Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-13 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting May 13, 2002 1. Presentation of goals and purposes of second community survey on libraries and other community facilities and discussion with Council to ensure all relevant issues are included in the survey......................................101 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m...................101 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................102 1. Appointment of Candidates to the Public Art Commission......102 APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................103 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan and 2002-03 Funding.............................103 3. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget to Accept Revenue from the State Traffic Congestion Relief Fund in the Amount of $90,889 to Increase the City’s Allocation from the 1996 Measure B PMP Cooperative Agreement with the VTA by $121,605, and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for CIP Project 9630, Street Maintenance, in the Amount of $212,494...............107 4. Approval of a Park Improvement Ordinance for Hoover Park Restrooms...................................................107 5. Revised Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement for a Grant from the Coastal Commission San Francisco Bay Trail Project for Improvements to Trail Segments Along the Faber-Laumeister Tract in the Baylands...107 6. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for a Grant and Execute an Agreement with the State of California for a Roberti-Z’berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Grant for Improvements to Parking Lots at the Baylands................................................107 7. Appointment of Candidates to the Historic Resources Board...108 05/13/02 94-99 . 8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Allied Information and Service for 7.5 Percent of Net Collected Revenue for All Advanced Life Support (ALS) and Basic Life Support (BLS) Ambulance Transport Revenue Collection Services....................................................108 9. Joint Public Hearing on Edgewood Project Redevelopment Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report by Redevelopment Agency and City Council for June 17, 2002...................108 10. Annual Public Review of Compliance of Development Agreement with Stanford University for the Sand Hill Corridor Projects....................................................108 11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application by Carrasco Associates on behalf of Mehmood Taqui for rezoning of a 4,938 square-foot parcel from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to PC (Planned Community) and construction of a 4,555 square-foot, three-story building to contain two residential units............................108 12. Approval of Employment Agreement with the Director of Administrative Services.....................................119 12A. Approval of Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $800,000 for a Residential Real Estate Loan to the Director of Administrative Services..................................125 13. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to File an Application for 2002/2003 Transportation Development Act Funds for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects including a Commitment to Make Up any Funding Deficit on the Homer Avenue Undercrossing Project......................126 13A. (Old Item No. 9) Joint Public Hearing on Edgewood Project Redevelopment Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report by Redevelopment Agency and City Council for June 17, 2002.....127 13B. (Old Item No. 10) Annual Public Review of Compliance of Development Agreement with Stanford University for the Sand Hill Corridor Projects......................................130 COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS...................133 14. Conference with City Attorney — Existing Litigation.........133 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m............133 05/13/02 94-100 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:02 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian STUDY SESSION 1. Presentation of goals and purposes of second community survey on libraries and other community facilities and discussion with Council to ensure all relevant issues are included in the survey. The Council Members provided input to Ruth Bernstein of Evans McDonough as to what questions they were hoping to see answered in the second community survey. Examples of questions included: testing which of the cost factors (project, assessed value, after-tax cost) would be determinative to voters; assessing the "additive appeal" or "negative value" of the Art Center as part of the "package" of facilities that might go on the November ballot; impact of recession, of seniors/others on fixed incomes; importance of matching funds on support; and impact of potential storm drain fee on support for the potential ballot measure in November. The consultant was asked to phrase questions in such a way as to get the positives of the facilities measures across (e.g. serving youth and children, the campus nature of the Mitchell Park and Main/Art Center sites). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. 05/13/02 94-101 Regular Meeting May 13, 2002 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mark Cairns, 718 San Carlos Court, spoke regarding the Midtown Residents Association (MRA). Richard Brand, 281 Addison Street, spoke regarding historic neighborhood recommendation. Shelby Valentine, 3116 Stelling Drive, spoke regarding libraries. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding good government. Kristina Lindsay, 1591 Dana Avenue, spoke regarding “Bike to School Day.” Marilu Serrano, 2016 Pulgas Avenue, East Palo Alto, spoke regarding the southern extension. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointment of Candidates to the Public Art Commission FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION VOTING FOR ROBIN CHESLER: VOTING FOR RON COOPER: Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian VOTING FOR CHRISTINE deCHUTKOWSKI: Freeman, Ojakian VOTING FOR TATIANA DEOGIRIKAR: VOTING FOR LAURA DEEM: Beecham, Burch, Kleinberg, Morton, Mossar 05/13/02 94-102 VOTING FOR KAREN FRANKEL: Beecham, Burch, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian VOTING FOR AIKO HILL: VOTING FOR PATRICE LANGEVIN: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian VOTING FOR DAVID LEVIN: Beecham, Lytle, Kishimoto, Lytle VOTING FOR NAOMI LEVINSON: VOTING FOR PEGGY MOLLOY: VOTING FOR MARY ELLEN NIKKOLA: City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that on the first ballot Patrice Langevin (with 9 votes), Karen Frankel (with 8 votes), Ron Cooper (with 8 votes), and Laura Deem (with 5 votes) were appointed to four-year terms. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Morton, to approve the Minutes of April 1, 2002, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan and 2002-03 Funding Council Member Morton would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because he is an auditor/accountant for many of the organizations receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Council Member Burch said the Finance Committee met on April 16, 2002, to consider the CDBG grants. Requests for funding constituted $4.2 million, and only $1.3 million was available for allocation from the grants. The three members of the Finance Committee who were present at the April 16, 2002, meeting, unanimously voted to forward the item to the Council. The 05/13/02 94-103 Finance Committee recommended that the Council approve their recommendation. Andrew Pierce, Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), said the CAC was in accord with the staff recommendations and was pleased to fund the Emergency Housing Coalition, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s (PAHC) Barker Hotel and Alma Place projects, two projects for the Clara Mateo Shelter, the Shelter Network’s Haven House, the Urban Ministry, St. Vincent de Paul, MidPeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, Avenidas, and Stevenson House. Mayor Ojakian declared the Public Hearing open at 7:30 p.m. Genie Dee, Stevenson House Director, 455 E. Charleston Road, thanked the CAC and Finance Committee for recommending the Stevenson House project. The emergency call upgrade would improve the 34-year old emergency call system. Cathy Erickson, Shelter Network Director of Program and Services, 1450 Chapin Avenue, Burlingame, expressed appreciation for the recommendations of funding for the program, Haven Family House. She invited Council Members to tour Haven House. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, noticed a change in the staff report (CMR:253:02) from the proposals seen by the CAC and Finance Committee, which was with regard to the properties on Encina Avenue. Funding, in effect, went to the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (Housing Authority). As the project expanded, it provided the ability to meet a higher number of the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) goals for affordable housing and did not put an impact on other places in the community for more intensive development. The Housing Authority did not have the same criteria as the PAHC. The PAHC would have given first preference to people who lived or worked in Palo Alto if it had acquired the properties. That was not the case with the Housing Authority. The Community Working Group that sought funds in the past was recommended for $500,000 from the County CBDG money. The Housing Authority needed the flexibility to design the project any way it wanted to, depending on how it got the money. Mayor Ojakian declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:37 p.m. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Kleinberg, approval of the Finance Committee recommendation as follows: 1. Adopt the Resolution Approving the Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Years 2002- 05/13/02 94-104 2003 and the Preliminary Commitment of Funds from Fiscal Years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 Resolution 8162 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Years 2002-2003 and the Preliminary Commitment of Funds from Fiscal Years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005” 2. Authorize and direct the City Manager, or his designee, to execute and submit to HUD the application and other documentation necessary to file the application with HUD, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the application, before the May 15, 2002 deadline. 3. Authorize and direct staff to carry out any further required environmental assessments and certifications for each project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to the commitment of funds. 4. Adopt the Resolution Consenting to the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County Transacting Business within the City of Palo Alto for the Purpose of Acquiring Land and Developing Affordable Housing on the Parcels Located At 33, 39 and 45 Encina Avenue Resolution 8163 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Consenting to the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County Transacting Business within the City of Palo Alto for the Purpose of Acquiring Land and Developing Affordable Housing on the Parcels Located At 33, 39 and 45 Encina Avenue” Council Member Kleinberg said decisions on spending CDBG funds were difficult, and every cause was a good cause. The CAC and Finance Committee were congratulated for their efforts. The Community Working Group was thanked for its efforts on behalf of the Opportunity Center. The money that went to various housing and social service organizations was timely, given the deep recession the community was in. Council Member Freeman asked whether there was formal or informal training for people who wanted to apply on classifications of projects or to submit requests. Director of Planning and Community Development Steven Emslie said training sessions were held at the beginning of each budget cycle. 05/13/02 94-105 Council Member Freeman clarified the training sessions were widely advertised. Mr. Emslie said that was correct. Council Member Freeman was concerned that Lytton Gardens was the one Housing and Urban Development (HUD) senior facility in Palo Alto that was on the contingency list and would receive no CDBG money during the current year because St. Vincent de Paul found a location. Staff was urged to make an extra effort to notify the senior centers of the probability and process. The staff report (CMR:253:02) mentioned making the CDBG funding allocation a two-year process, but her concern was with newcomers who had to wait two years. The deadline for submission was Wednesday, May 15, 2002, which limited the amount of time the Council was able to make comments or decisions. Staff was asked to provide additional time in the future for Council discussion. Council Member Kishimoto thanked the PAHC for its many years of service. Mayor Ojakian thanked Congresswoman Anna Eshoo for fighting for Palo Alto to maintain its funds. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Morton “not participating.” CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Ojakian announced that Item No. 3 would be removed at the request of staff. Council Member Freeman requested that Item No. 6 be removed and placed on the May 20, 2002, regular City Council agenda. Council Member Kishimoto requested that Item No. 10 be removed to become Item No. 13B. Council Member Lytle requested that Item No. 9 be removed to become 13A. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Morton, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8. LEGISLATIVE 3. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget to Accept Revenue from the State Traffic Congestion Relief Fund in the Amount of $90,889 to Increase the City’s Allocation from the 1996 Measure B PMP 05/13/02 94-106 Cooperative Agreement with the VTA by $121,605, and to Provide an Additional Appropriation for CIP Project 9630, Street Maintenance, in the Amount of $212,494 Amendment No. 2 to the 1996 Measure B Pavement Management Program (PMP) Cooperative Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA) Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and DeSilva Gates Construction in the Amount of $2,536,081 for the 2002 Street Maintenance Capital Improvement Program Project 9630 4. Approval of a Park Improvement Ordinance for Hoover Park Restrooms Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan For Capital Improvements to Hoover Park” Ordinance 4748 entitled ”Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2001-02 to Provide an Additional Appropriation in the Amount of $75,000 to Accept a Donation from Peery & Arrillaga Foundation into Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project 10010, Park Facilities Improvements” 5. Revised Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement for a Grant from the Coastal Commission San Francisco Bay Trail Project for Improvements to Trail Segments Along the Faber-Laumeister Tract in the Baylands Resolution 8164 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution No. 8036 to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement for a Grant from the Coastal Commission San Francisco Bay Trail Project for Improvements to Trail Segments Along the Faber-Laumeister Tract in the Baylands” 6. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for a Grant and Execute an Agreement with the State of California for a Roberti-Z’berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Grant for Improvements to Parking Lots at the Baylands Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City to Apply for Grant Funds for the Roberti-Z’berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 for 05/13/02 94-107 Improvements to the Parking Lots at the Baylands Nature Preserve ADMINISTRATIVE 7. Appointment of Candidates to the Historic Resources Board 8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Allied Information and Service for 7.5 Percent of Net Collected Revenue for All Advanced Life Support (ALS) and Basic Life Support (BLS) Ambulance Transport Revenue Collection Services 9. Joint Public Hearing on Edgewood Project Redevelopment Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report by Redevelopment Agency and City Council for June 17, 2002 10. Annual Public Review of Compliance of Development Agreement with Stanford University for the Sand Hill Corridor Projects MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application by Carrasco Associates on behalf of Mehmood Taqui for rezoning of a 4,938 square-foot parcel from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to PC (Planned Community) and construction of a 4,555 square-foot, three-story building to contain two residential units (2,511 square feet) including a below market rate unit, ground floor retail space (511 square feet) and second floor office (1,191 square feet) for property located at 2051 El Camino Real Current Planning Manager John Lusardi said the item was the PC rezoning for 2051 El Camino Real. The Council reviewed the project in February 2002. The scope of the project had not changed from the last review when the Council determined that the project had made substantial progress from the original Site and Design project. The Council referred the item back to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) for design review. The ARB and P&TC recommended approval of the mixed-use project of approximately 4,555 square feet for retail, office, and residential. The Council’s original review of the project was as a Site and Design in the CN District for a mixed-used project of approximately 4,325 square feet. Staff felt the Council’s concerns regarding the original Site and Design were addressed in both the project’s scope and design review by the ARB. The 05/13/02 94-108 Site and Design project proposed retail of approximately 300 square feet, and the PC zoning increased that to approximately 511 square feet. The Site and Design proposed office of 1,665, and the PC zoning reduced that to 1,191 square feet. The