HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-09 City Council Summary Minutes
April 09, 2012 110-230
Special Meeting
April 9, 2012
CLOSED SESSION...................................................................................233
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ........................................233
2. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY - EXISTING LITIGATION .............233
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY .................................................................233
3. Proclamation for National Library Week, April 8-14, 2012 ....................233
4. Community Partnership Presentation – Chamber of Commerce and
Whole Foods Market .......................................................................234
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS .....................................................................234
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ..........................................................................234
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................235
CONSENT CALENDAR ..............................................................................238
5. Approval of Utilities Enterprise Fund Contract with Ranger Pipelines
Incorporated in an Amount of $4,220,699 for Water Main Replacement
Capital Improvement Program WS-09001 Project 23 and WS-10001
Project 24 in Crescent Park, Duveneck/St. Francis, Old Palo Alto,
University Park, and Ventura Subdivisions .........................................240
6. Approval of a Contract Modification for $10,510 for Alta Planning and
Design to Complete the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Update ..........................................................................................240
7. Approval of a Construction Contract with Republic Intelligent
Transportation Services Inc. in the Amount of $924,740 to Supply &
Install New Energy Efficient Light Emitting Diode (LED) Street Lighting
Luminaires ....................................................................................240
April 09, 2012 110-231
8. Approval of Permanent Traffic Calming Plan for College Terrace
Neighborhood ................................................................................240
9. Approval of Two Contract Amendments with Baker & Taylor to (1) Add
$300,000 for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $1,250,000 for Additional
Library Collection Materials and (2) Add $100,000 for a Total Amount
Not to Exceed $189,000 for Additional Library Collection Services
Associated with the Mitchell Park Library Opening ..............................240
10. Approval of a Contract with Vellutini Corp., dba Royal Electric, in the
Amount of $865,393 for the Replacement of an Electric Power
Transformer at Hanover Substation ..................................................240
11. Budget Amendment Ordinance 5149 entitled “Budget Amendment
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in the Amount of
$179,000 to CIP Project PE-12011, Newell Road/San Francisquito
Creek Bridge Replacement, Approval of a Contract with Nolte
Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $519,177 for Design Services for the
Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project, Capital Improvement Program Project PE-12011, Approval of the
Inclusion of Public Art in the Design and Construction of the Newell
Road/San Francisquito Creek Replacement Bridge, and Approval of a
Cost Share Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District
Providing for Contribution of Local Matching Funds for the Newell
Road/San Francisquito Creek Replacement Bridge Project.” .................240
12. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C11135684 with Pacific
Technologies, Inc. to extend Term Through June 30, 2012 ..................240
13. Recommendation From Policy & Services to Approve Labor Guiding
Principles ......................................................................................241
14. Ordinance 5150 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo
Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Located at 2080
Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza) from Planned Community (PC
1643) to PC Planned Community Zone (PC_) tor the Renovation of
Three Existing Eichler Retail Structures, On-Site Relocation of One of
the Retail Structures, Construction of Ten New Single-Family Homes,
And Creation Of A 0.20 Acre Park.” (First reading March 19, 2012 –
Passed 8-1) ...................................................................................241
15. Approval of Amendment No. 1 in the Amount of $31,460 to Contract
No. C09129898 with Golder Associates, Inc. for a Total Contract
Amount of $150,460 for Development of Alternate LFG Flare Stack
April 09, 2012 110-232
Design on Water Quality Control Plant Premises - Refuse Fund Capital
Improvement Program Project RF-10002 ..........................................241
16. Request for Authorization to Increase Existing Contract with the Law
Firm of Stubbs & Leone by an Additional $200,000 For a Total Contract
Not to Exceed Amount of $385,000 ..................................................241
17. Submittal of Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Monthly
Construction Contract Report and Council Direction to Staff to Continue
Construction Contract Monthly Reports .............................................241
17a. (Former Agenda Item No. 13) Recommendation From Policy &
Services to Approve Labor Guiding Principles .....................................241
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS .....................................245
ACTION ITEMS .......................................................................................245
18. PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of Site and Design Review Application and
a Record of Land Use Action for a change in Use from Office to a Day
Care Center at 2585 East Bayshore Road. * Quasi-Judicial ..................245
19. Recommendation that Council Adopt the Draft Cubberley Guiding Principles, Confirm the City Manager’s Appointments to the Community
Advisory Committee (CAC) and Review the Conceptual Site Plans
Prepared Jointly by the Staff of the Palo Alto Unified School District
(PAUSD) and City of Palo Alto ..........................................................259
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ...........285
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:12 A.M. ........................285
April 09, 2012 110-233
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:30 P.M.
Present: Burt, Espinosa arrived @5:35 P.M., Holman, Klein, Price, Schmid
arrived @5:35 P.M., Shepherd, Yeh
Absent: Scharff
CLOSED SESSION
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Sandra Blanch,
Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray) Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police
Officers Association (PAPOA)
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
2. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY - EXISTING LITIGATION
Subject: City of Palo Alto et al. v. California High-Speed Rail
Authority
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case
No. 34-2010-80000679
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
The City Council reconvened from the closed session at 7:09 P.M. and Mayor
Yeh announced that the City Council has authorized an appeal in the case of
the City of Palo Alto et al. v. California High-Speed Rail Authority, Superior
Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2010-80000679,
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a).
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
3. Proclamation for National Library Week, April 8-14, 2012.
Council Member Schmid read the Proclamation into the record.
Library Director, Monique LeConge thanked the City Council for recognizing
National Library Week. She introduced three of the Library Commissioners,
Bob Moss, Noah Bakhtian, and Mary Beth Train. They were appreciative of
the support and looked forward to continuing to serve the community.
April 09, 2012 110-234
Mayor Yeh thanked the Library Staff and the Library Advisory Commission
Members for everything they did to support the libraries and the community.
4. Community Partnership Presentation – Chamber of Commerce and
Whole Foods Market.
Community Services Director, Greg Betts introduced Palo Alto Chamber of
Commerce Chief Executive Officer Paul Wright, mentioning to Council that in
addition to featuring local non-profit partnership initiatives, staff will
occasionally introduce local businesses who are working to make a difference
in the community. Paul Wright outlined the Chamber’s annual “Tall Tree
Award” program that features an outstanding professional, non-profit,
volunteer and local business. This year’s Tall Tree recipient for outstanding
local business is Whole Foods Market.
Whole Food’s store manager Mike Price shared with Council some of the many ways that the company gives back to the community. In addition to
their active support of the City’s annual Moonlight Run and Chili Cook-off,
Whole Foods also supports local organic farmers, promotes farm-fresh
produce and works to provide school age children with tours of the store so
that kids can get a better understanding of where their food and produce
come from. Mr. Price also explained Whole Foods’ “5 Percent Days” program.
On designated days throughout the year a total of 5 percent of the day’s net
sales are donated to local non-profit organizations. Customers help support
our selected organizations just by shopping on the 5 percent days. A recent
recipient of these funds is Canopy and their tree planting program.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
City Manager, James Keene spoke about: 1) Safe Routes to School Program
walk-a-about event and the upcoming events, 2) Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center entrance and on-street parking on Middlefield Road, 3)
all 5 library branches will be closed April 19-20, 2012 for staff training, 4)
April 10th community meeting on the long range plan for Rinconada Park to
be held at Lucie Stern Community Center, and 5) appointment of the new
Project Safety Net Director, Christina Erena.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to approve the minutes of December 5, 2011 and December 12,
2011.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent
April 09, 2012 110-235
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Yeh clarified that if a member of the public was speaking on behalf of
a group they could speak for up to 10 minutes if there were 5 people as part
of the group. He stated that the first speaker, Mr. Cheavage, would be
provided with eight additional minutes.
Jay Cheavage gave a presentation regarding 3800 Middlefield Road. He
showed the original configuration of Middlefield Road as released to the
public in 2008. There was no turn lane at Mayview. He discussed studies
which indicated there was no need for a left turn lane. He discussed the
recently painted red curb. He said that it was striped red to provide
adequate room for the turning lane and the narrow bike lane. The bike lane
was too narrow for safety. Busses often encroached the bike lane because
of the narrow automobile lanes. Additionally the old bike lane was part of
the backup safety area for some residents. Because the barriers were created for the left turn lane, residents north and south of Middlefield Road
could no longer make left hand turns into or out of their driveways. He
stated there was not adequate public notice or participation regarding the
red zone. A concession was offered to shorten the red zone and install “No
Parking” signs. He said the residents were requesting the immediate
restriping of the street and the reversion back to four lanes with no turning
lane permanent at the intersection.
Lynn Tashbook spoke regarding 3800 Middlefield Road. She stated she lived
on Middlefield Road for 25 years. She said because of the red zone no one
could park at her house. She resented the fact that residents were not
notified about the changes and noted that they had always been notified of work in the past. Many schoolchildren used the bike path and due to the
uneven line she was deeply concerned that someone would turn into an
oncoming car or bus.
Charlene Liao spoke regarding 3800 Middlefield Road. She said that she
lived on Middlefield Road. She requested the Council restore the
Middlefield/Mayview intersection to its original configuration. She also
wanted the transit shuttle stop on southbound Middlefield Road restored.
The 2002 and 2008 traffic reports commissioned by the City stated that the
amenities to the shuttle stop should have been improved.
Wynn Grcich said that she was at the Basque Water Board meeting in March. She hoped that every citizen of Palo Alto asked former Mayor Peter
Drekmeier about the Tuolumne River Trust and how they wanted to punch a
hole in the O'shannassy Dam and restore Hetch Hetchy. She said that would
be on the ballot in November 2012 in San Francisco. She was concerned
that breaking the dam would lead to a quagmire and increased mosquitos,
April 09, 2012 110-236
which would in turn lead to the use of more pesticides. Also, the State was
low on funds, so she was concerned about the loss of the power created by
the dam. She said that they claimed people would drink from local
reservoirs, but those were already contaminated with trihalomethane from
the chloramine when it mixed with the recycled toilet water. She also
discussed hydraulic fracking. The Food and Water Watch had a petition to
ban it in California. She suggested everyone learn more about hydraulic
fracking at gaslandthemovie.com.
Harold Davis spoke regarding the California Avenue lane reduction. He said
that he managed the property at 240 N. California Street for Norridge
Cleaners. He observed a lack of communications between the retailers and
the City Staff. There seemed to be many questions that the City Staff either
did not have answers to or refused to answer. For example, the Staff had
not conducted any study which showed the impact of the time of
construction on business receipts. He asked the City Council to review the problem and conduct a study of what it would look like by temporarily
removing two lanes to see what the effect was.
Bill Herbert spoke regarding spoke regarding the California Avenue lane
reduction. He stated that he was a property owner on California Avenue.
Over 18 months prior, property owners requested the City do something
about where trucks would park to unload because many of the businesses on
California Avenue could not receive deliveries in the back. The Staff said
they would bring the matter to Council. He said that 18 months later it had
not shown up on any of the plans and he thought it was imperative that the
City Council provide the property owners with an alternative of keeping
California Avenue at four lanes rather than reducing it.
Bill Burress spoke regarding the California Avenue lane reduction. He said
that over 75 percent of the merchants on California Avenue opposed the two
lane reduction. He stated his business was open until 10:00 p.m. and
almost every night Starbucks and other trucks pulled up and stopped. Also
during that period he saw numerous emergency vehicles going to the
residences at the end of California Avenue. He said that he never had
anyone from the City Staff ask him what he thought of the lane reduction
and he did not think many of the other merchants had been approached
either. He thought if the City blocked off two lanes and conducted a study it
would find that it was a mistake. He thought reducing the street to two
lanes would reduce the parking ability of the customers, emergency vehicles, and trucks for the loading and unloading of goods.
Philippe Lehot spoke regarding the California Avenue lane reduction. He said
that he represented several tenants at 405, 407, 409, 411, 415, and 417
California Avenue which were four retail stores and eight residential units.
April 09, 2012 110-237
He was very displeased with City Staff’s behavior in the matter. To the best
of his knowledge 75-80 percent of the residents in Palo Alto Central were
opposed to the reduction of the lanes, including his eight residential and four
retail units.
Jessica Roth spoke regarding the California Avenue lane reduction. She
requested Council reconsider the lane changes on California Avenue. She
said that she was a long time merchant on the street and that she did not
believe that the lane reduction was good for the business district. Recently
over 40 merchants came together and stated their opposition to the lane
reduction and current plan. They wanted improvements to their street and
were willing to go through down time during construction, but only if it made
California Avenue a nicer, more inviting area for their customers. She asked
that the Council instruct the City to develop a better plan, an alternative that
kept the four lanes.
Cathy Lee spoke regarding the California Avenue lane reduction. She said if
the four lanes were reduced there would be many businesses that would be
hurt. The Council should consider a trial period and a realistic traffic study
that included nearby projects in the area. There were many merchants who
did not want the reduction of the lanes. She said that four lanes worked
well and everyone seemed to be happy with them.
Jack Morton spoke regarding the California Avenue lane reduction. The
merchants published an ad in the previous Wednesday and Friday’s
newspaper trying to get the attention of City Council. He said it had been
very difficult to deal with Staff. The merchants met with Planning Director
Curtis Williams and they made clear to him that they did not support the project. Effectively all the merchants on California Avenue opposed the lane
reduction. On Friday the City Attorney’s Office called the formal settlement
conference. The attorney for the merchants indicated that they did not have
the authority to call a formal settlement conference because Council had not
authorized it. Nonetheless, they met with Staff to try to work out in good
faith what would be a way of resolving the lawsuits. He said that Terry
Shuchat, Bob Davidson, and himself, all of whom were party to current suits
before the City asked Staff first to have a realistic trial and second to redo
the traffic study so that it took into account the unique nature of the
California Avenue situation and did in fact look at the traffic on the street.
