Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-19 City Council Summary Minutes 09/19/2011 109-002 Special Meeting September 19, 2011 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:04 P.M. Present: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein, Price, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh Absent: STUDY SESSION 1. Potential Topics of Discussion for the Joint Study Session Meeting with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). The agenda for the session included a presentation by the PTC members that covered: (1) the past 20 months in review, (2) Commission priorities, (3) efforts on the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element, (4) a request for Council to describe its priorities for the PTC, and (5) Future study session topics. The Council Members concurred that the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element efforts were a priority, and they were eager to work with the PTC to develop guidance for concessions related to the State Housing Density Bonus law. Council Members discussed a wide range of topics including: Staff providing Council with a list of priority projects, the status of parking lot issues, forming a vision regarding desired densities, population growth and it’s affect on housing units, streamlining rather than expanding the Comprehensive Plan, creating policies for projects in case of market forces driving development, the Rail Corridor, separating the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Elements, taking a subregional approach with the Housing Element, the importance of corridors versus city limits, expanding the Commissions responsibilities to handle other responsibilities, the climate adaptation study, alerting Council to conflicts in policy choices, maintaining quality of life (services, daycare, retail) while adapting to change, getting ahead of issues (e.g. Infrastructure issues - including mobile communication), the Housing Elements relationship to the US Census, 09/19/2011 109-003 holding a joint study session with the Commission focused on strategic thinking for housing options as related to infrastructure funding, and the need for more regular updates SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 2. Proclamation Honoring Audrey Rust, President of the Peninsula Open Space Trust, for Her Outstanding Service to the Community and Leadership in the Preservation of Open Space Lands. Council Member Holman read the Proclamation Honoring Audrey Rust into the record. Open Space Manager, Darin Anderson thanked Audrey Rust for her outstanding 24-years of service with the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST). He spoke of her dedication, commitment, and work to help preserve the last 13 areas of Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Audrey Rust spoke of her experience with POST and how enjoyable it was to help complete the preservation of the Pearson Arastradero Preserve. She said there were 200 Land Trusts in California and over 2,000 nationwide. POST was involved in the creation of the organization that serviced both the California Land Trust and National Land Trust. POST covered the Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties with plans to extend services into the Santa Cruz County. 3. Proclamation Recognizing Sea Otter Awareness Week Council Member Price read the Proclamation Recognizing Sea Otter Awareness Week into the record. Junior Museum Director, John Aiken stated that the Open Space Preserves protected the near shore habitat of the Otters and the nurseries that nurtured their environment. He expressed his appreciation for the recognition and Proclamation and said protecting the Sea Otters was a good thing to do. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Assistant City Manager, Pamela Antil announced that Agenda Item No.14 was being pulled and moved to the City Council Meeting of October 3rd. Community Services Division Supervisor, Minka Van Der Zwaag led the Moonlight Run on September 9th and was joined by over 3,200 participants. Economic Development and Redevelopment Manager, Thomas Fehrenbach lead the first Palo Alto Gran Fondo & Challenge on September 17th and was 09/19/2011 109-004 joined by over 600 bicyclists. The City Clerk’s Office was recruiting to fill the following Board and Commission vacancies: Three vacancies for the Parks and Recreation Commission; two for the Storm Drain Oversight Committee, and one, unexpired term vacancy for the Public Art Commission. A Speaker Series, to be held in the Council Chambers, September 29, 3:30-5 p.m., titled: “Adopting to Climate Change and Sea Level Rise.” ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Wynn Grcich, spoke regarding the stoppage of Assembly Bill (AB) 2283 because of the arguments against biochemical cremation. She provided the City Clerk with five different studies regarding the dangerous use of the toxic chemicals to share with the public. She spoke of the dangerous affects of chloramines. Shani Kleinhaus spoke regarding the use of dry Anaerobic Digestion (AD) versus wet AD. She said the wet AD process did not require a power plant and enabled Palo Alto to get 90 percent of what the proposed Measure E would provide in energy balance by using wet AD with the current footprint. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to approve Agenda Item Nos. 4-10. 4. Approval of a Contract Amendment with AV Integrators, Inc., for Additional Work Required to Complete the Council Chambers Audio and Visual Equipment Upgrades. 5. Adoption of a Resolution 9200 Adopting the Affidavit of Loss and Indemnity Agreement with American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC and Authorizing the City Manager to Sign the Affidavit and Agreement. 6. Adoption of a Resolution 9201 Summarily Vacating a 10-foot Portion of an Original 30-Foot Dedication for Street Purposes Easement at 945 Matadero Avenue. 7. Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5128 in the Amount of $52,108 and Approval of a Contract with Petrotek in an Amount Not to Exceed $147,108 for Design and Construction of Replacement Fuel Pumps and Related Equipment at Foothills Park (CIP VR-92006). 