number
of concessions, includi~g keeping the property ~ff the market, including
selling it below marlet. J nope that answers your question.
Commissiongr Schmidt; I want to get to ~hy the ten-year ti~ limlt is so
important.
Hr. Keenan: We arf c~itting, again, to si9nificant fees beyond what is
required in the 1050 zone. So there is a ~uid pro quo there, and we j~st
do not know when this real estate market 1S go;ng to right itself. But if
you are going to commit to selling one property. t~e ~niversity wants to
know for sure that they effecti~ely ha~e tne zoning for the general ~Ian
and the plan approved for ten years. There is a public benefit in
increased fees and in having the ten-year term.
Marlene Prendergast 560 Chaucer Street, Palo Alto: I am the Executive
Director of tne Palo Alto Housing Corporation. and I am speaking in that
capacity. We have a letter and ot~&r materials in your pac~et. and I know
you have all looked at that. but because some of the attachments were not
in the copies that got sent OLit tD everyone, and maybe not everyone has
neard what the housing corporati~n has to say. for the record I wau1d like
to s.urrmar~ze some Clf the pofnU in our lettei~.
When the original application for 1050 ArastraderQ Road came befDre the
City Co~ncil. the housing corporation expressed two concerns orig7nally
tnat the proposed commercial land use designation did not comply with the
very specific poliCies in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and that the
acceptance of a r;onetary mitigation in the abstract for the elimination of
I hous1ng site without a mare rational, long-term approach. waS a bad
precedent for the future of affordable housing. Initially. the council
did continue the application and asked the applicant to suggest a
mitigation that might actually generate additional housing. Sc at its
~econd consideration of this matter in March of 19;), the council reviewed
this general proposal to incorporate the site at 753 Alma Street as a
direct mitigation for the loss of n~usin9 caus~d by the land use
deSignation change at 1050 Arastradero Road. along with this development
agreement. to lock in development rlghts f~r the project at 1050
Arastradero Road. The housing corporation again generally supported this
plan, whith would tend to provide actual land for development of housing.
08/25/93
-9-
.......
•
!
The council referred it back to tne Planning Commission, ~hich is where we
are now, and the ~ous;ng corporation continues tc support the availability
of thi5 Site at 753 Alma Street for the development of affordable housing.
We have been ... ·orking for s~\lenl years to find a site in downtown
Palo Alto to d~velop SRO houstr.g. The ge~eral features of such housing
include very small units with l1mited tooking and bath facilltles,
sometime's in the units, sometimes down the hall; mostly in new SROs, in
the units; ~sual1y 24-hour management; appropria~e ~irking. given the
location and how close it is to transit. etc.; and very low rents. New
ones are generally designed to serve what we call t~e working poor. That
is just ill pnrase. It is not of huge significilnce. They ar.e sized,
usually, so as not to significantly impact the neighbcrhood. We feel that
a suitable sHe is presently avanable at 753 Alma Stre€t. We ha .... e
considered tne issues of nOis!. fu~s, parking, and non-reSidential use of
the Site, issues which I am sur~ you will hear about.
Nevertheless, the nousing corporation does be1ieve that a successful SRO
housing proje~t can be constructed there, and we do b~lie .... e it would be a
positive contribution to the "eighborhood in time+ We'also think tnat the
SRO could be designed to mitigate the effect of noise and fumes to the SRO
residents. we know that occupants of SRO housing generalT) have very few
cars, and loW€r parking reqUirements are usu~llf sufficient. Let me
emphasize that we have done no specific design work, because this is at
such a conceptual stage. We have looked at a lot of SROs, l~d we ~aYe
~tudfed SROs, but we cannot tell you e~actly how high and how wid~t etc.
that this SRO would be. Parking, obvjo~s'Yt is an !S5Ue, and we feeT
there are ways to deal with that to acctHlWOdate the lJse .at 753 Alma
Street, certainly. We do not believe tt.e SRO would create more of a
parkf~g problem for the area. We also feel it should not be asked to
solve an existing parking problem in tne area.
As stated in our letter. the concerns that the commercial neighbors have
about future zoni~ actions need to be dealt with politically in the
future. One SRO will not change a nelgnborhood. Long-range planning can
provide for the uses that the community wishes to have. De~isions of
future policymakers are not totally predictable, nOT can t~ey be legally
controlled. There is no zone that can freeze the land use as a vacant
lot. The housing corporation's focus here has be~n on the suitability and
a~ailability of the 753 Alma Street site for development of a type of
housing that is badly need€d in our community. 1 know that the neighbors
wilT speax to a11 the reascns why it is not a good Site, ~nd we kno~ that
there may be a perfect Site 50mewnere+ If we find that, we can also ~se
that fer housing. We would like to reco~nd that you appro~e this wh~le
concept s~ that we can get started on the process of developing housing
there.
Just a couple of additional points. in addition to the letter. to remfnd
you that the city's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, which we
have continued to work on. does sp~ak to the importance of developing SRO
housing in the commur,ity. As I mentioned, we really hailE only done
conceptual design work, so it is hard for ~e to answer specific. detailed
questions about design. But SROs do come in variOUS forms, and the form
depends a lot on the location. SRO h~tels are often, in fact, considered
cocmercia1 Llses, so it can be compatfble with a. co",:",:,,~rc:lal neighborhood.
location is a.bsolutely X€y to the parking issue. 2 that is why we feeT
OB/25/93
-10-
-
/
/
,. ._".----_ ..
tnat Alma Street is i!! good locati<ln, near the traln, n~ar downtown, near
bus servlce. So it should enable a lower parktng req!.Jirement t~an trl~
usual resid~ntiGl use.
We haye looked at a Tot of sites. You have asked about that. There was
no Dther site that Keenan-L~yewell offered. but we have been looking and
looking and looking_ As you may know, ~e spent months and months on the
idea of Parking lot R and an SRO over the air rights. T~at did not wo~k
out, ~nd the City Council decided that it was not appropriate. We do not
«new that there 75 a perfect site. Everything we have looked at ~s eitner
very, ~ery expensive {as you know. Palo Alto prices are very high}, or not
available. In other words, th~y are in family trusts that need to be
diyided up, and not for anotheT ten years, etc., or they are in the fringe
of single-family neighborhoods. So we do not know of a perfect site, but
we continue to work on it, and there always seems to be a probJem with the
ones we flnd. We feel that ther~ are p~s1tive paints to this site in that
it is not tOt} large, economically. to make this work with very low rent!.
Ideally. it couTj be larger, but we understand that we need to ~ork with
the neighborhood. so actl!ally, thls site is cOlriparC!t'ively small ill
relation to many SROs that are being bUllt today. As J me~tioned. the
transit and shoppil1g is nearby. This is impcrtant. It 15 essential.
We believe we cDuld ma~e a very creatiye SRO here. We are amenable to
mixed use ideaL We are amenable to woricing with the parking issue, but
it is an conceptual at HilS point. Joe Mart ignetti, the Pres:;dent of the
Palo Alto Housing Corporation and Mike Anderson, the Vice President, are
alse present tonight. They have both beer. in the development business,
and any of us are available to answer any questio~s that you might ~_ve.
Chairman 8eech.m: On tentati~e sItes, are tnere any sites tnat you have
been looking at that are allywhere within the range of possibility f~ the
next fiYe years that you might talk about for us?
Ms. Prendergast: Flve years? Probably. Do you mul'! ava n able?
Chairman stecham: Avaf1able and suftable. and that you have some thoughts
about t~~ir being a good site. You have talked to the people, and they
I~! not ready yet. but maybe, it somewhat fits and it lS the correct size?
Ms. Prendergast: The nn1y part of that is, when WE talk to the people,
they say~ forg<et it. Either it is tied up in some 1ong-term arrangement
in a fimily~ Or in order to assemble small parcels to make a big efiGugh
parcel to de~elop, we find the prices to be ve~y. very high. For example,
we looked at tnat in connection with the To~er Well site, thinking that it
was s~'h a tiny sit!, let~s wDrk to get i larger piece. It was more than
twice the sQuare foot~ge of this site.
Chairman Bttcham: The t~ing that, to .e, would be nice to kno~ about is.
you ess~ntially have 5650,000. or property worth that mucn money. S~ that
is an aSSEt. If. for whatever reason, this does not work out ar is not
feasfble at the sitE, are there other locations where you mignt use this
property as a trade, or some substantial payment for another piece of
prcpert) somewhere?
~s. Prendergast: It is possible+ We have not explored that in detail.
~<
'. ,
"
-".
08/25/93
" ll"
•
.-~.
~e Anderson. Vice President. Palo Alto HousIng Corporation: I think it
is falr to say that right now, we do not have aroy ~1ternati .. e sites that
are readil~ availab~e to us. Wheth~r one would appear in the ne~t five
years is virtually impossible to pr-edict. Of -an the sites we ia'.le
studied, they have all had other problems that h~ve prohibited our ability
to go forward with them. pr1te t~ing the mai~ piobiem.
~issioner Carrascq: Hopefully, this site works out. We have the w~ole
pub1;c hearlng process to go through 'n order to d~termine whethe~ or not
it ~s i?propri~te foy the k,~d of housing we ~eed. I~dependent of that,
is this devfl~pment agreement a better one than the last one, i~ tenms of
g~ing fUrther in the direction of providing affordable housing?
Ms. Prendergast! The first a1ternative agreement? (Yes) The first
alternat;ve was just money. There is nothing wrong with money, and we
needed to oppose that from a pnilosophical standpo;nt as the housing
corporation. But secondly, tk,s is an actua19 &~ai1ab1e site here ~nd
now. We are anxious to try to work on it. Does that answer your
question?
COlTITl'issioner Car!"'a<co: Not realTy. am wondering about the same thing
Bern was asking about. If this is not developed as housin9. is the
housing fund better off with this de~elopment agr~ement than the previ~us
one?
"5. Prendergast; Yes. There is 5200,000. more in assets t~an with the
firs.t one.
'Dmlissioner Ojakjan: J hive a Question for Hike. Since I know Mike as a
developer, he was at the meeting that I was at, which fs the one J
r~ferred to earli~r in the minutes that WEre passed out. People who are
in that neighborhood raised l ~hole series of concerns, several of which
were related to how can you put housing in an area like this Where you
nave bu;inesses and car fumes and parki~g and traffiC, etc. Are y~u
comfortable with the fact that yc~ are actually qoing to be able to put in
a development there that will not lntrude on that neighborhood? And
conversely, the neighborhoDd will not intrude on the development?
Mr, Anderson: Yes~ we are comfortab1e that we can do that. Obviously, it
is going to take a 10t of work and creativity. but we think it can be
done. Oroe of the ne~t featlJres of SRO housing is that it is usuall,Y
fairly shart-term housirg, We think that, given the location, given its
access tc mass tra~sportation, we can make it work. We have thought about
a lot of alternatives? as Marlene said, such as a ~ited use project ~ith
perhaps SDme ~ind of commercial use Gn the bottom floor that ~o~ld b€ very
compatible with the neighborh~od. Because it i$ most1t housing, peak
traffic flow for it does not coin~ide with peak traffic flo~ for
businesses which are open nine to fi~~. So we actually think that that
kind of U$e may actually have le$s of a burden on parking ~nd traffic than
a commercial USE that was open during tne same business hours that the
businesses in the neighborhood are now open. So we think we can make it
wOTk. lhere is a 10t of t!~hnclogJ that is out there ~ow for
$aundprQQfing and the handling of fumes~ etc" so to answer your Question,
I would say yes, we feel we can make it work there.
Commissioner Oi)lian: So from your perspectiv~9 if th,s deve10pment
oe/25/~)
-12-
;'
agrees!nt goes through, this site, in your mi~d. is one which you could
develop oU't?
Mr. Anderson: Absolutely. We 5tj11 have to go through tne process, as
Tony said. the pub1it hearin95 and all the processes. but we think that if
we can get thr~ugh tnat. we can build a project tnat will work on that
sitt.
Jae Hartign!tt;. PrEsident. Palo Alto Housing Corporation~40 Cowper
~: J ~ant to address Tony's Question in a litt1e mare detail.
Historically, When we have looked at i"~lieu payments, cish versus actual
units Dr nousing, the housing corporation's position has always been that
WE prefer the housing units. It is so difficult in Palo Alto (lJ to find
land. (2) to develop, and (3) to basicall) construct units because of the
price of land an~ just tne technical difficulties associated with tnt
de~elopment process. So our POSition in th~ past has always been that we
~ould prefer units or housing as opposed to in-lieu cash payments. The
original proposal Wh7Ch, I believe, was presented for this particu~ar
property~ was a cash contribytion. I think you can apply that same logic
when JOU start t~ compare one alternative to the other. From a
phiT~sDpnica1 standpoint, I think the housing corpcration's position has
always been that we would prtfer to have the physical dirt or tn~ pflysical
unit wnere housing can De developed because land is so scarce in
Palo Alto. We can collect a lot of money in the in-lieu fund, whether it
is a residential or commercial fund~ but we find that even though we
collect the funds, it is v~ry dlfficult to 1e~erage those funds and buy
s~itable sites within Palo Alto. So to more directly answer your
question. ] tbink the housing (orporation does feel that the actual dirt
or land is a better deal than p~tting money in tne bank at this point, due
to the difficulties of building ~ousing in Palo AltG.
I tnink Hike answered fairly comprehensT~ely whether we can develop this
site. ] think the ~hole deve10pment process~ no matter what tne site is,
is a back-and-forth type of process -nere you have to work with neighbors
and build a development that is compatible with the neighborhood. In the
past, I think the housing corporation has demon~tratp.d tneir capabilities
ih doing tnat. We have worked very careful1y with the neighbors; we have
addressed their concerns, and w! are as concern~d aboyt the residents who
are gofng to occupy thes~ dwellings. So we would take great care, in
terms of going through the design and e~g1neering process, to take a look
at the noise, the impacts that our residents ~ou1d have, the impacts of
what would happen to the neighbornood. I have to believe that there is a
compromise and there is also a solution that would mltlgate most of those
problems. T~ey are not easy problems to overcome. 1 don't want to K+d
you as far as noise, odors, things of that sDrt are concerned. But due tc
the development agreement and the technftal capabilities that we h~ve in
our hands today, I think most of those could be overcome.
Edward Hope. 24511 Jere,miah Drive. Dana Ppint. CA: 1 am here tonight
representing property owners of both residentjal and commercial property
in tne South of forest Area. I will make my remarks bri~f tonight,
because I know you have heard a lot of these things. I have campl etely
read all of t~e staff report documents~ and I know a lot of these elements
are contained in there, but I know that for the record, I think it is
1mp~rtant to get some of these things out.
08/25/93
.J'
Tonight. we ha\le~ unfortunately. two distinct issues linked together as
one. It is unfortunate, because the developlM'nt that is proposed for
Arast"·adero is i very good de .. ·elopment, and tn my oplrtion, befng president
of my own deve~opment company and a licensed real estate broker in the
State of Calif{lrnia, 1 think it is a very appropriate use for that site,
as opposed to housing. Apparently the Comprehensive Plan had a map
overlaying that as hous~ng, even though the exist~ng zoning underlying
that was'fer industrial R&D use.
The purchase of the Alma site, which is what we are lcokin; at here, I
don't t~ink was properly represented at the beginning of this meeting as
be!ng a separate issue. The Alma site is being 100ked at as the
mitigating factor for the missing housing on ~rastradero, 1f, in fact,
you are going to buy the Alma site to mitigate the ~ous;n9 that would be
lost on Arastradero. tnen 'f yDU do not have it zoned for housing, and it
does not become housing~ how ~ave you mitigated the Arastradero
situation? So we have a bit gf a structural prob1em here of puttin.g the
cart before the borsE and the fact that this prop!rty 1S not zon~d.
So baslcally, there an! three elements. Housing: is nat appropriate on
Alma. T~e deal is not a good d~al. If it look.s like a bad deal. smel1s
like a bad deal, acts lik.e a bad deal, it is a bad dei1. This one smells
like a bad deal and looks like a bad deal. The city does not have to do
thfs. That is the th'lrd element. Why is housing not approprlate? We
naYe talked about the noise, the odors. We have talked about those
things, but we haVE not talked about the fact that there ;s ; 24·hour
towing business right next door to it. Tnere are tow truck.s going in and
out and cars going 1r. and out all day long. And the ~peration right next
door starts work at five a,m. r don't think r would want to live in that
environment.
It is inconsiste~t with the Compre~enslve Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
seeks to preserve the automotive us~s in that area. Parking we have
mentioned. It is already inadequate, hence the commercial leases that
were created on the site inditates a need for parking in the area. For
example, we are right now in wnat people would consider not necessarily an
economlc boom time. What happens if it becomes a beom time again? You
alreadj have a parking problem now, and all gf a sudden, the economy turns
around. what are you going t~ do then. if you keep adding to the parking
difficulties? I agree with Mr. Keenan that he is under no obl'gati~n to
keep th.at site as a parking lot. What tnat spp.aks to is that it would be
~ore appropriate to use that site as a parking lot than using it for
housing.
Another element of the inappropriateness of using t~is for housing is the
fact tnat it would be expensive to do housin~ here. J think it is
appropriate to note that tnis is n~t an issue related to SRO housing for
the owners ~f property in this area. This is an issue related to housing,
.ny type of housing, that would be incompatible next to these uses. 1t is
not just SRO. No one is singling out SROs not being able to reach their
destiny, whatever that may be.
The toxic aspec.ts of the site the staff report has called out. There a~'e
toxi,s on the site. I have had experience with this 1n the past. Jt is
expensi\le to remove to)(ics. r had a two-by-two oil spill where g{lH cart
oil was changed an a site of mine that cost 525,000 to remove. That was
08/25/~l
-14 -
the total cost.
And finally. I thin!;: housing is inappropriate because the rity has already
said it i.; inappropriate. There was a property a.t the corner of Addison
and Emerson that was a body shop. Trlat was eventually closed dawn, Gue to
resldentiai complaints fDr all of the reasons I have listed before. The
city has already agre.c:!d that t.hese two uses are incompatible, It would be
very inconsistent to try and put housing on this site at this point in
tifM.
Why is it a good deal? I would 1He to speak. to that. It is rather
interesting as to who gets wnat in this deal. Up front. the city coughs
up $650,000. It is ill IfIOnejl, the 1ast time I checked. Mr. Keenan gets
$650,000. Mr. Keenan loses land that has questionabie market value in
this market. ] can only p~int to tne RTC that has been selling
properties. They are not sen jrlg them f!)r 100 percent market vaiue, in
case anyone has looked at the papers these days. Many th1ngs can be
picked up for 25c on the dol1zr. So that would at least make the
questionab1e aspects of market va1ue an issue.
The city loses the ability to get a8 housing units, p~~haps, On the
Arastradero site. Mr. Kee~an gets the ab;lity to de~e10p 75,OOO~ square
feet of R&D space on that site. T~e city gets a promise that if he does
construct the R&D space sometime bet~en now ind the next ten years~ they
w11l get s~ money back~ That, to me, says that it is a pretty good deal
because basically. the city is finan'ing Mr. Keenan's development. I do
not know Qf IrlY prlJdent lender who goes out and mak.es a loan on a
develo~nt deal that is nat zoned for its intend~ use. 8y bUYlng this
property, you are basically making a loan with tl~payer dollars to
yourselves or to t~e Palo Alto Housing Corporation to buy this property,
and 1t is not zoned. There is no guarantee that it will be zoned~ or if
you are telling me there is a guarantee ,t will b! zoned, then we Ire
putting the cart before the horse again, and it is already zoned somehow
Kaglcally behind closed doors. I don't think that is th~ way the pro~ess
works here in Palo Alto.
J have already mentioned the fact that if it does not get rezoned. then
you have not really mitigited anything in this case, and yOIJ are out
$550,000. You may recoup S~ of it or all of it. but there is no
guarantee on that. I guess t~e real question here is, why does the city
need to buy the land in advance of zoning it? It does not make any sense
to ~ that tney would need to do that, because the city has the power to
zone it. Jf tney hawe the power to zone it. zone it if it makes sense,
then buy the land. If you can't buy it, then you condemn it and get it
for market value Uren. So] do not understand why.that is being done.
Another thing is that the business owners and resldents in tnat area are
committed to oppose tne project. It is a very strong commitment, bence r
have flown up from Southern Cal Hornia on tnetr behalf. It is odd that
the Clty seems to be saying in t~ese documents that there is some
requirement for mitigation for the loss of housing. I am not familiar
with any law under CEQA that requires mitigation for the loss ~f housing.
So in terms of calling this mitigation, that tends to make one think tnat
this lS a CEQA requir!ment. when. in fact, there r!ally is no law~ This
is not b~in9 required by law. ~Tom what I gather, th~s is a matter of
desire, and' the city attorney can best speak to this. -l!n it reall
08/25/93
-)5· ._----
•
$ho~Td address the Comprehensive Plan, which calls for the preservation of
the automotive services in th~t ~rea. That was the stated desire of this
cornnunity.
The list element on the deal is realiy a question. understand that
there are three SRO facilities in Palo Alto at this time. 1 guess the
real Question is, how many SRO facilities does Palo Alto need? what is
P .. 10 Alto's fair share of the regional SRO burden? r do not know, 1 djd
not see that addressed in the documents. It is just a queitior.,
To surrmarize, !flY c1ients feel that this is a de"elopment that should be
approved but should not be approved in the context of the development
agreement as it is ~ow presented. It shouid be approved 1 and Mr. keenan
should be allowed to pay hiS double fees, a~ was originally indicated, ~nd
that t~e issue of housing should find its ho~ in an approcriate location
for housing.
Jo~ Yarkin. 152 Homer Aven~~to: T~is fs my bU$iness add~ess? ar.d
my concern is about 753 Alma Street, not about 10S0 Arastradero. The 753
Alma site has 17.640 square feet, as you probably all know. The maximum
hOll.sing allowance no~ is 12 units. Po unH could be 250 square feet, or it
could be 2,O{lO square feet. WE ere tal King about the nlJmber of unlts Hat
would be allowed on the square footage. What is being proposed here is
something with a m~nimum of 80 units. That means that on that lot of
17,640 sq~are feet, you are going to have somewnere bet~een 100 ind 200
people living on about a thinf-of-an-acre lot. You are really going to be
jamming these people in. Sc yQU are tal ling ~bout an extremely
high-density use of the property. Tonight, for the first time, I heard
about a mixed use. which would mean commercial and 80 units. which would
even eake it worse.
If the city works out an arrang~nt with Keenan-lDv~well Ventures at 1050
ATastradero, that is one thing. But to tie this to an SRO because the
developer owns the lot is essentially something els!. There are other
properties that you knDw and I know will be coming up on the market. Al1
we have to do lS mention the possibility of the Palo Alto Medical
Fo~ndation which is proposing. and it seems lixe it wi119 be movlng.
That, in itself, would certainly be a muth more adequate location, and I
am sure there will be otherS that will be coming up.
T~e developer, as i understand it, is willing to pay t~o times the
standard fee, Dr approximatelJ 5470,000, for developing lOSe Arastradero
Road. I am astounded that the members Qf th~ housing corporation came
here tonight and said that they felt this was an adequate site fo~
nousing. r cannot believe, when you think that there are three auto
repair shops all around. and the use around t~ere is essentially light
ind~strial or heavy commercial, that t~is would be a good site for
housing. ! t~ink the city should takE its money and go ahead with the
development of lOSO Arastradero, and lOOK and really spend ti~e and look.
If you build poor housing on this site. we are all going to be stuck w\th
1t --tne pe6ple who live there and the residents nearby. We are gOing to
have to live with this for a lon~, 10ng time. So it is better to wait and
look carefyllY ind find a suitable s;te than say yes, Hr. Keenan is
offering this site, tnerefore, in lie~ of the fact that W~ have nothing
else rtght now, we better take it. That is a poor reason for de~elcpin9
that site.
08/25/93
-16-
•
-------,--~--:-.
To buy the property at 753 Alma Street for 5650,000 with the possibility
that you may then sell it if it proves inadeQlate for housing does not
make sense. In other words~ the or.ly reason fer buying 753 Alma is for
housing. If that is inadequate, then it should be turned down now, You
shouldn't ~ in t.he business of buying and sell i()g pre-perty. If you
dec1de to buy it. you should buy it as housing. If you decide that maybe
it won't work as a housing use, then you shouldn't buy it. The
consideration ha.s to be made now whether to use it for housing or not.
You can't say, .!il. we will buy it. and we will pay Mr. Keenan hi~
S650.000~ and then if it doesn't t~rn out okay. then we will turn around
and 5eli it f~r a better property. That is using public money for
something that is not int!nded. rh~ point is to use it for houslng. If
yo~ are not going to u)e th~t site for housing, don't buy it. Reject it
right now. let Mr. Keenan gi¥e you t~e money and loor. for a good ~ite.
lOOk for an adequate site. Tne idea that~ in effect. the city ~ou1d
aimost be gifted this property is very misleading. The city js not in the
b~siness of buying and selling property. Ther! is a potential conflict of
interest for the city here. If it buys the property and then rezones ~t,
it,is acting ~ith two different hats --one perso~ acting t~ different
roles. So you are puttlng yourself in a potential conflict of interest
situation.
I feel ~omew~at at a loss here, bec~use it seems t~at essentially. a deal
has been struck between the city and Mr. Keenan a.,d Stanfcrd. We are
comhg in at the eleventh hour and sayfng. hey~ we don't like this. We
donlt think it is i! good deal. I feel at a loss; I feel fr1.lstntt"dj r
feel that if anything. before you even cGntemplated something like t~is,
tnis process should have been going ~n. Now we are being presented .1most
Wit~ I contract that the city is being asked to sign. This is tne end of
the giUDe!. not the beginning of the game. It should be the beginni"9 of
the game. We are being faced with an end-game situation.
In thie staff report dated August 20 that you just rece1ved, it says, -The
753 Alaa slte has the advantage of being vacant and avai1able.-TrUE.
They also say, -It is not a prise location for retail or office use
because of 1ts noise~ speed of traffic, and 1imited access for Alma
Street.-8y what rationale. then, is it ade~uate for residential use?
cannot figure that out. Are essentially ~oor. v~ry-low-income people to
be crowded onto a small lot that is not even adequat! for commercial use?
T~at is all I have to say.
Qle Christensen, ?8a Clara orive, Palo Alto: r am the ~er of Ole's Car
Shop at 801 Alma 'Street. I grew up ir: this city. 1 came up through all
the schools. My kids go to school here. L.st year, I bought a building
nere in the downtown area, so this is. my concern. We ha'ie been £Iced with
lots Df parking problf!ms in the dOW':'ltown area. We hay! hld flO real help
in dealing wit" it, and any development at the 753 site is j~st going to
increase our problem ~lth all our business!s in the downtown area. I have
no prc~lem at all with Mr. K!enan doing his development on Arastradero. I
thi~k it is excellant, Palo Alto needs that kind of Quality stuff, so we
should proceed in that area. like many other people who have spoken here
tonight. th~ 753 site should be taken out of the program completely and
not discussed. let Mr. Keenan pay his fe~s and let the market deal with
the 753 Alma Street site in the futUre. In other words. if Mr. Keenan
~ants to sell it to do s01ll,e othe-r development and work. with a lot of us in
"""
08/25/93
-17 -
I ~
1 < ~
I
tne business community. we are ~ilting to listen to that kind of thlng.
Putting an SRO downtown, Jow income. jamming everybody together,
potentia11y, there may be kids do~ there. Where are they going to plaj?
Out in tn€ street? 1t dDesn't make any sense. 1 alsc agr~e that it
snould be separated out from the Arastr-adero program so that they are
totally separate. My game plan is to stay here in Palo Alto for 25 or 30
years an'd: continue my business. My business provides iii sen/ice for
probably {our or five thousand people minimum 1M the community. I don't
intend to expand it an~re than I am doing right now, because J am very
happy with it. It is under control. If you get too big a business, you
lose control of it. I like tne personal element that J ha~e in~olye1 in
it. Keeping it cute and small tne way 1 ha~~ it is perfect. J think a
lot of the Dther business owners, we ~,ave a Jot of repair shops, small
software shops, e~erythin9 else in the area feels the same way. They are
here to su~pcrt the community. Peop1e work downtown, get their car
serviced, drDp it off in the morning, p;ck it up at the end of the day.
That is very important to people who live in downtown Palo Alto. By
putting more squeezes in the area~ ~aking parking even more of a problem,
will eventually pnase more and more auto repair shops out of downtown
Pale A1to, Which is net what the city realTy wants. So it doesn't Make
any sense to me that we do that kind of thing. So in summation, [ think
it is e~ce'lent that keenan go ahead and do nis Arastradero program. but
puil the 153 Alma program out of it .nd let that be completely separate.
Geff egrtels~n. 960 Waverley Street. Palo Alto: I am part owner of the
property that is right across the alley from 753 Alma Street. 1 ~ouTd
1fk! to ask a question that ~as nDted i~ the last staff report. Page a,
bott~ paragraph, where it says, -It sho~ld be "oted that under either
development proposal, the Comprehensive PTan land yse designation of the
site will be changed-{this i; referring to the Aristradero ~ite) -to
Office Research Pirk e\len if the project is riot developed ind no fees are
collected.-Does anYone want to expand on that?
Chairman Beecham: Not at the moment+
in Qur diSCUSSion.
am sure we will talk about that
Mr. Bertelson: It wouid seem to me, and prcbabiy to most people who nave
observed this, that the history of t~e Arastradero site is One tnat was
zoned Research and De,.-elopment as part of the Stanford Research Park..
Sometime in the past, perhaps, some gEnius got the idea that t~ey wou1d
pick this site out of the ~iddle of tne research park and designate it for
housing. Therefore, it got into the Comprehensl\le Plan, but the zoning
never got cna~ged. As anyone would expect, the city has n~w found that
nobody wants to develop housing in the middle of Stanford REsearch Park,
albeit very bucolic, compared to the site yDu are now leoking at. So we
have a little pile of goo that was created on the Arastradero site. Now
we want to correct that, so we arE going to ha~e two errors to cor'reet one
error.
Mr. Yar/(in and Hr. Hope have said quite a bit about the issues, and the.)1
have said it quite well. so r wtll not repeat them. The fact that this
proposition has been work1ng its way through city government for over a
year without any notification to the property owners around the Alma
Street site, and as a matter of fact, we were only offiCially noticed~ not
by the city, but by the ~ousing corporation in their little meeting of
08/25/93
-lB·
/
June 23rd. Tt'lat means tnat a,is proc.ess has been 90fn9 on for over a
year. But that has been addressed.
" ."
I think that rather than condemning Mr. Keenan, J think we ought to
acknowledge the fict that we are in the presence of sheer genlus. He has
been able to propagate this thing f~r over a year~ to bamboozle and
mystify everybody rn city go~ernment to th~ pOint. now, where he has the
property that I know he has had for seven or eight years. The sign !s
still up. He is one of the most competent developers in the city, and the
property hasn't moved. But you are gOing to pay S650,OOO for it.
Vonderful. He ha~ also convlnc.ed the hDusing corporation to use pub11c
filnd:; tOo put' ow-; ncome hOlJs; n9 in the middl e of ali industrial area.
Wonderfu1. Tnat is from the Barstow Schoo1 of Urban Oes~gn. The hous,ng
corporation is willing to gamble public monies, because they think they
can make it ~rK. How, isn~t th's mafve'ous? 1his is i ~ad hitter's te~
party. Mr. Keenan and the housing c~rporatio" are saying, in effect, that
we should all be1'~ve that th;s is all going to come true. Not since the
Wizard of Oz, all tne fortune tel1ers, the Barnum and Baileys~ have ~e
ever seen anyone that even equals this proposal4 [think we are in the
presence of greatness. I don1t come to candemn tMis proposal. 1 think we
$hou1d praise it. 1 think you should pay him I million dollars for the
site, and I t~ink you should make the ume prapos.3l to all Qf us other
property owners around there, because this man ~as sheer genius.
So let's forge ahead. Pay him all the money he wants, and l!t the ho~sing
corporation put Mousing in and create, by any other calculation of the
city ordinan,es, a ]65-car parking deficit by their plan that was
submitted for the site. let's add that to the neighborhood, because thj;
is wonderful. Thank you.
Earl f. Schmidt. ?Ol Homer Avgnue. Palo Alto: My wire, my brother-in-law
and mys~lf o~ this property at 201 Homer, also the property at 200 Ha.er,
the property at 9CO ~~rson end It 825 Emerson. We ~ave all of thE
prGperty around the s~te that Mr. Keenan has dl~elope~ for the ~ho1e foods
Market. I have several matters that [ would ];ke to discuss with you,
most specifiea11y~ and I dD this for the matter of public record~ because
yo~ n~tify that if there is to be any followup beyond Pla~ni~g Commission
and City Council, it must be raised at this time.
The Number One i tern I want to raise is with reference to par~k.jng. It is a
~ery serio~s and growing problem fer the entire Palo Alto soutM commercial
ir€a (CDS). The parking sltuation today is beyond any reconciliation with
the development that Palo Alto has. We are unde~oing , tenth or twelfth
city study of parking4 W2 are still at a pOint where a whole block rignt
outside of City Hall has not been put up witM any kl~d of parking
limitation. I raised this witn the City of Palo Alto ten or twelve
times. You have I whole b10ck across the street where you can park
for~ver~ exce~t you cannot park for more t~an three days. Palo Alto Mas
to face its parking probleil'l. This relates to the clJrrent property use.
Mr. Gilliland .as very kind to provide fer De t~e after·the-fact d~ti)1
not given to those who had txpressed con, ern and interest in the rezoni"9
.nc redevelopment of the P,doleford property .fter some questions .nd
challenges that 1 made at the earl1er meeting. I stress this. The
after-the·fact agreements re.ched by city staff, approved by the City
Council. after all of the other requirements vere put, tnrc J9h end never
08/25/93
-19-
.. --~ .... ~ ...... ,---"
+.
, "
1
I,
/
presented to the people w~o ~ad expressed interest in the propertJ
earlier. Specifically, 1 learned from the document pro~ided me by
Mr. Gf1llland that based on t"'11~ original intent of the property that is
n~w Wnole foods~ the city zoning requirement provided for net more than 66
park.ing spac.es to be us~d by that 1 arge bu ilding. A wand of some kind 'lifts
raised in order to say that all of t~e Test of the Paddleford property ~a5
free and (lear. ir.cluding 753 Alma Street. without any parking
requirements. Nothjng. absolutely nothing was said, other than what may
C~ up later. The city staff has spelled out the requirement that that
was the case. 66 parking spaces were required for the building that now
houses Whole FOOds. I challenge that this was ever relat@d to a major
store sellIng all types of food and health products. That is all that was
required fGr that property. 99 spaces wer! fou~d on that property, and
the additional spices were dlvided between the City of Paris. owned by Mr.
Keenan, also on Hamer Avenue, and betW!!l"'I the forn;er Palo Alto Transfer
building. to sati~fy the additional spaces ~eeded on tnat.
~e have wound up wit~ a serious deficit of parling because of tnat o~e
development not ever publiCized, not ever having gone through the Planning
Commission, to my knowledge, and pre1ente~ by the staff to the City
Council. Included in that property is the present 753 Alma site. Tne &&
or 99 spaces in t~e Whole Foods lot. which is immediately adjac~nt to our
properties. is nowher! near capable of handling the needs Df Palo Alto's
one major, downtown food store. All of the Palo Alto Who1~ Foods
employees ~o do not park On the street and move their Cilrs are parked
over at 753 Alma. T~1s afternDon, at 2:30 p.~ .• that site w~s acc~pied by
29 cars and one space loaded up with barrels of some kind. If that space
is removed for a~y other purpose, Mr~ Keen~~ advlses that it is his right
to remove it, and ne can lock it up tomorrow if he chooses and t~row out
his tenants, we Ire short nearly 40 spaces right ~ow in a space that is
jammed full of cars, day and nIght.
Z have seen the studies. Mr. Keenan. of co~rse. is on the P~rking
Advisory COMmittee of the Chamber of Coamerce. We have i seriaus deficit
in parking. Irrespective of any other matters that ~ave been raised
regarding '53 Alma. if the city needs t~ retain some option in order to
provide a parking garage 1n Palo Alto Cammer,ial South, this is one of the
areas that could be used to release the amount of pressure that is on the
area.
Tne last retard I have se!n of the city-negotiated under-ground parj(1ng was
somewhere in excess of SZO,QQO per space for underground parkin9. Here is
a lot that now has 39 spaces on it. To duplicate that lot Ynderqround
would cost the City of Palo Alto $780,000, at $20,000 a space_ The City
of Palo A1to could well ~fford to go ahead and pay Mr. Keenan the fu1l
market value, pave it with city equipment, and co~ up with a darn fine
parking tot and ~se tne property. He is giving the city something at
S600,OOO. I will admit. Very seriously. th15 is one c-f the prottlems that
the Planning Commission and the City (ouncil must face.
We own commercial rental property. we have held fer years on our
commercial rental property that rather than setting exaggerated rates or
price raises, we hav! held to tne Consumer Price Index (CPJ). The papers
tnat nave been presented to you as an agreement by the staff propose that
the CPl. in the fo~eseeable future. is an inflation factor of l percent
over the "ext ten years. I deal every year with leases that c~ncern
08/25/93
-20-
•
..
themselves with CPl. We have not dropped below 4 percent on any prop€rty
in Palo Alto in any year, including last lI'.ont~ in CPl. To go a~ead and
prDpDse that we are going to d~crease the ~itigation factor by 1.5 percent
is an insult to iny t~inking banker or property owner. T~is is a
won:erful agreement, but it sure doesn't work for me as a taxpayer. It
certainly does not work for people in the City of Paio Alto to get into
this kind of a preordained deal that we are guaranteeing ~nat an inflation
factor ~s J percent over t~e next ten years. but we are gOing to be nicE.
~e are onl~ 90in9 to increase by 1.S percent.
I agree with what the previous ~p~akers had to say about the value and
ap?ropriateness of Mr. Keenan's developm€nt on Arastradero. But I think
tne city has to start getting sO.'!le better deals than we have gotten in the
past~ and Wi!' have to start looking for value receiv~d. If we can afford
to pay 520,000 in development for und~rground parking s~cond and third
leveis. which does nDt, except for City Hall, get used. I think wt have to
look very seriously about what we are doing now with our city dollars to
go a~ead and buy up property that can provide parking and. when necessary,
to go ahead w~th parking districts.
1 would say one otner thing with regard to housing alternatives. We are
in the middle between the clinic a~d between Alma and the Alma
commercial. We have had to resist the great Palo Alto downtown plan.
~h;ch was going to ~ipe out all of our commercial the way the city wiped
out some commercial on El Camino without thinking about us several years
ago, and you ar~ still getting around it. It almost wiped out all of the
a~tomotiye just i couple of y!irs ago with otner planning commissions and
other city councils. We know. and r hope you all know, that in
contemplati~n of a plan t~at was not accepted, ot~er than by the vote. the
Palo Alto Medical Foundatio~ purcnased an entire block bounded by Homer
Ayenue~ Channing Avenue~ Ram~na and Bryant Streets. There is in entire
block, and tne on11 thing that came into public notice about it was the
fact that there was a del1tist W.~C) would not settle with them until they
finally s6ttled with him. You have a whol~ blocc of housing and parking
now sitting while the Palo Alto Medical foundation. with the dollar
backing of the Sacramento Medical CentErs, with the backing of the
Palo Aito Sutter Centers, the clinic is right now preparing to build, and
are erasing. according to today's paper, the last impediment which 'Was the
Standard Oil Site which they are proceeding with in order to excavate and
be prepared to ha~e a cle~n slte of nine acres on which they can bUild on
for all their needs. You have at hand lriHhin the ilTlTK!diate, foreseeabl.E
future a bunch of housing that has not been maintai"ed by the c~inic. not
maintained by prior owners. parking areas that have not b~en maintained.
and you are prepared to go ahead and move to buj1d nousing on a site that
presents all of tne problems in the world wnen you have housing
availabl1ity and land availability deSignated for housing. except by the
clinic's ~chinations. iya;)able to you ~C)w and in the immediate,
forese~able future. The clinic is not going to build on it. They cannot
bui 1d on it.
1 propose that this be looked at ~ery, very carefully by this commisslon,
and certainly by the City Council. These ar~ issues tnat directly relate
to the plan tnat has finally been made public to those of us who h.v.
property in the area+ It was on1y through tne hOUSing corporation. and I
commend them on the kind of job they have done for ~s here in Palo Alto
with good ho~sing for people with lower income. They maintain it well and
they administer it well. It was only through them that the public. who
08/25/93
-21-
.-----~.'.'-.
needed to be advised of what was ~appening, became aware of what was
happening with this property proposal that was negotiated by staff with
Mr. Keenan. Thank you.
Marlene Schmidt. Menlo Park: I OJrm the pr9perty at 137, 139, 145 Forest
Aver.ue 3~d 666 and 66t High Street. I did not come prepared toni9ht like
my contempoi·ary. and knew that wnat is being sOlid is probably going to
te brought up again ~t a public nearing, but it has just came to my mind
and I would like to lick up where Mr. Scnmidt left eff. I looked
downstairs at the plln for the d~~elopment of the medical center, anO 1
noticed that there is a footbridge that starts at Alma and goes OYer the
rajlroa~ tracks. 1 qye~·ion why you are spending money for a footbridge
when the inclination woula be that you are going to park somewhere and go
over the bridge on foot. H~v~ I am ~rong about that concept, but dOES
your plan have i footbridge?
Chairman a~gcham: There is no footbridge lnvol~ed in this.
Ms. Schmjdt: T~ the medical center]
Chainman Be2cham: We h~ve not seen that yet.
Ms. Sthmjdt: r th~ught tnat I saw a footbridge in the p1an downstairs
going OVEr from Alma to the medical Center. Parki~g is a prob1ern, and it
is a problem for all our tenants. rt;s a problem for me to gt to work.
I ne~er can find a plac~ to park on Migh Street. There were just SQ~
things tnat were brought up by Marlene Prendergast. She said poor people
do not nave cars. A reality check is that usually, they do. a~d the
police spend a lot of ti~ tOWing away a lot of j~nk cars they have around
the Haight. ett. in San Francisco. r am sure you hav~ had the same
problem with junk tars in PaiD Alto.
About shopping, 1 don't know that peop'~ who have to live in single-room
occupancy units can afford lunches at Cafe Verona {Ir b~y a p01Jnd of Peet's
:::offee or e\'en the prices at Whole Foods is above average. So I think
tkat is ~nreal that the pe{lplf wno live there will be able to use this
area for shopping. On the other nand~ i am trying to see t~e directi{ln of
Palo Alto. I see it getting ~ore like Redwood City, because when you walk
around on Hamilton, you have tne Craig Hoiel and you ha~e Casi Olga, and
there is the Palo Alto Hote1, and now you ha~e Ross for Less. I na~e not
heard anyone talk about the pa~kln9 fo; Ross for less. Maybe I have not
been keeping up on things, but I do n~t know where all those people are
going to park to go to Ross for less. I am just trying tn see if this
housing or Ross for less may be working together.
I do feel that in a reality check, I am a native of San FranCisCO, and
was there when they b~ilt the first low-cost ho~sing at Bay and Columbus.
There were sooe people I knew who had to have th~rapy? and it seemed like
a very adequate s01~tion. A mother and daughter lived there, and I went
over to visit them. a~d r thought. gee. how nice. There are concrete
floors and it is a concr~te building and utility kitchen. and it all
seemed very nice. Now that is known as the Pink Palace. I think Governor
Jerry Brown, , to~ple of ye.rs 'go, had to have anned 9uards to go through
it, bec3use there was so much drugs, alcohol, etr. It is an unreal
conteption, but iaw-cost housing does tend to brIng in shifty people
because they are going in and out very rapidly. YOy get an element that
~8/25/93
-11-
i5 conducive to having drugs and problems. The same thing happened on
A~y Street in the Mission. I dcn't know what housing Ms. Prendergast has
been looking at, but if you go to San Franc~sco, I have not seen any
low-cost housing that ts not in a police state. I am surf there will be
more things brought up at a public hearing, ~ut J just don't see that as
being cond~cive with the n€ighbor~ood or uplifting for the neighborhood ir.
any way.
Cheri Ellison. lSO West Edith. lDS A1tos: My father is ~us Ellison, who
owns Ellison's. Body Shop. I agree .ith everything that has been said
tonight, and I just want to go back in time a little to the last meeting I
~ttended, where PAHC had expressed thefr opinion on what they were looking
for. They have stlted that their mission was to fInd a piece ~f prop~rty
that blended into t~e community. So when I put on my loglcal mind and I
look at the (riteria for blending into a community, and r go through a
c~eckl;st, when you bring up all the issues mentioned tonight, it does not
compute. So when you look at wizardry or SD~one wnc Cin create something
that looks like a good deal. but is Edward said, if it doesn't smell like
a good dealt act 1ik! a good deal, J think sometimes the log;cal mind is
not present. When you are looking for SRO housing, you realTy want to
please people and you see vacant land. So you sal, an, vacant land. Now
we nave it. rt looked like the Chop-swap wou14 work. But then when you
appiy your logical mind to it and you hav2 the nOise pollution and the
fumes and the parking and everyth;ng t~at was brought up this evening. it
just did nct seem to fit the criteria. ! know you .ant to dream that you
have solutions to overcoming tnese problems, but I in~ite all of you to
spend time t~ing to find a parking place now, without the add~t;on of
housing and more people trying to fit themselwes into tnkt site. So I
propose, because the most logical solution to this seems to be to put
parking in that area, it is nat suitable fGr an~ ~ous;ng. as has been
stated before. In summary, when you have i ~ission statement. that is the
oath of your company. 1 have owned man,)' compar'!ies, and when you have a
mission statement, you gut-wrench over that. You ask yourself, what are
we about, and yo~ go through it and yo~ really put a lot of thought into
that. Wber. you get to the bottom of what we are about, and if what we are
about 1s to blend lnto a community. J just t~ink toere mlght be • better
place that this could blend. So my proposal is to solve two problems.
One ;s to create more parking on that lot, which J think it is ideal for,
and the other one ts to find an alternatfve site wnere people would not
have to put up with noise and fumes, ind everybody woul~ be a lot happier.
Regina Thomas. 20]6 Midd1ef1eld Road. Palo Alto: ! am the Executive
Director of the Urban Ministry. r nave a couple of Concerns. My first
concern i~ the overwhelming need for single-room occupancy hotels in
Palo Alto. I deal with peopl e every day who work In our town and cannot
afford to live here. :.'€ need to add'ress that issue, The c.ity has stated
a commitment to providing low·cost housing, and it seems to me that in the
short ti~ that 1 nave been in my position~ as projects come up, there is
always an objection to a site. It is not the appropri~te Site. I don't
think a truly ilppropriate site exists in Palo Alto. If we wilit around to
find this ideal location that is not going to be impacted by existing uses
or in a c~~nity that is not going to be opposed to sing1e-room-occupancy
hotels, we are not goIng to do that kind of • p"oject ir. our city for,
long time. r think the assumption that, somehow~ crime and negative
eleme~ts follow is a misstatement of fact. Enough said on that.
08/25/93
-23-
"
.'
'-:-~,~;,-
. .'<;;t;:,
The other issue that has been raised is that somenow, by providing
SO-some-Ddd units, it would increase the amount of parking needed. Tnat
does not jibe with any reSeal"Cn that I have done; nor wi tn our i!-xperience
at tne Barker folatel. People that 1iVe in slJch housin-g do not own cars.
At thp. e",arker, during the whol~ time of our invol'llement. one tenant ha.d a
car. People want to live downtown becalJse of its easy access to
employment. transportation. At best. we are talking about i bike probTem,
not a car problem. So whatever parking problem~ exist in Palo Alto, they
are J'lot going to be exacerbateci by the existence of addltlona1 hou.sing at
that site. So I "uHJld urge the Planning CormJ'Tssion to take advantage of
an opportunity to go forward with a project an land that is available and
to end our discussion about being committed to low-cost housing, instead
of acting schlzophre~ic in the sense that we 'an never find a site to do
it on. Those are my concerns.
Patricfa Schmidt. 201 Homer Ayenu~. Palo A1to: ] live on the corner of
Homer and Emerson Street. We ~ave heard a lot tonight t~at I, of course,
agree with. I especially agree with the parking comments, which is a real
prab'~ in that area. One thing that has not Come up is that the city,
aWhile back, 1n none of our properties do we have automoti'llE people, so I
do not have any relatto~ tij any automotive people, but the city has always
said to the people who have automotive down in our area, they want to keep
them t~ere. They want them to fj~ up their p,operties. The automotive
people do not believe the city, because the minute something like that
gets started, then they throw something else at them. This is exactly tne
same thing. Here it is ~n automotive area. It nas all the nQlse and the
fUlIes. Some af the people have started fix-ing up their places, so now.
what we do, we are thinking of putting bousing in the middle of it. rt is
j~st like an lirport. They build in airport. There isn't any housing
around it, then all of a s,~en, someone comes aTong in that (1ty and lets
them build nDusing. nlDse people then start complaining about the n<!he
of the airport. There is nothing t~at says, if we get housing on this
prDperty, w~ich I don't think is right because the city said they are
committed to the automotive in that area? they want ta continue it. There
is nothing that says, if we get housing in that area, whether they say
they can soundproof it, they can smellpro~f it, or do anything, what if
these people start comp1aining and say, we can't stand the smoke. We
cannot sleep there all night. There is the company right next door that
has been in bUSiness for yeaTS and years, so I think thi~ is something
else that should be taken into consideration. It has not come up
ton i ghL There are lots of autoiTlOt he peop 1 e he re . They ha ve not sa i d
anything about it. and I think this is a real concern. If someone said,
if Chop Keenan wants to b~nd out on Arastradero, let hjm build on
Arastradero. and then do something else in this commercial area south of
Fcrest.
Chairman Beecham: With that, I will close the public hearing ana bring
this session back to the commission.
C~~issioner Qiak1an: I nave a question fer anyone fram the housing
corporation. I ~ate to bring this thing back full circle again, but in
your opinion, looling .t the 1050 Arastradera s1te, and in th~ opinion of
the housing corporation. s that a s;t~ that fs developable for housing?
Is tnat a site where hO~~lng could actua11y go in? We debated this the
first time around, and it is sort af a can of ~orms to bring it up again,
but during the first time around, I had a lot less experience. It was the
08/25/93
-24-
-'---~' , ~r
:,:<..~
first iss~e I Mad ever dea1t ~1tn on the Planning Commission. 1 fee1 that
it needs to be asked now. If somebody w~nted to put housing up there. in
your opinion, as a deve10per Df hOlls1ng, would that site be suitable for
haus irtg?
Mr. Ander$on: I think tt is developable for nGusing, but for the Kind of
hDusing we are talking about tonight, the ans~er is no. It does not have
the qualities we have tal~ed about --the mlSS transportation, close to
jobs, close to the type of jobs that we expect these people will be doing,
close to all the transportation hubs. so it does not so1ve the S~O problem
tnat we are trytng to address this ev!ning.
Cgmmlss;oner Ojakiao: So it is suitable for hous;ng, but a different type
of houslng.
Mt~ Andenon: Absolutely.
Chairman Beecham: I have some Qu!stions for staff. Perhaps staff ean
clarify for us what the council's policy is for preserving tne auto uses
in this area.
Mr. Schrejber: Regarding City Council ~olicy, in 1990-91, the city staff,
worting with the Planning CommisstDn and City Council, did an evaluation
of the South of Forest ~ommercial area, called SOFA. The City Council, in
September of 1991, approved a number of statements of intent, of
direction~ to staff regarding t~e issue of auto service bUSinesses. Two
statements were adopted regarding auto serviee-s and land use along .a.lma.
One is to allow the auto service businesses to remain indefinitely. Tnat
is different froa actively seeking tneir retention. The loning allows a
var;ety of land ~ses in the area, including residential, retail,
service/comaercial~ and some limited offite use.
The second City Council position was to consider. in the Comprehensive
Plan update process, incentives 110ng t~e Alma corridor fer a higner
density, mixed us~, office/residential uses. There is n~t a policy to
amend t~e loning ordinance, but tnere is the-intent to cons\der
office/residential use incentives along the Alma corridor.
Chainman Beecham: In terms ~f your refe-rence to the Alma corridor, is
that farther d~n the corr;.dor more toward Embarcadero Rcad~ Dr is that
the sectior. that actively inyolv~s the auto uses here?
Mr. Schr~iber: It is the se-etion that actively involves the auto uses,
because the study focused on t~e South Df Forest co~rcial area, which
includes tnE auto Ser'lflceS along A1ma and the nearby resider.t ial area. So
the Al.a corrjdor 1S really this area we are talking about tonight.
(h~jn!3n Beec~am: Has th~re beer. any discussion about changing the loning
to protect automotive uses more, slnc2 the current zoning allows a wide
range of actjvitles, including ho~sing?
Mr. Schreiber: I think there has been some discussion of that.
In tnls case, I think we are a little schizophrenic in t~e sense
that a lot of participants in the city process, myself included,
believe that retaining the auto service uses in this area should
08/25/93
-25-
--.~-....-----.
..
be J high prior1ty. We feel thEY do ?~o~idi i service to the community.
Clearly. the way to bring that a~out would be t~ change the land use
polic~ and change the loning to se~erely restrict conver~ion to any other
use besides auto sEr~ict. That is the way to pre5fr~e them. However, the
city is going to tilk.~ any spechl l(tion to try to stop t~e mark.e.t from
doino ~hat ;t will in terms of a broader palette of land use alternatives
~vailable in the zuning. The zoning does allow the RM-30 residentia1
density.
Chairman Beecham: Ha~ the city fVer gotten any idea from the businesses
in t~at area as to whether they wou1d be amenable to downloning it to
limit it to automotive uses?
MI". Schreiber: I am net aware of any spedfit poll of that issue. My
sense is that on that issue, there would also be a split. At times, ~e
have heard from Dwners of properties who ~ave 1eased to auto servlce uses
that they are not interested in changing tne zoning. Some of the autD
servict uses are o~ner-otcupied. Mi~Y of them are 1~asehDlds. 50
sometimes th05~ in favor of retaining the auto service uses are not the
property o~ers. So you get 1 spl't the~. lh~ pr~pErty owners ge~eraliy
'Want as Il'wch flexibility as possible under the zoning.
Chairman Bee~ham: lhere has beEn a lot of emphasis on parking. If we
consider an alternativ£ use at 753 Alma, if it goes into some type of
other commercial deveTopment, what are the parking requirements it wou1d
flee? How many parKing spaces must it provide? Is there a parkir.g
assessment district there now, or could one be tnere in the future?
Mr-Schreiber: [t is not within the parking assessment district. Ms.
Cise can perhaps speak to whether it coyld be added to the district. 1
think it would be difficult, at best, to add it to the existing parking
assessment district. Certain1y the cit, could create a new parking
assessment district in that area. There has been so~ reference in the
discussion that the city should spend some money to buy the lot for
paY~;ng. When the city does that, the property owners pay the ~)11. It
i$ not fram the city general fund. So those would be chargebacks against
tne properties in the area.
As far as any reuse or redevelopment ~f that site or any other site. it
will need to meet the parking require~nts of the zoning ordinance. Those
depend upcn the type of use.
Chairman Beecham: So if an Dffice building were to go in there, whatever
tne FAR is that is allowed, what is an approximat! parking requirement
they would ~aye to satisfy?
Mf. Schreiber: Onp space per 250 sqUire feet.
Chairman Beecham: In that case, the parking that c-urrently is available
to the area would be lDst, but ttl!: site would not create any 4idditioT,ill
d.,..nd.
Mr. Schreiber: Consistent with the loning, yes. Some uses obviously will
specificill~ generate more parkln9 demand, and others ~;ll generate less
parking demand. The zon1ng ordinance is aimed at satisfying the parking
08(25(93
-26·
· .
.---'----.
needs of the typical' LIse occupying tf;at type of striJcture.
Cha~rman Betcham; Regarding the Whole foods employees who are parking
there now under a lease arrangement with the owner of the parcel, nQW does
t~e cit'yIS r~quirel1lents on Whole Foods for parking re1ate to this site?
Mr. Schreiber: There is no relatior.sh'fp.
with Hr. Keenan is a privat2 transaction.
requirements.
The Whole foods arrangement
It is not based on any city
Chairman Beecham: The city has no requirement of Whole Foods to find
parking for its employees?
Hr. Scnre~btr: No. The parking requirements for the Whole Foods site,
cons1sttnt with the zoning~ were satisfied by the lot acro~s the street.
Th~re is a provis;nn in the zoning ordinance that when you h2ve a change
in ~se and the existing use has a parking deficit, the ne~ use does not
have to male up that def1cit. In other words, if you have a use thit has
a requirement for 2S space~. and it provides only ten spaces, when the new
use c~s in, it does not nave to make up tkat IS-space deficit. So a new
food store wou1d have had a higher parking requirement, but that site was
converted from the Paddleford automobile operation that had a significant
parking deficit. That deficit was esser.tially carried over to the new
use.
Chainman Beecham: $0 Whole Foods did not have to pick up the deficit fro~
the other sections of that parc!l?
Mr $chrtiber; That is correct.
thajnnn ieecham: I also nave S~ questIons about the development
agreement, in part~cular, regarding the cityrs purchase a9reement~ whtch 1
presume would be Exhfbit O. wnich I supPGse ;$ not drafted t at least not
s~ffic,ently for us to see it. In ant,c,p~tion of that. wh~n is tne Clty
required to purchase 753 Alma Street?
Hr. Gil111ind: The statement kas beEn • ... a reasor.able period of time.
It has been roughly ~stimated to be anywhere from 90 days to $'X months.
That Is still a negotiation point in the actuil agreement that has not
be .. n re-so 1 ved .
Chairman Begcham: 1 presume the develcper, as 1ndicited~ i~ unwil1'~9 to
~ave an option to ext!nd that period?
Mr. Gilliland: He Can ~st address that at this time4
Mr. Keenan: That is correct.
Chairman Be,c~am: Hew severe is your opposition to that?
Mr. Keenan: Very severe.
Cn,lraan Beecham: If one were to look at a site and say that it has the
current zoning that 753 Alma Street has. and a proposal comes forward to
put in SRO unit on it, e~ceeding wkat the loning would allow in terms of
08/25/93
·27·
/
units, how long a process is it to go through the pub1ic bodies and pub7ic
hearings to get city approval to go ahead ~ith it1
Mr. Gi1Tiland: It is .apprr'lximately a six-month proc.ess. That is the
city's ~rocessiJ")g time. There is obviously t'ime required for the
d!ve;oper to go back and make changes that might be requested by the
Plannin; Commission Dr the Architect~ral Review Board a~ it goes through
the process. That (an add SDme time, but the city pro~essing time is
listed as si~ months.
Chairman Beecham: To get to that, th~ appiicant has to b~ in a position
to tome forward and make an application?
Mr. Cilliland; That is correct.
CGmffij$sioner S~: And would they be required to have an environmental
impact report with anything like that?
Ms. Case: It depends on wnat the impacts wocld be of the proposed
project.
Mr. Schreiber; If a full environmental impact report wa~ required, the~
the process would be longer, closer to a year.
Chairman Beecham: Has the tlty ordered an estimate on whether a full
impact report would be required on th1s?
Mr. Schreiber: I do not know of any. We do not Playe any proposal in
front of us for that.
CQ!ljs$iQner Carrasco: Someone brought up the issue of (EQA and wnether a
~itjqation is triggered when residEntially zoned land is ysed for
cOfllltll!:rcial L!ses. Does CE"QA have any rules that would requi rf" this?
~E. Case: There;s no state standard under CEQA with regard to wnat
constitutes a significant impact. espetially with regard to housing loss.
However. there has been a precedEnt with city policy that led t~e C1ty
staff to deCide tnat this should be treated as a significant impact. as a
local. ctty decis10n, not a statewide mandate. 1 would suspect that is
what he was referring to.
Co~issiQner Cassel: I nave 1 concern about that. Are we not under
pressure by the state to meet a fair share requirement of ho~sing, not
incoae-related 9 but just generally for housing over a period of time? Are
we not very far behind on that? That is what I was hearing last night at
tne (CHAS) public hearing.
Ms. Case; There is I fair share requlrement tnat we haye said we are
gOing to atteapt to lDeet within cur Housing tlement. At this paint, it ;s
not as heavily mandated in state law as some would like. We are behind in
w~at they call the jobs/housing imbalanc~9 along with Yirtually everyone
else in this area. Because of that and because of our commitment to
low-income housing, I fe.l that that weighs more 000'i1y on why this might
nave been consider&J an impact that needed to be mitigated as a (EQA
iepact. They do not necessarily directly ta1k to each other9 but the city
08/25/93
-28-
•
~-
./
decided to do it tn'! •• y.
Commissioner Cassel: Can Mr. Schreiber ~elp us ~itn the jobs/housing
ilDba1ance? J know it is very bad. I do not ha\le the nlJmbers at the tip
of my fingers, but I know it is something like two-or three-te-one jobs
fn town in comparison to the ~~ployabie people who 1ive in to~n.
Mr. S,nrgiber: It is about two to one.
Commissioner Cassel; Does this include the Stanford p.u~bers for Stanford
University. which generates so many jobs and nQ housing?
Hr. Sc~reiber: No, it is within the City of Palo Alto. The people in
Palo Alto who are part of the labor force is in the range of 35,000, and
.m~loyment in Pilo Alto is 70,000-75,DOO.
Commissioner Cassel: Do you know the numbers for Stanford, because th,s
land is Stanford land and it is 9fnfrating more jobs.
Mr. Scbreiber: r do not have them off the top of my head.
tpmmis}ioner Dj~kian: I am trying to get a h!ndle on why we are putting
Ute cart before the horSE-. in tenns of the zoning. Why did ~? ir: the
negotiation process? talk about rezoning. site like 7S3 Alma Street for
housing before we got into talking abo~t going through the agreement, and
then after the fact, looking at the process for cnanglng it to housing?
One of.l ot~r concerns is t~at 1t sounds ljke we are going to 9D ahead,
if all this passes tnrough. and change the ComprehenSlvt Plan designation
to allow for the R&D deyelo~nt that is there, because we ~re out of sync
between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance. In the process
of dOing tnat, what are the guara~tees that we are going to end up wit~
501etning else somewhere? What if t~is site falls through for some
reilson?
Mr. Sc~rtiber: Why are we doing it this way? As you are very i~are, the
inttial st~ff recommendation was to have the mitigation measure be a
financial payment. That was brought out in the testimony. When that g~t
to the City Co~ncll, they found that that was not accept!ble. The City
Council's direction essentiaTly was the item that you have in front cf
you. The City Council's direction W~$ to work out a deve10pment agreement
that in~o'ved the purchase of 753 Alma. So the negotiation of this, w~ile
a lot of the details have been worked out by staff and Mr. Ke~nan, the
essentially policy framework for that development ~gree~~nt is based on
City Council direction to staff. It is ~ot staff-1nttiated.
As far as what guarantees we ha~!? If the plan designation is changed,
that is obviously a done d!;l. That is effective wnen the resolution is
adopted. Jf 753 Alma is not u~ed for housing, then the city would end up
under the current proposal with i land aSlet tnat could be traded, could
be sold, CQuld mearl revenue if they wanted to Lise it someplace else. I
think Ms. Case ~ay want to speak to this. There certainly is the
potential for ending yp in a situation where we do not haY! i housing
project. do not have units. but we have an asset that could go back into
cash or be traded or something else. It is more ~onvoluted but we may end
08/25/93
·Z9-
'-----
up back where staff originally was in tarms of a monetary asset.
CQmlis$ioner Oiaki<!:n: It would be full circle. We would end up iIrIith cash
in the hou~in9 mitigation fund.
Mr. Gil1ihnd'. r would hke to address that there is a need to correct
something that we hav€ noticed in the !taff report in the environmental
assess~~t. khen we did th~ am~nded environmental assess~~t. the
or?ginal had a mitigated negative declaration and the title dropped the
word -mitigated." It should read as a mitigated n~gative declaration.
There is no change in the document itself. Goi~9 al~ng ~ith that, whicn
is what tommissioner Ojakian is bringing up? one of the things w~ have to
do in mitigated negative declarations is mon,toring. A monitoring
conditfon ~ight be that the city, at some po1nt in the future, ff the
project does not occur, 1nitiate a Comprehensive Plan change to r~vert the
property back to a residential Comprehensive Plan deSignation. There
could be other suitable things that could be ~dd!d.
Commissioner Oiakian: How do you respond to the comment that people make
abaut the city naving a conf1ict of inte~est? We are taking over a site
that fs not zoned fDr housing? yet it is proposed for SRO housing. It
seem$ to be on people's ~inds, I havf heard that two Dr three times n~
at different m!etings.
MI. Schreiber: Let me c~~nt on t~at. first of all. the site is zoned
for housing. The commerCial lonlng at 753 Alma includes housing as a
permitted us~ at RM-30 standards. [f someone wants to ,u~ in and put a
residential project on that site next wee~, is i pr1vate de~eloper~ the
review process, unless they want variances or something )ike that, would
be to 90 through the ARB for design review. A subsequent subdivision may
caae to you, b~t the zoning does permit hous'ng.
As far as the specific proposal for a single-room occupancy development.
clearly that would take a Planned Community zon!. That would take a
special zone that would need to be revi~ed by the commission and the ARB
and the City Council. It needs to be clear in tbe record tnat the city is
~ot in any ~ay. at this time? prejudging a housing proposal for 753 Alma.
That proposal will need to stand on its~. There is no commitment on
t~e part of staff to recommend appro~al; there is no commitment on the
part of the Planning Commission to recommend appro~al; there is no
commitment on the part of the City Cour.cil to Ipprove a~ythin9. We are
not in a position to make it, even if we wanted to, and obviously it wouid
be very bad policy to do that witho~t public hearing and env;r~nmental
review. So I think there is ce~tainly a perception that the city has a
conflict in this situation. ] think it is an Understandable perception,
but it is 1mportant for all of us to acknowledge the validity of the
fut~re process, acknowledge that the option e~ists for the city, jf this
dDes go forward~ to stand up a~d say nOt 753 Alma is not suitable for
hCtlsing. let's sell it, t~ade it or IIthate ... er else. and use the assets for
housing in a more suitable spot.
Commissioner Oiakian: Taking that a step further , if we take a look at
where we have some SROs currently, soae people are talking about the fact
that this is not an ideal site because it i~ in a commercial area and
there are things around it. How different 1S this site from, let~s say,
th! Barker Hotel~ At this stage? tnere are l!ss units being tai~ed
08/25/93
-30-
about. There is a site that sits on top of. in
where the~e are cars coming througn and fumes.
the CraIg Hotel, .nother SRO a couple of blocks
this ca~e. a parking 10t
How ciifferent is it fram
from here?
Mr Schreiber~ In terms of the basic 1a~d use j~si9nation. zoning
regulations. etc., ] do not btlieve this S)iP. fs dramatical1y different.
It obvicusl,)' has some differences.. in tenns of the traffic on P.lma 5t'reet,
~;ch would be inherent wi tM i'I~l)l use ir. that area. Clt!arly. the area
around this under the current zo~ing ,s used for i ~hole variety of
auto-related uses. We talked about this before. Clearly. the zoning does
n~t retain those in any WiY. So if W~ look .t lind use policy and loot at
the zoning regu1ati~ns. thE:re is not a lot of difference. If you Took at
specifics. then there ire some differences.. Those specific diffe~enc~s
would ~aYe to be eyal~ated very carefully in the development of a housing
propDsal and its e~vironmental asses~ment.
Commissi~ner Oiakian: Of COUrSE, as you just said, ,t is something we
have to decide on, such as a PC zone, probably.
f!r.. Scl"lreiber; Yes. I think that is very c1ear~ certainly 'With the
nDusing corporatfon. What they wou1d need to do to ha~~ SRO housing is a
PC zone. Not enough density is available under the RM-30 zoning
reg~Tations which G~e part of the commercial zone.
Cpmmissioner O;akian: Under th~t. there is the potential for having, as
one speaker alluded to tonight~ a mixed use type of de~elopment there?
Maybe ground floor commercial, for instance?
Mr· Schre;ber~ Yes, the potential ther£ is ~ery wide open.
Ca,.issjoner Schmidt: Is the city confident thit the ~aluation of the
propert" as stated in the staff report, J750,000 for commercial, $500.000
to $650.000 for re5idential~ as done by an outside evaluator, is valid?
Was that more than one eval~itiQn!
.&., . .....E.tl.1J!Il!!: 1hat was onE!' evaluation, and yes, \If£' are confident that the
eva1uation i5 correct.
Commissioner Cassel: A question did come
r'gird to the city dealing ~ith property,
does buy and se11 property at times, does
Hr. Fellman! Ves, it does.
1.lp in the
ihe city
it not?
public hearing with
does O~ property and
Cpamissloner Carrasco: When Mr. ~~enin came to us the first time ar~und,
WI &ppro~ed this ~roject unanimousl), and we as~ed him to be more directly
involved in hous'ng~ We would be hapPler, we said. if he went in the
direction of producin9 housing rathe~ than dollars. I can see t~at he has
done tnat. and I think 'We should judge this application on j~st those
merits, 1 fe.l that the deal that city st.ff h.s negoti.ted .nd that the
City Council has negotiated with Chop is far better than t~e last one we
saw. To use Marlene Prendergast's numbers. it is S200,OOO better. That
is the issue before ~S, and it nas nothing to do with 753 Alma. On the
other hand. we do need an SRO. I am Yer~ uncomfortable that we are
tonight speaking about that property in the manner that -",e might ~zone it
for housing~ I think that application will come befDre ~S, and it will
Oe(25(9l
-3l-
-~-~~, .... --.---
•
get adequately heard, most likely through a PTanned Community zone
process, which requires a lot of p~~ltc input. So ~hat ~e are loa~ins at
today is only this one issue .. whether this deal is good. If it was good
th~ last ti§e. it is better now.
