HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-01 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting July 1, 2002
1. Joint Meeting with the Architectural Review Board...........266
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m...................266
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................267
1. Appointment of Candidates to the Utilities Advisory Commission..................................................267
2. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application by A&D Protocol Transportation for a Tentative
Subdivision Map to allow the subdivision of an approximately 2.64-acre site into ten lots for single-family use for property located at 525 San Antonio Road.....268
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................274
3. Approval of Revised Resolutions to Approve Annexations of
Land Along the South Side of Sand Hill Road, Two Areas Along the South Side of Quarry Road, and the New Pasteur Drive and Adjacent Land Between Sand Hill Road and Welch
Road........................................................275
4. Approval of Resolutions Amending Compensation Plan for
Management, Confidential and Hourly Personnel, and Amending the Merit System Rules and Regulations......................276
5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Von Kohorn & Kitzmiller in the amount of $100,690 for Graphics and Signage for the Downtown Parking Structures (Capital
Improvement Program Project 19530)..........................276
6. Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation re: Review and Comment on the Proposed Santa Clara County District Text for the Stanford Open Space/Field Research (OS/F) Zoning District to Implement the 2000 Stanford
Community Plan..............................................276
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS...................277
07/01/02 94-264
7. Conference with City Attorney -- Potential/Anticipated Litigation..................................................278
9. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation........278
10. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation........278
11. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation........278
12. Conference with City Attorney -- Potential/Anticipated Litigation..................................................278
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m............278
07/08/02 94-265
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:05 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman (arrived at 6:10 p.m.), Kleinberg, Lytle (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Mossar,
Ojakian ABSENT: Kishimoto, Morton
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS
PRESENT: Kornberg, Lippert, Maran ABSENT: Bellomo, Wasserman
SPECIAL MEETING
1. Joint Meeting with the Architectural Review Board No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
07/08/02 94-266
Regular Meeting
July 1, 2002
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian
ABSENT: Kishimoto, Morton
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Howell Lovell, Jr., 124 Ferne Avenue, spoke on the present Canopy’s Oakwell.
Angelica Volterra, P.O. Box 1724, spoke on the Edgewood Redevelopment Project.
Spreck Rosekrans, 5655 College Avenue, Suite #304, Oakland,
spoke on the Trinity River Lawsuit. Lakshmi Eassey, 932 Middlefield Road, spoke on City-School
relations and working together for a better community.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke on the Stanford Trails Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Notice of Preparation. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke on cable opportunities. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Appointment of Candidates to the Utilities Advisory Commission
Vice Mayor Mossar said that although she was unable to participate in the interviews of the Utilities Advisory
Commission (UAC) candidates, she did have the opportunity to listen to the audio tape of those interviewed. She was impressed
and delighted to see the interest and talent of those who applied. She expressed her support for the two incumbents because they had done an excellent job and their knowledge and
expertise was critical during the upcoming changes.
Council Member Beecham said the UAC applicants were the most qualified group of Board and Commission persons he had ever seen.
FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR THE UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
07/08/02 94-267
VOTING FOR GEORGE BECHTEL: Beecham, Burch, Kleinberg, Lytle,
Mossar, Ojakian VOTING FOR RICHARD CARLSON: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian
VOTING FOR ELIZAETH DAHLEN: Freeman
VOTING FOR CLAUDE EZRAN:
VOTING FOR DANIEL FRIEDLAND: VOTING FOR MARILYN KELLER: VOTING FOR JOHN MELTON:
Assistant City Clerk Deanna Riding announced that on the first ballot George Bechtel (with six votes) and Richard Carlson (with seven votes) were reappointed to three-year terms ending June 30, 2005.
PUBLIC HEARING
2. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an
application by A&D Protocol Transportation for a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow the subdivision of an approximately 2.64-acre site into ten lots for single-family use for property located at 525 San Antonio Road.
The lots would range in parcel size from 8,700 to 11,800
square feet and would be accessed by the construction of a new public right-of-way located on the project site
Mayor Ojakian noted the agenda item was a quasi-judicial matter.
