HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-03-17 City Council Agenda Packet
1 03/17/08
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting.
Special Meeting
March 17, 2008
COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM - 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
1. Joint Meeting with Senator Joe Simitian Concerning State and Local
Issues
POTENTIAL TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 7:00 PM
CLOSED SESSION 7:00 – 7:30 PM
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency Negotiator: City Manager and his designees pursuant to
Merit Rules and Regulations (Frank Benest,
Russ Carlsen, Darrell Murray, Sandra Blanch,
Lalo Perez, Nick Marinaro, David Ramberg, Emily
Harrison)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
3. Commending the Outstanding Public Service of Chris Ewert, Joe Manning, Frank Scioscia and Glenn Rawlinson As Co-Chairs of The Local Organizing Committee and All Volunteers and Sponsors for Palo Alto/Stanford Prologue of 2008 Amgen Tour Of California
PROCLAMATION
03/17/08 2
4. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO SANDRA HIRSH FOR OUTSTANDING
PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE LIBRARY ADVISORY
COMMISSION
RESOLUTION
5. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO LENORE JONES FOR OUTSTANDING
PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE LIBRARY ADVISORY
COMMISSION
RESOLUTION
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the
right to limit the duration or Oral Communications.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 22, 2008
February 4, 2008
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
6. Approval of an Application for Membership in the Link+ Resource
Sharing Library Consortium and Authorization to Participate in a
Twenty-Four Month Pilot Project in a Total Amount Not to Exceed
$220,000, with the Friends of the Palo Alto Library Contributing Up to
$110,000
CMR:166:08 ATTACHMENT
7. Temporary Appointment of Robert Peterson to the Architectural Review
Board for the Interim Term of March 20, 2008 through June 19, 2008
REPORT
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members
of the public have spoken.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be
limited to a maximum of five minutes per speaker unless additional time is granted by the presiding officer. The presiding officer may reduce the allowed time to less than five minutes if necessary to accommodate a larger
number of speakers.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
03/17/08 3
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
8. Policy and Services Committee Recommendations for Approval of
Updated Below Market Rate (BMR) Program
CMR:173:08 ATTACHMENT
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
REPORTS OF OFFICIAL
9. Adoption of Council “Top 4” Priorities and Milestones for 2008: Civic
Engagement; Climate Protection; Library Plan/Public Safety Building;
and Economic Health
CMR:163:08 ATTACHMENT
COUNCIL MATTERS
10. Proposal to Assign Staff to Review Potential Changes to the Process for
the Architecture Review Board (ARB) Review of Large Projects
REPORT FOR ITEMS 10 & 11
11. Proposal to Assign Staff to Review the Pros and Cons of Requiring
Public vs. Private Streets (including clearance for refuse hauling)
The meeting will adjourn and reconvene as the Public Improvement Corporation
AGENDA CMR:162:08 ATTACHMENT
COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting.
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
12. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 100 El Camino Real, APN 120-31-009
03/17/08 4
City Negotiators: Amy Bartell; F. Gale Connor; Valerie Fong
Negotiating Parties: Carol Dillon of Bingham McCutchen LLP for the
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University
Subject of Potential Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment
ADJOURNMENT
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who
would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
CMR:166:08 Page 1 of 4
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: LIBRARY
DATE: MARCH 17, 2008 CMR:166:08
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE LINK+
RESOURCE SHARING LIBRARY CONSORTIUM AND
AUTHORIZATION TO PARTICIPATE IN A TWENTY-FOUR MONTH
PILOT PROJECT IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $220,000,
WITH THE FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO LIBRARY
CONTRIBUTING UP TO $110,000
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to apply for
membership in the LINK+ resource sharing library consortium and participate in a twenty-four
month pilot project totaling up to $220,000 that will allow customers of the Palo Alto City
Library (Library) to borrow books from other member libraries.
