HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-02 City Council Summary Minutes
05/02/2011
Special Meeting
May 2, 2011
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:01 P.M.
Present: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein, Price, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd,
Yeh arrived @ 6:05 P.M.
Absent:
CLOSED SESSION
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Sandra Blanch,
Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray)
Employee Organization: International Association of Fire Fighters
(IAFF), Local 1319
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and (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)
The City Council reconvened from the closed session at 7:40 P.M. and Mayor
Espinosa advised no reportable action.
2 05/02/2011
STUDY SESSION
2. Public Safety Systems Virtual Consolidation Project.
The abbreviated Study Session on the virtual consolidation of dispatch
systems between Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos provided the
Council with updated information on the project. A Computer Aided
Dispatch (CAD) vendor had been selected and final negotiations were
underway with Intergraph Corporation. The project had three components;
the public safety applications including CAD and Records Management
System (RMS), the 9-1-1 phone system, and radio communications.
Consolidation of the applications on a common network was well underway
with CAD implementation projected to be completed in the second quarter of
2012. The 9-1-1 phone system replacement would occur in 2012 and
funded by the State. A common radio channel had been identified and
licensed with the FCC. Grant funding was secured to build out the channel
with estimated completion in late 2012.
3. Presentation of the City Manager’s Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year
2012.
City Manager, James Keene read the Budget Transmittal Letter contained in
the proposed Operating Budget Book for Fiscal Year 2012. He said that the
City is currently in a time of extraordinary flux, requiring ongoing structural
changes. Some of the challenges were brought on by the recent economic
downturn and others by unprecedented increases in costs, particularly health
care and pension costs. There are signs that the economy is recovering as
transient occupancy and sales tax revenues are stabilizing and starting to
increase. However, the impacts on the City of what has been termed the
“Great Recession” will be felt for many years. He stated that the total City
Budget including enterprise and other funds is $463 million or a 3.2 percent
increase. This is due primarily to increases in pension and health care costs.
The Budget includes a number of departmental reductions such as
restructuring the Public Works Department for cost savings, but the Budget
presented is balanced by counting on achieving significant timely
concessions from our Public Safety unions, which have yet to make any
structural cost savings contributions to the City's fiscal difficulties. He
reviewed past employee concessions, the Long Range Financial Forecast,
infrastructure backlog, and Council priorities and how they are included in
the budget.
3 05/02/2011
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
4. Proclamation Recognizing Municipal Clerks Week May 1-7, 2011.
Vice Mayor Yeh read the Proclamation into the record.
Council Member Schmid spoke regarding an article from Tocqueville’s,
“Democracy in America” that referred to New England Townships where
citizens gathered in April or early May to decide future policies through direct
votes. He said the first administrator or magistrate was the Clerk who would
post meeting notices, scribe the motions, count the votes and would keep
them in the town center. The Clerk had a long and distinguished history and
the beginning of a sovereignty that still remains today.
Mayor Espinosa said the Mayor shares his office space with the City Clerk’s
office and worked closely with the City Clerk and Staff. He expressed his
appreciation for their hard work and the service they provide and thanked
them for being a top-notched team.
City Clerk, Donna Grider said it was an honor and a privilege for her and her
Staff to serve the City and the Council of Palo Alto.
5. Selection of Candidates to be interviewed for the Historic Resources
Board for Four Terms ending on May 31, 2014.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Shepherd to appoint the four candidates without interview to the Historic
Resources Board, and to bring this item back the following week on the
Consent Calendar for appointment.
Council Member Klein said he was not in favor of setting specific term-limits.
He said three out of the four applicants were incumbents that had served
respectively for 12, 15, and 17 years and were the longest tenured
commissioners. He saw value in bringing in new candidates periodically.
Council Member Shepherd said the Historic Resources Board (HRB) was a
difficult commission to fill because candidates needed to understand
construction and the historic process required for the trade. She suggested
having a more rigorous recruitment process in obtaining future applicants.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to invite the new board member to come and
speak during oral communications at next week’s Council meeting.
4 05/02/2011
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Mayor Espinosa welcomed Molly Stump on her new appointment as City
Attorney.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
City Manager, James Keene said Agenda Item No.12 required more work
and Staff requested it be pulled. He said the item would be agendized as an
Action item in June 2011.
