Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-12-07 City Council Summary Minutes 1 12/07/09 Special Meeting December 07, 2009 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:07 p.m. Present: Barton arrived @ 8:15 p.m., Burt, Drekmeier, Espinosa, Kishimoto, Klein arrived @ 8:15 p.m., Morton, Schmid, Yeh arrived at 6:40 p.m. Absent: STUDY SESSION 1. Review of the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project. City Attorney, Gary Baum noted that Council Member Barton would not be participating because he was an employee of Stanford University and that Council Member Klein would not be participating because his wife was an employee of Stanford University. Staff provided an overview of the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Project (Project), the status of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) preparation, the Project analysis accomplishments, an overview of SUMC’s Development Agreement offer, and the anticipated project review schedule for 2010. Michael Peterson, V.P of Special Projects as SUMC, provided an overview of the purpose and goals of the Project and the Development Agreement. Council members asked questions and commented upon elements of the Development Agreement offer, including the costs & benefits to the City, transportation demand management programs, the sequencing of public hearings, provision of employee housing at the Quarry Road housing sites, the status of the shopping center, and flood protection along San Francisquito Creek. Craig Barney, 3218 Maddux, thought that Stanford Hospital mitigated some of the negative impacts the expansion would bring. 12/07/09 2 Walt Hays, 355 Parkside Drive, spoke regarding the need for extra capacity and earthquake preparedness. Under the City Charter schools, churches, and hospitals were exempt from housing requirements yet Stanford was putting in $23,000,000 towards housing. Art Stauffer, 1145 Hamilton Avenue, stated the focus should not be what the hospital could do for the City but rather what benefit both hospitals contributed to the community. Michael Griffin, 344 Poe, stated community benefits were not legally required to have the same rigorous nexus applicable as other development conditions. He requested Page Mill Road, Embarcadero Road, and Middlefield Road be considered under the traffic impact reports. Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, noted his concerns with the height of the expansion, the usage of the Go Passes, and the housing. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 2. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Library Advisory Commission for Three, Three-Year Terms Ending January 31, 2013. MOTION: Council Member Barton moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Morton to interview all candidates for the Library Advisory Commission. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 3. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Storm Drain Oversight Committee for Three, Four-Year Terms Ending December 31, 2013. MOTION: Vice Mayor Morton moved, seconded by Council Member Espinosa to interview all candidates for the Storm Drain Oversight Committee. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 4. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Parks and Recreation Commission for Four, Three-Year Terms Ending December 31, 2012. MOTION: Council Member Barton moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to interview all candidates for the Parks and Recreation Commission. 12/07/09 3 MOTION PASSED: 9-0 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager, James Keene stated the Cubberley Community Center auditorium would be housing the Downtown Library Staff during the renovations. The California Avenue Streetscape Tree Replacement Project was expected to begin in January 2010. He updated the street lighting plans for the train crossing at East Meadow and commended Rob Steele from the Community Services Department for his efforts and accomplishments in the annual Toys for Kids drive. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Wynn Grcich, 20166 Industrial Park, SE #296, Hayward, spoke regarding the chloramines in the drinking water. Lynn Krug, spoke regarding the SEIU employees’ contract. Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, spoke regarding California Avenue Phase II. Mike Francois, 224 Gardenia Way, East Palo Alto, spoke regarding the Chief of Police Swearing in of Dennis Burns. Margaret Adkins spoke regarding the SEIU employees’ contract. Greg Schulz, 6891 Chantel Court, San Jose, spoke regarding proper staffing for the City’s Utilities Department. Mark Weiss, 1788 Oak Creek Drive, spoke regarding a Gunn High School alumnus Football Coach. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Barton moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Morton to approve the minutes of October 19, 2009, October 26, 2009, and November 02, 2009. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 12/07/09 4 CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Morton moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to approve Agenda Item Nos. 6-9, 11-16, continue Agenda Item No. 10 to a date uncertain, and include the modified attachment to Item No. 12. 6. Ordinance 5065 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections 18.30(C).040, 18.18.060(F), and 18.08.040 (The Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Ground Floor Use Restrictions in the Downtown Area”.(First reading November 16, 2009 – Passed 8-1 Kishimoto-no) 7. Ordinance 5066 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan of Improvements to the Junior Museum & Zoo to Construct a New Bobcat Exhibit and to Replace Fencing and Walkways – Capital Improvement Program Project AC-10000”.(First reading November 16, 2009 – Passed 9-0) 8. Approval of an Agreement with the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo for the Design and Construction of Bobcat Facilities and Other Capital Improvements at the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. 9. Approval of Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and California Fire Fighter Joint Apprenticeship Committee (CFFJAC) for the Transportability Study for Candidate Physical Ability Test (CPAT) Professional Services. 10. Approval of a Purchase Order with Ironman Parts and Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $14,932 and a Purchase Order with Peterson Power Systems in an Amount Not to Exceed $261,567 for the Purchase and Installation of Diesel Emissions Retrofit Devices on a Total of Ten Heavy Duty Diesel Powered Trucks. 11. Approval of a Storm Drain Enterprise Fund Contract with Repipe- California, Inc. in the Amount of $394,981 for the Storm Drain Rehabilitation and Replacement (Phase III CIPP Lining) Project - Capital Improvement Program Project SD-06101. 12. Approval of City’s Participation in a State Energy Program (SEP) Application with Humitech of Northern California, LLC and Efficiency Services Group, LLC to Provide Commercial Energy Efficiency Installations. 12/07/09 5 13. Resolution 9008 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Results of the Consolidated General and Special Municipal Elections Held on November 03, 2009”. 14. Resolution 9009 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Summarily Vacating a 4-Foot Wide Strip of a Public Utilities Easement at 680 Georgia Avenue”. 15. Resolution 9010 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in Support of the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 2010”. 