BACKGROUND
LINK+ is a consortium of academic and public libraries in California and Nevada that maintains
a unified catalog of the holdings of the member libraries for the purpose of facilitating borrowing
across the system. In contrast to traditional interlibrary loan service, library users who have
access to LINK+ initiate their own requests through the online catalog, and the books are
delivered via a contracted courier to the customers’ local libraries within a few days. There is no
charge to an individual to request or borrow a book through the LINK+ system. Currently, there
are 50 member libraries – 12 public and 38 academic. Local public libraries that participate in
LINK+ include San Francisco, Berkeley, San Jose, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale. Bay Area
LINK+ academic libraries include San Jose State, San Francisco State, and Santa Clara
University.
LINK+ is a service frequently requested by Palo Alto residents who have used it at other
libraries. In recognition of this, the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) recommended in the
Library Services Model Analysis and Recommendations (LSMAR) report that Palo Alto join
LINK+ or a similar resource sharing system to provide access to a wider range of books.
Additionally, the Friends of the Palo Alto Library (Friends) have strongly supported the
Library’s participation in LINK+.
6
CMR:166:08 Page 2 of 4
Staff completed a LINK+ feasibility study (Attachment A) and presented it to the LAC in June
2007. Based on the cost for Palo Alto to offer LINK+ service, the unknown impact on library
staff workload, and the City’s budget challenges, staff recommended entering into a two-year
pilot project. A two-year pilot project will enable staff to assess the benefits and costs of the
service without committing the City’s General Fund to an ongoing service. It will also allow
staff to better gauge the impacts on other services now provided or recommended in the LSMAR
report. The Board of the Friends of the Palo Alto Library has agreed to commit up to $110,000 to
partner with the City in funding the cost of a pilot project (Attachment B).
DISCUSSION
Joining the LINK+ system will provide four major benefits to the City’s library customers:
• Access to millions of books not owned in the Palo Alto City Library
• No charge to the person who borrows an item
• Direct and quick delivery between member libraries
• Ability for customers to place their own requests through a web catalog
The LINK+ resource sharing system uses the INN-Reach product of Innovative Interfaces, Inc.
(Innovative), a company headquartered in Emeryville, California that provides technology
products and services to libraries. There are other library consortia around the county that use the
INN-Reach product to facilitate resource sharing among their members. The INN-Reach
software provides the capability to build a single database from the records of many libraries and
allows patrons to easily request items not available in their libraries using an online catalog. The
LINK+ system is managed by staff at Innovative at the direction and with the financial
contributions of its members.
Non-member institutions may apply for membership in LINK+ at any time by submitting a letter
of intent, signed by the City Manager or designee, to join the consortium. Applications are
reviewed and voted on by the Executive Committee of LINK+ and if approved, taken to the
membership for the final approval. Staff has obtained a price quote from Innovative to join
LINK+ (Attachment C). Innovative has estimated that the earliest date for the start of the
implementation for Palo Alto is fall 2008, with service available to the public beginning in
January 2009. Following a minimum participation period of twelve months, members may
withdraw from LINK+ at any time upon written notification.
Currently, all the libraries participating in LINK+ are using the same Innovative software to
operate their local catalogs and manage their bibliographic and patron databases. This enables a
seamless interface with the INN-Reach resource sharing software, streamlining use of LINK+ for
the library customers. However, Palo Alto uses software from SirsiDynix to manage its library
systems. As a non-Innovative library, Palo Alto would incur additional expense for the direct
consortial borrowing (DCB) software and server needed to manage the transactions between the
INN-Reach system and the SirsiDynix system. While the server would be hosted and managed
at Innovative’s offices, this requirement adds $30,000 annually to the cost of providing LINK+
service to Palo Alto customers. This is not a cost that can be recovered by charging for use of the
service since the LINK+ consortium does not permit this practice.
CMR:166:08 Page 3 of 4
As a non-Innovative library, Palo Alto’s experience with LINK+ would be different from that of
other libraries in the consortium. Library customers searching for books not available in Palo
Alto will need to rekey their searches in the LINK+ catalog. The borrowing records for LINK+
items cannot be combined into customers’ records on Palo Alto’s SirsiDynix system, requiring
library users to keep track of two separate accounts. Because the INN-Reach software cannot be
fully integrated with the SirsiDynix system, Palo Alto staff will need to process loans to other
libraries on both systems. This means that each LINK+ transaction will require more staff time
in Palo Alto than at other LINK+ libraries.
