Passarelle Investments -- Taylor Robinson, left, Amanda Tevis right. Robinson will joint the Downtown Committee IVLos Altos City Council Minutes July 24:
Los Altos City Council Minutes July 24
6: 30 Study Session – Plazas 6 & 9:
The result of the special study session with Passerelle was direction to staff to continue to work with Passerelle on conceptual parklette plans for Parking Plazas 6 and 9. Council member Jarrett Fishpaw was concerned that the parking plazas are now often used as vehicle thoroughfares — alternatives to crowded Main and State Streets. If Plaza 9 had a parklette, the loss of circulation might shift more vehicular traffic onto Main and State. Megan Satterlee made it clear that the city’s upcoming Parking Management Study might take a year and would mean the City could not come to any understanding about the Plaza parklettes till after the Parking Study results were considered. Passarelle’s Amanda Tevis said she understood that and that the risk of having to rework conceptual plans was hers alone to bear. The Parking Consultant will be given Pasarelle’s conceptual plans to include in their parking analysis. Here’s a full story.
Council members were not warm to the idea of outright sale of city-owned plaza 9 land. They would prefer a land swap, or possibly a very long-term lease. Because the public has used the Passarelle-owned parking for all these years, the City Attorney will look into the City’s rights over those plots.
Later in the meeting, David Smith, a public speaker on Agenda Item 12, suggested that the a new 3-story library like the one in Princeton, NJ could be built on Plaza 6 (across from the Pasarelle property on State Street which is in front of Plaza 9.) He urged the city never to sell off any of its land. He also suggested that the city move ahead with building a parking structure sooner than later, using bond financing. It would be gradually paid off as developers paid parking in-lieu fees for their new buildings.
7: 30 Regular Meeting
Consent Items: 3rd Terms for Council Members, Brown Act, Streetscape $600K Cost over run
Money from various funds was allocated to cover a $600,000 cost overrun for the First Street Streetscape project.
The consent items all passed. Notable was that the the City Attorney was directed to issue a formal opinion on the eligibility of Council members who have served two consecutive terms to return after an absence. Ron Packard has publicly stated on numerous occasions he wishes to return to Council after perhaps a stint on the Planning & Traffic Commission. Also the City affirms it will continue to comply with all aspects of the Brown Act, in particular the advance noticing requirements — sending out the agenda 4 days before. Money from various funds was allocated to cover a $600,000 cost overrun for the First Street Streetscape project. It was supposed to take about 6 months but it took almost a year. LALAHPOLITICO: A little birdie said general construction management was lacking. For example, each subcontractor trenched the road for their particular kind of conduit. The real professionals trench once, and have each sub come and lay down their pipe, wire, etc. Then the subs come back later, one by one, to complete their specialty.
City Attorney was directed to issue a formal opinion on the eligibility of Council members who have served two consecutive terms to return after an absence
Discussion Items:
Sewer Rate Report: The City is raising the sewer rates a bit. Apparently a report required by health and safety code was advertised as available on July 11, but was not available till the 13th or later. Los Altos resident Gerry Madea was very frustrated with this lapse, this lateness. He said the City Attorney was talking “verbal salad” when she explained how the city was substantially compliant. Packard explained to Mr. Madea, an engineer, how “substantially” complying is the judicial standard, rather than doing things exactly as in engineering. Packard said that if there was no harm done, no “prejudice,” judges find that acceptable. Satterlee asked how this lateness could be avoided in the future, so as not to undermine public trust. She said, if the city says it is going to do something, it should. Staff was directed to figure out how to enhance its process.
Packard said that if there was no harm done, no “prejudice,” judges find that acceptable
San Antonio Streetscape:
The contract with Pavex/Granite Rock was awarded with a couple of changes. Megan Satterlee felt it was still too expensive, even after two rebids. She questioned the plan to build 4 elaborate bus stops which would match the deluxe bus stop at the new Packard Foundation Building. Bus stops like that one cost $55,000 each. She suggested they build only one stop now … and for just $20,000 each. The price tag for removal of a left turn pocket was also deemed too expensive, but needs to be done. She asked that those two items — the bus stop and the left turn pocket — be renegotiated. But otherwise she could accept the contract, given that there was no funding available for another round of redesign. Thus, the the contract was awarded subject to those changes. The project is expected to take 3 or 4 months. Businesses will be notified of impacts — what to expect when.
