HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-09 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting
February 09, 2015
Study Session ........................................................................................452
1. Study Session on Railroad Quiet Zones in Palo Alto ............................452
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions ..................................................458
City Manager Comments .........................................................................459
Oral Communications ..............................................................................459
Consent Calendar ...................................................................................460
2. Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept Macias Gini &
O'Connell's Audit of the City of Palo Alto's Financial Statements as of
June 30, 2014 and Management Letter .............................................461
3. Adoption of an Ordinance Authorizing the Closing of the Fiscal Year
2014 Budget, Including Reappropriation Requests, Closing Completed Capital Projects and Authorizing Transfers to Reserves, and Approval
of the Fiscal Year 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) 461
4. Approval of a Contract Amendment in the Amount of $63,000 to
Contract No. C14149978 With Dyett and Bhatia Urban and Regional
Planners for Additional Data Collection and Analysis Related to
Downtown Retail and Residential Uses ..............................................461
5. Authorization to Operate the Golf Course from March 1, 2015 to June
30, 2015 and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5303
entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto to Increase Golf Course Revenues Estimate in the Amount of
$106,000, Provide Additional Appropriation of $289,424 in Budget for
Expenses, and Reduce the Operating Loss Reserve by $183,424.” ........462
6. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation of Changes to the
Board and Commission Recruitment Program Including Adoption of an
Ordinance Re-aligning Terms on the Architectural Review Board, the
Historic Resources Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission and
the Planning and Transportation Commission; Resolution 9491 entitled
“Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Re-aligning Terms on
the Storm Drain Oversight Committee; Allowing for Remote Board and
02/09/2015 116- 450
MINUTES
Commission Interviews; Limit Applicants to One Board or Commission
Each Recruitment.” .........................................................................462
7. Ordinance 5304 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Increasing Council Salary From $600/Month to $1,000/Month,
Effective January 1, 2017 (First Reading: January 20, 2015 PASSED:
6-3 DuBois, Filseth, Scharff no).” .....................................................462
8. Approval of Technical Amendments to the Below Market Rate Housing
Agreement, Exhibit C-3 to the Mayfield Development Agreement
Between the City and Stanford University ..........................................462
9. Resolution 9492 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto to Amend and Correct Salary Schedules for: Management,
Professional and Confidential Employees (M&P), Fire Chief Association
(FCA), and Utilities Managers of Palo Alto Professional Association
(UMPAPA); Adoption of an Ordinance to Update the Fiscal Year 2015
Table of Organization ......................................................................462
10. Confirmation of Appointment of Rob De Geus as Director of
Community Services Department .....................................................462
Action Items ..........................................................................................463
11. Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Establishment of an
Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (Item Continued from January 26,
2015) ...........................................................................................463
13. Colleagues Memo from Council Members Berman, Burt, DuBois, and
Wolbach Regarding a City-Wide Minimum Wage Ordinance ..................475
14. Colleagues Memo From Council Members Berman, Burt, Holman, and
Kniss Recommending Adoption of Resolution 9493 entitled “Resolution
of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Urging CalPERS Divestment from
Fossil Fuel Companies.” ..................................................................476
12. Public Hearing: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees:
Adoption of Resolution 9494 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Setting New Public Safety Facility and General
Government Facility Impact Fee Levels as Approved by Council on
December 15, 2014.”......................................................................478
Closed Session .......................................................................................478
15. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY/LEGAL COUNSEL ........................478
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 P.M. ............................479
02/09/2015 116- 451
MINUTES
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:05 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Scharff arrived at 6:57
P.M., Schmid, Wolbach
Absent: Kniss
Study Session
1. Study Session on Railroad Quiet Zones in Palo Alto.
Richard Hackmann, Management Analyst, explained that a quiet zone was a
section of rail where train horns were not routinely sounded in or near at-
grade crossings. Even in a quiet zone, a train horn could be sounded at the
engineer's discretion. Quiet zones did not eliminate the use of train bells.
Per the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), if any one of four
supplemental safety measures was implemented, an at-grade crossing was
automatically eligible to become a quiet zone. Any city with an at-grade crossing had the right to establish a quiet zone or zones. The right of the
city to implement a quiet zone was not dependent on the rail operators
impacted by the establishment of a quiet zone. The process to establish a
quiet zone was mandated by the FRA and involved a noticing and comment
procedure. Stakeholders such as Caltrain and freight operators would
receive a 60-day notice of intent that the City was seeking to establish a
quiet zone and subsequently a 21-day notice of establishment for those
operating in the corridor. Following the 21-day notice, operators would be
expected to adhere to the quiet zone. He played videos of a non-quiet zone
and a quiet zone. Caltrain was willing to work with local municipalities if one
sought to establish a quiet zone; however, if a quiet zone was established,
then the city would assume liability for any incidents that occurred within the
quiet zone. According to the FRA, the courts would ultimately determine
who would be held liable if a collision occurred at a grade crossing located
within a quiet zone. The City Attorney's Office concluded that the
establishment of a quiet zone could increase the City's exposure to potential
liability. If the City were to pursue one or more quiet zones, it was likely the
City would incur costs for design and implementation of improvements.
The principle policy issues of quiet zones were a real or perceived relationship between train horns and safety and the cost of improvements
versus reduced horn noise. Staff requested Council input regarding the
prioritization of quiet zones within all other Caltrain and High Speed Rail
initiatives.
02/09/2015 116- 452
MINUTES
Council Member Burt requested public comment prior to Council Member
questions and comments.
Mayor Holman suggested a few Council Members comment while public
speakers submitted their speaker cards.
Council Member Filseth inquired whether a municipality had been sued over
an accident that occurred in a quiet zone.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, could not respond in relation to accidents across
the country. Within the region, she had not identified any lawsuit that raised
that question.
Council Member Berman inquired about potential costs for implementing a
quiet zone at the Alma Street crossing.
Mr. Hackmann advised that installation of median barriers would cost less
than $100,000. Costs for quad gates would likely range between $500,000
and $1 million.
Council Member Berman asked if quad gates were required.
Mr. Hackmann explained that quad gates were one of four options. At
Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road, it would be difficult
to install median barriers of the required length. The Alma Street crossing
had median barriers. On the west side of Alma Street, the median barrier
measured 90 feet. On the east side, the median barrier measured 55 feet
and 9 feet because of a break for bicycles. If the median barrier was
lengthened to 60 feet, the City could likely obtain an exemption because the
break allowed a turning movement for bicyclists. A quiet zone could be
implemented with minimal physical improvements; however, a safety
analysis would be needed.
Vice Mayor Schmid asked if the City was responsible for funding costs of
crossing improvements.
Mr. Hackmann responded yes. Staff could inquire whether Caltrain would
provide funding. Caltrain had implied that a quiet zone was not a safety
improvement; therefore, it was unlikely Caltrain would contribute funds to a
project that did not improve the safety of the corridor.
Vice Mayor Schmid inquired whether the $500,000 to $1 million cost for
quad gates would be the cost for each crossing.
Mr. Hackmann replied yes. That estimate included design, construction, and
implementation. The City would need Caltrain approval to work within the
02/09/2015 116- 453
MINUTES
Caltrain right-of-way. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and
the FRA would inspect and approve work before a quiet zone was
established.
Vice Mayor Schmid asked if barriers would be installed on both sides of the
road.
Mr. Hackmann responded yes.
Vice Mayor Schmid asked if barriers would hamper traffic.
Mr. Hackmann explained that vehicles caught on the tracks as gate arms
lowered would have to drive under or through one of the gate arms.
Vice Mayor Schmid referenced correspondence regarding liability insurance,
and inquired about the cost for that.
Ms. Stump reported the City maintained excess liability insurance of over $1
million. Neighboring communities reported the cooperative that carried the
insurance wished to either carve out quiet zones or negotiate a separate
policy for quiet zones.
Vice Mayor Schmid asked if Staff had an estimate of the cost for such policy.
Ms. Stump answered no. Staff could not negotiate an insurance policy
without Council direction. The City's current insurance coverage included
liability in excess of $1 million. A lawsuit involving significant property or
physical injury and involving a train could fall within that range. Should the
insurance carrier change the policy, then the City would have to contract for
separate insurance or bear costs through self-insurance.
Council Member Burt inquired whether median barriers were located uprail
and downrail of an intersection.
Mr. Hackmann indicated they were perpendicular to the intersection and
would be located over existing yellow stripes.
Council Member Burt asked if installation of both quad barriers and median
gates was viable.
Mr. Hackmann replied yes. The FRA supported that type of installation.
Council Member Burt inquired about data regarding the safety of horns and
dual gates versus no horns and quad gates and versus no horns and quad
gates and median gates.
02/09/2015 116- 454
MINUTES
Mr. Hackmann advised that Staff briefly researched the issue; however, it
was difficult to analyze what had not happened.
Council Member Burt assumed data existed for times before and after
installation of changes. In aggregate that would be meaningful.
Mr. Hackmann could provide some data for other locations.
Council Member Burt assumed that such data had been collected at a higher
level.
Mr. Hackmann added that one of the complicating factors was the unique
characteristics of quiet zones. Staff wanted to ensure data was obtained for
corridors with characteristics similar to those in Palo Alto.
Council Member Burt assumed data would pertain to national or international
quiet zones. He asked if Staff discussed with Caltrain the contradiction
between Caltrain's statement regarding liability and the FRA's statement.
Mr. Hackmann requested Caltrain's legal team provide a written statement
of Caltrain's position on quiet zones. Staff had not been able to obtain a
written statement.
Council Member Burt asked if Atherton installed quad gates.
Mr. Hackmann responded yes.
Council Member Burt asked if the City of Atherton established quiet zones
along with installation of quad gates.
Mr. Hackmann answered no.
Council Member Burt inquired about the rationale for train engineers
sounding the horn a second time after the train passed an intersection.
Mr. Hackmann explained that the second blast should sound as the train
traveled through the intersection. The first blast should sound 15-20
seconds before the train reached the intersection, and the second blast as
the train approached the intersection. Engineers often held the second blast
as the locomotive and a substantial number of cars traveled through the
intersection.
Council Member DuBois was interested in learning the cost of insurance
coverage specifically for quiet zones. He inquired about the timeframe for
the process.
02/09/2015 116- 455
MINUTES
Mr. Hackmann reported the timeframe would depend on whether quad gates
or median barriers were utilized. If the Council wished to move
expeditiously, it could be done in 12-24 months with quad gates. Median
barriers would result in a slightly shorter time period. The process required
60-day notice and 21-day implementation periods and FRA and CPUC
approvals.
Council Member DuBois asked if median barriers alone would not be
sufficient at some crossings.
Ms. Hackmann explained that the Alma Street crossing was the only location
where median barriers would be allowed.
Mayor Holman inquired about Atherton's funding of barriers.
Mr. Hackmann believed Atherton self-funded installation of quad gates.
Mayor Holman asked if Staff had any data that measured the change in
noise at crossings over the past 5, 10, 15 years.
Mr. Hackmann reported trains were required to sound a horn between 96
and 110 decibels in the corridor. For reference, 100 decibels equated to the
sound of a jackhammer.
Mayor Holman asked if the sound level of horns increased a few years
previously.
Mr. Hackmann did not know.
James Keene, City Manager, advised that the estimated cost of quad barriers
would total approximately $2-$4 million. Staff could obtain the potential
cost increase for liability insurance. This project was not included in the
Infrastructure Funding Plan and, therefore, would be a consideration for the
future.
Martin Sommer asked the Council to support a quiet zone and to extend it to
University Avenue. Approximately 90 trains per day crossed at University
Avenue between 5:00 A.M. and 1:00 A.M. He had contacted Caltrain, but it
remained silent.
Elizabeth Alexis, Californians Advocating for Responsible Rail Design
(CARRD), advised that low frequency train horn noise was disruptive to
sleep. The FRA wanted cities to establish quiet zones to make crossings
safer. An FRA study reported 313 accidents had occurred in quiet zones since implementation, which was 25 fewer accidents than reported prior to
02/09/2015 116- 456
MINUTES
implementation. No liability issues had been associated with quiet zones in
those 313 accidents.
Zouhair Mahboubi remarked that liability issues were uncertain. He
understood the FRA would file an amicus brief in a lawsuit. Freight trains
traveled and sounded horns all through the night. A quiet zone at the Alma
Street crossing would be sufficient; however, other crossings should have
grade-separated crossings.
Robert Neff requested a description of Caltrain's requirements to improve
safety at crossings in Palo Alto and the costs of establishing a quiet zone at
the Charleston Road crossing.
Olga Miroshnychenko concurred with comments regarding the health effects
of train noise. Numerous studies concerning the importance of non-
interrupted sleep were occurring.