The Library currently offers traditional interlibrary loan service (ILL) at a charge of $7.50 per
item. Staff conducts the search for a library owning the requested item, places the request, and
handles the receipt and return of the item. In the LINK+ system, the customer conducts the
search against the joint holdings of the member libraries and submits the loan request through the
online catalog. Staff has estimated that about one third of the items borrowed through
interlibrary loan would be available through LINK+, thereby reducing the staff workload now
spend on the current ILL service. However, since the LINK+ service is limited to the loan of
books and some governmental documents, it would be necessary to continue ILL service to
obtain the other types of materials now requested, such as microfilm and periodical articles.
A significant portion of the cost of LINK+ service is associated with the loan of books to other
libraries in the consortium. Many LINK+ public libraries have loaned as many or more books
from their collections as their customers have requested from other libraries. A commitment of
member libraries is to provide adequate staffing to meet the system’s goal of a 24-hour
turnaround to fill loans. The Library will also be responsible for contracted courier service
charges to deliver books to other member libraries. This cost, estimated at approximately
$16,000 for a year, is based on the weight and number of items shipped. Loans made through the
LINK+ system qualify for the State Library’s Transaction Based Reimbursement Program that
authorizes the payment of $5.29 per eligible transaction to the lending library. However, the
total appropriation for this program has been cut and, in the last several years, the funding has
not been sufficient to reimburse all participants at the approved rate. While the City will not
receive full reimbursement for loaning library materials to other libraries through the LINK+
system, many libraries report that this reimbursement covers the majority of the LINK+ delivery
charges. This is one of the many items that will be evaluated during the two-year pilot program.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Staff has estimated the total cost for a 24-month pilot project will be in the range of $200,000 -
$220,000. The Friends has agreed to fund up to $110,000 of this total. Depending on the number
of books loaned to other libraries and the State Library’s funding formula for its transaction
based reimbursement program, potential revenue over the length of the pilot is estimated to range
from $20,000 to $45,000.
Since the proposed pilot will be conducted from January 2009 through December 2010, the
City’s share of the cost of the two-year pilot will be spread over three fiscal years beginning with
FY 2008-09. An additional appropriation of approximately $30,000 will be requested with the
Library’s proposed 2008-09 operating budget. This will cover the cost of system training, the
CMR:166:08 Page 4 of 4
first year’s membership in Link+, anticipated delivery charges, and hourly staff (.32 FTE) to
support the workload to provide the service. The Friends will pay Innovative directly for the
additional charges for the first twelve months of service. In FY 2009-10, the City funding
required is estimated at $60,000, including a minimum of .64 FTE of hourly staff. The Friends
will contribute the remaining charges from Innovative Interfaces. An additional appropriation of
approximately $17,000 will be required for the Library’s 2010-11 operating budget to complete
the last six months of the pilot program.
Before the end of the two-year pilot project, staff will evaluate the cost of providing this service
relative to its benefit and use to determine if ongoing funding of the service is recommended.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with Council’s approval on December 11, 2006 of the highest
level of recommendations in the LAC’s LSMAR report, including the recommendation to use
technology to “join the LINK+ or similar resource sharing system to provide access to a wide
range of books.”
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is not a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: LINK+ Feasibility Study for the Palo Alto City Library
Attachment B: Letter from the Friends of the Palo Alto Library, dated October 1, 2007,
committing funds for a two-year pilot project to provide Link+ service
Attachment C: Innovative Interfaces, Inc. price quotations for LINK+ membership dues and
management fees; INN-Reach License; and Hosted DCB License
PREPARED BY: __________________________________
DIANE JENNINGS
Library Director
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: __________________________________
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 173:08 Page 1 of 6
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: MARCH 17, 2008 CMR: 173:08
SUBJECT: POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
APPROVAL OF UPDATED BELOW MARKET RATE PROGRAM (BMR)
ELEMENTS
RECOMMENDATION
The Policy and Services Committee (P&S) and staff recommend policy changes to the Below
Market Rate (BMR) Program (see Attachment A), preparation of implementing legal documents,
including revised deed restrictions and other enforcement and disclosure documents, and further
analysis of program elements identified under Goal #2 of Attachment A as part of the next Housing
Element revision.
