HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-03 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting June 3, 2002
1. Conference with City Attorney -- Potential/Anticipated
Litigation..................................................164
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m...................164
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................165
1. Selection of Candidates to Interview for the Utilities Advisory Commission.........................................165
2. Initial Review of Final Environmental Impact Report Regarding Conceptual Designs for the Main Library and the Art Center Expansion Projects...............................166
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................178
3. Resolution 8169 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Sue Case Upon Her Retirement”.............................................181
4. Ordinance 4752 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan For Capital Improvements to Hoover Park”................................181
5. Ordinance 4753 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)”...............................181
6. Ordinance 4754 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending Title 9 (Peace, Morals, and Safety), Chapter 9.10 (Noise), Section 9.10.60 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Defer the Prohibition on Combustion-Powered Leaf Blowers”.......................................181
7. 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
06/03/02 94-162
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...............181
8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and MDA Engineering, Inc. in the Amount of $77,500 for the Design and Construction Management of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Operations Building Heating, Ventilation, and
Air Conditioning Upgrade Project............................182
9. Approval of the Installation of New Midblock Crosswalk on Channing Avenue between Bryant Avenue and Waverley Street
and the Removal of Existing Midblock Crosswalk on Homer Avenue between Bryant Avenue and Waverley Street............182
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS...................182
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m...................183
06/03/02 94-163
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:32 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Lytle
CLOSED SESSION
1. Conference with City Attorney -- Potential/Anticipated Litigation
Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation on One Matter Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) & (b)(3)(A).
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters
involving potential/anticipated litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 1. Mayor Ojakian announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 1.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
06/03/02 94-164
Regular Meeting June 3, 2002
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:07 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg,
Lytle, Morton, Mossar, Ojakian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Christian Cook, 1234 Emerson, spoke regarding a moratorium on
execution. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma St. #126, spoke regarding El Camino Real master schematic design plan – community workshop #2.
John Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, spoke regarding the Media Center. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Selection of Candidates to Interview for the Utilities
Advisory Commission
Council Member Beecham said he had worked with the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) members for a number of years and was quite satisfied with the incumbents who had reapplied. He had
also spoken with the other applicants who were vying for the two expired terms and was pleasantly surprised at the quality of
their backgrounds. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, that
Council not interview the Utility Advisory Commission applicants.
Council Member Kleinberg said the two incumbents were outstanding members of the UAC. She was impressed by the quality of the applications received for the two expired terms, and believed it was the responsibility of the Council to make sure
that all of the boards and commissions were open to as many new members as possible. The list of additional applicants was short enough that it would seem unfair for them not to be given the
opportunity to come before the Council to be interviewed. She did not support the motion.
Council Member Burch said he favored the motion not to interview the new UAC applicants because the incumbents had been on the commission for such a short time. However, the interviews would give him and his colleagues a better understanding of each
06/03/02 94-165
candidate’s background and experience. He was in favor of going forward with the interviews.
Mayor Ojakian supported the motion. Both of the UAC incumbents were due to finish their first term on the commission and it would be disingenuous of him to support any of the other candidates.
Council Member Freeman said the process of interviewing candidates for vacant board/commission positions was in place
for a reason. Everyone who applied should have the opportunity to present himself or herself.
MOTION FAILED: 3-6, Beecham, Mossar, Ojakian “yes.”
MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Morton, to
interview all the applicants.
MOTION PASSED 7-2, Mossar, Ojakian “no.”
REPORT OF OFFICIALS
2. Initial Review of Final Environmental Impact Report Regarding Conceptual Designs for the Main Library and the
Art Center Expansion Projects Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison expressed thanks to the
site committees and the boards/commissions. All of them had put in many hours of work throughout the project, and worked with
staff to bring the plans to the point of conceptual design. Current Planning Manager John Lusardi presented a slideshow
overview of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as it addressed the expansion of the Main Library and Art Center in
preparation of Council’s action for June 24, 2002. The aerial map addressed both sites, as well as the Community Gardens, parking, open space, and the impacts on the areas around the project and in the neighboring communities. The existing Main Library and Art Center had two distinct parking lots for each
facility. The City proposed to expand the existing one-story Main Library facility from 26,800 square feet to approximately 66,000 square feet. Site options included expanding the existing
library building with a two-story addition or replacing the existing library with a new two-story building. The existing
one-story Art Center was proposed to remain and could be expanded from 28,900 square feet to approximately 55,000 square feet in three phases. The first phase would be a 10,000-square-foot gallery, followed by a 7,000-square-foot auditorium, and lastly an 11,000-square-foot adult art wing. The FEIR also
06/03/02 94-166
assessed new parking facilities expanded from 146 spaces to 311 parking spaces. The 311 parking spaces fulfilled the build-out
of both facilities. Furthermore, the FEIR identified the potential to reduce the parking through shared parking, which was consistent with the Zoning Ordinance for community facilities and the development of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The Site Development Plan also
involved the retention and replacement of significant trees, the creation of open-space areas for joint use by both facilities, and the retention of 90 percent of the Community Gardens. The
FEIR established three levels of conclusions. The first level of analysis addressed the impact on biology, traffic and parking
noises, aesthetic or visual impacts from the new construction, land use, public safety, and recreation. The FEIR concluded the projects would have a level of non-significance, either through mitigation included in the project or that no significant impact was identified in the project. The second level of analysis was
conducted through the initial study to establish what types of impacts needed to be addressed in the FEIR. The FEIR found no significant impacts on any established areas of environmental review through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, such as mineral resources, public services, utilities
and services, population and housing, and energy. The last level of analysis identified potential or significant impacts on the
environment. The FEIR concluded there were significant impacts on the environment with respect to cultural resources. Both the Main Library and the Art Center were eligible for the National
and California Registers of Historic Places. The Art Center project included expansion impacts that could be mitigated
through rehabilitation and additions that would be sensitive to the integrity of the building using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Main Library “Retention Scheme” could
reduce the impacts to a non-significant level with an addition or new structure and the application of the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards. The FEIR also concluded that the Main Library “Replacement Scheme” would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on the environment because of its cultural resource. In order to approve the “Replacement Scheme”, the Council would have to adopt a Statement of Overriding
Consideration (SOOC). Staff brought the EIR and the project to the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Historic Resources Board (HRB), the Library Advisory Commission (LAC), and the
Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC). The four boards/ commissions unanimously recommended to the Council support and
certification of the FEIR in conformance with CEQA, and concurred that the FEIR was adequate in addressing the Art Center expansion. During the public review of the FEIR, issues were raised and addressed. Staff recommended that the Council initiate discussions that evening on the FEIR. At the meeting of
06/03/02 94-167
June 24, 2002, Council would be asked to certify the FEIR and adopt an FEIR findings and Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP)
to select the Main Library and Art Center project for further development. Ms. Harrison said on June 10, 2002, staff would present to the Council the results of the Second Community Survey. At that
meeting, the Council must make a decision regarding Mitchell Park. The application for state bond financing was due in Sacramento by June 14, 2002. On June 24, 2002, Council would be
asked to certify the Main Library and Art Center FEIR, review the Main Library and Art Center Conceptual Design, and review
and discuss the Children’s Library Conceptual Design and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Council Meeting of July 8, 2002, would include a report from the Library Cost Advisory Committee, and the selection of projects to include on the November ballot.
Wayne Martin, 3687 Bryant Street, said he was troubled because there was no web-based documentation regarding the FEIR, such as board/commission recommendations available to the public.
Mayor Ojakian said all comments and correspondence relating to the EIR had been forwarded to the Council.
John Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, said he disagreed with Mayor Ojakian. He filed written comments (Attachment A) to CMR:272:02
and spoke to the Council on May 15, 2002. He then amended and expanded his comments in another letter on May 16, 2002, and
turned them into the Director of Planning and Community Environment. When the first Draft EIR comments came back, there was no reference to the amended portion of his letter. He
discussed the matter with Assistant Planning Manager John Lusardi, the LAC, the P&TC, and still the amended portion he had
submitted earlier was not addressed. Shelby Valentine, 3116 Stelling Drive, supported the “Replacement Scheme” for the Main Library. She said the library building might be a historical representative of an
architectural style, but as a historic structure it failed the test of contributory significance.
Karen White, 146 Walter Hays Drive, supported the “Replacement Scheme” for the Main Library because it could be designed for
programming flexibility and multiple uses for future needs. Martin Bernstein, Chair of the Historic Resources Board, P.O. Box 1739, advised the Council of two policies in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) that were not presently included
06/03/02 94-168
in the FEIR. The first was Policy L-51, the encouragement of public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that had
historic merit, and the second was Policy L-58, the promotion of adaptive reuse of old buildings. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, expressed concern on the de-emphasis of noise issues, such as the doubling of parking
stalls for the project, the doubling of square footage for the project, and the recommended demolition of the Main Library. He urged the Council to include a baseline noise study in the FEIR.
Tina Kass, Chair of the Library Advisory Commission, 1730 Cowper
Street, said included in the Council packet was a memorandum dated May 29, 2002, which was an addendum to the LAC’s motion in support of the adequacy of the Draft EIR and the “Replacement Scheme” for the Main Library. The overriding considerations in support of the “Replacement Scheme” included a footprint that
was 8,000 square feet smaller, the gross size and cost decreased by 300 square feet around the parameter and 4,000 fewer gross square feet. That amounted to a savings of at least $4 million because there would not be a parking structure.
Mayor Ojakian confirmed with Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison that the Council was expected to make clarifying
points, comments, and requests of additional information, if needed.
Ms. Harrison said that was correct.
Council Member Morton asked whether the Statement of Overriding Consideration simply stated the way the City did things changed over time and those patterns would be built into a new building.
Mr. Lusardi said the Statement of Overriding Consideration would need to address significant improvements in library operations,
programming, and obtaining sustainability. The four boards/ commissions made those determinations and recommendations, and concluded the “Replacement Scheme” outweighed the “Retention Scheme”.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said the purpose of the FEIR was to address all possible environmental effects of the proposed project; however, it was up to the Council to
decide, based on all information received, how it wanted to proceed. The California law required that the Council articulate
what factors lead to the decision, and that decision had been based on substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
06/03/02 94-169
Council Member Morton said the terms “significant” and “system-efficient” were used vacuously, and he did not have a
substantial basis to use them. Ms. Furth said there was significant discretion in the Council. Vice Mayor Mossar asked what water quality analysis measures
were being referred to on Page V-I2 of the Draft EIR. She held the belief that all cities in the region were struggling with urban run-off issues and that the current storm drain systems
did not capture pollutants. She also asked whether there was an analysis done on the heat island effect impacts of the proposed
parking facilities. Mr. Lusardi said no. It was determined that the parking and traffic was a less than significant impact.
Vice Mayor Mossar said that if the heat island effect impacts were not analyzed, it could pose a significant impact. Heat was one essential component in converting compounds to smog. She commented that the aerosolization of gasoline in parking lots could create more air pollution than driving. She commented on
Section 4-E3 of the Draft EIR under the Land Use section, and asked how the gardeners who used the Community Gardens felt
about the proposed project. Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen said staff had
three meetings with the community gardeners prior to the proposed design, and another meeting with them after the initial
design. The three gardeners who were on the Site Committee supported the proposed site design. Staff communicated to them that approximately 90 percent of the community garden would be
maintained and the other portion would be relocated to Eleanor Pardee Park.
Vice Mayor Mossar clarified that because the Council had not heard from the gardening group, it was assumed that the gardeners were comfortable enough with the proposed project.
Mr. Thiltgen said that was correct. Vice Mayor Mossar understood there was room at Eleanor Pardee
Park to relocate the garden plots. In addition, property at Greer Park could be reconfigured to provide garden plots. She
asked whether funds were available for the reconfiguration at Greer Park. Mr. Thiltgen said staff would have to come up with funds to do that.
06/03/02 94-170
Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether funds would be needed to expand the gardens at Eleanor Pardee Park
Mr. Thiltgen said funds would also be needed to expand the gardens at Eleanor Pardee Park. Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether staff had analyzed the quality
of the soil at Greer Park because of its proximity to Highway 101.
Mr. Thiltgen said not at the present time. Staff would attempt to place the relocated garden plots at Eleanor Pardee Park
first. Greer Park would only be an option if Eleanor Pardee Park could not accommodate all the changes. Vice Mayor Mossar said that if Greer Park was cited as an option in the FEIR, she wanted assurance that it was a viable one.
Mr. Thiltgen said he was optimistic that staff could accommodate all the relocated garden plots at Eleanor Pardee Park. Vice Mayor Mossar said the parking space numbers were to
accommodate full build-out and would occur in phases. She asked whether all the parking had to be built in Phase 1.
Mr. Lusardi said the FEIR required all 311 parking spaces to be built-out, and it would be done in three phases of the Art
Center as well as the “Replacement or Retention Scheme” of the Main Library. The structured parking was triggered by Phase 2 of
the Art Center to include the auditorium construction. Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether all of the surface parking shown
in the slideshow presentation was required in Phase 1.
Mr. Lusardi said he believed so. Vice Mayor Mossar commented that it was a shame that a large number of trees would be removed to accommodate the surface parking lots. She said surface parking was an enormous waste of
resource. Council Member Lytle expressed trepidation with the anticipated
decision of balancing the committees and commissions advocacy for the “Replacement Scheme” versus the loss of a historic
resource, which was the one significant impact in the FEIR. She asked why staff did not evaluate the two Comp Plan Policy Programs that Mr. Bernstein spoke of, which seemed most germane to the issue of retention versus replacement.
06/03/02 94-171
Mr. Lusardi said staff looked at the Comp Plan Policy that spoke to the “Retention or Replacement Scheme” and included it in the
FEIR. Policy L-51 and L-58 could be added; however, the Policy that was already included was stronger. Council Member Lytle encouraged staff to evaluate all of the Comp Plan policies in environmental documents. She asked who was
on the Library Cost Committee. Ms. Harrison said there were construction and architectural
professionals who had knowledge of the City process. The Committee also included the Director of Public Works.
Council Member Lytle asked staff to expand on the alternative site facilities for libraries in the City. Mr. Lusardi said alternative sites would be limited to moving
some of the library services to other libraries to reduce the scale of the Main Library facility. Council Member Lytle asked whether that concept had been evaluated in the FEIR.
Mr. Lusardi said it was stated in the FEIR as a review and
analysis from the new Library Plan. Council Member Kleinberg said she had attended a number of study
session meetings and heard the architect’s discussion of the historic building. It was not a discussion of whether the
historic building could remain as a library with additions added, but what could be done with the building for any purpose because of its limitations and poor design. She asked for more
insight on the project alternative for the environmentally superior “Retention Scheme”.
Mr. Lusardi said the library architect believed that the “Retention Scheme” would not significantly change the integrity of the interior use of the building. However, in order to bring the building up to current standards with respect to the windows
and systems the building integrity could change significantly. As mentioned in his presentation, the environmentally superior alternative was based on the fact that the “Retention Scheme”
would rehabilitate the building to the Secretary of Interior Standards. If that could not be done and the integrity of the
building was compromised, then there would be an environmental impact upon the building. Council Member Kleinberg said at some point during the discussion of retaining the building and bringing it up to
06/03/02 94-172
substantial and energy sustainable levels, the depth of the conversations would need to occur with the Council and the
public. Mr. Lusardi agreed. More information regarding the “Retention and Replacement Schemes”, plus the architect’s ability to address the retention and how it could impact the existing
building would be presented to the Council at the June 24, 2002, meeting.
Council Member Kleinberg requested staff to convey to the architect her interest in a complete and thorough discussion on
the issue. Ms. Furth said it was important to keep in mind that the FEIR assumed there was a way to retain the Main Library as a historic resource. The Council would then have to choose one of the
alternatives based on the full range of information. Council Member Kishimoto asked whether guidelines were in place that would trigger a baseline noise analysis.
Thomas Reed, Thomas Reed & Associates, 560 Waverley, noise specialist, said there was not a standard by which a baseline
could or could not be done. A baseline was preferable when there were operational features, which conflicted with the existing environmental setting. The proposed project showed a quiet
residential neighborhood with a fair amount of noise coming from Embarcadero and Newell Roads. Although construction noise was
intrusive to the neighbors, it did not elevate to the level of significance because the duration of the noisiest part of construction was adequately addressed in the City’s Noise
Ordinance.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether that was also true with the increased peak automobile traffic. Mr. Reed said the traffic on the site would not be a noise producer. Generally, library patrons were not considered a fast
and noisy crowd. Council Member Kishimoto asked whether staff had looked at the
possibility of expanding services at the Mitchell Park Library and using that location as an alternate site.
Mr. Lusardi said staff looked at expanding some of the facilities at the Mitchell Park Library to offset the expansion of the Main Library. Staff concluded the geographic location of the Mitchell Park Library would not be the best use of the Main
06/03/02 94-173
Library functions and programs. The expansion of the Mitchell Park Library would have potential impacts as well.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether it would be an increase up to 60,000 square feet at the Mitchell Park Library. Mr. Lusardi said the FEIR identified moving some of the Main
Library programs to the Mitchell Park Library as an alternative. Mayor Ojakian said he would appreciate receiving additional
information about that at the meeting of June 24, 2002.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the Council would receive details on the Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Program before the meeting of June 24, 2002. Mr. Lusardi said the Council could make suggestions that evening
of what they wanted to see addressed in the TDM Program. The expectation was that by June 24, 2002, the Council would not have the full TDM Program in place, but it would be identified as part of the project. The overall goal was to reduce some of the parking impacts and requirements, and identify the major
tenants or areas of the TDM Program.
Council Member Kishimoto commented that the Council could suggest specific measures as mitigation. She asked whether it was proper to make those suggestions informally or as a motion.
Mayor Ojakian said Council Member Kishimoto’s suggestions would
provide staff with some direction. City Manager Benest said staff would not be able to provide a
well-defined TDM Program, to the Council at the meeting of June 24, 2002.
Council Member Kishimoto understood that peak demand parking would not be met; however, the City would generate to within 30 peak hour trips.
Mr. Benest suggested that the Council inform staff at the meeting on June 24, 2002, of the type of outcomes they hoped to see with the TDM Program as opposed to strategies.
Council Member Kishimoto suggested Shuttle Shelters on
Embarcadero Road. She recommended mid-block crosswalks at Embarcadero and Newell Roads and possibly at the driveway of Embarcadero Road and Mark Twain Street. She also recommended staff extend beyond the basic zoning requirements for bicycle parking and access to make it more attractive. For special
06/03/02 94-174
events, she suggested that staff publicize limited parking notices and encourage carpooling, shuttle service, and public
transportation. Council Member Freeman said the proposed project depended heavily on the results of the community survey. She would have appreciated knowing what the public’s opinion was on the issues
discussed that evening. She understood that the biggest issue was the “Retention or Replacement Scheme” of the Main Library. She thought it would be helpful for the Council to have a chart
that indicated the pros and cons of the construction timeframes, the costs, the noise, the operations, the programs, and the
differences between a gateway versus a backdrop. The Council would then be able to evaluate the impacts of the options before them. She said the Main Library building offered Palo Alto an “ambiance and definition” of itself, and questioned whether the historical significance of the building would be incorporated
into the new architecture. She asked for clarification on the use of an LDN of 52-58 dBA for construction noise. Mr. Reed said the LDN was a 24-hour average noise level that was used in general planning and airport studies. The neighborhood
was characterized as having a 52-58 dBA based on his prior experience measuring noise in the proposed project area and
other places in Palo Alto. Council Member Freeman asked what a person who lived in the
proposed project area could do if they believed the construction noise was excessive, and how was that information indicated in
the FEIR. Mr. Reed said the Construction Management Process (CMP) included
a method to log complaints, as well as the ability of monitoring compliance on the site. The things most irritating at
construction sites were the high-pitched sharp impact noises. The trick to managing noise was managing behavior on the construction site. Council Member Freeman was concerned because she did not see the
ability to monitor the level of noise. She asked whether the 11,000-square-foot difference between the Main Library and the Mitchell Park Library was non-program space.
Director of Libraries Mary Jo Levy said the difference was that
Mitchell Park Library had a children’s program and the Main Library did not because there was already a Children’s Library in North Palo Alto. Approximately 6,000 of the 11,000 square feet were for system-wide services, which were placed at the Main Library because the lot size was larger.
06/03/02 94-175
Council Member Freeman asked what the total number was of current and replaced trees anticipated for the final site.
Mr. Lusardi said staff did not know. The goal was to preserve the significant trees and place on the site as many replacement trees as possible.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the 10 percent loss of the Community Gardens was due to the connector road.
Mr. Lusardi said it was because of the expansion of the parking lot.
Council Member Freeman clarified that the connector road did not contribute at all to the decrease in the Community Gardens. Mr. Lusardi said the connector road could affect access to the
Community Gardens, but he did not believe it had anything to do with moving the plots. City Planner Tricia Schimpp said the area the connector road went through and the plots being removed were not in the most
suitable gardening area due to trees and shade. The Community Gardens would be moved further east to create additional plots
in what used to be a service road. Council Member Freeman asked whether there was currently a
connector road, and if not was one required because it was a unified parcel with shared parking.
Ms. Schimpp said staff looked at the Site Feasibility Study (SFS) and found that the connector road would improve traffic
circulation in the interior portion of the site.
Council Member Freeman clarified staff was willing to replace pedestrian movement on the site with a connector road to help cars flow better. Mark Cavagnero, Architect for the Library, said the original
number of parking spaces the architects and landscape architects came up with was approximately 302 spaces. City staff hired a traffic consultant who generated a study that projected
approximately 311 parking spaces for total build-out. Both of those numbers were predicated on the idea that the parking
fields would be interconnected. Whenever there was an event in the auditorium or in the new meeting room, as envisioned in the library program, both parking fields would be viable.
06/03/02 94-176
Council Member Freeman asked whether the City was legally bound to interconnect the parking spaces because they would be shared
by both the Main Library building and the Art Center. Mr. Lusardi said no. Council Member Freeman said a traffic mitigation was required if
10 or more peak hour vehicles per lane passed through any intersection. The study referred to the intersections of Embarcadero Road and El Camino Real. She asked why the study was
not tested at Embarcadero and Newell Roads.
Michelle Hunt, Hexigon & Associates, said the criteria Council Member Freeman spoke of was a threshold where mitigation was required. The criterion was used to define which intersections should be included in the analysis. The project was not expected to add 10 trips per lane to the El Camino Real and Embarcadero
Road intersections and was not included in the analysis. The Newell and Embarcadero intersection was analyzed, and although it generated more than 10 trips per lane, the impact was insignificant.
Council Member Freeman asked whether a two-level parking structure had to be two levels above ground.
Mr. Cavagnero said the Master Plan envisioned one parking level partially submerged and the second level slightly elevated above
the grade. A fully submerged parking structure introduced other problems of comfort, security, and observation.