16. Utilities Advisory Commission and Finance Committee Recommendation to Use Up to $2 Million in Calaveras Reserve Funds Over Four Years for a City of Palo Alto Utilities Department Electric Efficiency Financing Program. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Vice Mayor Morton stated Agenda Item No. 5 had not been heard and suggested moving it to a date uncertain. City Attorney, Gary Baum stated Item No. 5 should be adopted and could be presented to the employee at a later date. 5. Resolution 9011 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Dennis Vanbibber Upon His Retirement”. MOTION: Vice Mayor Morton moved, seconded by Council Member Barton to adopt the Resolution expressing appreciation to Dennis Vanbibber upon his retirement. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 ACTION ITEMS 17. Public Hearing: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Adoption of (1) Resolution 9012 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use Designation for 2180 El Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use”, and (2) an 12/07/09 6 Ordinance Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 2180 El Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to PC Planned Community for a Mixed Use Project Having 57,900 Square Feet of Floor Area for a Grocery Store (Intended for JJ&F Market), Other Retail Space, Office Space, and Eight Affordable Residential Units, with Two Levels of Below-Grade Parking Facilities and Surface Parking Facilities for the College Terrace Centre, and Approval of Design Enhancement Exceptions to Allow a Sign Spire and Gazebo Roof to Exceed the 35-Foot Height Limit, and to Allow Encroachment into a Minimum Setback on Oxford Avenue. Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis Williams gave a brief presentation on the mixed-use project at 2180 El Camino Real. He stated the fundamental basics of the project were a grocery store, eight Below Market Rate (BMR) housing units, and 39,000 square feet of office space. Staff was requesting Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopt a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and approve a Planned Community (PC) zoning. Planning & Transportation Commission Vice Chair, Samir Tuma stated the Planning & Transportation Commission (P&TC) met in regards to the project and had recommended the following alterations. The lease to the grocery store be a twenty-year term with the Tenant operating and occupying the grocery store prior to the office tenants being in place, the PC needed to be inspected every three years to ensure code compliance, ensure the residents of the BMR units had access to the vegetative roof, and ensure the units had adequate private space. He noted there had been a recommendation which was approved on a 5-2 vote for a five percent reduction in office space in an effort to reduce traffic impacts, parking needs, and would have some impact on the amount of potential housing Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) required. Council Member Schmid asked whether the P&TC had reviewed the lease terms. Mr. Tuma stated the P&TC had requested the document and was informed the lease was enroute for signatures by the Trustees and was not available. Council Member Schmid asked where in the P&TC minutes the dissenting P&TC members opposed the five percent reduction in office space. Mr. Tuma stated the P&TC minutes of December 02, 2009 began the discussion of the five percent reduction on page 23 close to line 36. 12/07/09 7 Vice Mayor Morton asked for clarification on the concept of the outdoor market. Mr. Tuma stated there had not been a detailed description of the function of the outdoor market space. The discussion and recommendation was for the outdoor market to be owned and operated by the main market. Vice Mayor Morton asked whether it would be comparable to the Whole Foods Market storefront market display. Mr. Tuma stated yes, it would be an outdoor space that existed as an extension of the main tenant space. Vice Mayor Morton stated the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) housing requirement was not based on the amount of retail or office space, but the number of employees. Mr. Tuma stated in approximately 2,000 square feet of office space there would be more people working than in the same amount of retail space. Vice Mayor Morton stated the differential was relatively minor given the amount of part-time retail employees versus the type of office space. Mr. Williams stated yes, depending on the specifics of retail space and the type of office space it was a negligible difference. Vice Mayor Morton stated in terms of massing or the building presentation the reduction of 1,900 square feet appeared imperceptible. Mr. Williams clarified the reduction was more for the retail aspect than the massing impact. Council Member Espinosa stated the P&TC report noted all but one condition had been met and questioned which condition had not been met. Mr. Tuma clarified there were two conditions which had not been met. He stated the five percent reduction and there was no language in the lease documentation reflecting the Council direction to the Developer to ensure they secure a secondary market in the event the JJ&F Market fell through. Council Member Espinosa noted in reading the Staff Report it indicated all of the conditions had been met. 12/07/09 8 Mr. Williams stated the Staff Report was written prior to the completion of the lease agreement. The lease agreement clearly did not include that specific condition and he was uncertain it could. He felt it would need to be included in the PC Ordinance. City Attorney, Gary Baum stated there were a series of limitations included in both the PC Ordinance and the lease documentation. He noted there could be language added at Council direction clearly requesting any substitute grocery store tenant shall be approved in advance by the City’s Director of Planning. Council Member Espinosa asked the reasons the three P&TC Commissioners voted against the five percent reduction. Mr. Tuma stated the P&TC Commissioners had discussed multiple conditions and the conditions the Council had set. The majority of the P&TC agreed the conditions had been met and therefore a five percent reduction would have no significant impact on ABAG requirements, traffic impact or the massing. Council Member Burt stated the City Attorney said we could add clarifying language requiring Council approval for a new grocery tenant. He asked without the approval language would the space remain vacant. Mr. Williams stated yes. Council Member Burt asked whether there were any aspects of the program that needed to be looked at regarding mitigation monitoring and reporting. Mr. Williams stated there was a provision in the Development Agreement which required monitoring on a three year basis for all of the conditions of the project. He was uncertain whether there were specific conditions on the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that required annual monitoring. Council Member Burt asked the basis for an eighty percent encroachment on a setback being considered as a design enhancement. Mr. Williams stated the second floor had the eighty percent encroachment in the setback. The overall setback area on the first floor encroached approximately twenty percent split between the grocery store and recycling storage area. Mr. Tuma stated the P&TC was satisfied with the end result of the design although they felt an eighty percent encroachment did not qualify as minor. 