BACKGROUND
Over the past three years, City staff and a consultant team analyzed the City’s Below Market Rate
(BMR) Program, adopted in 1974 and governed by Policy H-36 in the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. The study undertaken by staff and the consultant team included an economic
and policy analysis of the program intended to maximize the effectiveness of the BMR Program
though the increased production of affordable owner and rental units. The analysis provided expert
advice regarding improvements in legal documents, program enforcement and methods of increasing
the efficiency of routine administrative procedures. The study was also intended to provide an
objective and statistically reliable view of the program from the perspective of the BMR owners.
In December 2006, after completion of the preliminary study, the Human Relations Commission
(HRC) discussed the report recommendations. Generally, the HRC was supportive of the overall
study recommendations but did not specifically act on the report or on any particular policy
recommendations. The HRC was primarily concerned with the BMR ownership program and, in
particular, the limited appreciation allowed under the current appreciation formula. Subsequently,
staff worked closely with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), the City’s contracted BMR
Program administrator, and the consultant team to develop a set of recommendations based on the
study conclusions for program improvements. The BMR Committee of PAHC’s Board of
Directors reviewed the study in June 2007 providing additional input regarding potential
modifications to the BMR Program. Staff developed its recommendations and forwarded the BMR
8
CMR: 173:08 Page 2 of 6
Study to the Policy and Services Committee for discussion at the September 2007 meeting.
One key recommendation of the BMR Study was preparation of a BMR ordinance to codify Policy
H-36 in the Housing Element. On March 10, 2008, the Council approved a BMR ordinance that
identifies the purpose and authorizes the adoption of procedures to assist in the implementation of
the program. Modifications to that ordinance may need to be prepared to address specific developer
requirements and affordability standards for owner and rental units if recommended policy changes
to the BMR program are adopted as part of this recommendation.
DISCUSSION
Policy and Services Committee (P&S)Review: The P&S Committee discussed the BMR study and
staff recommendations on September 11, 2007. Attachment d is the action minutes for that meeting
with the policy changes and actions recommended by P&S. The Committee supported the staff
recommended Policies 1b through 1k in Attachment A and recommends adoption of those policies to
the City Council. The Committee discussion focused on Policy 1a, which recommends that
appreciation for ownership units be increased from the current one-third of the percent change in the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) to the full CPI. Although the Committee supported the recommended
change to the full CPI, there was discussion of retroactively applying the change in the appreciation
formula for current BMR unit owners. The Committee did not forward a recommendation to the full
Council but referred this issue to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for further
discussion and recommendations regarding the retroactivity of the appreciation formula to the date
each owner purchased their BMR unit. The Committee also recommended that the City Council
direct staff to further analyze and make recommendations on Policies 2a, b and c listed under Goal
#2 of Attachment A as part of the next Housing Element revision. Finally, the Committee requested
that the PTC review and comment to Council on the viability of further pursuing each of these three
new policy proposals.
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Review: The PTC met on October 10, 2007 to
discuss the BMR Study recommendations and the specific referral from P&S regarding appreciation
retroactivity for current BMR owners. Staff described the deliberations of P&S and explained the
issues the retroactive application of additional appreciation that would affect most of the BMR units
in the program since there are only a few that are currently receiving full CPI. Several BMR unit
owners addressed the Commission and urged support for the retroactive appreciation. The PTC
unanimously supported the concept of full CPI appreciation for all of the existing BMR units that
are currently not receiving full CPI appreciation. The PTC recommended approval of the staff
recommendations list on Attachment A. The PTC also had several additional recommendations for
either modifying the BMR Program or that warranted further study. These included:
• Evaluating possible methods to address the impact of increased homeowner dues on BMR
homeowners
• Developing a cap on BMR unit appreciation
• Eliminating the depreciation deduction for unit improvements
• Modifying preference criteria to provide a preference for City and PAUSD employees
• Providing periodic review of the BMR program to ensure optimum operations
• Exploring “rounding up” fractional units on projects with less than 30 units
• Changing policy to allow developers to provide smaller BMR units than the market rate
CMR: 173:08 Page 3 of 6
component only if more units are provided that equal or exceed the square footage from the
original requirement
Staff will study the last item as part of the Housing Element update; the other PTC recommendations
are being considered currently as part of the implementation of the BMR study.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recognizes the concern about the effect upon BMR owners of the low appreciation realized
under the current one-third of CPI appreciation formula that has been in place since 1983; however,
staff continues to recommend against a retroactive increase to the BMR appreciation rate for current
owners for the reasons described in both the P&S and PTC attached staff reports. Further analysis
has since been completed on:
• The effect that the retroactive application of the full CPE would have on the overall policy
objectives of the BMR program as a whole,
• The likelihood of loss of units in specific projects if resale prices exceed what buyers will
pay;
• The relationship to the condition of older units at resale; and
• How the retroactive change would be actually put into place if adopted.
Staff continues to recommend that an incentive mechanism, which would increase resale prices, for
units which are in good condition at resale will be a more effective approach in addressing the City’s
overall program objectives, but still provide benefits to long-term owners who have had the low
appreciation. Staff has developed a proposed BMR Home Maintenance and Replacements Credit;
this credit would provide additional funds to sellers based on how long their unit has been under the
one-third of CPI formula and on the condition of the property at resale.
Staff proposed an incentive reward system based on the condition of BMR units at resale in the
October 11 staff report to the PTC (see page 4). Since then, staff has explored this concept in more
detail and tested it using different variables such as length of ownership, condition of unit at
purchase and at sale, and has concluded that it is a viable concept which would benefit both sellers
and the BMR program as a whole. This system would provide sellers with a financial benefit at
resale based on each year of one-third CPI appreciation. If the unit is determined to be in good
repair and condition, the seller will receive full credit. The amount of the credit will be reduced if the
unit needs repair by the estimated cost of bringing the unit up to reasonable standards for resale.
Staff believes that the Home Maintenance & Replacements Credit is preferable to a blanket
retroactive appreciation increase because it addresses the maintenance issues with the aging BMR
housing stock while offering a financial incentive to owners to take good care of their units. The
maximum amount of the credit is based on the length of time the unit was owned by the seller under
the one-third of CPI formula, so long term owners would have a greater benefit similar to the
concept of the retroactive CPI proposal. To be fair to an owner who purchased a unit that was
already in deteriorated condition, the total estimated repair and renovation costs would be allocated
only to the seller’s period of ownership. For those very low-income owners who have no financial
capacity to repair or renovate their unit, staff proposed a limited renovation loan program (see page 7
of the P & S staff report).
CMR: 173:08 Page 4 of 6
Staff proposes an annual credit of $1,500 per each year of ownership as a workable amount. The
longest a current unit has been under the one-third CPI is 24 years; this means the current maximum
credit would be $36,000. While this would be less than the increase to a typical 24 year old unit
with the retroactive CPI, it is still a significant sum of money given that the owner needs to only
have performed the normal maintenance, repairs and replacements expected as part of home
ownership.
Staff believes that adoption of a retroactive full CPI would have several problematic effects
including:
• A fundamental policy, to serve homebuyers from a broad range of incomes from very low
income to the upper moderate category, would be eroded. Presently, very low and low
income homebuyers can achieve home ownership by purchasing the lower-priced resale
BMR units. Incorporating some $40,000 to $50,000 into the resale price by giving the
current owner more appreciation will price these units out of reach to a large segment of the
buyers now on the waiting list since currently these potential buyers cannot afford the high
prices of new BMR units.
• The additional resale proceeds will not be enough for owners to purchase market rate units in
Palo Alto or in the Bay Area especially for the owners who are already living on limited
retirement incomes.
• There is no benefit to the BMR program as a whole from the adoption of the retroactive
appreciation.
• Retroactive appreciation not tied to the condition of the unit gives the same financial reward
to the seller whose unit has been allowed to deteriorate as it does to those sellers who have
invested in good upkeep and renovation.
• Projects where the BMR units have limited buyer appeal will become much more difficult to
resell with the retroactive appreciation added into the resale price;
• Units must be resold in a timely manner under the current deed restrictions or else the City
has to make the choice to take title itself or release the unit from the program;
• Projects with a history of large special assessments will have resale prices which will
approach prices for brand new units and, if in poor physical condition, they will not sell at
all.
There are eight developments with a total of 63 BMR units where the BMR units have deficiencies
that reduce buyer appeal, including a past history of large special assessments, poor location, small
square footage or rooms, unattractive layouts, and / or high original sales price. In some cases, all of
these factors are present, and in others, only one or two apply. PAHC has found these units
challenging to sell; most buyers on the waiting list would rather just wait for something better. If the
physical condition of one of these units is also poor, then almost no one is willing to buy that unit.
Factoring retroactive appreciation into the resale price will compound PAHC’s difficulty in finding
buyers for this portion of the BMR housing stock. With lower resale prices in the past due to the
one-third CPI formula, the City has been able to recoup its expenditures when forced to acquire units
to prevent their loss from the program. With the addition of the retroactive appreciation, the City
might have to use housing funds to write down the resale price to lower levels to resell certain units.
CMR: 173:08 Page 5 of 6
Attachment G describes the credit proposal in more detail and provides a few samples of
calculations comparing additional BMR unit value derived under the staff recommended credit to the
retroactive appreciation at full CPI.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There will be no impact to the General Fund with implementation of any of the potential BMR
program changes; however, there could be a significant impact to the Housing Fund if the retroactive
appreciation for existing BMR unit owners is approved. To avoid these potential costs, the City
Attorney has advised staff that any retroactive appreciation program would need to be implemented
at the time of sale of the residence. This would avoid revising deed restrictions since the legal costs
of modifying the deed restrictions for individual properties would be extremely significant for the
City.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The overall focus of the BMR Study was to identify policies and procedures which would make the
BMR program a more effective and efficient tool to address Palo Alto’s affordable housing needs.
Broad housing policies were examined as well as routine procedural matters in administration of
BMR unit sales. Several of the new policies from the study are based on two common underlying
principles:
1) New residential expansion and development should contribute at some level towards
solutions to the City affordable housing problems; and
2) The BMR program should contribute more effectively to the creation and preservation of
affordable rental housing to a much greater degree than in the past.
A rewrite of the BMR Program sections of the Housing Element would more clearly support these
two guiding principles of the BMR Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The BMR Study recommendations pertain to the administration of the BMR housing program which
is categorically exempt under Section 15326 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PREPARED BY: ___________________________________
Catherine Siegel
Advance Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ________________________________________
STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ________________________________________
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 173:08 Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENTS
A. BMR Program Update: Summary List of Staff Recommended Actions for Council Approval
B. Inventory of BMR Units [Completed and Occupied Units and Pipeline]
C. City Manager’s Report dated September 11, 2007 to Policy and Services Committee
D. Minutes from P&S Committee meeting of September 11, 2007
E. Staff report to PTC dated October 10, 2007
F. Minutes from PTC meeting of October 10, 2007
G. Description of Home Maintenance and Replacements Credit
H. Below Market Rate Housing Program Economic/Policy Analysis and Recommendations
Prepared by Keyser Marsten Associates, In.c and Anderson & Associates (City Council Only)
COURTESY COPIES
Palo Alto Housing Corporation, Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director
Bonnie Packer, Palo Alto Housing Corporation Board of Directors
Lanie Wheeler, Palo Alto Housing Corporation Board of Directors
Silicon Valley Association of Realtors
Home Builders Association of Northern California, Southern Division
CMR:163:07 Page 1 of 2
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
DATE: MARCH 17, 20087 CMR: 163:08
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF COUNCIL “TOP 4” PRIORITIES AND MILESTONES
FOR 2008: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT: CLIMATE PROTECTION;
LIBRARY PLAN/PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING; AND ECONOMIC
HEALTH
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the 2008 Council Top 4 Priorities and milestones as
identified on Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
On January 12, 2008, the City Council held its annual retreat and identified its Top 4 Priorities
for the upcoming fiscal year (2008/09). The Council took an informal vote on these priorities
during the meeting which resulted in unanimous support. Three of the priorities remain
essentially the same as last year, with revised titles: Climate Protection, Economic Health and
Library Plan/Public Safety Building. The Council also added a new priority, Civic Engagement,
to this year’s list. Staff has developed the attached list of proposed milestones (Attachment A) to
address the Council’s priorities.
DISCUSSION
Staff has had preliminary discussions with the group of citizens and civic organizations who
brought the civic engagement priority forward to the Council at its January retreat, as well as
soliciting the advice of Ed Everett, the former manager of Redwood City, who led his
organization in a focused effort on civic engagement and community building. As a result of
those discussions, staff would propose to the Council the following as premises for this priority:
• Civic engagement/community building is a multi-year commitment, involving skill
building, increased understanding, the cultivation of mutual respect and trust, and a
reorientation in working relationships between staff and the community
CMR:163:07 Page 2 of 2
• Staff training and buy-in are pivotal to the success of the priority, since a simple
customer/service-provider model deals with only a part of engaging the community in
problem solving and imaginative planning
• The new City Manager will need to lead the effort as soon as s/he is on board; this will be
a strategic opportunity for that person to introduce him or herself to the Palo Alto
community and staff; consequently, the first 6 months of the workplan lay the
groundwork for programs that will enable the new city Manager to respond to this City
Council priority and move it effectively forward
RESOURCE IMPACT
The proposed milestones for the Council Top 4 Priorities, if approved by Council, will be
included in the proposed FY 2008-09 Budget.
ATTACHMENTS
The Proposed Top 4 Workplan FY 2008-09
PREPARED BY: ___________________________________
EMILY HARRISON
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ________________________________
FRANK BENEST
CITY MANAGER
CMR:162:08 Page 1 of 2
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
DATE: MARCH 17, 2008 CMR: 162:08
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF 2006-07 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors of the Public Improvement Corporation (PIC) approve
the 2006-07 financial statements for the Public Improvement Corporation.
BACKGROUND
The Public Improvement Corporation (PIC) is a nonprofit corporation formed by the City in 1983,
allowing the City to issue Certificates of Participation (COPs) to fund capital improvements. The
PIC, through a lease structure, finances the acquisition, improvement and construction of certain
City properties (described below). PIC uses the lease payments by the City’s General Fund to pay
the debt service on the COPs.
On July 13, 1998, Council adopted a resolution establishing itself as the Board of Directors of the
PIC.
In 1983 and 1998, the City of Palo Alto issued Certificates of Participation (COPs) to fund
improvements to the Civic Center and the Golf Course, respectively. In 2002, the Civic Center
bonds were refinanced due to a lower interest rate environment, and COPs were issued to finance the
construction of office space adjacent to the new parking structure on Bryant/Florence Street. The
bylaws of the PIC require the Board of Directors of the Corporation to meet at least annually and
approve the financial statements for the Corporation. Therefore, the City Council is required to meet
annually as the Board of the PIC. The Board has no substantive oversight responsibilities, as it
assigns all rights to receive lease payments to the Trustee (U.S. Bank Trust) for the benefit of the
investors.
DISCUSSION
The attached financial statements show the financial condition of the PIC. All debt service payments
have been made on time and all financial requirements, such as the maintenance of reserves, have
been met. At year-end, June 30, 2007, total outstanding debt (principal) on the COPs equaled $9.2
million as follows:
PIC-1
CMR:162:08 Page 2 of 2
COP Description
Principal
Outstanding
(millions)
Year Debt will be
Retired
1998 Golf Course $5.1 2018
2002A Civic Center Refinancing $1.9 2012
2002B Downtown Parking Improvements $2.2 2022
Total COPs $9.2
RESOURCE IMPACT
Approval of the Public Improvement Corporation’s financial statements will have no resource
impact.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Approval of the Public Improvement Corporation’s financial statements is consistent with prior
Council policy direction and resolutions.
ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW
This is not a project under Section 21065 of the Public Resources code for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: City of Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation Financial Statements for the Year
Ended June 30, 2007.
PREPARED BY: __________________________
TARUN NARAYAN
Senior Financial Analyst
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: __________________________
LALO PEREZ
Director, Administrative Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: _______________________
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager