HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-26 City Council Summary Minutes
1 07/26/10
Special Meeting
July 26, 2010
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:40 p.m.
Present: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein, Price, Scharff, Shepherd, Yeh
arrived at 6:00 p.m.
Absent: Schmid
ACTION ITEMS
1. Policy & Services Committee Recommendation to Approve the Council
Priorities Workplan for 2010.
Assistant to the City Manager, Kelly Morariu spoke on the process that the
Policy and Services Committee and Staff worked through in setting the 2010
Council Priorities Workplan (Workplan). She reviewed the five Council top
priorities, which are as follows: 1) City Finances; 2) Land Use and
Transportation; 3) Environmental Sustainability; 4) Emergency
Preparedness; and 5) Community Collaboration for Youth Health and Well-
Being. Over the course of six meetings, the Policy and Services Committee
received presentations from Staff and provided input on both the content of
the Workplan and the current and future process for developing Workplans.
She spoke on the “See-It” site, and the matrix of final recommended
priorities, strategies and actions to help accomplish the Council priorities.
She spoke on several issues that would necessitate follow-up work. She
stated a more effective approach would be for the City Council to adopt
Council priorities every two years, and for Staff to then develop a Workplan
and reporting structure based on this timeline. The Policy and Services
Committee identified the need to find more effective mechanisms for
establishing priorities, and reporting to the City Council on Staff workload.
There was an interest in having the Policy and Services Committee identify
2 07/26/10
up to ten issue areas from the Workplan that Staff could bring back for more
in-depth review and analysis. She provided a tutorial on the “See-It” site.
The “See-It” site was a tool implemented last year as part of an effort to
increase the transparency and visibility of the Workplan.
Council Member Klein felt the process was organized in a top-down fashion.
He inquired how input, from community members, would be built in. He
inquired how the City Council would remain open to new ideas. He spoke on
the City of Sunnyvale’s policy to annually select one new priority brought
forth by the community.
Ms. Morariu recommended that the City Council direct the Policy and
Services Committee to discuss ways on how to engage the community.
Council Member Scharff requested further information on the scorecard
section of the matrix.
Ms. Morariu stated the intent of the scorecard was to create a mechanism to
generate a measurable activity associated with an action on a particular
Council priority. The matrix did not easily explain measurable statistics;
however, the “See-It” site was effective due to its use of graphs and
timelines.
Council Member Scharff stated a deliverable, within the Workplan, was to
implement full cost recovery for personal benefit arts, recreation and leisure
programs. The City Council made a decision not to implement full cost
recovery for the Children’s Theatre. He inquired whether the deliverable
should be phrased in a way that gave the City Council flexibility on cost
recovery for Community Services Department programs.
Ms. Morariu recommended that the deliverable return to the Policy and
Services Committee, and potentially the Finance Committee, to review the
terms of the Cost Recovery Policy and its implications. She stated
adjustments may be made to this deliverable.
Council Member Scharff stated a deliverable, within the Workplan, was for a
goal of 73 percent diversion of waste from landfills by 2011, and zero waste
by 2021. He recalled that the City was currently at 78 percent, and having a
goal of 73 percent did not seem sensible.
Ms. Morariu stated she was unclear on the current percentage of waste at
the City’s landfill.
3 07/26/10
Council Member Scharff stated he had no issue with this deliverable, if the
current percentage was below the goal of the deliverable. He stated a
deliverable, within the Workplan, was to increase the number of residents
participating in mini can refuse service to 20 percent by January 2010. He
spoke on his concern for the 2010 goal, and inquired what the current
percentage rate was. He stated a deliverable within the Workplan was to
utilize 6OO million gallons of recycled water from the Palo Alto Regional
Water Quality Control Plant by 2011. He spoke on concerns, voiced from
Canopy, regarding the allowable amount of salt content in recycled water
and other environmental matters. The deliverable should include that the
project be executed properly. He recommended that broader scorecards be
considered. He inquired on the nexus between surveying employer needs
for child care and its relationship to economic development.
Ms. Morariu stated no discussion was held at the Policy and Services
Committee regarding the survey of employer needs for child care. The
Policy and Services Committee and Staff began work on how individual
deliverables fit into existing Staff workload. She indicated the next step was
how to create a Workplan that fit into existing Staff resources.
Council Member Scharff stated a deliverable, within the Workplan, was to
research options as part of the development of a new Economic
Development Plan. He was unclear on the value and cost to maintain a
business registry.
Assistant City Manager, Pamela Antil stated it would be helpful to hold a
discussion on the process that the Policy and Services Committee used in
creating the deliverables, including any public participation.
Council Member Yeh spoke on the process used by the Policy and Services
Committee in creating the deliverables. The Workplan was created as a
systemic process to add value in defining the Council’s priorities. The matrix
was a two-dimensional way of looking at the Council priorities, and the order
of the Council priorities was discussed at length. He spoke on the Policy and
Services Committee’s interest to identify ten items for more in-depth review
and analysis. He spoke on the need to find more effective mechanisms for
establishing priorities on Staff workloads. Not all City departments had
Workplans at the department level. He stated there was much work to be
done by Staff at this level. He indicated some actions, contained within the
matrix, were multiyear priorities.
Ms. Morariu stated Staff had not gone through the scorecard to determine
their precedence. She spoke on the importance for the City Council to direct
Staff on where to focus efforts, and how they would tie into existing Staff
4 07/26/10
Workplans. The matrix would return to the City Council before it was
implemented. She spoke on public input at the Policy and Services
Committee meetings, particularly around emergency preparedness issues.
Council Member Holman stated the matrix was an iterative process and it
was provisional. She spoke on the importance for Staff Workplans. She
stated it was important for Staff to report back on progress made on the
Workplan. She spoke on her support for establishing Council priorities as
two-year priorities. Two-year priorities would provide Staff with more time
to make progress on the Workplan, and report on its efforts in an effective
manner.
Vice Mayor Espinosa spoke on his assumption that the Policy and Services
Committee was to identify items to be removed from the Workplan.
Council Member Yeh stated one of the first versions of the matrix contained
several columns that identified mandatory items by Federal, local, and State
laws. He spoke on the difficulty of removing items for projects that cut
across departments, were multi-year, and had external funding. He spoke
on the complexity of removing items when all City departments did not have
departmental Workplans.
Vice Mayor Espinosa stated Workplans for individual City departments would
be helpful. He felt the Policy and Services Committee should have identified
a process, or model, of potential items to be removed from the list for
consideration by the City Council. The narrowing-down of Workplan items
would be a helpful exercise for Staff and the City Council. He spoke on his
support for multi-year priorities as a general concept. He recommended the
Policy and Services Committee hold a conversation to make the “See-It” site
a more interactive tool.
Ms. Morariu stated, midway through the process of identifying Staff
bandwidth to accomplish the Council priorities, the process was intermittent
with the fact that not all City departments had Workplans. Subsequent to
departments developing Workplans, the Policy and Services Committee could
look at the Council Workplan and bring recommendations back to the City
Council.
Vice Mayor Espinosa inquired on the timeline for developing departmental
Workplans.
Ms. Morariu stated work on the departmental Workplans would commence in
the Fall of 2010.
5 07/26/10
Council Member Price stated the Policy and Services Committee was
experiencing a transition period. The matrix did not illustrate a clear
understanding of the topics, resources, or consulting needs. The Policy and
Services Committee’s intent was to make the Workplan manageable and
meaningful. She spoke of her concern for taking on more without knowing
the relationship of the Workplan items between each other, and their
impacts on Staff. It was essential to prioritize the Workplan items that the
City Council felt were most important from a policy and operations
standpoint.
Council Member Shepherd spoke on community collaboration for youth well
being and emergency preparedness. There was an immense growth and
focus on these two Council priorities. She spoke on her delight that
environmental sustainability was permeated throughout the system;
however, felt the “See-It” site should be updated to reflect advancements
made on this Council priority. She felt city finances and land use and
transportation were Workplan items that were self-propelling. She stated it
was difficult to shape the deliverables because the Workplan contained so
much detail, and it was difficult to decipher the input that Staff asked of the
Policy and Services Committee. She inquired how many residents viewed
the “See-It” site.
Ms. Morariu stated she did not have any statistics on how many residents
visited the “See-It” site. She stated she would look into why the zero waste
section of the “See-It” site had not been updated.
Council Member Shepherd spoke on her support to establish two-year
Council priorities. She suggested holding a rigorous Study Session on the
City’s visions and goals to discuss the Council priorities. She felt
collaboration with youth should be listed as a bullet point under economic
development. She felt Fiber-To-The-Home efforts should be accelerated.
Council Member Klein suggested that the Palo Alto Airport be referenced in
the strategy on Economic Development. He indicated there were several
deliverable dates that should have occurred in 2010, and should be revised
or omitted. The deliverable listing new revenue sources for the Library
General Obligation Bond did not apply, as it had been completed. He spoke
on his disappointment for the deliverable to implement ten of the highest
priority projects identified in the Bicycle Transportation Plan by 2013. He
understood those priorities as being low-cost, and suggested a shorter
completion timeline. He stated the Green Building strategy was critical and
suggested two additional items: 1) look into existing City buildings that used
a large portion of the City’s energy budget; and 2) establish follow-up
procedures on the City’s Ordinance regarding Green Building standards. He
6 07/26/10
recommended establishing two-year Council priorities starting in Fiscal Year
2012.
Vice Mayor Espinosa stated his understanding was that Staff would begin the
process of updating the Bicycle Master Plan this Summer. He stated
implementing ten priority projects, from the Bicycle Master Plan, was
included in the Workplan. However, the Bicycle Master Plan itself was not
included.
Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis Williams stated the
updated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan’s contract would be brought to the City
Council soon. He indicated it should not take until 2013 to implement the
ten highest priority projects identified in the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Vice Mayor Espinosa inquired whether it was Staff’s intent for the City
Council to approve a Workplan that expanded, rather than their initial intent
of narrowing the Workplan items.
Ms. Morariu stated the Workplan was an iterative process, and additional
work was needed to identify ten issue areas for in-depth review and
prioritization by the Policy and Services Committee.
Ms. Antil stated an Executive Leadership Team retreat had been scheduled in
the Fall of 2010 to discuss the proposed top ten priorities of the Workplan,
and how they would be incorporated into budgeted Workplan items and Staff
workload.
Vice Mayor Espinosa recommended that the City Council hold a separate
discussion on the proposed ten issue areas of the Workplan. He spoke on
his concern for approving a Workplan knowing that Staff was unable to
complete each deliverable. He stated there had been no proposals to
remove items from the Workplan, and felt this was because departmental
Workplans were unknown.
Mayor Burt supported the recommendation to establish two-year Workplan
priorities. He felt there should be a process to modify or add priorities if
desired. He spoke on the tradeoffs for when to establish the Workplan
priorities as two-year priorities. He felt the Workplan should be treated as a
draft, and recommended the update of the matrix be done prior to the next
City Council retreat. He recommended that the “See-It” site be renamed,
and have a greater prominence on the City’s website. He spoke on the
importance of community engagement as the City Council worked through
the Council priorities.
7 07/26/10
Council Member Yeh stated the Policy and Services Committee discussed the
“See-It” site, and the City Auditor’s Service Efforts and Accomplishments
(SEA) Report. These two resources should be more integrated into Council
discussions on defining priorities, and help assist in analyzing the level of
satisfaction from the community. The Policy and Services Committee
discussed how to better use data and resources that already existed. He
spoke on how to better prioritize community services, and the importance of
establishing a foundation for future Council Members to utilize. The issues
raised by Council Members could be revisited by the Policy and Services
Committee.
MOTION: Council Member Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to: 1) adopt the 2010 Council Priorities Workplan, and 2) establish
these priorities as two-year priorities, to be revisited at the Council retreat in
2012.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF MAKER
AND SECONDER to include a discussion of visions, goals and long term
strategies by Policy and Services Committee and return to Council with
recommendations.
Vice Mayor Espinosa inquired what the visions, goals, and strategies were
intended to focus on.
Council Member Shepherd stated her intent was for the Policy and Services
Committee to hold a discussion on the Council’s visions, goals, and long
term strategies.
Vice Mayor Espinosa inquired whether Council Member Shepherd intended to
hold a conversation on no particular issue, program, or policy, but rather a
broad discussion on how to create processes.
Council Member Shepherd stated that was correct.
Council Member Klein inquired whether the Motion included adopting the
Workplan, as printed, or including the various recommendations proposed by
the City Council.
Council Member Yeh stated the intention of the Motion was for the Policy and
Services Committee to further review comments made by the City Council.
He stated moving forward would be problematical without departmental
Workplans.
8 07/26/10
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that the Motion would read: 1) adopt the 2010
Council Priorities Workplan in concept subject to further review by the Policy
and Services Committee, and 2) Council agrees to establish a two-year
system of priorities in concept with the start year subject to further review
by the Policy and Services Committee.
Council Member Holman inquired whether the City Council may be interested
in establishing multiple-year Council priorities to create more flexibility in the
Workplan.
Council Member Scharff inquired when the Policy and Services Committee
would return to the City Council with their recommendations.
Council Member Yeh stated his preference was for the Policy and Services
Committee to set an actual date on when they would return with
recommendations to the City Council.
Ms. Morariu stated the Policy and Services Committee could report to the
City Council at, or before, the next City Council retreat. She spoke on an
Executive Leadership Staff retreat to be held in October 2010, which would
focus on the concept of departmental Workplans.
Mayor Burt spoke on his concern for the delay of the Workplan.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that Staff is to return this to Council no later than
the first week of November 2010.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether the Motion included the Policy and
Services Committee’s discussion on visions, goals, and long term strategies.
Council Member Klein stated the language was accepted by the Maker and
Seconder. He stated his Incorporated Amendments only revised the first
two sentences of the Motion.
Council Member Shepherd requested the removal of her Amendment that
was incorporated to include a discussion of visions, goals, and long term
strategies by the Policy and Services Committee and return to the City
Council with recommendations.
Council Member Scharff stated that voting on the Motion did not signify that
the City Council agreed with the current Workplan items contained within the
Matrix.
9 07/26/10
Mayor Burt stated that was correct.
MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Yeh moved, seconded by Council
Member Holman to: 1) adopt the 2010 Council Priorities Workplan in concept
subject to further review by the Policy and Services Committee, 2) Council
agrees to establish a two year system of priorities in concept with the start
year subject to further review by the Policy and Services Committee, and 3)
Staff is to return this to Council no later than the first week of November
2010.
MOTION: 8-0 Schmid absent
Per City Council direction the Stanford DEIR was typed in verbatim.
2. Public Hearing: To Consider Stanford University Medical Center
Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project-Meeting to Accept
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Project, Including an Overview of the Alternative Chapter and
Mitigation Measures of the DEIR.
Council Member Klein stated he would not be participating in this item due to
his wife being on staff at Stanford.
Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment: Our
meeting agenda tonight on this last opportunity for comments and review of
the Environmental Impact Report is to review the Alternatives Chapter of the
Draft EIR, and the project mitigations by our consultant, Rod Jeung of
PBS&J. We will then have Stanford University Medical Center make a brief
presentation to you as well.
Before we go to questions and comments, Dan Garber, the Chair of the
Planning and Transportation Commission is here and can also provide you
with some information on the Commission’s deliberation.
The close of the public comment period for the comments on the EIR is
tomorrow, July 27, at the close of business. I just want to reiterate that the
purpose of these meetings has been to entertain these comments that will
then be responded to in the Final Environmental Impact Report by the
consultants and Staff. It will come back to you in conjunction, or actually
slightly ahead of the project entitlements for the various permits that are
requested. So the merits of the project itself are not properly before you
10 07/26/10
tonight but any comments as to the adequacy of the Draft EIR are
appropriate.
We will then be looking at the preparation of the Final EIR following this and
through October. There will be some Architectural Review Board reviews.
We also do anticipate at some point in that period coming to the Commission
and Council to talk about zoning and design issues. Then the formal
entitlement reviews would be conducted by the Council and the Commission
in November and December.
A reminder that at the last meeting, as well as tonight, before this agenda
the models for the Stanford University main hospital and the Lucile Packard
Children’s Hospital were setup in the lobby. Last week in addition to the
plans we had provided we also provided you with a copy of the Draft Design
Guidelines, and some other project images, and made all of that available on
the website.
Also, I wanted to comment that we have tried to get some more detailed
tree identification and protection plans prepared for you as well. We believe
that what is in the EIR provides an overview of the types of impacts that we
would be concerned about, but we have been working with the applicant as
recently as today to try to pull the detailed plans together for trees. We are
at a little bit of a loss. Our Planning Arborist is out until later in the week.
So we have not been able to reconcile some of that yet. We will get that to
you when we can, but again we think the basic information in the document
will address that. We will be talking quite a bit tonight about the Tree
Preservation Alternative so there will be some additional details I think
presented as part of that.
Rod Jeung, Project Director, PBS&J: Mayor Burt, Members of the Council,
members of the public tonight is our final night together for the Draft EIR
hearings. It is dedicated as your Planning and Community Environment
Director explained to talk about ways to reduce significant and potentially
significant impacts.
One way of accomplishing that as required by CEQA is to look at alternative
ways of accomplishing most of the project objectives, ways that substantially
reduce those significant impacts. A second way is to focus on specific
measures or actions that reduce, avoid, rectify, or compensate for identified
impacts. These are modifications or refinements to the basic project,
whereas the alternatives alter the basic project itself.
11 07/26/10
With me tonight to help respond to any of your questions or comments are
Trixie Martelino who is our Project Manager, Kristen Chapman who helped
assemble the Alternatives Analysis, Geoff Hornek who prepared the Air
Quality and Noise documentation. Dennis Struecker and Nicole Sou from
AECom who prepared the traffic analysis, and Jodi Stock and Charles Chase
of Architectural Resources Group who contributed to the analysis of the
Historic Preservation Alternative.
So just by way of definition let’s go ahead and first explain the role of
alternatives and what we are trying to accomplish in presenting this in the
Draft Environmental Impact Report. First off it is a requirement that the
California Environmental Quality Act examine a range of what are considered
reasonable alternatives to a proposed project. Those alternatives have to
attain the basic objectives that are identified both by the project sponsor
and in this case the City, and at the same time try to avoid or reduce the
significant impacts. It is important to understand that not every conceivable
alternative needs to be analyzed. Case law and CEQA itself talks about a
reasonable range of alternatives just so that the public and the City Council
can make informed decisions. Among those alternatives that have to be
considered is the No Project Alternative.
There were seven basic alternatives that were developed to give this
reasonable range and to afford the public with an opportunity for informed
decisions. If I can, the alternatives fall into four basic types. There is the
No Project Alternatives that fulfill CEQA and defines the future baselines
against which project effects can be evaluate. There is another set of basic
type called the Reduced Intensity Alternatives. These examine lesser square
footages or floor areas to reduce the overall effects that have been identified
in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project. The
third type would be considered Preservation Alternatives. There is a Historic
Preservation Alternative to reduce the effects to the 1959 Stone Building and
there is a Tree Preservation Alternative that you have heard about a little bit
to reduce the effects to protected trees. Finally, there is a Village Concept
Alternative that seeks to offset indirect housing demand created by the new
Stanford University Medical Center jobs and to improve pedestrian and
bicycle linkages to the surrounding area and the regional transportation
network.
I am going to go over each of these different alternatives in fairly quick
order. The No Project Alternative A of the two would involve retrofitting the
hospital facilities to meet the guidelines or the deadlines that have been
established by Senate Bill 1953. These are the deadlines established for
2013 and 2030. There would be no new building constructed under this
Alternative. If you look at the two sites, at the Hoover Pavilion it would
12 07/26/10
remain unchanged and there would be no upgrades to meet current
standards or technological requirements. As a practical consequence one of
the two hospitals would close by 2030 in order to provide space for the
shared hospital functions and to provide enough beds for one of the
hospitals.
The second No Project Alternative essentially would replace the
noncompliant hospital facilities with required structural standards. This
would involve replacing those facilities with new structures. Consistent with
the site’s existing PF zoning there would be an allowable increase in square
footage of an additional 9,000 square feet that would comply with the
maximum floor area ratio of 1.0. As with the No Project Alternative A there
would be no new work at Hoover Pavilion. The School of Medicine facilities
would be within the 1959 hospital building but could continue to operate if
they are separated from other functions at the hospitals with a fire barrier
and they are retrofitted to meet the City of Palo Alto’s seismic standards.
Under the No Project Alternative B there would be a decrease in patient beds
at the Stanford Hospital. Basically, there would be a reduction to 287 beds
from the current 456. The Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital would continue
to operate as that is over-crowded, or if right sizing were to occur with a
reduced number of beds. So there would be approximately 141 beds versus
the current 257.
Moving over to the Reduced Intensity Alternatives, Reduced Intensity
Alternative A would right size the hospitals without adding beds.
Noncompliant hospital facilities would be replaced with new structures. The
hospital space at the two hospitals would increase by 446,000 square feet to
provide the additional space for the hospital’s existing number of beds,
associated support areas, and the emergency room. This would require a
change to the existing zoning, which would not allow this expansion
otherwise. No new buildings would be added around the Hoover Pavilion but
Hoover Pavilion would itself be renovated. The School of Medicine facilities
would be demolished and replaced in the proposed Foundations in Medicine
or FIM buildings. Because this Alternative assumes right sizing to properly
serve the current activities there would be no increase in operations.
Reduced Intensity Alternative B involves again right sizing the hospitals like
the Reduced Intensity Alternative A but this alternative also proposes
expansion that would increase the square footage to 924,000 square feet
versus the 446,000 that is needed for right sizing only. The other physical
changes to the Hoover Pavilion and the School of Medicine would be the
same as identified earlier for Reduced Intensity Alternative A. The expanded
floor area that accompanies this Alternative would increase the operations at
13 07/26/10
the facilities but the increase would only be to 60 percent of those identified
for the proposed project.
Switching to the third type of alternatives, the Historic Preservation
Alternative, this alternative seeks to preserve all of the essential historic
aspects needed to maintain the eligibility of the 1959 hospital complex for
listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. In addition, this
alternative would preserve the historic integrity of Pasteur Drive and its
landscaping which serve as the main approach to the 1959 hospital building
complex. To accomplish these goals of preservation a new Stanford Hospital
building would be constructed and the 1959 Stone Building complex would
be reused by the clinics and the School of Medicine. The Lucile Packard and
the Hoover Pavilion facilities would be expanded as under the proposed
project. As a result of these changes the floor area expansion under the
Historic Preservation Alternative as well as the increase in operations would
be identical to the proposed project.
The Tree Preservation Alternative would modify the proposed site plan to
preserve what are called ‘aesthetically and biologically significant’ protected
trees. This would be accomplished by eliminating one of the building
modules that was proposed for the Kaplan Lawn under the proposed project,
reconfiguring the proposed Foundation in Medicine Building 1, and making
some adjustments along Welch Road. The net effect of the Tree
Preservation Alternative would be to reduce the number of trees that would
be lost under the proposed project. The development program and the
increase in operations would effectively be the same as the proposed
project. Notably, before we go on, this Alternative is now considered the
preferred site plan by Stanford.
This slide helps to illustrate those trees that would be protected under the
Tree Preservation Alternative. The areas that are shown in green represent
the trees that would now be preserved because of the various building
modifications that I explained a little bit earlier. The trees that identified in
the plum color are the trees that are intended to be protected through
relocation.
Just for clarification, because I know there were some questions that came
up during the Planning Commission hearing regarding definitions of
aesthetically and biologically significant tree. Biologically significant refers to
a protected oak or redwood of a certain size. These trees are defined in the
City’s Municipal Code under Chapter 8.10. Trees that are also aesthetically
significant are important or prominent visual features. They contribute to a
larger grove or theme, and/or poses unique character.
14 07/26/10
In summary, under the Tree Preservation Alternative there are 13
biologically and aesthetically significant protected trees that would be
retained. There are three biologically and aesthetically significant protected
trees that would be replaced. These are trees that would otherwise be lost
under the Stanford University Medical Center Proposed Project. As
mentioned a little bit earlier there will be maps that will be made available in
the Final Environmental Impact Report to clarify some of the numbers and
so people can better see and understand where the trees are.
The seventh and final Alternative was developed by the City primarily for the
purposes of reducing the vehicle miles traveled, traffic congestion, vehicular
air, and noise emissions of the proposed project. These objectives are
proposed to be accomplished by dedicating previously approved housing
units in three locations for Stanford University Medical Center employees,
and by providing and enhancing pedestrian connections between the project
sites and the Shopping Center, the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station, and
the Downtown.
This slide shows the location of the targeted housing sites that would be
proposed for use by the Stanford University Medical Center employees.
These are projects that have already been approved under the Stanford
Community Plan and the General Use Permit. The slide also shows the
epicenter, if you will since we are talking about seismic retrofit, the epicenter
of the Transit-Oriented Development centered around the Palo Alto
Intermodal Transit Station. There are circles that emanate from that transit
station that show the distances roughly from one-quarter mile to one mile
out, and the proximity to the different transit options.
For comparison purposes this is a quick summary on the effects of the Tree
Preservation Alternative relative to some of the significant and unavoidable
impacts that were identified for the proposed project. In terms of air
emissions the Tree Preservation Alternative would eliminate the significant
unavoidable impacts that were identified for the proposed project during
construction. In terms of noise and vibration during the construction period
of the Tree Preservation Alternative, because it considers pile driving, would
result in significant and unavoidable impacts similar to the proposed project
for onsite uses, but also offsite uses. I should go ahead and say
parenthetically, as pointed out by the project sponsors that the issues of pile
driving have been raised with OSHPD and it is still an area where we are
trying to get some further clarification. So it may be that with whatever
alternative is selected there would be pile driving impacts that would be
significant and unavoidable for other alternatives as well.
15 07/26/10
Finally, as befitting its name the Tree Preservation Alternative would result
in an additional 13 protected trees that would be preserved in place. The
Tree Preservation Alternative does involve some additional mitigation
measures that were not identified for the proposed project. In particular, as
I mentioned earlier, this alternative does consider pile driving as a technique
for constructing some of the facilities so there are noise mitigation measures
that have been identified in the environmental document. Similarly for
Hydrology this Alternative did not have a site plan so we could not ascertain
with certainty that it would not result in a no net increase in runoff. So this
was added as an additional mitigation measure as a safeguard.
Similar to the previous table this one shows a comparison of the proposed
project against the Village Concept Alternative. The Village Concept
Alternative with respect to intersection congestion actually results in
significant congestion to more intersections in the study area than under the
proposed project. In terms of pedestrian and bicycle safety both
alternatives result in significant but mitigable impacts. However, the Village
Concept Alternative would offer additional pedestrian safety features.
In terms of accomplishing the objectives of reducing vehicle miles traveled,
the Village Concept Alternative would meet this goal by reducing vehicle
miles traveled by 10,300 miles per day. The corollary to this reduction in
vehicle miles traveled is that there would also be a reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions under the Village Concept Alternative relative to the proposed
project of roughly 2,800 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
In terms of the jobs to employed residents ratio it would not increase as
much under the Village Concept Alternative since housing is included in the
Village Concept Alternative.
The California Environmental Quality Act requires the declaration of an
environmentally superior alternative. That is that alternative that does the
best job in terms of reducing environmental impacts identified for the
proposed project. Based on the analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact
Report the Reduced Intensity Alternative A is the environmentally superior
Alternative. The reasons for this are cited on the slide. This is basically the
conclusion because there is no increase in operation, and this Alternative has
the effect of reducing some of the significant unavoidable impacts identified
for the proposed project. These are things related to traffic, air emissions,
and greenhouse gas emissions during operations.
So just to give you a sense of relief, I am not going to summarize all the
mitigation measures that identified in the Draft Environmental Impact
Report. Rather I am just going to give a quick explanation for the benefit of
16 07/26/10
the community listening in and watching on what a mitigation measure is
and how the City can be assured that they are actually going to be
implemented. The identified mitigation measures that are in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report are intended to minimize, avoid, rectify, or
compensate for any of the significant identified impacts. The mitigation
measures need to be feasible and they have to have a proportional nexus to
the impact. All of these mitigation measures are listed in Table S-4 of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report. If the proposed project is approved the
City has to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will describe in more detail
each of those mitigation measures, the monitoring actions that will be taken,
what particular department or agency is responsible for ensuring that those
are accomplished, and the timeframe for when those have to be
implemented.
There is one very important mitigation measure that I just wanted to
mention simply because traffic is foremost in the minds of many. This is
regarding the Transportation Demand Management Measures. They are
essentially a menu of different strategies and options to reduce travel
demand. I just wanted to make sure that everyone was clear that the City
of Palo Alto is permitted to require such programs to reduce traffic impacts
and to determine the feasibility of transportation demand measures. So that
concludes our presentation. Thank you.
Dan Garber, Chair, Planning and Transportation Commission: Good evening.
The Commission spent quite some time and I will summarize however.
Regarding the process questions that we addressed at the beginning of our
meeting on this portion of the DEIR review we spent some time taking a look
at the HRB and the ARB’s involvement in the project and the project
process, investigating whether and questioning whether and how those
different Boards were utilized. At the end of that we didn’t have any specific
or substantial comments that changed the use or process of the Boards, and
therefore did not have specific recommendations for how they might be
used. So the process that is in place seemed to be serving the process well
at the current time.
One of the other questions that came up during the process review was the
role of housing in particular in the Village Concept Alternative, and its role
relative to the overall GUP, and how housing serves the GUP and how it is
counted. Those comments are recorded and now part of the DEIR that will
have to be answered.
17 07/26/10
Relative to the Alternatives themselves Alternatives A and B, the No Project
Alternatives, and then Reduced Intensity Alternative A, the Commission had
no real comments that added to the mitigations or the impacts that were
already recorded in the report. There was some significant discussion in the
Reduced Intensity Alternative B, which was looking at the functional
alternatives that were described a moment ago, and then the quantitative
alternative of the 60 percent of operations versus some other number.
Recognizing that that is a somewhat arbitrary number that was used to
simply evaluate what the impacts were and if there were new impacts that
were revealed as a result of that the Commission had some significant
discussion as to whether 60 percent was the right number of if there is
another functional threshold. For instance taking a floor off all the towers if
that was a better way to understand or to raise other impacts. However,
our discussions were relatively inconclusive in determining if significant
impacts could be found that were in addition to the conclusions that were
already a part of the Alternative B.
Regarding the Preservation Alternatives the Commission had a number of
comments regarding the historic structures primarily relative to their value.
There was some clarification made by the consultants that were at hand, and
are here this evening I believe. In general, the comments did not reveal
specific impacts or mitigations that were not already recorded.
Regarding the Tree Preservation Alternative there was significant discussion
there, and included comments that have been recorded regarding if the
amount of trees, the threshold that has been identified in the report and
described this evening was the right amount of trees to be aiming for. If
that should have been more trees or less trees and as described if the
definitions were correct. Those comments have been recorded.
Finally, in the Village Concept Alternative there was some general surprise
by some of the Commissioners that that particular Alternative did not result
in greater mitigations to the various impacts be they environmental, traffic,
or parking, etc. I think there was an expectation that there would be
greater impacts, greater number of impacts mitigated, and in fact if you look
down the Table S-4 or 5 I believe it is, it doesn’t really move the needle one
way or the other. Some of those conclusions were challenged by requesting
some additional information to be discussed in the comments that are to
follow the DEIR regarding the spousal impacts and the various ways that the
use and occupancy of the various units being proposed would have relative
to traffic, and if those had been rolled up appropriately, if there was a
different way of counting them to reveal significant impacts, or impacts that
might have greater impacts to have moved the needle if you will.
18 07/26/10
Under Mitigations and the discussion regarding mitigations the GO Pass was
discussed as we reviewed two meetings ago. There was general agreement
on behalf of the Commission as to the viability of the use of the GO Pass but
that goes hand-in-hand with the potential limitations. There are an awful lot
of mitigations that are based on the use of the GO Pass and you are familiar
with those arguments or concerns.
Then I guess there is just a general final comment that clearly many of the
unavoidable consequences have to do with traffic, and were there any
alternatives that could be explored or found that would lessen or allow some
of those impacts to be mitigated more than have been revealed. That’s it.
Council Member Holman: Yes, Chair Garber, your final note there about the
traffic impacts. Were there conclusions or suggestions as to how some of
those impacts might be reduced?
Mr. Garber: There were many although they were discussed primarily in
light of the Transportation section. I didn’t come prepared specifically with
those this evening in that we had reviewed some of those in some of the
past meetings. But yes there were several. Several come to mind, which
included expansion of the TDM plan to look at the specific routes and how
they are used by construction, the use of offsite parking areas that has been
suggested as satellite parking, increases in the use of the various shuttle
services to points that are in addition to what are currently being served. I
am just reaching from my memory.
Mayor Burt: I have a question for Staff. Under the Village Concept
Alternative it seems like there are two major elements to it. One is the
design concept of having a more walkable, bikeable, mixed use community
with the connections that we had been starting to talk about three or four
years ago. The second part is the Housing Element, which would potentially
have the housing units that are already identified under the General Use
Permit. Units that would be dedicated for the Medical Center employees as
BMR units. Has there been any evaluation of looking at those two aspects,
the design aspect, and the housing aspect separately?
Mr. Williams: Thank you Mayor. We have not looked at them separately in
terms of developing separate alternatives. We have both of them included
in here so that if one component, say the integration of the bike network
and the connections we talked about could be added to one of the other
alternatives that would be a possibility. We have not, I don’t think,
segregated them out in any plan in and of itself. That is fairly easily done
because they are pretty discrete portions of the Village Concept. They are
19 07/26/10
also discussed to some extent in the applicant’s design guidelines in some
other places in the project specifically as well.
Mayor Burt: So that would come to us as we look at the actual plan
approval process. It does not need to be broken out into two segments of
the environmental impacts.
Mr. Williams: No, in fact we have been working with the applicant to as
much as possible get those elements of the interconnections incorporated
into their design.
Council Member Price: I had a couple of questions again on the Village
Concept, which I was intrigued with and very supportive of, the issue of the
traffic impacts and the spousal impact. I am assuming that is related to
work trips. Is that an assumption that I should be making? Work trips in
terms of spousal impact being work trips generated out of the various
housing units.
Mr. Williams: Right, that is correct.
Mr. Jeung: Dennis, I don’t think you need to respond with any further
explanation, but yes those are the work trips.
Council Member Price: The second question I am sure Dennis can answer
this as well. The issue of TDM measures, I am assuming that the traffic
impacts and the TDM measures would be utilized by the potential residents
of the housing units within this Village Concept. Is that right? If this were
approved there will be a variety of housing unit sizes, correct? Is that in the
Concept or you are not at that point yet?
Mr. Williams: Dennis Struecker is our traffic consultant and could respond to
that.
Dennis Struecker, AE Com: Yes, the TDM measures that are available for
the base project would also be available for the Village Concept project. For
the base project you would have more employees using a GO Pass for
instance because those employees now that are in the Village Concept
housing would essentially walk or bike to work. That pass would still be
available to them because the GO Pass has to be given to all employees.
For the spousal trips we did also reduce the trip generation slightly to
account for transit-oriented development. Rod showed the slide with the
concentric circles going out from the transit center. So we based on national
20 07/26/10
statistics reduced the trip generation to account for the proximity to a pretty
significant transportation hub.
In terms of the size of the units we assumed an average size of 2.2 persons
per unit. That was just the average that we used and they would vary from
one to three or more.
Council Member Price: My last question is on the traffic modeling
assumptions you have made. The traffic model that you are using for the
DEIR is that similar to the traffic model that was used for the preparation of
the GUP? Is the methodology similar? Also, I am assuming that the full
build out of the GUP is something a part of the projects that are being
evaluated as part of the overall analysis of the DEIR, because it is in the
pipeline and as we noted earlier it is on the Notice of Preparation, a project
that has been previously approved. So it is considered in the evaluation.
Could you just clarify that, please?
Mr. Struecker: Yes, the process followed by both projects was exactly the
same. The difference was only the separation of the number of years, so
the difference in expected development. Both projects used the VTA-based
model to project the background non-project traffic. Then the project traffic
for either GUP or for this project was added on top of that to determine the
impacts. So yes any of the GUP development that has not been built is
included in the County’s land use for the Stanford lands. So that is taken
into account in the background numbers used in this analysis.
Council Member Scharff: Thank you. I actually wanted to follow up on the
Village Concept. Am I correct in understanding that what the Village
Concept does on housing is it takes housing that is pre-approved or
designated for medical students and graduate housing students at Stanford
and simply shifts that over to employees? So my question is does the EIR
then not take that into consideration in terms of the trips generated by those
individuals who no longer have the housing that they were going to have,
they are now going to have to live somewhere else and travel to the
Stanford campus. I didn’t see that being taken into consideration. I think it
should be taken into consideration. I am not sure why it wasn’t. Is there an
answer to that or does anyone know?
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Council Member Scharff that
was not taken into account. That is certainly one methodology you could
take into account. What we were thinking is that the GUP has a linkage
requirement so that 2,400 units must be built if the maximum build out of
the academic campus is constructed. The GUP also contains approval rights
for 600 additional units. So we considered those 600 additional units as
21 07/26/10
excess units. They could be built. They didn’t have to be built. So it is just
one way of viewing the situation. It can be viewed differently.
Council Member Scharff: So if I am understanding this correctly, if out of
the 600 an additional 490 housing units are then built then we wouldn’t have
the impact of people who are going to be designated to have to live
somewhere else because we just have 490 new housing units. Shouldn’t we
then be taking into consideration in the EIR the fact that you are then
planning to build 490 units of new housing, or is that taken into
consideration? Wouldn’t there be traffic impacts of having 490 new housing
units? You would have spouses? I am assuming there are other impacts but
maybe there are not.
Mr. Williams: Yes, Council Member Scharff, those units were already
essentially covered by the Environmental Impact Report for the General Use
Permit, which accounted for all 3,000 units. So to some extent they are,
however, those were adjusted because to some extent because the make up
of those units, the families as opposed to individuals kind of thing, would be
a bit different with the employee housing as opposed to the postdoctorals,
etc. So that is where this issue of spousal trips and that became a little
more important so that was factored in, and it does drive some of the
benefit of the Village Concept down a bit.
Council Member Scharff: Right. I can clearly see it driving the Village
Concept down because all you are doing is basically putting individuals with
more trips there than the graduate students who probably have less trips. I
clearly see that.
My other question then on the Village Concept is in Stanford’s comments to
the Planning Commission they basically indicated that they thought the
linkage components were very valuable components of the Village Concept.
They said we have suggested in our offer of the Development Agreement
that we would put money towards these things. In the Village Concept
aren’t those linkages part of the approval and part of the plan or am I
missing that?
Mr. Williams: Yes, they are part of the Village Concept plan but that is not
necessarily part of the applicant’s project proposal. So as this is the EIR
looking at the various impacts, as the project proposal comes back to the
Council then to the extent that those elements are not incorporated in the
project it may be that that is the recommendation of Staff or Planning
Commission to be sure those are incorporated into the project specifically.
22 07/26/10
Council Member Scharff: So just to clarify and following up on Mayor Burt’s
comment. We can separate the housing from the linkages and we can
include the linkages in the Tree Preservation Alternative.
Mr. Williams: Absolutely, yes.
Council Member Scharff: Including those in the Tree Preservation
Alternative wouldn’t have an affect other than the linkages would then be
included. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Williams: That is right. It would improve the connections.
Council Member Scharff: Great. I appreciate that. Thanks very much.
Mayor Burt: At this time we would like to hear from the applicant and then
members of the public. Welcome.
Mark Tortorich, Vice President of Facilities Planning, Design and
Construction, Stanford University Medical Center and Lucile Packard
Children’s Hospital: Thank you Mayor Burt and Members of the Council. I
want to review with you just a few key points on the Tree Preservation
Alternative and the Historic Preservation Alternative. Then Bill Philips and I
will review the Village Concept and some key issues of linkages and housing.
So first the Tree Preservation Alternative. As you know, this is our preferred
Alternative. We are pursuing a design that complies with the description of
the Tree Preservation Alternative. The way that it differs substantially from
the base application is in the rearrangement of our nursing units for the
growth of Stanford Hospital.
This is an essential diagram that is in your project application and the Draft
EIR. It describes our base project. In the Alternative for Tree Preservation
removes the pavilion that was sitting here on Kaplan Lawn, which is part of
the Pasteur Mall. It also condenses the underground parking structure into a
parking structure that is both below grade and above grade. Then we
redesigned the first of the School of Medicine laboratory buildings, FIM 1. All
three of these moves have been taken to accommodate existing trees,
biologically and aesthetically protected trees that are on those sites.
So here is the diagram of the Tree Preservation Alternative that is being
studied under the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Again, it is the
project that we are pursuing and the designs that we have submitted to the
State of California for their approval.
23 07/26/10
So this is that area of Kaplan Lawn where we preserve the grove of oak
trees. Here is the adjustment to the School of Medicine laboratory building
again to accommodate trees. Then here is the realignment of the parking
structure and the pavilions to accommodate trees on the Stanford Hospital
site. To make these accommodations we have in effect shrunk the floor plan
of the adult hospital. We have also adjusted the size of the pavilions, and
reorganized from an exterior atrium concept into one of an interior atrium
concept, all in an attempt to really protect the landscape there and to
preserve what our aesthetic and biologically protected trees in the City of
Palo Alto.
The Historic Preservation Alternative. Obviously this is an Alternative that
has generated some discussion and dialogue about the preservation of the
1959 hospital. So to orient you into how this building really works for us
and how we see the site being used in the future, again here is the Pasteur
Mall. This is the Kaplan Lawn. The three buildings that are titled 1101
Welch Road really is the site for the new Stanford Hospital as well as the
parking structure 3 that will be replaced. The 1959 hospital, which is
occupied by both the School of Medicine laboratories and Stanford Hospital
and Clinics, has two significant issues. One obviously you know very well,
we cannot use it legally as a hospital beyond 2030, and to continue to use
the building beyond 2013 we need to be well underway with a replacement
hospital strategy or undertake what is a logistically impossible retrofit
project.
For the School of Medicine the issue is similar but governed slightly
differently. The buildings that the School of Medicine occupies are not
suitable for modern research functions. It would very hard for any
researcher in the Stone Building to build a new research program based
upon the space that they would inhabit in the Stone Building. Those
structures are also seismically unsuitable for long-term occupancy. In fact if
they were within the City of Palo Alto’s jurisdiction they would fall under your
seismic hazard ordinance and we would have to undertake a rather dramatic
retrofit that would be no different than the retrofit that we see having to
undertake if we were to ever preserve those buildings.
That retrofit project is dramatically invasive. It changes the historic
character of the building. As well as to then reuse the building for some
other occupancy other than for healthcare delivery or research leaves us a
little bit of a loss to find 800,000 square feet of occupants that would need
to come back to the Medical Center site.
24 07/26/10
Then finally, we are using the ground occupied by that 1959 hospital to
create modern research laboratories and to create modern clinics for the
future of Stanford medicine. We have also done something with the
arrangement of the School of Medicine buildings and the future clinics I think
that relates a little bit to what you see in the Village Concept, and that is
that we are establishing a very strong pedestrian promenade that links
School of Medicine with the adult hospital with the Children’s Hospital and
eventually up into the Stanford Shopping Center and then off into Downtown
Palo Alto. That linkage really doesn’t work well with the existing orientation
of the Stone Building where there is a tremendous amount of one-way traffic
here in this location. We would be reorienting the clinics entrance and
aligning a parking structure here so that there would actually be a backdoor
entry as well as a front door entry into the hospital and preserving this
pedestrian walkway and promenade through the site.
As I mentioned, modern research labs try to survive in the Stone Building
today. These are the kinds of interventions we need to take with that facility
just to accommodate the basic air conditioning loads that come with
laboratory functions, and certainly not buildings that are suitable for future
use.
Now finally I want to just address some of the linkages of the Village
Concept Alternative. So there are some linkages obviously from Downtown
Palo Alto to the Stanford Medical Center, which we want to reinforce, those
linkages start at El Camino Real and Quarry. We will obviously be working
hard with the development of Quarry Road. You can see some of that
development in our design guidelines. Then there are the linkages through
the Stanford Barn that would connect the Medical Center to the Shopping
Center and then into Downtown Palo Alto. Just by example I have an office
in the Stanford Shopping Center. When we have meetings here in the
Council Chambers during the day I actually walk to the meeting. So these
linkages are actually personal for me and certainly personal for my staff.