Council Member DuBois inquired whether quiet zones could be established at
train stations.
Mr. Hackmann advised that quiet zones were required to extend at least a
half mile. A quiet zone could extend through a station; however, an
engineer had discretion over use of a horn.
Council Member DuBois believed horns were sounded at stations to alert
passengers on the platform.
Mr. Hackmann added that engineers utilized bells unless passengers were
standing too close to the edge of platforms.
Council Member DuBois remarked that Caltrain proposed placing horns
underneath trains in order to muffle the sound; however, freight train
operators were not proposing that. Caltrain's statement that quiet zones
were not a safety improvement was interesting in that quiet zones included
additional safety measures.
The Council should focus on trenching at-grade crossings as a better, long-
term solution and on a proposed transportation ballot measure in 2016 for
funding of grade separations. He would not support quiet zones on their
own.
Council Member Wolbach wanted to find methods to economically and
feasibly grade separate at-grade crossings. The City should explore quiet zones in the interim.
02/09/2015 116- 457
MINUTES
Council Member Burt did not view quiet zones and grade separations as
separate issues. Grade separations would cost hundreds of millions of
dollars and would require many years to construct. He requested additional
information regarding train noise as a health issue, the safety of quad gates,
and the safety of quad gates plus median barriers at the Alma Street
crossing. Track safety had two elements: safety and security. He wanted
to learn more about the function of a wayside horn. The number of trains
had increased and would continue to increase. Staff should provide
information concerning the increased decibel level of train horns. Funding of
quiet zones should not be purely local funding. He did not believe Atherton
fully self-funded its quad gates. He would support evaluation of quiet zones.
Council Member Filseth was less concerned about the legal exposure to the
City after the discussion. Some crossings could not feasibly be grade
separated or trenched. To the extent quiet zones would not have a large
financial impact to the City, he would support them.
Council Member Berman concurred with Council Member Filseth's comments.
It was not possible to grade separate the Alma Street crossing. Perhaps
Staff could investigate funding sources for quiet zones.
Vice Mayor Schmid believed the City's priority should be trenching or grade
separations in the long-term. In the interim, quiet zones seemed feasible,
realistic, and affordable.
Mayor Holman stated noise and sleep disruption were health issues and
should be a focus in light of the Council Priority of Healthy City/Healthy
Community. The Council should investigate alternatives for the Alma Street
crossing as grade separation was not viable. She was interested in the costs
and funding sources for quiet zones in other communities. Safety at the
Churchill Avenue rail intersection would benefit from the installation of quad
gates.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Council Member Burt expressed concern about having sufficient time for all
Agenda Items. Agenda Item Number 11: Discussion and Direction to Staff
Regarding Establishment of an Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (Item
Continued from January 26, 2015), would likely require more than the allotted time. He requested the Council consider continuing either Agenda
Item Number 13 or 14.
Mayor Holman proposed the Council take up Agenda Item Number 11 with
Council Members offering a series of Motions and carry the remaining
conversation to the second scheduled time. No later than 9:15 P.M., the
02/09/2015 116- 458
MINUTES
Council should consider whether to take up Agenda Item Numbers 13 and
14.
James Keene, City Manager, noted Agenda Item Number 14 was time
sensitive.
Mayor Holman inquired whether the Council could agree to a check-in no
later than 9:15. Staff was not present for either Agenda Item Number 13 or
14.
Mr. Keene advised that he and the City Attorney would be present for
Agenda Item Numbers 13 and 14.
Mayor Holman announced Staff requested Agenda Item Number 15 be
removed from the Agenda.
City Manager Comments
James Keene, City Manager, announced the City received a notice from the
California Department of Housing and Community Development regarding
funding available for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities
Program. VITA tax assistance for qualified individuals would begin February
7, 2015 at Mitchell Park Library. The Palo Alto Art Center and Palo Alto Art
Center Foundation were selected for a two-year arts management, training,
and consultancy program. The City was seeking applicants for the Human
Relations Commission, the Public Art Commission, and the Utilities Advisory
Commission.
Mayor Holman inquired about the reopening of Rinconada Library.
Mr. Keene reported Rinconada Library would hold its reopening on February
14, 2015.
Oral Communications
Jerry Underdal stated that to the extent legal and financial issues could be
resolved, the Council should provide political support for retaining Buena
Vista Mobile Home Park. Various organizations explicitly called for support
of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. Hundreds of families had benefited from
existing affordable housing in Palo Alto. Government assistance was
necessary to providing affordable housing.
Bob Moss suggested Council Members read their packets early and provide
questions to Staff in advance of meetings.
02/09/2015 116- 459
MINUTES
Wynn Grcich reported the State allowed oil companies to dispose of waste
water from fracking operations in aquifers holding potable water. Fluoride
was poison. Fluoridated water should be banned from store shelves.
Omar Chatty noted three people had committed suicide on Caltrain tracks.
The cost to extend Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) along the Peninsula would
be equivalent to the cost of grade separations for train tracks. The Council
should disclose the vote regarding the Caltrain Electrification Project.
Hamilton Hitchings was alarmed by the large number of office buildings
constructed in Downtown and by the number of projects in the pipeline. He
implored the Council to limit the number of office buildings being approved
and to encourage development of multi-unit residences. He hoped the
Council would reject the 441 Page Mill Road Project based on an accurate
financial analysis.
Rita Vrhel felt the Council should take as much time as it needed to consider
each Agenda Item carefully and thoroughly as the Council was the final
arbiter of many community concerns.
Paul Machato advised that the City could not sweep the streets of Evergreen
Park because of parked vehicles. Residents of Evergreen Park needed
assistance with parking and street sweeping.
Consent Calendar
James Keene, City Manager, noted Agenda Item Number 10 concerned the
appointment of Rob De Geus as Director of the Community Services
Department.
Rob De Geus, Community Services Director, believed the City of Palo Alto
was a great place to visit, work, and live because of Council investment in
community services, parks, arts, and recreation facilities. It was an honor
and privilege to be appointed as Director.
Mr. Keene reported the City conducted a national research for the position
and received applications from candidates with years of experience.
Interviews were conducted with department heads, the Executive Leadership
Team, and a community panel. Mr. De Geus exited those interviews as the
top candidate to lead the organization.
Mayor Holman congratulated Mr. De Geus on his appointment and thanked him for his prior service.
02/09/2015 116- 460
MINUTES
Council Member Burt appreciated the appointment of Mr. De Geus. In
addition to his regular duties, Mr. De Geus acted as co-chair of Project
Safety Net during its first year.
Council Member Scharff had been impressed by Mr. De Geus' work. Mr. De
Geus' commitment to youth was genuine.
Council Member Berman related a Palo Alto Unified School District Board
Member's praise of Mr. De Geus and the City's good fortune in employing
him.
Council Member Wolbach was impressed by Mr. De Geus' willingness to talk
with him during a very busy and sad weekend recently. He could not
imagine anyone better suited for the job.
Vice Mayor Schmid was continually impressed with maintenance of City
parks. Mr. De Geus' work with the Parks and Recreation Commission had
been outstanding.
Council Member Filseth was delighted to see talent within City Staff advance
to a leadership position.
Council Member DuBois recorded a no vote on Agenda Item Number 7.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois
to approve Agenda Item Numbers 2-10.
2. Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept Macias Gini &
O'Connell's Audit of the City of Palo Alto's Financial Statements as of
June 30, 2014 and Management Letter.
3. Adoption of an Ordinance Authorizing the Closing of the Fiscal Year
2014 Budget, Including Reappropriation Requests, Closing Completed
Capital Projects and Authorizing Transfers to Reserves, and Approval
of the Fiscal Year 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR).
4. Approval of a Contract Amendment in the Amount of $63,000 to
Contract No. C14149978 With Dyett and Bhatia Urban and Regional
Planners for Additional Data Collection and Analysis Related to
Downtown Retail and Residential Uses.
5. Authorization to Operate the Golf Course from March 1, 2015 to June
30, 2015 and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5303 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto to Increase Golf Course Revenues Estimate in the Amount of
02/09/2015 116- 461
MINUTES
$106,000, Provide Additional Appropriation of $289,424 in Budget for
Expenses, and Reduce the Operating Loss Reserve by $183,424.”
6. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation of Changes to the
Board and Commission Recruitment Program Including Adoption of an
Ordinance Re-aligning Terms on the Architectural Review Board, the
Historic Resources Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission and
the Planning and Transportation Commission; Resolution 9491 entitled
“Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Re-aligning Terms on
the Storm Drain Oversight Committee; Allowing for Remote Board and
Commission Interviews; Limit Applicants to One Board or Commission
Each Recruitment.”
7. Ordinance 5304 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Increasing Council Salary From $600/Month to $1,000/Month,
Effective January 1, 2017 (First Reading: January 20, 2015 PASSED:
6-3 DuBois, Filseth, Scharff no).”
8. Approval of Technical Amendments to the Below Market Rate Housing
Agreement, Exhibit C-3 to the Mayfield Development Agreement
Between the City and Stanford University.
9. Resolution 9492 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto to Amend and Correct Salary Schedules for: Management,
Professional and Confidential Employees (M&P), Fire Chief Association
(FCA), and Utilities Managers of Palo Alto Professional Association
(UMPAPA); Adoption of an Ordinance to Update the Fiscal Year 2015
Table of Organization.
10. Confirmation of Appointment of Rob De Geus as Director of
Community Services Department.
MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 2-6 and 8-10: 8-0
Kniss absent
MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7: 7-1 DuBois no, Kniss
absent
02/09/2015 116- 462
MINUTES
Action Items
11. Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Establishment of an
Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (Item Continued from January 26,
2015).
Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director, reported
Staff was seeking Council direction. Staff viewed this as part of a dual track
approach that the Council articulated for the Comprehensive Plan Update
and some critical zoning questions that the Council wanted to discuss
concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan Update. Growth management was
a policy issue that had a place in the Comprehensive Plan Update. A
mechanism such as a cap had a place in Zoning. Therefore, it was
appropriate to discuss growth management in both those realms. The idea
of an annual limit on office space came up in Comprehensive Plan Update
workshops held in the summer of 2014. The idea was to moderate the pace
of office/research and development (R&D) development because it
generated job growth. The discussion should be framed by the problem to
be solved. The City had the most potential to effect growth and change in
the community through new development. The question was whether
moderation of new development would effectively address growth in
employment, growth in traffic, and growth in parking demand. The Staff
Report provided examples from other jurisdictions that had utilized a pacing
mechanism. The Staff Report also provided two different data sets. The
first data set was derived from Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8, which
established a Citywide cap on nonresidential development. Policy L-8
institutionalized a study performed in 1989. That study did not differentiate
the types of nonresidential space and only reviewed nine planning areas
mapped in the Comprehensive Plan. The second data set derived from the
Congestion Management Plan reporting requirement. The disadvantage of
the second data set was its lack of longevity; it was instituted in 2001. The
Council could utilize other data sets that were not maintained by the City.
Staff had produced some data related to the Downtown CAP and the Existing
Conditions Report. Private industry reports related to jobs, rents, and
vacancies were available. Survey data was submitted by Downtown businesses. Establishing a pacing mechanism or an annual limit was quite
complex and raised many questions. She reviewed nine such questions
outlined in the Staff Report. Staff offered two recommendations.
One recommendation related to receiving Council input regarding ideas that
could be assessed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The second recommendation concerned measures that could be enacted on a short-term
basis.
02/09/2015 116- 463
MINUTES
Council Member Scharff did not understand how the City could produce an
interim Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for an Ordinance.
Ms. Gitelman advised that it would be difficult to identify the level of
environmental review required until Staff understood the Council's direction
for a growth limit. Staff believed the Council would want to consider a long-
term strategy that could be analyzed through the Comprehensive Plan
Update along with interim measures. It would not be feasible to analyze
interim measures that during the course of analysis Staff identified as
requiring a full EIR. The Council could pursue interim measures which
required a lesser level of environmental review.
Council Member Scharff asked if Staff would identify interim measures for
the Council. If interim measures required 18-24 months to implement, then
the Council should consider a long-term strategy within the Comprehensive
Plan Update as the Comprehensive Plan would likely be completed in that
timeframe.
Ms. Gitelman indicated Staff's recommendation included topics that were
long-term and could be analyzed within the Comprehensive Plan Update and
other topics that were short-term and could be implemented with a lesser
level of environmental review.
James Keene, City Manager, remarked that a follow-up discussion for the
Agenda Item was scheduled for March 2, 2015 should the Council require a
second discussion. Staff could review EIR issues and report prior to the
March 2 discussion.
Council Member Scharff requested Mayor Holman reiterate the process for
Council Member comments and questions.
Mayor Holman requested Council Members first ask high-level questions.
Following that, the public could offer their comments. Next Council Members
could offer comments or Motions. She wanted to avoid having one Motion
that covered many topics in case the discussion was continued to a second
meeting.
Council Member Scharff suggested Motions should direct Staff to explore
ideas and report to the Council.
Mayor Holman concurred.
Council Member Scharff wanted to understand the parameters of what the
Council should attempt to achieve.
02/09/2015 116- 464
MINUTES
Ms. Gitelman suggested the Council direct Staff to explore some basic
parameters or ideas that addressed the issue.
Council Member Scharff noted Staff identified interim steps to slow the pace
of development. One interim steps was funding for a Transportation
Management Agency (TMA); however, the Council could not impose fees.
He requested Staff explain how that interim step would work.
Ms. Gitelman stated this was a topic about which Staff could return with
more detailed information. Staff would have to perform a nexus analysis to
determine the relationship between new development and the impacts
addressed by the approach. Staff could explore what that looked like and
how long it would take if the Council was interested.
Council Member Scharff asked how a temporary reduction of allowable office
density would work.
Ms. Gitelman reported Staff could probably perform that without an EIR, but
the Council would need to provide more details. Staff reserved the right to
return with a more detailed analysis.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether an interim measure would expire
when the Comprehensive Plan was complete.
Ms. Gitelman answered yes.
Council Member Scharff wanted to know the objective of a development cap.
Ms. Gitelman explained that pacing new development related to the
community's perception that traffic and parking demand and development
had increased much faster and the impacts were more severe in the post-
recession economic period than in the past. The question was whether
metering the pace of new development would address those underlying
community perceptions. Employment densities and the use of existing
building space was identified by many as the primary driver of traffic
congestion. The City could regulate new development. The question for the
Council was whether the idea was worthy of consideration given the
concerns articulated by the community.
Council Member Scharff asked if Staff identified community objectives other
than traffic and parking.
Ms. Gitelman believed the community's objectives were primarily traffic and parking and the pace of development.
02/09/2015 116- 465
MINUTES
Council Member Scharff had heard community concerns about the pace of
development along California Avenue and in Downtown. He asked if Staff
had heard concerns about other parts of the City.
Ms. Gitelman had heard concerns about Downtown, California Avenue, and
the El Camino Real corridor.
Mayor Holman requested Council Member Scharff ask his most pressing
questions as other Council Members were waiting to speak.
Council Member Burt remarked that this was the first time the Council was
presented with the idea that increases in impact fees might be significant
enough to alter the pace of new development. He inquired about the basis
for that idea.
Ms. Gitelman believed it would be possible to construct a nexus that would
allow the City to increase impact fees by quite a bit. Until Staff conducted
the study, they could not test that idea with any specificity. Developing a
nexus for a much higher rate than could be politically accommodated was
typical in preparing a nexus study. It would not be surprising to conduct a
nexus study and learn a higher fee could be charged.
Council Member Burt recalled in the latter part of 2014 the Council received
an update regarding impact fees. At that time, the consultant did not
indicate that the Council had a great deal of latitude with respect to
increasing fees.
Ms. Gitelman understood the scope of work for that consultant was limited to
anticipated infrastructure improvements. In the Comprehensive Plan
Update, there was an opportunity to identify additional capital improvements
that possibly could be funded through impact fees. In addition, Staff was
currently reviewing housing impact fees. As a result of that, there could be
an opportunity to increase those fees such that they would affect the cost of
development.
Council Member Burt asked how the Council could obtain information about
the amount of fee increases that would affect the pace of development in
order to make a policy decision.
Ms. Gitelman did not believe the Council would make a decision on any one
mechanism at the current time. Staff was interested in which mechanisms the Council felt would be worthy of further exploration.
02/09/2015 116- 466
MINUTES
If the Council was interested, then Staff could pursue it further. A nexus
study for housing impact fees was underway, and Staff could present that in
the next few months.
Council Member Burt inquired about other community problems resulting
from development and whether those problems could be addressed through
a cap or other means. Presumably a cap would result in some sort of a
competition among projects. The community expressed concerns about
architectural quality and public benefits. He assumed those would be
included in selection criteria for cap projects.
Ms. Gitelman had not jumped to the conclusion of a competitive process. If
it was a competitive process, then Staff would have the opportunity to
ensure selected projects were of the highest quality. Those could go on the
list of community concerns to be addressed.
Council Member Burt referenced the December 8, 2014 Staff Report
addressing the issue of whether an EIR would have to accompany an Interim
Ordinance. He asked if Interim Ordinances had a good chance of not
requiring environmental review.
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney, explained that in general an
Interim Ordinance of 12-18 months was more likely to be adopted without
performing environmental review based on the premise that it would not
actually change the physical environment. That was the basis for Staff's
analysis that Interim Ordinances of short duration generally did not require a
full EIR.
Council Member Burt noted the Staff Report referred to a period of up to two
years. If the Comprehensive Plan process required approximately two years
for completion, then an Interim Ordinance could align with a permit
measure. He asked if up to two years was the correct timeframe.
Ms. Silver indicated no specific time period was stated in the statute.
Council Member Berman noticed that an Interim Ordinance for a hard cap
was one of multiple interim measures the Council could choose. The Staff
Report referred to a current and immediate threat to the public health,
safety, or welfare. He inquired about the level of additional traffic or parking
impact that could be considered a threat to public health, safety or welfare.
Ms. Silver reported that in terms of the Interim Ordinance definition of
health and safety threat, the bar was fairly deferential to legislators. Courts
had found severe parking and traffic impacts to be a sufficient finding.
02/09/2015 116- 467
MINUTES
Mr. Keene asked if an Interim Ordinance applied in conjunction with parallel
efforts by the governing body to move toward a long-term decision would
aid a court in determining the Interim Ordinance was in reality an Interim
Ordinance.
Ms. Silver replied yes. There were two different statutory schemes for
Interim Ordinances. One was the City Council's ability to adopt an Interim
Ordinance, in which case the Council generally specified a timeframe. The
other legislative scheme, a moratorium, contained more specific statutory
requirements where the Council could only impose a moratorium for a
maximum of two years. In those cases, the courts looked closely at the
time period and the context of other actions taken by the Council in
connection with General Plan updates.
Council Member DuBois had heard community concerns about conversion of
basement retail space to office space. He inquired about protections the
Council could enact for retail in those situations.
Ms. Gitelman indicated protections for retail were a whole other subject.
The City could introduce a requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for office
development, which many jurisdictions did. Imposing a requirement for a
Use Permit for office development would create a potential to impose
conditions related to office employment densities.
Council Member DuBois asked if basement conversion would also be a
Conditional Use.
Ms. Gitelman was not speaking to basements specifically. If there was a
conversion from one land-use category to another land-use category and if
that new land-use category required a Use Permit, then it would have to
submit to the process and the Council could impose conditions.
Council Member DuBois inquired whether the City could enforce a new
occupational permit when a new tenant moved into a building.
Ms. Gitelman would need to analyze that in detail. Staff had not found an
easy way to impose a new requirement on tenancy rather than use. Zoning
was generally around land uses, not tenancies.
Council Member DuBois asked if the Fire Code could be used in some cases.
Ms. Gitelman would need to review those issues in more detail.
Council Member Scharff suggested public speakers be allowed three minutes
because of the importance of the topic.
02/09/2015 116- 468
MINUTES
Mayor Holman agreed to allow public speakers three minutes.
Vice Mayor Schmid recommended adding 20 minutes to the discussion, such
that it would end at 9:35 P.M.
Steven Baker commented that the proposal attempted to limit job growth
because Palo Alto apparently had too many jobs and too much development.
The issues should be addressed through increased impact fees,
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies or additional public
transit. Office growth should not be capped.
Tiffany Griego, Stanford Research Park, shared quotes from Research Park
tenants regarding business growth. The proposed cap would have
unintended consequences that would compromise the ability to attract
companies that created long-term economic viability. Research Park
companies were willing to mitigate any negative impacts that their growth
could cause.
Whitney McNair, Stanford University Land Use and Environmental Planning
Senior Associate Director, expressed concern that the effort to implement
interim measures was rushed and without proper supporting analysis. A
one-size-fits-all approach would be ill advised. Tools other than a growth
cap were available.
David Van Atta did not see any evidence that a cap in and of itself would
lead to resolution of problems. The Staff Report was extremely well done in
laying out the complexities of the issues. The Council should first identify
the problem, and then determine how to resolve it with workable and fair
solutions.
Jean McCown, Stanford University, encouraged the Council not to take
precipitous actions regarding Citywide development caps or interim
measures without first defining the problems. After considerable
engagement and consideration, the City adopted the Downtown CAP in 1985
and the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study Limit in 1989. Those
programs achieved their intended effects.
Norman Beamer remarked that banning new office space should be the
underlying theme of Council deliberations. In formulating policy, the Council
should demand TDM Programs, demand adequate parking, eliminate exceptions to current zoning, and impose development fees to discourage
development.
Bob Moss stated that traffic, parking, and jobs/housing imbalance issues
would continue even if no more office space was built. Every 1,000 square
02/09/2015 116- 469
MINUTES
feet of office space cost the City approximately $2,500 more per year in
services than it paid in taxes. The City should enact a retail-only
requirement for existing retail spaces and should encourage broadband
service that allowed workers to telecommute.
Herb Borock advised that the Council had set a limit on office space in
Downtown in the 1980s, but it was based on conditions existing at that time.
Conditions had changed; therefore, there were reasons to change the limit.
Some areas of town were impinging on neighborhoods and required action.
The Council should review areas separately to determine limits specific to
each area.
Rita Vrhel supported an annual limit for office and R&D space. Residents
opposed development because projects received exemptions for height,
setbacks, parking, and zoning. Perhaps a two-year moratorium on office
and R&D projects would provide the consistency Research Park requested.
William Monroe did not believe a flat cap on development was the best
solution. Office development should be used as a bargaining chip for
housing and transportation changes.
Cheryl Lilienstein commented that Caltrain was causing traffic congestion
and was a longstanding problem. Traffic problems would continue because
the population continued to grow while commensurate transit improvements
did not occur and because Caltrain bisected the City. The City should halt
office space development and ask developers interested in office space to
apply pressure to Caltrain to trench the tracks.
Dan Garber indicated the City should focus on cars and their traffic and
parking impacts rather than a cap on or limited growth of office and R&D
development. He did not support those strategies as solutions to a problem
that had no definition. The impact of development on traffic was miniscule
compared to the impact of the forecast population growth in the Bay Area.
Setting limits on growth would drive small businesses from the City.
Neilson Buchanan felt the discussion of a cap on growth had been successful
in that it had elicited input from business people. The Council should focus
on caps for specific land uses. A visionary and in-depth TDM Program was
needed.
Peter Stone, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, supported a full debate and
assessment of proposals. Any interim measures would impact all businesses
throughout Palo Alto. He urged the Council to proceed deliberately with
regard to interim measures.
02/09/2015 116- 470
MINUTES
Cedric De La Beaujardiere remarked that the Council would need information
such as annual office growth in square feet, number of jobs, residential
population changes, and changes in the number of housing units. He
supported the use of impact fees and zoning changes.
Mayor Holman noted the time of approximately 9:00 P.M. with the current
item scheduled to end at 9:30. If the Council continued with the Agenda,
the meeting would end at approximately 11:00. She suggested the Council
take up Agenda Item Number 12. She inquired about the timeliness of
Agenda Item Number 14.
Council Member Berman advised that a large group of community supporters
were planning to attend the Council meeting. The item coincided with an
opinion-editorial piece in the Palo Alto Weekly and a nationwide event
scheduled for the weekend.
Mayor Holman suggested continuing the discussion of Agenda Item Number
11 and then taking up Agenda Item Numbers 12 and 14.
Council Member Burt suggested moving Agenda Item Number 12 to the end
of the Agenda as members of the public were present for Agenda Item
Numbers 13 and 14.
Mayor Holman understood that would commit the Council to taking up
Agenda Item Number 13 and would limit the time available for discussion of
Agenda Item Number 11.
Council Member Scharff inquired about the time to end discussion of Agenda
Item Number 11.
Mayor Holman answered 9:30.
Mr. Keene felt that was appropriate. The Council could give Staff sufficient
direction in that amount of time to prepare for the subsequent meeting on
March 2.
Mayor Holman reiterated her wish for Council Members to offer a series of
Motions rather than one Motion covering multiple topics.
Council Member Scharff recommended Council Members defer Motions in the
interest of time.
Council Member Wolbach commented that the negative impacts of offices
were traffic, parking, housing demand, and loss of retail space. Palo Alto did not need a great deal more office space. Limiting office development limited
supply without limiting demand, thus costs would rise and small businesses
02/09/2015 116- 471
MINUTES
would be displaced by larger companies. He expressed concern about
driving small professional offices out of the City. One cap for large offices
and another cap for small offices was worthy of consideration. A cap should
be paired with protections or incentives for small businesses. He did not
believe a cap would significantly reduce office development, but it could
provide a level of safety against a large spike in the near future. It could
modestly address the harms of unbalanced planning. it could buy time to
increase the housing supply, to fix parking problems, and to improve non-
car transportation options. Specific plans were an excellent tool to help the
community achieve the results it wanted. With respect to conversions, the
Council should identify ways to make it easier to convert office and R&D
space to housing and retail and to make it harder to convert retail and
housing to office and R&D. Perhaps the Council should mandate TDM
Programs for offices and for housing as well. Several of the largest
companies in Downtown were doing good work with TDM Programs. A TMA
could work with smaller companies to reduce car trips. The City's parking
permit system was incredibly bureaucratic resulting in low utilization of
parking spaces in Downtown. Perhaps private parking garages could lease
their spaces to the public. The jobs/housing imbalance could not be
addressed solely through increasing the number of housing units or solely
through limiting office development. The jobs/housing imbalance was a
central contributor to high median rents. The Council should explore a
variety of options.
Council Member DuBois agreed with Council Member Wolbach's comments
regarding the relationship between commercial space and housing. The
issues were maintaining the aesthetic appearance and function of Palo Alto
while allowing growth. The City had to slow the growth of non-retail office
space. The Staff Report indicated the Comprehensive Plan process was 12
months, but the Council did not need to be driven by that schedule. The
new process should provide clarity and consistency for residents, developers,
and Staff resulting in more efficiency. The community should not assume an
annual cap would modify existing caps; the City should test an annual cap
prior to removing the existing cap. He wanted Staff to evaluate a range of 10,000-40,000 square feet under an annual cap. A project competition with
clear criteria was key, and points could be awarded to projects utilizing a
lower Floor Area Ratio (FAR). If the Council considered geographic regions,
then it should review parking shortfall and level of service intersections rated
D and F as part of the geographic definition. He opposed rolling over unused allocations.
The Council should consider evaluating the assumption of 1,000 square feet
per employee. The Council should review exceptions in current Ordinances
and consider closing some of them.
02/09/2015 116- 472
MINUTES
MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth
to direct Staff to present the Comprehensive Plan Update to explore limiting
Office/Retail and Development (R&D) each year within 10,000 to 45,000
square feet.
Vice Mayor Schmid provided four reasons a growth cap was logical. The
National Citizens Survey ranked parking, traffic, planning and the quality of
development in the 40th percentile for the second consecutive year.
Residents paid $3 for every $1 paid by commercial enterprises; yet, the
commercial sector was growing two or three times as fast as the residential
sector. Residents paid three times as much sales tax as workers. Between
2001 and 2015, commercial office space grew by 517,000 square feet.
Retail space declined by 37,000 square feet. The Council and the
community should address the issues and decide what Palo Alto should be in
the next 10-15 years.
Mayor Holman noted the time was 9:30; however, she would allow Council
Member Filseth to speak to his second. She inquired whether the Council
should offer Motions to table the pending Motion and to continue the item.
She asked if there should be separate Motions for both items.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, stated yes.
Council Member Filseth believed many of the issues were affected by the
jobs/housing ratio. TDM Programs were a partial solution. New concrete
and steel building construction added 70-80 pounds of carbon dioxide per
square foot of commercial space. Office development had multiple
dimensions, and the Council needed to consider all of them. For a majority
of Palo Alto residents, the incremental benefits of office expansion were
outweighed by the incremental costs. Many buildings had an FAR that did
not match the statutory FAR limit. The Council should proceed deliberately
and discuss a time horizon component.
Mayor Holman asked if two Motions were needed.
Ms. Stump replied no. Only a Motion to Continue the item was needed.
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member Wolbach to continue this item to March 2, 2015.
Mayor Holman advised that Council Members who did not provide comments would be allowed to speak first on March 2.
Council Member Burt was displeased by the process. He understood the half
hour allotted for comments would be divided among nine Council Members
02/09/2015 116- 473
MINUTES
rather than four. The Mayor requested Council Members not offer a complex
Motion; yet, that had occurred. Tabling the Motion was premature. He
believed the Council should hold a deliberative and thoughtful discussion
prior to debating recommendations that were not well thought out.
Mayor Holman explained that that could occur at the second meeting.
Council Member Burt indicated that five Council Members had not discussed
the substance of the topic. He preferred the Motion be withdrawn. These
were important issues that would require a great deal of consideration and
deliberation before providing Staff with guidance regarding interim measures
and the Comprehensive Plan. The initial Motion was premature and out of
order for the guidance that was provided. When the item reconvened, he
wanted the Maker and the Seconder to reconsider their Motion before the
Council held deliberative discussion.
Mayor Holman reported the Council was tabling the Motion and continuing
the meeting.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council
Member Burt to continue this item to March 2, 2015 and the Motion on the
floor be withdrawn.
Mayor Holman felt the Motion and Amendment did not affect the
proceedings. Council Members could vote the Motion down at the meeting
on March 2. The Council could discuss the Motion and Amendment for the
next half hour or continue with the Agenda.
Council Member Scharff disagreed.
Mr. Keene did not believe the Council should be divided at the initial phase
of the discussion. Nothing was lost by approval of the Amendment.
Council Member Burt clarified that the March 2 discussion would not be
framed around a specific Motion if the Motion was withdrawn.
AMENDMENT PASSED: 6-2 Filseth, Schmid no, Kniss absent
Mayor Holman reiterated that Agenda Item Number 11 was continued to
March 2, 2015 with the Motion on the floor being withdrawn. Earlier
comments indicated a desire to move Agenda Item Numbers 13 and 14
forward.
Council Member Burt understood the intention was to move Agenda Item Number 12 to the end of the Agenda.
02/09/2015 116- 474
MINUTES
Mayor Holman agreed. The Council would take up Agenda Item Number 14.
Council Member Berman suggested taking up Agenda Item Number 13 first
would align with the timing of the Agenda.
Mayor Holman had not understood that members of the public were present
to speak to Agenda Item Number 13.
13. Colleagues Memo from Council Members Berman, Burt, DuBois, and
Wolbach Regarding a City-Wide Minimum Wage Ordinance.
