HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-05 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
December 5, 2005
1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION .................................484
1A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR ..........................................484
2. Emergency Preparedness ................................................................484
3. Proclamation for Hewlett Packard Garage Commemoration Day ...........485
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................485
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ..........................................................................486
4. Ordinance 4886 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Adding Section 22.08.331 of Chapter 22.08 [Park Dedications] of
Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Dedicate a 13.27 Acre Parcel
of Land [Parcel 3] Formerly Known as the Arastradero Gateway
Preserve” (1st Reading 11/14/05, Passed 9-0) ...................................487
5. Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve the Auditor’s Office
Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2005.......................................488
6. Approval of Contract Amendment for $60,000, with a Total Contract
Amount Not to Exceed $165,000 with Mike Miller for Consulting
Services Related to the Utilities Re-Structuring Plan ...........................488
9. Approval of a Purchase Order with Ditch Witch Sales Bay Area, Inc. in
the Amount of $299,238 for the Purchase of Two Directional Boring
Machines .......................................................................................488
9A. Approval of a Purchase Order with Peterson Tractor Company in the
Amount of $940,755 for the Purchase of a Waste-Handling (Landfill)
Compactor and Waste-Handling Crawler-Dozer ..................................488
7. 455 Santa Rita Avenue [05APL-00002]: Appeal by Nancy and Richard
Alexander and Worth and Andy Ludwick of the Director of Planning and
12/05/05 99-481
Community Environment’s Approval of a Single Family Individual
Review Application for an Addition to the Existing Two-Story Residence
Resulting in an Overall Height of 32 Feet Eight Inches Tall Owned by
Lynn Brown and Robert Stefanski. Zone: R-1 (929). Environmental
Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per
Section 15303 ...............................................................................488
8. 1531 Hamilton Avenue [APL-00003]: Appeal by Steve and Laurie
Mullen, 10 Phillips Road, of the Director of Planning and Community
Environment’s Approval of a Single Family Individual Review
Application for a New Two-Story Residence Owned by David Yen and
Fanny Ching, 1531 Hamilton Avenue. Zone: R-1. Environmental
Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per
Section 15303. ..............................................................................492
10. Public Hearing: Consideration of a Request by DR Horton
Homebuilders on Behalf of Hyatt Equities, Inc. for a Tentative Map to
Merge Two Existing Parcels and Subdivide the Resulting 15.84 Acre
Site into Eleven Single-Family Lots and One Multiple-Family Lot for
the Development of a Previously Approved Single-Family and Multiple-
Family Condominium Project Located at 4219 El Camino Real [05PLN-
00235]. ........................................................................................495
11. Public Hearing: Consideration of an Application by the City of Palo
Alto Public Works Department for the Site and Design Review and
Design Enhancement Exception for a Palo Alto Utilities/Department of
Energy (DOE) Photovoltaic Demonstration Project Consisting of 10
Solar Trackers and Two Photovoltaic Carports to be Located Next to the City's Municipal Service Center at 3201 East Bayshore Road
(05PLN-00255). Zone District: PF(D). Environmental Assessment:
DOE Lead Agency for NEPA Exclusion; CEQA Categorical Exemption
Section 15303. ..............................................................................497
12. Public Hearing: Consideration of a Request by Trumark Companies on
Behalf of Batton Associates, LLC and HDP Associates for a Vesting
Tentative Map for a Proposed Residential Infill Development Located at
1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle [05-PLN-
00289]. (Staff requests item to be continued, by Council Motion, to
01/30/2006 ...................................................................................503
13. Recommendation from Council Appointed Officers (CAO) Committee to
Approve Request for Contract Amendment by Baum, Benest, Erickson,
Rogers ..........................................................................................503
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ........................505
12/05/05 99-482
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. ....................505
12/05/05 99-483
The Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers
at 5:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Freeman, Kishimoto, Morton (arrived
at 5:10 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian
ABSENT: Kleinberg
CLOSED SESSION
1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Title: City Manager Frank Benest
City Attorney Gary M. Baum
City Auditor Sharon Erickson
City Clerk Donna Rogers
Authority: Government Code section 54957(b)(1)
1A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency Negotiator: John Shannon
Unrepresented Employee: City Manager Frank Benest
City Attorney Gary M. Baum
City Auditor Sharon Erickson
City Clerk Donna Rogers
Authority: Government Code section 54957.6(a)
The Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters regarding existing and
anticipated litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 1 and 2.
Mayor Burch announced there was no reportable action taken.
The Council reconvened into open session at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Morton
(arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian
STUDY SESSION
2. Emergency Preparedness
The After Action Report of the earthquake exercise conducted in April was
distributed and discussed with Council by Officer Ken Dueker. Emergency
preparedness priorities identified by the Emergency Preparedness Working
Group and Steering Committee were reported to Council by Fire Chief Nick
12/05/05 99-484
Marinaro and Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison. Emergency Manager
Barbara Cimino discussed her response to the Gulf Coast Region and what
should be implemented in Palo Alto to strengthen disaster preparedness and
response.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
3. Proclamation for Hewlett Packard Garage Commemoration Day
Gary Fazzino, 126 Kellogg, said Palo Alto will always be the birthplace of
Silicon Valley because of Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard and the famous
garage. Hewlett-Packard spent approximately 16-months restoring the
garage and the house to ensure the historic structures would be preserved
and available to Palo Altans for generations to come.
Sid Espinosa, 3000 Hanover, said he had the pleasure of working on the
restoration project. It was a massive undertaking with a very tight timeline.
The house was lifted from its old foundation and a new foundation
constructed. The structure was taken down to its studs and meticulously
restored. Interesting discoveries were made during the project. Historic
documents were found in the house, original wallpaper was buried behind
walls, and original doors and windows were found in the attic and basement.
Special thanks to Director of Planning and Environment Steve Emslie,
Planner Dennis Backlund and City staff for their contribution in getting the project completed in time.
Project Reporter Deb Hudson, 3000 Hanover, said after five months of
extensive research she found a portrait of Dr. John Spencer, who previously
owned the house Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard had rented. Dr. Spencer’s
portrait was the only photograph missing from the City’s mayoral portrait
collection. He was the City’s mayor from 1909 to 1911. Dr. Spencer was
born to a prominent family in Sacramento, California, educated in the east,
received a medical degree from Columbia University, studied under Lewis
Pastor, practiced in San Francisco, taught at the University of California and
served as president of the San Francisco Medical Society. She presented the
City with Dr. Spencer’s photograph.
Mayor Burch said a Proclamation would be presented at the rededication
ceremony on Addison Street.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding the demographic
report.
12/05/05 99-485
Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding the vocal minorities.
Carter McCoy, 1536 San Antonio Avenue, spoke regarding the need for more
taxi cabs on Friday and Saturday night in downtown Palo Alto.
Dieter Folta, Erstwild Court, spoke regarding disability requirements in the
City not being met.
Sylvia Smitham, 2514 Birch Street, thanked the Council for their hard work.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma, spoke regarding disaster preparedness.
Annette Ross, 2103 Amherst Street, spoke regarding filing a police report.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Mossar, to adopt
the minutes of October 24, 2005.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Burch said the procedure for Item No. 7 and No. 8 was identical.
Under the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 18.77.075 (g), the Council’s
options were as follows: 1) to pass the Item on the Consent Calendar and
uphold the decision from the Director’s Hearing; or 2) the Council may, upon
the motion and an affirmative vote of four Council Members to remove the
item from the Consent Calendar. Should the matter be removed from the
Consent Calendar, the Council had only one option to set the matter for a new public hearing at a future date. It could be done upon a majority vote
of the Council. The only issue the public could speak to during this evening’s
meeting was whether or not the Council would leave the matter on the
Consent Calendar or have it removed from the Consent Calendar and set for
a future hearing. The limitation also applied to Council Members’ comments.
Council Member Freeman raised concern regarding the possibility of a Brown
Act violation. The Agenda stated items under the Consent Calendar would
be voted on in one motion unless removed from the Calendar by two Council
Members. Public notification indicated two Council Member votes were
required but the regulation stated four Council Member votes were required.
City Attorney Baum said it was not a problem because there were no
requirements for listing the votes. Ordinance 18.77.075 (g) 2 was the
12/05/05 99-486
regulation which referred to four votes being required.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg asked the City Attorney to clarify the difference
between the two requirements.
Mr. Baum said in an effort to streamline the Individual Review (IR) process,
the Council passed an Ordinance requiring four votes to remove an IR item
from Consent. An initial review followed by a Director’s Hearing, consisted
of a public hearing and a notice prior to a full and complete hearing.
Mayor Burch said if the item was removed from Consent, the public would
need to be heard at tonight’s meeting as well as a future hearing.
Mr. Baum said that was correct. The Brown Act required the public to be
able to speak on every item listed on the agenda.
Council Member Morton asked to separate the Consent Calendar and vote on
Items No. 5, 6, 9 and 9A.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding agenda Item No.4 and asked to
delay the enactment until the 50 foot, right-of-way of Arastradero Road from
the park dedication, was omitted.
Mayor Burch said due to the large volume of speakers on Item No. 7, he
asked colleagues to proceed by voting separately on each item.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Ojakian, to
approve agenda item #4
4. Ordinance 4886 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Adding Section 22.08.331 of Chapter 22.08 [Park Dedications] of
Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Dedicate a 13.27 Acre Parcel
of Land [Parcel 3] Formerly Known as the Arastradero Gateway
Preserve” (1st Reading 11/14/05, Passed 9-0)
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to
approve agenda Item Nos. 5, 6, 9 and 9A.
Council Member Freeman registered a no vote on Agenda Item Nos. 6 and
9A.
5. Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve the Auditor’s Office
12/05/05 99-487
Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2005
6. Approval of Contract Amendment for $60,000, with a Total Contract
Amount Not to Exceed $165,000 with Mike Miller for Consulting
Services Related to the Utilities Re-Structuring Plan
9. Approval of a Purchase Order with Ditch Witch Sales Bay Area, Inc. in
the Amount of $299,238 for the Purchase of Two Directional Boring
Machines
9A. Approval of a Purchase Order with Peterson Tractor Company in the
Amount of $940,755 for the Purchase of a Waste-Handling (Landfill)
Compactor and Waste-Handling Crawler-Dozer
MOTION PASSED 9-0 for agenda Item Nos. 5 and 9.
MOTION PASSED 8-1 for agenda item 6 and 9A, Freeman voting no.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kleinberg moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve
Agenda Item No. 7.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Morton moved to pull Agenda
Item No. 7 to hold over to a public hearing in 2006.
7. 455 Santa Rita Avenue [05APL-00002]: Appeal by Nancy and Richard
Alexander and Worth and Andy Ludwick of the Director of Planning and
Community Environment’s Approval of a Single Family Individual
Review Application for an Addition to the Existing Two-Story Residence
Resulting in an Overall Height of 32 Feet Eight Inches Tall Owned by
Lynn Brown and Robert Stefanski. Zone: R-1 (929). Environmental
Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per
Section 15303
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND
Hank Barry, 1950 Tasso Street, was in support of the Stefanski’s application.
It had been approved twice and should remain on the Consent Calendar.
John Northway, 437 Lytton Avenue, said Santa Rita Avenue was a sensitive
street and asked the item be heard.
Richard Alexander, 435 Santa Rita Avenue, asked the item be removed from
Consent. The Planning Department’s findings considered the houses on
either side of the project. The adopted guidelines were intended to preserve
12/05/05 99-488
the unique character of neighborhoods and two houses were not considered
a neighborhood. The findings did not mention the proposed greenhouse
having direct view into the bedrooms and bathrooms on the first and second
floor. The Planning Department indicated first floors were not in the
guidelines. Page 14 of the guidelines discussed the first floor plan violated
privacy and page 15 stated a solution to the violation. With regard to the
greenhouse, the Planning Department did not follow the guidelines as they
applied to first floor invasion of privacy . Over 400 Palo Altans had written
the Council not wanting third-story additions in their town. The Director of
Planning and Community Environment did not conduct the Director’s Hearing
but on November 3, 2005, approved the project. The action violated the
process of “he who decides must hear” set forth by the United States
Supreme Court in California. He requested a full public hearing regarding
the third floor additions.
Nancy Alexander, 435 Santa Rita, asked the item be removed from the
Consent Calendar and be reviewed at a public hearing.
Steve Pogue, 175 Avila Street, was in support of leaving the item on the
Consent Calendar.
Lynn Brown, 455 Santa Rita Avenue, asked no further hearing be made on
her plans to remodel. She based her request on the following: 1) to improve
the light plane situation, new windows would be placed in the new roof; 2)
the square footage and the footprint were reduced considerably; 3) the planned project had been reviewed numerous times under unbelievable
scrutiny, approved twice and was fully compliant; and 4) in an effort to
please the Alexander’s, the plans went beyond the City’s requirement in
terms of privacy mitigation.
Harry Hartzel, 490 Santa Rita Avenue, was in favor of the project. It was
consistent with the character of the adjoining houses and enhanced the
neighborhood.
Mary Goodspeed, 450 Santa Rita, supported approval of the project.
Dana Fenwick, 1975 Bryant Street, supported moving the project forward. It
enhanced the neighborhood and improved the value of her property.
Harry Plant, 228 Seale Avenue, requested the item remain on the Consent
Calendar.
John Koval, 492 Tennyson Avenue, supported the project. It added
character to the neighborhood and the environment.
12/05/05 99-489
Cathy Crane-Moley, 1930 Bryant Street, said the project was found to be in
compliance twice. She supported the project and asked the item remain on
the Consent Calendar.
Gregg Cook, 1630 Escobita Avenue, asked to keep the item on the Consent
Calendar.
Carol Rosenberg, 2350 Ramona Street, asked Council to approve the
project.
Gina Maya, 450 Seale Avenue, said the planned project would enhance the
neighborhood and to move forward with the project.
Stephanie Hewitt, 2112 Cowper Street, supported the remodeling plans,
which would contribute to the aesthetic harmony of the neighborhood.
Ronni Kerrins, 3280 Clifton Court, supported the project and asked the item
remain on the Consent Calendar.
Stuart Berman, 2180 Cowper Street, asked the item remain on the Consent
Calendar.
Don Lundgren, 481 Washington, was in support of the project and urged the
Council’s approval.
Ilene Sotnik supported the project.
Darren Neuman, 1301 Parkinson Avenue, asked the item remain on the
Consent Calendar.
Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, asked the item be removed and be
forwarded to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and returned to Council
for discussion.
Michael Griffin, 344 Poe Street, asked the item be removed and to give
consideration to the implications of a monster homes policy.
Jaspi Sandhu, 842 Southampton Drive, requested the item remain on the
Consent Calendar.
Tony Hughes, 839 Northampton Drive, supported the project and found the
plans to be consistent with City’s guidelines. He asked the item remain on
the Consent Calendar.
12/05/05 99-490
Chris Tucher, 2167 Lincoln Avenue, supported the project.
Malinda Parry, 2020 Cowper Street, had privacy concerns and asked the
item be removed from the Consent Calendar.
Bret Kerrins, 3280 Clifton Court, was in support of the project.
Beth Rosenthal, 585 E. Crescent Drive, had privacy issues and asked the
item be removed from the Consent Calendar.
Bob Stefanski, 455 Santa Rita Avenue, said the plans were not for a monster
home. The square footage had been reduced by 36 square feet and the light
planes improved to allow better lighting to the neighbors.
Council Member Freeman needed clarification on what she was allowed to
speak to at this point.
Mr. Baum said she was limited to whether the item should or should not
remain on the Consent Calendar.
Council Member Freeman asked if she could speak to the motion.
Mr. Baum explained the motion was to pass the Consent Calendar, which
implied leaving the item on the Consent Calendar.
Council Member Morton asked whether the Council could speak to the
motion.
Mayor Burch said a motion could be made to remove the item or to state a
yes or no vote to keep the item on the Consent Calendar.
Council Member Freeman clarified the Council could not make verbal
comments unless the item was removed from the Consent Calendar.
Mayor Burch said the item could be removed in order to reschedule to a date
uncertain.
Council Member Freeman asked when the item would return for discussion.
Assistant City Manager Harrison said assuming it was rescheduled, the
tentative date would be January 30, 2006.
Council Member Freeman said she would not make a motion since she would
no longer be on the Council at that time.
12/05/05 99-491
Council Member Kishimoto said since the topic was of great interest to the
Community, she suggested the Mayor allow the Council to speak to the item.
Mayor Burch said comments would be allowed during Council Comments
section.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether people would need to stay until
Council Comments portion of the meeting.
Council Member Cordell referred to the City Council’s Procedures Handbook
and said II-3, Number 5, stated under the heading of Consent Calendar:
“Council Comments. No discussion or debate shall be permitted upon items
upon the Consent Calendar, however, any council member may request his
or her vote be recorded as a ‘no’ or ‘not participating’ due to a specified
conflict of interest on any individual items. Council members may also
explain their ‘no’ vote at the end of the Consent Calendar with a three-
minute time limit. Council members may also submit statements in writing
to City Clerk before action is taken.” The rules specified council members
were limited to whether or not a motion was made and to move forward
from that point.
MOTION PASSED: 7-2 Freeman, Morton voting no.
Council Member Ojakian asked at what point could Council direct staff to
bring back data on a particular item.
Mr. Baum said the appropriate time would be during Council Comments and
he echoed Council Member Cordell’s comment confirming each council
member was given the opportunity to speak on a ‘no’ vote at the end of the
Consent Calendar.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kleinberg moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve
Agenda Item No. 8.
8. 1531 Hamilton Avenue [APL-00003]: Appeal by Steve and Laurie
Mullen, 10 Phillips Road, of the Director of Planning and Community
Environment’s Approval of a Single Family Individual Review
Application for a New Two-Story Residence Owned by David Yen and
Fanny Ching, 1531 Hamilton Avenue. Zone: R-1. Environmental
Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per
Section 15303.
Steve Mullen, 10 Phillips Road, said neighboring homeowners had submitted
in writing to the Council to remove the item from the Consent Calendar and
12/05/05 99-492
he asked for a public hearing regarding lost privacy and the high visual
impact of a two-story home in a one-story neighborhood. The City’s
consulting architect recommendations to achieve conformity were not
implemented and restricted the plans in meeting the Individual Review (IR)
guidelines. The architectural report, renderings of the home, and
streetscape photos of Hamilton Avenue, along with the letters opposing the
project, were provided. The applicant had made nominal revisions to the
roof pitch and the architectural details, and reduced the second floor height
from 9 feet to 8 feet. The consulting architect stated the home was too
large in mass and scale and the upper floor was too wide and required
modification. A public hearing provided the opportunity to review the
process and help the consulting architect obtain solid guidance. The
consultant’s report would be the benchmark used to approve the process.
Jason Matlof, 1420 Byron, asked the Council to deny the appeal.
Rita Ousterhout, 726 Ashby Drive, was in support of the approved project.
She said the home was suitable in the surrounding neighborhood that
consisted of one and two-storey homes.
Carleen Arii Ito, 950 Amarillo Avenue, asked to have the item remain on the
Consent Calendar.
Jenny Kuan, 2888 Ramona Street, asked that the item remain on the
Consent Calendar. She said the Yen’s design was sensitive to how it would impact surrounding neighbors in meeting the guidelines.
Mike Farn, 551 Maybell Avenue, was in favor of keeping the item on the
consent calendar. He raised concern of the City’s lengthy approval process.
David Yen, 1531 Hamilton Avenue, urged the Council to uphold the Planning
Director’s decision and to keep the item on the Consent Calendar for the
following reasons: 1) the plans were in compliance with the law; 2) they
were flexible in making required changes in satisfying the City’s consulting
architect and modifications were made to satisfy the majority of the
neighbors who opposed the earlier design; 3) after the continued Director’s
Hearing, they worked in making the second round of changes to satisfy the
neighbors initially opposed to the design. He questioned which neighbors
Mr. Mullen was referring to since he received support from the three
neighbors directly across from his property, the side neighbor, and the two
neighbors with two-story homes located behind his property.
Elizabeth Wong, 1849 Webster Street, was in support of Mr. Yen’s proposal,
which had been approved by the City three times and she asked the Council
12/05/05 99-493
to approve the project.
Pete Moffat, 1518 Hamilton Avenue, said involved neighbors worked with Mr.
Yen to redesign the project to meet their concerns and were happy with the
results. Mr. Mullen was not a participant and did not take advantage of the
opportunity to voice his concerns directly to the Yens. He asked the item
remain on the Consent Calendar.
Jack Moses, 226 Lowell Avenue, said the Yens had gone to extremes to
satisfy the neighborhood’s concerns and the item should remain on the
Consent Calendar.
Nancy Staggs, 1526 Hamilton Avenue, was in support of the Yen’s proposal.
Justin Wang, 3480 Thomas Drive, said the Yens had followed all the rules,
made changes to accommodate neighbors, and he was puzzled by Mr.
Mullen’s opposition since he was given the opportunity early on to voice his
concerns directly to the Yens. He urged the Council to approve the Yen’s
project.
Greg Lee, 1012 Forest Avenue, was in support to leave the item on the
Consent Calendar.
Richard Cook, 681 Rhodes Drive, asked the item remain on the Consent
Calendar.
Ronni Kerrins, 3280 Clifton Court, asked the item be left on the Consent
Calendar and be approved.
Bret Kerrins, 3280 Clifton Court, echoed Ronni Kerrins’ request.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Council Member Freeman explained her “no” votes as follows:
1) Agenda Item No. 6 because there had been so much already
spent on consultant costs for the Utilities’ investigation, and she
wanted to see the City Manager take charge and make decisions
rather than continue using consultants.
2) Agenda Item No. 9a because the lifetime of the waste-handling
crawler-dozer equipment would outlast the lifetime of the
landfill, which was not fiscally responsible. She questioned the
option of renting the equipment instead of purchasing it.
12/05/05 99-494
3) Agenda Item No. 7 because Council Members’ comments on
items were limited to the end of the Consent Calendar when the
public had left. She recommended mediation between the
Stefanski/Brown and Alexander families. She believed both
sides should be heard carefully and that staff should develop a
matrix that showed all development decisions with associated
regulations and guidelines. It would expedite the decision
making process whether staff had covered everything or not.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. Public Hearing: Consideration of a Request by DR Horton
Homebuilders on Behalf of Hyatt Equities, Inc. for a Tentative Map to
Merge Two Existing Parcels and Subdivide the Resulting 15.84 Acre
Site into Eleven Single-Family Lots and One Multiple-Family Lot for
the Development of a Previously Approved Single-Family and
Multiple-Family Condominium Project Located at 4219 El Camino Real
[05PLN-00235]. The Tentative Map also includes the creation of a
New Public Street Between 4219 and 4249 El Camino Real. This Road
Would not Extend to Wilkie Way. Environmental Assessment: An
Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City Council in June
2004. Zone District: CS(H), CS(L).
Planning and Community Environment Director Steve Emslie said the
tentative map was limited in its review. The site and design was approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The item was appealed to the
Council and disposed of by the Council. The item was a technical followup of
the tentative sub-division map; the first of a two-step process in the State of
California to divide land. Staff recommended the finds be present and the
tentative map be consistent with the ARB’s approval of the site and design.
Reference was made to a memo distributed at the meeting regarding a
technical amendment to the motion that provided clarity concerning the cost
sharing for the shared driveway between the property owners.
Mayor Burch said the matter before the Council was to approve the
Tentative Map.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to
approve the staff and Planning and Transportation Commission’s
recommendation regarding the proposed Tentative Map to merge two
parcels and subdivide the resulting 15.84 acre site into eleven single-family
lots and one multiple-family lot for the development of a previously
12/05/05 99-495
approved single-family and multiple-family condominium project, based
upon the findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use
Action, which includes the cost sharing for the shared driveway between the
property owners.
Public Hearing opened at 8:53 p.m.
Carlin Otto, 231 Whitclem Court, represented the Charleston Meadows
Neighborhood Association and requested the tentative map be approved for
the redevelopment of the old Hyatt Ricky‘s property. There were three main
features the association had negotiated: 1) no pedestrian vehicular access
between the high density area of the development and Wilkie Way; 2)
single-family residences on standard size lots along Wilkie Way; and 3)
preservation of mature trees on Wilkie Way and Charleston Road.
Eric Stietzel, 239 Whitclem Court, echoed Ms. Carlin’s comments.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the zoning and comprehensive Land Use
Map should be changed to reflect the residential development. He
suggested putting in multiple-family and single-family Land Use Map
designations and putting in RM-30 and R-1 zoning districts and retain the
landscape combining district. Commercial designation would permit hotels
underneath residential project.
Public Hearing closed at 8:57 p.m.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether there was a no-pedestrian access
from the multi-family housing area to Wilkie Way and bicycle access to the
Wilkie Way bike bridge.
Mr. Emslie said the only access was for emergency vehicles from the multi-
family project to Wilkie Way.
Council Member Kishimoto asked where the emergency vehicle access was
located.
Mr. Emslie said it was a shared driveway between two homes gaining access
to Wilkie Way.
Project Manager Mary Grace Houlihan with DR Horton said there was a
pedestrian and bicycle pathway through the project with a connection from
the multi-family area at the corner of Wilkie Way and West Charleston Road.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
12/05/05 99-496
11. Public Hearing: Consideration of an Application by the City of Palo
Alto Public Works Department for the Site and Design Review and
Design Enhancement Exception for a Palo Alto Utilities/Department of
Energy (DOE) Photovoltaic Demonstration Project Consisting of 10
Solar Trackers and Two Photovoltaic Carports to be Located Next to
the City's Municipal Service Center at 3201 East Bayshore Road
(05PLN-00255). Zone District: PF(D). Environmental Assessment:
DOE Lead Agency for NEPA Exclusion; CEQA Categorical Exemption
Section 15303.
Planning Manager John Lusardi presented the staff report (CMR: 438:05)
and noted two changes to Attachment A: 1) Page 1, paragraph E, to reflect
the Planning and Transportation Commission’s (P&TC) recommendation to
approve the carport panels and deny the trackers; and 2) To delete the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) review in Paragraph F because ARB did not
have a formal review of the project.
Council Member Mossar said she was aware of the ARB not having a formal
review but asked whether ARB reviewed the project and made comments.
Mr. Lusardi said the ARB reviewed the project and contents of a Study
Session and made recommendations before the P&TC review. A formal
review would need to happen after the P&TC’s review and recommendations.
Council Member Mossar asked whether the Council was entitled to a summary of the Study Session.
Mr. Lusardi said Judith Wasserman from ARB was present and could provide
the summary information.
Assistant Public Works Director Mike Sartor gave an overview of the project.
He said staff had been working with Department of Energy (DOE) since
September 2003 to implement the Photovoltaic (PV) Solar Project. The City
received a $1.4 million dollars DOE grant and was matched by another $1.4
million from the Cities Utilities Department for a total of a $2.8 million dollar
project. The selected photovoltaic installation would provide a variety of PV
technology in locations and taking advantage of optimum sun exposure. The
City’s Municipal Service Center (MSC) was selected as one of the project
sites. PV panels would be installed at the Cubberley Community Center and
at the Bayland’s Interpretive Center with education displays for public
interest. PV panels would be installed at the MSC employee parking area to
demonstrate PV use along with shade and energy generation. PV trackers
would be installed in front of the MSC to demonstrate a more effective form
of photovoltaic to track the sun for maximum energy generation. Based on
12/05/05 99-497
the P&TC’s concerns about the tracker proposal, an alternate tracker
installation was proposed to install five panels instead of the recommended
ten. It addressed most of the Baylands’ concerns while employing the
innovative PV technology presence along the freeway to enhance the public’s
awareness of the project.
David Arkin, Arkin Tilt Architects, gave an overview and presentation of the
proposed PV trackers for the MSC site. He said the MSC site presented a
visible location in meeting the goal of increasing PV awareness. The project
included two other sites. The Baylands Center would produce about 25,000
kWh/year and Cubberley Community Center would generate 48,000
kWh/year, enough for more than six homes and the rooftop panels would
power at least 21 homes. There were two proposals for the MSC, which
included a carport that doubled as a support structure and would generate
153 kWh/year, enough to power over 20 homes and the five tracking arrays,
initially 10 in the first proposal. Depending on the selected design, it could
power between 2.5 to 8 different homes. The trackers were approximately
the size of a call box or speed limit sign and smaller than a tree. The carport
structures would provide shade and would hold tracking arrays. Sixteen
panels would be placed on the site. Each panel size was initially 15 square
feet in size and reduced to 10 feet by 15 feet.
Council Member Mossar questioned the size of the trackers since they did
not look similar to a traffic sign in the graphics.
Mr. Arkin said from the perspective of a car on the freeway, visually they
would be similar to a traffic sign.
Commissioner Daniel Garber said the project generated a tremendous
amount of discussion with the P&TC. It covered the project’s potential
impact on the MSC site and future uses including the proposed auto mall,
whether alternative locations for the trackers had been significantly
researched, the impact on wildlife, how trackers would be maintained and
used including in power outages, size and useful life of the panels, signage
components being viewed along the two highways, appropriate placement of
the panels in relation to Baylands and the MSC. The P&TC supported having
the PV system in Palo Alto but did not recommend the project for the
following primary reasons: 1) The trackers did not support the Baylands
design principles and the key issue was that the vertical elements of the
trackers were not consistent with low and horizontal elements in the
Baylands; and 2) The P&TC was not convinced that more appropriate
locations had been fully explored. The Commission did recommend the PV
arrays over the carports.
12/05/05 99-498
Council Member Morton asked whether other locations had been considered.
Mr. Garber said the locations discussed were Cubberley, the Police Station,
MSC and Greer Park.
Judith Wasserman, 751 Southampton Drive, said she could not represent the
ARB on this matter because they did not vote. She read an excerpt from a
previous board member, Drew Maran, stating he was in support of the MSC
trackers and the project was a non-intrusive addition along an unattractive
stretch of freeway. The location promoted renewable energy with an
innovative display to define the City’s position on solar power and it
deserved support of the Council. She agreed with Mr. Maran’s comments in
principle but was in favor of the smaller size tracking arrays to help lessen
the impact of unsightly panels.
David Coale, 766 Josina Avenue, was in favor of installing the 10 PV
trackers in front of the MSC site. It was good advertising and sent a
message that Palo Alto was serious about renewable energy and
sustainability.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, felt the Site and Design Review should not have
been placed before the Council and instead forwarded to the ARB for review.
The process before the Planning Commission was also incorrect because an
attempt was made to make a substitute motion and incorrect advice was
given to the Commission.
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest, suggested installing the unsightly trackers behind
the buildings at the MSC. She said the trackers would generate 56,922
kW/yr, which was only 9 percent or approximately 1.1 percent of solar
element of renewable power of the entire PV proposal. The same amount of
energy could be generated either at the Cubberley site or by placing
additional carports at the MSC. She urged Council to deny installation of the
trackers.
Mayor Burch said the issue before Council tonight was to approve the
trackers and carport design located at the MSC site and not the portions of
the project located at Cubberley and the Baylands.
Mr. Lusardi said that was correct.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether installation on school property was
permissible if it were to be used jointly with the City.
Mr. Sartor said the Department of Energy (DOE) specifically stated the grant
12/05/05 99-499
was to be used at City of Palo Alto facilities but did not include school sites.
Council Member Kishimoto asked what the requirements were for the
visibility.
Mr. Sartor said the grant encouraged educational opportunities.
MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Freeman, to
approve the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation to
(1) deny the site and design review and design enhancement exception for
10 photovoltaic (pv) tracker arrays located at the City’s Municipal Service
Center (MSC), as part of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Photovoltaic
Demonstration project, and (2) approve the site and design review for the
two photovoltaic carports at the MSC, based upon the findings and
conditions in the Record of Land Use Action.
Council Member Kishimoto agreed with Ms. Renzel’s comment regarding the
unsightliness of the trackers at the MSC and suggested finding creative ways
to achieve a more attractive design.
Council Member Freeman asked whether all the findings were made.
Mr. Lusardi said the P&TC found one was not compatible with the guidelines
and denied the MSC site. Staff felt the Record of Land Use Actions reflected
findings appropriate for the Council’s approval.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the DOE excluded partnerships
where jurisdictions overlapped. Specifically, could the City partner with a
school district that was paying the City for its utilities.
Mr. Sartor did not feel the grant was that specific.
Council Member Freeman said she was not satisfied a partnership with the
school had been thoroughly vetted through the DOE and asked whether it
had been discussed with the City/School Liaison Committee.
Mr. Sartor said one of the concerns regarding partnership was the
maintenance aspects of the grant program. The City would be responsible
for maintaining the trackers for 30 years. A maintenance agreement with
the School District could be problematic.
Council Member Freeman felt further investigation in a joint partnership with
the School District could be beneficial.
12/05/05 99-500
City Manager Benest said the grant did not exclude partnerships but
specified the PV system had to be on City’s facilities. He was conforming to
grant guidelines but did not oppose investigating the possibility of
partnerships in the future.
Council Member Morton asked how much of the grant would be lost if
trackers were denied.
Mr. Sartor said there would be no loss in the grant. Additional panels would
be installed at either the Cubberley site or on the carports.
Council Member Morton said the public relations effect would be lost if panels
were placed elsewhere.
Mr. Sartor said application of another technology or variety of PV uses would
be lost. All other systems were static systems at a fixed angle to the sun.
The trackers would generate 35 percent more energy since they tracked the
sun to maximize the PV output.
Council Member Morton said the main loss was the demonstration effect of
the project.
Mr. Sartor said that was correct.
Council Member Morton asked what would happen to the PV system should the MSC site become an auto dealership.
Mr. Sartor said the carport installation and trackers could be relocated but it
was unknown if the auto dealership would want to keep the PV system.
Council Member Morton said he supported the main motion but wanted to
look into funding the trackers.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by
Morton, to send the proposals for the tracker arrays located at the City’s
Municipal Service Center (MSC), as part of the City of Palo Alto Utilities
Photovoltaic Demonstration project, to the ARB for review and
recommendations to the Council, and to approve the site and design review
for the two photovoltaic carports at the MSC, based upon the findings and
conditions in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
Vice Mayor Kleinberg supported the substitute motion because it was
important in terms of sustainability and promoting clean energy sources.
She was interested in seeing the outcome of the ARB’s review on how
12/05/05 99-501
trackers would match the Baylands Master Plan. She was not in favor of
forwarding the item to the City/School Liaison Committee and was
concerned about trackers on school property interfering with the
playgrounds. She suggested the rooftop applications on school properties.
Council Member Cordell said the pictures of the panels looked interesting
and she did not find them to be unsightly. She was interested in seeing the
ARB’s formal review. Visibility of the trackers sent a message Palo Alto was
a community concerned about solar energy. She supported the substitute
motion.
Council Member Beecham echoed Council Member Cordell’s comments and
looked forward to having the ARB find a good solution. He supported the
substitute motion.
Mayor Burch supported the substitute motion and suggested the possibility
of placing the trackers at locations where they could be observed in motion.
He suggested three panels at the MSC site and three at a park or near the
Duck Pond.
Council Member Kishimoto said the amount of money being invested for the
system would be the same amount of electricity being produced without
having to intrude in the Baylands. There was no trade off in energy and she
felt it was not the place to make an aesthetic change. She was in favor of
solar energy and open to hearing creative solutions from the ARB or the Public Art Commission (PAC). She did not support the substitute motion.
Council Member Freeman said she was not against alternative energy
sources and echoed Council Member Kishimoto’s comments. She clarified
use of trackers at schools was not the issue but the use of photovoltaic on
rooftops of the schools. She did not support the substitute motion.
Council Mossar clarified her motion was not to look at alternative sites and
for the ARB to evaluate the proposal placed before the Council.
Council Member Morton had concerns of sending the tracker component to
the ARB and jeopardizing the educational opportunity requirement of the
grant and not meeting the grant timeline.
Mr. Sartor said the educational component would not be affected. A meter
would be displayed outside the Baylands Interpretive Center to run
backwards to indicate how power was being generated instead of being
used. The plan was to proceed with the design and anticipate the
installation at Cubberley, Baylands Interpretive Center and the carports.
12/05/05 99-502
DOE granted an extension on completing the program through June 30,
2007, and there would be time to look at trackers.
Council Member Beecham said there were comments regarding the high cost
of the project. He clarified the project was experimental and the purpose of
the DOE grant was for monies dedicated for unusual projects for the general
public’s benefit. The electricity would be generated during the peak hours in
the summer when energy cost would be at the highest and he wanted the
public to know the project cost was not out of line.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 6-3 Freeman, Kishimoto, Ojakian voting
no.
12. Public Hearing: Consideration of a Request by Trumark Companies on
Behalf of Batton Associates, LLC and HDP Associates for a Vesting
Tentative Map for a Proposed Residential Infill Development Located at
1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle [05-PLN-
00289]. (Staff requests item to be continued, by Council Motion, to 01/30/2006)
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kleinberg moved, seconded by Morton, to approve
the staff recommendation to continue the above item to January 30, 2006.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
13. Recommendation from Council Appointed Officers (CAO) Committee to
Approve Request for Contract Amendment by Baum, Benest, Erickson,
Rogers
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Morton, to
approve the request for a contract amendment by Baum, Benest, Erickson
and Rogers, which would prevent without-cause termination of any CAO
during the 90-day period after new Council Members take office.
Council Member Mossar said Consultant John Shannon assured the CAO
Committee the provision was common in the State of California and
considered reasonable. The CAO Committee concurred.
Council Member Morton supported Council Member Mossar’s comments.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, stated the recommendation proposed no
termination would occur or be effective within five months after a Municipal
Election. The employment agreement traded severance pay for “at will”
12/05/05 99-503
employment. He asked whether severance pay would be less if employment
were guaranteed that was no longer employment “at will” for a period of
time. It gave CAO’s who were concerned that newly elected council
members would put together votes to terminate their employment five
months to seek and find a new job at the same time they received the
severance pay.
Roger Pierno, 1200 College Avenue, said the CAO’s were highly
compensated with great severance packages. The proposed package would
handcuff the Council even if there were no changes in the Council Members.
The item was not adequately noticed in the Agenda because it did not state
the purpose of the amendment and the public was not made aware of what
was being considered. He urged the Council to not approve the
recommendation.
Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said newly elected Council Members having
to wait a 90-day period to make changes in CAOs would create a poor
environment for all concerned. He urged the Council to reject the proposal.
Council Member Cordell needed clarification regarding a conflict in the
language used between the memorandum and the amendment to the
employment agreement.
Council Member Mossar said the language used was about “new” council
members.
Mr. Baum asked Council Member Cordell to provide the appropriate
language.
Council Member Cordell said “the commencement of a new term of office for
any ‘new’ council member.” It would apply to an elected and an appointed
new member.
Council Member Mossar said she would accept the amendment and request
the change be applied to all four CAO contracts.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the agreements be revised in Section 1 to
add the word “new” prior to City Council member
Council Member Beecham concurred with the new language.
Council Member Kishimoto said one of the most important jobs of the
Council was to hire, evaluate, and terminate a CAO. She felt the 90-days
12/05/05 99-504
provided a cooling off period and allowed the Council to terminate a CAO
with cause at anytime.
MOTION PASSED 8-1 Freeman no.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Freeman noted that Dieter Folta had several Americans with
Disabilities (ADA) issues with the City and asked what was being done to
follow up.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg noted this past week she was elected President of the
Peninsula Division of the League of California Cities at a reception for newly
elected and re-elected city officials.
Council Member Kishimoto spoke regarding Item No. 7 and noted the
appellants brought up a number of relevant issues, as well as the letter from
Annette Glanckopf.
MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Ojakian, for the
issue of Individual Review Guidelines to return to Council for discussion at a
date uncertain.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Mossar absent.
Council Member Beecham congratulated Vice Mayor Kleinberg on being
elected the Peninsula League President, and noted the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission (SFPUC) approved the Water System Improvement Plan
(WSIP), which committed $4.3 billion to upgrade the Hetch-Hetchy water
system over the next ten years to make it reliable for seismic issues,
drought and overall supply.
Council Member Cordell revisited the ADA issues mentioned earlier in the
meeting by Dieter Folta and hoped the new City Council could look more
closely at those issues next year.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg noted the Human Relations Commission (HRC) was the
body that looked into ADA issues.
Mayor Burch said the City is on record favoring a moratorium of the State
death penalty and he planned on forwarding a letter to the Governor.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
12/05/05 99-505
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto
Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the
preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the
meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to
during regular office hours.
12/05/05 99-506