So that first linkage we wanted to talk about was with the transit mall. Right
now the existing condition is kind of a meandering path. Quite honestly I
usually get lost right about here trying to find my way across El Camino or
across the railroad tracks into Downtown Palo Alto. Through dialogue with
the City over really I think about a four-year period and with Bruce Fukuji,
your consultant, we have talked about ways to make a better-organized
path to really reinforce the pedestrian and bicycle experience into Downtown
Palo Alto. So there may be a variety of alternatives and these alternatives
would connect up with existing and proposed Palo Alto projects to improve
the linkages from one side of the tracks to the other.
25 07/26/10
We have also been planning for public transportation and bus shelters to the
medical office complex at the Hoover site. We see the redevelopment of the
Hoover Pavilion really as a great opportunity, as a base for our community
physicians. The fact that those facilities are proximate to public
transportation, they are close to the transit mall, they are close to
Downtown Palo Alto is not an accident. We think that is an ideal location for
community-based services for healthcare.
Then finally is the linkage that we are proposing at the Stanford Barn. Right
now if you want to move from the Shopping Center into the Medical Center
you kind of have to walk through the parking lot, and again not in a very
organized way. So the proposal that is part of the Village Concept that we
support is again reinforcing the path, providing some dedicated pathways
along the Barn up against some of the retail space that is here, through to
the Shopping Center. Also provide an alternative route through a
reorganized parking structure between our Children’s Hospital, Clinics
buildings, and the Barn. Then we would be creating an intersection here so
that there is a smart alignment across Welch Road. Now I would like to ask
Bill Philips to talk about the housing component of the Village Concept.
Bill Philips, Associate Vice President, Land, Buildings, and Real Estate,
Stanford University: I am going to be mercifully short on this because I
think there has been quite a bit of discussion already between Council
Member Scharff and Curtis Williams and Chair Garber.
I would like to make the strong point that is also made in the DEIR that the
demand for housing as a result of the project would be less than significant.
There is a goal for the Village Concept Alternative that is a very important
and wide-ranging goal relating to villages, which I think we all believe in. I
would just make the point that with the occupancy of the Quarry sites by the
campus population that we are talking about that is medical residents and
postdoctoral fellows we are getting essentially the same demographic and
we are getting the same benefits and we are getting the same Transit
Oriented Development (TOD) advantage out of both populations. I think
that is the reason why you hear that there is very little moving of the needle
in connection with the making this be housing for hospital employees.
This just reinforces that. The housing that is being talked about for hospital
employees is basically shifting occupancy but that is all it is doing and that is
why the needle moves so little. We are talking about the same density,
essentially very much the same demographic, and either way we are talking
about people who will take advantage of the alternative modes of transit.
26 07/26/10
The DEIR concludes this as Chair Garber mentioned. There is less than a
one percent reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) when we talk about
employee and patient trips, and no significant reduction in VMT or
greenhouse gases compared with the approved GUP housing. This just
reflects that. You see the percent change in the last column is to some
degree significant in that we do reduce some trips but overall from the
standpoint of the Village Concept Alternative what we are trying to achieve,
VMT and greenhouse gas, very little change.
I am going to digress on one thing just because I have some experience with
this and I feel something needs to be said about it. That is the TDM
requirement and the ability to impose that the City has referred to comes
about from this State regulation. I think it is pretty clear that in our mind,
and I am not going to make the legal arguments up here, the regulation is
clear in terms of what it says about what can be done about imposing TDM
on an employer. Stanford and the hospitals are employers. It is important
to follow that with the concept of does that really change the objective? Do
we have misaligned objectives here? Clearly not. Stanford wants TDM for
this project. The hospitals want TDM for this project. The University in past
projects has suggested and offered TDM. I have been associated with those
projects and I know that in the past what we have seen is a willingness for
the City to accept TDM with an understanding that the City could not impose
TDM on these projects because of that State regulation. That was the case
with the Mayfield Development Agreement. It was the case with the Cancer
Center. This specific Condition of Approval was laid out with Cancer Center,
and that is a recognition by the City that the applicant was voluntarily
agreeing and that the State law did prevent the City from imposing
employee trip reduction programs. Even the DEIR seems to suggest that is
the apparent state of affairs. However, once again I want to go back to the
most important consideration and that is our goals are totally aligned with
the City regarding TDM.
So just summing up, the hospital’s proposal includes GO Passes that have
the major affect on improving climate change and reducing traffic. We also
have from a housing standpoint the $23 million offer that is being made by
the hospitals, which unlike the Quarry sites which is just a change of use
results in $23 million that could be used by Palo Alto to help the City achieve
new housing, achieve ABAG objectives, and increase the City’s overall
housing supply. Thank you very much.
Public Hearing opened at 8:12 p.m.
27 07/26/10
Michael Weiland, Palo Alto: Hello. I am a Palo Alto resident. I am also a
nurse at Stanford and have been for the past 19 years. I am here to
support the hospital expansion. What we really do need is to have the
hospitals modernized and improved for our families and loved ones. Our
community, our patients, and our employees deserve it. What we need to
have is a modern, functioning, and world-class hospital facility. We also
need to have world-class nurses there for our patients.
The hospital’s last offer to their nurses would demote the most experienced
nurses and cut their medical benefits. Some experienced nurses have
already left to work elsewhere. The hospitals need to bargain in good faith
with the nurses to ensure that they retain the experienced nurses that our
community needs and wants. Thank you for your time.
Mayor Burt: I should have gone through as I have at previous meetings to
clarify for all the speakers that tonight’s subject is comments on the
adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. In the fall we are going
to have additional periods where we will be looking at both the Final
Environmental Impact Report as well as the Development Agreement for the
project as a whole. So I want to clarify that and ask everyone if possible to
focus their comments on the Environmental Impact Report.
Adele Ullman: Since 1988 I have been an A for Aces Nurse at Stanford. As
an A for Aces Nurse I do a wide variety of procedures at both Stanford and
Lucile Packard Hospitals. At A for Aces we do stem cell collections for
transplant, we do plasma and red cell exchanges, we do white cell and
platelet depletions, and we do photo-freezes for many types of diseases and
disorders. We have regular daytime work hours, seven days a week, 365
days a year. After hours a nurse is always available in case there is a need
to treat a patient like someone with leukemia who is having trouble
breathing because there are too many white cells in their circulatory system,
or a patient with cycle cell who doesn’t have enough functioning red cells, or
a patient who is having a heart or lung transplant in the middle of the night
and needs a plasma exchange to remove antibody. A lot of the patients I
treat have been transferred from other hospitals because of the A for Aces
service we provide at Stanford and LPCH.
Tonight I am here to support the hospital expansion. We very much need to
have a hospital that is modernized and improved for our patients. What we
need to have modern, functioning, world-class hospitals we also need world-
class nurses. Our contract expired in March. Some of our best nurses have
already left for other facilities. I urge you to ask the hospital administration
to come back to the negotiation table. Thank you very much for your time.
28 07/26/10
Paul Cole, Palo Alto: Good evening Mayor Burt and Members of the Palo Alto
City Council. I have been a nurse at Packard Children’s Hospital for 19 years
and at Stanford Hospital for six years before that. I am also a resident of
Palo Alto. I am also a Board Member of CRONA, which is the Committee for
the Recognition of Nursing Achievement at both hospitals. That Committee
represents more than 2,600 nurses at Stanford and Packard Hospitals. I am
here in both capacities tonight, both as a resident of Palo Alto and as a
Board Member of the Committee for the Recognition of Nursing
Achievement.
It is my pleasure to be able to support the hospitals expansion plans in both
of those capacities. I have to say that I had little idea how extensive a
process this is. I have not been to many Board Meetings, Council Meetings
and just to see what went on here tonight was a revelation to me. It seems
to me that the Village Alternative is a very good one. I like the idea of
saving trees. I have worked with David Dockter, the City Arborist, to plant
trees in my neighborhood in the park behind my house. But I am in full
support of the hospital’s expansion plans and I hope that you will approve
what in your wisdom seems to be the best plan for all of us.
I would also like to urge the hospitals to support our nurses by coming back
to the bargaining table and negotiating a fair contract with us. Thank you
for your time.
Bonnie Balfour, Palo Alto: Good evening your Honor and Members of the
Council. I am one of the fellow nurses whom you have heard from before. I
work at Stanford Hospital. I work in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit
with critical patients. We take care of trauma patients, neurosurgical
patients, medical patients, surgery patients, medicine patients, and on a
daily basis I help train and educate and teach new members of the staff until
they are quite capable of functioning on their own.
I do support fully the notion of the expansion for the facility. We need
upgrades and modernization of the hospital to accommodate our changing
patient population. We need it for our med students, our residents, our
staff, but most importantly we need it for the patients. While I support the
upgrade and the modernization for our world-class hospital we also have
world-class nurses. These world-class nurses are leaving. They are leaving
to find employment elsewhere. What we need is your help to help get the
hospital to negotiate with us in a fair contract, and we need your assistance
in this way. We can ill-afford to lose our experienced staff and we are doing
so. Our staff needs it and our patients deserve it. The patients of this
community and this whole area deserve the best that we can possibly offer
them. Thank you for your time.
29 07/26/10
Mary Ann Carmack, MD, PAMF: Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I
am pediatrician at Palo Alto Medical Clinic where I have been for the past 14
years. A major reason that the pediatricians in this community can offer the
highest standard of care to our young patients is that we can partner with
Packard Children’s Hospital. When we diagnose a child with meningitis or
cancer for example we turn to Packard to cure that child. We and the
community are incredibly fortunate in this regard.
Tonight in the Draft EIR presentation we reviewed alternatives that do not
allow for more beds. The reality is that our fortuitous situation is already
threatened by a shortage of beds at Children’s Hospital. Currently it can be
extremely difficult to admit a patient to our hospital, to Packard, due to lack
of space. Most of the time, right now when we do admit a patient to the
hospital we have to explain to the family that they will have to travel to
another community in order to have their child admitted. So, expansion of
our local hospital is essential to maintaining the standards that we have
come to enjoy in this community.
Fortunately, most children’s diseases are much less frequent than those of
adults, heart disease, and cancer to name just two examples. The
implication of this is something that most people don’t really appreciate and
that is namely children’s hospitals in this country have to be regionalized to
draw large enough population of patients to provide the range of services.
Packard Children’s Hospital is one such regional hospital, world-class in fact.
We are blessed to have it in our community.
I would like to close by sharing an experience from my practice. About a
month ago late in the day on a Thursday I saw a ten-year old girl from Palo
Alto who had noticed a lump in the muscle above her knee. The father’s
gaze met mine in unspoken understanding of our fear. Could this be cancer?
The father commented that they had plans to travel to Colorado the next
day to celebrate the grandmother’s 100th birthday. I quickly called the
oncologist at Packard and explained the situation, and yes they would see
her tomorrow. This story has a happy ending the lump was benign.
Regardless of outcome, this kind of compassionate, sensitive,
comprehensive, integrated care is possible here only if we are able to
continue to have enough space for these children. So we owe it to our
community to ensure that this level of care is not compromised. Thank you.
Bruce Codding, Redwood City: Mayor Burt, Members of the Palo Alto City
Council I work at Stanford Hospital and I support the expansion of the
facilities. I am here to ask you to give serious consideration to the Tree
Alternative, which is the applicant’s preferred Alternative. Primarily because
30 07/26/10
it does save trees on the campus and compared to the Village Concept
Alternative 13 more trees as you have heard tonight. So hopefully you will
give the Tree Alternative your serious consideration. Thank you.
Fred Taleghani, Palo Alto: Mayor Burt and Members of the City Council,
thank you very much for your time. I am resident of Midtown, a member of
CRONA, and I have worked at Packard Children’s Hospital for 11 years. My
role there is as a critical care transport nurse specialist. As Dr. Carmack
spoke previously, my job is to pick the kids up and bring them back to our
very world-renowned facility. I too have been in the position where I have
had to explain to very stressed-out parents that they cannot come to
Packard because there are no beds.
I am very concerned that any adoption of any plan that would reduce the
projected expansion of beds would be detrimental long-term to the facility.
On that end I would like to wholly endorse the hospital’s expansion on that
end. I would like to compliment both the Council and Stanford for doing
what they can to mitigate any environmental impacts that the expansion
would have. We need world-class facilities. This expansion will ensure that
these world-class facilities will remain there for the near future, will serve
not only the community of Palo Alto but those surrounding. On that note, it
is more than just building a building. You have to have world-class staff to
staff these facilities. To that end we need your support and your help to get
the hospital back to the tables to negotiate with the nurses. We can’t do it
without you. Thank you very much.
Richard Greene: Mayor Burt, Members of the Council I am going to repeat
some of the pleas by the CRONA nursing staff. I wanted to address the
healthcare impact of the Draft EIR, which many of the speakers have already
mentioned. This is from the perspective of a Palo Alto pediatrician. I have
been in Palo Alto and practiced here longer than any of the current
pediatricians in the whole community. I am in my 44th year of practicing
pediatrics at the Palo Alto Clinic.
In the last several years, probably about the last four or five years, it has
become as has been alluded to very hard for us pediatricians to get our
patients into Stanford Hospital and to the Children’s Hospital. These children
are our sickest patients. They need hospitalization in this world-class
hospital that you all are aware of and are proud of I am sure that you have
this hospital in your very own community. So these are the sickest kids we
see. There are not enough beds to take care of them. I don’t think you
think that it is in the best interest of the child or the parents for any patient
to go to a hospital in another community when they are from Palo Alto. So I
am here to support the Children’s Hospital’s effort to increase its capacity.
31 07/26/10
To accomplish that it is absolutely necessary for us pediatricians and that is
to put our Palo Alto patients in our Palo Alto hospital. So on behalf of the 33
pediatricians who practice at the Palo Alto Clinic, probably another 30 or 50
family practitioners who do hospitalize their patients at the Packard
Children’s Hospital and Stanford, I urge you to proceed as promptly as
possible with your approval, which seems to me to be dragging on and on
and on, so that we can continue to deliver the outstanding care that you are
all used to getting from us physicians in Palo Alto. Thanks a lot.
George Liddle, Menlo Park: Members of the Council. First of all I have on
my mind to be sure to thank you for the time and effort that you are taking
on this review. You have a lot on your plate. You will be interested to know
that the five items that I wanted to discuss with you have shrunk to two.
The emergency room right now as on a daily basis has twice as many
patients as it was designed for. Expansion of the ER will be a major benefit
to the community. When I was last in the emergency room I spent some
time on a gurney out in the hallway. No harm, no foul, but an expansion
there would be very much appreciated.
This next item, if you don’t remember anything else I say please pay
attention to this one. The new facilities will provide over 2,200 new
permanent jobs for people in this area. During construction that doesn’t
include the 6,400 jobs that will be provided during the construction. I doubt
if any applicant has ever come before a City Council and been able to say
that they are going to provide 2,200 new good permanent jobs in the
community.
So my wrap up is that I appreciate your thorough review of this project. I
urge prompt approval of the project, consistent with your public hearing
schedule, and with your due diligence obligations. Thank you.
Howard Wolf, Palo Alto: Good evening Mayor Burt and Members of the City
Council. I live in Crescent Park in a home I have occupied for the last 21
years. I have been a resident of Palo Alto for almost 30 years. In the spirit
of full disclosure I think you should also know that I work at Stanford where
I am the Vice President of Alumni Affairs for the University.
I come here today not as a member of the Stanford staff but instead as a
member of this community to tell you a personal story that speaks directly
to some of the alternatives that you are considering here tonight. A year
ago last June 14 my 17 year old son had a traumatic brain injury sustained
as part of a skateboarding accident. He was cared for at Stanford Hospital in
the emergency room you just heard about. I did not know what a Level 1 or
Level 2 or a Level 3 trauma center meant a year ago last June, but I
32 07/26/10
certainly know what it means now. That trauma center saved my son’s life.
The neurosurgeon told us as such and also the members of the paramedics
that dealt with him that afternoon told us the same.
I can’t tell you how important it is to me that others have the same
opportunity for the level of care that we received a year ago last June. We
know what happened to young Tim Sullivan, a former graduate of Gunn High
School, who was UC Santa Cruz with a similar accident as my son this last
spring who was not able to attain services at a Level 1 trauma center
because his accident occurred when he was a student at UC Santa Cruz. By
the time they air lifted him to San Jose’s hospital where there was a Level 1
trauma center he did not make it. So I just implore you to think about that
as you think about the alternatives, especially the reduced intensity ones.
Second point. With regard to the downsizing or right sizing, I don’t know
what all the language exactly means, but I will tell you this. As someone
who has spent 30 days with my son as he was in a drug-induced coma
recovering from his surgery and then another 30 days in the hospital over a
series of five different surgeries I can tell you this – we received excellent
care from a physician standpoint. The only area in which we had concerns
about the care we received was with regard to the overcrowding and this
hospital. In one case as he came out of brain surgery we were put into a
room with three other people who had also just come out of brain surgery,
only because there was not enough room for us in any smaller place. In one
situation we came out of surgery and were left in a hall as we awaited a
room to be readied for us because that is how tight Stanford hospital runs.
In the final case, when we were at a rehab hospital up in Marin getting ready
to come down for surgery we literally have to drive slowly because the room
was not ready at Stanford Hospital. These are real stories and people’s lives
are involved. I just implore you as you think about the Reduced Intensity
Alternatives that you consider what this might do to our community. Thank
you.
Beth Bunnenberg, Palo Alto: Hello. I am speaking as an individual tonight.
I wanted to talk just a little more with you about particularly the Stone
Building because Stanford plans call for its demolition. Please notice that
the Architectural Resources Group peer review strongly states that this
appears eligible for the California Register. Remember the events that the
first heart transplant in the United States occurred in this Stone Building. In
terms of person, Dr. Norman Shumway has practiced there. He has done an
outstanding body of research and work in heart transplant. For the third
category it appears eligible as pivotal work of an internationally known
architect.
33 07/26/10
This building merits serious consideration under CEQA. Demolition of the
Stone Building would be a very significant adverse impact, which could not
be mitigated. The ARG, I was delighted to hear, has a person here tonight.
The peer review suggests this Historic Preservation Alternative. To use it for
medical office space and for research, which Stanford says it needs.
The suggestions for retrofitting the building are included in the report, and I
would remind us that the City has had very good response from ARG in
solving problems such as internal seismic retrofits. So please do insist on a
careful evaluation. Do not let Palo Alto join the list of cities that have failed
to realize the importance of mid-century architectural treasures until it is too
late. Demolition cannot be mitigated. Besides, it is a green solution to find
a reuse for the building. Thank you.
Raymond Neal, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am an architect here in Palo
Alto. Hospitals like City Halls are singular elements in our community. They
provide us with unique opportunities for community service. Unlike
residential or commercial development these projects cannot be mimicked
nor are they precedent setting as they are unique components within our
community. I believe that concept of our community fabric the proposed
hospital and Medical Center improvements, its massing and organization are
compatible with the character of our community. I also believe that their
heights as they are proposed are a unique and appropriate solution for these
improvements to our community as a whole. Thank you.
Bruce Baker, Palo Alto: Thank you. I serve on the Community Resource
Group for the Stanford General Use Permit. The comments that follow are
my own personal comments as a Palo Alto resident. The Draft EIR evaluates
Reduced Intensity Alternatives. Let’s look at what has been set forth by
some as a Reduced Intensity Alternative for the hospital. This Alternative is
promoted as a small community hospital by some. Is that what the citizens
of Palo Alto and neighboring communities really want? A small community
hospital. That train left the station in the 1950’s when Stanford moved its
hospital from San Francisco to Palo Alto. Since then Stanford Hospital and
Clinics has gained world recognition for its pioneering work in numerous
areas including heart and stroke treatments, organ transplants, cancer
treatments for children and adults, neurosurgery, and aging issues. Many of
these specializations serve a local community as well as larger areas
because of the outstanding reputations of these departments. I doubt if the
Palo Alto community would want merely a maternity hospital with some
service for men, women, and children with minor injuries. You don’t just
flush down the drain the expertise that this teaching hospital has and will
continue to have on the forefront of many medical disciplines. I urge the
34 07/26/10
Council to recognize the reality of the need for timely, expanded, and
seismically strong buildings for the Stanford Hospitals and Clinics.
I would like to also point out my study of 650 diverse projects showed that
when a sense of urgency prevails among all of the principle stakeholders of a
project the project is perceived as more successful. Thank you.
Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Mayor Burt and Council Members. First I
would like to address the adequacy of the EIR. Staff and Planning
Commission and some members of the public have pointed out a number of
errors, omissions, and problems with the EIR. I want to just address one of
them and that is the impacts on traffic. One of the things that the EIR
misses is identifying all the intersections, which are going to be adversely
affected. The Staff picked it up and I picked it up also. For example,
Middlefield and Lytton, and Middlefield and University among others. If you
look at the intersections that are identified as being significantly impacted,
where there is going to be more traffic, and more air pollution every one of
those even if it is El Camino and Page Mill, or El Camino and Churchill is
within a quarter mile or less of housing. Therefore the residents are going to
be exposed to higher levels of air pollution. That has been ignored in the
EIR, but that is an impact and that has to be resolved.
Now when you took a look at the various Alternatives that were proposed I
think the superior one as is mentioned in the report is Alternative A, which
doesn’t increase the overall size of the hospital. Well, some people will say,
well gee this is going to give you an inadequate facility. But that will
maintain the existing level of service and then some. If Stanford adopts the
CPI kaizen approach that I spoke about a week or so ago. It was in the
report, the article from the New York Times. They can increase the number
of people they serve and the efficiency with which they serve them. One of
the examples really happened was a children’s hospital increased the
number of patients they saw by almost 50 percent, and decreased the
amount of time patients were in the hospital by almost 20 percent. When I
gave the City Clerk the article I missed giving part of it because of the way it
formatted. Let me do one paragraph, the final paragraph. This is a hospital,
which is already under construction. Actually they opened last week.
The final design, because they are using CPI, reduced walking distances and
waiting times for patients and grouping relating facilities together creating
rooms that could be used for more than one purpose. They are able to
reduce the size of the building by 30,000 square feet and save $20 million.
So I think going with Alternative A and also going with the Tree
Preservation, Historic Preservation, and Village Concept is the best overall
approach. That will give us a facility that will have minimal impacts, will
35 07/26/10
continue to serve the community, it may not serve people in other states or
other countries, but we don’t need to do that. Stanford by being more
efficient can increase the number and the effectiveness of the patients they
service. Thank you.
Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Good evening Mayor Burt and Council Members.
The EIR needs an adequate model and the one in the lobby is not adequate.
It is too small. It is not in context, and it is too far down. It is like flying
over the hospital at several hundred feet above it. A model would need to
be a scale of at least a quarter inch to one foot on a table five foot high so
you could see the ground floor at eye level. It needs to be in context
showing other buildings and properties around it.
If any part of the county residential approval is used for this project then the
County Community Plan and General Use Permit would need to be amended
to delete those housing units from counting towards entitlement for
academic square footage. If any part of this approval includes county land,
such as for example the Medical School, then that academic square footage
would have to be counted against the academic square footage entitlement
in the county approvals.
The legal arguments about Transportation Demand Management are
misleading because they are not relevant. The applicant has applied for a
Development Agreement. In a Development Agreement you could include
any kinds of conditions including TDM.
The list of significant trees is not adequate. Any trees that become a
Condition of Approval are defined in the Municipal Code as significant. Those
can include other trees that are already there besides the ones that have
been mentioned by the applicant.
The applicant essentially proposes single rooms or private rooms. Yet I
believe in both Medicare and Medical payments come for semi-private
rooms. Can these rooms accommodate two patients? If so, then the EIR
should be adjusted for two patients to a room instead of one. If it is just a
question of payment and everyone is going to be in a private room what
kind of rationing is there going to be as to what kinds of patients and their
source of insurance are going to be allowed in the hospital.
The hospital is the largest user of electricity in the City, about eight percent
of the electricity used but only four percent of the revenue. You should
consider in lieu payments so the amount of revenue matches the amount of
usage. Similarly in the Utility Users Tax, which is a graduated scale of three
tiers, there is a five percent, a three percent, and two percent tax. You can
36 07/26/10
consider as in lieu payments five percent tax on all utility payments just as
residents pay five percent tax on all utility payments. Thank you.
Stephanie Munoz, Palo Alto: Good evening Mayor Burt and Council
Members. With all due respect, I believe the Council has to look at
Stanford’s proposal in light of Prop 13. I don’t believe you can allow the
largest landowner in the county to hog all the high revenue land use leaving
the low-income housing to be provided by nonprofits and the community at
large.
Before Prop 13 you could sacrifice good planning to the mammon of inequity
because whenever property values went up taxes went up, even if the
property owner was a widowed washerwoman. She had to pay or get out.
Now taxes go up only two percent a year unless the property changes
hands. Stanford’s property never changes hands.
Fifty years ago Palo Alto let Stanford develop a great shopping center only it
wasn’t so great for the merchants of Palo Alto who had been paying the
taxes and being good citizens all along. Downtown was a ghost town. Nice
old businesses went bankrupt. You are doing the same thing with the
medical office marketplace if you let Stanford develop the hospital as a
million square foot high-rise without giving up development rights to the
land freed for maximum medical and legal office rental. You are gifting
them at the expense of the rest of the business property owners of Palo Alto
who land diminishes in value through the law of supply and demand. You
depend on those citizens for civic spirit and civic betterment.
When the Democrats clamor for an increase in minimum wage, and you
wonder who works for minimum wage, look no further. People who work in
hospitals work for minimum wage. They have to live somewhere. Stanford
could and they should run a shuttle at midnight and eight in the morning for
its night workers from East Palo Alto. East Palo Alto is being gentrified as we
speak. It is the high cost of land that keeps affordable housing from being
built. Stanford has the land to house its workers. It is the only land that
could be used to house them at reasonable cost. It is extremely unfair to
ask a young couple who can afford $400,000 period for a modest home to
sign up for a mortgage they can’t afford that is going to be foreclosed on so
as to subsidize the below market program. Stanford is going to make
millions on compulsory private health insurance. It is insane for the
community to spend money housing Stanford’s workers, which ABAG is
going to demand that we do when we are firing teachers, which are the
lifeblood of our economy. It is irresponsible. Please don’t do it. Thank you
very much.
37 07/26/10
Public Hearing closed at 8:49 p.m.
Mayor Burt: That concludes our public comments. Now we will return to the
Council for any follow up questions and comments.
Council Member Price: Thank you. I would like to thank all of the members
of the public who spoke, and the applicant, the Staff, and the consultants. I
would like to acknowledge the high quality of the care received at our
hospitals. I hope that both parties, Stanford University and the nurses union
CRONA, will be able to resolve their differences by resuming negotiations. I
hope there can be a productive resolution of these complex issues. I remain
very hopeful that that will occur. I want to again acknowledge the
importance of having direct communication with one another to resolve
these issues. We will continue to deliberate on the various aspects of the
proposal before us. Thank you.
Council Member Holman: I would like to get some clarification on a few
statements that were made. There were differences between what I
understood the Staff to say and the applicant to say. One of them has to do
with the aesthetically and biologically significant trees.
So you probably heard what I said and I don’t have to repeat that, right?
Having to do with the aesthetically and biologically significant trees, in the
Staff presentation and as I read it in the DEIR it talks about 13 biologically
and aesthetically significant protected trees would be retained in place, three
that would be relocated, and 16 that potentially would be removed. In the
applicant’s presentation under the Tree Preservation Alternative it says that
no biologically and aesthetic tree resources would be removed under the
Tree Preservation Alternative. That is different than what I understood the
Staff presentation to be and it is also different than what I have read in the
DEIR. So can Staff clarify that please or correct?
Mr. Jeung: I am going to go ahead and try to provide a response. The Draft
Environmental Impact Report does, as you have indicated Council Member
Holman, identify 16 trees that would be preserved under the Tree
Preservation Alternative that would not be preserved under the proposed
project. The Tree Preservation Alternative that the applicant is considering
right now is being further refined based on better mapping and better
information. I don’t believe that the discrepancy is as much as zero trees
versus the 16 trees that we have identified in the Draft Environmental
Impact Report. I thought that number was something less than that. That
certainly doesn’t answer your question. I am not sure where Stanford’s
numbers are coming from.
38 07/26/10
Council Member Holman: The City Attorney looks like she wants to make a
comment or not.
Ms. Silver: I apologize I didn’t hear the beginning part of your question.
Council Member Holman: It had to do with discrepancies or apparent
discrepancies between the applicant’s presentation that says no biologically
and aesthetic tree resources would be removed under the Tree Preservation
Alternative. That is not my understanding from the DEIR or Staff
presentation.
Ms. Silver: I think where that discrepancy is in the difference between just a
biological impact and a biological and aesthetic. The Tree Preservation
Alternative really focused on identifying the biological trees that also had
aesthetic impact. Dave Dockter was very active in this process and went
through and surveyed all of the trees and came up with a list of both
biologically and aesthetic trees. The Tree Preservation Alternative then
made some significant design modifications to save the trees that had been
identified as both biologically and aesthetically significant. I think there are
some slight discrepancies in the numbers between what the EIR says and
the current refinements to the Tree Preservation Alternative, which now is in
50 percent design stage. Those discrepancies will be mapped. They are in
the process of being mapped and will be available in the Final EIR.
Council Member Holman: I guess what my confusion has been about this
and concern has been about this is, I am probably not going to remember
the right number, and I am sort of remembering that there were 41
biologically and aesthetically significant trees. That number may not be
right so don’t hold me to that. Curtis, do you have the right number?
Mr. Williams: I think you may be thinking there were 71 protected trees,
and of those 23 are in this class of significant aesthetic.
Council Member Holman: That sounds right. Without having the final
numbers it is very difficult. I am not really sure how we comment because
we don’t know what the numbers are, we don’t know what the locations are
of the trees that are being saved or not. One other tree comment is on page
5-16 under the Tree Preservation Alternative it also says, in the second
paragraph from the top regulations in the district would include applicability,
preservation, and exemption for removal and replacement of protected
trees. The Hospital District would create a procedure to permit the removal
of approximately 48 protected trees. So if we are permitting removal that
sounds to me like we are not going to require mitigation for the removal of
those trees. If I could get clarification on that that would be helpful too.
39 07/26/10
Ms. Silver: My understanding is that we will be requiring mitigation for any
protected trees or regulated trees that are removed. I think that one of the
comments was to actually add a mitigation measure that made it very clear
that we would require some replacement or some payment into a tree
mitigation fund for those trees that are removed.
Council Member Holman: Will that be consistent with the City’s Tree
Preservation Ordinance now?
Ms. Silver: It would be consistent with the Tree Technical Manual. The Tree
Preservation Ordinance would have to be amended and we were going to
amend that through the hospital zone to permit the removal.
Council Member Holman: So this wouldn’t be a negotiated mitigation. This
would be consistent with the Tree Technical Manual.
Ms. Silver: That is correct.
Council Member Holman: Just a couple of comments about the Preservation
Alternative. It states in the DEIR that there are three mitigations that are
listed for the demolition of the Stone Hospital Building, and there are no
mitigations for the demolition of an historic resource. So those really could
not be categorized as mitigation measures. They are nice things to do but
they are not mitigations because there is no mitigation. Once the historic
resource is gone it is just gone. So that would be a comment.
Then the Village Concept. Thank you by the way for these larger drawings.
They were somewhat more helpful certainly. The Figure 2, there is no page
number on it that I see so Figure 2 Village Concept improvements. It is also
in the presentation in here but having it larger helps, having it in color also
helps. Figure 2, Village Concept Improvements, Quarry and El Camino Real
Intersection. I guess the question is this. The future long-term path, it
shows the existing tunnel going under the Caltrain right-of-way there by the
Palo Alto train terminal. This talks about future interim path in the blue and
in the red is future long-term path. So a couple of questions about this.
One is going along see where it says near-term option one that goes along
the Caltrain right-of-way on the Stanford side. It is hard to read, but it says
on it, interim path extension to existing tunnel. So why is that considered
interim as opposed to long standing? Why is the sort of stepped path, why
is that interim because those both go to the transit station? Then the red,
which is considered the future long-term path, goes to Everett avoiding the
train terminal. So guess I am confused as to the purpose of that approach,
and also as a part of that who would be constructing the Everett tunnel
40 07/26/10
connection? How would we prevent significant parking in the neighborhood
given that connection to Downtown North offsite parking by employees in
the neighborhood?
Mr. Williams: I think it is difficult to get into that level of detail at this point.
Those are intended to be conceptual. That there is intent here to create the
Everett undercrossing and I think the word ‘interim’ there probably doesn’t
mean that there is not going to still be a connection to the other crossing. It
is just that until the construction is complete you could go down there to
that point, turn right, and get back to Lytton. In the long-term there would
be both available. Again, those details as well as the issue of how costs are
shared, etc. are part of the project as it comes forward, and some of the
details of participation and fair share that will outlined as Conditions of
Approval with project entitlements when they come through.
Council Member Holman: My interest in this topic is, understand that it is
sort of the planning or designing of the project, but at the same time my
interest in this has to do with mitigations and connectivity. If we want to
get people to take Caltrain I guess I was concerned to see these as interim,
the ones that go to the Caltrain station. To me those are connections and
potential mitigations, and how you get people from the train to these sites.
Also with the Everett connection the concern there in speaking to the
environmental aspects of this is I am concerned about people then having
impacts, drivers having impacts, on other intersections in the Downtown
North neighborhood because they would choose to park in there instead of
on the SUMC site. So those are the reasons for bringing those up as the
environmental impacts.
Mr. Williams: We will try to address those more specifically.
Vice Mayor Espinosa: Just to point out that on pages 37 to 40 of the PTC
notes there were questions specifically about the difference in the 13 versus
23 trees, and pretty good responses from Dave Dockter about both the
differentiation and also some of the definitions around it, which I am sure
you saw because I know you read the PTC minutes very closely. So just as
a reminder to others who might have those same questions there were
pretty clarifying answers from Dave Dockter.
Mayor Burt: Dave Dockter and the PTC will both be gratified that this level
of attention has been paid to their work.
Council Member Scharff: Thank you. I actually had a question for the
applicant. In reading the Planning and Transportation Commission notes
and listening to you I actually had the sense that the linkages in the Village
41 07/26/10
Concept were part of the preferred alternative at least for Stanford. Is that
correct or not?
Mr. Tortorich: We have been discussing the linkages with Staff for over four
years. It started with the area plan. So these linkages have been discussed
with Stanford University staff, our Medical Center staff, and Palo Alto Staff.
So we support them. They are part of the Village Alternative but we
definitely support them.
Council Member Scharff: So when you say you support them and when you
say the preferred alternative is the Tree Preservation Alternative, we should
take that to mean it is the Tree Preservation Alternative plus all of the
linkages in the Village plan? Maybe you could identify which ones you
support and which ones you don’t, or maybe you support all of them. Your
comments to the Planning and Transportation Commission indicated frankly
I thought that you supported all of them, but I was unclear on that.
Mr. Tortorich: So the linkages obviously that we reviewed this evening and
at Planning and Transportation Commission through these PowerPoint
presentations, and in our Development Agreement offer we actually put
forward a proposal of funds to support development of these linkages. So
technically I am not sure if it is all that is in the Draft EIR of that alternative.
We do have one slide that talks about the complimentary linkages. I think
this slide gives you a good overview. This represents all of the linkages as
discussed in the Village Alternative but I am sure technically.
Council Member Scharff: So in general then I should be comfortable that
you support all of those linkages, and that you think they are all a good
idea.
Mr. Tortorich: Generally, yes.
Mayor Burt: I have one more granular question and one broader question.
Back to Figure 2 of the Village Concept improvements, the Quarry/El Camino
Real intersection. Curtis you partially answered this when you spoke to
Council Member Holman’s question. So if I understood it correctly, the blue
that is the interim path is intended to have something approximating that
remain in place as a second permanent path. Is that correct?
Mr. Williams: I am going to ask Steven to address that.
Steven Turner, Advanced Planning Manager: Yes, Mayor Burt. I think what
this slide is showing are various options and stages of development of
linkages in and around the transit center. You will notice a couple of
42 07/26/10
features on this map. One of them is the proposed VTA driveway that is
coming from the VTA terminal. That is a project that has been recognized I
believe as a future project, but we don’t know the specifics behind the
project. So until that project is more fully developed it is difficult to actually
plan for the long-term solution.
Mayor Burt: That is why I had kind of used the term ‘approximation.’ Is it
fair to say that the intention is to have two pathway linkages? One that
would go approximately directly toward the future Everett Avenue
connection and another that would move toward the tunnel between Lytton
and University.
Mr. Turner: Yes, in the end there would be really two pathways. The blue
pathway would be constructed very soon, very quickly after the projects are
approved. The orange pathways are ones that would be developed further
on in the future, but in the end there would be two.
Mayor Burt: I appreciate that you have not gone to this level of detail yet
but I don’t see any indication here of differentiating between pedestrian and
bike travel through these areas. They look like they are intended to be
shared on a single path.
Mr. Turner: The intent is for shared use of bikes and pedestrians, and
having appropriate widths that would accommodate both users.
Mayor Burt: Well, I would just like to comment that I think that if we are
really trying to promote bike and pedestrian use we may want to evaluate
whether it would be more effective to have those separated than shared.
The next thing is that if you are coming from the hospital on Quarry, and
you are on the Arboretum side it shows a requirement to cross over to the
Shopping Center side of the road, and then cross at El Camino. Those are
very long intersections. I am just concerned that two long waits will actually
have a fairly significant impact on the travel time of either bike or
pedestrians. So this is just a small thing there to look at whether it is
possible to have a direct crossing.
Then the broader issue has to do with what Mr. Philips raised about the
State Health and Safety Code provision that speaks about not being able to
require an employer to implement a trip reduction program. Could the City
Attorney speak to that issue? I know that there has been some contention
over interpretation. I want to really as fully as possible understand the
City’s perspective as compared to Stanford’s.
43 07/26/10
Ms. Silver: There actually is a legal memo attached to the Staff Report
written by our outside counsel, Rick Jarvis, who is here tonight. I think I will
ask him to come up and summarize that memo that is an attachment to the
Staff Report.
Mayor Burt: Can you remind us which attachment number that is?
Mr. Turner: Attachment E.
Rick Jarvis, CEQA Consultant Partner, Jarvis, Fay & Doporto: Good evening
Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. I am outside legal counsel for the
City particularly with respect to CEQA issues as well as with respect to
general land use matters.
I have looked at the Health and Safety Code section referenced. You have a
memo in your packet with respect to my legal opinion that the Health and
Safety Code section does not prohibit the City from imposing TDM through
an exercise of its lease powers if the City were to so choose. There are sort
of two different ways of reaching that conclusion, or looking at that
conclusion. One is there is a general principle that applies to what are called
Charter Cities. The City of Palo Alto is a Charter City. Under the California
Constitution as a Charter City the City has primary authority over matters
that are local to the city and there is law that provides that a state law
cannot limit a Charter City’s authority over local lease power matters, except
and only to the extent necessary to meet legitimate state issues. We have
looked at the issue and the issue of traffic congestion is a particularly local
concern of the city. The Health and Safety Code section referenced primarily
air quality determinations made by the state legislature and reflects a
determination whether it is correct or incorrect is debatable, but it reflects a
policy determination by the state legislature that TDM measures are not an
efficient way of achieving air quality objectives. It does not speak to or
consider the issue of local traffic congestion.
My memo is in part a response to a memo done by Stanford’s legal counsel
that argues that a Charter City does not have legal authority to ignore state
laws relating to regulation of traffic flow. I would distinguish the authorities
that they rely upon. They deal with the mechanisms of traffic control. You
can’t have individual Charter Cities having their own traffic rules that are
different from statewide rules but I would distinguish those cases from cases
dealing with local authority to control traffic congestion itself.
So from one perspective the short answer to the question is we are Charter
City. This is an area of particular local concern, i.e., traffic congestion as
well as land use regulation. The City as a Charter City has primary authority
44 07/26/10
over that not withstanding the state regulation to the contrary. Another way
of looking at the same question is even if that code section applies to the
City the City Council certainly has the authority to deny the project on the
grounds of traffic impacts. Inherent in that authority to deny the project if
Stanford comes forward with a proposal to reduce the traffic impacts to a
level that is acceptable including TDM measures that is sort of an effective
way that the City has of in essence requiring. If you say you are going to
deny the project because of the traffic impacts but you will approve the
project if different feasible measures are implemented to control traffic – the
bottom line question is is this a feasible mitigation measure? In some ways
this whole legal argument is a sideshow on that because it is feasible
because Stanford is coming forward and saying they are willing to do it. But
if even if Stanford were not willing it is my opinion that the City Council has
that authority.
Council Member Shepherd: For me this project is pretty much all about
traffic because of the new increased load that we have. I don’t want to see
this project get denied but I do want to see this clear mitigation so that it
supports not just Palo Alto, but Stanford and other regions. This is why I
continue to consider the fact that we should probably be doing a traffic
study, a comprehensive, borderless, looking at some of the other angles that
come into play when we get off Highway 1 or Interstate 280, in addition to
looking into really tying up links with shuttles. That seemed to be – well,
the newspapers are starting to talk about the shuttle that Facebook has now.
It just seems like we could study this and do a better job of it for both
parties. So I look forward to that happening. I really appreciate the
clarification on what type of mitigation this would be.
Council Member Holman: I do have just a handful here and I am just going
to read them off, if people don’t mind. If the FEIR could answer how Menlo
Park and Palo Alto’s different traffic analysis methodologies are different and
yet how they both according to the DEIR satisfy CEQA. I would be most
interested in that. Interested in the contiguous projects and if we have
considered the comprehensive impacts of contiguous projects, contiguous to
this proposal.
Interested also in what the linkage is for Hoover Pavilion and the necessity
for it to satisfy CEQA and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards given that
Hoover Pavilion is not on the local inventory. We in the general public don’t
have plans to see what the restoration program is. The DEIR talks about
possible window retention and restoration. It also talks about window
replacement, which is not one of the primary acceptable preferences of the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. I have heard that they are proposing
to replace all the windows. I don’t know that because we don’t have that
45 07/26/10
information. So I am wanting to know what the linkage is there, and also in
the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards if the State
Historic Building Code has been considered. Also in consideration of the
Preservation Alternative if the State Historic Building Code was considered in
how that building might be reused.
More on the viewscapes because there are still a number of viewscapes, and
I won’t list all of them, but Stanford West Apartments to the project, Oak
Creek Apartments to the project. I didn’t locate those views.
I am not sure if I have done this just privately or publicly the context and
sphere of influence at Hoover Pavilion site. The addition of the new large
buildings I believe the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards have a CEQA
impact because of their scale and blocking of view. The historic resource is
supposed to be the dominant building on site. In other words, the other
buildings should be subservient and in scale and mass and appearance, and
that is not apparently what is the case. The model does not include the
Hoover Pavilion site. Apparently from what there is in the DEIR it looks like
it is not. I will stop there for the moment.
Mayor Burt: I have one additional question. One member of the public had
raised issues about whether the Draft Environmental Impact Report had
taken into account the impacts that were evaluated under the 2000 Stanford
General Use Permit. Curtis, can you comment on that?
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mayor Burt. I think this refers back to Council Member
Price’s question before. Yes those were all taken into account as part of the
background situation for the analysis.
Mayor Burt: Thank you. We do not have any other comments. So at this
time I would do – well I guess I should have closed the hearing already and
second conclude this item. The process will be that actually there are
written comments that can still be provided through tomorrow. Is that
correct, Curtis?
Mr. Williams: That is correct, through the end of tomorrow. Email to Steven
Turner or to the City of Palo Alto website for Stanford.
Mayor Burt: Then just to refresh everybody the next process step, could
you give us a little bit of the timeline?
Mr. Williams: We will be coming back to you with check-ins on the
Development Agreement in the fall. As I mentioned, we will come back at
some point also with some discussion on the zoning and design components
46 07/26/10
before we actually bring back the Final EIR and the entitlements as a
package in the fall, November/December timeframe.
3. Approval of a Stakeholder Task Force and Direction to the City
Manager to Appoint Task Force Members for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor
Study (Continued from July 12, 2010).
Director of Planning & Community Environment, Curtis Williams stated that
on July 12, 2010, the City Council authorized Staff to proceed with a scope
of work and Request for Proposal for consulting services to assist with the
preparation of a Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study (Rail Corridor Study). The
Agenda Item outlined the composition of the proposed stakeholder Task
Force. Notice of Staff’s suggested Task Force was emailed on July 15, 2010
to various organizations and individuals who might be considered
stakeholders. Staff’s proposal comprised of a 15 member Task Force. He
outlined the proposed composition of the Task Force. The Task Force would
recommend components of the Rail Corridor Study to the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC), which would report recommendations to
the City Council. Staff proposed quarterly status reports of the Rail Corridor
Study’s progress. He spoke on the advantages of a Task Force and Staff
leading the Rail Corridor Study, opposed to the PT&C and Staff leading the
Rail Corridor Study. Staff recommended that the City Council approve the
composition of the Task Force for studying the Rail Corridor Study, and
direct the City Manager to appoint the members of the Task Force.
Vice Mayor Espinosa inquired on any alternative scenarios that Staff looked
into on the structure of the Task Force.
Mr. Williams stated the primary alternatives were including one or two more
neighborhood representatives, and including representation from the Palo
Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) and the Chamber of Commerce. The exclusion of
a Caltrain rider and a representative from the Santa Clara Valley American
Institute of Architects was looked into. Staff considered the addition of a
commercial property owner and residential housing developer.
Council Member Shepherd stated the Task Force was inspired by the SOFA2
Task Force. She inquired on the composition of the SOFA2 Task Force. She
supported the civic engagement aspects of the SOFA2 Task Force.
Mr. Williams stated the SOFA2 Task Force members were appointed by the
City Manager and was based on stakeholder representatives.
47 07/26/10
Mayor Burt spoke on the primary distinctions between the SOFA1 and the
SOFA2 Task Force members. He stated SOFA1 Task Force members were
appointed by the City Council, and comprised of stakeholder representatives
and alternatives. He spoke on the importance of defining the role of the
alternate members. He stated stakeholder representatives wore more than
one hat which expanded the members’ roles. He stated Board and
Commission members were appointed as representatives in the SOFA2 Task
Force.
Council Member Shepherd inquired whether the current proposal for
appointments could be made to individuals not residing in Palo Alto.
Mr. Williams stated that was correct.
Mayor Burt stated the City Council did not use a day and night distinction in
appointing SOFA Task Force members solely based on whether they lived
and worked in Palo Alto. He indicated it was a valid policy question for the
City Council.
Council Member Holman stated she did not relate the SOFA appointments
with the Rail Corridor Study Task Force appointments. It was her belief the
proposal eliminated much of the expertise found within the community. The
Rail Corridor Study would evaluate land use, transportation, and urban
design elements of the corridor. She suggested the Task Force include
representation from the P&TC, Canopy, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Palo
Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and Stanford. She felt the Task Force
should include representation from an environmental group, an architect, a
business owner, and neighborhood members.
Mayor Burt stated the Task Force would serve as a primary conduit for input
on the information flow regarding the Rail Corridor Study to and from key
stakeholders and the larger community.
Mr. Williams stated that was correct.
Mayor Burt stated the SOFA Task Force communicated with neighborhood
groups, and had defined subcommittee groups containing roughly 50
participants.
Council Member Scharff inquired how the appointment number of 15 was
selected for the Task Force. He inquired whether Staff recommended
additional members on the Task Force.
48 07/26/10
Mr. Williams stated Staff did not recommend more than 15 members on the
Task Force. He stated appointing twelve to fifteen members was ideal.
Council Member Scharff inquired who would be appointing the members to
the Task Force.
Mr. Williams stated Staff would propose appointment recommendations to
the City Manager. The City Manager would have the ultimate decision on
appointments to the Task Force.
Council Member Scharff stated Staff would be conducting the recruitment
process for the Task Force, and would recommend appointment
recommendations to the City Manager.
Mr. Williams stated that was correct.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether other persons would be providing
input.
Mr. Williams stated Staff would be communicating with PAN, the Chamber of
Commerce, Californians for Responsible Rail Design (CARRD), and other
individuals and organizations.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether the recruitment process would be
solely based on the individuals who have shown interest, or whether Staff
would be recruiting other potentially interested individuals in the community.
Mr. Williams stated the process would encompass a combination of reaching
out to individuals currently interested, and seeking out other individuals
within the community.
Council Member Scharff inquired on the term of the Task Force, and how
often they would meet.
Mr. Williams stated Staff anticipated that the Task Force would meet once a
month for a total of 13 to 16 months. He stated there may be additional
meetings, as needed.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether the Task Force would vote on
recommendations quarterly, or at the conclusion of the Task Force.
Mr. Williams stated the voting process was still unclear at this time. The Rail
Corridor Study would run parallel to the High Speed Rail process. He
indicated Staff wanted to stay flexible in the Rail Corridor Study’s analysis to
49 07/26/10
provide input in a timely manner with the High Speed Rail process. It was
anticipated that the Task Force would report on quarterly status reports.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether the recommendations by the Task
Force would be folded in with the review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Williams stated the two projects would be tracked parallel to one
another.
Council Member Shepherd inquired whether the appointment of Task Force
members would return for ratification by the City Council.
Mr. Williams stated Staff’s recommendation was not to have the
appointments return to the City Council.
Elaine Meyer, Palo Alto, spoke on the Rail Corridor Study’s interest serving
developers.
Sheri Furman, Palo Alto, spoke on her recommendation for the composition
of the Task Force, and the use of subcommittees.
Ken Allen, Palo Alto, spoke on the importance of the Task Force complying
with the Brown Act, and having access to record-keeping, Staff support, civil
engineering and urban planning expertise.
Herb Borock, Palo Alto, spoke on the necessity for the Task Force’s
subcommittees to comply with the Brown Act. He spoke on the relationship,
and corresponding timelines, between the Task Force and the California
Avenue Area Study.
Council Member Holman stated she would be interested in having an
alternate composition of the Task Force.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
Yeh that the composition of the Task Force for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor
Study be: 2 Planning & Transportation Commission members, 1 Architect, 1
Representative from Canopy, 1 Bicycle Advisory Committee member, 1
Stanford representative, 1 member from an environmental group or
environmental interest, 3 business owners or business property owners, 4
neighborhood representatives, and 1 Palo Alto Unified School District
representative or liaison.
50 07/26/10
Council Member Holman stated her vision for the proceedings of the Task
Force was a round table forum where input from each member was
welcomed and accepted. She stated desired candidates would have
expertise and knowledge on land use, transportation, and urban design
along the Caltrain corridor.
City Attorney, Gary Baum stated P&TC members could be liaisons to the
Task Force, but not full participants. He stated this was because the Task
Force was designed to be an advisory board to the P&TC.
Council Member Holman stated P&TC members could provide input, but
could not give direction or advice as liaison members.
Mr. Baum stated P&TC members could attend Task Force meetings and
respond to questions. P&TC members could not provide input on issues as
they arose. The Task Force was established to provide recommendations to
the P&TC. He stated P&TC members fully participating in the Task Force
would conflict with the Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700.
Council Member Holman inquired whether Staff could describe the definition
of a liaison member.
Mr. Baum stated a liaison member attended and monitored meetings without
being full participants. They could not vote or provide input. He stated a
liaison member could respond to a question on a plan, but could not
recommend how a plan should be employed.
Council Member Scharff spoke on his concern for appointing one member of
the Bicycle Advisory Committee.
Mr. Baum stated the highest level of concern was the appointment of a P&TC
representative on the Task Force. He stated all other appointments were at
the City Council’s discretion.
Council Member Scharff spoke on his concern that there was not enough
representation from the various neighborhoods. He stated four out of eleven
neighborhoods was not enough representation. He suggested adding two
additional members, from different neighborhood groups, to the Task Force.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that the 2 Planning & Transportation Commission
members be liaisons with the group, other Board & Commission members to
serve as liaisons, and to include 2 additional members from neighborhoods.
51 07/26/10
Council Member Price stated the challenge of appointing the Task Force was
ensuring it was inclusive and operational. She suggested one environmental
representative and one Caltrain rider. She suggested geographic
representation from the business representatives. She stated representation
from the Youth Council and people-oriented services were not included in the
Motion.
Council Member Holman stated there was no attempt to exclude the Youth
Council or people-oriented services. She stated she focused her Motion on
the stated goal of land use, transportation, and urban design opportunities
along the Caltrain corridor, and recommended the appointment of individuals
who had expertise in these fields.
Council Member Price inquired whether the Maker of the Motion was in favor
of including a Caltrain rider, and whether that experience could be met by a
neighborhood representative.
Council Member Holman stated a Caltrain rider could provide useful input to
the Task Force.
Council Member Shepherd recommended that during the recruitment
process, additional points be awarded to individuals that rode Caltrain. She
suggested the Motion include two representatives being Caltrain riders,
inclusive of their titles as a member on the Task Force.
Council Member Holman stated Staff could possibly find one neighborhood
member who regularly commuted on Caltrain. She spoke on her concern for
precluding neighborhood members who were interested in the Task Force.
She felt Caltrain ridership information could be provided without a
designated Caltrain rider on the Task Force.
Council Member Shepherd stated the Caltrain rider could be any one of the
individuals selected on the Task Force.
Council Member Holman stated her intent was having one neighborhood
representative also be a routine Caltrain commuter. Her intent was not to
preclude interested neighborhood representatives, however, priority be
given to an individual that had significant Caltrain ridership experience.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that one of the neighborhood representatives also
be a routine train commuter.
52 07/26/10
Council Member Shepherd suggested that a member of the PAUSD be
appointed to the Task Force.
Council Member Holman stated that was the intention of the Motion. The
PAUSD would be responsible for appointing a member to the Task Force,
whether it was a member of the PAUSD, or Parent Teacher Association
(PTA).
Council Member Shepherd spoke of her concern that a social services
provider was excluded from the Motion. She inquired whether it was
possible to merge the environmental and Canopy representatives into one
representative, and add a social services provider.
Council Member Holman stated her preference was not to merge the
environmental and Canopy representatives as they had different expertise.
She stated social service providers were welcome to provide input.
Council Member Shepherd inquired what specific expertise was desired in the
environmental representative.
Council Member Holman stated there was a broad spectrum of expertise
desired in the environmental representative, which included circulation and
aquifer expertise.
Council Member Shepherd spoke on her interest for one of the business
representatives being a realtor. Realtors were providing full disclosure
material to potential homebuyers along the corridor, and understood the
management of real estate along the corridor.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that one of the four business members be a
realtor.
Vice Mayor Espinosa inquired whether the Motion was inclusive of all the
recommendations in the Agenda Item, and the Maker was making changes
strictly on the composition of the Task Force.
Council Member Holman stated that was correct.
Vice Mayor Espinosa inquired whether there was consideration by the City
Council for a representative of PAN and the Chamber of Commerce. His
intention was to replace the two positions, which opened due to the removal
of the P&TC members, with a PAN and Chamber of Commerce representative
as a broad community voice.
53 07/26/10
Council Member Scharff stated he supported this recommendation.
Council Member Holman supported one of the six neighborhood
representatives being a PAN representative.
Mr. Williams stated there were not six neighborhood representatives. He
stated there was the original four neighborhood representatives, plus one
member from PAN, in lieu of one P&TC representative. The Chamber of
Commerce representative was proposed in lieu of the second P&TC member
removed.
Vice Mayor Espinosa concurred with Mr. Williams’s recommendation to
appoint a PAN and Chamber of Commerce representative in lieu of the two
removed P&TC representatives.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that there be 4 neighborhood members plus 1
member from Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN).
Council Member Holman asked how much Stanford owned land was on the
map contained within the Staff Report. She stated Stanford primarily owned
land on the West side of El Camino Real.
Mr. Williams stated Stanford owned the Sheridan Hotel along El Camino
Real. He stated this parcel was in the general area of the Rail Corridor
Study’s preliminary boundary.
Council Member Holman inquired on Staff’s preference to have a Stanford
representative or the Chamber of Commerce representative on the Task
Force.
Mr. Williams stated Staff agreed with the approach to have a representative
from PAN and the Chamber of Commerce on the Task Force as
representatives of the broader community.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDED that the four business representatives would
include one representative from the Chamber of Commerce.
Council Member Yeh spoke on representation from the youth and a social
services provider. He spoke on his concern of an on-going commitment
from a high school student. He suggested the Task Force holding a targeted
meeting with the youth and social services providers.
54 07/26/10
MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member Yeh that the composition of the Task Force for the Palo Alto Rail
Corridor Study be: 1 PAUSD representative; 5 neighborhood representatives
with one being from PAN; 4 business representatives with one being from
the Chamber of Commerce and one a Realtor; 1 environmental
representative; 1 member from Stanford, 1 Bike Advisory Committee
member, 1 representative from Canopy, 1 Architect; and two Planning &
Transportation Commission liaisons.
Mayor Burt spoke on his concern with the composition for the Task Force.
He felt there should be less modification from Staff’s proposal. He
recommended that a Stanford representative be on the Task Force.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member
Shepherd that the composition of the Task Force for the Palo Alto Rail
Corridor Study be: 1 member from Stanford; 1 environmental
representative; 3 business community members including 1 realtor, 1
member from the Chamber of Commerce, and 1 property/business owner; 1
Architect, 5 neighborhood representatives; 1 PAN representative; 1 PAUSD
representative; 1 Caltrain rider; 1 social services/affordable housing
member; and include liaisons from Boards and Commissions who wish to
participate.
Mayor Burt stated that his Substitute Motion included one representative
from Stanford, a social services provider, and a Caltrain rider rather than the
representative from Canopy and the Bicycle Advisory Committee.
Council Member Shepherd inquired whether an architect was included within
the Substitute Motion.
Mayor Burt stated yes.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether the Substitute Motion included a
Chamber of Commerce representative.
Mayor Burt stated yes.
Council Member Shepherd inquired whether the Substitute Motion included a
realtor.
Mayor Burt stated the realtor would be selected within the business
community members’ selection.
55 07/26/10
Council Member Shepherd inquired whether the Task Force would be
involved in the Economic Study of the rail corridor.
Mr. Williams stated the Task Force would not be responsible for overseeing
the Economic Study. He stated Staff would report to the Task Force on
Economic Study work.
Council Member Klein stated the creation of the Task Force was premature.
He spoke on his concern for having two P&TC liaisons on the Task Force. He
recommended one P&TC liaison on the Task Force, as seen in other City Task
Forces.
Mayor Burt stated the Substitute Motion consisted of Staff’s recommendation
to approve liaison representatives from a variety of interested City boards
and commissions.
Council Member Klein spoke on the differences between the Motion and
Substitute Motion. He suggested that a representative from Canopy be
included in the Task Force, in lieu of the social services provider.
Council Member Shepherd inquired how Canopy would benefit the Task
Force as a stakeholder member.
Council Member Holman stated, in the last several years, there had been
erosions near the rail corridor due to Caltrain projects, Public Works
Department projects, and lack of replanting treescapes. Canopy was an
organization that was knowledgeable on trees, and what types of trees
would sustain the development that may happen in the rail corridor area.
She suggested the Caltrain rider and neighborhood representative be
merged into one member and add a Canopy representative.
Mayor Burt stated Staff recommended the City Council approve no more
than 15 Task Force members. He did not see the need for the Task Force to
be an odd number of members, and recommended adding one Canopy
member to bring the total membership to 16.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add 1 Canopy
representative.
Council Member Shepherd stated her interest for adding a social services
provider was due to the different trends seen at the station on California
Avenue.
56 07/26/10
Council Member Price inquired whether the social services/affordable
housing representative was part of the Substitute Motion.
Mayor Burt stated the Motion included one representative for those two
stakeholder groups.
Council Member Price stated there was a distinction between transit
dependent users and routine commuters of Caltrain. She stated the
perspectives of the users were important.
Council Member Scharff inquired how the business representatives were
handled in the Substitute Motion.
Mayor Burt stated the business representatives included a member from the
Chamber of Commerce, a realtor, a business/property owner, and one
representative at-large.
Council Member Yeh stated there was much to be learned from non-Caltrain
users. He spoke on the different motivations between Caltrain users and
non-Caltrain users.
Council Member Holman stated there were five neighborhood
representatives proposed in the Substitute Motion. She stated one of those
members was a PAN representative. She inquired whether the other four
would be from different neighborhoods.
Mayor Burt stated that was correct.
Council Member Scharff recommended that the four neighborhood
representatives be within the Rail Corridor Study area.
Mayor Burt concurred with Council Member Scharff.
Council Member Holman inquired whether different parts of town would be
equally represented.
Mayor Burt stated that was correct.
Council Member Holman stated the business representatives included the
Chamber of Commerce. She inquired whether the other business
representatives would be from different parts of town.
57 07/26/10
Mayor Burt stated the Substitute Motion did not specify that. His intent was
for Staff to recommend members that had broad perspectives, and diversity
of geographic perspectives.
Mr. Williams stated Staff would keep Mayor Burt’s suggestion in mind when
recommending potential members to the Task Force.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent
Council Member Holman inquired on the position of the P&TC member as a
liaison to the Task Force.
Mayor Burt stated the Substitute Motion included Staff’s recommendation to
include liaisons from Boards and Commissions who wished to participate.
Council Member Holman stated the Rail Corridor Study’s map was sweeping
in scope. She inquired when a refined map would be returning to the City
Council.
Mr. Williams stated the map was a broad first sweep of the rail corridor
location, and there would be deviation to it. Refining the boundaries of the
map would potentially be one of the first assignments of the Task Force.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
Espinosa to accept the balance of Staff recommendations: 1) The Task Force
should serve as a conduit to and from other stakeholders and should work
with Staff to set up networks and techniques at the outset of the process to
assure engagement of the broader community throughout the study. An
initial effort of the Task Force will be to develop a plan for outreach to assure
extensive input from all interested and affected segments of the community,
2) Meetings of the Task Force would be subject to all Brown Act committee
requirements. Meetings would be open to the public notice would be
provided as prescribed by the Brown Act, at a minimum (Staff anticipates
considerably more extensive notice would be provided to an extensive list of
stakeholders and interested individuals, 3) Individuals on the Task Force
would not, however, be subject to filing the Form 700 disclosure statements
of conflicts of interest, since any recommendations will be subject to
substantive intervening review by the Planning & Transportation Commission
(PT&C), prior to recommendations to Council, 4) The Task Force Members
will take votes to recommend components of the study to the Planning and
Transportation Commission, which will then report its recommendations to
the City Council, and 5) Quarterly status reports of the study progress will
be provided by Staff to the Council, Planning and Transportation
Commission, and the Council’s HSR Committee. Reports from the Planning
58 07/26/10
and Transportation Commission will be provided for information to the HSR
Committee prior to Council review. Where timely, reports and
recommendations of the Task Force that are relevant and timely to address
High Speed Rail issues will also be forwarded to the Council’s HSR
Committee.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid no
4. Direction Regarding Content of Charter Amendment to Repeal Binding
Arbitration for Public Safety.
Mayor Burt stated this was a continued Council session to further discuss the
content of the proposed Charter Amendment to repeal Binding Arbitration for
public safety.
Assistant City Manager, Pamela Antil stated Staff included additional recent
articles to assist with the City Council’s discussion and possible direction to
Staff. The ballot language preparation was in progress, and would return to
the City Council on August 2, 2010.
Mayor Burt inquired whether this would comply with the meet and confer
requirements relating to union negotiations, and whether it was an
obligation of the City. He inquired whether it should be included in
discussions with the City’s labor groups that would be potentially affected.
City Attorney, Gary Baum stated it was as issue that was permissive subject
of bargaining, and the City was not required to meet and confer. He spoke
on several California cities where the issue was upheld. Staff provided the
City Council with a memorandum that showed Staff’s analysis. He indicated
Staff’s analysis had been reviewed and endorsed by the City’s outside
counsel.
Herb Borock, Palo Alto, spoke on the Charter Amendment in 1978, past
Binding Arbitration decisions, and the firefighters’ petition.
Robert Moss, Palo Alto, spoke on his support for the City Council to place the
Charter Amendment on the ballot.
Catherine Capriles, Palo Alto Fire Department, spoke on her support for
Binding Arbitration.
Alan Davis, Palo Alto, spoke on the benefits of Binding Arbitration and meet
and defer requirements.
59 07/26/10
Council Member Yeh stated he was interested in the actual decisions of past
Binding Arbitration situations, and the total cost of City negotiations over the
years. He stated it was when the City reached an impasse in negotiations
that the City moved into Binding Arbitration. He inquired whether there
were any budget savings seen. He stated that if the Charter Amendment
was placed on the ballot and passed, it would have collateral damage to the
two Police Officer unions. He spoke on his interest in the union groups that
the ballot measure would potentially impact. He was interested in the facts
or merits, and felt there was not enough time to place the Charter
Amendment on the ballot.
Council Member Shepherd stated she accepted placing the Charter
Amendment on the ballot. She felt updating the City’s Charter was needed.
She desired more due diligence before moving forward. She suggested a
Citizens Task Force to study the Charter and see where updates could be
made. She spoke on her concern that there was not enough time to place
the Charter Amendment on the ballot.
Mayor Burt requested confirmation that if the City placed the Charter
Amendment on the ballot, the City would not be circulating an Initiative
Petition for the Charter Amendment.
Council Member Shepherd stated she was speaking in terms of the wording
for the Fire Fighters’ Petition. Any petition placed on the ballot, would
require a citizens group to circulate the petition.
Council Member Price felt the City Council was rushing into placing the
Charter Amendment on the ballot, and it could be perceived as retribution to
the Fire Fighters’ Initiative. She stated public safety personnel did not have
the right to strike, and this was a long standing practice. Binding Arbitration
was a way to have a fair and impartial hearing. There were many ways
Binding Arbitration could be effective, including cost sharing and arbitrators
had the expertise to help reach a resolution. The ricochet effect that this
would have to the Police Department employees would be great. It was her
belief that Binding Arbitration should stay in the City’s Charter, as there
were some standpoints that suggested the cost of arbitration could be less
than seeking counsel for deliberations. The ballot cost for the Charter
Amendment was roughly $100,000, and there were other ways the City
could use those funds.
Council Member Scharff stated it was in the City’s best interest to place the
Charter Amendment on the ballot and to let the voters decide. If the City
was unable to get pensions and employee costs under control, employees
would lose their jobs, City services would erode, and the quality of life in
60 07/26/10
Palo Alto would diminish. The City Council had tried to obtain equity across
the board with employees. If the City wanted a two-tiered retirement
system with Public Safety personnel, all parties involved would be required
to agree. If equity across the board was not possible, then the City would
need to consider putting the Charter Amendment on the November 2010
ballot. If the City did not place the Charter Amendment on the ballot, he
recommended a Task Force to review the City’s Charter.
Council Member Holman stated Palo Alto was only one of three other Charter
cities in the Bay Area that used Binding Arbitration. She indicated this had
been a topic of discussion among past Council Members and should be
addressed.
Vice Mayor Espinosa stated the Charter Amendment was not in retribution to
the Fire Fighters’ Initiative. He agreed with Council Member Scharff that the
City should look at equity across the board for all employees. The City
Council had converged with all employees union groups to discuss the City’s
budget, pension, and health care. Over the past year the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) took on a collaborative approach with the City to
formulate solutions together. It was his belief the City did not have enough
time to discuss this issue before the November 2010 election.
Council Member Klein stated he voted against Binding Arbitration in 1978. It
was his belief Binding Arbitration took the decision out of the hands of City
representatives, and put it into someone else’s hands who had no
responsibility or tie to Palo Alto.
Mayor Burt stated Attachment A of the Staff Report showed the cities within
Santa Clara County that used Binding Arbitration, including Palo Alto, the
City of San Jose, and the City of Gilroy. He stated the City of Gilroy
underwent major structure reforms in their Fire Department’s compensation
plan mid-contract as a result of the Council considering putting Binding
Arbitration on the ballot. He stated the City of San Jose was considering
putting Binding Arbitration on the ballot. He stated the reforms were
difficult last year with SEIU. With SEIU negotiations the City achieved a
reverse spiral of increasing benefits and unsustainable costs. He spoke on
his concern on Staff cuts in the City’s Police Department.
Council Member Yeh requested an overall cost for City negotiations on a
Fiscal Year basis.
Ms. Antil inquired whether Council Member Yeh’s request was for records
dating back to 1978.
61 07/26/10
Council Member Yeh stated he was not aware of the City’s Record Retention
Policy. He requested information from the Fiscal Years that were available.
Mayor Burt inquired whether Council Member Yeh’s intention for past records
was on costs, or rulings of Binding Arbitrations.
Council Member Yeh stated his intention was for information on when the
first Binding Arbitration was set in motion. He was unsure whether
negotiations occurred every Fiscal Year, or skipped Fiscal Years, based on
Memorandum of Understanding agreement terms. His intent was to
understand the cost trend of negotiations for public safety personnel.
Mayor Burt stated Council Member Yeh was looking for trends in the cost of
negotiations for public safety personnel.
Council Member Klein spoke on his concern for the additional workload on
Staff for this request. He felt parameters should be established for the
amount of time Staff worked on this request.
Council Member Yeh felt the information was essential for a fully informed
discussion.
Ms. Antil stated Staff could possibly look into the billings for outside labor
counsel.
Mr. Baum stated the City did not use outside labor counsel. He stated, for
the last five years, the City used a flat rate cost based on employee head
count.
Mayor Burt stated he was unclear on the benefits for the cost of labor
negotiations.
Council Member Yeh stated his intent was to educate the City Council on
Binding Arbitration, as it was only used a small number of times. There
were costs associated for negotiations, and those relative costs were
imperative.
Mayor Burt stated, unless Staff indicated otherwise, this research would
require a great deal of Staff time.
Council Member Price stated contracts for negotiators were based on
employee head count. She inquired whether Staff was able to break the
cost out to show the cost for public safety personnel. She stated the City
Council was operating on a context of not knowing what the cost was.
62 07/26/10
Binding Arbitration truncated the process, and the City Council did not have
a basis for comparison.
Ms. Antil stated the City compensated IEDA approximately $85,000 annually
for all labor groups.
Mayor Burt stated he believed the inquiry was based on the concern for
whether the City would have a greater or lower expense if the City held
Binding Arbitration. He stated data would be beneficial if it did not add a lot
of workload to Staff.
Council Member Klein recommended that Staff limit the time spent on this
request to ten hours.
Mayor Burt agreed with Council Member Klein.
Council Member Shepherd stated the information missing from the Staff
Report was the number of times the City used Binding Arbitration, what the
context of Binding Arbitration was about, and how much the City saved or
lost.
Mayor Burt stated the inquiry was for additional labor negotiation costs, in
addition to the number of times the City used Binding Arbitration, what they
were about, and how much the City saved or lost.
Council Member Price inquired whether the request included the costs
incurred and shared with Fire Fighter personnel, and what the results were
of those rulings from Binding Arbitration.
Mayor Burt recommended that a Motion be brought forth by a Council
Member for a complex request of Staff.
Council Member Yeh requested Staff to work on this request for up to ten
hours.
Ms. Antil acknowledged Council Member Yeh’s request.
Mayor Burt stated Staff’s first priority would be to provide the history of
rulings on Binding Arbitration. He stated the second priority would be on
any insights Staff may have on comparative costs.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Assistant City Manager, Pamela Antil spoke on the Palo Alto Aquatics Team’s
participation in the 2010 Northern California Lifeguard Games.
63 07/26/10
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Peter Robinson, Palo Alto, spoke on the forthcoming removal of trees at
Mitchell Park.
Mark Petersen-Perez, spoke on social media networks and his emails not
being responded to by City Staff.
Herb Borock, Palo Alto, spoke on the placement of oral communications, the
Council Appointed Officers Committee minutes regarding an exit interview
for the City Attorney, and the High Speed Rail Committee meeting’s
discussion on hiring contractors.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Yeh moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Espinosa to
approve the minutes of June 7, 2010 and June 14, 2010.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent CONSENT CALENDAR
Herb Borock, Palo Alto, spoke on Agenda Item No. 5. He recommended the
City Council obtain and analyze the information used in the Blue Ribbon
Panel for the previous City Attorney recruitment.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Espinosa moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 5-12.
5. Recommendation from Council Appointed Officers Committee (CAO) to
Initiate City Attorney Recruitment.
6. Approval of an Electric Enterprise Fund Contract With Pacheco Utility
Line Builders, Inc. for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $3,000,000
for Providing Overhead Electric Transmission and Distribution
System Construction Services – Capital Improvement Program
Budget EL 98003.
7. Approval of Four Multiple Prime Contracts for the Civic Center
Infrastructure Improvements - Capital Improvement Program
Project PF-01002: 1) Contract with Nexgen Builders, Inc. in the
Amount of $367,313 for General Work Items and Finishes; 2)
64 07/26/10
Contract with Everest Waterproofing and Restoration, Inc. in the
Amount of $648,934 for Exterior Improvements; 3) Contract with
ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. in the Amount of $1,270,695 for
Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire Sprinkler and Controls; and 4) Contract
with H.A. Bowen Electric, Inc. in the Amount of $749,000 for
Electrical And Fire Alarm.
8. Approval of Amendment No. One to Existing Contract No. C09127499
with Assetworks, Inc. in the Amount of $9,832 for the Purchase of
Additional Components Required to Complete the Implementation
of the Fuel Transaction Management System.
9. Approval of the Sale of Surplus Fire Equipment to Oaxaca, Mexico
in the Amount of $20,000.
10. Approval of a Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund Contract with
Carollo Engineers, Inc. in an Amount of $981,266 for Preparation of
the Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant; and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5086
for the Fiscal Year 2011 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of
$481,266 to Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-10001, Plant
Master Plan.
11. Resolution 9079 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Authorizing Use of a Design-Build Project Delivery Method for
Design and Construction of Replacement Fuel Pumps and Related
Equipment at Foothills Park”. (VR-92006).
12. Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) 5087 for Fiscal Year 2011 to
Provide Additional Appropriations of $22,780 for Verification of Petition
Signatures Within the General Fund for the County of Santa Clara
Registrar of Voters Regarding Palo Alto Professional Firefighter’s, Local
1319, Initiative Costs.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Yeh reported that Palo Alto High School alumni Jeremy Lin
had been drafted by the Golden State Warriors.
Council Member Price requested to see the results of the projects from the
Design Teams.
65 07/26/10
Assistant City Manager, Pamela Antil stated there would be a report shared
with the City Council on the Design Teams at a later date.
Mayor Burt closed the meeting in memory of Doctor David Druker who was
the CEO/COO of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, who passed away on July
23, 2010.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned in memory of Doctor David
Druker at 11:44 p.m.