HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-07 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting August 7, 2000
1. Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station.................444
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................444
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m..................444
1. City Manager Report on Community/Employee Meetings..........445
2. Nomination of Silicon Valley Community Communications, Inc. Board.......................................................446
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................446
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................446
3. Ordinance 4653 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $40,000 for Transcription Services in the Planning Department”......446
4. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.10.500 and Appendix A of Chapter 2.10 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Repeal the Internet and Cable Modem Service Standards”...447
5. Resolution 7995 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering the Summary Vacation of a Public Utilities Easement at 200 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto”.......447
6. Ordinance 4654 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Accept and Expend Grant Funding From the State Office of Traffic Safety in the Amount of $187,065 for the Traffic Safety Program in the Police and Planning Departments”................................................447
7. Item Deleted................................................447
08/07/00 90-441
8. Approval of an Implementation Agreement with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Regarding the Lease of Land at Ramona Street and Channing Avenue for a Child Care Center; Approval of the Lease Agreement Between PAMF and Children’s Creative Learning Center (CCLC); and Approval of Fee Waivers in an Amount not to Exceed $50,000 to Facilitate the Development of this Center..................................447
9. Agreement with Foothill/DeAnza Business and Industry in the Amount of $85,000 to Provide Trainers and Class Materials for the City’s Training Program.............................447
10. Request for Waiver of Council Committee Review of Consultant Scope of Services for Transportation Strategic Plan.........447
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS.........................447
11. Conference with City Attorney -- Potential/Anticipated Litigation..................................................448
12. Conference with City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation..................................................448
13. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation........448
13A. (Old Item No. 17) Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Eakins, and Council Member Mossar re Proposed Half Cent Sales Tax Extension...................................................448
13B. (Old Item No. 15) Storm Drainage Rate Protest Hearing.......451
14. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an application by Zwick Architects, on behalf of the Lehman family for Site and Design review of the construction of a new residence, cottage garage, two barns and a pool cabana on a 12-acre site in the Open Space Zoning District located at 850 Los Trancos Road. The total impervious surface coverage for the site is proposed to be 15,336 square feet, or 3.23 percent..461
16. November 7, 2000, Special Election – Proposed Charter Amendment, Requesting the Services of the Registrar of Voters and Ordering the Consolidation of Said Election, and Setting Ballot Arguments Procedures.........................465
18. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements..............466
STUDY SESSION....................................................466
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:40 p.m.........................................................466
08/07/00 90-442
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m............467
08/07/00 90-443
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:10 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Eakins, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle (arrived at 6:15 p.m.) ABSENT: Burch, Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian SPECIAL MEETING 1. Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
08/07/00 90-444
Regular Meeting August 7, 2000 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:20 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Burch SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. City Manager Report on Community/Employee Meetings City Manager Frank Benest said he made a commitment when he was hired to listen and learn. During his first 100 days, he held 16 “Educate the New City Manager” meetings with employees, community members, and business people. The premise of the sessions was that a great leader was a great follower; to be a great follower, he needed to know the hopes, dreams, aspirations, concerns, and fears of the people with whom he worked he worked. People were glad to be asked for input, which was the first chance for some employees and residents to talk to the City Manager. The written report in the Council packet was a summary of what people told him. In response to his “Tell Frank” cards, he found that some employees value their co-workers and the high quality of services they delivered to the community. Residents valued their quality of life for instance, their neighborhoods, schools, libraries, and trees. Business people valued the ambiance, diversity of people, and the opportunities in the community. The concerns and issues of the groups varied. The main concern of City employees was the excessive process and red tape that got in the way of doing their jobs. The lack of pay equity with other Bay Area cities was another concern. Residents were concerned about factors that threatened their quality of life, primarily traffic and what they perceived as “overdevelopment.” Business people were concerned with the cost of housing for their workers and the “us versus them” attitude of residents towards business. Several business people pointed out that they were also Palo Alto residents. Business people were also concerned with process and red tape. He asked all the groups how “Frank can be a great City Manager.” All three groups wanted him to continue listening and communicating. Another set of meetings would be scheduled in November. Employees wanted an honest, straight-forward City Manager with a sense of vision and who cut red tape and supported employees in taking risks and being creative. Residents wanted him to work with the community as a whole and move things along.
08/07/00 90-445
Business people wanted him to unify factions, take risks, and encourage staff to take risks, and to be decisive and make necessary changes in the face of criticism. He will continue to listen and learn. 2. Nomination of Silicon Valley Community Communications, Inc. Board Mayor Kniss announced that nominations for the Silicon Valley Community Communications, Inc. Board would take place at a later date. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Marvin Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, spoke regarding cable. Ed Roger Holland, 1111 Parkinson Avenue, spoke regarding Stanford mitigation. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding politics of the media. Michael Griffin, 344 Poe Street, spoke regarding the future of single family neighborhoods. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the Minutes of June 19 and July 10, 2000, as submitted, and June 26, 2000, as corrected. MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Burch absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Mossar would not participate in Consent Calendar Item No. 4 due to a conflict of interest. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3–6, 9 and 10 with Item No. 8 removed by Mayor Kniss. 3. Ordinance 4653 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $40,000 for Transcription Services in the Planning Department” 4. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.10.500 and Appendix
08/07/00 90-446
A of Chapter 2.10 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Repeal the Internet and Cable Modem Service Standards” 5. Resolution 7995 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering the Summary Vacation of a Public Utilities Easement at 200 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto” 6. Ordinance 4654 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Accept and Expend Grant Funding From the State Office of Traffic Safety in the Amount of $187,065 for the Traffic Safety Program in the Police and Planning Departments” 7. Item Deleted. 8. Approval of an Implementation Agreement with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Regarding the Lease of Land at Ramona Street and Channing Avenue for a Child Care Center; Approval of the Lease Agreement Between PAMF and Children’s Creative Learning Center (CCLC); and Approval of Fee Waivers in an Amount not to Exceed $50,000 to Facilitate the Development of this Center Implementation Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Regarding the Lease of the Land at Ramona Street and Channing Avenue for a Child Care Center Lease Agreement Between Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) for Health Care, Research, and Education and Children’s Creative Learning Center, Inc. (CCLC) 9. Agreement with Foothill/DeAnza Business and Industry in the Amount of $85,000 to Provide Trainers and Class Materials for the City’s Training Program 10. Request for Waiver of Council Committee Review of Consultant Scope of Services for Transportation Strategic Plan MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item No. 4, Mossar “not participating,” Burch absent. MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10, Burch absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Fazzino, seconded by Beecham, to move Item No. 17, Proposed Half Cent Sales Tax Extension, forward to become Item No. 13A.
08/07/00 90-447
Council Member Lytle would not participate in Item No. 13A due to a conflict of interest. MOTION PASSED: 7-0, Lytle “not participating,” Burch absent. BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL to move Item No. 15, Storm Drainage Rate Protest Hearing, forward to become Item No. 13B. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 11. Conference with City Attorney -- Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Written liability claim against the City of Palo Alto by Mark & Carla Byrne Authority: Government Code sections 54956.9(b)(1) & (b)(3)(C)
12. Conference with City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation
Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1) arising out of storm water pump station construction design by Brown & Caldwell. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(b)(3)(B).) 13. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation Subject: Jardin Pipeline, Inc., et al. v. City of Palo Alto, et al., SCC Superior Court No. CV781416 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) 13A. (Old Item No. 17) Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Eakins, and Council Member Mossar re Proposed Half Cent Sales Tax Extension Mayor Kniss said the suggestion was made with a strong push by the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group and the Mayor of San Jose, to consider recommending to the Board of Supervisors that the Board place an extension on the existing one half cent sales tax. The sales tax would not begin until 2006 and would go out to 2026. Supervisor Simitian recently suggested that the extension be 25 years rather than 20 years. His list of projects primarily benefited the northwest side of the valley to the south. Included
08/07/00 90-448
were state highway, expressway, and arterial proposals, electrification of trains from Palo Alto to Gilroy with additional service, and pedestrian and bicycle projects. Council Member Beecham asked whether there was a way to protect the City against the current estimate in the proposal for the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) being substantially under what it would cost. Vice Mayor Eakins said the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff sent a memo that explained that a potential BART overrun would be no different from any other overrun and would be dealt with by finding additional money or curtailing a project. VTA and the County of Santa Clara would not be forced to absorb the additional cost. Mayor Kniss said a variety of funding mechanisms, such as “pay as you go” to bonding, were discussed. She understood that VTA would do the construction and own the underlying structures. BART would handle the daily running of the cars. VTA was a reliable, well-run agency. Council Member Mossar said BART was somewhat run down on the edges, and it appeared that BART was not spending enough money to keep itself up. She questioned how Palo Alto’s part of the system fit into the scheme and what was the situation with the concern that Palo Alto would have to pay a large sum of money to buy into the system. Mayor Kniss said the voters deserved an opportunity to review, discuss, and ultimately vote on a sales tax extension. Vice Mayor Eakins said money for BART operations would probably come out of the greatly extended sales tax measure. An underlying, basic permanent half-cent sales tax funded maintenance and operations. Eventually, shortfalls could occur. Roger Holland, 1111 Parkinson Avenue, said Supervisor Simitian’s proposal was the only thing that made the extension acceptable. He was concerned that for 31 years into the future, all the transportation money coming from sales tax was committed to certain things. The City had six years to carefully consider the extension. BART was an expensive solution to transportation. Light rail was a great solution and should be continued. Caltrain needed to be brought up to present technology, and Caltrain had the advantage that it could connect to other rail lines and use equipment that was manufactured throughout the world. BART had no plans for bicycles, other than during the middle of the day or weekends. Caltrain was very responsive to bicycles.
08/07/00 90-449
Sigrid Pinsky, Palo Alto League of Women Voters President, 3885 Nelson Drive, said at the meeting the prior week, the League of Women Voters advised the City that the Santa Clara County Council of Leagues of Women Voters was engaged in a serious study of the issue and was following its usual procedure for determining its position. The League of Women Voters supported the Supervisors putting the transportation sales tax extension on the November 2000 ballot. The League of Women Voters would urge the County Supervisors to support the extension at their meeting the following day and encouraged the Council to support the extension. The League of Women Voters believed voters should have the opportunity to vote on the sales tax extension; once the vote was taken, the inevitable lawsuits would be filed and eventually settled. A variety of projects that would reduce traffic congestion in the County would be underway. Mayor Kniss wanted the Council to support Supervisor Simitian’s approach put forth the prior week. The extra five years began to get at the regional equity question that concerned her. She would urge the Supervisors to keep flexibility in the proposal. The voting public should have an opportunity to make the decision. MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to recommend to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors that they put Supervisor Simitian’s proposal or better for a half cent sales tax extension for 25 years to fund transportation projects on the November 2000 ballot, to keep flexibility in the program to ensure regional equity, and to carefully consider the following elements for inclusion in the actual tax proposal: 1) Appropriate safeguards for the “Bart to San Jose” project to protect the public from potential hidden, unknown and/or overrun costs associated with construction, operation and maintenance and to rule out “buy-in” dollars that may be required to participate in the BART system. 2) Equity and fairness in the choice of projects be funded by the proposed tax increase, specifically that: a) the project list provide equitable transportation mode diversity; b) the choice of projects provide serious relief from transportation and congestion for the mid-peninsula region; and c) County boundaries not be perceived or used as barriers or solutions.
08/07/00 90-450
Council Member Fazzino was happy to support the proposal before the Council and thanked Supervisor Simitian for his leadership in trying to put together a plan that was fair to all parts of the County. He was pleased that the sales tax included funding for Dumbarton Rail which he believed was one of the region’s most critically needed transportation projects. BART was a system that worked effectively. Light Rail served a wonderful purpose and needed to be extended. The BART proposal was expensive because it had tunneling that would avoid many of the problems associated with Light Rail. The Council was asked to place the measure on the ballot for public debate. He disagreed with Supervisors Bell and Alvarado and others. The dynamics of the political situation were such that windows of opportunity did not come along very often. The City needed to move forward with the plan. Council Member Mossar said the City and other northern and west valley cities had an outstanding opportunity to push on the powers that be and make sure that the transit package provided real transportation benefit for the entire County. Improvement to transportation to the communities who would not be particularly directly affected or not affected at all by BART to San Jose was equally important. Council Member Beecham supported the motion. He would not support a 20-year proposal because it would not serve Palo Alto’s interests. Concerns expressed included questioning where the operating funds would go, what the schedule would be, how the City got protected for its needs; and he did not believe there was a guarantee on cost overruns. The key for the area was a comprehensive, rail-shuttle system. Vice Mayor Eakins agreed with Mr. Holland that flexibility was needed, and part of the flexibility would be providing alternatives. She had ridden Light Rail and knew it was slow but served its purpose. Alternatives and choices were needed. She thanked Supervisor Simitian for providing the leadership that was needed in order for more of the County to get what it needed. Light Rail into the Stanford area would be ideal. She urged the Supervisors to place the matter on the ballot to let the voters discuss, debate, and choose. Mayor Kniss said several other cities had asked that the matter be put on the ballot. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Lytle “not participating,” Burch absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 13B. (Old Item No. 15) Storm Drainage Rate Protest Hearing
08/07/00 90-451
Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats said the City proposed to increase the current storm drain fee because there was not sufficient revenue in the storm drain fund to cover the cost related to the typical operations and maintenance for that function. There were no funds for Capital Improvement Projects. The increase would provide funds to contribute to the initial Joint Powers Authority (JPA) for the San Francisquito Creek. Staff previously recommended a rate increase but Proposition 218 was placed on the ballot at that time and approved by the voters of California, which had a dramatic impact on the City’s ability to increase the fees. The funding would be used to fund increased operations and maintenance. Staff identified approximately $480,000 annually that needed to be completed in the area of augmented maintenance, repairs, and rehabilitation programs. Staff also recommended that approximately $285,000 be directed towards the JPA, which would include coordination efforts, studies, and minor repairs to be funded over the next 10 years. Staff proposed an annual capital budget funded on a “pay as you go” basis, such that all critical and moderate storm drain master plan priorities, totaling approximately $48 million, would be completed over the next 30 years. Currently, the City’s General Fund Budget subsidized the storm drain fund. By the end of Fiscal Year 2000-01, the amount would be over $800,000 and would continue to grow annually. The subsidy would only provide the level of funding for maintenance and operation. The subsidization could begin to erode General Fund reserves and have an impact on other programs such as the City’s infrastructure maintenance program. Mayor Kniss said the purpose of the hearing was for the Council to a) hear all persons interested in the proposed fee increases; b) hear all objections, protests, or other written communication from any owner of property subject to the proposed fee increase; and c) to take and receive oral and documentary evidence pertaining to the proposed fee increases. At the close of the hearing, if the Council determined that written protests were received from property owners representing a majority of the parcels subject to the proposed fee increase, she would declare the proceedings closed and the fee increase would not be approved. If written protests were not received from property owners representing a majority of the parcels subject to the proposed fee increase, the Council may a) remedy and correct any clerical error or informality in the master list report, b) correct any minor defects in the proceedings; c) correspondingly revise or correct any of the acts or determinations of the City officers or employees as contained in the report; and d) confirm the report and adopt a resolution calling an election of those property owners on the question of whether the fee increase
08/07/00 90-452
should be adopted. Modifications or corrections could not be made by the Council that would result in an increase in the fee for any parcel that was greater than shown on the master list report. City Clerk Donna Rogers said she received 120 valid protests. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. David Redfield, 4010 Villa Vera, said in view of the record revenues to Palo Alto and of many other increased costs, the magnitude of the fee increase was excessive. An immediate jump of more that 100 percent with further substantial increases to follow was gross. Continued improvements occurred in other flood control facilities for years without such a huge jump. He objected to the increase because it could not be considered separately. Palo Alto recently adopted a huge school construction program which required a significant tax increase; a 55-percent increase in natural gas rates was announced; large increases in electricity rates appeared likely; a large library construction project, police building, and major traffic control projects were planned. Palo Alto had a generous program of services. A local paper recently asked, “Can Palo Alto reasonably afford its future?” The newspaper reported on statements by some Council Members and administrators that made it clear to him there was a rush to make a killing in all areas while the economy was hot. Peter Knopf, 927 Paradise Way, believed that infrastructure funding should be a priority in the community. His main concern with the storm drain fee increase was the size and scope. The project appeared to be aimed at expansion of capacity for future development as opposed to existing neighborhood improvements. The specific projects do not seem to be visible enough to the citizens. The increase was too much, too fast, and should not be carried forward in its present form. Beth Sukimoto, 4326 Silva Avenue, said a staff member mentioned the monies would be used for operations and maintenance. She questioned how the City could operate or maintain something the City did not have. A petition from her neighborhood was sent to the Council stating the residents did not have storm drains but had paid for storm drains for many years. She walked her street with a staff engineer who agreed the neighborhood had no storm drains. The streets flooded every year because there was no place for the water to drain. She did not mind the increase but objected to paying for something she did not have. The Master Plan did not include adding storm drains to her area. Elliott H. Bolter, 286 Walter Hays Drive, took issue with the proposal as far as funding was concerned. His understanding was
08/07/00 90-453
that infrastructure included such things as a drain system but was surprised it did not. The insert regarding the increase in his utility bill the prior month lacked information. The “Quick Facts,” included in the utility bill pointed out the more than doubling of the rate that was currently attached to the utility bill. Anthony Merlo, 2430 Bryant Street, asked whether the City could arrange for one or more property owners to observe and verify the process of validating and counting ballots in the upcoming September 26, 2000, mail-in election for storm drain increase. Sylvia Smitham, 2514 Birch Street, said many issues were on the November ballot which would be very costly to Palo Altans. Some Palo Altans were better off than others and could afford the proposals, but many people on fixed incomes would find the increases difficult. A good storm drain system was needed, but she did not understand why the issue was not dealt with in the past. Elizabeth O’Connell, 1032 Harker Avenue, objected to the storm drain increase. Her research on Proposition 218 indicated only a simple majority was needed to pass. Looking at who owns land in Palo Alto made it easy to see how the vote would go: 36 percent residential, 10 percent multi-family, 26 percent commercial, 19 percent industrial, and 5 percent City-owned. The storm drainage fees were skewed to favor the businesses, charging them for only the covered portion of their properties. Small property owners had to pay for their total square footage. Mailing the ballots in August when people were still on vacation made the process a grand charade. She questioned why the fees were engineered to burden the middle income resident. More information should be available to the voters; for example, Palo Alto residents should be aware they pay the highest storm drainage fees in the County of Santa Clara. Most of the cities paid fees with their property taxes. The one city that paid a fee on a utility bill paid $1.92 per year. Palo Alto refused to publish the information, yet used the residents’ money to fashion brochures, special mailings, website information, and the inserts in utility bills to sell the idea that $43 million worth of storm repair and upgrade was needed. She questioned how the Council could allow inequities. Fees should come out of property taxes, and the structure of the fees should not burden the small residential property owner. A second opinion on the validity of the entire project was needed. Wayne Martin, 3687 Bryant Street, said when he received the original flyer, he was suspicious about the lack of fundamental information on the status of the current storm drain projects. He attended an Outreach meeting and was further suspicious when the
08/07/00 90-454
room where the meeting was to be held only had room for approximately 20 people. Staff had done a good job responding to his questions. With data he received from the City, he computed that the current storm drain fee increase, based on a $9 base only, came to $320 million over the next 30 years. The bulk of the heavy work would go approximately 20 years out, and the bulk of the money was based on a Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase which was previously alluded to. The six-tiered structure concerned him. Cities such as Eugene, Oregon, admitted that city streets, sidewalks, gutters, and parking lots contributed to approximately 21 percent of storm drain runoff. The current structure did not admit to any contribution except from the area of property in the Master List. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, was concerned about the problem for many years. Part of the problem was due to the increased amount of cement, the number of underground stories going in, and fewer parcels absorbed their share of the water. She questioned whether an account was made for drainage when impacting buildings were constructed, and the answer was “we assume that whatever we put in can be handled by the current infrastructure.” Currently, that cannot be handled and had not been handled for many years, and the impact was getting worse. Apparently, residents living on larger properties with small houses were taking everyone’s water and being taxed equally for the super house next door. She was flooded out by neighbors on both sides of her house. The Rule 25 that the City was giving to Stanford and certain property owners to reduce their bills by 60 percent, should be applied to the owners of large properties with small houses. Special favors should not be given to certain groups who significantly impacted downstream properties. The City should have a fee for the people who build large homes and contribute more than their share of water to the storm drain system. Richard Geiger, 714 E. Charleston Road, objected to no time schedule for the projects and the fact that the 100-year-old sewers that needed repair and replacing would consume most of the money for the first 15 to 20 years. Fees were not reasonably based on lot size; for instance, a 6,000 square foot lot paid the same as an 11,000 square foot lot. Many of the lots in south Palo Alto were in the 6,000 square foot category. Another objection was there were large areas in the City that did not have storm drains and yet fees would be collected from those areas. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing closed. City Manager Frank Benest said there were questions raised about people on fixed incomes or low-income households. At the prior
08/07/00 90-455
Council meeting, the Council directed staff to come back with an extension of the rate assessment program that currently existed in terms of other utilities. That information would be incorporated into the program. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts responded to the comment from the resident who said her area did not have storm drainage, and said the issue was reviewed. The streets in the Silva Court and Silva Drive area were originally designed to surface flow into the City of Menlo Park, and it was correct there was no storm drainage in that area. Rule 25 provided that for properties that did not discharge into a storm drainage system, a rate adjustment was possible. Under the current program, the rate adjustment was a 60 percent credit; under the new program, the adjustment would be an 80 percent credit. Properties that did not discharge into the storm drainage system would pay only 20 percent of the proposed rate structure. That 20 percent was maintained in order to pay for citywide programs dealing with storm drainage water quality and runoff. Adjustments were made to several homes in the Silva Drive area, and he would be happy to work with the residents in that area to apply it to all of them who were similarly affected. Responding to the concern raised about the equity between the residential and commercial sectors, he said residential homes were not charged for all of their square footage, but were charged for the areas of impervious coverage. There were six categories for residential homes in the proposed program, and the fee for each category was based on the amount of impervious coverage. With regard to revenues and voting, under the proposed increase, only one third of the revenues came from residential homes and two thirds came from the commercial, industrial, and multi-family sector. The structure did not overly burden residential. The voting was one vote per parcel. The equity with the revenue stream and voting process was provided for. Council Member Ojakian clarified Stanford campus had its own storm drainage system. Mr. Roberts said that was correct. The properties within the City boundaries, such as Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford Hospital, and Industrial Park, paid the fee. The few parcels on Stanford property within the City limits that had their own storm drainage system and their own outfall to the creek got a reduction in the fee. Council Member Ojakian clarified the larger commercial properties in Palo Alto paid a higher fee than smaller lot owners. Mr. Roberts said the larger property owners would pay thousands
08/07/00 90-456
of dollars per month depending on the acreage. Council Member Mossar said there was a misunderstanding of the function of a storm drainage system and asked for a basic definition. Mr. Roberts said historically the function of the storm drainage system was to collect and convey the waters to the creek within certain design standards and for certain intensity of storms. The more recent function was thought to be one of environmental values where the quality of water that flowed into the streams was controlled. A maintenance component took care of the storm drains on an annual basis. The program also proposed an upgrade to the higher design standards. Council Member Beecham said questions were raised on use of the funds for other than strictly storm drains such as a loan, gutter usage, or curbs. Mr. Roberts said all the functions related to storm drainage activities. Curb and gutter was an element of the conveyance system which carried the water along the streets and into the storm drainage. If the curbs were raised or broken, the water could not move. The JPA was a vital function in maintaining an effective storm drainage system in the City. If the City did not ultimately end up with a recommended package for the improvement to San Francisquito Creek to convey floodwaters through it, the City would not be able to improve the storm drainage system to carry water into the Creek. Council Member Lytle asked how the City responded to the one-parcel vote if two members of the household had different views on the issue. Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case said one ballot would be submitted to each property and, the ballot would be checked off by the Clerk’s office against the roll to make sure the person who voted was in fact the correct property owner. In the case of two owners, the first ballot received would be counted. In the case of a trust or corporation, the person who voted, assuming that everything looked proper, would be assumed to be the proper person to vote. Council Member Mossar said a member of the public asked about the ability of the public to watch the validation and counting process. Ms. Case said ballots were secret, but the process could be watched and validated. The City would follow the Elections Code.
08/07/00 90-457
Mr. Yeats said the storm drainage process at the current time was a General Fund cost avoidance issue. The City was trying to save a certain amount of money each year in reserves to pay for the infrastructure management plan and a certain amount of money to build up the budget stabilization reserve to pay for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) park. The process, if not approved, would erode the savings or potential for savings from the General Fund. Council Member Kleinberg was concerned about senior citizens on a fixed income and asked how the City could protect against escalation in rents for those who could not afford the increase. Mr. Yeats said the only mechanism was the rate assistance program which would be brought back to the Council the night of the ballot counting. That program would allow residents to apply for a discounted rate on the storm drain fee that would be charged. Council Member Kleinberg questioned the difference between the commercial rate and the property owner rate. The commercial property owner did not pay based on size of land owned but rather the impervious surface. Mr. Roberts said the rate per equivalent residential unit (ERU) was the same regardless of how many square feet of impervious area there was. The rate per unit was constant up and down the scale for commercial as well as residential. Council Member Ojakian asked where the graduated scale kicked in. Mr. Roberts said there were six categories for residential lots and the rate varied for those from large to small. Senior Engineer Joe Teresi said an ERU was equal to 2,500 square feet of impervious area. For instance, Category 3 which was a single-family lot from 6,000 to 10,999 square feet, was billed one ERU. Council Member Ojakian asked how the rate worked for commercial. Mr. Teresi said commercial was billed one ERU for each 2,500 square foot of actual measured impervious area on the lot. A commercial lot with 5,000 square feet of impervious area would be billed two ERUs. Council Member Kleinberg asked about the amortization of the fee over the years noting that what was received in residents’ utility bills was an example of where it might be in the next
08/07/00 90-458
year. She questioned the next 10, 15, or 30 years and whether a cap or sunset would be possible. Mr. Yeats said the Council set the policy that said the increase would be $9 the first year, $10 the second year, and adjusted only by the CPI in future years. The Council would review that each year and be the policy making body that decided whether or not the CPI would increase it. Under Prop 218, there was no sunset. Another ballot election would be required to increase the fee. Council Member Kleinberg said some people suggested that Palo Alto was bold in making a storm drainage fee rather than a tax. Ms. Case said when the Council first established the storm drain enterprise system; it was done so on the basis of use. A determination was made that not every property made the same use of the storm drain system, and the Council determined it should be done on a fair share basis. Taxes would hit everyone equally, and the Council decided user fees was the best way to make people pay for using the system. Council Member Mossar questioned whether a residential property designed its household in such a way that it retained all the water on site, would the property owner be able to apply for Rule 25 to get an 80 percent reduction in the storm drain fee. Mr. Roberts said that was theoretically possible. Council Member Mossar said concern was mentioned about subterranean development and asked how that impacted the permeability calculations. Mr. Roberts said there was no difference with one story or ten stories. The reduction in ability to absorb was based on the footprint and not the height. Council Member Mossar asked about the holding capacity of the soils beneath the structure. Mr. Roberts said there were limits that required only two stories below grade so there would not be year-round pumping of ground water. Council Member Mossar said several people alluded to the fact that the City owned streets and sidewalks which were not permeable. The streets and sidewalks were for the use of everyone and could not be used when flooded, which was the reason everyone would pay the fee.
08/07/00 90-459
Mr. Roberts said money to pay the fee for streets and sidewalks would have to come from tax revenues. Vice Mayor Eakins said Mr. Martin indicated $37 million was collected that had not been used. Mr. Roberts said he was not certain where that number came from. There had been ongoing revenues collected from the storm drainage system since its inception, which was spent, on a number of projects. He would be happy to show Mr. Martin where the money had been spent. Council Member Ojakian asked for an explanation to Mr. Martin’s question about the City raising $320 million. Mr. Yeats said Mr. Teresi’s figures were $226 million over 30 years. Council Member Ojakian asked how that amount related to the $48 million. Mr. Yeats said a portion of the money was for ongoing maintenance. The fee would have to be raised to $6.20 to cover only the maintenance component. Council Member Ojakian said the combination of funds ended up taking care of current additions to the system and some was for San Francisquito Creek and sidewalk and gutter repair. Mr. Teresi to noted that the $48 million worth of capital improvements would be done over a period of 30 years. Council Member Mossar said her understanding of the JPA portion was that each member entity contributed its fair share to projects, and the big ticket item was planning for the flood control project in the Creek. She clarified the City was not the only party who put money into the planning. Mr. Roberts said that was correct. Vice Mayor Eakins asked staff to confirm that the ballots were due in the City Clerks Office on September 26, 2000. Ms. Rogers said the ballots were due by 8 p.m. on September 26, 2000. She said 19,415 notices were originally mailed, and 122 written protests were received. Fifty percent or 9,707 protests were needed.
08/07/00 90-460
Mayor Kniss declared that a majority protest was not received. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Ojakian, to adopt the resolution calling a special mail ballot election for Tuesday, September 26, 2000, to allow owners of parcels subject to the storm drainage fee increase to vote on whether the fee should be increased. Resolution 7996 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling a Special Mail Ballot Election for Tuesday, September 26, 2000, for Submittal of a Storm Drainage Fee Increase to Owners of Real Property Subject to the Fee” Council Member Fazzino assumed that issues surrounding the question of whether or not individual neighborhoods should be included in the storm drainage fee program could be addressed at any time. Mr. Yeats said that was correct under Rule 25. Council Member Fazzino said he spoke with residents on Monroe Drive who believed they should not be part of the plan, which was an issue he would like to explore further. He wanted to make sure that the people included in the plan were served by the system. He agreed with members of the public that the ballot process was as open as possible and that people had the opportunity to observe and participate in the ballot procedures. Many people were concerned about the large number of proposed fee and tax increases, and he was sensitive to the fact that people believed the City was moving forward because of the political and economic opportunities to get the fees and taxes approved. The community’s infrastructure had been ignored for 20 years, and Palo Alto had fallen behind other communities. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Burch absent. RECESS: 9:40 – 9:55 P.M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 14. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an application by Zwick Architects, on behalf of the Lehman family for Site and Design review of the construction of a new residence, cottage garage, two barns and a pool cabana on a 12-acre site in the Open Space Zoning District located at 850 Los Trancos Road. The total impervious surface coverage for the site is proposed to be 15,336 square feet, or 3.23 percent. Environmental Assessment: An initial study
08/07/00 90-461
has been prepared, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines. (Continued from 7/10/00) Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the Site and Design application was for a 7,700 square foot house in the foothills with an accessory living unit and other accessory buildings on the site, with other impervious surface coverage which would equal approximately 17,000 square feet. The coverage would be 3.23 percent coverage which was within the 3.5 percent coverage allowed in the Open Space District. The two single-family residences and barn currently on the site would be removed as part of the proposal. Three issues the Council might want to consider included 1) recommending a 100-foot setback from the top of the bank of the creek; 2) accepting the applicant’s proposal for the cupola; and 3) recommending approval of the environmental assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff recommended approval of the project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mayor Kniss asked about the City’s process for dealing with chemicals getting into the creek. Ms. Grote said the application was reviewed by the Water Quality Section of Public Works. Staff recommended the 100-foot setback in case of any accidental chemical seepage. Len Lehman, Applicant, said the parcel was leveled at one time and currently contained a home, cottage, and 5,000 square foot shed. The goal of the project was to restore the land to make it look more natural and more in keeping with the adjacent properties. The plan included a main house, cottage, smaller barn of about 2,000 square feet, pool house, and agriculture shed for the vineyard. The vineyard was proposed to be approximately 2 1/2 acres. A question was raised about drainage into the creek. The land sloped away from the creek, and a berm ran continuously along the creek which made it impossible for runoff from the vineyard to enter the creek. Drainage on the property was engineered so water would be directed into a holding pond with biological input and output filters. The natural drainage was toward the northeast, away from the creek to an adjacent property. The City Arborist approved the vineyard layout as proposed. Approximately 250,000 square feet of green house were previously located on the site and, before that, a commercial orchard was located on the site, which resulted in agricultural chemicals used on the site for at least 40 years. Marty Zwick, Architect, said the project was set up to create an environmentally sensitive design. The site was treated poorly during the prior years. The goal was to bring the topography back
08/07/00 90-462
to its original configuration and supplement what was there in a careful and thoughtful way. When the City rezoned the property, there were 250,000 square feet of greenhouses which was incredibly energy intensive and high in the use of artificial chemicals. The pond was a unique feature of the site. Water would be retained on site to be used during the summer, and natural environmental biotic activity would be used in the pond. Mayor Kniss asked how large and how deep the pond was. Mr. Zwick said the pond was .9 acres and varied from zero to approximately 15 feet. Council Member Mossar recalled a prior proposal to build several housing sites on the parcel. She remembered discussion about unstable hillside, unstable soils, and seismic risks. Mr. Zwick said the seismic risk was always substantial. There were no plans to get away from that. A geotechnic report was prepared for the property. The property was flat and did not have hillsides. The geotechnical engineer reviewed the available data that was public record and found no issues. Mayor Kniss asked about organic gardening with relation to the vineyard. Mr. Zwick said pesticides would not be used. The farm would be certified as organic. Water on the property would drain to the pond, away from the creek. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said he thought the item could not be on the current agenda because it needed a new notice of public hearing since the public hearing was not opened at the meeting of July 10, 2000. He was concerned about the use permit application and suggested it be combined with Permit Streamlining into one hearing. Mr. Lehman tried to create a project with care and sensitivity to the environment; however, there were issues he wanted to raise because they were related to other open space parcels that might be of interest to the Council. The first concern was the size of the parcel which was shown on the Assessor’s Map as 11.70 acres; the amount used for calculations in the plan sheets before the Council was 12.015 acres, which led to a difference of impervious coverage allowed of only 480 square feet. Dedication of a portion of Los Trancos Road was asked for as part of the approval. That would require a parcel map which could trigger the Subdivision Ordinance and conditions that could be placed on projects, including deducting the area of the creek
08/07/00 90-463
from the area used to calculate impervious coverage, deducting other areas inundated by water, and deducting the road right-of-way. The acreage would be brought down to a smaller amount. For example, the Bressler Property had 1.85 acres on Arastradero Road. A creek ran through the property with flood control easements on both sides of the creek. The lowest point of water flow was the area to the east of the fence that ran through the property. If that came under the same logic for the proposed project, those areas would be included in the area used to calculate impervious coverage. He wanted to know if there was a distinction between the two parcels and what was the City’s ability to control the amount of impervious coverage on it. The previous use of the property was irrelevant to the Council’s decision. There were a couple buildings in addition to the cottage and the main house. Normally that would require a limit of two water hook ups each. He agreed with Planning staff on maintaining the 100-foot limit. In terms of the proposal, he liked the sensitivity to the environment; however, the Council also needed to be sensitive to the type of decisions that were made for the parcel in terms of how it affected other parcels that might come before the Council. Kip Husty, 922 Bautista Court, was skeptical about the proposal but changed his mind after seeing the plans. He asked that the Council be careful about giving amendments or exceptions to some rules. Council Member Mossar said Mr. Borock raised procedural issues and asked whether the Council should be concerned. Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case said Mr. Borock’s comment was not correct about the Council having no authority to continue a public hearing that was not opened. As long as the Council duly made its change in public session, there was no problem. Council Member Mossar said the applicant stated a desire to farm organically and to certify the vineyard as an organic vineyard. The City would not know who the owner would be over time as the owner could change over time. She asked whether there were any mechanisms available to the Council to ensure the continuance of the organic nature of the agricultural use. Ms. Case said one issue was whether a finding of feasibility could be made that allowed the setback be less than 100 feet. Assuming the findings could be made, the issue was enforceability. The Site and Design could be conditioned and a condition could be included that the property owner turn in an annual continued certification.
08/07/00 90-464
MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the staff and Planning and Transportation Commission recommendations in the staff report (CMR:306:00) to: (1) approve the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project on the property located at 850 Los Trancos Road [Attachment 4]; (2) approve the proposed project, based upon Site and Design findings [Attachment 2] and subject to the recommended conditions of approval [Attachment 3]; and approve the Use Permit for the cottage subject to the Use Permit findings [Attachment 9]. Council Member Mossar suggested incorporating a condition that the agricultural use continue as a certified organic operation. Ms. Case said she was under the impression the Council was talking about adding a condition to allow the property owner to do something that was not already allowed. If the staff recommendation required a 100-foot setback from the creek, an extra condition did not have the same nexus. Council Member Beecham asked for clarification in the motion on the height of the gable. Council Member Lytle said her motion included staff interpretation, which was the only aspect of the staff recommendation she was uncomfortable with. She was fearful that leniency in the situation would lead to more creative interpretations of the height definition. When approving 17,000 square-foot residential facilities, she believed the Council needed to do all it could to interpret the code in the public interest. She was concerned about the loophole that might be created by being creative in the Council’s interpretation. She reinforced the 100-foot setback. Council Member Mossar said one of the functions of a 100-foot setback was to allow meander in the creek. In the present proposal, one of the issues was that the distance between the vineyard and creek could not be controlled if the creek meandered. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Burch absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 16. November 7, 2000, Special Election – Proposed Charter Amendment, Requesting the Services of the Registrar of Voters and Ordering the Consolidation of Said Election, and Setting Ballot Arguments Procedures
08/07/00 90-465
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to adopt the resolution calling for a special election for the purposes of a Charter Amendment Measure. Resolution 7997 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling a Special Election for Tuesday, November 7, 2000, for Submittal of a Proposed Charter Amendment Measure to the Electorate and Ordering the Consolidation of the Election” MOTION PASSED 8-0, Burch absent. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Fazzino, that the City Council prepare a ballot argument and the Mayor appoint an Ad-Hoc committee, allow the individual boards and commission members to sign ballot arguments for or against the measure using their respective titles, and direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Burch absent. Mayor Kniss announced the Ad-Hoc Committee would consist of Council Members Beecham, Lytle, and Mossar. COUNCIL MATTERS 18. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Mossar, to cancel the September 11, 2000, City Council meeting. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Burch absent. STUDY SESSION 1. Continued Discussion of Streamlining BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL the Study Session re Streamlining will be continued to a date uncertain. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:40 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving potential/anticipated litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 11 and 12, and existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 13.
08/07/00 90-466
Mayor Kniss announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 11, 12, and 13. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
08/07/00 90-467