Mayor Ojakian asked whether staff would be able to put together a matrix-type comparison chart of the pluses and minuses of the
“Retention versus Replacement Scheme”.
Mr. Lusardi said yes. Council Member Burch said he would prefer not to have any part of the parking structure built above ground. He supported shared parking and the connector road, if needed. The Community Gardens
was as much a part of the site as the Main Library and the Art Center. He suggested making a buffer for the gardeners with a fence or berm instead of moving them.
Council Member Morton assured his colleagues that the issue of
the Community Gardens had been extensively discussed with the gardeners and was consented to. Council Member Lytle said she would like to see attention given to the two school crossings that were on the proposed
06/03/02 94-177
construction route. It was a significant crosswalk for Duvenick Elementary and Jordan Middle Schools, and should be factored
into the construction impact analysis. Mr. Lusardi said the CMP would have truck routes, flagman, and security to oversee pedestrian and motor traffic.
Council Member Kleinberg said it would be valuable to coordinate the TDM Program with Fire Station No. 3 located at the corner of Newell and Embarcadero Roads so as not to significantly impact
the response time of the Fire Department.
Council Member Freeman asked whether staff would include the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) in the TDM Program during construction. Mr. Lusardi said the TDM Program included notification and
coordination with facilities and neighborhoods when activities would be held and how they would be directed. Council Member Freeman said she was specifically addressing Jordan Middle School and including them before construction
begins.
Mr. Lusardi said the notification and coordination with neighborhood facilities and businesses would take place prior to any construction activities.
Council Member Kishimoto said see would like to see attention
given to improving the crossing at Newell and Embarcadero Roads. No action required.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Mossar, to
approve the Minutes of April 15, 2002, as corrected, and April 22, 2002, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ojakian announced that Item No. 7 was removed by staff and
would return to Council on June 10, 2002. Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie requested that Item No. 9 be removed to return to Council on another night.
06/03/02 94-178
Council Member Kishimoto stated for the record that she would vote “no” on Item Nos. 5 and 6.
Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, spoke regarding Item No. 5. She said that the Ordinance to change the classification of property known as 2051 El Camino Real from CN Neighborhood Commercial to PC Planned Community violated the current zoning regulations. It
would require seven variances and/or two to three design enhancement exceptions under the current CN zoning. She disputed the overall public benefit of the project because it would
create a 40 percent parking deficit in a location where available parking was already in high demand and made the
proposed retail space less viable. Council Member Kishimoto referred to Section 4(a)(4) of the Ordinance under Parking Facilities and asked why the list of criteria for managing the parking at the 2051 El Camino Real
site was not noted.
Mr. Emslie said the Ordinance required a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, which was incorporated into the Ordinance by reference. That was the best place to have those requirements
because it allowed staff to adapt easily to changing conditions to the life of the project.
Council Member Kishimoto asked what recourse citizens of Palo Alto would have if they complained that the TDM Plan was not
working.
Mr. Emslie said staff would look at the TDM Plan and change solutions or management techniques rather than start the PC process over.
Council Member Kishimoto clarified that the TDM Program could be
changed at the staff level. Mr. Emslie said that was correct. Council Member Kishimoto referred to Section 4(a)(2) of the
Ordinance under Office and asked whether there were prior discussions on limiting office use to neighborhood business services, as opposed to “professional offices”.
Mr. Emslie said staff did not recall whether “professional
offices” was excluded, but the previous record could be reviewed and changed, if appropriate. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the only changes he recorded from the Council at the previous meeting dealt with the parking
06/03/02 94-179
facilities and the addition of anti-graffiti material on an exposed wall.
Vice Mayor Mossar said professional offices could be useful to residents who lived near by. Council Member Freeman referred to Section 4(a)(4) of the
Ordinance under Parking Facilities and expressed concern that the language contained therein did not delineate that the BMR unit and the residential unit would get a parking space. She
asked whether the specifications of the parking spaces were contained in another document.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct. The BMR agreement specified that one parking space must be allocated to the below market rate (BMR) unit.
Council Member Freeman referred to Section 4(d)(2)(f) of the Ordinance under Hours of Delivery and asked whether the
commercial delivery times where atypical. Mr. Emslie said for commercial projects in close proximity to
residential units, staff looked at the individual site constraints. The cut-off time of 7:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, was used because of the tight site. Council Member Freeman clarified that the delivery hours for the
site were more constrained than normal.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct. Council Member Freeman said she was made aware that the second-
story of the project had been moved further toward the oak trees. It was important that the Council was aware of changes
when they happened. Mr. Emslie said staff would ensure that Council Member Freeman’s point was highlighted in the future.
Mr. Calonne said he would be quite concerned if the project had changed since the first reading of the Ordinance.
Mayor Ojakian clarified that the corrections Council Member Freeman spoke of were part of the approved project on May 13,
2002. Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
06/03/02 94-180
Council Members Kleinberg and Morton registered a “no” vote on Item No. 5.
Council Member Freeman registered a “no” vote on Item No. 6. MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to approve
Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3-6 and 8, with Item Nos. 7 and 9
removed at the request of staff. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
LEGISLATIVE
3. Resolution 8169 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Sue Case Upon Her Retirement”
4. Ordinance 4752 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan For Capital
Improvements to Hoover Park” (1st Reading 5/13/02, Passed 9-
0)
5. Ordinance 4753 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)” (1st Reading 5/13/02, Passed 6-3, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Morton “no”)
6. Ordinance 4754 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 9 (Peace, Morals, and
Safety), Chapter 9.10 (Noise), Section 9.10.60 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Defer the Prohibition on Combustion-
Powered Leaf Blowers” (1st Reading 5/20/02, Passed 7-2,
Freeman, Kishimoto “no”) 7. 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
Amendment No. 2 to the 1996 Measure B Pavement Management Program (PMP) Cooperative Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
06/03/02 94-181
Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and DeSilva Gates Construction in the Amount of $2,544,081 for the 2002
Street Maintenance Capital Improvement Program Project 9630 ADMINISTRATIVE 8. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and MDA Engineering,
Inc. in the Amount of $77,500 for the Design and Construction Management of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Operations Building Heating, Ventilation, and
Air Conditioning Upgrade Project
9. Approval of the Installation of New Midblock Crosswalk on Channing Avenue between Bryant Avenue and Waverley Street and the Removal of Existing Midblock Crosswalk on Homer Avenue between Bryant Avenue and Waverley Street
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing a Crosswalk on Channing Avenue between Bryant
Street and Waverley Street Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Removing
a Crosswalk between Intersections on Homer Avenue Between Bryant Street And Waverley Street
MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 3, 4, and 8.
MOTION PASSED 6-3 for Item No. 5, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Morton “no.”
MOTION PASSED 7-2 for Item No. 6, Freeman, Kishimoto “no.”
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Lytle commended retiring Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case for an outstanding public service record. Council Member Freeman gave an updated report on the Storm Drain Committee. She congratulated Director of Public Works Glenn
Roberts on working with PASCO for the cost recovery on Lytton Gardens, and also congratulated Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie for his working session on
June 1, 2002, on the El Camino project.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne reported on the City of Salinas Appellate Court decision that ruled against their non-voter approved storm drainage fee.
06/03/02 94-182
Vice Mayor Mossar reported on the National League of Cities Steering Committee meeting in Florida, which discussed the Clean
Air Act and alternative energy production. Council Member Morton noted an issue at the Parks and Recreation Committee meeting where the Santa Clara Valley Water District gave a proposal on the creek overflow problem.
Council Member Burch stated that at the meeting of the Media Center Board of Directors, it was voted unanimously to follow
the Brown Act.
Council Member Beecham announced he would miss the June 10, 2002, Council meeting in order to attend the American Public Power Association meeting in Dallas. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:40 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.
06/03/02 94-183