HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-21 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
April 21, 2014
CLOSED SESSION ...................................................................................472
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR ..........................................472
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ........................................472
STUDY SESSION .....................................................................................472
3. Update of the Climate Protection Plan ................................................472
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY .................................................................480
4. Resolution 9401 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of the City
of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Eduardo Martinez for His
Service as Planning and Transportation Commissioner.” ......................480
5. Selection of Candidates to Interview for Two Unexpired Terms
(Martinez -- October 31, 2017, and Panelli -- October 31, 2016) on the
Planning and Transportation Commission ...........................................481
6. Appointment of Candidates to the Human Relations Commission,
Library Advisory Commission, and Public Art Commission ....................481
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS .......................................483
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS .....................................................................483
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................484
MINUTES APPROVAL ...............................................................................484
CONSENT CALENDAR ..............................................................................484
7. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation of Approval of the Updated Guidelines, Procedures and Selection Processes for the City of
Palo Alto Cubberley Artists Studio Program (CASP, formerly the
Cubberley Visual Artists Studio Program) in Preparation for the Spring
Release of a new Application and Selection Process .............................484
8. Resolution 9402 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Establishing a Local Solar Plan to Provide Four Percent of the
City's Total Energy Needs by 2023.” .................................................484
9. Preliminary Approval of the Report of the Advisory Board for Fiscal
Year 2015 in Connection with the Palo Alto Downtown Business
04/21/2014 114- 469
MINUTES
Improvement District and Adoption of Resolution 9403 entitled
“Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring its
Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses within the
Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year
2015 and Setting a Time and Place for a Public Hearing on May 12, at
7:00 PM or Thereafter, in the City Council Chambers.” ........................485
10. Resolution 9404 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Refunding Accumulated Net Revenue from the
Suspended Full Needs Portion of the PaloAltoGreen Program to
Program Participants” .....................................................................485
11. Resolution 9405 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of
the City of Palo Alto Establishing the PaloAltoGreen Gas Program
Using Certified Environmental Offsets and Approving Three New Rate
Schedules: Residential Green Gas Service (G-1-G), Residential Master-Metered and Commercial Green Gas Service (G-2-G), and
Large Commercial Green Gas Service (G-3-G).” .................................485
12. Approval of Stanford University Medical Center Annual Report and
Compliance with the Development Agreement ....................................485
13. Resolution 9406 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Summarily Vacating Public Easements Which have been
Relocated at 888 Boyce Avenue.” .....................................................485
ACTION ITEMS .......................................................................................486
14. Council Review and Direction on the Planning and Transportation
Commission Recommended Draft California Avenue Area Concept
Plan and Authorization to Submit an Application for the Valley
Transportation Agency Priority Development Area Planning Grant
Program for the Preparation of a Master Plan for the Fry’s Property,
as Identified in the Concept Plan ......................................................486
15. Public Hearing -- Council Adoption of an Ordinance Modifying: 1)
Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to: (a) Address
Sidewalk Width and Building Setbacks (Setback and “Build-To” Line
Standards and Context Based Design Criteria) along El Camino Real,
and (b) Reduce the Allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN Zoned Sites Where Dwelling Units are Permitted at 20 Units Per Acre; and 2) PAMC
Chapter 18.04 to Adjust the Definition of Lot Area and Add a Definition
for “Effective Sidewalk”. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the
Provisions of CEQA per Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use
Limitations) (STAFF REQUESTS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO APRIL 29, 2014) ....................................................................................497
INTER-GOVERNMENTAL LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DISCUSSION AND ACTION .....499
04/21/2014 114- 470
MINUTES
16. Resolution 9407 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto in support of Measure AA (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
Bond).” .........................................................................................499
17. Discussion and Approval of Caltrain Draft Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter .............................................................................499
18. Discussion and Direction to Staff on Additional Action the City Should
Take on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Proposed
Changes to the Regional Measure 2 Program Specifically Related to
Dumbarton Rail Funding ..................................................................507
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:34 A.M. ........................511
04/21/2014 114- 471
MINUTES
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:05 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss, Price, Scharff, Schmid,
Shepherd
Absent:
CLOSED SESSION
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Pamela
Antil, Lalo Perez, Melissa Tronquet, Joe Saccio, Molly Stump, Walter
Rossmann, Nancy Nagel, Dennis Burns, Mark Gregerson, Kathryn Shen,
Dania Torres Wong)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA)
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and (James Keene, Pamela Antil,
Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Kathryn Shen, Dania Torres Wong, Eric Nickel,
Geo Blackshire, Catherine Capriles, Amber Cameron, Melissa Tronquet,
Mark Gregerson, Nancy Nagel, Molly Stump, Walter Rossmann)
Employee Organization: International Association of Fire Fighters
(IAFF), Local 1319
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
The City Council reconvened from the Closed Sessions at 7:05 P.M. and
Mayor Shepherd announced there was no reportable action.
STUDY SESSION
3. Update of the Climate Protection Plan.
Mayor Shepherd introduced Gil Friend, Chief Sustainability Officer as being
well-known and a pioneer in the sustainability field. Staff would provide
next steps for the Council as part of the Staff Report. The Council should
ask questions and remain open to the possibility of scheduling a follow-up
session.
04/21/2014 114- 472
MINUTES
Gil Friend, Sustainability Manager, reported the City made impressive
progress, but faced daunting challenges in the years ahead. With boldness
and pragmatism, the City could provide a benefit to the community and
make an important contribution to the region. Recent plans and policies
spanned everything from procurement to integrated pest management to
the Climate Plan. Carbon neutral electricity was achieved which was rare
among cities around the country. Sustainability was important to improve
the quality of life, to build prosperity, and to enhance resiliency for current
and future generations. The City's plan for reducing carbon emissions was
ahead of schedule in that emissions were reduced by 29 percent from 2005
figures. Aggressive efficiency programs, resource conservation programs,
use of landfill gas, and decreases in transportation contributed to the
reduction of carbon emissions. Energy efficiency improved with both
electricity and natural gas. There were great gains in residential resource
efficiency. Emissions from City operations decreased approximately 53
percent, which was well ahead of targets. Natural gas use declined;
electricity use declined 0.5 percent; it was not clear if water use was
declining. Efficiency improved; however, overall resource demands
remained high and would be a challenge in coming years. The challenges for
sustainability were in transportation and natural gas. Staff projected
continued reductions in emissions, but those amounts were not sufficient to
meet the goal for 2050. Staff proposed setting clear and bold goals and
viewing sustainability as an innovation driver to improve the City's quality of
life and financial position. Staff suggested the use of integrative planning
and normative planning along with the City's Open Data and Open
Government processes to share and obtain information regarding best
practices and funding opportunities. The many pieces of sustainability could
be grouped into three domains: resources, infrastructure, and behavior.
Electric vehicles were certainly in the City's future, perhaps even a car-free
City that provided access and mobility without sacrifice. Sustainability
principles and policies should be embedded in everything from procurement
systems to financial management systems. Staff believed many small pilot
programs could be implemented to change behavior. The process was to focus first on renewing the Climate Action Plan, to broaden it into a
sustainability roadmap, to review the impact of spending, and then to
institute experimental sessions with multiple stakeholders to grapple with
questions about reducing transportation impacts. The provisional plan was
to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a consultant for the Climate Action Plan in the current quarter and to engage a consultant in the latter
half of the year. In the first half of the following year, Staff would develop
the draft Climate Action Plan and present it to the Council late in the second
quarter.
04/21/2014 114- 473
MINUTES
Staff proposed periodic retreats with the Sustainability Board and additional
Study Sessions with the Council as milestones and ideas developed. Key
questions to remember were: how good was good enough; what would it
take specifically in terms of policy, technology, investment, innovation, and
behavior to actually reach goals; was the City going to choose a future from
those being offered or create its own future; and would the City improve on
past performance or make history.
Stephen Rosenblum encouraged the use of battery storage on all scales
particularly in individual houses so that people could use photovoltaic arrays
to generate as much power as possible. Stored power could be utilized
when the grid went down or to charge electric vehicles at night.
Sven Thesen agreed the City needed boldness and pragmatism. The next
steps were to make electricity 100 percent renewable; institute tiered rates
for natural gas as soon as possible; and provide rebates for heat pumps.
Bruce Hodge, Carbon Free Palo Alto, stated mitigation and adaptation were
crucial and necessary. The City should replace its existing energy
infrastructure with an electricity-based infrastructure with energy from
renewable sources such as solar and wind. The City should plan for
increased drought conditions, a less reliable water supply, and increased
storm surges and flooding. He called on the entire community to engage
directly with the climate issue.
Walt Hays expressed gratitude for the Council's support of sustainability and
pledged his personal commitment to support City initiatives.
Wynn Grcich spoke regarding geoengineering of weather as a weapon of
war. Chemical sprays caused Alzheimer's and made the ground acidic.
Sandra Slater stated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
report was devastating. Palo Alto had to show people that culture could change and had to create an environment of change.
Arthur Keller believed much of the sustainability work would happen in
parallel with the Our Palo Alto process. Work on the Climate Action Plan
could be assisted by understanding the interaction among sustainability efforts, the Our Palo Alto process, and City Boards and Commissions.
Council Member Klein felt a sense of urgency regarding the Climate Action
Plan and hoped Staff would provide suggestions for programs in 60 to 120
days rather than waiting to present the Climate Action Plan. He inquired
whether the built environment consumed 25 percent of energy.
04/21/2014 114- 474
MINUTES
Mr. Friend reported estimates ranged from 25 to 50 percent depending on
the source.
Council Member Klein suggested Staff and the Council should consider
methods to improve the built environment to achieve energy savings.
Mr. Friend added that the impact of the built environment on transportation
and the need to move were linked.
Council Member Klein stated the community had to accept that there would
be significant impacts. Staff should consider how people adapted to
changes, particularly sea level rise.
Mr. Friend commented that adaptation was not just a matter of the Bay.
Sea level rise affected water supplies and power supplies. The City was
exposed in a variety of ways to changes, and Staff needed to plan for those.
Staff would not wait for the Climate Action Plan to begin experimenting and
presenting logical programs. His concerns were making measurable gains
and measurable learning quickly. The key to sustainability work would be
engaging the community.
Council Member Holman believed the City should measure the diversion of
building materials from recycling. Even though salvage was a part of the
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Ordinance, it was not promoted or
required. The community was using energy to recycle materials that could
be reused, causing the manufacture of more materials and the
transportation impact of new materials. The Council should revise the C&D
Ordinance to consider the impact on the environment. There was a large
market for salvaged materials. With respect to transportation and traffic,
the community looked to the Council to reduce the impact of new
development and to manage transportation. The Council should consider a
greater reduction of single-vehicle occupancy and zoning for parking, transportation and traffic.
Council Member Schmid remarked that the selection of housing sites was
one of the most important decisions the Council would make over the next
five years and would have a tremendous impact on transportation. He inquired whether Mr. Friend could provide guidance regarding the effect on
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of moving 250 new housing units from
south El Camino Real to Downtown or California Avenue.
04/21/2014 114- 475
MINUTES
James Keene, City Manager, noted the Council had a process to discuss that
component. The Housing Element fit into the larger question of
development in general. The larger questions would be discussed within the
Housing Element, Our Palo Alto, and the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Friend stated the question was where to place housing. Another
question was where to place amenities and transportation services in the
future. Staff needed to review both of those issues systematically.
Vice Mayor Kniss felt the community wanted to depend more on transit that
was not car related. The community had an issue of resisting density, which
would be one of the Council's most difficult decisions. A number of long-
term issues were in contention with each other. Salvage of building
materials was a real opportunity.
Mr. Friend was unsure whether business opportunities for salvage existed in
Palo Alto. He understood people's reluctance to make enormous
investments in their homes; however, those investments could yield higher
returns than not making investments. Staff's role was to provide education
and services to make changes attractive to people. A conversation among
people who disagreed often resulted in some common ground. Staff could
utilize that common ground to design policies and programs. Reaching
common ground was possible if Staff engaged the community in the right
way.
Council Member Price was intensely interested in networks of sharing and
learning information. Smart growth, the Housing Element, and height limits
were the kinds of issues that the community was debating; however, the
Council did not have sufficient time to study the issues in depth. The City
should work on issues in pieces and be strategic in building a future for Palo
Alto. If the City was too tightly focused on sustainability, then it might not
achieve meaningful results.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether Staff issued an RFP on February
14, 2014.
Mr. Friend reported an RFP would be issued in the second quarter, sometime
in the next 2 1/2 months.
Council Member Scharff asked if Staff was currently drafting the RFP.
Mr. Friend answered yes.
04/21/2014 114- 476
MINUTES
Council Member Scharff requested Staff update the Council on a regular
basis throughout the RFP process. He inquired whether Mr. Friend was
advocating goals similar to San Francisco's goals.
Mr. Friend did not have an official recommendation. Renewable energy, no
waste, and no persistent toxic accumulations were good guidelines for
starters. Turning those guidelines into policies and a timeline was a
separate conversation.
Council Member Scharff expressed concern that the use of the phrase "100
percent renewable" would lead the community to believe 100 percent
renewable energy was possible. 100 percent renewable energy was not
possible in Palo Alto, unless the City eliminated the use of hydroelectric
power which was not a renewable energy source. Eliminating hydroelectric
power would be mistake. Palo Alto's goal should be 55 percent renewable
energy, and the City was close to that goal.
Mr. Keene asked if Council Member Scharff was referring to electricity
generation.
Council Member Scharff responded yes. There was no renewable equivalent
or reasonable fuel switching for natural gas. Staff should be more precise so
that they did not create unrealistic impressions.
Mr. Friend was not proposing that as a goal at the current time, but it was
worth review. If the City was close to its goal, then he inquired whether that
goal was good enough or could the City do even better. The answers to fuel
switching were not conclusive. Rather than prematurely judging those
questions, he preferred to review them to determine if he could push the
boundaries.
Council Member Scharff had serious concerns about landfill gas as a good
renewable energy source. If the City reached its goal of 55 percent renewable energy, then he was unsure whether the goal could be higher.
Perhaps the City should move away from use of landfill gas. He did want to
see the Climate Action Plan earlier than in one year, because the Council
would need to discuss difficult policy issues.
Council Member Berman agreed that GHG emissions needed to be reduced.
He was impressed by the $500,000 annual savings resulting from reducing
GHG emissions in City operations by 53 percent. He asked if there was a
reason for 2012 GHG emissions for solid waste facilities and wastewater
facilities being much lower than in 2013.
04/21/2014 114- 477
MINUTES
Shiva Swaminathan, Senior Resource Planner explained that regulations
required the City to compute future emissions at 33 percent of the amount
captured. The more emissions captured, the higher assumed future
emissions would be.
Mr. Keene expected greenhouse gas emissions to fluctuate as Staff refined
methodologies.
Council Member Berman believed the City's successes would result in
reaching the State's goal of reducing GHG emissions by 2030.
Mr. Friend reported Staff would set a goal and then determine the actions
necessary to reach that goal. At that point, Staff would return to the Council
to turn the concept into an engineering and policy plan with budgets. As
quickly as possible, he wanted to move from a conceptual discussion to
multiple scenarios for Council discussion.
Council Member Burt noted the slides contained a great deal of valuable
information not covered in the presentation, and inquired whether Council
Members would receive a streamlined version of the presentation.
Mr. Keene advised that the full presentation would be placed on the City's
website.
Council Member Burt noted the previous year the Council was provided with
baselines against 2005 and 1990; however, the presentation did not contain
baselines against 1990.
Mr. Friend reported Slide Number 10 was a comparison to the 2005 baseline
and Slide Number 11 was a comparison to the 1990 baseline. The State
imputed an emissions number for 1990 for communities that did not have
actual data. The State's figure was different from the actual data for Palo
Alto. Caution should be used when referencing comparisons to other communities.
Council Member Burt inquired whether the 1990 base was calculated or
imputed.
Mr. Friend explained that it was measured and imputed. The utility
component was measured because Palo Alto had its own utilities. The
transportation numbers were partly imputed because no one knew how to
measure exactly transportation impacts. A number of other measures were
relatively small compared to those.
04/21/2014 114- 478
MINUTES
Council Member Burt asked if other cities, such as San Francisco, were
comparing 1990 or 2005 baselines.
Mr. Friend indicated most cities estimated against the 1990 baseline. Cities
without data assumed the 1990 baseline was 15 percent below the 2005
baseline. In Palo Alto's case, the 1990 baseline was considerably higher
than the 2005 baseline.
Council Member Burt envisioned a high percentage of automobiles being
some form of clean vehicles by 2040 or 2050. He was interested in the
reductions provided by transportation independent of land use decisions,
because of the City's carbon neutral electricity supply and the increase of
bicyclists and pedestrians. Regarding the built environment, the City
allowed new construction projects to utilize natural gas; however, some
projects had moved to all electric. He inquired about revisions to the
Building Code that would foster a fuel switching environment.
Mr. Friend reported Staff was working on a new Green Building Ordinance.
Staff was setting goals approximately 15 percent higher than State goals in
terms of energy performance. He understood Council Member Burt was
suggesting Staff consider eliminating natural gas from construction projects.
Council Member Burt noted other cost considerations of appliances and use
of energy.
Mr. Friend added that one precedent was the requirement of electric
charging infrastructure in new construction.
Council Member Burt was disinterested in the State goals in that he did not
want to compare Palo Alto to State goals. He wanted Staff to determine
what Palo Alto could do efficiently. The City did not have commercial
building grading systems that would drive behavior. Social pressure in the
corporate environment and the workforce would drive change if information was shared. Potential home buyers received disclosure regarding termites
and insulation, but not energy efficiency. Such a disclosure could have a big
impact.