HQIlQn: (ommissloner Carrasco: 1 therefore mQ~e the staff
reconmendation.
~: By Ccmmisstoner Cassel.
Referring to the public testimony tonight, I am a little bit uncomfortable
about an 5RO not b~ing needed in cur community. It is very much needed.
We are taH:1ng about peopl e who serve us in our restaurants downtown,
people who sometim€s ~ork in ou~ offices as secretaries. This is housing
in tne range of S200 to $500 per month. We a~e very comfortable being
served by th~se people, and yet are uncomf~rtable with thinking t~at we
cannot ha~e them livlng next to our businesses.
However, I dc not think we should concentrate them too much in one area,
and that will have ad~Quate public review in the public hearing process.
1 am denghted to hear that the nOlJsin9 corporat1on is lI'il1 ;ng to look at
a mixed us~ project. So I am moving the staff recommendaticn, and I am
very happy wit~ this one, is we are getting 1 lot mort ~ney with the
potential for actual housing,
Coamissioner Cassel: I will first comment on what Tony said abo~t the
need for housing for p~ople of th'~ income level. There is a tendency to
think that paople of very· low incomes ar~ people who are going to disturb
our streets and clutter them up. I h~ye had some very per~onal
experience~ in a prior job a few years agQ moving people into iow·ipcome
housing units. They had been so debilitated that they had a hard ti~
comi~g to me to fill out the applicaticn for the housing unit. Becaus~ 1
vas working in i small program. not a larqe one. [ also did the income
review and the housing unit inspection a year later. I am a ~istered
nurse. I wisb I co~,d have done a ~ealth ass~ssment on those people wn~n
they moved in, and tn!n a year later. It was unbelievable to see the
difference in the people who are suddenly are paying S250 or S)OO • month
for rent, when their income is SSSO or S800 a month~ You have people
living in our community ~hose incomes are like that, or even 5),000 a
month. If you bave to take 5600 or 5800 of your income for rent, and you
only have S20D or S300 to make it through the rest of the month~ you dcn't
ha~e the m~ney to take a bus to go to the lnter~iew to get the nous1ng.
So tt is dramatic. 1 w~yk ~itn people who cannot live in ?&10 Alto, but
who jive 1n the City Qf Pa)c Alto~ whose incomes a~e less than mine
because] work at an intenm~iate level, not at a beginning Te~el as a
licensed practleal nurse or an aide. So the need is 'ritica'~ and the
need is deaonstrated by the fact that we have twice tne ~umber of jobs?
roughly. as we do peoplt who ~rk [doesn't she mean live~) in the City of
P310 Alto. We need commercial. but we n!ed places to put the people who
work h~re, too, so eveT1 t)me we put up i commerciil devt1opment. ~ith we
need, obviouslY9 to keep our tax base going, we bring people by car9
primarily, to th. c,ty to work here. They have to go somepl~ce, becluse
so few of tnem can live here. We seem to be generating some feeling that
these people ..rna 'f(ork nert that Tooy talks about 'IIill somehow ha.rm us.
What really is crjti,~l in keeping the units in good condition and keeping
them from detericratin9 is gGod management of thOSE units. A bad landlord
OB/2S/93
-32-
•
• F • '57
9~ner.tes bad units. H! has to be ~illin9 to ~ay. yo~ ire not taking tare
of your unit, so you are out. You either take care of y~ur unit, or you
are gone. ~our good manager does that, and I think the housing
corporation has demon~t~ated that oyer and ~yer 19110 ~y maintaining
exceli~nt units. If a~y of you have inspected tho~e units (and if yo~
~eed to~ I IS s~re you can talk to Marlene Prendergast). you can be
assured th\t those units i~ in excellent cond;t~on. 1 ha~~ inspect€d
them. I d" know that tney are in good condition. What is interesting
about ~on·profit, ~hether it is the hous~ng cDrporatior. or other entities.
is that after they naYe owned them awht~e. they are ~s~ally better th!n
they were a few years Igo. It is very im?ressi~e to ~ork with them and
watch the Quality. They put t~e money back into the unlts. so they come
cut 1ook'ng bett~r. lhey have to say. you are not taking care of the
unit. you are not paying t~e rent, you canngt stay. ThJt is part of the
deal.
On~ of the things 1 w~sh to d\scuss is tht density question. We use the
term~ 30 units per acre. We have to Took at the FAR involved. We c~n
have 30 units ~er acre of 2.000 square feet, and we can have 30 units p@r
acre at 300 square feet. It makes a gr~it deal of d;fferen(e in t~e way
ttle deAsity locil-s and feels. It is l fact that has to be consi.dered, not
just the n~r of u~;ts. So that will come back to us.
Regarding tne issue of housing units at Arastradero. for me, it deals with
tne fact that we have this jobs/housing ,~alance and ~e hav~ made an
Dbligation to try and meet some of that housing need. Every time we do
s~thing, we put in commercial~ and we de ~ot seem to be =akinq any
progress on adding to the housing stock. Tnere are two issues involved.
The low~ and moderate-income issue, and the issue of just pl~in producing
housing units. You do not have enough units to force the price of ho~~ing
down. We saw that happen a couple of years ago wnen Sunnyvale put in a
lot gf apartments. and suddenly. the price stabilized. It was very
interesting to watch. Since we do not have the land. I am not suggesting
thit we would ever Pyt in the kinds and numbers of units that Sun~yvale
pot in at that tiDe. but 1t did !tabilize the ~nits. So if we don't put
in units for people at S05e point, our ~rket for th£ price of hO~5in9 ;s
90ing to be forced up. They are going to say to me, the ma,ket is going
down at the ~ent, but as someone else painted out here, it has gone up
at an average of 4 percent ~verage per year oyer a long period of time.
People tan use different numbers. Some~ne out there who was working with
another realtor said 5 percent.
1 am going to support the motion. I regret the fact that the ~niversity
did not feel it was able to put B8 units of housing on the Site. 1 don't
see why they co~ld not blend those with office/research. However. I was
not on the Planning Commission to ca~t a vote last year. I will support
this at thlS time.
Chairman Beecham: As Tony indicated. we unanimously approyed the program
that came to us befote with less mitigation for ~ousin9. Now~! have
something before ~s that has In even better deal for the city. a better
deal for housing. yet 1 find that r nave significant problems with it.
Two issues that ~aye come ~p tonight that r do not think are at the core
of what we are talking about are. first pf all, parking. This is a
private plett of property. The property owner has the right to do with it
08/2S/93
-33-
•
.:,.."
as he chooses, leaving it as a parking Jot, put 12 units of housing on it
under the current zoning, put automot;ve~ put office, whatever. The owner
is not Dbligated and the city is not obligated to prov:de this as parking
to the ;rea. lhere is 1 parking prcb1em, and we all agree It is there.
and we do not know the best way to take care of it. but it is not an
ob11gation or. this piece of pToperty. So that i~ n~t an issue for us
tonight, even though it is a problem fer the area.
Th~ second issue tnat is not before uS toni~ht is the kind of people who
m1grt live in an SRO. In r;;eReral, what occurs to~ight has not been
igainst those kinds of people. In any case, that is not what ;s befoie uS
tonight, either. To me, .hat is mainly before us is procedural, although
I hate to uy t~.at, because it sounds bureaucratic. But on the une hand,
we hear that the city has not committed to putting an SRO on th~ site. On
the other hand~ we hear how ~~ch we need SROs and an indication that this
is ent:rely an adequate site. So where Jre we? The city legally ha~ ~ot
committed to putting ~n SRO here. but by taking these steps, and
cDntinuing to take these steps, one could conclude that many people have
made tip their minds that, in fact, this is the right place for an SRO. in
sp~te of the fact that we have not 90n! through the procedures necessary
to do that. whlch includes major public hearings and seeing what might go
on there and talking about options.
I have a lot of concerns as \0 whether this is a good place for an SRO~
not because it is not good for the people who might live there. I think
it would be fine for the p~ople who ~oy1d live there. in general. But we
~ave cTear evidence, as one speaker has said. that automotive uses ire
~~compitible close to hDusing. We h~ve had si9niflc~nt instanc~s where ~
have forced automotive use$ to move out because they were incompatibl~
witb housing u~its. TG put heavy duty hDusing ~ng automQtive leads to
major problems i~ the future. Ancther example was airports. T~e
Reid-Hil1yi~ Airport was there many, many years ago. How 1t is
incompatible with surroundfng uses? ~ot because tne airport is doing
anyt~ing different, but beciuse other use~ are there. Putting en SRO
here, putting a~y .ajor housing here, does very ~uch put the automotive
uses at riZk in the future. One speaker said that it is an issue for the
future, but we need to co~sider now what we ire doing. lhis is a 1ind use
plan we are doing now, and I think it is ver) premature to take an acti~n
tonight that really put~ i major stamp of approval an putting an SRQ on
the site. To have a document like this that says the intent of buying the
site is to p~t an SRO he~~ --we are not committing to anything, but
gee, the wrlting is on the wall. And the writing is on the wail before WE
go thro~gh what procedures we need to in order to determine whether this
is tne right piace to put it, and not just an SRO, but the wnole use.
As staff indicated before~ the City Council's attitude toward the site is
to allow automotive uses to continue. The City (ouncll has not deCided to
ta~~ actions that are detrimenta1 to futur~ automotive U5es tontinuing
here. We kave not determined~ in the Comprehensive Plan revision. how to
handl~ the site. We have not detenmined, in t~e Comprehensive Plan
revisfon, wnere aut~tive uses might go~ if not here. So there ~re a
number of issue5 that ha~e ~ot been resol~ed. To commit to this now is
committing the city far too much to a course of action that has not been
properly reviewed. So even though I supported the act on at 1050
Arastridero and moved to go ahead and put research/off ce tnere
pre~jously, I cannot support the action tonight that w 11 ~ommit the city
08/25/93
-:\4-
•
to putting an SRO on the site, in spite of staff saying this does not
commit the city, ! f!el there is some m;dd12 grou~d that is not entirely
acceptable to the developer, but which may work out to ensuring, in my
opinion, a more tJnbiased and fair apprOAch to whilt happens at 753 Alma
Street. The basis of it, which 1 would develop more in a metion, ,f th~
motion cUI'rent1y on the table fails, would !)e tnat the city not take titie
to t~,e property nor purcfiase the pro~erty until .,..e do go through the fun
process to make the zone change to a PC on this site, Staff indicates
that that coula take up to a year, given time for the housing authority to
develop plans and go through the entire process. One year is longer than
wnat the de~eloper says he can put up with.
We also have stated in the staff report that the market va'ue of this
property is $650,000 if it fs for housing. For commercial, it is worth up
to $750,000. So I would assume that the developH is saying t-o the city,
here is a S750~OOO-piece of prop~rty, and we will pa) money and trade back
and forth, with escalations on cost, but more or iess~ 1, the developer
will, in some form or another, give the eft) this S750,OOO'piece of
property. A piece of property dirt is worth a lot in terms of having a
51t2 for an SRO. Perhaps. though, if the developer is unable to h~ld the
property for a year, or for whatever the process tlm€ it wou1d take to go
through the pr~cess to get the presumed change made, th~ ,ity, 1 think,
should get 5750,000, if that i. the market v.lue of this piece of
property. For a~ SRO use or for any other housing use, that is another
5100,000 that goes into the kitty. It i. still not dirt, but it i. more.
For the developer, tt should be a wash, because I presume that if he were
to sell it, he w~uld get that much for it, or more. since he has held off
so long. So i~ would make sense to s~ t~it i procedure which allows the
developer to proceed witb this concept but to do it in a manner that i~
less biised toward the outcome and g1~es the people in th1s room ind other
people the ability to affect thfs piece of property before it 1$ committed
is to postpone the city's taking the deed to this property until the site
nas been rezoned. That should be within I year. If the devfloper does
w;s~ to sell it before that point, tnen instead of the current value of
5650,000 aelng giYen to the city, that will 9" up to $750,000. which
should be equitable to the deyeloper.
COMmissioner Ojaklin: I will preface my remarks for the publ ic record
tnat from the Planning Commission, I am thE representative on the Palo
Alto Housing Corporation, and I accepted tnat position by choic~~ because
1 have an interest in housing in Palo Alto. I want to comment, initially
too, on some of the participants in this prDcess, so to speak. I want to
thank the staff and the (;ty Council, and partlcularly, Mr. Simitian, for,
in essence~ providing us with a sitt.lation that. is, in many ways, mud
better than what ~e had initially. As I said at the beginning of this,
this was one of the first lssues I heard, so I took I very ll~ited
approacn to it. 1 tnlnk y~u folks have done a ~nderful job of trying to
get us into a better situation than what we had. Under any set of
circumstances, ~e are goin9 to end up with something mare, in terms of
housing, whetner it be funds or land, than what we had initially. i tip
.. y hot to you.
Also, I want to say how Indebted this community is to the Palo Alto
HO~$ing Corporation. r na~e been in several meetings in this city w-=r!
people SiY there is flO inter!st or ad'¥ocacy of housing. Those peop' e do
not understand that there 15 a group in this city that spends a lot ~f
08/25/93
·35·
--~------.
"
·f
ti~ on that and is very watchful of the issues, and so participates in
th1s process again to the benefit of the city. as opposed to even what th~
Planning Commission did Inlti.lly.
I also want to )ay something comp1imenta~y about the people who r~n the
Juto repair shops in PaTo Alto. My feeling is tnat that ;s a mucn needed
service. They nave been in one location, basically, in PalQ Alto. Many
cf us use them t~ get our 'aTS repaired; many of U~ respect them for the
job th.t tney do. They fought a very interesting struggle, because over
the years, we have seen a dwindling in the number of car repair ser .... ices
in downtown Palo Alto. In fact, we have seen a ~igniflcant dwindling of
tnem. So the people who are there are the people who are hangers-on, and
I ~ppreciate a lot of their concerns.
The key things J want to say tonight is. one, r am going to support th!
lAOtian. becaus! J ljte the ",hole land swap idea. In essence, Wt! do not
e~ up any worse off. in fact, we ~nd up better off by the agree~nt.
Whether that site w~rks out to what people are assuming it is going to be.
Dr not, in a worse case scenariO, we sell the piece of property and get
.are money than what we would have.
r ~nderstand where Chairman Beecham is coming from. am goin~ to take a
slig~tly different bent on it, somewhere i~ between everybody here. I am
not necessarily committed to this site being an SRO sit!. What I want to
see is what W! get presented a~ a final result. At that stage, if I thinx
it is acceptable or fits Gn this site~ then let the process go on. If it
is not, I a. more than willing t~ reject it. I t~ink we are in a very
funny situation here. I appreciate what several of the housing
corporation people have SIld, including Mr. Anderson~ in that he tninks he
Cin .. ke this site work. I am ~ery anxious to see now that is going to
happen, b~t if it doesn't work, I am going to be one of the peopie who is
wil11ng to s~ that. What we want is something here t~at works for
everybody. particularly the p~ople whQ are going to live there.
My interest is in housing, and my hopes are that we do work something out,
whether at this site or other sites. I think there is a need for SROs.
am not even s~re if that is quite the issue tonlght. 1 think the key
issue is going along with the development agreement so that we do put
ourselves in a p~sitjon to ha~! more thar. what we nnrma'ly ha~e, Then I
am willing to see how the process plays out.
Since we are getting into some things tnat ire s~~hat indirectly related
to what is being discussed tonight, anotner thing is tnat r understand
that the City Council has set a policy statement, noting that we are "~t
going to do something to the detrfment of dri~lng some of these b~sinesses
out of that area. I hope at some stage to ta~e a look at that, wnic~ I
know we are in the SOFA area, and be a 1 ittle IItOre proact ive V.ere. 1
think we need to do some things to show these people that we appreCiate
t~~ir being there. as opposed to j~st slying we are ~ot going to do
s~tbi~9 to their detriment. We a~e going to do something that issists
and aids them. J hope this message gets up to the cou~cil, whether that
is tied in with this process or some other process. In summary, I im
going to support tn! motion that is on the floor, letting the process go
forward, and see where we end up.
Commissioner Schmidt: I have appreciated listening to everyone's comments
~~.
-.";~ .. ,
06/25/93
-36-
\,
.'
•
": -.
/ ---'-
and h.ving the opportunity to speak last to help clarify my thinking.
because tnis is i difficult issue to decide. ! would agret with and
believe in many of the things that e¥eryone nas said about housing and thp.
need for housing at that income level in Palo Alto. As an architect and
someone who has been involved in design of buildings and planning cities.
ttc .• I think that indeed, so~thing good such as an SRO could be
developeo on U.at site. 9ut I do not kr.ow if an SRO will b! bunt there~
and indeed, the issue is just the deal tonight. Is the land deal that is
in front of us t~"ight a better deal than the money deal that was before
~s earlier? J have some Question in my mind about the real ~alue of the
land~ The city appraiser has said that the Yalta! in the cU'I~rent market
is, indeed. an acc~rate value4 lhen] would have some quest jon in my mind
about tne liquidity of t~is ass!!. 1 f. indeed? the city ends tJP witn an
asset tnat needs to be disposad of, rather than to be used as a site for
an SRO.
I wo~ld also like tD say that I firm1y believe in maintaining the
diversity of businesses in Palu Alto that allow and support a~tGmotive
uses in the SOFA area. I would hate t~ see the continued evaporation of
the se~ices tnat we do have so that Palo Alto ended up b!ing only i place
of resta~rants, residences and offices. It would not be a pleasant place
for us all to live.
I also want t~ make another comment. There have beEn comments about
housing at that site not being appropriate for an SRO type of housing. I
fee1 that we tend to forget, those of ~i who are fort~n.te enough to have
nice homes in Palo Alto, t~at some housing. albeit small and on I busy
street that is reasonably co~venient to some job rather than something
.i1es and miles away, Dr no hQusing at all. is a whole lot better than no
housing.
I appreciate Bern~s thoug~ts about trying to change the strutture suc~
th.t it would be decided What is going to go on the property bofore the
deal is conSumMated. I think it would be hard to set a specific tiDe
li.i1, in that I think it would take aore tnan a year to develop plans and
to go through al) the city processes. I think a year is probably being
optimistiC. Therefore. I am going to support the motion before us.
Mr. Gilliland: [would like to clarify trlat what you will be doing is
adopting the staff recommendation, as contained on Page 9 of the staff
report. and not is on tne agenda. They are s1ightly different, with the
addition that it is a mitigated negative declaration and with the change
in Condition '2.
tIOIlCN PASSES; Chai",!n Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this
.ation? All tnose in favor of the motion to adopt the staff
reco.mendation for tftis project as indicated in your report, and a
mltfgated negative declaration, and a revised Condition #2 on Page 11.
please say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote of 4-) vgte ~ith
myself voting no and Commissioner Glazier not participating and
Commissioner Schink not present.
Mr. Gilliland: This item 15 tEntative1y scheduled for the City Council on
September 20. 1993.
08/25/93
-37-
~,
/
PALO ALTO HOUSIl'iG CORPORA nON
NOT£S OF DOWNTOWN SRO MEETING
June 23, 1993
Council Conference Room, Civic Center
-----
The Palo Alto Housing Corporation, in conjunction with several business
owners in tile area of Forest and Homer A venues and A!ma and High Streets.
conducted a meeting at City Hall on lune 23, 1993 in order to more fully hear the
concerns that had been rais.ed in lett.ers to Council members, Planning Commissioners,
and the Housing Corporation. The letters were in response to the proposed accepta.ice
by the City of a site at 753 Alma Street, for possible use for single room occupancy
(SRO) nousing, as mitigation for ~e loss of housi!1g in connecticn v.i.ih permit rcvie\.\
for a development project at 1050 Arasttadcro Road.
Approximately thirty-six members of the pUblic attended. Jim Gilliland, of the
City Planning staff was present to answer questions about the City process. Council
member Huber aLd Planning Commissior.er Ojaklan also attended.
Fonowing is a genetaI summary of the issues raised and points made by the
neigbbors. This summary represents the Hou.sing Corporation's best understanding of
the discussion. It may not reflect every opinion expressed, and by virtue of its written
presentatiOD, probably does not reflect the intensity with which certain opinions were
e"1'='ed. Tbe Housing Corporation enco"'rages member'S of the public [() express
t.ltei; view points to members of the City's policy making bodies a! appropriate times in
the process.
In general, theno was opposition expressed to the location of SRO bousing at
753 Alma Street based on certain zoning and land use concerns, and opposition to the
process whioll places this proposed development in the context of totally separate
approval process.
Summary or Issues
A. Parking
-Parlcing is temble in chis area of the Cii)'. Such a projecr would impact
already overcrowded on-street parking.
-Visitor and service parking is non-existent.
-This area of the City is not in a parking assessment dis!Iict; there should be a
parking study of the area before a large resIdential project is permitted.
-Tbe site is currently used fur Whole Food, employee parking. Loss of thal
parking will severely impact commercial and resid."tiaI parking in the or .... "Parking"
is the existing land use of the site at present and it is believed that the City is obligate<!
to maintain that parking under the Whole Foods approval. If tne site is l""",d to others
for additional parlciog, the "'"bole Foods spill over will be even greater.
-Adequate parking must be provided for the SRO bou,ing; it is nO! believable
thal !be residents of the SRO would not all have cars.
-The fed"rai regulations that will be applicable because of the federal money
used 10 build the SRO may dictate how it is buill and how much parking is provided.
..
B. IlKompatibility of Land UseslEveDtu.! Zoning Out or Commen:ial
-This location is almost complere1y surrounded by ltght industrial uses, which
produce very ioud noi~ and fumes. Impact hammers are wry loud! With tile
dev<lopment of a residential project at 753 AI"",, area zoning will eventually be
changed to residential and the..re will be a permanent los5 of the service commercial
uses, even though current City policy is to retain ther.!.
-. The development of a reside~ti.al project ir. the midst of the neigllborhood is a
gT():iS error in urban plaMing.
c. Rtse9tments about Chy Proeess and the "Dealt< Between City and K~nal1
-Negative impacts now result for this neighoomooo from a bad planning
decision at W50 An_dero Road.
-Process involving 1050 Arastradero Road creates a situation that is ~ -fait
acrompli·, witltout this neighborhood C\o"e:] lmowing abou.t it. Now they must get
involved in the Ara.",adero Road process because, if the City decides to .ecept the
Alma site, it will be a "done deal". Perception is that there is on1y one chance to
oppose this deal.
--Dc:U" is C'r"ating an adversaria.l sit"!atiOl~ between neighborhood and Rousing
CoIpOralion. Neighborhood doesn't oppose Housing Corporation's nUssion.
-Perceptio~ of favoritism. Keenan be:1efits. Citf doesn't benefiL
D. Re-roniDg ot Adjacent Sites
-Re-zoning of the 753 Alma site will have a detrimental effect on value and zoning 00
adjacent sites.
E. City Confljcl ot Interest
-If Cltj 01RnS the Land, it WOuld have a C4lilrllcr of interest to re-zone it.
F. Ahernate Uses for Alma Site
-Parking.
-Service Commercial""·
G. Suggested Ahernati.e Sites tor SRO
-Everett, between Bry-.nl a.od Waverley
-Palo Alto Medical Clinic site.
-Tunes Tnoune sire:.
-Be!Jlman's
PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATIOS
SROMEETlNG
Npme
Rose Thoits
Bill Thoits
Edward Thoits
MlIrlene Elliott
Faith Bnff
Joe Braff
Diane Baumann
JoAnDe Sdlule
Elkn Cllrl=sen
Doc Young
C~a'son
Cheri Erson
Karl5and=
Earl Ellison
Leo W!Cder
CoaiDe KrnIIauge
Paul Krcmauge
Earl F. Sdlmidt
Patticia Cusbel Schmidt
Larry R. Hassett
Doc Yarkin
Joe Yarkin
Pearl Yarkin
Dee Hilenlall
Elaine Sue Gal
Robert Parke:-
Ole Christensen
AIm Whit>ker
Abby Munro
G. H. Bertclson
Harry W. Rodda
Jolin W. Stypula
V~ " Sean Ojalcian
Bob Goodell
A ttef'i.dance Lis!
June 23, 1993
Mdr ....
744 High St.
744 High SL
939 Forest AYe.
930ErneISOn SL
3482 South CO'll'!
805 Gotland Dr.
895 Emerson 5l
895 Emerson St.
4217 Los Palos
849 & 940 High St.
705 Aim. Sl
70s Alma Sl
705 Alma S l
705 Alma SL
550 Hamilton Ave. St::. 307
780 B Higb Sl
780B High 5l
201 Homer Ave.
201 HomorA ....
875 A1maSL
152 Homer Ave.
152 Homer Ave.
152 Homer Ave.
799AlTl'.a 5l
] 11 HoIDe:' ;.. ve.
III Hom.,. A ...
801 Alma Sl
801 Alma St.
945 Forest Ave.
960 Waverley
1083 Maffeo Circle
635 High St.
526 Addison
891 Emerson 5l
•
Phone
321-4931
321-4931
322-6916
317·3060
857-G381
327-3257
328-8528
320-8528
454-1356
327-4071
326-9610
32(,,9610
326-9610
326-9610
325-0735
324-1691
324-1691
327-2717
327-2717
327-7222
856-1996
329-ll115
329-ll115
317-4490
329·1249
329-1249
328-6537
328·6537
328-8651
325-7751
328-2200
328-2200
328-1464
327-6441
" C,.'."
. -'.-;;"
Palo Alto Housing Corporation
llJnc 14, 1993
Dear Neighbors of 753 Alma Street:
C?;.C";i-:='~-....
';;:;"':'::: .. ,,:: .
.'" ... ,'..,
The Palo Alto Housing COr'pOr:ltion and the Cily or Palo Alro have become aware
through your lcne.rs of concerns about possibte residential deveropmen: thai may OCcur
on tile vaant let at 725·7S3 AIm> Street. between Homer and Forest. Rose and Bil!
!haits have offered to organize a meeting so that \~,;e can hear your C<'Incem:s directly_
That meeting has been scheduled for:
June 23. 1993
6 P.M.
Council Conrerence Room
First Floor, City Hall
We hope you will be able to attend. Members of the City staff .. '<l <hc Housing
Corporation will be preserlL
The idea of using tile propeny at 753 Alma S<=[ for Single Room Oa:upancy (SRO)
housin& aro$O in the conteX[ of an application [0 change the Comprehensive Plan l&nd
Use Designation of another. "'t;!lIy unrelated propeny. from residential to commercial.
The Counc:iJ asked Chop Keenan. the applicant of that Plan c\\an: •• 10 find another.;",
far housing as a mitiption for tile p,oem_or 10 .. of housing at IOSO ~
Road. The lot at 753 Alma SIreC1 was proposed. and tile City Coomcil t<:ntatively
aa:epc.d tile site. The HOUSing Corporation fei[ that tile $I", wu ""llable for ...... SRO
b<Nsing.
No official: actions lu.~ been taken witll respect to 753 Alma S=t. 'I'M Housing
Ctlrporation is beginning the process of assessing the specific opportunities as well as
difficulties tl"'.at lbe site presents. Your iJ'Ipuf would b: i.'lfm-m~!h'e to t.'1e proces.s and
educationalID the HOUli og Cmporation at tIIi s very early stag. in the process.
Sincerely,
PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION
540 Cowper Street. Suite G. Polo Alto, California 94301. (415) 321·9709
•.
. ~ .. ,
.....
... ,,::' ";:.;' .
flECE!VEt'I
',,, ..
. '
Earll1rL ElJlson, Jr,
705 Alma Street
Palo AlL:l. CA 94301
32&9Uj! t'F.,. 326-2103
• ~\ I ('
~r.:~rn.'::..'i 0":" ~.: .. Mt~~:~G
AltO C;:O~. :~.'.:J.·:iT'i ~.;. ::...oot'.~;:ur
May6,1993
To Whom It May Concern:
As the owner of over 31,000 square feet of p"'perty which will be
negatlVdy mrecled by the proI'C.a! to reZOne 753 Alma, I strongly
oppose the City's efforts to establish a "PC" which would allow for Stngle
ReSidential Occupancy "SRO" houstng. I feel this project would harm
the ability to operate "Jjght industry" [or which this area was 0I'iginally
Intended.
Ellioon's has been &er\'lng Palo Alto lor 65 years. Because all of the car
dealers have moved out of the downtown area and most of them out of
Palo Alto, II Is in the best InUTe_1 of the community to retain the
remaining semces. We ~ one of the few auto repair shops in 1929.
Now history seems to be repeating Itself In spite of a huge growth In
population.
1 was ~ pleased that your studies last )'I'lIr showed that Our
commUJllty needs services In the down-town area. I am In agreement
with theIr finding and I have spent considerable money to up-grade our
facility,
The proposed SRO would eliminate parking on the proposed site. There
are many cars par".ced at 753 AIlna each day_These cars would be forced
to find streel parking In an already crowded environment. TIlls project
would put a strain on the local merchants for parking. In fact, parking
could over1low Into SurTOUnding residential areas· What IS desperately
need,ed on 753 Alma Street IS a parking facUlty like you have for other
downtown merchants.
In addition, your proposal would locate SRO housing right in the
middle of the thrust of the n",,' doWTltown plan. 753 Alma is located in
the center of what will be the new core of the redeveloped dov."ntown. It
seems that 753 Alma Is where Palo Altos' high quality business and
services should eventually locate. Wlm puts low Income hOUSing in the
middle of their downtown buSiness !listric!?
So we ask you to please vote NO on the SRO TU.onmg proposal.
ReSpectfully.
-.
\
4··· ..
~_./"-
,L"
"':-cc ,:-"
To Ioi-embers of City Council &. Planning Commission ~
?.e: 753 Alma ~treet -r~lo Alto
Ni:; ~,~;r,-Cc.;.f"''', -o~:'.~ ",,,,"j1'i'~ -,":/--
"'-. :,:.~;"
The pI'operty at 753 Alma Street is bOWlded en the .est
by Alma ~treet ~d the aailroad Tracks, on the ~uth by
Hilem3n's Au~omotive, on the North b7 Ellisons Body Snop,
and on the ~5t by Bill's Auto Glass.
Under the current commertial zoning I vas told lO
housing units are psrmissable. Under tbe contemplAted
P.C. Zoning, the Flanning Stafr is now prep&ring a plan
for a .. 5t0>7 structl.U'e .nth approxi ..... tely eo sao, or
dingle Room Occupancy.
I am opposed to this PC Zoning £or the 1011owin~ reaSDns:
1. To allow !er any ho~sing at all in a locatiou whioh
is surrounded by 3 Auto Repair Service Shops and Al»a Street
,,"auld be dOing e. gross diss!"rvice to e.n,one who would ev-entually
live there. •
2. To consider SRO housing when the o1t7 onl7 recent11
t:urned down a similar proposal on Parkin Lot R, t.le. on
Alea titreetabout 2 blocks Dorth of this a1te does not .ake
sense.
3. Eighty :lingle Roo .. (\CCUPMc7 (SRa) and the p .... king
req~reaeDtS ror these units vould furtber exacerbate the
parking needs in this &rea as well &6 tbe trt1rie on Alma Street.
4. The availability os this property by the owner
developer end his arrangements with the Cit1 and Stanford
Univ~rsity on some other propert~ in town 18 not a sufficient
reason ror locating an 80 UDdt sao on Alaa Street.
5. The basio needs for the fut~re on this site and in
this &rea are tor continued orderly ctlmmereial. grolith.
Por these reasons, I respectful17 urge that 70U reject
an7 proposed P.C. Zone t.llowing for any SRO bo~sing on this site.
Your. trul7,
I::ep~=
B~sioess and PrOpertf Address
152 Bomer Av., Palo Alto
/
Arnl 20,1993
-... ~
¥i~ er. tn~ 'own~r;. Df tr,~ propeny loreled 01 744 Hlgt, SlreH Our building
lS currs-"!Uy '::C'~i~1j lor :omfil~n~e'l use ~s ere HIe-$urrour.dln~ "or-eels of
prCDert'~ W~ or; tt,f or to ~nowrr to 011 of you es 'SarA," (South of
Ft'lr?,t "'vrnu~} .. Weo are one ~f the participating blJ~d7?r"~~~ ... ho ho ... ~
~r·U:-~lt. ~,,:-, tl~rl1 t~ rE'n161n e~ ~E' e'e, .. e SPP"lC~ 10 tM· co rnmunl tu Lest ue-er
It ;,~~ -:"~Hrl')lr,E'~ bit \h~ PI~rlnln9 CommisSion end lh~ C,ty Co~ncll thot
CI1 .• tc.,I':)tll1\:'E-ri~.~lr 5~,')r'::, ..,~roE-& '.'nel nl?fO to our communlty ~rld with s.om~
":':'-::'-:-:'~~ tr!lftg ,~;,O UDtlOllfl9 b~ the Cit~ we wouiCl b~ e~it to continue Clur
.' H~"'I;:':-: t~, H,to~ ri-SIC'i'nts. end those wrlo commut~ H, our c;t~ 10r their
~.;; ·T~ ".r,':i?rne-C: ..,1!.tJ HIE' Cle-Ift?lopP."J€rlt or 735 Alme 5tr£off .. Unbeknownst
t.~, '!.i.~ ·.lClj~.;t~t pr"ti~rty own"!rs mlet"tH'r~!-wtre tOr,lng plo'l! with tht cIty
:;,,:-..•. ~ ::r,·:':· f'_t~rrbn llrld "",'£0 were-n!'v~r notlrl!d (if wnef. wes. heopper'llr.c so
:--, ~ .: ~"I~~ t'c-!t~ c·ur CCln(f'rrl: it'lfs !P:lr::f 15 currently l:>ting us~C! for ~
"If!-,:·1f rijC·G: ;~'5""'r:e-t HrIDiolJ~!' .D~r.:ifl9 which i5 en 1ndlcetor lhel U·tE'
'.,!', ~~ ;(-1 it .. lr i.1fI~OtQIJ~'-~ te, accommoOete tM shopper~ plus the
~"';.'i·"~';;.s of V,. tmpl~yef;. The City he~ ~efn worring on e deel witt,
':~'C'~' ~.~~ .!I~I '!":'tll!h ho~ rlvt ye-t b!?en consummetf'd. HiS deaT wHl be
':·"\"'ilF,:, 0 .. tt,. £U"fs:..ful rfzo"ing of the 735 Alma Street percel to e
Fe (oloc,r,.,l eomrnur,H~) o.sigr,ellon. ThiS roz~r,ing woulo eilow the city to
,~r,:tr",: t e Sing;. "ge,m Otcupency (5110) unit on the percel whiCh would
H r .. r,! .. ~ te. V,e Mm.!.!! end ihose WhOSE income 1S $15,000 or less per
:c",um We stror,Ply pbitc! to ltds rE~onir,g for the following reosons.
1 7" ",~r,g~ tt •• 20ning for thiS sole property prOject is eleinow'9 its
u;" 1ro", 1M tUn"ounOTnQ porrels zoned commencel. As we he,. seen et
;':·17 Erll'~·r;.on S-tiif~t. t,..,-: reversE' heppene-d, OnE-commerciel user w~s.
o','..sec r,e,-e",~ J! enO~~ up the SOLE commencel user emong single femlly
Ow~n1~~, ~',c w~, roecpd to relece!. C~n thrs hepp~n 1n the future to oue
P'oP.rt;~,~ Vi'll w~ flnelJy ~e outsea Meeuse one by o~e we 1'1'111 be
r-on'..lertl?'l r.C ret'l:!~n"1!l1 UCE''?'
:-!!" '= r~~'r,~ /!l1'1;C,t.e lr, It'I~ Serl Jo:.;s Mercury News d~teC' Apr11 14~
.;.,;. '".~ :'":J e Pe:~ t'j." Mmrls to I,~OO too few per'lling speces to
~-~.f-=r '."~ n~eo:-. Ci11.r • .;. ~owr.town mer'Chonts and rest.eurent petrons
:,!" .... ~~'=~ .. , ~:~ t-~ C:";"It!c~nng L'ntlther perking structurE, pert unoe!"grouna
"',: '~".-~. T'~;'S, te, ~cco"w~ete the petroo; or our Polo Alto bUSinesses'"
.Tr,f ",~ reep" '.he reweros 01 texe, from their proprietors) not lhe
~l~o;e Ir,!orn, u;; end the SUITOund,ng property owners or any future
mttlinQS held ~~ t It~ r~presen\&U~es In regerd \0 discussions of this
prt'~!rt~ end its potentiel use so we cen reley our Input end concems. If
you ",oijl~ 1if:~ to eel! e speclel meding Of property owners loceted neer
i:.S Alm~ StreH please tell me ene \ will persflnel1~ arrenge for such e
meetin9 witt, ell oor,.l o"'ner; in the underlying I'icinity. This letter is
pu~lic re':or~ ,;f our ~~i.ctlor, in con_frting 735 Alme Street to SRO
E.,:;, c,f ~O\! er • .,.el(~m'\~tel1 us el321-4't31 for more imputrege ra10g
1[':1:. [.ro~C!~e.l by MrCho(l .~E'f'rterl. Feel fn:E> to corrt~ct U~ eny tlme
;~-,,711', ~:.;) 1,:-;, "~J:lur t-ftY);. ~flj CDo51d@re'.ion irl tn1s mettp.r. We 100 ... forwe.rd
[v j"1=-,r;r,~ -end m~€'t.in9 with blOiJ for further th$cuss;(ms reg~roHl9 this
~.: !-uo:
~l. F:v.r, Ailuer~on
tllh? ee,a·
2!:--~ ;:~::inc,
... L:'$o?p~\ t'it..lt.o:-r
L..l: U,~:-:,
_'f'~r, rl~ CD"'.':'
~·i.:~, f-:o::~ntl~lJm
... it·.; Si.,~t~~f\
It!pi~ wP!'tl!,r
[.~m~rd &~Hhom
T~n\:! C(!'!""~::-tt'
F6\n~i~ (vII."
E;n! &le?i.r
".-'fetor Oio!1' {~rl
t:-:~.br~f' SCh!)-,lGt
Hor1tn~ f"rentle-rC':r~t
SirlCtrely,
~ }. ,,-------CV~.t-02.&-<--~
..... il1i. end Rooe ThoiU
744 High Street
Palo A!to, Co 94~Ol
</lfe,.htl.-SC4~". k,,-
Apr! I Z2~ 1993
To Our Elected City Represent!tives:
, ..... , ..
~e. Rezoning of 735 ~!m. St,
We are tne o.ner. of record of 799 Alma St.
DBA: Hileman's Automotive. We ha~e been in thjs location
sine! t929. We are one of the City 1 s Historic,! la~dmer~
rE'9ister~
Our Automotive Shop is patronized by City homeowners
as well as those ir.dividuals comlng here for their emDloy~€nt
Meetings have been taking place with city affairs and
Mr. Chop Keenan for sometime regarding t~e rezoning of
735 Alma St. to Single Room Occupancy (sro) 'WHY' ha,en't ••
been informed of 5~ch meetings? We are very upset the city
ha5 not notified any of the surrounding property owners.
Please inform us of the next discusSion of this
property. IS we yould like to ~oice our inpot on thi~ matter.
Kenneth Schreiber
CC. Ron Anderson
Hi ke Cubb
G.ry Fazzino
Joseph Huber
Liz Kni ..
~e.n McCown
Dick Rosenb.ual
Joe Smitian
Lanie Wheeler
Bernard Beecham
Tony Carrosco
Patricia Cullen
Bill Gluier
Victor Ojakian
Xatnryn SCh,,;; dt
Marlene Prendergast
Sincerely
Dee ,nd Cozette Hileman
799 AIm. St.
Palo Alto, Ca. 94301
•
.~
•
"-..
-----_.-
Polo Alto Housing Corporation
~ ..
Augu," ll. 1993
PJa.,rung Commission
City of Palo Alto
P.O.Box 10250
Palo Alto. CA 94303
Re: 1050 Ansttarlero Road
Dear Planning Commission Members:
, .
"
At its Augusr 25, 1993 meeting. the PLanning Commission will be cons.idering a change of
land use designatiOl\ for 1050 AnsU'3dero Road and a development agreement for the project
involving a mitigation for tht attendant loss of bo\U.ing in the form of.an actual .site for SRO
(Single Room Occupancy) housir". Both the Planning Commission and the A.rcnitoctuni
Review Board have forwarded positiv:: recommendations on tl-te J 050 Arast!'adero koad
project at prior times. It was at the Council level that the "land swap" (:o.~ccpt \1,'25
developed. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (pAHC) has had some historical input on the
issue and wishes to make its position clear to the P.Lannir.g Commission at this junctUre.
WIlen tl>e original application for 1050 Arutradoro Road came before the Coun<:i1, PARC
~ two ""'cerns: I) that the proposed ""mm=iaI land .,.. designation did nO! comply
with very specific policies in the Palo Allo Compr .. ~onsive Plan. and 2) the accepta!\co of.
motletary mitigation for the dimination of the hOusing sile. withou.~ the ~fit of a systemari<:
and rationally base<! approach 10 the establishmen. of suoh • mitigation, would.., •
dangerous prececlont for ti>e futuro of affordable housing. Tbe Council continued the
application and askod the applicant 10 suggest a mitigation that might a<:tually genmlte
additional hOOling.
At its second ccnsidenlt:ion of thls matter in March 1993, the Councll reviewed t.'e ge.."er.al
proposal to incorpor.ue the site al 753 Alma S~l as • direct mitigation for the loss of
hoU5ing caused by loe land use designaJion change at 1050 ArasI!arlero Road. >.loog with "
development agreem~t to Jock in development rights at 1050 I\ruttadero Road for a certain
period. PARC supponed lOe plan which would provide actual land for the develapme." of
housing. See atlached le~r c!a..a March I J. J993. The Council referred this plan back 10
the Planning Commission for review. The PAHC continues to suppon the aval1.ability of 753
Aim.. Stroo. for the development of affordable housing.
The Palo Alto Housing Corporation has been working for several years to (Uld a site in
Down.own Palo Alia to develop SRO housing. The generu features of ,uch housing include
,<nail units with limiied cooking and bath facilities. 24 h :;ur management. zppropriate parking
gi~ a proximity to public transportation, and very low rents. It is generally designed to
.serve me "working poor" and to be sized so as not to significantly impact its neighbortll'od..
540 Cowper Stree~ Suite G. Palo Alto. California 94301. (415) 321·9709
"--.---~.---
...... .... , .. -
,>
"
Atbched is a copy or a genera.! description PAHC prepared las: yw when ii asked the real
eslale community to asSist in finding a suitable site.
A suitable: site is presently available at 753 Alma Street. PAHC .has considered t.l);r: iHue.s of
adJac~nt noise and fumes, the need for parking in the sl!!1'OlOnding area, and the: non
residential uses that abut the site. Nevenhekss PARe belIeves that .a successful SRO housing
projea can be constructed there. In fact \I.'e are confident that it \It.·outd be a positive
contnbution to th, neighborhood.
The SRO bousing call be dC3igned to mitigate lbe effect of nearby noise and fumes to the
SRO residents. Acoustical treatment of ,glazing and othei building systems car1 mitigate noise
while mechanical systems can be designed to minimize the infilt.""3tion of unwanted' fumes and
odors.. Such treatments are provided ralher routinely in building d~signs today.
Occupants of SRO housing have very few cars and a lower parking requiremem iE sufficient.
It is possible that the SRO could be designO<l '" =mmodate o~rllow parking at certain
hours of the Oay. In lllY case, the SRO will no. =re more of. parking prrblem for the
area; nor can one SRO solve an existing parking problem.
The concerns that oornmercialllelghbors have about furure zoning actions must be dalt with
politiaJIy and .in the future. One SRO will not change a neighborhood. Loog r.ltlge planning
can provide for the u,,-s the community ~ I<l have, Decisions of future policy mak=
ate nOl totally prodictable, nor can thoy be lepI1y controlled. Then! is no zone: that ca."
!= a Jand use as "vacanlIOl".
Whether the e=. proposal i ••• good deal" for the City or K= Und Company ha; nO!
been !be Housing Corporation's foe .... Ramer, OW' fo<:\1s Iw bee11 the avaiJ.1bility an.<!
suitability of. site for developmen. of • type of t,ousing that is badly needed in Olll'
community. You will heat public testimon~ from the neighbors that 753 Alma Street is no. a
good sire. There may be. perl'e<:l sire scm ..... 1"".; if i. is found, illOO can be used for yel
m= hou"mg. PARC considers th' 753 Alma Street sire 2pPropn..re and would lU;e to get
started on ~'>e process of developing housing.
Members of the Board of Palo AlI<l Housing Corporation will be available at the meeti'g to
answer questions you mal have.
Sincerely,
PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION
~~ n '-,
Marl."e H. P~~:;:.u
Executi VI!! Director
c.c: Council Member Simitian
..
<'
-:"./;--~-
• d_..!",."
.. "l. /
ollii.;.-;;(",-.' -.: .
Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Morch ll. 1993
Honorabl. City Council
CilJl of Palo Alto
150 H2milton A.Mue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mayor ~ ""d Council Members:
At its prior review or the 1050 Ans1r.Idero Road project, the Council continued the
application. which includes. proposed change in the Comprehensive Plan land =
designa:ion of th. sit< , 50 that appliants could m:onsider the proposed mitiption for
the loss ofpotemial hOUling. The Palo Alto Ho .... ing Corporuion (pARe) was 00
n:cOId it that hoaring that the ~ use redesignanon wcwd be lnconsi=t with other
Comprehensive Plan policies unl ... the Council found ..... y to RpI= the opporrunlty
for lost housinJ. :a1her tlwl to a=p< • money mitiplioo that baR DO :elaliatlShip to
II!at loss. PARC also"'~ mat some kind of"Jand for land" exchange might
bea.er mitiplc the permanent \oss of housing potential cau..c by !he change in land use
dcrignalion.
