11-21-11 Streetscape Resolution Reversal

8/3/2019 11-21-11 Streetscape Resolution Reversal

1/19

City of Palo Alto (ID # 2332)City Council Staff Report

Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/21/2011

November 21, 2011 Page 1 of 2

(ID # 2332)

Summary T itle: Rescind Cal Ave. Resolution

Title: Rescission of Prior Approvals of Resolution, Negative Declaration, and

Capital Improvements Program Project Funding for California Avenue Transit

Hub Corridor Improvements Project

From: City Manager

Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment

RecommendationStaff recommends that the City Council declare void the following prior Council actions:

1) Resolution No. 9118, adopted on December 6, 2010, accepting a grant from the Valley

Transportation Authority (VTA) to design and construct the California Avenue Transit-Hub

Corridor Improvements Project;

2) Approval of a Negative Declaration for the California Avenue Transit-Hub Corridor

Improvements Project, adopted on February 14, 2011; and

3) Establishment of a Capital Improvements Program project funding the California Avenue

Transit Hub Corridor Improvements Project, approved on February 14, 2011.

BackgroundOn October 4, 2010, the City submitted a Capital Grant Application to the Valley Transportation

Authority (VTA) for approximately $1.15 million to design and construct the California Avenue

Transit Hub Corridor Improvements Project. The City was awarded the application by VTA and,

on December 6, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9118 (Attachment B), agreeing

to accept the grant and complete the conceptual project described in the application.

The City subsequently completed and circulated for public review a proposed Negative

Declaration, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On February 14,

2011, following a positive recommendation from the Planning and Transportation Commission,

the Council adopted the Negative Declaration and established a Capital Improvements Program(CIP) project, funding the entire $1.7 million cost of the project.

Litigation

The Citys action was challenged in Superior Court by petitioners Joy Ogawa, Terry Shuchat, Jack

Morton and Antonios Nuthouse. The petitioners argued that the environmental review was

untimely and inadequate, that the Citys Comprehensive Plan was violated, and that State Open


2/19

November 21, 2011 Page 2 of 2

(ID # 2332)

Meetings provisions were not followed. On October 7, 2011, a hearing regarding the matter

was conducted by the Honorable Patricia M. Lucas. An Order from the court was filed on

November 9, 2011, and the City received the determination on November 14, 2011

(Attachment A).

The Court found that the Citys compliance with CEQA (adoption of the Negative Declaration)on February 14, 2011 should have preceded the adoption of Resolution No. 9118 on December

6, 2010. The Court did not find the CEQA analysis deficient and denied the petitioners claims

regarding the Comprehensive Plan and the Open Meetings provisions. The remedy specified by

the Court (page 9) is that the City must declare void that Resolution, as well as its later

February 14, 2011 approval of the Negative Declaration and CIP funding for the project, and

must reconsider those decisions after appropriate CEQA review.

DiscussionStaff believes that the deficiency is a procedural one that can be readily addressed. The

recommended action is for the Council to rescind, as prescribed by the Court, the adoption of

Resolution No. 9118 on December 6, 2010, the approval of the Negative Declaration on

February 14, 2011, and the establishment of the CIP funding, also approved on February 14,

2011. Staff will schedule reconsideration of these items for an upcoming Council meeting and

will then provide that information to the Court.

Staff believes that the rescission of the prior actions and reconsideration of the Negative

Declaration, Resolution and Capital Improvement Program will be sufficient to respond to the

Courts direction.

Attachments:

Attachment A: Court Order re: California Avenue Litigation (PDF)

Attachment B: Resolution No_9118 re: Grant for California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor

Improvements Project (PDF)

Prepared By: Curtis Williams, Director

Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director

City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager


3/19


4/19


5/19


6/19


7/19


8/19


9/19


10/19


11/19


12/19


13/19


14/19


15/19


16/19


17/19

Resolution No. 9118Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo AltoAuthorizing the Filing of an Application for Federal SurfaceTransportation Program (STP) and/or Congestion Mitigationand Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Funding for theCalifornia Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Project andCommitting the Necessary Non-Federal Match andStating the Assurance to Complete the Project

WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto (herein referred to as CITY) is submitting anapplication to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for $1,175,200 in fundingfrom the federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and/or Congestion Mitigation and AirQuality Improvement (CMAQ) program for the California Avenue - Transit Hub CorridorImprovements (herein referred to as PROJECT) for the MTC Resolution, No. 3925, New FederalSurface Transportation Act (FY 2009-10, FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12) Cycle 1 STP/CMAQProgram: Project Selection Criteria, Policy, Procedures and Programming (herein referred to asPROGRAM); and

WHEREAS, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: ALegacy for Users (SAFETEA) (Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005) continued the SurfaceTransportation Program (23 U.S.C. 133) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air QualityImprovement Program (CMAQ) (23 U.S.C. 149) through September 30, 2009; andWHEREAS, SAFETEA has been extended pursuant to Public Law 11-118 and maybe subsequently extended pending enactment of successor legislation for continued funding; andWHEREAS, pursuant to SAFETEA, and the regulations promulgated thereunder,eligible project sponsors wishing to receive federal Surface Transportation Program and/orCongestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (STP/CMAQ) funds for a projectshall submit an application first with the appropriate Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),for review and inclusion in the MPO's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); andWHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the MPO forthe nine counties of the San Francisco Bay region; andWHEREAS, MTC has adopted a Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTCResolution No. 3606, revised) that sets out procedures governing the application and use of

STP/CMAQ funds; andWHEREAS, CITY is an eligible project sponsor for STP/CMAQ funds; andWHEREAS, as part of the application for STP/CMAQ funding, MTC requires aresolution adopted by the responsible implementing agency stating the following:

II

101115 dm 8261479 1


18/19

1) A commitment ofnecessary local matching funds of at least 11.47%; and2) The sponsor understands that the STP/CMAQ funding is fixed at the programmedamount, and therefore any cost increase cannot be expected to be funded withadditional STP/CMAQ funds; and3) The project will comply with the procedures specified in Regional ProjectFunding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised); and4) The assurance of the sponsor to complete the project as described in the

application, and if approved, as included in MTC's TIP; and5) That the project will comply with all the project-specific requirements as set forthin the PROGRAM.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of PaloAlto as follows:SECTION 1. The officers of the CITY are authorized to execute and file anapplication for funding for the PROJECT under the Surface Transportation Program (STP) andCongestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) of SAFETEA, anyextensions ofSAFETEA or any successor legislation for continued funding.SECTION 2. The CITY by adopting this resolution does hereby state that:

1. CITY will provide $550,000 in non-federal matching funds; and2. CITY understands that the STP/CMAQ funding for the project is fixed at the MTCapproved programmed amount, and that any cost increases must be funded by theCITY from other funds, and that CITY does not expect any cost increases to befunded with additional STP/CMAQ funding; and3. Applicant understands that $(N/A) is greater than the Applicant's (STP/CMAQAmount) Regional Local Streets & Roads formula share of Local Streets & Roadsprogramming, and that the Applicant will forgo future programming shares until the

amount of the overage $(N/A) is reached. (This requirement does not apply toCITY, only to applicants who received an "augmentation" greater than $100,000 inthe Local Streets & Roads program only)4. CITY understands the funding deadlines associated with these funds and will complywith the provisions and requirements of the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy(MTC Resolution No. 3606, as revised); and5. PROJECT will be implemented as described in the complete application and in thisresolution and, if approved, for the amount programmed in the MTC federal TIP; and6. CITY and the PROJECT will comply with the requirements as set forth in theprogram; and

SECTION 3. CITY is an eligible sponsor of STP/CMAQ funded projects.SECTION 4. CITY is authorized to submit an application for STP/CMAQ funds forthe PROJECT.SECTION 5. There is no legal impediment to CITY making applications for thefunds.

101115 dm 8261479 2


19/19

SECTION 6. There is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any wayadversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of CITY to deliver such PROJECT.SECTION 7. The CITY authorizes its City Manager or designee to execute and filean application with MTC for STP/CMAQ funding for the PROJECT as referenced in thisresolution.SECTION 8. That a copy of this resolution will be transmitted to the MTC inconjunction with the filing of the application.SECTION 9. MTC is requested to support the application for the PROJECTdescribed in the resolution and to include the PROJECT, if approved, in MTC's TIP.SECTION 10. The Council finds that this resolution is not a project under theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment isnecessary.

INTRODUCED AND PASSED: December 6, 2010AYES: BURt, ESPINOSA, HOLMAN, KLEIN, PRICE, SCHARFF, SCHMID,SHEPHERD,YEHNOES:ABSENT:ABSTENTIONS:

MaYOrAPPROVED AS TO FORM:

l yManager

11-21-11 Streetscape Resolution Reversal

Documents

Transcript of 11-21-11 Streetscape Resolution Reversal