Site and Design proposed residential square footage of approximately 2,087 square feet for one residential unit, and the PC zoning proposed 2,511 square feet for two residential units including a Below Market Rate (BMR) unit. The parking under the Site and Design was eight parking spaces with two bicycle spaces, and the PC zoning proposed seven parking spaces with four bicycle spaces and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. The front setback for the original Site and Design was zero, and the PC zoning proposed a 3.7-square-foot front yard setback to allow for a future twelve-foot sidewalk on El Camino Real in front of the project. The rear setback for the Site and Design was approximately 20 square feet, and the average setback for the PC zoning was increased to approximately 25 square feet. The site coverage under the Site and Design was 55.5 percent, and the PC rezoning reduced the site coverage to 54 percent. Although the building increased in square footage for residential and retail, the overall site coverage was reduced from 55.5 percent to 54 percent, and the rear and front setbacks were increased with an added residential unit. Oak tree protection and maintenance was included in the project. Staff worked with the applicant to illustrate what a conventional development for a commercial building, not a mixed-use project, conceptually looked like on the site in a Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District. Staff, the ARB, and P&TC recommended Council approval of the project. Architectural Review Board (ARB) Member Judith Wasserman said improvement was seen in the architectural design, which was a by-product of looking at the project a second time. Planning and Transportation Commission Vice Chair Bonnie Packer said reviewing the project was a protracted but interesting experience. The P&TC initially reviewed the project with requests for variances under the CN zone and recommended the project go back to the drawing board. When the project came back as a PC, the P&TC recommended denial to the Council, and the Council returned the project to the drawing board. The P&TC recommended approval of the project after its third review. The project was on a transit corridor, on a small, narrow site with trees that needed to be preserved, and a difficult parking situation to work with. The P&TC felt the applicant did an excellent job dealing with the difficult site and responding to the request for retail and an additional BMR. The minority position of the P&TC was concerned with the size of the project. Mayor Ojakian noted the agenda item was a quasi-judicial matter. 05/13/02 94-109 Council Member Lytle noted she had a phone conversation with John Baca and received correspondence. Council Members Morton, Burch, Mossar stated they only read the emails received. Council Member Kleinberg noted she received a phone call from John Baca and read emails. Council Member Kishimoto noted she received phone calls from John Baca and read the emails. Council Member Freeman noted she only read the emails. City Attorney Ariel Calonne stated that PC’s were legislative and not strictly required. Mayor Ojakian asked whether Council Members had questions that needed to be answered prior to the public speaking. Mr. Calonne said hearing Council questions prior to hearing from the public was a good practice, particularly if there was new information. Council Member Lytle understood the City Attorney’s memo of September 24, 2001, which referenced staff having a way to follow up on the potential for conversion from residential to office, was reflected in the current conditions of approval. Director of Planning and Community Environment Mr. Emslie said the conditions were in the PC ordinance. Council Member Morton asked what the Council had the ability to do with the project. His understanding was that PC and mixed used allowed for overbuilding. The question was raised whether the Council could limit the total square feet. Mr. Emslie said the PC was a discretionary act on the part of the Council, and the Council had the ability to modify the project any way it felt was justified. Council Member Morton asked whether leaving the project as main floor retail was problematic. The idea was to reduce the total size and remove other restrictions. Mr. Emslie suggested asking the applicant to address the question. 05/13/02 94-110 Council Member Kleinberg read with interest the memorandum from Joy Ogawa regarding California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) concerns. She questioned how staff decided the project was exempt from the CEQA requirements. Mr. Emslie said one of the first actions staff engaged in when reviewing a project was an analysis on whether or not a project met one of the State categorical exemptions under CEQA. That was the critical decision point in deciding to move further on to the next step, which was an initial study. The initial study led to the decision on whether a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was necessary. The project, due to its size, was a Class III exemption under CEQA. The State specified a project had to be within an urbanized area and had all the public facilities and services attached to it, which the proposed site had. The surrounding areas were reviewed, and there were no special study zones or areas of environmental concerns that surrounded the project in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). There was no local reason for requiring further analysis beyond the categorical exemption. The question raised in Ms. Ogawa’s correspondence referred to the parking and whether not meeting code constituted a significant impact. The project was reviewed by the Transportation Division staff who did not feel there was a deficit in parking. Staff concluded there was not a significant impact that warranted the preparation of an initial study and the subsequent preparation of a mitigated negative declaration or EIR. Mr. Calonne said Ms. Ogawa’s memo misstated the regulation in saying that the project had to be either housing, commercial, or office. The regulation did not state that. When dealing with an urbanized area, the relevant size limit was 10,000 square feet, not 2,500 square feet. The parking was the type of issue that staff, if they agreed was significant, would take the project out of the categorical exemption. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether a determination was made that the Below Market Rate unit could not be reduced in size in order to free up one of the parking spaces. Mr. Emslie said there was a conclusion that the parking worked. His understanding was there was a move to make the units larger because the three-bedroom units were more desirable and more suitable to family housing. Council Member Kishimoto said the building did not take advantage of the oak trees. The driveway entrance might be better if it were positioned toward the residence side. 05/13/02 94-111 Managing Arborist Dave Dockter said highlighting the oak trees was a design consideration. The proposal adequately accommodated the leaf area. The health of the tree was a main concern. Council Member Kishimoto asked whether it was possible from the tree root’s point of view to have the driveway access on the right side of the lot. Mr. Dockter said the driveway going over the tree roots on the south side had to be carefully looked at. The proposal was satisfactory. Council Member Kishimoto suggested adding a condition that excluded trucks over three tons. Mr. Dockter said the turf block capacity had to be looked at. Mr. Emslie said the plan was conceptual, and changes could be considered. Staff might explore with the applicant whether they analyzed different locations for the driveway. Council Member Kishimoto clarified that the Transportation Division staff evaluated the parking, but it was the Council’s ultimate decision. Mr. Emslie said staff provided recommendations, and the Council made the final decision. Council Member Freeman referred to comments in an email which indicated the existing apartments abutted the parking area, and she asked whether there was anything that delineated between the parking area and the apartments, such as a fence or potted vegetation beneath the oak trees. Mr. Lusardi said a landscape strip was proposed along the row of oaks between the adjoining residential units and project. Council Member Freeman asked whether the landscape strip meant low grass or high bushes. Mr. Lusardi said the planting for the landscape strip depended on what type of landscape could be used to prevent over watering the oaks. Council Member Freeman suggested adding privacy between a parking lot and current residences rather than flat, low grass. Mr. Lusardi said a fence would have landscaping and vines that grew up the fence to create a buffer. 