12/07/09 9 Therefore it could not be a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). The exception should have been a Variance; there was not enough information provided to make any findings. Vice Mayor Morton asked for clarification on the purpose of the encroachment. Mr. Williams stated the DEE allowed the grocery store on the ground level to go three feet into the ten foot setback and it allowed the office above to go eight feet into the setback. The upper level setback extended over some of the bicycle parking. Council Member Schmid stated the language in the lease agreement appeared unbinding and he questioned the amount of protection the City’s interest had. Mr. Baum stated the document was an agreement to lease, and not a lease agreement. He noted from the City’s standpoint there were a series of conditions that needed to be met in the timing of the opening and the granting of building permits. This provided the City a substantial amount of protection guaranteeing there would be a grocery store or there would not be an occupant in that portion of the site. Council Member Schmid requested additional language to the Ordinance that if there was no grocery store in place for ninety days, the owner will lease the premises to the City for one dollar each year. He noted that would create the incentive for the owner to maintain a grocer for the location. Mr. Baum stated the requested language appeared legally problematic and suggested there be a delay in leasing additional office space beyond a certain square footage as long as the market space was unoccupied. Council Member Klein asked what use could be made of the space in the event a market failed to materialize. Mr. Williams stated the space was designated as a grocery store and therefore the options were a grocer or a vacant space. Mr. Baum stated the City could bring a code enforcement action either civilly or administratively to force the space to be a grocery store. Public hearing opened at 9:32 p.m. 12/07/09 10 Applicant, Patrick Smailey stated the mission had always been to provide a project that worked for the neighborhood in the existing site and substantial public benefit to Palo Alto. The project offered the preservation of the JJ&F Market, eight BMR housing units, a $5,000 contribution to add medium sized street trees along El Camino Real and at least two public car share spaces. Without the aforementioned amenities the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on the project would be less than the 1.1 allowable on the current CN Zone. He stated the project program and design carefully balanced the needs and desires of the College Terrace neighborhood and the City as a whole. The design proposed was forward thinking and environmentally sound mixed-use project that complimented and enhanced the location. Applicants’ legal counsel, Robin Kennedy stated the agreement to lease presented was a contract between the Trustees and Mr. Garcia. By definition it would have been inappropriate to add the clause noting whereas if Mr. Garcia did not fulfill the agreement to replace the space with a secondary market. She stated the Applicant was amenable to the Council articulating standards as to what a new grocer should and should not be although there were aspects of the selection of the tenants that she felt were not in the appropriate purview of the City. Mr. Smailey concluded the College Terrace Center would be an exemplary mixed-use project preserving a valuable Palo Alto institution in the JJ&F Market, other valuable community benefits and it worked well in the transit location. Stuart Soffer, 280 Linfield, Menlo Park, stated the JJ&F Market added longevity and continuity to the community. Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, supported the reduction of the office space and felt in this particular situation the Council be involved in the selection of a market replacement. John Allen, 2155 Cornell Street, stated the importance of restructuring a community was to keep some of the main structures of the neighborhood and he felt JJ&F epitomized the neighborhood. Mary Schroeter, 2095 Bowdoin Street, supported JJ&F remaining as a part of the community. Ruth Consul, 2185 Hanover Street, requested the Council proceed with the current plan. 12/07/09 11 Joseph E. Oeschger, 3886 Magnolia Drive, encouraged the Council to pass the current plan. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, suggested utilizing a cash-out program for the employees of the development as an incentive not to drive. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, stated the item needed to be continued until all of the necessary information had been presented to Council. Joy Ogawa stated the entire project has had too many anomalies compared to the regulated process. She noted there was no traffic analysis completed at the Cambridge Avenue/El Camino Real intersection which was the closest intersection to the project. Doria Summa, 2290 Yale, urged Council to support the five percent reduction in office space. Fred Balin, 2385 Columbia Street, stated the eight foot exception to a ten foot required setback was not minor and it increased the FAR. He urged Council to deny the request. Trish Siddens, 804 Talisman Drive, stated the office space being requested by the development was intended to subsidize the JJ&F Market. Ellie Eisner, 820 Tolman Drive, Stanford, requested Council to accept the proposed project and move forward before JJ&F was forced to leave the community. Mr. Smailey stated the project was for future generations which allowed them to maintain a lifestyle, a walkable community and a convenience that was good for the residents, community and the City. Public hearing closed at 10:10 p.m. MOTION: Council Member Espinosa moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Morton to: 1) Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2) Adopt the Resolution for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use, and 3) Adopt the Planned Community Ordinance and incorporated conditions of approval to change the zoning from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to Planned Community (PC) and incorporating Design Enhancement Exceptions to allow a sign spire and gazebo roof to exceed the 35-foot height limit and an encroachment into a minimum setback on Oxford Avenue, for the proposed mixed use development. 12/07/09 12 Council Member Espinosa stated as a community it was decided that the JJ&F Market was worth keeping. He disagreed with the consensus the length of time it was taking to ensure accuracy was too long. Vice Mayor Morton stated the JJ&F Market was currently a very walkable grocery store in the community and was supported by the community in the immediate area. He supported the Staff recommendation. Council Member Barton supported the Motion. He stated the project had taken the appropriate shape with good balance between the location and density. Council Member Klein supported the Motion. He stated the project goal was to keep the space as a neighborhood serving grocery store. He requested to add the following language to the Motion: A signed lease for the grocery store, enforceable against the Tenant, shall be submitted. He requested to add the following language to the proposed Ordinance: The grocery Tenant if it is a party other then John Garcia dba JJ&F shall be subject to the prior approval of the City of Palo Alto which shall not be withheld unless the City reasonably finds that such proposed grocery Tenant is not likely to be comparable in quality of service to JJ&F as it existed and operated as of December 07, 2009. Council Member Espinosa asked the City Attorney whether any of the suggested language was inappropriate. City Attorney, Gary Baum stated the proposed language was workable with changes to section 4B of the PC Ordinance. He requested to simplify the language to read: The signed lease to the grocery store shall be submitted to the City Attorney prior to the issuance of a building permit. This would ensure all Council requirements were met. Council Member Klein stated his preference would be for the request to be reviewed by the Council. Mr. Baum asked for clarification on the Council requesting to review the lease agreements of Tenancy for the grocery store. Council Member Klein stated no, he did not expect Council to review the lease agreements; he was requesting the lease agreement be firm with strict guidelines. 