He said that if the merchants lost, they lost their business. If the City
conducted a trial it simply delayed the project a year. He thanked the Council for its time.
Mike Francois spoke regarding water fluoridation. He discussed Paul
Connett, the CEO of Fluoride Action Network. Many cities nationwide had
stopped fluoridation. He suggested they look up florideactionnetwork.org to
April 09, 2012 110-238
see the map of all the cities that had stopped fluoridation. Mr. Connett was
interested in any symptoms people had of fluoride such as discoloration of
teeth and vomiting. He read a story out of a book entitled, “The Slow
Poisoning of America,” written by John and Michelle Erb which went with the
“Dumbification of America” by George Soros. The story was about a three
year old child named William who was given fluoride by a dental hygienist,
ingested it and died.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Mayor Yeh to
move Agenda Item 13 to become Agenda Item No. 17A.
Council Member Holman voiced a no vote on Agenda Item No. 14.
City Manager, James Keene said that there was a question from Council on Agenda Item No. 8. He stated that he thought it was appropriate to add the
language from the body of the Report into the formal recommendation that
Council would adopt. The language read as follows, “in addition Staff will
work with College Terrace residents to explore public/private partnerships or
other means to landscape the traffic circles and bulb-outs.” He explained
that was part of the report and recommendations Staff made.
Doria Summa spoke regarding Agenda Item No. 8. She said that she was a
resident of College Terrace and was also the City Observer for the College
Terrace Residents Association Board of Directors. She was also a member of
the Traffic Calming Committee from the beginning, which was almost 10
years ago. The process began for the traffic calming with a petition to City Council from 225 residents in 1999. After that Staff confirmed the need for
the Traffic Calming Program. Stanford’s General Use Permit conditions
provided $200,000 in funding and a new office building at the corner of
California Avenue and Hanover Street. Council approved the project in
2004. Although the process was lengthy, it was productive and resulted in a
reduction of vehicle speeds and volumes in the neighborhood and which was
approved by the large majority of residents via the City’s postcard ballot.
The Board supported the Staff recommendation to make the program
permanent with the understanding that every reasonable effort would be
made to find a way to landscape the circles.
Fred Balin spoke regarding Agenda Item No. 8. He said that he was
speaking on behalf of the College Terrace Residents Association Board
(CTRA) in the capacity of Vice President. He discussed the traffic circle
landscaping. The issue arose last year after the City informed their
neighborhood advisory committee that traffic circles were no longer
landscaped and that to make the temporary structures of the traffic calming
April 09, 2012 110-239
trials permanent the circles would instead be filled in with concrete. Mr.
Barker expressed their perspective in a letter to Council in July 2011; it was
included on Page 157 as part of Section 8B. Landscaping was part of the
original traffic calming plans as presented to residents. The budget was for
five circles, of which only two were implemented. He noted that was a
considerable cost savings. The aesthetics of the circles were important to
residents, especially relevant as they were also markers between the
commercial and residential areas of College Terrace. Most important, as was
discussed at the Planning and Transportation Commission in October,
landscaping of circles was an effective traffic calming measure and integral
to the overall design. Residents were pleased to hear Staff state that they
would pursue alternative funding options to improve the circles. The
Planning and Transportation Commission also incorporated the search for
alternative funding options together with a two year limit for Staff to return
with its evaluation. He said that the College Terrace Residents Association
Board Members and other residents were at the Council meeting to reaffirm their support of the in the road elements tested over two traffic calming
trials and approved by 80 percent of responding households to the City’s
postcard vote.
Joy Ogawa spoke regarding Agenda Item No. 8. She said that she decided
to speak regarding one of the College Terrace traffic calming devices in order
to help provide some legal basis for any future pedestrian or bicyclist who
was injured in an accident at the Yale Street/College Avenue intersection.
She said that she lived a few blocks from the Yale Street/College Avenue
intersection and she crossed College Avenue at Yale Street as a pedestrian
several times per week. She thought that the traffic circle was a hazard for
pedestrians and bicyclists. Vehicles were so distracted by having to maneuver around the traffic circle that most drivers paid no attention to
pedestrians attempting to cross the intersection. Additionally, vehicles,
especially larger vehicles continued to avoid going around the circle as they
were supposed to in order to make left turns. There was no enforcement by
the City to prevent the absolutely illegal behavior so it continued and added
another element of danger to pedestrians and bicyclists. She said that
element of danger did not exist before the traffic circle was added to the
intersection. She altered her normal course to walk a block out of her way
in order to cross College Avenue at Williams Street so she could avoid the
hazardous conditions created by the traffic circle at Yale Street and College
Avenue. She did not expect the many bicyclists who use Yale Street as their
route to and from Stanford would make a detour to cross College Avenue at Williams so she would not be surprised if a bicyclist was ran into at that
intersection.
MOTION: Council Member Espinosa moved, seconded by Council Member
Price to approve Agenda Item Nos. 5-12 and 14-17.
April 09, 2012 110-240
5. Approval of Utilities Enterprise Fund Contract with Ranger Pipelines
Incorporated in an Amount of $4,220,699 for Water Main Replacement
Capital Improvement Program WS-09001 Project 23 and WS-10001
Project 24 in Crescent Park, Duveneck/St. Francis, Old Palo Alto,
University Park, and Ventura Subdivisions.
6. Approval of a Contract Modification for $10,510 for Alta Planning and
Design to Complete the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Update.
7. Approval of a Construction Contract with Republic Intelligent
Transportation Services Inc. in the Amount of $924,740 to Supply &
Install New Energy Efficient Light Emitting Diode (LED) Street Lighting
Luminaires.
8. Approval of Permanent Traffic Calming Plan for College Terrace
Neighborhood.
9. Approval of Two Contract Amendments with Baker & Taylor to (1) Add
$300,000 for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $1,250,000 for Additional
Library Collection Materials and (2) Add $100,000 for a Total Amount
Not to Exceed $189,000 for Additional Library Collection Services
Associated with the Mitchell Park Library Opening.
10. Approval of a Contract with Vellutini Corp., dba Royal Electric, in the
Amount of $865,393 for the Replacement of an Electric Power
Transformer at Hanover Substation.
11. Budget Amendment Ordinance 5149 entitled “Budget Amendment
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in the Amount of
$179,000 to CIP Project PE-12011, Newell Road/San Francisquito
Creek Bridge Replacement, Approval of a Contract with Nolte
Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $519,177 for Design Services for the
Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project,
Capital Improvement Program Project PE-12011, Approval of the
Inclusion of Public Art in the Design and Construction of the Newell
Road/San Francisquito Creek Replacement Bridge, and Approval of a
Cost Share Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District
Providing for Contribution of Local Matching Funds for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Replacement Bridge Project.”
12. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C11135684 with Pacific
Technologies, Inc. to extend Term Through June 30, 2012.
April 09, 2012 110-241
13. Recommendation From Policy & Services to Approve Labor Guiding
Principles.
14. Ordinance 5150 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo
Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The
Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Located at 2080
Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza) from Planned Community (PC
1643) to PC Planned Community Zone (PC_) tor the Renovation of
Three Existing Eichler Retail Structures, On-Site Relocation of One of the
Retail Structures, Construction of Ten New Single-Family Homes, And
Creation Of A 0.20 Acre Park.” (First reading March 19, 2012 – Passed
8-1).
15. Approval of Amendment No. 1 in the Amount of $31,460 to Contract
No. C09129898 with Golder Associates, Inc. for a Total Contract
Amount of $150,460 for Development of Alternate LFG Flare Stack Design on Water Quality Control Plant Premises - Refuse Fund Capital
Improvement Program Project RF-10002.
16. Request for Authorization to Increase Existing Contract with the Law
Firm of Stubbs & Leone by an Additional $200,000 For a Total Contract
Not to Exceed Amount of $385,000.
17. Submittal of Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Monthly
Construction Contract Report and Council Direction to Staff to Continue
Construction Contract Monthly Reports.
MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item Nos. 5-12 and 14-17: 8-0 Scharff absent
MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item No. 14: 7-1 Holman no, Scharff
absent
17a. (Former Agenda Item No. 13) Recommendation From Policy &
Services to Approve Labor Guiding Principles.
Council Member Shepherd said the labor Guiding Principles were important
and the Finance Committee did not have the opportunity to discuss. The
minutes related to Guiding Principle Number 2, read “the City should be able
to meet the costs of any compensation commitment from current and projected ongoing City revenues.” She knew that they discussed the
concept about not having to reduce services in order to be able to reach this,
and she asked if there was any consideration of putting something to that
effect into the principle.
April 09, 2012 110-242
City Manager, James Keene suggested she read Number 1 as a Guiding
Principle in conjunction with Number 2. He said that stated that their
essential purpose was driven by services provided to the public and the
linkage of compensation ultimately to supporting that primary ability.
Council Member Shepherd confirmed that Mr. Keene felt that they did not
need to reiterate that in Guiding Principle Number 2.
Mr. Keene said if and when the Council adopted the Guiding Principles as a
whole her point would be achieved.
Council Member Shepherd said there were many things that could be read
into with any compensation commitment with current and projected ongoing
City revenues. She hoped they would not have to pit it against an item that
they would have to collapse in order to afford a labor contract. She said that
Guiding Principle Number 2 was not clear. On Guiding Principle Number 3, the timing of negotiations read “The City shall” and then there was a
comment “to the maximum extent possible.” She asked if there was a
reason why they put “to the maximum extent possible reach an agreement
on a successor Memorandum of Agreement” in the Guiding Principle. She
understood they were trying to do that, and asked if that language was
necessary.
Acting Assistant Director of Human Resources, Marci Scott said Guiding
Principle Number 3 was discussed the most at the two committee meetings.
They also had input from the labor groups expressing concern about the
timeline. The Committee Members were very clear that the City’s intent was
not to truncate negotiations in any manner, but to move timelines earlier if need be to ensure that there was enough time to reach agreement. She
said that there were a variety of factors at play in a negotiation process and
while they could not have a hard deadline, their goal was to make it as clear
as possible that they wanted to commit to a period of negotiations and
complete those negotiations prior to the expiration of the current contract.
Council Member Shepherd said the reason why she thought it was important
was because Council did not know how to set the budget without an agreed
upon Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). She said that they targeted
certain goals when they set the budget but did not really know if they would
be achieved. She asked if Staff considered tying the process into the budget
process.
Ms. Scott said that the budget process was discussed. She explained that
the City usually completed its projects on June 30th, which was the last day
of the City’s fiscal year. The budget was a primary driver in the bargaining
process. It guided Staff with respect to the items they needed to negotiate.
April 09, 2012 110-243
She said the budget process began at the beginning of the calendar year
creating a challenge for the negotiation process. One of the largest concerns
with Guiding Principle Number 3 was that they did not want to extend past
the contract expiration date. Lately they were in a concessionary
environment and negotiated changes had not gone into effect until well after
the contract expiration. Their goal was to complete all the terms and have
them take effect immediately following the expiration of the contract. She
said that Staff did discuss the budget, but the key was not to have lengthy
negotiation processes that kept the City in limbo for long periods of time and
negatively impacted the budget process.
Council Member Shepherd said that she possibly had three or four words to
add to the language, but would continue her questions first. Regarding total
compensation, Guiding Principle Number 4 said “in making compensation
decisions the City shall consider the total cost of position including salary,
pension, all other benefits and shall communicate such information to all employees, Labor, and the public.” She knew that it was difficult to
determine the fact that even though the City had frozen salaries with its
current active MOU’s, they had a huge spike in obligations for health care
benefits. At the beginning of the budget year they were provided a formula
for how much benefits would increase throughout the entire system. She
wanted the language that the City gave to the employees to be simple,
understandable, and translatable to the way it would be in the private
sector. She knew that sometimes the salaries and benefits also had other
meaningful things such as sick days and vacation. She asked if they would
put that package together to explain the total compensation or if it would
just be benefits and base salary.
Ms. Scott agreed there were different ways to look at the different pieces
that went into an employee’s cost. The focus was on the salary and salary
related benefit costs. Staff also worked on educating employees regarding
what the City contributed and what the employees contributed toward the
costs. Lately they started looking at the various leave categories and how
those compared to the market. She stated that they were currently
completing that analysis and it was an important factor that would be
discussed in the future.
Council Member Shepherd said in the private sector employees could not
always cash out their unpaid benefits and that should be recognized. Then
they could clearly articulate exactly how it looked and what non-typical benefits public employees had in their employment package. Her biggest
problem was not understanding the differences and recognizing them so
they could be explained to the community. She said those comments flowed
through to Guiding Principles Number 7 and Number 8. With Guiding
Principle Number 6, recruitment and retention, she had heard from some
April 09, 2012 110-244
members of Labor management that they wanted to see an ability to
improve their job and grow with the job instead of someone coming out of
retirement and taking the job. They felt that was not conducive to a good
working environment. She asked if that was what Guiding Principle Number
6 was trying to capture.
Ms. Scott said yes.
Mayor Yeh said that he wanted to check in about the potential language
changes. He said that if there was an interest to review it in greater depth it
made sense to refer the Guiding Principles to the Finance Committee. He
was unsure if it was time sensitive that the Guiding Principles had to be
passed at that evening’s meeting. He said that it sounded like there were
additional edits that Council Member Shepherd was interested in.
Council Member Shepherd said she had one edit. She said that she wanted to tie it to the budget process as opposed to how the language stood, which
she felt was vague. She said that if Mayor Yeh wanted to send the Guiding
Principles through Finance she was fine with that.
Mr. Keene said that if they were close to the end it was advantageous for
Council to formally adopt the Guiding Principles as soon as possible. He
preferred they adopt them that evening. The adoption did not preclude
them from returning to the Guiding Principles and modifying them if desired.
Mayor Yeh said that it sounded as though Council Member Shepherd was
near the end of her list and asked if she had potential language suggestions.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member
XXX to change the first part of Labor Guiding Principle No. 3 to: Because of
budgetary needs, the City shall, reach agreement on the successor MOA with
recognized employee organizations on matters within the scope of
representation prior to expiration of their existing MOA. The City will work
with employee groups to set an appropriate starting time for negotiations.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to adopt the Labor Guiding Principles recommended by the Policy
and Services Committee.
Council Member Schmid said that he thought the discussion was helpful and
that he strongly endorsed moving forward with the Guiding Principles so that
they were ready and available as the City moved into the budget year.
April 09, 2012 110-245
Council Member Holman said she was happy to have the Guiding Principles
framed and adopted. She thought it was good to have a framework for
discussions and the Guiding Principles provided that framework for the City
and the Labor groups.
Mayor Yeh said he appreciated Council Member Shepherd’s raising the issue.
He said that this was a significant document as the City embarked on the
next round of negotiations. He appreciated all the work the Policy and
Services Committee did.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to move Agenda Item No. 19 forward to be heard before Agenda Item No. 18.
Council Member Klein said that it was obvious that they had more people
present for Agenda Item No. 19 and that it should be moved in consideration
of those people.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent
ACTION ITEMS
18. PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of Site and Design Review Application and
a Record of Land Use Action for a change in Use from Office to a Day Care Center at 2585 East Bayshore Road. * Quasi-Judicial.
Mayor Yeh noted that Mark Michael of the Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC) was in attendance. He disclosed that he met with the
Applicant and visited the site. He also had several telephone calls with the
Applicant, but all the information that was shared with him was available
and in the public record.
Planning and Community Environment Department Planner, Amy French said
the PTC voted 6-0 in support of the site and design review application to
create a daycare center for 117 children within the existing building and
associated site modifications. The daycare center was a permitted use within the Research, Office, and Limited Manufacturing District (ROLM). The
site modifications involved the use of existing asphalt areas at the rear and
side of the building as two fenced play areas. She said that Staff was
prepared to answer any questions beyond those raised by Council Member
Holman, which were answered via e-mail and at places. She noted that
April 09, 2012 110-246
Page 630 of the Staff Report reflected the Emergency Preparedness Plan
condition added during the PTC review. The Emergency Preparedness Plan
also appeared in the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Staff Report as well.
She said the condition would be added back into the final Record of Land Use
Action reflecting Council action. Staff, the ARB, and the PTC were confident
that traffic circulation and parking were sufficient for the project and that the
project would not have an adverse impact on the environment.
Mark Michael, Planning and Transportation Commissioner said the Staff
Report was comprehensive and accurate in all respects. The issues that
received the most attention from the PTC were the traffic and safety issues.
He said that the verbatim minutes of the PTC were included with the Staff
Report and that Council could see the numerous questions asked by the PTC
regarding the issues presented by the neighboring property owners who had
commissioned a traffic study. That study was compared to the Applicant’s
study. He said that Jaime Rodriguez confirmed the Staff evaluation of those issues, which led to the PTC voting unanimously to support the proposal.
The intended use of the site was permitted. The PTC reviewed neighbors’
concerns at great length and balanced them with the Comprehensive Plan
objectives which were all satisfied. He reiterated that the PTC unanimously
voted to bring the project to the Council.
Kevin Jones, Applicant said he was with Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners
Architects. He gave an overview of the project located on East Bayshore
Road. To the left and right of the project were two existing office buildings,
the Baylands were behind it and Freeway 101 was in front. The proposal
was to provide for the Mustard Seed Center. There were no proposed
revisions to the façade of the building. There were changes to the back which allowed for outdoor play areas. He said that it was largely a use
modification. The proposed zoning ROLM zone allowed for licensed childcare
use. The building was about 15,000 square feet and would provide service
to about 117 children. He said it was a licensed daycare facility with the
Department of Social Services. The current site was equipped with 44
parking stalls of which 18 at the rear would be modified to allow for outdoor
play and activity areas. He said that modification was listed in Council’s
packet. Traffic and access to the site would be discussed in more detail later
in the evening. There was a shared driveway to the right with the adjacent
property owner and then a single driveway to the left which was on the
Applicant’s site. He showed a diagram which indicated the proposed play
areas along the back and left side of the project. He said that there were minor exterior changes. They were adding a new trash enclosure as
required by the ARB. There was also additional fencing for the play area and
accessible ramps and parking features.
April 09, 2012 110-247
Council Member Burt asked Staff if the Applicant was a licensed daycare
center.
Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis Williams said that
he could not speak to what they were currently, but as a condition of
approval of the project they were required to be licensed by the Department
of Social Services.
Council Member Schmid said it was an exciting proposal, but he had a
contextual question for Staff. He noted that of the City’s ROLM district in
that part of town that there were at least four buildings on West Bayshore
that had been transformed from Research and Development (RND) into
educational service organizations. He thought there were three now on East
Bayshore. He said that was the beginning of a transformation of what was
once an RND district into something else. That had impacts for how the City
thought about economic development. He asked if Staff had any comments on the general context of change that was taking place.
Mr. Williams said that the East Meadow/West Bayshore Concept Plan
indicated that in part of the area a conditional use permit for daycare would
be required, and in some areas daycare would be prohibited because they
wanted to preserve the nucleus of the commercial and RND businesses. He
said that was not the case currently on the east side of the freeway,
particularly in the project’s location. There were four buildings with
significant open space. There has not been a close review of what the
general contextual changes would look like. Future discussions regarding
the Municipal Service Center (MSC) would determine the direction that
would take. He said that it was a permitted use that did not require a conditional use permit but did require the site and design review allowing
Council to have the discussion.
Mayor Yeh asked if the shared driveway with the neighboring parcel was
under the purview of the City.
Mr. Williams said the City’s purview was to be sure that driveway operated
and functioned adequately for the project as proposed in conjunction with
the neighboring building. Staff believed that it did. He said that the
easement and the rights between the property owners were private matters.
There were claims about potentially overburdening the easement, which was
a legal term that the City could not weigh in on but they understood that the argument was out there.
Mr. Yeh said that if the project was approved that it was the start of a new
neighbor relationship. He said that Mustard Seed would have two adjacent
neighbors. He asked what Mustard Seed planned in terms of relationship
April 09, 2012 110-248
management as neighbor relations were important for the long term. He
asked the applicant how Mustard Seed had approached the neighbors in
order to discuss the use of the easement and the flow of traffic and how they
intended to continue the relationship going forward.
Mr. Jones said the flow of traffic and being a good neighbor were important
to the Applicant and Mustard Seed. Over the course of the past year they
worked very hard to explore the concerns. That was part of the reason the
process had been somewhat lengthy. They worked closely with Engineering
and Public Works and looked at analogous situations in terms of traffic to get
a better understanding of the traffic flow. They wanted to be a good
neighbor and understood the concerns about the shared driveway. If the
traffic became a problem, Mustard Seed would establish a monitoring
system in which the school would monitor traffic moving in and out, notify
the people inside that parents had arrived for pick up and expedite any
problems. Mustard Seed wanted to be a good neighbor, serve the Palo Alto community diligently, and continue to be supportive of the families and the
neighbors’ concerns. He said that they continued to look for a dialogue of
open discussion.
Council Member Holman asked Staff if there were traffic backups and if Staff
would evaluate alternatives on how to address those backups. She reviewed
the PTC minutes and saw the discussion about circulation of flow and
entrances and exits. She did not see a discussion about staggered hours
pick up. If Mustard Seed closed at 6:00 p.m. she saw a potential for traffic
backups.
Mr. Williams replied the plan was to have a three hour window of pickup from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. which should be adequate to avoid backup. He did
not know if there was a reason that they could not have it included as a
condition. He thought they tried to but as it was not a conditional use
permit it was treated differently. It was a site and design review where they
looked at the design. Council could put a review in that essentially gave
them the discretion to evaluate periodically and return to the Applicant to
work on staggering schedules if Staff perceived that there was a problem.
He thought it was fine without that and noted that the PTC did not impose
that restriction.
Council Member Holman said that while the school had a pick up period of
3:00 to 6:00 p.m., when parents came was dictated by work schedules. She said that the timeframe did allow flexibility and opportunity.
Mr. Williams said Staff saw no harm in it. Again, they based much of it on
the operational characteristics of the existing school and of some schools
April 09, 2012 110-249
that had a similar type of combination daycare/after school programs. He
said it was at the Council’s discretion.
Mayor Yeh opened the Public hearing at 8:50 P.M. He stated that each
speaker received three minutes.
Yanhong Lin said her daughter Emma was nine years old and they went
through almost all of the Chinese afternoon schools before they found
Mustard Seed. She was concerned about the current location of Mustard
Seed as the lot was small and crowded. One thing that impressed her about
Mustard Seed was the foundation of the teachers and directors and what
they taught the children. They taught kindness, politeness and how to do
the right thing. In addition to learning Chinese, her daughter started
journaling, which was something she previously could not get her daughter
to do. She said many other parents thought the school was great.
Lisa Jiang said she was the parent of a fourth grade student at Juana
Briones Elementary School. Last year she was the Executive VP of the Juana
Briones PTA. Ever since kindergarten her daughter Amy attended Mustard
Seed for after school care. Over the last five years Mustard Seed became a
part of their family. She noticed that was true for many other families
whose children went to Mustard Seed. She said that over the past five years
her daughter learned Chinese culture, emotionally matured, and became a
good helper for the younger students. Mustard Seed provided a caring,
nurturing, learning environment and had always been encouraging. Most
importantly, Mustard Seed was good at character building. Mustard Seed’s
principal, teachers, and staff always kept the best interests of the students
at heart. In the last five years Mustard Seed grew as many students and families were drawn there because of the excellent staff and teachers. She
said the new building would help Mustard Seed to grow.
Allison Lee said that she was in first grade at Hoover Elementary School.
She said that she liked Mustard Seed because it helped her learn Chinese
words, journal, do homework, and math. She said they needed to move to
the new building because they did not have enough space.
Amelia Mau said that she went to Mustard Seed since second grade. It
taught her to be responsible, helped her with homework, and kept her on
task which she needed. She said it was crowded with so many people
joining and that the new building would help them.
Alan Huang said that he was a seventh grader at Jordan Middle School. He
went to Mustard Seed for about six years. During that time he learned
many things, not only academic, but also social and life skills. He thought
he learned more about those things at Mustard Seed than in normal school.
April 09, 2012 110-250
It helped him through his life. He said that his younger brother currently
attended Mustard Seed and when he visited his brother he thought the
building was crowded. He knew a larger building would help the students.
David Ng said he was a 13 year resident of Palo Alto. He said that his
daughter was in first grade and attended Juana Briones and Mustard Seed.
He thought it was essential that the Council approve the measure to proceed
with the use on East Bayshore as Mustard Seed had outgrown its current site
on Emerson. The new site had more capabilities and opportunities for
Mustard Seed. Mustard Seed grew dramatically and needed the new facility.
He said that having the facility on the other side of East Bayshore would
make things better from a site usage and traffic standpoint as it was easier
to get in and out at the new site. He said it was important for parents to
have the new facility.
Spencer Lin and Timothy Hung said that they loved Mustard Seed. They wanted to move because they needed more space.
Greg Klinsporn, Attorney at Mitchell, Hertzog and Klingsporn said he spoke
on behalf of the Applicant. He previously spoke to the PTC and submitted a
letter in support. Additionally, he wanted to add that both the tenants and
the building owner were committed to being good neighbors. He thought
Staff had worked hard to identify any potential issues and had not really
found any, but if issues arose he believed that they could be worked out in a
neighborly fashion. If they could not then perhaps there would be some
further controversy down the road, but he did not expect that given the data
and facts in the record so far.
Kyle Edwards said his daughter Emma was in first grade at Walter Hayes
and went to Mustard Seed. Both of his children previously attended Heads
Up which was in the same space currently occupied by Mustard Seed. They
moved three months ago but were unable to find a home in Palo Alto due to
the short inventory. This was unfortunate because Mustard Seed picked up
from Palo Alto schools and was such an important place for his daughter.
His son would attend Mustard Seed also next year. For their family Mustard
Seed was very valuable. It was also vital to Palo Alto. He supported the
new facility and the space it provided.
Kathy Edholm said she was a proud Mustard Seed parent as her son
transferred to Mustard Seed the previous year. Her family was very happy with Mustard Seed and supported the new facility. She said that another
use of the building could have been a Safeway store, which would have up
to 2,000 cars a day, or they could have used it as an office building. She
knew that similar size office buildings on Embarcadero had at least 200 full
time employees which meant there were over 150 cars onsite full time. She
April 09, 2012 110-251
did not understand why people worried about 117 children given the other
options. She requested the Council approve the project.
Edwina Cioffi said she was an adjacent property owner. Public Resources
Code 2100 said that California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applied to
permits for child care centers. There was an emergency plan that was asked
to be in place; however, Mustard Seed was supposed to have the plan, not
only review the plan which she found problematic. She said that there were
14 site conditions that were approved by the Board of Education under which
Mustard Seed now was licensed. She said that the site failed 13 out of 14
requirements. She said that child care facilities handbook stated that CEQA
was required. One objection the neighbors had was that the site was within
a quarter mile of an airport. She said that a helicopter went down behind
the facility only three weeks prior to the meeting. The facility was also in
proximity to high voltage power transmission lines. The electromagnetic
field testing showed that it was extremely high. Many studies showed that there was a 70% increase in child leukemia for children that were in
premises with that high of EMF radiation readings. Toxic and hazardous
substances were present because a quarter of a mile away was a 100 year
old dump. There was also a 25 acre sewage treatment plan that had
previously objected to childhood facilities in the area. There was only access
to two sides of the building which created a fire hazard. There had been two
spontaneous fires at the dump. There were also high pressure water pipes
to Palo Alto underground in front of the building. She said that according to
the guidelines facilities were supposed to be 1,500 to 2,500 feet away from
a major roadway in case tanker trucks had an accident.
Mayor Yeh explained to Ms. Cioffi that further remarks could be submitted to the City Clerk for public record.
Yates McKenzie said he was with the property owner next door to the
proposed daycare center site. He said they had the shared driveway with
the proposed daycare center. They were not necessarily opposed to the
daycare center use. He thought they had a great operation but was
concerned about the intensity of the use. Their traffic consultant reviewed
the Mustard Seed traffic consultant’s report and had very strong concerns
about the amount of traffic the school would generate on its site and on the
shared driveway. If the school was approved at 117 students and the
resulting traffic impacted his property as their traffic consultant expressed
they were left with very few options. At that point all they could do was pursue some type of civil lawsuit against the property owner for
overburdening the easement or restrict access to the parking alongside the
building. They much preferred that the City Council limit the number of
students that could be served at the daycare center or give them the ability
to discuss with Planning about reducing traffic at some point in the future.
April 09, 2012 110-252
Ronald Cioffi asked Council to consider the information presented by Ms.
Cioffi. He said that it was important they consider the safety of the children.
The proposed location was not appropriate. He said that the area needed to
be closely looked at over a long period of time in terms of what it was
originally designed to support, which was industrial manufacturing. He said
that the City of Palo Alto probably only had one warehouse left. He asked
the Council not to push out the businesses that supported the community.
His real concern was the issue of the children’s safety.
Mayor Yeh closed the Public hearing at 9:13 p.m. He said that the Applicant
had three minutes to respond to the comments made by the public.
Mr. Jones said he had no further comments, but thanked the families that
came to support Mustard Seed. He said that Council could see the
commitment and love the community had for the facility and he hoped that they would support the project.
Council Member Burt asked if the Staff or the City Attorney wanted to
address any of the issues raised about environmental process or risk.
Mr. Williams said Council was provided with a response and he noted that
the use was a permitted use in the zoning district. He said it was not a
conditional use, but there was the site and design review available. That
was the criterion that was the basis of Council’s decision. He said that it was
not a school and was not subject to the State Department of Education
requirements for schools where there was occupancy all day long. As
previously mentioned it did require licensing by the State Department of Social Services. He said that there was a condition of approval that required
the license be presented before occupancy of the building. Staff knew that
many similar types of requirements were looked at by the Department of
Social Services and Licensing of daycare facilities. Staff had discussions with
them and was comfortable that the project was on a viable site. He did not
know if the State agencies would impose additional conditions, but there did
not appear to be significant obstacles to approval. The site was not close to
any substantial toxic materials or storage. It was outside the various
influence zones of the airport and was for the most part adjacent to the
Baylands open space and parkland. He said that it was somewhat isolated
from some of the more intense industrial uses east of the freeway. Some of
the hazards that had been mentioned were equally applicable to the people who used the Baylands Park facilities or golf course. The improvements
being made were limited to interior tenant improvements and very minor
landscape and parking changes. He said that Staff believed CEQA exempted
such use from analysis. He said that CEQA did not say that daycare center
needed to have environmental review. In this case they believed that it fell
April 09, 2012 110-253
into the exemption for the reuse of an existing building. They did not see
significant changes to the environment caused by the facility which was what
CEQA required. The Fire Department reviewed the site and determined that
no environmental phase one report was necessary because they had
knowledge of the history of the site and area and felt that was not
necessary. The Transportation Division looked at the circulation issues and
traffic issues and did not require a traffic study given the volume of traffic
that would be generated. They did look at the circulation interior and
ensured parking and circulation was adequate to prevent backups onto
Bayshore Road or conflicts with the neighboring property.
Council Member Burt asked Mr. Williams to speak to the power line
adjacency and the airport.
Mr. Williams said the airport was not within the primary zones where there
was concern. He assumed the power lines were included in the review that the Department of Social Services would do. He said that they did not
analyze that separately, but that Mustard Seed was currently next to high
voltage power lines on the other side of the freeway. He said the City did
not have process or standards for review of that. There were not specific
techniques or impacts associated which the City relied on for that kind of
review. The primary impact CEQA had the City review was whether the site
use impacted something off site as opposed to the reverse. He thought the
State would look at it with respect to the licensing, but Staff did not look at
it.
Council Member Shepherd said she saw there was parking along the side
wall. There was an easement for cars to swing in and out. She asked if there was a concern about there being an elimination of the easement. She
was confused because there was a little bit of merged parking. There was a
merged entrance and then between the buildings it was narrow. There was
parking for daycare, but maybe not for the office building next door. She
asked if the office building was properly parked or if the two sites shared
spaces.
Mr. Williams said he understood that they did not share the spaces alongside
the building. Those spaces were specifically for the daycare and in this case
primarily used by the daycare staff. He said that there was adequate width
in the driveway to accommodate people pulling into the spaces and for
through traffic on the driveway. Under the previous office configuration use there was more traffic driving through to the back. With the proposed
configuration, other than the staff parking, traffic would turn in front of the
daycare which resulted in a reduced number of trips on the driveway to the
rear of the building. He said the daycare facility would not be able to use
the parking spots on the neighbor’s property.
April 09, 2012 110-254
Council Member Shepherd said she had just wanted clarification that there
was nothing mingled.
Mr. Williams said it seemed to the Staff that there would be no mingling. He
said the neighbor had certain legal rights, but they did not know how far
those rights extended. He said they could take action in the future but it
would seem to be counterproductive to block off the parking spaces because
they helped alleviate parking on the site.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member
Schmid to: 1) approve the Record of Land Use Action approving a Site and
Design review to allow a change in use from office to day care center as well
as other associated site improvements at 2585 East Bayshore Road.
Council Member Price said it was clear that they needed quality childcare in Palo Alto and she appreciated the public comments. She was comfortable
with the quality of the analysis and the discussion in the Staff Report. She
was also comfortable with the traffic, parking, and circulation studies
conducted. She thought many of the issues were addressed that evening.
Council Member Schmid said he enthusiastically supported the needed
community facility and thanked the people who came out and supported it.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member Price that should Staff determine traffic backups occur, Staff is to
evaluate the situation and work with the Applicant to explore solutions such
as staggered pickup schedules.
Mayor Yeh said one of the members of the public commented on the
overhead electric lines. He asked to what extent the corridor and the
neighbors could work together to petition or work with the City to
underground the overhead lines.
Mr. Williams said Ms. French indicated that the lines were Pacific Gas and
Electric (PG&E) lines and were high voltage so that was quite a challenge.
He said they could ask Utilities, but he was not hopeful.
Council Member Klein said that he did not understand what authority the
City had under the last portion of the Amendment. He asked what happened if the Applicant did not agree.
Mr. Williams said he did not know if the City had the same authority under
site and design as it did with a conditional use permit.
April 09, 2012 110-255
Council Member Klein said that was the intent of his question as this was not
a conditional use permit.
Mr. Williams said yes.
Council Member Holman did not think that whether it was a conditional use
permit or not dictated what the conditions of approval were. She said that
there could be conditions of approval on all manner of projects. She was not
clear why the City would not have the authority to implement something
such as the Amendment. What motivated the Amendment was the concern
that while the PTC did not find a traffic impact they found that there was a
potential for the backup. She wanted to address that in advance.
Mr. Williams said they generally had that kind of condition with a use permit
or with a Planned Community (PC). If the Applicant was not in compliance
he did not know that the City would have authority other than to say the Applicant was somehow violating the permit and suspending the use. He
said that it was much greyer than a use permit where the City clearly had
that authority in the code to review, return it to the PTC or the Council, or
PC’s where they had very specific explicit direction under the use provisions.
He said that he had no objection to having the language there and trying to
work with the Applicant if it came up, but he did not know that it was fully
enforceable.
Council Member Holman said that perhaps what was appropriate was a
change of the language. She asked if Staff felt if instead of “cause to be
implemented” if “work with the Applicant to find solutions such as” was more
appropriate.
Mr. Williams said he was comfortable with the language either way; it was
just a matter of how enforceable it ultimately would be. He suggested
asking the Applicant if they saw problems with the language. It made sense
to him that they could talk to the Applicant about doing it, they could talk
about whether there was a condition or not, and he suspected they would if
there were backups. He said that it did not hurt to have the language.
Council Member Holman said it was a failsafe because the Applicant
indicated that they wanted to be a good neighbor. This was a way for the
City to help ensure that.
Council Member Schmid said he heard the Applicant outline a way of
monitoring pick up times. The Applicant said they were traditionally spread
out over time and that there would be a staff member outside monitoring
and keeping track of it and making suggestions. He thought the “working
with” worked very well with what the Applicant had stated.
April 09, 2012 110-256
Council Member Price said that what she sought from Staff was a mechanism
that ensured the intent of the language. She said the question was if there
was another mechanism that would result in the same outcome.
Mayor Yeh said he understood Council Member Price’s question that
regardless of how it was handled procedurally that it still remained a
necessary clarification.
Mr. Williams said that he did not see a better way to do it unless Council
required the Applicant to set forth a staggered schedule to avoid any
potential backup.
Council Member Klein was concerned about the language for several
reasons. First, he thought that the Council should stay within its rules and
he knew that the City Attorney was looking at the issue so he was awaiting her legal opinion. He saw a difference between a conditional use permit and
a site and design review. Second, he felt that good neighbors went both
ways. He was concerned that if Council used the initially proposed language
it would perhaps give the adjacent property owners a weapon to use against
the Applicant. Council might end up rehearing the matter when a neighbor
said that there was a traffic backup. He asked what a traffic backup was
and how often it had to occur to be a problem. He thought the Applicant
deserved finality because it was just a site and design. He said that it was
not just if the Applicant would be a good neighbor; it was if the neighbors
would be good neighbors. He felt it was not just a trivial language question,
but a question of how the City would proceed and what was really meant by
site and design control.
Council Member Espinosa had similar concerns. He understood where
Council Member Holman was going with the language, but was not sure if
the City had the ability to enforce it. The word he was concerned with was
“find,” he thought “explore” solutions was better. He said that “find” stated
a requirement which could be used as a tool if neighbors returned with
concerns.
Council Member Shepherd wanted to associate her comments with Council
Member Klein. She wanted to know how it could be enforceable, how the
City could get involved and craft solutions when the two working buildings
should be able to figure out the problem and make their own accommodations. She understood that families were desperate for childcare
and afterschool care. She said making those types of considerations
between neighbors was in her opinion the best avenue for them to work the
difficulties through if there were difficulties. She thought the site was a nice
area for a daycare center because it was next to the Baylands. She said
April 09, 2012 110-257
that she would not support the Amendment because it was unwise for the
City to be involved in that kind of deliberation.
Council Member Holman stated there were several good suggestions that
would amend the Amendment. One was incorporating Council Member
Espinosa’s word which was to “explore” solutions. The other was that Staff
was to evaluate the situation. With respect to Council Member Shepherd’s
comments she said the reason that there were conditions of approval on any
project was that while the City trusted people’s intentions it was responsible
for helping to facilitate neighborliness.
Mayor Yeh said he would not support the Amendment. He understood the
intentions and heard the comments, but he heard Staff’s remarks that there
was not much purview for the City in that area. He did not feel it was wise
to create an intervention. He did not know what the trigger would be for
Staff. He assumed that it might be at the request of one of the neighbors and he did not like the rule that the City would have to supervise. He said it
was a private matter between neighbors and he thought everyone heard the
importance and desire for there to be good relationships between the
neighbors. It was an ongoing effort that he hoped parents would be aware
of as well as the existing neighbors.
AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-3 Klein, Shepherd, Yeh no, Scharff absent
Council Member Burt thought the daycare center was a use that met a
community need and generally was in a location appropriate for the use. He
was concerned about the high voltage power lines being almost immediately
adjacent to the daycare grounds with small biologically susceptible children as environmental impacts were greater on children. He heard they did not
have an answer regarding if there were any existing State regulations that
addressed the high voltage wires. If there were State regulations or
guidelines that recommended it, they did not know if the City’s zoning was
aligned with the regulations. He knew there were issues being dealt with in
other areas of the City where they had zoning that existed at a prior time
and use or uses that today were recognized as inappropriate. He asked how
the City should deal with that and what would happen if subsequent to that
evening they found out that there were guidelines that said it was not
healthy to have a childcare center immediately under high voltage lines with
fairly high EMF emissions. He also asked what would happen if at a future
time there were new guidelines or regulations. He asked what the City would do in either of those circumstances.
Mr. Williams said Staff could look into what the guidelines were if there were
any. He assumed that there were no guidelines because they recently had
schools and daycares located proximate to the site that were licensed. Staff
April 09, 2012 110-258
would check to be sure and report back to the Council if anything was
missed. As to the rules changing in the future, he did not know what
authority the City had at that point to change something or whether the
potential that something like that could happen warranted not moving
forward with the project in the present. He said that it sounded like
something the City should become more aware of in terms of zoning.
Council Member Burt asked if at a subsequent time there were new
recommendations that a daycare center was not an appropriate use if the
use would be grandfathered in.
Mr. Williams said he thought it probably would be grandfathered in, but
yielded to the City Attorney regarding if they could have a condition that
informed them that if the regulations changed there was some period of
time.
Council Member Burt said that he would not, but could cite numerous zoning
changes that arose from the recognition of hazards that were historically
thought to be acceptable and no longer were acceptable. He said that the
City had incompatible uses as a result. He thought the Council Members
needed to ask themselves what happened if at a subsequent time there was
such a regulation or a guideline. He asked for the City Attorney’s
comments.
City Attorney, Molly Stump said that high voltage power lines crossed the
State and existed in a variety of communities that were well built out.
Presumably the issue would be faced in many communities if the concern
developed in the future. She said that Council Member Burt was correct to point out that standards and understanding of science changed and it was
difficult to know when or where changes might occur. She thought Planning
Director William’s comment was interesting. She asked if Council wanted to
suggest or try to anticipate that this could be one such area. She did not
know what it meant for the Applicant in terms of its pursuing the site, given
the level of uncertainty that was a condition that the City wanted to place as
a local land use matter contingent on some unknown future action taken by
the County, State, or Federal government. She said one would anticipate
that without some type of condition like that then the City would be in the
position of other communities if there were a change in the standards in the
future.
Council Member Burt said he expected that if there was a change then the
lowest threshold would be young children as they were the most susceptible
to a variety of impacts. He said it was not merely a case of thousands of
miles of high voltage lines in the State, but the number of locations where
there may very well be schools or daycare centers in close proximity to the
April 09, 2012 110-259
lines. He said that Palo Alto would not be alone, but he would not expect
that it would be immediately a universal issue that would affect everyone. It
would probably be the lowest threshold. He said he was searching for a way
in which if there was a new standard that they would not face the dilemma
of not being able to protect the safety of vulnerable constituents even if the
City would not have the enthusiastic cooperation of the user.
Ms. Stump said she understood the concern, but thought that although
daycare was a very valuable and scarce resource there was also a market
force at play. If something was deemed dangerous, both the parents and
the provider needed to decide where they wanted to continue to locate
there.
Mayor Yeh said that was a separate discussion from the particular project
because there were multiple sites impacted by high voltage. He felt it was a
valid issue to be raised in particular because of the potential uses for the sites long term. He thought there was some type of disclosure or something
to be done at the local level. It was not lost on him that the neighbors had
measured the EMF. He said whether or not they did it in response to the
application or so they could disclose it to their own employees did not
matter; he thought it was something that was worthwhile to consider in the
long term within the City of Palo Alto.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent
The City Council took a break from 9:52 P.M. until 10:00 P.M.
19. Recommendation that Council Adopt the Draft Cubberley Guiding
Principles, Confirm the City Manager’s Appointments to the Community
Advisory Committee (CAC) and Review the Conceptual Site Plans
Prepared Jointly by the Staff of the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and City of Palo Alto.
City Manager, James Keene said Staff was not requesting the Council’s
confirmation of the appointments, but just receiving the appointments.
Council directed the CAC be set up as a City Manager appointment process
so that it could be guided but not bound by the Brown Act.
Deputy City Manager, Steve Emslie said Staff was present to follow up on
the process Council established in late 2011 engaging the public, the Palo
Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and its own legislative bodies to
prepare for the Cubberley lease which was set to expire at the end of 2014.
He recapped that the Council set up two committees. The first was the
Cubberley Advisory Committee (CAC), for which Staff prepared a list of
members that would be engaged in the citizen’s advisory role. The second
April 09, 2012 110-260
committee, the Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee (CPAC), was comprised
of PAUSD and Council Members. The CPAC members were Council Members
Shepherd and Klein, Mayor Yeh, and Board Members Barbara Mitchell and
Camille Townsend. It was anticipated that the CAC would begin meeting in
May 2012 and then the CPAC would begin meeting in June or early July.
The complete work of the CAC was anticipated to last nine months to one
year. The timing would enable the full Council to receive the input of the
CAC prior to any discussions with PAUSD on the possibilities of renewing or
changing the lease terms. The lease was set to expire at the end of 2014,
but both Council and PAUSD agreed to use a deadline of one year prior to
the culmination of the lease. The CAC input phase would be completed prior
to that one year mark, leaving most of 2013 to engage in specific
negotiations with PAUSD. That left a full year before the expiration of the
lease for ease of adaptability in case there were budgetary or policy changes
resulting from the renewed lease. He reminded Council that to the extent
possible the Brown Act was adhered to. All meetings of the CAC were open to the public and the public would receive a chance to comment and be
provided access to materials, much like how Council held open public
meetings. At Council’s direction the draft Guiding Principles were prepared.
The Guiding Principles were intended to reinforce transparency as discussed
by Council in its fall 2011 meetings. He said that because it was a Staff
appointed committee, it was not subject to the Brown Act chapter and verse,
but to the extent possible it was adhered to with respect to the public
aspects.
Mr. Keene added that he thought the main purpose was for Staff to bring the
Guiding Principles to Council because that was a specific request made by
the Council as a prelude to embarking on the CAC meeting. He said almost a year prior they were considering Foothill and its request to locate at the
Cubberley site. There was much concern and interest by various groups and
stakeholders in the community. Staff worked with PAUSD and the
Superintendent to begin sharing data and information about population and
school projections. He said that Mr. Emslie would show that the preliminary
site planning was all designed to be draft concepts. They were sharing the
draft concepts with the Council because Council had requested Staff return
with the Guiding Policies and Principles. He said that Staff had envisioned
the Guiding Policies and Principles as resource documents for the CAC. They
took the different perspectives and how much acreage they had and
reviewed what could be accommodated. That was the start of having the
building blocks which enabled them to deliver meaningful options for a future vision. He felt that was important because of the work the City was
doing following up with the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC)
recommendations; Council specifically put the question of Cubberley and its
infrastructure needs aside. The IBRC made some recommendations related
to funding, but those were not included. The process unfolded the way it
April 09, 2012 110-261
was designed and they had the potential for a defined vision for the future of
Cubberley. That allowed the Council to align those needs better with the
existing infrastructure recommendations. It was considerably better for the
City to know the demands on Cubberley and what the possibilities were.
Staff wanted to share with Council where it was to that point, but they were
not bringing any of the concepts to the Council as anything more than
points.
Mr. Emslie said that everyone was familiar with the site; it was the primary
Cubberley campus. The property recently acquired by PAUSD, 525 San
Antonio, was located with frontage on San Antonio. It abutted the
Greendale School site, which while adjacent to the Cubberley campus was
not part of the lease area. The 8 acres the City acquired through a purchase
agreement with PAUSD approximately 15 years prior was in the northerly
section of the site. He said there was a current run down of the square
footages and the existing space compared to what could be done in a revised program, the master plan program, which was the vision document
that City Manager Keene described. He thought one of the lessons learned
from the Cubberley Foothill discussions in 2011 was that there were certain
assumptions about what could be there and that PAUSD could not expand
their facilities in a way that led to the exclusion of the community uses on
the site. Staff found that there would be issues with how things were
arranged and that there would most likely be two story buildings involved
but both programs could be accommodated as well as PAUSD’s elementary
school expansion, middle school and high school. The elementary school
was primarily on non-Cubberley land, both on Greendale and the 525 site.
The 600 student middle school and 500 student high school could coexist
without the need for shared facilities. Option one showed that the two facilities could coexist on the site without taking any playing fields. The
options evolved into a total of four and increasingly took advantage of more
collaborative or joint use of space. The fitness and recreation space was
proposed to be jointly used in the future in options two, three, and four with
four having the most shared facilities. Several issues developed from the
exploration of shared facilities. The costs went down, but the primary cost
that was reduced between the stand-alone and the shared options was
parking. Stand-alone facilities required structured parking in order to meet
the minimum parking requirements. Shared facilities freed up more land for
surface parking so it could be parked without parking structures in the other
options. He said that was a significant reduction of costs. Shared facilities
also meant less building and less building costs per square foot, which would reduce the overall cost. There roughly estimated construction cost figures,
which were preliminary and intended only to stimulate discussion. He said
that option three was a moderate sharing of facilities and a relocation of the
City’s eight acres, the acres moved to the south of the site and was
indicated in red on the map. He said the option anticipated a relocation of
April 09, 2012 110-262
the eight acres. The maximum shared facility in the joint use space was the
recreation and the community space theaters, joint use of classrooms in the
evenings for adult education, and other uses that the City had on the site.
That was the smallest footprint with the greatest use of joint facilities. He
said that the plans were intended to dispel some of the preconceptions and
to be used as a starting place for the CAC. They were not intended to be in
any way limiting, Staff fully expected the plans and the vision to change as
more information was developed. He said Staff believed that it was an
advantage to start discussions in reaction to a proposal. It helped to flesh
out issues earlier in the process since they were working with a limited
amount of time to negotiate the status of the lease by the end of 2013. In
November 2011 the Council discussed connectivity. They reached out to the
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee and designated a member to
participate in the CAC, which was an update from the Staff report. He said
that while they were using a PTC Commissioner as a liaison the Council
wanted to leave open its role of expanding the PTC later on in the process, so Staff wanted to acknowledge that was an option. If Council decided to
increase the role of the PTC they would have had a liaison in place to provide
continuity.
Mr. Keene added that they needed a specific decision at minimum on the
Guiding Principles.
Mayor Yeh said that there were several items for discussion. He suggested
they start with the Guiding Principles and then proceed to feedback for the
CAC and conclude with discussion on the site plans.
Council Member Shepherd said she wanted to ask broad questions before just going straight to the Guiding Principles. She said that she noticed the
Guiding Principles were the “City Council Guiding Principles.” She asked how
it was integrated with PAUSD and if the Superintendent was taking the same
Guiding Principles to PAUSD.
Mr. Emslie said they were and that Staff had shared the Guiding Principles,
both draft and final versions, with PAUSD Staff. It was PAUSD Staff’s
intention to take the Guiding Principles to the School Board on April 24th for
adoption. He said that PAUSD could either adopt the Guiding Principles or
make changes, but that they would have their own PAUSD Guiding Principles
to work from as well.
Council Member Shepherd said she knew PAUSD was looking at enrollment
projections in order to determine how large the high school should be. She
asked if PAUSD’s input to the space planning was their best information as
to what their needs would be, or if it was the City forcing the fact that
April 09, 2012 110-263
PAUSD would only need a 500 count high school and a 600 count middle
school.
Mr. Emslie said that the numbers PAUSD gave the City were induced by
PAUSD’s projections. The City asked PAUSD to provide their long term
needs and they responded with that size of facilities. The City expected the
CAC to look into the demographic information that PAUSD used. He said for
preliminary planning purposes the numbers were taken from PAUSD, the
City did not force any size limits on PAUSD. He said that the numbers could
change over time.
Council Member Shepherd said that she knew PAUSD always said that it
depended on what the City was doing regarding housing units. She asked if
the proposed housing units were definitive from Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG). She heard the numbers were greatly reduced, but
was not aware if they had been publicly announced at Council. She said that she knew the City had asked Stanford to take away the Stanford sphere of
influence. She asked if they were given to Stanford since it was part of
PAUSD boundaries.
Mr. Keene said he thought the Council had its own Housing Committee that
was working through those issues and that it was too early to say other than
they had seen some reduced numbers. He would not say that they were
dramatically reduced but there was some reduction. As it related to
Cubberley he said they had some discourse about a range of numbers both
from the City perspective and how it related to school enrollment. He would
not say that it was definitive. He thought there was plenty of time as they
worked through the process with the CAC and CPAC for people to provide their perspectives on what was viable. In any case there was both the
question of what size facilities would be needed and when they would be
needed. They were mostly ignoring the when issue and focusing on the
where issue. He said that there could be many variations on how everything
went and the scale of the buildings based on the assumptions that PAUSD
shared about its enrollment numbers and discussion amongst the community
members. In no way did Staff mean to say that anything was definitive, it
was a preliminary cast that provided much more information than was
available in summer 2011.
Council Member Shepherd said those were global questions and that she was
finished.
Mayor Yeh said that one thing discussed at pre-Council was what questions
the Council wanted the CAC to answer. The question was at the end of the
entire process, what did Council want to ensure was vetted by the CAC.
