HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-26 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting June 26, 1995 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 76-238 1. Rejection of Bids for Landscape Maintenance Services and Extension of Current Landscape Contracts .......... 76-238 2. Amendment to Contract No. S3033811 between the City of Palo Alto and Credit Bureau of Palo Alto to Increase Compensation Authority for Collection of Delinquent Receivables ........................................... 76-238 5. Amendment No. 8 to Contract No. 4688 between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Sanitation Company for Refuse Collection and Recycling Services .............. 76-238 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Pacific Weathershield, Inc. for Reroofing Building C at the Municipal Service Center .............................. 76-238 7. Resolution 7526 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting and Authorizing Execution of Program Supplement No. 006 to the Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Caltrans for Federal-Aid Projects, Relating to the Proposed Page Mill-Foothill Intersection Improvement Project ........ 76-238 8. Resolution 7527 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Contract No. 94-SAO-00047 between the United States of America, Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, and Several Local Government Agencies, including the City of Palo Alto, for the Funding of Maintenance Work at the Shasta Power Plant Rewind Project ................. 76-239 9. Ordinance 4279 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.34 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Section 2.34.095 to Exempt Transfers Effected by the Release of an Ownership Interest in Real Property by a Co-owner Without Consideration ................................. 76-239
06/26/95 76-235
10. Ordinance 4280 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District No. 36 .................................................... 76-239 12. Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Northwest Environmental Advocates v. City of Portland, Ninth Circuit Case No. 92-35044 ............. 76-239 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ................... 76-239 13. Rejection of Bid for Landscaping the Arastradero Creek Access Road (continued from 6/12/95) .................. 76-239 14. Status Report on Financing and Project Costs of Proposed Single Room Occupancy Housing Project at 725-753 Alma Street (continued from 6/12/95) .............. 76-242 15. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission and the Archi-tectural Review Board recommend to the City Council final review of a proposed rezoning from CD-S(P) to a Planned Community (PC) district in order to demolish an existing, approximately 3,000 square foot auto service building and to construct a mixed use project consisting of 107 units of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing, up to 1,800 square feet of ground floor commercial office space and 70 to 74 parking spaces in a two-level parking garage for property located at 725-753 Alma Street ....................................... 76-255 16. Response to Council Request on the Legality of City Payments for Conflict of Interest-Related Real Property Appraisals (continued from 6/12/95) ................... 76-262 17. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Project No. 19212, "Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension" .................................. 76-264 17C. (Old Item 11) Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Berkeley Community Health Project, et al. v. City of Berkeley, et al., U.S. District Court Case No. C95 00665 CW ................................. 76-275 17A. (Old Item 3) Contract between the City of Palo Alto and U-Liner West for Phase V of the Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project ................................ 76-280 17B. (Old Item 4) Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Brown, Vence & Associates for Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study ................................. 76-284 18. Mayor Simitian re Cancellation of Regular City Council Meeting of July 3, 1995 ............................... 76-285
06/26/95 76-236
19. Council Members Kniss, Fazzino and Schneider re Referral of Citizens for Affirmative Planning Initiative to the City Manager and City Attorney for a Report on Planning and Legal Issues ................... 76-285 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 1:07 a.m. ........... 76-286
06/26/95 76-237
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:13 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 7:52 p.m.), Kniss (arrived at 7:22 p.m.), McCown, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber, Rosenbaum ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Joseph Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, spoke regarding the traffic impacts at several major corridors in Palo Alto. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding personal responsibility in government (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Sophia H. Dhrymes, 483 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding property and harassment. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2, 5 - 10, and 12. 1. Rejection of Bids for Landscape Maintenance Services and Extension of Current Landscape Contracts 2. Amendment to Contract No. S3033811 between the City of Palo Alto and Credit Bureau of Palo Alto to Increase Compensation Authority for Collection of Delinquent Receivables 5. Amendment No. 8 to Contract No. 4688 between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Sanitation Company for Refuse Collection and Recycling Services 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Pacific Weathershield, Inc. for Reroofing Building C at the Municipal Service Center; change orders not to exceed $22,000 7. Resolution 7526 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting and Authorizing Execution of Program Supplement No. 006 to the Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Caltrans for Federal-Aid Projects, Relating to the Proposed Page Mill-Foothill Intersection Improvement Project" Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Caltrans for Federal-Aid Projects, Relating to the Proposed Page Mill-Foothill Intersection Improvement Project 8. Resolution 7527 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Contract No. 94-SAO-00047 between the United States of America, Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, and Department of the Interior,
06/26/95 76-238
Bureau of Reclamation, and Several Local Government Agencies, including the City of Palo Alto, for the Funding of Mainte-nance Work at the Shasta Power Plant Rewind Project" Contract No. 94-SAO-00047 between the City of Palo Alto and United States of America, Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, and Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and Several Local Agencies for the Funding of Maintenance Work at the Shasta Power Plant Rewind Project 9. Ordinance 4279 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.34 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Section 2.34.095 to Exempt Transfers Effected by the Release of an Ownership Interest in Real Property by a Co-owner Without Consideration" (1st Reading 6/5/95, PASSED 9-0) 10. Ordinance 4280 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District No. 36" (1st Reading 6/5/95, PASSED 9-0) 12. Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Northwest Environmental Advocates v. City of Portland, Ninth Circuit Case No. 92-35044 MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Rosenbaum absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced Item No. 3 would become Item No. 17A, Item No. 4 would become Item No. 17B, and Item No. 11 would become Item No. 17C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 13. Rejection of Bid for Landscaping the Arastradero Creek Access Road (continued from 6/12/95) City Manager June Fleming said the item originally appeared previously as a Consent Calendar item on Council's Agenda and was removed by the Council at the request of a member of the public. The placement of the item on the Agenda that evening would allow members of the public to comment on the item. She and Larry Starr, Assistant Director of Utilities Engineering and Operations, had recently walked half the length of the road and were prepared to answer the Council's questions regarding the project. Council Member Schneider asked what the City Manager had observed at the site. Ms. Fleming said the project was initiated because of some work that had been done on the road by the Utilities Department. She found that the work had been completed, and staff had made the road more narrow with additional turns to avoid rose bushes, etc.,
06/26/95 76-239
which had been identified as items that should be saved. She understood the area had been hydro-seeded, and there was an abundance of grass. Most of the area needed mitigation but not a large degree of restoration. She was comfortable that staff had made the road as narrow as it could. The road was needed, and the seeding had taken hold. The grass that was planted was recommended by the people who managed the park, and it was in good condition. Council Member Schneider confirmed that 97 trees were proposed for planting. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. Council Member McCown clarified the staff recommendation was to reject the bid and reevaluate what landscaping was appropriate. She asked why the bid came in at such a great variance with what was proposed by staff. Assistant Director of Utilities Engineering and Operations Larry Starr said the cost estimate was provided by the consultant, and the bid came back with those figures. Staff agreed that the cost was too high for the work and that the project should be reevaluated so more bids could be solicited for the project. Ms. Fleming said it was difficult when there was only one bidder to make a comparison. The bid was in excess of what staff was led to believe it would cost. Council Member McCown said it might be helpful to talk to the contractor who presented the bid to find out why an item that the City projected would cost $2,000 ended up costing $20,000. Either the City's numbers were way off based on the information given or the contractor's bid was off. Ms. Fleming concurred with the comments of Council Member McCown which was part of the reason the bid was rejected. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said when the creek above John Sobee Lake was channelized and moved 15 to 17 feet because it was in the way of the utility poles, damage was done to the area. One area was also filled below the creek which created a glory hole that would become larger if it were not maintained on a steady basis. There was further utility work along the road that widened areas which needed to be narrowed with fencing, hydro-seeding, and planting. She questioned why a consultant was paid $20,000 to determine that it would only take $15,000 to do the work. The oak areas were fragile and difficult to restore and needed a company that specialized in restoration, not landscaping. She asked that staff choose the sites that would benefit the most from the monies available. She suggested the Council not send the project back to the same engineering group that did the damage and get a qualified restoration company to look at the project. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, referred to an overhead transparency of the engineer's cost estimate prepared by the Habitat Restoration Group (HRG). The contractor apparently bid on
06/26/95 76-240
a different set of specifications for the item. HRG had become involved in the project because it had gone on for so long without the mitigation. He referred to HRG's initial submittal to staff dated August 17, 1994, which indicated that the creek channel should be evaluated in order to determine whether active restoration was necessary to restore the creek channel and whether the existing channel condition would interfere with other proposed restoration efforts. Based on verbal recommendations, members of the public thought it would be beneficial to have a contract for preparing the engineer's estimate without Council approval. The items were taken out of the contract during the process of negotiation between staff and the HRG. The work already done and the money spent which was almost $25,000 were two key items that were missing. He was concerned about the piecemeal road that had been put in for utilities after the second part of the connection to Foothills Park had been done. He was also concerned that the Mid-Year Capital Improvement Program showed a change in the title of the project from a utility road to a road between Arastradero Road and Foothills Park. A key issue regarding the project two years prior was that it was only to provide the maintenance and emergency service on utility infrastructure and would not be a through route to use between Arastradero Road and Foothills Park. He hoped a way could be found to do the restoration work as directed by the Council in August 1993. Council Member McCown asked for staff comment on the overhead transparency provided by Mr. Borock that indicated the estimate for the work was $30,000 at that time as opposed to the $14,000. Ms. Fleming said staff would need to research the information before providing a response to the Council, but it would probably not change the staff's recommendation. Council Member McCown said the information needed to be clarified. It would be a different issue if the proposal were only $15,000 higher than expected rather than $30,000 higher. Ms. Fleming assured the Council that staff was committed to the project. She was concerned about the public's comments regarding the area which was the reason why she visited the site. The existing road was very narrow in some places, and there was no turnaround area. There might be other areas that needed attention, and she would determine the most appropriate department to follow through on the project. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to reject the bid received from Jim Lord Landscape Services in the amount of $45,856.50 for the Arastra Preserve Restoration Project and authorize staff to reevaluate the level of additional landscaping required to complete the Arastradero Creek Access Road project. Council Member Andersen asked whether the delay of the project would cause any environmental problems. Ms. Fleming said there was none that she could identify. Staff
06/26/95 76-241
was sensitive to the planting season for growth and management and had enough expertise to determine the appropriate time for the issue to return to the Council. Council Member Andersen suggested staff to consider the involve-ment of citizenry in the project which would keep the costs down and encourage more ownership in the project. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Rosenbaum absent. 14. Status Report on Financing and Project Costs of Proposed Single Room Occupancy Housing Project at 725-753 Alma Street (continued from 6/12/95) Mayor Simitian explained that Item Nos. 14 and 15 were related and that the staff's report, the Council's discussion, and the public's comments would be taken on both items at the same time; however, Council's action would be taken in the appropriate order. He explained the time provision for the applicant. Assistant Planning Official Jim Gilliland said the items before the Council that evening regarding the possible construction of a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) residential mixed-use project at 725-753 Alma Street were a status report on financing, a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to extend the option to purchase, and an application for a Planned Community (PC) zone change to allow the construction of the 107-unit SRO. The status report on financing of the SRO reported on recent changes and possible further changes in the tax credit financing. Tax credit financing was the primary funding source for the project with City housing funds as second-ary. The proposed changes in the tax credit system meant Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) would not be able to apply for tax credits until December 1995 instead of July 1995 as was originally envisioned by staff and PAHC. The tax credit rating system was also being changed which brought a level of uncertainty to the project's financing. The slowdown in processing because of financing might mean that it would be desirable to extend the option to purchase; therefore, included in the Council's packet was (1) a proposed amendment to the development agreement for 1050 Arastradero Road, (2) related amendments to the option agreement and purchase agreements for 725-753 Alma Street, and (3) a BAO to extend the option for up to five months. He noted that side remediation was currently being done on the site, and the work had found a tank that was not previously identified in other reports that might have caused heavy soil and groundwater contamination which also might suggest a delay in the purchase of the site and extension of the option. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said unfortunately the studies that the property owner and the City had commissioned to survey the property were not complete. There had been some additional pieces of equipment and contamination discovered. The report from the Fire Department suggested contamination might be rather extensive. Sampling had been done but staff would not know whether the contamination was a serious problem until the samples were analyzed. If the Council desired to move forward, it was highly
