HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-12 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting
January 12, 2015
Study Session ........................................................................................295
1. Presentation From Caltrain Staff on the Peninsula Corridor
Electrification Project Final Environmental Impact Report ....................295
Special Orders of the Day ........................................................................308
2. Presentation Regarding the Community Services Department's
Summer Programs .........................................................................308
3. Resolution 9485 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Expressing Appreciation to Greg Betts Upon His Retirement.” ........308
City Manager Comments .........................................................................309
Oral Communications ..............................................................................309
Consent Calendar ...................................................................................310
4. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute an Electric
Fund Construction Contract with Pacheco Line Builders, Inc. for a Not-
To-Exceed Amount of $3,000,000 for Three Years, $1,000,000 per
year, for Electric Construction Services, Including Maintenance and
Minor System Improvement Work on the City’s Overhead Electric
Distribution System, and Adoption of a Related Budget Amendment
Ordinance 5295 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council
of the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 2015 to Provide Appropriation in
the Amount of $500,000.” ...............................................................310
5. Approval of a Contract With Spencon Construction, Inc. in the Amount
of $1,458,610.30 for the FY 2015 Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Repairs
Project ..........................................................................................310
6. Approval of Contract No. C15156020 With CH2M HILL in the Total
Amount Not to Exceed $2,301,221 to Provide Design & Environmental
Consulting Services for Sludge Dewatering and Load Out Facility at
Regional Water Quality Control Plant - Capital Improvement Program
Project WQ- 14001; and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance
5296 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto in the Amount of $1,942,651 to Provide Additional
Appropriation for the Biosolids Facility Project, WQ-14001.” ................310
01/12/2015 116- 292
MINUTES
7. Approval of a Contract with Innovative Interfaces Incorporated For
Sierra, a Hosted Integrated Library System For the Palo Alto City
Library For a First Year Cost Not to Exceed $188,814, and Full Contract
to Last Not More Than Seven Years (2015-2022) For a Total Amount
Not to Exceed $950,301 (CIP Project TE-11001) ................................311
8. Request for Authorization to Increase Legal Services Agreement with
the law firm of Goldfarb & Lipman LLP by an additional $150,000 for a
total not to exceed amount of $380,000 and Adoption of a related
Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund Budget Amendment Ordinance 5297
entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto.” .....................................................................................311
9. Approval of a Short Form Agreement for Revenue Contracts between
the City of Palo Alto and the Cardiac Therapy Foundation of the Mid-
Peninsula, Inc. Concerning The Use of the Gymnasium Facilities and Associated Fees for the Facility Use at the Cubberley Community
Center for Jointly Supported Cardiac Therapy Programs ......................311
10. Review and Acceptance of Annual Status Report on Development
Impact Fees for Fiscal Year 2014 ......................................................311
11. Adoption of an Ordinance Governing Public Art for Municipal Projects....311
Action Items ..........................................................................................311
12. Council Action on Preliminary Matters Regarding the Application to
Close the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park: (1) Determination of the
Owner’s Request to Dismiss the Residents Association’s Appeal of the
Hearing Officer Decision; (2) Adoption of Procedures to Govern the
Appeal; and (3) Direction to Staff regarding Scheduling the Appeal ......311
13. Authorization for the Mayor to Sign a Letter Commenting on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (DEIR) for
the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bus Rapid Transit ................322
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs ......................................................326
14. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that the City Council
Adopt a Resolution Approving the City of Palo Alto Utilities Legislative
Policy Guidelines ............................................................................326
15. Review and Approval of the Draft Legislative Program Manual and Draft Semi-Annual Legislative Strategic Initiatives ..............................326
City Manager Comments .........................................................................326
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements ........................326
Closed Session .......................................................................................327
16. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY -- EXISTING LITIGATION ............327
01/12/2015 116- 293
MINUTES
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:56 P.M. ...........................327
01/12/2015 116- 294
MINUTES
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:06 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid,
Wolbach
Absent:
Study Session
1. Presentation From Caltrain Staff on the Peninsula Corridor
Electrification Project Final Environmental Impact Report.
Richard Hackmann, Management Analyst, advised that Caltrain staff would
present information regarding the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project including both historical and current aspects. City of Palo Alto (City)
and Caltrain staff planned to work together to address Council Member
comments, questions, and recommendations. Caltrain's 2014 average
weekday ridership was more than 52,000. Caltrain's 2004 average weekday
ridership was 24,000. The Downtown Palo Alto Caltrain Station continued to
be Caltrain's second busiest station, averaging more than 6,000 weekday
riders. Caltrain was vitally important to the Palo Alto transportation network
and was the key reason the City supported Caltrain. Issues had been raised
which both the City and Caltrain were attempting to address.
Marian Lee, Executive Officer Caltrain Electrification Modernization Project,
reported that Caltrain was investing in the Corridor so that ridership could
increase. Caltrain anticipated demand would continue to grow. The Early
Investment Program included an advanced signal system, called Positive
Train Control, which was a safety project focused on performance attributes
mandated by the Federal Railroad Administration to ensure a smart system
activated in case of human error that resulted in the potential for trains
colliding. Positive Train Control included performance attributes that would
allow Caltrain to run trains closer together and increase capacity for growing
ridership. Positive Train Control was being installed and scheduled to be completed by the end of 2015. Caltrain anticipated the Peninsula Corridor
Electrification Project would begin revenue service in the 2020-2021
timeframe. Caltrain would modernize its system to be compatible with High
Speed Rail (HSR) service. HSR was financially contributing to the
Electrification Project and the advanced signal system project. The Early Investment Program had specific utility for Caltrain. In the future, Caltrain
would also have utility for HSR. Caltrain was attempting to meet commuter
ridership needs by improving train performance.
01/12/2015 116- 295
MINUTES
Caltrain wanted to grow capacity and offer the type of quality service
customers desired. Caltrain also wanted to increase revenue by collecting
more fares from growing ridership and reduce costs by reducing dependence
on diesel. Caltrain would also reduce its footprint on the environment by
converting from diesel to electric trains. All improvements would need to be
compatible with an electrified infrastructure that would support HSR in the
future. Caltrain would electrify 51 miles of the Caltrain Corridor without
moving tracks or changing stations. Caltrain would install an overheard
contact system and traction power facilities to pull electricity from the
electric grid into the Corridor and run Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) trains.
Electrification would accommodate a speed bracket up to 70 miles per hour.
The current speed was 79 miles per hour. Speed would further increase with
the implementation of HSR. Caltrain planned a service increase from five to
six trains per direction per peak hour. Additionally, trains converted from
diesel to EMUs would have the capability to either make more stops at
stations throughout the Corridor or reduce travel time along the Corridor.
As part of the Project, Caltrain would restore weekday service to Atherton
and Broadway Stations. Caltrain would operate a combination of electric
vehicles and diesel vehicles until remaining diesels reached the end of their
service life. Caltrain completed the environmental review process with Joint
Powers Board (JPB) approval the prior week. Caltrain completed conceptual
design of the Electrification Project in 2002 and released a draft
Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Report (EA/EIR) in 2004.
The EA/EIR received a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from the
Federal Transportation Administration. State clearance was postponed due
to the unknowns of HSR. Next, Caltrain worked with stakeholders and
committed to prepare a new State environmental document. That effort
began in 2013 and the JPB certified the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) the prior week.
Rich Walters, Caltrain Electrification Modernization Project/ICF, indicated a
notice of preparation was released in late January 2013. Caltrain scheduled
45 days for comment and held four public meetings. The Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released in late February 2014. Caltrain scheduled 60 days for comment, held four additional public
meetings, and circulated the DEIR widely. The FEIR was released on
December 4, 2014. The JPB's Resolutions adopted on January 8, 2015
certified the FEIR, adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
findings and statement of overriding considerations, adopted a mitigation monitoring reporting program, and adopted the Project. If the FEIR was
challenged legally, the JPB reserved the right to argue in court that the
Surface Transportation Board (STB) had identified that there was a
preemption of State environmental law for rail projects under STB
jurisdiction.
01/12/2015 116- 296
MINUTES
Throughout the CEQA process, Caltrain conducted additional stakeholder
coordination beyond the minimum required by CEQA. Long-term benefits
included full funding for electrification of San Jose to San Francisco service
by 2040, utilizing 100 percent EMUs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by
nearly 180,000 metric tons annually, reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
by approximately 620,000 miles, and reducing engine noise. In most
locations, engine noise would decrease primarily because EMUs were quieter
than diesel locomotives. Criteria air pollutants would be reduced up to 97
percent. Daily ridership was projected to increase up to 111,000. Key EIR
issues were visual aesthetics of new facilities, traction power facilities, tree
removal and its effects on aesthetics, dust and noise, localized traffic,
bicycles on board, freight and its compatibility with electrification,
consideration of alternatives, and the CEQA issue regarding HSR and
segmentation. Some people were of the opinion that the Project could not
be analyzed in its own EIR, separate from the HSR analysis between San
Jose and San Francisco. CEQA had longstanding rules about whether
projects could be analyzed together or in separate documents. Tests include
whether a project required the next project in order to operate; whether
there were different proponents; whether the project had logical endpoints;
and whether all impacts would be disclosed and could be fully disclosed. The
Caltrain Electrification Project could operate with or without HSR. Obviously
there were different proponents for the two different projects. The Project
had endpoints of San Jose and San Francisco, and no endpoint would be
electrified for some purpose other than Caltrain electrification. The EIR
covered HSR's conceptual impacts at a rough level in the cumulative
analysis. HSR would have to comply with all processes required by law for
full service. Caltrain's EIR did not clear the construction of additional
facilities to accommodate HSR beyond what was necessary for Caltrain
electrification. Under those rules, Caltrain opined that the Electrification
Project could be analyzed in a separate document. The JPB adopted
mitigations to screen traction power facilities with vegetation and to place
poles carefully to ensure they did not affect historic structures. The EIR did
not find a significant health effect from electrification, but there was some concern about interference with freight signals. Proper management could
mitigate those effects. Hydrology and water quality were a concern
primarily during construction. The EIR contained mitigations for localized
traffic effects and some pedestrian and bicycle effects. Construction
mitigation concerned managing temporary effects on air quality, cultural resources, erosion, sedimentation, noise control, utilities, traffic control
plans. Because HSR intended to utilize the Corridor, Caltrain considered it in
cumulative mitigations, as well as increases in freight and other passenger
rail. Noise was a cumulative impact that would be significant. One of the
primary ways to reduce noise was to fully electrify operations.
01/12/2015 116- 297
MINUTES
Caltrain could contribute fair share to cumulative noise mitigation at
significant locations. Those mitigations could consist of quiet zones, possible
grade separations, or building insulation. Caltrain committed to a suite of
mitigations determined to be feasible at certain roadways. Those
mitigations consisted of signals and geometric configurations which would
address some but not all impacts. Caltrain would support local and regional
efforts for grade separations at numerous locations. On its own, Caltrain
could not commit to grade separations for all locations because of the cost.
Some significant unavoidable impacts were identified in the FEIR. During
construction at some locations, Caltrain might not be able to effectively
control all noise. There would be a need for nighttime and daytime
construction. Caltrain did not believe it would be 100 percent successful in
planting trees at all locations to compensate for the aesthetic change. Sea
level rise was a long-term concern that existed with or without the Project.
At some locations Caltrain could not identify a feasible traffic mitigation or
the only mitigation was a grade separation, which resulted in unavoidable
impacts. As CEQA required, Caltrain made a statement of overriding
considerations when significant unavoidable impacts were identified. The
City submitted a comment letter that raised five issues related to the EIR.
The City was concerned about traffic impacts at Churchill Avenue, E. Meadow
Drive, and Charleston Road vehicle crossings. Due to geometric constraints,
Caltrain did not find any feasible mitigation other than grade separation
which Caltrain was not financially capable of doing. The City was also
concerned about the location of one paralleling station, number 5. The FEIR
included three options; two were contained in the DEIR and a third was
added in response to comment. The City was most concerned about
paralleling station number 5, Option 1 located at Green Meadow Way and
Alma because of aesthetic impacts and potential impacts to the historic
district in that neighborhood. Caltrain reviewed both impacts and did not
find a significant impact to the cultural resources of the historic district
primarily because the district did not abut Alma. The City was concerned
about the process for selecting Overhead Contact System (OCS) poles.
Caltrain committed to mitigation in the EIR to reduce tree and right-of-way impacts by moving poles in or using alternative designs. The City was
concerned about El Palo Alto tree and requested coordination between the
City's arborist and Caltrain in protecting El Palo Alto. Caltrain adopted a
specific design at El Palo Alto to avoid putting wires outside the bridge.
Caltrain would need to trim El Palo Alto for safe rail operations, but trimming should not increase. Case law supported preemption rulings of the STB
concerning CEQA. The JPB reserved the right to assert preemption. The
Resolution committed Caltrain to all mitigations identified in the EIR
regardless of the STB preemption.
01/12/2015 116- 298
MINUTES
Council Member Kniss requested additional comment regarding the
electrification aspect of the blended system and the height of trains and
platforms.
Ms. Lee stated the environmental document did not clear HSR.
Council Member Kniss hoped the press would report that statement.
Ms. Lee reported HSR was funding approximately half of the Project because
HSR could utilize electrification infrastructure. In order for HSR to run that
service, they would have to prepare a separate environmental document.
That process would need to clear all of the added investment that HSR would
need to make in the Corridor. HSR would need to construct HSR stations at
Milbrae and Diridon and passing tracks. HSR would be required to follow a
planning process with all communities and an environmental process to clear
the project. Platforms were not at the same level as the floors of rail cars.
With purchase of new cars, Caltrain could achieve level boarding or Caltrain
could raise platforms to match the floor height of electric trains. Level
boarding was not included in the current project. Because HSR rail cars
were twice the boarding height of Caltrain trains, Caltrain was searching for
a technical solution that did not preclude compatible boarding heights with
HSR.
Council Member Kniss inquired about the role of Caltrain in altering at-grade
crossings in San Mateo.
Ms. Lee explained that Caltrain liked grade separations even though they
were very expensive. Caltrain attempted to partner with cities to accomplish
grade separations. The sales tax measure for San Mateo County dedicated
funding to grade separations. Santa Clara County had no dedicated funding
for grade separations.
Mr. Walters added that the 2014 business plan for HSR called for service
between San Jose and San Francisco to begin in 2026-2027.
Council Member Berman remarked that the City supported Caltrain
electrification; however, it was concerned about some negative impacts.
Caltrain's position was that electrification would have a negative impact on
three at-grade crossings in Palo Alto. He asked if Caltrain would not attempt
to mitigate impacts because full mitigation was cost prohibitive.
Ms. Lee advised that Caltrain was required by CEQA to identify a feasible
mitigation for significant impacts.
Council Member Berman clarified that Caltrain indicated CEQA did not apply.
01/12/2015 116- 299
MINUTES
Ms. Lee reported that the JPB directed Caltrain staff to work outside CEQA to
identify methods to address significant impacts. Caltrain was committed to
identifying ways to work with cities.
Council Member Berman stated that the City had no guarantee that
mitigations would occur because Caltrain claimed CEQA preemption.
Mr. Walters explained that the three intersections were constrained by
crossings and traffic lights. Caltrain identified mitigations that could address
the impact at some locations. At constrained locations, the only mitigations
were to widen the roadway or construct grade separations, both of which
were cost prohibitive for Caltrain.
Council Member Berman inquired whether Caltrain could provide partial
mitigation for impacts, such as funding of planning and engineering costs for
possible grade separation.
Ms. Lee indicated that the JPB adopted the mitigation as identified. Where
Caltrain could establish an effective relationship between the JPB and the
City, Caltrain would work with the City to address issues.
