HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-18 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
December 18, 2006
1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ......................................... 183
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. .......................................... 183
1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION ................ 184
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. .......................................... 184
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .................................................................................. 185
1. Report from the Mayor’s Green Ribbon Task Force ...................................... 186
2. Proclamation Recognizing Palo Alto as the First Environmental Protection
Agency Green Power Community in California ............................................. 188
3. Selection of Applicants to Interview for the Library Advisory Commission ....... 188
APPROVAL OF MINUTES .................................................................................... 188
CONSENT CALENDAR........................................................................................ 188
4. Ordinance 4929 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-07 in the Amount of $750,000
from Utilities Electric Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve to Provide Incentives to City of Palo Alto Utilities’ Customers to Continue Installing Photovoltaic
Systems” ............................................................................................... 190
5. Resolution 8677 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Approving a Construction Grant Agreement between the Association of Bay
Area Governments and The City of Palo Alto Pertaining to the Receipt of
Funds for the Bay Trail Project’s Trail Improvements to be made at the
Faber/Laumeister Tract in the Palo Alto Baylands” ....................................... 190
7. Approval of a Contract with SPG Solar, Inc., in the Amount of $2,648,461 for the Installation of Photovoltaic (Solar) Panels, Trackers and Carports at the
Baylands Interpretive Center, Municipal Service Center, and Cubberley
Community Center as Part of a Photovoltaic Demonstration Project - Capital Improvement Program Project PE-05001 ................................................... 190
12/18/06 101-180
8. Approval of an Agreement between the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers
Authority and its Member Agencies with Respect to Roles and Responsibilities
Regarding the Army Corps of Engineers’ Feasibility Study ............................ 190
9. Resolution 8678 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto
Adopting a Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel
and Council Appointees and Rescinding Resolution Nos. 8554, 8593, 8609
and 8622” .............................................................................................. 190
10. Request for Authorization to Increase Existing Contract with the Law Firm of
Littler & Mendelson by an additional $40,000 for a Total Contract Not to
Exceed Amount of $125,000 .................................................................... 191
11a. Ordinance 4919 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Approving a Negative Declaration and Amending Section 18.08.040 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of
Property Known as 850 Webster Street (Channing House) from PC Planned
Community 4900 to PC Planned Community ____, to Allow Construction of a Health Care Building and Underground Garage, and Approve a Variance for
Encroachments into a Special Daylight Plane Along Two Property Lines” ........ 191
11b. (Old Item No. 6) Resolution 8680 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting Participation in ICLEI’s Cities for Climate Protection®
Campaign and Pledging to Undertake the Campaign’s Five Milestones to
Reduce Local Greenhouse Gas Emissions that Contribute to Global Warming” . 191
11c. (Old Item No. 11) 1st Reading – Ordinance Amending Section 2.28.230 of
Chapter 2.28 (Fiscal Procedures) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Claims Against the City ............................................................................ 193
14. Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for Fiscal Year 2005-06 ............. 193
15. Public Hearing – Pursuant to Government Code Section 30061, Title 3, Division 3, Relating to the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund, to
consider the Police Chief’s request to Purchase Electro-Muscular Disruption
Devices (Tasers) or Other Equipment to be used by First Line Officers. .......... 193
16. Colleagues Memo from Mayor Kleinberg and Council Member Klein re Palo
Alto Airport Business Operations and Santa Clara County Lease and the
Creation of a Palo Alto Airport Working Group............................................. 196
12. City Council Authorization to Commence the Process for Review of the
Stanford Medical Center Project; Approval of Reimbursement Agreement; and Authorization for City Manager and City Attorney, with Assistance from
the Directors of Planning and Community Environment and Administrative
Services, to Negotiate a Development Agreement ....................................... 200
13. City Council Authorization to Commence the Process for Review of the
Stanford Shopping Center Project; Approval of Reimbursement Agreement;
and Authorization for the City Manager and City Attorney, with Assistance
from the Directors of Planning and Community Environment and
Administrative Services, to Negotiate an Amendment to a Development Agreement ............................................................................................. 210
12/18/2006 101-181
COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES ...... 211
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. .............................. 212
12/18/2006 101-182
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:15 p.m.
Present: Barton, Beecham, Cordell, Drekmeier, Kishimoto, Klein,
Kleinberg, Morton, Mossar
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
CLOSED SESSION
1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Title: City Manager
Authority: Government Code section 54957(b)(1)
Mayor Kleinberg stated no reportable action was taken.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
12/18/2006 101-183
Special Meeting
December 18, 2006
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:45 p.m.
Present: Barton, Beecham, Cordell, Drekmeier, Kishimoto, Klein,
Kleinberg
Absent: Morton, Mossar not participating
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
CLOSED SESSION
1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Subject: Written communication threatening litigation against City of
Palo Alto by New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
Authority: Government Code Sections 54956.9(b)(1) & (b)(3)(C)
Mayor Kleinberg stated no reportable action was taken.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
12/18/2006 101-184
Regular Meeting
December 18, 2006
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 7:05 p.m.
Present: Barton, Beecham, Cordell, Drekmeier, Kishimoto, Klein,
Kleinberg, Morton, Mossar
Council Member Morton stated he did not participate in the closed session
due to a conflict of interest because of family holdings in the entity that was
under discussion.
Council Member Mossar stated she did not participate in the closed session
due to a conflict of interest because of family holdings in the entity under
discussion.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ratu Serumalani, SEIU, spoke regarding contracting out jobs.
Karen Miel, SEIU, spoke regarding contracting out jobs.
Phil Plymale, SEIU, spoke regarding contracting out jobs.
Peggy Law, 830 Los Trancos, spoke regarding the problems in Oaxaca,
Mexico, which is Palo Alto’s Sister City.
Gail Svedanovic, 2161 Ashton Avenue, Menlo Park, spoke regarding the
problem in the schools in Oaxaca, Mexico and concern for the safety of the
teachers and students.
Sharon Kufeldt, 825 San Antonio Road, #204, spoke regarding the police
and military operations in Oaxaca, Mexico under the new administration.
Ruth Robertson, 762 Southampton Drive, spoke regarding Palo Alto’s Sister
City Oaxaca, Mexico and requested the City look into what is happening.
Jim Kleinberg expressed his appreciation to Mayor Kleinberg for her tenure
as Mayor in 2006.
Don Letcher, 788 N. Rengstorff, Mountain View, spoke regarding the League
of California Cities rating on affordable housing.
Bob Evans, 812 Gailen Avenue, spoke regarding the fact the City Utility blew
sewage into his house.
12/18/2006 101-185
Mark Petersen-Perez, 434 Addison Avenue, spoke regarding the Police
Auditor paid informant.