06/26/95 76-242
likely that the staff might indicate at some point during the option period that it would not be feasible to purchase the property. The option extension protected the City against acquiring contaminated property. Fire Chief Ruben Grijalva concurred with the comments of the City Attorney. Until the site investigation, further sampling, and analysis were done and the scope of the remediation determined, it was difficult to project what kind of potential liability there would be to clean up the site. Council Member McCown asked whether staff knew what kind of underground tank it was and what the material was that might have caused the contamination of the soil and groundwater. Mr. Grijalva said the initial sampling that was done on the site five days previously indicated that it had the presence of some chlorinated solvents which were known to move readily through soil and groundwater. A remediation report available from a property across the alley from the site at 780 High Street which had been done during the third quarter of 1994 indicated that there was the possibility of offsite sources of contamination that could impact that site. Additional studies were needed to determine the source of contamination. Council Member McCown asked whether the site history indicated what kind of operation might have made use of that tank. Mr. Gilliland said there was an indication that the tank could have been used for waste motor oil or solvents, but that was a preliminary indication. Council Member McCown clarified there was a possibility if the tank were found to be the source of the contamination detected on the neighboring property, the City would not only have an issue with respect to the cleanup of the proposed site but also there would be an issue if the City were the owner of the site with the respect to the impact the property would have on the neighbor. Mr. Grijalva said that was possible. Mr. Calonne said the present arrangement was not structured with any contemplation that there was outside contamination. If the studies showed that kind of indication, his advice to the City Manager would be to recommend to the Council to restructure the agreement or not pursue the purchase. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked if the Council approved the staff recommendation to extend the option and then staff found that it had to change its recommendation, what impact that would have on the agreement with Stanford University and the 1050 Arastradero Road property. Mr. Calonne said the original arrangement was structured so if the City did not acquire title to 725-753 Alma Street by June 30, 1995, the development agreement vesting provisions for Stanford
06/26/95 76-243
University's property at 1050 Arastradero Road would terminate and the obligation for Stanford would be changed back to paying a double housing mitigation fee of approximately $470,000 rather than the $650,000 cost of the property. With the cooperation of Chop Keenan of Keenan Land Company and Stanford University, the City had worked out an arrangement that was before the Council that evening in which the development agreement would be amended to not have June 30, 1995, as the final date. Instead, it would state "if in the future the City did not acquire the title to 725-753 Alma Street, then the development agreement on 1050 Arastradero Road would terminate." The price for that arrangement was approximately $5,400 per month on the option that the City had been paying to date; however, for the five months between now and the end of November 1995, Stanford University had agreed to pay half of the amount since it was in Stanford's interest to preserve the vesting on 1050 Arastradero Road. He clarified the additional cost at risk would be approximately $2,700 per month until the end of November 1995. The analysis of the contamination on the site would be done shortly. Council Member Andersen asked whether there was any extension potential in the arrangement if the regulations were not clarified by the time the option period ended. Mr. Calonne said that might be possible. The constraint that staff operated under during negotiations was that in the absence of Council direction, the direction would come from the City Manager. The City Manager had determined a sum of money that she would be willing to recommend to the Council to spend on the option. The cost for the extension period was 5 months at $2,700 per month. He understood from his discussions with the property owner that there was a price for the extension but that would need to be discussed with the property owner at a future date. Mayor Simitian clarified the staff's recommendation proposed a five-month option because there were some questions that needed to be answered before staff could recommend the City acquire the site. Additional, there were even more questions before staff would recommend the City acquire the site but staff still recommended the same five-month option. He understood the $2,700 was half the amount of the original option costs. If the site were acquired by the City at $650,000, the funds would come from the Housing Fund which received 6 percent per year based on the current estimate. Therefore, 1/2 percent per month of $650,000 per month would be $3,250. It would cost the City approximately $550 per month less to extend for 5 months than if the City actually used $650,000 to buy the site. Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, 540 Cowper Street, said PAHC presented its feasibili-ty report in November 1994, and almost everything had gone well. The project had been taken three times to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for preliminary project and garage reviews; two times to the Planning Commission for PC zone review; and two times to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) for input to the state preservation officer as to potential impact on historic resources.
06/26/95 76-244
The staff, boards, and commissions had done their jobs very ably, particularly the HRB members who were consistently enthusiastic about the design work and Planning Commissioners who worked very hard with PAHC's concerns about various City conditions. It was a project that the community wanted built. PAHC hoped the Council would approve the project that evening with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission in Attachment D, staff report (CMR:278:95), dated June 12, 1995. She asked Council to focus also on PAHC's concerns regarding issues such as cost, management, and flexibility as noted in its letter dated June 8, 1995. Costs had become a more serious concern since the tax credit system was in flux, and the costs related directly to PAHC's ability to get tax credit financing and build the project. The cost concerns involved the garage design, the alley improvement question, and exhaust stack, and PAHC felt it was unnecessary to impose the higher costs conditions. Management issues surrounding the parking and occupancy rules and the fumes that might arise needed to be more flexible and could be managed when the project was operating. PAHC asked the Council to encourage its efforts to work with the handicapped accessibility rules and comment on the historic resources issues so that federal funding would not be jeopardized. Rob Quigley, architect for the project, presented overview graphs of the project. There was a level of light and architectural amenities that had been accomplished on the project that had not been done before in any other city in the United States. The site offered some challenges, and the goal was to create a building that would not overshadow the adjacent one-story historic building and at the same time meet the urban design guidelines which called for a facade of five stories that fronted on Alma Street. The site worked well for the layout of that kind of project, and the building would be designed around the existing trees which were in excellent condition. He explained the preferred 70 parking spaces situation which was also favored by the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board (ARB). The same parking situation had worked with the alley for many years, and the Planning Commission felt it would be safer for the cars to be off the alley rather than have everything off Alma Street. Council Member Andersen asked whether every unit would have to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Mr. Quigley said yes. Council Member Andersen asked how other communities had dealt with the issue. Mr. Quigley said historically, that building type had required one fully accessible room per 25 regular rooms. He had built five buildings using that criterion, and the operation had proved to be adequate for handicapped people. Council Member Andersen asked how many units were on the first floor. Mr. Quigley said there were no units on the first floor, and all
06/26/95 76-245
of the floors were equally accessible by elevator. There were approximately 26 rooms per floor. David Easton, Project Manager for Palo Alto Housing Corporation, said 12 consultants were hired for the project who had expertise in architecture, engineering, marketing, economics, acoustics, and solar access. The result of their work was before the Council for final review for a new type of SRO housing in Palo Alto. PAHC had been concerned about the compatibility of the SRO with the existing commercial uses in the surrounding area, particularly the auto body service business and had explored the issue in depth with its consultants. The tall exhaust stack was proposed as a means to disperse the odors; however, no expert could categorically conclude that the odors would bother SRO residents. PAHC supported the Planning Commission proposal for a one-year period to identify whether a problem really existed. The plan would be to construct the building and determine if a problem existed. If some of the rooms were affected by the odors, then the on-site management would assess the situation with the tenants and assign the rooms based on individual sensitivity to the odors. The mechanical ventilation system would provide fresh air to all of the rooms if the tenant chose to keep the windows closed. If necessary, more drastic mitigations could be taken if required, such as sealing windows of affected units and installing expensive stacks on the emission sources and chemical or carbon absorption systems that would clean the emissions. The Planning Commission's proposed one-year review period would allow PAHC to determine whether there was a nuisance and then a solution could be designed and constructed if a problem existed. Council Member Fazzino asked what assurance the Council had that the PAHC would have the financial resources in place in the future to accomplish the mitigation of the stack or a mitigation that provided the same goal if the mitigation were deferred. Mr. Easton said the problem needed to be identified before an exact cost could be determined. PAHC could only suggest what the problem might be, and the cost estimate on that solution would be approximately $45,000. If a problem existed in the future and the stack was the solution, PAHC could apply for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to finance the project. There would also be some reserves built up over time in the Housing Fund that could be used as well to solve the problem. Council Member Fazzino did not want angry residents and neighbors to come before the Council in the future and ask the City to pay the cost of the mitigation from the General Fund since it clearly was not an important aspect of the original proposal. Mr. Easton said PAHC believed a stack would not be necessary and that the problem could be solved through management and sealing the windows of the affected units if necessary. Patricia Saffir, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, 2719 Bryant Street, urged the Council to adopt the Planning Commission recommendations which would assist in keeping the project costs
06/26/95 76-246
low (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Leslee Coleman, 250 Curtner No. 27, was a neighbor of other PAHC projects and was also the program director for Innovative Housing, a nonprofit housing program in Palo Alto and a member of the Housing Action Coalition in Santa Clara County. The Housing Action Coalition had carefully reviewed the project and strongly supported the project due to its affordability and access to transit. She urged the Council to retain that affordability not only for the tax credit purposes but also for the residents who would live there. Studies showed that affordable housing projects had lower car ownership rates. The project used the land efficiently, and PAHC did an excellent job of managing the other projects that it had built. Carl Guardino, 5201 Great America Parkway No. 426, Santa Clara, Vice President of the Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group (SCVMG) and representative of the Housing Action Coalition, said the SCVMG supported the project. He distributed a list of the occupations and employers of the people who qualified for SRO housing in the City of San Jose (letter from City of San Jose on file in the City Clerk's Office). He said a 300-square-foot studio apartment in Palo Alto rented for $800 per month which was the same size unit that would be provided in the SRO. Working people and young professionals needed affordable housing in the Silicon Valley. He encouraged the Council to approve the project. Council Member Andersen asked whether the SCVMG was reaching out to the agencies that would be making critical decisions with respect to the changes being made to the tax credit allocations. Input from the SCVMG would be helpful in the modification of the rules to make the project a possibility. Mr. Guardino said SCVMG had written to the Tax Credit Allocation Committee and would also continue its efforts regarding the funding source of the purchase of mortgage credit certificates which was in jeopardy. SCVMG did not agree with the recent change to give more than the California minimum to rural areas. The change would rob urban areas that had a tremendous need with higher costs for land and would prevent some excellent projects from being funded. Council Member McCown asked what other alternatives were being pursued by the PAHC if the worst case scenario happened with respect to the tax credit eligibility. Mike Anderson, President, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, said the tax credit program was the only option for that kind of housing. The project had been planned and processed through the City. PAHC was before the Council that evening with the last phase of the process, and the Council's approval that evening would move the project forward so that PAHC could apply to the Tax Credit Allocation Committee in December 1995 and hope for the best. The project would have to be redesigned under the new system if the tax credit were not approved, e.g., using mixed market rate housing or a larger commercial area. The project before the
06/26/95 76-247
Council that evening under the existing rules had the best chance of receiving the tax commitments. Council Member Schneider asked whether PAHC knew what other agencies would be applying for the same tax credits. Mr. Anderson said no. Council Member Schneider asked whether that information could be determined before December 1995. Mr. Anderson said no. There was a deadline for the applications, and many of the applications came in during the last few days of the program. PAHC had a lot of feedback from other nonprofit organizations and projects in the Silicon Valley were being funded. It had become more competitive and a complicated point system looked at costs, the local subsidy, and the income level that would be served. In the past, points were given based upon those different factors and the highest points won the competi-tion. Some form would emerged during the public hearings, and PAHC hoped the project as currently described would receive the tax credits. Council Member Schneider asked whether a list was published of the other nonprofit organizations that had applied for the funding. Mr. Anderson said no. He clarified in addition to the nonprofit organizations, "for profit" developers also applied for the funding. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the PAHC and the Planning Commission had worked very hard to keep the cost of the project in an area that would qualify under the existing regulations. She clarified that the PAHC was comfortable with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and she asked whether there were any other areas that might have significant cost savings that could be made without denigrating the qualities of the project. Mr. Anderson said the Planning Commission worked very hard with the PAHC to cut the costs. Mr. Easton said the PAHC felt it was fair for PAHC to improve the entire alley improvements which was an added cost of approximately $10,000 to $20,000 and that PAHC should only have to pay a pro rata share. There was a better solution to manage the cost of the exhaust stack. He said if the Council directed staff to consider an SRO ordinance to designate the project as a hotel, there would be a different set of requirements. The accessibility could be provided on a more specific basis and the unit would be improved based on the actual disability of a tenant rather than improving all of the units for a mobility disability such as the shower costs. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked for the potential dollar impact on that item.
06/26/95 76-248
Mr. Easton said the showers were $l,700 each, so the project would save $170,000. An SRO ordinance might help the process and allow the flexibility to look into the issue. Mr. Anderson said that was the biggest ticket item that was still pending and was the item that needed the most help. The City of San Diego adopted specific ordinances to redefine an SRO in order to apply ADA in a way that was feasible but still worked for the disabled. Vice Mayor Wheeler had visited the Curtner Garden, and she asked whether the same problem arose for that project and, if so, how it was dealt with. Mr. Anderson said no, but the City of Sunnyvale adopted some ordinances that assisted the development and allowed the process to be done economically. There were different interpretations of the ADA process and additional ordinances could be adopted by cities that assisted in the process. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to (1) approve the extension of the Option Agreement for up to November 30, 1995, under the terms negotiated by staff; (2) authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment to the Development Agreement and the amendments to the Option Agreement and Purchase Agreement in substantially a similar form as provided to the Council by the City Attorney; (3) direct the City Manager to administer the provisions of the amended Option Agreement and Development Agreement; and (4) approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance to allocate the funds needed to pay the option extension fee. Proposed Amendment to Development Agreement for 1050 Arastradero Road and Related Amendments to Option Agreement and Purchase Agreement for 725-753 Alma Street Ordinance 4281 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 to Extend for Five Additional Months the City's Option to Purchase 725 and 753 Alma Street for Single Room Occupancy Housing" Council Member Fazzino said it was an excellent well designed project, and he supported the efforts to reduce costs. Otherwise, the project would not become a reality. He was pleased that the staff, Planning Commission, and ARB were willing to work closely with the PAHC to reduce costs as much as possible. His biggest concern was the mitigation associated with the fumes. He originally felt that that was a critical part of the project, but he was convinced that the PAHC was approaching the issue in a responsible manner. If there were a need for the mitigation, the resources and commitment would be in place either in the form of a stack or a less costly solution. He was willing to defer on that item until it could be ascertained that there was a risk associated with the fumes. He disagreed with the comments made by the head of the Tax Credit Allocation Committee; and he believed that because Palo Alto was such a high cost community, the City
06/26/95 76-249
had an even greater need for affordable housing than valley communities. It was an exciting project and the PAHC deserved great credit for its efforts to move forward. He had not originally believed it was necessary to have a quid pro quo between the project and the property on Arastradero Road, but he was now convinced that the project stood on its own merits regardless of what happened with the Arastradero property. Council Member Kniss said it was discouraging to hear that the tax credit allocation was being researched by so many people. She hoped some avenue could be found whether it was cost reduction or lobbying efforts that would allow the project to move forward. The design was excellent and would enhance the Alma corridor. Council Member Andersen suggested specific direction be given to the staff to work in tandem with the PAHC to provide an SRO zone in order to avoid the problems with the impacts of the ADA requirements. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the problem was not the zoning ordinance but the State of California's Uniform Building Code (UBC). The UBC clearly defined dwelling and hotel uses. The project was a set of dwelling units, not a hotel. In April 1994, the UBC Title 24 accessibility requirements were amended to require that all of the units for that type of facility be handicapped accessible. The SROs built in the cities of Sunnyvale and San Jose met those requirements. The City of Palo Alto could make the UBC more stringent based on findings of local circumstances but did not have the legal authority to weaken the provisions in the UBC. The City had asked the PAHC on a number of occasions how the situation could be resolved. Council Member Andersen said the PAHC had suggested in its letter dated June 8, 1995, that Council encourage staff to explore an SRO zoning definition that reflected an SRO housing/hotel hybrid status which would enable a more practical approach to accessibility. Mr. Schreiber said staff had looked at the issue in the past, but the regulations in the zoning ordinance would not affect the UBC. Staff had tried to find a way around the provision adopted in April 1994 in the UBC and understood that no other jurisdiction had been successful. Mr. Quigley said other cities had found a way to classify their projects as hotels. The UBC had a set of criteria directed toward dwelling units which was intended to apply to condominiums, single-family homes, etc. The project was neither a hotel nor a market rate dwelling unit; and when the codes were applied to that building type, there were all kinds of requirements, such as a doorbell on every door. It had been done in the past even with the new interpretations of ADA. City Manager June Fleming said she supported the suggestion that staff work with the PAHC and any other bodies to find out whether there were ways in which the City could make the conditions easier
06/26/95 76-250
to meet and relieve the cost. Staff would pursue the issue. Council Member Andersen referred to the HRB's conclusion that the service station might be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. He was sympathetic with the HRB's conclusion and was comfortable with an indication that the structure had a unique design but how that decision might affect the funding of the project should be considered. Council Member Fazzino said the study would be ongoing, and he preferred that the issue be separated from the main motion. He understood staff would pursue efforts to reduce costs and overcome the obstacles which was part of the main motion, and Council Member Andersen's suggestion was a broader policy issue for the City which he supported. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the PAHC had voiced concerns regarding the funding for the improvements to the alleyway. She believed the Planning Commission recommendation spoke of the PAHC's funding only that portion of the alley improvements for which PAHC was directly responsible. Mr. Easton said PAHC had an issue on the signage that was an additional cost and preferred to leave the signage off of the alley. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified the signage was not only a cost issue but also a concern by the neighbors that the change in the use of the alley was not true to the historic use of the alley. She asked what the Planning Commission's recommendation was on that issue and whether it dealt with the issue of "no stopping and unloading" in the alleyway. Planning Commissioner Jonathan Schink said he would have to research the minutes of the meeting, but the Planning Commission did not deal with the issue of no stopping and unloading in the alleyway. Mr. Schreiber said there were two signage issues: "one-way" and "no stopping" at anytime. Vice Mayor Wheeler was concerned about the "no stopping at anytime" issue and did not want to have that condition on the alley. She asked whether the alley had traditionally been a one-way alley. Assistant Planning Official Jim Gilliland said the alley was officially a one-way alley; however, it had functioned primarily as a two-way alley. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said historically, portions of the alley had functioned as a two-way alley. Similar alleys in the City were usually one-way; but the alley was not signed, and people drove both ways. Vice Mayor Wheeler said it was a narrow alley, and from a safety
06/26/95 76-251
standpoint, it would be wiser to make the alley one-way. Mr. Schreiber explained that the end of the alley was currently used frequently for the parking and unloading of vehicles; and if the "no stopping" provision were eliminated, a car could not get through the alley and would have to violate the one-way condition from the other direction. Mr. Overway said additional clarification was needed regarding two elements of the "no stopping or standing" issue. The staff report (CMR:278:95) indicated that staff would put up the signs. He asked whether staff was being directed by Council not to do that versus not to hold the applicant responsible for it. Vice Mayor Wheeler said her intent was not to have any signage. She was persuaded by the argument that it would cause a neighborly disruption that was not needed. She felt the same way about the stack which might have to happen upon more reflection and more experience; however, she did not believe the project should begin with another problem with neighborhood relations. The loading had traditionally occurred in the alley, and the people who used the alley had managed to work out the situation together. She wanted that philosophy to continue unless the situation became unworkable. Mayor Simitian asked whether the Council's direction was clear to staff. Mr. Overway asked whether the alley would be one-way or two-way. Vice Mayor Wheeler said staff indicated that if the loading and unloading were not stopped, a two-way alley would be necessary to make the alley safe and accessible. Mr. Overway said staff had recommended that the alley be made one-way and blockage not be allowed to occur by the loading and unloading. Mayor Simitian clarified that Vice Mayor Wheeler did not want to prohibit the loading and unloading, and he asked what staff's recommendation would be regarding a one-way or two-way alley if loading and unloading were allowed. Mr. Overway believed it would be better if the alley were one-way. Mr. Grijalva was concerned about fire access under fire conditions and emergency medical calls to the newly constructed portion of the building and its increased usage. Mayor Simitian asked whether the Fire Chief's issue was about loading and unloading. Mr. Grijalva said the issue was standing, stopping, loading, and unloading vehicles that were parked and unoccupied. Fire access lanes were not permitted to have standing, stopping, loading, and unloading.