05/13/02 94-112 Council Member Lytle asked for the staff’s rationale on the threshold of significance that had to do with heritage trees; for instance, how significant impacts were evaluated if a categorical exemption was chosen. One of the thresholds given the Council was that heritage trees on the property triggered those criteria. Mr. Emslie said staff would consult with the City Arborist who would evaluate the need for additional information such as a tree survey or arborist report on the condition of the tree. He said Mr. Dockter effected the changes to the project that minimized, if not eliminated, his concerns regarding the impact to the tree. Mayor Ojakian declared the Public Hearing open at 8:30 p.m. Mehmood Taqui, Applicant, said he revised the elevation and color scheme, which was the direct result of the discussions and agreements with the ARB and Planning staff, resulting in a softer façade on El Camino Real. The stairs were opened up with railing with perforated metal. The risers were removed to increase the view of the oaks. The roof of the stairs was glass, and the only solid area was over the landing, which was required by the Building and Fire codes. From the south side of the project, the third story was not visible because the oak trees were higher than the proposed building. The only side of the building that was visible was from the north, which touched the commercial section of El Camino Real. With the assistance of the Planning staff, ARB, P&TC, and direction of the Council, the proposed project was effective, functional, and met the needs of the El Camino guidelines for housing, retail, small office, and two residential units, of which one was BMR. Council Member Lytle clarified office and retail were the same lease rates. Mr. Taqui said that was correct at the current time. G. Steve Brown, 2460 Park Boulevard, #6, was against the project in the beginning, but looked at the lot on El Camino Real, the plans, and the model, and believed Mr. Taqui was doing the City a favor by developing the project. Nikola Vucenovic, 1127 Fulton Street, agreed with the project and hoped the Council approved it. John Baca, 484 Oxford Avenue, distributed a petition signed by 138 neighbors who opposed the project. The project needed to be 05/13/02 94-113 slimmed down. The Council was urged to find a way to downsize the project to make it more reasonable. Peter C. Forse, 2075 El Camino Real, supported the project. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said the CN zone was designed intentionally to allow people to successfully develop small projects on small lots that were compatible with the neighbors and neighboring residential community. The proposed project might open the door for developments further down El Camino Real, particularly in Barron Park. The CN zone allowed a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .5, which was more than enough to build a successful project. The P&TC should consider outlawing PCs. A precedent should not be set for allowing a development that was too big and had inadequate parking. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, was dismayed by the Council’s decision in February 2002 to allow the project to go forward, contrary to a 4-2 vote by the P&TC to deny the application. The application was for a rezone to PC and a rezone from CN zoning. Under existing zoning, seven variances and two or three design enhancement exceptions were necessary because the project did not comply with current site development regulations. Variances were for lot coverage, front setback, two side setbacks, two daylight planes, and a parking deficit of 36 percent. Because the application was PC, the nonconformities were hidden in the blanket of a PC zone. The Comp Plan indicated the property was zoned for neighborhood serving retail, and the Comp Plan made no mention of office as a suitable use in a CN district. Each version of the project proposed office use as a predominant portion of the commercial use of the building, and each version proposed insufficient parking. The applicant admitted at the February 2002 Council meeting that the project was financially feasible without an office component. The shared parking concept would not solve the parking deficit. Mr. Taqui said CN zoning allowed .4 FAR office and .5 FAR residential. The total allowable in the CN zoning was actually .9 FAR. The present CN zoning allowed a height limit of 35 feet. The existing Zoning Ordinance was not clear. If it were clearer, more than one unit of 5,000 would not be allowed. The CN zoning allowed office and did not insist on retail. Mayor Ojakian declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:47 p.m. Council Member Morton understood comments made by the speakers, the ARB and P&TC that the proposed project was a learning experience. The majority of the neighbors in the area felt the 05/13/02 94-114 project was too big. The retail should be removed in order to reduce the deficit in the parking. MOTION: Council Member Morton moved for approval of the PC Zoning with 3,900 square feet maximum build-out, remove the ground floor retail designation, and request that the oaks be more visible from El Camino Real. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Vice Mayor Mossar clarified the trees would lose vegetation that was possible with a single-story building but would be removed with a multiple-story building. Mr. Dockter said there was an impact to the oak trees if the neighboring property were allowed to build with no setback. Vice Mayor Mossar clarified that anything done to the property to the south had to be designed and approved with consideration of the oak trees. Mr. Dockter said that was correct. Vice Mayor Mossar asked why the project kept getting bigger when the Council said the project felt big. Mr. Emslie said meeting the public benefit drove the size of the lot. The need for a larger BMR unit was a strong desire in order to meet the finding of public benefit. Vice Mayor Mossar clarified the Council directed the BMR and increased retail. Mr. Emslie said that was correct. Mr. Lusardi said the Council reviewed the proposed project at their meeting in February 2002. The change was the design element. The size and scope of the project did not change. The project changed from the original Site and Design. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve the staff, Architectural Review Board, and Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation that the Council introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to change the classification of property known as 2051 El Camino Real from CN Neighborhood Commercial to PC Planned Community (Oak Shadows LLC, Applicant). The ordinance incorporates the necessary findings for approval of a PC district. 05/13/02 94-115 Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 2051 El Camino Real From CN Neighborhood Commercial to PC Planned Community (Oak Shadows LLC, Applicant)” Council Member Burch said the project was reviewed by the ARB and P&TC and was recommended to the Council for approval. The Council should not further micro-manage the project. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto, seconded by Morton, to approve a PC zone with no larger than 3,900 square feet, reduce the office space size by 500 square feet, and to make the oak trees more visibly accessible from El Camino Real. Council Member Morton agreed with Bob Moss that the project was a precedent decision for El Camino Real. Council Member Lytle said her disappointment with the project was the manner in which the oak trees seemed to be crowded by the building design. The retail aspect was supported. The blanket motion to reduce the project and how that affected the architecture of the building was a concern. Mr. Calonne said the project had to be redesigned and brought back prior to acting on it. The project should be sent to P&TC for re-design and brought back to Council. Approving a project that would not be built did not make much sense. Council Member Beecham opposed the substitute motion. The Council had driven the project to where it was. One P&TC Commissioner found that the building met all the requirements and felt the project should be approved. Another Commissioner agreed and felt the site was appropriate for the project. The project worked well in the commercial, transit district. Vice Mayor Mossar agreed with Council Member Beecham that the Council had driven the project. Changing course again and asking the applicant to do something different was unprofessional action by the Council. Picking an arbitrary number for reduction of the size of the building was difficult. She did not support the substitute motion. Council Member Freeman was torn between what 138 neighbors wanted and her own experience living in a dense area. The applicant followed the process and steps that were asked of him. She would not support the substitute motion. 05/13/02 94-116 Council Member Kleinberg felt the Council was trying piecemeal to build a neighborhood community on El Camino Real. The mixed- use projects challenged the Council. Additional offices were not needed in the City, but reducing the space arbitrarily was not supported. Mayor Ojakian opposed the substitute motion. From a policy perspective, the Council had to look at El Camino Real, realizing there would be mixed-use development. The addition of three trees along El Camino Real improved the foliage and was an important aspect of the project. Council Member Morton said a CN zone at .5 coverage allowed a building of 2,500 square feet, and the project was 2,200 square feet over that amount. He agreed with the neighbors that the project was too big. He supported the substitute motion. Council Member Kishimoto disputed Council Member Beecham’s comment that the project was driven by the Council. The Council asked for ground floor retail, more housing, and less office, but more office was proposed than the Council wanted to see. The neighbors wanted the massing and parking deficits reduced. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 2-7, Kishimoto, Morton “yes.” Council Member Kishimoto proposed designating the parking spaces in front of the proposed building and the laundromat for limited time to ensure that the parking was not used by offices and residences for long-term use. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said El Camino Real was a State highway. Staff could be directed to work with the State of California to have increased short-term parking in the area. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH CONSENT OF MAKER AND SECONDER for City staff to work with Caltrans to establish time-limited parking on the street in the vicinity of 2051 El Camino Real. Council Member Kishimoto said there was no mechanism to require the applicant to provide for alternative transportation impact except for parking. The applicant might be required to pay an in-lieu parking fee on the order of what was required for Downtown. The fund would enhance alternative transportation for people who worked and lived at the project such as for the shuttle or transit shelter. An alternative was to include a placeholder for the citywide transportation impact fee that the Council was committed to studying. The placeholder would bind the applicant to pay the proposed transportation impact fee when 05/13/02 94-117 it was passed. The City Attorney could be directed to prepare the necessary paperwork to make the agreement recordable. A time limit of 24 or 36 months was suggested. Mayor Ojakian asked whether there would be an in-lieu fee. Ms. Furth said the record from staff was that the parking was adequate. If there were a citywide fee that covered the area, staff would modify the TDM section of the proposed ordinance to include a clause (b) that provided that the project was subject to the fee if the fee were imposed within 24 months on a uniform basis as if the permits were pulled. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to modify the Special Conditions section of the Planned Community Ordinance for this project after the Transportation Demand Management section to include a placeholder provision binding the applicant, or its successors in interest, to pay any local or citywide transportation impact fee adopted by the City within 36 months after the effective date of this ordinance. The property owner shall enter into a binding, recordable agreement with the City to this effect, in the form satisfactory to the City Attorney and post a letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City Attorney to assure payment of the applicable fee. Council Member Lytle said similar construction was seen on El Camino Real, and it was envisioned in the Comp Plan that there would be a building wall on both sides of the street, and the proportions of the street would benefit from having housing above the commercial use. The architect creatively masked the ground level parking with the retail space. One fault was the big wall on the upper floor that was visible from El Camino Real. Council Member Kleinberg said the Comp Plan indicated mixed-use projects. The project, with more office space, was too large for the proposed location. Council Member Burch said Tony Carrasco did an excellent job working with the trees and the parameters of the site. Council Member Freeman was concerned about graffiti and suggested that anti-graffiti material be used on the portion of the wall that was exposed. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to have the Special Conditions section of the Planned Community Ordinance for this project include a provision that the portion 05/13/02 94-118 of the building’s northwest wall visible from the street shall have a graffiti-resistant surface. Council Member Morton said it was unfair to the community to think parking problems were solved by asking developers to give the City money. Council Member Kishimoto suggested the placeholder bind the applicant to pay the proposed impact fee, when passed, and direct the City Attorney to prepare a recordable agreement. The agreement would include the applicant posting a letter of credit to assure performance for payment, which would continue until the fee was in place, or for 36 months. Mr. Calonne said a letter of credit or other acceptable security was an option. MAIN MOTION PASSED 6-3, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Morton “no.” RECESS: 9:35 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 12. Approval of Employment Agreement with the Director of Administrative Services Mayor Ojakian noted that the Council would hear Item Nos. 12 and 12A at the same time. City Manager Frank Benest recommended the Employment Agreement with the Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats. The Employment Agreement was the most appropriate way to structure the housing assistance proposed. As part of the Employment Agreement, the Administrative Services Director traded his merit rule status for an “at will” status with six months severance should he be terminated in the future. Council Member Beecham said in a prior discussion with the City Attorney, the Council heard about current benefits that were available to an employee at the Director level. One benefit was the loan program, which he asked for clarification on. City Attorney Calonne referred to the Management Compensation Plan that was approved for July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2002. The Plan permitted direct City loans to new Council Appointed Officers (CAOs), Assistant City Manager, or department heads as part of a relocation assistance package. There were two loan options. One was an adjustable rate mortgage at the City’s portfolio rate plus a quarter percent, fully amortized or 05/13/02 94-119 interest only. The term of the loan was set by the Council for a period not to exceed 15 years, due and payable within six months of termination. The other option was a shared appreciation or equity-sharing loan. The loan needed to be within a 20-mile radius of Civic Center, excluding property west of Skyline Boulevard. The loans were not to exceed four times the annual salary of the employee. The issue with the policy was that it had to be made as part of an employment offer and had to happen within one year of the initial date of employment. MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Burch, to approve the Employment Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Carl Yeats, Director of Administrative Services: Resolution 8165 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 8096, and Amended by Resolution No. 8117, to Amend the Compensation of the Director of Administrative Services” Council Member Freeman said she was aware how difficult it was to retain excellent employees and how employment packages were designed to do that. The staff report (CMR:238:02) did not give her enough information on the difference or benefits of “at will” employees including severance versus the current system. Further detail was needed before voting on the item. Loans should be limited to Palo Alto, especially in the case of an inadvertent default where the City owned the home. There were provisions for the loan in the first year of employment which was not opted for in the particular case. The agreement indicated four times the salary, which she read as approximately $600,000 rather than $800,000. The option for rent subsidy was questioned. The documentation said “this may come back to us to cover additional directors as a change in policy.” There were approximately 13 positions that could fall under the new rule. The issue of where the money came from was questioned. Mr. Benest said the money came from reserves. Council Member Freeman was concerned about the long-term and about isolating one particular individual for the extra services without considering the rest of the staff. Mr. Benest said the most appropriate way to structure the housing assistance was through the Employment Agreement. The industry standard was “at will” employee for executives. The Council would be asked to consider the “at will” employment status recommendation for future hires. The City Attorney 05/13/02 94-120 advised the best way to provide housing assistance was through the Employment Agreement. The trade-off was increased amounts of housing assistance for Palo Alto versus non-Palo Alto. Reserves were invested in certain types of instruments and put into long-term investments. Housing assistance was not necessary for the last three hires. Most executives preferred not having a City loan unless they were forced to. In the particular case, it was a matter of retention of a key executive who handled the administration of the City. Mr. Calonne said part of the policy called for creation of a customized relocation package for department heads, which allowed the Council and City Manager, with the assistance of an expert, to put together a custom package, which went to the Council for approval. That might take into account spousal income so the four times employee salary policy would not be a barrier. Non-standard loan terms might be included, such as longer than a 15-year repayment period or other factors as noted in the Employment Agreement. The merit system was designed to protect against undue political interference with hiring and firing. The Charter did that in that the Council was forbidden by law from directing the City Manager whom to hire or fire. The merit rule provision said cause was necessary to terminate an employee, which was unusual at the executive level. The department heads and staff had a vested right to challenge “for cause” termination. In order to induce the employees to accept “at will” employment, something such as a severance package had to be offered. The “at will” and severance portions were distinct issues from the housing loan. Mr. Benest said the issue before the Council was housing assistance. The best way to structure that was through the Employment Agreement. A policy proposal would be brought back to the Council for future hires. Council Member Freeman said action taken by the Council would be precedent setting for what might be done in the future. More information was needed to weigh the differences between “at will” with a severance. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Freeman, seconded by Lytle, that the Council send both items to the Policy and Services Committee to review the options to evaluate from the taxpayers’ perspective. Council Member Freeman said there was no guarantee that the City would get the next several hires that already lived in Palo Alto. The City might be subjected to larger amounts of non-liquid investments by offering the proposed option. 05/13/02 94-121 Council Member Lytle was glad the issue of the “at will” Employment Agreement offer and severance package to all senior management came out as a distinct issue. She agreed with Council Member Freeman that the Council had not been given sufficient time to debate the policy. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, agreed to a referral of the item to the P&S Committee. Hearing there were discussions with the CAO Committee surprised him, which was not appropriate for discussing non-CAO employees. The portion of the compensation plan that dealt with reimbursement for relocation expenses was five pages in length and should have been included in the Council packet. Mr. Yeats had the option, when negotiating his contract, to bargain to get the benefit for relocation. Vice Mayor Mossar said as a member of the Personnel Committee of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), she understood the value of “at will” contracts for executive positions. The Council expected the City Manager to run the City in a manner that comported with public and Council expectations. The City Manager needed all the tools necessary for the City to run more efficiently, and meet more public and Council expectations. The City Manager made a reasonable proposal that was within the boundaries of industry standards. Council Member Morton disagreed with Council Member Freeman’s suggestion that things were done differently in the private world. Using the analogy of the private sector, Mr. Benest would be looked at as a Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and Mr. Yeats as Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Under Mr. Yeats’ direction, the City received accolades for the competence in which he managed the budget and financial process. Stanford University long recognized that competence could not be accomplished without housing assistance. Housing assistance needed to be made available when the transferee was ready to buy a house. He urged the Council to vote for the City Manager’s proposal. Council Member Burch opposed the substitute motion because it appeared that the Council was micromanaging. The idea of having employees available “at will” was the way to go. Mr. Benest stated that the future proposal was for new hires; current employees would be able to voluntarily opt in or stay within the current system. Council Member Burch clarified the Council had the responsibility of approving every loan. 05/13/02 94-122 Mr. Benest said that was correct. The City had a menu approach for housing assistance, depending on the needs. The present program envisioned customizing what was needed to recruit qualified executive talent. If housing assistance were deemed to be necessary, he would agree to it and recommend it to the Council for approval. Council Member Beecham opposed the substitute motion. Council Member Kishimoto said the process was wrong. The right way was to have done a total compensation program months ago. Mr. Benest said he was under a similar situation when he was hired. There was a need to review the existing policy. Mayor Ojakian opposed the substitute motion. Council Member Lytle withdrew her second to the substitute motion. She agreed with Council Member Burch that it was the Council’s job to set policy. Some of the Council Members had not received enough information to be able to make the policy decisions. The CAO Committee referred the issue to the P&S Committee. A copy of the current policy on Relocation and Housing Assistance was requested, but she did not receive a copy until the beginning of the meeting. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Freeman said the issue was of appropriateness and presentation of information. Some Council Members did not have the same information as others to make a decision. The Council did not run the day-to-day operations of the City, but the Council was responsible for the fiscal well being of the City. The Council had to look at how the taxpayers’ money was spent. The Council needed to be aware of the worst-case scenario, which would be that the Council removed millions of dollars from funding which was not liquid. Council Member Morton mentioned a 25-mile radius, but the agreement stated 20 miles. Mr. Calonne said the policy stated 20 miles, and the contract stated 25 miles. The contract draft was done 18 months prior. The issue was driven by an escrow. Mayor Ojakian said there was a provision in the Management Compensation Plan for providing funds to people living within a certain radius of Palo Alto. Mr. Calonne said the radius was 20 miles. The Plan said the terms could be customized. 05/13/02 94-123 Council Member Freeman said the City was fortunate to have three recent critical hires that lived in Palo Alto. That could not be counted on in the future. Mr. Benest took care of his issues at his point of hire, which made the situation different than that of Mr. Yeats. The Council needed to understand it had to look at the financial impact. Mayor Ojakian said a year prior when the Council got into issues of loaning money to department heads, his issue was with equity sharing. Many employees wanted to see how they settled into a job prior to purchasing a home. The City was not losing money but was lending it out at the same rate it got money back. Council Member Beecham referred to Section 5.3 of the Employment Agreement and suggested adding “or 90 percent of appraised value or purchase value whichever is lowest.” Council Member Morton clarified the wording was to set future policy. Council Member Beecham said that was correct. Council Member Morton asked whether the current transaction was impacted. Mr. Calonne said the purchase price of the home was $921,000, which made 90 percent on the value ratio. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to amend Section 5.3 of the Employment Agreement (CMR:238:02), third line after “$800,000,” by adding the wording “or 90 percent of the appraised value or purchase value whichever was lowest.” Council Member Beecham referred to Section 5.3.1 of the Employment Agreement which talked about the interest rate and gave an option of the lower of 5.5 percent or the sum of the City’s portfolio rate. He suggested deleting the 5.5 percent. Council Member Morton did not accept that suggestion. AMENDMENT: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to amend Section 5.3.1 of the Employment Agreement, second line, by deleting the wording “lower of 5.5 percent or.” Council Member Morton said the action was to the City’s disadvantage because if interest rates stayed where they currently were, the average return on the portfolio would drop in the next two years. 05/13/02 94-124 Mayor Ojakian supported the amendment. Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether there was a staff reaction to the amendment. Mr. Calonne said the rate was the lower of 5.5 percent or portfolio plus one quarter. Mr. Benest said the proposed Employment Agreement was modeled after his housing assistance program. Vice Mayor Mossar clarified the Employment Agreement was the same as what was approved for the City Manager. Mr. Benest said that was correct. Vice Mayor Mossar did not support the amendment. AMENDMENT PASSED 5-4, Burch, Kleinberg, Morton, Mossar “no.