The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-05-19 City Council Agenda Packet 1 05/19/08 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 May 19, 2008 6:00 PM ROLL CALL STUDY SESSION COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 1. Joint Meeting with Youth Council Regarding Palo Alto Youth Issues LIST OF POTENTIAL TOPICS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2. Library/Community Center and Public Safety Building Cost Estimate Update and Review of Comments from Peer Review Committee SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 3. Proclamation for Foster Care Appreciation Month PROCLAMATION 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 March 24, 2008 CONSENT CALENDAR Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 4. Approval of Memorandum of Agreement with the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Regarding Federal Legislative Efforts CMR:249:08 ATTACHMENTS 05/19/08 2 5. Approval of Contract with Sherry L. Lund Associates in an Amount Not to Exceed $26,500 for Facilitation of the Council Appointed Officer Evaluations CMR:250:08 ATTACHMENTS 6. Request for Referral of Regional Transportation Issues to the Policy and Services Committee CMR:248:08 ATTACHMENTS 7. 2nd Reading Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing Underground Utility District Number 45 (Palo Alto Avenue, Alma Street, High Street, Lytton Avenue and Cambridge Avenue) by Amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (First reading May 5, 2008 passed 8-0 Morton not participating) 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 PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance Amending Chapter 21.50 (Park Land Dedication or Fees In-Lieu Thereof) of Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Set the Park Land Dedication Requirement to Five Acres Per Thousand Residents CMR:244:08 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS REPORTS OF OFFICIALS COUNCIL MATTERS 05/19/08 3 9. Colleague’s Memo from Mayor Klein and Council Members Burt, Barton, and Kishimoto Requesting for Support for a Pilot Program Involving “Open City Hall” On-line Civic Engagement Initiative MEMO 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. 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:249:08 Page 1 of 3 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 19, 2008 CMR:249:08 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE BAY AREA RECYCLED WATER COALITION REGARDING FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager or his/her designee to execute the memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition (BAC) for federal legislative efforts (Attachment A) for a grant under Title XVI of the Reclamation Wastewater and Ground Water Study and Facilities Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575). BACKGROUND Title XVI of the 1992 Central Valley Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575) directed the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to form a partnership with Bay Area water and wastewater agencies. The mission of the partnership is to study regional opportunities to maximize water recycling throughout the region. Projects that obtained feasibility approval of USBR are qualified for Federal financial assistance under the umbrella of the Bay Area regional program of Title XVI. The Bay Area regional program started in 1992 with a coalition of 17 agencies. Presently, twelve agencies remain in the BAC. The Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) joined the BAC in 1992 and has remained a member ever since. The RWQCP water reclamation master plan has been incorporated into the Bay Area regional program so that RWQCP projects can qualify for Federal grants. DISCUSSION The RWQCP began working on the Mountain View/Moffett Area (MVMA) recycled water pipeline project (the first project in its reclamation master plan) in 2002, and obtained USBR feasibility approval of the project in 2006. In a project status report (Attachment A to CMR:350:06), Council was informed that staff would be seeking a Federal grant under Title XVI. Staff’s effort with the BAC in the past few years has come to fruition. In April of this year, both the House and the Senate passed the bill that authorizes Title XVI funding for qualified projects in the Bay Area regional program. A $5 million reimbursement grant was authorized for the MV/MA recycled water pipeline project. In order to move forward with the appropriation, the BAC needs to formally memorialize its partnership and principles in a MOA. Execution of the MOA by the City of Palo Alto would allow staff to formally work with the BAC to request appropriation of the authorized grant. It also paves CMR:249:08 Page 2 of 3 the way for the City to seek Title XVI grant money for future projects, such as the Palo Alto reclaimed water pipeline project. Under the MOA, City agrees to the following: 1. Bay Area Clean Water Agency will serve as the regional organization to request Title XVI authorizations and appropriations for Bay Area recycled water projects. 2. Future Participating Agencies: Any public agency in the nine-county Bay region can join the BAC. An annual meeting will be held in October to invite new Bay Area recycled water project sponsors to participate. 3. Project Priority List: Project readiness will drive the priority process. Each project that is at the same level of development enjoys the same priority status. The size of the project or the congressional district in which the project is located is not a factor. 4. Advocacy: Each participating agency will request that its federal representatives advocate a high priority for the Bay Area recycled water projects regardless of whether or not the agency has a project seeking federal partnership. 5. Costs: Each participating agency project pays an equal share of the outside services costs deemed necessary to support the federal advocacy. (RWQCP’s annual portion is estimated to be approximately $10,000.) 