06/26/95 76-252
Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether there was sufficient access from Alma Street. Mr. Grijalva said the access would be determined by the location of the fire and the accessibility to all sides. The Uniform Fire Code required that the Fire Department be able to reach the entire first floor exterior of any building which could not be done from the Alma Street side. Vice Mayor Wheeler echoed the comments of her colleagues regarding the efforts of the PAHC and the consultants to bring the project to that point. She wanted to add to the comments regarding the relationship between the building and its neighboring buildings, including the historic gas station at 795-799 Alma Street. The applicant and the City had been aware from the beginning of the project that the City had a long-standing commitment to preserve and enhance the automotive service uses in that area of Palo Alto. The applicant considered that factor in the design process and attempted to design a project that was sympathetic to the automo-tive service uses. Also, particular effort was made to present a pleasing facade to the historic structure on Alma Street. The project would be a distinct visual improvement to all of the properties in the environs of the project. Council Member McCown asked whether there were agreements in place to cover any further cleanup costs associated with the new tank that had been discovered. Mr. Calonne said yes. The agreements stated that if the costs exceeded $2,500, the City could pay the extra costs or terminate the agreement. The costs had already exceeded the $2,500 and had reached approximately $10,000. Keenan Land Company had agreed to absorb another $4,000 of other costs, and the consultant who did the original work was also absorbing some of the costs. Council Member McCown clarified the City would have to pay either for additional costs if there were further physical cleanup of the site or terminate the agreement. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. The agreement was not struc-tured with the anticipation of major contamination. If the contamination were so major that it substantially suppressed the value of the property, all parties would have to reconsider the project. Council Member McCown asked whether the Council would have the information to evaluate that impact within the next two to three months. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member McCown understood the option period would be extended through November 30, 1995, but the deadline for submittal of the application was until December 1995. She asked how the Council could evaluate the prospects for successfully achieving
06/26/95 76-253
tax credits without further extending the option period beyond November 30, 1995. Mr. Calonne explained the staff expected to know during the summer whether the program had changed in a way that would terminate the project. Staff did not believe it would know by the time the option period ended whether or not that would be successful. He said if nothing had changed with the tax credit program, the Council would have been asked to make a decision that evening in the same manner as the decision under the extension. The additional time might be desirable but staff wanted to preserve the status quo with the extension for the least possible cost rather than try to change the way the agreement had been structured to buy some additional time. It was possible to return to the property owner and buy additional time if Council desired, but the City Manager was not comfortable with approving the additional costs without Council direction. Council Member McCown said unless the project died, staff would return to the Council in November 1995 with a request to further extend the option period. The answer to the tax credit funding would not be available by November 30, 1995. Mr. Calonne understood the project was designed under the existing guidelines, and staff would know during the summer or early fall how dramatically different the program was. Council Member McCown understood that would indicate that the rules had been changed significantly and the project would not qualify. She suspected that the City would be able to move forward and hope for the best. She believed there should be an additional direction to staff to pursue the need for additional time beyond November 30, 1995. She did not want the Council to be faced with a decision on November 30, 1995, that the only choice would be for the City to buy the property. Mr. Calonne said financing feasibility was not a prerequisite that Council directed earlier. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to direct staff to pursue with the other parties the likely need to further extend the purchase option after November 30, 1995. Mr. Calonne explained that to effect that extension would require a budget amendment ordinance in the future. It was difficult to negotiate an option when it was uncertain whether there were six votes to approve the money to pay the cost of the option. He suggested a closed session at a future date so staff could receive negotiating instructions. Mayor Simitian clarified Mr. Calonne would take the friendly amendment as direction to pursue that possibility as part of the discussion. Council Member Schneider was originally opposed to the project not because she did not see the tremendous need in the community for
06/26/95 76-254
affordable housing but because of the site. She was concerned about the traffic on Alma Street and the loss of parking in the Downtown area. The City had already spent approximately $400,000 and still did not have a project. She was very concerned about the toxins in the soil which might cost far more than anticipated; however, she was fully committed to the success of the project. She did not believe it would be a financially successful project, but it was the kind of project that the community owed to the citizens of the community who could not afford housing. She would support the project. Mayor Simitian said the information regarding the additional toxic examination was a little late in the process. Studies were done on the site, and someone should have brought the information to the Council in a timely fashion. There should be some consequences regarding the situation; and if it were a professional consultant, then the consequences should be related to the fee paid for the studies. He looked forward to hearing from staff regarding the issue. The comments from the members of the public in attendance that evening were important. He was pleased to have information from Mr. Guardino regarding a project in another jurisdiction because it brought out in graphic and simple terms the real people who provided services and products that the people in the community used who deserved the City's support. The City wanted an SRO two years previously and at present it had a site and a project that was about to be approved but not funded. An application for funding had to have two things: a site under control and a project approved. A project would be approved that would provide affordable housing for 107 households which was no small accomplishment. Everyone associated with the project should take pride and satisfaction with that and then go about the business of finding the money to make it happen. He looked forward to the earnest efforts of the staff, the PAHC, and the community to make the project real. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, Rosenbaum absent. 15. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission and the Archi-tectural Review Board recommend to the City Council final review of a proposed rezoning from CD-S(P) to a Planned Community (PC) district in order to demolish an existing, approximately 3,000 square foot auto service building and to construct a mixed use project consisting of 107 units of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing, up to 1,800 square feet of ground floor commercial office space and 70 to 74 parking spaces in a two-level parking garage for property located at 725-753 Alma Street. A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is requested for portions of the parapet that exceed the 50-foot height limit by 4 feet. (continued from 6/12/95) MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the following recommendations: 1. Certification of the mitigated negative declaration (95-EIA-2), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, if certain conditions of
06/26/95 76-255
approval are imposed; 2. Approval of the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) allowing for a portion of the building to exceed the allowed 50-foot height limit by 4 feet; and 3. Introduction of the Ordinance, including findings and condi-tions, rezoning the property at 725-753 Alma Street from CD-S(P) (Service Commercial with a Pedestrian Combining District) to PC (Planned Community District) allowing the development of the 107 room Single Room Occupancy (SRO) mixed use project. Planned Community Zone Findings - 725-753 Alma (a) The site is so situated, and the uses proposed for the subject property are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development, which will provide housing for low- and very low-income persons. The increased density and decreased parking requirement will allow a greater number of smaller units suitable to a low-income working person, thus serving a larger number of persons needing this type of housing, and will reduce the costs per unit, thus making the units affordable to persons with low and very low incomes. (b) The project will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts, in that housing for low- and very low-income persons is a public need, considering the expense of housing in Palo Alto, and that this type of small, affordable unit is not being provided in the community by other projects. (c) The uses permitted and the site development regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity, in that the permitted uses (housing for low- and very low-income persons and office space) will have minimal traffic or noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, and that the development project proposed to be constructed on the subject property will further the policies and programs of the Housing Element by increasing the supply of rental housing, providing smaller, affordable units, providing housing which meets the special needs of working individuals, and by taking advantage of financing available from other levels of government. Additional finding: The Council finds that the (fumes) mitigation measure as described in the Negative Declaration is undesirable, in that it requires up
06/26/95 76-256
front installation of costly mechanical equipment which may be unnecessary. The Council finds that a substitute mitigation measure is available which would be equally effective in mitigating potential significant effects on the environment to a less than significant level. That measure, which is made a condition of project approval by inclusion in the Ordinance, is enumerated as Condition 11(C) in the Planning Commission recommended conditions of approval. Design Enhancement Exception Findings - 725-753 Alma (a) There are exceptional or extraordinary conditions applicable to the property involved that do not generally apply to property in the same district in that the site fronts on a major thoroughfare and railroad tracks and is in an area where increased building size has been determined in the Urban Design Guide to be acceptable. (b) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of Title 18 and the standards for review set forth in the ARB Ordinance in that the site and building have a broad exposure to Alma Street that would be enhanced by being broken up into smaller segments that vary in height. (c) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that the exception is being granted for an increased height of only four feet to a small portion of the parapet at the center of the Alma Street facade of the building. Conditions of Approval - 725-753 Alma 1. Final plans including materials and colors, garage plans, complete lighting and photometric plans, detailed landscaping and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas, and signs shall be reviewed and approved by the
Architectural Review Board (ΑARB≅) prior to issuance of building permits. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, electric panel switchboards, and any other required utilities shall be shown on the final plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements. 2. The final plans shall include the following:
06/26/95 76-257
(A) A revised design including a third-floor common kitchen and outdoor deck; (B) An acoustically-effective railing, at least four feet high, on the first floor deck; and (C) Recessing of the windows on the east and south eleva-tions. 3. All residential unit windows shall have appropriate STC ratings as described in the acoustical consultant's report and Title 24 of the California Building Code. Windows which will be affected by noise from the compressor on the adjacent property to the north shall meet appropriate STC ratings to reduce such noise to 45 dB DNL or less as measured on the interior with the window closed. 4. A central mechanical air ventilation system must be included in the project to provide a source of fresh air for each residential unit.If a mechanical ventilation system to provide a source of fresh air for each unit is determined by the city not to be required in order to satisfy Title 24 noise requirements, applicant shall nevertheless provide adequate space for the future installation of mechanical ventilation equipment. 5. All residential unit windows shall be of a type which is convertible to inoperable status (i.e., sealed). 6. Up to four additional street trees of minimum 24 inch box size shall be planted along the block frontage; species, location, and number shall be determined by the City Arborist. 7. A revised garage plan accessing both levels of the garage from Alma Street shall be subject to review and approval by the ARB. The project shall include a garage plan with parking accessed from Alma Street and the alley, as reviewed and approved by the ARB. (A) Applicant shall improve the alley only for the length of the alley adjoining the project site, and any other portions disturbed by utility installation to serve the project. (B) Parking spaces in the SRO garage shall be assigned so that users know which entrance to use. 8. Prior to issuance of a grading and excavation permit: A detailed grading plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Public Works Department and the Building Inspection Division and shall include standard tree protection measures for the on-site trees to be retained. Excavation of soils during construction shall be subject to the recommendations of the Regional Water Quality Control
06/26/95 76-258
Board ("RWQCB") regarding monitoring and proper removal. RWQCB clearance shall be obtained for the construction of the proposed building and any procedures required by the RWQCB followed during excavation and grading. Any contaminated soil or groundwater encountered during excavation shall be remediated or disposed of in accordance with applicable state or local laws and procedures. 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit: (A) All lot lines shall be removed pursuant to a Certificate of Compliance. (B) Final plans shall be revised as required to comply with the ARB approvals referenced above, which will include additional standard conditions. (C) The applicant shall submit a formal drainage plan for the site to the Public Works Department. The plan shall include connection of the project's storm drain system to the City storm drainage line at the intersection of Homer and High. 10. Prior to occupancy: (A) The property owner shall submit evidence to the Director of Planning and Community Development, demonstrating that one of the following has been implemented: (1) an exhaust stack and fan system, as recommended by Charles & Braun to vent emissions from
Ellison=s paint booth emissions, has been installed; (2)
all windows to the project=s residential units have been sealed; or (3) an alternative mitigation measure has been proposed by a qualified expert and has been reviewed and approved by the City as an amendment to the PC zone under Chapter 18.68 or Chapter 18.99, as appropriate, and implemented by the property owner. (B) The sidewalk along the Alma Street frontage of the property, and curb and gutter, shall be replaced as determined by the Department of Public Works in order to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety. 11. Following occupancy: (A) The property owner shall make an annual payment of $37.19, first commencing one year after occupancy, to the owner of the solar system located at 744 High Street, as compensation for increased utility costs due to shading caused by the project. Payment shall be made only if the solar system is in use. This condition shall be of no force and effect after fifteen years or at such time as the solar system is no longer operational, whichever event first occurs. (B) For the first two years following project occupancy,
06/26/95 76-259
the property owner shall meet on a regular basis, at least once annually, with owners and tenants of properties located on the block wherein the subject property is situated. The purpose of the meeting shall be to discuss and seek to resolve any common concerns regarding such issues as parking. (C) The property owner shall comply with the following condition in order to mitigate the possible impact of fumes from the adjacent automotive painting operation at Ellison's Body Shop: (1) One year following occupancy of the residential portion of the project, the property owner shall submit to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment (ΑDirector≅) a written report as pro-vided in this condition. For the purpose of this
condition, Αoccupancy≅ means rental of 90% of the units. (2) The written report shall include all of the following information: (a) A detailed log of any and all odor complaints received during the year by the project spon-sor/property owner from residents of the project regarding odors entering the project from outside sources. (b) A description of action(s) taken in response to any and all such complaints. (c) A description of any and all complaints re-ceived by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) during the year concerning odors or other airborne emissions alleged to have emanated from sources located on the same block as the project. The description shall include both verified and unverified complaints, and the address(es) of the complainant(s), to the extent such information is available from the BAAQMD. (3) If, upon review of the report and any other avail-able relevant information, the Director determines that the location of the project adjacent to auto-motive uses has resulted in significant odor complaints from the project unrelated to any violation of emissions standards by the automotive uses, then the Director shall require the property owner to take one of the following actions within one hundred eighty (180) days: (a) Install an exhaust stack and fan system, as recommended by Charles & Braun to vent emis-
06/26/95 76-260
sions from Ellison=s paint booth emissions;
(b) Seal all windows to the project=s residential units, and ensure that a mechanical ventila-tion system to the units is operational; or (c) Implement an alternative mitigation measure, as proposed by a qualified expert, and as re-viewed and approved by the City as an amend-ment to the PC zone under Chapter 18.68 or Chapter 18.99, as appropriate.
(4) In the Director=s discretion at the end of the one-year reporting period, the property owner may be required to submit an additional report following the second year of occupancy, to be reviewed in accordance with paragraph (3). (5) Notice of any determination made by the Director pursuant to paragraphs (3) or (4) of this condition shall be given in writing in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.93, and any aggrieved or affected persons may appeal such determination in accord with the provisions of that Chapter. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said an additional staff report at the Council's place that evening asked for a minor change in the PC zoning to clarify that the Planned Community (PC) would terminate and the Zoning Administrator would reinitiate a rezoning and terminate the City's option at the end of January 1996. The purpose of the change was not to leave the current property owner with a PC that might not work if the City did not acquire the property. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to direct staff to return with a revised PC Ordinance which would include the following provision: "If the acquisition of the property by the City or Palo Alto Housing Corporation has not occurred by March 31, 1996, then the Zoning Administrator shall take the actions set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.140." MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to state that Council did not view construction of the SRO as affecting in any way the historic integrity of the next door project at 795-799 Alma Street. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to add a policy regarding alley access that would remove the requirement to sign the alleyway, particularly with signs that said "no stopping, loading, and unloading," and that the alley would remain a two-way alley. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo
06/26/95 76-261
Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 725-753 Alma Street from CD-S(P) to PC" MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, Rosenbaum absent. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct staff to explore with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) zoning and Uniform Building Code definition that reflected an SRO's housing/hotel hybrid status. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, Rosenbaum absent. RECESS 9:30 - 9:45 P.M. 16. Response to Council Request on the Legality of City Payments for Conflict of Interest-Related Real Property Appraisals (continued from 6/12/95) City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the report was a response to the question asked by Council when it discussed and continued the former Maximart/Fry's Electronics extension decision. Since that time, he had requested advice from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) on behalf of Council Member Fazzino and had found that there was nothing unlawful about the City's working on a mechanism to pay the cost of real estate appraisal necessary to prepare conflict of interest opinions for City Council Members. He analogized it to the staff time that might be spent on legal research. It was a matter of policy for the Council. If the Council chose to pursue that approach, he suggested Council spend some time on the procedures to determine how, when, and under what circumstances the expenditure would be authorized. Mayor Simitian asked whether the preference was a formal motion from the Council directing staff on the issue. Mr. Calonne said yes. The Council should indicate the guidelines it wished to follow under the circumstances, and he would return with some policies. Council should also direct the City Manager to proceed with a Budget Amendment Ordinance to establish a fund to handle the issue when appropriate. Mayor Simitian said it was important that the Council make sure two goals were achieved: 1) that Council Members who had a conflict of interest not participate in items when there was a conflict of interest and 2) that Council Members who did not have a conflict of interest participate when he/she did not have a conflict of interest. Both of the goals suggested that it was important for every Council Member to have all the information available so that Council Members could make informed decisions about whether or not he/she should or should not participate when the conflict of interest turned on the value of a particular property or the financial impact of a particular action. Individual Council Members needed to know when he/she should or should not participate. He said individual Council Members should
06/26/95 76-262
not be asked to bear the costs of an appraisal anymore than an individual Council Member would be expected to get legal advice at his/her own expense rather than looking to the City Attorney for advice on the potential conflicts. He wanted a policy that allowed the Council to authorize on a case-by-case basis as appropriate the expenditure of funds when necessary to obtain an appraisal in connection with conflict of interest advice. Mr. Calonne was concerned with the Council being put in a position of making a case-by-case decision because he could envision certain circumstances where Council might unavoidably consider how the decision would affect the outcome and then approve or disapprove the appraisal based on that sort of thinking. He could also envision the policy being arguably misused if not appropri-ately governed. Mayor Simitian asked whether the alternative was that an individual Council Member would be able to ask for an appraisal at City expense. Mr. Calonne said yes. An annual cap could be placed on a budget for it, and some contemporaneous reporting from staff when the request arrived could be required. The problem was that there could be a fairly substantial expenditure incurred which some member of the public or other Council Member might view as a trivial issue. The downside of not regulating it case-by-case was that the Council might end up incurring some significant appraisal costs on an issue in which other Council Members might think it would be just as easy for the Council Member to "not participate" rather than compel the expenditure of public funds. He assumed that if the public or the Council disagreed with an individual Council Member's decision to cause that expenditure, it would be clear, not concealed. Council Member McCown agreed with the thrust of the City Attorney's comments but it was not radically different from the Mayor's comments. She did not believe a case-by-case basis to spend the money would be a good situation. She believed some more objective guidelines for when it would be appropriate and some way of administering that made more sense. She remained neutral on whether it was a good idea or not. She would not vote against moving forward with the issue until she saw the program look like and what kinds of dollars it would entail. She asked whether there were any contemporaneous real estate appraisal situations available. Mr. Calonne had only anecdotal information; and with the 11 cities he had represented, he had never had the situation arise. He understood the issue came up with a former Mayor in the 1980s, so the issue was not unprecedented that the City would pay the fee. Council Member McCown had questions about the costs and guidelines and had reservations about whether the Council should embark on that path at all; however, she would not vote against the issue at that point without more information.
06/26/95 76-263
Mr. Calonne had laid out the contrast between case-by-case basis and a blanket authorization. A compromise could be a blanket authorization with a cost cap. City Manager June Fleming said the cost item would have to come from the Council's budget, and policies and procedures guidelines would be developed in consultation with the Council and the City Clerk who administered the Council's budget. Council Member Andersen said there might be restrictions that would keep it from being abused. He said to avoid the policy question raised by the City Attorney meant there could be a super majority requirement that kept it out of the policy realm. Mr. Calonne said it was important to receive Council direction that evening. Council Member Andersen suggestion of a super majority would prevent the expenditure from happening. Mayor Simitian felt there was a need for a policy but was open-minded on the precise nature of the mechanism. He was not uncomfortable if an individual Council Member had authorization to ask up to a cap either in terms of a flat dollar amount or number of requests, but the mechanism needed to protect individual Council Members against charges of abusing the ability to request. He said $1,000 was not beyond the realm of possibility in a complex case. If a Council Member had a potential conflict situation, the Council Member had the possibility of participating which was a bad situation and not participating because he/she did not want to be at risk. He had previously listened to the argument from his colleagues and the public about the importance of having a full complement of nine members on the City Council. Another possibility would be to indicate that if an individual Council Member wanted to do his/her job, $1,000 would have to be spent of his/her own money. None of the options was appropriate. Some balance was desirable between the ability for an individual Council Member to take some initiative and placing some limitation on the initiative of a Council Member. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct staff to prepare alternatives for possible action by the Council for the formulation of guidelines for the expenditure of conflict of interest-related real property appraisals. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, Rosenbaum absent. ORDINANCES 17. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Project No. 19212, "Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Exten-sion" City Manager June Fleming said the item before the Council was the last piece of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard (the Boulevard) implementation.
06/26/95 76-264
Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said previously following an evaluation of a trial installation of a temporary traffic circle and a decision to retain the circle, staff was directed to proceed with the design and installation of a permanent circle with the understanding that it would be done with the involvement of the neighborhoods and should reflect the historic nature of the neighborhood. The design progressed through two phases--conceptual and engineering. The conceptual design phase looked at a range of alternative concepts, involved substantial neighborhood input, and included reviews by the Historic Resources Board (HRB), Architectural Review Board (ARB), and City departments which resulted in the proposed design. The engineering design phase that followed produced the detailed construction plans and specifications needed to bid and construct the project. Bid packages were sent to 14 potential firms, and only 2 contractors presented sealed bids. The reason for the small number of bids related to the workload that many contractors were currently experiencing, the relatively small scale but complex nature of the project, and the relatively high proportion of work that would have to be done by subcontractors. B & B Concrete Construction Company submitted the lowest bid of $64,800, and the second bid was $8,700 higher. However, the low bid from B & B Concrete Construction Company was $18,000 above the engineer's estimate which was prepared for the project. The reason for the difference between the actual low bid and the engineer's estimate was that the project was small but relatively complex in terms of the many and varied elements involved and there was a significant degree of manual labor and workmanship involved. The engineer who prepared the engineer's estimate had cautioned staff that the bids would be significantly higher depending upon the nature of the bidding process. Based upon the low bid amount, the total cost of the traffic circle would be $88,800 which was comprised of $8,000 that had been spent for design, $64,800 for construction of the circle, and $6,000 for contingencies. There were alternatives to building the circle design as well as alternatives to the concept of building any circle. Each alternative, however, had both positive and negative attributes which had been described in the staff report (CMR:317:95). Staff was concerned about spending that much money for a project of that size and scope, but given all the considerations, history, and purpose of the proposed project, staff believed the proposed traffic circle should be built. He presented an overhead exhibit that focused on the implementation of the entire Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension Project. In 1991, staff anticipated that funding for the entire extension project would come from a combination of Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds and local funds. Actual experience had shown, based on the assumption that the proposed circle would be constructed, that the completed implementation of the entire Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Project would cost $204,000 comprised of $144,000 TDA funds and $60,000 local funds. While the cost of the traffic circle was higher than expected, the entire project would cost less than the initial estimate and had benefitted from the higher level of TDA funding and a lower level of local funding than initially anticipated.
06/26/95 76-265
Council Member Andersen said some Council Members were interested in considering the concept of the traffic circles in other parts of the community, and he asked whether a similar bid could be anticipated for traffic circles in the future, what staff had learned from the experience, and how the costs could be kept lower in the future. Mr. Overway did not believe a similar traffic circle would ever be built in the City. Staff had information from Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, that their traffic circles were built with curbs, landscaping, and irrigation and the cost range was approximately $30,000. The design developed was unique to the historic nature of the neighborhood which was the reason for the special attention and concern. Staff had learned that if it wanted to customize and tailor the circles to the uniqueness of areas, then the costs would escalate accordingly. The City had a standard physical design and implementation for road bumps and the same concept could be developed for traffic circles. Council Member Andersen asked how the neighborhood felt about road bumps. Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel said when the traffic barrier was directed to be removed, staff had identified either road bumps or the circle as the two best options. The road bumps were not favored primarily because they did not provide aesthetic enhance-ment to the neighborhood nor was there an opportunity for added historic attributes. Staff and the Fire Department were concerned about the placement of road bumps on Bryant Street which was a primary access route to the Urgent Care and the Palo Alto Nursing Centers. Council Member Kniss clarified the costs of the conceptual and the engineering designs were nonrecoverable. Mr. Overway said that was correct. Council Member Kniss clarified the TDA would disappear in approxi-mately one week. Mr. Overway said that was correct. Council Member Kniss clarified a standard traffic circle in Palo Alto would cost between $35,000 and $45,000. Mr. Overway said that was correct. The cost would include design and contingencies. Council Member Kniss clarified some cities might be willing to construct a less expensive, aesthetically pleasing traffic circle, but the Palo Alto community would insist on a more attractive circle with landscaping, etc. She asked whether any other traffic circles were being planned for the City. Mr. Overway said there were potentially three sites in the Lytton neighborhood for two circles and one elongated median.
06/26/95 76-266
Council Member Kniss clarified the proposed circle was being considered because it was in an unusual area and completed the Boulevard extension, and the neighborhood felt strongly about the circle. Council Member Fazzino asked about the cost for the aesthetically pleasing well planted Evergreen Park traffic circle. Mr. Overway said the circle was built eight years ago and was incorporated with a larger project. The cost estimate for the portion attributable to the circle was $40,000. Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff had done any research in the cost of traffic circles in San Mateo County. He understood there was a major effort in San Mateo County to build traffic circles using volunteer help which were at a much lower cost to San Mateo County than the present proposal. Mr. Overway said staff was aware of the efforts being done in San Mateo County but did not feel the quality of the circle was appropriate for the location. Council Member Fazzino asked why not. Ms. Fleming said the Council directed staff to work with the neighborhood and design a circle that the neighborhood wanted in that area. Volunteer assistance in San Mateo County had been similar to the input from the community in Palo Alto. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the suggestion was that the Council did not give a direction relative to cost. Ms. Fleming said the neighbors would concur that staff had stressed during discussions the costs needed to be kept in control. Staff had worked with the neighborhood to make changes to keep the design costs as low as possible and still meet the Council's direction to return with a circle that met the neighborhood's requirements. There were amenities the community wanted that were not included in the final design. Council Member Fazzino asked whether research was done regarding San Mateo County's efforts. Ms. Fleming said no. Council Member Fazzino said reference was made to the standard traffic circles in Portland and Seattle and he asked the cost of those circles. Mr. Overway said the cost was approximately $30,000. Council Member Fazzino asked why the item was before the Council a week prior to the TDA fund deadline. Mr. Overway said the City received two TDA grants for the project.
06/26/95 76-267
One grant had already been spent, the other one was received three years prior, and the funds had been drawn down as the City worked through the aspects of it. The trial of the circle was concluded in September 1994, after the trial of the barrier, and the decision was made to move forward with the permanent installation. Staff then began the process of working with the neighborhood, hiring the conceptual design consultant, and developing the approval of the conceptual and the engineering designs. The process had to be rushed in order to present the proposal to the Council that evening. Council Member Fazzino said a major cost proposal was before the Council, and staff had indicated that if the Council acted that evening, the City would lose access to $27,000 TDA funds within one week. He asked whether it was a deliberative public policy decision-making process for the Council. Ms. Fleming did not know whether it was appropriate, but it was necessary. The Council might want to have more time to ponder the decision, but the City had had the grant for a number of years, and it had been less than a year ago that that portion of process was recommended. Staff had moved as quickly as possible. Council Member Fazzino clarified action on the item had not been presented to the Council previously; and without action by the Council that evening, $27,000 would be lost. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino said staff explained that the reason there were only two proposals was that many contractors were experi-encing a full workload. He asked staff to explain the Request for Proposal (RFP) process and whether outreach was done to solicit bids from contractors in a larger geographic area, not just from Santa Clara County. He was surprised to hear that statement since the economy was still not that good and there might be contractors looking for work. Mr. Overway said names and references were received from various sources that the City, used and staff identified 14 contractors. An effort was made to call all the contractors to make certain that they had received the information and that they knew about the pre-bid meeting. Ms. Fleming said additionally, after staff advised her of the status of the project, she asked staff whether it had the expertise to do the project; staff did not. Council Member Fazzino asked what the complex nature of the project was that justified such a high cost. Mr. Overway said the project was not technically complex, but it had many elements that required different skills and workmanship for short periods of time, e.g., the form work for the concrete was an expensive part because it was a circle, and the masonry was manual skilled labor. A lot of the jobs were done by contractors;
06/26/95 76-268
and if it were a big job, the same crew would do a lot more work. There was a lot of overhead costs for those types of people to do the job. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether staff's recommendation for the Council to accept a bid that was well over staff's estimate was influenced by the TDA funds and the neighborhood public participa-tory process. She asked, absent those things, whether staff's recommendations would have been to reject a bid that was too high. Ms. Fleming said the key reason the bid had been brought forward to the Council as a recommendation was that staff understood Council's direction to work with the neighbors on the design and after that design was approved, to go out to bid. Staff considered the Council's direction when it considered the fact that it was a special district and that it was the final piece of a larger project. If it had been an isolated project and a design that the staff had proposed, staff would not have asked the Council to spend that amount of money. Based on those circum-stances, staff made the decision to recommend the bid to the Council. Mr. Overway said the bid was 30 percent more than the engineer's estimate; however, the engineer cautioned staff when the estimate was prepared that it could be substantially higher and twice the amount quoted because of the small quantities of effort in various segments of the project. Therefore, the 30 percent over the estimate was not quite as onerous as otherwise might be indicated. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the TDA funds would be lost on July 1, 1995, and she asked if the Council decided that it was not willing to accept a bid that was far out of range whether there were additional rounds of TDA funding or similar funding which the City might be eligible to apply for in the future when there was a more auspicious time in terms of rebidding or redesigning. Mr. Overway said the City applied annually for a TDA grant, and the amount received was subject to competition with other communities. The City had applied for a grant in January 1995 which was approved, but the funds were designated for other purposes which could not be changed. The next available cycle would be January 1996 and if approved, the funds would be available July 1, 1996. Council Member McCown was concerned that there was a number of members of the public who wished to speak on Item No. 17C (Old Item No. 11) that evening and questioned whether the Council would be able to complete the entire agenda that evening. Mr. Calonne said the Council would miss the deadline to partici-pate if Item No. 11 were continued. William Anderson, 890 Seale Avenue, was appalled at the cost and scope of the project. The fancy circle was a gold-plated item, and the finished project would be an embellishment out of character in its neighborhood. The speed bump alternative would
06/26/95 76-269
work great to control the traffic. The fire trucks would have a problem getting into place if people parked in the red zones. He proposed that the project be canceled and a standard design be used that would work anywhere in the City and would not discriminate against anyone. Scott McVicker, 770 Bryant Street, thought that $64,000 in TDA funds was a lot of money to be used on a project on a roadway that would be hit and would need repairs. He referred to Item Nos. 4 and 5 on page 10 of the staff report (CMR:317:95) and said the 230 people who supported the permanent circle should be asked to pay for the traffic circle. The project would pilfer from the public purse. The loss of the funds from the traffic agency was not a reason for affirmative action by the Council that evening if the merit of the project were lacking. Shanon Olson, 327 Kingsley Avenue, said because the neighborhood could not have a stop sign due to the Bicycle Boulevard, it had to go through the terrible barrier situation and then the traffic circle which was better than the barrier. She preferred that the stop sign be put back. Wayne McIntyre Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, referred to page 3 of the staff report which stated that "the final design is generally considered to be good, by most involved parties." He did not think the design was very good; it was irresponsible. He said a mini-rotary at the location worked most of the time but it was difficult to train people to turn to the right. There were inexpensive ways to do a traffic circle which should be tried. Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, asked the Council not to degrade the intent of the Boulevard which was to give free-flowing opportunities for bicyclists. Automobiles had other free-flowing streets in the City. Bill Zaumen, 912 Clara Drive, said any option other than stop signs would be acceptable. Ed Roger Holland, 1111 Parkinson Avenue, said Bryant Street had been functioning well and had improved bicycling. The City was tried to educate people to get out of their cars. The City did not want to spend money on bicycle facilities but would spend money to build out the parking Downtown. Unfortunately, the project costs were high, but it would work well and would encourage more bicycles. He encouraged the Council not to put the stop signs back. Rob Steinberg, 1130 Bryant Street, said the design met the satisfaction of the HRB and the neighbors. He believed the dilemma resulted from not getting the right number of bids, and unfortunately, the City only received two bids. The three possibilities were: 1) to put the stop signs back, 2) to redo the design and start the process over, or 3) to build the design as staff recommended. He believed there could be a win-win situation that balanced the cars and bicycles in a historic neighborhood. He hoped the Council would approve the staff recommendation.
06/26/95 76-270
Richard Brand, 281 Addison Avenue, said it was important to recognize that the Boulevard was a real attribute to Palo Alto. The Council made a previous decision that the neighborhood had a special history which was the reason the residents worked with the staff to come up with a solution that was proposed by the Council. It was time for the Council to make a decision. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, referred to the results of the neighborhood preference survey, Attachment 5 of the staff report (CMR:317:95), and said he understood why the Council had received a survey from the neighborhood that stated that it preferred the traffic circle after dealing four years with the barrier and then with the installation and operation of the traffic circle. If the City removed the circle and installed speed bumps, it would be less costly to the City than the net cost of moving forward with the proposal before the Council. Shirley Eaton, 373 Shasta Drive, said the traffic circle worked and she wanted the City to keep the traffic circle; however, she hoped it could be done for far less money. She said the Greenmeadow area had several bad traffic problems, and the Greenmeadow Community Association had formed an ad hoc task force for street and sidewalk safety. People in the neighborhood wanted something similar to the flower pot barriers that were used many years previously for speed control such as an island but not a traffic circle. If the Council approved the proposed traffic circle, it would open a Pandora's box. South Palo Alto was always sensitive about the amount of money being spent elsewhere in Palo Alto. She asked the Council to put in a reasonable traffic circle and recognize that it might get similar requests from other neighborhoods in the future. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said her neighborhood had wanted bulb-outs, traffic circles, and landscaping; but staff stated that unless the aesthetics improved the traffic flow and safety or bicycle safety, no money could be spent on aesthetics for the speed humps. The City should find a reasonable traffic circle design that could be reused. Her neighborhood wanted some improvements if the City had that kind of money to spend. She noted that the intersection was in the middle of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee's (CPAC) new future study area for redevelopment. Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, said it was a gold-plated traffic circle. He wanted a more "do it ourselves" attitude and could not accept the fact that the City did not have the capability to undertake part of the project. The City needed to rethink the design of the traffic circle and exercise some frugality. The traffic circle was worth building and was good for the Boulevard. Mayor Simitian clarified that a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) would require six affirmative votes, and he asked the number of votes required for the Council to approve one of the other alternatives such as dispersing the traffic circle and replacing
06/26/95 76-271
it with the stop signs. Mr. Calonne said six votes were needed for approval of a BAO and a simple majority vote of four Council Members was needed for any other action. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Andersen, to 1) approve the contract with B & B Concrete Construction Co., Inc. and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract in the amount of $64,800 for construction of the permanent traffic circle; 2) authorize staff to negotiate and execute one or more change orders the value of which shall not exceed $6,000; and 3) adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance transferring a total of $34,800 from the City's Street Improvement Fund to CIP No. 19212, in order to provide sufficient funds to construct the permanent traffic circle. Council Member Kniss clarified that approximately $40,000 would be spent on the project regardless of the outcome of the Council's decision, and the City could apply for another TDA grant which could be used by July 1996. She said if the decision were just about a traffic circle, it was too much to spend; however, the issue was also about finishing the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Project which had been underway since the early 1980s. The Project was the marriage of three entities--the bicyclists, residents in the neighborhood, and a historic district--all of which had separate needs in the community. The design of the Boulevard was meant to be different from any other street in the City, and the City had placed a high value on that Boulevard. Bicyclists had stated previously that stop signs should be discouraged on the Boulevard. She referred to the overhead exhibit that showed the cost of the Boulevard which put the entire issue into perspective. Bicycles and bicyclists were important to the community. The Council could delay action and request that a new design be done for traffic circles in the community, but the City was in an awkward situation. She believed the cost of the proposed traffic circle was outrageous, but she would support the proposal. However, at the same time she was hesitant because of the process that the City had gone through to get to the place it was at that evening. Council Member Fazzino could not support the motion. He was committed to the concept of traffic circles and had personally experienced the success of traffic circles when he lived in Seattle, Washington, had observed the success of a traffic circle in the Evergreen Park area, and had observed that the traffic circle on the Boulevard had had an impact and provided for a safer situation for both bicyclists and pedestrians. The City needed to look at the possibility of building traffic circles in other parts of the community; and because of that, he could not support the gold-plated proposal before the Council that evening. The cost of $84,000 for a traffic circle bordered on the ridiculous. He believed the staff needed to 1) develop a standard, aestheti-cally pleasing proposal; 2) look at the success of San Mateo County, Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington; and 3) return to the Council with a standard proposal. He would consider some
06/26/95 76-272
additional costs for the area and perhaps other parts of the City that related to historic districts and other criteria. The staff needed to research the development of traffic circles at a reduced cost so that the entire community could be treated fairly and then a citywide traffic circle system could be implemented in a cost-effective way. He agreed that the staff had done a fine job with respect to the Boulevard, and if the Council looked at what the proposed costs were for the project three years prior, the proposal before the Council that evening would not look that bad. The Council was not rejecting the traffic circle, and the traffic circle was a reasonable compromise between stop signs and barriers and provided for a safer situation. He was not pleased that the issue appeared on the agenda one week prior to the TDA funding deadline. No one was served well when the Council had a short period of time in which to make important public policy decisions. He hoped staff could return to the Council as quickly as possible with a lower cost proposal so that the traffic circle could be made permanent and that the Council could move forward with the possibility of creating traffic circles in other parts of the community. He also was very unhappy with the number of bids received. He believed staff could have worked harder to generate a larger number of bids which would have reduced the cost of the project. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to reject the staff recommendation, reject all bids, not approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance, and proceed with Alternative 3a, "Lower-cost Circle. Develop a substantially lower cost traffic circle design. A basic `off the shelf' design similar to those used in Portland and Seattle could be designed to the specific physical features of the Addison/Bryant intersection. Depending upon the level of design refinements resulting from the design review process by the Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board, and residents, the total cost to design and construct such a circle is estimated to be $35,000 to $45,000. In such a case, the timing is such that the City would not be able to proceed soon enough to avail itself of the remaining balance ($27,000) of state TDA funding that has been programmed for this project, and for which eligibility is about to expire," in the staff report (CMR:317:95) as soon as possible. Council Member Andersen asked whether the process indicated that plants and trees were not possible and whether that would result in maintenance questions. Mr. Overway said trees were not possible because of the multiplicity of utilities underneath the circle, not because of a maintenance concern. Plants were possible and were incorporated in the design staff recommended. Council Member Andersen said traffic circles in other areas had trees and plants and he believed the neighborhood would be willing to help maintain the plants. He wanted the City to use more volunteer labor. He acknowledged that he was concerned about the cost of not only the system but also the potential repair. Staff had worked closely with the neighborhood and he did not believe
06/26/95 76-273
there was any effort to try to get a gold-plated system as much as it was to get a system that was compatible with the neighborhood. He wanted the efforts to continue to be compatible with the neighborhood. He supported the use of that kind of system but it needed a standardization quality so that cost was similar to what it would be in another part of the City. He supported the substitute motion. Council Member Schneider said the substitute motion was the best solution. Traffic circles had worked well, and the community was proud of the Boulevard. Staff had done a wonderful job, but the Council should not support the expenditure of almost $90,000 for a traffic circle. Council Member McCown said the Council had previously discussed the extra $30,000 for the niche in the design. Staff took the Council's direction on April 24, 1995, and put the project out to bid. The Council could have indicated on April 24 that it was too much money. The bid was 38 percent higher, but it was not the standard traffic circle at that time. She believed the most compelling argument about using the lower cost alternative was the point made by Council Member Fazzino and others that the Council would be asked for other traffic circles in the City. Traffic circles would be useful devices in other places, and the City needed to come up with a standard uniform design that could be implemented in many situations. It was a change in direction from what the Council had encouraged the neighborhood and staff to do previously, and the Council needed to take responsibility for that action. Council had learned that that was the route to take which she supported. She wished that everybody's time, including the Council's, had not been invested so extensively on the issue. She wanted a good design for a simple traffic circle so the project could move forward. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the Boulevard and the traffic circle worked in the neighborhood. She was not willing to discuss other kinds of configurations or willing to go back to the stop sign/barrier debate. Traffic circles were a reasonable solution in terms of calming the traffic and allowing the bicycles to flow along the street, but unfortunately the City did not have the precise design within the City's price range. She was convinced that if the proposal had not contained the element of "someone else's money," the Council would have been presented with a staff recommendation to reject the bids received. She was unwilling to accept the bids received; and the City was not in a position to rebid the project in time to take advantage of the TDA funding nor was the Council in a position to redesign the circle that evening so that it might be affordable. She preferred a design that could be used elsewhere in the community and supported the substitute motion. Council Member Kniss said there had been a lot of involvement in the project. She was uncertain "the one-size-fits-all" approach would work. She suspected the City would spend the same amount on the circle as the one being rejected that evening. Each piece of the City offered something special, and each part of the City
06/26/95 76-274
should get something that was tailored to its needs. She would not support the substitute motion. Council Member Andersen suggested staff clean up the temporary traffic circle area during the interim period before the permanent structure was built. He hoped the City would receive at least four bids. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 6-1, Kniss "no," Huber, Rosenbaum absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to bring Item No. 17C forward to be heard before Item No. 17A. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, Rosenbaum absent. 17C. (Old Item 11) Request for Authority to Participate as Amicus Curiae in Berkeley Community Health Project, et al. v. City of Berkeley, et al., U.S. District Court Case No. C95 00665 CW City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the item was a request from the City of Berkeley that the City of Palo Alto join in a friend-of-the court brief being prepared by the City Attorney in Santa Cruz to assist Berkeley in its appeal of a federal district court decision ruling that its panhandling ordinance would be subject to a preliminary injunction pending a trial. The federal district court had concluded that regulating of solicitation amounted to regulating the content of a speaker's message. Typically, the content would be evaluated as the intellectual quality of what a person was trying to say, do, or express and solicitation would have been distinguished as a form of communication, not a subject matter or content. The federal courts had relied on its interpretation of the California Constitution which he viewed as a misreading of the California Supreme Court authority. The assign-ment on the Aggressive Panhandling Ad Hoc Task Force (the Task Force) was still outstanding because he felt that with the Berkeley case pending any recommendation made would be legally meaningful. The Berkeley decision posed some real problems, and there was more than solicitation at risk. One of the things discussed in strategizing for the friend-of-the-court brief was what other First Amendment regulations might be affected, e.g., whether the content of signs or newsracks would be regulated. Outside of the context of panhandling, the decision had the potential to cause real constitutional problems. Council Member Schneider asked what constituted compelling interest. Mr. Calonne said the courts had stated that when certain First Amendment rights were affected by government regulations, there had to be very clear factual and practical justification for what the agency was doing and that the alternative chosen had to be the least restrictive which meant that in the case of speech there had to be alternative forums available. Compelling interest was a
06/26/95 76-275
code that courts used to describe a very rigid second guessing of legislative decision making. Many times judges substituted their judgment for an agency's because it viewed the agency as address-ing constitutional rights that required the utmost protection. Council Member Schneider asked whether the situation was similar to what happened in New York where solicitation was seen as a First Amendment right. Mr. Calonne said regulating solicitation was viewed as not affecting the message that someone wanted to convey. In the past, if an agency regulated solicitation, everyone had to be treated the same. That was viewed as being content neutral. The federal courts stated that it was right under the Federal Constitution but wrong under the California Constitution because solicitation was a content message and an agency could not distinguish between solicitation and other forms of speech. The alternative left to Berkeley was to ban speaking altogether, and the hope was that the Ninth Circuit would give some guidance. He did not believe the Ninth Circuit would be particularly receptive to the claims being made. He viewed the fact that Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and Palo Alto were involved as a reflection that the case was so far out than even the communities that had the utmost regard for the constitu-tional rights at issue could not live with the ruling. Council Member Schneider clarified Palo Alto's support of the issue would not indicate it prohibited panhandling. She asked whether the City just wanted some clear answers. Mr. Calonne explained that the City would be stating the regulation of solicitation was not a content-based regulation. Paul Gilbert, 785 Barron Avenue, believed it was premature to take action on the issue before the City Attorney and the City Manager had reached any final conclusion on the Task Force's recommenda-tions. The City would not have any effect or influence on the outcome unless the appellate court counted the amicus participants rather than looking at the constitutional issue. He doubted that the City would adopt an ordinance similar to Berkeley's to address the aggressive panhandling issue. The City should not be seen as in favor of an ordinance that took a position on the issue of aggressive panhandling. He asked the Council not to support the request. Purusha Obluda, 31570 Page Mill Road, Assistant Director, Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, said the Board of Directors and Coordinating Council felt any ordinance that tried to drive people out of town was the wrong way to deal with the homeless problem. He asked the Council to vote "no" on the suggestion. Palo Alto's support would indicate agreement with the Berkeley City Council's decision to spend money on appealing a federal court ruling. The Council was being asked to support Berkeley in its attempt to get the ruling overturned without having heard from the public. He suggested the Council slow down and get the information first.
06/26/95 76-276
Leland Alton, P.O. Box 213, Palo Alto, representing a coalition of homeless advocates, said the coalition resisted and protested the proposal to support the City of Berkeley's appeal of the federal district court's ruling against the city's oppressive and unjust proposition to "regulate" street solicitation in Berkeley's major mercantile areas. The City Attorney stated he wanted to "preserve the maximum flexibility" for the Council's enactment of similar legislation. That attitude was contrary to the final report of the Task Force which recommended the establishment of a committee for community dialogue on panhandling and a broadening of local human services for the area's homeless population. The coalition urged the Council to follow the Task Force's recommendations. Margaret Ash, 446 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, said Berkeley's "anti-solicitation" ordinance was a political statement. People were being asked to wait on the Aggressive Panhandling Ordinance but Berkeley's ordinance would be supported that evening. Olaf Lidmus, Director of Urban Ministry, P.O. Box 213, Palo Alto, said on the surface the request seemed benign but it implied support of Berkeley's approach. The request also had the effect of joining the rising trend to take a negative legalistic approach with the deleterious effect of criminalizing poverty. He believed the City would be in good standing with the Task Force if it stayed neutral. He hoped the Council would continue to take a positive, collaborative, and creative approach in keeping with Palo Alto's history. Ordinances might seem benign, but the application could become mean. Michael W. Anthony, P.O. Box 213, Palo Alto, spoke regarding homelessness and how signs helped a homeless person. David VyFvinkel, no address available, said Berkeley wanted Palo Alto to act on its behalf to allow the ordinance to stand. Berkeley's business was not Palo Alto's business unless Palo Alto wanted a legal precedent passed to make it easier for passage of its own ordinance. It was another step toward criminalizing poverty. The topic had been switched from aggressive behavior to the language that might be used in solicitation. The issue was intimidation of citizens. He said staff time could be better spent on problems in Palo Alto than in another community. Victor Spence, no address available, member of the Task Force, had not heard whether a committee for community dialogue on panhandling and for broadening human services for the homeless had been established, but he had heard that the City of Palo Alto was endeavoring to find a law which could be passed against panhan-dling. Council Member Andersen asked what impacts the case would have on panhandling if the Council supported the brief. Mr. Calonne said many areas of First Amendment regulations where the City assumed it had context neutrality would be questionable. The best example was sign regulation where the manner of advertising the message might be content under that standard. The
06/26/95 76-277
friend of the court process was trying to state that there were other practical implications beyond solicitation. Council Member Andersen asked whether door-to-door solicitation would also be impacted by the ruling. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Andersen asked whether newsracks would be impacted by the ruling. Mr. Calonne replied that issue might be more remote. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved to approve the City Attorney's request but requested that the brief be very clear that the Council was not taking any position with regard to the issues within the confines of the City of Berkeley. Further, that the Council was more concerned about some of the broader implications that the law might have. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member McCown asked whether the brief could be filed without taking a position with respect to the specifics of Berkeley's ordinance. Mr. Calonne said he would be reviewing the brief in draft and would have an opportunity for input. He had had strategic discussions with the city attorneys from Santa Cruz and Berkeley about the other implications separate from panhandling. He would not have the ability to dictate what the brief would say, and the only way he could do that was to submit the City's own brief. Since staff had more pressing City work to be done, it would not be advantageous to do that. It would be difficult to spell out what Palo Alto would be supporting about the amicus position. Council Member McCown preferred that the City not take a position with respect to the brief. She did not know enough about the issues in the Berkeley case. She concurred with Mr. Lidmus' argument that the City should stay neutral and the Council focus its energy on what it wanted to do in Palo Alto. She understood the legal significance of the issue, but the City of Berkeley was able as were others who were much more directly interested in the specifics of that situation to assist in the matter. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to deny the request by the City Attorney to participate as amicus curiae in Berkeley Community Health Project, et al. v. City of Berkeley, et al., U.S. District Court Case No. C95 00665 CW. Council Member Schneider said the results of the Task Force's self- policing among the homeless population had been very gratifying. Supporting the brief at the present time would put aside all the hard work that was done by many people. She had great confidence in the Urban Ministry and the Another Way Campaign and applauded the people who worked hard on the Task
06/26/95 76-278
Force. Mr. Calonne emphasized that it was not possible to do a defensible panhandling ordinance with the Berkeley case pending, and so that eliminated that consideration from the range of possibilities. Therefore, he believed it was prudent to await the outcome of the decision which would further delay the report. He would prepare a public memorandum so that the Task Force knew the status. Council Member McCown clarified that would be true whether the City Attorney filed an amicus brief or not. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Mayor Simitian said the City Attorney had indicated the importance of the issue in terms of the City's ability to regulate solicita-tion and he also expressed the view that the City was not in a position of regulating solicitation. He asked how the City would benefit from participating in the amicus. Mr. Calonne said it would enhance the likelihood the courts would come to the conclusion that some form of solicitation regulation could be accomplished without a compelling interest. He was asking the Council to take affirmative action not to support the legal potential of regulating solicitation. Mayor Simitian clarified the Council would do that by advising the people who were taking the lead on the issue. Mr. Calonne said the City would add its name to a brief, and he would be part of the peer review on the brief and offer comments. Mayor Simitian asked whether the chances of success would be enhanced if Palo Alto's name were added to the brief or if the City Attorney's own expertise and point-of-view were added to the work that went into the brief. Mr. Calonne believed it would be both. Mayor Simitian clarified the critical issue that the City Attorney was trying to address was the question of a city's ability to regulate solicitation. He clarified the City was not in a position to separate the issue because of the mechanics of the participation level which was different from the City's doing its own amicus brief and in which case the City could argue only the issue of solicitation as described. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked the cost and/or mechanics of submitting a brief on the issues that were of concern to the City. Mr. Calonne said it would take between 40 and 60 hours of attorney time to prepare a brief, and the City would need to get leave of the court. The time frame was somewhat vague, and July 14, 1995, might not be the absolute ending date. He would not suggest
06/26/95 76-279
moving forward with that direction due to the other City issues that were pending. Mayor Simitian said it was evident from the discussion that a majority of the Council would not support the City Attorney's participation as amicus in the manner as described. He asked the City Attorney whether he preferred not to participate or to participate as an amicus preparing the City's own brief on a more limited and narrowly crafted set of issues. Mr. Calonne would rather not participate. He understood the argument from the members of the public and the Council's sense that it wanted to remain neutral and not support Berkeley's ordinance. He would not suggest doing an independent amicus brief. As noted in his memorandum dated June 21, 1995, at risk was the flexibility not only with respect to solicitation but also with respect to regulating other kinds of First Amendment activities. A policy judgment and a query had to be exercised as to whether or not the district courts were reacting to the subject matter of panhandling and not to the constitutional issues presented. The frustration was that the California Supreme Court disagreed with the position, but because of the way the Ninth Circuit interpreted the California law in 1985, cities were stuck with a clearly erroneous federal court interpretation of the California Constitution. He clarified the intent was not to get a temperature reading on panhandling from the Council; it was about preserving flexibility for the present Council and successor Councils to deal with First Amendment issues. Council Member McCown agreed with the comments of the City Attorney. The Council was faced with the fact that the case was inextricably intertwined with the panhandling issue. If it were a different case that raised the erroneous interpretations of the California Constitution without it being tied up with the other issues, she would have a different view. She believed the other cities would want the amicus position to address concerns about the panhandling as well as the broader First Amendment issues. She did not believe the City should be in a position of advocating to the court. Mr. Calonne said there was a moderating role that the Council could play periodically on amicus matters. For example, he was concerned about the drug testing issues in Southern California and anti-homeless eradication programs from Santa Ana that had been framed by very extreme political groups. He respected the decision of the Council, but he did not want the Council to lose sight of the fact that the City could play an important leadership role with other cities on issues of importance. He did not believe either Berkeley, Santa Cruz, or Santa Monica had been reactionary in their actions. Council Member McCown asked whether a more focused commentary-type of correspondence could be communicated to the court in lieu of the 40 to 60 hours of work. Mayor Simitian associated with the comments of Council Member
06/26/95 76-280
McCown. He said if the City Attorney had asked the Council for authorization to spend the dollars to pursue an independent amicus on the narrowly defined and limited issue of the right to regulate solicitation, he would have supported the request. However, the City Attorney had indicated that that was not his desire. Mr. Calonne would not recommend that type of correspondence because the parts that were not supported in the letter would probably be more influential than the ones that were supported. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Rosenbaum absent. 17A. (Old Item 3) Contract between the City of Palo Alto and U-Liner West for Phase V of the Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project Mayor Simitian asked why the City only received two bids on a $1,774,455 project and why there were only three weeks between the date that the bid requests went out on a project, deemed to be so complex that special licensing was required, and the bid opening. Assistant Director of Utilities Engineering and Operations Larry Starr said the City's standard legal time to advertise was three weeks. The bid was out for three weeks and two days. Mayor Simitian clarified that was the minimum time required by law. Mr. Starr said the City received no requests for extension from the bid packages that were sent out. The same time allotment was allowed on large projects for water and gas in the past. The City received two bids on the job. On a previous large sewer project, the City only received three bids; one of the bidders chose not to bid on the current project. Four people attended the preconference bid meeting, and only two people submitted bids. The new technology required people chosen to have a license to do that kind of work or hire a subcontractor who already had a license. A proprietary license was required to do the new process of work which was called trenchless technology. Mayor Simitian asked how many people had a license to do that kind of work. Mr. Starr said the number of people with that kind of licensing was limited. Engineering Manager Roger Cwiak said the technology had changed so some of the work in the past that had been the forerunner of trenchless technology had now been replaced by deformed or reformed liner method which was less expensive. Therefore, some people did not bid anymore because they were not competitive. The new processes were much cheaper than open trench cutting, and so those people did not care to bid either. Mayor Simitian asked why the advertisements were sent to a building exchanges.
06/26/95 76-281
Mr. Cwiak said the building exchanges advertised in the local area so other builders besides the ones whom the City sent the informa-tion to would have information regarding the project. The area ranged from San Jose to Gilroy and north to Sacramento. Mayor Simitian asked whether the building exchanges sent the information to its members after it compiled a list of projects. Mr. Cwiak said the information was sent out, and people who were interested could receive their own set of plans. Mayor Simitian asked how often the information was sent out. Mr. Cwiak said for every job that was bid on, the information was sent to the building exchanges, and the plans and specifications were available to contractors who were members of the exchanges. Contractors who were interested requested a copy from the City. Mayor Simitian clarified the building exchanges received the notice from the City and then the building exchanges had to notify their membership. He asked whether that was done on a weekly basis. Mr. Cwiak explained that the contractors came to the exchanges to see what projects were available. Mayor Simitian clarified there was some delay between the time the building exchanges found out about the project and the time that someone stopped by to look at the list. Mr. Cwiak said contractors generally came every day to check the project lists to find work. Council Member Andersen clarified of the 19 contractors and 12 building exchanges that were contacted, only two people had the licensing necessary to be able to bid on the project. Mr. Starr said no. Only two people chose to bid on the project which did not mean that only two people had a license. Council Member Andersen said staff indicated that the nonresponding contractors who received bid packages found that they did not submit bids for the project due to the license requirement of the rehabilitation project. Mr. Starr said a contractor would have to buy a license if he/she did not have one or hire a subcontractor who had a license. Mayor Simitian clarified the Council could approve the bid that evening or reject the bids and direct staff to rebid the project. Mr. Starr said that was correct. Staff considered the bid very good and below the engineer's estimate. The bid was less expensive than the previous Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase IV bid. The bids might not be any better even if it went back out to
06/26/95 76-282
bid again. Mayor Simitian asked whether the two bidders knew that the City was going to put the project out to bid. Mr. Cwiak said the contractors were both bidders on the previous job and bid competing methods. Mayor Simitian said the request for bids went out on May 22, 1995, and two responses were received on the request for bids. He asked whether the two people who responded knew before May 22, 1995, that the City would go out to bid on the project. Mr. Starr said it was a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) so it was advertised in the City's budget, and the people could know that the City would be doing the work. City Manager June Fleming explained the City did not specifically notify the two contractors, but the contractors could have known that the project was coming up for bid. Mayor Simitian asked whether the contractors had a conversation with the staff that the project was coming up for bid. The City had the shortest possible bid time and only two bids. He asked why those people were in the bid pool and others were not. Ms. Fleming said a short bid time was not unusual and had been used for very large and small financial projects. Staff had indicated it did not have any contact with the two bidders. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to (1) authorize the mayor to execute the contract with U-Liner West in the amount of $1,774,455 for the Phase V Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project; and (2) 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 may develop during the project. The value of these change orders shall not exceed $213,000. Mayor Simitian would support the staff recommendation, but he was troubled when there were only two bids and the bid time was the legal minimum for a $1,774,455 project. The Council had previous-ly discussed issues that involved $15,000 for trees and $30,000 for a traffic circle but was prepared to allow a $1,774,455 project to be approved on the consent calendar with a minimum number of bids and a minimum period of time. He wanted the issue of contract management administration resolved. Council Member Andersen would oppose the motion. He would not support any contracts in the future unless there were three bids. Council Member Kniss would not support the motion. Council Member Schneider said the project would start in August 1995 and would be completed before November 1995. The City would lose sales tax revenue if the Downtown were closed during the
06/26/95 76-283
holidays. She would support the motion. Mayor Simitian urged the Council to support the motion because he had no recourse at that point but to rely on the professional expertise of the staff who believed it was a reasonable bid given the scope of the work. He would rather rely on a vigorous competitive bid process as well as the professional expertise of staff. Council Member Andersen would reverse his vote based on the comments of Council Member Schneider which were well taken. The Council needed to deal with the policy issue at a later date. Council Member Kniss reminded the Council that approval of the bid would be based on monetary reasons. She would reverse her vote because of the sales tax revenue issue in the Downtown area. The Council needed to consider the criteria for accepting that kind of bid. Council Member Schneider said the project was designed not to cause additional disruption in the Downtown area. The trenchless process could be closed in the evening so that it did not interfere with the traffic that was prevalent in the Downtown area. That situation probably limited the number of bids received. Council Member McCown pointed out that absolutely no evidence heard that evening suggested that the recommended contract or the amount was not a very competitive reasonable price for the work. However, it was because of the process that questions could be raised. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Rosenbaum absent. 17B. (Old Item 4) Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Brown, Vence & Associates for Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study Mayor Simitian understood the Request for Proposal (RFP) was not the lowest bid situation but an evaluation by staff. Deputy Director of Public Works Operations Michael Miller said the fees proposed were not the lowest bid initially, and the range was as low as $86,000 to as high as $110,000. The subsequent fees that were negotiated with the firm staff recommended came out to be $94,690 which was presently below the lowest proposal of the other three bids. Mayor Simitian asked how $94,690 ended up being lower than $86,000. Mr. Miller explained the $86,000 did not incorporate some of the consulting costs that would have taken that amount to $111,000 for a similar range of work. The fee was not the only thing that staff based its decision on for selection.
06/26/95 76-284
Mayor Simitian asked what the other things were that staff considered. Mr. Miller said the decision was based on the consultant's understanding and approach for the work effort, how the work effort was detailed in the proposal, the firm's qualifications and experience, the project team because of the uniqueness of the project, the schedule for completion, and the presentation to the staff committee that made the selection. Mayor Simitian clarified the staff committee that made the selection was described in the report as the Selection Advisory Committee which consisted of staff from the Public Works Depart-ment, Operations Division, and the Finance Department. He asked who the people where on the committee. Mr. Miller said there were four people on the committee--Jim Steele, Budget Manager, Finance Department; Robert Lee, Senior Engineer/Project Manager, Operations Division, Public Works; Janet Foreman, Project Coordinator, Operations Division Public Works; and himself. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by McCown, to (1) approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the consultant agreement with Brown, Vence & Associates in the amount of $94,690 for the Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study; and (2) authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute amendments for services related to or incidental to the scope of work or services, the total value of which amendments will not exceed $13,310. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Rosenbaum absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 18. Mayor Simitian re Cancellation of Regular City Council Meeting of July 3, 1995 MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to cancel the Regular City Council Meeting of July 3, 1995. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Rosenbaum absent. City Manager June Fleming spoke regarding Agenda Item No. 17B. She said staff was working on the contract administration assignment, and the City Auditor had completed most of his work. Council would receive the response back from staff on the issue in the near future. 19. Council Members Kniss, Fazzino and Schneider re Referral of Citizens for Affirmative Planning Initiative to the City Manager and City Attorney for a Report on Planning and Legal Issues MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to direct the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare a report on
06/26/95 76-285
the measure covering the following matters: (1) an explanation of planning impacts, including consistency and any effect upon the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee's work; and (2) an explana-tion of legal impacts, including restrictions upon the ability of the City Council to react to changed environmental, economic, or fiscal circumstances. Council Member Andersen asked whether the report would include an analysis of specific items in the initiative that suggested the Council was taking positions contrary to the points made. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the document would allow the Council to test the validity of that conclusion. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, presented an overhead viewgraph of a table from the summary report of Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study that showed the development potential on non-residential development in various areas of the City. He believed it was important for the Council to get the information for each of the nine areas in the City that were listed in the table. He had provided the Council with an example of the kind of information that he believed the Council might need to help in its decision made in the future. He suggested two additional items for each area of non-residential development--the amount that had already occurred under the expected development under the current zoning and the amount that was left. He believed the proposal on the initiative had one section that would lower the allowable non-residential floor area in the California/Cambridge Avenue business district which would change the assumption that was used in the Citywide Study for the relationship between non-residential and residential floor area in that area. He urged the Council to be explicit about including that information in the staff direction (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). MOTION PASSED 5-0, Fazzino, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 1:07 a.m. 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.
06/26/95 76-286