Satterlee questioned the plan to build 4 elaborate bus stops which would match the deluxe bus stop at the new Packard Foundation Building. Bus stops like that one would cost $55,000 each
The Senior Scholarship was approved.
The key conclusions of the 2012 Downtown Survey
were tweaked and the revised conclusions will be returned at the August 28 council meeting. Some planning for a redo of the survey in a couple of years, perhaps with a larger sample size, were discussed. LALAHPOLITICO: Kudos to Satterlee and Carpenter for posting all Downtown Survey Materials on the City Website, including the 600 page crosstabs. We had been concerned that there could have been some nuggets about voter attitudes in those cross tabs — ones only City Council Candidate Ms. Satterlee would get to see. LosAltosPolitico spent some quality time with the data, concluding that there aren’t any voter patterns there. There were no real differences between Republicans and Democrats. Age didn’t matter much either, except in predictable ways. Here’s the link.
Kudos to Satterlee and Carpenter for posting all Downtown Survey Materials on the City Website
The Report of the Ad Hoc Continguous Retail Committee
was accepted. The report will be provided to the downtown parking consultant. No other action was taken on the suggestions within the report for improving the triangular block around Plaza 6. Thus the use of of amortization as a technique to improve the mix of retail tenants in the downtown core has been shelved. A public speaker, David Smith, suggested that instead of using Plaza 6 for for retail activity a new 3-story library building could be inserted there. David Smith extolled the Princeton, NJ library as an example to emulate. It would really boost vibrancy and foot traffic, Smith said. Ron Packard reminded everyone that in the City’s earliest days … the plan was for a civic center to be built right inside the downtown triangle. It was the gift of apricot orchard land that caused it to be where it is today. LALAHPOLITICO: It is interesting that none of the suggestions of the Report were acted upon. See Story here.
none of the suggestions of the ad hoc Contiguous Retail Committee Report were acted upon at this time
Item 19. Downtown IV Committee was approved
but with a few changes and clarifications. ITEM. 18. The Zoning Roll back language discussion was made unnecessary, as the discussion will now happen amount the Downtown Committee.
[Agenda Items 18 and 19 were reversed in the meeting.]Satterlee made this motion…. “Reconstitute the downtown committee…to make recommendations, if so desired, on how building heights are measured across the commercial districts, to consider whether any change to the height limit should occur for just the CRS and CRS/OAD zones, and to examine the allowable development incentives in the downtown zoning districts.”
The Committee membership of 12 persons was updated as follows:
Val Carpenter* (Chair, Mayor, and former Los Altos Planning Commissioner)
Megan Satterlee (Vice Chair, Councilmember, and former Los Altos Planning Commissioner)
Marcia Somers (City Manager)
James Walgren* (Assistant City Manager, Los Altos Community Development Director)
Abby Ahrens* (Downtown property owner)
Jon Baer* (Los Altos Planning & Transportation Commissioner)
Lou Becker* (former Los Altos Mayor and Vice Chair, Downtown Zoning III/Development Committee)
Phoebe Bressack* (Los Altos Planning & Transportation Commission Chair, Architect)
Ron Labetich* (Local commercial real estate broker)
Dan Brunello* (Downtown business owner, Chamber of Commerce representative)
Taylor Robinson (Downtown property owner)
one community member will be selected by Carpenter and Satterlee
[* Downtown Zoning III/Development Committee member]
Val Carpenter explained that Downtown Zoning III member Bill Maston had moved out of the city and was being replaced by Taylor Robinson, a developer who does live in the city. She said Ted Kokernak and Bart Nelson had been invited to return and serve on IV, but had not replied.
Downtown Zoning III member Bill Maston had moved out of the city and was being replaced by Taylor Robinson, a property-owner who does live in the city
Members of III not returning to IV
Bill Maston* ( now lives in Mountain View. He has been skeptical of the Morris Main&First project plans.)
Bart Nelson* (Downtown business and property owner)
Ted Kokernak* (Real estate agent for regional/national retailers & shopping centers
City Staff as Committee Members — Voting or Not?
Megan Satterlee asked whether city staff on the committee were to be voting members or not. James Walgren said staff had been voting members on Committee III, and he and City Manager Somers didn’t have a preference for voting or not when they served on IV. He recalled that for Committee III almost all decisions were unanimous or were 10 to 2. Yet Satterlee and Fishpaw were concerned that if a vote were to be close, it would look like sandbagging, stacking the deck. After discussion, it was decided that the City Attorney would look into real and perceived conflicts of interest of letting staff be voting members. All agreed to defer to her findings.
it was decided that the City Attorney would look into real and perceived conflicts of interest of letting staff be voting members. All agreed to defer to her findings
Committee’s Workplan
At first, it seemed like the committee’s only task would be how to define the measurement of the height of flat-roofed buildings — namely … no longer to the inside ceiling. Staff said that an outright ban on the use of developer incentives — as had been written in the original Carpenter-Packard draft language — was very unpopular with the Planning Commission and downtown stakeholders. Thus, it emerged that the use of incentives should not be banned but rather be defined and clarified — which ones were of real benefit and which were not. Satterlee made the motion and read in additions to the Committee formation language… which meant that city council that night WOULD NOT be reviewing the Staff’s draft language of the Downtown ordinance — namely item 18. This means that the new Planning and Transportation Committee is not getting the opportunity to do the first revision of the original Packard-Carpenter language. Also the the Staff is not getting to do the first revision either. [Remember that the former Planning Commission in its last meeting in June, spectacularly voted down the original ordinance language written by Packard and Carpenter, 7 to 0!!!]
Satterlee made this motion: “Reconstitute the downtown committee … to make recommendations, if so desired, on how building heights are measured across the commercial districts, to consider whether any change to the height limit should occur for just the CRS and CRS/OAD zones, and to examine the allowable development incentives in the downtown zoning districts.” Casas seconded it. It passed unanimously.
This means that the new Planning and Transportation Committee is not getting the opportunity to do the first revision of the original Packard-Carpenter language. Also the the Staff is not getting to do the first revision either.
The Committee might be renamed, since the height measurement definition will be applied in all commercial districts, not just downtown. How developer incentives can be used presumably will also be defined for all commercial districts. Just for the CRS – CRS/OAD zones [ State and Main], the committee may discuss what the form-based height limit should be for the . Should it be 30 feet? The 45 limit in the outer downtown triangle is not being looked at.
Many public commentators pointed out that a variance is an exception to code WITHOUT a compensating public benefit – a wider sidewalk, a paseo through to a parking lot, a small public space, etc.
LALAHPOLITICO: The City Council must have bene taken aback by the crash and burn at the Planning Commission in June. The 7-0 vote against the ordinance language was a real setback for them. The original Carpenter-Packard council draft zoning ordinance language, essentially removed the possibility of developer incentive negotiations with the City and would have forced all deviations from code to be a variance. Many public commentators pointed out that a variance is an exception to code WITHOUT a compensating public benefit — a wider sidewalk, a paseo through to a parking lot, a small public space, etc. In other words, It is stupid to grant an exception and NOT EXACT some little gift. This quashing of developer incentives was received with much more hostility than the attempted de facto height reductions in the CORE. Several buildings have been approved and built with height and parking exceptions compensated with by incentives, parking in lieu fees, etc. If developer incentives are verboten, that creates a moratorium on redevelopment. Basically the development economics is simple — if the permissible building mass “envelope” and developer incentives do not permit 3 stories, nothing except facade spruce-ups is going to happen in the core.
We are hopeful that the Downtown Committee IV can find some language which will work with the realities of development economics and allow our downtown to gradually evolve into something beautiful.
Item 20: Photosimulations and 2D-3D for Development Plans
The council and staff seemed to think that creating a basic computer generated 3D model was difficult and costly. Hence 2-d drafts, whether drawn by hand or computer-generated, imposed on a photo of the site with neighboring buildings … was the consensus preference. The item will be passed on to the Planning and Transportation Committee. LALAHPOLITICO: Stay tuned. 2d, 3d, who cares!? Ask if it the illustration shows something that will actually ever occur in actual reality, as opposed to virtual reality.
2d, 3d, who cares!? Ask if it the illustration shows something that will actually ever occur in actual reality, as opposed to virtual reality. How many people will actually see this.