Council Member Burt reported several cities in the subregion had enacted
minimum wage Ordinances based on the subregion's significantly higher cost
of living than the state as a whole. Income from the present minimum wage
was significantly substandard for the amount required for survival in the
region. The proposal was to refer action to the Policy and Services
Committee for vetting.
Council Member Berman added that the goal of the Colleague's
Memorandum was to refer the topic to the Policy and Service Committee for
a robust discussion. A minimum wage employee working 2,000 hours a year
earned $18,000 a year. A recent local study showed that the average self-
sufficiency standard in Santa Clara County in 2014 for two adults with one
preschool and one school-aged child was almost $82,000 a year. The wage
disparity in Silicon Valley had risen dramatically. The City should have a
serious discussion about increasing the minimum wage in an attempt to
alleviate some of that disparity.
Chris Lundin, Multi Faith Voices for Peace and Justice and Saint Thomas
Aquinas Catholic Parish, supported adoption of an Ordinance to raise the
minimum wage. The current minimum wage was not sufficient.
Paul George, Peninsula Peace and Justice Center Director, hoped the Council
would approve a thoughtful discussion of increasing the minimum wage. He
read a letter signed by 200 Palo Alto Residents and endorsed by 13
organizations comprising the Raise the Wage Coalition.
Ryan Larkin, First Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto, asked the Council to
approve an Ordinance that would bring the City's minimum wage closer to a
number that would allow Palo Alto workers to live in Palo Alto. The
California minimum wage, though higher than the Federal minimum wage, was not adequate.
02/09/2015 116- 475
MINUTES
Wynn Grcich stated minimum wage earners worked double shifts in order to
feed and house their families. If minimum wage earners lost their jobs, they
often became homeless.
Jeff Weaver asked the Council to exercise leadership in addressing the issue
of minimum wage. Any debate should include all aspects of compensation.
Studies reported no negative impacts from increasing wages for low-income
families.
Carol Lamont urged the Council to increase the minimum wage. It was a
moral issue.
Paula Rugg wanted minimum wage earners to continue in their jobs. She
supported raising the minimum wage. The Council should align its actions
with the Priority of Healthy City/Healthy Community.
Aram James suggested the Policy and Services Committee hold a public
hearing on the issue. A city could not function without minimum wage
earners.
MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to refer the matter to the Policy and Services Committee supported
by appropriate Staff as determined by the City Manager, to analyze and
make recommendations to the Council on a Citywide Minimum Wage
Ordinance.
Council Member Scharff noted the Santa Clara County Cities Association
made the topic a priority for 2015. Other Peninsula cities were considering
raising the minimum wage. The Policy and Services Committee should
consider Ordinances from other cities.
Council Member Filseth did not believe raising the minimum wage would
result in fewer service jobs.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent
14. Colleagues Memo From Council Members Berman, Burt, Holman, and
Kniss Recommending Adoption of Resolution 9493 entitled “Resolution
of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Urging CalPERS Divestment from
Fossil Fuel Companies.”
Council Member Berman advised that the Resolution was a request for the
California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) to divest its funds from the top 200 fossil fuel companies. Peninsula Interfaith Climate Action's
02/09/2015 116- 476
MINUTES
(PICA) idea and Council Members' request was a logical extension of many
of the City's policy decisions.
Annie Kaskade stated divestment of fossil fuel investments was one of the
most important actions cities could take. She encouraged the Council to
proceed as quickly as possible in urging CalPERS to divest its funds from
fossil fuel companies.
Wynn Grcich did not believe people should invest in fossil fuel companies if
they wanted climate change.
Debbie Mytels, PICA, advised that removing investments from fossil fuel
companies was an important symbolic step in recognizing that business
could not continue as usual. To protect employees' pensions, CalPERS
should divest their investments in fossil fuel companies.
Susan Chamberlain, First Presbyterian Church, reported multiple studies
showed that portfolios without fossil fuel investments could perform as well
if not better than those with fossil fuel investments. Decreased demand for
fossil fuels would result in stranded assets, and shares would become
grossly over-valued.
Rev. Eileen Altman, First Congregational Church of Palo Alto, had studied the
issues of climate change. Policy changes were needed to address the threat
to the climate. She encouraged the Council to adopt the Resolution.
Shelton Ehrlich believed the Council should work to overturn the CalPERS
model and invest retirement funds in 401(k) accounts. The Memo was
misguided in its instrument to CalPERS and was pernicious in its impact on
families.
Cedric De La Beaujardiere supported the Colleague's Memo. Climate change
was an issue. Individuals, companies, and local municipalities had to act.
Steve Ramy presented letters of support from congregations of various local
churches.
Council Member Berman noted one of Palo Alto's values was protection of
the environment. Palo Alto's vision was carbon neutrality. Palo Alto's
investments should reflect its values. Studies had shown that divest fossil
fuel investments would not have a negative impact.
MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to adopt the Resolution urging CalPERS Divestment from Fossil Fuel
Companies.
02/09/2015 116- 477
MINUTES
Council Member Wolbach remarked that climate change was a top tier threat
to global economic, social, political, and agricultural stability. Palo Alto was
vulnerable to flooding from sea level rise and at risk of water insecurity.
Divestment sent a political and financial message. He favored divestment of
fossil fuel investments.
Mayor Holman had often said that values should determine spending. The
same applied to investment of funds.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent
12. Public Hearing: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees:
Adoption of Resolution 9494 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Setting New Public Safety Facility and General
Government Facility Impact Fee Levels as Approved by Council on
December 15, 2014.”
James Keene, City Manager, reported the Council had previously adopted an
Ordinance that established Public Safety Facility and General Government
Facility fees. A Resolution setting fees at a maximum amount of 75 percent
was also required. He recommended the Council adopt the Resolution.
Public Hearing opened and closed without public comment at 10:22 P.M.
Vice Mayor Schmid inquired about the source for the assumed numbers of
employees per 1,000 square feet. Numbers in the table were dramatically
below the current assumptions.
Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer, explained that those numbers had been
revised and could be found on page 824.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Berman to adopt the Resolution, setting new Public Safety Facility and
General Government Facility Impact fees at 75 percent of maximum levels,
as directed by Council on December 15, 2014 when it adopted the
implementing Ordinance.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent
Closed Session
15. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY/LEGAL COUNSEL
ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (as defendant)
Subject: Claim of Eileen A. Staats, filed January 5, 2015 (Telephone User Tax)
Authority: California Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2)
02/09/2015 116- 478
MINUTES
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 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.
02/09/2015 116- 479