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to amend Section 5.8 of the Employment Agreement, second line after “upon sale of the house,” by adding the wording “if the house ceases to be the Director of Administrative Services place of residence.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 7-2, Freeman, Lytle “no.” 12A. Approval of Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $800,000 for a Residential Real Estate Loan to the Director of Administrative Services MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Burch, to approve the staff recommendation adopting the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $800,000 to fund the acquisition of a residential property located at 1331 Glen Eyrie Avenue, San Jose, California, in accordance with the Housing Assistance Provision of the Administrative Services Director’s Employment Agreement. Ordinance 4749 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2001-02 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $800,000 for a Residential Real Estate Loan to the Director of Administrative Services” MOTION PASSED 7-2, Freeman, Lytle “no.” 05/13/02 94-125 13. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to File an Application for 2002/2003 Transportation Development Act Funds for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects including a Commitment to Make Up any Funding Deficit on the Homer Avenue Undercrossing Project MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Morton, to adopt a resolution approving the submittal of a grant application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for $200,000 in new Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for the Homer Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing Project and to reauthorize existing TDA grants for the Arastradero Road Bike Lanes Project ($80,324) and Willow/Waverley Bike Bridge Renovation Project ($30,000). Resolution 8166 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Request the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2002/2003 Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding” SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Freeman moved that staff return to the Council with the total amount of outside funding obtained between now and September 2002 before the project went forward. Ms. Harrison said the funding the City secured to date was detailed in the staff report (CMR:229:01). Staff continued to pursue additional funding vigorously and should have news within the following few weeks. Staff needed the authorization to submit the application at the current time. Mr. Benest said there was a risk issue involved. The Council considered the risk, which was that even though staff vigorously pursued other grant funding, a part of the funding was from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). If there were a gap, the City lost future funding. Council Member Beecham asked what the date was for submittal to MTC. Mr. Emslie said the deadline for funding was May 16, 2002. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND Council Member Lytle asked whether the City had contacted the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) or Stanford University who were users or the alternative route. 05/13/02 94-126 Mr. Benest said there was a limited amount of money from PAMF, but staff would follow up with both PAMF and Stanford. Council Member Kishimoto encouraged staff to vigorously negotiate a decrease in construction costs. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Beecham, Freeman “no.” Mayor Ojakian noted that the Redevelopment Agency would convene at the same time with Council and Item No. 13A to be heard together by both. THE CITY COUNCIL CONVENED AS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT 11:05 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian 13A. (Old Item No. 9) Joint Public Hearing on Edgewood Project Redevelopment Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report by Redevelopment Agency and City Council for June 17, 2002 Council Member/Agency Member Morton would not participate in the item due to the opinion of the City Attorney that there was a conflict of interest because of potential interest in Albertson’s stores. Mr. Benest said the question that arose was whether there was adequate time for scheduling. The report from the consultants and staff would be available to the public, P&TC, and Council on May 30, 2002. A meeting was scheduled to review the recommended final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and amendments to the Redevelopment Plan for June 5, 2002, as a prelude to the joint public hearing with the Council and Agency on June 17, 2002. Current law required ten days to circulate the final EIR. A second meeting on June 24, 2002, was scheduled for Council deliberation on the public hearing. MOTION: Vice Mayor/Agency Member Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to schedule the public hearing after the Council vacation ended in September. Vice Mayor Mossar said the public was interested in having additional time to review and comment. The Council agendas for the following two months included a two-year budget to adopt, library schemes and site planning, and development projects. 05/13/02 94-127 Further opportunity was necessary to consider the Redevelopment Plan and EIR. Council Member Burch agreed with Vice Mayor Mossar. Council Member Lytle said she spoke to members of the public who were concerned about the same issue that was raised by Vice Mayor Mossar. Comments on the draft were substantial, and the Council expected more information in the document. Moving the item past the Council vacation was acceptable. Mr. Benest said the Council wanted to establish a base year for the project in order to generate as much tax increment as possible. Staff, the ARB, and the P&TC committed to move the project forward. An additional two weeks could be given for the item to go to the P&TC, which would then give three weeks review prior to going to the Council. Council Member Lytle said the public was the partner that was left behind. The exaggerated project scope, adding approximately 50 units at 50 feet high, frightened people. The Council needed to allow people time to rebuild trust. Angelica Volterra appreciated and supported Vice Mayor Mossar’s request that the item be delayed until September. The project was not “ready to go.” The proposed Edgewood Redevelopment Project had significant, unacceptable, irreversible environmental impacts, which were inadequately analyzed and disclosed in the draft EIR (DEIR). The DEIR contained material deficiencies including but not limited to: 1) It is inconsistent with Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan in numerous ways; 2) Traffic impacts may be vastly understated because the DEIR’s traffic analysis uses artificially high speculative baseline traffic estimates to reach its conclusion that the project will add only 970 new, daily trips. The true traffic trips generated will probably vastly exceed this number; 3) the land use impacts of the proposed project are overwhelming. The DEIR asserts that the impacts of a building envelope that would include structures up to 50 feet above current grade at the residential edge would be less than significant when these structures would be located across the street from one-story high, 9-12 foot Eichlers. Staff’s current recommendation of a 30-foot height limit at the residential edge, which is the equivalent of a three-story high building across from the one-story Eichlers, would also result in overwhelming impacts by community standards. The project fails to meet the Comp Plan’s requirements for gradual transition and neighborhood compatibility and fails to disclose visual impacts of the project as a source of light and glare; 4) the DEIR fails to analyze the potential impacts of the project 05/13/02 94-128 on drainage and runoff patterns and the redirection of flows with respect to flooding in surrounding neighborhoods located within a 100-year flood zone, neighborhoods that have been drastically affected by two floods in the past 50 years; and 6) the DEIR fails to offer a sufficient range of project alternatives as mandated by CEQA. The DEIR’s deficiencies and inadequacies have such a range and magnitude that residents actually requested that the DEIR be amended and recirculated to allow more time for public review. The final EIR would be a lengthy and complex technical document. A significant proportion of neighborhood residents who would be significantly affected by the impacts of the project were unaware of the project and its impacts at the current time. There was growing neighborhood concern and considerable speculation regarding the haste with which the DEIR was created and the hurried timeline for the project. The project was a pilot for the City that had important, economic, social, and environmental impacts on the neighborhood and greater Palo Alto community. Jinny Henke, 774 Wildwood Lane, said the neighbors were concerned about the size of the project and wanted additional time to prepare for a discussion about it. Council Member Kleinberg was concerned that the neighbors had the maximum amount of information and time to consider the project in their neighborhood. Staff was asked about the outreach and what would be done to maximize the community’s knowledge and input. Mr. Benest said staff spoke on numerous occasions to the Council and had four or five neighborhood advisory committee meetings. A joint meeting was held with Crescent Park and Duvenek/St Francis. Neighbors were invited to that forum. As a prelude to the upcoming public hearings, staff was publishing a notice for four weeks in a row. Residents were encouraged to invite staff to informal settings in their homes or churches. Council Member Freeman complimented staff on keeping in touch with the neighbors and the outreach that was done. The issue was that staff went through the DEIR and moved to the Final EIR, and there needed to be time to understand the ramifications of all the comments and changes that were made to the Final EIR. The neighbors felt the scope was too broad for their comfort. Time was necessary for the residents to further understand. Mayor Ojakian clarified Council Member Freeman’s comments were in support of the motion. 