Aram James spoke regarding police practices.
STUDY SESSION
1. Report from the Mayor’s Green Ribbon Task Force
Walt Hays, Task Force Chair, summarized the formation of the Task Force
and its mission and goal. The Task Force was established by Mayor Judy
Kleinberg in March 2006 in her State of the City address, to “better
galvanize our community to work on the problem of climate change and
greenhouse gas emissions, and to recommend tangible steps and local
actions by all stakeholder groups, including the City, to reduce global
warming and encourage sustainable practices.”
Mission: To recommend an achievable and measurable set of policies
and actions to meet or beat the Governor’s greenhouse gas emission-
cutting goals (2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80
percent below 1990 levels by 2050).
Goal: To achieve significant, measurable reductions of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions in the Palo Alto/Stanford area through positive
actions in all sectors of the population”
Karl Knapp, Palo Alto Utilities Department, presented the Baseline
Committee’s estimates of CO2 emissions from the use of electricity, natural
gas, and fuel for transportation in the Palo Alto community. Total emissions
were estimated to be 644,000 metric tons of CO2, roughly half from
transportation and half from electricity and natural gas combined.
Recommendations from the Baseline Committee were to inventory
emissions, seek means to improve estimates for transportation with more
frequently updated specific Palo Alto data, and in developing targets to
measure progress against time rather than against others, and to devise
how to best track progress, which may entail measuring changes rather than
the difference in a total annual estimate.
Mr. Knapp advised that CO2 emissions from electricity and natural gas were
20 percent below estimated 1990 levels in 2005, with electricity exhibiting
greater reductions because of the combination of lower usage plus greater
percentages of renewable energy supplies. About one-third of the energy-
related emissions are due to residents, and only 3 percent from City
facilities, the remainder from commercial, industrial and other public
facilities. The average residential customer emits about 5 metric tons per
year. The largest contributor by end user is space heating, followed by water
heating and then lighting. These three combine for 60 percent of energy-
12/18/06 101-186
related emissions. Electric efficiency offers a greater opportunity for
reductions because the electricity with the most CO2 content is purchased
last.
Bret Anderson, Palo Alto Council of PTAs, presented the Transportation
Committee findings. Transportation accounts for 51 percent of the estimated
CO2 emissions for the Palo Alto community. Transportation emissions are
very difficult to estimate. Ninety percent of commute emissions are
generated by single-occupancy vehicles, which is 30 percent of total
transportation emissions. Air transport accounts for another 20 percent and
commercial transportation about 36 percent. For many travelers, flights are
the major source of emissions. In conjunction with the Baseline Committee,
there were special efforts by Jane Melia of Hewlett-Packard, who developed
a transportation “what-if” model for commuting to be used to estimate
changes in emissions from changes in assumptions or program
accomplishments. Examples of results suggest a 10 percent increase in
carpooling would reduce commute emissions by 6 percent; 20 percent of
people using more efficient cars could reduce commute emissions by 18
percent; and 10 percent of the population working at home one day per
week would reduce commute emissions by 2 percent. Transportation
Committee recommendations were to promote alternative fuels, facilitate
increased biking and walking, use parking incentives to encourage less
driving and greener vehicles, increase mass transit availability, encourage
electronic alternatives to travel, reduce emissions from school commuting,
education and outreach, and lobbying at the regional, state, and national
levels, and in particular encouraging a carbon tax.
Elke MacGregor, DES Architects/Engineers, presented the Built Environment
Committee recommendations, which were organized in four key areas: (1)
green buildings by providing expertise, information and incentives; (2)
energy efficiency, through consulting assistance, solar power and low-carbon
water heating, and possibly a residential energy consumption ordinance
(RECO); (3) landscape, by making enhanced use of trees to reduce heat
island and provide shade and reducing water use; and (4) pedestrian and
transit planning, through transit-oriented development, bicycle circulation
and parking, and outdoor seating and pedestrian access.
Heather Trossman, Heather Trossman Architecture and Planning, presented
the Education and Motivation Committee report, which she called the “what
do we do next” group. The Committee recommended it is important to instill
a sense of moral imperative about global warming. The Committee
recommended providing a “portal” to existing green programs, developing a
green public relations umbrella that would provide “one-stop shopping” for
environmental programs, incentives and rebates with a “brand identity” logo
reflecting Palo Alto as an innovative, green city. They recommended a
public/private partnership to administer the awareness/action program in
order to leverage scarce City resources and put community enthusiasm to
12/18/06 101-187
good use. Other key recommendations were to lead by doing through
programs such as green certification and Sustainable Silicon Valley, learning
from other cities to avoid reinventing the wheel, and encouraging green
technology innovation, synergy and cross-pollination, working closely with
Stanford University, the Stanford Research Park, and local green tech
entrepreneurs.
Walt Hays summarized the recommendations: (1) to direct staff to develop a
climate action plan; (2) to devise a public/private partnership along the lines
recommended by the Education and Motivation Committee; and (3) to have
the plan and partnership convene periodic public meetings to keep the
momentum developed through the work of the Task Force into the future.
No Action Required.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Proclamation Recognizing Palo Alto as the First Environmental
Protection Agency Green Power Community in California
Brian Ward, PaloAltoGreen Program Manager, thanked the Council for their
support.
No Action Required.
Mayor Kleinberg noted the Office of Emergency Services issued a brochure
on winter storm preparation tips. She encouraged residents to prepare
themselves for the upcoming winter season.
3. Selection of Applicants to Interview for the Library Advisory
Commission
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Morton, to
interview all four applicants for the Library Advisory Commission.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Cordell, to approve
the minutes of November 13, 2006 and November 20, 2006, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
12/18/06 101-188
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Mossar, to remove
Item No. 6 from the Consent Calendar to become Item No. 11b.
Council Member Mossar registered a “no” vote on Item No. 9.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto registered a “no” vote on Item No. 9.
Mayor Kleinberg registered a “no” vote on Item No. 9.
Council Member Cordell referred to Agenda Item No. 8 and asked for the
timeframe of the Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) Feasibility Study.
Council Member Mossar said there was no specific deadline. If the Council
voted not to sign the agreement, the Corps could not work on the project.
The progress from the Feasibility Study (Study) moved at a pace equal to
the amount of federal funds received. Funding was already in hand in order
to complete the Study for a local match.
Council Member Cordell stated because there was no timetable and the
Study could take years.
City Manager Frank Benest said currently the Corps had conducted mapping
and environmental and hydrological studies. It was anticipated once the
baseline studies were completed, development of project alternatives would
begin during the summer of 2007.
Council Member Cordell referred to Agenda Item No. 11 and said she did not
see the one year statute of limitations requirement for certain claims spelled
out in the amended ordinance. She expressed concern the average person
may not understand the State ordinance and she believed it should be
spelled out.
City Attorney Gary Baum said State law required the City to adopt the
ordinance as presented. The one year was adopted from the State statute,
which contained the one year limitation. He indicated the language could be
placed in a recital. Staff would amend the ordinance to reflect the one year
limitation.
Council Member Mossar asked whether the item needed to be pulled from
the Consent Calendar and voted upon.
Mayor Kleinberg said yes.
MOTION: Council Member Cordell moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to
remove Item No. 11 from the Consent Calendar to become Item No. 11c.
12/18/06 101-189
Vice Mayor Kishimoto referred to Item No. 8 and indicated the San
Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Board anticipated returning
to the Council with an update on the funding for the Feasibility Study in
January 2007.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Barton, to approve
Consent Calendar Items No. 4, 5, 7-10, and 11a on the Consent Calendar.
4. Ordinance 4929 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-07 in the Amount of
$750,000 from Utilities Electric Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve to
Provide Incentives to City of Palo Alto Utilities’ Customers to Continue
Installing Photovoltaic Systems”
5. Resolution 8677 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Approving a Construction Grant Agreement between the
Association of Bay Area Governments and The City of Palo Alto
Pertaining to the Receipt of Funds for the Bay Trail Project’s Trail
Improvements to be made at the Faber/Laumeister Tract in the Palo
Alto Baylands”
6. Resolution xxxx entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Supporting Participation in Iclei’s Cities for Climate Protection®
Campaign and Pledging to Undertake the Campaign’s Five Milestones
to Reduce Local Greenhouse Gas Emissions that Contribute to Global Warming”
7. Approval of a Contract with SPG Solar, Inc., in the Amount of
$2,648,461 for the Installation of Photovoltaic (Solar) Panels, Trackers
and Carports at the Baylands Interpretive Center, Municipal Service
Center, and Cubberley Community Center as Part of a Photovoltaic
Demonstration Project - Capital Improvement Program Project PE-
05001
8. Approval of an Agreement between the San Francisquito Creek Joint
Powers Authority and its Member Agencies with Respect to Roles and
Responsibilities Regarding the Army Corps of Engineers’ Feasibility
Study
9. Resolution 8678 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City Of Palo
Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Management and Professional
Personnel and Council Appointees and Rescinding Resolution Nos.
8554, 8593, 8609 and 8622”
Resolution 8679 “entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending Section 1701 of the Merit System Rules and
12/18/06 101-190
Regulations to incorporate the 2006-2007 Compensation Plan for
Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees”
10. Request for Authorization to Increase Existing Contract with the Law
Firm of Littler & Mendelson by an additional $40,000 for a Total
Contract Not to Exceed Amount of $125,000
11. 1st Reading – Ordinance Amending Section 2.28.230 of Chapter 2.28
(Fiscal Procedures) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Claims
Against the City
11a. Ordinance 4919 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Approving a Negative Declaration and Amending Section
18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change
the Classification of Property Known as 850 Webster Street (Channing
House) from PC Planned Community 4900 to PC Planned Community
____, to Allow Construction of a Health Care Building and Underground
Garage, and Approve a Variance for Encroachments into a Special
Daylight Plane Along Two Property Lines”
MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11a.
MOTION PASSED 6-3 for Item No. 9, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Mossar, no.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
11b. (Old Item No. 6) Resolution 8680 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Supporting Participation in ICLEI’s Cities for Climate
Protection® Campaign and Pledging to Undertake the Campaign’s Five
Milestones to Reduce Local Greenhouse Gas Emissions that Contribute to
Global Warming”
Council Member Klein said he believed City staff opposed membership in the
aforementioned organization at one time. He inquired whether Palo Alto was
currently a member.
Senior Resource Planner Karl Knapp said City staff had submitted an
application and paid the required fees to become a member of ICLEI;
however, part of joining the Cities for Climate Protection involved the
adoption of a formal resolution to join one of their campaigns.
Council Member Klein clarified the City was a member of ICLEI, and the
Council was being asked to approve an additional sum in order to become
eligible for further services.
12/18/06 101-191
Mr. Knapp said no. The Council was being asked to formally adopt the five
milestones by enacting a resolution.
Council Member Klein said he was confused by the resource impact
statement in the staff report (CMR:426:06), which indicated joining ICLEI
cost $1,200 per year.
Mr. Knapp said in order to be accepted the City would have to do all three
things: 1) apply for membership; 2) pay the fee; and 3) adopt a resolution.
The first two were completed, and staff hoped to obtain the third that
evening.
Council Member Klein asked whether the application was sent with or
without the fee.
Mr. Knapp said the application was sent with the fee, which was within the
spending authority of the City Manager.
Council Member Klein clarified the Council was being asked to agree to the
Campaign’s Five Milestones.
Mr. Knapp said that was correct.
Council Member Klein asked how many cities were members.
Mr. Knapp said he did not know the exact number of cities, but believed it
was in the hundreds.
Mayor Kleinberg said the staff report (CMR:426:06) indicated more than 600
cities worldwide.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Morton, to support
participation in ICLEI’s Cities for Climate Protection® Campaign and pledges
to undertake the Campaign’s Five Milestones to Reduce Local Greenhouse
Gas Emissions that contribute to global warming.
Council Member Morton believed it was consistent with the Green Ribbon
Task Force (GRTF) report, and a good first step.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto expressed support for the motion. With regard to the
GRTF, she inquired whether the status report due in April 2007 would
include some evaluation of the public/private partnership concept.
Mr. Knapp said one of the GRTF’s recommendations specifically addressed
incorporating a public/private partnership.
12/18/06 101-192
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
11c. (Old Item No. 11) 1st Reading – Ordinance Amending Section 2.28.230
of Chapter 2.28 (Fiscal Procedures) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
Regarding Claims Against the City
MOTION: Council Member Cordell moved, seconded by Drekmeier, to
approve the ordinance codifying formal procedures for filing and processing
claims for refunds, and to add language that the Ordinance specifically
indicated a one year statute of limitations clause.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said there was language in the ordinance
(Attachment ‘A’ of CMR:442:06), which said “No claim may be filed on behalf
of a class of persons unless verified by every member of that class…” He
indicated he was unaware of whether that language was a part of the State
law that was the authority for the ordinance, or whether it was added for
Palo Alto specifically. He believed it might be a concern to some residents.
City Attorney Gary Baum said the ordinance was a League of California Cities
form, and the provision found therein had been adopted by many cities
statewide. Every ordinance the City passed contained a severability clause.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
14. Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for Fiscal Year 2005-06
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kishimoto moved, seconded by Mossar, to defer Item
No. 14 to a later date in January 2007.
MOTION PASSED 7-2, Drekmeier, Morton no.
Mayor Kleinberg noted that Item Nos. 15 and 16 would move ahead of Item
Nos. 12 and 13.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
15. Public Hearing – Pursuant to Government Code Section 30061, Title 3,
Division 3, Relating to the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services
Fund, to consider the Police Chief’s request to Purchase Electro-
Muscular Disruption Devices (Tasers) or Other Equipment to be used
by First Line Officers.
Police Chief Lynne Johnson reiterated none of the Citizens Options for Public
Safety (COPS) funds would be spent on Tasers or other police equipment
until final Council approval. Also, in order to prevent any appearance of
12/18/06 101-193
conflict on the Taser Task Force (TTF) neither the City Attorney’s
representative nor the Police Auditor would be voting members.
Council Member Morton said although he had not decided on the issue of
implementing the tasers, he was in favor of applying for the funds.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Cordell, to approve
the acceptance of Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) funds in the
amount of $120,963 for the purchase of electronic control devices subject to
final Council approval following the Taser Task Force’s (TTF) study and
recommendation.
Mayor Kleinberg declared the Public Hearing opened at 9:37 p.m.
Don Letcher, 788 North Rengstorff, Mountain View, urged the Council to
make Palo Alto a taser-free zone so citizens could feel safe walking the
streets without being threatened by police.
Mark Petersen-Perez, 434 Addison Avenue, expressed opposition to the
implementation and use of tasers.
Aram James, Palo Alto, concurred with Mr. Petersen-Perez.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, believed if the Council voted in favor
of approving COPS funds, they were in fact approving the funding of tasers in advance of any fair hearing on whether they would be permitted in Palo
Alto.
Judith LoVuolo-Bhushan, 3838 Mumford Place, said Amnesty International
had stated that tasers were widely used on unarmed citizens for verbal non-
compliance. She understood the job of a police officer was dangerous and
they needed to be safe; however, she did not believe the structure of tasers
were humane. She urged the Council not to approve the motion.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said a taser was a weapon, just like a baton, a
handgun or shotgun. The question was not whether the police should use
this weapon versus that weapon, but whether it was being used
appropriately and carefully. Palo Alto had a low level of excessive use of
force.
Mayor Kleinberg declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:53 p.m.
Council Member Morton said the motion was simply an earmarking of funds.
A decision had not been made on implementing tasers.
12/18/06 101-194
Council Member Cordell concurred with Council Member Morton. She said no
Councilmember had taken a position on whether or not the Police
Department should utilize tasers. The purpose of the TTF was to educate the
Council on whether or not the use of tasers should be authorized.
Council Member Mossar said she would not support the motion. She believed
the appropriate process would have been to appoint a TTF to study the issue
and make recommendations to the Council on whether the use tasers was
appropriate or not. The application of COPS Funds was important, but just as
the Council could later decide not to use the funds for tasers, they could also
apply the funds for another use that was not controversial.
Mayor Kleinberg asked whether the only time the City would have access to
funds to help pay for special resources was at the present time.
Ms. Johnson said one of the reasons why the process was slightly convoluted
was because there was no guarantee COPS funds would be available next
year. She did not want to put the City in a position of liability where police
officers had to use deadly force when a taser could have been used instead.
Mayor Kleinberg asked whether the COPS funds were not likely to occur
again.
Ms. Johnson said every year the Governor’s office advised that COPS funds
might not be available in subsequent years.
Mayor Kleinberg asked how many years had they been available in the past.
Ms. Johnson said it was approximately 10 years and continuation depended
upon the State’s budget situation.
Mayor Kleinberg asked what potential resources would be purchased with
the COPS funds aside from tasers.
Ms. Johnson said the funds could be used for a simulation video for use of
force training and new handguns.
Mayor Kleinberg said the type of resources was open ended.
Ms. Johnson said that was correct. The funds must be used for first line type
equipment.
Mayor Kleinberg asked what had happened in terms of the liability of a
community where tasers were used and a death resulted.
12/18/06 101-195
Ms. Johnson said based on her research there were no conclusive studies
that deemed tasers the cause of deaths; however, some research did
indicate the use of tasers was contributory. Given the right circumstances, a
person could die by a blow of the baton or a punch to the face. In other
agencies where a death did occur and a lawsuit was filed, she was not aware
that a lost lawsuit was the result. Most agencies who used tasers found that
lives were being saved because deadly force was not being used, and
worker’s compensation injuries were reduced because officers had fewer
physical confrontations.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked how much training a police officer would receive
on mediation/negotiation (talking down a potentially violent situation with
non-violent means.)
Ms. Johnson said Palo Alto police officers received approximately 10 hours of
training. Other officers received an additional 24 hours of Crisis Intervention
Team (CIT) training, a special program that dealt with mental health and
family members. She would ensure all of the police officers went through
CIT training before actually using the tasers.
Mayor Kleinberg said she would not support the motion because of the order
of the process.
MOTION PASSED 6-3, Drekmeier, Kleinberg, Mossar no.
COUNCIL MATTERS
16. Colleagues Memo from Mayor Kleinberg and Council Member Klein re
Palo Alto Airport Business Operations and Santa Clara County Lease
and the Creation of a Palo Alto Airport Working Group
MOTION: Mayor Kleinberg moved, seconded by Klein, to approve the
recommendation of the creation of a Palo Alto Airport Working Group
(PAAWG) to participate in analyzing the Airport operations and developing
one or more business models for Airport operations. The Palo Alto Airport
Working Group would be appointed by the Mayor and would include a
representative of the City Council, two representatives of City staff selected
by the City Manager, representatives of the Palo Alto Airport Association, the
Stanford Hospital, the Joint Community Relations Committee for the Palo
Alto Airport, and three to five representatives of stakeholder groups with an
interest in Airport usage and operations, at least one of whom shall be a
business user.
Mayor Kleinberg said the City had been given six months to negotiate with
Santa Clara County over the lease of the Palo Alto Airport (PAA), discuss
what business models might be used to make the PAA a more attractive
12/18/06 101-196
business for the County to continue operations, or to suggest some other
alternatives. The Palo Alto Airport Working Group (PAAWG) would work in
collaboration with City staff and offer models to consider both to staff and
the Council. She indicated she received the support of County Supervisor Liz
Kniss.
Council Member Klein said it appeared the County was unhappy with
operating the PAA and wanted to negotiate. It was important to find out
more about the Airport, what the problems were, if any, and what other
uses/alternatives there were. He supported the formation of the working
group.
Council Member Barton understood the County had a lease on the site until
2017. He asked whether they were obligated to operate an airport there.
City Manager Frank Benest said the County had an obligation to operate the
Airport through 2017 according to certain Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) standards.
Mayor Kleinberg clarified the Airport had to continue past 2017 because the
County had accepted Federal funds.
Council Member Barton asked if the County had an obligation to operate the
Airport through 2017, why did the Council need to form a PAAWG at this
point to learn more about the issue.
Mayor Kleinberg said the County recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors was to terminate the lease as soon as possible. While the
County was legally bound to maintain the lease until 2017, they felt the PAA
was losing money and they did not want to continue operating it. The City
was given six months by the County Board of Supervisors to enter into a
period of mutual discussion over viable business models.
Council Member Mossar concurred with Council Member Barton. She believed
the process was ahead of itself. It would make better sense to direct staff to
meet with County staff, and come back to the Council with clarified
information from the County, as well as staff’s analysis about the viability
and importance of a PAAWG. She asked City staff whether they had an
opportunity to clarify the meaning of County Supervisor Kniss’ action and to
think about the appropriate next steps. She also noted the Colleagues Memo
was silent on the budgetary and staff workload impacts.
Mr. Benest said City staff had already set in motion a meeting date in early
January 2007 with County staff to clarify the specific issues that needed to
be addressed. In order to move forward with the resource impact of a
proposed PAAWG, other staff departments would need to be involved.
12/18/06 101-197
Council Member Mossar said while she was not opposed to forming a
working group, she would prefer to have staff return with an assessment
and clarification of the issues raised by the County first. It would give the
Council an opportunity at that point to discuss it. She could not support the
Colleagues Memo.
Council Member Morton expressed support for the Colleagues Memo. The
Council needed to be in the best possible position to protect the City, or to
respond to the County’s intention. He asked whether the City Auditor should
be included in the working group.
Mayor Kleinberg said that was acceptable; however, she was unsure of the
City Auditor’s workload. The makers of the Colleagues Memo were trying to
be careful about including staff other than as a resource of information, but
not a part of the ongoing working group.
City Auditor Sharon Erickson said any ongoing workload such as the Working
Group would have an impact on the City Auditor’s office. She requested to
be a resource of information based on the work already done by the
department. She did not see the urgency for more financial analysis at the
present time.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said it was important to develop some kind of plan
before the Council had to make a decision about the next Federal commitment. She supported the notion of City staff returning to the Council
with a timeline for developing a plan. She said if the motion did pass, she
felt strongly a stakeholder knowledgeable about the Baylands Master Plan
and a stakeholder knowledgeable about the flood control issues are included
in the Working Group.
Council Member Beecham said he had similar concerns and was troubled
that the Board of Supervisors took action on an issue without informing the
Council by any type of summary. Also, that City staff had not been given
explicit policy directions and was disinclined to violate the Baylands Master
Plan, and the Council did not want to see significant increases in fees. He
expressed support for the motion although he felt there was more work to
do.
Mayor Kleinberg commented County Supervisor Kniss would be available
along with her staff to speak to the Council, the PAAWG, and others who
wanted to understand the research and work she had done.
Council Member Klein said he started with the notion the Airport was a
significant asset to the community and it was the Council’s job to protect it.
The County was in partnership with Palo Alto in the operation of the Airport,
12/18/06 101-198
and they were unhappy. While he was persuaded by the City Auditor’s
financial report, the County was not. He believed it was the time to move
forward and figure out how to direct staff.
Mayor Kleinberg said the six-month timeframe was determined by the Board
of Supervisors. She brought up the fact the City had not moved forward with
a plan to counter the attacks on the Airport. She felt it was important to
jump quickly into a position to become more informed, with more
opportunities to negotiate. There was no resource or staff impact because
the Colleagues Memo was not direction to staff but was for an independent
working group. It was not a perfect process, but she believed the Council
should do whatever they could to move forward.
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether the PAAWG would be appointed
by the current Mayor.
Mayor Kleinberg said yes and it would comply with the Brown Act.
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether a Council Liaison would also be
appointed.
Mayor Kleinberg said yes. It would be a representative from the Council.
Council Member Drekmeier concurred with Vice Mayor Kishimoto regarding
inclusion of two individuals from the stakeholder groups.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto clarified there would be no paid staff time included on
the Working Group.
Mayor Kleinberg said it would be up to the City Manager as to who would be
useful.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked whether City staff would negotiate with County
staff.
Mayor Kleinberg said the Working Group would not be doing the negotiating.
City staff was in charge of negotiating, and the Council was in charge of
developing policy matters and directing staff. The PAAWG would bring back
ideas and models to the City Manager and Council, which would be accepted
or not.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked for clarification on whether there would be
representatives from the Baylands Master Plans and Flood Control on the
working group.
Mr. Benest said staff would provide those perspectives.
12/18/06 101-199
MOTION PASSED 7-2, Barton, Mossar no.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
12. City Council Authorization to Commence the Process for Review of the
Stanford Medical Center Project; Approval of Reimbursement
Agreement; and Authorization for City Manager and City Attorney, with
Assistance from the Directors of Planning and Community Environment
and Administrative Services, to Negotiate a Development Agreement
Council Member Cordell stated she would not participate in Agenda Item
Nos. 12 and 13 due to a conflict of interest because she was employed by
Stanford University.
Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate in Agenda Item
Nos. 12 and 13 due to a conflict of interest because her husband was
employed by Stanford University
Council Member Klein stated he would not participate in Agenda Item Nos.
12 and 13 due to a conflict of interest because his wife was employed by
Stanford University.
City Manager Frank Benest said the item before the Council was a follow-up to the November 20, 2006 study session on the proposed modernization and
expansion project for the Stanford Medical Center (SMC). In the staff report
(CMR:447:06), staff had identified a planning process and timelines for the
Medical Center. The project included a net of 1.3 million square feet of new
facilities. The Comprehensive (Comp) Plan called for an area plan for the
SMC. Based on the proposal by Stanford, staff would update the current area
plan. The Stanford Shopping Center (SSC) would be addressed as a major
area of influence as part of the plan. The Planning and Transportation
Commission (P&TC) would consider the area plan in the first half of 2007.
There would be one Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for both the SMC
and the SSC, which would address possible impacts of both projects and
propose a mitigation program on all fronts. Staff also identified issues and
community benefits that would be addressed during the negotiation process.
Staff recommended the Council provide authorization to commence the
process of review, approve a cost reimbursement agreement, and authorize
the City Manager and City Attorney, with the assistance of the Directors of
Planning and Administrative Services, to negotiate the development
agreement.
Council Member Beecham said the staff report (CMR:447:06) and the P&TC
minutes of December 13, 2006 talked about area plans for the SMC, as well
12/18/06 101-200
as the SSC, along with some discussion of area plans versus specific plans.
He asked for staff’s input on those issues.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie said the
requirement for the area plan was that the Comp Plan Land Use element
related to the SMC. The area plan referenced in L-46 was specifically limited
to the Medical Center area. Staff indicated to the P&TC it was consistent with
the Comp Plan, to proceed on that basis, and to include the interrelationship
between the proposed developments at the SSC as part of the area plan.
The Comp Plan was specific in limiting the area plan to the Medical Center.
Council Member Beecham asked about the difference between an area plan
and a specific plan.
Mr. Emslie said the term ‘area plan’ was specific to Palo Alto’s Comp Plan. It
was not a legally defined planning action as a coordinated area plan, nor did
it have a body of procedures that went along with the adoption of an area
plan. There was a great deal of latitude in interpreting how staff went about
implementing the update to such a plan.
Council Member Beecham asked what an area plan was.
Mr. Emslie said it was specific land use planning for an area viewed as likely
to change in the 10-15 year planning horizon.
Council Member Beecham said staff’s recommendation was for Council to
authorize the City Manager, City Attorney and others to negotiate a
development agreement. He asked why they felt it was necessary now.
Mr. Benest said although staff would need to wait until there was a draft EIR
to negotiate certain kinds of issues, such as traffic and other types of
impacts, there were a variety of issues for staff to begin preliminary
discussions: 1) the relocation of community medical practitioners; 2) the
payment of out-of-state use taxes directly to the State; 3) any modifications
of the SMC proposal based on peer review; and 4) any preliminary
discussions about community benefits. If negotiations waited until
completion of the draft EIR, it would greatly extend the process.
Council Member Beecham asked how much of the negotiations were in the
public realm.
Mr. Benest said the development agreement would not be negotiated in
public; however, there were numerous opportunities for the public to weigh
in on the area plan, the draft EIR, and the original proposal.
12/18/06 101-201
Council Member Beecham asked how policy issues would be resolved as staff
worked on the process.
Mr. Benest said there would be policy issues related to the area plan that
would go to the P&TC and the Council. There would also be issues related to
the draft EIR that figured into the negotiations. The final EIR would return to
the P&TC and the Council as well.
Council Member Beecham said the Council recently received the minutes
from the P&TC. He recalled there was some discussion about simplifying or
collapsing the number of meetings with the Architectural Review Board
(ARB). He asked how much of the recommendations or comments by the
P&TC were incorporated in what the Council currently had.
Mr. Emslie said all the suggestions of the P&TC involved formatting and
clarification on what some of the tasks were and expanding on the shorthand
used in the timeline. The one area where staff and the P&TC disagreed was
in not starting the negotiations until after the draft EIR had been circulated.
Because the development agreement was a project under California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) standards, the EIR must analyze that
agreement as if it were a project. If the development agreement were to
change in the course of the negotiations and the draft EIR was already
circulated, delays would stem from having to amend the draft EIR and re-
circulate it adding significant time to the process.
Council Member Beecham said it was an iterative process where both were
interrelated, but you needed one to enter into the other.
Mr. Emslie said there was iteration in the development agreement because it
was a document or contract between the City, the owners of the land, and
the applicants. Certain finality to the agreement was needed in order for the
EIR to describe the project to an adequate degree and identify potential
impacts.
Council Member Beecham asked how to address the concern that the
negotiations could preempt the EIR.
Mr. Emslie said part of the iteration was that the EIR would identify impacts
and mitigation measures. If the measures were not acceptable to the City,
there was the option of either changing the project in some way to reduce
the impacts to less than significant levels, or to override those with a
statement of overriding consideration. At that point, there would be
decisions that both the P&TC and the Council would need to respond to.
12/18/06 101-202
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether it was possible to include other
components, such as the transit center or other lands that might provide
housing in the area plan.
Mr. Emslie said it was possible to include as much as the Council wanted
because the area plan stemmed from a policy the City Council previously
adopted. The Comp Plan, as implemented, was limited to the Medical Center
area, which could be expanded through an amendment to the Comp Plan if
the Council desired.
Mr. Benest said staff recommended the Council maintain the direction of the
Comp Plan and look at the adjacent areas that would impact the project, i.e.
the SSC and transit connections to the train depot. One item the Medical
Center would have to address in some fashion was the issue of housing.
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether it was possible to include some
portions of land currently in Santa Clara County’s jurisdiction in the area
plan, or was it limited to property in Palo Alto’s jurisdiction.
Mr. Emslie said if the area was outside of the City, it would most likely be
difficult to include it in the City’s land use policies.
Senior Deputy City Attorney Cara Silver said it could be studied if it was
within the City’s sphere of influence, but not if it would go beyond the scope
of an area plan.
Council Member Beecham said he believed the County area of Stanford was
within Palo Alto’s sphere of influence, and asked if that was correct.
Mr. Emslie said he did not believe that was the case, but would refer to the
Comp Plan.
Council Member Drekmeier said it appeared the area plan was scheduled to
begin in March 2007. He asked if there was a reason it could not start
sooner.
Mr. Emslie said staff had begun collecting traffic data and wanted to share
some of that analysis the first part of 2007.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said the timeline indicated an EIR initiation preparation
but it did not specify it was a joint EIR. She asked for confirmation it would
be a joint EIR.
Mr. Benest said it would be one EIR covering both projects.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said it would be helpful to have it included in the
timeline for clarification.
12/18/06 101-203
Mr. Benest said that could be done.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto referred to the P&TC changes, as summarized in the
cover memo, which stated staff concurred and upon further Council direction
the timelines would be updated to incorporate the amendments. She
inquired whether Council’s direction must explicitly state the P&TC
amendments would be incorporated.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked whether staff supported the amendments.
Mr. Emslie said yes with the exception of the draft EIR.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said it was unclear from the timeline how many times
the project returned to the Council for further direction. She asked for
clarification.
Mr. Emslie said staff’s suggestion to coincide with the P&TC conclusion of its
recommendations on the area plan in mid-2007 would be an appropriate
point to check policy direction with the Council. Pending that review, the
Council could elect to provide staff with direction for future check-in points
at three to six month intervals.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said the Council had not voted on a policy direction
about the height of the building, its density, whether all the housing should
be located onsite or could some of it be offsite. There were many policy
choices the Council had not made. She asked how staff envisioned the
process moving forward.
Mr. Emslie said staff had some idea based on the comments from the study
session on the Medical Center and Shopping Center projects. Staff was
looking towards getting the process going in order to understand the
potential impacts, and analyzing how those would change.
Mr. Benest said staff would be looking at affordable housing issues. Using
the Mayfield site as an example, what came out of that was the result of
negotiations. Staff could have received the 20 percent housing requirement
or had significantly more units by having Stanford build an affordable
housing project. Staff needed the opportunity to negotiate to come up with
creative responses to some of the identified issues addressed by the Council.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked when staff anticipated having the potential
number of needed housing units and traffic impacts.
12/18/06 101-204
Mr. Emslie said staff’s goal was to have the numbers related to traffic,
housing impacts, job impacts, and other quantifiable impacts at the
conclusion of the area plan deliberations by the P&TC in mid-2007. In
answer to Council Member Drekmeier’s question, there were County lands
within the City’s sphere of influence, and some County lands were included
in the previous area plan.
Council Member Drekmeier understood that the issue of Stanford Hospital
and all hospitals paying impact fess would return to the Council in February
2007.
Mr. Benest said staff had worked with an outside consultant to identify the
impacts and nexus, and anticipated returning to the Council in February
2007.
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether that was independent of the
present process.
Mr. Benest said yes it was.
Council Member Drekmeier said the timeline indicated consideration of the
final EIR and development agreement would occur on the same day. He
asked if the process would be affected if those two were staggered with a
week separating them.
Mr. Emslie said it would not be affected materially.
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether the Council would receive an
updated timeline in January 2007.
Mr. Emslie said staff would continue to update the timeline and send that
information to the Council and the various stakeholders.
Council Member Beecham said the P&TC had study sessions scheduled for
February and April 2007. He asked whether a study session to the Council
could be scheduled following the P&TC April 2007 meeting.
Council Member Morton wondered whether the Council study session should
be limited to the policy issues raises through the P&TC, as opposed to having
an entire project process.
Brian Schmidt, 3521 E. Bayshore Road, spoke on behalf of Committee for
Green Foothills, and said the Committee did not endorse or oppose staff
recommendations; however, he offered a few suggestions if the Council were
to move forward. The early community meetings should deal with project
12/18/06 101-205
benefits and what the community wanted to see happen regarding density
impacts, open space protection, and housing benefits.
Bill Nichols, 620 Sand Hill Road, #220D, said the project for the Children’s
Hospital and the main hospital expansion were important issues and
deserved serious consideration. He expressed concern about the space
constraints to Children’s Hospital and would hate to see it delayed at the risk
of stunting their momentum as they moved forward.
Tom Jordan, 474 Churchill Avenue, expressed concern about who would
complete the draft area plan. It should be the Planning staff although it
indicated Stanford would do so. He was also concerned about the process for
the development agreement. He would not want to see a repeat of the
Mayfield site negotiations.
Mark Sabin, 533 Alberta Avenue, said it was important to move forward with
the project, and try to adhere to the timeline.
Michael Closson, 354 Poe Street, Executive Director Acterra, encouraged an
open public participation process with a lot of transparency and opportunity
for people to provide their input and discuss impacts, costs and benefits.
Jon Stoumen, 1630 Castilleja, said the Stanford Hospital and Shopping
Center project expansions were great opportunities for the community.
Heyward Robinson, 1830 White Oak Drive, Menlo Park City Council, said he
appreciated the benefits of the Stanford Hospital and University to the
community. The City of Menlo Park had concerns about the impacts of both
projects. There was an opportunity to use the projects to leverage creative
thinking and expand Transit-Oriented Developments (TOD) in the region.
The Menlo Park staff and Council were not included on the courtesy notices
that accompanied the report, and would like to be included in the future.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said staff should follow the normal planning
process. He expressed concern about the lateness of the hour, and whether
the Council was prepared to have a meaningful discussion due to a
replacement to the staff report, and minutes from the P&TC after the
meeting had begun.
Mayor Kleinberg asked who would be responsible for the area plan work.
Mr. Emslie said staff would be leading the work and would collaborate with
Stanford.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Beecham, to
authorize the City Manager to commence the process for review of the
12/18/06 101-206
Stanford Medical Center project, according to the process and timeline
(Attachment A); authorize the City Manager to sign a reimbursement
agreement to recover the costs of project review (Attachment B); and
authorize the City Manager and City Attorney, with the assistance of the
Directors of Planning and Administrative Services, to begin negotiating an
appropriate Development Agreement, direct staff to include an additional
study session for the Council, to return regularly thereafter with key policy
choices, to provide Council with the status of potential impacts, mitigations
and community benefits, and include the five recommendations from the
Planning and Transportation Commission.
Council Member Morton said staff needed flexibility to negotiate with
Stanford, and the Council needed to be kept informed of policy options as
they occurred.
Council Member Beecham recalled reading in the P&TC’s minutes that the
area plan would go through the P&TC or was a product of the P&TC. He
asked whether that was correct.
Mr. Emslie said the area plan would go through the P&TC, who would
recommend that area plan to the Council.
Council Member Beecham said the application by Stanford was substantially
different than the process and situation with the Mayfield site. It was
Stanford who would want the development at the Medical Center. Additionally, it was the City’s intent to inform Menlo Park.
Mr. Benest said he already had a discussion with the City Manager of Menlo
Park.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that the City Manager would return to the Council
regularly with key policy choices, and to provide Council with the status of
potential impacts, mitigations and community benefits.
Council Member Beecham said an alternative might be for staff and the City
Manager to return to the Council after the April 2007 P&TC study session to
include a discussion of negotiations and issues that need to be resolved.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked whether it would occur at a study session.
Council Member Beecham said he would recommend a study session and to
agendize any actions the Council needed to take regarding policy and
negotiations.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked whether that would occur in the spring 2007.
12/18/06 101-207
Council Member Beecham said yes.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said according to staff they would not have the critical
numbers ready until July or August 2007.
Council Member Beecham said based on staff comments there were items
they believed could be discussed and begin negotiations with Stanford. He
was willing to have a directive to staff that following the April 2007 study
session, policy matters would be presented to the Council for discussion and
approval.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked to include language in the motion that staff
would return to the Council ‘prior to commencing negotiation’.
Council Member Beecham said he had no concern if staff began negotiating
on matters that had been discussed.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said the basic point was staff had not been given any
directives from the Council.
Council Member Morton said he was comfortable accepting some of the
language but he had concerns about including the phrase that “staff not
begin negotiations until…” The process was no longer iterative and staff
could not do anything. Keeping the Council informed and returning to Council with key policy choices was central to what was expected. At no
point would staff make decisions that bound the City.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said for many years she had been concerned about the
continued deteriorating quality of life due to more traffic and less open
space. She was a great supporter of affordable housing to address the
job/housing imbalance in Palo Alto. Hundreds of new housing units were
added over the past five years and she was aware of the impact those units
had on the overcrowding of Palo Alto schools. She hoped the project became
an exemplary ‘green’ project that transformed the area into a Pedestrian
Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) with no net traffic increase for the
entire Palo Alto/Stanford area. It would be a project she could get excited
about and support. She felt strongly the Council needed to come to a
community agreement as to where to put additional housing and where to
find another school.
Council Member Barton expressed support for the motion.
Council Member Drekmeier concurred with Vice Mayor Kishimoto. He
understood the City was beginning to negotiate or have discussions with
12/18/06 101-208
Stanford. He would like to see the motion mirror recommendation number 3
by including the language, “to begin negotiating a development agreement.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to change “negotiate” to “begin negotiating an
appropriate Development Agreement.”
Council Member Drekmeier said he had a concern about the whole Stanford
area. In the County area there was no cap on development. He encouraged
the area plan to take into consideration as much of the Stanford area as
necessary to come up with a stellar project. He believed it would be in
Stanford’s best interest as well. The project needed to have the public
transit component and housing. He asked how to go about making that a
priority.
Mr. Benest said Stanford would have to propose a Traffic Demand
Management (TDM) program that dealt with the traffic impacts. Stanford
would need to tell staff how they would address housing and it had to meet
the aim of the Council.
Mayor Kleinberg said at the November 20, 2006 study session she inquired
about surge capacity, and wanted assurance it would be a part of the design
and review that staff presented to the Council.
Mr. Benest said one of the key motivators in terms of the City’s interest was how to increase the resources in order to deal with emergency management
needs.
Mayor Kleinberg said the staff report (CMR:447:06) did not mention the
Ronald McDonald House. She was interested in including the McDonald
House as a mechanism to provide mitigations for housing and transportation
impacts. She would like to see the Ronald McDonald House plans
incorporated into the review.
Council Member Morton said the item the Council had to deal with that
evening was to begin negotiations. He understood a number of his
colleagues had expressed the concerns of the items they wanted to see
when the agreement came back, which was appropriate. He did not believe
now was the time to labor the beginning of the process with all of Council’s
conclusions.
Mayor Kleinberg clarified she was not trying to change the motion but rather
understand whether the Ronald McDonald House was contemplated in the
review work of the various Commissions and Boards, and outreach
meetings.
12/18/06 101-209
Mr. Emslie said the Ronald McDonald House would be a part of the joint EIR
because it was a determining factor in the housing needs.
Mayor Kleinberg referred to page 4, item 2 of the staff report (CMR:447:06)
and indicated her concern about the language “housing provisions or fees.”
She did not believe the City had much use for fees anymore. The traditional
way of having options of either paying the in lieu fee or provide the housing
was no longer the status quo when there was no land.
Mr. Benest said he agreed with that comment.
Mayor Kleinberg expressed her support for the hospital expansion and
seismic upgrade. Assuming all the mitigations were handled correctly, it
would be a continuing asset in the community.
MOTION PASSED 6-0 Cordell, Klein, Mossar not participating.
13. City Council Authorization to Commence the Process for Review of the
Stanford Shopping Center Project; Approval of Reimbursement
Agreement; and Authorization for the City Manager and City Attorney,
with Assistance from the Directors of Planning and Community
Environment and Administrative Services, to Negotiate an Amendment
to a Development Agreement
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Beecham, to authorize the City Manager to commence the process for review of the
Stanford Shopping Center development project, according to the process
and timeline (Attachment A), with the request of a study session after the
Planning and Transportation Commission study session; authorize the City
Manager to sign a reimbursement agreement to recover the costs of project
review (Attachment B); and authorize the City Manager and City Attorney,
with the assistance of the Directors of Planning and Administrative Services,
to begin negotiations of an amendment to the Sand Hill Corridor
Development Agreement, returning to Council regularly with key policy
choices, and also to provide Council with regular status reports of potential
impacts, mitigations and community benefits, and include the five
recommendations from the Planning and Transportation Commission.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, recalled Stanford had been trying since 1974 to
extend Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real to facilitate expansion of the
Stanford Shopping Center, the Medical Center, and the West campus. The
alternative also favored an expansion of Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real.
The group in opposition was not in favor of expanding the Shopping Center,
which was much smaller than what was currently being proposed. He was
interested in knowing what had changed in people’s minds from 10 years
12/18/06 101-210
prior other than there was now the extension of Sand Hill Road to El Camino
Real.
Dorothy Bender, Palo Alto, said 10 years prior, Stanford proposed 160,000
square feet of new development for the Shopping Center. Eventually, it was
negotiated down to 80,000 square feet, which at that time was considered
enormous. Now the proposal included the addition of approximately 340,000
square feet of new development and Shopping Center. She questioned
whether the Shopping Center could grow that much and could Palo Alto
absorb that level of growth. There were empty sites along El Camino Real
located in Menlo Park and within close proximity to the Shopping Center.
She believed the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should take into
account future developments in that area.
Tom Jordan, 474 Churchill Avenue, said he was encouraged by Council
Member Beecham’s clarifying statement that the proposed project was
different than the Mayfield site negotiations. It was essential based on past
dealings with Stanford to retain public confidence.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said subject to what came forth from the public
hearings and the numbers received from the environmental analysis, she did
not want the vote moving forward to be interpreted as an indication of
Council’s blessing on the numbers as proposed. She encouraged the P&TC
and staff to take a more in-depth view of the transit center. The Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) had looked into having a high speed rail depot in either Palo Alto or Redwood City. The VTA had a benefit assessment
district which would allow the City to help plan for improvements in the
transit area.
Council Member Beecham said in response to Ms. Bender’s concern about
development in Menlo Park, the EIR must take into account reasonably
expected development in that area. Also, the EIR would need to be certified
by the Council seated at that time, and either they had mitigations to the
impacts or they could vote in favor of or against the project.
Mayor Kleinberg said she looked forward to the details of the proposed
project.
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Cordell, Klein, Mossar not participating.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES
Council Member Morton complimented Mayor Kleinberg and her colleagues
on the action taken at tonight’s meeting.
12/18/06 101-211
Council Member Beecham also complimented Mayor Kleinberg for the grace
and aplomb at which she has handled herself throughout the year.
Council Member Drekmeier stated he has been very appreciative of Mayor
Kleinberg’s role in allowing him to feel very engaged as a new member of
the Council. He also noted a member of the SEIU advised him there was an
RFP issued to contract out park maintenance.
Mr. Benest said the Auditor’s Report on Park Maintenance recommended
contracting out the work to cut costs and maintain the service level. This
was included as part of the $3 million solution and is being explored through
an RFP. SEIU acknowledges the City has the right to outsource this work.
Mayor Kleinberg wished everyone a wonderful holiday season.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto
Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the
preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the
meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to
during regular office hours.
12/18/06 101-212