HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-03 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
May 3, 2004
1. Public Employment .........................................................................354
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. .................................354
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................355
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ..........................................................................355
1. Ordinance 4824 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 16.52.040 and
16.52.130 of Chapter 16.52 Pertaining to Flood Hazard Regulations” ....356
2. Appointment of the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Downtown
Business and Professional Association (PADBPA) as the Advisory Board
for the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District (BID) .........356
3. The Amount of $67,710 for the Junior Museum Fire Sprinkler
Installation – Capital Improvement Program Project PF04011 ..............356
4. Indemnity Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and DME
Properties .....................................................................................356
5. Ratification of Mayor’s Appointments to Stanford Liaison and
Council/Council Appointed Officers Committees ..................................356
6. Public Hearing: The City Council will consider a request by Peter
Baltay of TOPOS Architects, on behalf of Jeff and Mary Thomas, for a
Site and Design application for the construction of a new 5,008
square-foot, two-story single-family residence on a 10-acre parcel
(435,000 square feet) within the Open Space zoning district of which
the total impervious surface area would be 11,350 square feet
including a 6,851 square-foot asphalt driveway located at 3849 Page
Mill Road. ......................................................................................357
05/03/04 97- 352
7. Public Hearing: The City Council will consider an application by Sunrise
Development Inc. on behalf of Morris Page Mill, LLC for a Zone Change
request for 2701 El Camino Real ......................................................361
8. Public Hearing: The City Council will consider adoption of the
2004/2005 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding
allocations (one year Action Plan) .....................................................370
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ........................372
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. ...............................372
05/03/04 97- 353
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Morton
(arrived at 6:30 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian
CLOSED SESSION
1. Public Employment
Position: City Attorney Authority: Government Code Section 54957
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving public employment as described in Agenda Item No. 1.
Mayor Beecham announced there was no reportable action.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
05/03/04 97- 354
Special Meeting
May 3, 2004
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Morton
(arrived at 8:05 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jeff Levinsky, 1682 Hamilton Avenue, spoke regarding the library.
Sylvia Smitham, 2514 Birch Street, spoke regarding more “walk” signs at
California Avenue crosswalks.
Paul F. Garrett, 890 California Avenue, spoke regarding the DNAX sign.
Eugene Bradley, 965 E. El Camino Real #B6, spoke regarding a Valley
Transportation Authority/Caltrain issue.
Debra Griffin, on behalf of Stevenson House, 455 E. Charleston Road, spoke
regarding Council’s consideration of their project.
Anne Marquart, Executive Director of Project Sentinel, spoke regarding an
art contest.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Vice Mayor Burch moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to approve the
minutes of March 29, 2004, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Morton absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Freeman asked if the language on page 4 of the Ordinance
to staff report (CMR:249:04) gave the Floodplain Administrator the right to
choose the appraiser or the depreciation formula rather than the applicant.
Senior Engineer Joe Teresi said the applicant had the choice. The Floodplain
Administrator reviewed the appraisal to ensure that it had been completed in
accordance with the correct methodology.
05/03/04 97- 355
Council Member Freeman asked the Interim City Attorney if the language
was legal.
Interim City Attorney Wynn Furth said it was legal.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Burch moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve
Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 5.
LEGISLATIVE
1. Ordinance 4824 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 16.52.040 and
16.52.130 of Chapter 16.52 Pertaining to Flood Hazard Regulations” (1st
reading 04/12/04, Passed 5-3, Cordell, Freeman, Morton, “no,” Kleinberg absent)
2. Appointment of the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Downtown
Business and Professional Association (PADBPA) as the Advisory Board
for the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District (BID)
Resolution 8416 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Appointing an Advisory Board and Directing the Preparation of a
Report for Fiscal Year 2004-05 in Connection with the Downtown Palo
Alto Business Improvement District”
ADMINISTRATIVE
3. The Amount of $67,710 for the Junior Museum Fire Sprinkler
Installation – Capital Improvement Program Project PF04011
4. Indemnity Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and DME
Properties
5. Ratification of Mayor’s Appointments to Stanford Liaison and
Council/Council Appointed Officers Committees
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Morton absent.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6. Public Hearing: The City Council will consider a request by Peter
Baltay of TOPOS Architects, on behalf of Jeff and Mary Thomas, for a
Site and Design application for the construction of a new 5,008 square-foot, two-story single-family residence on a 10-acre parcel
05/03/04 97- 356
(435,000 square feet) within the Open Space zoning district of which
the total impervious surface area would be 11,350 square feet
including a 6,851 square-foot asphalt driveway located at 3849 Page
Mill Road. Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is requested in
accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines (Item continued from April 19, 2004) *This item is quasi-judicial and subject to Council's Disclosure Policy
Council Members Freeman, Kishimoto, and Ojakian said they had visited the property.
Council Member Kleinberg said she had visited the site and had a lengthy
discussion with one of the Planning and Transportation Commissioners but
did not finalize her views on the matter.
Project Planner Chris Riordan gave a presentation on the material outlined in
staff report (CMR:199:04)
Council Member Kishimoto said the Williamson Act was equivalent to Open
Space District (OS). The zoning law allowed 30,000 square foot houses and
parcels to qualify for property tax reduction. She asked if the Williamson Act
specified what the minimum parcel size was to qualify for tax benefits and if
the property owners qualified for tax exemptions.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie said tax
entitlement had not been calculated but there would be a substantial
property tax reduction. Should the contract terminate early; property
owners would be liable for any tax reductions.
Council Member Kishimoto asked if the property was subdivided when the
Williamson Act was signed.
Mr. Emslie said it was not.
Council Member Kishimoto asked if there had been discussions of changing
the Williamson Act.
Interim City Attorney Furth said she had not seen any records on that. The
parcel was smaller than what was permitted under the state standards for
the Williams Act contract. State standards were adopted in the mid-1980s,
and the land was subdivided in the 1970s. The contracts dated back to
1970s. The property owner had the right to send a “notice of non-renewal”
each year, and the City could also decide whether to extend the contract for
an additional year.
05/03/04 97- 357
Council Member Freeman asked whether it was part of the Zoning Ordinance
Update (ZOU) to apply the Williamson Act exceptions on a development of
this size. She felt the tax exception benefits were inappropriate during hard
economic times when property taxes were needed for the schools.
Mr. Emslie said the Williamson Act was a separate contract between the
property owner and the City. The ZOU reviewed OS uses to determine
proper development standards. Zoning did not supersede the Williamson
Act contract.
Ms. Furth said, every fall, the Council reviewed Williamson Act contracts to
determine whether they were to be extended or not. Unless a written
"notice of non-renewal” was issued by the owner 90-days prior to the
renewal date, or by the City at least 60-days prior to the renewal date, the
contract would be considered renewed and would be extended for another
rolling 1-year on the ten-year term. She would need to verify when the City
executed the contract.
Council Member Freeman asked when could the contract be brought forward
to Council with a 60-day timeframe to determine continuation of the contract
and to consider tax revenue loses from large homes.
Mayor Beecham said staff could be directed during the meeting to bring
contracts forward for discussion, but could not discuss the policy that
evening since it had not been agendized.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing open at 7:56 p.m.
Peter Baltay, principal architect of TOPOS Architects, Palo Alto, said the
project had great environmental impacts. The project was designed to
minimize the impacts and great measures had been taken to minimize
removal of trees. When Jeff and Mary Thomas purchased the property they
were completely unaware of the Williamson Act or its ramifications and had
no intensions of evading property taxes. They supported Councils concerns
regarding property taxes, but felt it was unfair to hold the owners hostage to
the issue.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, stated in staff’s annual report, dated October 14,
2003, stated that a number of properties in the subdivision were developed
and one of the ten acres was deleted from the Williamson Act for the
location of the house. It should be noted that a claim was made on the
Williamson Act contract that the original 95 acres applied to anything on the
OS District and multiple properties and that one-acre was deleted to cover
development of a house. By deducting the access road (Shotgun Lane)
05/03/04 97- 358
under the subdivision ordinance, meant it was less than ten acres of
developable parcel. Since the site had been approved for a house, a
condition should be made that a house cannot be build on parcels less than
10 acres.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:05 p.m.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Michael Griffin, Chairperson, said
the P&TC approved the project unanimously with seven new conditions that
were approved as listed in staff report (CMR:199:04).
Council Member Freeman asked if it was legal for Council to approve the
request since “cumulative considerable impacts” were not checked nor
documented in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Report.
Mr. Riordan said staff did discuss “cumulative considerable impacts” and was
mentioned in the section entitled “Mandatory Findings of Significance” of the
report. He assured the impacts would be checked in the final report to the
County.
Council Member Freeman asked how cumulative impacts were reviewed.
Mr. Emslie said a variety of factors went into the analysis. A site location
minimizing visual intrusion on the hillside, structure location in a natural
environment, hydrology, soil conditions and the proximity of the structure to recent developments in the area were taken into consideration.
Council Member Freeman asked if the parcel was less than ten acres.
Mr. Riordan said the road was an easement and was not included in the
calculation of the lot area. He confirmed it was a ten-acre parcel.
MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Ojakian, to
approve the staff and Planning and Transportation Commission
recommendation to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment
B of CMR199:04) for 3849 Page Mill Road, with a finding that the project will
not result in significant environmental impacts; and approve the Site and
Design Review application to construct a new single-family residence on ten
acres with the Open Space Zoning District. The recommendation for
approval is based upon the findings and subject to the conditions in the
Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
Action No. 2004-01 entitled “Record of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Land Use Action for 3849 Page Mill Road: Site and Design Review
05/03/04 97- 359
03-D-03 and Environmental Impact Assessment 03-EIA-04 (Topos
Architects, Applicant)
Council Member Kishimoto raised concerns regarding the Williamson Act,
with respect to more paving of access roads in the OS zone and growth
inducing and construction impact.
Council Member Ojakian raised concerns regarding the lighting plan but
knew it would be addressed, and he supported the motion.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Freeman, to
direct staff to bring back an analysis of current Williamson Act contracts with
an appropriate timeline for the purpose of allowing Council to make a
decision to renew Williamson Act contracts with special attention to sites
smaller than 40 acres and those not in active agriculture use.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that the analysis also include tax implications
under the Williamson Act.
Council Member Kleinberg had concerns regarding the review of the
Williamson Act for potential tax dollars rather than the preserving the Green
Belt, historical values, and principles honored by the community through the Act.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF MAKER AND
SECONDER that the item be referred to Policy and Services Committee.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by
Kleinberg, to refer issues regarding the Williamson Act for discussion of
policy review by the Policy and Services Committee.
Mayor Beecham did not support the motion since the issue would be
returning to Council in the fall for review
Vice Mayor Burch said when the item returned in the fall, the Williamson Act
would be reviewed not only for tax advantages to the City but also on issues
raised by his colleagues.
Council Member Mossar withdrew the substitute motion.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER
05/03/04 97- 360
Council Member Morton did not support the motion.
MOTION FAILED 2-7, Freeman, Kishimoto “yes.”
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. Public Hearing: The City Council will consider an application by Sunrise
Development Inc. on behalf of Morris Page Mill, LLC for a Zone Change
request for 2701 El Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial (CN)
and High Density Multiple-Family Residence District (RM-40) to a
Planned Community District for the construction of a four-story
63,500-square-foot senior assisted living facility with 81 units, one
level of underground parking (44 spaces) and associated site
improvements. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project
Council Member Freeman stated she could not participate in the item due to
a conflict of interest because of property ownership at 410 Sheridan Avenue
that was within 500 feet of location for the Sunrise development.
Planning Director Steve Emslie summarized the analysis of the land use
proposal. The application represented rezoning a parcel from the
Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and High Density Multiple-Family Residence
District (RM-40) to a Planned Community District (PC). Changes were based
on several factors. The project served to further meet the needs of City’s housing goals and production requirement of the Housing Element in the
Comprehensive Plan. In addition to Market Rate Housing, it provided 12
Below Market Rate (BMR) units. The units provided lower unit rents for a
variety of income range. Four units for very low income of $36,000 per
year; four units for lower income of $44,000 per year, and four units for low
income of $59,000. Income levels were based on accepted industry and
housing standards based on countywide median incomes not specific to Palo
Alto. In addition to the reduced rent, assisted living services were also
calculated and capped at below income levels. Staffed viewed the services
as a very strong public benefit providing stable and predictable housing for
the elderly population. The project provided housing for the aging
population to include senior housing opportunities within the community so ties could remain with family and community contacts in the City. A regional
survey found an extremely low or zero vacancy rates with a waiting list. The
average vacancy rates were less than 10 percent. The CN zone allowed
numerous uses without minimal review at a design level that produced more
traffic than anticipated by the assisted living project. Parking would match
the intensity of the use since many of the residents did not drive or own
vehicles.
05/03/04 97- 361
Associate Planner Russell Reich gave a summary of the major aspects of the
proposal as outlined in staff report (CMR:243:04)
Planning and Transportation Commission Chairman Michael Griffin said the
P&TC felt there was a need for senior housing in Palo Alto. The proposed
uses would be a low traffic generator. The P&TC held three hearings and the
applicant addressed a number of the neighbors complaints, such as noise
potential, height of the project adjacent to other buildings, and placement of
building on the site. A condition was added to the evaluation or the parking
situation for six months after the facilities opened. Based on parking
conditions, a two-hour parking zone could be established along Sheridan
Avenue. Anticipated trip distribution routes were discussed in the Fehr &
Peers transportation consultant’s memorandum and in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) report outlined in staff report (CMR:243:04)
Council Member Cordell asked if the BMR units were based on Countywide
median incomes and not specific to Palo Alto, and were they based on
retired persons.
Mr. Emslie said no. It was based on an aggregate of the total County and
not of special needs.
Council Member Cordell said if they were based on the median income of
retired persons, were incomes considerably lower than the Countywide
median income.
Council Member Cordell referred to Joy Ogawa’s correspondence and wanted
to know who were the owners of Sunrise Development Inc.
Mr. Emslie said the applicant provided proof of site control and property
ownership, which were sufficient for proceeding with the application.
Council Member Cordell asked if traffic impacts included employees working
at the facilities.
Mr. Emslie said the sum total of trips included visitors, residents and
employees.
Council Member Cordell asked since the applicant agreed to provide
preferential residency to Palo Alto residents, would it be acceptable to add
the condition to the project. If not, was there a way to give preference to
Palo Alto residents.
Mr. Emslie said mutual agreements could be included as conditions. They
05/03/04 97- 362
would not be held to those conditions if a change were to be made at a later
date.
Council Member Mossar questioned how a two-hour parking zone would cure
a potential parking problem in the area.
Mr. Reich said the public had issues regarding employees from local
businesses parking along Sheridan Avenue during the day. A two-hour
limitation would free up the parking for visitors.
Council Member Mossar said residents in the area found two-hour parking to
be a problem.
Mr. Reich said residential projects were well parked with very little on-street
parking during early morning and evening hours.
Mr. Emslie said it was not a mandate to change the parking but a study
would be completed after the project was established.
Council Member Kleinberg asked why the residents on the dementia floor
were not included in BMR units.
Mr. Emslie said the level of care for dementia residents moved from
residential to clinical or medical care. It was difficult to quantify and provide
long-term stability since the needs and care varied greatly.
Council Member Kleinberg questioned why the P&TC passed a
recommendation to conditionally certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND), although there were certain assumptions about travel and
transportation that were not completely determined. She felt it was a
backdoor approach of approving a MND.
Ms. Furth said the P&TC recommended that Council act on an environmental
document. Since it was a conditional approval that requested further
documentation for Council’s decision, Council could evaluate both the P&TC’s
recommendation in the light of what they knew and the recommendation in
the light of further information. Because the added information did not
identify new difficulties, she did not find the approach to be a problem.
Council Member Kleinberg asked how Council could rely on recommendations
made by any of the commissions when the process was so loose.
Ms. Furth said the Council should look at their discussion and determine
whether sufficient information was provided. Recommendations with
05/03/04 97- 363
insufficient information could always be referred back to the P&TC .
Council Member Morton stated for the record that his office was located at
385 Sherman Avenue, which was not 500 feet from the project and had no
economic interest in the building. He asked if a two-hour parking zone were
established along Sheridan Avenue, where would those vehicles go to park
since this was the only unrestricted parking in the area.
Mr. Emslie said a study had not been completed. Staff felt the parking on-
site would be adequate for the need because of the low parking demand
generated by the use. As a fallback measure, the P&TC would conduct an
analysis that would involve origins of the vehicle and determine the amount
of employee parking. The P&TC would report back within six months after
the project was completed.
Council Member Kishimoto referred to Council Member Kleinberg’s concern
and said it would be helpful to the Council if the summary had indicated that
P&TC made a conditional approval and further analysis would be completed.
In referring to John K. Abraham’s correspondence regarding noise levels she
asked why a State of California Building Code (SBC) interior noise analysis
was not submitted on the project.
Mr. Reich said the noise consultant had prepared a response to Mr.
Abraham’s comments but not timely enough to get into Council’s packet.
There was a condition of approval that interior noise not exceed a specific level. It was not required as a mitigation but the building permit required it
be met.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing open at 8:52 p.m.
Daniel Zemanek, Senior Vice President of Sunrise Development, Inc., gave a
summary of the BMR Program and related assisted living public benefits as
described in the attachment to staff report (CMR: 243:04).
Roger V. Smith, 425 Grant Avenue, #27, supported the project. He, as a
30-year resident of Palo Alto, would like to remain in Palo Alto should he
require assisted living services. The project was located to all public
transportation systems, accessible to the employees and no parking
required. Palo Alto could benefit from hotel taxes when residents’ families
came to visit.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, requested that the SBC noise analysis
be included in the MND making it mandatory for compliance.
05/03/04 97- 364
Bob Cutler, 435 Sheridan Avenue, #303, supported the project. He
confirmed that parking was an issue on Sheridan Avenue due to employee
usage. He felt the two-hour parking limitation would create a problem for
residents with an extra car.
Joe Villareal, 360 Sheridan Avenue, spoke regarding a parking problem on
Sheridan Avenue. He suggested the project entrance be made from El
Camino Real instead of Sheridan Avenue to discourage parking in the area.
Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding health hazards to
occupants due to underground water causing indoor air contamination. He
suggested imposing three additional conditions: 1) have an impervious air
tight barrier between the ground and underground of the garage, 2) require
indoor air samples to prove that barrier was effective after building was
constructed; and 3) require Well F-40A be protected during construction
with no driveway impingements.
Angelica Volterra said there was insufficient documentation on traffic impacts
and a traffic analysis was needed to accurately disclose the traffic impacts.
She felt the project should not be approved and the MND not certified until
accurate and adequate documentations were made of the true traffic
impacts.
Chuck Marsh, 2557 Park Boulevard, had concerns regarding the traffic
impacts but felt there were no practical alternatives for the site that would not result in traffic and parking impacts. He supported the project and
urged the Council to approve the project.
Joy Ogawa, Yale Street, spoke regarding the rezoning of the property and
BMR units. The project was twice the square footage allowed under current
Neighborhood Commercial Zoning (CN). The BMR contribution did not meet
the minimum requirements of Palo Alto’s BMR program. She asked that the
BMR program be implemented correctly.
Viviana Tul, 410 Sheridan Avenue, supported the project. She felt the senior
assisted living combined with BMR units was a good public service to the
community.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado, said applicants should adhere to the 15
percent BMR requirement. Conditions should be included to provide on-site
parking for employees and visitors.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing Closed at 9:33 p.m.
05/03/04 97- 365
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Burch, to approve
the staff and Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation to
approve the Planned Community for 2701 El Camino Real and the
environmental document by approving the draft Planned Community
Ordinance and exhibits (Attachment A of CMR:243:04). The draft Ordinance
describes the permitted uses and site development regulations, and includes
both Findings for Approval and a certification of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
(The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as
2701 El Camino Real From CN and RM-40 to PC Planned Community
_____”
Council Member Morton questioned the 15 percent BMR units and asked
whether it was 15 percent of the residents or 15 percent of the units.
Mr. Emslie said the BMR calculation was based on residents. It was staff’s
decision to use that as a guide to implement the BMR agreement. That was
the package the developers agreed to and signed.
Council Member Morton clarified it was 12 residents that were agreed upon
even though it was a lower percentage than the project population of 97.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
Council Member Morton said there were cases in assisted living where a
patient could go from one type of unit to another. He asked with regard to
a dementia care resident that qualified for a BMR unit, was there a
guarantee that they would receive continued care through the normal
process. He felt it was fair that if a resident qualified for a BMR unit, then
they should qualify for a full paying resident.
Mr. Emslie said it was not included in the package. Staff felt the BMR
program was a strong package that accommodated both the needs of low-
income renters and consumers of the services. The package outweighed the
inclusion of the dementia care.
Interim City Attorney Wynne Furth explained the reason why dementia care
was excluded from the package was because the agreement was a BMR
housing program and not a BMR assisted living program. When medical care
was required as in a dementia ward, it was added services classified as
05/03/04 97- 366
medical and not services included in assisted living housing.
Council Member Morton said he was concerned about the 15 percent BMR
program requirement that developers needed to meet and yielded to the
lower side ending with 12 residents. He supported the project, but would
have liked to see the number raised to 14.
Vice Mayor Burch said many people lived alone in Palo Alto and had no other
options. There was a great need for the development and the facility was a
valuable service to the community. It would free up housing and enabled
other families to move into Palo Alto.
Council Member Mossar asked if the project had on-site parking for
employees and visitors.
Mr. Emslie said yes.
Council Member Mossar asked whether it was a condition of approval to have
on-site parking for employees.
Mr. Emslie said it was not explicit but could be.
Council Member Mossar suggested an amendment for on-site parking for
employees be dedicated in a condition of approval.
Council Member Morton asked if it was to override the visitor parking.
Council Member Mossar said no. It would be to provide available parking
for all facility employees at all times.
Ms. Furth stated 23 spaces shall be available for employee parking as
approved by the Director of Planning.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that Ordinance Section 6 (a) (iv) be changed to add to the
end of the sentence, “23 spaces or such lesser number as the Director of
Planning and Community Environment shall approve shall be reserved for
the use of employees.”
Ms. Mossar asked if staff had a response to Mr. Moss’s issue regarding
ground water contamination.
Mr. Emslie said the applicant prepared a soil and toxic report. It was
reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and concluded there
05/03/04 97- 367
was not a concern. With Council’s direction, staff would do a follow up on
the suggested conditions. The Fire Department and building officials would
need to review the conditions prior to incorporating them into the project
design.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that a condition be added that would require the
review of suggested mitigated measures for toxic issues on water and
emission seepage.
Council Member Cordell felt the 22 percent traffic increase was based on
faulty methodology. She said the logical route was from Highway 101,
Oregon Expressway, to Page Mill Road and not Highway 101, exiting on to
San Antonio Road and north on the El Camino Real. She asked the Planning
Commission to revisit and use the correct methodology and provide
corrected traffic increases. She could not provide cases to support her
conclusion but felt she was correct. She also questioned why BMR’s were
not based on the immediate incomes of retired persons, which were lower
than the levels that were projected.
Mr. Emslie said the traffic distribution assumptions were modified to reflect
more heavy use on Oregon Express Way and Page Mill Road. The BMR
agreement included a table to adjust income. The Countywide income were
the maximums and would use 17 different factors to adjust the income to fit
retirees.
Chief Transportation Official Joe Kott said the analysis outlined in the April
19, 2004, Fehr & Peers Transporation Consultants memorandum was
adequate.
Council Member Ojakian said he could not recall any other senior housing
project in Palo Alto that required BMR units. He asked if BMR units were
part of the negotiation for the public benefits.
Mr. Emslie said the assisted living units in the BMR units were limited to the
rent. One of the reasons that staff included the services component was
because rents could be controlled but actually became a small percentage of
the monthly charge. To his knowledge there only had been rent subsidies,
but services had never been included in BMR units.
Council Member Ojakian asked about the environmental issue addressed by
Mr. Moss, “if other buildings had been built in the area since plume had been
determined to have toxic waste.”
05/03/04 97- 368
Mr. Emslie replied within the last eight years there had been recent
construction adjacent to the site.
Council Member Ojakian said regarding the traffic impact, he recalled the
original data used was completed on visits to three of the sites and the new
data was actually using the standardized method, which was the
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA).
Mr. Emslie said that was correct. The Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) did not have a trip generation rate for this use. The rates were based
on actual observations.
Council Member Ojakian supported the motion and did not see a problem
with parking or traffic. In regard to the toxic water situation, he was aware
of projects that had been built in the area with underground garages having
mitigated situation. He commended the public benefit and felt by adding the
services to the BMR units there was a significant benefit.
Council Member Kleinberg raised concerns about the toxic water issue and
asked whether there were any measures to reduce the likelihood of seepage.
She had reservations regarding traffic issues but supported the motion.
Mr. Emslie recommended adding a condition requiring a review of suggested
mitigated measures for toxic issues.
Council Member Kishimoto echoed Council Member Cordell’s concerns
regarding the faulty methodology used to determine traffic impact. She
asked the project provide fully paid transit passes through the Eco-Pass
program. She supported the project.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that the project shall offer and provide fully paid
transit passes through the Eco-Pass program.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Cordell, to
raise the Below Market Rate (BMR) occupancy to either 15 percent of units
or 14 residents.
Council Member Morton said his reason for raising the BMR units from 14 to
15 percent was because many of the long-time Palo Alto residents and their
parents would need the services.
Mr. Emslie said it would require renegotiations with the applicant and
revising the financial portion of the agreement.
05/03/04 97- 369
Council Member Cordell said she supported the project and asked if the
applicant would give special preference to Palo Alto residents.
Mr. Zemanek said yes.
Mayor Beecham opposed raising the BMR requirements to 15 percent. He
said every other BMR setup required subsidized capital. The agreement was
to not only subsidize the construction, but to continue subsidizing the
services.
Vice Mayor Burch opposed rising the 15 percent requiring.
AMENDMENT FAILED: 2-6, Cordell, Morton “yes,” Freeman “not
participating.”
INCORPORATED INTO MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER that
there be preference given to Palo Alto residents for Below Market Rate and
Market Rate units to the extent permitted by Federal and State law.
Ms. Furth addressed Council Member Cordell’s concerns regarding faulty
methodology used to determine traffic impact. Palo Alto gave advisory
bodies more responsibility than the law required in reviewing environmental
documents. The law only required that the advisory bodies review drafts of
MNDs and Environmental Impact Reports (EIR). The P&TC felt they had
sufficient information to recommend approval to Council, but asked staff to give more detailed response to the concerns in order to provide Council with
a higher level of assurance.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Freeman “not participating.”
8. Public Hearing: The City Council will consider adoption of the
2004/2005 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding
allocations (one year Action Plan)
Planning Manager Julie Caporgno, gave an overview of the recommendations
regarding Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding allocations
outlined in staff report (CMR:239:04).
Jeff Rensch, Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), provided a brief statement
on the CDBG funding recommendation, that included the $30,000
decreased in Housing Development Fund.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing open at 10:30 p.m.
05/03/04 97- 370
John Holland, Chief Operating Officer at InnVision, 974 Willow Street, San
Jose, said InnVision and the Urban Ministry had merged services two years
ago due to budget cuts. InnVision had been in service for 31 years and the
Urban Ministry for 27 years. The funding that they received was about 30
percent of the originally request due to County budget cut impacting social
service providers. He urged Council to continue working with social services
for creative solutions to help address operations cost.
Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, spoke regarding affordable housing and
using CDBG funds to help acquire a site for affordable housing. She urged
Council to follow through with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) requirements to expedite the project.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:35 p.m.
Council Member Morton stated he would not participate in the portion of the
item relating to Urban Ministry and Project Sentinel because his firm had
been auditors for applicants in those organizations, but he would support
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).
MOTION: Vice Mayor Burch moved, seconded by Kleinberg, that the Finance
Committee recommends to the City Council regarding the Proposed Fiscal
Year 2004-05 CDBG Funding Allocations and Draft Action Plan approval of
the following:
1. Allocate CDBG funding as recommended by staff and the Citizens
Advisory Committee (CAC) in the final 2004/05 Action Plan
update to the Consolidated Plan for the period 2000 to 2005.
2. Commit CDBG funds to repay the General Fund for a portion of
the CDBG-eligible site acquisition costs in connection with a new
affordable housing project if a site can be identified and acquired
in 2004-2005.
3. Authorize staff to submit the 2004/05 Action Plan to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by the
May 15, 2004 deadline.
4. Authorize the City Manager, on behalf of the City, to execute the
2004/05 application and Action Plan for CDBG funds and any
other necessary documents concerning the application, and to
otherwise bind the City with respect to the application and
commitment of funds.
05/03/04 97- 371
Further, the addition of a $30,000 grant to Economic and Social
Opportunities (ESO) be reviewed mid-fiscal year and, if the funds are proven
to have been usefully spent, an additional $30,000 could be spent in the
balance of the year. The Council would consider funding at a higher level for
the second half of the year. Funding would come from the Housing Fund.
Resolution 8417 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Approving the Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds
for Fiscal Year 2004-2005”
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Freeman absent.
Council Member Kleinberg responded to Mr. Holland’s comment and said
Council was aware of the diminishing amount of money from public coffers
for public and non-profit services but Council did not have the resources to
provide the assistance they were seeking.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Vice Mayor Burch thanked staff for their success on the May Fete Parade.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto
Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the
preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the
meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to
during regular office hours.
05/03/04 97- 372