05/13/02 94-129 Council Member Freeman asked for clarification of the approximate date of the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Benest said an ordinance had to be approved by July 2002. Mr. Calonne said the ordinance had to be effective by approximately July 20, 2002. Council Member Freeman said the premise of the Redevelopment Agency was that Edgewood was blighted and had lost money. She agreed with Council Member Mossar to wait until September. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Morton “not participating.” THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADJOURNED AT 11:20 P.M. 13B. (Old Item No. 10) Annual Public Review of Compliance of Development Agreement with Stanford University for the Sand Hill Corridor Projects Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not participate in the item due to a potential conflict of interest because her husband’s law firm represented Stanford in land use matters. Vice Mayor Mossar stated she would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because her husband was employed by Stanford University. Council Member Kishimoto noted the annual review, based on a report from Stanford Management Company, was dated August 31, 2001. Ken Schreiber, 432 Webster Street, said the annual report was dated August 31, 2001, because the original ordinance went into effect in August 1997. The report generally went to the Council in February or March, at the end of the construction season which allowed the staff report to inform the Council of what was completed during the construction season and what would occur in future years. Council Member Kishimoto preferred that the annual report be expedited to the Council without waiting for the construction projects to be done. The annual review required that Stanford University provide an annual report of compliance of the Development Agreement. She questioned whether the review was by Palo Alto staff of the conditions of the agreement. 05/13/02 94-130 Mr. Schreiber said as long as there were operable parts of the development agreements, mitigations, etc., there would be an annual report. Council Member Kishimoto said there was not much discussion in the report about the conditions and whether staff fully reviewed the conditions for compliance. Mr. Schreiber said the four projects totaled approximately 250 pages of mitigations and conditions. Between the City and Stanford, there was a vigorous process during the prior years of reviewing and incorporating the conditions and mitigations into the project. Council Member Kishimoto referred to the Stanford West Apartments and the indication that the apartment management had exhausted a list of Stanford households on the waiting list. She asked what the percentage was with respect to rentals of Stanford versus non-Stanford. Bill Phillips, Stanford Management Company, said the operation and management of Stanford West Apartments was in the hands of faculty staff housing. Stanford Management was charged with completing the development. Approximately 14 percent of the units were occupied by non-Stanford. Council Member Kishimoto asked whether there was something in the Development Agreement about keeping the price levels competitive with the market to encourage high Stanford occupancy. Mr. Phillips said the Development Agreement did not address the prices of the units. The policy of Stanford was to emphasize the priority system that was in the Development Agreement. The priority system suggested that the first level of priority was for Stanford employees and staff, then employees working on Stanford lands, employees of Menlo Park and Palo Alto, and the general public. Council Member Lytle received one complaint from a member of the public that Stanford did not comply in good faith with the agreements it made with the City regarding the golfing interest. The complaint was that Stanford’s trail option for the northern trail alternative, the Alpine Route, was through the golf course. The golfers said that violated the terms of the City’s agreement with Stanford that came out of the project. Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said research was done on Council Member Lytle’s question. The Trail Implementation Plan 05/13/02 94-131 was a requirement of the Stanford’s General Use Permit (GUP) with the County of Santa Clara. In the Development Agreement, Area B, the protected uses discussed were housing, recreational fields, support facilities, and academic fields. Area B did not specifically protect the golfing use. There were several options for trails in the Trail Implementation Plan. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors narrowed ten options down to five options and would further evaluate the five options in June 2002. A decision had not been made on where a trail might or might not go. Staff did not consider the issue to be a conflict with the Trail Implementation Plan and the Development Agreement. Stanford might want to further elaborate on its position. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth referred to a scale map and indicated that the trails appeared to go around the edge of the housing on existing trails and head towards Junipero Serra Boulevard. When the housing area was relocated to protect the first and second tees, there was much debate about exactly where the tees were located in relationship to everything else. The Development Agreement only concerned matters on Palo Alto’s side of Junipero Serra Boulevard, and the more serious encroachments were in Santa Clara County. The Council did not specifically say the golf course was to be protected. The Development Agreement permitted Stanford to include a range of recreational uses. Mr. Calonne said the only way he could define a conflict was if recreational fields, which are the allowed use of the open space area protected by the Development Agreement, were deemed not to permit trails. MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to: 1) find that Stanford University has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement; and 2) direct staff to issue a Certificate of Compliance to the University, according to the provision of Section 10(a) of the Agreement, stating that: a) the agreement remains in effect, and b) Stanford University is not in default. Further, that Council will take seriously that future consideration of certificates of compliance will reflect the placement of trails. Mayor Ojakian said he would vote against motion. The issue of trails should be separated from the Sand Hill Road agreements. 05/13/02 94-132 MOTION FAILED 3-4, Freeman, Kishimoto, Morton “yes.” MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Burch, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1) find that Stanford University has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement; and 2) direct staff to issue a Certificate of Compliance to the University, according to the provision of Section 10(a) of the Agreement, stating that: a) the agreement remains in effect, and b) Stanford University is not in default. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating.” COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Freeman updated the Council on the results received at a Police meeting she attended regarding racial profiling. Mayor Ojakian announced that “Historic Preservation Week” was May 12 – 18, 2002. CLOSED SESSION The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. to a Closed Session. 14. Conference with City Attorney — Existing Litigation Subject: Jaim Nulman and Avelyn Welczer v. City of Palo Alto, SCC #CV779831 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 14. Mayor Ojakian announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 14. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m. 05/13/02 94-133 ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 05/13/02 94-134