HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-23 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
June 23, 2014
Closed Session .......................................................................................185
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ........................................185
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ........................................185
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS .....................................................................185
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................186
MINUTES APPROVAL ...............................................................................186
CONSENT CALENDAR ..............................................................................187
3. Award of Banking and Related Service Contracts to: (1 and 2) U.S.
Bank and Their Wholly-Owned Subsidiary Elavon for General Banking
and Merchant Services, (3) Wells Fargo for Lockbox Service, (4)
Commerce Bank for the New and Innovative Accounts Payable Bill
Payment Service, (5) Union Bank for Investment Safekeeping
(Custodial) Service, and (6) JP Morgan Chase Bank for Purchase Card
(P-Card) Service ............................................................................187
4. Approval of a Five-year Contract with Questica Inc. For a Budget
System at a Cost Not to Exceed $472,100 and a 10 percent
Contingency Totaling $26,968..........................................................187
5. Council Direction to Remove Floor Area Ratios from the Draft California
Avenue Area Concept Plan per the Council's Discussion of May 5, 2014 .187
6. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a
Professional Services Agreement with Just Energy Resources LLC in
the Amount of $597,878 for Marketing and Program Management for
the PaloAltoGreen and PaloAltoGreen Gas Programs for a Term of up to
Three Years ...................................................................................187
7. Resolution 9439 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto of Intent to Establish Utility Underground District No. 46
06/23/2014 115- 180
MINUTES
(Arastradero Rd/El Camino Real/ W. Charleston Rd) by Amending
Section 12.16.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.” ...........................187
8. Approval of a Water Enterprise Fund Contract with DN Tanks, Inc. In a
Total Not to Exceed Amount of $1,534,842 for the Seismic Upgrade of
the Boronda Reservoir Project WS-09000-501 ...................................187
9. Park Improvement Ordinance 5256 entitled “Park Improvement
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto for Hopkins Park (First
Reading: June 9, 2014 PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent).” ........................188
10. Approval of a Contract with Graham Contractors, Inc. in the Amount of $1,084,553, for the FY 2015 Preventive Maintenance Project, the 1st
of 4 Contracts in the FY 2015 Street Maintenance Program Project (CIP
PE-86070) .....................................................................................188
11. Approval of On-Call Surveying Consultant Contract with Sandis Civil
Engineers Surveyors Planners for a Total of $150,000 for Surveying
and Design Support Services ...........................................................188
12. Resolution 9440 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Terminating the “Power from Local Ultra-clean Generation
Incentive" Program and Repealing Utilities Gas Rate Schedule G-8
(Gas for Electric Generation Service)” ...............................................188
13. Approval of a Contract with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil
Engineers In The Amount of $250,000 for Storm Drain Master Plan
Update, Capital Improvement Program Project SD-15008 ...................188
14. Approval of a Funding Agreement with the County of Santa Clara in
the Amount of $100,000 for Development of a Concept Plan Line for
Possible Improvements to Page Mill Road from Oregon Expressway to
I-280 and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5257 entitled
“Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
to Transfer $75,000 from the Stanford Research Park/El Camino Traffic
Impact Fee Fund and $25,000 from the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee
Fund to CIP PL-12000 for this purpose.”............................................188
15. Authorization to Submit a Grant Funding Application to the Federal
Aviation Administration for Rehabilitation of the Runway and Taxiways
at the Palo Alto Airport ....................................................................188
16. Approval of Contract with MV Transportation in the Amount of
$1,215,036.00 to Provide Community Shuttle Service on the Existing
Crosstown Shuttle Route and the East Palo Alto/Caltrain Shuttle Route
06/23/2014 115- 181
MINUTES
for up to Three Years; Approval of Funding Agreement with East Palo
Alto and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5258 entitled
“Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending the Fiscal Year 2015 Operating Budget to Increase the
Planning and Community Environment Department Appropriation by
$221,239.” ....................................................................................189
17. Request to Issue Notice of Intent to Award 50 Year Lease to Avenidas
for 450 Bryant Street Site to Allow Continued Use of Building for
Senior Services ..............................................................................189
18. Ordinance 5259 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending Section 22.04.270 by Adding Subsection 22.04.270(C)
to Prohibit the Feeding of Wildlife and Feral Animals in Palo Alto Parks
And Open Space Areas (First Reading: June 9, 2014 PASSED: 8-0
Scharff absent).” ............................................................................189
19. Ordinance 5260 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Authorizing the Operation, Management and Control of the Palo
Alto Airport by the City of Palo Alto and Amending Section 2.08.190 of
Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add the Palo
Alto Airport to the Duties of the Director of Public Works (First
Reading: June 9, 2014 PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent).” .......................189
20. Approval of Amendment No. 8 with Group 4 Architecture, Inc., to Add
$143,339 for a Total Contract Not to Exceed $8,998,570 ....................189
21. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to On-Call Transportation Service
Agreement - Contract C13147610 with TJKM Transportation Consultant
in the Amount of $151,000 ..............................................................189
22. Rescission of Resolution 9415 and Adoption of Updated Resolution
9437 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling
a Special Election to Modernize the Telecommunications Provision of
the Utility Users Tax Ordinance, Eliminate the Discount Tax Rate for a
Small Number of Commercial Customers Who Use Large Volumes of
Water, Gas and Electric Utilities and Reduce the Telephone UUT Rate
from 5% to 4.75% .........................................................................189
23. Resolution 9438 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Calling a Special Election for November 4, 2014 and Submitting to
the Electorate a Measure to Amend Article III, Section 2, of the
Charter to Change the Number of Council Member Seats from Nine to
Seven Commencing January 1, 2019 ................................................189
06/23/2014 115- 182
MINUTES
ACTION ITEMS .......................................................................................190
24. Approval of One Contract and Two Contract Amendments: (1)
Construction Contract with Duininck, Inc. in the Amount of $8,987,809
for the Palo Alto Golf Course Reconfiguration Project, CIP PG-13003;
(2) Change Order No. One with Duininck, Inc. in the Amount of
$265,399, Reflecting Cost Savings; and (3) Amendment No. One to
Contract C13148028 with Golf Group, Ltd. in the Amount of $456,693
for Construction Support and Environmental Mitigation Monitoring
Services; Adoption of Two Resolutions: Resolution 9441 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto (4) Amending
Resolution No. 9296, adopted November 13, 2013, to Extend Statutory
Exception for Soil Transfers by Truck on Oregon Expressway until
December 31, 2014;” and Resolution 9442 entitled “Resolution of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto (5) Adopt the Attached Resolution
Declaring Intention to Reimburse Expenditures from the Proceeds of
Tax-Exempt Obligations (e.g. Certificates of Participation) for Not-To-
Exceed Par Amount of $7 Million to Fund a Portion of the Cost of the
Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project;” and Adoption
of Two Budget Amendment Ordinances: Budget Amendment Ordinance
5261 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto (6) In the Amount of $2,501,569 for Golf Course
Reconfiguration Project PG-13003, Increasing Appropriations From
$8,545,338 to $11,046,907;” and Budget Amendment Ordinance 5262
entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto (7) In the Amount of $324,800 in Revenues and $324,800 in
Expenses to Operate Golf Course During July 1, 2014 – August 31,
2014 ............................................................................................190
25. PUBLIC HEARING: City Council Review and Consideration of a
Proposed Reclassification from a Category 3 Historic Resource to a
Category 2 Historic Resource and an Architectural Review Application
for the Historic Rehabilitation Project Located at 261 Hamilton Avenue
that would Generate 15,000 Square Feet of Transferable Development
Rights for Off-Site Development. The Rehabilitation Project Includes
Renovations to the Existing Building And Relocation of Floor Area to
Make A 5,910 Square Foot Addition at the Rear of the Building.
Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act per Sections 15331 Historical Resource Rehabilitation and
15301 Existing Facilities ..................................................................196
26. PUBLIC HEARING: Council Action Regarding an Appeal of the Director
of Planning and Community Environment's Decision Approving a
Project on an Approximately 17-acre Site in the RP (AS2) Zoning
06/23/2014 115- 183
MINUTES
District located at 1451-1601 California Avenue, and Council Approval
of a Tentative Map to Subdivide Three Parcels Into 83 Parcels at the
Same Site. The Proposal Would Authorize Demolition of Approximately
290,220 Square Feet of Existing R&D/Office Space and Construction of
180 Dwelling Units, Which Includes 68 Detached Single Family Units
and 112 Multi-Family Units as Anticipated in the 2005 Mayfield
Development Agreement. Environmental Assessment: City of Palo
Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2003082103) ..210
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ............227
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 P.M. .........................227
06/23/2014 115- 184
MINUTES
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:01 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss, Price, Scharff, Schmid,
Shepherd
Absent:
CLOSED SESSION
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations(James Keene, Lalo
Perez, Joe Saccio, Kathryn Shen, Dania Torres Wong, Eric Nickel,
Catherine Capriles, Geo Blackshire, Melissa Tronquet, Mark Gregerson,
Nancy Nagel, Molly Stump, Walter Rossman)
Employee Organization: International Association of Fire Fighters
(IAFF), Local 1319
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 Regulations (James Keene, Lalo Perez, Melissa Tronquet, Joe Saccio, Molly Stump, Walter Rossman,
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)
The Council reconvened from the Closed Session at 5:45 P.M. Mayor Shepherd
advised no reportable action.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
James Keene, City Manager reported that the Planning Staff will be hosting a
workshop related to the Comprehensive Plan update on June 24, 2014 at 6:00
P.M. at the Elks Lodge in Palo Alto. A brochure was available for the public
regarding the Comprehensive Plan, as they were able to participate in the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping process. Regarding California Avenue,
the City’s contractor, Redgwick Construction, completed the water line and was
now moving into the streetscape portion of the project. There were 49 new trees
to be planted along California Avenue, making the number of new trees over 100.
06/23/2014 115- 185
MINUTES
The Street Tree Plan followed California Avenue’s existing pattern and the overall
Street Tree Plan. The California Energy Code was scheduled to go into effect on
July 1, 2014; it impacted residential and non-residential design construction. The
City prepared a Climate Protection Plan in 2007, related to the Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) that specified goals for Greenhouse gas reduction; the
City exceeded their goals and set new goals. The community emissions were
estimated at 34 percent below 1990 levels, and about 29 percent below 2005
levels. The new circumstances, new technology, and the rising bar of initiatives
called for a new CAP. Staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Climate Plan on June 2, 2014 and met with perspective bidders on June 9, 2014. The RFP
asked for three different greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction scenarios: 80 percent
by the year 2050; 80 percent by 2030; and 100 percent carbon free by 2025. The
Chili Cook Off was being held at Mitchell Park on July 4, 2014. The Fire
Department, Emergency Services Department, Police Department, and the Open
Space Rangers of the Community Services Department planned on conducting a
safety watch that involved the Midpeninsula Open Space Districts, Stanford
University, and other agencies to deter crime, fire, and other dangers in the
Baylands and Foothills. Veteran artist Ehren Tool was at the Art Center through
June 29, 2014; he created and gave away more than 1,500 cups to promote
dialogue about war and veteran experiences. The Twilight Summer Concert Series
began June 28, 2014 with the Air Force Band of the Golden West in Rinconada
Park. With the approval of the contract for the remodel of the first floor at City
Hall, work was scheduled to begin the week of June 30, 2014, each phase taking
between 60-90 days. The first phase involved a new community meeting room, a
new Council Conference Room. The Main Library was being remodeled with public
art, and the Council Chambers was receiving new carpet and seats, and new
elevator cabs were being installed at City Hall. Phase Two and Three included
improvements on level two, the Mezzanine, and the old Council Conference Room.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Robin Angstadt spoke regarding aggressive homeless people and their ability to
ask for money in front of stores and wanted to begin petitioning about this issue.
Timothy Gray read an e-mail regarding a public records request that dealt with a
Grand Jury report on 27 University Avenue; he requested the Council’s support.
MINUTES APPROVAL
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member
Berman to approve the minutes of May 5 and May 6, 2014.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
06/23/2014 115- 186
MINUTES
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Price
to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-23.
Council Member Holman registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 4.
Council Member Schmid registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 4.
Council Member Scharff registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 23.
3. Award of Banking and Related Service Contracts to: (1 and 2) U.S.
Bank and Their Wholly-Owned Subsidiary Elavon for General Banking
and Merchant Services, (3) Wells Fargo for Lockbox Service, (4)
Commerce Bank for the New and Innovative Accounts Payable Bill
Payment Service, (5) Union Bank for Investment Safekeeping
(Custodial) Service, and (6) JP Morgan Chase Bank for Purchase Card
(P-Card) Service.
4. Approval of a Five-year Contract with Questica Inc. For a Budget
System at a Cost Not to Exceed $472,100 and a 10 percent
Contingency Totaling $26,968.
5. Council Direction to Remove Floor Area Ratios from the Draft California
Avenue Area Concept Plan per the Council's Discussion of May 5, 2014.
6. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a
Professional Services Agreement with Just Energy Resources LLC in
the Amount of $597,878 for Marketing and Program Management for
the PaloAltoGreen and PaloAltoGreen Gas Programs for a Term of up to
Three Years.
7. Resolution 9439 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto of Intent to Establish Utility Underground District No. 46
(Arastradero Rd/El Camino Real/ W. Charleston Rd) by Amending
Section 12.16.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.”
8. Approval of a Water Enterprise Fund Contract with DN Tanks, Inc. In a
Total Not to Exceed Amount of $1,534,842 for the Seismic Upgrade of
the Boronda Reservoir Project WS-09000-501.
06/23/2014 115- 187
MINUTES
9. Park Improvement Ordinance 5256 entitled “Park Improvement
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto for Hopkins Park (First
Reading: June 9, 2014 PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent).”
10. Approval of a Contract with Graham Contractors, Inc. in the Amount of
$1,084,553, for the FY 2015 Preventive Maintenance Project, the 1st
of 4 Contracts in the FY 2015 Street Maintenance Program Project (CIP
PE-86070).
11. Approval of On-Call Surveying Consultant Contract with Sandis Civil
Engineers Surveyors Planners for a Total of $150,000 for Surveying and Design Support Services.
12. Resolution 9440 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Terminating the “Power from Local Ultra-clean Generation
Incentive" Program and Repealing Utilities Gas Rate Schedule G-8
(Gas for Electric Generation Service)”
13. Approval of a Contract with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil
Engineers In The Amount of $250,000 for Storm Drain Master Plan
Update, Capital Improvement Program Project SD-15008.
14. Approval of a Funding Agreement with the County of Santa Clara in
the Amount of $100,000 for Development of a Concept Plan Line for
Possible Improvements to Page Mill Road from Oregon Expressway to
I-280 and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5257 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
to Transfer $75,000 from the Stanford Research Park/El Camino Traffic
Impact Fee Fund and $25,000 from the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee
Fund to CIP PL-12000 for this purpose.”
15. Authorization to Submit a Grant Funding Application to the Federal
Aviation Administration for Rehabilitation of the Runway and Taxiways
at the Palo Alto Airport.
16. Approval of Contract with MV Transportation in the Amount of
$1,215,036.00 to Provide Community Shuttle Service on the Existing
Crosstown Shuttle Route and the East Palo Alto/Caltrain Shuttle Route
for up to Three Years; Approval of Funding Agreement with East Palo
Alto and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5258 entitled
“Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending the Fiscal Year 2015 Operating Budget to Increase the
06/23/2014 115- 188
MINUTES
Planning and Community Environment Department Appropriation by
$221,239.”
17. Request to Issue Notice of Intent to Award 50 Year Lease to Avenidas
for 450 Bryant Street Site to Allow Continued Use of Building for
Senior Services.
18. Ordinance 5259 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending Section 22.04.270 by Adding Subsection 22.04.270(C)
to Prohibit the Feeding of Wildlife and Feral Animals in Palo Alto Parks
And Open Space Areas (First Reading: June 9, 2014 PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent).”
19. Ordinance 5260 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Authorizing the Operation, Management and Control of the Palo
Alto Airport by the City of Palo Alto and Amending Section 2.08.190 of
Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add the Palo
Alto Airport to the Duties of the Director of Public Works (First
Reading: June 9, 2014 PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent).”
20. Approval of Amendment No. 8 with Group 4 Architecture, Inc., to Add
$143,339 for a Total Contract Not to Exceed $8,998,570.
21. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to On-Call Transportation Service
Agreement - Contract C13147610 with TJKM Transportation Consultant
in the Amount of $151,000.
22. Rescission of Resolution 9415 and Adoption of Updated Resolution
9437 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling
a Special Election to Modernize the Telecommunications Provision of
the Utility Users Tax Ordinance, Eliminate the Discount Tax Rate for a
Small Number of Commercial Customers Who Use Large Volumes of
Water, Gas and Electric Utilities and Reduce the Telephone UUT Rate
from 5% to 4.75%.”
23. Resolution 9438 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Calling a Special Election for November 4, 2014 and Submitting to
the Electorate a Measure to Amend Article III, Section 2, of the
Charter to Change the Number of Council Member Seats from Nine to
Seven Commencing January 1, 2019.”
MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item Numbers 3, 5-22: 9-0
06/23/2014 115- 189
MINUTES
MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item Number 4: 7-2 Holman, Schmid no
MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item Number 23: 8-1 Scharff no
Council Member Holman thought the process for the System Application
Product (SAP) security system should go before the Policy and Services
Committee, then Council because it was significant and needed to be vetted.
Council Member Schmid added that there were questions regarding SAP and
it was good to know the expectations of the Council and the public upfront.
Council Member Scharff did not support Item 23.
ACTION ITEMS
24. Approval of One Contract and Two Contract Amendments: (1)
Construction Contract with Duininck, Inc. in the Amount of $8,987,809
for the Palo Alto Golf Course Reconfiguration Project, CIP PG-13003;
(2) Change Order No. One with Duininck, Inc. in the Amount of
$265,399, Reflecting Cost Savings; and (3) Amendment No. One to
Contract C13148028 with Golf Group, Ltd. in the Amount of $456,693
for Construction Support and Environmental Mitigation Monitoring
Services; Adoption of Two Resolutions: Resolution 9441 entitled
“Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto (4) Amending
Resolution No. 9296, adopted November 13, 2013, to Extend Statutory
Exception for Soil Transfers by Truck on Oregon Expressway until
December 31, 2014;” and Resolution 9442 entitled “Resolution of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto (5) Adopt the Attached Resolution
Declaring Intention to Reimburse Expenditures from the Proceeds of
Tax-Exempt Obligations (e.g. Certificates of Participation) for Not-To-
Exceed Par Amount of $7 Million to Fund a Portion of the Cost of the
Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project;” and Adoption
of Two Budget Amendment Ordinances: Budget Amendment Ordinance
5261 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto (6) In the Amount of $2,501,569 for Golf Course
Reconfiguration Project PG-13003, Increasing Appropriations From
$8,545,338 to $11,046,907;” and Budget Amendment Ordinance 5262
entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto (7) In the Amount of $324,800 in Revenues and $324,800 in
Expenses to Operate Golf Course During July 1, 2014 – August 31,
2014”
06/23/2014 115- 190
MINUTES
Mayor Shepherd noted that decisions needed to be made for the City
Manager to move forward with this Item.
James Keene, City Manager remarked that in February 2014, Staff received
a notice of incompletion from the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) related to the request for a 401 Permit Certification. In mid-
March, 2014 there was a meeting with the RWQCB and other effected
parties in the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to discuss
the delays in the issuance of a permit, and how Staff could move forward with the Golf Course project. The meeting discussed how executive
leadership was needed for this project, and how approval of the permit was
gained. The RWQCB had a 30-day response period and Council went on
recess the month of July 2014; the Council would be on break when a
response was required. Staff recommended delegation to the City Manager
to authorize the contract while Council was on break. Recommendations
Two, Three, Six, and Seven were all subsequent actions once the contract
was awarded. Staff was adopting a Change Order to the contract, one was
deductive, the others were the anticipation of cost, additional expenses,
adoption of a Resolution, and a Budget Amendment Ordinance to allow for
sufficient funding. He noted that Staff might not execute the contract
because of not receiving the permit. Direction was requested on: 1) the
allowance of Staff to make additional expenditures to the design work on the
Golf Course; 2) the passing of a Resolution extending the ability for limited
hauling of materials by trucks on the transfer of soil; and 3) adoption of two
Budget Amendment Ordinance’s for revenues and for expenses for the
operation of the Golf Course for the first two months of Fiscal Year (FY)
2015. Staff hoped they would award the contract, have the permits, and
close the Golf Course for the remainder of FY 2015. A two month extension
was requested to move forward with the contract and the permit.
Trish Mulvey was concerned about the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for the flood project related to the Golf
Course because there were regulatory and resource agencies dealing with
endangered species. She requested a relocation of the Golf Course levees.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to:
1. Approve, and conditionally authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute the attached contract with Duininck, Inc. in the amount of
$8,987,809 for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration
Project, Capital Improvement Program Project PG-13003;
06/23/2014 115- 191
MINUTES
2. Approve, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute, the
attached deductive Change Order No. One to the contract with Duininck,
Inc. in the amount of $265,399 to reflect negotiated cost savings
measures incorporated in the project;
3. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one
or more additional change orders to the contract with Duininck, Inc. for
related, additional but unforeseen, work which may develop during the
project, the total value of which shall not exceed $872,241;
4. Approve, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute,
Amendment No. One to Contract No. C13148028 with Golf Group, Ltd., in
the amount of $456,693 for construction support and environmental
mitigation monitoring services for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course
Reconfiguration Project (PG-13003). The amendment includes $344,262
for basic services and $112,431 for additional services. The revised total
contract amount is not to exceed $1,002,031, including $779,600 for
basic services and $222,431 for additional services;
5. Adopt the Resolution extending an exception to Chapter 10.48 [Trucks
and Truck Routes] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for the limited purpose
of allowing the transfer of soil from Stanford University along Oregon
Expressway to the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and adjacent areas;
6. Adopt the Resolution declaring intention to reimburse expenditures from
the proceeds of tax-exempt obligations (e.g. Certificates of Participation)
for not-to-exceed par amount of $7 million to fund a portion of the cost of
the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project;
7. Adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $2,501,569 for
the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project (CIP PG-
13003) to increase the total project appropriation from $8,545,338 to
$11,046,907; and
8. Adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $324,800 in
revenues and $324,800 in expenses to operate the Golf Course for the
two months of FY 2015 (July, 1, 2014 through August 31, 2014) in the
event that inability to secure regulatory permits continues to delay the
project.
Vice Mayor Kniss remarked the City was trying to decrease their loss; this
project had continued issues.
06/23/2014 115- 192
MINUTES
Council Member Klein said the cities involved in this project acted very
responsibly and added that the RWQCB had time to respond to the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) but their delays were astonishing. He
wanted the actions recommended by the City Manager to move forward
because the failures of the RWQCB were costing the City significant amounts
of money.
Council Member Scharff questioned the changes on Deductive Change Order
One and inquired whether the changes made the Golf Course less appealing, or were lower quality materials being used.
Joe Teresi, Assistant Director of Public Works clarified that changes were the
efficiencies the contractor recommended, which were reviewed with the Golf
Staff and the Golf Course architect; they felt it did not take away from the
overall quality of the product.
Council Member Scharff wanted clarification of the $105,000 savings on the
bridge and the earthen crossing.
Mr. Teresi explained that the original plan had an island people used to get
to the green. Instead of a bridge, there was going to be grading used to
simulate an island.
Council Member Scharff was disappointed with the RWQCB Board’s actions
and said a flood would be their responsibility.
Council Member Price questioned who made the appointments to the
RWQCB.
Molly Stump, City Attorney answered appointments were made by the
Governor.
Council Member Price wanted to know who funded the RWQCB activities.
Ms. Stump replied State Legislature.
Council Member Price inquired whether all other options were exhausted.
Mr. Keene answered that the JPA and the City filed appeals with the State
Water Board in relation to the JPA Flood Control denial and to be on record
that there was a notice of incompletion received. The City Attorney was
asked to hold off on the appeal because the process took time and the
fastest way to receive approval was through the Executive Officer of the
RWQCB.
06/23/2014 115- 193
MINUTES
Time was running out and risk was increasing as the construction season
was passing. Staff met with the Executive Officer of RWQCB in March 2014
and identified necessary changes to move forward with the Golf Course;
changes were provided, but delays and requests for more information were
received. The target deadline was July 2014; Staff thought the
consequences were better owned by the RWQCB. Congresswomen Eshoo
and Speier tried to provide funding to close the gap on the flood control, but
they had concerns about why the RWQCB was not moving forward. The JPA
pointed to RWQCB staff as the gateway to concluding the review and issuing the permit. It was well known what modifications needed to be done to
satisfy LEDPA.
Council Member Price suggested advising Governor Brown.
Council Member Schmid clarified that no risk was put on the Flood Control
Project by moving ahead with the permit for the Golf Course.
Mr. Keene relayed that one issue was the RWQCB’s staff continually
requested changes to the Flood Control Project, not addressing the Golf
Course Project until changes to the Flood Control Project were complete.
Identifying the boundaries of change to the Executive Officer of the RWQCB
was a goal that could be made.
Council Member Schmid wondered if Staff would sign a contract with a
construction firm if there was a permit with qualifications.
Mr. Keene wanted to make sure that the conditions were met and would
come back to Council if there were any questions. Coming back to Council
meant the deadline for the contract passed and there were probably costs
and consequences. No independent determinations were going to be made
while the Council was on recess.
Council Member Schmid wondered how many trucks delivered soil through
Oregon Expressway and if there was a need to limit the number of trucks
per week.
Mr. Teresi remarked that soil delivery was going to be accelerated but the
trucks would not run during peak hours.
Council Member Schmid requested that Staff be sensitive to the
improvements taking place on Oregon Expressway.
Council Member Holman felt unsure about the effects on the environment
being placed on the wildlife and the soil being piled in different places.
06/23/2014 115- 194
MINUTES
Mr. Teresi reported that checks were performed for nesting birds, and the
soil was not going to be stockpiled on any wetland areas, near any
endangered species. There was no added risk to the wildlife at this time.
Council Member Holman wanted clarification where the increased soil would
be delivered to.
Mr. Teresi said the soil delivery place was the same but the piles would be higher and added that the issues of the soil were addressed in the EIR.
Council Member Berman felt the RWQCB actions were irresponsible and the
JPA had a Flood Control Plan. Staff hoped the project would begin in 2014,
but the delays continued. These issues needed to be resolved because it put
nearby communities in danger, especially East Palo Alto. The longer there
was an obstruction, the more likely there were repercussions. It was not the
RWQCB, but its staff that caused the problem.
Council Member Burt said the RWQCB linked the City’s permit to the JPA
permit, which caused a rationale for refusal of the permit and the continued
set of requests. A RWQCB staff member stated that the levees in Palo Alto
were being constructed taller than levees on the East Palo Alto side; this was
explained but brought up a month later. Their delays put people at risk
because the levees protected East Palo Alto. There was a misconception
regarding the amount of downstream water flow that the project
accommodated; even though it was explained, there was still a
misunderstanding. The RWQCB Board Members had watershed expertise,
but many of their questions did not seem genuine and deterred from the
Golf Course Project. The members of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto needed to
voice their concerns about the actions of the RWQCB and their staff.
Assemblymember Gordon and State Senator Hill were concerned because
there was a question of whether this agency was abusing their authority to
the detriment of many people.
Mayor Shepherd thought there was confusion in the community about how
only the bridges needed to be replaced, but that was not the situation.
Menlo Park and East Palo Alto were just as anxious for the permits as Palo
Alto. It was important to continue to act. The contract came in a little
above the Engineering Funds Contract, and yet Staff was able to negotiate
some Change Orders to bring the contract back into the type of expenditures
that was intended for the Golf Course. Income was lost due to the Golf
Course not being open.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
06/23/2014 115- 195
MINUTES
Council took a break from 6:50 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.
25. PUBLIC HEARING: City Council Review and Consideration of a
Proposed Reclassification from a Category 3 Historic Resource to a
Category 2 Historic Resource and an Architectural Review Application
for the Historic Rehabilitation Project Located at 261 Hamilton Avenue
that would Generate 15,000 Square Feet of Transferable Development
Rights for Off-Site Development. The Rehabilitation Project Includes Renovations to the Existing Building And Relocation of Floor Area to
Make A 5,910 Square Foot Addition at the Rear of the Building.
Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act per Sections 15331 Historical Resource Rehabilitation and
15301 Existing Facilities.
Mayor Shepherd recapped Staff’s recommendation and said this Item was
quasi-judicial and required Council to disclose any information known to
them that was outside the public record.
Council Member Berman met with Doria Summa and Jeff Levinsky but did
not learn anything outside the public record.
Council Member Scharff spoke with Annette Glanckopf but did not learn
anything outside the public record.
Council Member Holman talked with Doria Summa and Jeff Levinsky and
learned that Encina, California was a neighborhood.
Mayor Shepherd clarified Encina was listed as a town in the Staff Report.
Council Member Holman said it was implicated as a town.
Council Member Schmid met with Jeff Levinsky and Doria Summa; the
conversation did not include anything that was not in the public record.
Council Member Burt met with Doria Summa and Jeff Levinsky and did not
learn anything outside public record.
Mayor Shepherd said 261 Hamilton Avenue related to the renovation of a
historic building and the applicant’s request to reclassify this historic building
from a Category Three to Category Two building to gain Transferrable
Development Rights (TDR).
06/23/2014 115- 196
MINUTES
Once the Staff Report was presented, the applicant had up to 10 minutes to
speak, the public then made their comments; each person from the public
had three minutes to speak. The applicant had three minutes for rebuttal,
and then the Council asked questions and made a Motion; Council was able
to continue this Item to a future date if necessary. She wanted to know if
this Item was time sensitive.
Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment
remarked that the Public Hearings were noticed but this Item could be
continued if Council was not able to reach resolution.
Clare Campbell, Senior Planner relayed the first component was the historic
reclassification from a Category Three to a Category Two Historic Resource;
being a Category Two made the building eligible for 15,000 square feet of
TDR’s. The second component was the architectural review for the proposed
exteriors of the site, which included the rehabilitation and improvement at
the rear of the site. The standard review required review by the Historic
Resources Board (HRB) and action by Council. The review of the exterior
improvements required review by the HRB, Architectural Review Board
(ARB), and action by the Planning Director. The HRB unanimously
recommended approval on April 16, 2014 and the ARB recommended
approval on June 5, 2014. This project required removal and relocation of
the floor area from the basement to create an addition at the rear of the site
and a clear understanding of the term “Building Envelope”. Once the historic
reclassification was complete and developed, the site needed to be fully
parked, as well as meet the Municipal Code definition for a Category Two
Historic Resource. The project met this definition because it had regional
importance as one of the largest Spanish Colonial buildings revived in the
Bay Area, it was designed by Birge Clark, and the building retained its
original design intent. The proposed rehabilitation work included the repair
of the red clay tile roof, cleaning and repairs of the stucco, the restoration of
the ornamental iron work, rehabilitation of the steel case windows, and the
restoration of all the store fronts along Ramona Street and Hamilton Avenue.