12/07/09 13 Mr. Baum suggested the language read: A signed lease for the grocery store, enforceable against the Tenant and approved by the City Attorney, shall be submitted. Vice Mayor Morton stated most signed leases were enforceable against the Tenant. Mr. Baum stated yes, although the current agreement to lease was not enforceable against anyone. Vice Mayor Morton asked whether the language was going to be a part of the agreement to lease or a condition of the lease agreement. Council Member Klein stated neither; it was a condition of approval for the Developer to move forward with the project. Vice Mayor Morton asked where the condition of enforceability be inserted. Mr. Baum stated the conditions were to be inserted into the lease. Vice Mayor Morton asked if the condition meant that if the grocery store should fail, any new grocer would be subject to Council review prior to acceptance. Council Member Klein stated the intent was to maintain that portion of the project as a grocery store and in the event the Developer requested for a different type of business, then the proposal needed to be approved by Council. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add the following language to Section 4(b) of the PC Ordinance: a. A signed lease for the grocery store, enforceable against the tenant and approved by the City Attorney, shall be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits on the site. b. (Subparagraph 4) The grocery tenant if it is a party other than John Garcia (DBA JJ&F) shall be subject to the prior approval of the City of Palo Alto and shall not be withheld unless the City reasonably finds that such proposed grocery tenant is not likely to be comparable in quality of products and service as JJ&F as it existed and operated on December 7, 2009. 12/07/09 14 c. (Subparagraph 5) The grocery store space shall remain in continuous operation as a grocery store. Council Member Barton stated continuous indicated there was no room for exception in time and asked how the term effected down time for tenant improvement. Council Member Klein stated the intent was continuous on a commercially reasonable basis. He clarified if a store closed down for alterations it would be considered in operation. Council Member Barton asked how the proposed language affected JJ&F if it went out of business and the Developer was unable to locate a grocer tenant. Council Member Klein stated if the Developer requested any type of business other than a grocer be in the place of JJ&F, they would need to request an amendment to the PC Ordinance. Council Member Schmid asked for clarification on the Motion being subject to the material on page 2 of the Staff Report, CMR 442:09; Recommendations from the P&TC, the ARB, and Staff: 1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attach K) 2. Adopt a Resolution for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the land designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use (Attachment A), and 3. Adopt the Planned Community Ordinance (Attachment B) and incorporated conditions of approval to change the zoning from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to Planned Community (PC) and incorporating Design Enhancement Exceptions to allow a sign spire and gazebo roof to exceed the 35-Foot Height Limit and an encroachment into a minimum setback on Oxford Avenue, for the proposed mixed use development. Mayor Drekmeier stated yes, points 1, 2, and 3 noted above were included in the Motion. Council Member Schmid asked whether the items the P&TC had recommended on page 4 of the Staff Report, CMR 442:09 were included in the Motion. Council Member Espinosa stated yes. 12/07/09 15 Council Member Schmid asked whether the changes suggested by Council Member Klein for the lease and the Ordinance were in the Motion. Council Member Klein stated no. There was a modification of language in the proposed Ordinance. Council Member Schmid stated the current Housing Element expired in 2006 and therefore the listing of available housing opportunity sites was unavailable for community knowledge. He asked whether not having a Housing Element in place caused an issue in making decisions regarding housing. Mr. Williams stated there was a current adopted Housing Element, what the City did not have was a new State Certified Housing Element through the year 2014. He stated at present time there was no policy in place which directed Staff to include the Housing Element. Council Member Schmid asked whether the P&TC had discussions regarding the housing issues. Mr. Tuma asked for clarification on whether the question was regarding losing the opportunity to use this site for potential housing in the future. Council Member Schmid stated yes, whether this would be a potential site for the Housing Element. Mr. Tuma stated no. Mr. Baum stated the word continuous needed to be defined prior to being added to the Motion. He suggested continuous shall be defined to include brief closure for ordinary business purposes. Council Member Klein agreed with the language definition. Council Member Yeh stated he supported the Motion and noted there had been a lot of thought put into the design and proposal. He noted there had been a good faith effort to try and mitigate some of the traffic impact for the future expansion of the grocery store whether it be JJ&F or not. Council Member Kishimoto asked about the traffic impact on Cambridge Avenue and El Camino Real. 12/07/09 16 Mr. Williams stated intersection analysis was generally not required by the Congestion Management Agency unless there were 100 or more peak-hour trips per day. Council Member Kishimoto clarified that all of the vehicles coming from the El Camino Real ramp would need to turn right; therefore, if the vehicle wished to travel Northbound it would need to make a U-Turn. Mr. Williams stated the number of vehicles traveling in the northbound direction was relatively minor and there were alternate routes to exit the project to the north. Council Member Kishimoto stated there had been a question from Canopy regarding the trees. Mr. Williams stated there was an initial discussion at the P&TC regarding the median on El Camino Real not being the appropriate size to plant trees with the exception of a 100 foot section. He noted the Applicant had contributed $5,000 towards the planting of those trees. Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the Pro Forma had been provided by the Applicant. Mr. Williams stated it had not been received although he wanted to point out that the amount of retail for this space was an increase. Council Member Kishimoto stated given that Palo Alto had the highest housing-employment imbalance in the area, she felt a CN Zone would have provided a fifty/fifty balance and would be considered a true mixed-use. She stated she would not be supporting the Motion. Council Member Espinosa requested the Policy and Services Committee add to their agenda for 2010 a review of the ample At-Place items delivered the night of a meeting and stated it was an injustice to the public who had little to no time for reviewing the documents. Council Member Schmid stated his disagreement with Council being involved in the choosing of a grocery store although he felt with the future growth of the City the site was capable of supporting a larger grocer. Vice Mayor Morton asked whether the changes added required the Applicant to respond. 12/07/09 17 Mr. Baum stated there was a case precedence clarifying if there were changes in the condition after the close of a Public Hearing and the Applicant had not had the opportunity to comment that it violated their due process rights. Ms. Kennedy requested Council Member Klein repeat his additions for clarity. Council Member Klein proposed adding a sub-paragraph 4 and 5 to the proposed Ordinance in Section B. Sub-paragraph 4 would read: The grocery Tenant if it was intended to be a party other than John Garcia dba JJ&F, shall be subject to the prior approval of the City of Palo Alto which shall not be withheld unless the City reasonably finds that such proposed grocery Tenant is not likely to be comparable in quality and service to JJ&F as it existed and operated as of December 07, 2009. Subparagraph 5 would read: The grocery store space shall remain continuously in operation as a grocery store. Mr. Baum stated continuous shall be defined as a brief closure for ordinary business purposes. Council Member Klein would like additional language added to Section 4B of the PC Ordinance: A signed lease for the grocery store enforceable against the Tenant shall be submitted prior to any issuance of a building permit for the site. Ms. Kennedy stated concern with the language of Sub-paragraph 4 in terms of needing the City’s approval and felt the time it might take to be added to a Council agenda could jeopardize a new lease. She suggested the approving body be the Director of Planning and Community Environment. She suggested adding the verbiage of comparable size to Sub-paragraph 4. Council Member Klein stated the size was irrelevant; the size of a grocery store was limited to the available size of the project. Ms. Kennedy suggested altering the language to Sub-paragraph 4 to read: The grocery Tenant if it was intended to be a party other than John Garcia dba JJ&F, shall be subject to the prior approval of the City of Palo Alto which shall not be withheld unless the City reasonably finds that such proposed grocery Tenant is not likely to be comparable in product and service to JJ&F as it existed and operated as of December 07, 2009. Council Member Burt stated the proposal had been refined with additional improvements and guarantees it did not have before. 12/07/09 18 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that continuous shall be defined to include brief closure for ordinary business purposes. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-1 Kishimoto no Council Member Schmid requested Agenda Item 19 be continued to December 14, 2009. City Clerk, Donna Grider noted the December 14, 2009 agenda was quite full. Vice Mayor Morton left the meeting at 11:00 p.m. 18. Review of Development Center and Building Permit Process Chief Building Official, Larry Perlin gave a brief presentation on the process of the permit process from the Applicant entering the Development Center to the permit being approved. MOTION: Council Member Espinosa moved, seconded by Council Member Barton to accept the report regarding the Development Center and the Building Permit process and direct Staff to: 1) Implement feasible permit process streamlining measures, and 2) Return with a consultant proposal to further evaluate Development Center restructuring options aimed towards improving service delivery and enhancing customer service. Council Member Espinosa asked whether there was a software program for permitting that assisted Applicants through the permit process online. Mr. Perlin stated there were software applications available that could serve the customers in a manner more efficient than the current system although there was further research that would need to be compiled. City Manager, James Keene stated the City of Tucson, Arizona had an online system for building permits over ten years ago. He felt the technology had evolved and there were opportunities to review other means of improving service. Council Member Espinosa asked whether Staff had considered reviewing other City’s best practices beyond the technology aspect. Mr. Perlin stated it would be an essential part of the consultant’s position to be aware of how other City’s provided services. 12/07/09 19 Council Member Espinosa stated the initial cost for the Consultant Study was $35,000 and asked where the funds were budgeted to come from. Mr. Keene stated the funds had not been budgeted. Council Member Barton stated he had two areas of concern; the relationship between the plan checkers in the office and the inspectors in the field. Too often the office planners make changes and send the changes out to the field but the changes are not reviewed. In the field the inspectors may make alterations as the project moves along without notifying the office planners. There was a disconnect and a lack of clarity between what happened in the field and what happens in the office. Council Member Klein asked how the Planning Department came to the conclusion that thirty-one days was the amount of time to provide the initial plan check review. Mr. Perlin stated thirty days was an acceptable standard in the industry. He believed Palo Alto could achieve a higher standard and his goal was to strive for a twenty day turn-around time. Mr. Keene stated there needed to be an established standard, self regulated benchmarks, and report of performance on a regular basis to the Council. Council Member Klein stated he wanted to know how Palo Alto compared to the surrounding areas. There were no metrics on the number of permits processed in how many days versus the number of Staff. Mr. Keene acknowledged there were missing components and assured the Council as Staff moved toward the Study Phase of the improvements of the Department all the necessary data would be included in future reports to Council. Council Member Burt asked why the Consultant was needed. He felt as though the Department was aware of their shortfalls and were working on improvements. He noted there was no implementation plan or prioritization list to begin the implementation process. Mr. Keene stated the report had identified the areas for necessary improvements although it could be beneficial to have an outsider to review areas which may have been missed. Staff would return to Council with an updated status prior to a Consulting contract being implemented. 12/07/09 20 Council Member Burt stated the focus group consisted of frequent users but he reiterated infrequent users were a valued group and requested they be included in the process for input points. He asked whether the Position of Coordinator would be considered additional staffing or a restructuring of existing staffing. Mr. Williams stated the vision was one of restructuring existing Staff. AMENDMENT: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member XXXXX to modify the second part of the Motion to be: Evaluate whether a consultant proposal is appropriate. Council Member Espinosa asked whether the Amendment was for Staff to return to Council with an evaluation on whether there needed to be a Consultant or a proposal for a Consultant after Staff had evaluated the situation. Council Member Burt stated for Staff to evaluate and make the determination on whether a Consultant was necessary and to return to Council with a proposal. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to evaluate whether a consultant proposal is appropriate and return to Council with the consultant’s proposal. Council Member Schmid stated focus groups were usually made up of architects, contractors and Staff but there were regular people who interacted with the Development Center and they needed to stay abreast of the changes as well. Council Member Kishimoto supported an improved process. She wanted to ensure the enhancement maintained the transparency of the City and noticing for the general public. Mr. Keene stated when Staff referred to customer service it included the entire community and not just Applicants. Mayor Drekmeier asked whether there were updates on reformatting the solar permitting process. Mr. Perlin stated there had been significant strides made in the past six month regarding the Photovoltaic (PV) process. 12/07/09 21 Mayor Drekmeier asked whether the City Auditor’s office thought there were overlapping processes. City Auditor, Lynda Brouchoud stated the Work Plan for the 2009 year had included the permitting process. The City Manager and City Auditor had discussions to verify there were no overlapping or duplications in the process. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Morton absent Council Member Barton left the meeting at 11:55 p.m. 19. Colleague’s Memo from Mayor Drekmeier, Council Member’s Burt, Schmid, and Yeh Regarding Adoption of a Resolution 9013 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Acknowledging the Costs Associated with Climate Change on Palo Alto’s Financial Health and Quality of Life and Supporting the Exploration of New Approaches to Funding the Costs Associated with Burning Fossil Fuels for Energy Production”, and Recommendation to Create a Task Force to Address the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Palo Alto. Council Member Burt stated he elected to support the proposal because there was not a significant allocation of City resources at this time, it was envisioned as an element of the Assistant City Managers’ sustainability role. The Colleague’s Memo was a first step in recognizing the future impacts and costs. Council Member Schmid stated he saw the Task Force as a potential to assist the City to draw feedback from National, State, Regional, and local activities and asked what that meant to Palo Alto. Council Member Yeh stated he saw the Task Force as a responsible step for the City to ensure there was strategic thinking in what the future Palo Alto could do regarding the issues of the climate and environmental change occurring throughout the world. Peter Holoyda, P.O. Box 620442, Woodside, urged Council to approve the Colleague’s Memo and noted it was the perfect time to create a climate movement. Bryan Long, 1413 Dana Avenue, stated there was much for Palo Alto to gain by supporting the movement. 12/07/09 22 Craig Lewis, Menlo Park, stated as a municipal utility Palo Alto was in a tremendous position to show leadership in the State of California by implementing a Feed-In Tariff policy. David Coale, 766 Josina Avenue, stated the Task Force being created needed to have specific guidelines and he hoped it would not take away from Staff time or regular activities. Council Member Klein stated he did not support the Colleague’s Memo. He noted there were areas of the proposal which were too broad where other areas were too narrow. He stated the goal would be to determine what could be accomplished given Staff time and using the talent that existed in the community. Council Member Kishimoto stated true-cost pricing was an important part of what needed to be implemented as a City Policy. She supported the concept of an adaptation Task Force being implemented. Council Member Espinosa stated concern with the function of the Task Force which was not clearly defined in the Colleague’s Memo. He asked whether the purpose of true-cost was for burning fossil fuels for energy production or the true-cost of burning fossil fuels. Mayor Drekmeier stated the intention was to begin a dialogue with our community in hopes it would expand to other communities, the State and beyond that way to drive the best environmental practices through fair market economy where nothing was subsidized. The goal was to create a funding mechanism to address climate change locally. MOTION: Mayor Drekmeier moved, seconded by Council Member Kishimoto to: 1) Adopt the Resolution with the change to Section 1 as follows: The City Council recognizes the externality costs associated with the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation. The City Council hereby acknowledges and accepts the concept of true-cost pricing in which externality costs are incorporated into price structures whenever possible. Council Member Burt stated with the language changes he supported the Motion. Council Member Espinosa asked whether there were legal concerns using the language accepts the concept of true-cost pricing as a general statement. Mr. Baum stated it raised issues with rate setting although the way the language was framed it was used as a guideline to where the City was 12/07/09 23 heading. He noted the language stated did not imply implementation of action. Council Member Yeh recommended the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) be engaged in the process due to their Municipal Code defined role of rate setting. There needed to be a balance of who the rate payers were and what was most beneficial for them. He felt true-cost pricing was not mainstream at the present time. Council Member Schmid recommended revising the statement into two sentences such as Supports the concept of true-cost pricing and support the investigation of such and then look for practical applications. Mr. Baum stated the Charter required five votes to pass a Resolution. Council Member Schmid stated the first sentence would read: The City Council hereby accepts and acknowledges the concept of true-cost pricing. The second sentence would read: The City Council will look for ways of incorporating true-cost pricing into practical applications. Mayor Drekmeier stated the second sentence made more of a commitment than the current Motion on the table. Council Member Schmid stated his thought was to learn what was taking place at the State level in pricing. Council Member Espinosa clarified the second sentence was not expecting the City to incorporate externality costs as much as explaining what costs were associated with the burning of fossil fuels. Council Member Klein recommended deleting the last Whereas clause from the Resolution. Council Member Yeh stated he did not support the deletion of the last Whereas because the UAC was the Council’s Commission delegated to review any potential impacts on utility pricing. He clarified if the UAC remained in the Resolution, he would support the Motion. Mayor Drekmeier asked if the language read: Better understand what a true- cost pricing plan would look like or something to that effect; would it be supported. 