Mr. Friend advised Staff discussed those measures and others in an attempt to create a portfolio of strategies to address different points in the building
scheme.
Council Member Burt asked when Staff would present strategies to the
Council.
04/21/2014 114- 479
MINUTES
Mr. Friend would provide that information to the Council.
Mr. Keene remarked that Staff was obtaining a sense of the Council's
attitude regarding challenges and of the areas on which the Council wanted
Staff to concentrate. In relatively short order, Staff could return to the
Council with proposals for action. Any programs initiated in the next year
would not meet the ultimate goal.
Council Member Burt did not want a year to pass before Staff presented
proposals to the Council as a number of Council Members had been asking
for initiatives for a number of years. He inquired whether the reference to a
car-free city meant a vision of a city with no cars or a vision of a city where
people did not need cars.
Mr. Friend responded the latter, people did not need cars. He preferred
doing things in a way that made them better, more attractive, more
convenient, more economical, more fun, and more satisfying.
Council Member Burt believed there was the potential for the press and
residents to misinterpret things if they were not stated with adequate clarity.
Cost savings would be important for broad community support.
Mayor Shepherd was interested in having products come into Palo Alto that
were not heavily manufactured and not recyclable. She did not mind if Staff
considered and imported actions taken in other cities. She wanted to see a
comparison of savings with other communities. There were many
opportunities for sustainability in Palo Alto.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
4. Resolution 9401 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of the City
of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Eduardo Martinez for His
Service as Planning and Transportation Commissioner.”
Council Member Schmid read the Resolution into the record.
Fred Balin indicated Mr. Martinez had intelligence, an architectural
background, a low-key and witty manner, ethics, and drive. Mr. Martinez
made presentations supported by reason and information. Mr. Martinez
made a significant contribution to the City of Palo Alto.
Arthur Keller, Planning and Transportation Commissioner, thanked Mr.
Martinez for serving on the Planning and Transportation Commission.
04/21/2014 114- 480
MINUTES
Council Member Holman thanked Mr. Martinez for serving on the Planning
and Transportation Commission. Mr. Martinez was intelligent, gracious,
thoughtful, and forthright.
Eduardo Martinez thanked the Council for the honor. The City needed to
reinvent the Architectural Review Board (ARB) in that Board Members did
not criticize other architects or made only marginal comments. He
recommended every project begin with a site plan and a program from the
applicant and a discussion with the ARB about neighborhood character. If
the community could suspend its beliefs and consider developments without
preconceptions, then it would come closer to coming together as a
community.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member
Klein to adopt the Resolution expressing appreciation to Eduardo Martinez
for his service on the Planning and Transportation Commission.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
5. Selection of Candidates to Interview for Two Unexpired Terms
(Martinez -- October 31, 2017, and Panelli -- October 31, 2016) on the
Planning and Transportation Commission.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Berman
to interview all candidates for the Planning and Transportation Commission.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
6. Appointment of Candidates to the Human Relations Commission,
Library Advisory Commission, and Public Art Commission.
First Round of voting for two positions on the Human Relations Commission
with terms ending April 30, 2017:
Voting For Mehdi Alhassani: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss, Price,
Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd
Voting For Matthew Mori:
Voting For Daryl Savage: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss, Price,
Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd
04/21/2014 114- 481
MINUTES
Donna Grider, City Clerk, announced that Mehdi Alhassani with 9 votes and
Daryl Savage with 9 votes were appointed to the Human Relations
Commission for three years with terms ending April 30, 2017.
First Round of voting for three positions on the Library Advisory Commission
with terms ending April 30,2017:
Voting For Alan J. Bennett: Klein, Kniss, Price, Schmid
Voting For Doug Hagan: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss, Price,
Scharff, Shepherd
Voting For June Loy: Berman, Price, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd
Voting For Don McDougall: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss, Scharff,
Schmid
Voting For Jack Sweeney: Burt
Donna Grider, City Clerk announced that Doug Hagan with 8 votes, Don
McDougall with 7 votes, and June Loy with 5 votes were all appointed to the
Library Advisory Commission for three years with terms ending April 30,
2017.
First Round of voting for four positions on the Public Art Commission with
terms ending April 30, 2017:
Voting For Christine M. Kelly: Burt, Holman, Price, Scharff
Voting For Jim Migdal: Berman, Schmid
Voting For Jeanine Murphy: Klein, Kniss, Shepherd
Voting For Amanda B. Ross: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss,
Price, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd
Voting For Dara O. Silverstein: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss,
Price, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd
Voting For Nia Taylor: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss,
Price, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd
04/21/2014 114- 482
MINUTES
Donna Grider, City Clerk, announced that Amanda Beard Ross with 9 votes,
Dara Olmstead Silverstein with 9 votes, and Nia Taylor with 8 votes were all
appointed to the Public Art Commission for three years with terms ending
April 30, 2017.
Mayor Shepherd noted candidates Christine Kelly and Jim Migdal were not
available for interviews with the Council.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Mayor
Shepherd to interview Jim Migdal and Jeanine Murphy on May 13, 2014.
Ms. Grider suggested interviews be scheduled for May 7, 2014.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
Mayor Shepherd announced that the City Manager removed Agenda Item
Number 7 from the Consent Calendar.
James Keene, City Manager, advised the item would be continued to April
29, 2014.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
James Keene, City Manager, reported Palo Alto Police Department Mobile, a
mobile app, was launched by the Palo Alto Police Department to provide
citizens with immediate access to the latest news, crime maps, and urgent
alerts. The International Association of Chiefs of Police selected Lieutenant
Zach Peron to be a visiting fellow at its Center for Social Media. The Ideas
component of Our Palo Alto would begin with events scheduled for April 23,
April 28, April 30 and Bike-Alongs. Federal Government representatives
assessed the City's management of organizations funded through Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and confirmed that funds
supported eligible activities and low- and moderate-income individuals and
families. The Mayor officiated an awards ceremony for recipients of the
City's Pilot Microenterprise Assistance Program. The Great Race for Saving
Water event was held the previous Saturday and more than 350 people attended. The City cosponsored the PV 60 Birthday Bash where the City
won an award for proactive promotion of solar photovoltaic systems. The
City submitted public and protected information to Google regarding
Google's fiber program; however, Staff would present an item to the Council
on April 29, 2014. The Palo Alto Apps Challenge had nine finalists who
would be presented to the community on April 27, 2014.
04/21/2014 114- 483
MINUTES
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Wynn Grcich advised there was less fluoride being placed in water. If more
people spoke against fluoridation of water, it could be stopped.
William Rosenberg suggested the City institute a disposal fee for Styrofoam
packaging to discourage its use. Suitable alternatives to Styrofoam were
available.
MINUTES APPROVAL
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Berman
to approve the minutes of February 24, 2014.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Klein recused himself from Agenda Item Number 12 as his
wife was on the Faculty of Stanford University.
Mayor Shepherd recused herself from Agenda Item Number 9 as her
husband maintained an office in Downtown.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Price to
approve Agenda Item Numbers 8-13.
7. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation of Approval of the
Updated Guidelines, Procedures and Selection Processes for the City of
Palo Alto Cubberley Artists Studio Program (CASP, formerly the
Cubberley Visual Artists Studio Program) in Preparation for the Spring
Release of a new Application and Selection Process.
8. Resolution 9402 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Establishing a Local Solar Plan to Provide Four Percent of the
City's Total Energy Needs by 2023.”
04/21/2014 114- 484
MINUTES
9. Preliminary Approval of the Report of the Advisory Board for Fiscal
Year 2015 in Connection with the Palo Alto Downtown Business
Improvement District and Adoption of Resolution 9403 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring its
Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses within the
Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year
2015 and Setting a Time and Place for a Public Hearing on May 12, at
7:00 PM or Thereafter, in the City Council Chambers.”
10. Resolution 9404 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Refunding Accumulated Net Revenue from the
Suspended Full Needs Portion of the PaloAltoGreen Program to
Program Participants”.
11. Resolution 9405 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of
the City of Palo Alto Establishing the PaloAltoGreen Gas Program
Using Certified Environmental Offsets and Approving Three New Rate
Schedules: Residential Green Gas Service (G-1-G), Residential
Master-Metered and Commercial Green Gas Service (G-2-G), and
Large Commercial Green Gas Service (G-3-G).”
12. Approval of Stanford University Medical Center Annual Report and
Compliance with the Development Agreement.
13. Resolution 9406 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Summarily Vacating Public Easements Which have been
Relocated at 888 Boyce Avenue.”
MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item Numbers 8, 10-11, and 13: 9-0
MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item Number 9: 8-0 Shepherd not
participating
MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item Number 12: 8-0 Klein not
participating
04/21/2014 114- 485
MINUTES
ACTION ITEMS
14. Council Review and Direction on the Planning and Transportation
Commission Recommended Draft California Avenue Area Concept
Plan and Authorization to Submit an Application for the Valley
Transportation Agency Priority Development Area Planning Grant
Program for the Preparation of a Master Plan for the Fry’s Property,
as Identified in the Concept Plan.
Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director, reported
the Agenda item was responsive to the Council's March 2014 request to
review the work of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
regarding the California Avenue Area Concept Plan (Plan). The Council also
expressed concern regarding drafting a site-specific master plan for the Fry's
property in advance of receiving an application for development from the
property owner. Staff requested Council comments and questions regarding
the draft Plan and sought approval to apply for a grant to fund preparation
of a site-specific planning document. The process to create a Plan for
California Avenue fed directly into the expanded environmental review and
engagement process for the Comprehensive Plan. At the May 5, 2014
meeting, the Council would discuss the Comprehensive Plan policy document
recommended by the PTC. At that time, Staff would provide responses to
questions they could not answer during the current discussion. Staff would
return to the Council in early August 2014 for an extended discussion of the
visioning process and in early 2015 provide draft materials. Staff provided a
replacement map and table at-places.
Andrew Hill, PlaceWorks, advised that the Plan area was bounded by
Cambridge Avenue, Lambert Avenue, El Camino Real, and Caltrain tracks.
In addition to Caltrain service, the area had a number of bus lines and
shuttle service. There were a number of large vacant or underutilized
parcels prime for redevelopment. A residential enclave was centered on
Olive and Pepper Avenues. Surrounding the Plan area were single-family
neighborhoods. The Regional Community Commercial designation was
applicable to the business area around California Avenue.
Council Member Holman noted the Fry's site was zoned multifamily
residential.
04/21/2014 114- 486
MINUTES
Ms. Gitelman indicated the Fry's site was designated as Service Commercial
(CS) on the existing condition map because of current uses of the site;
however, it should be multifamily residential.
Mr. Hill stated much of the Plan area was located in the Pedestrian Transit
Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District. The PTOD Combining
District allowed higher density residential uses within walking distance of
transit while protecting and preserving historic resources and surrounding
lower density uses. In and around the Plan area were a number of separate
planning initiatives recently completed or underway; the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan, the California Avenue Streetscape
Improvement Project, the Rail Corridor Study, the ongoing El Camino Real
Design Guidelines Update, and the Grand Boulevards Initiative. The impetus
for creating the Plan was the need to develop a vision for sustaining and
improving the California Avenue Business and Retail District; the need to
manage change in areas that could accommodate change while preserving
and enhancing the quality of life in existing neighborhoods; and the need to
address parking, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, and open space and
park amenities. The draft Plan was developed with extensive public
involvement and opportunities for community input. The contents of the
Plan reflected community comments. Three subareas within the Plan were
identified that accommodated a degree of change. Outside the three
subareas, Staff heard a strong desire for neighborhood preservation. Vision
and key concepts for each subarea were developed based on community
input. Concepts were refined based on input from the Council and the PTC.
All input was translated into the goals, policies, and programs contained in
the draft Plan. The Plan was intended to assist the public and decision
makers with framing the context for future planning decisions in the Plan
area. The Plan contained goals, policies, and programs specific to the area
in general and specific to each subarea. Generally, existing Comprehensive
Plan land use designations applicable to the area were preserved with two
exceptions. First, a mixed use designation would be applied to the Fry's site.
Second, a new Technology Corridor Overlay would be applied along Park Boulevard. The first goal of the Plan was to manage change in areas that
could accommodate change while preserving the quality of life in
neighborhoods and preserving the existing commercial character of
California Avenue. The second goal, specific to the California Avenue
subarea, was to preserve the existing commercial character of California Avenue. The third goal, specific to the Park Boulevard subarea, sought to
build on the nascent cluster of technology-oriented businesses along Park
Boulevard and to promote Park Boulevard as an important hub of innovation
and entrepreneurship for new companies.
04/21/2014 114- 487
MINUTES
The fourth goal, also specific to the Park Boulevard subarea, was to promote
bicycle and pedestrian safety along Park Boulevard. The fifth goal, specific
to the Fry's site, was to foster transformation of the Fry's site into a
walkable, human-scale mixed-use neighborhood, if Fry's elected to vacate
the site.
Ms. Gitelman reiterated that Staff requested Council questions and comment
regarding the Plan and sought a Motion to authorize Staff to apply for a
grant to prepare additional site-specific planning for the Fry's site.
Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, suggested planning policies for the
California Avenue area should support pedestrian and bicyclist traffic, reduce
the number of vehicle trips, and include a Residential Parking Permit
Program. Transportation policies might include shuttles through the Caltrain
catchment area, transit passes, and ZIP cars.
Sandra Slater supported the Plan. Reducing the need for workers to
commute into Palo Alto was a benefit. Denser housing near job and transit
centers allowed for balance while decreasing the need for transportation.
Walkable communities were more likely to support local retail centers.
Robert Moss noted the Staff Report hardly mentioned traffic or groundwater
contamination. The majority of people living in the area would not utilize
public transportation. Development of high-density housing over a
contaminated area was a concern. He questioned whether the Council could
encourage smaller developments in the area.
Eric Rosenblum indicated the project supported intelligent development. He
encouraged the Council to consider greater residential development rather
than more retail development. The Plan promoted a pedestrian-friendly
community and aligned with the Comprehensive Plan. He disagreed with Mr.
Moss' statement that people living in the area would not use public transit.
Mehdi Alhassani believed the Plan aligned with the pedestrian-friendly,
transit-oriented development envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Adding
housing where jobs were located would ease regional commutes, traffic,
parking, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. He supported more
residential development to ease the City's current housing deficit. The Council should consider increasing the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to allow for
more housing while ensuring the preservation of character.
04/21/2014 114- 488
MINUTES
Herb Borock stated at some point the Council needed an Agenda Item
related to programs to be studied in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
He opposed applying for the grant, because the purpose of the grant was to
increase employment development. The number of jobs generated by the
land use designation would overwhelm the amount of housing.
Mayor Shepherd inquired whether five minutes for each Council Members'
comments would provide sufficient information for Staff.
James Keene, City Manager, remarked that Staff could capture Council
comments through observing the session and reviewing the Minutes. The
item was a preview of the Council's reaction to the Plan before Staff
presented it to the public for comment. The Council was not acting on the
Plan, simply informing Staff about its concerns.
Council Member Burt felt five minutes would be a brief opportunity for the
Council to provide comment on a significant development. Five minutes was
not sufficient time for the Council to properly consider significant decisions.
If the Council wanted to make changes when the Plan returned in a year's
time, the process could be too far advanced to make changes.
Mr. Keene reported the Council could comment on the Plan at the current
time and again at the Comprehensive Plan discussion in May 2014 or
schedule another session on the Plan. The Council should vet the Plan
before presenting it to the public; however, the Council should not complete
the Plan prior to obtaining public input.
Council Member Burt recommended the Council agendize a meeting on the
topic separate from discussion of the Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to: 1) take up the California Avenue Concept Plan tonight, 2)
schedule an additional Council meeting specifically on the Concept Plan,
and 3) allow for a vote to take place tonight on the VTA grant.
Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Council Member Burt was suggesting the
Council discuss applying for the grant at the current time and postpone
discussion of the Plan to a separate time.
Council Member Burt asked when the grant application was due.
Ms. Gitelman responded April 28, 2014.
04/21/2014 114- 489
MINUTES
Mr. Keene understood the grant was a separate issue from discussion of the
Plan.
Council Member Burt did not believe a significant discussion regarding the
grant would meet the time constraints of the Agenda.
Mayor Shepherd requested input from the City Manager.
Mr. Keene reported the Council could bifurcate the item for an in-depth
discussion. The Council had previously mentioned the possibility of a
Wednesday meeting to discuss a single item. A discussion should be held
soon.
Council Member Burt remarked that a brief discussion at the current time
would inform the grant consideration. He inquired about subsequent grant
opportunities.
Ms. Gitelman understood the Council felt some urgency to have site-specific
planning prior to an application being filed for development of the Fry's site.
If a grant application was not submitted on April 28, 2014, the City would
have to wait for the next grant cycle to submit an application.
Council Member Burt explained that the Motion did not determine whether
the Council would take action on the grant. The Council had not had an
opportunity to review the significance of the very large up-zoning for the
area. Many responses provided at-places did not address questions, and
some were inaccurate.
Council Member Holman stated the Plan had been eight years in the making,
and the Council could not rush through its review. Council comments
regarding the Plan would inform whether the City should apply for the grant.
Applying for the grant seemed to commit the Council to a policy direction.
Mr. Keene remarked that Council Members knew the area pretty well, knew
the forces at play, and could see the recommended changes. There might
be a good policy reason to determine whether the City wanted to apply for
the grant or not. He would not suggest the Council direct Staff to disregard
the grant, because there might be sufficient agreement to pursue it.
Council Member Scharff expressed concern regarding limiting comments to
five minutes. Because the topic was important, Council Members should be
allowed sufficient time to provide all their comments. It was inappropriate
to limit comments to five minutes as there was not a Council policy.
04/21/2014 114- 490
MINUTES
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by
Council Member Price to move forward focusing on VTA grant with 5 minutes
discussion per Council Member and decide to continue the discussion with a
hard stop at 10:45 P.M.
Council Member Scharff suggested the first round of comments be limited to
five minutes. However, Council Members should have sufficient time to
address Substitute Motions. At the end of the discussion, the Council could
determine whether another session was needed.
Council Member Price concurred with Council Member Scharff's comments.
It was important to keep the topic moving.
Vice Mayor Kniss requested a definition of "item" as stated in the Motion.
Council Member Burt answered the California Avenue Area Concept Plan.
Vice Mayor Kniss inquired whether the Motion was to postpone the Plan to a
separate time and to discuss the grant at the current time.
Council Member Burt clarified that the Council would provide preliminary
input and agendize an additional meeting regarding the Plan and allow a
vote at the current time regarding the grant.
Vice Mayor Kniss understood the Motion contained three parts: 1) comment
briefly on the Plan at the current time; 2) discuss another time for
continuing discussion of the Plan; and 3) discuss the grant.
Mayor Shepherd advised that the Council was speaking to the Substitute
Motion.
Vice Mayor Kniss would support the Substitute Motion, but wanted to include
additional parameters. Because of time constraints and the need to take up Agenda Item Number 17, she suggested a time certain of 10:45 P.M. for
ending discussion of the current item.
Council Member Scharff agreed with a time certain for ending discussion.
Mayor Shepherd explained that she was attempting to manage the meeting
so that Council Members could have equal time to comment. Staff simply
could not answer all Council questions at the current time and requested
time to research issues prior to providing responses. She would support the
Substitute Motion as it aligned with original plans to manage the meeting.
04/21/2014 114- 491
MINUTES
Council Member Klein called point of order. He understood Council Member
Scharff accepted the language proposed by Vice Mayor Kniss.
Mayor Shepherd indicated the Substitute Motion was amended to reflect an
ending time of 10:45.
Council Member Schmid added that the Substitute Motion should include a
round of discussion limited to five minutes per Council Member.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 7-2 Holman, Schmid no
Mayor Shepherd noted the focus had been on California Avenue and was
now expanding to the California Avenue area. She liked the designation of
the three subareas. The subarea containing the North County Courthouse
should be highlighted so that the Council could decide how to feature that.
She understood the community suffered angst regarding development of the
Fry's site. If a developer submitted an application for the Fry's site in the
near future, the development would be subject to the current
Comprehensive Plan and zoning. She would support the grant application
because it would save the City money. There was a process for a context-
sensitive approach; therefore, she requested Staff provide their definition
and use of a context-sensitive approach. She also requested Staff provide
information regarding the impacts to the California Avenue area of bullet
train stops at the California Avenue Caltrain Station. The City was applying
for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) grants not to receive
transportation funds, but to save City funds.
Council Member Schmid remarked that the California Avenue area was a
PTOD District, the California Avenue Transit Hub, a priority development
area, and a focal point of the Rail Corridor Study. Each of those things
emphasized mixed use. The area could support a vision of smart
development, a mix of commercial and retail and residential. The existing
Housing Element indicated 20 percent of housing units should be located in the area, which was not logical. The Plan should assist the Council in
determining the number of mandated housing units placed within the area;
however, the Plan did not mention that. Placing at least one third of
mandated housing units in the California Avenue area would make sense. If
mandated housing units were not located in the California Avenue area, then they would be located in areas with no planning. The Council needed to
know the percentage of mandated housing units that should be placed in the
California Avenue area. The California Avenue area was one of the best
places in Palo Alto for dense housing.
04/21/2014 114- 492
MINUTES
Council Member Klein did not believe the Mayor had the authority to limit
comments to five minutes. He favored shorter meetings, but the Council
had a great deal of work to accomplish. He was concerned that no attention
was being paid to the financial impact. Fry's had been one of the City's
leading generators of sales tax. The Council needed to know Fry's plans and
the landowner's plans and to consider a successor to Fry's. The assumption
seemed to be that another generator of sales tax would not replace Fry's if
Fry's vacated the site. That would be a financial blow for the City. He did
not accept the jobs/housing imbalance as an article of faith. The City
needed housing. Jobs tended to congregate in particular places, and
housing moved to the periphery. He looked forward to an in-depth
discussion at a special meeting.
Council Member Burt was cautious regarding applying for a grant as past
grant opportunities had been contrary to the Council's policy inclinations. He
wanted to know the constraints that would be placed on the City and the
City's commitments if it was awarded the grant. He inquired whether the
Master Plan would have to meet VTA requirements which might not align
with the Council's vision.
Ms. Gitelman reported the City would develop the scope of work and direct
the project, and VTA would select the consultant. VTA would be responsible
for administrative duties, but the City would direct the project. Staff was
seeking permission to apply for the grant and would return to the Council
with a scope of work.
Council Member Burt noted the application indicated the City would commit
to certain things in the California Avenue area in order to receive the grant.
Ms. Gitelman explained that the City was applying for the grant and eligible
for the grant, because the area was designated as a Planned Development
Area.
Council Member Burt inquired whether the City would only commit to
preparing a plan for the Planned Development Area.
Ms. Gitelman responded yes. When Staff returned to the Council for review
of the scope of work, the Council could direct Staff not to proceed. Applying for the grant was not an irrevocable decision.
Council Member Burt commented that that was an important fact not
contained in the Staff Report. The original vision for the area was a PTOD
District where the predominant traffic was pedestrian and bicycle and where
housing was increased.
04/21/2014 114- 493
MINUTES
The draft Plan would increase commercial as much or more than housing,
while decreasing retail at both the Fry's site and automotive sites. He did
not agree with a technology overlay on top of the automotive overlay. Along
the entire technology overlay the FAR would be 1.5, and the Fry's site would
have a 2.0 FAR. Those were major up-zonings without real consideration.
Mr. Keene indicated Staff would return to the Council quickly with accurate
FARs.
Council Member Burt requested Staff confirm zoning for the technology
overlay as light industrial or general manufacturing and the FAR for each
designation. FARs were not provided for many of the designations. There
was not sufficient time for him to address his many concerns regarding
Staff's responses to written questions.
Council Member Scharff could not identify areas where a ground-floor retail
requirement would apply. He suggested Staff require a certain percentage
of ground-floor retail on the Fry's site as ground-floor retail created a
walkable and service feeling. He agreed with Council Member Klein
regarding the jobs/housing imbalance; however, the issue was getting
people out of their cars. Anecdotal evidence seemed to indicate people
rented homes near a Caltrain station or near their work. To address the
issue, the Council should consider making a portion of the area rental
housing. Regarding a technology corridor with a focus on start-up
businesses, the Council should consider limiting the amount of office space
available for businesses. One large office building would be occupied by one
large company rather than several small start-ups. He asked if the
technology corridor would have significant up-zoning.
Ms. Gitelman reported there was an increase in FAR along the technology
corridor.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Mayor Shepherd to authorize Staff to submit an application for a priority Development Area
Grant to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the preparation
of a Master Plan of the Fry’s property.
Mayor Shepherd announced remaining Council Members could provide comment before discussion of the Motion.
Council Member Berman felt the City needed more housing, and the
California Avenue area was ideal for additional housing. The Plan contained
two priorities: safety on Park Boulevard for bicyclists and pedestrians and
maintaining the small-town feel of the business district.
04/21/2014 114- 494
MINUTES
He concurred with Council Member Scharff's comments regarding having
diversified business entities throughout the area. The intersection of Page
Mill Road and Oregon Expressway needed improvements; however, the
Council had not discussed that. A table discussing changes in FAR in the
different areas would be helpful. He supported the Motion.
Council Member Holman wanted to understand the City's commitments as
required by the grant. She wanted to ensure the City was not committing to
any outcome in terms of the level of intensification that the VTA envisioned
for the community.
Elena Lee advised that the grant process included developing a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and VTA. The City
would determine the parameters of the project and approve the scope of
work for the consultants. The City would retain a great amount of control
over the process. Staff conversed with VTA to obtain clarification regarding
the control the City would have.
Council Member Holman asked if the Council would approve the MOU.
Mr. Keene replied yes.
Council Member Holman noted the response to a written question regarding
parkland needs did not address creation of a park or significant open space.
The Council needed drawings to understand the appearance of proposed
development. She could not identify any buffer zones or even references to
buffer zones. She requested Staff provide existing Comprehensive Plan
designations and existing zoning for the areas. The Plan seemed to be a
redevelopment document and missed many opportunities.
Council Member Price felt positive and hopeful concerning the Plan. She
supported the City applying for the VTA grant. The Plan was not a
prescriptive set of activities. The Council would have many chances to respond to information provided by Staff. Council Member questions were
valid, but issues would arise and be revised as the Plan was refined and as
discussions continued. She aligned herself with comments of the green
planning network. She was unsure whether the Council could correct the
jobs/housing imbalance. She inquired whether a Master Plan would preclude a site-specific plan for the Fry's site.
Ms. Gitelman reported the grant would be utilized to develop a site-specific
Master Plan for the Fry's site.
04/21/2014 114- 495
MINUTES
Council Member Price asked if the goal of combining high standards for
design and appropriate incentives would be included in a specific planning
process to address the guidelines for development and realization of the
goals for the subareas.
Ms. Gitelman proposed covering only the Fry's site in the site-specific plan.
The remainder of the area would be covered by the Plan, other policies in
the Comprehensive Plan, and by zoning.
Council Member Price understood the details would focus on the Fry's site as
a significant mixed-use site. The current language of the Plan provided Staff
with a great deal of flexibility. To support a grant application, the Council
needed more intensive information.
Vice Mayor Kniss believed critical elements were economic analysis and data.
She worried about mixed-use zoning, because it had not always been
successful in the community. She strongly supported the grant.
Council Member Scharff was relieved to know the Council was not making a
commitment by applying for the grant. He did not want the community to
think that applying for the grant predetermined the outcome. The City was
saving money by applying for the grant.
Mayor Shepherd stated many people believed the Council prepared a
Housing Element in order to receive grants. The Council had to prepare a
Housing Element because it was State mandated. The grant focused on an
area of community angst. She wanted the California Avenue area to be
designed more specifically.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Mr. Keene reported the Council provided many helpful comments covering
many topics. Staff would need more time to research and to organize information. The Council was attempting to prepare the Plan for release to
the public and for integration with the EIR. He wondered whether a follow-
up session in a few weeks would be acceptable.
Ms. Gitelman advised Staff was attempting to structure conversations to embark on the next phase of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Council could
provide its questions to Staff, then Staff would respond at the May 5, 2014
Study Session. After that discussion, perhaps Staff could judge the amount
of time needed to embark on the next phase.
04/21/2014 114- 496
MINUTES
Council Member Schmid called point of order. The Motion had a third
component of determining a date for a follow-up session.
Mayor Shepherd understood the City Manager stated it was Staff's intent to
return to the Council.
Mr. Keene reiterated that a two-hour Study Session was scheduled for the
Comprehensive Plan and would include the California Avenue Area Concept
Plan. At the end of that meeting, the Council could determine if more time
was needed. Land use for the majority of the City would remain the same at
the end of the Comprehensive Plan discussion. Land use in a few areas
would change. As the Council reviewed the Comprehensive Plan, it could
determine areas for more intensive focus.
Council Member Burt questioned whether the Council would have a separate
discussion of the California Avenue Area Concept Plan.
Mr. Keene reported at the end of the May 5, 2014 meeting, the Council could
discuss whether another session was needed. Staff was committed to
ensuring the Council released the Plan to the public when it was ready.
15. Public Hearing -- Council Adoption of an Ordinance Modifying: 1)
Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to: (a) Address
Sidewalk Width and Building Setbacks (Setback and “Build-To” Line
Standards and Context Based Design Criteria) along El Camino Real,
and (b) Reduce the Allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN Zoned Sites
Where Dwelling Units are Permitted at 20 Units Per Acre; and 2) PAMC
Chapter 18.04 to Adjust the Definition of Lot Area and Add a Definition
for “Effective Sidewalk”. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the
Provisions of CEQA per Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use
Limitations) (STAFF REQUESTS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO APRIL
29, 2014)
Council Member Scharff reported he would be in Washington, DC with the
Utility Department the following week. As an author of the original
Colleague's Memorandum, he would appreciate the Council continuing the
item until he could be present.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Price to defer item until after May 5, 2014 or later.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, suggested the Council select a date certain for
noticing purposes.
04/21/2014 114- 497
MINUTES
Mayor Shepherd recommended the Council vote on the Motion. If the
Motion passed, then the Council would discuss a date certain.
Council Member Price concurred with Council Member Scharff's comments.
As a courtesy to the authors of the original Colleague's Memorandum, it was
appropriate for them to be present for the discussion.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Klein moved seconded by Council
Member XXX to hear this item on April 29, 2014.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Schmid inquired whether the item could be heard soon after
April 29, if the Motion passed.
Mayor Shepherd reiterated that the Council would discuss a date certain if
the Motion passed. The item would have to re-noticed.
Council Member Holman advised the Motion on the board stated "continue
the item to May 5 or later," while Mayor Shepherd indicated the Motion was
to remove the item from the April 29 Agenda.
Council Member Klein stated the item was never scheduled for April 29; the
Council was attempting to move the item to the April 29 meeting. He
recognized the courtesy Council Member Scharff requested; however,
continuing an item on the basis of Council Member attendance was a
dangerous precedent. If the Council routinely granted this type of request,
it might never accomplish its work. Many meetings were held with fewer
than nine Council Members present.
Mayor Shepherd supported Council Member Klein's comments. She would
support the Motion as a courtesy to the maker. All Council Members cared deeply about the item.
MOTION PASSED: 8-1 Klein no
James Keene, City Manager, reviewed upcoming Council Agendas. June 2, 2014 appeared to be the best date.
MOTION: Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Price to
continue the public hearing on Agenda Item Number 15 to June 2, 2014.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
04/21/2014 114- 498
MINUTES
INTER-GOVERNMENTAL LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DISCUSSION AND ACTION
16. Resolution 9407 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto in support of Measure AA (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
Bond).”
Yoriko Kishimoto, former Palo Alto Mayor and Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District Director, reviewed the Mission and the history of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). The District acquired
62,000 acres and opened and operated 220 miles of trails. Public comments
indicated they wanted more public access, more open space, and more
restoration. Proposed projects in and around Palo Alto included: work on the
Bay trail; improvement projects at Windy Hill; restoration and improvement of Alpine Road as a trail; construction of a welcome center; and improved
transit access at Rancho San Antonio. Measure AA sought authorization for
the District to issue up to $300 million in Bonds over the next few decades.
The impact on the taxpayer would not exceed $3.18 per year per $100,000
of assessed value.
Council Member Holman noted the project would affect Palo Alto because it
supported corridors for wildlife.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
Price to adopt the Resolution in support of Measure AA on the June 3, 2014
ballot.
Council Member Holman noted many Council Members had supported
Measure AA individually.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
17. Discussion and Approval of Caltrain Draft Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter.
Richard Hackmann, Management Analyst, reported the Caltrain
Electrification Project (Project) was proposed via overhead contact system or
catenary wires. The Project proposed to increase the number of trains from
five to six per peak hour per direction and to restore service at the Atherton
and Broadway Stations. The trains would continue to travel at speeds of up
to 79 miles per hour.
04/21/2014 114- 499
MINUTES
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued on January 31, 2013, to which the
City of Palo Alto responded in March 2013. Caltrain released its Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in February 2014, and comments were
due by April 29, 2014. Staff anticipated the Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) would be released in the fall of 2014 with certification in the
winter. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements included
identification of an environmental baseline; analysis of direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts; comparison of impacts to significant criteria;
identification of feasible mitigation for significant impacts; consideration of
alternatives; and review of reasonable worst-case assumptions. Goals of the
project were to improve Caltrain system performance; increase service;
reduce fuel costs; reduce environmental impacts; and create a system
compatible with the blended system. Key project benefits were improved air
quality, increased service and capacity, and reduced regional traffic
congestion. Project concerns were tree removal, impacts of catenary wire
installation, electromagnetic fields, and local traffic impacts. The City's NOP
letter identified 19 areas for additional analysis. The proposed EIR letter
identified seven areas for additional analysis: impacts on local traffic,
catenary wire installation, pedestrian accessibility, ridership estimates and
Caltrain service impacts, construction impacts, visual impact of Paralleling
Station 5 (PS5), and impacts on historic resources. As stated in the DEIR,
utilization of Electric Multiple Units (EMU) was not recommended because
they did not meet the project purpose of providing electrical infrastructure
compatible with High Speed Rail (HSR); and the environmental
improvements and operational improvements of EMUs were not as great
those of an electrified system. The DEIR indicated longer trains and
platforms provided increased capacity, but did not meet the project purpose
of providing increased service. Project benefits and impacts should be
weighed in the context of the Palo Alto Corridor as a whole. Comments
should be focused on items the City needed to address in the Final EIR.
Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, suggested electrification of Caltrain could
provide additional service in the California Avenue area. The City's plans for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs and reduction of
vehicle trips depended heavily on increased Caltrain service and capacity.
With electrification, longer platforms would enable significantly greater
capacity. She concurred with the suggestion to have a mitigation fund
related to grade separations.
Sven Theisen suggested the letter contain language at the beginning
indicating the City supported electrification of Caltrain as quickly as possible.
Electrification of Caltrain would reduce Palo Alto's carbon footprint.
04/21/2014 114- 500
MINUTES
Roland Lebrun questioned Caltrain's plan to give higher priority to
electrification of the line than to a complete fleet replacement. Replacing
the entire fleet would substantially reduce operating costs. Caltrain should
focus on a complete fleet replacement in three years regardless of the
electrification project.
Elizabeth Alexis, Greenmeadow Community Association and Californians
Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD), provided a simulation of the
PS5 Alternative 1 to be placed at the entrance to Greenmeadow. PS5
Alternative 1 was directly visible from the park and community center which
was the heart of the neighborhood. It should be moved and not located
directly in the right-of-way. Caltrain should install low noise barriers and
consider burying electrical wires near the corridor.
Stephen Rosenblum stated the most important thing about the project was
grade separations. One additional train per hour at the cost of $1 billion was
not cost effective. The project should not proceed without grade
separations.
Herb Borock noted the City's Guiding Principles indicated there should be
two environmental impact reports; one for the modernization project and
one for any subsequent improvements related to HSR. Litigation could stop
HSR. In the letter, the City should raise the issue of the prejudicial abuse of
process by having a Caltrain DEIR that assumed HSR in the same right-of-
way.
Council Member Price remarked that the letter should be more forceful
regarding the aesthetics and design of the catenary wire system. With a
more thorough assessment of options, the City could have an improved
design. She agreed with public comments regarding grade separations, as
they were important for operating efficiencies, safety, and aesthetics. She
requested Staff include a discussion of grade separations, but not within the
impacts on local traffic. A fund to assist with implementation of future corridor improvements was critical. She requested Staff rephrase "could" to
be a recommendation and include a sentence regarding safety related to
pedestrian accessibility. She inquired whether the letter recommended a
tree mitigation fund to make the City whole for the number of trees
removed.
Mr. Hackmann indicated Staff's thought was to have trees replaced. The
first priority was to place trees on or near the corridor. The second priority
was to place trees in an appropriate place near the corridor.
04/21/2014 114- 501
MINUTES
Council Member Price asked if the letter recommended an age or size of
replacement trees.
Mr. Hackmann advised that the long-term success of the trees placed some
limitation on the size at which they could be replaced.
Council Member Scharff believed ridership estimates were low, which would
create greater impacts. In addition, proposed TDM programs in adjacent
cities could also affect ridership. He inquired whether the letter should
address ridership estimates.
Mr. Hackmann reported in the context of the EIR, Caltrain would move from
five to six trains per hour. Increased population along the corridor and
increased use of the service were key reasons to support the project.
Council Member Scharff noted Palo Alto's and other cities' efforts to
implement TDM Programs. Those programs would result in Caltrain capacity
issues. Caltrain needed to plan for that now. Increased ridership due to
TDM Programs were not mentioned in the EIR. He asked if the letter should
raise ridership issues.
Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment,
suggested Staff include language to request further analysis given TDM
measures proposed along the Peninsula and to request Caltrain consider the
extent that future HSR requirements would constrain future capacity.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether other issues should be added to
the letter.
Mr. Aknin reported Staff attempted to be comprehensive and included
Council Member Burt's comments. Staff could add language regarding a
critical analysis of ridership estimates based on current policies of cities
throughout the Peninsula.
Council Member Scharff asked if Staff agreed with Council Member Price's
request to change "could."
Mr. Aknin agreed to change "should" to "shall."
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Klein to approve the Draft Environmental Impact Report comment letter with
the following changes: 1) taking a look at ridership estimates up and down
the peninsula, 2) clear and demonstrative language (should to shall), and 3)
the future impacts of High Speed Rail.
04/21/2014 114- 502
MINUTES
Council Member Klein wanted to strengthen language regarding
consideration of the center pole alternative. Placing the supports for the
catenary system in the center would lessen the impact on trees. He
suggested Staff review the letter from the Atherton arborist. Trimming trees
should not mean butchering them. Language regarding El Palo Alto should
be strengthened. The letter did not reference the fact that El Palo Alto was
California Historical Site Number 2. The letter should include a section
regarding the possibility of a court ruling resulting in the termination of HSR.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to: 1) add centerfold alternative, support for the
Catenary system in the middle, 2) further attention to appropriate
procedures for trimming trees, 3) protection of El Palo Alto tree, and 4)
analyze affects if California Supreme Court rules to end High Speed Rail.
Council Member Burt did not hear Staff respond to substantive
recommendations from the public.
Mr. Hackmann inquired whether Council Member Burt had a particular
comment in mind.
Council Member Burt assumed Staff would respond to those comments that
had merit. One comment concerned evaluation of fixed location horns or
wayside horns to reduce noise impact.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to evaluate fixed location/wayside horns to reduce noise impacts.
Mr. Aknin reported the Final EIR would review that in more detail if it was
noted in the letter.
Council Member Burt noted the loss of trees would result in increased noise
from freight trains. Low-level berms were utilized to address wheel noise
and were a well-established practice. He suggested the letter state that the
City would approve the most environmentally beneficial relocation of trees.
He concurred with Council Member Price's point regarding safety for
pedestrians. The EIR within the system and in Palo Alto should analyze
platform lengths. He asked if Staff had objections to including those items.
Mr. Aknin had no concerns. Caltrain would respond that some issues, such
as platform lengths, were beyond the scope of the EIR.
04/21/2014 114- 503
MINUTES
Council Member Burt remarked that the responding argument should be that
restraining the capacity of the system would increase road traffic and create
additional environmental impacts.
Mr. Hackmann advised that Staff proposed moving PS5 toward San Antonio
Road.
Council Member Burt recommended Staff strengthen the language regarding
PS5.
Council Member Holman suggested the first paragraph be changed to read
"conceptually supports the operational improvements of Caltrain service
provided that all impacts can be eliminated or effectively mitigated to levels
acceptable to the City of Palo Alto." "Eliminated" should be added because
PS5 should be eliminated, not just mitigated. She inquired about visual
impacts to the Julia Morgan Building as it was located just past the train
station.
Mr. Aknin could add the Julia Morgan Building to the list of structures
contained within the letter.
Council Member Holman suggested eliminating the parenthetical phrase in
the penultimate paragraph on the last page to strengthen the Greenmeadow
issue. She also suggested revising "this could" to "this would contribute to a
direct impact." Mr. Borock raised the question of objecting to the DEIR
definition of the project being compatible with HSR.
Mr. Aknin indicated the Staff Report addressed the issue. Caltrain could
perform a phased EIR or two separate EIRs. Caltrain chose to perform
separate EIRs. Staff and the consultant believed this was a reasonable
approach, because there was an in-depth analysis of HSR. There would be
an additional level of review once HSR proceeded.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether "acceptable to the City of Palo
Alto" was an appropriate legal standard in an EIR. The letter referenced an
impact that could not be mitigated.
Mr. Aknin noted several intersections had significant and unavoidable impacts.
Council Member Scharff explained that the letter stated some impacts could
not be mitigated; therefore, he could not accept Council Member Holman's
proposed change.
04/21/2014 114- 504
MINUTES
Council Member Holman asked if Council Member Scharff agreed to include
in the Motion that impacts could be eliminated or effectively mitigated.
Council Member Scharff replied no. The letter stated that certain impacts
could not be eliminated or mitigated.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, Council Member Schmid
seconded to add in the 1st paragraph, line 3 of the letter that "impacts can
be eliminated or effectively mitigated".
Council Member Holman felt this language was a stronger position for the
City. The City expected Caltrain to make an effort to not only mitigate but
also to eliminate impacts. Where impacts could not be eliminated, the City
expected effective mitigation. In EIRs, the City often did not speak strongly or forcefully to eliminating impacts.
Council Member Schmid recalled Council Member Price suggested traffic
impacts be more forcefully stated. Stronger wording would be more
effective in this instance.
Council Member Holman noted the change was to the first paragraph of the
letter.
Council Member Klein remarked that the proposed language would
undermine the City's position as it was not a credible statement.
Vice Mayor Kniss and Council Member Berman left the meeting at 11:45 P.M.
AMENDMENT FAILED: 2-5 Holman, Schmid yes, Berman, Kniss absent
Mayor Shepherd asked if extending station platforms would require separate
EIRs for each platform.
Marian Lee, Caltrain explained that Caltrain performed an environmental
assessment to determine whether a project required a full EIR. Given the
location, size, and challenges of platforms, she assumed extending platforms
would need a full environmental document.
Mayor Shepherd inquired about a reason for not including platform extension
in the current EIR.
04/21/2014 114- 505
MINUTES
Ms. Lee reported platforms were not within the scope of the project.
Caltrain was asked to size and package the project to provide effective and
improved service to the community. Additional improvements were needed,
but no funding was available.
Council Member Burt added that Caltrain did not have to limit the
environmental analysis to the project for which it had funds.
Ms. Lee clarified that the original project was subject to Federal clearance.
For the Federal process, Caltrain was required to have a sufficient funding
plan for the project which must match the scope of the project.
Council Member Burt asked if Caltrain was required to have funding in order
to achieve a Federal environmental clearance.
Ms. Lee explained that Caltrain was required to have a reasonable funding
plan that matched the scope of the project for Federal clearance.
Mayor Shepherd recalled that PS5 was located in the same place in both the
2003 and current EIR and requested an explanation for it not being
relocated.
Ms. Lee advised that the 35 percent design of the electrification system was
completed in 2008. For the current environmental document, Caltrain
essentially scrubbed that design to ensure all assumptions remained correct.
Caltrain did not redesign the existing design. For Greenmeadow, Caltrain
added alternatives.
Mayor Shepherd inquired whether she was referring to the California Avenue
alternative.
Ms. Lee indicated the environmental document provided two alternatives;
Staff provided a third alternative. Caltrain would work with Staff to address the location of PS5 in the final document.
Mayor Shepherd asked if PS5 would be relocated in the final document.
Ms. Lee reported that the final document did not have to state a preferred alternative, but simply review all options. Caltrain would consider comments
regarding a third option recommended by Staff.
Mayor Shepherd asked if there was a strong likelihood PS5 would be
relocated.
04/21/2014 114- 506
MINUTES
Ms. Lee reiterated that Caltrain would review alternatives and attempt to
relocate it.
Mayor Shepherd stated her main concern was the location of PS5.
Ms. Lee explained that Engineers laid out the location of the paralleling
stations with an understanding of how the electricity needed to flow between
the traction power systems. Engineers would need to perform due diligence
to determine whether PS5 could be relocated.
Mayor Shepherd did not believe Caltrain would work effectively in Palo Alto
without grade separations. There was not a visual impact to the Julia
Morgan Building. A catenary system with telephone poles rather than metal
poles was better visually. Perhaps each community could have some choice
of poles.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to: 1) make grade separation language stronger
and not lost within point on, 2) any discussion of grade separation should
ensure that the electrification project would not preclude potential
improvements to the corridor, and 3) all opportunities created for additional
pedestrian access should emphasize safety for the public.
Mr. Aknin indicated a request to analyze pedestrian safety was acceptable.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Kniss Berman absent
18. Discussion and Direction to Staff on Additional Action the City Should
Take on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Proposed
Changes to the Regional Measure 2 Program Specifically Related to
Dumbarton Rail Funding.
Richard Hackmann, Management Analyst, reported at the April 9, 2014
Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Programming and
Allocations Committee (PAC) meeting, Staff did not get the impression that
MTC believed setting aside money for the Dumbarton Rail Project was a
good use of funds. Staff did get the impression that PAC felt allocating $20
million for the Caltrain Electrification Project was a reasonably fair trade-off
for Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) not having to repay the $91 million
Dumbarton loan in the future. PAC focused on projects under construction
or under construction in the near future rather than identification of funding
for projects much further in the future.
04/21/2014 114- 507
MINUTES
At the current time, it was unlikely that any significant changes to the plan
would be made. If the Council directed Staff to make comments beyond
those already submitted, comments would be most effective if made in the
context of the existing plan.
Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff was seeking Council input for a
second letter to MTC.
Mr. Hackmann clarified that the Council could allow the April 9, 2014 letter
to stand as written. Another option was for the Council to clarify or
elaborate regarding the April 9 letter such that those comments would be
provided to MTC in the form of a letter.
Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, indicated there was a current need for
Dumbarton transit. Increased Dumbarton and Caltrain service was good;
however, $20 million versus $90 million was not logical.
Roland Lebrun suggested a phased implementation was a way forward. The
current funding outlook for the project stood at $300 million. Assuming the
Regional Measure 2 Program (RM2) funds were divided evenly between the
Peninsula and the East Bay, the Peninsula would be left with a total of
$167.5 million. The prime issue that needed to be addressed was
leadership.
Richard C. Brand felt parking issues in Palo Alto were related to the transport
link across the Bay. Getting people onto trains and out of cars would resolve
many of the parking issues in Palo Alto.
Herb Borock was concerned that the April 9 letter supported $20 million for
Caltrain electrification when the Council's adopted policy was that the City
could not determine whether to support electrification until all potential
impacts are identified and studied and mitigation measures implemented. It
was inappropriate for the Council to support $20 million for Caltrain electrification.
Council Member Burt noted that the program required funds to be used for
projects located within the Toll Bridge Corridor. BART's route to Warm
Springs did not seem to be located in the Toll Bridge Corridor. He asked if the Council should question whether MTC was acting consistent with their
own program guidelines.
Mr. Hackmann explained that the corridor was defined more broadly than
the corridor over the Bay.
04/21/2014 114- 508
MINUTES
Council Member Burt suggested the Council raise the issue as it would rally
Peninsula cities around a common position. He advocated for the Council to
include language that funds should be used for purposes within the corridor.
James Keene, City Manager, read information provided by Ms. Levin
regarding the original decisions and the project.
Council Member Burt inquired whether the information referred to the
Peninsula Rail Corridor.
Mr. Keene understood it to reference the corridor across the Bay.
Council Member Burt asked if the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) discussed the proposal and took a position on it.
Mr. Hackmann advised VTA had not taken a position opposing the loan
forgiveness.
Council Member Burt asked if VTA took a position supporting it.
Mr. Hackmann understood VTA did.
Council Member Price reported the last official action by the VTA Board
regarding the corridor was approval of the 2013-2015 Budget in June 2013.
The Dumbarton Rail Corridor item was zeroed out with a carryover
appropriation of $141,000. That amount was decreased from the original
budgeted amount of $2.4 million. PAC agreed that VTA would not support
money allocated to the project. The VTA Board voted in that manner. She
did not believe VTA had taken a specific position on the item recently.
Council Member Burt inquired about the position Council Member Price took
as the City's representative to the VTA.
Council Member Price noted the vote occurred prior to her joining the VTA
Board.
Council Member Burt asked what position she took as a member of PAC.
Council Member Price believed the majority of PAC agreed with the staff
recommendation.
Council Member Burt asked what position Council Member Price took as the
City's representative.
04/21/2014 114- 509
MINUTES
Council Member Price did not remember that vote specifically.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to include two elements to
the letter: 1) funds should serve the Peninsula Corridor and 2) funds should
be evaluated for purposes that would increase the capacity of Caltrain
including platform lengthening. Substitute the word “modernization” for
“electrification”.
Mr. Hackmann noted the environmental review of the Caltrain Electrification
Project was moving in parallel with funding of the proposed Caltrain
Electrification Project. The $20 million was not identified for Caltrain
modernization; it was identified for the specific proposed electrification
project.
Council Member Burt suggested the letter state modernization, and VTA
could interpret it.
Council Member Klein asked if the Motion would authorize the Mayor to send
a letter similar to the City Manager's letter with additions as set forth.
Council Member Burt responded yes.
Council Member Scharff felt the Council needed to discuss the issue of
electrification and modernization very soon. These issues should be
presented to the Council earlier so that the Council could discuss them and
take positions as needed. He would have liked to discuss the issues with the
City's representative to MTC prior to the votes being taken.
Mr. Keene reported Staff brought the item to the Council's notice as soon as
they learned of it. He wrote the April 9 letter at the last minute to place
something in the record before the PAC meeting.
Council Member Holman inquired whether a second letter should state that
the City supported the $20 million allocation to Caltrain.
Mr. Keene asked if Council Member Holman meant to limit the City to the
$20 million. He interpreted the letter to indicate the City was interested in more than $20 million.
Council Member Burt suggested the letter state the City would support $20
million at the current time. The City wanted MTC to evaluate additional
support for the corridor in the future.
04/21/2014 114- 510
MINUTES
Mr. Keene indicated Staff could phrase the letter to make the case that the
City could make improvements cost effectively.
Council Member Burt recalled that two years previously the City requested
Caltrain evaluate the lengths of existing platforms. Finally Caltrain agreed to
consider it in the future. It took three years for Caltrain to consider level
boarding.
Council Member Holman inquired whether it was appropriate to state that
the City supported $20 million to the current point in time.
Mr. Keene advised Staff would make a larger case with other examples and
argue for more.
Council Member Holman asked if the letter would be consistent with the
Council's concerns regarding the Caltrain Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR).
Mr. Keene indicated Staff would phrase it as "on the funding side."
Council Member Price inquired whether the Motion revised language
concerning the repayment condition for the $91 million.
Mr. Hackmann clarified that the Motion requested the contribution of $20
million and the repayment of the $91 million loan, with that funding going
towards Caltrain's consideration of platform lengthening and other things.
Mayor Shepherd recalled the City requested Caltrain consider platform
length in the original comment period. At the PAC meeting, Caltrain
explained that they could not consider platform length without having
funding for such a project.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Berman, Kniss absent
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:34 A.M.
04/21/2014 114- 511
MINUTES
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.
04/21/2014 114- 512