April 09, 2012 110-264
Council Member Burt said in general the Guiding Principles were thoughtful
and seemed to cover many issues that they wanted to address. One area he
thought they might want to consider was having a Guiding Principle around
funding. He said that they could do significant work related to planning but
if there was no mechanism for funding they would be stuck. He wanted his
colleagues to consider whether a Guiding Principle that had an idea that any
future reduction in Utility User Tax funds that were currently paid to PAUSD
that may at some point in the future not be paid to PAUSD because the City
leased less space or because there was no longer a basis for a covenant to
not develop that those funds would be used primarily to provide the
community services and recreational facilities that might be lost as a result
of the PAUSD re-obtaining control of a portion of the Cubberley lands. To
him that was a balance that he thought held true to the principles of the
original Utility User’s Tax and yet it evolved toward the future and the City’s
needs. He wanted to make that suggestion so his colleagues could consider
it over the course of the conversation.
Council Member Holman agreed that it was a good basis for the community
process. She read Guiding Principle Number 10 and said she thought if they
were valued then the language should be strengthened to say “enrich the
community and every effort should be made to preserve and enhance
wherever possible.” She said they were dynamic services and tenants at
Cubberley and the language was too week. “Wherever possible” was weak,
so “every effort should be made to preserve and enhance” was important.
She was pleased about Guiding Principle Number 12, but noted that it did
not include intervals. She asked what the thought was about the frequency
of the intervals.
Mr. Keene said that they had not had that conversation yet as it seemed a
bit preliminary. He imagined that in short order the CAC would identify what
the logical reporting time would be. He thought Council would want the CAC
to let them know when roughly the reporting could go back to Council, but it
would not preclude a spontaneous report back if there was timely
information. He said that their job was to let the committees get going and
then look at how the reporting schedule would be put out.
Council Member Holman said that Mr. Keene mentioned how a Guiding
Principle having to do with funding should be added. She agreed with that
and also would appreciate a Guiding Principle being added about
transparency and a transparency policy. On Page 2 of 5 about the Staff Report stated “will be subject to the Brown Act, regular meetings and the
agendas will be posted 72 hours prior to regularly scheduled meetings 24
hours ahead of special meetings, minutes and Staff reports will be attached
to agendas and made available to the public at or prior to meetings.” This
did not feel like a good commitment to transparency.
April 09, 2012 110-265
Mr. Keene said he thought it was just reflecting on the requirements of the
Brown Act, and that those were the minimum standards.
Council Member Holman understood, but the City’s expectation of itself was
better than the minimum Brown Act requirements. She asked if Staff was
assuring Council that the City would do better than what was indicated.
Mr. Keene answered yes. He thought it was included to contrast the CPAC
to the CAC, but he thought it was clear that they wanted to have effective
meetings so the earliest possible notice of meetings would be given. He
thought for there would be a regular schedule, or certainly by the end of the
prior meeting the scheduling of the next meeting would take place and that
information would be put out.
Council Member Holman asked if the Staff reports would be available a week in advance.
Mr. Keene answered yes.
Council Member Holman said she had several questions related to Guiding
Principle Number 7. Since there would be shared property it seemed to her
that equally was probably not the equitable outcome, but that each entity
should pay its own fair share. She asked if there was a reason it was to be
shared equally. Additionally, she assumed there would be more buildings on
the PAUSD side, so taking into account that the Council was responsible for
spending taxpayer money maybe they meant fair share rather than equal
share.
Mr. Keene said that fair share could work, but thought that they were going
to be generalized planning, conceptual planning. The thinking was that in
the spirit of collaboration they would identify what the tasks would be and
share in the costs. They wanted to continually support a joint project and a
collaboration rather than having things devolve into this is our territory and
this is your territory.
Council Member Holman said that she was concerned about architectural
design because she thought PAUSD would have more buildings than the
City. She said that she was trying to be fair and responsible with both as
sharing equally seemed to go far beyond the site planning and was in the building design.
Council Member Schmid said that the Guiding Principles were very important
in what they said and how they were interpreted. Guiding Principle Number
5 discussed both entities having significant financial interests and that they
April 09, 2012 110-266
should be evaluated as equal priorities. He said that they were not equal
and that PAUSD had four times the amount of property on the site than the
City. The City paid 100 percent of the income on the property, so those
were not equal. He did not understand what was meant by equal priorities.
He asked how that could be a Guiding Principle when nothing was equal.
Mr. Keene asked if Council Member Schmid had alternative language.
Council Member Schmid said financial interests were certainly important for
the City. He said that they were interested in paying for value, so if those
were City Guiding Principles they should say something about what the City
had and how it paid the bulk of rental and upkeep payments. He assumed
that Staff was talking about working toward an equal burden of those types
of payments.
Mr. Emslie said that the intent was in the spirit of collaboration and not to point out the inequity. He thought the point was to say that one economic
interest or budgetary interest did not supersede the other. The services the
City provided at Cubberley through nonprofits and through childcare were on
the same footing as the educational needs. It tried to create an
underpinning of one concern did not supersede the other that both education
and community service were on equal footing.
Council Member Schmid said he admired everything that they had given
about the role of the City and City services. He said that was important, but
that “equal” was a strong word that could lead to contentions. He suggested
they think about a word that engaged both bodies’ valuable services from
both sides without saying they were the same financially.
Mr. Keene suggested that they shift it to the concept that both entities had
significant financial interest in the Cubberley campus and that they wanted
each party to be open and sympathetic to the perspective and concerns of
the other. In other words, they would not set what the ratio was or the
balance, but that there was recognition that both parties had interests that
needed to be addressed.
Council Member Schmid agreed. He said that Guiding Principle Number 7
was brought up by Council Member Holman. He assumed what Guiding
Principle Number 7 meant was during 2012 for the current meetings of the
CAC and the CPAC that they would share equal costs.
Mr. Emslie said that was true and that as they moved into more specific
negotiations they would identify City costs and PAUSD costs. He said that
the City would want its own advisors.
April 09, 2012 110-267
Council Member Schmid suggested they say through 2012.
Mr. Emslie said he thought they would agree to that.
Council Member Schmid said that Guiding Principle Number9 was important
regarding school capacity as a significant citywide issue. He suggested
adding “school quality and capacity.” He stated that one third of the City’s
revenue was from property taxes and that had grown twice as fast as any
other revenue source. Much of that came from young families filling
displaced housing in the community. He thought stating that the City had
an interest not just in the number of classrooms, but in the quality of
schools was an important City statement. Guiding Principle Number 12,
“representatives on the CPAC shall provide regular reports,” the question
was raised and a statement made that they would determine what the
regular reports were. He was concerned that the reports would be lost,
much as with the Mitchell Park Library reports had been. They had set up a system calling for monthly reports on the library. The report received that
evening was the second one in three or four months and was on the consent
calendar. He was concerned that the Cubberley reports might have the
same issues. He wanted a specific recommendation that they have monthly
reports of action items and progress. A key period was during the Council
break. There would not be any reporting during that time but it might be
just the point and time where many important decisions would be needed.
He said that Staff should tell the Council what it would receive.
Mr. Keene said he thought all of the Guiding Principles were ultimately the
Council’s prerogative and that the Council should indicate what it wanted.
Staff would support the production of whatever report, written or verbal.
Mayor Yeh said the CPAC had not set up the frequency of its meetings. He
assumed that they might be monthly, but as a committee they had to set its
base agreements. He said that as a member of the CPAC he was
comfortable returning to Council and stating what the frequency of the
meetings would be and some ideas on how they would report back to the full
Council.
Council Member Klein agreed with the comments made on Guiding Principle
Number 7 and thought that the change of referring to just 2012 solved the
problem even though 2012-13 was more likely. He had several questions
regarding cooperation with PAUSD on what was before the Council that evening. He asked Mr. Emslie if the report was shared with PAUSD.
Mr. Emslie said yes.
Council Member Klein asked if PAUSD had comments or suggested changes.
April 09, 2012 110-268
Mr. Emslie said no.
Council Member Klein said that the committee was being appointed by the
City Manager and asked if it was also being appointed by the School
Superintendent.
Mr. Emslie said the slots that were stakeholders of the school community
were given to the City by the Superintendent. He said that the City did not
affect any recruitment in the school areas.
Council Member Klein was concerned that PAUSD considered the committee
as much theirs as the City’s.
Mr. Emslie said it was clearly the intent for the committee to be joint and the
Superintendent was supportive of the City taking the lead as long as PAUSD was able to give the City the appropriate PTA members for the committee.
PAUSD felt it was their group as well and that the composition of the
committee reflected their interests and had the appropriate level of
representation.
Mr. Keene did not recall the specifics of the Motion, but he thought Council
had gotten caught up in the mechanics of making the committee a City
Manager appointment to allow for it to be set up, the noticing, and minute
taking and the advertising aspect of it. They defaulted to the courtesy of
sharing it with the Superintendent as Mr. Emslie stated. He did not have
any problem with the Council making an explicit direction to make it clear
that it was a jointly appointed committee. He said that the City Attorney said that it stayed within the format if they were advising the City Manager
and the Superintendent and they had the opportunity to work through the
PAC. If the Council would like to do that, Staff would welcome the directive.
Council Member Klein said he favored that and thought it was important that
it was a joint committee that reported to both bodies.
Mr. Keene thought that there was a little risk that at some point in the future
PAUSD would feel that they only appointed a subset of members to the
committee and that they City handled the rest.
Council Member Klein noted that the City Manager had indicated that Council had no say over who was appointed to the committee.
Mayor Yeh agreed, but stated they would discuss the CAC later.
April 09, 2012 110-269
Council Member Klein said that Guiding Principle Number 10 was an
opportunity for evaluations of Cubberley that had never previously been
done. He discussed the ability to ask the community which uses would be
most valued. He thought there might be a time when they would not have
space for everything at the campus. He did not think that they had an
obligation to provide space for everything there and he recognized that was
difficult, but Guiding Principle Number 10 bothered him in the sense that it
seemed to indicate the existing tenants had some right to be there. The City
had never completed an evaluation of the tenants. He said the financial
matters were also important and the Guiding Principles did not fully address
them. For example, the CAC should be asked about the methodology going
forward regarding who was to pay what. The Staff report said there were
$10 million in repairs needed over the next four to five years. He asked who
should pay for those repairs and where the money would come from. Those
were tough questions, but they needed to be acknowledged in the Guiding
Principles. He said he agreed almost entirely with Council Member Burt that they needed to discuss what the City paid and what use was made of the
monies. He added that the City did not pay a portion of the Utility Users Tax
to PAUSD. That tax went into the General Fund and became an unidentified
portion of the General Fund. He was aware that they had discussed it when
it was passed 24 years prior, but it was not a direct payment from the Utility
Users Fund. He asked when the CAC intended to have its first meeting.
Mr. Emslie said that PAUSD requested that they wait until after the School
Board meeting on April 24th so they were looking for the first or second week
of May for the initial CAC meeting.
Council Member Klein asked if there were a set of agendas.
Mr. Emslie said that there would be, but the first meeting would be spent
electing leaders, deciding frequency of meetings, meeting locations, and
time of day.
Council Member Espinosa hoped that even though they were not under
Brown Act parameters they would recognize that this was an area or topic
that community members and neighbors had an interest in. He questioned
if online streaming of the meetings was possible to engage the public in the
process. He said it was not something that Council needed to mandate, but
suggested that Staff explore it. If there was no discussion regarding use
then they were inherently designing a committee where people would
advocate for the same uses since they represented their particular interests.
He thought that Staff needed to have a discussion on a broad basis about
community services in general and the available facilities. He was also
interested in how the City and the PAUSD Guiding Principles would be
reconciled. He said that some of the Guiding Principles were City specific
April 09, 2012 110-270
and he was curious what happened if the PAUSD Guiding Principles included
something they disagreed with or wanted to provide feedback on. He asked
if there was a way to combine them and noted that it seemed as though
they were moving into the process in a very separate way. He thought the
Guiding Principles should have been connected. In terms of the leadership
of the City and the appointments by the City Manager he worried about not
only how it was set up in the beginning but how it was staffed and run
moving forward. He thought they needed to make sure that the School
Board and PAUSD felt like they had an equal share in the committee. He
said it was easy when everyone agreed, but if PAUSD felt it was not staffing
the committee at the same level or having the same role at the leadership
level he worried that they would not feel it was their plan and that the City
was potentially railroading them.
Council Member Price thought the Guiding Principles were well done and that
many of her comments had been addressed. She had some wording suggestions and then several issues that needed to be explored. With
respect to Guiding Principle Number 7 one of the recommendations was that
they specify it by a time period, but she suggested the last sentence say
“during the various phases cost sharing agreements will be implemented to
insure fairness to all parties.” She knew that was more of a process piece,
but given the complexities of the site and the different elements it made
sense. With respect to Guiding Principle Number9 she had a wording
modification that complemented Council Member Schmid’s points. She
suggested “Essential to the maintenance of educational opportunities and
excellence and the overall health and wellbeing of our community.” She
appreciated the comment made about the economic impacts of a high
quality school district, which was touched on earlier in the meeting. Guiding Principle Number 14 was important in terms of the residential
neighborhoods. The way it read was that residential neighborhoods were a
factor, but she suggested something like “the perspectives and engagement
of the residential neighborhoods surrounding Cubberley” with the rest of it
remaining the same. Guiding Principle Number 15 on transportation issues,
she would modify to “transportation issues and access/egress to Cubberley
shall be considered in evaluating possible” with the rest remaining the same.
In an ideal world she felt the Guiding Principles would begin as a joint
document. If they were discussing massive complex plans for a site, they
needed to start with Guiding Principles that had both entities tied together.
She recognized and was concerned that the Guiding Principles could be the
stalling factor in the process. However, she did not know if that statement was made to PAUSD. She thought joint Guiding Principles would work more
in the spirit of collaboration up front, which was something everyone
wanted. She thought this would be exciting and creative and that it would
reflect positively on everyone if it was done properly. She asked if there was
April 09, 2012 110-271
a way to address it and a timeline for it if there was interest in a joint
document.
Mr. Keene said he thought that the idea for the Guiding Principles was to
have them available at the start of the committee process. He said it could
have been done many ways, but he thought this way was the most effective.
He suggested that from the existing CPAC that the Mayor could appoint
several members to do so. He said that seemed easier than nine Council
Members and five Board Members attempting to work through them. He said
Staff wanted to put something forward and get the Council’s comments then
they may need a reconciliation committee to work through the Guiding
Principles.
Council Member Price said that they should do whatever was expedient. She
asked if she could discuss items to be considered and discussed by the
committee.
Mayor Yeh said she could address that during overall comments. He said
that there were edits suggested to the Guiding Principles, and asked if
Council wanted to go through each and propose changes.
Council Member Shepherd appreciated her colleague’s questions and thought
the Guiding Principles were great. She was very pleased that PAUSD was
also looking at the Guiding Principles. She noted that they had used Guiding
Principles with High Speed Rail, which was very controversial and they had
changed them twice. She said she wanted to add a Guiding Principle
Number 16 with the following proposed wording: “As the process moves
forward and interests become better focused, the CPAC shall bring forward changes to both bodies that will revise and update these principles.”
Mayor Yeh heard her point and said that they had the opportunity to go
through each Guiding Principle for revisions and then they would move
forward to other proposed Guiding Principles. He asked if the Council
wanted to do so.
Council Member Burt suggested that he had heard items fairly close to
consensus and that the Mayor should read off what he thought he heard and
then delegate it to the three Council Members of the CPAC to finalize the
language and bring to the Council agenda for the following Monday.
Council Member Klein said that if the School Board was considering the
Guiding Principles on the 24th they should have the Council’s final copy
before that meeting. Therefore the Council would need to have it done by
the 16th or the 23rd, but he thought the 23rd was late.
April 09, 2012 110-272
Rachel Samoff said she ran the children’s preschool center at Cubberley.
She was encouraged by the commitment to transparency as there was
interest in the community on Cubberley and many people had critical
interests in the process. She discussed the importance of maintaining the
variety of activities at this critical piece of infrastructure. She said that this
had potential to be a really exciting process and she looked forward to
participating in the project.
Diane Reklis said she moved to Palo Alto just before the Cubberley High
School closed and she was deeply involved in defining the lease and
covenant along with Council Member Klein. She said her grandson attended
the Cubberley nursery school. There was the potential for a very good
process for the project. She suggested they discuss a 20 year time frame to
better plan needs for schools. The proposed list of committee members
included 4 PTA representatives, 1 City/School Traffic person, and 16 others
representing various other neighborhoods, committees, and stakeholders. She did not see a balance between the education specific people and the 16
others if more than half of the site would end up as schools. She thought
they needed more school people involved and not just PTA people. She
suggested that they add former School Board Members.
Joseph Hirsh said he was representing the President of the Cardiac Therapy
Foundation. They served the community for 40 years and served thousands
with cardiovascular disease in the mid-peninsula over that time. The
average age of people in the program was 76. They had been at Cubberley
for 10 years. It was an aging facility he knew of no other facility in the Palo
Alto area that they could afford which would meet their needs. He said the
individuals and small nonprofits that made up the tenancy would like go out of business if they lost their space. He thought it was imperative that the
City was responsible for looking at the legitimate community needs, and
particular senior health needs, to remain mindful of what would happen to
current Cubberley tenants if the master lease was not renewed. Currently
he saw a number of mixed signals coming from the process. On February
28th the school officials recommended postponing consideration of school
facilities on the property until 2019. The process was starting with four
different options of how to redevelop the site. He asked if the site was not
needed until 2019 why they would go through the process. He said that full
transparency and meaningful consideration of the needs of the tenants and
the people who used Cubberley was necessary. He was surprised that the
Staff Report said the Council and PAUSD would reach consensus by the end of 2012, but that the CAC and CPAC recommendations would not come back
to Council until early 2013. He said they would make their decision before
the recommendation came back. He thought questions and responsibilities
for the CAC needed to be clearly spelled out or that process would be
misguided. He said that joint use of the Cubberley site was not good use for
April 09, 2012 110-273
his organization. They could not be on the school site as adults when school
was in session.
Bob Moss wanted to provide another example of a problem of a shared site
between PAUSD and the City. Over 10 years ago when PAUSD took back
Terman Middle School and closed the Terman Branch Library the Principal at
Gunn proposed having a joint City/School library at Gunn. He said
requirements to clear the campus after school had killed the project
demonstrating that sharing a City/school site was difficult. Some of the site
plans presented the City property in the middle of Cubberley between the
grammar school, the high school, and middle school. PAUSD would have
issues people moving from the City property to school property. He said
they would have to be very careful when they negotiated joint use or any
kind of sharing of the site that PAUSD did not in any way interfere with
public use, community groups, or people going to the City facility. Council
Member Burt was correct that they should stop paying the fee not to develop. He had advocated that for 20 years and said it was time that they
stopped paying that money as PAUSD was not redeveloping any sites. One
minor point was that on all of the options the building that housed the
Friends of the Palo Alto Libraries was not shown. He asked where that
organization would go and said that was important to consider. Finally, the
use of the playgrounds and fields had to be established early on as part of
the process.
Mayor Yeh recapping the Guiding Principles said that in Guiding Principle
Number1 he had not heard any significant changes, but would like to ensure
the meetings were recorded and minutes completed for both the CAC and
the CPAC committee meetings. He did not have suggested language, but wanted that to be considered.
Mr. Keene suggested that the minutes be sense or summary minutes or they
would slow things down and add to the cost significantly.
City Clerk, Donna Grider said that sense minutes took quite a bit of time to
complete. She said that they staffed the executive level meetings but not
the community ones.
Mayor Yeh said the CPAC was a Brown Act meeting.
Ms. Grider said that for CPAC she would have Staff write sense minutes, but she did not have the Staff for the CAC.
Mr. Keene said that issue needed to be discussed as the whole project was
not budgeted for 2012. He thought Staff would have to provide Council with
an estimate of what level of support was needed.
April 09, 2012 110-274
Mayor Yeh thought it should be considered as part of the transparency
efforts. He said that it was an important committee that would inform the
future discussions of the CPAC and both full elected bodies. He said that for
both bodies to benefit from the CAC he thought it was important. He knew
that there were Council contingency funds that were not fully committed and
he was interested in understanding what the potential costs for providing
sense minutes for the CAC would be.
Council Member Burt suggested they alternate the cost with PAUSD.
Mayor Yeh suggested the minutes could be cost shared as part of Guiding
Principle Number 1. He stated that he had no changes for Guiding Principles
Number 2, Number 3, or Number 4. Guiding Principles Number 5 the end of
the sentence would read “which should be open and sympathetic to the
interests of the other party,” in place of “they should be evaluated as equal priorities.” He stated he heard no changes for Guiding Principle Number 6.
He stated that for Guiding Principle Number 7 he added “through 2012-
2013,” and the language “During or as an alternative during various phases
a cost sharing agreement shall be developed to the mutual satisfaction of
both parties.”
Council Member Price said “to insure fairness to all parties.” She said that
was a similar idea.
Mayor Yeh said there were two alternatives.
Council Member Burt suggested that they keep the first sentence that applied to 2012-2013 and then Council Member Price’s sentence going
forward.
Council Member Klein said he hoped the process would be over by the end of
2013, so he did not favor including Council Member Price’s language. He felt
that would delay things. He thought it was better to have a clear guideline
of 50 percent each through some specific date.
Council Member Holman was concerned about the fair share component of it
and stated she left it to the committee to decide. She did not know if
architectural design should be included.
Mayor Yeh stated he did have “fair share/proportional” as opposed to
“equally.” He suggested a vote in the form of a straw poll. For “2012-2013”
six Council Members voted yes. Two Council members favored various
phases. He indicated they would include “2012-2013.”
April 09, 2012 110-275
Council Member Burt thought they had addressed it by the prior sentence.
Mayor Yeh stated that it was still equal but was time limited. He had no
changes for Guiding Principle Number 8. Guiding Principle Number 9 was
“school quality and capacity is a significant citywide issue considered
essential to the maintenance of educational opportunities and excellence,
and the overall health and well-being of our community.” Concerning
Guiding Principle Number 10 he had “the types of programs offered by the
City and its contractors and subtenants at Cubberley enrich the community
and every effort should be made to preserve and enhance.” The alternative
suggestion was language along the lines of “prioritization of existing and
identification of potential community services.”
Council Member Klein suggested adding an additional sentence “the City
through this process needs to identify which uses have the greatest priority
in terms of City policies.” He said that they needed some method of determining which uses were most in keeping with City policies. He did not
think they were in the position to judge at the moment as they did not have
such criteria but that they would need to in the future.
Council Member Holman had a clarification. She was agreeable to a second
sentence being added, but wanted to know if they were referring to what
was new or what was existing.
Council Member Klein was concerned with both. He assumed that there was
always some turn over and he also that at some point they might have less
space than they had currently. If that was the case, he questioned how they
would decide which ones stayed, which ones would not be accommodated, and which ones they felt an obligation to. For example, he said that they
might feel that they had an obligation to Mr. Hirsch’s organization but that it
was best placed elsewhere.
Mayor Yeh said he heard a potential replacement for the development of
criteria for community uses at Cubberley site as a generic statement which
could be applied to the existing or potential tenants.
Council Member Schmid wanted to make sure there was an opening for new
and expanded services. He thought each of the four scenarios presented
had an increase in City space so they ought to look for potential new
possibilities.
Council Member Burt concurred with intent that it be more open and it
include looking at current uses and other prospective uses, that this was the
City’s opportunity to rationalize what was there. He thought that they
should abbreviate the first sentence because the latter portion saying that it
April 09, 2012 110-276
should be preserved and enhanced wherever possible predetermined some
of what was looked at. He suggested they say the types of programs
provided at the center were enriched and valued within the community. He
thought it was good to put in an affirmative statement that they were valued
programs so that was established as a baseline but did not preclude other
considerations. The intent was two things, to look at best uses and look at
prioritization because those would be two separate actions. He thought
Mayor Yeh’s language was good, but he wanted to describe the intent.
Mayor Yeh read the revised version Guiding Principle Number 10 as
“Cubberley programs enrich the community and criteria should be developed
to prioritize existing and assess prospective uses for the site.” He said that
he would replace all of existing Guiding Principle Number 10.
Council Member Holman said that language was acceptable except it did not
mention making a strong effort to retain such uses at the site. She thought that was the only thing missing.
Mayor Yeh suggested “Cubberley programs enrich the community and
criteria should be developed to prioritize and/or retain existing or assess
prospective new uses.”
Council Member Holman said she wanted to see the statement strengthened.
Mayor Yeh read it as “Cubberley programs enrich the community and criteria
should be developed to prioritize and/or retain existing uses as well as
assess prospective new uses.”
Council Member Burt was concerned with that language because it sounded
like they were necessarily intending to retain and potentially add, but that
might not be what the choices were. He favored the original language and
said that there could be certain uses that were no longer a priority and he
wanted to make sure the language was consistent with that possibility.
Mayor Yeh said that the original language was “Cubberley programs enrich
the community and criteria should be developed to prioritize existing uses
and assess prospective new uses.”
Council Member Burt suggested they say “prioritize uses.”
Mayor Yeh suggested that all Council Members should give their input on
possible language for Guiding Principle Number 10. He stated he had no
changes for Guiding Principle Number 11. The suggested change to Guiding
Principle Number 12 was “The City Council representatives on the CPAC shall
bring back the frequency of the CPAC meetings following the first CPAC
April 09, 2012 110-277
meeting and report the frequency of regular reports to the full Council on
Cubberley planning activities.” He said that did not capture everything. He
said, “The Mayor shall bring back the frequency of CPAC and report on the
frequency of reports to the full Council on Cubberley planning activities.”
Council Member Klein said that they did not need to be that complicated.
The concerns would be satisfied if they said, “The City Council
representatives on the CPAC shall provide regular reports, not less often
than bi-monthly, to the full Council on Cubberley planning activities.”
Mayor Yeh said that the proposed language was “not less often than bi-
monthly, to the full Council on Cubberley planning activities.”
Council Member Klein said bi-monthly was once every two months. He said
the wording should be semi-monthly.
Mayor Yeh asked for other comments on Guiding Principle Number 12. He
thought the challenge was that the CPAC had not yet set the frequency of its
meetings. He asked Council Members who were not on the CPAC for their
thoughts. He said that monthly was proposed.
Council Member Burt thought that monthly was too frequently. Since
Council did not know the frequency the CPAC would meet, he thought a
quarterly report was sufficient as it provided a regular check-in period.
Council Member Holman questioned the timing. From the schedule it
seemed that Staff thought that the planning portion would be done by the
end of 2012 and that most of 2013 would be used to negotiate the contract. If that was the case then Council would only receive two reports if they were
given quarterly, which she did not believe was enough.
Council Member Price supported Council Member Klein’s comments. It was a
significant site with many issues, it did not have to be a written report, it
could be verbal, but to keep Council and the community informed she
thought the language proposed made sense. She said that if they wanted it
more frequently they could request it. She felt they were making the issue
harder than it needed to be.
Mayor Yeh said that he heard two Council Members supporting “not less
often than bi-monthly.”
Mr. Keene said that Council wanted to be transparent and that it was a
simple thing to provide regular reports on the meetings that took place. If
there were ten meetings over two months and the Council had not received
a report that was certainly an invitation for any non-member of the
April 09, 2012 110-278
committee to ask for a report. He thought they would have future options
beyond the Guiding Principles if it was not working well. He said that the
meetings were public.
Mayor Yeh said there would be minutes. He proposed that there would be a
report provided and given and he assumed that it could be done at the end
of the meeting during Council comments. He suggested that “a report will
be offered to the full Council following any meeting of the PAC.” If Council
was not interested in the report they could opt out at that time.
Council Member Holman was concerned that if the report came at the end of
the meeting it would be late and the report would be short and not be taken
in or digested well. She thought they needed to find another means; she
liked the idea of a report after each meeting, but did not like it at the end of
the Council meetings.
Mayor Yeh said he would leave that detail out and returned to the original
language for Guiding Principle Number 10 proposed by Council Member
Klein. He said the language was “The City Council representatives on the
CPAC shall report, not less often than bi-monthly, to the full Council on
Cubberley planning activities.” He said that the majority of Council indicated
agreement. He stated he had no changes for Guiding Principle Number 13
or Guiding Principle Number 14.
Council Member Holman said that for Guiding Principle Number13 she would
keep the first sentence and add a second sentence “PAUSD and the City
should work to continue community access.”
Council Member Klein said that it was the first time they had said that the
City and PAUSD should work toward a particular goal. The other Guiding
Principles said what the City ought to do. He stated that he was not
objecting to it, but it went to a comment that he wanted to have at the end
of the conversation regarding another alternative for the Staff to put
everything into language that PAUSD could adopt as well.
Mayor Yeh said they would look back on that issue later.
Council Member Burt agreed that they should have the Guiding Principles
worded in language that would be proposed to PAUSD. he agreed in
principle because they wanted to try to have something that PAUSD would be comfortable with.
Mayor Yeh said the added language was “PAUSD and the City should work to
continue community access to the extent possible.”
April 09, 2012 110-279
Council Member Shepherd wanted to support Council Member Holman’s
added language. When referring to the recreation facilities she asked if they
meant the tennis courts and the fields. She thought they needed to
establish in the Guiding Principles that they would somehow secure those
fields for shared community use. She said she understood it would go to the
City Council’s members of the CPAC to get the wording back for the packet
for next week. In which case there would be time to work on the wording so
that it did not have to be exact at that evening’s meeting.
Mayor Yeh said that the Council Members on the CPAC would receive the
revised draft of the Guiding Principles for review and inclusion in the packet
for the next Council meeting.
Council Member Shepherd asked if they could have the three members of
the CPAC elaborate on the recreational facilities.
Mayor Yeh asked if the proposed language was acceptable to her: “PAUSD
and the City should work to continue community access to the extent
possible.”
Council Member Shepherd said yes, but thought that they might want to go
into that more deeply.
Mayor Yeh asked if there were any other changes to Guiding Principle
Number 13. He stated he had no changes to Guiding Principles Number 14
or Number 15.
Council Member Holman said that philosophically she had concerns about language such as “where possible” and “where feasible.” She understood
the intention, but language that talked about working towards something, or
trying to achieve something did not dictate an outcome. She thought that
the language diluted the intention of trying to get somewhere. They should
work toward community access. She said that it was almost understood
that if it could not be done that it would not be done.
Council Member Espinosa understood the intent but disagreed. He thought
it was dictating. He said that it was not a commentary on the recreational
uses but he thought that the reality of creating a joint statement was that
they wanted to be realistic about the fact that people from the outside would
read that you had to work toward a certain use as a mandate from the Council. Putting that parameter “if possible,” or “where possible,” provided
the flexibility and still gave the clear intent of the direction that they would
like the conversation and decision making to go.
April 09, 2012 110-280
Mayor Yeh asked for a straw vote on Guiding Principle Number 13. He said
the proposed language was “PAUSD and the City should work to continue
community access to the extent possible.” He said that a majority generally
favored the language.
Council Member Price said she was no longer proposing changes to Guiding
Principle Number 14.
Mayor Yeh said there was no change to Guiding Principle Number 14 or
Number 15.
Council Member Holman suggested adding the following words to Guiding
Principle Number 15, “Transportation issues and access to and within
Cubberley shall be considered.”
Mayor Yeh said that he saw nods.
Council Member Price added “to serve current and future needs.”
Council Member Burt thought everything there was for that purpose.
Council Member Price said that was correct, but that they had not mentioned
the future at all, which was part of her next set of comments.
Council Member Burt said that it would not be buried in just the
transportation Guiding Principle.
Council Member Price dropped her changes.
Mayor Yeh said that the only change to Guiding Principle Number15 was
“access to and within Cubberley.” Regarding a potential Guiding Principle
Number 16 he had “Funding options including existing and potential new
funding sources should be evaluated.” He said that was a broad direction to
the CAC. It was not listed because it was a potential new Guiding Principle
Number 16.
Council Member Burt said that his original statement was consistent with
what Council Member Klein had stated. He was referring to the funds that
were currently going to PAUSD and that when those were no longer due for
purposes of the lease and covenant not to develop, that those funds would be used to provide community services and recreational facilities similar to
those currently provided at Cubberley.
Mayor Yeh said “funds that are currently going to PAUSD were no longer
going for purposes of the lease or covenant not to develop, shall be.”
April 09, 2012 110-281
Council Member Burt suggested finishing the verbiage with “used primarily
to provide community services and recreational facilities similar to those
currently provided at Cubberley.” He said that was not intended to be final
wording but only a statement of principle.
Council Member Klein said he was not ready to support that although he did
not necessarily disagree. He thought that there was a competing proposal
and that was that those monies, if any, could be used for infrastructure. He
was not prepared to make that policy decision without more input and
thought. He thought they ought to ask the committee to advise Council and
PAUSD on what they thought the lease extension, if there was one, should
look like financially. He said that was not a Guiding Principle, but a question
that they would like the CAC to provide input on.
Mayor Yeh said that was a good question. He proposed that the members of CPAC create an initial list of questions that could be shared after the Guiding
Principles were in place. He suggested that they bring the list back to the
full Council for review before it was finalized.
Council Member Klein said if it was in the broader context it was fine with
him. He thought it needed to be in place prior to the CAC’s first meeting.
Mayor Yeh asked if there were any Guiding Principles proposed around
finances. He said that the one that was proposed was “The funds that were
currently going to PAUSD were no longer used for purposes of the lease or
covenant not to develop shall be used primarily to provide community
services and recreational facilities similar to those currently provided at Cubberley.” He said that was a potential Guiding Principle Number 16.
Council Member Shepherd was not prepared to make that a Guiding Principle
yet or to put together words to that effect. She thought that was part of the
revision that she thought they might need to make. She thought it was also
inappropriate in a Guiding Principle to tell how the monies would be spent.
She hoped that was something the CAC could give Council some input on in
addition to possibly the PAC.
Mayor Yeh asked if there was a preference for an additional Guiding Principle
Number 16 around funding or finances.
Council Member Espinosa asked if there were two options on the table, one
that the language became a Guiding Principle and if not, that it became a
task.
April 09, 2012 110-282
Mayor Yeh said that was a separate question. He thought that the CPAC
members had agreed to create a draft task list from the input which would
be brought back to full Council for approval in conjunction with the revised
Guiding Principles. He said that he was only asking if it should be a Guiding
Principle. He called the straw vote and only two Council Members voted for
it to be a Guiding Principle. He called for a straw vote about a task being
included around finances.
Council Member Espinosa said he was in favor of seeing it explored more
broadly by the PAC.
Mayor Yeh asked if there were any additional potential Guiding Principles.
Council Member Shepherd had proposed a Guiding Principle about how to
change the Guiding Principles as the CPAC moved forward and decisions
were made. She thought that it could be simple about how the CPAC would propose new Guiding Principles and bring them forward to Council in their
reports as the process developed. She said that was not the final wording,
but something to that effect.
Mayor Yeh said that “The CPAC will propose new Guiding Principles as the
process necessitates.”
Council Member Holman asked for clarification on the specific language
having to do with funding that was not recommended because it received
two votes. She said Council Member Espinosa mentioned that they should
have a Guiding Principle having to do with general funding but there was no
vote or straw poll.
Mayor Yeh said he heard Council Member Espinosa say that a task should be
developed around funding, but not that there should be a Guiding Principle.
He said he wanted to get through the Guiding Principles and then if there
were proposed tasks, for purposes of time he thought those should be e-
mailed to Staff so they could be shared with members of the CPAC on
Council so they could create a comprehensive list and then bring that back
to full Council for discussion, review, and vote.
Council Member Holman said she was not discerning what the difference was
between a task and adding a Guiding Principle. She asked if it would be a
task to the CAC to bring back a Guiding Principle having to do with funding.
Mayor Yeh said no, that the task would be a very specific directive from the
Council to the CAC stating that it was part of their work plan.
April 09, 2012 110-283
Mr. Keene added that the idea of the CPAC all along was to serve as a
conduit between the respective governing bodies and the CAC. He said that
there was nothing that precluded the committee from generating additional
tasks or requests for work product all though the process.
Mayor Yeh said that on potential Guiding Principle Number16, “the CPAC will
propose new Guiding Principles as the process necessitates.” He asked if
that was generally agreed to by the Council.
Council Member Burt thought it was redundant.
Mayor Yeh said that the Council was deadlocked and said that it should be
taken into consideration. He asked if there were any other additions to the
Guiding Principles. He said that the Council would have the Guiding
Principles on their agenda for the next meeting with the revisions based on
that evening’s discussion. He said that there were two other items, one being the CAC panel and general comments and the second being the site
plans. He said the revised Guiding Principles were on the next agenda and
asked if the Council wanted to continue through the CAC panel and leave the
site plans for the following week, or if the Council wanted to handle both
that evening.
Council Member Price suggested they continue the remainder of the item to
the next meeting.
Council Member Klein agreed with one exception. He thought that former
School Board Member Reklis was correct and that they needed to have more
people with a school orientation and that they should take her up on her offer to volunteer for the committee and perhaps find several other people
with similar backgrounds and school affiliations.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to have Staff evaluate the expansion of the Community Advisory
Committee by at least two additional school representatives and return with
the information at the April 16, 2012 Council meeting.
Council Member Burt said that Council Member Klein had originally spoken
about a broader school orientation and Council Member Shepherd referenced
PTA. He was more comfortable with the language as written.
Council Member Klein said he was voting against the Motion even though he
agreed with the idea. He said that it was not the Council’s committee, it was
the City Manager’s committee and he thought it was inappropriate for
Council to describe things in detail as to who the City Manager should
April 09, 2012 110-284
appoint. It was appropriate for Council to make suggestions for the City
Manager to follow up on. He stated that he could not vote for the Motion.
Council Member Schmid said they had heard repeatedly that if they wanted
to make the committee work that they needed to make sure that PAUSD felt
that they were involved. He said that currently there was a tremendous
imbalance between school members and City appointed members and that it
made sense to reach out to the school community and expand by at least
two.
Council Member Price agreed with the comments. She was also concerned
that there was a real difference between school representatives and people
with educational expertise. She was concerned that people who had
knowledge about the delivery of educational services served, not to say PTA
individuals did not have that, but she wanted educational professionals as
well such as college professors and others.
Council Member Espinosa said he did not think that it was under their
purview, but since they were commenting he knew the City Manager had
stated that he had heard from people on the list that they were not aware
they were on the list. He hoped that with the extra week they were sure
that everyone listed knew they were listed and wanted to be on the list.
Council Member Holman said that she did not believe the Motion was
intended to tell the City Manager to find two PAUSD representatives; it was
a joint process, so the City Manager would talk to the Superintendent to
identify who the other school representatives were.
Council Member Shepherd said that the way she remembered the list being
composed initially was a gathering of stakeholders, some being neighbors
that were next door to Cubberley, others at-large and so she did not
understand why it seemed odd that two more school representatives be
included.
MOTION PASSED: 6-2 Klein, Price no, Scharff absent
Mayor Yeh indicated that they had not discussed the site plans. He asked
for a Motion.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to defer the discussion of the Conceptual Site Plans to April 16,
2012 Council meeting or as soon as possible.
Mr. Keene said that the site plans were only meant to be illustrative and not
definitive. He said that the CAC could decide to start over. The plans were
April 09, 2012 110-285
just a starting point and were not meant to draw any conclusions. He did
not think the Council was bound to comment because the plans were
preliminary.
Mayor Yeh said if it was on the Council agenda for the next week it did not
mean that the Council had to comment on it.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Price said she attended the Project Cornerstone event the
previous week. The Project Cornerstone focused on 41 developmental
assets and honored individuals who stood up for the rights of others. She
also attended the Santa Clara Silicon Valley Leadership Group Housing Trust
presentation and she toured with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation properties they managed throughout the City of Palo Alto.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:12 A.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.