Council Member Lytle noted she had a phone conversation with local land use attorney and former Mayor, Jean McCowan. Council Member Burch noted he had contacts with the applicant’s representatives and made a site visit.
Vice Mayor Mossar and Council Members Beecham and Freeman stated
they had nothing to disclose. Mayor Ojakian noted he made a site visit on his own and had
contact with Mr. Schreiber approximately one year previous.
07/01/02 94-268
Council Member Kleinberg noted she made a site visit and had a recent conversation with Mr. Schreiber.
Planning Manager John Lusardi said the application was for a tentative map to subdivide an existing parcel into 10 single-family lots. The existing site contained structures that would cross both future property lines for the single-family houses as
well as the new dedicated public street. All existing structures would be required to be removed prior to approval of the final map. The proposed subdivision was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) Single-Family Residential land use designation and the City’s Zoning Ordinance for R-1 single
family residential. There were no significant impacts identified with the project and therefore a Negative Declaration was issued for the project. Prior to subdividing the property, the applicant would be required to submit improvement plans for the design of the adjacent sidewalks, utilities, and the new public
right-of-way to include a 15-foot wide access easement. The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommended that the City Council approve the tentative map. Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the Below Market Rate
(BMR) Agreement between the applicant and the Planning Division staff was based on Program 20 of the Housing Element of the Comp
Plan. Two aspects of the BMR Program applied to the proposed project because it was a subdivision of a vacant parcel. The applicant had to dedicate one of the 10 lots to the City of Palo
Alto. The agreed upon lot was located in the southwest corner of the proposed subdivision and was approximately 11,600 square
feet in size. The City would then determine the details of how to use the site for maximum BMR benefit. Staff informed the applicant of the additional in-lieu fee requirement if three or
more units were developed simultaneously, or a lower threshold for development.
Mayor Ojakian declared the Public Hearing open. Ken Schreiber, 432 Webster Street, said he represented Mr. and Mrs. Harmon Shaw, the owners of the property located at 525 San
Antonio Road. The site had a church and the Peninsula Day Care Center located on it. Mr. and Mrs. Shaw hoped that over the next two years it would be possible to continue the Day Care Center.
A Day Care Center lease would mean less income than selling the land and investing the proceeds. However, the owners were
interested in making that trade-off because of their longstanding commitment to provide daycare services. In the event a lease to a public or private daycare provider could not be accomplished in the coming year, redevelopment of the site with single-family houses would occur. The objective of the
07/01/02 94-269
tentative map application was to give the owners the flexibility of an alternative use of the land. The tentative map was
consistent with the site’s Comp Plan land use designation and the site’s single family zoning, and did not propose any variances or exceptions to it. The only part of the application that was inconsistent with the zoning was the proposed 30-foot rear yard setback where 20 feet was required. That setback would
be for the lots that backed up to the existing single-family houses. He urged the Council to approve the staff and P&TC recommendation for the proposed project.
Annabelle Woodard, 467 Ferne Avenue, supported the development
of single-family houses. She hoped the homes would be environmentally sound and in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, approved of the subdivision for an R-
1 development that was consistent with the zoning and land use on the site. He expressed concern that at the same time the proposed project was being approved, staff had recommended Comp Plan policies, programs, and potential housing sites to make the site high density multiple-family housing. That subdivision
would create lots that were over 8,500 square feet whereby each lot met the minimum size for multiple-family zoning. If the
future intent of the site involved the combination of multiple-family housing and a childcare center the decision would be split by doing the subdivision separate from the Comp Plan, land
use, and zoning changes. He queried whether the Council could appropriately act on the item that evening because the
Environmental Impact Assessment was not properly noticed, and it was not on hand when the P&TC made their recommendations.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, #701, expressed concern that a great deal of development was taking place in Palo Alto prior to
the long promised review of the Comp Plan. She believed there had to be a way for small multiple-housing developments that used less land and offered greater amenities to become assets within the community for senior citizens and beginning teachers.
Mayor Ojakian declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, to
approve the staff and Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation to approve the tentative map based on the
findings (Attachment A) and conditions (Attachment B) in CMR:319:02. Further, to add the following conditions: 1) that a 15-foot pedestrian easement be included on the tentative map located at the terminus of the public cul-de-sac where it adjoins the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) lands; and
07/01/02 94-270
2) that the floor area ratio (FAR) numbers shown on each parcel be removed from the tentative map.
Council Member Beecham said the proposed tentative map had no variances or exceptions, was consistent with the land use map and surrounding zoning, and provided a BMR unit on the largest lot. The only reason he could see for not going forward with the
proposal was the potential loss of a childcare facility in Palo Alto.
Vice Mayor Mossar said she was pleased that staff had worked with the applicant to find pedestrian access in the tentative
map. She was also glad that the applicant and the property owners agreed to the 15-foot easement. She supported of the proposal. Council Member Lytle said she had difficulty with the first
finding contained in Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:319:02), which stated the proposed subdivision was consistent with applicable Comp Plan policies and programs. She did not see how a consistency finding was made for Program C-13, which referred to the disclosure of impacts on childcare
services. She queried how the delivery of childcare services was being evaluated.
Mr. Lusardi said the finding for approval of the subdivision map was based on the land use being proposed.
Council Member Lytle asked whether an evaluation was done for
Program C-13 for the change in use. Mr. Lusardi said the evaluation pointed out that the subdivision
map would ultimately replace and remove the childcare facility.
Council Member Lytle said Program C-14 of the Comp Plan stated that staff would work with a Childcare Advisory Committee (CAC) to evaluate the required childcare impact assessment for proposed developments. She asked whether any CAC had been involved in working on an impact assessment for the proposed
development. Mr. Lusardi said both the staff and the applicant had worked
with childcare users to investigate long-term use of the proposed site. They were also committed to continue the pursuit
of looking to lease or sell the site to a childcare operator. Council Member Lytle said she could not support the motion because staff had not complied with the City’s Comp Plan
07/01/02 94-271
policies about disclosing the impacts of changes in land use on services critical to the community.
Council Member Burch asked whether the Council had any jurisdiction over the proposed project. He understood that the applicant’s intent was to keep a childcare facility on the site. He believed the Council was being asked to have a plan in place
in the event no other childcare operator purchased or leased the property.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said an inconsistency in the Comp Plan was a legal reason for the Council to deny the tentative
map. He pointed out that Program C-13 was a mandate to the City to update and amend the Childcare Master Plan to include standards for evaluating impacts on developments. That provision was a direction to staff to update the Plan. However, it was not a direction to evaluate all cases, although it was a reasonable
inference. Program C-14 stated staff would work with the CAC to evaluate the feasibility of requiring childcare impact assessments for proposed development projects. He could not speak as to whether the language in Programs C-13 and C-14 had happened, but it would be the City’s obligation to do so.
Council Member Freeman asked whether appropriate procedures had
been followed with notice of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Mr. Calonne said the Mitigated Negative Declaration was properly published and circulated, and should have been in the Council
packet. Council Member Freeman asked whether the public had been
properly noticed.
Mr. Calonne said yes, as far as he knew. Mr. Lusardi said the Negative Declaration received the public review period of 20 days, which was consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The P&TC also
received a copy of the Negative Declaration at the time of their meeting.
Council Member Freeman said she had received conflicting information as to the length of time of the continuation of the
Peninsula Day Care Center. The staff report (CMR:319:02) stated another two to five years and Mr. Schreiber said another one to two years. She asked why the Council was reviewing the proposed project at the present time if the Day Care Center would be in operation for the next two to five years.
07/01/02 94-272
Mr. Calonne said the tentative map would not stop the City from changing the zoning rules after it was approved. Over the next
two to five years, it was conceivable for an approved subdivision to have a change in the land use. State law required a subdivision map in order to sell the parcels. Council Member Freeman had suggested to staff earlier receipt of
EIR documentation that required the Council to take action, a matrix-style chart listing appropriate policies, and any potential conflicts. She also suggested the P&TC review the
current childcare needs of Palo Alto and, if necessary, encourage and assist the owners in continuing to find a solution
to keep the facility, or perhaps setup an intergenerational facility. City Manager Frank Benest said there was already a CAC in place that periodically assessed the state of childcare needs in the
City. The CAC had also looked at the issue of a development impact fee for Council consideration. Mr. Calonne said the Comp Plan had clearly identified the shortage of adequate childcare facilities as a community service
need and laid the groundwork for impact fees and other measures to help the supply of childcare.