09/19/2011 109-005 8. Recommendation from the Policy & Services Committee on Proposed Changes to the City Council Procedures and Protocols. 9. Request for Authorization to Enter into a Contract with the Law Firm of Liebert Cassidy & Whitmore in an Amount Not to Exceed $185,000 for Legal Services Relating to IAFF, Local 1319 Interest Arbitration and Approval of Budget Amendment Increasing the Budget of the Office of the City Attorney by $185,000. 10. Request for Authorization to Increase the Existing Contract with the Law Firm of Stubbs & Leone by an Additional $100,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $185,000 for Litigation Defense. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Assistant City Manager, Pamela Antil stated that Agenda Item No. 14 needed more work and Staff had recommended the item be pulled and moved to the City Council Meeting of October 3, 2011. City Clerk, Donna Grider stated Agenda Item No. 14 was a Public Hearing and required a Motion. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to move Agenda Item No. 14 up and continue it to the October 3, 2011 City Council Meeting. 14. Public Hearing: Consideration of an Appeal of an Architectural Review Approval, a Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes, and a Record of Land Use Action, (1) Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration, (2) Upholding the Director's Architectural Review Approval of a Three Story Development Consisting of 84 Residential Units within the Upper Floors, 50,467 s.f. Ground Floor Research and Development area, Subterranean and Surface Parking Facilities, and Offsite Improvements, with Two Concessions Requested Under State Condominium Purposes on a 2.5 Acre Parcel at 195 Page Mill Road and 2865 Park Boulevard. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 ACTION ITEMS 09/19/2011 109-006 11. Public Hearing: Pursuant to Proposition 218 - Adoption of Resolution 9202 Amending Water Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4 and W-7 for a Water Rate Increase. Mayor Espinosa read the Public Hearing script for Agenda Item No. 11 into the record and asked if Staff was going to provide a presentation regarding the Water Rate Increase. Utilities Director, Valerie Fong stated that Senior Resource Planner, Ipek Connolly would be giving a presentation. Senior Resource Planner, Ipek Connolly gave a brief presentation and noted that the proposed Water Rate changes could be found in Staff Report #1860, Table 1a and 1b. The proposed rate changes were consistent with the Council’s discussion on June 20, 2011. The current structure would remain for Rate Schedule W-1, General Residential. Staff’s recommendation was to adjust the volumetric component of the rates as follows: Tier-1, a decrease from $3.95 to $3.60, and Tier-2, an increase from $5.62 to $7.34. The definition for Tier-2 would move from 7 ccf to 6 ccf. Change to Rate Schedule W-4 in the volumetric component would decrease from $4.96 to $4.93. The irrigation rate would increase from $4.94 per ccf to $7 per 8 ccf. Table 1b contained changes in the fixed monthly charges. Mayor Espinosa stated that the City Attorney had comments regarding the rate change procedure. City Attorney, Molly Stump stated the procedure for the Water Rate changes would follow the California Constitution, Proposition 218 (Prop. 218), requirements adopted by the voters in 1996. In 2006, California Supreme Court determined that certain utility charges and water rates were property- related fees. The proposed changes were considered property-related fees and Prop. 218 procedural requirements would be followed. The affected customers had been legally notified of the proposed rate increases. The Hearing was a majority protest hearing. She said rate increases would not be imposed if a majority of the affected customers had filed a written notice opposing the increases by the close of the Public Hearing. Mayor Espinosa stated the Public Hearing would allow all residents and interested parties to provide testimony at this evening’s meeting. He said to be valid, all protests against the rate increase needed to be provided in writing, signed and submitted to the City Clerk before the close of the Hearing. The City Clerk would continue to accept protests until the Public Hearing was closed at which time the City Clerk would count the number of written protest received. The Council would determine whether a majority 09/19/2011 109-007 protest existed. The Council may adopt the new Water Rate Schedule if a majority of customers did not submit sufficient written protest by the close of the Hearing. Public Hearing opened at 7:46 P.M. Larry Hootnick stated the Staff Report presented in June 2011 did not included the proposed water rate increases for 2012 nor did it include the operating cost, such as salaries, benefits, debt service and space rental, that represented half of $33 million in annual expenditures. He spoke regarding the irrigation issue and how the 30 percent rate increase would create a strain on customers that owned large lots. He said the Prop. 218 majority vote process was not included in the documents sent out by Staff and felt there would have been more participation to overturn the rate changes if the information was widely known. Faith Brigel stated that she opposed the water increase. She said Palo Alto residents had become more conservative in their water usage and this approach was not a way to reward their efforts. Herb Borock stated that the water rate increase comparison that was presented three months ago balanced Prop. 218’s provision and water conservation. He said the third tier created in the rate schedule raised the rates for customers who used more than 29 units of water per month. The new rate structure benefited customers with large lots and irrigations issues. Public Hearing closed at 7:57 P.M. Council Member Shepherd stated that the monthly water rate schedule was increased by 100 percent. A 50 percent increase was anticipated for Fiscal Year 2012 that would raise the flat-rate fee by $15. She said Council would be addressing the actual water usage rates that may possibly cause another increase. Council Member Burt spoke regarding the method used to calculate the three different residential tiers. He said the new rate for 6 hundred cubic feet (ccf) was $31.60 and $90.32 for 14 ccf. He asked what a customer would be charged for the first 6 ccf if they were in the average or middle tier. Ms. Connolly said they would be charged the Tier 1 rate. Council Member Burt stated that the explanation contained on the City’s website regarding the water rate increase should be summarized. He said the information was too detailed and challenging to convey to the public. 