HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-30 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
January 30, 2006
1. Joint Study Session with San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
(JPA) Regarding Potential Interim Improvements ...............................76
2. Public Officials for Environmental Reform (POWER) Award Presented by
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to the Palo Alto City
Council .........................................................................................78
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................78
3. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to James Cobb Upon His
Retirement ....................................................................................78
5. Approval of a Resolution to Implement Section 414(h) of the Internal
Revenue Code to Designate the California Public Employee Retirement
System 9 % Retirement Contributions as Employee Contributions and
Deduct from the Salaries of Palo Alto Peace Officer Association
(PAPOA) Members ..........................................................................78
9a. (Old Item 4.) Request by Greenbriar Homes Communities, Inc. and
McNellis Partners for Approval of City Council to Conduct a Preliminary
Review of a Mixed-Use Residential and Retail Development at 3401,
3415 and 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) [05-PLN-00416] ..................79
*6. Public Hearing: 1101 East Meadow Drive & 1010 East Meadow Circle
[05-PLN-00289]: Request by Trumark Companies on Behalf of Batton
Associates, LLC and HDP Associates for a Vesting Tentative Map for a
Proposed Residential Infill Development to Merge Two Parcels (Approx.
4.4 acres) and Create 75 Condominium Units. Environmental
Assessment: Negative Declaration per the California Environmental
Quality Act. Zone District: LM .........................................................81
7. Public Hearing: Recommendation by the Planning and Transportation
Commission that the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending
Chapter 18.65 of Title 18 for the Purpose of Allowing the Auto
Dealership Overlay Zone (Combining District) in Two Limited
01/30/06 100-74
Manufacturing (LM) Districts Located on the East and West Side
Adjacent to Highway 101 at the San Antonio Interchange ...................87
8. Authorization to Proceed with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the 8-Hr Emergency Water Supply Project; Approval of a Draft
Notice of Preparation; Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in
the Amount of $350,000; and Approval of Amendment Number 3 to
the Phase I Water Distribution System Improvements Contract with
Carollo Engineers for Additional EIR Support Services .........................92
9. Colleagues Memo from Mayor Kleinberg and Council Members Cordell
and Klein re Resolution of Conflict of Interest Matter ..........................102
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ........................104
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:12 a.m. .....................104
01/30/2006 100-75
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:08 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL
PRESENT: Barton, Beecham, Cordell, Drekmeier, Kishimoto, Klein,
Kleinberg, Morton, Mossar
SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
PRESENT: Abrica, Duboc, Gordon, Mossar, Zlotnick
STUDY SESSION
1. Joint Study Session with San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
(JPA) Regarding Potential Interim Improvements
Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts, Menlo Park Director of Public Works
Kent Steffens, and JPA Executive Director Cynthia D’Agosta made a
PowerPoint presentation that provided background information on San
Francisquito Creek and the JPA’s flood control efforts. Mr. Roberts noted the
creek did not have adequate capacity to convey the one percent (100-year)
flow rate at many points along its length. He described the multiple times
and locations at which the creek had gone over the banks during the past 75
years. He displayed a topographic model and a cross-sectional view that
depicted the creek’s “perched” nature and described how this trait caused floodwaters to flow away from the creek towards natural low points in the
topography. Mr. Steffens described an effort conducted by the JPA
Management Team and the Neighborhood Team in 2002 to identify potential
projects for the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Continuing Authorities
Program (CAP). He discussed the hydraulic model that predicted water levels
in the creek for various streamflow rates and noted the model was calibrated
to match actual measured storm events. He explained the
Management/Neighborhood Team had used the model to study a potential
project that would add 1000 cubic feet per second (CFS) capacity to San
Francisquito Creek between the Pope/Chaucer Bridge and Highway 101 by
adding an additional culvert at the Bridge and raising downstream levees or
flood walls. Mr. Steffens noted the project was estimated to cost
approximately $10 million and would not be technically feasible without
additional mitigations (e.g. the widening of the Highway 101 Bridge and the
raising of levees downstream of Highway 101) at additional cost. Ms.
D’Agosta described the watershed-wide flood control approach being
pursued by the JPA and the specific process for working with the Corps on a
General Investigation (GI) project. She listed several factors the JPA
01/30/2006 100-76
Management Team recommends be taken into account when considering
interim flood control measures.
Norman Beamer, Xenia Hammer, and Art Kraemer, representing the
Crescent Park Neighborhood Association, made a PowerPoint presentation
describing proposed interim flood control measures for San Francisquito
Creek. Mr. Beamer cited the December 31, 2005 storm event as a reminder
that Palo Alto continued to face the threat of flood damage from San
Francisquito Creek. He stated his belief the City was exposed to legal liability
under the existing conditions and advocated for the City to take a leadership
role in implementing interim flood control measures. Ms. Hammer described
some of the historical man-made changes that have impacted the creek,
particularly noting the reconstruction of the Pope/Chaucer Bridge in 1948.
Mr. Kraemer described the creek analysis performed by neighborhood
residents Stephen Monismith and Tom Rindfleisch, using the hydraulic
model. He described a proposal to make interim improvements that would
enable the creek to convey 7200 CFS (the peak flow recorded in the
February 1998 flood event). The proposal included replacement of the
Pope/Chaucer Bridge, the widening of the Highway 101 Bridge, and the
addition of levees and/or floodwalls at selected points downstream of
Chaucer Street. Mr. Kraemer argued the extent of the levee rising could be
minimized by not providing freeboard above the water levels projected by
the hydraulic model. He stated such interim improvements would be
consistent with the JPA’s proposed GI project and opined a successful
interim project would increase the likelihood of public support for the larger GI project. Mr. Beamer closed by presenting the argument the City could
reduce its current legal liability by implementing interim improvements and
advocating prompt action by the City and the JPA.
Doug Sporleder, Menlo Park Fire District, encouraged the Council to discuss
and develop the subgroup responsible for emergency response, to develop a
vegetation management plan, discuss the development of the standardized
notification threshold, and develop an area wide emergency signal system.
Mickie Winkler, Menlo Park Council Member, encouraged evaluating solutions
that are compatible with recent flooding.
Steve Kennedy, 2025 Euclid Avenue, East Palo Alto, spoke about a video he
prepared regarding vegetation management.
Richard Geiger, 714 E. Charleston Road, spoke about his concern with the
City spending tax money on a project in a very isolated section of the City.
Arthur Keller, 3881 Corina Way, questioned whether the Crescent Park
community wanted a longer term project.
01/30/2006 100-77
No Action Required.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Public Officials for Environmental Reform (POWER) Award Presented by
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to the Palo Alto City Council
Greg Zlotnick thanked Palo Alto for continued support of the Santa Clara
Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative and presented the Council
with the 2005 Public Officials for Water Environmental Reform “Breaking the
Constraints” Award.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Annette Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, spoke regarding timely communications
and public notices.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding incorrect police
demographic data.
Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, spoke regarding the libraries.
Danielle Martell spoke regarding public concerns.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma, Apt. 701, spoke regarding conflict of interest.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kishimoto moved, seconded by Cordell, to remove
Item No. 4 from the Consent Calendar to become Item No. 9A.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Cordell, to approve
agenda Item No. 3, and the removal of agenda Item No. 5 from the Consent
Calendar.
3. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to James Cobb Upon His
Retirement
5. Approval of a Resolution to Implement Section 414(h) of the Internal
Revenue Code to Designate the California Public Employee Retirement
System 9 % Retirement Contributions as Employee Contributions and Deduct from the Salaries of Palo Alto Peace Officer Association
(PAPOA) Members
01/30/2006 100-78
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Morton,
to hear agenda Item 9A (old Item 4) at this point in the agenda.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
9a. (Old Item 4.) Request by Greenbriar Homes Communities, Inc. and
McNellis Partners for Approval of City Council to Conduct a Preliminary
Review of a Mixed-Use Residential and Retail Development at 3401,
3415 and 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) [05-PLN-00416]
Sheri Furman, 3094 Greer Road, suggested the item was a major land use
issue better studied first by the Planning and Transportation Commission.
The Council was urged to consider requiring the entire area to be ground
floor retail with housing above the retail.
Arthur Keller, 3881 Corina Way, spoke on the importance of retaining Alma
Plaza as neighborhood-serving retail.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke about the importance of getting retail in
a viable center in Alma Plaza and recommended the option to have the
Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council to fully discuss the
issue.
Jim Baer, 172 University Avenue, spoke in favor of orderly, extensive,
organized outreach.
Council Member Klein clarified the item would be a study session.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie said that was
correct.
City Manager Frank Benest said the study session was currently set for one
and one half hours, but the Council could set however much time it wished.
The Council could share values and perspectives so that the developer could
proceed in developing an application responsive to the interests of the City.
Council Member Klein clarified the Planning and Transportation Commission
(P&TC) would not take action but would only hear individual Commission
member’s comments.
Mr. Benest said that was correct.
Council Member Morton asked whether it would be possible to plan a two-
hour joint study session with the P&TC.
01/30/2006 100-79
Mr. Benest said he saw no legal or technical obstacles.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Klein, to direct staff
to schedule a joint study session with the Planning and Transportation
Commission to hear the applicant’s suggestions for Alma Plaza.
City Attorney Gary Baum said the Code allowed the Council to meet alone or
hold joint meetings with any of its Boards and Commissions.
Council Member Morton said a joint session was advantageous because it insured both the Council and P&TC would eventually hear the matter with
the same initial starting point.
Council Member Klein said he shared many of the concerns expressed by the
speakers. The process needed to move along.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto agreed with the direction of the motion but preferred a
study session with the P&TC first.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Kishimoto moved, seconded by Mossar,
to direct the Planning and Transportation Commission to initially study the
project prior to the City Council study session.
Mr. Baum said the Code required the public be provided with significant time
to participate.
Council Member Mossar asked staff to share the work product of a
preliminary review.
Mr. Emslie said, from staff’s perspective, the work product was a City
Manager’s Report that outlined the high level policy issues involved with
making a land use decision. Policy issues would be lined out with as much
detail as possible, including staff recommendations.
Council Member Mossar said she valued the P&TC’s independent reaction to
the issues brought to the Council by staff and the P&TC’s independent
evaluation of public input and input from the developer. The P&TC was another source of information for the Council. The Council should act
independently, be informed by the P&TC, but not sit in the same session
together.
Council Member Cordell said a combined session would not expedite but
would drag out the process.
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether it was possible for the item to go
to the P&TC in February and to the Council on March 13, 2006.
01/30/2006 100-80
Mr. Emslie said staff would maintain the current schedule. The P&TC might
consider a special meeting.
Council Member Morton supported the original motion because there would
be feedback between the Council to the P&TC if policy questions were
involved. The study session should be done as a joint presentation.
Council Member Klein said the issue had been before the Council in a variety
of ways for several years, and it was part of the Comprehensive Plan (Comp
Plan).
Council Member Beecham said the purpose of the preliminary review was for
the Council to give input to the applicant. The role of the P&TC was to advise
the Council.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 7-2, Klein, Morton “no.”
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether the P&TC would address the item
prior to the Council meeting on March 13, 2006.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said the sense of the Council was to
keep the project moving. Staff would stay with the date originally planned.
Mr. Emslie would work with the P&TC to schedule a special meeting if
necessary.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
*6. Public Hearing: 1101 East Meadow Drive & 1010 East Meadow Circle
[05-PLN-00289]: Request by Trumark Companies on Behalf of Batton
Associates, LLC and HDP Associates for a Vesting Tentative Map for a
Proposed Residential Infill Development to Merge Two Parcels (Approx.
4.4 acres) and Create 75 Condominium Units. Environmental
Assessment: Negative Declaration per the California Environmental
Quality Act. Zone District: LM.
City Attorney Gary Baum said for quasi judicial matters, under the Council’s
policies and protocols, as well as under State Law, the Council was the judge
for the matter. In the interest of open government and, primarily so that the
public received the same information as the Council, Council Members were
asked to disclose whether or not they had communications outside the
Chambers where they received information from the developers or
opponents in addition to information in the staff reports. Council Members
were encouraged to disclose contacts they had with the developer.
01/30/2006 100-81
Mayor Kleinberg clarified Council Members were to make their decision
based only on the material in the record currently before the Council.
Mr. Baum said that was correct. The Council may not deny or condition
approval of the vesting tentative map if the map was consistent with the
General and Specific Plan, if the designs and improvements were consistent
with the General and Specific Plan, if the site were physically suited for the
development, if the site were suited for the density of development, if design
and subdivision were not likely to cause environmental damage or serious
public health problems, and would not conflict with public improvements or
easements.
Council Member Barton said he had a conversation with Jim Baer but
received no additional information beyond what was provided in the packet.
The Public Hearing opened at 8:20 p.m.
Aaron Yakligian, Trumark Companies (Applicant), 4185 Blackhawk Plaza
Circle, Danville, said Trumark had developed high quality of life, attainably
priced, new home neighborhoods around the Bay Area for nearly two
decades. Following the Council’s clear lead the prior year for Trumark’s East
Meadow Drive project, Trumark was excited to present the completion to the
gateway to the East Meadow Circle area. The proposal for the Echelon
community resonated with the comments Trumark received from the Council
and from the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) in 2004. For
that approval, the Council unanimously supported the P&TC’s
recommendation that the proposed density was appropriate for the site, that
Trumark raised the bar for green building in Palo Alto, and that the City desired to see future projects of similar quality in the neighborhood. The
design for Echelon was based on the collective direction. The properties at
1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle totaled
approximately 4.5 acres, and the site’s existing 1960’s office space had been
vacant for some time. As with many light industrial sites in Palo Alto, there
was an existing RM 30 zoning overlay that allowed for a residential
development with up to 30 dwelling units per acre. Trumark met with staff
to determine the best use of the property. The outcome was the proposed
75 homes. The Vesting Tentative Map represented approximately one year
of close cooperation with City staff, the Architectural Review Board (ARB),
and the P&TC. The final product demonstrated responsible planning, efficient
land use, and quality design. In addition to separating pedestrians and
automobiles, the site offered a perimeter trail system, which allowed
residents to walk between outdoor rooms with public art, water features,
and children’s play areas. The trail added an additional one-half mile of safe
and attractive walking paths. The existing setbacks along street frontages
were preserved, which created a wide buffer from the street and allowed
saving most of the existing perimeter trees on the site. The established
01/30/2006 100-82
trees, along with more than 150 new trees to be provided, helped to expand
the existing canopy to create a lush, green, attractive pedestrian-friendly
environment. Trumark was committed to using green building elements.
Echelon would exceed the new Title 24 standards by 15 percent. Eleven
below market rate (BMR) homes were included. The homes were evenly
distributed throughout the site and were identical to the market rate homes.
The sale price of the homes averaged below $300,000. Traffic generation
from the site was reduced. Trumark invested nearly $400,000 in park fees,
$139,000 for libraries and the Community Center, and nearly $.25 million for
schools in the neighborhood. Through neighborhood outreach and meetings,
the community recognized the need for added pedestrian safety at the
nearby intersection of Fabian and East Meadow. Trumark voluntarily
proposed to construct a lighted crosswalk in the median. Trumark worked
closely with the City Transportation Division to design a road signage
program that would further increase the pedestrian safety near the
intersection. The Vesting Tentative Map was the result of many previous
accomplishments throughout the process. In July 2005, the project was
unanimously approved by the ARB and received the Planning Director’s
approval. A Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated in July, and
the Vesting Tentative Map was deemed complete. In November 2005, the
PT&C unanimously recommended approval. Trumark asked the Council to
approve the Vesting Tentative Map.
Ken Brownlee, 3617 Louis Road, spoke in opposition to the Trumark
development of high density housing and requested the Council deny the map amendment until a lower density proposal was submitted.
Mark Sabin, 533 Alberta Avenue, Sunnyvale, spoke about the attainable
nature of the housing, and urged the Council to support the project.
Earl Caustin, 3671 Louis Road, Palo Verde Residents Association Board
Member, spoke about traffic and educational impacts that had no
requirement for environmental impact review, and urged the Council to
study all the projects in a comprehensive fashion.
Sheri Furman, 3094 Greer Road, requested the Council ask the Planning
Division to initiate a comprehensive look at the area that included park
lands.
Smita Joshi, 851 E. Meadow Drive, Palo Verde Residents Association
President, spoke about the lack of notification to the neighbors and the
stress on City facilities and asked for a comprehensive consideration of the
development.
Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, League of Women Voters, spoke in
support of the Trumark Development which responded to many of the goals
01/30/2006 100-83
in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and urged the Council to approve the
Tentative Map.
Jeff Rensch, 741 Chimalus Drive, spoke in support of the Trumark project
because of the below market units, less traffic, and target population.
Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke about the piecemealing of the project
and lack of environmental impact report.
Vivian Blomenkamp, 1023 Forest Avenue, spoke in favor of the project,
noting the City needed the proposed type of housing.
Patricia Saffir, 2719 Bryant Street, spoke in support of the Council approving
the Vesting Tentative Map because the project was well suited for the area.
Bena Chang, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, 224 Airport Pkwy #620, San
Jose, spoke in support of the Echelon Project, which helped Palo Alto meet
its continued need for homes.
Arthur Keller, 3881 Corina Way, Adobe Meadow Neighborhood Association,
suggested the Council create a moratorium on further development of East
Meadow Circle until the City had the opportunity to assimilate the results of
the East Meadow Design charette and do appropriate zoning and regulations.
Edie Keating, 3553 Alma Street, spoke in support of the project, noting there would not be impacts on immediate neighbors.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, supported Mr. Moss’ suggestion that
there be an examination of the soil and environment of housing prior to
housing being built and felt open space parkland should be on the site.
The Public Hearing closed at 9:00 p.m.
MOTION: Council Member Barton moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve
the staff and Planning and Community Environment’s recommendation to
approve the proposed Vesting Tentative Map to merge two parcels
(Approximately 4.4 acres) and create 75 condominium units, based upon the
findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use Action.
Council Member Barton said the Vesting Tentative Map was consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan).
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked how high the site would be raised for the flood
basin.
01/30/2006 100-84
Mr. Yakligian responded the average was four feet across the site and had
already been approved by FEMA.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked whether there had been examination of
hazardous waste.
Mr. Yakligian said extensive environmental studies were conducted, including
looking at what uses were in the past. The studies indicated there was not
an issue on the site.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked whether a set of guidelines would go back to the
Council or whether proposals for rezoning for open space would go back.
Mr. Emslie said the primary focus of the work at the current time was the
development of guidelines to be used for future development. The area
zoning was recently amended so that housing was no longer permitted by
right but would be a conditionally permitted use.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said there was no section in the initial study for either
the checklist or the text on cumulative impacts.
Mr. Emslie said a cumulative impact analysis was not pursued because the
project fell within the gross projections of the Comp Plan Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and because impacts associated with vehicle trips were
less than the current land use.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said she noted the cumulative traffic had decreased
but there were other potential impacts such as, greater use of wastewater
and water. Trumark Development did a good job following City directions
and bringing in the sustainability project. The proposed increase of 35
students was an impact on the school district. The cumulative impacts must
be reviewed.
Council Member Morton clarified the 75 units proposed $400,000 to be
included in the City’s park fund.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct. The $400,000 was the estimate of the park
fee the project paid to the City.
Council Member Morton said he was concerned impact fees were unrealistic.
Staff was asked whether the vesting expired if the project were not
completed.
Mr. Baum said an approval was both an entitlement as well as an obligation.
Fees were locked in at the date of completion of approval.
01/30/2006 100-85
Council Member Morton asked whether staff was comfortable with the
response the developer made with regard to a toxic study requirement.
Mr. Emslie said the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
maintained the authority to enforce the identification and clean up of
hazardous materials. After Phase 1, if there were any evidence of toxic
release on the site, Phase 2 was involved. Soils reports were required for the
project. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) conditions required the site
be monitored by a licensed soils engineer, who must provide written
verification that the project proceeds as called for in the plans.
Mr. Baum said the Department of Toxic Substance Control would be involved
in the event of hazardous materials.
Council Member Morton said he supported the motion but was concerned at
the rate at which the community was being built out and the public’s desire
for an overall plan for South Palo Alto.
Council Member Klein said he supported the motion because the developer
did a good job following the City’s rules. Neighborhood associations were
encouraged to stay involved.
Council Member Drekmeier said the project was attractive and had good
environmental features. The idea of taking a coordinated East Meadow Circle
and working in mixed uses was favored.
Council Member Cordell said a question was raised about the intersection at
Fabian Way and East Meadow Drive and she asked whether any mitigation
was planned.
Aaron Yakligian said the proposal included a lit crosswalk at Fabian Way and
East Meadow Drive, with an additional road signage program.
Council Member Cordell said she hoped the Council would get feedback from
the developer regarding his experience in dealing with the Planning
Department.
Mayor Kleinberg said there would be a tremendous amount of recreational
amenities built into the Campus for Jewish Life area. Safety at the crossings
was a concern. The developer was encouraged to work with staff to ensure
pedestrian safety. Comprehensive oversight was needed.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
7. Public Hearing: Recommendation by the Planning and Transportation
Commission that the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending
01/30/2006 100-86
Chapter 18.65 of Title 18 for the Purpose of Allowing the Auto
Dealership Overlay Zone (Combining District) in Two Limited
Manufacturing (LM) Districts Located on the East and West Side
Adjacent to Highway 101 at the San Antonio Interchange
Council Member Barton clarified there were differences between the staff
recommendation in the staff report (CMR:134:06) and the Planning and
Transportation (P&TC) recommendations.
Planning and Community Environment Director Steve Emslie agreed there
were differences. The staff’s recommendation was to exclude a land parcel
west of Highway 101 that the P&TC had included in their recommendation.
Further, the map indicating the boundaries of the ordinance was different
from the map the P&TC received; the map that was prepared for the City
Council’s consideration had been changed to correctly reflect the language of
the ordinance.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Daniel Garber reported the
discussion the P&TC had of the proposed ordinance resulted in two motions.
The first supported the staff’s recommended boundaries of the proposed
ordinance but confined the boundary to the area immediately adjacent to
Highway 101 between Embarcadero Road and the San Antonio exits. The
P&TC’s goal to keep the Auto Dealership (AD) overlay from being adjacent to
low density residential allowed a single land parcel on the west side of
Highway 101 to be included in the proposed ordinance. A second motion was made to include the area of Embarcadero Road east of Highway 101 in the
AD overlay. The discussion of the display of cars on Embarcadero Road
caused the motion to fail because the proposed ordinance creates an implied
acceptance of the display of cars along Embarcadero Road that would be at
odds with the function of Embarcadero Road’s Gateway to the Baylands.
Mr. Emslie explained the staff’s initial recommendation to the P&TC was for
the proposed boundary of the AD overlay to include the areas on either side
of Highway 101 and the Embarcadero Road area east of Highway 101. The
P&TC’s subsequent recommendation was to limit the boundary to the areas
just discussed. Staff forwarded the P&TC’s recommendation to the City
Council with one exception; eliminating all properties west of Highway 101
from inclusion in the ordinance. After consideration, legal staff recommended
the elimination of this area from the ordinance because if only one parcel in
this area west of the Highway was allowed, as the P&TC had recommended,
this could be interpreted as spot zoning of a single parcel and expose the
City to future legal action challenging the ordinance.
Council Member Barton said there were auto dealerships on Embarcadero
Road and he was unsure why one more was a problem.
01/30/2006 100-87
Mr. Garber reported the P&TC had acknowledged this in their discussions,
which included recognition that the existing auto dealerships have
restrictions already in place limiting how they can use their land for
displaying cars and other vehicles. Changes or revisions to the permitted
uses would have to go through standard processes, including review and
oversight by the City’s various boards, commissions and Council. However,
the P&TC did not pass the motion to include this area in their
recommendation because it did not support the Baylands Gateway function
that Embarcadero Road is intended to support.
Planning Manager John Lusardi said two maps were included in the Council
packet that showed a one quarter mile radius for both interchanges. The
difference between the staff recommendation and the P&TC recommendation
on the San Antonio interchange was that staff had recommended all the
properties within a one quarter mile radius of the San Antonio interchange
be included with an AD overlay. The P&TC agreed with all the properties on
the east side of Highway 101 being included in the AD overlay, with the
additional conditional use findings. On the west side, the P&TC’s
recommendation was “no properties adjacent to or across the street from
low density residential and only those properties that front on Highway 101.”
That left only one parcel on the west side of San Antonio Road.
Council Member Drekmeier asked why the area on the southeast side of the
San Antonio Road/Highway 101 intersection was ruled out.
Mr. Lusardi said the properties were zoned GM. The AD overlay was allowed
for the GM zone. Only the LM zones were discussed.
Council Member Drekmeier asked how the idea of the Municipal Services
Center (MSC) played into the zoning.
Mr. Emslie said the City had site control over the MSC. As owner, the Council
had the ability to make the real estate transaction as well as appropriate
land use changes.
Council Member Mossar clarified the recommendation from the P&TC only
approved the overlay zone on the one area on the east side of Highway 101.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
Council Member Mossar clarified none of the LM zones near the Embarcadero
interchange were recommended for the zone.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
01/30/2006 100-88
Council Member Mossar stated the recommendation from the P&TC only
approved the overlay zone on the east side of Highway 101.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
Council Member Mossar said the Council was provided with documents that
referred to in the staff report (CMR:134:06) and asked whether the draft
Site Assessment and Design Guidelines for Palo Alto Baylands Nature
Preserve was being used.
Mr. Emslie said the document was on hold.
Council Member Mossar said the P&TC talked about specific design controls
in the area recommended for the overlay. Staff was asked what the P&TC
referred to for guidance in appropriate development.
Mr. Emslie said the P&TC referred to the existing Baylands Master Plan which
was adopted and in effect.
Council Member Mossar asked whether there were design guidelines in the
Baylands Master Plan.
Mr. Emslie said there were no design guidelines, but the Baylands Master
Plan talked in general about the need for sensitive design that respected the
proximity of the Baylands as a natural environment. The purpose of the draft guidelines was to prepare the guidelines anticipated in the current
Baylands Master Plan.
Council Member Mossar said her recollection was that the P&TC used
phrases such as “horizontal lines, not vertical lines,” and others that were
design guidelines in nature. The P&TC’s use of the phrases was confusing.
Staff was asked what the impact of the overlay decision would be on the
existing auto uses on Embarcadero Road.
Mr. Emslie said the existing auto uses had already been placed into the
appropriate auto overlay.
Council Member Mossar asked what the P&TC meant by recommending that
the overlay not be placed in one area.
Mr. Emslie said additional auto dealers were not recommended on
Embarcadero Road.
Council Member Mossar asked whether the decision of the P&TC precluded
expansion of one of the existing auto dealers.
01/30/2006 100-89
Mr. Emslie said that was correct. The current auto overlay allowed for
increases in FAR for auto dealer use.
Council Member Morton said he understood the concerns expressed by the
Council that it would not want auto dealerships backing onto single family
residential properties. Adoption of an auto overlay did not guarantee that
someone could build an auto dealership. The auto overlay was a permissible
use, but a developer had to go through the Planning application process.
Staff was asked whether neighborhood protections were lessened if an auto
overlay were adopted.
Mr. Emslie said being in the auto overlay area did not entitle auto
dealerships to be built in the area without the subsequent review by the
P&TC and Council.
Council Member Morton clarified the P&TC and the Council could protect the
existing neighborhoods by not approving projects that backed onto single
family residential.
Mr. Emslie said the Council had discretion in applying the zone on a site by
site basis.
Council Member Drekmeier said although he did not work at the location, his
employer was at Corporation and East Bayshore and asked whether he
should recuse himself.
Mr. Baum clarified the company was a non profit and Council Member
Drekmeier had no ownership interests.
Council Member Drekmeier said that was correct. The non profit owned the
building at 3921 East Bayshore.
Mr. Baum asked whether the building was in an area that would be rezoned.
Council Member Drekmeier said the building was in the area to be rezoned.
Mr. Baum said he did not believe the decision would affect Council Member
Drekmeier’s source of income but it gave the appearance of a conflict.
Council Member Drekmeier stated he would not participate in the item due
to a conflict of interest because his employer owned property within 500 feet
of the area.
Public Hearing opened at 9:58 p.m.
01/30/2006 100-90
Smita Joshi, 851 E. Meadow Drive, urged the Council to not allow zoning for
auto dealerships and not to rely on a case by case basis to review new
proposals.
Earl Caustin, 3671 Louis Road, urged the Council to identify the areas that
would be allowed to be rezoned and avoid the west side of Bayshore.
Arthur Keller, 3881 Corina Way, spoke against using the west side of
Bayshore for auto dealerships.
Public Hearing closed at 10:05 p.m.
MOTION: Council Member Barton moved, seconded by Beecham, to
approve the staff recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending the Auto
Dealership (AD) combining district to allow the AD overlay zone in the
Limited Manufacturing (LM) districts located on the east side of Highway 101
at the San Antonio Interchange, and that the applications for Auto
Dealership development in these zones require a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP).
Staff also recommends that the Auto Dealership (AD) Combining
District Ordinance include the following additional language to address
the use of auto display platforms with specific site development
applications:
“SECTION 3, Subparagraph (b) of Section 18.65.070 [Special
Requirements] is hereby added to read as follows:
(5) Two automobile display pads shall be permitted for each
auto dealership site, and shall be subject to Architectural Review
Board approval.
Council Member Barton said auto dealers found it a benefit to locate
adjacent to other auto dealers. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) allowed for
review. Auto dealers brought considerable sales tax to the community.
Council Member Beecham said auto dealerships could be added to the area
with the CUP.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said she supported the Baylands and would count on
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to protect the nature of the Baylands
when considering proposals in the area.
Council Member Klein reflected his office of the last 20 years was in this area
and he did not regard Embarcadero Road as the main focus of the motion.
Because the area was already built out, there were really very few or no
01/30/2006 100-91
opportunities for the existing auto dealerships to expand or other
dealerships to locate there. A change to Attachment “A” of the staff report
(CMR:134:06) was suggested: “in the two LM zones which are on the east
side of Bayshore Freeway.”
INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH CONSENT OF MAKER AND
SECONDER to change the proposed ordinance Section 3 (4) to remove
“adjacent to the intersection of San Antonio Road” and replace with “which
are located on the east side of the Bayshore Freeway (Highway 101).”
INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH CONSENT OF MAKER AND
SECONDER to change the proposed ordinance Section 3 (4) a. to add the
word “any more” prior to “detrimental” and after the words “natural areas”
add “than the present uses of such property.”
Council Member Mossar suggested saying that design be consistent or
compatible with the Baylands Master Plan rather than mentioning specific
criteria. The language in the ordinance was over the top and unnecessary.
Council Member Barton said he would be happy with the more general
language.
Council Member Klein said his concern was that since there was property
now and it might not be possible to get the property back to where it met
the standards of the Baylands Master Plan.
Council Member Morton clarified auto dealerships were allowed on the west
side of Bayshore Highway, south east of San Antonia Road in the GM zone.
Mr. Emslie said auto dealerships were already allowed.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Drekmeier not participating.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
8. Authorization to Proceed with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the 8-Hr Emergency Water Supply Project; Approval of a Draft
Notice of Preparation; Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in
the Amount of $350,000; and Approval of Amendment Number 3 to
the Phase I Water Distribution System Improvements Contract with
Carollo Engineers for Additional EIR Support Services
City Attorney Gary Baum said two of the Council Members had a conflict with
one portion of the application, and three Council Members had a conflict with
another portion. The item included the eight-hour emergency water supply,
which would be addressed by wells and reservoir.
01/30/2006 100-92
Mayor Kleinberg stated she would not participate in the item as she owned
property within 500 feet of one of the potential well sites.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked that the Council Members state their conflicts.
Council Member Morton stated he would not participate in the item because
he had a conflict with respect to proposed well locations because of a long-
term leasehold interest within 500 feet of a proposed well location.
Council Member Cordell stated she would not participate in the item due to conflicts with respect to the proposed reservoir locations arising from their
interest in Stanford due to her employment with Stanford University.
Council Member Klein stated he would not participate in the item due to
conflicts with respect to the proposed reservoir locations arising from their
interest in Stanford due to his wife’s employment by Stanford University.
Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate in the item due to
conflicts with respect to the proposed reservoir locations arising from their
interest in Stanford due to her husband’s employment by Stanford
University.
Mr. Baum said four Council Members were needed to pass the first portion of
the agenda item, and five or six Council Members were needed on the
second portion because it involved the expenditure of funds.
Council Member Mossar asked whether the decision of the first set of Council
Members were binding on the next set of Council Members.
Mr. Baum said the Council’s decision was binding. Those who were conflicted
could not make the decision.
Council Member Mossar said in the past when an item was segmented, those
who left the room for a portion had limited say in the ultimate outcome.
Mr. Baum said the Council’s say was that it would be deciding which wells
were to be considered by the Council, the placement, and the analysis of the
wells.
Interim Assistant Director of Utilities Engineering Tomm Marshall said the
eight-hour emergency supply project was based on criteria developed by the
Department of Health Services as to what type of supply was needed to be
on a system available during an emergency. An emergency in Palo Alto
might be a disconnection from the Hetch Hetchy pipeline. The intent was to
have eight hours of maximum demand in storage to supply water to
01/30/2006 100-93
customers plus the ability to fight fires in all zones throughout the City.
There was a need to construct three new wells in the City to provide
additional water supply plus rehabilitation of five existing wells. Construction
of a 2.5 million reservoir was needed, with a pump station. The Mayfield
pump station needed to be refurbished.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked about the location of the wells.
Engineering Manager for Water, Gas, Wastewater Roger Cwiak referred to a
map in the staff report (CMR:124:06) that showed the existing wells and the
proposed well sites.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said the locations were the El Camino Park, Eleanor
Pardee Park, Community Center, Heritage Park, Middlefield Road, Downtown
Parking Lots, and California Avenue Lots.
Council Member Mossar said El Camino Park was owned by Stanford
University.
Mr. Baum said the size of the well site fell below the threshold for Stanford
but Council Member Mossar was entitled to make the decision whether or
not to participate.
Council Member Mossar said at another time she was precluded from having
an emergency water supply discussion that involved El Camino Park.
Mr. Baum said Council Member Mossar would be precluded on the reservoir
portion of the item because the reservoir took a significant portion of El
Camino Park. The well site was so small that it fell below the financial
threshold for Stanford.
Council Member Beecham said the list of the CIP projects at the back of the
staff report (CMR:124:06), Attachment D, did not indicate anything on
Downtown parking lots. If there were a Downtown parking lot, he needed to
make sure it was not within 500 feet of his residence.
Mr. Baum said it was not within 500 feet.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, spoke about her concern that the
existing park and playfields of Palo Alto and Gunn High Schools not be
impinged upon by large reservoirs and suggested the well be located near
the community garden.
Arthur Keller, 3581 Corina Way, spoke about subsidence in wells in flood
plains.
01/30/2006 100-94
MOTION: Council Member Barton moved, seconded by Beecham, to
authorize staff to proceed with preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report analyzing rehabilitation of five existing wells and locating and
constructing three new wells, and to accept the proposal related to those
wells as set forth in the Notice of Preparation.
Council Member Beecham said the City needed emergency provision for
water in the event of the failure of the Hetch Hetchy system.
Council Member Mossar asked what stage the City was at with the Water
District in the decision about wells.
Mr. Cwiak said staff worked with the Water District on the project and used
its data for a test well drilled at Pardee Park. Permits would be obtained
from the Water District as the City went through the process to site a well.
Council Member Mossar said she wanted to participate in the emergency
water supply discussions but had been precluded. Relying on wells was a
bad direction for the City.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked why Council Member Mossar was opposed to
wells.
Council Member Mossar said wells were an environmentally poor choice.
Palo Alto did not have a lot of groundwater and subsidence was an issue.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said her understanding was wells were used only for
emergencies and questioned whether the California Avenue site had a
contaminated plume that ran under the area.
Mr. Cwiak said there had been a plume in the area but staff did not know
whether that plume had actually affected the area where the well would go.
The site would be evaluated with other sites.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said she understood there were two monitoring sites
on California Avenue.
Mr. Cwiak said he was not completely familiar with all the monitoring for the
Stanford Industrial Park. Staff would make every effort to minimize the
amount of money spent on analysis of the sites.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked about the conclusion of the discussion regarding
connecting to the Water District along the Arastradero area.
01/30/2006 100-95
Mr. Cwiak said a study was done and there was a take or pay option. If the
City took the line, a fee had to be paid whether or not water was used every
year. The option was more expensive than wells.
Council Member Beecham said data had been presented to the Council
where the City had analyzed subsidence-mostly wells. Well usage was
monitored by the Water District, which insured there was no environmental
damage.
Council Member Drekmeier asked where the water went when one of the
wells was pumped.
Mr. Cwiak said with the current wells, water was not pumped continuously.
Samples were taken on a three-year basis. In the past, when the City
exercised the wells, the water at Hale Well was de-chlorinated and put into
San Francisquito Creek. The water at Rinconada was run into the storm drain
and de-chlorinated, if necessary.
Council Member Drekmeier asked if the water was utilized for drinking or fire
suppression.
Mr. Cwiak said the wells were connected to the distribution system and
pumped directly into the distribution system.
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether the tanks were above ground.
Mr. Cwiak said water was pumped out of the ground into a reservoir and
then pumped into the distribution center at some of the sites.
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether the distribution system was
gravity fed or a series of pumps.
Mr. Cwiak said in the lower areas of Palo Alto, east of Highway 280, were
supplied pressure from the Hetch Hetchy system by gravity. Everything in
the foothills was pumped up to the reservoirs.
Council Member Drekmeier clarified staff was confident that if the grid went
down, water would be distributed to where it was needed.
Mr. Cwiak said in Palo Alto’s history, until 1938, the entire system was
supplied by wells. From 1938 to 1962, there was a combination of wells and
Hetch Hetchy water. Since 1962, the water has been exclusively Hetch
Hetchy unless a supplemental supply was needed from the wells.
Council Member Drekmeier said he guessed if there were an emergency,
there would be a huge demand for diesel generators and he asked whether
01/30/2006 100-96
there were priorities in place for how those would be utilized and how it tied
into the wells.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said in the event of an emergency,
the pressure would not be kept in the system at a normal rate. Severe
restrictions on water would occur almost immediately.
Council Member Mossar said once wells systems were set up, the pressure to
pump the wells passed what was environmentally sound.
MOTION PASSED 6-1, Mossar “no,” Kleinberg, Morton, not participating
Mr. Marshall said the reservoirs were for an eight-hour emergency supply
based on criteria and put into place by the California Department of Health
Services (DHS) for providing eight hours of supply at maximum demand plus
being able to fight fires in all the pressure zones within the city. The project
consisted of a 2.5 million gallon reservoir and other needed improvements.
The 2.5 million gallons provided enough water supply in the system to fight
fires, specifically in the Stanford Shopping Center and the Downtown areas.
Ms. Harrison referred to a memorandum from Jean McGown, representing
Stanford University. In the past, Stanford worked cooperatively with staff to
look at the El Camino site. Stanford’s preferred location for a reservoir might
not be the City’s preferred location. Stanford had concerns about the area
staff identified. Part of the area represented a part of the Stanford Shopping Center, on which there were long term parking covenants. Part of the area
was in the County. Staff talked to the Palo Alto Unified School District
(PAUSD) Property Committee the prior week to prevent the Palo Alto High
School site. Staff was not encouraged by the interest from the high school
and did not intend to go forward with that area as a site unless there was a
willing partner.
Council Member Morton asked whether the City supplied water utilities to
Stanford.
Mr. Marshall said the City did not supply water directly to Stanford University
but did supply water service to Stanford lands within the City’s boundaries.
Council Member Morton asked whether there were any potential for shared
costs with Stanford for the emergency system.
Mr. Marshall said Stanford built a reservoir on its property to cover its
emergency needs.
City Manager Frank Benest said Stanford Lands, as major customers, paid
through the rate structure to deal with the study and any capital projects.
01/30/2006 100-97
Council Member Morton clarified the PAUSD was a customer and not looking
to enhance their emergency supply.
Ms. Harrison said that was correct. The school site came up because of a
possible opportunity to have a win-win situation with the PAUSD in terms of
providing funding for their programs. The purchase of a temporary and
permanent easement would not involve the PAUSD having any diminution in
its use of the property.
Council Member Morton clarified the action before the Council was to allow
staff to go forward and pick the opportune site.
Council Member Drekmeier said Stanford had two reservoirs in the foothills.
His assumption was that Palo Alto had a water source in the foothills for the
residents.
Ms. Harrison said there was a system of reservoirs in the foothills. Palo Alto
was short of a reservoir in the area called Pressure Area I, which would feed
directly into the Downtown and shopping centers. The reservoir would be
located where there was a gap in service.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked what other communities were doing.
Ms. Harrison said staff found that Mountain View was building two reservoirs; one on a school district site and one in Los Altos.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said whether the CIR money had to be spent on
looking at reservoir sites if the City had a clear choice for a location.
Ms. Harrison said the City was not going to put a lot of effort into the Palo
Alto High School site if there were no willing partner. Staff was not sure it
had a willing partner at El Camino.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked whether staff had looked at a taxpayer bond.
Ms. Harrison said Mr. Cwiak was creative in trying to find money that was
not the rate payers.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto encouraged the City to think of integrated solutions.
Mayor Kleinberg said she was concerned an eight-hour water supply was too
small.
Ms. Harrison said eight hours was misleading since the system provided a
month or more supply of water.
01/30/2006 100-98
Mayor Kleinberg asked whether the water was potable.
Ms. Harrison said the reservoir water was from Hetch Hetchy.
Mr. Marshall said the eight hours was at maximum demand.
Mr. Cwiak said the average daily demand was approximately 12 million
gallons. The City had approximately 10.5 million gallons of water in storage.
The maximum day demand was about 2.5 times the normal demand. If the
wells were turned out, water would be used at a lower rate for a longer
period of time. If all the projects were built with all the wells, approximately
11 million gallons of water would be produced every day.
Mayor Kleinberg asked how the water supply figured into the needs of
wastewater cleaning if service were disrupted through a flood or earthquake
and the City’s water treatment plan was not usable.
Mr. Cwiak said the water used in the wastewater treatment process came
from the sewers. If water was not being flowed through the pipes, water
would not go to the sewer except for groundwater that got into the collection
system and flowed to the treatment plant. The treatment plant only treated
sewage.
Mayor Kleinberg asked about the parking lot situation at Stanford Shopping
Center as a potential use as a reservoir site, given the Stanford preferences and issues with the Stanford Shopping Center.
Ms. Harrison said staff found El Camino Park as the most desirable site. The
parking lot site was not as attractive. Stanford had a concern about where
the reservoir was located in El Camino Park and a concern about long term
commitments they made for parking. Stanford was a willing partner for El
Camino Park if the City limited itself to the part of the El Camino Park that
Stanford believed had the least long term concern from their development
opportunities for El Camino Park.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said when staff looked at the
range of alternatives for the reservoir siting aspect of the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR), staff tried to have a range of sites to let the City make
a decision to build a workable system. Sites were considered based on
hydrology, groundwater for the wells, and archeological problems.
Mayor Kleinberg said if the City only looked at Stanford controlled lands for
the reservoir, Stanford might want to take care of its own fire suppression
and water supply needs. The City might have other sites that did not have to
be so close to Stanford. She clarified Stanford could make it difficult for the
City to put in an adequate supply to protect Stanford’s property. Staff was
01/30/2006 100-99
asked whether the City might be liable if it did not have enough supply to
protect Stanford.
Ms. Furth said it was the City’s responsibility to come up with a water
system that met State requirements and met the City’s requirements for its
own water system in terms of what was delivered. The City would find a site
that minimized the adverse impacts on Stanford. The EIR process would
drive the City to the best result, which involved considering impacts on the
environment, Stanford, and good design of the water system. A non-
Stanford site was also included. The Engineering Consultants and Utilities
Department identified a range of reasonable sites after a long process.
Council Member Drekmeier said the $12 million made him nervous. Staff
was asked whether it was possible the reservoir might not be needed, noting
that if there were an emergency, water use would be cut back and ground
water would be pumped.
Ms. Harrison said use of the wells would not obviate the need for a 2.5
million gallon reservoir.
Mr. Cwiak said the 2.5 million gallon reservoir was needed in order to pump
six thousand gallons of water per minute into the area that needed fire
protection, which included the Stanford Medical Center and Stanford
Shopping Center.
Council Member Drekmeier clarified the reservoir was necessary for fire
suppression versus drinking water.
Mr. Cwiak said that was correct. One well would produce approximately one
thousand gallons per minute, which would supply the normal reduced water
supply needs during an emergency in that area.
Council Member Morton clarified that Heritage Park was not included as one
of the sites to be reviewed.
Mr. Cwiak said Heritage Park was not considered as a reservoir site.
Ms. Harrison said preliminary engineering calculations were done to see
what the cost would be to take the water from Hetch Hetchy line.
Council Member Drekmeier clarified the purpose of the reservoir was for fire
suppression and asked whether the City could collaborate with Stanford to
use their two reservoirs in case of fire. The City would then supplement
Stanford’s water needs with the City’s wells.
01/30/2006 100-100
Ms. Harrison said Stanford had sized its emergency water supply for its
needs and did not have excess capacity to supply the City’s emergency
water needs. Stanford paid the same water rates that other customers in the
system paid and would continue to pay the rates that paid for the
improvements.
Mr. Benest said Stanford Medical Center was in Palo Alto. Stanford had paid,
over time, to fund the system which required the improvements.
Council Member Drekmeier said his understanding was the new reservoir
would be built specifically for potable water for consumption, but now he was
hearing the real importance of the reservoirs was for fire suppression.
Ms. Harrison said if the Hetch Hetchy system were dislocated, the reservoir
would be used as needed to supplement the regular water system. Staff
tried to meet standards set by a State agency in terms of supply in the
event of an eight-hour emergency where the City had to provide both fire
service and continue to provide water to customers.
Mayor Kleinberg asked whether water was available for neighboring cities
that might have a fire and needed help.
Ms. Harrison said Roger Cwiak had been assiduous in trying to find alternate
sources of funding. Homeland Security money was available for inter-tie
projects. Mr. Cwiak was actively working with the neighbors to pursue an inter-tie project.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, spoke about reservoirs not impinging on
existing park and school land and asked whether consideration had been
given to pumping water from the Bay for fire suppression.
Arthur Keller, 3581 Corina Way, spoke about use of gray water for fire
suppression and irrigation.
Joy Ogawa spoke about attending a focus group and learning that wells were
a minimal impact above ground. Her concern about the reservoir was that
more water was provided for future development. The City would spend
$350,000 to go ahead with an EIR, and she did not believe the City was
ready for an EIR.
Norman Carroll, 425 High Street, #120, said using gray water for fire
suppression was a great idea, but a separate system was needed.
Council Member Beecham said using service water would be a good idea, but
the City had no ability to treat water from the creek. In terms of using creek
water for fire suppression, the City had only one distribution system. The
01/30/2006 100-101
hydrants were hooked up to drinking water. Discussion in the past consisted
of piping effluent from the Wastewater Treatment Plant to another location,
which was expensive. Building a tank underground and using potable water
was a good idea.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Morton, to:
(a) Authorize staff to proceed with preparation of the portion of an
Environmental Impact Report for the eight-Hour Emergency
Water Supply project pertaining to construction of a new 2.5
million gallon reservoir and pump station and improvements to
the Mayfield Pump Station;
(b) Approve the remaining portion of the draft Notice of Preparation
(NOP) for the EIR pertaining to reservoir sites and identifying El
Camino Park as the preferred location for the reservoir and pump
station, and three alternative reservoir sites for further analysis;
(c) Approve the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the
amount of $350,000, transferring the funds from the Water Rate
Stabilization Reserve (RSR) to the Phase I Water Distribution
System Improvements Project; and
(d) Approve Amendment No. 3 for additional EIR support services for
the Phase I Water Distribution System Improvements Project
contract with Carollo Engineers (CMR:407:05) to study additional
reservoir sites in the EIR process.
MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Cordell, Klein, Mossar, not participating
COUNCIL MATTERS
9. Colleagues Memo from Mayor Kleinberg and Council Members Cordell
and Klein re Resolution of Conflict of Interest Matter
Mayor Kleinberg reported it was important to advise the public regarding the
potential conflict of interest that had been raised regarding whether a legal
financial conflict of interest existed between two employees. It had been
determined the City Attorney’s opinion was definitive enough to dispose of
the matter as far as any legal/financial conflicts that existed. The issue had
been resolved to the satisfaction of the Council.
Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, spoke regarding her concerns with the
manner in which the public spoke about the staff and Council Members. She
noted she supported, and had great respect for, the Assistant City Manager
and Police Chief, and for a Council that stood up for what was right. She
was pained when the public attacked the Council and staff.
01/30/2006 100-102
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma, Apt. 701, noted friendships were something
that was important in society. She noted the Council would be well advised
to have a meaningful oversight of fundamental liberties. Good judgment
should be on the side of caution in the matter.
Aram James stated this conflict should be reviewed dispassionately without
looking at the individuals. He felt there were problems with the City
Attorney’s report. The Assistant City Manager is a high level position, which
involves decision-making authority for items that could potentially involve
police activities and the Police Chief. The shared interest in a vacation
timeshare raises the question of conflict of interest because it creates an economic link between the Assistant City Manager and the Police Chief.
There is the appearance of impropriety.
Danielle Martell noted during her recent candidacy for Council Member, she
asked the questions about the relationship history and the possible nepotism
between Assistant City Manager Harrison and Police Chief Johnson. The
citizens and taxpayers have received an answer for the first time. She
requested that an independent and more complete evaluation be done
regarding the relationship between the Assistant City Manager and the Police
Chief.
Arthur Keller, 3881 Corina Way, noted he was pleased the City looked into
this matter. He felt this issue should be put to rest and he expressed his
respect for, and trust of, Assistant City Manager Harrison.
Council Member Cordell noted this matter was before her colleagues to state
their support for the Assistant City Manager and the Police Chief regarding this conflict issue.
Council Member Barton stated he was pleased this issue was brought
forward and felt it was time to move on. He recognized his support for
Assistant City Manager Harrison and for her hard work and intelligence.
Council Member Drekmeier noted he was glad there was resolution on this
issue. He also stated his respect for the Assistant City Manager Emily
Harrison and for her hard work and positive attitude and all that she does for
the City.
Council Member Klein felt the charges leveled were inappropriate and it is up
to the Council to defend staff who can’t defend themselves in these matters.
He expressed his appreciation to Council Member Cordell for bringing this
matter forward.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto added her voice of support for both the Assistant City
Manager and the Police Chief. She stated members of the public are
01/30/2006 100-103
welcome to raise issues like this and, if Assistant City Manager Harrison ever
feels she can’t be objective, she will advise the Council.
Council Member Beecham thanked the City Attorney for the thorough memo.
He noted he had the highest respect for the Assistant City Manager’s
integrity and candor.
Council Member Mossar noted her agreement with her colleague’s comments
and her respect for the Assistant City Manager and the Police Chief.
Council Member Morton noted during the recent election the only interest in
this issue was by the one individual who raised the question. It is the
public’s right to raise issues at times that have no basis. He stated his
appreciation for the report and his appreciation for Assistant City Manager
Harrison and for all she has done for the City.
Mayor Kleinberg thanked Council Member Cordell for taking the initiative to
help resolve this matter and to allow the Council the privilege of recognizing
the loyalty and integrity of Assistant City Manager Harrison and Police Chief
Johnson, and for the high quality work and loyalty they show the community
every day. There is a right of free speech in this Country, but the right of
free speech carries responsibilities. There are limits and it is hard for
Council to listen to scurrilous attacks made to staff and also Council
Members. Although she wouldn’t push the balance any other way because
free speech needs to be given extreme latitude, it is comforting to
sometimes stop and say we don’t like what we hear sometimes and we are
sorry that sometimes things are said the way they are said.
No action required.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Kleinberg noted this Friday, February 3, 2006, is “National Wear Red
Day” to signify the importance of the American Heart Association.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:12 a.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
01/30/2006 100-104
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto
Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the
preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the
meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to
during regular office hours.
01/30/2006 100-105