Council Member Berman recalled that the City had worked with Caltrain for
years and worked with other agencies in Santa Clara County to obtain
funding for Caltrain.
Council Member DuBois asked about the frequency of connections between
electric and diesel trains traveling south of San Jose.
Mr. Walters advised that currently three trains travelled north and three
trains travelled south. In 2020 Caltrain would operate both electric and
diesel on the route, some would continue to San Francisco. When fully
electrified, riders would likely transfer at Diridon. Caltrain owned the
Corridor to just south of the Tamien Station.
Council Member DuBois referred to a recent study that indicated the cost of
trenching would be halved if Caltrain would agree to a 2 percent slope. He
inquired whether Caltrain would agree to a 2 percent slope if Palo Alto could
fund a trench.
Ms. Lee stated the general standard was 1 percent. When cities requested a
variance from 1 percent, Caltrain considered them on a project-by-project
basis.
Council Member DuBois asked if Caltrain had approved a 2 percent slope in
the past.
01/12/2015 116- 300
MINUTES
Ms. Lee explained that changing the slope would have impacts. Caltrain
would need to determine if the impacts were material or significant.
Council Member DuBois noted the EIR discussed trenching and having to
relocate electrical supply if a train entered at grade and then moved to a
trench. The EIR did not comment on costs or construction challenges. He
asked if electrification prevented future trenching and if Caltrain staff had an
idea of the cost.
Mr. Walters remarked that any project would have to figure out how to
relocate an operating railroad. If trenching occurred subsequent to
electrification, then at-grade electrification costs would be lost. Trenching
subsequent to electrification was technically feasible, but it could be
financially infeasible.
Ms. Lee was aware that cities along the Corridor were interested in grade
separation. With the Electrification Project, traffic problems at crossings
would worsen because of projected growth in the region.
Mr. Walters added that the cause of traffic issues was not electrification, but
the increased number of trains and riders.
Council Member Scharff commented that an extra train per hour and the
resulting backup queue was causing traffic problems at grade crossings.
Mr. Walters remarked that congestion also resulted from more riders
accessing stations.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether there were other traffic impacts on
Alma Street.
Mr. Walters answered no.
Council Member Scharff asked if Caltrain wanted to partner with the City
outside the EIR.
Ms. Lee replied yes. Caltrain partnered with the City of San Mateo to work
out technical issues, because the City of San Mateo had dedicated sales tax
revenues. The partnership with the City of San Mateo was not formalized in
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
Council Member Scharff expressed concern regarding the location of
Paralleling Station (PS) 5. Palo Alto residents opposed the primary location
and the City proposed use of alternative locations. However, the primary location remained in the EIR.
01/12/2015 116- 301
MINUTES
If Caltrain wished to partner with the City, a good first step would be to
choose one of the locations supported by the City and its residents.
Ms. Lee noted the City made clear its preference for a paralleling station.
Staff added a recommended option to the environmental document. All
locations remained in the environmental document because they were all
feasible locations. A second layer of due diligence was needed to ensure the
preferred location was feasible. If there were no fatal flaws in the second
level of due diligence, Caltrain staff would return with a recommendation of
the preferred location. Caltrain needed time to complete the second layer of
due diligence.
Council Member Scharff inquired about the amount of time needed.
Ms. Lee hoped to have the information in the next two to three weeks. The
location would need to be identified in a Request for Proposal (RFP), and
Caltrain would need to select locations for traction power facilities.
Council Member Scharff asked when Caltrain staff anticipated breaking
ground.
Ms. Lee reported construction would begin in approximately 2016 with
revenue service projected in 2020-2021. Construction timeframes would not
be secure until Caltrain executed contracts with builders. Caltrain
anticipated having a contract by the fall of 2015.
Council Member Scharff asked if Caltrain's statement that it would contribute
fair share to noise mitigation meant it would contribute funds to a quiet
zone, which the City was considering.
Mr. Walters explained that the EIR identified locations where Caltrain would
contribute to noise mitigations. Caltrain would be obligated to contribute to
mitigations at locations identified as cumulative impacts.
Council Member Scharff indicated traffic mitigations other than grade
separations or trenching would not be helpful at the Alma Street crossing.
He inquired whether the City wanted some other mitigations.
Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Officer, advised that other than
significant grade separation, not much was possible. The City could partner
with Caltrain to determine if other solutions were feasible.
Vice Mayor Schmid noted late night noise from diesel trains would continue through 2040 and inquired whether Caltrain had a long-term solution.
01/12/2015 116- 302
MINUTES
Mr. Walters did not believe there was a need to temporally separate freight
and electrified trains. They could operate at the same time on the route.
Typically freight trains started their outbound runs in the early evening and
returned late at night. That would not change; therefore, the noise would
remain about the same.
Vice Mayor Schmid asked if Caltrain had a permanent agreement that freight
would continue to move by diesel.
Ms. Lee answered yes. Caltrain had a trackage rights agreement with Union
Pacific (UP) separate from the Electrification Project. Caltrain was obligated
to support UP's service.
Vice Mayor Schmid reported that the County of Santa Clara (County) did
have a transportation tax, but the majority of those funds supported Bay
Area Rapid Transit (BART). He requested reasons for Caltrain not being an
active partner in negotiating funding with the County.
Ms. Lee explained that the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
as representative of the County was a member of the JPB. Caltrain could
join negotiations and coordinate with VTA if that would be helpful.
Vice Mayor Schmid commented that if Caltrain was committed to helping
with grade crossings, then it would have an incentive to negotiate for those
funds.
Ms. Lee recalled that Caltrain was discussing grade separations for Santa
Clara County with VTA and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group was working
on a ballot measure. Caltrain was open to engaging in a different way.
Vice Mayor Schmid recalled the statement that there would be a cost if
grade crossings occurred after electrification. He asked if Caltrain was
committed to helping the City with that cost.
Ms. Lee clarified that Caltrain's fair share would be determined with other
people contributing to the impact. That commitment was formalized within
the environmental document.
Mr. Walters added that the cumulative mitigation for traffic and possibly
noise noted fair share when sufficient funding could be identified.
Vice Mayor Schmid was disturbed by Caltrain reserving the right to claim
exemption from CEQA.
01/12/2015 116- 303
MINUTES
Council Member Filseth believed the problem was sufficient funding to
upgrade trains but not sufficient funding to fix traffic problems. He inquired
about the outlook for increasing the number of trains.
Ms. Lee reiterated that Caltrain would increase the number of trains to six.
The next strategy under consideration was adding more cars to trains to
increase capacity. There would be four HSR trains in addition to Caltrain's
six trains. The number of trains could not increase beyond that, because the
capacity was capped at that level.
Council Member Burt remarked that the City supported electrification but
had significant concerns regarding the EIR. The FEIR was released in early
December 2014 and adopted by the Board one week ago. City Staff
requested the JPB delay certification of the EIR to give local partner entities
ample time to discuss comments with their governing bodies. The JPB
declined the request. Now the City had 30 days to determine whether it had
any recourse regarding its concerns. The City would prefer to reach a better
agreement on other mitigation alternatives it believed could be more
effective than mitigation measures contained in the EIR. He inquired
whether the EIR identified seven intersections where impacts were
significant and treated those impacts as unavoidable.
Mr. Walters replied yes for project direct impacts. The number was higher
for cumulative impacts.
Council Member Burt wanted Caltrain to recognize as a policy that there
were different physical settings at different grade crossings throughout the
system. Those different settings and conditions could involve different
solutions. That recognition would be crucial for subsequent conversations to
be meaningful and successful. The level of train service affected the amount
of traffic on parallel arterials. The demand for service at the California
Avenue station was huge. Demand at the San Antonio Avenue station was
large and growing. Additional trains at those stations would have their own
mitigations to impacts created by the system. Caltrain had plans to increase
train service with electrification. He wanted the impacts of electrification to
be included in consideration of the level of additional service. Improved
service did not need to wait until 2021. Between 2015 and 2021, Caltrain's commitment to begin the process of improving service at California Avenue
and San Antonio could help mitigate impacts. Safety and security of the
tracks would be compounded by additional trains and by faster trains. A
commitment toward improved track security and safety could occur prior to
electrification. It was not certain whether HSR would come up the Peninsula or reach San Jose; however, those trains travelled at 120 miles per hour.