Sil>cc that time, Couna1member Simitian ba> I2lkccl with !lie PARC and !he appIi<ants
ID formll1all: a more suilable mi!igalion. PARC unclI:man<Is that !he applicants' I'=t
pI<>poSal incorpora:es Mr. X=n',1aruI at 753 Alma as. more direct nriCgalion for
tile \oss of housing caused by the IaruI ,... tlesignation change. PARC suppons a plan
which allow> the sit< to be available for the developmalt of housinJ·
"!he "SRO Committee" of the P ARC bad done $0_ aNlysi> of the Alma silo in the
c:ont<:Xl of its work 00 the SROII.ct R pItJJ>OGl. Altho",n thete w= coc.cems ab<lUt
the size of the site and adjacent uses, the SRO Committee =idem! the site an
apPICpxiart candidate. Wben!he SRO Committee discus5ed the site with
Councilmcmber Simitian. m="be1s were com:erned aboUl apptaisals, toxic aNlysis,
poW:y coru:eming densily and parking, available funding and other potential issues that
might proclode .... of the site for SRO hOUling in lIIe future. However. the SRO
CoI1Ul!i= did cct>fimt that, if lIIose issues can be appropriately =lv.o, • su=sfuI
SAO boIIsing project can be ~ on tho 753 Alma site. L~!act, the Committee
is canfid<r.t that it would be • positive contribution to the 1!cighborbood ""~ a model
for more SRO housing for Palo Alto.
540 Cowper Street. Suite G. Palo Alto, California 94301, l41~ J_ ,·9709
......
•
Palo Alto Housing Corporation
March 11, 1993
Honorable City Council
Ciry of hlo Alto
250 Hamilton A venue
Palo Allll. CA 9430 I
Re: 1050 A=dero Road
Dear Mayor McCown and Council Members:
-,---',-
At its prior teYiew ef the lOSO Arastr2d<ro Road project, the Countil continued the
application, which ineludes a proposed change in the Compt'Oh"";ve Plan land use
designation of the site. so that applicant! could recOMider the proposed mitigation for
the loss of powttia! housing. The Palo Alto Housi."g Corporation (pARe) was on
reconl ., that bearing Chat tile land use rodesign3lion would he inconsistent witJI other
Comprobensive Plan policies unless the Council found a way III !'epW:e the oppottunity
for lost bousing. _ !han to a=pt a money mitigatioa tila! boTe DO :eWi0llsbip III
t!Iat lou. P ARC also ~ !hat 50_ kind of "land for Dad" exchange miglu
bett=' mitiple the petnWl""t loss of housing potential caused by the change in land use
designation.
Since !hat lime, CouD<:ilm=nber SimiIizn bas tan= wil:h the PARe >nd the applicants
to fonrtuble • maze suilabll: mitigatioD. PARC \III<l=tands mat the awlicants' p=t
proposal inwtpcntes Mr. Keenan',land., 753 Alma as a more dlrect miliption for
the loss oChousing cansed by tile land "'" designatioa change. PARC supporu a plan
wbicll allows the sUe \0 be availabll: for the development of hous:ing.
'The "SRO Commince" of the PAKC bad done some ar.alysis of the Alma sito in the
<:OII=t of its work en the SROILo< R proposal. Al~ there were concer,lS about
the size of the sito and adjacent uses, the SRO Commillee considered the si!e an
apptCiptiale oandida!e. When the SRO Committee discussed the sito with
CouncilmeIr.ber Simitian, _mber5 were concerned about appr.Usals. toxic atWIlysi3,
policy co,"",ming density >nd parking, available tundlni and other po!entia! issues that
might J'I""lude _ of the si!e for SRO bousing in the funm:. However, the SRO
Commilr= did confinn tha1. if those issues can be approprialdy nsolvod, • su=ful
SRO housing project can he constrUcted on the 753 Alma si!e. In f2.ct, the Commi=
is c:onfident that it would he • posilive conttibulion to the neighbothaod an~ > model
for mote SRO housing for Palo ,">lto.
540 Cowper Str~t. Suite G. Palo Alto, California 94301. (41< 3_,·9709
"""-_. --_ .. "
•
". , .. : :.-<-
The PARC SRO CO'Tlmi= =ommended to the PAlfC Board of Dire<:\O" fr.a: the
PAHC Q..press support for the use of L1.: 753 A.lma sit-e for sa.o housing in the conte:<:!
of th.land US<: designation chonge at i 050 Anstr.ulero Road. AI i" meeting of March
10, 1993, the PARe Board of D"e<ton concurred wi!ll Ille CommiOee. PARe would
urge the City to pe...""iorm toxic investigation., apprai2ls and other noI"l"nal due diligenc:e
before acquisition to assure that thf site is, in fa.ct~ appropria.te for public purchase imd
bewing.
The P ARC a.pp=i:ms the efforts of all concerned to work !O"'-arC a solution that "i U
assist in the production of much needed houslng.
Sin=ly,
PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORA nON
~·k.~"~ MmleneH.~~
becutive Dttector
IX' Cbop Keenan
c:\mhpIsro.7S3
2
PALO ALTO HOCSlNG CORPOR\TIO:\
PRELIMI]';AR Y BL'ILDL'iG PltOGRk\ (
SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOt'SlNG
The City of Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plat! and Compreh.ensilJe HOllSing
A.<fordabililJl St:ategy (CHAS) ou!line the demand for more d..-.. e!u. saf, and afiordable
Single Room Occupancy housing (SRO). TIle Palo Alto Houslng Corponaon, a ncn
~fi, public benefi' cotparation. hopes to fi."d •• uitable site in p.alc Aj", on which to
develop • ~ affordable SRO "Hote!" . The SRO would provide .mall, a!f<mlable,
furnuhed renCII housing units for long-term occupancy primarily by single individuals
who live or work i11 Palo Alto, located conveniently near uansporta.ti.on, job!, shops.,
enll:r't3lnrn~[ and ~LIrants.
aaSite. PARe believes thai Downtown Palo A!ro is Ole best Location fer the n-ew SRO.
However, .sites in the California A.venue: area aI1d along the E Camino Corridor migh[
be suit2.bie ~ well. It is impor.anc that the site be JocaIed near public tro.'\Su and
services for me convenience of reside.'1.ts~ The optimum. size of :he sirt should be
appror.imately 17.500 Ie 25 ,000 square f..,~ in order Ie yield about 100 to 150 Ilniu.
··Bun~_ The size and configuration of <he buildin; will depend on v>riow fearures
of the site. One or rwo levels of parking will ... '"'Iuired, pe:1!ap' a.mou!la&<d by
.a:a:rac:tive .str=E-scape uses. Within the 50 foo~ height limit, various combinations of
parking and housing: are posn"ble. though the higher constrUction COStS 'will probably
pr=:Jude undergtound ~!!:in:.
Density Cllnoidera:ions, such as the number and si= of the uni<s, th,
probable maxim urn number of zesidents, building height limits and floor Are/. Ratio
would depend on me :rolling requirements. Howe',,,,,. it is anticipaued !hat , Planned
Community (PC) zone would b< u~ '" ... to pennit a feasible number of units to
&Ilow for 24-hour dcokls.oeurity staffing aM high opm.ting CDm, while ~g =ts
affordable to lower-incomel<Siden".
Self -service laundries and activity fOOm:s would be on the premises. Staff
wouid be on duty 24 hour:;; a d2.y for the convenience and security of the r=:idents.
Access to the rooms would ~ limited to the occupants and t.ieir invited guests.
**Parking. It is anticipa~ the PC zoning will pe~it a lo ..... er ~king requimne~t.
than that ~uired for other developments. Fer low-incon:e SRO .5'. other comml.!rutJ.es
have required from zero to one-hal f parking space per urn ~ averagmg ().2 to 0.25 for
mo .... =, projectS, SO long as the SRO i' in proximity to public tranSpOIWicn and
the rents an: geared [Q very-low-income occ'Upants.
•
··UnilS. Ead. SRO unit would be approxim3.te.!y 175 to :-5 Soq'..:.!'"'C f~~. ave:r:.,ging
perhaps :mO~22.5 ~uare fee~. They would be furnishe~, ... ...a ·"o..:ic Include 01 ba~h...""OO~
ilJ'l.d kitchenette. Duplex urtiu may be explo~d as a. mnn~ of ~d1.:CU1; etcher: v:c
bathrocm. constn.lction costs.
"Rent. Th: UOlt rents would be as ~O\l( as pos.sitlt~. d~;'ld:nt upon the a'ni~ble
financing and subsidy contributions. Projecrea rents ate 53!5 to s.: l5 per month [or
singles and WD to $475 per month for doubles. equivale.t to 3D to 40% of U!<
County's c::unel'l.t median income ie'\le!:s, t>ued 01'1 ~% of income for bOUlin& 'C5L
•• S.:;b5idy ::md F"'tnancin&. The project's coSt of 2nd. ffiUSi. i)e cssentiaUy u:ro lO mee~
rent objectives. It is hoped that funding for land will be available from the City of Palo
Alto',! Housing Reserve Fund-Commercial Account since lower-income worXers will
be hou.seQ. The contribution of City funes to an SRO development would iruUcare
strOng 3uppoIt i" applying for fedcrallSUtelCOUtlry and privatt financing. Ava.llability
of feder:al tax credits would. g,ready 'lSSis~ in financing such an SRO development
"Operatir..: £XPf!nses. Operating expenses for SRU's au highe~ than (or tradLtional
ap.anmentS due [0 the: need. tor 24 hour desk 5eMce. sec1.Iriry surve:i1lance,
housekeepingfjanitorial functions and majntenance. and provWOD of f\lrnirun, l.inens
an<! utilities. There = :also mono fNquen, l\1mov~. Opeming ""u ~ '" density:
as density incrc:a>es. costs go down.
For more iafonn:.tion. conlact Marlene H. Pr8ldergast, ""10 Alul Bousinj:
Corporation. 540 Cowper Stnel, Suitt G, Palo Alto. CA 94301.1415) 321·9709.
CC:\r:'.hp\sro. bd
•
· •. ,':
\
!
i
• .. .. • • d • 1
I •
11
I
I
I
I
LO\'INE\~ASS<X:IAfES
ErlVirQ'1.mt"l'I roi/GeoIe(:h""co r;EI'l9''''t'e''''s: ~" :~~
QIY OFPALOAl..TO
PURCHASING~O~"TR.."CTl~G
CMc Cenrer, First Floor
250 Hamilton A venue
Palo Alto, California 94303
Ann, Mr. Bill Fell.-nm
Dea; Mr. fellmm:
son. A..'\'D GR.OL"n 'V>A'I'DL
Q'JAUT'>' UCO'-'-USS.,-"CI
753 Al..'\l" S1llI:£T
?Al.O Al.TO, CAt.D=OIt'''l'''
AJ requesred" ~'"e are pleased to prese:u this ;-epor. .s~:n..-na:jzi!1g O"..!' sOL Vid
ground 'VI.'2ter qualjty recorllUissance 2.[ the above·referenced she. Tn:s l."'tVes:t,j·
g:ation v><a.s performed in :i:ccorda.nce v.,th our proposal tll(ed June S, 1993 and 0'""::
discussions ~'iIh yoo.
laboratory .analysis of son nmples rolJeaed from nwo l0C2tiom; L"l Llte from
~lring lot at the site approxi=tely 3 feel below gfOWld sumce (bgs) 6eteaed
up 10 14,000 p:ms per million (ppm) of total oil and gre= and 1,100 ppm of
=racuble hydroc:ar1:>ons (identified as clieseO. The =""t of I.'ill co"tzmirultiO!1 is
not known and should be further ev2luated Wore asswning title Ie !he site so t.hi.t
poIerru.l costs assoclaled With remecli"tion/soil di.,-pos>l, if needec!, =-be l>eu",
constnined.
Petroleum oll WZ5 2lso 6et~ed '" 1,800 ppm in • soil sample wen at a d~pth of
11 f_ adjacent 10 "" exiSting hydraulic lift Within the aUlo rep:tir buil ding, and ,
lov; conce:nU'3tion of perroleum oil was detected .at l former lift loca;,jO:L Because
there appears [0 .be ie.a.kage-rel.ated conu.."'l'lim.tion,. we recommend tl'u: t..".e
hydraulic lifts "nd sump inside the building be removed, lncludir.g roil s.ampling
and remov2.l of .any imp:acted soil, before YOLl assume title to the properry.
A!t.ernately, funher investig2tion eouid be conducted 10 be=-~er ZS5eSS t."1:C' pmentiJ.1
COSts of these a CtiVilies .
.... nalysis of .a ground water sample taken .at Iile presumed up-.gf'ldieOl comer of
the site detected 2] ppm of extractable bydrocuoons in silt belov..' the ground
'9.'aler 12ble. These compounds appear to be migrating onto the sile from an
up.gradient $OUICC
lo'tl,.· concenlt.tions of chlorirulted 50h'en~ were detected in l ground u.'ater
sampJe Uken in the alJe:' dO"O'-'n-gradieni of Ihe sire. As L"f,ese (ompounc.s were
not detected in soil samples t.;ken 0.'1 the 5~'bjec[ propeny, they may be relaitd
..
----_.--
• II
III • • II • I • I ,
I
to a wute oil tank tlu.t was formerly pr'esenl on the oLher side of the ~ney·'Q.."ar.
We recommend tha.r. the regulatery agen~' files reg:uding t..'1{s w .. ste oil unk be
researched. to evaluate jtS potenl.lal rel..;tionship to the dete::ted compoL'nds.
Consideration should be given tv inst.!!ing monitoring wc:Us cn#sit~ to further
evaluate ,grqund \\"ater quality,
We refer you to the text of the repon for details regarding site acliviUes and
recorn.mcnda.tion5. If )'OU have an)' questions, piease call.
Very truly yours,
§Zlb-
Stason I. FOSter
Enviro:unental Engineer
2~G.
Env'..ronmental Geologist
MT,smS)J>
Copies, Addressee (1)
~~,~~~-----------------------------------
•
hge2
I
September 12, 1991
HOHOP~LE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
This ~em will be placed on
the agenda of the Palo Alto
City Council meeting of
September 23, i991.
SOUTH OF FOREST AREA: PLANNING COMKISSrON RECOMMENDATIONS
ON ISSUES AND STPATEGIES
Members of the Council:
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report transmits the Planning Commission's recommendations and comments
on So~tn of forest Area (SOFAJ issues a~d the Commis$ion~s reco~ndations on
strategies that address these issues.
Bac.kgNiund
On Septeober 13, 1990, the City Council and Planning Commission held a ;oint
weettng to discuss SOFA issues that had been raised over time by a number of
;ndfvfduals. includ1ng nearby residents of tne SOFA area. At that meeting.
the City Council directed t~ Planning Commission to establish priorities on
SOFA issues and suggest strategies in addressing tkese issues, On December
12, 1990, the Pl,nnlng Commission establis~ed 0 subcoomittee to respond to the
Council directive. The Planning Commission's South of Forest Avenue
subc ... ittee (Coomisslon~rs Huber. Hirsch and Glozier) discussed the range of
issues and possible strategies at tWG ~eting$ 00 March 13. 1991 and May 15,
1991. Members of the public also participated at these meetings. Shortly
after the subcommittee concluded its recommendations on Kay 15, 1991, the Palo
Alto· Chamber of Connerte, on JlJne 4. 1991, sponsored a. publ ic. forum on opti'!Jns
for t~ South of forest commercial area. At a regular meeting on August 14,
1991, t~ Pl.nning Commission h •• rd additional comment from the public,
includfng SD~th of Forest Area business owners. Tne C~i$si3n tne~ endorsed
the subcammittee'5 recommendations on South of Forest.Area strategies for City
Council consideration. [Attached are I) the August 9, 1991, report to the
Planning CORliss ion on tne subcoomittee recommendations for the South of
Forest Are, Including .11 attachments. and 2) • July 16. 1991, letter from the
Chamber of CD~rce summariz)ng the discussion of tne June 4, 199~, forum.]
PJann'ng CommiSSion Recgmmendations on SOFA
The Planning Co~ission concurred with t~e subcommittee's findings that visua1
concerns .are the IIOst illlPorhnt issues facing the SOF,6, area within ill
relatively short five-year horizon and that land use iss~!s Ire of equally
CI1R:421:91
•
'.
.I
.-
I
1
, ,
f,;""
;. ~.
.;.,
.L
.-
hign importan~e frOl a lo~ger-term~ 10-to 15-yea.r persp~ctive. Tnerefore,
the Phnning Com1issicn, in 1ts recolTITIE-:"ldations, considered visual issues and
strategies addressi~g these issues to be of tne hi9hest pri~rity for the snort
tem, and land use issues and related strategies. to be of eQuaJly fligh
priority for the long term.
The Pldnni~ Commisslon's specific recommendations referred to the summary
table of issLies and strategies tnat appeared on pages ) and Z in CMR:48!LO of
September 6, li90. (This CHR is an .tt.chment to the August 9, li91, report
to the P1a~ning COlTI<1ission.j Tne COllll'1iss-;on's recommendations appear on ttle
followlng table.
PRIORITY
High •• t
Highest
Middle
Lower
tOll!T!ent
ISSUE
Visual
(Short Term)
land Use
(long Tem)
Parking
Traffic
SUGGESTED STRATEGIES
Complete the Urban Design Pl.n
Underground utilities in South of
Forest co~rcial area
Plant street trees fo110", .. ;ng Urban
Des; n Plan Guidelines
A110w auto service businesses to
remain indefjnftely
Consider ~igher d!nsity mixed use
office/residential use incentives
110ng the Alma corridor
Consider acre effective housing
transitiQns ~lDng Emerson Str~t
Review permitted uses in CD-S and
consider some modification to
el iminah inapp,"opriate uses
Do not re are I s eeif;c lan
City Council to continue to review
off-site parking agreements
ConSider eT1ginati~g parking deficlt
credit provisions in loning
regulations when uses change ~nd
intensif
Do not consider street closures
Staff concurs with the Planning Commission that SOFA visual issues and
strategies for addreSSing these issues can be completed within a relatively
ShOTt time fr~. Completion of the Urban Design Plan shOUld occur lat~ this
year. Furtllermore, cDIIP1etion of two util tty undergrollnding projects, Vlat
;n~lude most of the commercial sites in the South of Forest Area, is expect~d
by June 1994. Additional tree plantin9, where feasible, could be implemented
within the next five years, assuming current drought conditions are relieved
CMR:421 :SI
p:\cmr\sof.
9/12/91
Page 2
by sufficient rainfall. Staff reco~nds that the Council approve an
assignment to staff to prepar~ I street tree p1anting progra~ for SOFA.
The Planning Commission. in considering strategies for land use issues in
SOfA I ~lie~ed that changes in la~d use pc1ities for the SOr~ commercial arEa
would require a reasonable amount of time before results could he realized.
Staff agrees with this Planning Commission observation. The experience a10flg
£1 Camino Real south of Matadero Creek is an excellent example of the time lag
between changes in City land use policy and actual changes in use and
function. fn that area, the City approved major changes in land use pOliCY in
1976 and commensurate changes in zoning in 1978. Yet the pace of change in
that secti~n of E1 Ca~ino Real has begun to accelerate only in recent years+
lha P1anning tommis$ion , in its 1and ~se recommendations, emphasized that the
most important land use strategy to pursue should be dir~cted toward allowing
auto service bl..:sinessfS. to remain in the SOFA area. (Currently, there are
21 a~to service bu~1nesse$ and ~ne vacant auto service site in this area -see
attached map and list of uses.' Public testimony on this issue at the August
14, 1991 Planninq CommissiDn meeting was interesting because it was one of the
few meetings held an SOFA where auto service business owners appeared and
commented on factors t~at could result in,retent'~n of auto ser~itt
businesses. One auto service business owner, who did not own the property
where his buSintss is lQcated, said eCDnomic competition from h19hEr yielding
uses, e.g., as aff1ces, p~std as great i threat to survival of auto ser~ice
uses in the SOfA area a. did the threat of City regulation phasing out .uch
uses. He also claimed that owners would improve t~e appearance of these auto
service busf"~sses, if t~ey did not feel threatened either by prfvat! .arket
forces or by public regulation.
The City has various options t~ cons1deT in retaining auto servic~ bu~1ne$seS
in th1s area. These optfons range fro~ J) pro-actively encouragfng auto
service retention by 80dlfylng s ... permitted uses in the enos district 000
possibly If.itfng redeyelo~nt options through. zoning overlay di.tri<t for
all or part of SOFA. to 2) allOWing auto service bus!nes.es to remain while
encouraging some redevelopient in selected areas of SOFA.
A third policy option not recamoended by either staff or the Planning
Commission would be to actively encourage redevelopment and discourage auto
seT~ice uses thTO~gh nonconfonming zoning and other regul~tiQns.
Staff believes that if the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission's
emphasis placing retentlon of auto service businesses as the highest priority,
then it should be ,pecific in its direction to the Pl.nnin9 Commis.ion
regarding t~e extent that the CommiSSion shou1d pursue proacti~e strategies in
retaining auto service for at least portio., of SOfA. While the Planning
Ca.siss1on's recommended land use and par~i~9 stTltegies are re1ltivelJ
compatible, some strategies would be more effective in retaining auto service
businesses while ~ther strategies would encourage changes of use in selected
areas of SOFA. The strat&gies that can most aggressively s.eek retention of
auto uses include: 1) consideration of a speCial overlay zone for ayto
service (not recommended by the Commissio")i 21 eliminating scme CD-S
CIIR,~21 ,91
p: \CIIT\.oh
9/lZ/91
Page 3
..
•
peMmitted uses that may offer higher rent or economic returns than auto
service; 3) referral of off-site parking agreements to the City Council; and
4} elimination of credits on parking deficits when uses change aMd intensify.
If Countil believes thlt auto ser~;,e$ should be 111o~ed to remain in SOFA but
recognizes that over time many such businesses may well clase or relocate
els~where, then Cpuncil should direct the Commission to pursue and empnaslze
strategies acknow1edging th! likely displacement of these b~5;nesses oyer
time. Strategies allowing r~tent'on of auto ser~"e but ~nccuri9t
redevelopment in selected areas include: 1) mixed use incentives along the
~lma corridor and 2) a housing trans'ticn a'~ng portions of Emerson Street.
Staff SIJPPOT'ts this 1ii1l.tter approach. Some a.uto s~rvic.e businesses in the SOfP-,
area cou1d and should b~ allowed to remain. However, the Alma corrider. as a
pajor arterial, and given its preximlty to public translt, is an appropriate
1e<ation for higher density housing combined with some amount of ground fleer
co~rcia'. In addit;on, consideration of more effectiye tra.nsitional toning
along £~rso~ Street wnere sing1e family residential develop~nt interfaces
with c:omet~cial uses is appropriate. As a resuH. stiff supports directing
the Planning Commission to initiate land use strategies for specific areas of
SOfA inclUding: l} the iforement;~ned strategy to consider mixed use
incentives along the Alma corridor, and 2} the strategy to consicer a more
ef(~ctive housing transition along Emerson Street. The co~jned effect of
these tWD strateg1es will ne the likely dec'lne in SOF~'s auto serwice
business Gver the next 10 to 20 years.
Nonetheless, to encDurage some retention of auto service in SOfA j staff
supports the two other rec~nded strategies to ~onsider modification to
p~rmitted uses in th~ CO-S district. and to cons,der elimination of cr~4its on
parking deficits when uses change and intensify. Modifications to CO-S
permitted (and presumably conditional) uses wi)l require f1ne toning if
retentlon of auto and bUSiness service ~ses is given a high priority.