6. Distribution of Funds: Should the amount of appropriations be less than the amount requested in any given year, funds will be distributed proportionate to the amounts requested for each authorized project. 7. Disputes: Resolved by the General Managers or City Managers from Participating Agencies. 8. Termination: Agencies can withdraw from the BAC at end of each calendar year. The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the MOA. RESOURCE IMPACT The RWQCP’s share of the BAC costs is estimated at less than $10,000 for 2008. Costs for future years are expected to decrease. Funds for the RWQCP’s share for 2008 have been appropriated in the wastewater treatment enterprise fund. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendations of this staff report are consistent with City Council’s sustainability policy. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Execution of the MOA does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. The recycled water projects seeking grant funding will be required to perform the appropriate environmental review process. CMR:249:08 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Memorandum of Agreement Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Federal Legislative Efforts PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ RICK WETZEL Manager, Water Quality Control Plant DEPARTMENT HEAD: ______________________________________ GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ______________________________________ KELLY MORARIU and STEVE EMSLIE Deputy City Managers CMR:250:08 Page 1 of 2 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office DATE: MAY 19, 2008 CMR: 250:08 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH SHERRY LUND ASSOCIATES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $26,500 FOR FACILITATION OF THE COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICER EVALUATIONS RECOMMENDATION Per Council direction at the April 30 special meeting, staff recommends that the Council authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with Sherry Lund and Associates in an amount not to exceed $26,500 for facilitation of the Council Appointed Officers’ annual performance evaluations. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On April 30, 2008, the City Council held a special meeting to interview three firms for the facilitation of the annual Council Appointed Officers’ (CAO) performance evaluations. At that meeting, the Council selected Sherry Lund and Associates as the preferred consultant. Councilmember Barton, current CAO chair, conducted reference checks on Ms. Lund, which were all positive. Based on this feedback, staff has prepared this staff report and contract for Council consideration. Sherry Lund and Associates has many years of experience in executive evaluation facilitation and coaching in both the public and private sectors. Her resume and biography are attached again for reference (Attachment A). The proposed contract with Ms. Lund is included as Attachment B. RESOURCE IMPACT Funds for this contract ($26,500) are available in the City Council budget for FY 07/08. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent with current Council policy. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CMR:250:08 Page 2 of 2 This recommendation does not constitute a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: A: Biography and Resume for Sherry Lund and Associates B: Proposed contract with Sherry Lund and Associates PREPARED BY: _________________________________ KELLY MORARIU Deputy City Manager APPROVED BY: _________________________________ FRANK BENEST City Manager CMR: 248:08 Page 1 of 2 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: MAY 19, 2008 CMR: 248:08 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REFERRAL OF REGIONAL TRANSPORATION ISSUES TO POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council refer the matter of regional transportation issues to the Policy and Services Committee for review and discussion. DISCUSSION There are a number of regional transportation initiatives, projects and studies underway that are of interest to both the Council and the community and have implications for Palo Alto and the mid-peninsula. Council members also sit on policy advisory boards and committees for some of these transportation studies. These issues include the following as well as others: • 2020 Peninsula Gateway Corridor Study • Highway 101 Auxiliary Lanes/101 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes Project • Highway 101 Ramp Metering Project • Dumbarton Rail & HOV Buses • Santa Clara County Comprehensive Expressway Study Update • VTA Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2035 • Caltrain and California High Speed Rail (HSR) • Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center • VTA Governance In order to provide Council with an opportunity to have a more comprehensive discussion of and provide some policy direction on these issues, staff recommends that this matter be referred to the Policy and Services Committee. Some of the issues are ones for which there is existing Council policy direction, others are new issues that need to be followed and monitored, and others are issues that may be appropriate to refer to the Planning and Transportation Commission for further analysis and recommendation. CMR: 248:08 Page 2 of 2 Staff intends to present an overview and status of these projects at the June 3rd Policy and Services Committee meeting. Based on the Policy and Services Committee direction, staff will develop a comprehensive program consisting of monitoring issues, preparing more detailed reports for policy development on individual items, or forwarding issues to the Planning and Transportation Commission or Council as appropriate. A report on the committee discussion and recommendations will be forwarded to the full Council for consideration. PREPARED BY: __________________________________________ GAYLE LIKENS Transportation Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: __________________________________________ CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: __________________________________________ STEVE EMSLIE / KELLY MORARIU Interim Deputy City Managers COURTESY COPIES Chamber of Commerce Planning and Transportation Commission CMR: 244:08 Page 1 of 6 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: MAY 19, 2008 CMR: 244:08 SUBJECT: POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21.50 (PARK LAND DEDICATION OR FEES IN-LIEU THEREOF) OF TITLE 21 (SUBDIVISIONS AND OTHER DIVISIONS OF LAND) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO SET THE PARK LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT TO FIVE ACRES PER THOUSAND RESIDENTS RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Policy and Services Committee recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 21.50 (Park Land Dedication or Fees In-Lieu Thereof) of Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to increase the park land dedication requirement from three acres per thousand residents to five acres per thousand residents. BACKGROUND On June 5, 2006, the City Council approved an ordinance requiring that project applicants dedicate park land when subdividing property for residential purposes (Ordinance 4907, also see CMR 246:06). The ordinance required three acres of park land for every thousand residents. Based on experience with two recent projects, however, staff believes that parks generated by the three-acre-per-thousand requirement are inadequate to meet the City’s needs which is the minimum stipulated by State law. The attached proposed ordinance raises the dedication requirement to five acres per thousand residents generated by a proposed subdivision. For further background, please refer to the Policy and Services Committee staff report, Attachment B. 8 CMR: 244:08 Page 2 of 6 COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION On April 8, 2008, the Policy and Services Committee recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance raising the park land dedication requirement to five acres per thousand residents. The vote was 2-1 with Councilmembers Drekmeier and Kishimoto voting yes, and Councilmember Barton voting no. Comments and questions were raised at the meeting as follows: • Exactly what land is included in the calculation of existing City park land? • How is the land value used to calculate the fee determined? • How may the fees be used? • Why was the park land requirement set at three units per thousand rather than five in 2006? • Can somebody choose to dedicate land rather than pay fees if they are building fewer than fifty units? • What are the total development fees that apply to new housing? • Some additional analysis on whether the City’s park land goals can be achieved with a three acre per thousand requirement would be helpful. • As population grows, this proposal is one way to maintain city services. • The proposed fees could affect the affordability of housing in Palo Alto. • Parks are an important part of the quality of life in Palo Alto. DISCUSSION Staff has prepared some additional analysis in response to some of the issues raised at the Policy and Services Committee meeting. Exactly what land is included in the calculation of existing City park land? In response to questions about the actual amounts of current park land, staff has developed the table below to illustrate Palo Alto’s various types of park land: Table 1: Palo Alto Park Land Acreage Acreage per 1,000 Residents* Data Source Neighborhood Parks 157 acres 2.68 Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-07 School Athletic Fields 43 acres .73 Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2006-07 Foothills Park - Developed area 25 acres .43 Adamson Report Foothills Park - Open space/ hiking areas 1,375 acres 23.46 Adamson Report Baylands Athletic Center 12 acres .12 1990 Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan Update CMR: 244:08 Page 3 of 6 Baylands – Duck Pond / Interpretive Center 10 acres .17 1990 Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan Update Golf Course 184 acres 3.14 1990 Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan Update Baylands – open space and hiking areas 1,264 acres 21.57 1990 Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan Update Pearson Arastradero Preserve 622 acres 10.61 Adamson Report TOTAL 3,692 63.00 *Based on 2000 census data, 58,598 residents How is the land value used to calculate the fee determined? The land value in this ordinance is based on a survey of comparables in Palo Alto for 2006. The land value used is the midpoint of the range of commercial sales for that year. Staff used the commercial land value because it represents larger parcels more likely to be subdivided into residential uses, and thus subject to the park land dedication ordinance. Some cities do a study of comparables for each new development, rather than setting a fair market value for all new developments. This requires more administrative work, but can potentially yield higher in-lieu fees. The drawback to this method is the lack of predictability for both the City and the developer for forecasting future fee revenue and development costs, respectively. How may the fees be used? Fee revenue may be used only for projects that increase the capacity of the City’s parks. One way to do this is by acquiring new land, but there are other ways. Some improvements to existing parks increase capacity without additional land. For example, replacing a grass field with turf expands the number of days of the year the field can be used, because the turf is more resilient and requires less maintenance. Capacity improvements are an important method for expanding park capacity because dedication is sporadic in a built-out community. Few parcels are large enough to support a development over 50 units which would trigger the land dedication requirement under the park land dedication ordinance. Why was the requirement set at three units per thousand rather than five in 2006? A question was raised at the Policy and Services Committee meeting about the rationale for adopting a three-unit-per-thousand requirement. When proposed in 2006, staff recommended the lower requirement until the City gained some experience with administering the ordinance, and could determine whether the City’s park land goals CMR: 244:08 Page 4 of 6 could be achieved with such a requirement. A five-unit-per-thousand ratio was presented as an alternative, but not adopted at that time. Can a developer choose to dedicate land rather than pay fees if they are building fewer than fifty units? A developer may always offer to dedicate land rather than pay fees, but that offer is subject to the City’s acceptance. The City may require in-lieu fees if the land proposed does not meet the City’s park needs. For developments of fifty units or fewer, the City may not require land, though the developer may still offer it. It is unlikely a park offered as part of such a development would be large enough to meet the City’s needs, though in some cases it might be if it expanded an existing park. Some additional analysis on whether the City’s park land goals can be achieved with a three acre per thousand requirement would be helpful. The demand for parks demonstrates itself both qualitatively and quantitatively. There is an existing demand for field sports. A survey done in 2002 of some of the major sports leagues in Palo Alto found that 3% of people who want to join are turned away. There is also competing demand for space from underserved activities such as skateboarding, dog recreation, gym recreation, and water sports. The existing facilities for these activities, built a long time ago, are not up to modern standards. When considered alongside the continuing need for passive recreation areas such as picnic space, or the need for playgrounds, including those suitable for special needs children, the demand for additional park space is clear. Staff has done a rough analysis of the cost of acquiring parcels to expand park land to meet this demand. Staff chose sample parcels spread throughout the City that could be suitable for new parks, and analyzed the cost. The parcels were chosen with an eye to their effectiveness at expanding parks in a way that created a more efficient shape or layout. To acquire six acres of suitable land spread throughout the City would require approximately $28 million. Even if this land were acquired over the next twelve to fifteen years, it would still provide only 2.4 acres of park land for each 1,000 new residents projected to move to Palo Alto during the same time. A park land dedication fee based on a ratio of five acres per thousand residents may generate enough revenue to acquire and improve this park land, while a fee based on the current ratio most likely would not (see “Resource Impacts”, CMR 196:08, Attachment B). This analysis suggests that the current park land dedication requirement is not sufficient to maintain our existing level of recreation service to current and future Palo Alto residents. CMR: 244:08 Page 5 of 6 What are the total development fees that apply to new housing? Below are tables showing the total development impact fees, assessed both by the City and the School District. Table 2:Impact and In-Lieu Fees for Single Family Subdivisions (5+ units)* Current Fees (Per Unit) Proposed Fees (Per Unit) % increase School fees $ 8,680 $ 8,680 Community Facility Fees 2,350 2,350 Library Fees 820 820 Citywide TIF 3,582 3,582 Park Land Dedication 28,620 47,700 67% Housing In-Lieu Fees** 116,625 116,625 TOTAL $ 160,677 $ 179,757 12% *Note: None of these fees apply to tearing down and rebuilding a home. For second units, only the school, community facility, library, and traffic fees apply (at the multi-family rate). ** Housing in-lieu fees are only required if the developer does not build affordable housing units. Table 3:Impact and In-Lieu Fees for Multi-family and Condominium Projects Current Fees (Per Unit) Proposed Fees (Per Unit) % increase School fees $ 4,200 $ 4,200 Community Facility Fees 1,546 1,546 Library Fees 536 536 Citywide TIF 1,771 1,771 Park Land Dedication 19,620 32,670 67% Housing In-Lieu Fees* 57,000 57,000 TOTAL $ 84,673 $ 97,723 15% * Housing in-lieu fees are only required if the developer does not build affordable housing units. RESOURCE IMPACT With a three-acre-per-thousand-resident park standard, projected fees over the next twelve years are $15-25 million, or an average of $1.5-2 million per year. Increasing the standard would mean $25-40 million collected over the next fifteen years, or an average of $2-3 million per year. Revenues would be highly variable from year to year, depending on whether new subdivisions were proposed for development in Palo Alto. The ordinance could also generate an indeterminate amount of park land, depending on fluctuating land values, the availability of suitable property for acquisition, whether large parcels in the City are redeveloped, and whether those parcels are in an acceptable location for park land. The cost of maintenance must be considered when purchasing or accepting park land for dedication; current costs are $15,000 per acre annually, per the 2006-07 Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report. CMR: 244:08 Page 6 of 6 Per the attached ordinance, the fair market value would be increased annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Adoption of an ordinance setting a requirement for land dedication is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ATTACHMENTS A. Ordinance amending Section 21.50 of the PAMC B. April 8, 2008 Policy and Services Committee staff report (CMR 196:08) PREPARED BY: __________________________________________ JON ABENDSCHEIN Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: __________________________________________ CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: __________________________________________ STEVE EMSLIE / KELLY MORARIU Interim Deputy City Managers COURTESY COPIES Home Builder’s Association Silicon Valley Association of Realtors Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce