HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-29 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting June 29, 1998 1. Interviews for Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors.............................................86-403 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m.............86-403 1. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Christopher T. Durkin upon His Retirement86-404 2. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to James Steven McGee upon His Retirement86-405 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................86-405 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................86-406 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Bicycles, Incorporated for the University Train Depot Bicycle Parking Facility......................................86-406 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Thermal Mechanical
for the Municipal Service Center Buildings ΑA≅ and ΑC≅ Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning Installation Project.86-406 5. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Association of Bay Area Governments for Watershed Management.............86-407 6. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C8096901 with Underground Construction Company, Inc. For Electric Utility Trench Substructure Installation.............................86-407 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................86-407 7A. (Old Item No. 7) Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution Number 7748 Relating to the Temporary Suspension of the Collection of Certain Utility Charges as a Result of Flood-Related Damage and Losses and Approval of a Revision to Utilities Rule and Regulation Number 2 Pertaining to Policy Billing Adjustments............86-407
06/29/98 86-401
8. Request by Council Members Fazzino and Mossar to Approve a Resolution Supporting in Concept the Creation of a Multi-Service Day Facility for the Homeless and Those at Risk of Homelessness (continued from 6/8/98)..................86-408 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment, as recommended by the Architectural Review Board recommendation to approve an application for safety and operational improvements to the Palo Alto Airport located at 1925 Embarcadero Road (continued from 5/18/98)86-417 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the application of Classic Communities for a zone change from RM-15 and RM-30 to the Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the
demolition of an existing vacant former ΑCard Club≅ and accessory totaling 4,850 square feet and construction of new 26-unit residential townhouses and related site improvements located at 4100-4120 El Camino Real...................86-426 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........86-434 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m............86-434
06/29/98 86-402
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:35 p.m. PRESENT: Huber (arrived at 6:37 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Kniss SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m.
06/29/98 86-403
Special Meeting June 29, 1998 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Huber, Fazzino (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Kniss (arrived at 7:30 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Eakins SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Christopher T. Durkin upon His Retirement Mayor Rosenbaum presented the Resolution of Appreciation to Chris Durkin upon his retirement. City Manager June Fleming said Chris Durkin had stood before the Council on several occasions to honor men and women from the Police Department as they retired and moved on to new ventures. Because he could not nor would do so for himself, she wanted to publicly thank Chris on behalf of the entire City family for his many years of service. He had been extremely loyal, dedicated, and professional. When the time came to end his career, he graciously agreed to stay on until his successor was appointed. He continued to serve the City well, giving of himself and taking time away from his family to help the City during the time of transition. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Resolution.
Resolution 7774 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to
Christopher T. Durkin upon His Retirement≅ MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Eakins, Fazzino, Kniss absent. Former Police Chief Chris Durkin thanked the City Council for its support and trust, June Fleming for her leadership and wisdom, his many friends in the community for their support and friendship, and the Palo Alto Police Department employees for the privilege and honor to serve with the most dedicated professionals in law enforcement. He was leaving the department with many fond memories of wonderful people who really cared about making the world a better place. He was leaving with the personal satisfaction that the department had faced every challenge with a sense of pride, purpose, and team work. He was certain the new chief, Pat Dwyer, would continue the fine tradition. He thanked the Council for honoring him that evening.
06/29/98 86-404
2. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to James Steven McGee upon His Retirement
Fire Chief Ruben Grijalva said the Council=s recognition of Jim was well-earned and well-deserved; although after 32 years of service,
it would be difficult for Jim to stop answering the Αbell.≅ Even as his retirement date was closing in, Jim continued to spend many additional hours on projects. He demonstrated innovation and the
ability to Αthink outside the box≅ in the midst of an occupation that valued tradition. Jim learned to honor and respect tradition that warranted keeping, became an agent for change where change was needed, and added value to the organization. Over the years, Jim earned a reputation as a consummate professional and was highly respected by his peers on a regional basis. He had a significant influence beyond the boundaries of Palo Alto. Jim had been a model for other fire service professionals to emulate especially with regard to his work ethics and loyalty. On behalf of all the men and women of the Palo Alto Fire Department, he expressed appreciation to Jim for his service to the City of Palo Alto and its citizens. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Huber, to adopt the Resolution.
Resolution 7775 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to James
Steven McGee upon His Retirement≅ MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Eakins, Fazzino, Kniss absent Mayor Rosenbaum thanked Jim for all he had done for the City, working his way up through the ranks and providing wonderful service. James McGee said he had enjoyed his many years with the City of Palo Alto. He was not leaving the community and would perhaps speak to the Council under Oral Communications in the future. The time seemed to go quickly because of a supportive City staff, Council, and Fire Department in which to work and to make some changes. Change was not always easy; but with the ability to make changes, he believed the Fire Department had become the best in the county if not the state. He was proud of the talented group of men and women in the Fire Department and throughout the City. There was great leadership in the department and great plans for the future. When looking back over his career, the most pleasurable experiences he remembered were those interactions with the people in City Hall, in the Municipal Service Center, in the fire stations, and in the Police Department. He thanked his wife and daughter for their support throughout the years.
06/29/98 86-405
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 343 Byron Street, spoke regarding PAPD, the School of Chiefs. Jeff Shore, 1905 Edgewood Drive, spoke regarding the creek flooding and the Woodland Creek development. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding a voice for democracy. Stanley R. Smith, 610 Wildwood Lane, spoke regarding the proposed apartment development on the other side of San Francisquito Creek. Craig Woods, 1127 Webster Street, spoke regarding historic preservation. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding leaf blowers and the current noise ordinance. Mike Midolo, 362 Channing Avenue, spoke regarding police at Whole Foods Store. Irvin Dawid, 253 Alma Street #126, spoke regarding Spare the Air Days -- What the City of Palo Alto can do. A member of the public spoke regarding a newspaper article about a bed and breakfast contributing to drug usage. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the Minutes of March 23, 1998, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Eakins absent. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the Minutes of April 6, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Eakins absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 6, with Item No. 7 removed at the request of a member of the public. 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Bicycles, Incorporated for the University Train Depot Bicycle Parking Facility
06/29/98 86-406
4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Thermal Mechanical
for the Municipal Service Center Buildings ΑA≅ and ΑC≅ Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning Installation Project 5. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Association of Bay Area Governments for Watershed Management 6. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C8096901 with Underground Construction Company, Inc. For Electric Utility Trench Substructure Installation MOTION PASSED 8-0, Eakins absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 7 would become Item 7A. 7A. (Old Item No. 7) Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution Number 7748 Relating to the Temporary Suspension of the Collection of Certain Utility Charges as a Result of Flood-Related Damage and Losses and Approval of a Revision to Utilities Rule and Regulation Number 2 Pertaining to Policy Billing Adjustments City Manager June Fleming said she would not participate in the item because she had a conflict of interest because of the location of her residence. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said he would not participate in the item because she had a conflict of interest because of the location of his residence. Vice Mayor Schneider said she would not participate in the item because she had a conflict of interest because of the location of her residence. Raymond Aber, a member of the public, supported the proposal and encouraged the Council to approve the extension of the program. He asked the Council to be generous in giving the benefit of the doubt to those homeowners who were affected by the flood and to consider the same for future disaster situations. Recovery was one of the roles and responsibilities a city had in such situations, as well as preparation and prevention. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, that the City Council adopt the resolution to extend the period staff is authorized to issue Utility bill credits on an exception basis to qualifying residents and businesses who increased their water, gas, and/or electric consumption to mitigate property damage and losses caused by the winter floods.
06/29/98 86-407
Resolution 7776 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution Number 7748 Relating to the Temporary Suspension of the Collection of Certain Utility Charges as a Result of Flood-Related Damage and Losses and Approval of a Revision to Utilities Rule and Regulation Number 2 Pertaining to Policy Billing Adjustments MOTION PASSED: 7-0, Schneider Αnot participating,≅ Eakins absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. Request by Council Members Fazzino and Mossar to Approve a Resolution Supporting in Concept the Creation of a Multi-Service Day Facility for the Homeless and Those at Risk of Homelessness (continued from 6/8/98) Council Member Fazzino said the proposed resolution was in support of a concept for creation of a multi-service day facility for the homeless and those at risk of homelessness. He and Council Member Mossar met on several occasions with the Peninsula Interfaith Action (PIA) group who worked to put together the plan. He believed the creation of a regional multi-service day facility would be a constructive way to assist with homelessness within the region, emphasizing the importance that a number of jurisdictions needed to participate in the effort. Both he and Council Member Mossar were impressed with the amount of work and effort that had gone into the concept and were happy to support the proposal. An article which appeared in a local newspaper implied it was the
City=s responsibility or obligation to step forward and create the facility. He disagreed and viewed it as an effort that needed to be supported by a number of government and private jurisdictions in the mid-Peninsula, not as a Palo Alto only responsibility. Additionally, he believed if the facility became a reality, that it be focused on rehabilitation services, not simply another defacto meeting point for street people or others who did not have a legitimate need of assistance. A facility needed to be created that addressed real issues that impacted the homeless and assisted them in establishing productive lives and was the only way in which he would support the concept. There were several ways in which Palo Alto could be helpful such as working with PIA to identify a site, providing some financial resources, and playing a government jurisdictional lead role in working with other jurisdictions like Menlo Park to become involved in the effort. He asked the Council to support the effort.
Council Member Mossar said in addition to Council Member Fazzino=s comments, she was pleased that PIA took the initiative to begin the dialogue and was interested in forming a regional facility that involved many different entities and did not rely on any particular entity. She was pleased that PIA was also pursuing private
06/29/98 86-408
support. She asked the Council to support the resolution as a commitment to work with the PIA in making the center a reality. Council Member Kniss also met with the PIA and was troubled by some of the answers she received to her questions. She initially heard the facility would be located in the Downtown area of Palo Alto and asked whether that was correct. Council Member Mossar said the Downtown was one location being considered. Council Member Kniss said she would not support the creation of a facility in the Downtown area. As a member of the Council for nine years and having watched the trouble and angst regarding Downtown issues, placing the facility in the Downtown would be troubling to her. There were a number of other areas including a facility just one mile away that would be more suitable. She asked whether the concept was for a new multi-service facility other than one like Clara Mateo. Clara Mateo had the ability to expand, but the issue had been one of funding. Council Member Fazzino said there were many options available to the communities in the midpeninsula with respect to the concept. The Council was not tied to any specific proposal, geographic location, nor current or proposed facility. Others could address the issue of Clara Mateo and whether it was an appropriate place for that type of proposed facility. Council Member Kniss understood the proposal did not commit the City to funding dollars but could. Council Member Mossar said the City could decide to contribute funding, but the current memorandum did not commit such funds. Council Member Kniss asked the City Manager to address what funds the City already committed to the homeless in the area. She confirmed the proposal was for general support for the homeless in the midpeninsula. Council Member Fazzino viewed the proposal as support for the concept of a multi-service day facility only. He viewed the City of Palo Alto as being in a position to have a significant impact on identifying a location, possibly participating financially, and encouraging other jurisdictions to participate. The Council was not committing itself to any specific course of action by approving the resolution that evening; the Council and the City would not be obligated to a specific financial plan or location. Council Member Kniss asked whether the facility could be located anywhere between the cities San Jose and San Mateo.
06/29/98 86-409
Council Member Fazzino said the easy answer was yes; however, he believed the reality was that the facility would be located between the cities of Menlo Park and Mountain View. Council Member Kniss reiterated that she believed the Downtown area to be an incorrect location between the cities of Menlo Park and Mountain View. She suggested California Avenue or Rengstorff Avenue as possible locations and would not support the Downtown area as a location. Council Member Mossar believed support for the memorandum was the
City=s support for participating in a process to determine the location, the services to be provided, and the people who would be served. Those items had not yet been identified and were not identified by the memorandum. Litsie Indergand, 336 Ely Place, Human Relations Commission (HRC), thanked Council Members Fazzino and Mossar for preparing the memorandum before the Council. The HRC had long been concerned about the inadequacy of the current drop-in center for the homeless, a problem which was exacerbated by the February floods. The site was not the only problem, but the inability to really help people to get out of the homeless situation. The Council had received the minutes of the HRC meeting in which the HRC had unanimously indicated support for the concept of a multi-service facility for the homeless. She stressed the word concept because the HRC was not committed to a specific location nor a specific finished product. The HRC simply encouraged and supported the idea of a facility which would help people get out of the homeless situation, help themselves, find showers and laundry facilities, etc. Several people attended a meeting at All Saints Church and signed a commitment to action with regard to the proposal. She urged the Council to pass the resolution and pledged the support of the HRC, as well as her personal commitment to the implementation of the plan. Dick Raiter, 211 Seale Avenue, member of All Saints Church local organizing committee of PIA who, along with the local organizing committee of First Presbyterian Church, sponsored the community evening where over 250 people attended to discuss the creation of a multi-service day facility for the homeless and people at risk. The consensus of the attendees was that there was a need and there was support from the representatives of the City, county, and business community for a facility that was long overdue. He thanked Council Members Fazzino and Mossar for sponsoring the proposal. Vice Mayor Schneider asked what other communities had been contacted, what funding sources had been looked at, and what responses had been received.
06/29/98 86-410
Mr. Raiter said what was being asked that evening was support for a working group which was broad based and consisted of several members of the business community and the Chamber of Commerce. The final decisions regarding a location and the fundraising needed would be made by the working group. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether the proposal before the Council had been proposed to other communities that would be part of the group and whether resolutions of support had been received from other councils. Mr. Raiter said Menlo Park was a community the working group had worked with, but council support had not been received to date. Vice Mayor Schneider asked what other communities would be contacted. Mr. Raiter said besides Menlo Park and Palo Alto, the working group would be contacting Santa Clara County. His concept of a location was in Palo Alto. Criteria for the location was that it be close to public transportation, not close to a residential area, and not in the Downtown. A suggested location was adjacent to the current Red Cross building. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether the proposal included any staff support from the City. Mr. Raiter said at the current time, Human Services Administrator Kathy Espinosa-Howard and Litsie Indergand from the HRC attended the working group meetings. Council Member Kniss understood from a previous discussion that the working group was specifically looking at the Downtown as a location. Mr. Raiter asked whether Council Member Kniss considered the area adjacent to the Red Cross as in the Downtown. That was a location which was familiar to the homeless. Council Member Kniss said she would be hard pressed not to call that area part of the Downtown. Since the City did not own that particular site, she asked whether the owners had been approached. Mr. Raiter said the working group was in discussions with Stanford Land Management. Council Member Kniss asked whether there was any indication of support from any other group or was Palo Alto the first community being asked. Mr. Raiter said Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian indicated his support and volunteered some of his staff members.
06/29/98 86-411
Additionally, members of the Chamber of Commerce, Council Members, and Steve Schmidt from Menlo Park expressed their interest. Currently, support was needed to begin the research process. The creation of the working group was an opportunity for people to closely study the issue and come up with a plan within a year. Council Member Kniss asked whether there was support from Supervisor Simitian for a site on California Avenue. Mr. Raiter said there was a supposed vacant space in the Santa Clara County Court House; however, there was no space that was adequate for the proposed purpose. The California Avenue area had been considered, but the same type of resistance from some community groups existed there. An exact site had not been identified. Jeff Vamos said PIA was a network of 16 congregations throughout the Peninsula. As religious communities, they worked to find ways to improve the life of the whole community. Two of those congregations were seeking to do that through the current proposal. Hundreds of one-to-one interviews were held which surfaced a real concern for homelessness, a problem which had not been adequately addressed. Interviews were held with people from Clara Mateo, Invision in San Jose, and with many service providers in the mid-Peninsula. The plan called for on May 20, 1998, was not only a concept but a process. He emphasized the resolution before the Council did not commit to the details being discussed but to the process to get there and required the participation of everyone. At the May 20, 1998, public meeting, they sought to establish a mid-Peninsula working group on homeless issues that would bring together all the stakeholders in the community to find a location that made sense. The proposed plan to establish the center was not only to serve the needs of the homeless but to benefit everyone in the community. Mayor Rosenbaum said the Urban Ministry had been providing drop-in services for a number of years. There was a general recognition regarding the inadequacy of the services and more particularly the inadequacies of the facility. At one point, there was interest in providing a permanent facility for the drop-in services. The PIA had added to its mission by proposing rehabilitation services, and he asked whether any thought was given to the simpler, more immediate goal of building a suitable drop-in center. Mr. Vamos said the reason the working group originally came together was to help the Urban Ministry solve some of its short-term problems. The Urban Ministry was a member of the working group and was a stakeholder. Part of the plan to build the facility was to help the Urban Ministry stabilize its basic survival services and to add rehabilitative services. Whether rehabilitative services would be provided by the Urban Ministry had not yet been decided.
06/29/98 86-412
Human Relations Commission Vice Chairperson Wynn Hausser, 3705 Park Boulevard, understood the HRC was being asked to sit at the table in good faith to help identify stakeholders, identify obstacles, and be a part of the process. The HRC was excited to work on the project because the community was taking the lead. Seeing 250 people on a school night attend and commit to doing the work to make it happen gave the proposal a real chance to succeed. The HRC was particularly interested and excited at the possibility of working with the Council on the issue. The HRC was committed to working proactively and constructively with the Council to keep the lines of communication open and welcomed any guidance from the
Council regarding the HRC=s involvement. The HRC hoped for a meaningful role as the proposal moved forward. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Mossar, to adopt the Resolution and that the Mayor appoint two Council members as liaisons to work with Peninsula Interfaith Action (PIA) on the development of a multi-service day facility for the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless.
Resolution 7777 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Its Support in Concept for the Creation of a Multi-Service Day Facility for the
Homeless and Those at Risk of Homelessness≅ Council Member Kniss said substantial resources from the City continued to be committed to support the homeless, and she asked what the approximate dollar amount was. City Manager June Fleming said she looked at the budget in terms of dollars spent on services that could be considered assistance to the homeless or those at risk, which ranged from services such as contributions to Clara Mateo and the Emergency Housing Consortium in support of the Urban Ministry and the seasonal job program. The dollar impact on the budget was in excess of $250,000 a year. Council Member Kniss recalled the seasonal job program was ongoing. Ms. Fleming said yes, and each year ways were sought to improve the program. The Council asked for the program to be improved by helping those who had completed the program to be given assistance in securing a job. The City was working with OICW with that element. Council Member Kniss believed as a city in the region, Palo Alto had contributed more money and services than any of the surrounding cities. Ms. Fleming attempted to check with other cities; however, they did not track their funding in the same manner. The City was extremely
06/29/98 86-413
competitive in that area, and she guessed Palo Alto was doing as much or more. Council Member Ojakian was interested in seeing what other cities did financially. He believed the City of Berkeley spent approximately $900,000 on homeless services. Council Member Fazzino appreciated the spirit of Council Member
Kniss= comments. He believed Palo Alto did more than any other city in the midpeninsula to support homeless programs and he became irritated when the press said the City did not do as much as it should. However, he believed more could be done at the current time. Achieving a balance was difficult when dealing with the issue. On the one hand, there was a desire to do things which were truly constructive to assist homeless people in leading productive lives. He believed the concept could achieve that. At the same time, there were many in the community who were concerned about Palo Alto becoming a magnet for the homeless. As long as there were clear standards for behavior established and constructive rehabilitative services and innovative programs provided, then he believed the community would support the efforts with respect to the broad spectrum of homeless programs. Palo Alto should be one of a number of players in the effort to put together a facility which truly did assist the homeless without any commitment that evening with respect to site, funding, or degree of staff involvement.
Council Member Huber supported Αin concept≅ a regional facility, and emphasized regional, which included the Counties of Santa Clara and San Mateo and the Cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park as a minimum involving the cities of East Palo Alto and Mountain View as well. He did not want to be in a situation six months to a year down the road, after the City of Palo Alto had made its commitment and funding was needed, of having people look to the City because the commitment was made. He was prepared to commit in cooperation with the other governmental entities, private organizations, and individuals. He was not necessarily against a Downtown facility; however, any time the Downtown was used, more money was spent on the facility than the program. He suggested language be incorporated into the motion. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER an additional "WHEREAS" which reads as follows: "WHEREAS,
the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby resolve to support, in concept, and in cooperation with other governmental entities, private organizations, and individuals, the creation of a
regional multi-service day facility for those who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless."
Council Member Wheeler shared Council Member Huber=s concern. Most of the concerns that evening had been verbalized by people who had
06/29/98 86-414
been in the community a long time. It would be easy looking back from a distance of six months to a year and interpret language in the resolution as a promise to take specific actions. While she
wholeheartedly supported Council Member Huber=s amendment, she
still had concerns regarding the fourth ΑWhereas≅ paragraph which spelled out specifics that the Council could do. She felt in six months or a year, some people would say the Council promised to do some or all of those things. She did not object to Council Members or City staff being at the table with the working group to try to accomplish some of those tasks but suggested the following
amendment to delete the fourth ΑWhereas.≅ AMENDMENT: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to delete the fourth "WHEREAS" from the Resolution which reads as follows: "WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto can explore a variety of ways to support the creation of a multi-service day facility,
including: assisting in efforts to identify a site; providing financial support; identifying other possible sources of public and private funding; and enlisting the participation of other public jurisdictions to create a regional response to homelessness;" Council Member Fazzino suggested alternative language which listed the items as examples of ways in which to participate rather than
committing the City to one or more, e.g., ΑWhereas, the City of Palo Alto could explore a variety of ways to support the creation
of a multi-service day facility, which might include....≅ Council Member Wheeler said it was the specific items that bothered her. She did not think the coulds, shoulds, mights, and maybes were the operative words but the specific list. She preferred the specifics be taken out of the resolution. Council Member Kniss said there were a number of times in which the Council had endorsed something only to hear that only a piece of what had been endorsed was heard. She could support the concept, the regional piece, but not the specifics. To be so explicit when discussing a concept, sounded as though there was already a plan in mind. She asked Council Member Fazzino to compromise by agreeing to leave the specific language out until the working group came up with something more specific.
Council Member Mossar suggested alternative language to read, Αthe City of Palo Alto would work with the working group to address the
issues of...≅ Council Member Ojakian asked for clarification of the difference between a resolution and an ordinance. He understood an ordinance
to be a binding law and a resolution to be an Αin-spirit≅ suggestion of the Council.
06/29/98 86-415
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said a resolution had no legal significance but was a formal statement of Council policy. It would have no different impact than if the Council made the directions by motion. The value was that a resolution was a stand alone legal document that did not need to be authenticated with an additional statement from the City Clerk or reference to minutes.
Council Member Ojakian supported Council Member Huber=s incorporation and was comfortable supporting the resolution. He believed the resolution was a basic intent to support the concept. Council Member Huber said perception was reality. The Council had done enough resolutions to see someone bring a resolution before
the Finance Committee and say, Αyou promised.≅ The Council needed to be careful because the public treated an ordinance and resolution in the same manner. Council Member Fazzino proposed alternative language he believed depicted the issues he and Council Member Mossar viewed as
important but also acknowledged the others= issue of a perceived obligation on the part of the City. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Mossar, to amend the motion to revise the fourth "Whereas" as follows: "WHEREAS, in order for the multi-service day facility for the homeless or those at risk of homelessness to be successful or to become a reality, Peninsula Interfaith Action will need to
address the several issues including: identifying a site; providing financial support; identifying possible sources of public and private funding; and enlisting the participation of other public jurisdictions to create a regional response to homelessness;"
Vice Mayor Schneider said the proposed ΑWhereas≅ seemed to be one that the PIA would include as part of a resolution for the PIA board. She asked whether the City of Palo Alto was directing PIA
to do what was included in the ΑWhereas.≅ Council Member Fazzino said since it was a resolution and not an
ordinance, it gave no direction. The ΑWhereas≅ simply set forth what the major issues were that needed to be addressed before the center could become a reality; it was a statement of fact. Vice Mayor Schneider said every other paragraph dealt specifically
with the City of Palo Alto and the proposed ΑWhereas≅ did not. Council Member Kniss asked whether a resolution could direct another group to do something.
Mr. Calonne said the ΑWhereas≅ clauses were factual findings, and
the ΑNow therefore≅ clause at the end was the Council=s action.
06/29/98 86-416
The resolution was a generalized support in concept. The Council
should satisfy itself that the ΑWhereases≅ were factually accurate. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT FAILED 4-4, Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian,
Rosenbaum, Αyes,≅ Eakins absent. AMENDMENT FAILED 4-4, Huber, Kniss, Schneider, Wheeler "yes," Eakins absent. Council Member Fazzino was interested in passing a resolution that evening. The Council could engage in another vote which would likely be a 4-4 vote on the main motion, which he believed would send the wrong message. He moved to change his vote on the last
item to eliminate the fourth ΑWhereas.≅ AMENDMENT PASSED 5-3, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Αno,≅ Eakins absent. Council Member Kniss commended Council Member Fazzino for changing his vote. The Council supported the concept. The homeless segment of the population was a complicated and needy one with many different aspects. One particular area was being discussed that evening. She mentioned a program in Los Angeles which had exactly the type of facility being proposed. The program was complicated and required a lot of funding. She commended the PIA and noted that the City of Palo Alto was the first group to support the concept by the action taken that evening. Vice Mayor Schneider said the memorandum requested the Mayor to
appoint two Council Members as liaisons to the PIA=s working group. She wanted to ensure the Council was kept informed of where support was coming from in the next months. She asked the liaisons to report on a regular basis to the Council. Mr. Calonne said if the intent was to have the two-member liaison report back operating as a standing committee, it would be subject
to open and public meeting rules. If that was not the Council=s intent, the liaisons should be time limited and given a specific task. Mayor Rosenbaum commented that there was some virtue in thinking seriously about the more modest goal of simply replacing as a drop-in center what was already there and regarded as a physically inadequate structure. He was pessimistic about the likely success of rehabilitation efforts; however, he was convinced the drop-in center provided very real and badly needed services. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 8-0, Eakins absent. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Interim Director of Planning and
06/29/98 86-417
Community Environment, as recommended by the Architectural Review Board recommendation to approve an application for safety and operational improvements to the Palo Alto Airport located at 1925 Embarcadero Road (continued from 5/18/98) Architectural Review Board Member Francisco Alfonso said the Architectural Review Board (ARB) felt the primary concern was the water quality issue in terms of its runoff and how it came into the pump station that fed directly from the Embarcadero water runoff and into the bay. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing Open. Jerry Bennett, Airport Director, County of Santa Clara, 2500 Cunningham Avenue, San Jose, said the project was a federal grant project funded by federal money and by the Enterprise Fund of the airport. The project was to enhance airport safety and maintenance of the infrastructure. Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Associates, 707 Aviation Boulevard, Santa Rosa, said the project had been in the works for some time, a mitigated negative declaration had gone through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) processing and was approved by Santa Clara County (SCC). SCC was in the process of obtaining a Section 404 permit regarding the wetlands impact. The proposed improvements were maintenance and safety related and did not involve any change in the character of the volume of the use of the airport. Major efforts were made in the design to avoid environmental impacts to the adjacent wetlands. Referring to a drawing of the major facilities involved in the project, he indicated the components of the project included the runway and taxiway pavement improvement, storm drain replacement, safety areas modifications, aircraft parking pavement replacement, a perimeter chainlink fence installation, etc. Because the fence would be too high at one end of the runway, City staff had proposed using coyote brush, which was low profile and would serve as a barrier in that area. Council Member Ojakian recalled in an earlier application that more light poles and a shorter pole height had been proposed. He questioned how the current number of poles and 32-foot height were proposed. Mr. Brody said no one was familiar with the earlier statement and he was under the impression the current proposal was correct. Council Member Ojakian asked what the rationale was for selecting the number of poles and the pole height and whether there were any other options. Heidi Utterback, Shutt Moen Associates, 707 Aviation Boulevard, Santa Rosa, said the electrical subconsultant designed the project
06/29/98 86-418
to adequately light the apron area which included a light illumination plan and was the basis for determining the number of poles and pole height. John Hesler, David Powers & Associates, 1885 The Alameda, San Jose, said the project had gone through a number of redesigns primarily to reduce environmental impacts. The staff report (CMR:240:98) noted other options were available such as taller poles; however, the taller the pole, the more the side spillover of lighting would impact wildlife. As the project was being developed, the engineers were asked to design a concept that would minimize indirect impacts on the adjacent Baylands area. The tradeoff for the lower pole height was that more poles were required. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether all of the recommendations were Federal Aviation Association (FAA) safety and operational requirements. Mr. Bennett said the recommendations met the FAA standards. The most important ones were the overrun areas on each end of the runway, the security fencing, and the pavement improvements. The lighting was a strong recommendation but was more of a vandalism/security element versus an FAA standard. Vice Mayor Schneider confirmed that the Palo Alto Golf Course had the same type of fencing being proposed. Assistant Planning Official James Gilliland said the current proposal was for black vinyl and he recalled the fencing at the golf course to be a regular galvanized chain-link fence. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether any complaints had been received regarding small animals being trapped in the type of fencing. Mr. Gilliland said he did not recall any recent complaints. Council Member Wheeler asked whether lighting and its effectiveness had been examined at a lower level than what the current proposal recommended, e.g., ground lighting.
Mr. Hesler said no. The basis of the decision was the engineer=s judgement as to the minimum height necessary to provide a modest level of security. Mr. Brody said the issue of the height of the poles was a direct factor in terms of the circulation of aircraft on the ground. Ground lighting would not be practical because it interfered with the movement of aircraft. Council Member Mossar assumed since lower height poles were not evaluated, that other methods of security lighting at night had not been evaluated.
06/29/98 86-419
Mr. Brody said that Council Member Mossar was correct. Council Member Mossar said the staff report (CMR:240:98) indicated there would be no spillover and limited impacts from the lighting. She asked whether there were examples of the lighting in other locations. Mr. Brody said he could not give a location. The issue came up frequently in environmental documents. All the biologists they had worked with found the proposed lighting to have minimal spillover effects. Council Member Mossar said the staff report referenced an easement for the bicycle pathway and a future terminal building to be built. She asked what the new terminal building was and when it would be constructed. Mr. Bennett said the terminal building would not be built in the near future but was something the users and the airport would like to see developed. The question was what would be acceptable to be developed and how it would be funded. Council Member Mossar confirmed the project before the Council simply safety modifications for the airport at its existing capacity. Mr. Bennett said that was correct, safety and infrastructure maintenance. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, referred to a view graph and pointed out the perimeter fencing on the outer boundaries of the airport leasehold area. To minimize the impact of the fencing on the natural area, she suggested the fencing go around the area to be protected and perhaps 50 feet outward of the runway so the major open area remained connected to the Baylands open area. There was
no real reason to secure all the open space from the airport=s perspective as long as people could not get onto the runway itself. The principal concerns of the Baylands Conservation Committee and the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge were the fences fragmentation of the Baylands habitat by interfering with the free movement of wildlife and the urban intrusion that the security lights would introduce directly adjacent to the wildlife preserve. The nature of the problem to be solved had only been expressed in generalities, but the solution appeared rather extreme. The fencing would have much less impact on wildlife and be just as effective if it were moved closer to the areas to be protected. It could be run closer to the runway and be screened from the nature preserve by appropriate planting. In 1978, the Council adopted a Baylands Master Plan, and those policies were still in effect that
say, ΑIn general, make no changes in the airport activities that will increase the intensity of airport use or will significantly
intrude into open space.≅ The plan also said, ΑDo not construct a
06/29/98 86-420
second runway, plant indigenous grasses on the existing pad, and
leave as open space.≅ The concept of open space did not include fences. None of the businesses operating in the Baylands that were subject to site and design review had security fencing visible from the nature preserve or the scenic corridor leading to the Baylands. Some had interior fenced areas, and the airport could do the same without impacting wildlife. Security lighting would be less intrusive if the light poles were lower, preferably ground lighting. Lighting could also be a movement activating lighting such as was available for home use. The major urban intrusion into the Baylands should be designed to minimize its impact and to address only the problem to be solved. There were no statistics to indicate how many thefts or incidences of vandalism had occurred at the airport or whether the presence of a night watchman had impact in reducing the same. There was no data to indicate whether people or animals had been a safety hazard by intruding onto the runway. The problem should be well defined before such major intrusions into a sensitive, natural area were approved. She asked that the issue be referred to the Planning Commission for site and design review and conformance with the Baylands Master Plan. She asked that SCC design a more sensitive project. There was perimeter fencing on the golf course, but the fencing was adjacent to a levee that was part of San Francisquito Creek. There was no vast marsh area immediately adjacent where one would expect wildlife to be moving back and forth. With the current project, there was an area that had wildlife values that would be separated by the fencing. Efforts along the Embarcadero Road corridor over the past 25 years focused on making the entrance to the Baylands scenic to enhance
the public=s experience as they entered the Baylands. Fencing at the perimeter without proper landscaping and amenities was a big mistake. Some erosion for the desire to maintain that corridor as a transition to the natural area had occurred. She urged the Council to insist on better transitions. Council Member Mossar understood the concept of allowing movement for wildlife in the Baylands area. She asked what animals might be impeded. Ms. Renzel had provided documentation in the original appeal. Birds used the airport area for low nesting, feeding, and foraging. At high tide, the next level of elevation was where all forms of wildlife that needed to escape the tide would move. Until the airport had some plan for using that area in some other way, there was no real need to fence it and create a barrier.
Council Member Mossar asked what Ms. Renzel=s thought about small holes or passages at the base of the fence. Ms. Renzel understood the whole fence was elevated a few inches to allow the smallest animals to pass under. Some birds would be unable to fly through the fence, and the balance of nature would be changed.
06/29/98 86-421
Florence LaRiviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, represented the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Wetlands Preservation Group. Some of the specifics that wetlands activists were concerned about had already been mentioned by staff, i.e., storm water runoff. Burrowing owls would become the next regional, state, and federal endangered species. She referred to a map prepared by the bird observers from the San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory which showed several areas where the burrowing owls nested. Degradation had already occurred in areas where the Airport Master Plan had been implemented such as where burrowing owls were along the levees, beside the new restoration of marsh. There were many community assets and many wildlife experts from groups who would be glad to sit down with the Planning Commission or with the applicants of the project to discuss both sides of the issue. Peter Carpenter, 1 Larch, Atherton, was a city-appointed member of the Palo Alto Airport Joint Community Relations Committee (PAAJCRC). The project had been under discussion and review for almost four years and tremendous effort had gone into securing the federal funding. The project had been on the PAAJCRC agenda at least 25 times. He complimented City staff on its review of the SCC proposal for its sensitivity to many of the issues such as trying to strike an appropriate balance between what was essential to meet the FAA standards, what was required for security, and what was necessary to be environmentally sensitive. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of theft and vandalism had occurred, and continued damage occurred daily to airplane operations due to the poor surface conditions of the airport. The costs were borne by people who paid fees to the City and SCC for the use of the airport and who saw a continual deterioration. He urged the Council to accept the Planning Department recommendations and to move forward with the project. Herb Borock, P. O. Box 632, said when the item was before the Council six weeks prior, a letter received from the Sierra Club suggested the various parties get together to agree on a compromise that would meet both the safety needs and the environmental concerns. The project file indicated that Jim Gilliland contacted the involved parties, but SCC had not made an effort to meet with the appellant or other interested parties. The area was an environmentally sensitive one, and including members of the environmental community who were concerned about the Baylands was
important. SCC=s process was different from the City=s with the type of application, and the Roads and Airports Department conducted its own environmental review and brought the project
forward to the Board of Supervisors. SCC=s Planning Department knew nothing about the project because there was no project file kept there. Staff-to-staff communication to induce communications among the environmentalist and the users of the airport had not worked. He suggested that the Council continue the item to give the SCC Supervisors an opportunity to bring the parties together.
06/29/98 86-422
He was confident a solution would result that met the needs of both the airport users and the environmental community. He believed the
airport users= concerns also involved the question of funding. Their concerns could be met by adequate funding for more security guards. The Roads and Airport Department had rejected that proposal and brought forward the solution of the fencing and lighting as a substitute for spending money on adequate security. The elected officials in SCC could help resolve these issues and were in a place to bring the parties together. Robert Lenox, 1745 Webster Street, was the president of the Airport Association and had an aircraft at the airport. He said the physical condition of the airport was poor, and aircraft were being damaged on a daily basis because the asphalt was coming apart. A full-time security guard was present for 7 hours after SCC personnel went home, providing almost 24-hour coverage. The lighting and fencing were for personal safety and security because the area was very dark. He did a great deal of flying at night and inspected his aircraft before each flight. Using a flashlight was difficult. A compromise had been made in terms of the light pole height as they were normally higher. A great deal of work had been done in terms of mitigation. He urged the Council to take action on the item that evening. Council Member Mossar clarified the airport had hours of operation and asked whether lighting would only be needed to check over the aircraft during hours of operation. Mr. Lenox said the airport control tower was in operation during the busiest hours,7 a.m. to 9 p.m. The airport was, however, a 24-hour facility, and the runway lights were on and the airport was open for business. He occasionally left at 3 a.m. or returned home after midnight. Mr. Bennett said the lighting and fencing had a multipurpose objective: 1) to keep the honest people out, and 2) to keep large animals out. People and animals presented a safety hazard to aircraft. The airport had a high rate of runway incursion by FAA standards. A security guard had been employed 7 days a week, 7
hours a night. Without adequate lighting, the security guard=s job was more difficult. Lighting and fencing went together with security and the operation of the airport. Mr. Brody referred to the overhead and said the alternative fencing suggestion was not a viable option because it was closer to the runway than was permitted by FAA standards. To move the fence between there and its proposed location would run it through the middle of the wetlands. He also noted the area to be covered by lighting was too large to use motion detection lighting. Mr. Hesler said many alternatives were considered for the location of the fencing. The area contained salt marsh and wetlands, and
06/29/98 86-423
the area was redesigned to avoid those impacts. Almost any location was a critical habitat.
Ms. Renzel said she did not know the FAA=s exact regulation, but she had tried to duplicate the width of the runway to give a margin of error. Since the original proposal suggested elevating the fence, she thought her suggested location would not be any more harmful than putting it in the wetland area at the base of the slope. She did not know how the Army Corp of Engineers would view a fence going through the wetlands, but there would be a minor amount of fill which would allow movement underneath for the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing Closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the staff recommendation to uphold the decision of the Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment for approval of the Palo Alto Airport application (98-ARB-16, 98-EIA-3), as approved by the Architectural Review Board at its April 2, 1998, meeting. Vice Mayor Schneider understood what the environmental community was attempting to do and supported those efforts. However, having previously flown out of Palo Alto Airport for a number of years and knowing that no improvements had been made to the airport in the last ten years, she could only well imagine how the airport had deteriorated further. The airport was dangerous, many near misses occurred, security was an issue, and the safety regulations were required by the FAA. Council Member Mossar would not support the motion. There were some environmental considerations she did not believe had been fully worked out. The third finding of the ARB said there was no sensitive uses in the immediate or surrounding vicinity. She did not know of a more sensitive use than the wetlands that surrounded the airport. In general, her suspicions were confirmed that more care needed to be taken. She wanted the project to receive more environmental scrutiny. Some members of the public had suggested referring the project to the Planning Commission for site and design review or getting the parties together to arrive at a cooperative solution that worked for all parties. Council Member Kniss said she had walked or ran in that area for a long time and believed the area would be impacted. She simply did not have enough information at the current time to support the motion. Fences seemed the antithesis of what went into a baylands or supported animal life. The one area that really disturbed her was the lighting. The thought of the area looking like the ball park was troubling. Council Member Ojakian was unclear about the type of lighting that was required because he did not believe the FAA necessarily dictated the exact type of device being used. He was not
06/29/98 86-424
comfortable making a decision in that area with the current amount of information. He asked what the next step in the process would be if the Council opposed the project that evening. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council would have an opportunity to move and vote to sustain the appeal, at which point the Council would need to give staff information to make findings to support that decision. Alternatively, the Council could refer the project back to the parties for some additional meetings or referral to the Planning Commission. Mr. Gilliland said if the Council chose the second alternative, the project could either be referred back to the ARB for review or for continuance to return it to the Council to allow time for the applicants/appellants to meet. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the process could include additional public meetings and be limited to a specific time frame. Mr. Gilliland said yes. If a decision could not be reached easily between the parties, the project could be returned to the Council indicating progress had not been made. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Kniss, to refer the appeal back to staff for a period not to exceed six months during which time there will be public meetings between the applicants and other interested parties to resolve some of the issues that were raised. Council Member Wheeler supported the substitute motion. She confirmed that the funding for the project was in part federal funding. She asked whether there was a time frame in which the funds needed to be expended. Mr. Gilliland said the project was primarily federally funded. The City was not funding the project. Mr. Bennett said the funding was not at risk. Mr. Gilliland said the construction schedule was a time factor. If the schedule were delayed, another year would be added for construction. Council Member Wheeler thought Council Member Ojakian was going to suggest a bifurcated project to permit the resurfacing and upgrading of the tarmac. She was unsure whether SCC would consider that option because of other infrastructure work that might need to take place to do the lighting. However, if the resurfacing could be done independently, she asked whether that would help the applicants.
06/29/98 86-425
Mr. Bennett said the plans for the project were 95 percent completed and included the whole package. The lighting would have to be installed before the resurfacing and was tied together from a scheduling and construction phasing. There were 250 airplanes that needed to be moved in four phases; the project was complex. Council Member Wheeler confirmed that a bifurcated project was not possible. She would support the motion. Council Member Kniss reiterated her concerns regarding the lighting. Mayor Rosenbaum opposed the substitute motion. He did not believe a better location could be found for the fence and believed the lighting was a long delayed necessity for the airport. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO REFER PASSED 4-3, Huber, Schneider, Rosenbaum "no," Eakins, Fazzino absent. RECESS: 10:10 P.M. - 10:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the application of Classic Communities for a zone change from RM-15 and RM-30 to the Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the
demolition of an existing vacant former ΑCard Club≅ and accessory totaling 4,850 square feet and construction of new 26-unit residential townhouses and related site improvements located at 4100-4120 El Camino Real. Senior Planner Brian Dolan said the applicants program development
statement was inadvertently left out of the Council=s packet and was provided at places. The statement included the proposed pubic benefit in the words of the applicant as opposed to the summary provided by staff in the Planning Commission staff report and other
documentation. A second item came to staff=s attention after distribution of the staff report (CMR:289:98) regarding one of the trees that was recommended to be maintained on the site. The tree was in the vicinity of proposed Lot 14. Staff had determined through discussions with the applicant that in fact the tree was mislocated on the plans and was located in what would be the proposed building envelope of Unit 14. Staff had worked that day in an attempt to find a solution to the situation and proposed two options: 1) send the project back through the process to ARB and the Planning Commission to resolve the issue, or 2) staff was willing to accept a mitigation for the lost tree with a specific Condition of Approval which suggested a replacement of the lost tree, a 40-foot crown, mature, healthy Black Walnut, with new trees planted on the site at locations to be approved by staff. At least one tree should be placed in the vicinity of the lost tree and a
06/29/98 86-426
combined replacement of the 40-foot crown. Additionally, the trees needed to be a minimum size of an 84-inch box. Planning Commissioner Patrick Burt said the Planning Commissioners were in general agreement on support for the dedicated park space and the relocation of it. The additional landscaping along the El Camino corridor, the additional Below Market Rate (BMR) units, and the general concept of some type of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program was well received. The additional change on the removal of the large walnut tree was not discussed before the Planning Commission. A 40-foot diameter canopy might need 4 20-foot diameter canopies to replace that canopy. Council Member Wheeler recalled in some prior applications, discussion took place regarding the applicant doing some significant landscape work in the median along El Camino Real. She did not see any mention of that in the application and asked whether staff or the Planning Commission had discussed the issue with the applicant as a potential public benefit. Mr. Dolan said staff had not specifically discussed the issue with the applicant. Mr. Burt said he did not attend the preliminary hearing of the Planning Commission. No discussion took place at the final hearing. Mr. Dolan said an example of where that had been more of an issue
was at a Αgateway≅ location to the City. With the proposed project, the median was quite narrow on the portion of El Camino Real, some trees did exist, and staff did not identify it as a real opportunity in that specific location. City Manager June Fleming said there had been a recent project
located near a Αgateway≅ where that discussion had taken place. The Council and the Comprehensive Plan spoke to improving the entrances to the City. The project did not materialize. Council Member Wheeler said during the budget hearings, discussion took place to improve the appearance of medians along the South El Camino Real, particularly where the housing developments were located. Ms. Fleming said Council Member Wheeler was correct. The reasons the figure was so modest was because the width and ability to landscape varied greatly along many of the segments. In concept, discussion included improving the median strips between Page Mill Road and Arastradero Road. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the project was one in which work would be done.
06/29/98 86-427
Ms. Fleming said the project fell into the second phase and was not
part of the current year=s funding. Council Member Mossar commented that if a component of the discussions had to do with encouraging people to use alternative transportation, looking beyond the exact project site in terms of necessary landscaping might be another hook to discuss the median strip on El Camino Real. She asked how the maintenance of the various landscaping requirements set forth in the staff report (CMR:289:98) was handled. Mr. Dolan said most of the landscaping appeared either on individual, private lots or on a parcel owned by a group of property owners for the project. City Arborist David Doctor said the trees planted in the public right-of-way would be maintained by the Public Works Department.
However, if the project were conditioned on planting Αx≅ amount of trees and in future years trees failed and not many trees were existing, a code enforcement issue would require the project to be brought back to the required amount of trees. Council Member Mossar said requirements for landscaping and project approvals were being made at the same time requirements for certain utility boxes were made; yet, coordination did not seem to exist for the placement of utility boxes and promised landscaping. She asked whether there was a process to work out the details. Mr. Dolan said the coordination between the Utilities Department and Planning Division for the location of the utility boxes was a condition of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing Open. Scott Ward, representing Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle, asked the Council to approve the Planned Community (PC) designation for the development. Work on the PC had begun in February 1997, and he was confident the proposed plan represented a balanced, reasonable approach to development of the property. The project was responsive to the immediate neighbors of the site, the
desires of the larger Barron Park neighborhood, the City=s stated goals and objectives for the El Camino Real Corridor, the urban village concepts that emerged from the Comprehensive Plan process,
the housing goals stated in the City=s General Plan, the new home market place, and the directives of the Planning Commission and ARB. The challenge of balancing the respective objectives of each of the stakeholders and reckoning appropriate tradeoffs had been met. The site featured an abandoned, dilapidated building in an obsolete use. The property had been unoccupied for over four years during which housing values had escalated significantly, new home production continued to be limited, and the shortage of reasonably
06/29/98 86-428
priced housing in Palo Alto had intensified. The project consisted of 26 single-family row homes that were sited to front on either El Camino Real or a common, central drive, were designed to ensure privacy with respect to the neighboring properties, and were expected to meet a need in the market place for moderately priced housing of sufficient size to accommodate families. At approximately 17 units per acre, the development had a higher density than most other residential developments on the El Camino Real corridor. The density was less than what was allowed under the existing zoning. The project was the first residential development on the corridor to have homes fronting on El Camino Real and to make a significant improvement to the pedestrian environment. A number of features and changes that had taken place over the last 16 months were incorporated pursuant to a series of meetings held with the neighbors and the leadership of both the Barron Square Homeowners Association and the Interdale Homeowners Association. Presentations were made to the full membership of the Barron Park Neighborhood Association and were met with a favorable reception. He believed the public benefit should be commensurate with the public burden and it was unclear how the development posed a public burden. The project was no more dense than what was allowed under current zoning, the floor area was no larger, building coverage was no greater, and perimeter setbacks were no less. Nonetheless, the public benefit program was one of the most generous provided for a residential project. The below market rate (BMR) element was extraordinary. The other elements were meaningful and creative. Unfortunately, as the Conditions of Approval were reviewed, it was discovered that the black walnut tree No. 9, designated to be preserved, was mislabeled on the survey as an agacanthus, designated to be removed. The tree was situated in the powder room for Plan 3 on Lot 14. The feasibility for transplanting the tree was not encouraging. The arborist, a highly respected tree expert in the area, did not have a high regard for black walnut trees because heavy infestation of walnut aphid resulted in heavy dripping which created a permanent, destructive stain to painted surfaces. Designing around the tree might be possible; however, the drippings would be a problem for several homeowners. The proposal included planting 121 new trees on the property and was, therefore, responsive to the tree agenda. An unfortunate mistake was made. The alternative presented by staff, the preservation of the 40-foot canopy, would be extremely expensive but reasonable. Moving forward with the development was essential due to financing obligations, and he urged the Council to support the staff recommendation for the trees. He asked the Council to consider a slight modification to the BMR element, a substitution of Plan 3, Lot 1, for Plan 1, Lot 4. When the project went from 27 to 26 units, reducing the BMR program was not sought. When the smaller plan was introduced in order to meet daylight plane requirements, the BMR unit designations were not adjusted to reflect the change in unit mix. There was no difference in the number of bedrooms or the number of garages between the units. Unit 1, however, was located on El Camino Real, and Unit 4 was not.
06/29/98 86-429
On the other hand, Unit 1 was an end unit with windows on three sides, generally preferred. The BMR units should share their fair burden of the smaller units. The current draft of the ordinance read that construction must start by July 1, 1998, and seemed highly unlikely. He asked for a modification for the starting date. He asked the Council to support the rezoning of the property that evening. Council Member Wheeler said the BMR agreement letter stated the mix of BMR units would be generally reflective within the project itself. She asked whether the substitution was or was not in conformance with that. Mr. Ward said it was a judgement call and could be argued either way. He believed the substitution brought the project more into conformance. When the letter was executed there were 27 units and only 2 plan types. Currently, there were 26 units and 3 plan types. The third plan type was approximately 1350 square feet, as opposed to 1570 square feet for the original 2 plan types. The cost of the BMR program increased for the applicant, so the substitution provided a better distribution of the units. If the change were to signify to the Council any compromise in the commitment to provide high quality BMR units, the applicant would not ask for the change. Council Member Wheeler asked what the plan types were for the other three BMR units. Mr. Ward said the other BMR units were all Plan 1 units, which was the largest of the unit types. Council Member Wheeler asked what the general plan mix was in the overall development. Mr. Ward said there were 16 Plan 1, 7 Plan 2, and 3 Plan 3 units. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, expressed concern for the basic concept of housing as a PC and deliberating what the public benefits were and how they would be enforced over the long term. For example, if the landscaping died, the people who had to replant it would not be the developer but the residents at the time the landscaping died. Parking had also been a concern from the beginning; therefore, a traffic mitigation was needed because parking on the site was extremely tight. The mitigation that was chosen was to give everyone bikes and transit passes for a limited amount of time. If people did not use the transit passes or the passes were no longer available, he asked what would happen to the mitigation and how it would be enforced long term, or prevent people from parking on side streets. He had concerns with how the PC zones public benefits were structured. Reports had been done by consultants who said there was no correlation between what public benefits were granted and what relaxation of zoning was made to approve a PC. He believed the entire PC process needed to be reviewed, especially
06/29/98 86-430
for residential projects. Putting a PC on a commercial project where presumably money would be available for redressing a problem was one thing, but informing a homeowners association or individual property owner that the developer was reneging on a promise and the money would need to be paid another. In the next month when the Comprehensive Plan came before the Council for adoption, the Council needed to take a serious look at the PCS and how public benefits were assessed and enforced over the long term. Mr. Ward clarified that the homeowners association would be responsible for the landscape maintenance and would be well funded with managerial capacity to manage the plantings on a long-term basis. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing Closed. Mayor Rosenbaum was concerned for the lateness of the meeting and the fact that a change in the BMR had been presented with no written information. He was not comfortable going forward that evening to make a decision. The project had been around for a long time, and he believed something could have been submitted in the packet which would have enabled the Council to more properly evaluate the situation. Council Member Mossar concurred with Mayor Rosenbaum and also noted that the absence of the program development statement put the Council and members of the public at a disadvantage in understanding the proposal. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue the item to provide an opportunity for written materials regarding the Below-Market-Rate units to be provided. Mr. Ward said moving forward with the development was essential. If the proposal to change Unit 4 to Unit 1 was not workable, the applicant would withdraw the proposal in order to go forward that evening. Mayor Rosenbaum clarified what was before the Council was the original proposal and not the proposed modification. SECOND TO THE MOTION WITHDRAWN MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Ojakian agreed with the original proposal. Having row houses, which was unique to Palo Alto, and the fact that the BMR units were available enabled him to support the staff recommendation and vote in favor of the project.
Council Member Mossar agreed with Council Member Ojakian=s comments. However, she believed Mr. Moss made a reasonable
06/29/98 86-431
observation regarding the public benefits, the innovative traffic
mitigation in particular, and thought it was Αglibly≅ put together at best. The program as scoped out was not one which would result in anything that could be construed as providing benefit to the public. The program relied heavily on bicycles in a location that had no bicycle access except for El Camino Real. El Camino Real was rated as an advanced bike route by the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC). PABAC did not review the program to give staff or the developer any feedback on whether there were ways to improve it. The site, although along a transit corridor and good bus service availability, only accessed southbound buses and did not address northbound buses. She did not believe there was a bus stop across the street nor a way to cross the street safely. The concept was worth pursuing. She questioned why the project was a PC when it seemed to her to simply be a housing project with density, BMRs, and the right number of units for the existing zoning. Anne Cronin Moore referred to the January 28, 1998, Planning Commission report, page 8 and 9, which had a table showing the requirements of the existing RM 15-30 zone to the proposed PC project. Mr. Ward was correct when he indicated that most areas of the project were within those requirements. However, the common open space requirement under the existing zoning would require that 35 to 30 percent of the existing site be common open space. The project, as proposed, had less than 5 percent. Additionally, there would be a requirement for recycling/storage. The applicant would not have come forward with a PC proposal if all the requirements of the existing zoning were met. The staff analysis of the three
main components of the applicant=s public benefit package was on page 11. Staff indicated that the landscaping benefit was not significantly different from what would have been approved for a residential project in any event. Staff clearly stated that the specifics of the transportation mitigation program had little or no record of success and might or might not result in the intended benefit. She emphasized the project had a significant BMR ratio over and above the requirement for the project and was the basis for the strong staff endorsement of the public benefit package. The project had 1.4 BMR units more than was required and was a significant monetary value. Staff never believed the landscaping nor transportation portion of the package were particularly important. Council Member Mossar acknowledged the staff report (CMR:289:98) was very clear in that staff determined the transportation portion had no track record and was not important. In order to call out such a program, there needed to be reasonable certainty that there was even a hope of success. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation as amended as follows:
06/29/98 86-432
1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts if certain mitigation measures and conditions of approval are imposed; and 2. Approve the proposed project for construction of the 26-unit townhouse development and related site improvements, consisting of a Planned Community rezoning and subject to conditions CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL 4100-4120 EL CAMINO REAL 1. The project Grading and Drainage Plan shall be revised to reflect the following changes to the satisfaction of the Public Works-Engineering Division, prior to scheduling the application for hearing with the City Council. a. Fossil filters shall be installed in catch basins located in paved areas. b. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall show spot elevations of existing grades on adjacent properties to show how drainage patterns work in the neighborhood. Design of the grading and drainage shall not interfere with the existing drainage patterns on adjacent properties. c. Drain inlets must be placed in each lot. A private drainage easement will be required to maintain the existence of these facilities. 2. The Conceptual Site Plan shall be revised subject to the approval of the Planning Division to eliminate the raised curb between the parking space and the El Camino Real property line to provide more back-up space and easier access to and from the parking space. Further, staff recommends the additional Conditions of Approval as follows: A. That the construction date be changed from July 1, 1998, to
January 1, 1999. B. Tree Replacement. The existing mature healthy California Black Walnut #9 previously designated to be retained in the vicinity of proposed Lot #14 may be removed, provided that its 40 foot
canopy be replaced with trees equal to the canopy removed on site. This replacement canopy shall consist of trees no less than 84" box size, of a species approved by the Planning Division staff, including the Planning Arborist.
06/29/98 86-433
C. Tree Location. One tree shall be located between Lot #14 and the side property line in the vicinity of the removed Walnut tree. The location of the remaining replacement trees shall be planted in the areas of the property that will enable sufficient area for their survival, and approved by the
Planning Division staff, including the Planning Arborist. Council Member Ojakian said the project was a good one. As a Planning Commissioner, discussions took place regarding PD zones, and he believed the project could have fallen under that type of zoning. It was something to think about in the future. However, he was pleased with the resultant four BMR units. Council Member Kniss supported the motion. Since her tenure on the Council, the Council had been attempting to put housing projects on El Camino Real, and the current project was the first. She
understood the PC challenge and appreciated Council Member Mossar=s comments. The Council should look at how to address PCS in the future. Council Member Mossar wanted to either strike the public benefit of the innovative traffic mitigation program from the proposal or require as a condition that the applicant work with PABAC to refine the program to be more serviceable. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Eakins, Fazzino absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Vice Mayor Schneider noted that post cards were received by residents from the Palo Alto Homeowners Association regarding the Monday, July 6, 1998, Council Meeting on the historic ordinance. Mayor Rosenbaum encouraged members of the public to attend the laser blast
ΑLight the
Night≅ show at the Palo Alto City Hall Plaza on Saturday evening, July 4, 1998, at 9:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
06/29/98 86-434
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
06/29/98 86-435