HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-10 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
May 10, 2004
1. Public Employment .........................................................................375
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m. .................................375
1. Resolution 8418 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Expressing Appreciation to William Garvey for His Outstanding
Public Service to the City of Palo Alto” ..............................................376
2. Resolution 8419 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Expressing Appreciation to Lynn Torin for Her Outstanding Public
Service to the City of Palo Alto”. ......................................................376
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:04 p.m. .................................376
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................376
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ..........................................................................377
1. Adoption of Resolution Preliminarily Approving BID Advisory Board's
2004-2005 Budget Report ...............................................................377
2. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. C04100297 Between the City of
Palo Alto and Adolescent Counseling Services, Inc. Concerning the
City’s Funding of the Rehabilitation of the Caravan House Facility at
2361 High Street ............................................................................378
3. Recommendation to Cancel the July 6, 2004 City Council Meeting .......378
4. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council adoption of an
ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a Custom Product
Contract with the Western Area Power Administration for the option to
purchase electric power Custom Products with a cost not to exceed
$2,000,000 per year and not to exceed $10,000,000 during the term
of the agreement from January 1, 2005 through September 30, 2010;
and to execute electric commodity day-ahead schedule firming service
05/10/04 97-373
transactions under the terms of the agreement and subject to
proposed parameter and limitations. .................................................378
5. Public Hearing - Ordinance streamlining planning procedures by
modifying and consolidating regulations from Palo Alto Municipal Code,
including Chapters 16.48 (Architectural Review), 18.90 (Variances,
Home Improvement Exceptions, and Conditional Use Permits), 18.91
(Design Enhancement Exceptions), 18.92 and 18.93 (Appeals), and
18.99 (Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects). New
Chapters 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), 18.77 (Procedures for
Permits and Approvals) and 18.78 (Appeals) will also be added. ..........379
6. Policy and Services Committee recommendation regarding New
Recycling and Solid Waste Services ..................................................390
7. Policy and Services Committee recommendation re Comprehensive
Feasibility Study on Local Electric Power Generation Alternatives..........400
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ........................402
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. ...............................403
05/10/04 97-374
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:15 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg,
Morton, 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 6:59 p.m.
05/10/04 97-375
Special Meeting
May 10, 2004
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg,
Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
Special Orders of the Day
1. Resolution 8418 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Expressing Appreciation to William Garvey for His Outstanding
Public Service to the City of Palo Alto”
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Ojakian, to adopt
the Resolution.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Cordell absent.
2. Resolution 8419 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Expressing Appreciation to Lynn Torin for Her Outstanding Public
Service to the City of Palo Alto”.
Lynn Torin expressed her appreciation for the efforts everyone had made on
behalf of the City.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Ojakian, to adopt
the Resolution.
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Cordell absent.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:04 p.m.
AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCEEDINGS, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN
TO A SPECIAL MEETING AS THE PALO ALTO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Regular Meeting
May 10, 2004
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 7:07 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Cordell, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg,
Morton, Mossar, Ojakian
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
05/10/04 97-376
Christianne Cook spoke regarding video cameras in patrol cars, the attitude
of the police, and the ACLU.
Norman Carroll, University and Emerson, thanked the Council, staff and
citizens for the Opportunity Center groundbreaking.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado, spoke regarding the Director’s Hearing on
expansion of telecommunications on a building on Colorado Street.
Ed Powers, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding good government and
the destruction of waterfront in Palo Alto.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Morton, to approve
the minutes of April 12, 2004, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 8-1, Beecham absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Morton stated he would not participate in Item No. 2
because his company provided audit services for Adolescent Counseling
Services, Inc.
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Freeman, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 4.
LEGISLATIVE
1. Adoption of Resolution Preliminarily Approving BID Advisory Board's
2004-2005 Budget Report
Adoption of Resolution of Intention to Levy 2004-2005 Assessments in
the Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District and Setting of
a Date and Time for the Public Hearing on the Levy of Assessments
Approval to Waive the 10 percent Late Charge Fee for 2003-04 Annual
BID Assessment
Resolution 8420 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Approving the Report of the Advisory Board for Fiscal Year 2004-
2005 in Connection with the Palo Alto Downtown Business
Improvement District”
05/10/04 97-377
Resolution 8421 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Declaring its Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses
Within the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District for
Fiscal Year 2004-2005 and Setting a Time and Place for Hearing
Objections Thereto”
ADMINISTRATIVE
2. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. C04100297 Between the City of
Palo Alto and Adolescent Counseling Services, Inc. Concerning the
City’s Funding of the Rehabilitation of the Caravan House Facility at
2361 High Street
3. Recommendation to Cancel the July 6, 2004 City Council Meeting
COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
4. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council adoption of an
ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a Custom Product
Contract with the Western Area Power Administration for the option to
purchase electric power Custom Products with a cost not to exceed
$2,000,000 per year and not to exceed $10,000,000 during the term
of the agreement from January 1, 2005 through September 30, 2010;
and to execute electric commodity day-ahead schedule firming service
transactions under the terms of the agreement and subject to proposed parameter and limitations.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Authorizing the Negotiation and Execution of the Western
Area Power Administration Custom Products Contract and to Subscribe
to the Day-Ahead Firming Service Product Under Specified Terms and
Conditions During the Period January 1, 2005 Through September 30,
2010, Inclusive”
MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 1 and 3-4, Beecham absent.
MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item No. 2, Morton “not participating,” Beecham
absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Public Hearing - Ordinance streamlining planning procedures by
modifying and consolidating regulations from Palo Alto Municipal Code,
including Chapters 16.48 (Architectural Review), 18.90 (Variances,
Home Improvement Exceptions, and Conditional Use Permits), 18.91
05/10/04 97-378
(Design Enhancement Exceptions), 18.92 and 18.93 (Appeals), and
18.99 (Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects). New
Chapters 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), 18.77 (Procedures for
Permits and Approvals) and 18.78 (Appeals) will also be added.