Elimination of credits for parl\ng deftclts ~here uses change could f~rther
reinforce retention of eXisting uses in SOrA. except in those situations where
either an existing large lot or asse.bly of parcels .akes provfsion of
additlonal par~ing feaslb1e. One conc1uding item on these land USe
strategies, the Planning Cornnissio~ said th~t the City shou1d work with
bUsiness owners in th~ SOFA area if it ~1shes to pursue strategies of
reta1ni"9 aoto service b~sine!oses. In develQpins drift responses to the
Council's direction, staff intends to meet with both business owners and
c.o=merci~1 and residential ?roperty owners. The d~t'ils of a public
participation process will be developed after specif1c Council directions haVE
been given to the Commission and staff.
SUMMARY AMO CONCLUSION
In conclusion. staff 5~pport$ the strategies recommen4ed by the Planning
Comaission for the SOFA commerCial area. Staff requests that the Countl1, if
it approves pUiSU;~9 these strategies, be quit~ specific to the Planning
C~issiDn i~ the priority it places on retaininq auto service US!S in this
area~
tMR:421 :~I
~:\C1IIr\sof.
9/)2/91
Page 4
, .
•
As noted earlier. some of the visual concerns of th~ SoutM of Forest
commercial area, which have been ralsed by a number of nearby r~sjdentst can
be addressed witnin a relatively short time frame. The City already is
committed to completing many of them. On the other hand, potential land ~se
strategies wi11 require longer time frames before changes can be expected to
occur.
If directed by Council, staff would expect to return to the Planning
Commission by early 1992 w;t~ proposed cha~ges to zoning regulations on CO~5
per.itted uses and on parking deficit credits. Specific proposals for the
three major land use strategies, ;.e., lJ auto service retention, 2) Alma
corridor mixed use incentives, l~d 3} Emerson Street housing trdns1ticn would
be submitted to the Planning Commission in late 1~~2.
RECOIttENDATION
Staff recOIITIends City CDuncil approval of Planning COlTlTlission reconrnerlded
strategies regarding So~th of Forest issues. Staff furt~e~ requests that the
City CQ~ncil clarify for th~ Pllnning Commission the priority that it should
place on retaining auto service USfS in this area. In addition, staff
recommends that the City Count11 direct staff to prepare a street tree
planting progr~ for SOFA.
R.~ectfully submitted,
Xk!)'1f~~ GEoRGE Zyt;!E
Assistant PI nin9 Official
i)I(~ carlJ'/Jk
WllLrA.II ZANEr ,
City llanager
/t;:;4/ ;(' -k;~L~
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER /
Director of Planning and
Coaraunity Ser-.;ce
Attachments: I. Report of AU9ust 9, 1991, to the Planning CommiSSion on
subco.mittee recommendations for the South of Forest Area
2. letter of July 16, 1991, from the Chamber of C.....,rce
summarizing June 4. 199), farum on South of Forest Area
3. Map of South of Forest Ar •• , with list.of use
4. Excerpt Planning Commission ainutes of A.gust 14, 1991
cc: Persons who attended South of Forest ... tin9s
CHR:421:91
p:\tmr\sofo
9/12/91
Page 5
I
1
!
--.-' .
CITY COV\,CIL M1SUTES
"2&:4-<w /a ;; 3; ('" 9 /
REPORTS OF CPMMI TTEES AN!) caMK! S S IONS
7. Planning Commission forwards to the City Council recommenda
tions on Issues and Strategies for the South of Forest (SOFA}
(211-01) (CHR:421: 91)
Planning Commissj.oner Bill Glazier said since the Planninq
commission and the City council discussed the SOl.!th of Pc...rest
Avenue (SOFA) issue about a year ago, the Planninq commission held
three publ ic .eetings at which a s;reat dea.l ot public input vas
received.. The Commission d.iscussea and debated the issue, and the
higbest priority for everyone was the visual appearance o-t the
area. SOIle of the SU99'8&ted strategies included completing-and.
impleaentinq the 'Orban Desiqn Plan, underqroundinq the utilities in
the SOFA ~.rcial area, and plantinq street trees followinq the
Urban Design Plan quidelines. While there was some concern about
aceeleratinq the priority of the particular strategies in light of
the City's difficult economic circwnsta.nces, the items needed to be
addressed in order to move forward in terms of visual appearance.
The second highest priority item was the appropriate lanQ use for
the area in the lcnq tera. After lengthy debate, the consensus was
for the auto service businesses to remain -indefinitely.-In order
tc fundaJllentally remake the visual appearance of the area,
developers had to be provided with some incentives to chanqe the
way the neighborhOOd looked, which 1.Iltilllately related to bigbu
density. The co-mmission discussed a mixed use-approach, office e:.nd
residential, for the Alma corridor, and a housing buffer or
transition along herson street. The staff report (CXR: 421: 91)
indicated that in the long run, the objectives of maintaining the
auto service businesses and encouraging the transition to other
Wie.s might not necessarily be consistent. On bal~nce, the
Commission favored maintaininq the auto service businesses and
requested policy quidance. fro. the council.
council Member Andersen asked about the impact of a higher density
on rents for the a.uto service.
9/23/91 67-204
" .
Mr. Glazier ~aid to the extent redevelopment occurred, it would
likely result in more expensive space. The only way to encouraqe
landowners to make different land use decisions 'Was to provide
hiqher density options. It '''''as a difficult trade-oft.
Mr. Schreiber s.aid it was a d.'"\fficult staff report to write because
statf ~as tryinq to ride two hor~es at one time in two different
directions. To the e~ent that higher density zoning in the SOFA
area was introduce~. it would tend tc remove the auto services over
ti&e. The policy reason for higher density zoning would be to
enoouri!llge physical change in the area. To the extent. Council
leaned tovard preservinq the auto service uses, for the areas
.apped in the staff report (CMR:421:91) which were predominantly
auto services, Council needed to consider keeping what it had by
lowering the ranqe of possibilities available under the zoning.
Retaining what lIl'as there would. net, however. qo '!'s far to'Ward
addressinq the visual concerns as the policy of trying to encourage
chanqe in the araa. It was a difficult policy decision to make,
and council's direction reqardinq the emphasis to be placed on
retaininq auto service uses vas veri important i'md needed to be
clear. council had the choice for both the frcntaqe on Alma Street
and the lima/High corridor, and distinct trom those areas was
Emerson street because there vera some different issues involved.
If Council wanted to retain a~to service as its number one priority
and wanted to send a clear message to eXistinq auto services ana
potential auto services., it 'Would need to make some zone text
dhanqes to substantially limit other uses that could economically
or otherwise supplant the auto se~~ices.
Council Member Cobb queried whethar there were any inconsistencies
between holding a student charrette and the progress of the SOFA
area.
Assistant P~anninq Official George Zimmerman believed the concept
of a. student charrette was very consistent with the Planning
Commission's reco .. endations acknov1edqing there was no one easy
solution qiven the different objectives for the area.
council :Kember Cobb said the nature of what he and Council Member
Andersen intended to propose involvea delaying final consideration
of the SOFA matters until the c.."1arrette was complete. and he
clarified that would not be inconsistent with the process.
Hr. Zimmerman said that was correct.
council ~ Renzel queried whether staff expected the land use
e.spects of SOFA would be folded into the comprehensive planning
process vhich would occur during the coming year.
Mr. Schreiber said the timinq would be such that if COuPcil wished
to have the cha.rrette in the Spring of 1992, it would not :be
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan 'u.pdate schedule.
Alternatively, it could be pursued separately.
9/23/91 67-205
.
. "
•
Council Member Ren:r:el queried whether consideration was given t.o
simply having all non-auto related. useS being conditional or
straiqht residential as opposed to the ~ixed office/residential in
order to guide the direction of the neighborhood should changes
occur.
Kr. Z!mmerma!l said no specific direc~ion was given nor was there
really that much discussion on having an all auto service (.Ir
conversely having an all residential zone.
Council Member Renzel said since the City did not have control over
the economic decisions ot individual property owners except to the
extent it set land uses which determined economics, it was up to
the city to determine wbat it ,-,anted to see and 1Daxe sure its
enabling ordinances at least set a framework for it to occur. For
example, whatever council Bet £or the toning ~ould automatically
grandfather existinq Automotive uses and allow them to remain
indefinitely. It those uses terminated, the guidelines should ~lso
indicate what the city wanted to see happen. The process needed to
allow thOSf". guidelines: to occur, atld she hoped Council would
include BOlDe suggested direction as part of its action in the
process.
council Xemher Mccown queried the percentag'e of auto service
businesses in the Alma corr id.or .
Hr. Schreiber said there 'Were two different terms beinq used; Alma
frontaqe and Alma corridor. The Alma fronta.qe va s the a.rea
referred to by Council Members Andersen and Cobb, and it contained
II out of 22 sites. The AlI!ll1 corridor basically inc~uded the land
fram Alaa Street bac~ to High street or even the half block beyond
High Street, and that area contained as lDuch as 12 to 1-4 out of 22.
Council Hember McCown said just dealinq with the Alma corridor
WOUld affect a qreat percent of the a\lto 5erving USI!-S in the area.
Kr. Schreiber said tbat was correct.
Counc.il Kember MCCown asket! about t.he time frame for how the
Planning Ccmmission 1 s activities would qo forward if council
830pted the pack&ge of Plannin9 Commissionls recom=en~ations with
same direction on the auto servinq uses.
Mr. Sam~i~r said in terms of the strategies related to changing
the CD-S zone in the Alma area, statf vou~d anticipate returning to
the Planning commission in early 1992 with that information. The
Emerson Street housing transition was a more co~plicated subject,
and staff would expect to return that issue to the: Planning
commissiun sometima in mid-to late ~992.
Council Ke:mber McCown q'oleried whe.ther the Commission gave any
thought to a mini study comsittee approach or something that would
build off of the deqree of community involvement experienced with
the initial strategies identified.
9/23/91 67-206
•
" .
· .
"
CculDllissioner Glazier said he had discus-sed. the matter-with members
of the Planning Commission as something that could be a positive
contribution to the process.
council Member Kniss queried how tne area miqht change in appear
ance it the assurances were given to the auto service businesses.
Mr. Schreiber said several auto service business operators
indicated i~ they haa some assurance from the City that they were
there for the long baul, they would undertake upqrades~ The City
vas talkinq about over 20 sites, and staff could not ans~er the
question either from a st~ndpoint of understanding auto bUsiness
economics in terlnS of what security 'Wi\S needed. to lrJake such an
investJaent and because most auto service i'lusir.ess operators had not
participated in the public process whether it be the Oownto..m Study
in 1985-86 or the current proces.5. Council Members Cobb and
Andersen S1J9gested a process where -real 'World" developers would be
asked to contribute their expertise.. That was an extrelPely
important and an innovative part of the proposal because all too
often architectural students and planninq staff operated outside
the realm of real economi~s, and whi1e the pictures might be qood.
the implementation was dif"tiecalt. The hor:=, was that with -real
world-developers involved in tbe process, there would also be some
-real world-economic thinkinq. If several of the auto service
operators were willinq to participate in the process, one part of
the charrette could be to use some architectural students to work
with them in terms of what types at upqradeSl they could :make to
their properties.
council K_r Woolley saie! the staft report (CKR:42l:91) ine!icated
one of the reasons the auto businesses had done nothinq to upgrade
their bUi1dings was that they yere in limbo and did not knew what
the next Council action would': brinq. She queried 'Whether Council
Should be carefu~ to not encourage or Oiscouraqe auto businesses in
its ]lOtion.
council Member Cobb said the suqgested Planning Commission
strategies were broad, and Councl1 l s discussion should include how
stronql~' it felt with respect to encouraging auto uses. What
returne~ to council in terms of -real world-proposals would he~p
determine what specific strateqies aiqht be realistic to follow.
COuncil Member Woolley clarified the intent was that Council would
take a specific position with reqard to Ayto service businesses at
that aa.eting.
council M~r Cobb said the charrette would not happen until next
spring so it would not Chanqe the level df uncertainty for auto
service busin(!ss oper""tors ~ !'lore intormation would be added to the
process in the end which would help everyone come to grips with the
issue in the sprinq of 1992.
council Meaber Woolley said staff was requesting direction to go
ahead with permitted ~6es and parking deficit credits which would
return to the Planning co=mission in early 1992. If Council did
9/23/91 67-207
'-,t',
'.~ f-
:!,
r' "
•
-----'--~ ---
not move ahe.ac:! with the
after the charrette~ she
staff's reco~endati:: and waited ur.ti~
clarified staff would hold back action. ~
Mr~ Schreiber said yes.
council Members Andersen
the proce ss, and st a f f
charrett-e ~
The proposed
and Cobb .... ould
would return
charrette as s~gge5t~d ~y
e$s~ntially put a pause in
to the issues after tile
Council Member Andersen referred to properties 'Which were semi
c::onstr.Jcted and never completed. and he queried whether other
eOmJa'Uni ties had ordinances ... hieh required that after 2L certain
period of time the owners were required. to dismantle the semi
constructed building and ~ake the land into a field.
City Attorney Ariel calonne was not aware of any such ordinances
unless the property was a nuisance or in a dangerous condition.
~re typical would be a requirement to somehow make the property
secure from trespass.
Mayor Sutorius queried whether the charrette and the resul tinq
pause in st~ff direction would impact the timinq of the COQPrehen
si....,e Plan proce.ss.
Mr. Schreiber said holding a charrette would introduce about eight
~onths of delay. His sense was that if council wanted to pur6~e
land use changes after the charrette, staff would want to scnedute
those land use ch~nges so they tit within the comprenensive Plan
update although he could not predict where starf would be in that
process in eight or nine aontbs.
Mike Morris, President, Don L. Morris Auto Parts, 999 ~ma Street,
represented his parents who owned the property at 999 Alma Street.
Property owners involved in the automotive industry hesitated to
improve the physical appearance of their property due to the
uncertainty of their fate which arose in 1985 and 1986~ If
autolllOtive busine.ss owners knew thev could maintain their busi
nesses and that tbe residents of the SOFA area recognized the need
tor automotive service, he believed the majority of people
performing automotive services in the SOFA area ~ould be more than
willing to spend some dollars to baautify their establishment.
il:urt Melle.r, Kurt's Auto Service, 780 Jligh Street, saic1 alJlost 50
percent of the automotive repair businesses had left the downtown
Palo Alto area. The City had approached automotive repair uses
aver the years in a manner which clearly supported their leavinq,
and the economic factors of what repair shops could afford to pay
as rental rates versus office spaces also eontributed~ He had no
proble. doing what he could wi thin reasonable workable waY's to
upgrade the appearance of his building and the area he. occupied.
The automotive industry had upgraded itself due to the technology
of automobiles; therefore, a cleaner ~acia was appropriate in the
1990'S. It was no longer as dirty a job as it was at one tiDe, and
it was appropriate for it to look th.t way.
67-208
--------
,!
,"
' .
• •
Chop Keenan, 700 Emerson Street, supported the proposed Alma Street
cha~atte. There was a co-existence in the SOFA area which wor~ed
~onq the commercial establishments. His office was in the area,
and thEre was a radiator shop across the street and a speedometer
shop next door. The problem existed with the residential inter
face. In order to change the look of Alma St~eet, there needed to
be Bome incentive in the zoning: otherwise, something would already
be happening. The problams with the Peninsula creamery building
were not a function of zoningi it was a fUnction of two, three or
four property owners sequentially paying too much money for the
property,. and he believed it 'Would be a long time: before the
Peninsula creamery property had a reality check, and something new
could occur. He did not believe the ~uto uses in the SOFA area
needed to be a protected class nor-did they need to be under
constant attack or siege. So !!Iany changes had occurred in the
downtown area# and it took a lot of effort to constantly be at City
Council Beetings trying to protiSct one's property frolfto whoever
wanted to create a new vision. He believed co-existence could
occur, and the market would sort out when somethinq should move out
or not. There Y~re, however, a lot of things which could occur to
encouraqe beautification. The SOFA area should :be set to ease, t-ut
not throagh some sort of sunset provision. The auto businesses
needed to know they were okay, and if something else came alonq,
that va s okay.
Hayor Sutorius queried. the ilDpact of an overpriced property staying
on the market and the siqnal it sent in terms of the values of
other properties in the. area and whether it caused other properties
to be vithheld fro. the market~
Hr. Xeenan said no. S~one WOuld ultimately pay the pricea
Patricia c. S~idt# 201 Homer Avenue, said she and her husband
owned a. lot of property in the SOFA area~ While tbe properties
they biJd on the rental market aid not include automotive, the
automotive people had always had a terrible tiae in the SOFA area.
The City wanted the businesses to improve their looks but did not
provide the incentives to do so. She suggested cleaninq up the
Peninsula Creamery property would make everyone happier. It was
the .essiest pie.ce of property in the &rea and far messier than any
of the autoDotive areas. The old craamery trucks had been sitting
for years, and sbe believed Palo Alto could figure out some way to
clean up some of the mess.
0le Christensen, SOl Alma street, owned Ole's Car Shop on the
corner of Alma and Homer. Be supported the recommendation for the
charrette, and offered bis services to he1p put it together. He
thar~ed Chop Keenan for his beautiful developments over the years
and believed the auto business owners should take a look at them
for their own businesses once lonq-tarm plans were in place. He
had seen the auto service industry dissipate in the Palo Alto area~
The City needed to do what it could to help keep the remaining
businesses in Palo Alto.
9/23/91 67-209
------"
.,
. __ ._-----_. ---.--.-..;.."~
Bob carmony, AA Radiator, 891 Emerson Street, said in 1991 alone
six repair shops had left Palo Alto l and in 199J nine more shops
would have to leave the Barron Park area.
David Heinichen, Heinichen's Carage, 960 High Street, said it was
important that Hr. Keenan realized the diverse nature of the SOFA
community. The automotive businesses ... ere under siege in Palo
Alto~ an~ if the owners' guards were down, something could happen4
~t was important for Palo Alto to be able to service the 17,000
cars which were in Palo Alto daily. It was important for th~
automotive service uses to not have to worry about being "nailed
in tbe back.
Mayor SutoriU5 queried the percent of owner-occupied automotive
service businesses.
Mr. Heinichen said most or the businesses had triple-net leases.
council Member
possibility ot
businesses.
Andersen queried Mr .. Keenan's tho\Jghts about the
increasinq density and also losing automotive
Mr. Keenan believed the Alma street corridor might be a separate
subject from the rest of the SOFA area because it was so visible.
Z£ Council wanted ~~anges to occur on Alma street, it would happen
even without changing th-e zoning, and changes might not occur very
quickly even if Council die! change the z:oning. If Council chanqea
the floor area ratio (FAR) from ~: 1 like the dO'WJ1.town area .. be did
not believe new buildings would be seen tor a number of years.. The
appearance of AI.a street nee~ed to be addressed even if it was
just paint and flowers. Council needed to establish the density
and use, and the market needed to sort out the rest.
Council Member McCown queried whether change on the Alma frontage
could only be accomplished with greater density.
Mr.. Keenan said no. OVer a period of time he believed the Alma
frontaq~ would change probably starting from the north and moving
south. In his experience next to the Whole Foods Market with the
mini storage above and the service ratail or~ the ground. floor, they
found the demand for retail in the area to be very limJ.ted.
Downtown was still the focus of the retail, and while there 'Was
some evolution in the first block of Emerson with the brew pup and
a couple of restaurants and of~ices, it had not spread south the
way many thought it would. Change was evolutionary whether it was
on Alma street or within the rest of the SoFA area.
llOfiOJl'I Council Member Cobb moved .. '5Ieconde~ by Levy, that Council
approve the PlAnning Commission's recommended strategies ,regarding
South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) area issues and direct staff to plan
and. schedule the two public work sessions and tne proposed
charrette for the SOFA Alma corridor-as outlined. in council
Meabers' Cobb and Andersen's memo, dated september 19, 1991, with
the e~ception that the Planning commission would take the lead in
chairing the public work sessions rather than a Council Member.
9/23/91 67-210
.. ".
/ Council Member Cobb believed the Planning Commission's suggested
strategies were basically on target~ His personal preference was
to retain the automotive uses, and he did net believe that was
inc()nsistent with a substantial upgrading of the Alma corridor.
The dile:ma was the more intensification was considered I the more
it hastened a process whereby the automotive uses would to some
degree move out faste~ rather than slower. He opined it was most
important to lmprove the qate'Way to Palo Alto and to retain
automotive uses.
Council Mamber Levy was satisfied with the Planning commission's
priorities and believed the real focus needed to be the visual. He
agreed with Council Member -Cobb regaraing the dilemma ana was
pleased to hear from the auto service people that their business
did lend itself in its modern way to a better visual appearance.
For the next several years~ the upqrad.e was doahle, and while
there would be turnover and change, he was not concerned that the
auto service businesses would leave town at the same time.
Council's comments should clearly reflect its belief that the auto
servic@ businesses were of value to the community.
Co~ncil Member woolley clarified the motion did not intend for
staft to do any work on changing permitted uses or on pa.rkinq
deficit credits until after the charrette was held.
Council Member Cobb sai1 that was correct.
Council Member WOOlley queried whether the intent was for staff to
also wait before implementing the street tree planting program.
Council KeRber Cobb said while that was not specifically discussed
with staff, be beli~ved such a program would also come out of the
charrette since it was a visual kind of thinq.
Council Member woolley believed the charrette would be executed by
archite.cts rather than by landscape designers. She believed staff
could go ahead with a street tree planting program.
Hr. Schreiber said staff did not see the need for outside. resources
re9~rding the stree~ tree planting program, and the intent was for
it to be a staff assignment. If COI.l1lcil 'Was interested in such a
program, it would be appropriate to take action Qn it that evening
in the hope that sometbinq on it might be available in the 1992-94
budqet process.
Coun'cil Member Cobb said if staff did not believe a stree.t tree
planting program would get in the way of a charrette, he 'Would
include it in the .otion.
Hayor Sutorius said there seemed to be a street tree subj ect,
charrette, and completion of the. Urban Design Plal";l. Both the
charrette and the Orban Design Pl~n conSidered pedestrian aspects
and the visualization and included landscape. Council should
consider the sequencing and whether it 'Was wasting time if it
called Bo..etbinq out in the wronq order.
9/23/91 67-211
. . .
Hr.. Schreiber said the Urban Design Plan 'Was: on its way to
coapletion, and staff expected to brinq it to the Commission and
the city CO'W1cil before the end of the .1991 calendar year. He
anticipated that 'Whatever resulted from the Urban Design Plan
regardinq the. SOFA area would :be considered as input into the
charrette process and any final decision on that portion of the
Urban Design Plan \tould be delayed until atter the charrette
process. If s~aft received an assiqnment to Qevelop a street tree
planting program and it could be put together by the Spring of
1992, it could also be input into the charrette process as 'Well as
the budget process ..
council Member Woolley requested the motion be divided for p~rposes
of voting.. While she agreed the pl'"oblem with the Alma corridor was
visual and the charrette might well provide the businesses in the
SOFA area with some not too costly ideas to make their buildings
more attractive, she would also like to move along on some of the
other ideas. She believed everyone wanted to ~etain the ~uto uses
in the area, and co'~ncil should go on record with it, so the owners
o~ those businesses would not be in limbo any longer in terms of
whether they were going to be phased out~ The big problem was the
visual blight primarily centered around two corners, and what qot
the issue moving was fear of an increased number of parking lots
and a busine~s which would have too much traffic in proportion to
what council belieVed the neighborhood shOUld have to bear. She
wanted to see tbe City work on the parking deficit credits and
believed that would address the concern about a business whicb
woUld involve too many cars tor the neighborhood.
Coancil .Member Kniss clarified the intent of a charrette had to do
with improving the looks and not an extensive architectural review.
