HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-30 City Council Summary Minutes
1 07/30/2007
Special Meeting
July 30, 2007
CLOSED SESSION .................................................................................3
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR............................3
2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR............................3
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................................................3
APPROVAL OF MINUTES .........................................................................4
CONSENT CALENDAR.............................................................................4
3. This Item Has Been Intentionally Left Blank......................................5
4. Appointment of Carl Yeats as City Manager Pro Tem Effective August 6
through August 10, 2007 ...............................................................5
5. Approval of an Amendment to Contract S05111053 with Kutzmann and
Associates to Add $40,000 for Additional Plan Check Services and
$36,000 for Building Inspection Services for a Total Not-To-Exceed
Amount of $310,804 .....................................................................5
7. Resolution 8740 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending and Restating the Administrative Penalty Schedule and
Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code and the California Vehicle Code”..............................................5
8. Approval of Contract with the KPA Group in the Amount of $98,690 for
Design Services for the Fire Stations 5 and 8 Improvements Project –
Capital Improvement Program Project PF-01004 ...............................5
10. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C05105780 with TMAD
Taylor & Gaines in the Amount of $11,753 for a Total Not to Exceed
Amount of $123,506 for the Cubberley Community Center
07/30/2007 2
Electrical/Mechanical Upgrades Project – Capital Improvement
Program Project PF-04010..............................................................5
11. Approval of a Contract with Alaniz Construction, Inc. in the Amount of
$232,635 for Resurfacing the Foothill Park Interpretive Center and
Maintenance Yard Parking Lots, Capital Improvement Program Project
OS-07002....................................................................................5
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS.....................................5
11A. (Old #9) 4249 El Camino Real [07PLN-00172]: Request by Juniper
Homes for Approval of a Final Map to Create Two Single Family
Residential Parcels and a Remainder Lot ..........................................6
PUBLIC HEARINGS ................................................................................8
12. 1st Reading - Adoption of an Ordinance Revising Title 18 (Zoning) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code to:......................................................8
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS.........................................................................21
13. Approval of an Acquisition and Development Agreement Between the
City of Palo Alto, Eden Housing, Inc. and Community Housing Alliance,
Inc. for the Proposed Alma Street Affordable Multi-Family Rental
Housing Project ............................................................................22
COUNCIL MATTERS ...............................................................................34
14. Colleague’s Memo from Mayor Kishimoto and Council Members
Beecham and Drekmeier Recommending the Council to Direct Staff to
Explore the Feasibility of College Terrace Parking Permit Program .......34
COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM
CONFERENCES .............................................................................35
CLOSED SESSION .................................................................................36
15. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION .......36
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m..............................36
07/30/2007 3
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:04 p.m.
Present: Barton, Beecham, Cordell, Drekmeier, Kishimoto, Klein,
Kleinberg (arrived at 6:10 p.m.), Morton (arrived at 6:07 p.m.),
Mossar
CLOSED SESSION
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 2785 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA, APN:132-31-042
Negotiating Party: Bruce Knoblock, Essex Park Boulevard, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company
City Negotiator: Frank Benest, Emily Harrison, Carl Yeats, Cara
Silver, F. Gale Connor
Subject of Potential Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment
2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: Los Altos Treatment Plant located at 1237 and 1275 N. San
Antonio Avenue, City of Los Altos, County of Santa Clara, CA 94303-
4312; Parcel Number 116-01-013
Negotiating Party: City of Los Altos, Robert Cole and Ron D. Packard
City Negotiator: Cara Silver, LaDoris Cordell and John Barton
Subject of Potential Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment
Mayor Kishimoto stated no reportable action was taken.
Closed Session ended at 7:13 p.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Tony Spitilari spoke regarding the firefighters’ morale in Palo Alto and denial
of flying flags at half-staff and use of a fire engine to attend memorial
services.
Barry Marchisio spoke regarding honoring firefighters in memorial services.
Neil Holmdahl spoke regarding firefighters participating in memorial services.
David Shum, 3712 Orinda Drive, San Mateo, spoke regarding firefighters
renting fire engine for services.
07/30/2007 4
Wayne Swan, 290 Kellogg Avenue, spoke regarding traffic ways.
Greg Kerber, Birch Street, spoke regarding misconduct of the Police
Department.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt the
minutes of June 11, 2007 and June 18, 2007 as submitted.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Herb Borock spoke about Agenda Item No. 4. He stated it is inappropriate
for the Council to appoint as City Manager Pro Tem someone who also is an
appointee of the City Manager. He suggested Council substitute another
name for City Manager Pro Tem or have a special meeting or closed session.
Bunny Good, P.O. Box 824, spoke regarding Agenda Item No. 7. She
protested the creation of a $100 fine for the sit-lie law.
Council Member Barton noted he had a conflict on Item No. 8 because one of the architecture firms being considered for the project was a firm he
conducts business with. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison stated staff requested Item No. 6 be continued to August 6, 2007. Mayor Kishimoto moved, seconded by Klein, to pull Item No. 9 from the Consent Calendar to become Item No. 11A.
Council Member Mossar asked the City Attorney to respond to Mr. Borock’s
comments regarding the City Manager Pro Tem appointment.
City Attorney Gary Baum stated the Charter requires that the City Manager
or the Assistant City Manager attend all Council meetings and if that is not
possible the Council appoint someone else to serve in that role. Staff
requests in accordance with the Charter that the appointment of a City
Manager Pro Tem is a temporary appointment and is not a dual office. Mr.
Yeats will return to his prior position. This is simply a functional role that
allows him to cover the Council meeting in the absence of the City Manager
and Assistant City Manager. MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve Consent Calendar Items 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11.
07/30/2007 5
3. This Item Has Been Intentionally Left Blank
4. Appointment of Carl Yeats as City Manager Pro Tem Effective August 6
through August 10, 2007
5. Approval of an Amendment to Contract S05111053 with Kutzmann and
Associates to Add $40,000 for Additional Plan Check Services and
$36,000 for Building Inspection Services for a Total Not-To-Exceed
Amount of $310,804
6. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign and File
a Financial Assistance Application for a State Revolving Fund Loan in
an Amount Not to Exceed Twenty-Five Million Dollars from the State
Water Resources Control Board on Behalf of the Palo Alto Regional
Water Quality Control Plant for the Design and Construction of the
Disinfection Facility”
7. Resolution 8740 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending and Restating the Administrative Penalty Schedule and
Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code and the California Vehicle Code”
8. Approval of Contract with the KPA Group in the Amount of $98,690 for
Design Services for the Fire Stations 5 and 8 Improvements Project –
Capital Improvement Program Project PF-01004
9. 4249 El Camino Real [07PLN-00172]: Request by Juniper Homes for
Approval of a Final Map to Create Two Single Family Residential
Parcels and a Remainder Lot
10. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C05105780 with TMAD
Taylor & Gaines in the Amount of $11,753 for a Total Not to Exceed
Amount of $123,506 for the Cubberley Community Center
Electrical/Mechanical Upgrades Project – Capital Improvement
Program Project PF-04010
11. Approval of a Contract with Alaniz Construction, Inc. in the Amount of
$232,635 for Resurfacing the Foothill Park Interpretive Center and
Maintenance Yard Parking Lots, Capital Improvement Program Project
OS-07002
MOTION PASSED for Items 4, 5, 7, 10 and 11: 9-0. MOTION PASSED for Item 8: 8-0, Barton not participating.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
07/30/2007 6
11A. (Old #9) 4249 El Camino Real [07PLN-00172]: Request by Juniper
Homes for Approval of a Final Map to Create Two Single Family
Residential Parcels and a Remainder Lot
Mayor Kishimoto stated she pulled this item because the Elks Lodge is a
piece of land currently in the process of being subdivided. She understood it
would be subject to the Quimby Act and there would be dedicated parkland.
She asked if there would be public access with the neighborhood on Wilkie
Way that interlocked, which would include other housing and parkland. She
said the Vice Mayor had suggested this item be moved in order to let the
neighborhood know the Council would be discussing it.
MOTION: Mayor Kishimoto moved, seconded by Klein, to continue Item 9
to August 6, 2007.
Council Member Mossar asked for clarification.
Mayor Kishimoto replied one option is to make a Motion to direct staff to
work with a developer to have easements that would connect the
neighborhood and inner parcel, which includes the dedicated parkland.
There would be a park in the middle, which would be accessible only to El
Camino unless it is built in to Wilkie Way. It is a complicated issue and staff
should return with options.
Council Member Cordell said she appreciated the information and supports
continuing the item but did not think a week was sufficient time to notify the
neighborhood.
Mayor Kishimoto asked staff if there is a problem bringing it back next week
or postponing it until September.
Planning and Community Environment Director Steve Emslie said there
would be a problem with carrying it over until September because it is a
ministerial item. However, staff could bring it back next week.
Vice Mayor Klein asked if staff would be giving the neighborhood leaders and
other people in the neighborhood informal notice.
Mr. Emslie stated staff had already engaged the neighborhood on this issue.
The frontage on Wilkie is the subject of two final maps. A three- and a two-
parcel map and a Final Map have come to Council. In the first map, which
has already been approved and recorded, staff met with the neighborhood
and raised the possibility of a connection to make sure that they did not
overlook this possibility. Their final decision was that they did not want the
07/30/2007 7
access. This has been their position throughout the duration of the
entitlements.
Vice Mayor Klein said he wanted to make sure the residents had the right to
address the Council.
Council Member Mossar said she agreed on the importance of the pedestrian
bicycle connections for good community planning but the neighborhood has
already said “no” to this project. She would not support continuing it.
Council Member Barton said he was confused because this has already been
in front of the Council and is a ministerial item. The Council has an
obligation to act. He asked City Attorney Gary Baum if it is correct that the
Council has to approve this, short of making some findings. Pending the
answer from the City Attorney on the process, he is inclined not to support
the motion.
Mr. Baum replied a Final Map is a lot like a building permit. It is ministerial
and as long as all the conditions are met, the City is required to approve it,
just as the City Council is required to approve the Final Map as long as the
conditions of approval have been met.
Mayor Kishimoto asked for clarification. She stated it is still an action of the
City Council, which is why it is on the Consent Calendar. She would vote
against it. She understood the applicant was willing to provide the
easement. She felt it is bad policy to have a parkland right there. The
children could look through the fence and see the parkland but they cannot
go to the park unless they go about two full blocks. She would not support
that kind of land use planning.
Council Member Beecham mentioned the inability to engage the public in a
new discussion with one weeks notice.
Mayor Kishimoto said it would be a courtesy notice.
Council Member Beecham wondered if the intent was to really change where
the public thinks we are going.
Council Member Morton asked if the applicant has agreed to allow the pass-
through, if staff concurs and whether a week would be enough time to
modify it to reflect a pass-through.
Mr. Emslie stated the neighborhood was given a chance to review the details
of access. After that review, they said they did not want it. As a result, the
developer was not going to agree to an access not supported by the
neighborhood.
07/30/2007 8
Council Member Morton inquired whether the neighborhood was being asked
to change its position.
Mayor Kishimoto responded she did not know if the neighborhood would
change its mind but this would give them notice so they could come and
speak before Council.
Council Member Cordell inquired if the only way Council can vote “no” on
this is if there is some factual basis.
Mr. Baum replied he did not have the subdivision map act findings in front of
him but there have to be specific findings that the Final Map did not match
the conditions of the Tentative Map in the project approval.
Council Member Cordell asked if Council has the Final Map.
Mr. Baum replied that is correct.
Council Member Cordell noted the indication is that the Final Map matches
the Tentative Map.
Mr. Baum said yes and it must also match the conditions of approval.
Council Member Cordell asked if the conditions of approval are met and the
Final Map matches the Tentative Map, there seems to be no legal way other
than to approve the map.
Mr. Baum replied that is correct.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by
Mossar, to approve staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission
(PTC) recommendation to approve the proposed Final Map to create two
single family residential parcels and a remainder lot.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 7-2, Drekmeier, Kishimoto no.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
12. 1st Reading - Adoption of an Ordinance Revising Title 18 (Zoning) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code to:
a) Consolidate and revise Chapters 18.22, 18.24, and 18.26 into a
new Chapter 18.13 (Multiple Family Residential Districts: RM-15,
RM-30, and RM-40);
07/30/2007 9
b) Reorganize and revise Chapter 18.83 into new Chapters 18.52
(Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) and 18.54 (Parking
Facility Design Standards);
c) Consolidate and revise Chapters 18.32, 18.71, and 18.72 into a
new Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose Districts: PF, OS, and AC);
d) Revise certain definitions in Chapter 18.04 (Definitions); and
e) Revise miscellaneous zoning provisions, provide for clarifications
and reformat the ordinance to be consistent with previously
adopted chapters
Council Member Barton stated he would not participate in Item No. 12a) due
to a conflict of interest because he had a potential client in RM-15 and RM-
30; and he would not participate in 12b) due to a conflict of interest because
he had a current client who would be affected by the off-street parking and
loading regulation.
Council Member Cordell stated she would not participate in the hotel overlay
for the Research Park and the Agriculture Conservation (AC) portion of Item
12 due to a conflict of interest because she was employed by Stanford
University.
Vice Mayor Klein stated he would not participate in the hotel overlay for the
Research Park and the Agriculture Conservation (AC) portion of Item 12 due
to a conflict of interest because his wife was employed by Stanford
University and noted he did not have a conflict on Open Space.
Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate in the hotel overlay
for the Research Park and the Agriculture Conservation (AC) portion of Item
12 due to a conflict of interest because her husband was employed by
Stanford University.
Vice Mayor Klein stated for the record he was one of the nine co-founders of
the Open Space District in 1972. However, he never served on the Open
District Board and was never employed by the Open Space District. He said
he was a member of the Planning Commission when the original Open Space
ordinance was passed in 1972.
Mr. Baum stated one matter needs to be separated out to allow it to proceed
to the Stanford-conflicted Council Members. He has been informed the H
overlay is designed to apply in part to the Stanford Research Park, the RP
zone. In that piece of the H overlay there is a conflict. Also, there appears
to be a conflict on the Agricultural (AC) zone, because it was recently
confirmed the only parcels in the City zoned AC are owned by Stanford
University. If there is something substantive going on there, then that
would also be a conflict. This would separate the two pieces of the item. It
might be simpler to make that a motion at the beginning for those two
07/30/2007 10
items. It would mean not having the Stanford-conflicted Council Members
participate.
Mayor Kishimoto inquired if all the public speakers could speak on
everything including those items and then break it out when it comes to the
vote.
Mr. Baum replied there would be a need to do some sort of breaking out for
Council Member Barton.
Council Member Mossar noted she had asked this question and was told it
was not a problem but she just wanted to confirm. She was not able to
participate on the Arastra Gateway Project because Stanford owns property
up the street. She asked if this was OS.
Mr. Baum replied that parcel is a PC zone.
Council Member Mossar restated it is Stanford property but not affected
because there is Open Space zoning.
Mr. Baum stated there would be a single presentation by staff and a single
public hearing with all the Council Members participating. It is too difficult to
split up the two items.
Assistant Planning Director Curtis Williams stated this is the culmination of
the Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU). The intent of the ZOU update has
been to implement Comprehensive Plan programs, to provide a more
readable format for the document, to evaluate the use of form-based coding
and to modernize code provisions as necessary. The ZOU has accomplished
many things to date. The proposed changes fall into four categories: 1) the
multi-family residential chapter; 2) parking; 3) the special purpose districts,
which include public facilities, open space and agricultural conservation; and
4) a number of miscellaneous revisions to definitions and other code criteria.
In terms of the multi-family section, there are changes proposed to provide
additional flexibility for multi-family development when it is not adjacent to
low density residential development. This would delete some of the daylight
plane requirements, limit the size of parking spaces excluded from Floor
Area Ratio (FAR), allow for tandem parking, allow for some minimal
neighborhood and retail service uses in larger complexes, and provide
contract based design criteria as in the commercial and some other zones.
There is an implementation of the policy from the Housing Element for no
net loss of rental units and a requirement for individual review where a
single family two story home is built next to an existing single family home
or zone. As far as parking standards and design, the existing chapter 1883
has been divided into two sections; one on the standards for the parking
rates themselves and the other on the design which is the size of spaces and
07/30/2007 11
angles. The biggest change is the elimination of compact parking spaces
and our current standard parking spaces. There will be what is called a unit
class space, which is smaller than the standard and bigger than a compact
space. Chapter 18.28 is a combination of three separate districts currently in
different chapters: Public Facilities, Open Space and Agricultural
Conservation. There are no substantive changes to the EF and AC zones but
in the Open Space zone there are a few modifications that the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommended. The most significant of
these modifications includes definitions and criteria for impervious cover,
which is not currently available. The Open Space zone limits impervious
surfaces to 3.5 percent of the lot and, currently, there are no definitions for
impervious cover. The P&TC and staff recommended that all paved surfaces,
even if they are partially permeable, be counted as impervious with the
exception of gravel driveways. The P&TC, in conjunction with the change to
the language on impervious cover limitations, has suggested that we work
with the residents of the Open Space area to explore some development
criteria related to maximum house size and FAR and revisit the impervious
cover issue. Staff’s suggestion to the P&TC was that a Working Group be
convened including a number of OS district owners, as well as OS advocates
and some P&TC members. The Working Group would work with staff to look
at some of these issues. The PT&C’s concern was the way the impervious
cover limitations have been interpreted in recent years. If the Council
agrees, staff would come back to the P&TC within 90 days after adoption of
this ordinance with a discussion of those items. It is hoped there would be
an updated Zoning Ordinance packaged to Council and available to the
public 30 days from the effective date of this ordinance. As the City
Attorney mentioned, Council motions will need to break out the portion of
Section 4, the special purpose districts, to separate the AC area and in
Section 18, which is the hotel combining district relative to the Research
Park.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Arthur Keller thanked staff for
working with the PT&C on this long, involved process. The PT&C agrees with
staff that the issue of OS is something that requires further discussion with
the OS Working Group. In terms of adjacencies, one theme that seems to
be common is when building adjacent to low density residential RM-15 or R-
1 or R-2 or RMD, those things should essentially mirror what is occurring on
the residential side. In terms of parking spaces, it is clear that compact
parking spaces have failed. That is one of the reasons for taking them away
and replacing them with the idea of Transportation Demand Management
programs for parking reduction, and encouraging green vehicles and green
parking spaces. Regarding impervious cover and OS, when the ordinances
were put together originally with respect to OS, the density limitations were
only in terms of impervious cover, which is 3.5 percent of the area of the lot.
The use of impervious cover as limiting the size of the development has
slipped because of the development of semi-pervious materials. The P&TC
07/30/2007 12
put in something initially that counts all semi-pervious materials for
driveways as impervious except for gravel until it actually studies this in
detail. The P&TC felt it was best to make that change as part of the process
of incorporating the Comp Plan rules and guidelines for OS development,
making that part of the OS ordinance.
Mayor Kishimoto acknowledged the meticulous job the Planning and
Transportation Commission and staff have done.
Public Hearing was opened at 8:15 p.m.
Winter Dellenbach, LaPara, stated OS Zoning was not intended as a device
to create large country estates but rather a device to protect wild habitat.
Driveways and other surfaces covered by permeable materials change the
land and affect the pattern of habitat in built up areas. Palo Alto’s OS is
worth saving.
Vincent Wood, 31105 Page Mill Road, said the California Government Code
prohibits conflict of interest based on position of management with the
business entities. Currently, two Council Members have a conflict of interest
in regard to the Open Space criteria. Vice Mayor Klein is a founder of Mid-
Peninsula Open Space and Council Member Drekmeier is currently the
Director of Stanford Open Space Alliance. He urged the City Council to vote
no in regard to the proposed ordinance change with the OS. The changes
are unfair to property owners and will reduce the values of existing homes
and land which will probably reduce tax revenues for the City.
Leonard Lehmann, 850 Los Trancos Road, Portola Valley stated he had two
concerns about the revisions to the definition change of impervious cover
within the OS. The process has been inappropriate given the substantive
effects these proposed changes would have on property owners, and his
second concern has to do with this being bad law. The impacts will vary
widely among property owners but some property owners will be very
substantially affected. He requested the Council exclude the definition
change for impervious cover. The City would be best served by waiting for
the OS Working Group to complete its recommendations in 90 days and then
come back to the Council. The impervious cover definition is a very blunt
instrument. The Council should be encouraging homeowners to use best
materials and best building practices rather than just gravel.
Mike Carlton, 31107 Page Mill Road, Los Altos Hills stated the proposed
changes severely impact property owners with small lots. He requested
consideration of other approaches for small lots and possibly tiered
approaches allowing greater percentages for small lots. He urged the
Council to vote no on Item 12C and to allow the Working Group to report
back before voting and get input from the property owners before making a
07/30/2007 13
decision.
Tony Tam, 4001 Page Mill Rd., Los Altos Hills urged the Council to vote no
on the OS measures mainly because the Council is being asked to vote on
immature measures. If a Working Group is to be composed, it should take
place before regulations come to the Council. Consideration should also be
given to the people who have been down-zoned.
Cathy Cartmell, 4001 Page Mill Road, Los Altos Hills, urged the Council to
vote no on Item 12C. The OS District already has some of the strictest
zoning in this region. If the City introduces interim rules, in the space of six
months there will be three sets of different rules, which is not fair to
residents in the Open Space District. She also objects to a change to the
parking allowed within the setback and attaching undefined conditions of
approval to the ordinance.
Mark Conroe, 805 Los Trancos, stated the proposed zoning code revisions
would have a significant negative impact on all property owners in the OS
District. He urged Council to slow down and allow time to consult with the
property owners and study the impact of the proposed changes. The
residents’ main issue relates to the impervious coverage definition. There is
widespread concern over these proposed changes as evidenced by a petition
signed by 20 property owners in the OS District. Regarding the impervious
coverage definition changes, he requested the Council allow Committee
input, then study the impacts and propose a new definition in the next 90
days.
Richard Geiger, 714 E. Charleston Road, suggested allowing smaller lots, two
or three acres and having more homes that are not so big. He urged a no
vote, as there are many issues that need to be reviewed in detail before
voting.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, stated Council should set a maximum size lot in
the OS District. Manufacturers of paving stones use slogans and call them
pervious paving because a block of concrete is set a small distance away
from another block of concrete. They allege the entire area that is paved
will drain the water with that little space which is less than 10 percent. Also,
he disagreed on the zoning text amendments being allowed by members of
the public. Citizens should propose changes to zoning text amendments.
Then once a year staff could bring them through to the P&TC and the Council
with staff’s recommendation, instead of making zone text amendments part
of an application. He said the parking spaces should be full-size, 9 ft. by 18
ft. because cars are bigger now.
David Hopkins, 920 Laurel Glen Drive, stated three key points and urged a
no vote: 1) the staff recommendations are more than just cleanup; rather,
07/30/2007 14
they are proposing these zoning requirements; 2) These recommendations
have significant impact on the land owners in the District but were not
discussed with the land owners; and 3) There are many other ways to see
that the legitimate concerns and needs of the City are met in regard to these
proposed changes.
Joyce Fishman referred to her letter and asked Mr. Williams for clarification
regarding the changes in the RM zone with respect to her single family home
in RM-15.
Public Hearing was closed at 8:42 p.m.
MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Barton, to
approve changes in the H Overlay, which applies to Hotels in the Research
Park, and changes to the AC zoning.
Council Member Beecham stated he felt the hotel recommendations the
Planning and Transportation Commission had reviewed are a reasonable
approach to allow or encourage additional hotel use in the City.
Mayor Kishimoto reported there was a small clean-up to the AC that she has
already discussed with staff. Page 73 of the proposed ordinance, Land Uses,
Section 18.28.040, under Residential Uses, allows residential use and
accessory buildings related to agricultural. Free-standing single family
homes are not allowed which is the intent, but manufactured housing
including mobile homes are allowed, which presumably would not have to be
related to agricultural use. She would like to amend the Motion to eliminate
the permitting of manufactured housing including mobile homes in the AC
zoning. The intent of AC is to allow agriculture use and any small accessory
buildings related to agriculture.
INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH CONSENT OF MAKER AND
SECONDER to delete the permitted use for manufactured housing including
mobile homes in Table 1 of section 18.28.040 of the AC Zoning.
Mayor Kishimoto referred to the hotel overlay which allows 2.0 Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) in the Research Park in the RP zone. She asked how that
compares to other hotel overlays.
Mr. Williams replied the 2.0 FAR is included in the commercial CS zone
currently. He reminded Council the hotel overlay would have to go through
an entire rezoning process to be included.
MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Cordell, Klein, Mossar not participating.
07/30/2007 15
Mayor Kishimoto stated the Council would now take up Items 12a and 12b –
the multi-family and the of-street parking regulations.
Council Member Kleinberg asked about the elimination of compact parking
spaces. She said this appears to be a backwards policy to make provision
for bigger cars because they do not fit into our compact spots.
Mr. Williams replied that staff and the Commission were looking at some
provisions to allow for reduced parking if green priority vehicles are
provided. This would include smaller vehicles, low emission, or no emission
vehicles. There are provisions in the parking reductions to accommodate
these vehicles. The compact spaces could be left in, but there is a concern
that they are not being effectively used. As it is, they are not being enforced
and monitored. He also pointed out that the unit class spaces will not
necessarily address the huge vehicles, as they are smaller than our standard
spaces.
Council Member Kleinberg stated since the spaces are smaller than standard,
the big cars are still going to have trouble fitting in the spaces.
Council Member Mossar stated she understands the Comp Plan calls for
preservation of rental units. However, she is troubled by the requirement
that if property owners own three or more rental units, then rental units are
all they can ever have at that location. She asked if Planning considered
incentives for rental property owners to continue with rental units, or did it
only look at the regulatory solution.
Mr. Williams replied it was just regulatory, essentially lifting that Comp Plan
concept into the ordinance.
Council Member Mossar said she did not think property owners would be
happy with the restriction. The restriction does not necessarily mean we
maintain affordable units.
Council Member Cordell referred to Page 10, Chapter 18.13 which refers to
the Below Market Rate (BMR) units and rental housing protection. Over the
past two years, there have been comments from the public and some
Council Members that BMR units, when added to developments, are not fully
integrated into the residential areas. She did not see anything in this
Chapter that indicates BMR units would be integrated into the housing
development.
Mr. Williams replied staff is cognizant of that issue. The BMR requirements
generally have a lot of detail to them. Staff has created a BMR study that
will be coming to the Council. For now, staff has indicated that further
details of the BMR program requirements will be part of what will be
07/30/2007 16
reviewed through the BMR study. Ultimately, there would be an ordinance
to implement all the BMR requirements and it may or may not be in the
zoning section.
Council Member Cordell said it would be easy to add a statement that says
BMR units ought to be integrated into the development.
Chief Planning and Transportation Official Julie Caporgno noted that the BMR
program is currently implemented through program H-36 in the Comp Plan.
This goes into detail about BMR integration. Exceptions can be made
depending upon the development. A good example is the Classics
Community where the City got units included in the project and an in-lieu
fee. The City can use this in-lieu fee toward the Alma substation project if
that goes forward. That is why we want to include flexibility. The language
Council Member Cordell is proposing would allow that but flexibility is
necessary for other types of projects.
P&TC Member Keller stated in general when projects go before the P&TC, the
BMR agreement has not yet been finalized. The PT&C does not get an
opportunity to review the BMR agreements and, therefore, cannot make
recommendations. In the future, the Commission is interested in reviewing
the BMR process.
Council Member Cordell said she did not think this would involve a BMR
agreement. There is already a statement that says BMR units are to be
constructed. She was requesting some language that says such BMR units
are to be fully integrated into the development unless for good cause.
City Manager Frank Benest stated staff has no problem saying it is the
general policy of the City that BMR units are integrated into the general
housing development, as long as there is recognition that there are certain
kinds of situations where it makes sense not to do that.
Council Member Cordell stated she would like to make a Motion to add
language that says that BMR units are to be fully integrated into the
development unless there is good cause not to.
Mayor Kishimoto inquired if this is a vote on this one item only.
Mr. Emslie said he did not think Council needed to be that specific. In the
BMR statement there will be an ordinance implementing a set of guidelines
that would be more appropriate to illuminate the process.
Council Member Morton said people in this community are not pleased with
the size of houses and projects. One example is the Rickey’s Hyatt project.
We are adopting recommendations that are going to impact the kinds of
07/30/2007 17
housing in this community. People often feel zoning favors the rebuilds but
does not protect the long-term residences. He asked to build in not only
permission for development but protection for the existing residents and a
way to preserve the community. He wondered how to save view space on El
Camino when height is pushed to the street.
Mr. Emslie explained the urban design principles adopted and used by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) for El Camino favor moving mass of the
buildings, especially on wide multi-lane arterials such as El Camino, closer to
the street. This new urban concept goes away from the more suburban
large setback and parking visible from the street. These are the design
principles that the El Camino guidelines are based on.
Council Member Morton noted the policy direction of the Council would need
to be changed. Regarding the parking space issue, he felt that the parking
spaces should reflect what the people in the community drive and not some
sort of theoretical view about what we think they should be permitted to
drive.
Mayor Kishimoto mentioned one small change on Page 5, Attachment A, of
the first ordinance. Table 2, third column, on the multi-family residential
development table, calls for reducing the minimum front setbacks to 0 to 25
ft. which addresses the urbanist format that Planning and Community
Environment Director Emslie mentioned. She sent an email asking for the
definition of arterial roadway and asked whether it includes the residential
arterials. Staff’s response was no and they would be happy to clarify that in
the table.
Mr. Williams said staff would revise the footnote to clarify it is just arterials,
not residential arterials.
Council Member Kleinberg stated she favors the new urbanism and feels the
Council has worked hard to create transit and pedestrian-oriented zones.
She noted it would be useful for Council to talk about what redesigned and
upgraded homes do for the community.
Council Member Mossar stated her concern that in the future people would
not build rental units because the property could not be changed.
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to move
staff recommendation for 12 a) and b) with amendments that language be
added to section 18.13.040(g) to require BMR units to be fully integrated
into the development unless good cause was shown for an exception; that
Table 2 of section 18.13.040 be revised to clarify that arterial roadways do
not include residential arterials and that subsection 18.13.040(g)(3) be
07/30/2007 18
deleted relative to preserving rental units and for staff to return with
alternative proposals for consideration.
Council Member Beecham said in terms of the new urbanism and, in
particular, the design at the former Hyatt, he agreed it is imposing on the
street. He pointed out the details of the design are in good part controlled
by the ARB.
Council Member Morton said in order to represent the people who elected
him, he would vote no on this.
Council Member Mossar added the ARB spent endless hours on the Rickey’s
Hyatt project. The ARB does not dictate design; however, they do everything
in their power to encourage good design.
Vice Mayor Klein noted he would vote for the Motion. His recollection is that
the City Council has at least twice, perhaps three times, down-zoned the
amount of square footage that can be built on an R-1 lot. One of the most
effective groups he has seen in the City was the citizen’s group that was
convened to look into this issue and develop the individual design programs.
The program is very effective and it has been interesting to see how few
times the citizens have appealed. In terms of house size, some of the
grumbling from the community is resistance to change.
MOTION PASSED for 12a) and 12b): 7-1, Morton no, Barton not
participating.
Council Member Morton stated this is an issue to hold the line until staff has
the time to meet with neighbors and clarify further what the impacts will be
on the OS. Council and staff want to ensure that what they do is right, take
into account the impact on the smaller lots, and hear what the neighbors
have to suggest.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Beecham to adopt
staff recommendations on 12c), d) and e).
Council Member Beecham asked when the City began to allow pervious
surface to not be counted in the OS areas.
Mr. Williams said he thought it was eight or nine years ago.
Council Member Beecham stated in the past there was no exemption for
permeable surface in the OS area. Staff, the P&TC, and the Council have
been aware that an unintended consequence is that the paving on a large
parcel can be changed to get much more square footage than had been
historically possible. He believes the option before the Council tonight is the
07/30/2007 19
right one. The other option would be to set an ordinance that states moving
ahead with the Working Group process. The recommendations from that
process would then be effective as of the date of what is passed tonight. In
the testimony presented at the P&TC meeting, staff indicated there was one
application on hand. They are not aware of any other applications in
process, so that is not an issue.
Mr. Williams asked if the Motion would replace the section on impervious
cover.
Council Member Beecham replied that is correct.
Mr. Williams stated that was reasonable. It can be written to say that any of
those changes addressed subsequently would become effective on the date
of this ordinance.
Council Member Beecham stated it is not a moratorium because we do not
have the grounds for doing that. It puts homeowners at some uncertainty
on what the ultimate regulation might be if they were to come in with an
application in the next six months.
Council Member Kleinberg asked Mr. Williams if this had to do with
impervious surfaces or if they were talking about the entire OS section,
which will be looked at by the Working Group.
Council Member Beecham replied the main concern is on the impervious
surface. He asked staff if there were comments on how well this might
work.
Mr. Williams said the impervious cover specifics in here now would not be in
included. We would continue to treat that as we do now but with some
understanding it would be addressed as part of the Working Group.
Council Member Beecham stated there was also the issue of listing explicitly
the criteria in the Comp Plan.
Council Member Kleinberg said she would support the Motion to remove the
OS section until such time as the Working Group can bring some
recommendations. It needs to be retroactive to the adoption of the zoning
update tonight.
Council Member Beecham asked if there was a legal issue.
Mr. Baum said essentially the standard is going to be the old standard.
When Council passes the ordinance it is indicating, as a policy matter, that it
is going to try and make it retroactive, which legally can only apply if a
07/30/2007 20
building permit has not been issued and there have been no substantial
funds expended. The intent is that it will apply retroactively to projects in
the pipeline.
INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH CONSENT OF MAKER AND
SECONDER to remove amendments to Open Space (OS) with direction to
staff to work with the OS Working Group and return with new set of
amendments for OS, effective on the date of adoption of the ZOU
ordinance.
Council Member Beecham said he did not expect that this would come back
to the Council until next year.
Council Member Kleinberg asked who would be on the Working Group.
Mr. Williams replied there are about six residents who are interested. A
number of environmental organizations will also be contacted for
representation, and two P&TC members will be appointed.
Vice Mayor Klein stated he did not think laws should be made this way. The
changes in the OS zone as recommended by staff and the P&TC are not new.
They are an update of present policies and a continuation of policies that
have been in effect for over 30 years. As Council Member Beecham correctly
pointed out, it is going to be at least in 2008 before this comes back to the
Council. There may very well be someone who slips through the cracks and
gets vested rights and the City should not run that risk. He would move a
Substitute Motion that would say Council adopts the staff and P&TC
recommendations with regard to c) minus AC zoning d) and e).
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Drekmeier,
to approve staff and Planning and Transportation’s recommendation for 12
c) minus AC zoning, d) and e).
Council Member Mossar said she had asked a question of staff about the
deletion of the flood plain (F) district zone Section 18.75. She thought it
was a possible opportunity to begin thinking about the land use challenges
regarding science-based projections for the impacts of sea level rise on the
Bay and the immediate expected increase in severe storms and storm
surges. Staff had indicated in its response that should the Council want to
keep this as a placeholder, it was fine to do so and that it recognized the
importance of figuring these challenges out and there were other vehicles for
doing it. She would like to keep the F designation as a reminder that it is
something we have to deal with. She wondered if the maker of the
Substitute Motion would be willing to include to not deleting the flood plain
(F) district and encouraging staff as they move forward to deal with these
issues of Global Climate Change.
07/30/2007 21
INCORPORATED INTO SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF
MAKER AND SECONDER to not delete the flood plain (F) district and to
encourage staff and City officials to be mindful of Global Climate Change.
Council Member Mossar stated there is a serious issue with runoff and a lot
of pervious surface is not much better than impervious surface. It is much
cleaner to support staff and P&TC recommendations and, if the Working
Group comes up with better ways, then changes could be made.
Council Member Barton said he agreed and he would combine his comments
with Vice Mayor Klein’s and Council Member Drekmeier’s.
Council Member Cordell stated the fair way to do this is to get input from the
public and then make the rules and let the public have a say. She would not
support the Substitute Motion.
Council Member Kleinberg agreed with Council Member Cordell because it
sets a bad precedent to adopt laws and ordinances that affect property
rights or any other rights which are inherently defective. The people who
have stood up and spoken about their property and the way it would impact
their property show that this is not good legislation.
Council Member Beecham asked Mr. Baum for help on the protocol. He
would like to separate the issue of the OS. He asked if that would be a
motion or a request.
Mr. Baum said it could be handled either way. Council Member Beecham
could request that the Mayor divide the motion. Should the Mayor decline to
divide, then he could make it as a motion and the group can decide.
Mayor Kishimoto divided the motion for the purpose of voting.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION on Open Space
MOTION PASSED: 5-4, Beecham, Cordell, Kleinberg, Mossar, no.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION on remainder of 12 c), 12 d), and 12 e)
MOTION PASSED: 9-0.
Mayor Kishimoto thanked Mr. Emslie, Mr. Williams, Planning staff, and the
P&TC for the six-year Zoning Ordinance Update process.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
07/30/2007 22
13. Approval of an Acquisition and Development Agreement Between the
City of Palo Alto, Eden Housing, Inc. and Community Housing Alliance,
Inc. for the Proposed Alma Street Affordable Multi-Family Rental
Housing Project
Mr. Benest stated that City staff, Eden Housing and the Community Housing
Alliance (CHA) were pleased to present the Acquisition and Development
Agreement for the Alma Street affordable development. In terms of project
overview, the Housing Element identified this site for housing and the
Council, in September 2006, authorized a family rental project for low-
income households on the combined substation site and Ole Auto Repairs
site after the Ole site was under purchase contract by the CHA. The Council
also approved a predevelopment agreement among the three partners Eden,
CHA and the City. The Acquisition and Development Agreement allows for
the affordable family housing project. If the hardware store and the small
office building choose to relocate and expand, then a larger vision can be
implemented. The CHA has letters of intent from both the hardware store
and the office owners to join in on this mixed use project. This would
provide ground floor commercial along the whole block of Alma and it would
most significantly expand affordable housing units over the ground floor
from the original 53 to 101 affordable housing units for both families and
seniors.
Rob Quigley, Architect, said the original project is a family housing project
with 53 family units. Access to parking would be under the project. The
expanded project would be 50 family units, about 1600 square feet of retail,
52 senior units, and about 6300 square feet of office and senior activities.
This would build on the original Alma design guidelines and the SOFA II plan.
There is intergenerational synergy in combining a seniors’ project and a
family housing project in the same vicinity. With unobstructed south sun,
this project has the opportunity to be a role model in sustainability. A lot of
rooftop area could be used to generate electricity.
Don Barr, Community Housing Alliance (CHA), stated CHA wants to take this
concept of affordable work force housing in SOFA II and make it a reality.
Families with very low incomes will be targeted. These are the people that
make our businesses and our services and our health care services run.
There are long waiting lists for affordable senior housing in this community
and few units become available each year. That is why the vision was
expanded to include the needs of both seniors and families and to have a
project that combines retail space with affordable housing. In order to keep
the rents down to these levels the CHA and the partner groups need to raise
substantial funds. CHA believes that once this project is adopted in concept
through this Agreement and the application permits start coming forward, it
will be successful in raising these funds.
07/30/2007 23
Linda Mandolini, Eden Housing, said last September they showed Council the
math for the fall-back option which is to build 53 units of work force housing
for families in the 30-35 percent of median income bracket. The total cost is
about $25 million. Funding sources have been identified to cover about $21
million, which leaves a fundraising gap for CHA of about $4.4 million. We
have just heard from the tax credit allocation committee in Sacramento that
the gap may actually go down because some rules have changed. If Council
approves this tonight, we can move forward for at least 53 units. We would
like to move forward with an even bigger project, which is for 50 units of
family housing over commercial. That project costs slightly more because
we would be building the expanded space for the hardware store. The
hardware store would be paying an exchange of their land for the new
space. The total cost is $28 million and the gap funding required to do 50
units would be $5.6 million. There would be 51 units of senior housing, with
about 6,300 square feet of commercial space. Total sources of funds would
be $13 million. Our total cost would be about $19 million, which would leave
a gap of about $5.5 million. Concept plans are being presented tonight, not
final plans. If Council approves this tonight, we will be starting with design
and neighborhood efforts, going to the ARB for preliminary review in
October. The PC process would be started at the end of the year and then
by February 2009, we would apply for tax credit funding. The reason this is
put out to 2009 is that we have to be completely approved in order to apply
for tax credits. The Ole site cannot be acquired until next summer and,
therefore, the earliest to start the family housing financing would be late fall
of next year. We would complete construction of the family housing in 2011,
and start immediately thereafter on the senior housing after we relocate the
hardware store.
Mr. Benest stated the recommendation is that the Council approve the
Acquisition and Development Agreement and provide comments on the
larger vision that has been suggested. This is an opportunity to develop
affordable housing in the downtown, with green building design, close to
transit and provide services for low income households. With the larger
vision, there are additional benefits to preserve and expand neighborhood
serving retail, to more fully implement the SOFA II Plan, provide a more vital
street scape along Alma, and encourage intergenerational programming.
Mr. Emslie referred to Council questions regarding the 55-year term of the
Agreement. This is consistent with the structure of tax increment financing.
However, there are ways to extend the affordability. On Page 1 of the
Agreement, Recital Section, Paragraph F, the Council would be asked to
direct staff to include additional language that recognizes the CHA, Eden
Housing and the City would work together to extend the term of affordability
wherever feasible and allowed by the financing rules that would apply. There
is specific language. If the Council provides that direction, staff could
implement the language and proceed.
07/30/2007 24
Mark Sabin, 533 Alberta Avenue, Sunnyvale, spoke in support of the
Agreement and noted that these types of developments are particularly
important for people who contribute to our daily well-being and the quality
of life in this community.
Doris Petersen, 1803 Edgewood, President of the League of Women Voters
of Palo Alto, stated that the League wholeheartedly supports approval of the
Acquisition and Development Agreement.
Patricia Saffir, 2719 Bryant Street, urged approval of this Agreement and
encouraged the larger vision. This current proposal provides affordable
family housing and the possibility also exists for some desirable retail and
needed affordable senior housing.
Litsie Indergand, 336 Ely Place, urged approval and said we can be as proud
of this project as we are of the Opportunity Center.
Irene Sampson, 3992 Bibbits Drive, said this project is a good example of in-
fill development located near public transportation, shopping and other
services. She supports approval of this Agreement and moving forward.
Jeff Rensch, 741 Chimalus Drive, stated he hoped that Council would
support the project in its “enriched” form.
Sally Probst, Coastland Drive, spoke in support of the project. She
recommended good lighting in the underground from 800 High to the new
housing.
Bena Chang, Santa Clara, stated this project will be an important step to
ease the continual demand for affordable homes.
Robert Moss, 4010 Orme, said he agreed with the concept of the project but
is concerned the City is being asked to pay $4 million for .27 acres, which
works out to about $14 million per acre. Secondly, the report said that no
money from the General Fund would be used. The substation is a General
Fund asset. If the City is giving that to this project, then money from the
General Fund is being used. That needs to be clarified.
Carol Lamont, 618 Kingsley Avenue, said the multi-use concept is excellent
and a good way for the City to achieve its Housing Elements goal.
Council Member Drekmeier asked about the criteria on who can get into this
facility. There are people who work hard to make Palo Alto a better
community and do not make a lot of money. It seems this is a great reward
07/30/2007 25
for them versus someone who is working in a restaurant and gets low
wages.
Ms. Mandolini replied it is possible to have preferences. Eden has done
preferences in many other communities and Council would have to tell Eden
how to work that preference. It has to be fair and meet Fair Housing
guidelines first. People could get a preference if they live, and/or work in
Palo Alto or a complex point scoring order could be used.
Council Member Drekmeier asked at what point in the process this would
take place.
Ms. Mandolini replied Council could ask staff as part of the vote tonight to
work with Eden to create a preference. She did not know if one is in place
for other projects. They could look at other preferences to see if they would
be workable in this scenario. Staff told her that “live or work” is already in
place so that would be easy to implement.
Council Member Drekmeier stated Alma Street seems dangerous because it
is narrow and there is heavy traffic. People heading south who want to turn
left onto one of the streets block the inside lane and people behind them try
to zip over into the right hand lane. He wondered if the City has looked into
doing something similar to Charleston on that stretch of Alma, basically two
lanes and designated turn lanes.
Mr. Emslie stated this would be a three-lane section. A specific study has
not been done on Alma but the principle that would apply to Charleston
could also apply here. A lot of capacity is gained by removing the left turns
from the travel lane and putting them into a center turn lane. It is possible
to look at it, but it is not in our work program.
Council Member Drekmeier asked if the potential for green building that Mr.
Benest mentioned was part of the plan.
Mr. Benest confirmed it was a keystone of the whole project. The original
design with the family only project that Council saw last September
incorporated green building.
Council Member Barton said this is a project that is a public/private
partnership. It is an Agreement among the users on the block on how to do
things, and it has great affordability. He was proud that Council was having
this discussion. This is a community that values and understands the need
for affordable housing.
MOTION: Council Member Barton moved, seconded by Morton, to approve
staff recommendation to approve the Alma Street Affordable Multi-Family
07/30/2007 26
Rental Housing Project Acquisition and Development Agreement (ADA)
between the City, Eden Housing and the Community Housing Alliance (CHA)
with the modification to extend the term of affordability beyond 55 years as
permitted by funding sources. The Agreement provides for the conveyance
of the Alma Substation parcel to Eden Housing and CHA, a City loan of $3
million for acquisition of the adjacent Ole’s parcel and general parameters
for future development of the combined site.
Council Member Morton said that most HUD and CDBG funding has the
limitation that if the project ceases before the term is up, the funding
returns to the City. He wondered if the same could be done with the land.
If the use ceases within the 55 years or the extended period, then the land
would return to the City. There is a concern that we do not want to
particularly enrich somebody down the road.
Mr. Benest confirmed that if the affordable housing use ceases within the 55
years, the land ownership returns to the City.
Council Member Kleinberg asked if the project could be made allergen free
with regard to the interior finishes and smoke free.
Ms. Mandolini stated that Eden had done one cigarette smoke-free building,
which was a senior property in Dublin. It could be studied for a family
property; however, this can be a leasing challenge because it would
eliminate people who otherwise would be able to live in the property.
Council Member Kleinberg said she strongly encouraged this to be a smoke-
free environment particularly since there are vulnerable populations, such as
children and seniors.
Ms. Mandolini stated that smoking areas have to be provided if it is a smoke
free building because we cannot discriminate against somebody to move into
the housing because they smoke cigarettes.
Council Member Kleinberg asked if this was a Federal law.
Ms. Mandolini replied she did not know what kind of law and would research
it more. When smoke free housing was built in Dublin, they had to provide a
smoking area.
Council Member Kleinberg inquired again about an allergy-free environment.
Mr. Quigley stated the normal process is to be very careful of the kinds of
poisons that are emitted from more traditional building materials. An
example of this would be vinyl asbestos tile. He does not specify or use this
type of material because of the problems with that material. The building
07/30/2007 27
also is not sealed perfectly on purpose so that there are certain air changes
that help. He would investigate an allergy-free environment.
Council Member Kleinberg asked about community space and childcare
because low income families with children may not be able to live there and
go to work. She wondered if there would be some space set aside for either
a small childcare facility or an arrangement with childcare in the
neighborhood. She also asked if there was any kind of senior daycare and
health care.
Mr. Quigley stated he looked at the issue of childcare downtown. All Saints
Episcopal has a Palo Alto Community Childcare facility. There is the private
childcare a few blocks away but it is very expensive. He spoke to the
enrollment director at Bing Preschool, who advised there would be
scholarships available to these families.
Council Member Kleinberg stated she raised the question because it is a
major issue for working families. The childcare spaces in town have long
waiting lists. While there might be scholarships available, she is concerned
that there is not extra space for more kids.
Mr. Quigley said some large outdoor spaces and a fair number of community
spaces are included in the family housing project. There is a large outdoor
play area on the second level adjacent to the laundry room. On the fourth
level, there is a large common outside area available for the children.
Mr. Barr referred to Council Member Kleinberg’s questions about senior
services. The project was not intended to be an assisted living type facility.
It would be independent living but there would be supporting services for the
seniors.
Council Member Kleinberg expressed concern about donating City land and
wondered if that was required in order to qualify for some kind of funding.
Mr. Emslie replied that was correct. Staff looked into the possibility of a
lease arrangement but funding options would not apply. The minimum lease
term to be considered for funding would be 75 years and we are prevented
by the Charter from leasing property for terms longer than 50 years.
Council Member Cordell stated it means a lot to her to know that this is truly
going to be affordable housing.
Mayor Kishimoto stated the project is ambitious and complex and she is glad
the community has the people and the resources to bring it together. She
has concerns about giving away City land as Council Members Morton and
Kleinberg mentioned and 55 years is not very long. Staff advised that the
07/30/2007 28
draft ABAG number of low income housing was 846 units. Some of that
might be on Stanford land.
Mr. Benest replied the per unit cost for senior units is around $350,000.
Mayor Kishimoto stated she would support the project with the addition to
make it affordable in perpetuity or as long as possible as much as the
financing terms would allow.
Vice Mayor Klein said there was talk about the reversion and asked what
section that was in. Also, Council discussed the LEED Silver Standard on this
project. He asked Mr. Quigley if it was correct that he said he did not mind
designing and building to that standard, but he did not want to apply for it
because it was difficult and expensive. Since then, we have heard from a
representative of the Build It Green Council who told us that is no longer the
case. It is not as onerous and does not involve as many delays. He asked
whether Mr. Quigley had similar experiences.
Mr. Quigley replied yes it has definitely become less expensive than it was
when the program was originated; however, there still is expense for the
policing and added bureaucratic work required to get the LEED certificate. He
could not say exactly what the cost differences have been but he would
definitely design to that standard. It is merely a question of whether the
additional money goes into the project or goes toward the certificate.
Vice Mayor Klein said the point had been raised by the Build It Green
representative that it is unfair to use their standards and not go through the
process. It is the only way that a city can be assured of certification. He
asked if there would be any objection to including requirements that this be
built to LEED Silver Standards and go through the compliance process.
Mr. Quigley replied the LEED standards are intelligent and logical standards.
He tried to meet those standards before LEED existed and would try and
design a project as sustainable as possible within the budget. These projects
are difficult to achieve with a budget. His personal opinion would be not to
go forward with LEED. Even if the extra expense is only $10,000, that
money could go back into the project. However, he understands there are
reasons, especially public reasons why the certificate might be valuable and
worthwhile.
Vice Mayor Klein stated the tests are quite specific and he would move an
amendment that adds a provision in the contract that this has to be certified
with LEED Silver. He does not think the City should be involved in any
project that does not meet that standard.
07/30/2007 29
Mr. Barr stated before taking that step it is necessary to include a dollar
value on it because if $1.5 million is added to the project, he is not sure $1.5
million could be raised for LEED certification. When building the Opportunity
Center, the costs were substantially higher.
Mr. Benest reported this would be going to the ARB and the P&TC and back
to the Council once the project is designed. Staff knows the Council’s policy
and general direction. Staff will look at exactly how much it costs and come
back with a recommendation and the Council can decide if the gap is too big
or if we can get the certification.
Vice Mayor Klein stated he was troubled by this because this is an
Agreement. We have said it is a policy and then when the first major project
comes along we waive it.
Mayor Kishimoto said it is coming back to the Council.
Mr. Benest commented this project depends upon a partnership with the
City. There will be several recommendations coming back to Council and
once there are the numbers and design for the project, plus feedback from
the ARB and PT&C, Council can direct staff what it wants at that time.
Vice Mayor Klein asked the City Attorney what is being agreed on here.
Mr. Baum replied there are no requirements in the Agreement that he is
aware of concerning compliance with LEED Standards.
Vice Mayor Klein asked how we are protected.
Mr. Benest responded the issue is whether we purchase the LEED
certification.
Mayor Kishimoto suggest saying it is LEED equivalent.
Vice Mayor Klein replied he was not in favor of that.
Council Member Mossar stated the building is what is important, and the way
it is built, not the certificate.
Mayor Kishimoto confirmed that the Motion is for certification.
AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Drekmeier, to add a
requirement to the contract that this project be certified to LEED Silver
Requirement Standards and the compliance process be met.
AMENDMENT FAILED: 2-7, Drekmeier, Klein yes.
07/30/2007 30
Sandy Sloan, Attorney for Housing Alliance and Eden Housing, said she could
answer Vice Mayor Klein’s question about the reversion. Ms. Sloan stated in
the ADA on page 36, Section 8.5, discusses remedies and rights of
termination by the City after conveyance and explains that if there is a
default, the City has an option to purchase the site back and the purchase
price is the balance then due under the City loan. The option agreement is
one of the attachments. It is not an automatic reversion but it is an option
to repurchase.
Vice Mayor Klein asked what happens in year 56.
Ms. Sloan replied, originally, the idea was it would be a 55-year Regulatory
Agreement. She suggested that Mr. Emslie read the language that was
worked out today, which should satisfy the lenders and also satisfy the City
as far as extending it beyond the 55 years.
Vice Mayor Klein said the City Manager told Council the City gets the
property back if this is no longer a housing project.
Mr. Emslie stated the reversion process is in Attachment 9, which is the form
of the Regulatory Agreement that will be executed in this form because it is
being approved as a part of this Agreement. Page 3, Attachment 9, at the
bottom of the page, Paragraph 7, spells out the reversion process for the
City acquiring the right to purchase. By forgiving the loan, the City would
reacquire the property under the provisions of the Regulatory Agreement,
Paragraph 7, Paragraphs A through D.
Council Member Morton asked if that means the City gets it back for nothing.
Mr. Emslie replied that is correct.
Council Morton asked if that could be amended so it would include any
extension of usage.
Mr. Emslie said it could and, if we are able to structure the funding to get
that extended, this would be amended to coincide with that same period.
Mr. Baum said there is no true reversionary interest.
Mayor Kishimoto pointed out that Article 6.12 says that within the 55 years
the developer may not make any modifications to the use without prior
written consent of the City.
Mr. Emslie responded the language that is being proposed would be in
Paragraph F of the Recitals which is on the first page of the affordable
07/30/2007 31
housing rental project. Paragraph F would read in total as amended: The
City has agreed to provide the funding and to sell the City parcel to the
developer for the purpose of the development of a long-term affordable
multi-family rental housing project on the site and the developer has agreed
to develop the site in accordance with this Agreement which also requires
the site to be subject to a recorded City Regulatory Agreement that limits
the occupancy and rents at the residential units developed on the site to
serve levels of very low income households for a period of no less than an
initial 55 years. Further restrictions, financing structures, and regulatory
provisions as appropriate will be put in place prior to the City’s conveyance
of the City property to provide for a substantial extended term of
affordability beyond the initial 55 years.
Vice Mayor Klein stated he is concerned about the environment indemnity
under Section 4.5.3 on Page 16. Council’s experience with the Roth Building
has made him leery of the City taking on obligations particularly when giving
property away.
Mr. Benest said this indemnification was agreed to as part of the pre-
development agreement the Council approved in September 2006 and staff
has done due diligence including Phase I and II studies.
Vice Mayor Klein said if that was the case, the donee should accept that
liability.
Mr. Benest reiterated this is a negotiated partnership and a part of their
business negotiations. The Council approved this language in September
2006 and he is confident, given the Phase I Hazmat Study and the Phase II
Hazmat Study, that this is a reasonable provision.
Council Member Kleinberg stated Section 4.5.3 refers just to the City parcel.
Since it is next door to a piece of land being added, which is an auto repair
shop, there could be subterranean leakage into the parcel. She asked if the
studies have taken into account the contiguous parcel and any other toxics
being indemnified for remediation clean-ups.
Mr. Emslie stated Phase I is non-invasive testing in which the records and
permit history are checked. Phase II is actual drilling on the site. Phase II
essentially cannot be completed for the Ole’s property until much of the
building is removed. Drilling is done in the areas where there may be
suspected leakage. Also, there are limitations on the substation site. Once
the site is clear, there may be some drilling yet to come.
Vice Mayor Klein noted Section 4.6.1, Page 17, talks of a variety of ways of
handling closing costs and noted he is concerned about a project this size,
07/30/2007 32
assuming that the costs might add up to $100,000 or $200,000. It is not
clear where that money is coming from.
Mr. Benest stated all the costs associated with the transaction will be coming
from non-General Fund housing-related funds. In order for this partnership
to work, the CHA and Eden are going to have to raise $10 million. Either we
pay it at the front end or the back end. Again, this is a negotiated business
provision. There is a gap of either $10 million or $5 million, depending on
which project is chosen. We are trying to minimize that gap and since we
are going to be one of the major funders, it was one of our deal points to
facilitate this project.
Vice Mayor Klein stated he did not like backdoor facilitation. He would like to
send the Agreement back to staff to renegotiate and limit our environment
indemnity under Section 4.5.3 so that we are not exposed to things such as
possible leaks from the Ole site and that we are not responsible for any
environmental damage on the property.
Mr. Benest suggested Mr. Barr comment on the testing that done on the
Ole’s site.
Council Member Kleinberg said the City is agreeing to take on this liability
when clearly the liability is unknown. However, she did not want to hold up
the Agreement.
Vice Mayor Klein expressed his concern that Council is now bound by the
preliminary actions it took last year.
Mayor Kishimoto stated she is concerned about the Ole’s parcel and asked if
that parcel is being indemnified by the City.
AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Mayor Kishimoto, to
send the Agreement back to staff to renegotiate and limit our environment
indemnity under Section 4.5.3 so that we are not exposed to things such as
possible leaks from the Ole site and that we are not responsible for any
environmental damage on the property.
Mr. Emslie replied in these transactions the sellers are expected to deliver
the property in a clean fashion. If any cleanup is required, typically that
comes out of the final negotiated price. This is not unusual for a buyer/seller
relationship on a reused site, especially if it is a site that has had industrial
uses like the substation. The same assumptions are in place for the Ole’s
site.
07/30/2007 33
Council Member Kleinberg noted that Mr. Emslie said it is customary in a
seller relationship. However, the City is a donor, not a seller. She asked if
there is anything customary in a donor relationship.
Mr. Emslie said there have been times in doing non-profit housing where the
seller is also a contributor, but he could not recall any specific example.
Mr. Benest pointed out the CHA is purchasing the Ole’s property. Ole’s has
agreed to deliver a clean site to the CHA and there has been extensive
testing by the CHA.
Council Member Barton stated selling and giving land away are moot
questions under the law. More importantly, there will be a two-story
underground parking garage and if there are any toxic soils, they would be
removed. The issues of any liability are extremely limited. This is not an
area that has never been developed before. We cannot pass off our liability
under Federal Law regarding the toxics issue. He appreciates Vice Mayor
Klein’s concern, but it is not a large issue.
Council Member Kleinberg asked Mr. Baum if he was familiar with Council
Member Barton’s version of Federal Law.
Mr. Baum replied this is much more complicated than that. Under the law,
there is a tall liability when you own something. However, there can be a
contractual change. The liability and indemnity can be moved around
contractually.
Mr. Benest confirmed that Phase II has been done on the City’s property as
well as Ole’s property.
Council Member Kleinberg stated she did not think Council wants to have
such an open-ended liability and wondered if there was some kind of a cap
that Council could reasonably agree on.
Council Member Mossar stated the problem is that an issue has been raised
which is not inconsequential. Staff has said there was not testing and there
was testing. She wondered if we could ask staff to respond to these
questions and take final action next week. She would like to make a
Substitute Motion to continue this item to next week and ask staff to provide
thoughtful answers to the questions raised.
Council Member Beecham replied if liability is the only issue left on the Alma
Street project then Council should go forward. He did not know if his
colleagues have other issues.
07/30/2007 34
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by
Beecham, to continue this item until August 6, 2007 with the public
testimony closed.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 8-1, Barton no.
COUNCIL MATTERS
14. Colleague’s Memo from Mayor Kishimoto and Council Members
Beecham and Drekmeier Recommending the Council to Direct Staff to
Explore the Feasibility of College Terrace Parking Permit Program
Council Member Kleinberg requested that this item be moved to next week.
Council Beecham suggested that public comment be taken tonight and
Council’s discussion moved to next week.
Council Member Barton stated he would not participate in Item No. 14
because he had a conflict of interest, as he has a client in the neighborhood.
Council Member Barton left the meeting at 11:20 p.m.
Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, stated as part of the 2000 General Use Permit
the residents persuaded the County Supervisors to require Stanford to pay
$100,000 to the City to look into this problem. She understood that staff
has some concerns about what enforcement and implementation would cost,
but she did not think these are unsolvable problems.
David Struck, 980 College Avenue, said he disagreed with the permit parking
system. He lives and works in the neighborhood and walks to work and his
car is parked on the street in front of his house for three to four days at a
time. He would have to get a permit in order to leave his car in front of his
house.
John Haggerty, 1215 Stanford Avenue, stated he lives in one of the areas
that would probably be considered heavily impacted but his personal feeling
is that the permit system is a bad idea and is not worth the hassle.
Elina Haggerty, 1215 Stanford Avenue, asked what would happen when she
had visitors. She was concerned they would get penalized for parking
outside her home.
Faith Brigel, Birch Street, spoke in favor of the permit program. With
Stanford building more housing on campus and charging for their parking,
more students and employees have been parking in College Terrace.
07/30/2007 35
Residents should not be penalized for wanting and needing to park close to
their homes.
Steven Woodward, 1655 Stanford Avenue, said he wished to encourage the
City to investigate the benefits of a residential parking permit program. This
program, as considered so far by the College Terrace Working Group,
includes the block-by-block buy-in and the availability of options that would
make it fairly easy for residents to have guests visit their homes without
incurring risk of parking tickets.
Greg Tanaka, 2290 Princeton Street, College Terrace Resident Association
President, said as a result of feedback from the neighborhood, the College
Terrace Board has voted to support resolving this problem.
Gary Fine, 2002 Columbia Street, said he finds Escondido School to be more
of a problem than Stanford. It is necessary to take responsibility for our
own choices and leave things alone.
Richard Tucker, Harvard Avenue, said he thinks the permit idea is extremely
poor. Out of town guests could get a $100 fine because their license
number has not been registered with the Palo Alto Police.
Mayor Kishimoto noted this agenda Item would be continued to August 6,
2007 and the public testimony was closed.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES
Council Member Mossar noted she had a conversation with a small business
owner in the South of Forest Area who expressed concerns about the BID,
the lack of service the businesses in the area receive, and about the loss of
revenue when there are events on University Avenue.
City Manager Benest commented staff and the BID were preparing a
summary subsequent to the Promenade event to mitigate future problems.
Council Member Kleinberg stated the Brown Act allowed Council Members to
ask questions of staff under Council Comments, Announcements and Reports
from Conferences; the prohibition would be the question could not turn into
a conversation and a debate.
Council Member Morton reported as the City’s representative to the Airport
Land Use Commission, he had attended the monthly meeting. The Palo Alto
Land Use Comprehensive Plan is scheduled to begin discussions late this fall.
Council Member Beecham responded to the manner in which an issue had
been presented during Council Comments, Announcements and Reports
from Conferences a couple of weeks prior.
CLOSED SESSION
15. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation on One Matter
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9 (b)(3)(A)
MOTION: Council Member Motion moved, seconded by Klein, to continue
Item 15 to August 6, 2007.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Barton absent.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 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.
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.
07/30/2007 36
07/30/2007 37