City Auditor Sharon Erickson said in October 2003, the City Auditor's office
issued an audit of the Development Review Process (DRP). As part of the
review, more than 60 persons were interviewed including representatives of
City staff, Planning and Transportation Commissioners (P&TC), Architectural
Review Board (ARB) members, consultants, contractors, developers,
business owners, residents, and neighbors. The comments from most people
were remarkably similar; Palo Alto spent too much time on a process that
could be redundant, uncoordinated and wasteful. A total of 34
recommendations were made to simplify the process, clarify rules and
responsibilities, improve turnaround times, and address quality assurance
issues. The Planning Department had an aggressive work plan to implement
all of the audit recommendations. Those recommendations included: 1) to
simplify and reduce the number of development review processes and
include time requirements; 2) to establish one standard simple process for
appeals to include timelines; 3) to review and approve most minor
architectural reviews at the staff level; 4) to permit the Director to make
decisions on architectural review applications in the absence of a timely ARB
recommendation; and 4) to give the P&TC an increased responsibility for
quasi-judicial land use matters. The City Auditor's office would continue to
work with staff to implement the audit recommendations and ensure Palo Alto's DRP was timely and fair.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie said the
streamlining process was based on the premise the majority of the work met
with the general consensus of the applicants, residents and businesses. The
proposed amendments were intended to allow for more robust noticing
upfront, including electronic communication with the neighborhood groups.
The four objectives of the proposed ordinance include: 1) reorganize the
Zoning Code to make it easier to use; 2) respond to the Audit
recommendations; 3) respond to neighborhood concerns by providing more
frequent and extensive noticing, including electronic notice; and 4) clarify
the findings for variances. He reviewed the Standard Staff Review Process
for variances and use permits. In addition to the Audit recommendations,
staff had incorporated administrative policies to help streamline the process,
make reforms and provide greater management oversight. At present, staff
was completing the recommendations within six months of the program's
implementation.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Michael Griffin said the
Commissioners were sensitive to the Measure J implications of the proposal
05/10/04 97-379
and felt the proposed ordinance respected the voters' widespread desire to
improve the City's overall efficiency. The P&TC believed posting the
applicant's plans and having the Request for Hearing form on the City's
website would enhance the public’s access to the process.
Vice Mayor Burch declared the Public Hearing open.
Interim City Attorney Wynne Furth said the existing code used calendar and
working days, which caused a great deal of confusion because Administrative
Offices were closed on 9/80 Fridays and the holiday furlough. She suggested
the insertion of a 'Definition of Days' into the definition section of Title 18
that specifically explained the 'Days' meant calendars days. It would also
explain that additional time was available until the Administrative Offices
reopened.
Doug Moran, 790 Matadero Avenue, said the flow chart (Attachment B in
CMR:261:04) did not indicate to residents the timeframe for notification nor
the time to get clarification from staff. He endorsed the proposal that
allowed the resident's to participate earlier.
Annette Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, applauded the Planning Department's
desire to respond to the recent Audit recommendations and move forward to
streamline the present process. She said in March 2004, a neighborhood
outreach meeting was held, whereby more than 30 neighborhood leaders
were in attendance. They unanimously recommended two votes for the number of Council Members required to do a 'Call-Up' for the appeal. In
addition, the neighborhood leaders strongly endorsed the on-line method of
noticing.
Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, said the only aspect of streamlining designed
to help neighbors was staff's promise of earlier notification. Sections
18.77.060 and 18.77.070 did not include the language of initial notification
and should be modified. She did not believe the 21-day time period should
start until the notice was posted and felt that staff bundled changes to the
variance findings along with the streamlining changes, which deserved more
scrutiny.
Heather Trossman, 769 Garland Drive, said the Palo Alto Chamber of
Commerce (Chamber) endorsed the Planning Code amendments creating
residential permit application process streamlining. The Chamber also
endorsed the City's proposed changes that served to streamline the
application process for Home Improvement Exceptions (HIE's) and Individual
Reviews (IR's). They encouraged effective staff training once those changes
were put in place, so the actual "on the ground" experience for permit
applicants would truly feel streamlined.
05/10/04 97-380
Betsy Allyn, 4186 Willmar Drive, said she appreciated open government in a
timely manner. She agreed with the requirement that two Council votes
should be necessary to remove an item from the Consent Calendar.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said having only two Council Members remove
an item for discussion was appropriate. He admired the City Auditor's
recommendations and concerns about speeding up the process, but it should
be done cautiously. Although the City was capable of posting agenda items
in text form on the website, they could not post graphics and photographs.
In order for people to understand and read those items, the accompanying
photographs and graphics should be posted as well. He also felt the six-foot
side yard setback was an example where staff had spent too much time
looking at nonsense variances.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, concurred with Mr. Moss on the six-
foot setback variances. She said minor ARB and Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) changes had been used to expand existing development into more
useable space by converting janitorial, recycling and storage on-site space
into other kinds of space.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing closed.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to
approve the staff recommendation to introduce for 1st Reading Ordinance
streamlining planning procedures by modifying and consolidating regulations from Palo Alto Municipal Code, by Adding Chapters 2.21 (Architectural
Review Board), 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), 18.77 (Procedures for
Permits and Approvals), and 18.78 (Appeals), Deleting Chapters 16.48
(Architectural Review), 18.90 (Variances, Home Improvement Exceptions,
and Conditional Use Permits), 18.91 (Design Enhancement Exceptions),
18.92 And 18.93 (Appeals), and 18.99 (Administrative Approval of Minor
Changes in Projects), Adding Sections 18.88.200 and 18.88.210, and
Modifying Cross-References in Various Other Code Sections.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Streamlining Planning Procedures by Adding Chapters 2.21
(Architectural Review Board), 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), 18.77
(Procedures for Permits and Approvals), and 18.78 (Appeals), Deleting
Chapters 16.48 (Architectural Review), 18.90 (Variances, Home
Improvement Exceptions, and Conditional Use Permits), 18.91 (Design
Enhancement Exceptions), 18.92 And 18.93 (Appeals), and 18.99
(Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects), Adding
Sections 18.88.200 and 18.88.210, and Modifying Cross-References in
Various Other Code Sections”
05/10/04 97-381
Council Member Morton asked staff to ensure the community that early
notification would be a highlighted period of time for the public hearing. He
suggested adding the word "minimum" to the 14 days after the tentative
Director's Hearing for notification.
Ms. Furth clarified Section 18.04.030 should be amended to include a
definition of days which meant calendar days, provided the last day upon
which an action needed to be taken was a weekend or official holiday or a
day upon which the City Clerk's office was not open to the public. The time
in which to complete the action would be extended to the next regular
business day. She referred to Section 18.77.080 (Page 89 of Exhibit 3 in
CMR:261:04) and asked to revise the last sentence in the paragraph as
follows: "Typographical and/or publishing errors shall not invalidate the
notice or any city action if error is non-prejudicial”.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER
Ms. Furth said with respect to the 14-day period, it did not say “minimum”
because it was during the appeal, which was a fixed period of time;
however, the Section could be amended to say “or such longer period as
determined by the Director at the time the approval was granted.”
Council Member Morton clarified the wording would say, "14 days or at such
longer period as the Director shall permit".
Mr. Furth said the wording would also say, "At the time that the approval
was granted", so that applicant would know their entitlement. Many of the
steps the public needed to take in order to move an application along for
further review were simply notice filings.
Mr. Emslie said he understood the amendments to the recommendations
included codification of initial notice of the completeness of the application,
which staff would make part of the ordinance.
Council Member Morton expressed his appreciation to the City Auditor, the
Planning Department and the P&TC for the improved streamlining process
while still allowing input from the community.
Council Member Kishimoto said she hoped the streamlining process was both
fast and accurate. She suggested giving staff some indication on procedures
to encourage early and electronic communication to the maximum level
possible.
05/10/04 97-382
Mr. Emslie said the staff recommendation included a one-year evaluation of
the streamlining process. Staff was reluctant to codify the online or email
notification procedures without more experience; however, they would if
asked to do so.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Freeman, to
encourage early notice and/or communication to the public to the maximum
level possible.
Council Member Freeman said approximately 90 percent of Palo Alto
residents had access to the Internet and/or electronic mail (email). She
believed it was time the City took advantage of that method of
communication. She also suggested looking into active and passive
methodologies.
Council Member Kishimoto clarified the electronic noticing and posting could
be worded as a "courtesy" posting. The legal method of notification would
remain the same.
Mr. Emslie said that would be the understanding.
Council Member Morton said he would not support the amendment. To make
it a legal requirement on how staff communicated with the public would pose
additional challenges.
Vice Mayor Burch said he would support the motion with the understanding
“to the extent possible.”
Ms. Furth said if the Council wished to amend the ordinance, it needed more
specificity.
Mayor Beecham asked Council Member Kishimoto whether it was the intent
of the Council to urge staff to do it or should it be placed in the ordinance.
Council Member Kishimoto said she would ask staff to return by the Second
Reading with wording for the ordinance.
Ms. Furth said if the intent was to give direction to staff for early noticing,
web posting and electronic email, she recommended not putting that
language in the ordinance, but rather give direction to staff following
adoption of the ordinance.
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECONDER
05/10/04 97-383
Council Member Freeman wondered how much legal support would be
needed by the ARB.
Ms. Furth said the City Attorney's office would respond whenever the ARB
had questions on the information and/or recommendations contained in the
staff report.
Council Member Freeman clarified there would be no change in staff's legal
assistance to the ARB.
Mayor Beecham said the City Attorney did not speak about change. She
spoke on how she anticipated the ARB would be staffed.
City Manager Frank Benest said the City Attorney was responsive to the
needs of staff. Adjustments would be made as needed.
Ms. Furth said the City Attorney's staff did not routinely attend staff level
decision-making processes or hearings, except when questions arose.
Council Member Freeman said she was concerned about the
boards/commissions’ access to the City Attorney's office, especially with
increased legal decision responsibilities. She expressed her caution on the
wording in the ordinance. She asked whether the Council would have the
opportunity to add verbiage about "green" or "sustainable building design".
Mr. Emslie said no. The ARB already had a list of 16 guidelines in sustainable
and green business practices.
Council Member Freeman said she was concerned the language about green
business practices and sustainability was missing from Section 18.76,
Permits and Approvals.
Ms. Furth said whenever controversy arose about the application of a rule,
the Council appointee's were charged with the interpretation.
Council Member Cordell said she was concerned about self-policing versus
having someone else take a look at the process. She asked whether the 12-
month review would include any input from the City Auditor.
Mr. Emslie said the 12-month review would include oversight by the City
Auditor as well as outreach to the community.
Ms. Erickson said it could be included in the City Auditor's proposed work
plan for the following year.
05/10/04 97-384
Council Member Cordell asked whether Ms. Ogawa received a response to
her comments about notification.
Mr. Emslie said staff understood the Council's motion included codification of
the noticing.
Council Member Cordell asked whether the streamlining process would affect
large projects, such as Albertson's.
Mr. Emslie said for large projects the applicant had the opportunity to
engage in a prescreening process.
Council Member Cordell asked whether there was a legal requirement that
the City Council had to be the final arbiter on the issue of an individual
putting up a home.
Ms. Furth said there was none.
Council Member Cordell asked whether there had been any discussion of
eliminating the Council entirely from the streamlining process. She
expressed her concern about whether the Council had the expertise to weigh
in on such matters.
Ms. Furth said the City Charter did not permit the Council to delegate
authority to Boards/Commissions; however, they could delegate authority to staff. It became apparent that staff hearings did not resolve disputes.
Because they could not make final decisions, staff was left with the option of
putting those items on the Council's Consent Calendar. Any other approach
would require a Charter amendment.
Mr. Benest said if the threshold was not high enough, the present
procedures would continue as they had been.
Mr. Griffin said the P&TC did provide an opportunity for persons to fine tune
their arguments.
Council Member Kleinberg referred to Section 18.76.020(b)(D)(v) of the
draft ordinance and asked whether the definition of "minor" was a standard
one, a controlling one, or for the exclusive use of the ARB.
Ms. Furth said the definition of "minor" applied only to that subsection.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the definition of "minor" was
similar, if not identical elsewhere in the PAMC.
05/10/04 97-385
Ms. Furth said she did not believe the definition was used in other
categories.
Management Specialist Jon Abendschein said Section 18.76.020 referred to
minor changes to site and design and Planned Community (PC) District
approvals, which were in the existing Code. The only place in the PAMC
where the distinction between "minor" and "major" came in was in the ARB.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified when a project was defined as "minor" it
took on a greater significance because it was found only in the ARB section.
Ms. Furth said that was correct.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether most of the other terms Council
Member Freeman mentioned had a contextual descriptive place in the
ordinance.
Ms. Furth said the entire title had a definition section, which defined a series
of terms used.
Council Member Kleinberg asked about the adjectives.
Ms. Furth said the adjectives were generally given their ordinary meaning.
The language for "major" and "minor", including the minor changes aspect,
was a design review concept.
Council Member Kleinberg said the terminology struck many as being vague
enough to become discretionary and arbitrary. In the name of streamlining,
she believed it should have some degree of certainty in order to avoid
appeals based on perceived vagueness. She suggested getting feedback
from the ARB, the P&TC and staff as to whether the terms were specific
enough so they were comfortable with their tasks.
Ms. Furth said feedback on which standards people found troubling to apply
was useful. The fact that something was discretionary did not mean it was
arbitrary and definitions would not avoid that.
Council Member Kleinberg referred to Section 18.76.040(f) and asked if
there were a concern about noise, would staff's understanding of "quiet
enjoyment" be included in those conditions.
Mr. Emslie said yes.
Council Member Kleinberg referred to Section 18.77.080 (a) and asked for
the definition of "prejudicial.”
05/10/04 97-386
Ms. Furth said it meant something that was not merely technical, but
significantly disadvantaged some participant in the process in a way that
mattered. It was about having a process judged to be fair.
Council Member Kleinberg referred to page 21, line 13 of the P&TC minutes
of March 24, 2004, and asked what level of architectural skill was envisioned
on projects tweaked at the staff level.
Mr. Emslie said in a design review regulatory environment like Palo Alto, it
was desirable to have an architectural skill set on staff. He also recognized
the need for an ongoing commitment to training staff in that area. The
department recently conducted a training session in conjunction with the
local chapter of the American Institute of Architects, which held an
Architecture 101 class.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the skill level in the Planning staff
was adequate and would continue to grow.
Mr. Emslie said yes.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved, Mossar seconded, to
require a Council call up vote of three to remove an item from the Consent
Calendar.
Council Member Kleinberg said she was persuaded four Council Members were too many to call up a vote. It was on the dangerous line of the Brown
Act, and yet two members seemed insignificant.
AMENDMENT PASSED 6-3, Freeman, Morton, Ojakian "no".
Vice Mayor Burch said he understood when there was a 14-day period, all
weekend days and holidays were exempt, and not just the last day. He
asked whether that was correct.
Ms. Furth said staff suggested using the State's definition whereby every
calendar day counted. If the last day to file an appeal fell on a Saturday or
holiday or a 9/80 Friday, the appeal would be brought to the Clerk's Office
on the next regular business day. Mail notices would start the day the
mailing was made. For preciseness, staff would complete an affidavit of
mailing.
Council Member Ojakian referred to page 3 of the staff report (CMR:261:04)
under Resource Impact, and asked how the Council would know about the
anticipated reduction in staff and Council resources.
05/10/04 97-387
Mr. Emslie said that was one of items staff wanted to experience. The
Planning Department had a system for tracking the amount of time spent on
projects to determine if any changes occurred. The assumption was if every
process did not have to go through a multiple layer system, it would be
more efficient and save staff time.
Council Member Ojakian clarified the Council would expect to see numbers
when a report came back in 12 months. He asked whether the granting of
variances and CUP's applied to everyone, not just developers.
Mr. Emslie said yes.
Council Member Freeman said the on-site posting seemed to be the most
visible notice to neighbors of possible changes to the area; however, it was
not listed on the flow chart. She asked whether it could be added.
Mr. Emslie said yes.
Council Member Freeman asked for a response to Annette Glanckopf's
comments regarding the additional language in findings for variances and
HIE's for substandard lots and homes in the flood plane.
Mr. Emslie said staff did take note of those comments. They were
appropriately discussed as Zoning Standards, which would be included in the
Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU).
Council Member Freeman said substandard lots and homes in the flood plane
differed from flag lot homes.
Ms. Furth said the difference was the special findings for flag lot homes had
already been debated. They were previously determined standards.
Substandard lots and homes in the flood plane were in need of being
debated and recommended by the P&TC based on land use standards.
Mayor Beecham said the streamlining process has taken a long time. It
began in February 2003, and was an appropriate step for Council in terms of
having a clear understandable process, so everyone could determine his or
her role or function. He expressed his support for the motion and looked
forward to its implementation.
MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by
Kishimoto, to approve the staff recommendation to introduce for 1st Reading
Ordinance streamlining planning procedures by modifying and consolidating
regulations from Palo Alto Municipal Code, by Adding Chapters 2.21
(Architectural Review Board), 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), 18.77
05/10/04 97-388
(Procedures for Permits and Approvals), and 18.78 (Appeals), Deleting
Chapters 16.48 (Architectural Review), 18.90 (Variances, Home
Improvement Exceptions, and Conditional Use Permits), 18.91 (Design
Enhancement Exceptions), 18.92 And 18.93 (Appeals), and 18.99
(Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects), Adding Sections
18.88.200 and 18.88.210, and Modifying Cross-References in Various Other
Code Sections.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Streamlining Planning Procedures by Adding Chapters 2.21
(Architectural Review Board), 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), 18.77
(Procedures for Permits and Approvals), and 18.78 (Appeals), Deleting
Chapters 16.48 (Architectural Review), 18.90 (Variances, Home
Improvement Exceptions, and Conditional Use Permits), 18.91 (Design
Enhancement Exceptions), 18.92 And 18.93 (Appeals), and 18.99
(Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects), Adding
Sections 18.88.200 and 18.88.210, and Modifying Cross-References in
Various Other Code Sections”
The following Ordinance modifications are also included: to add to Section
18.04.030 the definition of days (calendar days); to modify 18.77.080a to
clarify that typographical or publishing errors shall not invalidate the notice
or proceedings unless the error is prejudicial; to add to 18.77.060 a new
section (b), which requires staff to send notice when application is complete,
by mail to owners and residents of property within 600 feet of the property; by publication, by email, and by posting in a public place, and to reletter the
original subsections (b) through (f); to reflect the amendment changing the
number of individual votes required in order to call up a matter on the
Council Consent Calendar from 4 to 3; and wherever the appeal period is set
at 14 days to state “14 days or such longer period as the director shall
determine at the time the project is approved.”
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED 9-0.
MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Cordell, to
convey to staff that the sense of the Council is to encourage the use of
electronic media to every extent possible in order to notice.
MOTION PASSED 7-1, Ojakian "no," Morton absent.
Council Member Kishimoto agreed with Council Member Freeman that on-
site posting was more effective than a small ad in the newspaper. She
suggested having staff evaluate on-site noticing as an alternative or
additional notice and bring back recommendations to the Council at the time
of the 12-month review.
05/10/04 97-389
Mr. Emslie said on-site posting would be included in staff's 12-month review
and reported back to Council.
RECESS: 9:05 p.m. – 9:15 p.m.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
6. Policy and Services Committee recommendation regarding New
Recycling and Solid Waste Services
Council Member Kishimoto, Chairperson of the Policy and Services
Committee, said the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee reviewed the item
on March 9, 2004, and approved recommendations 2 through 4 as proposed
by staff. The Single Stream Recycling Program had been implemented as a
pilot program in Palo Alto, and was favored by the residents who used it. It
was a program where all the recycling materials were placed in one large
cart rather than separated by residents into four individual cartons. Members
of the public expressed their views about the size of the containers, and how
smaller homes and apartments could accommodate them. One benefit of the
program was fewer trucks in the neighborhood. The drawback was the need
to deliver the materials to Castroville or Oakland, rather than Palo Alto or
Sunnyvale for processing. The cost was $1.6 million for a one-time purchase
of carts, new trucks, outreach, and an ongoing net annual difference in cost
of approximately $670,000.
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, urged the Council to delay the Single
Stream Recycling decision until next year's budget cycle, by which time the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Environmental Services Center
(ESC) would be in hand, and the Council would know whether or not to
support it. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Sunnyvale
SMaRT Station anticipated that all of Palo Alto's recycling would come to
them in the separated form presently being used. The SMaRT Station had
the capacity and capability to process residents source-separated materials;
however, they could not process single stream. She objected to the budget
being used as a policy-making document when it was supposed to be a
policy-implementing document.
Council Member Mossar said the proposal specified specific carts to be used;
one for recycling and one for composting. She asked whether it allowed for
residents to add other containers should they have huge gardening projects.
Deputy Director of Public Works Michael Jackson said staff's preference was
for residents to utilize the 96-gallon carts for the yard waste. During the
program's implementation, an educational program would be conducted in
order for people to utilize the carts efficiently.
05/10/04 97-390
Council Member Mossar asked what if a resident had more than 96 cubic
yards.
Mr. Jackson said during the course of the program's implementation, staff
would take their materials and leave an instructional guide.
Council Member Mossar said she noted both the composting and recycling
bins remained on the streets. She expressed concern that many homes did
not have places to keep the bins except on the curb, and the garbage men
did not make special accommodations. She asked whether staff had
considered the different housing patterns in various neighborhoods, and how
the proposed program would work.
Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said he agreed with the assessment
of the existing condition, but from staff's perspective the problem would not
change by virtue of the proposal. The problem would continue to exist
because of the land use pattern, and the unique side-yard garbage service
provided to residents. The proposed program would ease the problem by
providing wheeled carts for the recyclables instead of having to carry the
bins to the curb.
Council Member Mossar asked what was the best suggestion regarding
storing the carts curbside.
Mr. Roberts said that was an issue residents should not be doing in either case. There were problems with containers blocking the sidewalks, and staff
had worked with the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) to make sure
their drivers repositioned the bins properly and provided notices to residents
to remove them from blocking sidewalks.
Council Member Mossar opined that was easier to do in some neighborhoods
than others. She noted in the staff report (CMR:205:04) the issue related to
certain recyclable materials, such as milk cartons and plastic bags, which
could be taken to the Recycling Center at the landfill but were not allowed in
the containers. She assumed the recycling carts would be filled with every
conceivable thing that could be recycled. She hoped staff had looked at that
as the most likely outcome of the program, and asked if there were any
comments.
Mr. Roberts said staff's experience in the pilot program had shown the City's
recycling went up by approximately 10 percent in terms of the net
recoverables. It was largely due to the increased technology available at the
point of sorting.
05/10/04 97-391
Council Member Mossar clarified staff was not too concerned if people put
things that did not belong in the recycling bins.
Mr. Roberts said the Public Works Department would have an extensive
education outreach program to minimize that situation. If the occurrence
were minimal, staff would be able to deal with it.
Council Member Mossar said she understood if the City did not like the way
the vendor had handled the proposed recycling program, the contract could
be cancelled. She asked whether that was a realistic alternative.
Mr. Roberts said the Council had the right to cancel or not extend the
contract for non-performance on the part of the contractor, and require it to
be put out for new bids.
Council Member Mossar asked whether the Council should be concerned the
City would lose $760,000 per year.
Mr. Roberts said the first question was the one-time $1.2 million
expenditure. Staff was facing a major capital expenditure to replace all the
worn-out recycling bins. The trucks also needed to be replaced. Those two
expenditures would occur regardless of whether the City used single stream,
split cart, or the existing system for the recycling and solid waste services.
Staff opined it was the optimal time to make a change because the
expenditure would occur in any case. On the operational side, staff presented the maximum cost, worse case scenario of $760,000 per year,
which would assume there was no net change in the recovery rate of
recyclables when in fact the pilot program showed a 10 percent increase in
recyclables and a 13 percent decrease in the amount of refuse going to
landfill areas. Staff anticipated a substantial cost savings and reduction in
the amount of money spent to landfill those materials when the Citywide
program was implemented. Those savings could amount to approximately
$600,000 to $700,000 a year in savings.
Council Member Morton stated at the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee
meeting he disclosed that his family held investment interest in Waste
Management. He understood the discussion that evening was about a policy
and did not impact, or was not about, a contract with Waste Management.
Interim City Attorney Furth said the test of whether to participate or not
depended upon the reasonably foreseeable impact of the decision on Waste
Management. She was not in the position to comment on what the likely
financial implications of that decision would be.
05/10/04 97-392
Mr. Roberts said he believed the net impact of the action on Waste
Management was as a corporate entity. Waste Management USA would be
inconsequential.
Council Member Morton expressed his support for the proposed project. He
said he was persuaded by the fact that people were in the pilot program who
were not recycling enthusiasts and because the landfill residue would be
decreased. He was concerned about the size of the bins and asked whether
the residents could still use the smaller compost bins for yard trimmings.
Mr. Jackson said three different sizes of recycling carts would be offered. As
for yard trimmings, the 32, 65 and 96 gallon carts would be offered.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Beecham, that the
Policy and Services Committee recommends approval of the following to the
City Council regarding New Recycling and Solid Waste Services:
1. Implement a single stream, recycling program.
2. Change the collection of yard trimmings to cart service.
3. Supply optional curbside cart service for garbage.
4. Approve compressed natural gas as an alternative fuel for the
collector’s recycling collection vehicles.
Mayor Beecham said a decision needed to be made to replace the existing
equipment and on the recycling and solid waste service. He believed the
single stream would increase recycling, decrease material going to the landfill, and was the right thing to do environmentally.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the SMaRT Station took single
stream recycling, and did the MOU extend to the Year 2012.
Mr. Roberts said the MOU extended through the Year 2021. It was important
to understand the SMaRT Station did not take single stream recycling. The
cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View currently used split cart recycling,
while Palo Alto's recyclables went to the landfill operation in the City and
were sorted and processed there. If the Council wanted to retain the present
system, the landfill would need to remain at the Byxbee Park Baylands
landfill location. Staff had proposed to create a system independent of the
City's landfill, the SMaRT Station, and the present system.
Council Member Freeman said she had observed large containers at the
Byxbee Park landfill location, and asked whether large single stream
containers had already been purchased.
Mr. Jackson said the containers at Byxbee Park were purchased for the pilot
program, which began in October 2002.
05/10/04 97-393
Council Member Freeman said there seemed to be an unusually large
number of containers not being used, and suggested re-evaluating the costs.
Mr. Roberts said there were presently 2,500 homes in the pilot program and
it would soon expand to 20,000 homes, which would require a larger number
of containers.
Council Member Freeman asked how the Council's decision on single stream
recycling would affect the decision on the ESC.
Mr. Roberts said there was no linkage between those two decisions. They
were independent actions. The one before the Council would be made for the
short-term implementation. The other decision would be made on a 10-year
horizon; regarding ESC and the future contract renewal with the Sunnyvale
SMaRT Station.
Council Member Freeman asked whether she was correct in remembering
the ESC accepted single stream recycling and was designed to do the
sorting.
Mr. Roberts said it could do that, as well as any other form of recycling,
collection, and processing that the present or any future Council would
choose to implement. The concept was to provide a facility with those
capabilities on the ESC site.
Council Member Freeman said she believed it had been proposed. It would
require additional staffing, which included salary, overtime and benefits. She
asked whether the difference was between sorting at one's home and going
through a single stream.
Mr. Roberts said it was just the opposite. Single stream recycling was an
automated process, which required less staff time. By going to single stream
now, it would enable PASCO to eliminate three or four positions presently
working at the recycling center. Should the Council decide not to build an
ESC, single stream recycling could still be implemented after 2021, by the
same way it would be done for the next 10 years; sending it to Watsonville
or Oakland for processing. An ESC was not required to serve single stream
recycling.
Council Member Freeman clarified the City still had an MOU through the Year
2021 with the SMaRT Station, which did not take single stream.
Mr. Roberts said that was correct.
Council Member Ojakian asked what happened to the recycling materials
05/10/04 97-394
after they were picked up by PASCO and taken to the Baylands Center.
Mr. Jackson said it was then bundled, marketed, and sold by PASCO.
Council Member Ojakian clarified the materials were bundled and sold from
the Baylands Center.
Mr. Jackson said that was correct.
Council Member Ojakian asked what the difference would be in the single
stream process.
Mr. Jackson said PASCO would transport the materials to a San Jose transfer
station; it would then be transferred to the Castroville processing facility
where they would bundle and market the materials.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether staff had pursued discussions with
PASCO to study the Los Altos Treatment Plant (LATP) site and work out an
arrangement where they would help purchase that property for Palo Alto,
and allow them to continue the types of services they wanted.
Mr. Roberts said not in that context; however, looking at the LATP site would
be one of the project alternatives to be considered in the upcoming EIR. On
the downside, the LATP site was not large enough to accommodate all the
required functions. The site could accommodate the recycling center, but it could not accommodate the household hazardous waste program, the
composting program, and the recycling center together.
Council Member Ojakian said he believed the City still owed money on that
piece of property, and asked whether the issue had been resolved.
Mr. Benest said no.
Council Member Ojakian said he understood the Single Stream program did
not handle plastic bags and various cartons. He asked what happened to
those materials.
Mr. Jackson said currently they were being collected at the recycling center.
As the markets improved or as they were available, the materials were
bundled and bagged. As for the single stream processing in Castroville, the
bags got caught up in the sorting equipment. He understood there was a
market for bags in North Korea, but that market was shaky and it was not
known whether those materials were being recycled. Therefore, staff did not
recommend that plastic bags and milk or juice cartons be implemented in
the initial stages of the program.
05/10/04 97-395
Council Member Ojakian said his assumption was people would still include
those items in their recycling bins.
Mr. Jackson said PASCO would continue to collect it at the recycling center.
Council Member Ojakian said it would be helpful to see what services the
LATP site could handle.
Mr. Roberts said the total ESC proposal was for an 18-acre site, of which 10
acres was for composting, and 8 acres would accommodate the other
activities. The net useable space on the LATP site was approximately 6.5
acres, which could fit a fairly good number of those programs.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by
Freeman, to adopt Recommendations 2, 3, and 4, and to postpone
Recommendation 1 until Council reviews and makes a decision on the
Environmental Services Center (ESC).
Council Member Kishimoto said although she did not want to stand in the
way of progress, especially if technology was allowing recycling to become
more convenient; however, she was not totally convinced. She said the 12-
month trial seemed meaningless. So much money had been spent on
converting to the Single Stream program that it would be expensive to
switch back. It would also be difficult for people to go back to the four-
stream method. She believed it worked against local control over the long term. If the materials were carted to the Waste Management centers, the
City would be dependent on specialized processing centers when they were
accustomed to bundling it themselves. It also worked against the regional
agreement with the SMaRT Station.
Council Member Freeman said she wanted to see a larger percentage of
people recycling. She expressed her concern that Palo Alto would be further
removed from the SMaRT Station MOU.
Vice Mayor Burch asked where the garbage would go after 2011.
Mr. Roberts said the garbage would continue to go to the SMaRT Station and
Kirby Canyon.
Vice Mayor Burch asked where the yard waste would go.
Mr. Roberts said the yard waste would continue to go to the landfill and be
processed for composting until 2011. After 2011, it was still to be
determined.
05/10/04 97-396
Vice Mayor Burch asked whether or not yard waste would continue to be
picked up.
Mr. Roberts said yard waste would be picked up; however, it was still
undetermined where it would go. The landfill would close in 2011, and
alternative provisions for the processing of yard waste would need to be
made. Whether it involved providing a site to continue the City’s composting
program or sending it to the SMaRT Station in Sunnyvale, where it was
chipped and shipped offsite and processed to partial composting in Gilroy.
Vice Mayor Burch asked if Palo Alto went to single stream containers was
there a possibility the SMaRT Station would convert to making an investment
to accept single stream.
Mr. Roberts said he did not believe so.
Council Member Mossar clarified a resident could take their recycling
materials to the landfill or some other recycling center.
Mr. Roberts said yes. They could be brought to the drop-off center at the
landfill until 2011 or taken to the SMaRT Station in Sunnyvale.
Council Member Mossar questioned if the recycling materials at the landfill
would be separated or mixed.
Mr. Roberts said they would be separated.
Council Member Mossar said she regularly put five or more 32-gallon
containers at curbside, frequently filled with Magnolia leaves from the City
street trees. She understood the City would not allow her to remove the City
trees, sweep the leaves into the street and reliably expect the street
sweeper to pick them up, nor could she take composting materials to the
landfill without paying commercial rates.
Mr. Roberts said the street sweepers were not able to pick up pile of leaves
at the curb, but a leaf truck that processed them would pick them up. In
addition, a Palo Alto resident could take their truck load of composting
materials to the landfill and pay residential rates by showing their drivers
license and identification with residential address.
Council Member Mossar said she had never seen a leaf truck, and asked
whom she should contact.
Mr. Roberts said the leaf truck did not come on demand, but picked up piles
of leaves on a regularly scheduled basis.
05/10/04 97-397
Council Member Mossar said the program was designed to increase recycling
and perhaps it would. There were significant restrictions to the program,
which would make it problematic.
Council Member Morton clarified a resident could have up to three
containers, but not all of them had to be 96 gallons.
Mr. Jackson said that was correct.
Council Member Morton said a resident could have up to three 32-gallon
containers if that was the size that worked for them.
Mr. Jackson said that was correct. The only caveat was the resident would
have to show they used that number of containers on an ongoing basis and
not just a one-time cleanup.
Council Member Morton said he wanted to reassure his colleagues he had
seen the leaf trucks in his neighborhood and for most residents with
Magnolia trees three of the smaller containers worked well.
Mr. Jackson said one 96-gallon container was equivalent to three of the
smaller containers.
Council Member Morton expressed his support for the motion.
Council Member Kleinberg asked why the $760,000 loss of revenue on an
annual basis was not anything to worry about.
Mr. Roberts said it was a worse case scenario that looked at the gross
operating costs per year of the program. However, staff believed virtually all
of that cost would be offset by other factors. First, there would be a minor
increase in revenues by virtue of the additional recoverable recyclables of
approximately 13 percent, which would generate about $50,000 per year in
additional revenue.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether that 13 percent was over and
above the 10 percent that should not be recycled, such as plastics and
cartons.
Mr. Roberts said yes. It was a net increase in recoverables. The biggest
single factor was the reduction of those same materials going into the
landfill. The City spent a total of $77 per ton for every ton of material that
was land filled in Palo Alto; the City of Sunnyvale charged $32 per ton for
processing it, and $45 per ton to landfill it at Kirby Canyon. If the City
achieved the 10 percent reduction (approximately 8,000 tons) in the amount
05/10/04 97-398
of land filled material, it would amount to over $600,000 per year in cost
savings.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether it would extend the life of the
City’s landfill beyond its projection.
Mr. Roberts said most of the materials were currently going to Kirby Canyon.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified the curbside cart for garbage was a 32-
gallon sized cart with a liner inside, which reduced the contents to 20
gallons.
Mr. Jackson said that was correct.
Council Member Kleinberg asked what reasoning was used for doing it that
way.
Mr. Jackson said to encourage people to reduce and use less waste.
Mr. Roberts said it also helped to standardize and minimize the number of
carts. The industry standard was a 32-gallon cart.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether accommodations or flexibility had
been built into the program to deal with neighbors who had a problem with
the plan or neighborhoods with significant restrictions.
Mr. Roberts said yes. The current contract with PASCO provided every
residential property in the City a "once a year" clean up day for extra
collection. Additionally, there was a rate schedule for extra pickups. Both
programs would not change, as they were fundamental contract provisions.
Palo Alto was trailing the industry with its current program, and to maintain
that would require maintaining its own facility. Maintaining the current
system of separate bins was an argument for having an ESC, and it was not
what staff had recommended.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the idea of offering wheeled
garbage carts would be required rather than optional.
Mr. Roberts said no. It was not staff’s intent. The provision for side yard
pickup of garbage was a fundamental contract tenet, which the City had with
PASCO for the past 40 years. It was also in the recently renewed contract
with PASCO and Waste Management. If the Council wanted to try and lower
residential rates by providing automated pickup at the curbside, the contract
could be renegotiated.
Council Member Kleinberg said she was part of the single stream pilot
05/10/04 97-399
program and was able to reduce the waste in her home by approximately 90
percent. She worked with staff on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
issue in trying to get the bins placed on sidewalks in such a way that people
who walk, use strollers, have trouble walking or use wheelchairs could pass
by. She was sensitive the bins might not fit in someone’s side setback, and
hoped there could be a way to work with the residents. She expressed her
support for the motion.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 5-4, Cordell, Freeman, Kishimoto,
Ojakian, “yes.”
MOTION PASSED 5-4, Freeman, Kishimoto, Mossar, Ojakian “no.”
7. Policy and Services Committee recommendation re Comprehensive
Feasibility Study on Local Electric Power Generation Alternatives
Council Member Kishimoto said the Policy and Services Committee
unanimously approved staff’s recommendation to conduct a comprehensive
feasibility study on local electric power generation alternatives. Staff
committed to report back to the Council at the end of Phase I to see if it
wished to continue to Phase II. The P&S Committee unanimously agreed
that dedicated parkland would not be used for the electric power generation
facilities.
Director of Utilities John Ulrich said the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) supported the study process. The City had come to the end of its long 40-
year contract with the Federal government and should now consider
alternatives that could be relied on for the long term. Part of staff’s directive
from Council was to look for low-cost, highly reliable energy to provide to
the residents and businesses of Palo Alto. Instead of concluding that a power
plant facility in Palo Alto was warranted or one that was close by, staff
believed it was important to embark on a study and divide it into two
phases. Local generation was worth evaluating because of economic
reliability and sustainability. In the Long-Term Electric Acquisition Plan
(LEAP), staff had already committed 20 percent to long-term renewables,
but there was a need for a more sustained base resource that might not
have the encumbrances and the costs associated with the transmission to
bring power into the City. It also provided local control of energy costs and
reliability.
Utilities Advisory Commissioner John Melton said the UAC focused on two
main issues. First, there were a wide variety of alternatives out there for
filling the City’s energy needs, including bulk contracts and buying into an
existing generation facility. Secondly, the focus was on the nature of the
05/10/04 97-400
study and whether there were any suitable sites in the City for a power
plant.
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said she did not object to looking at a
20-megawatt plant; however, she expressed concern about the Baylands as
a possible site and appreciated that the P&S Committee’s amended motion
not include dedicated parkland. She suggested staff include photovoltaic as
an option to natural gas. Natural gas was a diminishing resource and to
make a capital improvement with a lifespan of approximately 40 years might
not be wise.
Mayor Beecham said there was an aggressive newer renewables program
including wind as well as other reliable sources of energy such as substantial
hydro.
MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Kishimoto, that the
Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council to direct
staff to undertake a Comprehensive Study, as part of the Long-Term Electric
Acquisition Plan (LEAP), and to explore the feasibility of constructing electric
generation facilities capable of serving a portion of Palo Alto’s total electric
load. Further, that dedicated parkland was not to be used for electric power
generation facilities.
Council Member Kleinberg said the issue had been raised of possibly locating
the power plant in a neighboring community such as East Palo Alto. She asked for reassurance the City would not exploit or take advantage of
disadvantaged neighboring communities.
Mr. Ulrich said staff had not limited its research to just inside Palo Alto, but
did want to take a comprehensive look at neighboring communities.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether staff would be working with other
communities as it evaluated those areas.
Mr. Ulrich said the real value of Phase I was the outreach and the
communication aspect.
Council Member Morton said he understood staff would look at neighbors
such as Stanford that had cogeneration issues and long-term energy.
Mr. Ulrich said staff would look at partnerships, various pieces of property,
and not limit themselves anymore than necessary.
05/10/04 97-401
Vice Mayor Burch expressed his support for the motion, but wished the City
would look at photovoltaic and solar alternatives. He believed it was
shortsighted not to look further than a gas-fired plant.
Council Member Kishimoto clarified the staff recommendation said nothing
about natural gas. It talked about exploring the feasibility of constructing
electric generation facilities.
Mayor Beecham said the presumption was if a plant were built in Palo Alto, it
would be a natural gas power plant. The other alternatives were not feasible
within the city limits.
Mr. Ulrich said staff was recommending diversity with a large component of
renewables with the LEAP program. It would be a base load plant of natural
gas.
Council Member Freeman asked whether there was a huge cost differential
between looking at photovoltaic and natural gas options.
Mr. Ulrich said yes. A storage facility would be required because the sun
does not shine all the time. Staff had looked at renewables for wind and
biomass, which were renewables that could be purchased at a reasonable
price.
MOTION PASSED 8-1, Mossar “no.”
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Morton requested more information on the fee reduction
program regarding community services when independent contractors are
providing the service. There should be limitations where there were
substantial outside costs.
Vice Mayor Burch said he recently visited Wildlife Rescue and was very
impressed with the activities. He was advised they always needed young
volunteers to feed the birds and squirrels.
Council Member Mossar advised she and Council Member Kleinberg received a letter from Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) in thanks for helping to
raise the public and private funds necessary for the City to purchase the
Arastradero Preserve. POST also expressed appreciation to Greg Betts for
the considerable time and effort expended by him in that regard. Roger
Smith and Anne Cribbs were co-chairs of the private fundraising campaign to
raise the remaining funds by October 2005.
05/10/04 97-402
Council Member Freeman requested that staff present an executive overview
of agenda items when reports were voluminous and detailed, such as in the
case of Item No. 5 that evening. She had questions regarding the Business
Improvement District (BID), which she hoped would be considered for cost
saving purposes. She would be with Council Member Kishimoto at Alma
Plaza on Sunday, May 16, 2004 from 9 a.m. to noon for Sidewalk Hours.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 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.
05/10/04 97-403