Mr. Keene reported that PG&E would be testing natural gas lines in the City
of Mountain View on May 3, 2011. Project Safety Net was honored on April
21, 2011, with the Human Relations Award from the Santa Clara County
Human Relations Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The 89th
Annual May Fete Children’s Parade was scheduled for May 7, 2011 @ 10
a.m., in Downtown Palo Alto. The Palo Alto Golf Course would be hosting its
4th Annual Open House on May 7, 2011, 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The City’s
fiber crew completed the Google-Stanford fiber connection on April 8, 2011.
Testing was scheduled for May 3, 2011.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
William Landgraf spoke regarding medical benefits for City employees and
the information made available to the public.
Rita Morgin informed the public of a library construction meeting to be held
on May 5, 2011, 6-9 p.m., in the main Community Garden, Main Library
located at Newell and Embarcadero Roads. The meeting would include the
Main Library’s new roadway proposal.
Donna Zucker said she was not notified of the roadway proposal and felt
there was a breakdown in the City’s communications.
Bob Moss spoke regarding the meeting with Senator Simitian and the
superfund sites in Palo Alto. He urged the Council to support the transfer of
monitoring and oversight of the sites to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) from the Regional Water Quality Control (RWQC). He said
the RWQC had not been responsive in addressing the high levels of indoor
carcinogens at the sites.
Mayor Espinosa announced it was a violation of state law for the Council to
discuss issues raised during Oral Communications. These issues were not
agendized.
5 05/02/2011
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd
to approve the minutes of March 14 and 21, 2011.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Espinosa noted that Agenda Item Number 12 had been pulled by Staff
to be heard at a later date.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Price to
approve Agenda Item Numbers 6-11, 13.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if a Staff Report was available that included all the
change orders related to the contracts in Item No. 6.
City Manager, James Keene said he would provide an answer after the
meeting.
6. Approval of Four Contract Documents for the Civic Center
Infrastructure Improvements Project (Capital Improvement Program
Project PF-01002): (1) Change Order with Nexgen Builders, Inc. in
the Amount of $194,817 for Restroom Remodeling for a Total Contract
Amount Not to Exceed $656,130; (2) Change Order with ACCO
Engineered Systems, Inc. in the Amount of $62,747 for a Data Center
Cooling System Upgrade for a Total Contract Amount Not to Exceed
$1,536,542; (3) Change Order with H.A. Bowen Electric, Inc. in the
Amount of $262,076 for Electrical Panel Replacements and Circuit
Tracing for a Total Contract Amount Not to Exceed $1,175,476; and
(4) Contract Amendment No. Two to Contract No. C08124310 with
Cambridge CM, Inc. in the Amount of $83,180 for Extended
Construction Management Services for a Total Contract Amount Not to
Exceed $1,282,390.
7. From Finance: Approval of Contract with Macias Gini & O'Connell LLP
(MGO), in an Amount Not to Exceed $774,596 (including 10%
contingency fee) for External Financial Audit Services for Fiscal Years
Ending June 30, 2011 through June 30, 2015.
6 05/02/2011
8. Approval of Contract with Communication Strategies for Project
Management Services for Telephone System Replacement and
Infrastructure Upgrade.
9. Budget Amendment Ordinance 5115 in the Amount of $135,618 to
Fund the Purchase of a Walk-In Van and a Forklift; Approval of
Purchase Orders with 1) Golden Gate Truck Center in an Amount Not
to Exceed $80,726 for the Purchase of a Walk-In Van; and 2) Big Joe
Handling Systems in an Amount Not to Exceed $54,892 for the
Purchase of a Forklift (Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement
Capital Improvement Program Project VR-11000).
10. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Enter into
Amendment One for Contract No. C07118158 with City of Inglewood
to Add Collection Services for Delinquent Parking Citations.
11. Resolution 9164 entitled” Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Requesting Approval from the CalPERS Board of Administration for
Extension of Employment Pursuant to Government Code Section
21221(h) for Acting City Auditor Michael Edmunds.”
12. Approval of Park Development Impact Fees to Fund Park
Improvements at El Camino Park in Conjunction With Utilities
Department CIP WS-08002 El Camino Park Reservoir Project.
