Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-30 City Council Agenda Packet 1 03/30/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting. Special Meeting Council Chambers March 30, 2009 6:00 PM ROLL CALL STUDY SESSION 1. Continuation of a Study Session to Review the Community Benefits Proposed for Negotiations Regarding the Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center CMR 191:09 ATTACHMENT SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 2. Appointment of Three Human Relations Commission Members for Terms Ending March 31, 2012 ATTACHMENT CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration or Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 2, 2009 2 03/30/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. CONSENT CALENDAR Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 3. Approval of a Utilities Enterprise Fund Contract with D’Arcy & Harty Construction, Inc. in the Total not to Exceed Amount of $1,782,800 for Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation Capital Improvement Program Project WC-07004 (Project 20 – Barron Park) CMR 148:09 ATTACHMENT 4. 2nd Reading Ordinance Amending Chapter 5.35 (“Retail Sales – Requirement for Paper Bags”) of Title 5 (“Health and Sanitation”) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Place a Limited Prohibition on Single-Use Plastic Checkout Bags (First reading March 16, 2009 – Passed 7-1 Barton no, Klein absent) 5. 2nd Reading Ordinance Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Located at 488 West Charleston Road from PC Planning Community 2565 to PC Planned Community ____ (First reading March 16, 2009 – Passed 6-0 Barton not participating, Klein and Morton absent) MEMO ATTACHMENT 6. 2nd Reading Ordinance Amending Section 9.72.070 of Chapter 9.72 [Mandatory Response to Request for Discussion of Disputes Between Landlord and Tenants] of Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Void Rent Increases Given Without Notice of the Right to Mediation (First reading March 16, 2009 – Passed 8-0 Klein absent) AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes per speaker unless additional time is granted by the presiding officer. The presiding officer may reduce the allowed time to less than five minutes if necessary to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 3 03/30/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 7. Approval of (a) Scoping Comments Letter for the San Francisco to San Jose High Speed Train Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, (b) Memorandum of Understanding with Various Peninsula Cities in Order to Form the Peninsula Cities Consortium for Interaction with the California High Speed Rail Authority and (c) Comment Letter to Caltrain Joint Powers Board Regarding the Memorandum of Understanding with California High Speed Rail Authority CMR 192:09 ATTACHMENT 8. Approval of an Agreement with the National Senior Games Association and the 2009 National Senior Games Local Organizing Committee for a Gold-Level Sponsorship in an Amount Not to Exceed $350,000 CMR 194:09 ATTACHMENT 9. Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding with Capay Valley Growers, Incorporated to Operate a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) Pilot Program at Palo Alto City Hall King Plaza CMR 195:09 ATTACHMENT COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). CLOSED SESSION This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY – Anticipated Litigation 10. Subject: Initiation of amicus curiae litigation in the matter of Town of Atherton, a Municipal Corporation, Planning and Conservation League, a California nonprofit corporation, City of Menlo Park, a Municipal corporation, Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, a California nonprofit corporation, California Rail Foundation, a California nonprofit corporation, and Bayrail Alliance, a California nonprofit corporation, and other similarly situated 4 03/30/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. entities, v. California High Speed Rail Authority, a public entity, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No.: 34-2008-80000022 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(c) ADJOURNMENT Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: MARCH 30, 2009 CMR: 191:09 REPORT TYPE: STUDY SESSION SUBJECT: Continuation of a Study Session to Review the Community Benefits Proposed for Negotiations Regarding the Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council continue their review of the Community Benefits list and provide input regarding priority items to be included in the Community Benefits being considered for Development Agreement negotiations with the Stanford University Medical Center and Simon Property Group. BACKGROUND The Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (SUMC) and the Simon Property Group’s Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Project (Shopping Center) are being evaluated in a joint Environmental Impact report (EIR) as well as various entitlements, including a Development Agreement for each project. The City Council reviewed the Community Benefits proposed for negotiations regarding the Stanford University Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center at a special Study Session on March 14, 2009. At that meeting Council gave input and requested that the item be continued for further discussion focusing on prioritization. 1 DISCUSSION The SUMC Project Sponsors have applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezoning, architectural review, annexation of a small piece of land adjacent to the School of Medicine, and a development agreement. The Shopping Center Project Sponsor has applied for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendment, a Design Enhancement exception, preliminary architectural review, and a development agreement. Community Benefits A Draft Issues List for both the SUMC and Shopping Center Projects was compiled by City staff based on aggregated comments from Council and Planning and Transportation Commission, members of the public, other City staff, and the applicants. The working list represented a record of a broad spectrum of thoughts about what should be considered in the review and evaluation of these projects and during the development agreement negotiations and EIR preparation. A preliminary version of the Draft Issues List was first presented to the Council for input at a public hearing held on November 26, 2007. An updated Issues List was presented to the Council at a special Saturday Study Session on March 14, 2009. The list distributed for the March 14 Study Session has been further refined based on Council input. For organizational purposes, the items designated as zoning ordinance components or conditions of approval have been removed from the list. As the City has independent police power to impose those items it is not necessary to include them as community benefits in a Development Agreement. The items that have been removed from the original list appear as Attachment A and will continue to be tracked by Staff as the projects move through the zoning and entitlement phase. It is important to note that Attachment A is not an exhaustive list of zoning requirements or conditions of approval. Instead, this list only represents those items that were originally identified as possible community benefits at the beginning of the community process and which upon further staff analysis have been determined to be more appropriately designated as land use requirements. Attachment B contains the remaining items which are more appropriately categorized as community benefits under the Development Agreement as they do not have the same level of 2 nexus to the projects as the items included on Attachment A. At Council’s direction, staff has added some additional information to the Community Benefits chart. Staff has identified which project will be responsible for providing the benefit (see responsible party column) and has attempted to provide a qualitative assessment of relative cost and community benefit for each item. Staff and its consultants are in the process of providing more quantitative cost data which will be summarized in the final Fiscal Impact Reports for the projects. The items that have a low to moderate cost and a high community benefit will be key focus areas for negotiation. In addition, staff is seeking Council input on staff’s relative benefit weighting for each item. In addition to the low cost/high benefit items on the list, staff will also focus its negotiations on the items with high community benefit. Finally, at the March 14 Study Session, several new items were proposed by the public and council members. Based on feedback one additional item was added to the community benefit list – provision of world class hospital for the region. While this benefit has always been implicit, it has now been added formally. There were some additional items raised by council members, but based on discussion there did not appear to be a consensus to add them at this point. In addition, there were several councilmember comments that helped clarify some of the more broadly framed items and those clarifications have been noted by staff, but not included on the revised summary list. NEXT STEPS Staff and the project applicant will continue discussions on the Community Benefits List. Staff expects to provide status updates to both the Stanford Ad-Hoc Committee as well as the full City Council. Draft Development Agreements for each project are expected to be released at about the same time as the Draft EIR is circulated for public review. The City Council will review the Water Supply Assessment on April 6, 2009. Adoption of the WSA is required prior to the release of the Draft EIR. 3 4 The City’s EIR consultant PBS&J is preparing the Draft EIR for release in April/May 2009. Once released, a public hearing will be scheduled with the Planning and Transportation Commission to allow for Commission and community member comments. PREPARED BY: __________________________________ STEVEN TURNER Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD: __________________________________ CURTIS WILLIAMS Interim Director CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: __________________________________ JAMES KEENE City Manager ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Zoning Requirements and Conditions of Approval Tracking Chart Attachment B: Community Benefits Tracking Chart CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: MARCH 30, 2009 SUBJECT: 2nd Reading Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.08.040 of The Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change The Classification Of Property Located at 488 West Charleston Road from PC Planned Community (PC 2565) to PC Planned Community _____ Attached is the second reading for the rezoning of the 488 West Charleston Road site to a new Planned Community (PC) District. The ordinance reflects the change the Council made to Section 4 to modify part (e) to read: “(3) The Project shall include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, per PAMC 18.52.050(d) which shall include provision of VTA Eco Passes to all residents and shall monitor the following issues: (A) Safety issues associated with left hand turning movements into and out of the site; (B) Bike and car interactions; and (C) Pedestrian and bike routes to work and school from the site. (D) Potential benefits of providing VTA Eco Passes to residents; and The TDM program will include monitoring reports and recommendations as described in PAMC Section 18.52.050(d) but submitted one year after final occupancy and every year thereafter for five years after occupancy. ________________________________ ___________________________ CURTIS WILLIAMS JAMES KEENE Interim Director of Planning and City Manager Community Environment Attachment A: Amended Ordinance CMR:192:09 Page 1 of 4 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: MARCH 30, 2009 CMR: 192:09 REPORT TYPE: REPORT OF OFFICIALS SUBJECT: Approval of (a) Scoping Comments Letter for the San Francisco to San Jose High Speed Train Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, (b) Memorandum of Understanding with Various Peninsula Cities in Order to Form the Peninsula Cities Consortium for Interaction with the California High Speed Rail Authority and (c) Comment Letter to Caltrain Joint Powers Board regarding the Memorandum of Understanding with California High Speed Rail Authority RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve or modify and approve, and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter to the California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) outlining Palo Alto’s scoping comments for the San Francisco to San Jose High Speed Train Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), and 2. Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached Memorandum of Understanding to join the Peninsula Cities Consortium for interaction with the California High Speed Rail Authority, and 3. Approve and authorize Mayor to sign the attached letter to Caltrain Joint Powers Board with comments and objections to proposed Memorandum of Understanding with the California High Speed Rail Authority. BACKGROUND On March 2, 2009 the City Council reviewed a draft of the City’s scoping letter for the San Francisco to San Jose HST Project EIR/EIS, referred it and relevant transportation and land use policy issues, including the station issue, to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), and directed staff to return to Council prior to the April 6 scoping comment period deadline to review and finalize the City’s comment letter. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On March 18, 2009 the PTC discussed the draft scoping comment letter (Attachment C, PTC staff report). The draft minutes of the PTC meeting are provided as Attachment F. CMR:192:09 Page 2 of 4 The PTC recommended that the City specifically request that the Authority use Palo Alto’s significance criteria for evaluating impacts within Palo Alto’s portion of the HST corridor and that the criteria and related documents, including the Tree Technical Manual, be forwarded to the Authority with the scoping comment letter. The PTC’s discussion focused on additional areas of comment to be included in the letter related to impacts on natural resources, utilities, housing and population, hazardous materials, noise, historic and cultural resources and infrastructure. In addition to comments on the scoping letter, one Commissioner indicated an interest in the City preparing and adopting a HST Policy. Other Commissioners voiced support for this position. Staff indicated in the report to the PTC that these matters will return to the PTC at a later date for full discussion. Some PTC comments went beyond the scope of this EIR/EIS, and have not been included in the letter. Such comments included reopening the Hwy 101 alignment as a HST route from San Jose to San Francisco, which was analyzed and rejected in the Central Valley to Bay Area Project Program EIR/EIS, and evaluating an extension of the Light Rail from Mountain View to Palo Alto. Other comments related to permutations of the elevated, depressed or at-grade design configurations were in such detail that they have been included in a more generic way in the comment letter. Approximately 10 members of the public addressed the PTC in person and approximately 3 members of the public submitted written comments to the PTC (see Attachment G). On March 18, 2009 the Historic Resources Board (HRB) held a study session to provide comments on historic resources for inclusion in the City’s letter to the CAHSR Authority regarding the proposed High-Speed Train System project. A summary of the HRB comments is provided as Attachment D. On March 19, 2009 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) discussed the HST project and draft scoping comment letter. The Board expressed support for the HST project with the full route from Los Angeles to San Francisco and with an alternative that would place the tracks below grade with air rights development above. A summary of their discussion is provided as Attachment E. The ARB voted to appoint a subcommittee of two ARB members to assist the City staff and community as needed with respect to urban design related to the project. Based on the input from these Boards and the PTC, staff has revised the scoping comment letter to include their issues and concerns. Staff requests that Council accept or modify the letter and authorize the Mayor to sign the approved letter. Peninsula Cities Consortium During the past two months, elected officials from Peninsula cities have been meeting weekly to organize a coalition of agencies, the “Peninsula Cities Consortium” (Consortium), to work collectively to represent the shared interests and mutual concerns to the Authority. On March 2nd, Council authorized the Mayor to (1) sign a letter specifically requesting that the Authority work with the cities to address urban design alternatives to be addressed in the EIR/EIS and to have the opportunity for the consortium to review the scoping report before it is finalized by the Authority (see Attachment B of March 18 PTC report) and (2) appoint a three person Council High Speed Rail Subcommittee to work with staff and represent the Council in meetings of the Consortium, with the Subcommittee reporting back to Council at regular intervals. Mayor CMR:192:09 Page 3 of 4 Drekmeier subsequently appointed Council Members Kishimoto, Barton, and Burt to the committee. The City Attorney has been working with the ad hoc Peninsula Cities group to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would formalize the Consortium. The final draft has been reviewed by the ad hoc group and is now being submitted to each agency’s Council for approval. The Consortium would be created when five cities sign the MOU. Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached MOU (Attachment B). Caltrain JPB/CAHSR Authority Memorandum of Understanding On April 2, 2009 the Caltrain JPB is scheduled to approve an agreement to establish the initial organization framework for the planning, design and construction of the HST improvements in the Caltrain Corridor. The Authority has already authorized the Executive Director to enter into the MOU with the JPB. The most recent draft MOU is provided as Attachment H. Staff has noted that the MOU incorporates specific design commitments for the corridor, prior to completion of the EIR/EIS and evaluation of alternatives. The MOU Section III D states that the “ultimate configuration of the Caltrain corridor will be a four-track, grade-separated high speed rail system, with mixed traffic from Caltrain commuter rail and the high speed train service capable of operation on all four tracks to enable Caltrain to achieve service levels of no less than eight trains per hour in each direction. In some places the corridor may consist of more than four tracks.” Staff has included in the City’s scoping comment letter that alternatives to a four track project be considered. Staff is further concerned that the inclusion of design parameters in the MOU has not undergone CEQA review. Staff is also concerned that the MOU provide clear language regarding Caltrain’s commitment to consultation with the community in evaluating design and operational alternatives. The attached draft letter to the Caltrain JPB, therefore requests that the MOU contain a strong commitment to public outreach prior to the development of alternatives. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Action related to the HST project is consistent with existing Council policy incorporated into the adopted Palo Alto Transportation Strategic Plan, which included support California High Speed Rail as a medium priority and stated City Council position in support of Measure 1A. The recommended action for Council to provide comments and approve the scoping letter for the EIR/EIS for the San Francisco to San Jose segment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy T-7: Support plans for a quiet, fast rail system that encircles the Bay, and for intra-county and transbay transit systems that link Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara County and adjoining counties. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Neither approval of the scoping letter nor joining the Peninsula Cities Consortium are considered projects under CEQA; therefore no Palo Alto environmental review is needed for Council to provide comments on the proposed EIR/EIS for the San Francisco to San Jose segment of the CAHSR project or to approve either MOU. CMR:192:09 Page 4 of 4 PREPARED BY: GAYLE LIKENS Transportation Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD: ______________________________________ CURTIS WILLIAMS Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: __________________________________ JAMES KEENE City Manager ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Scoping Comments letter to CAHSR B. Peninsula Cities Consortium Memorandum of Understanding C. Planning and Transportation Commission report dated March 18, 2009 D. Minutes of ARB March 19, 2009 comments on HST Project EIR scoping E. Minutes of HRB Study Session of March 18, 2009 on HST Project EIR scoping F. Draft Minutes of March 18, 2009 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting G. Correspondence H. Caltrain JPB/CAHSR Memorandum of Understanding I. Letter to Caltrain Joint Powers Board COURTESY COPIES Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Planning and Transportation Commission Southgate Representative Palo Alto Neighborhoods