01/12/2015 116- 304
MINUTES
Ms. Lee clarified that in the Caltrain Corridor HSR would not exceed 110
miles per hour.
Council Member Burt asked if Caltrain trains would travel at 79 miles per
hour.
Ms. Lee explained that trains would travel 79 miles per hour until they
reached the Corridor and then would function within the bracket of 110 miles
per hour for both systems.
Council Member Burt asked if Caltrain modeled the difference between 110
mile an hour trains and 79 mile an hour trains in noise analysis.
Mr. Walters reported the cumulative analysis did include that model.
Council Member Burt believed that if HSR did not reach the Peninsula, then
presumably Caltrain would expand the number of trains to meet demand.
Demand would continue to grow. If HSR did reach the Peninsula, then there
would be a demand crisis. Lengthening trains would be important and would
buy a good number of years but not decades. If HSR did not occur, he
assumed Caltrain would increase the number of trains. He inquired whether
increasing the number of Caltrain trains to eight or ten would trigger a new
or revised EIR.
Mr. Walters advised that CEQA contained an exemption for increasing train
service. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) contained categorical
exclusions for improvements entirely within a disturbed right-of-way.
Council Member Burt asked if the report contained the CEQA exemption.
Mr. Walters responded no. Caltrain had to make physical improvements in
order to provide its current service, and CEQA did not cover that.
Council Member Burt felt the public and most public agencies were not
aware that increasing trains would be exempt from CEQA analysis. He did
not believe that had been disclosed.
Mr. Walters stated it was not applicable to the project. All train agencies in
the State of California employed that categorical exemption.
Council Member Burt understood that an increase of up to ten trains per
hour would not result in mitigations.
Ms. Lee advised that tests demonstrated current facilities could
accommodate up to eight trains. Caltrain would have to build additional tracks to increase the number of trains to ten.
01/12/2015 116- 305
MINUTES
Those tracks would be outside the right-of-way and would likely trigger
some type of environmental review.
Council Member Burt did not know if that would trigger any obligation for
mitigations at those grade crossings.
Ms. Lee indicated that Caltrain would have to go through the environmental
process and analyze it to determine impacts first. Wherever mitigations
were appropriate and applicable, Caltrain would recommend them.
Council Member Burt referred to Ms. Lee's statement that individual cities
had identified grade separations and Caltrain was a willing partner. Caltrain
should accept a shared responsibility in the preliminary design of a system
that would eventually have grade separations and not treat grade
separations as city responsibilities. Caltrain should accept a shared
ownership of the responsibility, because the increase in Caltrain service
levels was a primary driver in the need for grade separations. He wanted a
greater commitment from Caltrain toward the planning and design in
collaboration with cities.
Council Member Wolbach believed there was a growing consensus that grade
separation was going to be necessary. The demand would continue to
increase even if the City did nothing and electrification did not proceed. He
requested Caltrain staff articulate steps the City could take to ensure it built
an effective and collaborative partnership with Caltrain regarding planning
and timing and funding for grade separation if the community wished to
proceed.
Ms. Lee understood the City wanted a stronger, proactive approach from the
JPB and a more formal partnership. She could not commit to a blanket
approach for all cities. The JPB committed to mitigation. In terms of any
additional joint efforts, City Staff would need to identify topics and then have
policymakers determine how to formalize the process. Caltrain was willing
to explore formalizing the planning process.
Council Member Wolbach commented that constructing grade separations
simultaneously with electrification would be logical and cost effective. He
inquired about disadvantages to constructing both simultaneously and
advantages to constructing them separately.
Ms. Lee explained that Caltrain searched for construction windows that
would allow a project to occur given the 2020-2021 completion date. If
projects could be included, Caltrain would proceed with grade separations.
If projects could not be accommodated, then Caltrain would hold a policy-
level discussion to determine which project was more important.
01/12/2015 116- 306
MINUTES
Council Member Wolbach inquired about the amount of flexibility with
respect to construction windows. Grade separations or trenching along the
Caltrain Corridor in part or all of Palo Alto would likely have significant
impacts on traffic during construction.
Ms. Lee reported the original target completion date was moved out 8-24
months because of the lack of construction windows.
Mayor Holman inquired about a timeframe for determining that one of the
alternative locations for PS-5 was equally adequate.
Ms. Lee indicated Caltrain staff was attempting to return in two to three
weeks with a determination of whether an alternative location was feasible.
They were awaiting the final due diligence.
Mayor Holman asked if the City and Caltrain could explore entering an MOU
or something of that nature when the decision was made.
Ms. Lee advised that the February 2015 JPB meeting would include a
discussion regarding the RFP for the Electrification Project. Assuming due
diligence was complete and provided no fatal flaws and Caltrain chose the
City's preferred site, that site would be included in the RFP. Caltrain
anticipated having some sort of customized MOU with each of the 17 cities
and three counties.
Mayor Holman requested that the Minutes of this meeting be placed in a
formal document as a formal communication to the Caltrain Board to
represent the City's views.
Stephen Rosenblum felt Caltrain should construct a grade-separated,
electrified system that resembled BART. Comments from Caltrain staff gave
him hope that the City could reach some conclusions regarding grade
separation. Caltrain staff should work with City Staff to identify methods to
mitigate grade-crossing impacts.
Herb Borock did not believe the City could have meaningful and successful
solutions unless it was equal partners with Caltrain. The City would not be
an equal partner if Caltrain had a certified EIR and project approval. The
Council should meet in Closed Session and determine a strategy that fulfilled
the City's needs.
Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, stated that Caltrain service was complementary to the Council's goal of moving residents to public transit.
Working as partners with other cities could create funding for grade
separations and create additional capacity.
01/12/2015 116- 307
MINUTES
Marty Zack indicated Caltrain electrification and modernization was a
priority. He urged the Council to proceed with all possible speed.
Vanessa Warheit appreciated that greenhouse gas emissions would be
reduced by the Electrification Project. She encouraged the Council to ensure
that issues of grade separation did not delay the timeline of implementing
electrification of Caltrain.
Robert Moss advised that increasing the number of trains would increase
traffic congestion. Caltrain should pay for grade separations as Caltrain
trains were causing traffic congestion.
Stephanie Munoz suggested not all intersections have grade separations.
Grade separations would be necessary for HSR.
Rita Vrhl remarked that the Caltrain Electrification Project would impact
everyone. Most traffic studies underestimated the impacts on traffic. She
encouraged the Council to ensure grade separations occurred.
Special Orders of the Day
2. Presentation Regarding the Community Services Department's
Summer Programs.
Rhyena Halpern, Assistant Director of Community Services, reported the
Community Services Department (CSD) held 300 summer camps in 2014,
served 4,400 campers, and raised more than $1.1 million in revenue. Palo
Alto pools served 1,500 general admission swimmers. More than 8,000
people attended the Chili Cook Off. Forty percent of the 1 million annual
visits to parks and open space occurred during the summer. CSD was
staffed with 75 full-time employees and 300 part-time employees.
Volunteers provided more than 35,000 hours of service valued at more than
$900,000.
Rob De Geus, Acting Director of Community Services, advised that CSD
offered an array of summer programs. Staff and volunteers were
responsible for the success of summer programs. Participation in programs
had increased along with customer satisfaction.
3. Resolution 9485 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Expressing Appreciation to Greg Betts Upon His Retirement.”
Council Member Kniss read the Resolution into the record.
01/12/2015 116- 308
MINUTES
Greg Betts thanked the Council for the many opportunities to serve the
community. He appreciated his colleagues for their hard work and creativity
and Council Members for reading all Staff Reports and asking thoughtful
questions.
Piper Holland thanked Mr. Betts for supporting the Children's Theatre.
Nicholas Tachibana appreciated Mr. Betts' support of Children's Theatre.
One of his favorite things about Children's Theatre was the sense of
community.
Alison Williams thanked Mr. Betts for his support and kindness over many
years.
Khashayar Alaee, Senior Management Analyst worked with Mr. Betts from
2001 to 2009 in the Community Services Department. He learned a great
deal from Mr. Betts during that time. Mr. Betts was an excellent public
servant and solid administrator.
Joe Hirsch acknowledged Mr. Betts' support for the Cardiac Therapy
Foundation. Mr. Betts was always kind and helpful.
James Keene, City Manager, advised that Mr. Betts had contributed to the
community and was well received by the community. Mr. Betts had been a
stellar member of the leadership team.
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member
Berman to adopt the Resolution expressing appreciation to Greg Betts upon
his retirement.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
City Manager Comments
James Keene, City Manager, deferred his comments until later in the
meeting.
Oral Communications
Lynn Krug advocated for the hiring of women. Diversity helped enhance the
quality of a workplace.
Stephanie Munoz recalled Ms. LaDoris Cordell's public comments regarding
the prohibition of living in vehicles and referred to an article in the New York
Times regarding the lack of social services in the United States. She urged
01/12/2015 116- 309
MINUTES
Council Members to consider whether they were paying obeisance to the
ideology of capitalism.
Dr. Martell advised that her informal hearing was a travesty. She requested
the Council reprimand the City Attorney and order the City Attorney to
provide her with information regarding an administrative appeal. The City
Attorney had withheld her rights.
Cybele Lavuolo-Bhushan believed the community wanted affordable housing
and economic and ethnic diversity.
Deb Goldeen supported Animal Services.
Lois Salo requested Mayor Holman join Mayors for Peace. Mayors for Peace
proposed diverting Federal funding from the Defense Department to social
services, jobs, infrastructure, and education. The City should consider
building low-income housing.
Consent Calendar
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid
to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-11.
4. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute an Electric
Fund Construction Contract with Pacheco Line Builders, Inc. for a Not-
To-Exceed Amount of $3,000,000 for Three Years, $1,000,000 per
year, for Electric Construction Services, Including Maintenance and
Minor System Improvement Work on the City’s Overhead Electric
Distribution System, and Adoption of a Related Budget Amendment
Ordinance 5295 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council
of the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 2015 to Provide Appropriation in
the Amount of $500,000.”
5. Approval of a Contract With Spencon Construction, Inc. in the Amount
of $1,458,610.30 for the FY 2015 Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Repairs
Project.
6. Approval of Contract No. C15156020 With CH2M HILL in the Total
Amount Not to Exceed $2,301,221 to Provide Design & Environmental
Consulting Services for Sludge Dewatering and Load Out Facility at
Regional Water Quality Control Plant - Capital Improvement Program
Project WQ- 14001; and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5296 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto in the Amount of $1,942,651 to Provide Additional
Appropriation for the Biosolids Facility Project, WQ-14001.”
01/12/2015 116- 310
MINUTES
7. Approval of a Contract with Innovative Interfaces Incorporated For
Sierra, a Hosted Integrated Library System For the Palo Alto City
Library For a First Year Cost Not to Exceed $188,814, and Full Contract
to Last Not More Than Seven Years (2015-2022) For a Total Amount
Not to Exceed $950,301 (CIP Project TE-11001).
8. Request for Authorization to Increase Legal Services Agreement with
the law firm of Goldfarb & Lipman LLP by an additional $150,000 for a
total not to exceed amount of $380,000 and Adoption of a related
Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund Budget Amendment Ordinance 5297
entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto.”
9. Approval of a Short Form Agreement for Revenue Contracts between
the City of Palo Alto and the Cardiac Therapy Foundation of the Mid-
Peninsula, Inc. Concerning The Use of the Gymnasium Facilities and Associated Fees for the Facility Use at the Cubberley Community
Center for Jointly Supported Cardiac Therapy Programs.
10. Review and Acceptance of Annual Status Report on Development
Impact Fees for Fiscal Year 2014.
11. Adoption of an Ordinance Governing Public Art for Municipal Projects
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Action Items
12. Council Action on Preliminary Matters Regarding the Application to
Close the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park: (1) Determination of the
Owner’s Request to Dismiss the Residents Association’s Appeal of the
Hearing Officer Decision; (2) Adoption of Procedures to Govern the
Appeal; and (3) Direction to Staff regarding Scheduling the Appeal.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported Buena Vista Mobile Home Park (Park)
was a 4 1/2-acre mobile home park in south Palo Alto. Approximately 100
mobile homes, housing approximately 400 people, were located in the Park.
In 2012, the Park owner applied to close the Park. In 2013, the owner
submitted a Relocation Impact Report and completed the process in 2014.
The item was scheduled for hearing before an independent Hearing Officer
who spent three evenings in May 2014 hearing comments from parties, Park residents, and the public. The Hearing Officer issued a final decision in
September 2014. The decision was appealed to the City Council in October
2014.
01/12/2015 116- 311
MINUTES
The closure application must be approved if the owner proposed a package
of mitigation measures or a package of mitigation measures were
established that were adequate to mitigate adverse impacts on mobilehome
park owners from closure of the Park, provided those measures did not
exceed the reasonable costs of relocation. That legal requirement acted as a
cap on mitigation measures that could be required for a property owner to
close a mobilehome park. The attorney for the Park owner requested the
appeal be dismissed on the grounds that it was improperly brought by the
Residents Association (Association). If the Council did not dismiss the
appeal, then it would need to set some simple procedures that would govern
the proceeding and to direct Staff to schedule the appeal. Staff proposed
scheduling the appeal for late February 2015. The Council would need to
review in detail the extensive record prepared for the Hearing Officer. If the
Council allowed the appeal to continue, Staff would provide to the Council
and attorneys for both sides a list of documents Staff believed comprised the
appropriate and essential documents. The attorneys could provide
comments and include additional key documents within a specific time
period. Staff could provide the Council with all relevant documents the
following week; however, a certified transcript of the hearing would require
additional time.
Margaret Ecker Nanda, Attorney for Park Owner Joe Jisser, advised that the
Residents Association filed a notice of appeal on October 14, 2014. Six days
later, she wrote a letter to the City Attorney raising an objection to the filing
of the appeal. From the Hearing Officer's perspective, an aggrieved person
would be either the Park owner or a resident. The City Attorney stated that
there was no definition of aggrieved person within the Palo Alto Municipal
Code. According to the City Attorney, the people at the Park were so
similarly situated that apparently one person living at that address was
sufficient to trigger an appeal on behalf of everyone who was "similarly
situated." The City Attorney was legally incorrect in her opinion. The issue
of standing was critical to the appeal process. If the Association or an
individual lacked standing to appeal, then the appeal could not proceed. The
Residents Association's attorneys continued to ignore a pertinent fact: the Association had acknowledged from the beginning that the Association
represented approximately 80 percent of the people who lived at the Park,
which meant the Association did not represent 20 percent of residents. An
association, when it could represent its members, could not represent
nonmembers. As to residents who were not members of the Association, the Hearing Officer's decision was final. The Park owner asked the Residents
Association to state who was not a member of the Association. The
Association refused to provide a list, because it believed the Park owner was
requesting a membership list. A three-pronged test determined whether an
association was representing its members.
01/12/2015 116- 312
MINUTES
The most important prong was whether the claims of members of the
association were different and distinct. If claims were different and distinct,
then the association could not represent those members. The residents of
the Park were very different, particularly because no one would receive the
same amount of mitigation assistance. It was legal error for the Council not
to dismiss the appeal. The residents of the Park had been represented since
the inception of the proceeding. In every Relocation Impact Report, the Law
Foundation and other attorneys opposed every aspect of proposals. The
Council did not need to hold a complete, new adversarial proceeding. Given
the structure of the Ordinance, it was reasonable to assume that further
witness testimony and more evidence was not intended.
Nadia Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley for Park residents, stated that
the majority of Park residents were low income, Latino, homeowners. The
Park was an important source of affordable housing in Palo Alto. Any
procedures adopted by the Council should be of the highest level of fairness,
transparency, and openness. Mobile homes were often the only source of
home ownership for low-income families. Moving a mobile home was
expensive. Locations for mobile homes were almost impossible to find.
Buena Vista Mobile Home Park was one of three mobile home parks set for
closure. State law required specific procedures if a park owner wished to
close a park. The park owner had to mitigate any negative impacts. Those
negative impacts had to be reviewed by a legislative body. The Conversion
Ordinance gave the Council the final decision of whether mitigation
assistance was adequate. Park residents requested the Council allow the
appeal to go forward, to follow the quasi-judicial hearing procedures
described in the City's policies and procedures, and to schedule the hearing
in April 2015. The Association represented the vast majority of residents in
the Park and took an active role in the closure process. No individual
resident represented himself during the administrative hearing. The
Association made several offers to purchase the Park, which the Park owner
did not accept. As stated in the Staff Report, the Association was considered
an aggrieved party under the Ordinance and municipal law. If the
Association was not allowed to represent Park residents, then individual residents would request appeals. The Council should require testimony from
all parties and any experts. The hearing should be held at a time and place
that allowed residents and the public to attend.
Cybele Lavuolo-Bhushan did not believe the City should take homes from
residents of the community. The Park represented economic and ethnic diversity.
01/12/2015 116- 313
MINUTES
Robert Moss urged the Council to schedule a full hearing at a time
convenient to everyone. He doubted compensation offered to Park residents
was adequate. The Council should review the compensation package in light
of legal requirements.
Sea Reddy felt negotiations were needed to reach fair terms for all parties.
Ethnicity was irrelevant to obtaining equivalent housing for Park residents.
Stephanie Munoz stated there was no affordable housing for Park residents.
The Park should never have been zoned R-15.
Lois Salo wanted the City to buy the Park property and allow residents to
remain on the property. An adjacent parcel could be purchased for low-
income housing and shelters.
Guadalupe Fonseca reported the maximum amount proposed for residents
would not purchase a comparable home. Residents needed help to find
replacement housing.
Blanca Fonseca advised that the least expensive mobile home for sale in the
area was more than three times the amount offered for her home in the
Park. In addition, she would lose the good services offered by the City.
Dianne Jenett believed it was important to keep Park residents in Palo Alto.
The Council should hold a full hearing on all issues to reach a solution.
Melodie Cheney stated the Council needed to hear from the parties and
community in order to make an informed decision. Alternatives to closure of
the Park were available.
Mary Kear indicated the Park was affordable, safe, and secure. A hearing
was needed to discuss solutions to the issue.
Nancy Krap felt working together to find a way to preserve the Park would
promote Dr. Martin Luther King's dream. She hoped the Council would allow
the appeal to proceed. All residents of Palo Alto were aggrieved persons.
Amado Padilla wanted the closure process to be just and respectful for Park
residents. If the Park closed, Park residents would lose their homes, jobs,
quality schools, and medical attention. Any solution should be fair to the
Park owner and residents.
Maria Martinez stated the compensation being offered to Park residents was
not equal to the value of homes.
01/12/2015 116- 314
MINUTES
Roberta Ahlquist believed the City was suffering a housing crisis. Housing
had been replaced by commercial development, and rental rates were
increasing rapidly. The Park was critical to providing racial and class
diversity.
Sue Eldredge advised that Park families and students were a special and
important part of the community. Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)
and area Parent Teacher Associations (PTA) supported retaining Park
residents in Palo Alto. The Council should hold a hearing to hear from all
parties and the public.
Jeff Greenfield felt most Palo Alto residents were not familiar with Buena
Vista Mobile Home Park. The Park was an important component of the
community. He supported the Council holding a hearing.
Ken Dauber, speaking as an individual, reported the Hearing Officer
excluded the value of schools from compensation. The Council should
instruct attorneys to provide information it needed to assess fairly the value
of schools to Park residents. Real property values reflected the high value of
Palo Alto schools.
Winter Dellenbach, Friends of Buena Vista, did not believe the Council would
deny Park residents due process by denying the appeal. Staff's draft appeal
procedures were intended to provide general guidelines for conducting the
appeal and could be modified by the Council.
Ruth Lowy urged the Council to allow the appeal and hoped the Council
could find a reasonable balance between the rights of the Park owner and
Park residents.
Samina Faheem related her story of finding rental housing in Palo Alto and
volunteered to coordinate a fundraising effort to save the Park.
Jeff Rensch felt the community as a whole would be damaged by the closure
of the Park. An appeal was an opportunity to discuss the issues at length.
George Irwin was proud of the diversity provided by Park residents. The
City should find a way to keep the Park open.
Don Anderson was disappointed by the technical nature of discussions when
Park residents were losing their homes. The Council and community could
do more than review technicalities.
01/12/2015 116- 315
MINUTES
Raines Pithan agreed with Mr. Anderson's comments. The City or Palo Alto
Housing Corporation could provide gap funding for purchase of the property,
and then sell the property to Park residents.
Aram James believed it was critical to retain the Park. He read from a
Supreme Court opinion regarding the importance of open proceedings. The
community would have confidence in a final decision if a full hearing was
held first.
Edie Keating noted the Mobilehome Park Ordinance had never been tested.
The Council had an opportunity to use its discretion in determining the
process going forward.
Lenore Cymes sympathized with Park residents' distress at the possibility of
losing their homes. She hoped the Council allowed the appeal.
Mark Weiss stated there was enough for all needs but none of the greed.
Ms. Nanda noted the Ordinance required the Park owner to prepare a
Relocation Impact Report. The previous hearings were public and held at a
time and place convenient to residents. The Hearing Officer's decision spoke
to the compelling testimony provided at those hearings. Park residents and
the public had provided their input, and the Hearing Officer carefully
considered that input. The Council should enforce its Ordinance.
James Zahradka, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, advised that the Council
needed to hear from the people affected and have that in the record.
Reading testimony was not the same as hearing it. The City Attorney
proposed that the record was closed. The issue was too important for the
Council to take that approach. The standing of the Residents Association
was legally supportable.
Mayor Holman noted the time was 10:00 P.M., and the Council had three
remaining items on the Agenda.
Ms. Stump added that special counsel was present for the Closed Session.
Mayor Holman asked if Agenda Item Numbers 14 and 15 were time
sensitive.
James Keene, City Manager, advised that Agenda Item Numbers 14 and 15
pertained to Council endorsement of legislative policy. Bills were introduced
into the State Legislature during January. Perhaps the Council could hold brief discussions and take action with the idea of amending any action in the
future.
01/12/2015 116- 316
MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Kniss to continue Agenda Item Numbers 14 and 15 to a date uncertain.
Council Member Scharff did not believe the Council could prepare legislation
prior to the third week in January. A brief discussion at the current time
would accomplish nothing. The Council should consider legislation in June or
July prior to introduction in January. The Council could react to legislation
after it was introduced or schedule a Special Session to discuss legislation.
Council Member Kniss added that the Council was less productive at 11:00
P.M. or 11:30 P.M. The current discussion would take quite some time.
Members of the public and Staff were waiting.
Council Member Wolbach asked if Staff was requesting the Council's
guidance regarding activities in Sacramento.
Mr. Keene replied yes. Staff would present a Policy and Services Committee
recommendation to the Council. Staff could operate under existing
directions and return to the Council on a case-by-case basis.
Valerie Fong, Utilities Director, reported new elements in the Utilities
Legislative Guidelines for fiber could provide Staff with guidance regarding
current issues.
Mayor Holman asked if Agenda Item Numbers 14 and 15 could be continued
one or two weeks.
Mr. Keene felt one week might be better.
MOTION PASSED: 7-2 DuBois, Wolbach no
Council Member Burt asked if the Council would receive 80 requests for
appeal as Ms. Aziz suggested.
Ms. Stump advised Council Member Burt to ask Ms. Aziz about her
conceptualization of the Ordinance. There was not an issue of judicial
standing. The question was the meaning of the Ordinance. The Council
would need to make a reasonable and appropriate interpretation. The
appeal sentence in the Ordinance was straightforward. The Ordinance, when
read with the definition of person contained in the Municipal Code, intended
a liberal right of appeal. An appeal by some number of residents would put
at issue those conceptual determinations for the whole group. The
Ordinance intended mitigation measures be applied consistently to similarly situated individuals in the Park. The Park owner's counsel did not dispute
that the Association did represent some residents.
01/12/2015 116- 317
MINUTES
Council Member Burt inquired about the City Attorney's rationale for not
allowing testimony and cross-examination.
Ms. Stump reported the Council had discretion in setting procedures. She
could not identify any type of Council proceeding held during her tenure that
proceeded as proposed by the Association's attorneys with witnesses, cross-
examination, etc. Even the Hearing Officer used a more relaxed
administrative approach, which was typical. Under the proposed procedures,
every member of the public would have an opportunity to speak. Staff
proposed providing real-time Spanish translation and holding an appeal
hearing in the evening. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer was fully
heard and transcribed; therefore, the Council did not need to go through
that process again. If the Association could identify new areas of evidence,
then the Council could allow that to be presented.
Council Member Burt understood one distinction to be formal courtroom-type
testimony versus statements made by the public.
Ms. Stump concurred. Staff suggested the Council give the parties' lawyers
an opportunity to summarize evidence and to argue their positions. Public
comment had to be taken at every Council meeting and would be taken at
an appeal hearing.
Council Member Burt inquired whether Council would decide whether a topic
was new and appropriate for additional testimony.
Ms. Stump remarked that that question illustrated the challenge of this type
of appeal proceeding before a multimember body. The Council would need
to hear the attorneys' arguments for whether a topic was new, evaluate
that, and make a decision. If the Council decided to allow additional
witnesses or additional tangible information, it could continue the hearing to
allow that to occur.
Council Member Burt asked if the Council would vote on secondary issues.
Ms. Stump answered yes.
Council Member DuBois believed the Association should be allowed to appeal
as it handled the previous hearing. He inquired whether concerns about the
standing of the Association should have been raised during the previous
hearing.
Ms. Stump advised that there were some questions about representation.
The Hearing Officer made a reasonable and appropriate judgment to allow
the Association to represent the interests of Park residents.
01/12/2015 116- 318
MINUTES
He successfully convened a hearing that presented a great deal of
information. Issues were fully briefed and argued by the parties. When
reviewing the decision and the underlying record, the Council would see that
the hearing was thorough. She agreed with Council Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois felt a quasi-judicial procedure would be appropriate.
The Council could not rehear three days of testimony but should hear new
information. He suggested the Council discuss whether to allow expert
testimony regarding inferences to be drawn and weight to be given to
evidence as well as moving the date to March and providing translation
services.
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Kniss that Council reject the Mobilehome Park Owner’s request to dismiss
the Residents Association’s Appeal of the Hearing Officer’s decision on the
closure application and will hear the appeal; Council accepts proposed
Appeal procedures with the following changes:
Section 2.e continued with added sentences: “each party may have
one expert testify regarding the inferences to be drawn and the weight
to be given to the evidence in the record. Each expert will be allotted
10 minutes; in Section 2.g “hearing will be scheduled on or about April
2015.”
Council Member Kniss felt the Motion was a good direction. The public
indicated a desire for the Council to hear the matter. She hoped someone
would summarize the 900 pages of documents from the hearing.
Council Member Berman inquired whether the previous hearing was
videotaped and, if so, whether the Council could review it.
Ms. Stump stated the hearing was videotaped and transcribed.
Council Member Berman asked if the video was publicly available.
Grant Kolling, Assistant City Attorney, reported the video was available
through the Media Center website.
Ms. Stump would add to the record that a video was available so that
Council Members could review the hearing through the video or the record.
Council Member Berman would support allowing the appeal. The public
would be allowed to speak at the appeal hearing for a specified amount of time. He requested the process for appeal be clearly explained in the
Ordinance. He was concerned that presentation of new evidence and
resulting Council discussion would delay the appeal hearing.
01/12/2015 116- 319
MINUTES
Perhaps the City Attorney's Office could review potential new evidence and
make recommendations to the Council. The Council could then discuss
potential new evidence prior to the appeal hearing.
Ms. Stump felt that was reasonable. If the Council set the hearing in April,
the parties would have sufficient time to propose new evidence. Staff could
set a preliminary date for parties to submit potential new evidence. The City
Attorney's Office could review submissions and make a series of
recommendations for the Council.
Council Member Berman inquired whether the Council would discuss new
evidence on a date prior to the hearing or on the date of the hearing.
Ms. Stump could not answer that until she had reviewed submissions of
potential new evidence. If the submissions were few and lacking in
complexity, the Council could discuss them on the date of the hearing.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that any requests for new evidence shall be
submitted to the City Attorney’s Office, who will analyze the proposed
evidence and prepare a summary for Council.
Council Member Berman requested clarification of the proposal "that one or
both parties submit a proposed decision consistent with its determination for
the Council's review and adoption."
Ms. Stump explained that the Council would need to issue a written decision
with findings in the matter. The Council could direct Staff to prepare the
written decision or ask the parties to prepare that. The parties would
exchange their proposed decisions for comments. Staff would have a
recommendation after the appeal hearing.
Council Member Berman asked if the Council would decide which procedure
to follow at the time of the appeal hearing.
Ms. Stump would suggest that. The Council would make the final decision
regardless of who drafted the decision.
Council Member Berman was unsure whether he could support the parties
drafting a proposed final decision.
Ms. Stump was prepared to write a decision for the Council.
Council Member Berman asked if members of the public or counsel for the parties could submit written prehearing statements.
01/12/2015 116- 320
MINUTES
Ms. Stump responded counsel for the parties. Staff suggested the Council
allow a very short prehearing statement from the lawyers.
Council Member Berman inquired about the reason for limiting statements to
three pages.
Ms. Stump advised that three was chosen simply to keep the statements
brief. The Council could revise the number of pages.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to change Appeal Procedures, Section 2.f.
sentence Number 3- “not to exceed 3 pages” to “not to exceed 10 pages”.
Council Member Scharff felt the prehearing statements would provide the
summary requested by Council Member Kniss. He inquired whether the
Motion needed to include a statement that the Council denied the Park
owner's request to dismiss the Association appeal.
Ms. Stump answered yes. A denial of the Park owner's request would be
reflected in any final written findings and decision adopted by the Council.
Council Member Scharff asked if the Motion should direct Staff to identify an
initial appeal hearing date in April.
Ms. Stump believed it was included in the Motion. Staff should have some
flexibility in scheduling the hearing with respect to competing Agenda Items.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether the City Attorney preferred to hold
the hearing in March rather than April.
Ms. Stump indicated scheduling the hearing in April was reasonable given
the length of the record. The Council should discipline itself not to continue
the hearing past April. Timeliness was a standard of fairness to all parties.
Council Member Scharff asked when the Council would receive the record.
The prehearing statements were due 14 days prior to the hearing date.
Perhaps the 14 days should be changed to allow the Council more time to
review the record.
Ms. Stump advised that Staff would provide the record to the Council within
the next two weeks except for the prehearing statements. The Council could
request the parties submit prehearing statements three weeks in advance of
the hearing rather than two weeks.
01/12/2015 116- 321
MINUTES
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that prehearing statements are to be submitted
21 days in advance of the appeal hearing date.
Council Member Wolbach inquired whether the hearing should be announced
well in advance of 21 days prior to the hearing date to allow the parties to
properly prepare.
Ms. Stump advised that did not need to be included in the Motion. Staff
would select a date in the next few weeks and provide notice.
Council Member Wolbach asked if Council Members could ask questions
during the hearing.
Ms. Stump responded yes. The Council should ask questions.
Council Member Wolbach was skeptical about the proposed time allotments.
Mayor Holman read the Motion as amended.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0
Council took a break from 10:35 P.M. to 10:49 P.M.
13. Authorization for the Mayor to Sign a Letter Commenting on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (DEIR) for
the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bus Rapid Transit.
Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official, advised that the Council
Packet contained a detailed letter of Staff's concerns. Comments to Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) were due January 14, 2015.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Kniss to authorize the Mayor to sign the letter providing comments on Valley
Transportation Authority’s (VTA’s) El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (DEIR).
Council Member Scharff indicated the letter was comprehensive.
James Keene, City Manager, noted the comment letter was due in two days.
Robert Moss agreed with the City's opposition to dedicated bus lanes.
Reducing El Camino Real to two lanes would significantly impact traffic on El
Camino Real and cross streets.
01/12/2015 116- 322
MINUTES
Charisse Ma LeBron, Working Partnerships USA, supported Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) with dedicated lanes as it would allow Palo Alto to accommodate
future growth and best serve constituents. BRT was a viable transportation
alternative.
Chris Lepe, Transform, advised that future growth needed to be
accommodated. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) clearly
demonstrated that doing nothing would result in more traffic problems. He
offered recommendations regarding the DEIR.
Edie Keating would utilize BRT on weekends. BRT would reduce the number
of car travelers.
Vanessa Warheit believed the City needed good transit in order to reduce
carbon emissions. She supported BRT with dedicated lanes, including a
dedicated bike lane.
Adina Levin stated that residents would utilize public transit if it was time
competitive with driving. She liked the suggestion to use the dedicated
lanes for City shuttles.
Council Member Burt did not recall the letter containing a reference to the
impacts under Caltrain's EIR on traffic on Alma Street and cross streets
which would be compounded by the dedicated lane. That was essentially
new information. He appreciated the reference to alternative initiatives.
Additional ridership on VTA buses could be accomplished through dedicated
lanes and Eco Passes. The City was pursuing authorization for the
Transportation Management Agency to purchase Eco Passes as a single
entity.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that under comment Number 12-direct Staff to
include a reference to Caltrain EIR that ramifications of the Caltrain EIR on
congestion to Alma Street and perpendicular arterial streets would
compound the impacts on side streets resulting from the dedicated BRT lane.
Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment, would
add that to Point Number 12.
Council Member DuBois did not believe a car lane should be removed from El
Camino Real or a bike lane added. He inquired whether the Council would be able to comment on a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
01/12/2015 116- 323
MINUTES
Ms. Gitelman explained that the lead agency would respond in writing to all
comments made on the DEIR. The City would have an opportunity to review
the FEIR and ensure its comments were addressed.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the end of the introductory paragraph:
“Due to the lack of mitigation of serious impacts to Palo Alto traffic, Palo Alto
opposes dedicated lanes in the City of Palo Alto. VTA should implement
suggested alternatives first”.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to move Bullet Point 20 on Page 6 of the draft
Comment Letter to Bullet Point 1.
Ms. Gitelman noted a significant difference between Alternatives 3a and 4b.
The dedicated lane in Alternative 4b almost reached the Palo Alto border.
Alternative 3a had the shortest dedicated lane. The two alternatives were
outside the City's jurisdiction.
Council Member Scharff asked why the City should be concerned about a
dedicated lane outside the City's jurisdiction. Other communities could
prefer a different alternative.
Council Member DuBois wanted to propose a specific alternative. Alternative
4b reached closest to Palo Alto's border.
Council Member Kniss advised that the City was making suggestions while
the final decision would be made by VTA and others. The City hoped its
influence would be sufficient to sway a final decision.
Council Member Wolbach felt the tone of the letter needed work.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND THE SECONDER to remove in Item 6 the sentence, “is today’s
ridership 73 percent greater than ridership in 1990? Please explain.”
Council Member Scharff asked Staff to comment on striking the question
from Item Number 6.
Mr. Rodriguez indicated it could be deleted.
Council Member Wolbach asked if the EIR adequately explored the possibility
of reducing the median along El Camino Real in order to provide space for a
dedicated bus lane, bike lane, or parking.
01/12/2015 116- 324
MINUTES
Mr. Rodriguez reported the EIR reviewed two configurations: the mixed-flow
operation and the dedicated lane. The EIR did not attempt to lay out
alternatives.
Council Member Wolbach inquired whether there was capacity along El
Camino Real to accommodate any median reduction and whether the EIR
explored that.
Mr. Rodriguez advised that it was not explored as part of the EIR.
Council Member Wolbach asked if the letter should request VTA explore that
as an option.
Ms. Gitelman explained that the EIR reviewed capacity in the sense that the
dedicated lane option removed the median and the ability to have either
parking or a bike lane. The mixed flow option did not have the same
impacts.
Vice Mayor Schmid noted Number 12 referred to Alma Street congestion,
and Number 13 referred to overflow onto Middlefield. Foothill Expressway as
an alternative was already congested.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add “and Foothill Expressway” to Item 13
between “road” and “where”.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether Staff was agreeable to the change.
Mr. Rodriguez could add that sentence.
Council Member Berman noted the letter requested raw data upon which the
DEIR was based be made available for comparison. He inquired whether
that was a typical request.
Mr. Rodriguez replied yes.
Council Member Berman interpreted Section 20 as VTA should be sensitive
to Palo Alto's community context but not to other cities' community context.
He expressed concern about the wording of some sentences in the letter.
Council Member Scharff interpreted the proposed language as Palo Alto
opposed dedicated lanes until VTA proved they were feasible.
Ms. Gitelman believed that was the intent of the last sentence, "We would
support efforts to expand transit service, but only if significant impacts
within our City can be effectively mitigated."
01/12/2015 116- 325
MINUTES
Council Member Scharff suggested the letter simply state that Palo Alto
opposed Alternative 4c.
Council Member DuBois wanted the letter to clearly state that Palo Alto
opposed dedicated lanes and VTA should implement alternatives first.
Council Member Wolbach suggested "Palo Alto opposes dedicated lanes in
Palo Alto."
Council Member Filseth concurred.
Mayor Holman read the Motion as amended.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
14. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that the City Council
Adopt a Resolution Approving the City of Palo Alto Utilities Legislative
Policy Guidelines.
15. Review and Approval of the Draft Legislative Program Manual and
Draft Semi-Annual Legislative Strategic Initiatives.
City Manager Comments
James Keene, City Manager, announced that the Palo Alto Junior Museum
and Zoo requested community input regarding its renovation project. The
Fifth Annual Martin Luther King Jr. Family Day of Service would occur
January 19, 2015 at King Plaza. The Library Advisory Commission and Staff
would discuss changing open hours for libraries. The Palo Alto Office of
Emergency Services would host its Sixth Annual Community Partnerships
Awards Ceremony on January 15, 2015.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
None.
The City Council went into Closed Session at 11:37 P.M.
Mayor Holman closed the meeting in honor of Gloria Brown, who passed
away on December 31, 2014.
01/12/2015 116- 326
MINUTES
Closed Session
16. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY -- EXISTING LITIGATION
Subject: Sipple v. City of Alameda, Los Angeles County
Superior Court, Case No. BC 462270
Subject Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
The City Council reconvened from the Closed Session at 11:55 P.M.
Mayor Holman announced that the Council approved the settlement of Sipple
v. City of Alameda, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No.
BC462270, for a payment of $391,710 to be paid in reduced future
Telephone User Tax remittances.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:56 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.
01/12/2015 116- 327