13. Approval of a Utilities Enterprise Fund Contract with Daleo Inc. in an
Amount of $4,042,637.15 for Gas Main Replacement Capital
Improvement Program GS-08011 Project 18 and GS-09002 Project
19A in Crescent Park, Charleston Terrace, Charleston Meadows,
Ventura, Green Acres, and Research Park Subdivisions.
MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item Nos. 6-11, 13: 9-0
ACTION ITEMS
14. Public Hearing: to Hear Objections to the Levy of Proposed
Assessments on the Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement
District and Adoption of Resolution 9165 entitled “Resolution of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto Confirming the Report of the Advisory
Board and Levying Assessment for Fiscal Year 2012 on the Downtown
Palo Alto Business Improvement District.”
Mayor Espinosa read into the records the script for Public Hearings. “This is
the time and place for the Public Hearing on the Levy of an Assessment on
7 05/02/2011
Businesses in the Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District (BID)
for Fiscal Year 2012. In February 2004, the City established the BID.
Annually, the City Council must hold a Public Hearing to authorize the
levying of an assessment in the next fiscal year. On April 11, 2011, the
Council set this time and day as the time and date of the Public Hearing on
the proposed levy of an assessment for fiscal year 2012. The Council
appointed the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Downtown Business and
Professional Association as the advisory board for the BID. The advisory
board has prepared its annual report for the 2012 fiscal year and submitted
to the Council. The City published the required notice in the local newspaper
of record regarding authorization of the BID for 2012 as required by the BID
law. All interested persons will have an opportunity to provide testimony
this evening. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Council will
determine whether a majority protest exists. A majority protest will exist if
the owners of businesses that will pay 50 percent or more of the proposed
levy of an assessment have filed and not withdrawn a written protest.”
Council Member Shepherd advised she would not be participating due to her
husband’s law firm building lease being in the BID district.
Economic Development Manager, Tommy Fehrenbach gave a presentation as
outlined in Staff Report ID#1640. He said there were two corrections that
needed to be made on page 243 of the report. Other Revenue should be
$17,175 and Total Income should be $159,175.
Public Hearing opened and closed without public comment at 9:04 P.M.
Mr. Fehrenbach declared there was no majority protest.
Council Member Holman asked if the northern part of Lytton had been
included in Zone A.
Mr. Fehrenbach said no changes had been made in the BID District.
Deputy City Manager, Steve Emslie said boundaries could be reevaluated at
the next annual BID reauthorization process.
Council Member Holman said City Hall was in Zone A and asked why it was
not noted in the map cutout.
Mr. Fehrenbach said government entities and non-profit organizations were
exempted from the BID assessment process.
8 05/02/2011
Council Member Holman asked if financial institutions exempted from the
BID assessment process needed to be reviewed because of limitless
occupancies.
Mr. Emslie said that could be reviewed during the next reauthorization
process.
Council Member Holman asked if BID member appointments had been the
same since the organization started.
Mr. Fehrenbach said he could not speak for prior years but there had been
changes in the past year.
Council Member Holman said the Staff report indicated the Council had
appointed the first set of representatives and asked what the process was.
Anne Senti-Willis, BID Executive Board Chair said the Palo Alto Downtown
Business and Professional Association (PADBPA) bylaws had term limits and
a member could serve two consecutive, two-year terms and must sit out for
one-year before serving again.
Council Member Holman asked if the BID membership had an internal
process.
Ms. Senti-Willis said yes it did. A nominating committee was appointed
annually and one had been appointed in March. She said the item would be
agendized in May to discuss the status of the nominating committee and to
identify perspective candidates for next year’s annual election.
Council Member Holman asked if the opportunity to be a representative was
open to anyone who paid into the BID.
Ms. Senti-Willis said it was and that representatives were selected from
retail stores, banks, and commercial businesses.
MOTION: Mayor Espinosa moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to: 1)
preliminarily approve the Business Improvement District (BID) Advisory
Board’s 2012 Budget Report for the BID; and 2) adopt the Resolution of
Intention to Levy Assessments in the Palo Alto Downtown Business
Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2012.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Shepherd not participating, Yeh absent
9 05/02/2011
15. Public Hearing: Request by SummerHill Homes for a Zone change
from R-1 (8000) to RM-15 (Low Density Multiple-Family/Village
Residential), a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Village
Residential Land Use Designation to a 2.65-acre site currently
designated Single-Family Residential at 525 San Antonio Road; and
Approval of a Record of Land Use Action.
Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis Williams gave a
presentation as outlined in Staff report ID#1561.
City Attorney, Molly Stump said State law prohibited the City from
considering impacts on proposed developments regarding school capacity.
She said impact fees were assessed during the environmental process. The
potential impacts on schools could not be considered by the Council. She
spoke of the letter from the applicant’s attorney regarding concerns of the
proposal. The City Attorney’s Office believed Staff’s recommendation did not
pose a liability risk for the City.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner, Susan Feinberg said the
application was reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission
(P&TC) on March 23, 2011. The Commission voted 6-1 in support of Staff’s
recommendation for the Council to deny the applicant’s request for the
Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning change. The P&TC’s findings
for denial were referenced in the Motion that was passed and the specifics
were included in the Draft Record of Land Use Action, pages 2 and 3. The
findings were based on the project not being consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan (Comp) designation for the site, the policy to locate
increase housing density near transit stations, Council’s direction to avoid
rezoning R-1 to higher density housing, and the lack of proximity to a train
station within one-half mile.
Public Hearing opened at 9:28 P.M.
Katia Kamangar, Managing Director and Vice President, SummerHill Homes
said they had worked with the City and neighborhoods for the past 35-years
in creating projects. She said SummerHill Homes was before the Council this
evening because of the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) and
City Staff’s denial and the Palo Alto School District’s (PAUSD) interest for the
land. She said her presentation would include events leading up to
submitting of the application, issues with the school district’s interest of the
land, merits of the application, and why the City should seize the opportunity
for housing. She said SummerHill Homes was not informed that R-1 (8000)
was the only type of housing for the site and that a different application
would have been submitted if SummerHill Homes had known. Staff
10 05/02/2011
indicated that Village Residential was inappropriate zoning for the site due to
its location. The site was between two different uses and different zoning
densities. SummerHill Homes was in tune to Council’s directions as it
related to land use. She said PAUSD voiced an interest for the land when
the application was submitted and indicated their need was for campus
expansion and other school-related needs. SummerHill Homes and the
property owner raised concerns that the school district had shown their
interest late in the process and had not voiced their interest previously to
the owners nor did they bid on the site when it was marketed in spring
2010. City Staff indicated they no longer would be able to support
SummerHill Home’s proposal after PAUSD expressed their interest.
SummerHill Homes felt the school district’s interest permeated conversations
which included conversations with neighbors, and the lack of school capacity
became the number one issue for the neighborhoods objecting to the
proposal. SummerHill Homes believed the site was suited for moderate
density increase. The land along San Antonio Road had varied land uses
that included retail, gas stations, and townhomes with RM-15 (Multiple
Family Residential) and RM-30 (Medium Density Multi-Family) zoning.
Staff’s early suggestion was to use Village Residential zoning that served as
a transition to moderate density multiple-family districts or districts with
non-residential uses. SummerHill Homes along with P&TC members were in
agreement with Staff’s initial decision to use Village Residential zoning for
the site. The proposal was for 23 small lot homes on a private looped street,
to use Village Residential zoning for an overall density of 8.6 units per acre.
Village Residential allowed 8 to 12 units per acre. The site location was
close to a Caltrain station and walking distance to neighborhood services
with retail at the corner of Charleston Road and Middlefield Road, and good
freeway access. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) state-
mandated goals estimated 12,000 new housing units for Palo Alto over the
next 25-years. SummerHill Homes asked the Council to approve the
proposal to meet the need in housing and population growth in Palo Alto.
Linda Lingane spoke against the project. She said high density housing
caused instability in the neighborhood.
Elizabeth Wolf spoke against the project and the impacts on the schools and
overcrowding of roadways. She urged the Council to not approve the
proposal.
Srini Sankaran spoke on behalf of the Greendell Neighborhood Association
and spoke against the project. The rezoning would create an increase in
school capacity, increase in traffic, and not enough public facilities in the
area.
11 05/02/2011
Osborne Hardison spoke against the project. He said rezoning would affect
home values and the project would not be transit-oriented. He said this was
the wrong place for the wrong density and the wrong time.
Nardini Rajan spoke against the project and the dangers it would have on
the San Antonio Frontage Road.
Marlene Kawahata spoke against the project and said the area would
become a parking lot and would impact pedestrians and bicyclist safety.