12/07/09 24 Council Member Burt suggested changing the word will to would occur in a true-cost pricing plan. He clarified in the future as the program developed Palo Alto would be acknowledging who the participants were. Council Member Klein stated the change was not sufficient and he preferred the last Whereas be deleted. Council Member Espinosa recommended a compromise to read: The City recognizes the significant dialogue and review with the community, UAC, our customers, and other key stakeholders will be necessary to understand true- cost pricing. Council Member Schmid stated the first part of the Resolution spoke of intentions and goals and the second part spoke of what was going to be accomplished and by whom. He suggested the deletion of the last Whereas and list the UAC as part of the Task Force. Mr. Baum suggested Whereas any rate setting shall include the Utilities Advisory Commission. He asked if that would address Council Member Yeh’s concerns. Council Member Yeh accepted the language change. Council Member Burt agreed with the suggested language by Council Member Espinosa. Council Member Klein agreed that what Council Member Espinosa suggested satisfied his concern. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change the last Whereas in the Resolution to: The City recognizes that significant dialogue and review with the community, Utilities Advisory Commission, our customers and other key stakeholders would be necessary to understand effective true-cost pricing. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Barton, Morton absent MOTION: Mayor Drekmeier moved, seconded by Council Member XXXX to encourage the 2010 Mayor and Council to consider creating a Task Force to assess the potential impacts and costs of climate change on Palo Alto using existing data and recommend potential funding sources to help the City adapt to those potential changes. 12/07/09 25 Council Member Klein stated there were pre-existing environmental Task Forces that could be utilized for this purpose and therefore he felt there was no need to create another. He stated if the request was to allow the 2010 Council to determine the viability of said Task Force then the entire discussion should be left up to them. Council Member Burt stated several points were well taken. He suggested the following wording: Encourage the 2010 Mayor and Council to create a Task Force and then continue to assess the potential impacts and costs of climate change on Palo Alto using existing data. He noted prior to making a Motion he asked how supportive his Colleague’s would be. Mayor Drekmeier stated he would support the language change if it were a Motion. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Mayor Drekmeier to encourage the 2010 Mayor and Council to initiate the process of assessing the potential impacts and costs of climate change on Palo Alto. Council Member Burt asked the difference between what this Council would be doing versus the 2010 Council. He noted it appeared the outgoing Council was conveying a recommendation to the incoming Council. Mayor Drekmeier stated the creation of the Task Force was more likely to materialize by the 2010 Council if it was recommended by the 2009 Council and agendized. He asked the current Council who would be presiding on the 2010 Council if they would be supportive. Council Member Schmid stated there were three proposals presented and it was not clear amongst Council what the best route would be to utilize the resources in the community. Council Member Klein stated there were a number of different areas where Council may choose to put resources and he was uncertain at present time where the best result would be served. Council Member Espinosa stated he supported the Motion. He stated what was unclear to him was the purpose of what the Task Force would be doing. Council Member Burt clarified the purpose was to focus on impacts rather than prevention. He stated he could be persuaded either direction. 12/07/09 26 Mayor Drekmeier explained the purpose of the Task Force was listed on the backside of the Colleagues Memo. Council Member Espinosa agreed strongly with the general issue at hand but it had the potential to be narrower than an Environmental Task Force. Mayor Drekmeier suggested a modification to read: The 2010 Mayor and Council to consider a plan to assess potential impacts and costs of climate change. Council Member Espinosa asked whether the Motion separated itself from the Task Force. Mayor Drekmeier stated the Motion was what would be agendized. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Barton, Morton absent City Manager James Keene requested Council hear Agenda Item No. 21 prior to Agenda Item No. 20. 21. Approval of Amendment Number 4 to the Management Agreement with Brad Lozares for Golf Professional Services at 1875 Embarcadero Road, Extending the Term One Year to December 31, 2010. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Espinosa to approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 4 to the Management Agreement with Brad Lozares (Golf Professional) for golf course professional services at the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, 1875 Embarcadero Road, (Golf Course), extending the term one year to December 31, 2010. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Barton, Morton absent 20. Colleague’s Memo from Council Member’s Burt, Espinosa, Kishimoto, and Yeh Regarding the Update of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Council Member Kishimoto stated Staff had fortuitously secured $55,000 in funding to update the Bicycle Master Plan which maintained our eligibility for infrastructure and Grant funding from outside agencies. MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Council Member Espinosa to adopt a more aggressive goal to move from the current six percent bike culture to ten percent by the year 2015 and twenty percent by 12/07/09 27 the year 2020 and to review shifting the share of resources to support bicycling in the modes and engage in a broad community process to develop the plan. Council Member Espinosa stated there was a need for an updated Bicycle Master Plan. He stated the proposed goals for the updates on the bike infrastructure. Council Member Schmid stated the Colleague’s Memo was on Bicycling and Pedestrians but there appeared to be nothing on pedestrian walkways. He agreed bicycling was a good mode of transportation but there were people who walked that needed to be recognized. Council Member Klein stated concern with paragraph 4F which read: Vehicle parking strategies (parking cash-out, metered parking, unbundled parking, etc.) to reduce demand for cars and enhance use of bicycles. He suggested the item read: Vehicle parking strategies to reduce the demand for cars. Council Member Kishimoto stated the Colleagues Memo listed five recommended implementation elements which were recommendations for evaluation not for mandating. The recommendations were: 1. Specifying quantified goals to achieve a 10% bicycle mode share by 2015 and a 20% share by 2020 (current mode share is approximately 6%) and measurement/monitoring techniques to ascertain progress; 2. Committing to an increased share of resources to support bicycling to “balance” mode use, particularly relative to the use of automobiles; 3. Involving a broad cross-section of the Palo Alto community, including schools and PTAs, businesses (downtown, midtown, other shopping areas, Research