COUNCIL REPORTS: Does Mark Goines, LASD Board President, have a Conflict of Interest
Packard dropped a minor bombshell, asking if the City Attorney could be asked to look into possible conflict of interest implications of talks with school district — particularly Board President Mark Goines. Story here.
WE INCLUDE A REPRINT OF THE AGENDA ARTICLE
– PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED —
FOR YOUR CONVENIENT REFERENCE
These two Planning Commissioners tapped for Downtown Committee - in center Jon Baer, Phoebe Bressack
LOS ALTOS CITY COUNCIL July 24
AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS
Highlights — from the Study Session 6 pm
STUDY SESSION PACKET .PDF
- Passarelle continues its discussion about creating parklettes on city owned
parts of Plaza 4 and 9
Highlights – from the consent calendar 7 pm
REGULAR SESSION PACKET .PDF
- the thinker statue may be placed in the Woodland Library parking lot
- the City will continue to abide by the Brown Act even though the State won’t help pay for it anymore
- Attorney Jolie Houston is being asked to look at eligibility of 2-term council members to rerun after an absense
- the Wayfinder Sign Task Force has only familiar names
- a $2K overage for a Bicycle study can now be paid
Highlights – from the discussion calendar
- San Antonio Streetscape at $1.3 million removes 9 spaces, adds one bus shelter, and provides screening
- Downtown Survey report is unchanged from what was presented by Godbe research and here
- Ad hoc Continuous Retail Committee final report had slight cosmetics changes. More here and also here.
- HOT HOT – another iteration of the roll back of downtown zoning PLUS Downtown Committee RETURNS. More
- 3-d , or rather “photo simulations” are likely to be required for commercial project plans
MISSING
Bart Nelson, a Los Altos Forward member did not accept his invitation to the Downtown Committee IV
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012
7:00 P.M. – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
City Council Chamber, Los Altos City Hall
One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
1. El Camino Hospital District
2. Raania Mohsen, Executive Director of Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Cities Association of Santa Clara County Presentation
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Council Minutes
Recommendation to approve the minutes of the June 26, 2012 study session and regular meeting
2. Final placement of The Thinker
Recommendation to approve the final placement of The Thinker at Woodland Library
Final Placement of The Thinker
3. Brown Act affirmation
Recommendation to affirm the City of Los Altos’ continued compliance with all aspects of the Ralph
M. Brown Act
4. Payday lending prohibition
Recommendation to adopt Ordinance No. 2012-384 amending the Los Altos Municipal Code, Title 14, Zoning, Article 2, entitled “Definitions” by expressly excluding payday lending or check cashing businesses from the definition of “Banks” and “Office” to prohibit the establishment, expansion, or relocation of payday lending and check cashing businesses
5. Eligibility of past Council members to run for future Council seats
Recommendation to direct the City Attorney to issue a formal opinion on the eligibility of Council members who have previously served two consecutive terms on the Council to return to the Council after an absence
Eligibility of past Council members to run for future Council seats
6. Bus Barn Stage Company Temporary Storage of Trailer Agreement termination
Recommendation to terminate the temporary trailer storage agreement with Bus Barn Stage Company
Bus Barn Stage Company Temporary Storage of Trailer Agreement termination
7. Downtown Parking Management Plan service agreement award
Recommendation to:
A. Approve a professional services agreement with CDM Smith in an amount not to exceed $157,284 to complete the Parking Management Plan
B. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City and to make any administrative amendments, as needed
Downtown Parking Management Plan service agreement award
8. Wayfinding Sign Program update
Recommendation to accept informational report on the City-wide Wayfinding Sign Task Force program status
Wayfinding Sign Program update
9. First Street Streetscape, Phase 1A, Project 10-27
Recommendation to:
A. Adopt Resolution No. 2012-23 accepting First Street Streetscape, Phase 1A, Project 10-27 as complete, and direct the Engineering Services Manager to record a notice of completion as required by law
B. Approve budget re-allocations and administrative adjustments for work completed to date:
1. Re-allocate $118,000 from Rule 20A Utilities Undergrounding, Project 09-22 to Project 10-27
2. Re-allocate $200,000 from Annual Street Resurfacing, Project 12-01 to Project 10-27
3. Re-allocate $250,000 from Annual Special Projects and Studies, Project 12-09 to Project 10-27
First Street Streetscape, Phase 1A, Project 10-27
10. Bicycle Transportation Plan, Project 10-11
Recommendation to appropriate $2,080 to Project 10-11 from the Capital Improvement Projects Fund
Bicycle Transportation Plan, Project 10-11
11. Annual Sewer Root Foaming, Project 12-06
Recommendation to:
A. Adopt Resolution No. 2012-20 accepting the completion of the Annual Sewer Root Foaming, Project 12-06
B. Authorize the Engineering Services Manager to record a Notice of Completion as required by law
12. Annual Sewer Video, Project 12-05
Recommendation to:
A. Adopt Resolution No. 2012-21 accepting the completion of the Annual Sewer Video, Project 12-05
B. Authorize the Engineering Services Manager to record a Notice of Completion as required by law
Annual Sewer Video, Project 12-05
PUBLIC HEARING
13. Sanitary Sewer Rate Report
Recommendation to:
A. Approve the Annual Report for the FY 2012-2013 Sewer Service Charge
B. Adopt Resolution No. 2012-22 approving the rate report and authorizing submittal of assessments to the County Tax Collector’s Office
Former Mayor Lou Becker tapped for Downtown Committee IV
DISCUSSION
14. San Antonio Road Streetscape, Project 10-08
Recommendation to:
A. Award the Base Bid for the San Antonio Road Streetscape, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project 10-08 to Granite Rock Company dba Pavex Construction Division in the amount of $1,098,000
B. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract on behalf of the City
C. Direct staff to negotiate a cost to build one bus shelter and to remove the left turn pocket on San Antonio Road
San Antonio Road Streetscape, Project 10-08
15. Senior Scholarship Program update
Recommendation to approve modifications to the Senior Scholarship Program to facilitate Senior Center membership and participation in City-sponsored recreation activities
Senior Scholarship Program update
16. Summary of key conclusions from 2012 Downtown survey
Recommendation to accept the summary of key conclusions from the 2012 survey of City of Los Altos residents regarding Downtown Los Altos
Summary of key conclusions from 2012 Downtown survey
LALAHPOLITICO: Downtown Survey report is unchanged from what was presented by Godbe research weeks ago. Our quick summary and analysis with simple tables is here
17. Ad-Hoc Contiguous Retail Committee final report Recommendation to receive the report and direct staff accordingly Ad-Hoc Contiguous Retail Committee final report
LALAHPOLITICO: There were only slight cosmetics change to the report compared to the prior version. We covered this committee extensively here and also here.
18. Downtown ordinance amendments
Recommendation to receive the report and direct staff accordingly
Architect Bill Maston not invited back for Downtown IV, but architect Abby Ahrens is
19. Downtown Zoning Committee Phase IV
Recommendation to approve the reconstitution of the Downtown Zoning Committee for a fourth phase to focus on more clearly defining how building heights are measured in the CRS and CRS/OAD zoning districts as well as allowable development incentives in all Downtown zoning districts Downtown Zoning Committee Phase IV
LALAHPOLITICO: We covered this recent iteration of the roll back of downtown zoning along with the revival of the Downtown Committee in a post today. Read More
20. Project photosimulations
Recommendation to accept the agenda report and direct staff accordingly
ADJOURNMENT
SPECIAL NOTICES TO PUBLIC In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Altos will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk 72 hours prior to the meeting at (650) 947- 2720. Agendas, Staff Reports and some associated documents for City Council items may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/online/index.html. Council Meetings are televised live and rebroadcast on Cable Channel 26. On occasion the City Council may consider agenda items out of order. All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, and that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body, will be available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk’s Office, City of Los Altos, located at One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body. Any draft contracts, ordinances and resolutions posted on the Internet site or distributed in
advance of the Council meeting may not be the final documents approved by the City Council. Contact the City Clerk at (650) 947- 2720 for the final document. If you wish to provide written materials, please provide the City Clerk with 10 copies of any document that you would like to submit to the City Council for the public record. If you challenge any planning or land use decision made at this meeting
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing held at this meeting, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please take notice that the time within which to seek judicial review of any final administrative determination reached at this meeting is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. For other questions regarding the City Council meeting proceedings, please contact the City Clerk at (650)
947- 2720.