Ben Bower said he was in favor of development but was against the 23
proposed units in the project. He spoke of how the project would impact
utility distribution. He asked the Council to not approve the project.
David Bena spoke against the project and rezoning of the property and
asked the Council to keep the R-1 zoning or convert the site into a park.
Karen Sundback spoke on behalf of the Greenmeadow Community
Association (GMCA) and spoke against the project and was in favor of Staff’s
recommendation. She said approval of the project would acerbate unplanned
housing and would affect services in Palo Alto.
Penny Ellson said the purpose for zoning was to provide predictability and
long-term City planning. She said repeated unpredictable upzoning of
smaller sites requested by developers created unplanned aggregate growth.
Shirley Eaton spoke of traffic impacts and the accessibility to public transit
services if the project was approved.
Carolyn Dobervich spoke of the project as a highway oriented project
because people purchasing the homes did not fall in the demographic that
used bus lines. The site location was outside the one-half mile radius to the
train station, had poor accessibility to transit services and would not be
pedestrian-friendly.
Lynn Grant said the project would increase transportation impacts and
create growth impact to the shopping center. She said the site plan included
a gate to the Greendell campus as access to the Cubberley site. PAUSD had
rules for campus ground usage
Lisa Steinbeck said the project would contribute to a shortage in preschool
and daycare services.
12 05/02/2011
Wendy Kandasamy spoke regarding upzoning and how it would signal to
developers the field was open to speculative proposals. She urged the
Council to enforce zoning policies.
Martha Sbarbori said upzoning the site would more than double the zone use
of the project. She said the project needed to be viewed in aggregate with
other approved projects beyond the growth assumed in the Comp Plan
Housing Element and Environmental Impact Report’s (EIR) from recent
years.
Elizabeth Alexis spoke against the project and in support of Staff’s
recommendation. She said the site was not favorable for housing.
Bob Moss said the R-1 zoning had not been upzoned for higher density
housing in the 30 years. Upzoning of the site would allow the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) to place thousands of homes in Palo Alto. He spoke against the
project and in support of Staff’s recommendation.
Ms. Kamangar said the City’s EIR indicated the proposed development would
generate less than one-tenth of the traffic generated by the current site use.
Staff identified no significant population increase or potential impacts that
could not be mitigated. SummerHill Homes was proposing Village Residential
zoning that provided for transition density. She reminded the Council that
the property owners wanted to sell the land and SummerHill Homes felt the
land would ultimately be for housing. She said the project would bring
added housing with low impacts to the City and asked the Council to approve
the proposal.
Public Hearing closed at 10:19 P.M.
Mayor Espinosa said he had a conversation with the Greenmeadow
Community Association (GMCA) and nothing was discussed that was
different from what had been presented at this evening’s meeting. He said
he discussed the logistics of the meeting with the applicant prior to the
meeting but not the content of the application.
Council Member Burt said he had conversations with two GMCA
representatives and with the property owner but not with the applicant.
Council Member Shepherd said she had conversations with GMCA community
members in the past six months but not with the applicant.
13 05/02/2011
Council Member Klein said he spoke to two GMCA members in the last
several days regarding the project and no other topics were discussed.
Council Member Holman said she spoke to two GMCA members and no
information was provided that was not consistent with what had been
presented this evening.
Council Member Scharff said he spoke to two GMCA members and no
information was provided that was not consistent with what had been
presented this evening.
Council Member Schmid said he spoke to GMCA members and no
information was provided that was not consistent with what had been
presented this evening.
Council Member Price said she spoke to several GMCA members and had
received e-mails regarding the item.
Council Member Schmid asked about timing of the conversations and asked
Mr. Williams if he had conversations with a series of applicants in winter
2009 and early spring 2010.
Mr. Williams that was correct.
Council Member Schmid asked if the Council had a meeting in May 2010
regarding the Comp Plan update and Housing Element and principles that
were important to identify housing opportunities.
Mr. Williams said that was correct.
Council Member Schmid asked if the two decisions that were made was to
not have R-1 upzoning on the housing site and to focus on new housing sites
within one-half mile of transit stations.
Mr. Williams said that was correct and had been voted on by the Council.
Council Member Schmid asked if the decision was made in May 2010 to
direct Staff to work on the Housing Element.
Mr. Williams said yes.
Council Member Schmid asked if the letter dated October 20, 2010, “Project
Statement for 525 San Antonio Road” was the official application for the
development of the site.
14 05/02/2011
Mr. Williams said yes.
Council Member Schmid said the application was submitted five months after
the Council’s meeting in May 2010 and the material was available to any
applicant. He said the City had received a letter from PAUSD on January 18,
2011 that stated the school district had thought about the site but had no
decision to act on the site and the City was free to move forward on
whatever process was required. He asked if this was the first
communication the City received from the school district.
Mr. Williams said that was correct.
Council Member Schmid said it was his understanding that the Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design-Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND)
was used to help the City assess the viability of developments on proposals
with three or more units on a site. He said the process would begin in
January 2012 with a one-year lead in period to gather data to evaluate
whether the criteria would help assess the impacts on neighborhoods.
Planning Manager, Amy French confirmed that the Council adopted the pilot
program for LEED-ND that required a checklist to gather information for
2011.
Council Member Schmid said it was his understanding that Staff had
indicated it was a voluntary requirement at the time of the application. The
applicant had volunteered to do a checklist and would be available in a few
days. He asked if the checklist was available.
Ms. French said it was not required when the application was submitted in
October and one was not submitted.
Council Member Schmid said he understood the applicant had volunteered to
do a checklist and would have it available.
Ms. French said the applicant said they were working on one at the time of
the P&TC hearing.
Council Member Schmid said the LEED-ND checklist would allow looking at
the project in an objective and systematic way to meet the goals for
implementation by January 2012. He asked if there was a way to get a
LEED-ND checklist for the project.
Mr. Williams said Staff could develop data for a LEED-ND criteria.
15 05/02/2011
Council Member Schmid asked if he could anticipate seeing the criteria and
the impacts on the neighborhood by fall and asked to include the Edgewood
development.
Mr. Williams said yes and would include 6 to 10 developments that had been
identified.
Council Member Scharff said the project would replace a daycare service that
would impact families and the community. He felt the project would not add
to the quality of life in Palo Alto or would not benefit the community to
upzone the project.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Shepherd to deny the applicant’s request for a Comprehensive Plan re-
designation to Village Residential land use and RM-15 (Multi-Family/Village
Residential) zoning of the 2.65 acre site currently designated Single-Family
Residential and zoned R1-8000 (Single Family Residential with 8,000 square
foot (s.f.) minimum lot size).
Council Member Shepherd said Palo Alto had been undergoing several
projects to navigate its future and south Palo Alto had taken the brunt of
some explorations. Palo Alto was trying to keep Caltrain and the San
Antonio train station alive with the prospect of more homes across from the
San Antonio station. She said she did support developers because they
provided answers to cities with problems in building communities and
guidance on how communities could look. She said the project was not in
the parameter for the type of change that was proposed and was not
suitable for the site at this time. She supported the Motion.
Council Member Burt said for 30 years the City’s commercial and industrial
zoned parcels had underlying permitted use for RM-15 and RM-30 zoning
which meant the properties could build at that density. Successive Councils
had encouraged the use of RM-15 and RM-30 because of the job-housing
imbalance. He said not one developer took advantage of the opportunity.
Commercial value sank and residential value remained high when the dot
com industry crashed. The market force quickly took over and the City was
inundated with applications which were not anticipated. He said the Council
put a stop on the zoning four years ago that was in existence for 30 years.
He asked the City Attorney to clarify that by law the Council could not
address housing impacts on schools for approval of a project but the Council
could on overriding policy decisions on land use.
City Attorney Molly Stump said that was correct.
16 05/02/2011
Council Member Burt said the Council incorporated the impact on schools
into the City’s land use policies. He said the presentations talked about
traffic impacts and the importance placed on the use of the property as a
valued childcare center. The applicant claimed the traffic generation of the
current land use was 10 times of the proposed use. The current use had
been the same for 37 years and the traffic generation was much higher than
the proposed development of 23 units. The site housed the largest childcare
center in Palo Alto and the community felt it was a valued community asset.
He said the community needed to acknowledge the fact that childcare center
had greater traffic generation and greater off-street parking than the
proposed project if they wanted to keep the childcare center. He concurred
in keeping the site as R-1 zoning. He supported the Motion.
Council Member Klein said he had no contact with anyone associated with
the PAUSD. He spoke of the criticized development on the former Ricky
Hyatt and Elk Lodge sites and why that type of development should not be
duplicated. The Council would be setting up a dangerous precedent by
approving a smaller version of the development. He felt R-1 zoning added
to Palo Alto’s quality of life and the proposed project would not. He
supported the Motion.
Council Member Holman recognized the applicant for responding to the
concerns of the neighbors and their attempt to address their concerns. She
concurred with the speaker’s comment that zoning provided predictability.
She said the project on the former Ricky Hyatt site was brought forward on a
tentative map and advised that large projects should be well vetted and
project size should be considered on proposed projects. She supported the
Motion.
Council Member Price addressed traffic issues surrounding the site and spoke
of the bicyclist and pedestrian challenges in the area. The applicant’s efforts
on the site plan, design, and transition were good. She said the project
would impact the corridor because of the intensity of proposed retail and
housing along San Antonio Road. She felt more productive conversation
should take place with PAUSD to get an understanding of their
responsibilities in addressing population growth in the area. There was a
shared responsibility in planning for the onset of population and jobs. She
supported the Motion
Vice Mayor Yeh said his reason for supporting the Motion hinged on public
transportation. He said he believed in development along transit corridors
and spoke of the challenges that exist when there was a motive for public
transportation and not have the ridership support. He did not see Palo Alto
17 05/02/2011
moving forward quickly on residential development to support the existence
of public transportation. He said the area was going through many changes
and would continue for several years and made no sense to approve
upzoning.
Mayor Espinosa said he wanted to get an understanding to why the applicant
and the owner had spent a great deal of time and money in getting the
project to this point and what was the expectation.
Mr. Williams said the case was unusual. He said the Staff could have been
more proactive and aggressive in relating policies and the seriousness
relative to the project. Staff identified projects that were involved in the
process when regulations were being considered. Projects had not been
discussed as it related to the Housing Element and went unnoticed and Staff
was not able to quickly pinpoint what the applicant was subjected to.
Mayor Espinosa said several projects were put on hold due to the economic
situation. He wanted to ensure that any policy changes were communicated
to the people when their projects come back to life.
Mr. Williams said he thought the projects that were on hold were commercial
but Staff would do a review.
Mayor Espinosa said he wanted to initiate a proactive conversation with the
City of Mountain View and with the community to the south regarding the
developments on both sides of San Antonio Road and to focus on
transportation and housing growth. He said the community will grow to
build communities that were right and would foster the type of life
envisioned for Palo Alto. He clarified that his vote was not an anti-
development vote but identified that the proposed project was not right for
this site. He supported the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
16. Caltrain & High Speed Rail Staff Update.
Deputy City Manager, Steve Emslie gave a PowerPoint presentation as
outlined in Staff Report ID#1557.
Council Member Klein said he was in Sacramento last week to testify in
support of AB953 which had not yet passed. AB952 had passed but did not
think AB953 would. He said Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair of the Transportation
Committee, and Assemblyman Rich Gordon, Chair of the Assembly Sub-
Committee on budget matters for High Speed Rail (HSR) had committed to
18 05/02/2011
work on a budget to ensure funds for a new ridership study. Elizabeth
Alexis, co-founder of the Palo Alto advocacy group Californians Advocating
Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) and William Grindley from the Town of
Atherton, did a study using the HSR Authority’s numbers that reflected the
real cost to be closer to $65 billion. He said the City Council Rail Committee
(CCRC) had sent a letter to the HSR Authority six weeks ago regarding the
true cost of the system using their numbers. To date, no response had been
received. He said Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, Senator Joe Simitian, and
Assemblyman Rich Gordon’s proposal had been noticed at the local, state,
and congressional level and was not well received by HSR proponent,
Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani. The matter was reported in a local
newspaper and the CCRC was contemplating whether to address the issue.
He announced the next HSR Authority meeting was scheduled for May 5,
2011 in Sacramento. The CCRC meetings had been cut back to one meeting
per month and quarterly meetings were being considered since HSR matters
were no longer hectic.
Council Member Burt said the next Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC)
meeting was scheduled for May 6, 2011 in Menlo Park and open to Council
Members and the public. He spoke regarding the Eshoo, Simitian and
Gordon’s proposal on phase implementation. He said the political leadership
in San Francisco raised concerns that they had funded the Transbay
Terminal and that HSR’s CEO, Roelof Van Ark’s proposal would stop HSR at
4th and Townsend in San Francisco and not connect to the Transbay
Terminal. He expressed the need to look at how the Eshoo, Simitian, and
Gordon proposal might favor a connection to the Transbay Terminal. The
HSR’s proposal was for a 3-track tunnel proposed at billions of dollars and
the only way to get to the Transbay Terminal would be to align with Senator
Simitian’s concept. He said the funding and the project had been altered at
the federal level and had not been acknowledged by the State Rail Authority
and State Board.
Council Member Shepherd said she needed clarification on Caltrain
information being brought forward since the HSR Committee was changed to
City Council Rail Committee (CCRC). She suggested having CCRC meetings
when something important came up instead of having the meetings
quarterly.
Council Member Schmid said his understanding was a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) was postponed due to disagreements regarding track
modes. The presentation noted one was being worked on and asked if one
would be coming forward regarding the 4-track system. He raised concerns
that an EIR would appear and the impacts to the City had not been
reviewed.
19 05/02/2011
Council Member Burt clarified the EIR had been postponed and pushed out
for a year and a half according to HSR’s current schedule. He said there was
disagreement between the Eshoo, Simitian, and Gordon’s proposal and HSR
Authority’s intentions. The HSR’s EIR would cover the first and second
phase. The Eshoo, Simitian, and Gordon’s proposal had one phase and
limited to 2-tracks. He said Mr. van Ark was at a recent Senator Simitian
Committee meeting and Senator Simitian clarified that Proposition 1-A did
not stipulate a requirement for a 4-track system or an EIR that studied a 4-
track system.
Council Member Schmid asked if a consultant was doing a study regarding
impacts to the City.
Council Member Klein said there were several consultants and an analysis
was being done on how a 4-track configuration would have financial impacts
to businesses and residents.
Council Member Schmid asked when the analysis would be available.
Mr. Emslie said it would be available in a couple of weeks.
Council Member Klein said a trial was schedule in late August regarding a
plaintiff in the litigation with concerns of the adequacy of the EIR.
Council Member Holman needed clarification on the HSR Committee wanting
to look into an EIR for portions of the project.
Mr. Emslie clarified the HSR wanted to analyze the phase implementations
for the San Jose to San Francisco segment regarding impacts on 2-track and
4-track usage as ridership increased.
Council Member Holman asked if the CCRC was meeting monthly instead of
bi-monthly.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
Council Member Holman followed up on Council Member Klein’s comment
regarding the CCRC reporting to the Council on quarterly basis. She
questioned why meetings could not be monthly if reports were short.
Council Member Klein said because it was not the best use of the
Committee’s time unless there was an emergency.
20 05/02/2011
Council Member Holman said it was important to keep the Council abreast of
emerging events.
MOTION: Mayor Espinosa moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to
have the City Council Rail Committee and Staff, at a minimum, provide
verbal quarterly updates on Caltrain and High Speed Rail to the City Council,
with the recognition that additional updates are welcome if high priority or
profile issues with Caltrain or High Speed Rail arise.
Council Member Schmid asked if the Council would continue to receive CCRC
agendas and minutes.
Mr. Emslie said yes.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Shepherd asked to adjourn the meeting in memory of
Leonard Ely who passed away on April 29, 2011. Mr. Ely was born in Palo
Alto, attended Palo Alto High School and received an undergraduate degree
in economics and an MBA from Stanford. He was a local businessman and
philanthropist. He served on the board of more than 30 local organizations.
Council Member Price reported on attending the Santa Clara County Human
Relations Commission event that recognized Project SafetyNet, the Youth
Community Services luncheon on April 29, 2011, the Style Event held at
Lucie Stern on April 30th, and the Safety Faire held on May 1, 2011.
Vice Mayor Yeh reported that he would not be at the Council meeting on May
9th as he will be attending the Northern California Power Agency federal
lobbying trip in Washington, D.C.
Mayor Espinosa reported that Hewlett Packard Corporation announced that
they were donating $25M to the Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital. He
invited everyone to attend the upcoming May Fete parade, the tree planting
by Canopy. He also stated that there will be several bike events the
following week to include bike to work day.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned in memory of Leonard Ely at
11:42 P.M.
21 05/02/2011