When the Downtown Parking Assessment District was established, the
building was thought to have 37,800 square feet of floor area, which
included the basement. The project plans proposed converting the majority
of the basement into a parking facility, which meant that 8,300 square feet
of floor area was going to be decommissioned. For all improvements of
historic buildings, the Secretary of Interior Standards of Historic
Rehabilitation must give approval; this plan was in compliance with them.
06/23/2014 115- 197
MINUTES
Ms. Gitelman explained that the building was “Grandfathered,” which meant
it did not adhere to the current building standards. Grandfathered buildings
were able to be improved, as long as there was no increase in the floor area,
no change to the building footprint, no increase in the height, length, or
building envelope, or any other increase in size; Staff’s proposal did not
violate any of those regulations. There were two interpretations of “building
envelope:” 1) the building itself or the building skin; and 2) buildable area.
In definition two, the relocation of square footage was allowed. The second
interpretation was the more accurate because of a close reading of the Municipal Code, how the term was interpreted in the past, and the common
usage in a zoning context. If the drafters of the Municipal Code meant the
building envelope to refer to the building skin, there was no direct mention
of the increase of the building size. A second reason was in the past, the
City allowed relocation of square footage. Staff looked to neighboring
jurisdictions as to how other planners defined this wordage and found that
very few jurisdictions used the term “building envelope” in zoning
Ordinances because there was difficulty in the interpretation. Building
envelope was also used in connection with energy efficiency, which related
to the skin of the building, or the building itself. Staff’s proposal enabled the
project to generate 15,000 square feet of TDR’s, but the project was not
going to result in a net increase of usable square footage. The
improvements added parking to the site but the project would not change
the elevation of the building.
Public Hearing opened at 7:16 P.M.
Brent McClure, spoke for the Applicant and said there was going to be a
restoration of the windows, a reduction in the ground floor, and replacement
of the transit windows. He hoped restoration would continue on Centennial
Walk, along Ramona Street and Hamilton Avenue. There were other
proposals, but the plans were changed to make the building more historically
compatible. The existing floors were 30,000 square feet, with an 11,000
square foot basement, which was usable space today; this left 32,000
square feet of space to be used. The project proposal included
decommission of about 8,300 square feet of basement space. He noted that
this proposal could not to be changed in the future, as it would become a
condition of approval. The basement plan included nine underground
parking stalls. There was a planned addition of two floors to the existing
one story piece, which added 5,900 square feet. The mezzanine piece took
away almost 2,000 square feet, and with the basement, the net change
brought the building down to 37,500 square feet; this caused a loss of close
to 4,400 square feet of usable space. The building, before improvements,
maximized at 42,000 square feet.
06/23/2014 115- 198
MINUTES
If the proposal was completed, the square footage would be reduced to
37,500 square feet. These changes included historic life safety features
located at existing stairs, and alongside the elevator. The elevator was non-
compliant by today’s standards. The addition also included a code compliant
exit stairwell, which also made the building fire safe. Sprinklers were
included in the plan, and a full seismic upgrade, including a new elevator
equipped to hold a paramedic gurney.
Robert Moss remarked that there was a difference in Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
between what was in the Staff report and what the applicant relayed. In the past, underground basements were not included in the FAR. The
proposed addition of nine parking spaces did not accommodate the 30-35
office workers that would be using the building.
Sheri Furman explained that moving the FAR around made the office and the
basement different and there was a loss of parking spaces. The Municipal
Code needed to be changed if that was not clear.
Michael Hodos did not support converting 4,000 square feet of storage into
office space. That meant one parking space to every 250 square feet of
space. The deficit of parking meant overflow of parking in downtown
neighborhoods.
David Mackenzie understood this project improved deficiencies identified in
the building, while maintaining the original intent of the design.
William Ross questioned the EIR and said the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines required all construction and operational
impacts be considered. Staff followed a pattern of construction impacts
offline and adequate review under CEQA was required for approval of the
project.
Jeff Levinsky outlined how examples in the Staff Report regarding historic
precedence did not support Staff’s definition of building envelope. Historic
precedence in relation to the building envelope followed the Municipal Code.
Doria Summa remarked that the Staff Report used building envelope as a
synonym for buildable area, as was in Encino but “Encino” was a
neighborhood. The City of Los Angeles explained building envelope as the
height, size, number of units to buildings, driveways, and any proposed
garden walls.
06/23/2014 115- 199
MINUTES
Annette Glanckoph said the law of the Municipal Code clearly defined
building envelope and said it had not been followed for decades; there
should be one set of laws. She did not understand how the FAR in the
garage was converted to upper storage, since it was below grade.
Herb Borock remarked that the Staff Report interpreted building envelope by
terms in Municipal Code and their interpretation was substituted with words
that were in the Zoning Code. Building envelope referred to modifying the
physical structure. He suggested reading the language of the Municipal
Code.
Stephanie Munoz said propositions in the past asked for more space or size,
which was paid for by the people with public benefit. It was unreasonable to
add space to a building that was already oversized, to be more under
parked. All proposed parking spaces needed to go in the unbuilt corner at
the top of the building.
Eric Filseth remarked that Palo Alto had the worst jobs/housing balance and
the worst in-bound traffic commute, caused by an increase in downtown
office jobs. If Council believed that there was a need for greater office
density downtown, then they needed to support Staff’s interpretation.
Reta Verele noted there was a lot of anger regarding overdevelopment.
University Avenue was used by people outside Palo Alto and California
Avenue was used by residents; she did not see the need in upsetting
residents because the town was being overdeveloped.
Ruth Lowy said the Council needed to remember the word “residents”
because their decisions were chipping away at the quality of life.
John Hanna, spoke for the Applicant and remarked that improvements for
the elevator and the stairs were a necessity. Basements were included in
the Ordinance, and parking was excluded. Nine parking spaces being added
equaled a reduction of 4,300 square feet of space. The California
Environmental Quality Act had exemptions for historic buildings. Palo Alto
Neighborhoods (PAN) asked that the words “building envelope” be changed
to “building structure” in the Ordinance.
Public Hearing closed at 7:58 P.M.
06/23/2014 115- 200
MINUTES
Council Member Burt disagreed with “modifying” the definition of building
envelope, and said the question was whether the Council agreed with Staff’s
interpretation. He wondered if Staff’s interpretation about the FAR was
correct, and if it was possible to move basement area above ground, as long
as it did not break the daylight plane or change the height.
Mr. McClure said yes.
Council Member Burt made a parallel with projects that might raise issues
with other downtown patterns. He wondered if Staff meant the basement
space could be moved above ground, and not change the building envelope.
Ms. Gitelman replied yes.
Council Member Burt remarked that did not pass common sense definition.
The Municipal Code listed the series of the footprints, the height, the length,
the building envelope, and any other increase in size of the building. Staff’s
interpretation was that the size of the facility was not what was above
ground, it was above and below ground, it was exchangeable, even if the
space was moved from above or below ground.
Ms. Gitelman clarified that Staff was equating size to square footage, and
were clear that there were two interpretations.
Council Member Burt explained that when size was equated with square
footage it meant that what was below ground was equal to what was above
ground. The basement was used as storage and allowed space to be
converted to above ground office. The space was then converted to floor
area below ground, and became exempt from the floor area calculation when
it was turned into parking spaces. There was 6,000 additional square feet
placed above ground and the current Municipal Code called for four parking
spaces per thousand square feet. This required an increase of 24 spaces
above ground and nine more spaces below ground.
Ms. Gitelman agreed that how the basement was occupied was a factor and
said the space was counted as assessed floor area space when the Parking
Assessment District was established.
Council Member Burt remarked that the claim on the physical impact was
reasonable but that meant increased parking deficit. This project had merit
because it provided rehabilitation but he did not understand how Staff’s
interpretation was used.
06/23/2014 115- 201
MINUTES
Council Member Klein said that by changing the historic Category, the
applicant received 15,000 square feet of transferable space; he wondered
what the cost was, or what the City received in exchange.
Ms. Gitelman clarified the question was about the applicant fee.
Council Member Klein wanted to know what the benefit to the City was.
Ms. Gitelman answered that the TDR program was initiated to give value to
historic properties so they could be rehabilitated and returned to useful life.
The value of the TDR made the rehabilitation of the Historic Resources more
feasible.
Council Member Klein wanted to know if there was anything in the Report
that required that the applicant make the improvements.
Ms. Gitelman noted that the applicant would only qualify for the TDR’s if
historic rehabilitation was completed to the City’s satisfaction.
Council Member Klein wanted to know if that was a fair trade-off.
Ms. Gitelman noted when the TDR program was instituted, the value of the
TDR’s was thought to be equal to the value of the historic building.
Council Member Klein wondered what problems the applicant would have if
there was no upgrade to the Category of the historic building.
Ms. Gitelman suggested the applicant speak to that.
Council Member Klein wanted to know what restrictions the City placed on
the redevelopment of the property, if it remained in the same Category.
Ms. Gitelman explained the property would continue to conform to the
Secretary of Interior State Standards, but would not receive the benefit of
the TDR’s, which helped finance the historic rehabilitation.
Council Member Klein thought the only exchange for the community was
assisting the developer with his remodel.
Ms. Gitelman noted an incentive was the rehabilitation of a building with the
Secretary of Interior State Standards.
06/23/2014 115- 202
MINUTES
Council Member Klein questioned whether the community received a future
benefit for a historic Category upgrade.
Ms. Gitelman felt the purpose was to offer an incentive by making
rehabilitation projects more feasible, which conferred the value. Without the
TDR, the value was not applied to the rehabilitation and it was less likely
that the rehabilitation would occur.
Council Member Klein inquired about the Centennial Plaques on Centennial
Way, and did not see any mention of the rights to have the Plaques on that
wall. He recalled some type of license or easement in 1993 or 1994.
Ms. Campbell said the applicant proposed retaining three of the Plaques, and
moving the remaining three to the University Avenue side of the building.
The Plaques were not public art and there was no mode of regulating them.
Council Member Klein did not recall the agreement of the Plaques.
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney said there was no research done
regarding an existing license agreement or a lease agreement for the
replacement for the Plaques.
Ms. Gitelman added that the applicant proposed maintaining all Plaques,
even though some would be relocated.
Council Member Klein questioned whether that was in the interest of the
City.
Roxy Rapp noted that if the project was approved, there was going to be
documentation that ensured the Plaques remained for the life of the
building. The President Hotel was identical to the proposed building, but
improvements were not made for persons with disabilities and it was not
brought up to earthquake standards. He proposed bringing this project up
to earthquake standards and making all bathrooms accessible to persons
with disabilities; he emphasized life-safety.
Council Member Klein explained that there was usually never one way to
read an Ordinance or a law. He thought Staff misread this Ordinance and
said understanding what the drafter of the Ordinance meant was the key:
“the proposal should not increase in height, length, building envelope, or any
other increase in the size.
06/23/2014 115- 203
MINUTES
The phrase “any other increase in size of the improvement” was important
and everything that was before that were examples of what the drafters of
the Ordinance tried to achieve. If the drafters of this language wanted to
say “building area” or “building envelope,” they would have said it. The City
Grandfathered buildings in, but did not want them increased in the size.
Interior remodels were allowed, but trading off basement area for square
footage elsewhere was not; the language included what was above ground.
Vice Mayor Kniss agreed with other comments and said: larger was larger.
This project did not seem ready. She wanted to know if a Motion was needed to reject the project upgrade from a Category Three to Two, and to
decide on the meaning of building envelope.
Ms. Gitelman noted an application was submitted, and there was a need to
decide on the disposition of the application. She said the applicant could be
asked to revise it or the application could be denied.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member XXX to
deny the application but allow the applicant to resubmit after taking into
consideration the Council input tonight.
Ms. Silver explained that the application could be denied or Council could
indicate that they would like to see a revised project.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Holman wanted Staff to reconsider the CEQA exemption
because a better explanation was required. There were many conditions of
approval that came back to either the ARB or a subcommittee that were
called minor adjustments, like the street trees. Transportation Demand
Management measures and others that were not minor, were required in the
application. She referred to Noncompliant Fillable Facility Replacements and
said Staff did not respond to her question. Staff’s interpretation of building
envelope was different from the one in the Municipal Code. Changing the
building from a Category Three to Two was separate because the building
qualified as a Category Two designation. In exchange for approval of this
project, the public received a permanent protection of this building, which
was a landmark in a nationally registered district; she proposed penalties
when there was a default in responsibility of historic buildings. In return,
the applicant received TDR’s and the Historic Tax Credit. Disrupting
Centennial Walk Plaques eroded the historic features and the honor of the
Plaques.
06/23/2014 115- 204
MINUTES
She noted that the building could be rehabilitated without the above grade
addition, and the fire egress could be installed. She discussed how the
buildings’ innovative approach to massing and façade design was something
that people related to as an example in breaking up mass and scale.
Council Member Scharff said Council needed an interpretation that resonated
with the public and made common sense. It was a concern that there was a
basement that was not often used, which could be converted into office
space, and the building was not parked. The Ordinance gave people an
incentive to upgrade to Category Two status and to rehabilitate their existing buildings, but discussion about the parking for the TDR’s created concern
that people would not have the incentive to rehabilitate their buildings. He
inquired about what the developer wanted, and what upgrading the
Category meant.
Mr. Rapp answered that the building was in an historic district and 85
percent of the buildings in that district were Category Two buildings.
Council Member Scharff relayed that the applicant had a different project
planned if the Council did not approve this proposal. He inquired about what
direction to give.
Mayor Shepherd reminded that Staffs proposed Motion was to approve the
proposed reclassification of the building from Category Three to Category
Two Historic Resource, enabling generation of 15,000 square feet. She
requested confirmation on Staff’s direction.
Ms. Gitelman said if the building changed from a Category Three to Two, it
qualified for the TDR’s, but the building had to be rehabilitated to create the
TDR’s, which was when the covenant was placed on the building. Council
could decide to: 1) move forward with the re-designation from Category
Three to Two, independent to what was proposed about the project; 2) deny
the proposal and ask for resubmission of a modified proposal; or 3) approve
the project without the rear addition, submit a different interpretation of
building envelope, and not allow the applicant to relocate the square footage
from the basement to the rear addition. The other option was for Council to
ask the applicant to resubmit a modified project.
Council Member Scharff wanted to know if that could be done.
Mr. Rapp wanted his project to be continued.
06/23/2014 115- 205
MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
continue this Item to a date uncertain.
Council Member Scharff thought the project was good but it did not follow
the rules. He wanted the applicant to come back, removing the proposal of
space from the basement. Once that was done, Council was able to grant
Category Two status.
Vice Mayor Kniss thought the best idea was to continue this Item.
Council Member Berman agreed with Staff most of the time but thought it
was wise to continue this Item and hoped another proposal would be brought back.
Council Member Schmid remarked that the Staff Report said the HRB, ARB,
and Staff “recommended”, but the minutes noted that the building envelope
was not in their purview. An impact of this project was parking. About two
years ago, Council passed an Emergency Ordinance regarding parking in the
downtown area. In this project, the usable retail space went down by 25
percent, usable office space increased by 25 percent, and the total usable
space went up by 11 percent. A month ago, the Development Coordinated
Area Plan (CAP) evaluation noted that the downtown area was consistently
under-parked. There needed to be 14.4 thousand parking places to
accommodate non-resident properties; the downtown area had 4.9 thousand
parking spaces, and the surrounding area required 8.9 thousand parking
spaces; these were issues that were compounded over time. Proposals
regarding the downtown area were continually under-parked.
Council Member Price supported the application and the work of Staff and
felt that their interpretation about the building envelope had merit. People
were concerned with transparency and open government, but there were
extensive ARB and HRB discussions and ample opportunity for the
community to engage in this discussion. She wanted clarification that some
of the basement space was being used as office space, and not just storage.
Mr. Rapp said the basement was used for frame work, an outside sales
office, customers were brought to businesses there, it was used for
manufacturing; no cars occupied the basement.
Council Member Price questioned whether there were other ways to gain
more parking.
06/23/2014 115- 206
MINUTES
Ms. Campbell remarked that there was no way to get more spaces, other
than using a valet program because of the placement of the columns and the
elevator.
Council Member Price suggested stack parking but did not recommend
having parking drive decisions. If the building life was 30 – 40 years, people
had to be careful about using old paradigms when achieving mobility now.
The benefit to the community was a beautified building. The life safety issue
was a critical part of the proposal and should not be minimized.
Ms. Gitelman requested information about what it meant to continue this Item.
Ms. Silver said first, there needed to be discussion among Staff and the
applicant, and then the applicant had to submit a modified proposal. Staff
determined whether the modified proposal needed to go back to the ARB. It
was possible to bring the Item directly back to Council, but the modification
might trigger additional discussion, in which case the proposal was sent
directly to the ARB.
Mayor Shepherd said the discussion of building envelope was good and
supported the upgrade to a Category Two. She noticed that the applicant
was willing to fill the space underneath the street and requested more
information because that eliminated square footage in the basement.
Ms. Campbell answered that the area under the two different sidewalks was
approximately 2,050 square feet.
Mayor Shepherd answered that “two different sidewalks” was not clear.
Ms. Campbell clarified that underneath the street sidewalks dealt with
Ramona Street and Hamilton Avenue. The City was supportive of filling this
because there were a lot of maintenance issues with filling in the sidewalks,
and problems with water and leakage. The plan was to fill it in with dirt and
wall it off, making it inaccessible; this made room for trees.
Mayor Shepherd clarified that was part of the square footage that was meant
for above.
Ms. Campbell said yes.
06/23/2014 115- 207
MINUTES
Mayor Shepherd was okay with replacing the square footage for a retro-fit of
the elevator, the stairwell, and the emergency components because that was
allowed for a similar building across the street. The City received the benefit
of street trees and sidewalk repairs; some retro-fit was needed to bring the
building up to emergency standards. She was interested in having the
building fitted, seismically and correctly, while remaining a historic building.
Council Member Klein remarked that the City Attorney answered his
questions as to a continual or a denial.
Council Member Burt questioned whether basements were included in the commercial area when the calculation of the baseline for downtown was
made.
Ms. Gitelman thought that some basements were included for assessed
square footage for the Parking District, but she was not sure.
Council Member Burt agreed and said this project prompted discussion on
the conversion of basements related to retail, but not defined retail space,
because basements were intended to support the ground floor retail and
were converted into offices. That shrunk functional retail areas, the new
space was not parked, and the area was converted from light to high
intensity use. The comment about eliminating the basement and the
sidewalk was beneficial but was not permitted under the revised definition of
the building envelope. He suggested clarification in the Motion.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to incorporate the more restrictive description of
“building envelope” as part of the Motion.
Mayor Shepherd questioned whether some of the intended square footage
was inside the building.
Council Member Burt was only clarifying the definition of building envelope
and said guidance was needed on the approval of Category Two
qualification.
Ms. Gitelman said Staff thought the building was deserving of a Category
Two classification. If the Council completed the re-designation, and there
was a revised proposal to be submitted by the applicant, the proposal could
be approved by the ARB, and then approved at the director level; the
proposal would only come back to Council on appeal.
06/23/2014 115- 208
MINUTES
Council Member Burt felt that the applicant heard Council’s inclination to
approve the Category Two designation. The applicant qualified for TDR’s,
with the reclassification, but Council may want to revise the TDR’s in the
future.
Council Member Holman wondered if the application would go back to the
HRB if it were continued.
Ms. Silver answered that the project would return to the HRB.
Council Member Holman remarked that basements served as support space
for retail and if the basements continued to be converted, the retail would be diminished. She requested that Staff bring forward clarification on “building
envelope” and “Grandfathering”.
Ms. Stump noted that the interpretation of building envelope applied to
projects going forward.
Council Member Holman differentiated between Council’s interpretation and
the Municipal Code definition.
Ms. Stump explained that the Council’s meaning served as the interpretation
of “building envelope” and did not require a Municipal Code amendment.
Council Member Holman wanted to ensure that this term was interpreted for
future reference.
Ms. Stump clarified this was an interpretation of the law and suggested
clarifying language.
Council Member Holman agreed and suggested the same with the term
“Grandfathering” so these terms were not open to interpretation. This was a
reasonable mode of explanation and a fair test for the applicant, the public,
and Staff; it helped people to feel like they were being treated fairly.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-1 Price no
Council took a break at 9:12 P.M.
06/23/2014 115- 209
MINUTES
26. PUBLIC HEARING: Council Action Regarding an Appeal of the Director
of Planning and Community Environment's Decision Approving a
Project on an Approximately 17-acre Site in the RP (AS2) Zoning
District located at 1451-1601 California Avenue, and Council Approval
of a Tentative Map to Subdivide Three Parcels Into 83 Parcels at the
Same Site. The Proposal Would Authorize Demolition of Approximately
290,220 Square Feet of Existing R&D/Office Space and Construction of
180 Dwelling Units, Which Includes 68 Detached Single Family Units
and 112 Multi-Family Units as Anticipated in the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement. Environmental Assessment: City of Palo
Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2003082103).
Council Member Klein noted he could not participate in this Item because his
wife is a Stanford faculty member and this is on Stanford Property. Council
Member Klein left the meeting at 9:20 P.M.
Mayor Shepherd asked Council to identify any information they learned that
was outside the public record.
Council Member Berman met with representatives from Stanford University
and did not learn anything outside the public record; he invited the appellant
to meet but they declined.
Council Member Price discussed this project with representatives from
Stanford University and was not aware of any additional information that
was not in the public record.
Mayor Shepherd disclosed that she met with Stanford University on the
maps portion of this project but did not learn anything beyond the public
record. This project related to a housing development project that was the
subject of a 2005 Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and
Stanford University. To make sure all Items were before the Council, Staff
combined the public hearing on the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
appeal, the Director’s Appeal, and the subdivision map.
Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director remarked that Staff was available to
answer questions.
06/23/2014 115- 210
MINUTES
Jodie Gerhardt, Senior Planner said Staff processed an ARB application and a
tentative map that was developed with three office complexes. The
proposed project replaced these complexes with 68 single-family homes and
112 multi-family homes, including a community center, fitness center,
swimming pool, and approximately 2.7 acres of usable open space. The
tentative map subdivided existing parcels into 68 single-family lots, two
condo lots, and 13 parcels for private street and common areas that equaled
83 parcels. The ARB application included 11 different single-family houses
with 29 different styles. All detached homes had two-car garages and the multi-family buildings provided two parking spaces for each unit. The
proposed map sub-divided the parcels by 83, including private
interconnected streets that accessed California Avenue at three other
locations. The land use and density for this project were approved in 2005.
Vested rights were provided to relocate non-residential units away from
College Terrace and to build 250 housing units on two sites. The first site
was the proposed property and the second site was approved for 70 Below
Market Rate (BMR) houses at 2550 and 2500 El Camino Real. The
construction of these homes helped the City to meet the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) part of the Housing Element. The Development
Agreement provided a streamline process for housing and limited the City’s
purview for architectural review for the following three project elements: 1)
determination of the project compliance with the Alternative Standard
Overlay, District Two (AS-2) development standard, and ARB findings; 2)
review and approval of the lighting, noise, landscaping, and selection of
exterior materials and finishes of the buildings and other structures; and 3)
to limit the review to the California Avenue edge of the property to
determine whether the project approximated horizontal rhythm to the
buildings side-yard setback, including the relationship of the first and second
stories, and to ensure the property reflected the design of the
neighborhoods on the north side of the streets. The ARB approved this
project on March 20, 2014. The applicant and the neighborhood asked for
additional time to review the conditions of approval; the revised proposal
was approved on April 18, 2014. The Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC) recommended approval of the map on May 28, 2014.
Many of the concerns raised were connected to the map so Staff decided to
hear the proposal and the approval of the map together. Answers to issues
raised by Staff were listed during appeal. The Director’s decision and the
approval of the tentative map was Staff’s recommendation.
Public Hearing opened at 9:31 P.M.
Ms. Gitelman mentioned that the Fire Marshal was present for any questions
on this Item.
06/23/2014 115- 211
MINUTES
Fred Balin, Appellant remarked that the areas of appeal dealt with the Fire
Code, congestion on Columbia Street, garage mirrors, and Safe Routes to
School. The Development Agreement Requirement on a Site Specific
Circulation Analysis and the view of the City’s Traffic Engineer needed to be
decided on by Council but the decision regarding the tentative map
depended on State law and the Comprehensive Plan. He referenced
Appendix D in Ordinance 5223 which outlined fire apparatus access roads
and dead-end streets. Dead-end roads in excess of 150 feet needed to be
provided with width to enable turnaround provisions of a 151-500 feet: a turnaround of 120 feet in the shape of a hammerhead, a 60 foot “Y”
turnaround, or a 96 foot diameter cul-de-sac. The Fire Code did not support
Staff’s interpretation of fire access roads because driveways needed a
turnaround but the Fire Code states that a turnaround “shall be provided.”
There were no fire hydrants that reached the dead-end streets. He
suggested an exit road be put in place of a dead-end street, along with
another fire hydrant, and on grounds of liability, that the Council follow the
Fire Code. Regarding congestion on Columbia Street, 77 percent of the
vehicles exiting the complex took Columbia Street. The road near one of the
proposed dead-end streets needed to be extended and a garage accessed by
mirrors needed to be taken away. People used the most convenient exits,
which created traffic. Stanford’s consultant said that in the morning
commute hours, most people used the Columbia Street exit, the most
convenient exit; this was confirmed with a previous study done at Peter
Coutts village where people found an unequal distribution of cars. The
recommended route for Safe Routes to School was through Bowdoin Street
or Hanover Street because of the crosswalks, which was not a condition of
the project. Regarding sidewalks and road widths, there was no sidewalk on
Amherst Street because of the retaining walls and trees. Additionally there
was a street that was narrower than 24 feet; the streets needed to be
widened to match the streets in College Terrace. People were concerned
about traffic and have asked to have an exit onto Page Mill Road.
Jean McCown, applicant said the Mayfield Development Agreement was
approved by Council in 2005; it was an agreement between the City and
Stanford University. This project received extensive feedback from College
Terrace and the Peter Coutts neighborhoods. The partnership enjoyed the
benefit of new soccer playing fields, moving almost 3,000 square feet of
space from College Terrace, which was going to potentially lower housing
density. This was a mutually agreed to requirement within a binding
Development Agreement that included an approved Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). She noted that in exchange for the building of Stanford
University housing, the City agreed to narrow their future discretions when
approving its housing projects and to limit their mitigation measures. The
06/23/2014 115- 212
MINUTES
agreement included a detailed list of zoning requirements and a long list of
specific litigation measures, based on the EIR. This project met every AS-2
requirement and promised to comply with every mitigation requirement.
Staff, the ARB, and the PTC examined the Development Agreement in detail
and Stanford University agreed to comply with the proposed revisions. The
goal was to ensure that the housing was compatible with the neighborhood
design character and that the Stanford faculty living in this new housing felt
like they were part of this neighborhood. This project met the many goals
that the party set out to achieve and Council’s action will implement the mutual commitments made in the 2005 Development Agreement.
Chris Wuthmann, Stanford University Real Estate said the planning principles
were: 1) to make design standards match those of nearby neighborhoods;
2) to have a good circulation pattern through pedestrian orientation and
vehicle circulation; and 3) to make the site sustainable through minimization
of hardscape and maximization softscape, in accord with open space
requirements. In regard to turnarounds and the Fire Code, two key points
were misinterpreted: 1) the Fire Code’s interpretation and application was
left to the local Fire Code official; this was confirmed by the State Fire
Office; and 2) the proposed plan did comply with the City’s Fire Ordinance.
A turnaround was not required because there was a combination 150 foot
road access, a 150 foot reach, and continued pedestrian access. Distances
were able to be modified by the Fire Marshal and the houses were going to
have fire sprinklers. Regarding the road width, there was a 24 foot wide
road entrance placed to improve traffic safety and to eliminate street
parking; the traffic lanes were widened by one foot on each side of the
street. Fire sections within 20 feet of fire hydrants were revised with rolled
curbs, as required by the Fire Marshall. Regarding congestion on Columbia
Street during peak hours, the professional analysis estimated that in the
morning, 26 trips were made per hour, and 40 trips per hour in the evening.
He explained that the drop in traffic moving from office to faculty residence
would not cause congestion because most faculty members had campus
permits. Concerning adding a fourth driveway, this was unsafe because it
did not align with Dartmouth Street and movements in and out of the
suggested extra street would be unexpected and would cause safety
problems. Regarding not having a sidewalk on Amherst Street, there was
less usable land available and there were numerous trees that needed to be
preserved that took up space. His proposal was 12 feet wider and provided
more condensed lots than the existing lots. If a sidewalk was included, it
would force the houses back; also, a sidewalk was not required on private
streets. The mirror issue for the garage was maintained by management of
the condominium building and was an aid, but was not required.
06/23/2014 115- 213
MINUTES
William Ross noted that this hearing had to meet the findings of a legal case
in Los Angeles to bridge the gap of the evidence. Medical issues were the
primary calls for service and installing sprinklers did not reduce response
time for medical aid. He suggested a comprehensive indemnification
provision for negligent response time.
Adrian Fine wanted to streamline Stanford University’s work because
according to the appeal, the project was ready. College Terrace was quiet
and because traffic was minimal, he did not see a problem with kids getting
to school safely. Installing mirrors was reasonable and he wanted the project to continue forward.
Jane Uxrova wanted to see new families move in because the buildings were
empty. Private citizens were burdening this project unnecessarily.
Arthur Liberman said the layout was in conflict with the Fire Code because
access roads “shall be provided.” A turnaround dealt with basic safety
issues. The Staff Report related fire access roads to the “generally accepted
interpretation”. The Fire Marshall did make interpretations but none that
had effect on the Fire Code. If the Fire Marshall needed to amend the Code,
he should do so because the laws should not be modified.
Sharon Murphy said that 35 years ago the people worked to blockade the
streets in College Terrace. Now, the people were trying to preserve the
safety of the streets from people cutting through the neighborhood and
speeding. Having an access road to Page Mill Road was a limited request
because there used to be an access road.
Ed Schmitt remarked that there was a study performed a year ago at Peter
Coutts that determined that 54 percent of the traffic led to Stanford
University. The two peak times were early morning and evening and half of
the outbound traffic returned 30 minutes after leaving. Total traffic volume
was about 70 cars per hour during those times; he suspected two driving
trips were being made.
Michael Tomz supported the Mayfield project and felt it reduced the traffic
because he and his neighbors did not use their cars. This project helped to
build a community that interacted with each other, which was important for
the maintenance of academic excellence at a world class teaching institution.
06/23/2014 115- 214
MINUTES
Manish Butte thought the new project replaced the high impact office space.
He biked his kids to school and did not own a car. The figure of 10 percent
of the cars coming out of the neighborhood was reasonable. Regarding
faculty recruitment, people were terrified of the prices in the area and this
project allowed for affordable housing for faculty.
Margit Aramburu remarked that there was flexibility to widen Bowdoin
Street, Columbia Street, and Amherst Street because of the width of those
streets. There was a lack of sidewalks on Amherst Street, including the
connection around the back, but there was flexibility to provide a sidewalk.
Brent Barker thought the lack of a sidewalk on Amherst Street was
impractical because it was unsafe for kids because the planting strip could
be replaced with sidewalk. The narrowing of the A, B, C streets when they
hit California Avenue segregated College Terrace and made it like a gated
community. He suggested giving up the parking spaces on California
Avenue for a bike lane.
Robert Moss noted Council passed an Ordinance requiring a minimum street
width of 32 feet for all new projects. Turnaround’s for emergency vehicles
needed to be provided. Stanford University said the Trichloroethene (TCE)
levels were adequate for building houses but approval was needed from
Regional Water Control Board, not the Department of Toxic Substance
Control who approved the TCE levels. The TCE values were not given in the
Staff Report; oversight for mitigations of TCE needed to be resolved.
Stephanie Munoz said Staff, the appellant, and the applicant needed to clear
up the suggestions made by the appellant. The City gave up jurisdiction of
review to Stanford University, but that did not mean they would do a good
job. The project needed to be postponed until the problems were worked
out.
Carina Chiang explained that adequate access for emergency vehicles was
needed. The California Vehicle Code required a minimum of three feet to
pass a bicycle; this area anticipated high bicycle traffic. The parcel map
showed shrubs around a transformer pad, but eight feet of clearance was
required; bollard protection was required on Amherst Street.
Herb Borock said the Mayfield project needed to follow changes in the Fire
Code, but the Health and Safety Code required the project comply with the
Palo Alto Fire Code; it did not.
06/23/2014 115- 215
MINUTES
There was no evidence to support access roads and Stanford University’s
project that was turned in late should not necessarily be approved if it
violated the law. Staff supported their recommendation with unambiguous
language that needed to be interpreted. Council was entitled to independent
legal advice about unambiguous language that should be followed.
Ruth Lowy supported the project and said potential safety problems were
articulated. Adding an entry on Dartmouth Street helped with the lack of
turnarounds and added another road, which helped with the congestion from
the housing complexes because there was definitely going to be traffic. It was possible to add an exit to Page Mill Road and it was good for people to
express their concerns.
Rita Vrhal remarked that there was room for sidewalks and larger roads.
Some residents talked about children and how narrower roads caused people
to move to the side of the road; having roadsides consistent with the rest of
Palo Alto was important. The message she heard from comments was the
request for a redesign.
Mr. Balin wondered why Measure D was adopted if it was not going to be
enforced and said departments like Fire and Code Development did not get
involved in interpretation of the code. He clarified that his traffic study dealt
with commercial development, but the discussion now related to residential
development. Regarding outreach, he noted that Stanford University held
outreach meetings and has listened but were not responding. The access
road on Page Mill Road was allowed for construction. He said it was a
natural fire road that should go to the back of the project and should be an
easement to this property. He cautioned approval of this project because
the housing was so dense and said there was no problem with taking out a
few homes to put in a new road and putting them elsewhere. He suggested
the proposal be sent back, redesigned, and given new direction.
Mr. Wuthmann said the roads were equal to or larger than the ones in
College Terrace for the sake of traffic safety. Stanford University was willing
to look at redesign of the sidewalk on Amherst Street.
Ms. McCown noted that there was a letter given to the Council that
confirmed Staff’s interpretation of the Fire Code.
Annette Walton explained that Stanford University elected Department of
Toxic Substance Control because they have hydrologists, engineers, and
toxicologists that can evaluate any condition.
06/23/2014 115- 216
MINUTES
There was TCE found but it was below the threshold. As a result,
Department of Toxic Substance Control felt comfortable issuing a “No
Further Action” letter, which was available on the Department of Toxic
Substance Control website.
Tiffany Griego remarked that Stanford University was not able to make a
permanent road through the parking lot at 1450 Page Mill Road. There was
no basis to deviate the traffic from the public street system. The temporary
construction access road was okay, but it was not permanent.
Public Hearing closed at 10:50 P.M.
Council Member Berman requested to know the job of the Fire Marshall.
Rich Dean, Acting Fire Marshall said his job was to interpret the Fire Code,
apply it, review projects, to manage the Fire Prevention Bureau, which
included fire life safety inspection, new construction, new developments, and
existing businesses and residences.
Council Member Berman inquired whether the Fire Marshall took an oath
when he joined the Fire Department.
Mr. Dean replied yes.
Council Member Berman asked what the general idea of the oath was.
Mr. Dean stated that his oath included honesty, integrity, and judgment for
the public good.
Council Member Berman emphasized that the most important issue was fire
safety and questioned whether the Fire Marshall was able to support the
judgment he made for this project.
Mr. Dean answered yes and said the Fire Chief had the final decision.
Eric Nickel, Fire Chief relayed that the most effective fire prevention
measure was the installation and maintenance of fire sprinklers and
remarked that the Fire Marshall was allowed wide latitude. He emphasized
the importance of sprinklers in all homes.
06/23/2014 115- 217
MINUTES
Council Member Berman mentioned a letter about the review of this project,
which was provided by Bill Ross, a former State Fire Marshall. The letter
said 24 feet was a generally accepted alternative for proposed road width,
assuming the sidewalk withstood the weight of the fire apparatus and the
curbs were rolled. He inquired whether the sidewalk was able to withstand
the weight of the fire apparatus.
Mr. Dean replied yes.
Council Member Berman continued reading the letter, which said it was
impossible to foresee all the possible circumstances, therefore the Fire Code needed to be viewed as a set of regulations and a guide; understanding the
intent of a provision and evaluation of a situation when applying the Fire
Code to grant modifications and to meet an acceptable level of fire and life
safety. It was impossible to State every possible situation in the Fire Code.
It was permissible for the City’s Fire inspection officials to make an
interpretation of the Fire Code. He was glad that Stanford University was
accommodating with regard to the sidewalks.
Vice Mayor Kniss inquired about areas where fire trucks and hoses did not
reach, in relation to the two dead-end streets.
Mr. Nickel answered that there was plenty of hose to reach the fires. When
the Fire Marshall reviewed the project, the hydrants were moved to provide
better coverage. Fire engines carried 730 feet of large diameter hose, all
trucks carried an additional 200 feet of hose. Concerning the 24 or 26 foot
street width and the rolled curbs: this was so one fire engine could get to
the location and another fire apparatus could get by.
Vice Mayor Kniss thought it was far more likely that a paramedic would need
to access these areas, then a fire hose. She inquired about the access of a
paramedic.
Mr. Nickel replied that a typical response call was one fire truck with three
personnel and one paramedic with two personnel. Both vehicles fit down
private driveways. He noted that the ambulance was smaller. He remarked
that turnarounds were more for convenience than improving life safety.
Vice Mayor Kniss inquired about the bulb-outs.
Ms. Gitelman reiterated that Stanford University was prepared to alter the
bulbs outs and install rolled curbs.
06/23/2014 115- 218
MINUTES
Council Member Scharff said Mr. Barker mentioned sidewalks and a bike
lane.
Mr. Barker noted that the A, B, C streets narrowed when they hit California
Avenue; he felt like it gated the community in.
Council Member Scharff recalled the reason the A, B, C streets narrowed was
safety and not allowing people to park on the street.
Mr. Wuthmann said narrowing eliminated parallel parking and the travel
lanes were widened. They eliminated the street parking near the corners
because it slowed down traffic flow and could be unsafe; it was an elimination of the parking near the street corners and a widening of the
travel lanes.
Council Member Scharff thought it looked like the lanes were narrowed.
Mr. Wuthmann said if the streets were not combined, visitors would park
there. He suggested a landscape strip and street trees for that entry portion
of the street.
Council Member Scharff suggested no parking signs.
Mr. Wuthmann agreed but said that reduced street tree planting that was
planned for that spot. People that were unfamiliar with the area would slow
the traffic. Red curb was a possibility, or space could be created so there
was room for a larger planting strip instead of 12 foot travel lanes.
Council Member Scharff suggested a bike lane on California Avenue.
Mr. Wuthmann thought a bike lane was in the category with the crosswalks.
This was the decision of the City and community, not just the developer.
Council Member Scharff inquired about the right to require the bike lane
along a portion of the development.
Ms. Gitelman answered that it was not required as mitigation, and was not
sure that the Planning Department could require this.
06/23/2014 115- 219
MINUTES
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney declared that legally, the street
belonged to the City. Council had the ability to incorporate this as a
direction to Staff, which could include some modest costs.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Price to: 1) uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s
decision to approve the Architectural Review (AR) application for demolition
of approximately 290,220 sf of existing R&D/Office Space and construction
of 180 dwelling units on a 16.96 acre site located at 1451-1601 California
Avenue, as envisioned in the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement, and 2) approve a Tentative Map to subdivide three existing parcels into 83 parcels
to accommodate the proposed development based on the attached (draft)
Record of Land Use Action containing Findings and Conditions of Approval as
amended to add a sidewalk along Amherst Street, and reduce the bulb outs
where the streets intersect with California Avenue.
Council Member Scharff thought the community raised legitimate concerns
and thought they should be addressed. It was important to have crosswalks
and a sense of community. He suggested the bike lane on California Avenue
but did not have enough information on the subject.
Council Member Price approved the overall design of the project. This was a
legally binding document. Some of the modifications proposed improved the
project. She emphasized the importance of community and it was important
that the project was done well.
Council Member Burt spoke to the issue of Safe Routes to School and
wanted to have a strong bicycle connectedness as the prior Safe Routes to
School Plan and Bike Master Plan did not look at this neighborhood. There
was a path that went near the corner of California Avenue and Amherst
Street that would benefit from a modest amount of improvement.
Ms. McCown noted that Stanford University met with the School District to
discuss the appropriate school their children would go to; Stanford
University would take a look at the path. They were not sure how much
more it could improve. It was County jurisdiction and there were a lot of
follow up issues.
Council Member Burt requested a potential bike and pedestrian improvement
be looked into.
Ms. McCown said yes and would see if there were improvements to be made.
06/23/2014 115- 220
MINUTES
Council Member Burt remarked that, regarding the bike lanes on either side
of California Avenue up to Hanover Street, there was no parking on the
south side. Once a person crossed Hanover Street, the street stayed the
same width and there was much less bike traffic west of Hanover Street and
east of Hanover Street, which was going to have more bike traffic. Decades
ago, the City eliminated parking on one side of the street to create bike
lanes. The City had an opportunity to make these streets right because the
way it was drawn up now was wrong. He did not know why parking was
allowed on the street, but his questions clarified that the project was fully parked, excluding the parking on California Avenue. He reiterated that part
of the project was not within the City’s discretion and suggested directing
Staff to pursue elimination of parallel parking on the south side of California
Avenue between Hanover Street and Amherst Street.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to examine the elimination
of parallel parking along the south side of California Avenue from Hanover
St. to Amherst St., and to place bike lanes on both sides of California
Avenue.
Council Member Burt understood Recommendation One from the appellant,
fully vetting the neighborhood regarding Safe Routes to School, was outside
the scope of the project, and within the jurisdiction of the City. He did not
think the Safe Routes to School Committee was engaged in this discussion.
He recommended: removal of decision 14A and 14C from the Director’s
Decision, and to have Council direct Staff to engage the neighborhood and
the Safe Routes to School Committee for the safest pathways for bikes and
pedestrians in and out of the development.
Council Member Scharff wanted to know what page that was in the packet.
Ms. Gitelman said it was pages 1043, 1011, 1012.
Council Member Burt spoke to the street mouths and said there were a
number of reasons to have the bulb outs. Part of it was that they were
traffic calming devises for traffic exiting this project, along with bikes. He
suggested taking the area that had a bulb out, and replacing it with a solid
curb separation for a bike lane. No parking was going to be permitted there,
it was a safer intersection, and it would have the visual benefit that the
neighbors were asking for. This was not a direction, but he asked for it to
be looked into.
06/23/2014 115- 221
MINUTES
Council Member Scharff thought Council giving direction for the best and
safest pathway solutions for bicyclists and pedestrians was good.
Council Member Burt agreed.
Council Member Scharff remarked that the Conditions of Approval provided
for crosswalks at certain intersections and wanted to know if there would be
a situation where they would not want crosswalks.
Ms. Gitelman said crosswalks were imposed in all directions and did not want
to see those conditions deleted.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to engage the neighborhood and Safe Routes to
School Committee for best, safe pathways heading in and out of the project.
Council Member Schmid thought the current Motion did a good job, having
housing, instead of office connecting to College Terrace was good. The
sensitivity to traffic made a lot of sense. He suggested an Amendment to
receive an Informational Report from Fire Chief on ingress and egress for fire
apparatuses and ambulances for driveway A and B within 60 days
Council Member Scharff was confused about what would be in the Report.
Council Member Schmid wanted to know what kind of timing was needed to
make an effective turnaround at a dead end street.
Mr. Nickel said Staff could look into it and come back with a report; it was
probably going to be about a year after the neighborhood is up and
functioning. He wondered what would be done with the report and what
policy it drove.
Council Member Schmid remarked that the report was only effective if they
could get it soon, for the value of a turnaround on those driveways.
Mr. Nickel said he could examine a similar neighborhood with a similar lay
out, similar size, and with rolled curbs to see if he can get some meaningful
data.
Council Member Schmid thought that would be helpful.
06/23/2014 115- 222
MINUTES
Council Member Scharff added that there was no Motion needed for this
direction.
Council Member Schmid answered yes, and requested a timely Report.
Mr. Nickel was able to deliver the report within 60 days.
Council Member Holman thought safety was important and the information
given by Bill Ross was convincing. She agreed that there was congestion on
Columbia Street and suggested a bike lane be added, one that connects to
Bowdoin Street.
Ms. Gitelman assumed that requesting collaboration with the neighborhood and the Safe Routes to School Committee would be an outgrowth of what
was called for in the Amendment and she wanted to know if that was
something that could be addressed.
Council Member Holman wanted to know if that was something the Maker
and Seconder were interested in.
Council Member Scharff thought that should be addressed through that
process.
Council Member Holman remarked that this could help reduce conflicts.
Ms. Gitelman noted that there were sidewalks on both sides of Bowdoin
Street.
Council Member Holman was interested in getting traffic off Columbia Street
and suggested an exit on Page Mill Road from the back of the multi-family
residence.
Ms. Gitelman remarked that there was an exit provided during the
construction period but Staff felt that because it was not included in the
original agreement, they could not impose a permanent access egress on the
project.
Council Member Holman requested continued access to help alleviate
congestion on Columbia Street.
06/23/2014 115- 223
MINUTES
Ms. Griego relayed that having a permanent access road was not part of the
Mayfield Development Agreement, and they were not willing to renegotiate
that. They did not think the traffic numbers warranted another public road.
It was unsafe, it mixed incompatible uses, and the design put forward
achieved the goals, which was to knit this development with College Terrace
through safe streets that were tied into the grid system of College Terrace.
They felt that it was not prudent planning.
Council Member Holman questioned whether Staff agreed that adding
another street alleviated traffic on Columbia Street.
Ms. Gitelman answered that a lot of the people in the neighborhood would
use it if it was available them. She had to look at that in detail and did not
feel that Staff had the ability to impose this condition, so it did not warrant
that level of analysis.
Council Member Holman was not sure how people in the neighborhood would
be able to access it.
Ms. McCown said if someone wanted to get to Page Mill Road, they would
turn right on California Avenue and then turn right again on Hanover Street;
they did not use Columbia Street. If a person wanted to get onto Page Mill
Road, they had to drive half a block down California Avenue toward El
Camino Real, and turn right on Hanover Street where there was a stop light
on Page Mill Road. Having a driveway that directed traffic through the
neighboring parcel to Page Mill Road did not have anything to do with traffic
on Columbia Street; the cars that wanted to get to Page Mill Road were not
driving on Columbia Street.
Mayor Shepherd mentioned that this discussion was not part of the appeal.
Council Member Holman wanted to know how a person got onto Hanover
Street.
Ms. McCown answered that a person would come out the new street that
linked up with Columbia Street, then turn right toward El Camino Real, on
California Avenue; the next stop sign was Hanover Street, which took people
to Page Mill Road.
Council Member Holman wanted to eliminate traffic on Columbia Street,
which she understood was accessed by California Avenue.
06/23/2014 115- 224
MINUTES
Ms. McCown said yes because to exit the new project at Columbia Street and
California Avenue to get to Page Mill Road, a person had to turn right on
California Avenue, but not down Columbia Street.
Council Member Holman clarified she was talking about in the new project.
Ms. McCown understood the congestion concern involved people exiting this
project on Columbia Street to drive through College Terrace to get to
Stanford Avenue. The road that took a person to Page Mill Road did not
alter the congestion on Bowdoin Street, Amherst Street, or Columbia Street.
Council Member Holman understood.
Mr. Balin remarked that internally, the project had bad circulation and
thought the traffic cutting through the neighborhood was a concern too.
Council Member Holman clarified that the appellant’s comments were in
regard to the internal circulation of the project.
Ms. McCown understood that the numbers focused on large volumes of
people inside the project, as opposed to people that were using Amherst
Street or Bowdoin Street. She understood that if people were coming out at
Columbia Street or California Avenue, those people wanted to go through
the neighborhood, which was the concern about the College Terrace
neighborhood. She noted that creating an access road through 1450 Page
Mill Road was a different situation.
Council Member Holman supports Safe Routes to School. She requested
more information about improvements because it was a condition of
approval that Stanford University would take care of the crosswalks. She
wanted to know about covering costs for additional safety features and
wanted to know if the cost was going to be shared by the City and Stanford
University.
Ms. Gitelman said one factor was whose land the improvements were
identified on.
Council Member Holman asked if clarification was needed that internal
improvements would be provided by Stanford University.
06/23/2014 115- 225
MINUTES
Ms. Gitelman said if Council felt like they wanted to make that explicit, they
could do that.
Council Member Holman asked to clarify that any proposals that had to do
with neighborhood safety changes on Stanford University property would be
paid for by Stanford University.
Council Member Scharff wanted to know if the Council had the ability to
make that direction.
Ms. Silver clarified that the Council did not have the ability to require
Stanford University to pay for improvements on other parcels, but the condition said the improvements would not go forward unless Stanford
University agreed to them through a voluntary outreach process.
Ms. Gitelman clarified the Amendment about eliminating parallel parking on
California Avenue and placing a bicycle lane there was a request to ask Staff
to examine this issue with the idea of implementing these improvements.
She said Staff needed to go through a process and do some outreach before
they can make it happen and requested more direction from Council.
Mayor Shepherd said she would look at that particular section on Page Mill
Road. There were no blockages in her neighborhood but it reminded her of
patterns that already existed in Palo Alto.
Council Member Berman wanted to follow up on the bulb out issue and
wanted to know if they were going to be eliminated. He thought the
suggestion from Council Member Burt was good but the visual benefit of the
bulbs increased visibility for cars to see the pedestrians and the bicyclists.
He wanted to make sure that a less safe situation was not created for
aesthetic purposes. A more limited bulb out was a good compromise for
bikers and runners in the neighborhood.
Ms. Gitelman supported that. Reducing, rather than eliminating bulbs
provides safety for pedestrians crossing at those locations.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to reduce, rather than eliminate the bulb outs.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Klein not participating
06/23/2014 115- 226
MINUTES
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Shepherd said she just came back from the Mayor’s conference in
Dallas, Texas where climate change was discussed. She was going to bring
her material for people see the resolutions.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 P.M.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto
Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the
preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the
meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to
during regular office hours.
06/23/2014 115- 227