HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-28 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting November 28, 1994 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 74-199 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 1994 .................... 74-199 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Silicon Valley Shelving & Equipment Company, Inc. for Regional Water Quality Control Plant Warehouse Modifications Project ............................................... 74-199 2. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to: 1) approve prioritized categories of Storm Drain Capital Improvement Projects .......................... 74-199 3. Calibration of Storm Drain Computer Model ............ 74-199 4. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation ............................................ 74-200 5. Planning Commission recommendation to approve in concept the acquisition of 753 Alma Street for the development of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing .... 74-200 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and B & B Land-scaping Contractors Inc. for Landscape Improvements at Hansen Way Substation (continued from 11/21/94) ....... 74-209 7. Cooperative Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara County Housing Authority to Allow the Housing Authority to Issue Tax-Exempt Bonds to Finance Acquisition of Arastradero Park Apartments (continued from 11/21/94) ........................................ 74-210 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of amendments to CD regulations (PAMC Chapter 18.49) to establish an in-lieu parking fee ................................................... 74-210 9. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 To Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Continuation of the Economic Resources Planning Program 74-221 10. Ordinance Amending the 1991 Edition of the Uniform Building Code; Amending Chapter 16.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and Declaring an Emergency ............ 74-221
11/28/94 74-197
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:08 p.m. .......................... 74-222 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. in memory of Ray Lyman Wilbur, Jr., a former Human Relations Commission Chairperson ...................... 74-223
11/28/94 74-198
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenb-aum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Claudio Martinez, P. O. Box 273, Palo Alto, spoke regarding bones and tools of early man, diamonds, Ohlone artifacts, and other creek finds. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding communication with the public (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 1994 MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of October 11, 1994, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 3. 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Silicon Valley Shelving & Equipment Company, Inc. for Regional Water Quality Control Plant Warehouse Modifications Project; change orders not to exceed $5,000 2. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to: 1) approve prioritized categories of Storm Drain Capital Im-provement Projects listed in Attachment 1 of CMR:479:94; and 2) direct staff to proceed with a three-year Storm Drain Capital Improvement Program which included the projects listed in the revised description (Attachment 2) of the Collection System Improvements Capital Improvement Project and initiate the sale of bonds to finance the program. 3. Calibration of Storm Drain Computer Model Amendment No. 2 to Contract C2020749 between the City of Palo Alto and CH2M Hill, Inc. for Calibration of the Computer Model of the City's Storm Drain System Resolution 7414 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Intention to Reimburse Expendi-tures from the Proceeds of Obligations to be Issued by the City and Directing Certain Actions" MOTION PASSED 9-0. CLOSED SESSION The item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting.
11/28/94 74-199
4. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation Subject: Potential initiation of litigation on one matter
Authority: Government Code ∋54956.9(c) Public Comment None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. Planning Commission recommendation to approve in concept the acquisition of 753 Alma Street for the development of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing as described in the report to the City of Palo Alto from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation "Feasibility of SRO Housing Development as 753 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA" dated October 14, 1994 (continued from 11/21/94) (Public Testimony Closed) Council Member Huber asked whether there was a way for the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) to ensure that no more people with automobiles would be residents in the building if the parking requirements anticipated were not sufficient. Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, said it would be a management prerogative, but she would not want to be forced to implement that requirement until the situation presented itself. She did not believe it would be an issue to stipulate that the next residents selected from the waiting list would be people without cars. Council Member Huber asked whether it was possible to require the tenants who did not have parking spaces in the project to use City parking lots. Ms. Prendergast was uncertain whether the City could accommodate the parking. She said it was a sequential first serve waiting list; and if there were a problem, it would have to be limited. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the parking permits in the Downtown assessment district had traditionally been focused and limited to the people who worked within the assessment district. He believed there was an informal process that checked on the place of employment for the people who received a permit and went on the waiting list for permits. Council Member Huber asked whether there was another mechanism for people to use City parking lots if there were too many cars. City Attorney Ariel Calonne did not know whether the parking assessment district was set up to preclude residential use. Council Member Wheeler understood that part of the target market
11/28/94 74-200
for the development would be people who were employed in Palo Alto's downtown. She asked whether a person who was a resident of the development and held a parking permit could stay in their assigned lots or have a floating permit that would allow them to park closer to their place of residence in the evening. Mr. Schreiber said there was no reason why they could not stay in their assigned lots overnight. No procedure was presently available that allowed someone to park in a lot closer to their residences, but it could be put in place. Council Member Schneider asked whether a charge for parking had been considered. The City of San Jose charged a $25 parking fee at a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) development. The fee would offset some of the operating deficit and would be a disincentive for people who had a car. Ms. Prendergast said she knew of two SRO developments that charged a fee. In both instances, there was adequate street parking in the neighborhoods. A review of the situation could be pursued. It was not an illegal situation with the tax credit funding that was being pursued. Council Member Schneider asked how the tax credit equity was calculated. Joe Martinetti, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, 540 Cowper Street, said the corporation that bought the tax credits set the level of payment which was based on an individual tax situation. Histori-cally, the tax credit had been 55 cents on the dollar which meant that if a corporation received a tax credit of $7 million, it would only be willing to invest 55 cents on the dollar or approx-imately $4 million. An internal formula for the investor deter-mined a corporation's returns. Previously, the returns on tax credits were in the 20 to 25 percent range; but corporations were now very interested in the tax credits due to the benefit, and the federal and state government had tried to get the returns lowered. He understood the returns were presently in the 16 to 20 percent range. The consultant for PAHC had used a blended rate which averaged 55 cents of what investors were willing to pay. Council Member Schneider asked whether the rate had been shopped. Mr. Martinetti said no. An allocation of tax credit had to be obtained from the State Commission; and then there would be a dozen corporations that would welcome an opportunity to get the tax credit after the allocation was received. Council Member McCown said the issue was the City's ability to mix that type of dense multi-family housing situation with the kinds of commercial uses surrounding it. She asked whether there were other examples in Palo Alto where there were residential uses near similar types of uses. There were many situations in the City where there was a gas station use associated with repair opera-tions, e.g., residential uses near the gas stations were preserved in Midtown, auto uses across from residential uses in the San
11/28/94 74-201
Antonio area. She asked whether the situation was unique. Mr. Schreiber said the situation at 753 Alma was not a unique pattern. Many of the commercial areas along El Camino Real and neighborhood shopping areas on San Antonio Road and in Midtown had direct interface between commercial properties and adjacent single-family residential. In the Downtown area, there was multiple-family residential adjacent to commercial uses, and staff had not received any complaints on the multiple-family use behind the Gordon Biersch Brewery Restaurant which at one time generated significant concerns about odors and fumes. Staff worked with the owners of the site to install filtration and other equipment to reduce the impact of that site. Traditionally, there had been fewer complaints generated by rental housing; but staff would treat the impacts of either owner-occupied or rental housing the same. The material generated by the PAHC addressed the situation as housing, not rental housing, and had proposed mitigations that would address the impacts for the tenants. Council Member McCown recalled when the land use changes were done in the Downtown study, the Planning Commission was an advocate for incentives in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) for multi-family housing that would not rezone areas and remove commercial but would give density or square footage bonuses to a property owner who might choose voluntarily to convert from residential to commercial. The Council at that time did not want to create an incentive to convert the current commercial uses to residential uses. She asked whether the Council's intent was that there be a disincentive in the Downtown zoning for residential uses in the SOFA. Mr. Schreiber did not believe that was the Council's intent. The zoning for that area continued to retain multiple-family housing as permitted use. The proposed use was consistent with the CD-S zoning of the area. The density issue necessitated a Planned Community (PC) zone, but the use was permitted. The Council discussions with the Downtown study and several times later had never resolved the issue of whether the area should be auto- oriented service commercial and limit other uses or whether there should be a wide variety of uses that might replace auto-oriented commercial. The zoning ended up with a land use designation that recognized the validity of a wide variety of uses, including housing. Council Member Huber asked whether the multi-family housing situations described were constructed after the commercial uses were there. He recalled that the housing was already present when the Gordon Biersch Brewery Restaurant applied for a permit, and the City had a lot of control over the situation. He asked whether the City had dealt with similar situations where there was an existing commercial use, housing was proposed, and the City did not have any control over the commercial use. Mr. Schreiber said there had been numerous multi-family housing projects along El Camino Real that were within close proximity to commercial activities. The commercial properties in the Midtown
11/28/94 74-202
area that had been amortized out had been redeveloped as multi-family residential, and some of the projects had been adjacent to ongoing commercial activities. There were also housing projects in the Downtown area within an established commercial area. Most of the conflicts could be resolved between the two land uses. Council Member Huber said during the public hearing, there was a discussion about the stack at Ellison's Body Shop. He asked whether the City could request Mr. Ellison to do something to his property if he chose not to do it. Mr. Schreiber said the City did not have any way to require Mr. Ellison to permit the PAHC to install upgrades on his property. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified the City had the ability to enforce its ordinances and state and federal laws to make sure that property owner comports with the existing laws that provide some limits on the kind of activity that could occur. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. The City had the ability to require the PAHC or any other applicant to periodically make offers to an adjacent property owner to provide improvements on the site to remedy a perceived problem. Mr. Calonne believed the City could impose a regulation that would create a performance standard that strongly suggested that kind of stack. He questioned the preemption of the air quality laws. There was no part of the consideration of the 753 Alma Street site that would compel installation of something at another site. Other legislative action would be needed. Council Member Andersen said during the public hearing, there was a suggestion made to provide a development agreement or covenant attached to the land with respect to the Ellison property that recognized the desire to maintain and continue that building without jeopardy by the new residential facility. He asked whether a condition could be used in the development agreement to encourage the improvement on the property such as a stack. Mr. Calonne said yes, but it would be subject to a lot of "what if's." Mayor Kniss asked for staff comment on the map from Mr. Ellison dated November 21, 1994, regarding the CD-S zoning for the area. Mr. Schreiber said the CD and the CD-S zones permitted housing and recognized the likely intermixture of housing and nonresidential land use within the zones. Council Member Andersen asked whether a development agreement that protected the rights of the Ellison property would create complications for the PAHC or the City and the time frame that such an agreement, if approved, might return to the Council for approval. Mr. Calonne said the Council's action that evening should direct
11/28/94 74-203
the City Manager to investigate with Mr. Ellison any interest in a development agreement, and the action should also direct staff to bring back the proposal in a time frame consistent with the Council's action on the option extension. MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to: 1) approve in concept the acquisition of the 753 Alma Street site for development of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) type housing; 2) direct staff to prepare the appropriate environmental documentation in conformance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to permit exercising the option to purchase; and 3) direct staff to prepare a funding and development agreement with Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) to: a) assign the option to PAHC, b) provide $650,000 to PAHC to purchase the site, and c) provide funding for preparation of the entitlement application (Planned Community zoning), including environmental review and financing applications. Vice Mayor Simitian said a suggestion had been made that the City was faced with a choice on the site between parking and housing. The City was faced with a vacant lot that had been sensibly used on an interim basis for parking purposes, but the vacant lot had been zoned for Downtown development. The same sort of parking issues would be raised if the vacant lot were to be developed for a hardware store, auto parts shop, or a housing project. The user would be required to provide adequate parking for the use on the site. The responsibility would not be there for the user to retain the interim use that had existed to date. Unless the City was prepared to create a new "parking lot only" zone and impose that zone on that particular site, the real question was whether or not the feasibility study indicated that the project could and would accommodate the parking needs of the proposed project. The feasibility study indicated the feasibility model could and would provide the necessary parking. Parking was not an issue, and if it were an issue, it was not an issue that was specific to that particular development. Another issue raised was whether the project was compatible with nearby commercial uses. He believed it was compatible. The feasibility study identified a range of solutions to potential problems with noise and/or fumes. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would ensure that specific solutions to specific problems would be identified and required. As he listened to the testimony on the issue, he recalled a similar discussion three years prior regarding an application from the MAACO Auto Body facility to locate on San Antonio Road. The discussion was about whether or not that kind of facility could coexist in close proximity to residences and offices. The Council approved the application for the facility, and the Council and staff had not had any complaints from the nearby neighbors of the MAACO Auto Body facility. The problems were manageable, and the technology was there to make sure that people could live and work side by side. The housing units would be $400 per month, and in the community there were $500,000 homes in the midst of commercial neighborhoods, next to gas stations and the train tracks. The compatibility had worked and the value of the homes had been retained. That kind of compatibility issue worked in an urban setting. The compatibility issue was one of challenges, but it
11/28/94 74-204
was not one of obstacles. The Council discussed two years prior that it wanted an SRO in the Downtown. He could not imagine a more ideal location based on the criteria established by the Council two years prior. The criteria stated the SRO had to be downtown, available, affordable, and large enough to accommodate a reasonable number of units so there would be an economy of scale, close to services, close to jobs, along a transportation corridor, close to public transportation, and should not be too close to existing residences so there would not be any adverse impact on them, and as a specific concession to the Downtown businesses the Council said it could not be over a public-owned parking lot. The project was ten for ten, and the Council could not ask for a much better fit with the criteria that the Council set forth two years prior than the site put forth. The site met all of the criteria. The Council should focus on the underlying question of values. It was a question of what kind of community Palo Alto chose to be and who it chose to include in that community. He believed that what a City was as a community was a function of who it was. A community was a place where there were no strangers. Many people could not afford to be homeowners or live in Palo Alto, but for the people who would live in the project, it was out of reach. A nursing assistant in Lytton III or a stock boy at Longs Drug, child care provider, waiter, waitress, or busboy at a local restaurant, teacher's aide at the elementary school, sales clerk, or employee at Whole Foods Market, or a custodian at an auto shop were the people who would live at the facility. The people who worked for a living and helped Palo Alto function were an integral part of the community. He wanted to make and retain a place in the community for people of modest means. He believed that most Palo Altans shared that desire. Palo Alto had historically been that kind of community and that was what made the City a community. He urged support of the proposal. Council Member Andersen supported the comments of Vice Mayor Simitian. He had made it clear when he was a candidate for the City Council that he supported the retention of the auto services in the area but that did not mean that the area should be preclud-ed or limited to the exclusive use of auto services. The area was appropriate for a variety of uses, and an ideal area for such a facility. He suggested that staff be directed to explore the feasibility and desirability of some type of development agreement and covenant with particular emphasis on the Ellison property to determine whether that would be an appropriate approach to some of the concerns of that property. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the staff be directed to explore the feasibility and desirability of some type of development agreement and covenant against nuisance with the property owners/businesses such as Ellison's Body Shop and Towing. Council Member Andersen said it was an appropriate time for the Council to direct staff to explore the feasibility of the estab-lishment of an assessment district in the area. City Manager June Fleming said the assessment district should be
11/28/94 74-205
agendized as a separate issue. Council Member Andersen strongly supported the efforts that had been brought forth, and the people involved should be given great credit for the work done. The feasibility study was excellent. Council Member McCown supported the motion. Everyone that participated in the discussion of the issue deserved credit. There was an enormous understanding and acceptance on the part of the people who had understandable concerns about the project that the project was not based on who the housing was intended to serve. The seriousness of the concerns raised should be and must be handled by the project, one of which was how the City would make the commercial uses that had been encouraged in the neigh-borhood work with the housing use. She referred to the Winter Lodge as an example where the addition of some condominium units constructed next to their site had created problems that did not previously exist. The Council had to learn from past mistakes and had to deal with the mitigation measures that the feasibility study suggested were possible. Unique agreements could be crafted because of the unique role of the City so that the neighboring long-standing business owners could be given assurances about how the project would work out over the long term. Parking was the other issue, and she found it ironic that parking was chasing the other uses in the Downtown. The PAHC had come to the Council about Lot R, and when Lot R was considered, Chop Keenan and others commented that Lot R was committed for parking use in Downtown and to consider other properties such as 753 Alma Street. There was a parking problem in the neighborhood. The site was private property that had 40 parking spaces, but the zoning permitted the landowner to convert the site into another use without any provision for the impact of where the privately leased parking spaces would go. It was not fair to distinguish the potential use of the site different from other potential uses of the site. Fortunately, the Council had an opportunity to assist and participate in that project. She said the City and the people who were concerned about the adequacy of parking in the SOFA where there was a set of rules that allowed all property owners to underpark their properties needed to continue to have parking as a high priority in the future. Council Member Rosenbaum supported the motion. The study demon-strated the feasibility with respect to the combination of noise, acoustic windows, and mechanical ventilation that was far superior to what was found in single-family housing. The stack solution could be implemented if necessary. He suggested staff be directed to explore structuring the financing in such a way that if the demand for the SRO units did not result in the parking spaces being filled up, that the parking spaces would be available for public use. He wanted staff to comment on the question raised about the adequacy of the alley to serve as one level of the parking structure. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the staff be directed to explore structuring the financing in such a way that if the demand for the SRO units did not result in the
11/28/94 74-206
parking spaces being filled up, that the parking spaces would be available for public use. Further, that staff would report to the Council on the adequacy of the alley to serve as one level of the parking structure. Council Member Huber noted that he had attended a meeting held in City Hall that involved the project in June 1994 and a meeting at First Presbyterian Church in July 1994. He had also attended a number of neighborhood meetings. Additionally, he had visited the SRO in San Jose with Mayor Kniss and Ms. Prendergast several weeks prior. He had been concerned about the compatibility of the project and also about the entire SOFA. He agreed with Planning Commissioner Victor Ojakian's comments that the Council had to make a decision that benefited the entire community. Many good projects would not occur if the Council voted on just local issues. He believed that kind of housing was needed in Palo Alto. The location was not ideal but there never would be one. The Council needed to try and make it work. He supported the motion but that did not mean that there should not be auto services in the area. He hoped that the plans that dealt with the issue of noise and fumes would go overboard so that complaints about the businesses could be avoided. He wanted a rational and enforceable plan for what would occur if and when the demand for parking exceeded the number of spaces. The SRO would be in an urban suburban area and the parking demand was unknown. It was important not to add to the parking problem. Mr. Calonne suggested Council give specific direction about the parking so that it could be part of the environmental review process. Vice Mayor Simitian understood the environmental review process would include consideration of and some response to how to deal with possible shortage of parking on the site. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the staff be directed to consider and respond with a rational and enforceable plan for possible conditions to be triggered if and when parking demand from the SRO residents exceeded supply. Council Member Wheeler said Council Member McCown mentioned the sites throughout the City that might have neighboring similar uses. There was an Arco gas station in the San Antonio Road area which had an active repair service that backed up to rental apart-ments. There was also a large Toyota dealership on San Antonio that backed up to a large multi-family development. The usages were compatible when there was a willingness of both the resi-dential and the commercial neighbors to communicate and work out the conflicts that existed. She believed that the businesses in the SOFA who expressed understandable concern about the potential of the proposed residential development being next door had underestimated themselves. She felt that with the City's growing commitment to encourage the survival of the auto service busi-nesses, the auto service businesses had upgraded their properties. Mr. Ellison, in particular, ran a fine business. There were many examples throughout the City where similar types of uses and
11/28/94 74-207
residential got along. The suitability of Alma Street for residential development had been discussed. Alma Street was a residential street throughout 95 percent of its length, and traffic and trains existed on that street. There were very few vacancy signs on the street so obviously residences had thrived along that corridor. The PAHC had done an excellent job of presenting realistic opportunities and challenges for the site. The PAHC had not glossed over the challenges on the site which would help the Council develop a successful project on the site. Council Member Schneider said before she became a Council Member, she had not supported an SRO on Lot R for the very reasons spoken about the prior week. She had had some misconceptions about SRO and had argued that the Downtown already had enough SROs, that SROs attracted the kind of people not wanted in the Downtown, and that type of facility should be shared throughout the community. She did not believe the site was the perfect place for an SRO and would be better suited on a less busy thoroughfare with less asphalt, noise, conflict with the existing neighbors and business-es, and more trees and parking; but the site was available now. She would support the proposal because she believed the mitigations would take care of the parking and sound. The SRO would provide the kind of housing needed, and the residents would become good neighbors to the existing businesses. Council Member Fazzino did not believe it was a great idea at the outset to tie the site to 1050 Arastradero Road. He believed 1050 Arastradero Road was a poor site for housing and it should have absolutely no relationship to 753 Alma Street. The site needed to be decided on its own merits. After careful consideration, he would support the motion. The site was not perfect given the proximity to auto uses, but he believed the mitigation measures being proposed could help significantly towards resolving the concerns of the neighbors. The situation would always be imperfect when dealing with SRO housing. SRO housing by its very nature would always have to be placed on imperfect sites. He would prefer a project with 50 to 75 units on the site rather than 100 but he recognized that the economics would not work. The site was near Downtown and major services and would serve employees of Downtown employers. He hoped that if nothing else occurred that the Council and the community had learned who were the real occupants of SRO housing. He was still concerned with the parking deficit in the Downtown area. Vice Mayor Simitian had effectively countered the argument regarding the loss of parking spaces on the site. The Council would at some point in the future have to deal with the loss of parking on the site given the current zoning. He believed the Council had taken an important step over the previous year to address the issue of the Downtown parking deficit by looking at the possibility of a new parking structure in the Downtown area. He wanted the number of cars limited on the site. He recognized that the PAHC needed some flexibility in order to market the project, but he wanted to emphasize the importance of limiting the number of cars. Vice Mayor Simitian reminded the Council that the proposal was conceptual. The concern raised by Council Member Fazzino was
11/28/94 74-208
legitimate, and the solution might be appropriate. He suggested that the motion incorporate a direction to staff and to the PAHC that the PAHC consider as part of the process the feasibility and implication of such a measure. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the staff and PAHC be directed to consider the feasibility and implication of a system that would provide for priority placement of residents without cars in the SRO units. Council Member Fazzino was concerned about the impact on Ellison's, and he believed that a smoke stack would be of signifi-cant help. It was critical for the Council and the PAHC to commit itself to protecting the viability of existing commercial uses in that area through good design and effective communications with prospective and actual residents and the community. He had always been concerned about a mix of residential and recreational. The Council needed to recognize the reality that there were difficulties associated with those kinds of unique mixes. He hoped the Council's actions in the future would demonstrate its continued commitment to the commercial uses. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the approval in concept re-ferred to the acquisition of the land and not the construction of any project. The Council's preliminary screening process was the first application; and based on the Council's comments, the developers would decide how to proceed. The Council's discussion that evening indicated the project would proceed as indicated in the staff recommendation. Council Member Andersen said the Council should keep in mind when selecting tenants that an automobile might indicate responsibili-ty. He preferred the tenants did not own an automobile, but other things should have a higher priority so the neighborhood would have the quality of tenants it deserved. Mayor Kniss strongly supported the comments made by Council Member Fazzino regarding the commercial areas in the community. She believed the parking issue in that particular area had been highlighted that evening. She said the exchange of 1050 Arastradero Road had served the City well, and the site was not appropriate for housing. The Council had indicated that SRO housing should be near transportation, jobs, and shopping; and the 753 Alma Street site met that criteria. SRO housing met a need for people who were in transition, briefly homeless, or in a difficult financial situation, and the project would be a real addition to the community. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and B & B Landscaping Contractors Inc. for Landscape Improvements at Hansen Way Substation (continued from 11/21/94) Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said an infrastructure project in the electric utility was the upgrade of the substation facili-
11/28/94 74-209
ties. Staff had become more sensitive to aesthetics in the projects and had included that criteria in the design of the proposed project and all projects in the future. Additional landscaping needs increased the cost of the project, and a Budget Amendment Ordinance was requested to move forward with the contract. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to: 1) approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $30,000 from the Electric Rate Stabilization Reserve for the funding of the Landscape Improvements at Hansen Way Substation; 2) authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with B & B Landscaping Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $56,700 for the landscaping improvements and fence work; and 3) authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract to cover additional related but unforeseen work which might develop during the project. The value of the change orders shall not exceed $5,700. Ordinance 4248 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Project No. 8944, `Substation Facility Improve-ments'" MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. 7. Cooperative Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara County Housing Authority to Allow the Housing Authority to Issue Tax-Exempt Bonds to Finance Acquisition of Arastradero Park Apartments (continued from 11/21/94) MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to: 1) adopt the Resolution approving the cooperative agreement with the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, which authorizes the Housing Authority to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Arastradero Park Apartments for its continued use as low-income rental housing; and 2) authorize the Mayor to execute the cooperative agreement in substantially similar form to the proposed agreement form. Resolution 7415 entitled "Resolution Approving Cooperative Agreement Between the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto" MOTION PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of amendments to CD regulations (PAMC Chapter 18.49) to establish an in-lieu parking fee: The amendments would allow eligible new development in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District to pay a fee in lieu of providing actual parking spaces that would normally be required.
11/28/94 74-210
Planning Commissioner Kathryn Schmidt said the Planning Commission recommended that the in-lieu fee should be $17,300 instead of $19,000. She said the difference was the estimated cost of issuance of a bond for net new parking spaces. The Commission believed that the cost of the bond should not be included in the in-lieu fee. The Commission also suggested the fee be paid at the time of occupancy or final inspection rather than at the time of the issuance of the permit because it would be more equitable to the developer. The staff had indicated that in the previous six years there had only been about six problems with collecting fees from situations numbering in the hundreds. The Commission felt that later collection would not be a significant problem. The Commission also asked for consideration of in-lieu parking fees for residential projects in the Downtown zone. Council Member Huber said staff was concerned that if the money were not collected at the time of the permit, the fee might be waived. He asked who had the authority to waive the fee. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said staff had no authority to waive fees. Staff was concerned that if the fees were not collected at the beginning of process and an applicant could not pay the money later, it might create a diffi-cult collection situation. Council Member Huber asked if the in-lieu fees for a project were paid at the beginning and three or four years later there was a bond issue to build the structure, would the property owner also pay a portion of that fee. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said if the property provided all of its own parking, the property owner would not pay into the assessment district. If the property did not provide its own parking, a proportional share was paid. Council Member Huber said in-lieu did not provide all the fees. Mr. Overway said if a person paid the in-lieu fee, it would be considered as providing the number of spaces. Council Member Huber clarified if a person paid for five parkings spaces, the individual would pay nothing toward the bond fees when a structure was financed. Mr. Overway said that was correct. Council Member Wheeler asked what happened when the new project came after the bonds had been met and the structure was under construction. Mr. Overway said the fee would be reviewed annually. The cost of the spaces would be known when the project was actually con-structed which would enter into the calculation for the in-lieu at that time. The intent of previous discussions was that a certain number of spaces would be set aside for in-lieu fees for future
11/28/94 74-211
projects since another structure could not be built right after the first one was built. The fee would have to reflect what it cost to build the garage plus any indexing over time which would offset some of the equivalent interest payments that were being made by the assessment district. In the meantime, the public and the assessment district had the use of the spaces. The City would have to make a decision about whether or not to include some portion of the financing cost at that time. Council Member Wheeler asked whether staff had given any further consideration to any of the suggestions made by the Planning Commission regarding the timing of the collection of the fee. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said once the process moved past the building permit stage the balance of fairness shifted towards allowing some occupancy even though the money had not been paid. The City ended up with the cost of enforcing the obligation and explaining to a court why occupancy should not be allowed while making an arrangement. The City also ended up with the burden of monitoring the outcome. It was a major shift that substantially increased the administrative cost of administering and enforcing the ordinance. Council Member Wheeler said it was difficult to determine whether the Planning Commission's discussion on the in-lieu fee for residential development was an incentive or a disincentive. She did not know the current requirements if a person submitted an application for a housing development within the assessment district. She asked whether a residential development was required to provide for the parking. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Council Member Wheeler clarified the suggestion was an incentive. Ms. Schmidt said the suggestion was meant to be an incentive for housing. Vice Mayor Simitian said the discussion was for commercial development exclusively. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether commercial development did or did not require a certificate of occupancy upon completion. Mr. Schreiber said it required a final inspection and the building permit signed off and a certificate of occupancy. It was not unusual for a use and occupancy certificate to be issued well after formal occupancy of the building. The process was not the highest priority in the Building Division which handled day-to-day inspections. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the owner/developer wanted the certificate of occupancy even though it was not the highest priority of the Building Division.
11/28/94 74-212
Mr. Schreiber said the lack of a certificate was generally not a significant problem. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the collection problem was tied to the final inspection or to a certificate of occupancy and whether there could be a precondition that if someone were late, there would be a penalty. Mr. Schreiber said when a building had been built and available for occupancy, it was unusual to tenants to move into the building prior to any formal final sign-off by the City, including final inspection. It was not unusual for the final inspection process to end up at the last minute before occupancy and because of opening deadlines, the occupancy occurred. It was very hard for the City to force a payment after someone had taken possession of a building. Mr. Calonne said the City could roll its enforcement costs into the fee in order to accommodate a penalty. He had not seen that done and would review the matter. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether it would be easier to give people an option to either pay the fee at the beginning or pay it prior to the final inspection. A person would have to agree to a penalty if they opted for the payment at the time of the final inspection. Mr. Calonne said the pressure would still be on the City to allow the occupancy notwithstanding nonpayment of the fees. The law required that as to money that the City had on deposit for more than five years, that the Council would have to make specific findings why the money had not been spent. If the findings could not be made on an annual basis, the City would have to refund the money. The scheme of the law was that the money would be collected and spent quickly. The pressure was on the City to identify capital projects in a short time frame. The programs would not be a means of banking money for long-term development of unknown projects. The programs would become mechanisms for current funding of identified projects. As the provisional law began to take hold in Palo Alto, the City would need the money immediately to meet demands created by the projects. Vice Mayor Simitian asked what the City did with the money after it had been received. Mr. Overway said the money was put in a reserved account and interest would be deposited to that account. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the money was invested in the same manner as other City funds. Mr. Overway said yes. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the investment return exceeded the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
11/28/94 74-213
Mr. Schreiber said on average it had during the prior year, and he was not aware of it ever being less that CPI. Vice Mayor Simitian said the bonding costs were a real cost except that the people who had already put their money in place did not need the bond for space. Mr. Overway said the bonding cost involved fixed fees and fees in relation to the amount that was being borrowed. The fixed fees would be incurred irrespective. If there were in-lieu fees, the amount borrowed could be bought down so that portion of the up front costs would be reduced. Of the 10 percent, about 3 percent was fixed fees and about 7 percent was based upon the actual amount of the money being borrowed. Vice Mayor Simitian said if a developer generated a requirement for five spaces and paid the in-lieu fees for five spaces, the person would have paid in advance for all the spaces that the development required. He asked the policy rationale that supported some percentage of the fixed costs going to that particular developer. Mr. Overway said there was no mechanism for the developer to take advantage of the in-lieu fee without the project occurring. Council Member McCown clarified the Council's action that evening would not change the existing ordinance with respect to what projects were eligible to use the in-lieu program. Mr. Overway said that was correct. Council Member McCown clarified the five categories listed on page 5 in the Ordinance which involved demolition of historic struc-tures, sites, 10,000 square feet or less or greater with an unusual configurations where the City prohibited curb cuts and other physical constraints were the limited situations in which someone could buy their in-lieu parking requirement. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member McCown asked whether a developer who wanted to redevelop his/her property would be eligible to be in the assess-ment district, absent purchasing an in-lieu space, and whether additional square footage could be added above the present square footage. Mr. Schreiber said it only applied in the assessment district. Absent adding parking, the only additional square footage was a small amount associated with the details of the Downtown zoning. Council Member McCown asked the number of redevelopments in the Downtown that might actually be capable of using the in-lieu fee. Mr. Overway said staff estimated 50 in-lieu spaces might arise before a garage was built.
11/28/94 74-214
Mr. Schreiber said there was a significant percentage of the parcels located within the Downtown assessment district that would fit one of the five categories on page 5 of the Ordinance. In reality, many of the parcels would not develop or were already developed at a 1:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or greater and would not be in a situation to take advantage of the in-lieu fee. On-site parking for many projects had a strong premium, so there was an incentive from the developer's or lessor's standpoint to have the parking. Council Member McCown asked whether a remodel that involved a modest amount of additional square footage rather than a complete redevelopment would require a new occupancy permit for the additional square footage or whether a sign off on the building permit construction of the space would be sufficient. Mr. Schreiber said technically yes, but in most cases the sign off on the final building permit and the occupancy would be sufficient for use of the space. Mayor Kniss clarified there was a limit of 1,600 spaces. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Nothing would change the Downtown Study policies on the maximums of the parking deficits. Mayor Kniss asked what would trigger action by the City. Mr. Overway said 1,600 spaces could not be exceeded, and the current number of spaces was 1,464. When the accumulated exemp-tions from the different historic conditions reached 225, something needed to happen in order to create more parking. Staff intended to monitor the accumulation of the deficit of the in-lieu parking. When the deficit reached 225, something should be done. Mayor Kniss clarified the money might be used for another purpose, but it was still critical that the Council address the parking need. An attachment to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) dated August 25, 1994, indicated the parking deficit was 1,490 as of September 1993, which meant the City needed to look for possibilities. Mr. Overway said staff was proceeding with a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) on the assumption that it would lead to the construction of one or more parking structures in the Downtown area. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. Nancy Jewell Cross, 172 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto, said either people paid for a fixed ratio of parking for certain kinds of uses or they provided the parking spaces. She wanted the Council to consider promoting secure bicycle parking on an ad hoc basis and that property owners provide for the facilitation. If an Single Room Occupancy (SRO) building provided a way to get the bicycles up to the room or secure parking, it would encourage bicycle
11/28/94 74-215
parking. She wanted Palo Alto to address the diversities of transportation and parking as a means or reducing the parking deficit. Chop Keenan, Chairperson, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Parking Subcommittee, 700 Emerson Street, thanked the staff for responding to a Downtown business owner's desire to address small lot parking issues. He said large properties could accommodate parking on site, but often the small property could not. The in-lieu parking ordinance had been developed for the Council's consideration so that the small property owner and the rest of the district would not be penalized. The Subcommittee supported the staff recommendation vis-á-vis no cost shifting. Staff had originally proposed an in-lieu fee of $17,300 but had forgotten to include the bond costs which the Subcommittee supported. The advantage to the property owners was the time value of the money, and a penalty would take away that time value. It would be better if there was a way to accommodate the fee being paid at occupancy since the City had full cost recovery on the financing of the $17,300 to $19,000. He encouraged the Council to wait until the Palo Alto Medical Foundation moved or did not move to evaluate the net effect on parking in the SOFA. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified the penalty would only apply if someone did not pay the fee in a timely fashion. The suggestion was not that someone would pay more if it were done at the time of a certificate of occupancy rather than at the issuance of the permit stage. If someone were given a choice to either pay at the beginning of the issuance of the building permit or at the other end, penalties would be incurred if the payment were received late at the other end. Mr. Keenan said the plan was part of a mosaic of parking solutions that the Chamber and the City staff had taken on. All the issues were tied together and added up to a solution. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the Subcommittee accepted the $19,000 fee. Mr. Keenan said yes, but there was a reasonable disagreement on two points. The assessment district would assess the property pro rata for the square footage within the property. Mr. Overway said only to the degree that the property continued to have some deficit. The calculation was based on how many spaces the property provided, and the difference was spread to the assessment. Mr. Keenan said the concept approved by the Subcommittee was that there would be no cost shifting. The Subcommittee argued about the right number, and staff suggested that it be addressed on the prospective budget project. The Subcommittee was comfortable that it would be primarily upgrade parking with some low-grade which was where the number came from. The financing was a real cost, and it would be cost shifting if it were not included.
11/28/94 74-216
Council Member McCown clarified that $19,000 was an acceptable number from Mr. Keenan's perspective. Mr. Keenan said yes. Mayor Kniss preferred underground parking, and she asked whether the numbers changed substantially. Mr. Keenan said yes. Mayor Kniss asked whether that was the reason for supporting the $19,000. Mr. Keenan said no, because the bond financing was not included in construction costs which was the $2,000 delta. Ed Storm, 104 Park Center Plaza, San Jose, was developing a property that would be impacted by the fees. He hoped the intent of the in-lieu fee was to encourage and not discourage development of small parcels. The fee of $17,300 was equitable and would not penalize the people that developed the smaller parcels and completed the streetscape for Downtown. He was paying cash for his spaces and would not get the benefit of financing but would incur the penalty. He disagreed that there would be a cost shift. There were no economies of scale for smaller projects which incurred extreme penalties that larger projects did not. He did not feel the balance of fairness shifted. He would be motivated to get a certificate of occupancy when his building was built. It might be an inconvenience to staff but it could be overcome. The parking should not be demanded until he occupied the building, and the building permit did not create a parking problem Downtown. Fees that were fair and not onerous benefited the City and the smaller merchant. Roxy Rapp, 373 University Avenue, asked whether a person would be assessed in the parking assessment district for a lot built five years later if there were no in-lieu fee. Mr. Overway said everyone would be assessed who had a deficit. Vice Mayor Simitian said if there were no in-lieu fee, there would be a deficit. Mr. Overway said some existing buildings did not have deficits. Mr. Rapp thought the assessment district evenly shared in the cost. Mr. Overway said no. For example, the Wells Fargo owned by Mr. Kennan was fully parked and did not pay any assessment. Mr. Rapp said when 250 University was done, a new bond was passed to provide public parking. He said Mr. Keenan paid his pro rate share of the assessment into the bond. He understood he would pay his pro rata share even though he paid an in-lieu parking fee.
11/28/94 74-217
Mr. Overway said no. City Manager June Fleming said the questions needed to be answered, but it put staff and Mr. Rapp in a difficult position. She suggested the item be continued if it were not ready for Council action. Mr. Schreiber said the item was ready for Council action. He said the issue was who paid for the parking. The property owners who paid for the parking had properties that did not provide the total required parking spaces on site. If a property provided all of the required parking spaces on site, nothing was paid into the assessment district. The property owner only paid for the parking spaces not provided. Mr. Rapp understood if $1 million of in-lieu fees were paid and he built a parking lot five years later that cost $5 million, a bond would need to be passed for $4 million. He would be assessed for the balance of $4 million even though he paid into the $1 million. He said the City could be assured of receiving its money by putting a lien on the property or having the developer sign a document that stated that under no condition could anyone occupy the building until the in-lieu fee was paid. If the City wanted the in-lieu parking fee paid at the beginning, the developer should receive a benefit from the loss of the interest on his/her money. He was excited about building up the in-lieu parking fee fund, and the in-lieu fee would discourage condensing properties. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified Mr. Rapp's question about whether he would still be responsible for future assessments if he paid the in-lieu fee would not effect the Council moving forward with the item that evening. Mr. Rapp said he wanted the in-lieu fee to be approved. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Huber clarified if a property owner paid an in-lieu fee, it was the equivalent of having provided a space on their own property. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Huber clarified anything paid in the assessment district was because the property was short of parking before the in-lieu fee. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Schneider said she paid into the assessment district and asked whether there was a conflict of interest. Mr. Calonne said there was no conflict issue unless Council Member Schneider wanted to develop a parcel that met the five criteria.
11/28/94 74-218
MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Negative Declaration, introduce the Ordinance, and adopt the Planning Commission recommendation that the in-lieu fee be established at $17,300, and that it be collected at or prior to building occupancy. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.49.100 [CD Parking Regulations] and Adding Chapter 16.57 to Establish a Fee on Commercial Development Within the University Avenue Parking Assessment District as an Alternative In-lieu of Fully Satisfying Parking Requirements" Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether there was any difference or preference in the wording "final building inspection approval" or "certificate of occupancy." Mr. Calonne said the second reading of the Ordinance could reflect the language change. Mr. Overway said staff preferred that the fee be collected in conjunction with "final building inspection approval" since it occurred prior to issuance of the occupancy permit. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the wording "at or prior to building occupancy" be replaced with "at or prior to the final building inspection approval" and that the staff be directed to determine an interest penalty. Mr. Calonne was uncertain whether a penalty was doable. He advised the Council not to shift collection to a time after issuance of a building permit. There would be additional collection costs over time and the fee would be less enforceable. The Council would be trading a practical remedy for a legal remedy. The practical remedy was that the building could not be started until the fees were paid, and the legal remedy was what was done after the building was constructed and occupancy was being sought. Council Member Rosenbaum asked the City Attorney for clarification as to the practicality of imposing a rate penalty with the under-standing that money would be collected at the time of final inspection. Mr. Calonne said the Council should direct staff to determine whether it could be done and then amend the Ordinance which might delay the second reading several weeks. Vice Mayor Simitian said Council Member Rosenbaum spoke about an interest penalty when the issue was discussed earlier that evening. He suggested that if someone were late in making the payment, the Council would impose a penalty which bore some reasonable relationship to the collection cost of obtaining the payment. The cost should be related to the enforcement which might be greater than interest. The goal should be to have full cost recovery for the City if the fees had to be collected. He
11/28/94 74-219
suggested the request should recover the cost of collecting the fee. He had also suggested the possibility of giving someone a choice of either paying the full fee at the beginning or delaying it until the inspection. If the person were late in paying, they would be subject to full cost recovery of collection. It might make it easier for the City to impose a penalty. Council Member Rosenbaum agreed that the sense of the amendment would include the suggestion. Council Member Rosenbaum said 3 percent of the cost of financing was fixed and 7 percent was variable and proportional to the size of the financing. The argument was generally true that if the in-lieu fees were in the bank, the City would sell less bonds. He wanted the in-lieu fee set at $17,800. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the in-lieu parking fee be established at $17,800. Council Member McCown said absent including it in the fee, the remaining participants in the assessment district would pay for the extra money. AMENDMENT: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the staff recommendation of an in-lieu parking fee of $19,000. Council Member McCown said the City wanted to encourage an alternative of in-lieu dollars for the smaller lots, but the parking deficit would increase. The person would be able to move forward with the development prior to the time when the parking spaces could be physically added to the parking stock. The Council should plan for the anticipated full financing costs of building the parking spaces which should be included in the fee. Mayor Kniss strongly supported the amendment and did not believe that $19,000 was excessive. Vice Mayor Simitian said if 100 parking spaces were needed and someone paid in advance for the 100 spaces, there would be no financing because a bond issue would not be needed. If 50 spaces had already been paid and there were 50 spaces that needed to be financed, the people who had already paid in full for their parking should not have to pay the fixed costs of the 50 spaces that needed to be financed. He believed $17,300 was the correct figure because it put the burden of financing costs on the people who had not paid and were reason the financing had to be done. Council Member Fazzino believed $17,800 was a reasonable compro-mise. He was more comfortable with $17,300. The City wanted to encourage diversity among developers in the Downtown, and the $19,000 figure was a disincentive for putting a successful development to together. He also believed it sent the wrong signal to the business community. He encouraged support of the $17,800 proposal. He was disturbed about the fact that the alternative proposal penalized the small developers and held them
11/28/94 74-220
hostage to City bureaucratic actions when it came to addressing larger issues of Downtown parking. Council Member Schneider said the City had an opportunity to eliminate the perception that it was difficult to do business in Palo Alto. Council Member McCown said the business community paid for the bond financing. The person who paid the in-lieu payment did not, but the people in the assessment district would be asked to pay new assessments in addition to what was being paid to build a new parking structure. The staff's approach tried to allocate the costs fairly, but there was a difference of opinion on how to do that. AMENDMENT FAILED 4-5, Andersen, Wheeler, Kniss, McCown "yes." MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 9. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 To Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Continuation of the Economic Resources Planning Program" MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Ordinance. Ordinance 4249 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 To Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Continuation of the Economic Resources Planning Program" MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Andersen was concerned that the information had not been received regarding Midtown. He wanted to make certain the value would be received for the money spent. 10. Ordinance Amending the 1991 Edition of the Uniform Building Code; Amending Chapter 16.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and Declaring an Emergency" MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the Ordinance. Ordinance 4250 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 1991 Edition of the Uniform Building Code; Amending Chapter 16.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and Declaring an Emergency" Vice Mayor Simitian asked the requirements for finding of an emergency and taking action on an emergency basis. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) requirements were unique. It was not a Brown Act emergency
11/28/94 74-221
issue. Vice Mayor Simitian said the City had known about some of the issues for a long period of time, and he asked whether there was really an emergency given the fact that it affected the application process. He asked whether it was the first time the item had surfaced in public. Mr. Calonne said the knowledge element when it came to the City's attention was relevant under the Brown Act consideration as to whether something had to be put on the agenda. The Council under Section 2.04.290(e) of the PAMC stated that "Any ordinance declared by the council to be necessary as an emergency measure for preserving the public peace, health or safety, and containing a statement of the reasons for its urgency, may be introduced and adopted at one and the same meeting if passed by a vote of four-fifths of the council members present." Since it was properly noticed under the Brown Act, the question was whether the substan-tive change being affected by the amendment rose in the Council's collective conscience to something necessary to preserve public peace and safety. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the provisions in the PAMC superseded Brown Act requirements. Mr. Calonne said no. The Brown Act requirement was for adding it to an agenda without notice. It had been noticed on the agenda. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the City Attorney was comfortable that the action taken by the Council that evening would be legal as to the definition of an emergency or whether that was a policy judgment the Council had to make. Mr. Calonne said it was a policy judgment. Vice Mayor Simitian asked what opportunity the local building community and/or applicants, who would be affected by the action that evening, had to be aware of the item before it came to the Council. Chief Building Official Fred Herman said the item had been widely known throughout the construction and design industry. It was hoped that the State Building Standards Commission had the authority to make the provision effective statewide for all local jurisdictions. Unfortunately, state law did not allow that action except for state owned or occupied facilities. As a result, within the next two weeks, the Council would receive a petition from the State's Seismic Safety Commission requesting that the Council take the action as an urgency amendment to the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The item was before the Council before the notice was received because he was a member of the State Seismic Safety Commission and the action was taken earlier in the month. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION: The meeting adjourned to a Closed
11/28/94 74-222
Session at 10:08 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss a matter involving potential initiation of litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 4. Mayor Kniss announced that no action was taken. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. in memory of Ray Lyman Wilbur, Jr., a former Human Relations Commission Chairperson. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (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.
11/28/94 74-223