Council Member Freeman asked when the Council would hear from the CAC.
Assistant City Manager Harrison said the CAC reported to the
City Manager, and there was no regular reporting to the City Council. The CAC regularly looked at both the current provision of childcare and the need beyond what was currently provided.
Council Member Freeman said it would be useful for her to see if
there were changes in the childcare landscape over the past few years. Ms. Harrison suggested that staff put together an informational report on what the CAC was working on.
Council Member Freeman said that would be helpful. She asked whether Programs C-13 and C-14 of the Comp Plan were added to
the work plan.
Ms. Harrison said Programs C-13 and C-14 were the responsibility of the Human Services Division of the Community Services Department. The Programs were in the Comp Plan implementation plan, but she did not know staff’s timeframe.
07/01/02 94-273
Council Member Lytle said the implementation plan would occur in zero to seven years from the date of adoption.
Ms. Harrison said that was in the Priority 1 category. Mayor Ojakian asked whether the CAC looked at the proposed project.
Ms. Harrison said no.
Mayor Ojakian said he imagined there was information on childcare needs through the Palo Alto Community Child Care
(PACCC). Ms. Harrison said PACCC was a member of the CAC, as were most of the major providers of childcare in Palo Alto.
Council Member Kleinberg said the staff report (CMR:319:02) discussed how Lot 1 could become more than one BMR unit, although it had been referred to as one unit. She asked what the City’s prerogative was for Lot 1.
Mr. Calonne said the City could undertake anything from a PC zone process to a Comp Plan or zoning revision to change the
land use on Lot 1. Council Member Kleinberg clarified the City was not limited by
the fact that Lot 1 was referred to as being a one-unit lot.
Mr. Calonne said the City was not limited by that reference, but the Council was limited that evening from making changes.
Council Member Kleinberg said the subdivision met all of the requirements, as laid out by staff. She was torn because the
City could use dense and more affordable housing along a major thoroughfare, as well as plenty of childcare. She expressed her support for the project. Council Member Beecham said he was enthusiastic about going
forward to find more childcare and mentioned a 4.2-acre site that was owned by the City. He welcomed his colleagues and others in the community to join him in finding a way to bring
more childcare to that site. MOTION PASSED 6-1, Lytle “no,” Kishimoto, Morton absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
07/01/02 94-274
MOTION: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to approve
the Minutes of May 20, 2002, as corrected.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kishimoto, Morton absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not participate in Item Nos. 3 and 6 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 Item Nos. 3 and 6 due to a conflict of interest because her husband was
employed by Stanford University. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Burch, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3-6.
LEGISLATIVE
3. Approval of Revised Resolutions to Approve Annexations of Land Along the South Side of Sand Hill Road, Two Areas Along the South Side of Quarry Road, and the New Pasteur
Drive and Adjacent Land Between Sand Hill Road and Welch Road
Resolution 8189 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Determinations and Approving the Reorganization of Territory Designated "Sand Hill Road Right-of-Way 02-01", Property Located on Sand Hill Road
Between San Francisquito Creek and Approximately 275 Feet West of Pasteur Drive; Approximately 3.192 Acres [Assessor Parcel Number 142-05-019]”
Resolution 8190 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Making Determinations and Approving the Reorganization of Territory Designated "Pasteur Drive Right-of-Way and Adjacent Land 02-02", Property Located on Sand Hill Road Between Pasteur Drive and Welch Road; Approximately 1.973 Acres [Assessor Parcel Number 142-05-
019]”
Resolution 8191 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Determinations and Approving the
Reorganization of Territory Designated "Quarry Road Right-of-Way 02-03", Property Located Between Arboretum Road and the City of Palo Alto Electric Substation; Approximately
0.061 Acres [Assessor Parcel Number 142-04-014]
07/01/02 94-275
Resolution 8192 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Determinations and Approving the
Reorganization of Territory Designated "Quarry Road Right-of-Way 02-04", Property Located on Quarry Road Between Palo Road and El Camino Real; Approximately 0.250 Acres [Assessor Parcel Number 142-04-014]” 4. Approval of Resolutions Amending Compensation Plan for Management, Confidential and Hourly Personnel, and Amending
the Merit System Rules and Regulations Resolution 8193 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Compensation Plan for Hourly Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 8097, and Amended by
Resolution No. 8112, by Amending the Salary Schedule and Revising Language of Compensation Plan”
Resolution 8194 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 Nos. 8117, 8165 and 8181, by Amending Certain
Salaries and Benefits”
Resolution 8195 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1701 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations”
Council Member Kleinberg referred to Item No. 5 and commented that the monies requested for the contract with Von Kohorn &
Kitzmiller came from the assessment districts.
ADMINISTRATIVE 5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Von Kohorn & Kitzmiller in the amount of $100,690 for Graphics and Signage for the Downtown Parking Structures (Capital
Improvement Program Project 19530)
6. Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation re:
Review and Comment on the Proposed Santa Clara County District Text for the Stanford Open Space/Field Research (OS/F) Zoning District to Implement the 2000 Stanford
Community Plan MOTION PASSED 5-0 for Item Nos. 3 and 6, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating,” Kishimoto, Morton absent.
07/01/02 94-276
MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item Nos. 4 and 5, Kishimoto, Morton
absent.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
8. Resolution Determining that the Public Interest and Require
the Acquisition of a Temporary Construction Easement at 525 Alma Street and 542 High Street and for the Downtown
Parking Structures (CIP 19530) Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Determining that the Public Interest and Necessity Require the Acquisition of Temporary Construction Easements at 525
Alma Street and 542 High Street for the Downtown Parking Structures (Capital Improvement Project 19530) and
Authorizing and Directing the Filing of Eminent Domain Proceedings Item continued at the request of staff.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Vice Mayor Mossar requested information regarding the Trinity River Lawsuit issue brought before the Council that evening. She also reported that Santa Clara County was not able to fund
Caltrain electrification presently, since the sales tax funding for Caltrain would not begin until 2006. But, it appeared that
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission had put together a proposal to allow planning for Caltrain electrification to proceed.
Council Member Lytle commented on the impact of construction at
the Alma Parking Structure; businesses were being hurt because there was no signage to alert people they were still open and there was no clear pedestrian access. She requested a staff report and for staff to find safer access to Blockbuster Video.
Council Member Freeman praised the Transportation Division for the crosswalk located across Channing Avenue at Heather Lane
that had been discussed previously. Council Member Kleinberg congratulated the Jewish Community
Center for completing a long negotiation for the site on San Antonio Road, which would include more housing and senior care. Mayor Ojakian announced that on Thursday, July 4, 2002, the City’s Independence Day Chili Cook-Off would be held from 12 to
5 p.m. at Mitchell Park.
07/01/02 94-277
Council Member Burch added that the Mayor would be the Grand Marshall in the 4th of July parade. He also sent his best wishes
to Geoff Fein, who was leaving the Palo Alto Weekly.
CLOSED SESSION
The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. to a Closed Session.
7. Conference with City Attorney -- Potential/Anticipated Litigation
Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1) arising out of acquisition of a construction easement at 525 Alma Street and 542 High Street, Palo Alto (Gov. Code 54956.9
(b)(3)(B).)
9. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation Subject: Morgan McShan v. City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County #CV797243 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
10. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation Subject: Edna Schreyer v. City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County #CV802683 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
11. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation Dianne Robbin v. City of Palo Alto, San Mateo County
#CV419084 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
12. 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 existing litigation and potential/anticipated litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 7 and 9-12. Mayor Ojakian announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 7 and 9-12.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
07/01/02 94-278
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.
07/01/02 94-279