Hr. Schreiber clarified the focus of a charrette could go in many
different directiOns, e.g., it could consider upgrading and
modifying existing uses and buildings, what could. be done under
different types of zoning, and upgrades with the existinq zoning.
Th.e cbarrette could be broadened to include a wide range of
options. The charrette was essentially a process where in a
weekend period qroups of architectural students threw th~selves
into trying to visually solve p~ohlems with desiqn solutions. Tbe
products were sketches and drawings on butcher type paper; they
were not refined architectural materials.
Council Member Kniss was concerned that having a street tree plan
before the charrette might be having the ·cart before the horse.-
Mr. Schreiber said having somewhat refined street tree information
prepare~ by City star! could help facilitate the charrette.
Everyone agreed that the visual upgrade of the Alma corridor was
very important and one of the critical components of that would be
to have a street tree planting program.
Council lIawer xniss clarified ~ havinq a street tree planting
program in place would not impact the effectiveness of the
cbarrette~
9/23/91 67-212
~"':'''''' •• ''.III)!II7i1l·1I!IIIiiln .... ,~~~-.-
, ,
\
. ...;:,
... -m
Mr. Schreiber said that vas correct.
council Member Kniss agreed with Council Membe~ woolley in terms of
having the street tree planting proqram in place as soon as
possible and still continuing with the charrette~
Council Member Renzel bE=lieved the Planning Commission I s short-term
pr-iority issues of completi.ng the Urb::'m Design Program, under-qr~und
utilities, and planting trees fo!loving the Urban Design guidelines
were all things Council should do independent of whether a
charrette occurred. It took tj~e for trees to grow and the sooner
they vere planted the better. Council should consider the lonq
terll, land. use issues in the context of the Comprehensive Plan
becftuse they interrelated highly ~ith other land use issues. The
language in the Planning COml:!:.ission's priority of "allow auto
service businesses to re~ain indefinitely-sounded as if it we~e
within cowncil's power to do so. She clarified Council was
empowered with land use decisions and settinq the economic
fralllework in which indiviliual owners 'Would make decisions with
respect to their propertie6~ A substantial number of the automo
tive dealers indicated they were leasing the properties and their
precarious position was not because of Council's actions. With
almost any of th~ other uses in the sa~e zone, a higher FAR would
compete unfairly. There seemed to be a peaceful co-e~istenc~ with
the neig-hbors and automotive businesses at the moment, and if
Coun~il wanted to ensure the City would have a place where those
uses co~d continue to function ~nd where it made sense to have
them, then it had to design the zoninq to somehow tavor or not
compete with them. It was important the other lonq-term land use
items be considered of the context of the comprehensive Plan. A
major change for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation tPAMF) in the
same area took residential uses out and substituted medical
offices.. Council would have obligations in that region for
housinq, and it made a lot of sense. to be lookinq at housing in the
area exclusively and perhaps grandfathering in the automotive uses.
~n one sense the Alma corridor asked for more density; at the same
time it asked for less density. It was not an easy place for
automobile access to its adjOining properties. There would be a
lot of -rear-ender5-with high density activity trying to qet into
parking garages. or making right or left turns into businesses along:
the area. It 'Was worthwhile to look at the matter in the overall
context of what L~e entire area might look like when everything
happened that was on the zoning map. Council should continue to
encourage automotive uses: ahe was not sure it should be by way of
the. service commercial zone. There could be a need. for same
specialized zoning. The charrette should not substitute for the
City's comprehensive planning processes~ It would be interesting
to find out how many of the ideas which came out of the earlier
charrettes were actually incorporated in the downtown area or
whether it was just a fun exercise in architectural bra~nstorming.
Council Member McCown believed the Planning c()J!OIlission had proposed
an open-ended and. flexible set of strategies. While ~any of the
strategies only spoke to considering other land use possibilities,
e.9~1 higher density, mixed use, etc., and considerinq land use
9/23/91 67-213
-,,'
<\'.of -,
-'
•
\
. -.... '
. . . • • transitions for vbere bousing interactea with tbe commercial area,
no ~ne knew where the community, the Planning Commission, or the
council would strike the balance that on one hand maintained and
encouraged auto serving lJses and on the other hand allolltl'ed for
evolution~ry change that would uP9~ade the entire area. The goal
was to allow the auto uses to stay as long as they could, and it
any individual property owner reached a point where he/she ~anted
to pursue & use other than an auto serving, the council would have
some quidance in terms of the direction the change should go but
would not be requiring that such a change be made. It could be
that the Commission vould ultimately recommen~ the zoning remain
what it was. She wanted to see the Planning commission strategies
adopted by the Council 'Without qualification. The idea of the
charrette was si.ply one tool among all the traditional tools used
to generate some qood thinking at an early part of the process.
She wanted tile process to move forward ",,·itb a strong signal to the
community of the goals from the Council's point of view and the
important goal about preserving the uses already in the neighbor
hood.
Council Member Andersen said ~hile he really wanted to see some
visual impro"!~1II-ent in the short term. he ~as a.-are of the long-term
zoning issues which needed to be considered. He agreed with the
evolutionary process but believed it would be extra-ordinarily
impacted with possible zoning changes. He hoped those in the auto
service industry understood the Councilrs desire to retain those
businesses and that there was not an a~telD:pt to drive the. out. He
urqed the. businesB owners to i:.prove the appearance of the
property.
»CiJII~1 Council l4.emher Cobb moved that s.taff be d.irected. to
plan and scbedule the two public wDrk sessions and proposed
ebarret~e for the SOPA/AiDa corridor.
NIB'I!'4Q!Iri' U:COJ.POu.no nrfO nnr XQIf%OIl' BY HADk um 8ECOlmBIt.
council Member Cobb said the intent was to encourage as much
creativity as possible in the procer;;sl and he ~llIlted to send a
clear signal that those .-ho partiCipated needed to he creative~
While the chan"ette 'Would illustrate the conceptual id.eas,
encouraqinq people like Mr. Reenar. and others in the business,
property owners, and people who lived in the neighborhood to co.e
forward with. icSeas that could be illustrated in the proceS5 and
made some political planning and economic sense~ was very i~por
tant. An open process where people could be more creatiVe would
generate excitement to get the process through the system expedi
tiously. He did not want to see the process dragged out for five
years. 1 f the cODIIIWli ty and the developers could be encouraged to
~articipat8 early on, then possibly the entrance to Palo AI to
would look. like sODetbil'lg soon-er.. He belieVed the process ",as an
opportunity for the city to be =reative ana avoid some ot the
proeedura~ -log jimS-~hicn got in the way of the PAMF process.. He
stressed the process was informal and desiqned to bring all the
affected parties together.
9/23/91 67-214
•
\
\
i
I
. , .
"
council :Kember Andersen end.orsed Council Member Cobb IS cO!ll!llcnts and
was anxious to send .e messaqe that ~utoJllotive repair pusinesses had
a purpose, and as one representative indic~ted, they kept the cars
running-cle.an.
Council Member Ren~el was concerr.ed havin9 a charrette, ~hich was
an unofficial extra-Charter planning process, at the same time the
City 'Was naving its Charter-mandated Comprehensive Plan revieW'
process at wbich she would expect the same parties to participate,
might be confusing to 1Dembe~.& of the public, property vlmers,
lessees, and all of the parties concerned. Existing ~oninq in the
area allowed an enormous number of permitted uses, and to the
extent property owners exercised the permitted uses, it res~ricted
the City's plart+linq options with respect to the area. It was
tB,portant to move forward with basic planning for the area as well
as the entire comprehensive Plan revision.
Council Member woolley clarified on page 5 of the staff report
(CMR:421:91) and queried whether staff intended to 20ve forward
with returning to the Pl~nninq commission with proposed changes to
zoninq regulations on CD-S permitted uses and on parking deficit
credits if the Dotion passed.
Mr. Schreiber said staff intended to move ahead and return to the
PlaMing COllUlission with those items as specified in the staff
report {CMR:421:91) unlep$ Council directed staff to move slower.
Tbe Planning Commission might want to defer action until after the
cbarrette occurred.
council Kember Woolley clarified the Planning Commission would have
a free reign and would not ba considered by council it it needed to
defer something because Council said SO~ If the Planning Commis
sion had tbe need to deter sOBethinq, it would be a different
matter.
Kr. Schreiber said the -Planning commission would no'tlllally have that
discre'tion ..
council Memher 'KniES believed Council MelDl:>er Renzel ' & C01ImIents .. ere
well taken and that th~ SOFA area was different frOM the downtown
scenario. She had not seen a cbarrette program before and believed
it would be particularly interesting as it dealt with auta.otive
busines.s.es. She supported. the cha.rr~tte., was very awa.re of council
Member Renzel's messaqe, and would keep it in ~ind~
Council Member McCown referred to the charrette approach and said
she differed with Council Members Cobh and Andersen in that she
believed the work sessions should be presided ove~ in the informal
context by representatives of the Planninq Commission in order to
bave it better integrated and coo~dinated with what the Planning
Commission would be reviewinq first •
.aJIBIiI1»IZ1I: Council Member MCCown moved to have the Planninq
commission preside over the informal work sessions.
9/23/91 67-215
• ••
lUlBJilIIIZJif UCORl'OlUI'l'1:D U!TO MUll 1101'1011 BY MADR AJII) SECOlmER
Hayor sutorius said in his 11 years of service on th~ Architectural
Review Board (ARB), Planning Commission, and City Council, he
eXIl-e.rienced the impact of zoning decisions maa'S! many years earlie.':"
in the El Camino Real south of page Mill Road area. A lot o:!
effort went into the program processes" cOl!llllunity involvement, etc.
H. believed it continued to be a difficult and frustrating thing to
deal with. The or9ani~ed approach at the outset, e.g., the steps
and priorities identified, ~ere important. He agreed the compre
hensive Plan process should be utilized and not be thwarted by some
Sul::Istitute processes and did not believe tile charrette concept
thwart.ed the process. The charrette process discussion was blown
out of proportion because he imaqined it was beinq visualized as
havinq a final product complete wi~~ eleVations that could
practically be brouqht to a Council JDeetinq for approval. The
charrette could have students work in teams Of two under specific
guidelines.. Several teams could be assigned to the same g:eoqraphic
area with a different set of guidelines.. For example, on Alma, one
team could be told of a future need for 96 trains t~ go through
Palo ~to daily and the need for more public transit use and tor
both sides of ~~e tracks and the existing developed side of ~ma~
The assignment would be to fi~lre out what would work and port~ay
it. Another team could be assigned the exact same area and given
a guideline of hiqh density housing: a third te~ could be qiven a
guideline that miqht be something closer to what was discussed in
SQM. of the exploratory sta9es~ It was an opportunity to focus on
acre than one idea for ~evelopment and evaluation ~ The same coul.a.
:be bappeninq in portions of the interior of the SOFA area with
different ideas being .x:plQred~ The u,portant thing was for
Council to take action that ~veninq which allowed for some of the
visual improvement aim. to be in proqr~Bs~ He supported the way
the ]lotion wa.s presently constructed, e~9", all the things
contained in the staff report. (CKR,421:n) in terllls of Planning
Oomaission recommendations including considering parking deficits,
etc., were part of the lnotion and that Council was not eontinuingi
to a later time bringing those alon9~
council Member Andersen wanted to expand the Planninq commission's
scopewitb regard to ~oning regulations if it seemed appropriate to
reconsider ways in which the City could qive some protection to
autOlliotive uses.. He referred. to page S of the sta.ff report
(CMR:421:91J AS it referred to the CD-S zoning regulations. The
list on pages 6 ana, of 'the :!itaff report {CKR.:489:0) referred to
CD-S and ~N zones, and be encouraqed the Pl~nning C~mmission be
given sOlIe latitude if it would be more appropriate and not be
limited to what was in the report.
Mr .. Zimmerman clarified council Kember Andersen hoped the Planning
commission would look at some mo~e extensive ways to retain auto
services in the SOFA area.
Mr. Schreiber heard the messaqe from a majority of the Council
Hembers that the retention of auto service businesses in the SOFA
area was a hiqh priority. staff would be looking at modifications
9/23/91
•
\ ,
/'
... • •
to the cp-s zone within that context~ There were two horses and 8
sense of them 90i;lI; ~h two aI1fert:!:nt. directions. The message he
heard was a high priority to retain auto service uses.
Council Member Renzel said her preference was to net be wedded to
the CS zone at all. The high priority was to preserve same auto
service uses in the cOllllllunity. There 'Were no':. many places for
them, and they were needed. She hoped the issue was oper. and that
the planning process could result in some way, othe!;'" than a CS
zone, to protect those uses.
~: council M.emlJer ilenz.el moved, seconded by Andersen, that
the process be open as the Planninq Commission moved forward with
the Comprehensive Plan with the idea to protect auto service uses
but possibly with zoning other than CS.
Mr. Schreiber queried whether the reference to the CD-S zone was a
reference to requlations or geographic area cur~ently zoned CD-So
Council Member Renzel said her motion was vith respect to the SOFA
area. because if the CD-S re~.Jlations 'Were changed, the changes
would apply ~o CD-S wherever it occurred. She did no~ oDject to
considera.tion being given to rezoning the entire. area 'With some
resit;ential zone 'With grandfathering of automotive uses., floor area
ratios, and everythinq else designed such that in the event the
automotive uses left, the City .... ould see sOUlething 'Which con
tributed positively to it and its various problems. She did not
feel a need to be wedded to the CD-S zone, and it might well be
part of the pToblem of the Alma street corridor. The area was a
little like the old fire zone one, e.g., landowners' expectations
created paralysis; they did not wish to move because they always
tbouqht they could qet more doll ars if they vai ted. Until the City
made a clear picture of what it wanted, there would continue to be
speculative paralysis which seemed to be affecting the area.
Council Member McCown did not believe the amendment was necessary.
The Planning commission made its recommendations of strategies it
believed were appropriate for pursuit. If the commission in the
course of its review determined changes to the CS zone were not the
riqht way to go, it would be ~ade to the Council.
AKEliDliE&f' P1ILBD 2-6 r Renzel, Andersen -aye,· Faz.zino absent.
~IOR ~A88ZD a-o, Fazzino absent.
KOT'.IO.: Council Membar Woolley moved, seconded by Kniss, that
staff be directed to p~epare a street tree planting program for
SOFA.
HO~IO. PASSBD a-o, Fazzino absent.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
'A. (Old Item 3) Contract 'With Security Pacific a.s Underwriter t.o
Refinanca Civic Centor (407) (CMR:423:91)
9/23/91 67-217
.... -. __ .. 7_ ......... _ .. ' .... ,.,.---'-"--
I
, ..
HAND DELIVERED
Ellison's Auto Body, Inc.
705 Alma St. Palo Alto
Dear Council Member: JEAN Me COWN
On September 20th. you will be revl~wing the merits of the
proposed development of 1050 .~rastrader() Road. 1 would like to
clarify why I oppose the provision of this development agreement
which calls for ths city to acquire 753 Alma.
Before I do, however. I would like to mention that r do not
oppose the development of research/officE facilities on lO~O
Arastrader~. In fact, the underlying zoning on the property
calls for this use. Unfortunately. if they go throug~ with this
SRO proposal I predict the residents of the 5RO Housing
Development will be beck in front of the city council .... ithin
five years or less, protesting the presence of an Auto Body
Shop as a neighbor.
The sec~nd issue concerns the future of SRO Housing on the
site. Contrary to what many ''''ould have you believe, I do not
object to BRO HOllsing on the site~ I OBJECT TO ANY HOUSING ON
THE SITE. Housing is simply incornpatable with the adjacent
body shop and repair businesses. With tow trucks operating 24
hours a day and businesses that start a Sam to dulcet tunes from
pneumatic hammers, it is unfathomable to think of BO plus
residents next door~ In fact, the City Council in a past session
forced the elimination of a body shop at Addison and EmerSon
citing its i.ncompatibility 'With the neighboring residential uses.
As you know r the Downtown Flan called for preservation of auto
motive services 1.n this area. A defacto rezoning of 753 Alma
would be in direct conflict with this stated objective.
The last issue is the proposed transaction itself. It
appears from the development aqreement that the City will pay Mr.
Keenan $650.000 now, while the City conld recieve $6S0,OOJ in two
pdyments that may not be made until 10 to 11 years from no .....
However. if Mr. Keenan does not build the facility, he doesn't
1:-~ve to pay these fees or repu!'chase the land for $650,000.
Fundamentally, we do not believe this transaction to in the best
interest of the City.
There is , ho~ever, an alternative~
approval of Mr. Keenan's development and
as recommended by the planning Comrnision
Thank you,
~..t' ,,~, -;:O.A{q-_
Earl M. Ellison
That alternative is the
the payment of double fees
origitlally.
----"'----------
; .
Th. Honorable City Council
Palo Alto. California
,.
Re: 753 Alma St. development
Dear Mayor Jean McCown:
We are opposed to the single. residentJaI building plan for 753 Alma
which you \\riJl be considering over your next NtD meetings. Reasons
for our oppositiOn:
High Densityllncreased Traffic/More Parking -Increase traffic
and parklng in an already congested area "ill do nothing but make Ufe
In our city a step closer to Intolerable. Where " .. ill the Whole Earth
employees park? What will happen If ali. or more than half. of tI,e
residents own cars? (1bere is no proposed restriction on their
owning cars.) As you know. finding a parking place that close to
down-town Is more difficult and frustrating every day. Traffic has
increased In front of Our house tremendously In the past 15 years. We
know this development will add to that problem.
Policy of re-zonlng -What Is the policy for Te-zonlng'? Why was
the current zoning decld ed In the flTst place? What constJtutes a
IegfUmate reason for changing Zoning'? We thought zoning was done to
protect pTOperty use for the citJzens of Palo Alto. The changing of
zoning without adequate time and communication for residents.
buSinesses. citizens of Palo Alto to become Involved In the decision Is
an inadequate way for the cJty to funetion. It causes a great deal of
mlstrust of our ctty government's processes. What are the
implications If this particular proposal Is approved? This plan for a
residential buflding on Alma needs to be seen In the context of an
overali development plan for the area. the neighborhood and the city.
We who live and/or work here need to be Informed of that plan In
order to give input to and th~reby participate !n the decision making
process.
Process of chang@ -Can the Councfl help develop a better process
for change? Can there be more time given to informing C'" .. mcerned
Citizens about changes and more time for discussion and working
together? It seems that conce-rned citiZens find themse ..... ·es 111 an
adversarlal position teo often.
Thank you for your attention. We hope you wHI move to aJ]ow more
time to Jook at this Issue and include more Information and diSCUSSion
With Interested and concernced Cltlzen.s. ,r::..:> ~ . ,_ .. ~<?'~'2-0· .t2Zt:>n
~a~Virginta Iltc;n
821 Waverley 51.
Palo Alto 327-2260
•
I
I
.-
SUNU .... V, oc..:rouUl. IU, I'.I')J
Public'I<nows'
Should Be-Done-~. ~
~,.:.: . -"
ji;I~.OljCY:'A.-new·study he.5 fo"nd that pCOpieliepeli.lta'~:
more on the opinions of their rellow citizens than on
all other outside inlluenres.
::-:-===;;;;----By MIKE FEINSllDER
IIUXIA T£1) nus
W ASHINGTON-An is
.ue-_he-alth ..:are, the
• deftdt, violence on the
Slrel!ts. (~ trade with Mcxlco-
Potiticians offer Jlr"....pcls-.b .. 1',"".... I ,bW"i-
tion, a nonprorlt
hired a Ekl1l~a. ., rl.!scar<:h
organi~tiorl, the H3rwood Group,
~o c.::mdut'\ 'group disctlSSion! wi~h.
l'1.volvl'd cili1.(!ns..
Politic-ian~, spcc.i .. l inll'll.!Sts .:;nd
the preliS haye only limited l"Ol~ in
forming pu':Jljc: opinion, the r<"port
s...id; cxeh;Jng{'.!l among ordinary
people pi.;), a biggQl role.
~~"i;!1.L~,te.u=h{':S. Itselr
~h.(aJJgh. ~t1_inter.acti .. c dlalollue,
_~.~. ~ d.('~,at..e-=-OI _dia lague lh;J.! I~'
. <XT11or.ator), 31ld dehbcr:Jllvc with
JX:.oplc lC11ting ~hC'ir 1c.l('J.~ r .. Ll1('[
:~.l!1l tak i ng pooillons and Lrying La
lSOJrc pOilllS .;)lr.IiML some appo·
,nlC"nl.-s.:.iu· i<etlcnng PrC~ldtlll
·P.::Ivirt M3Ihcw.q, who W.:l.~ ~~rN;lry
cf tlca Ith, education and .we.lfare !n
!.lie Gl!rald R. Ford AdlTliu~lratiQn.
. "'This: diatogue ~ full of emotion
~ause ft. is grolJ~ in cr~en
p .. iI1 ful Persor.aL e:xperfellces, yet it.
dMsn'l have Ule acrimony or id\lO
lo8):::al tilt of partisan debate."
The rese-archers eom:ludcd that
in fonni ng public:: Dpin.!O!l:
.People .re-t Involved .... ·hell a.'l
Issue is reLevant to theIr own
experieTl~ .
They cited, a Lo.! .Angeies mal'.
whO workec! to help Ole homeless
becAuse he had ti ved in some of his .
ctty's tough neighborhootl.!:_ A·
Ridunond. Va., woman aJd she
helped t.ea<=:h jj~rac)' becau.se she
had gradUated from hlg!! school
'lVilh people who could net read..
.EmotIon plao)'1l an· impartant·
role. Ernotior;; l$ofl~ portJ'ay~ ill!
a ViJi.:Iin in decision r.::aing. :!:I'"-t
!.hat is not. lI'K! way the world
works, the re5e.arc;:her.i SilIld
.Faocb and 5I.atbtk::$ are less
Important to the way reoPle take
.lands lhan whether solutions
.. ringuue.... ------
-··-rh"i'-ciUum; we Interviewed
have their own intefT\ill touch
.stOne'S fer judging what rings true,
what makp.s sel)5e to them," Qle
report I!a.id.. "Their judgments
abooJt what is auth~ntic have IE:SE
to do with obj«\i \'e proofs than 11"
somC'thing or Stlmt-one reneets the
n:.aliUcs of their !:iY~, or if they Clir~
ncake somc-lli:ng po&Sible iD imag
im;!, Dr if they ft'cl [bey are be'ing
squared with."
.The catalysts that drive pe<lple
-to let u:volvcd are onen other
'~Orrlinar)' dl.iU:ns who have had
rome! contact ..... iU1 I.h~ is:!!ue and
:sttm to kno ..... someth'ng about it..
.AS an eX3mpie of wh3t tan
h.:lppcn .. 'ithout public Involve
ment, Mat<le .... s pointed to the leg.
islaLion to exp.3nd Medicare to p..:!Y
far e<lt.a3trophic m;;e5S("S, enacted
~n 1938 and repc-aled the following
"tolr when Medicare recipients
L":..wed Ll)cir t.Jxcs would ri~c,
I It wa3.a. cI:t~sic in:stance, he said,
I in .... ,hu:h those-opcmLing in Wash
inglon r{';1encd ;:.grecmef!t before
: the public h:lti a r.h.:lncc to ~mc
engage<!. thi Ilk about the lr.Jdc
crJli. :'.Ild (.::11k to one another.
"-l.hc.publ,c wants time Lo mull
.!11ill,!:S over, lH" said
II