Park), Stanford, neighborhoods, the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission, etc.; 4. Evaluation of the following components of the Plan: a. Identification of safe routes to school, transit facilities, and employment b. Treatment of designated streets as “complete” streets to provide equal room on such streets for bicycles as for cars c. Bicycle sharing programs, in concert with regional programs (VTA) and city-specific programs, such as use of the bicycles donated from the Senior Games d. Extensive bicycle parking facilities with high visibility, such as parking “corrals” in downtown, at transit stations, neighborhood shopping centers, etc. 12/07/09 28 e. Integration with paths and trails in/through parks and the Baylands, and exploration of opportunities to provide for creek side trails (the 2003 Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan specifically identifies future bike paths along segments of Adobe and Matadero Creeks) f. Vehicle parking strategies (parking cash-out, metered parking, unbundled parking, etc.) to reduce demand for cars and enhance use of bicycles g. Improvements to increase the use of bicycles to and from transit stations and corridors h. Enhanced visibility of bicycle facilities and usage through signage, outreach, social networking, etc.; and i. Revisions to the City’s traffic analysis methodology to regularly include review of bicycle counts and levels of service (LOS); and j. Work with neighboring cities, Stanford University, and regional transportation agencies to create seamless cycling networks regionally. 5. Identification of implementation resources and strategies to include: a. Grant funding opportunities b. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project priorities, particularly to address areas of key obstacles to providing for continuous safe and convenient bicycle routes c. Shared infrastructure and maintenance resource allocations balanced among bike, pedestrian, transit, and road use d. Innovative long-term funding mechanisms, such as public/private partnerships, assessments, or other tools; and e. Create policy framework so development applicants can help fund sections of plan to offset expected traffic increases Council Member Burt suggested a paragraph declaring a Pedestrian Plan be developed. Council Member Espinosa asked for clarification on the suggested change by Council Member Burt. Council Member Burt stated the change would be to delete the last sentence of the second paragraph which read: Some of the elements of the Plan efforts should include but are not limited. He suggested adding: By evaluating the following it does not preclude the consideration of other things. 12/07/09 29 Council Member Kishimoto agreed to eliminate (parking cash-out, metered parking, unbundled parking, etc.) from Item 4F and to strike the word Pedestrian from the title of the Colleagues Memo. Mr. Williams stated the funding and grants would be looking for programs with Bicycling and Pedestrian Plans so the Plans needed to be integrated. Council Member Kishimoto stated the title sentence of Item 4 of the Colleagues Memo would be changed to read: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan shall evaluate components including but not limited to the following. Council Member Espinosa clarified it was not Item No. 4 which Council Member Burt suggested changing. The suggested language change was to the last sentence of the second paragraph. Council Member Burt stated his suggested change was The Bicycle Plan shall evaluate the following. Council Member Espinosa clarified the Memo read for the first three elements to be a part of the Plan and the remaining elements to be evaluated; Whereas, the suggested language change called for all of the elements to be evaluated. Council Member Kishimoto stated the goal was to have a policy statement of the Mode Share. Council Member Burt stated there had been inadequate time to deliberate what the goals should be. Council Member Yeh asked the adequacy of funding to fully update the Plan within the City’s budget constraints. Mr. Williams stated Staff anticipated the funding availability would be adequate. Council Member Klein stated Items one, two, and three needed to be elements of the Plan where four and five were items to be addressed or evaluated. MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Council Member Espinosa to; 1) Direct Staff to proceed with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update in the 2010 year, and to address and or evaluate all of the items outlined in the Colleagues Memo as: 12/07/09 30 1. Specifying quantified goals to achieve a 10% bicycle mode share by 2015 and a 20% share by 2020 (current mode share is approximately 6%) and measurement/monitoring techniques to ascertain progress; 2. Committing to an increased share of resources to support bicycling to “balance” mode use, particularly relative to the use of automobiles; 3. Involving a broad cross-section of the Palo Alto community, including schools and PTAs, businesses (downtown, midtown, other shopping areas, Research Park), Stanford, neighborhoods, the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission, etc.; 4. Evaluation of the following components of the Plan: a. Identification of safe routes to school, transit facilities, and employment b. Treatment of designated streets as “complete” streets to provide equal room on such streets for bicycles as for cars c. Bicycle sharing programs, in concert with regional programs (VTA) and city-specific programs, such as use of the bicycles donated from the Senior Games d. Extensive bicycle parking facilities with high visibility, such as parking “corrals” in downtown, at transit stations, neighborhood shopping centers, etc. e. Integration with paths and trails in/through parks and the Baylands, and exploration of opportunities to provide for creek side trails (the 2003 Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan specifically identifies future bike paths along segments of Adobe and Matadero Creeks) f. Vehicle parking strategies (parking cash-out, metered parking, unbundled parking, etc.) to reduce demand for cars and enhance use of bicycles g. Improvements to increase the use of bicycles to and from transit stations and corridors h. Enhanced visibility of bicycle facilities and usage through signage, outreach, social networking, etc.; and i. Revisions to the City’s traffic analysis methodology to regularly include review of bicycle counts and levels of service (LOS); and j. Work with neighboring cities, Stanford University, and regional transportation agencies to create seamless cycling networks regionally. 5. Identification of implementation resources and strategies to include: a. Grant funding opportunities b. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project priorities, particularly to address areas of key obstacles to providing for continuous safe and convenient bicycle routes 12/07/09 31 c. Shared infrastructure and maintenance resource allocations balanced among bike, pedestrian, transit, and road use d. Innovative long-term funding mechanisms, such as public/private partnerships, assessments, or other tools; and e. Create policy framework so development applicants can help fund sections of plan to offset expected traffic increases, and 2) Reword 4(f) to Vehicle parking strategies to reduce demand for cars and enhance use of bicycles. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Barton, Morton absent COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 1:15 a.m.