09/19/2011 109-008 The tiered structure needed clarification. No increases would be made in the first three months of the year and the total increase would be distributed over the last nine months of the year. The rate increase on the 7th ccf was not significantly high because the first 6 ccf would be provided at a lower rate. The website noted that the recovery cost for a natural or seismic disaster would be distributed over a 5-year period but did not explain which natural disasters would be covered and which were considered non-seismic. He asked Staff to provide an explanation Ms. Fong stated that drought was considered a natural disaster. The City’s emergency water supply project was driven by drought as well as interruptions from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Council Member Burt asked if drought was in the category that referred to a natural disaster that was not seismic. Ms. Connolly asked Council Member Burt what document he was referring to. Council Member Burt said it was in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section in the City’s Utility Department’s website. Ms. Connolly stated that a different terminology could have been used to address the emergency/seismic reinforcement versus ongoing system improvements. It was her understanding that the replacement of aging pipes and seismic improvements were ongoing system improvements the Utility Department considered as capital expenditures. Council Member Burt said that was also his understanding. The information on the website gave one answer with several million dollars associated to natural disasters and the second dollar amount was associated to seismic upgrades. Ms. Connolly agreed that the information needed to be reviewed and terminologies needed to be consistent. Council Member Burt asked what percentage of the rate increase was attributed to the once in a 100-year seismic upgrade project. Ms. Connolly stated the $3.4 million increase was for the Hetch Hetchy system. She said the water rate increase did not cover the City’s Capital Improvement Project (CIP) annual expenditures of $5 million. More work needed to be done in the next two fiscal years and would require additional funds. 09/19/2011 109-009 Council Member Burt stated the website’s summary needed to reflect what percent of the total cost was for the once in a 100-year seismic upgrade. The Press publications online needed to be linked to the summarized information. The website information stated that a rate increase of 10 to 11 ccf was given to medium users and the Staff report stated 14 ccf to average users. The two issues needed to be reconsolidated. The Staff report noted Palo Alto rates were higher than its surrounding communities and suggested drawing a line to separate the Hetch Hetchy system from other systems to indicate Palo Alto’s higher costs. He referred to the statement “more expensive service terrain to serve” and asked if the City was locked into one rate regardless of what the expense was to serve a certain group of customers. For example, if a resident in the Foothill’s used 14 ccf and it cost the City double the amount to provide the service versus a resident in the urban area; was the City bound to charge each user group the same amount for the same volume of water. Ms. Fong said no. She stated a cost of service study could be done and that a reasonable number of users would need to be determined for the study. Council Member Burt said he did not want to deal with too many rate structures but the study could be significant enough to be considered in drafting a future policy. He asked if the transfer of profits to the General Fund for supplying water still existed. Ms. Connolly stated it did not. Council Member Burt stated that the rental agreements for the use of real estate in serviced areas still existed and needed to be restated to the public. There was a greater need for transparency and accountability when high levels of rate increases were made beyond the City’s control. He expressed the importance of getting the information out to the community in a clear and simple manner to allow citizens to hold and digested the facts in an honest and open way. Vice Mayor Yeh spoke regarding the City’s debt service. He said in September 2011, the City refinanced the 2002 Utility Revenue Bonds and received approximate $3 million in Net Present Value (NPV) savings. The City’s interest costs decreased from 4.7 to 2.28 percent and gained an annual savings of $270,000. Sixty percent was allocated to the Water Fund and forty percent to the Gas Fund. Council Member Price said the water rates would increase by 37 percent in the next fiscal year and would double by 2016. She felt this issue could be a precursor to other capital projects. She asked if the SFPUC had a CIP 09/19/2011 109-0010 project list that projected beyond 2016 and if there were any long-term strategic plans for capital improvements and the cost passed on to the customers. Ms. Fong said what the City was reflecting in terms of the increase from the SFPUC was the $4.6 billion water system improvement project. She said the SFPUC’s normal CIP process and the City’s CIP process would continue. The City would continue to absorb the cost of the emergency water supply project and the annual improvements that were put in place. Council Member Klein said the Bay Area Water Supply Water Conservation Agency (BAWSWCA) consisted of 26 cities and districts that purchased water from the SFPUC. The agency was set up under State law because of the long-standing disputes between the cities buying water from the SFPUC. He addressed the public speaker’s concern regarding the rate increase working against her efforts to conserve. He explained that the water structure consisted of two parts: an infrastructure portion that customers were charged whether they used the water or not, which was the higher charged of the two, and a charge for the actual water used. There were no signals for water conservation when charges were viewed in those terms. He said there was a steady decline in water usage across the country. It was a mystery and no one knew if it was attributed to the economy, conservation, or a combination of both. The good news was there would be sufficient supply water in the future; the downside was rates would go up due to less water use. The Hetch Hetchy water system upgrade was a dramatic increase in the quality and safety of an amazing system. The project would extend from Yosemite, across the Central Valley, across the East Bay, and would include the first tunnel to be built under the San Francisco Bay. The total cost of the project was $4.2 billion. All 26 cities and districts would share the expense. Palo Alto’s portion was $200 million and it was important that the public was clearly informed and understood the basis for the increase in the cost of water. Mayor Espinosa stated there were 20,126 water customers subject to the rate increase and 10,064 protests were needed in order to have a majority protest. He asked the City Clerk to provide the count of written protest received against the water rate increase. City Clerk, Donna Grider stated there were 52 written protests received. Mayor Espinosa stated the 52 votes were not higher than 50 percent and not a majority protest and a Motion could be made to adopt the Water Rate Increase. 09/19/2011 109-0011 MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Price to adopt a Resolution amending the Water Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4 and W-7 for a Water Rate Increase MOTION PASSED: 9-0 12. Public Hearing: Pursuant to Proposition 218 - Adoption of Resolution 9203 Amending the Utility Rate Schedules R-1, R-2, and R-3 for a Refuse Rate Increase; Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5129 for Fiscal Year 2012 to Adjust Projected Revenues and Expenses in Refuse Fund and Authorize Short Term Loan from General Fund to Refuse Fund. Mayor Espinosa read into the records a Public Hearing script for Agenda Item No. 12 and asked if Staff had a presentation. Assistant City Manager, Pamela Antil said Staff would begin with a question and answer segment. City Attorney, Molly Stump stated the proceedings for the proposed Refuse Rate Increase would follow the California Constitution, Proposition 218 (Prop. 218) procedural requirements. The affected customers had been legally notified of the proposed rate increases. The Hearing was a majority protest Hearing and rate increases could not be adopted if a majority of the affected customers filed a written notice opposing the increase by the close of this evening’s Hearing. Mayor Espinosa stated the Public Hearing would allow all residents and interested parties to provide testimony at this evening’s meeting. He said to be valid, all protests against the rate increase needed to be provided in writing, signed, and submitted to the City Clerk before the close of the Hearing. The City Clerk would continue to accept protest until the Public Hearing was closed, at which time the City Clerk would count the number of written protest received. The Council would determine whether a majority protest existed. The Council may adopt the new Refuse Rate Schedule if a majority of customers did not submit sufficient written protest by the close of the Hearing. Public Hearing opened at 8:27 P.M. Emily Renzel stated that Proposition 18 required that people be charged a valid cost for service. She said beginning in 2012, the rental for Byxbee Park would drop from $4.7 million to $2.4 million. She felt the difference should be returned to the rate payers and factored into the cost of service 09/19/2011 109-0012 study. One aspect that was not included in Measure E was the undedication of the 10 acres for 10 years and the excavation of garbage and re-depositing it onto the remaining parkland. She said the rent that had been charged on the land for many years could be reinstated. The 51 acres would be retained until the matter was resolved or when a Council decided to rededicate the land. She raised concerns of not having the park for another 10 years if garbage was redeposited on Byxbee Park. The rent and cost needed to be calculated into the cost of study. Public Hearing closed at 8:30 P.M. Mayor Espinosa stated there were 19,618 customers subject to the Refuse Rate Increase and 9,810 written protests would need to be received in order to create a majority protest. He asked the City Clerk to provide the count of written protest received against the Refuse Rate Increase. Donna Grider, City Clerk, stated that 34 valid protests were received. MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to adopt a Resolution amending the Utility Rate Schedules R-1, R-2, and R-3 for a refuse rate increase, adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2012 to adjust projected revenues and expenses in the Refuse Fund, and authorize a short term loan from the General Fund to the Refuse Fund. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 13. Council Direction in Response to Sustainable Communities Strategy (SB375) Alternative Scenarios and Update of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Process (continued from September 12, 2011). Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis Williams stated the item was being revisited to discuss the Response to Sustainable Communities Strategy Alternative Scenarios and related Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process at the regional government level. He said on July 18, 2011, Staff had briefed the Council regarding the concept alternatives the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) were preparing to evaluate. The agencies were in the process to determine the potentials for land use patterns and transportation networks to accommodate growth through 2035-2040. Council Members Scharff, Schmid, Holman and Burt met with Staff in August and talked about the issues and concerns in a broader sense. The group targeted Palo Alto’s response as well as the other regional cities’ concerns. His presentation highlighted the background, the three Alternative Scenarios, projections, coordination with other cities, and 09/19/2011 109-0013 preliminary actions on how to proceed, including the next steps. A detailed description of each was outlined in Staff Report 1985. Council Member Schmid stated that the deadline for the response to the regional agencies was in October and scenarios would be out by December 2011 or January 2012. It was a timeline that could cut off the state’s demographic research unit in updating the state’s long-term forecast. He said by 2040 there would be 2.1 million people in the Bay Area and raised concerns of how cities would deal with the population growth. The Sustainable Development Community Strategy was built around how to deal with the large population growth. The long-term forecast was established in 2007 and the 2010 census noted that the state and the Bay Area were over- forecasted by 60-70 percent and 100 percent for the west Bay Area. The numbers were met locally with a growth of 10 percent from 2007 to 2010. There were concerns on how to meet the over-projected numbers in 10 years and the unrealistic targets that did not coincide with California and the Bay Area demographics. He said Palo Alto needed to find allies to work with on a realistic forecast in building a sustainable community. State officials needed to get involved and the surrounding communities needed to cooperate in finding reasonable goals. Council Member Burt stated that Council Member Schmid and Director Williams focused on assumptions that were taken from the job growth that existed during the boom decades when the Santa Clara Valley and region were growing at a rapid rate. The growth rate had leveled off in the last two decades and characterized by demographers as an anomaly. RHNA’s employment projection for the City of Los Alto increased from 13,000 to 18,000. He said neighboring cities who found the RHNA numbers unreasonable could possibly share positions and cost to review some of the analyses. He was in favor of pursuing the issue and to share the information with surrounding communities and other regions that may be interested. Bob Moss, stated there were 50,000 vacant and foreclosed homes in the Bay Area that had not been calculated in the RHNA process. The homes were located in the East Bay, which needed to be filled prior to building new homes. The long-term projection was to place 4,500 new housing units along the El Camino Real corridor in Palo Alto. He said one of Palo Alto’s contributions was the ability to change ordinary gas and electric utilities into reusable energy, which should have been considered and factored into the process. Council Member Price felt a subregional analysis could be meaningful. She said the RHNA methodology used in San Mateo was done on a countywide basis and the question was raised whether a partnership analysis could be 09/19/2011 109-0014 done with Santa Clara County (SCCO). The SCCO Chief Planning Officials’ stated it was not feasible at the time and to revisit the issue when the RHNA cycle reoccurred in eight years. She said a subregional approach would compliment the issues that were being addressed and asked if the partnership could be revisited. Mr. Williams stated that the recommendation was based on the fact that it was not financially feasible to do the analysis. He felt the concept lacked political wealth and that several of the cities did not want to get involved. City conditions needed to turnaround in order for a subregional approach to be meaningful. There were cities that shared Palo Alto’s concerns as well as cities that had large territories for job and housing growths with plans for large developments. He cautioned the use of San Mateo’s approach and found that ABAG’s assessment needs were close to being on target. Council Member Price asked Mr. Williams what his thoughts were in pursuing an analysis. Mr. Williams stated that a demographic and economic analysis could not be done in time to meet the deadlines and would take state legislators and cities to get the regional agencies to slow down the process. He felt that the chances in achieving that goal would be if Council Members rather than Staff spoke to the cities and government officials. He was not sure of what the political certainties would be or the timeframe to make things happen. Council Member Price asked Mr. Williams if he was suggesting having a collective political will to put pressure on ABAG and MTC to push out the timeline and if there were other factors driving the schedule. Mr. Williams stated there were other factors driving the schedule but the process would need to be held back if the intent was to have something happen. Council Member Shepherd asked to have a representative on the ABAG or the RHNA Board who represented the education community in the California Department of Education to consider school impacts and issues to allow conversations with the local school district. She said the data on California’s gross domestic product (GDP) had not increased in the last 30 years needed to be included in the methodology to push back. The Staff Report did not include issues on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions that could rest on the housing and job scenarios. She asked if the methodology should include issues that started to come into play as people were becoming more mobile and more autonomists with laptops in their homes, which meant fewer jobs would be created in industries. 09/19/2011 109-0015 Mr. Williams stated that Staff had addressed the GHG issues in terms of transportation, reduction in vehicle miles traveled, and alternatives to help achieve those goals but had not established a methodology. Staff had not yet put the elements together that broke down GHG emissions by percentage. He said Senate Bill 375 (SB375) was not directed to electric generated vehicle emissions but to cars, light vehicles, and trucks. Assembly Bill 32 (AB32) addressed the entire range of GHG issues. He said each Bill had its own objectives and he cautioned to keep them separated. Arguments could fall into gray areas if objectives were mixed. Council Member Burt stated the GHG issues that surround SB375 could be framed around the combination of electric vehicles, clean energy, renewables, and the Hydro Green program, the Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) program, including Stanford Hospital’s major TDM program, future zoning, expansion of shuttles, and safe routes to school program. He said there were more GHG reduction accomplishments both present and in the future that could be framed around mobile transportation. Mr. Williams said the bicycle plans and programs needed to be added to the list. Vice Mayor Yeh was in favor of a cross-county or subregional approach and suggested looking into cities within San Mateo County that would be more open to housing. He said Redwood City was a possibility. A shuttle program could be expanded if there were state dollars to incentivize the subregional approach. Cutting across counties would allow coordination between jurisdictions to develop housing. It would be advantageous to have a list of cities that were willing to push back and with cities that would be open to more housing and creating partnerships. There were legislators that represented cross-counties, which would be a good fit for legislative solutions in terms of coordination. Communities could engage in telecommuting to reduce car trips and businesses could weigh in on telecommuting programs for the purpose of convenience, the environment, and employee productivity. He said a consultant could study projections and econometrics and be open to a strategic perspective as well as peer review and analysis. A follow-up step and solution was necessary to complete the process. Council Member Scharff said he was in favor of the subregional approach and what was required in the long-term to have it be successful. Palo Alto would receive its final RHNA housing allocation in spring, which was between 2,700 and 3,800, and had the ability to trade off its allocation with other 09/19/2011 109-0016 cities before it became final. The partnership rules could be explored to have it work on a subregional basis. This would reduce Palo Alto’s allocation and would allow the community to work with a feasible number. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to approve Staff’s recommendation for: 1) a third party peer review, conducted by the State Legislatures or a group of regional cities, of the State and regional population and employment projections, 2) reach out to State Legislatures to pursue this issue at a State and Regional level to include the following steps: set up meetings with State Legislatures and interested cities to outline the need for independent analysis of the projections and economic matrix underlying the alternative land use scenarios and to inform them of other critical issues, 3) coordinate with cities who share Palo Alto’s concerns and identify subregional cities that might be interested in trading housing allocations and what Palo Alto could give in return to make it work on a subregional basis, 4) direct Staff to prepare summaries of key issues for presentation to State legislators, other cities, the regional agencies, and extend outreach to the community for better understanding of the implications of these scenarios, and 5) frame Greenhouse Gases Emission and accountability on mobile transportation. Council Member Burt said the primary objective of SB375 would be to frame the GHG emission reductions and initiatives the City would assume. Council Member Klein asked Mr. Williams to confirm the extended deadline. Mr. Williams said it was through the month of November. Council Member Klein stated that the Motion did not indicate or recommend the City’s position on the three alternatives. Mr. Williams stated that needed to be determined, along with Palo Alto’s concerns and issues that the City had in terms of constraints. Council Member Klein suggested a 4th alternative to express how unreasonable the allocation process was based on impossible data. He raised concerns regarding the timing in putting together a list of the City’s issues and constraints. He stated all recommendations stated in the Motion would not be accomplished in the next month. He asked if guidance was needed in drafting a recommendation to return to the Council during the last week in October. Mr. Williams stated that guidance would be useful. 09/19/2011 109-0017 Council Member Klein stated that the subregional approach was unrealistic. Subregional implied tradeoffs and may illustrate that the price would be more than what was expected. San Mateo County did not have dominant cities and Santa Clara County (SCCO) did. San Jose, which represented half of SCCO’s population, wanted more businesses and jobs and not housing. Council Member Holman said economic sustainability and environmental impacts were not addressed in the allocations. She agreed with Council Member Klein’s comments regarding a subregional approach but felt it should remain on the table. She supported the Motion. Mayor Espinosa stated the Council felt the RHNA numbers were unacceptable. He said it was unclear if an advocacy or a lobbying plan was in place to support an aggressive alternative. He suggested that the subcommittee think about getting the citizens to band together and form a group similar to the Californians Advocating Responsible Railroad Design (CARRD) to act on behalf of the Council in working with legislators and decision makers. Council Member Shepherd supported Mayor Espinosa’s comments. She suggested establishing an official Council subcommittee and to invite the public to follow the noticed meetings. She felt it would be beneficial to have a School District Board Member sit on the subcommittee and act as a liaison to School Board. It was important to be transparent with the activities and to pass on the information in moving forward. Council Member Holman asked Mr. Williams if it would be advantageous to establish an official subcommittee and schedule noticed meetings in order to meet the timelines. Mr. Williams said he understood the intent but felt it would be more difficult. Council Member Holman asked if there would be another approach in getting the information in a timely manner without noticed meetings. Mr. Williams suggested getting a group of interested people to have discussions with Staff. He said he would like to have the names of those who would want to get involved in the discussions. Council Member Holman asked Mr. Williams what his thoughts were in getting information out to people through an outreach program. 09/19/2011 109-0018 Mr. Williams felt that the six-week timeframe was too short to have that happen. It was critical that the response get drafted and to have some of the strategies underway. Council Member Burt asked Council Member Shepherd if the intent of her Amendment was for the purpose of drafting the response or to have broader discussions in the community. Council Member Shepherd stated it was to have longer and broader discussions to cover Staff’s recommendations. She wanted the subregional approach vetted by the public and to allow the community to follow the Council’s footprints in moving forward. Council Member Burt stated he would support an Amendment as a long- term proposal and to focus in getting the response within the six-week timeframe outside of the public process. He would support an ongoing public process around a long-term issue. Council Member Shepherd said she agreed. AMENDMENT: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to continue drafting a response letter over the upcoming six weeks while simultaneously taking steps to form a Standing Committee of Council Members and one School Board Member subject to the Brown Act regarding regional housing allocation issues centered around SB375. Council Member Burt expressed the importance to have a School Board Member participate as well as input from the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) Council in creating a stronger tie. Mayor Espinosa asked Council Member Burt to clarify his modification to the Amendment. Council Member Burt stated to continue in the current mode, to draft the response letter over the next six weeks, and begin to initiate in parallel a Council committee around the housing growth allocation. Council Member Shepherd stated an official Council committee would bring accountability and transparency to the community. Mayor Espinosa restated the Amendment for clarification and said to continue drafting the response over the next six weeks and to launce an official Council committee to include the current subgroup with public noticed meetings and to invite a School Board Member to participate. 09/19/2011 109-0019 Council Member Price stated she understood the concept and the need for discussions. She raised concerns regarding the added Staff time required to support a subcommittee when there were several other large projects pending. Subcommittee meetings normally took place during the day and conflicted with those who had fulltime day jobs, which would work against transparency. Added evening meetings caused more challenges such as cutting into family time at home. She suggested postponement of a new committee at the current time. Council Member Schmid expressed the importance of a subcommittee, public notices, and getting the public engaged but felt it would be more effective to postpone a new committee for the time being and to focus in the short-term on the urgency in getting the response together. Council Member Klein suggested the Mayor appoint the committee members. He said the wording would be to have four members appointed by the Mayor in 2012. INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND THE SECONDER for the new Committee to be made up of four Council Members appointed by the Mayor Council Member Scharff stated the focus should be on the response letter in the next six weeks and the possibility to push back on the deadline issue, which could extend into November. He suggested starting the new committee at the beginning of the 2012 calendar year and that it should be Brown Act compliant. INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND THE SECONDER for the new subcommittee to begin after the end of 2011. Council Member Burt asked if there were other issues that needed to be addressed during the six-week timeframe besides the response letter. Council Member Shepherd felt the committee should have been initiated by now and could have supported Staff in moving forward. Committee meetings were a means of having the community know what was being deliberated and could have contributed. She wanted to move forward on establishing the new committee. Council Member Scharff asked how the School Board Member role would work. 09/19/2011 109-0020 Council Member Shepherd clarified it would be an advisory position. Council Member Holman suggested having conversations with the School Board to get their input and level of interest in getting involved prior to prescribing participation. She felt the new committee should be delayed until the response was written and having talked to the School Board. She felt the School Board was not as emphatic as the Council and suggesting have more than one representative from the School Board. Vice Mayor Yeh stated that the City-School Committee was an advisory body. He said going on the assumption there will be another advisory type committee he suggested to not having a prior discussion with the School Board but rather to take the approach that this was an opportunity for the two entities to collaborate. The School District would be able to see that the City-School Committee was a body that had substantive discussions and that these were issues that would impact their future. Council Member Shepherd raised concern that the ABAG issues would take up a major part of the City-School Committee meeting. She said to have a School Board Member present was an initiation and was important for inclusivity and in trying to attract interested parties. Council Member Burt agreed with Council Member Shepherd’s comment. He said this was a depth the City-School Committee was not equipped to go through and would be consumed. It was his understanding that the school and parent communities and the Board had concerns regarding how critical it was to address the growth rate in the schools. The invitation would be a way to draw the City-School Committee in but not obligated to participate. Council Member Holman stated the Amendment suggested that the School Board Member position was an advisory role. The best representative may not be a School Board Member and could require getting them up to speed. There were Boards and Commission members that understood the impacts of land use on school impacts that could be a better fit for the position. She felt it would be beneficial to talk to the School Board first. Council Member Shepherd agreed with Council Member Holman’s comments and understood her intent. Mayor Espinosa wanted Staff’s feedback on the Amendment. He stated the Amendment included “at the beginning of the New Year, the Council will form a committee on housing allocation issues. The meetings will be noticed and the School Board Member would be invited to participate.” 09/19/2011 109-0021 Mr. Williams said that would be fine. Mayor Espinosa clarified that the official committee would be appointed by the Mayor. Council Member Schmid as a point of clarification stated that the topic of the committee was housing and the Council’s long-term view of housing. Mayor Espinosa stated the wording was “housing allocations issues” and asked if the Council wanted to clarify that further. Council Member Burt stated the intent was “regional housing allocation issues centered around SB375.” Mayor Espinosa stated the Council would now vote on the Amendment which stated “Beginning of the New Year, the Council will form an official committee, appointed by the Mayor, on regional housing allocation issues centered around SB375. Meetings will be publicly noticed and a School Board Member will be invited to participate.” AMENDMENT PASSED: 6-3, Holman, Yeh, Price no Mayor Espinosa said we will now vote on the original Motion which stated which was Staff’s recommendation with additional wording with a subregional approach to work with other jurisdiction on trading housing allocations and to frame mobile transportation Greenhouse Gases emissions. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Vice Mayor Yeh thanked Senator Simitian for the successful work on a bill regarding the enforcement oversight of the Renewable Portfolio Standard Legislation he introduced under the California Resources Board Council Member Klein spoke regarding the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) meeting. He stated the Water Supply Improvement Project was in the full construction phase and about half complete. The Calaveras Dam component of the project started recently. The cost of the project was currently running at about $20-25 million per week and remained under budget. The entire project was on schedule to be completed in-full in 2016. He reported that water usage in the region continued to decline. He stated that BAWSCA was operating at a profit with 09/19/2011 109-0022 a budget of $2.5 million and a surplus which exceeded guidelines. This would result in a refund to all of the member agencies. A refund check in the amount of $9,228 would be sent to Palo Alto by the end of the 2011. Council Member Shepherd reported she attended the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) Policy Advisory Commission as an Alternate. She reported that rail usage had increased by 1.6%. The Caltrain system usage had increased to over 40 thousand riders per day. The Caltrain bus system usage was up 2.5%. There was now wi-fi access on all light-rail trains. The VTA Board recommendation for the transportation improvement programs in Santa Clara County had been approved. She reported from the City School Liaison Committee meeting stating that seven points regarding Cubberley had been discussed: 1) the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and the City of Palo Alto should have an ability to work collaboratively, 2) PAUSD and the City Council would benefit from a better understanding of the history and context of the evolution of the current Cubberley conditions, 3) PAUSD needed a better understanding of applicable City policies particularly regarding zoning, 4) PAUSD needed to communicate facilities expansion policies, 5) any future discussions regarding Cubberley needed to be transparent and open to the public, 6) the Cubberley process needed to included community advisors, and 7) interest based negotiations should be used. She reported on a letter sent to the City by President of the County Board of Supervisors Dave Cortese outlining A-G Academic Standards. The letter caused concerns by City School Liaison Committee about maintaining local control of the PAUSD academic requirements. She reported that a Colleague’s Memo from Council Member Shepherd and Vice Mayor Yeh would be placed on the City School Liaison Committee Agenda for September 29, 2011. Council Member Price said the Silicon Valley Leadership Group has completed extensive surveys regarding the issues raised around Transportation Management Programs such as shuttles, telecommuting, and bicycling. She said she participated in the Quakeville event held in the City recently which was a great success. Mayor Espinosa reminded Council Members they had a Study Session with Supervisor Liz Kniss the following day. The Palo Alto Institute was launching the first Palo Alto International Film Festival on September 29 which would run through October 2, 2011. The second annual Bike Palo Alto event was scheduled for October 9, 2011. The event was expanding to include additional neighborhood associations. He encouraged Council Members and the public to attend. He stated that the annual Thanksgiving morning Turkey Trot was scheduled and that InnVision requested help in the days previous to Thanksgiving to prepare for the event. 09/19/2011 109-0023 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:23 P.M. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.